Five Races to Watch This Election Day Regarding LGBT Rights

by Michael A. Jones, change.org

Off-year election cycles usually don't have the same high pitch drama as their big brother and sister -- mid-term elections and Presidential year elections. But Election Day 2009 is shaping up as a year where, at least in regards to LGBT rights, a lot is at stake.

From marriage to domestic partnership benefits to anti-discrimination ordinances, there's a hefty amount of LGBT rights issues that will be determined today, based on how folks from Maine to Washington state vote. Below are our five races to watch this Election Day. And though it's kind of cliche to say that history will be made at the ballot box today (cue the "Duh!" comments), today's vote really has the chance to uproot a legacy of bigotry at the ballot box.

Maine and Marriage Equality: This one has the eyes and ears and hearts and minds of the entire movement behind it, simply for this reason: if Maine voters reject Question 1 today, Maine will become the first state that has ever approved marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples at the ballot box. More than 30 states have put same-sex marriage on a ballot, and each time same-sex marriage has lost. But that all could change today. The No on 1 campaign has been, in many respects, brilliant. They've got a superior ground game, great advertisements, and the most authentic, heartfelt supporters around. The race is tight, and the opposition is flush with cash and national in scope. This one is going to come down to the wire, and it's all about who has the better field game at this point.

Washington and Referrendum 71: At the polar opposite end of the geographic spectrum, Washington state has its own ballot question where voters will get to decide whether to approve Referrendum 71 or not. Unlike Maine, where a "NO" vote is a victory, here a "YES" vote is critical. If approved, Referrnedum 71 will enact a series of domestic partnership benefits for lesbian and gay couples in the state that are wide in scope. They're not full marriage rights, of course, but they are certainly a step in the equal rights direction. Polls show Referrendum 71 winning slightly.

Kalamazoo's Anti-Discrimination Ordinance: Earlier this year, the Kalamazoo City Council unaninmously approved a resolution outlawing discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in regards to public housing, accommodations and employment. Seems like a no-brainer, but it didn't stop a group of anti-LGBT residents from placing a repeal measure on the ballot. Today, Kalamazoo voters will hit the polls to decide whether to repeal Ordinance 1856 or keep it. Yeah, that's the technical name for it, but really here's the question Kalamazoo voters will face: "Would you like to keep Kalamazoo a city free of discrimination, where LGBT people have the right to eat in a restaurant, stay in a hotel, or not be fired from their job, simply because of their sexual orientation or gender identity?"

The Governor's Race in New Jersey: This race is as close as it can get, with polls out yesterday that said Democratic candidate Jon Corzine was ahead, and other polls saying that GOP nominee Chris Christie was ahead. This race matters for the future of marriage equality in the Garden State. Jon Corzine has said that if re-elected, he will fight to pass marriage equality in the state and make New Jersey the next in line to recognize full marriage rights for lesbians and gays. Chris Christie? He thinks there's something wrong with homosexuality. Enough said on this race. As President Obama said earlier this weekend, "If New Jersey voters vote like they did last year, then Jon Corzine wins."

Houston's Mayoral Race: Lots of cities are having mayoral elections this year, from Boston to New York to Houston, Texas, where the fourth largest city in the country could make history by becoming the largest U.S. city to elect an openly lesbian mayor. Her name is Annise Parker, and she's in a tight three-way race that is likely heading toward a run-off for the top two candidates. Parker has made it a priority to be open about her sexuality, saying to the New York Times, "I always told voters the truth. There is an element of, ‘Well, if she will tell us the truth about her sexual orientation she will tell us the truth about anything.'" Parker has also been elected citywide several times.

We'll be blogging later tonight about many of the results that come in, hoping like hell that marriage in Maine, domestic partnership benefits in Washington state, and the anti-discrimination ordinance in Kalamazoo all stay realities.

(Photo courtesy of Theresa Thompson's photostream on Flickr.)

Catholic Church Goes After Straight Allies of Marriage Equality

by Michael A. Jones, change.org

Though it's no fun seeing same-sex marriage rights placed on a statewide ballot, one of the best things to come out of the Maine vote on marriage equality is the fact that progressive-minded Catholics are starting to speak out for the rights of gays and lesbians to marry. Through groups of "Catholics for Marriage Equality" and other venues, ordinary Catholics are speaking up in new ways arguing that love should win out over hate.

It's just too bad that the institutional Catholic Church can't let go of their anti-LGBT agenda. Maine is an interesting case study here. Despite the fact that the Bishop of Maine (Richard Malone) has had to close more than a half dozen parishes this year because of financial constraints, the Catholic Church in Maine has pumped out more than half a million dollars to urge Maine residents to vote for discrimination against gays and lesbians. Worse yet, Bishop Malone has said that giving equal rights to gays and lesbians is a dangerous sociological experiment and that same-sex marriage would be a threat to children.

But what's even scarier is that the Catholic Church in Maine is now punishing straight people who support the rights of gays and lesbians. Look no further than the ironically named Prince of Peace parish in Lewiston, Maine. There, a Eucharistic Minister and lector (the person who volunteers to read the weekly scriptures) was removed from her position because she said publicly that she supports the rights of gays and lesbians to get married.

The Catholic Church has had some real lows this year when it comes to LGBT rights. From the Pope saying that LGBT people were as big a threat to the world as climate change, to the U.S. bishops prepping a document to be released later this month that will say that same-sex marriage will harm the intrinsic human dignity in every person. Add to this list now a possible witch-hunt to identity straight allies of same-sex marriage, and to remove these straight allies from any positions within the Church.

In this specific case, Pamela Starbird Beliveau, a woman who has been heterosexually married for twenty years and who has several children, wrote a column in a local paper that said people should be free to love one another, regardless of sexual orientation.

"We are all wired for relationship, and that includes intimate relationship. When any person finds that special someone, we aspire to marriage," Beliveau wrote in her local paper. "It is a noble and honorable way to live out our lives. It breaks my heart to deny any loving couple the opportunity to experience married life."

For that statement, Beliveau was told by her local pastor that she could no longer volunteer to give out Communion on Sundays, or read from the Bible during church services.

"In view of this publicly stated position of yours, I regret that you will not be eligible to exercise a public ministry in Prince of Peace Parish," wrote her church. "More specifically, that means that I have decided that you are not to serve as a reader or minister of Holy Communion effective today..." Yeah, the letter really is that repulsive. Even more repulsive would be if the pastor resorted to this letter as the only means to communicate this to Beliveau. Failing to tell a dedicated member of the church in person would show an ultimate lack of courage.

At the heart of a move like this though is, frankly, desperation. More and more Catholics in the pews are starting to support marriage equality, and it's these straight allies that are ultimately a threat to the Church's work to oppress gays and lesbians. The actions in Lewiston, Maine can -- at their worst -- be seen as a national statement to straight Catholics who are sympathetic to equal rights for gays and lesbians: speak out, and you too will be marginalized from the Church.

The vote in Maine is in 48 hours. This could be the first time in over 30 tries that same-sex marriage actually wins at the ballot box in the United States. That would be huge.

But it's clear that even if we win in Maine -- which is still not a certainty given varying poll numbers -- the work of changing hearts and minds continues. Pamela Starbird Beliveau should be celebrated by equality advocates for being willing to challenge an anti-LGBT structure, knowing full well that there might be consequences (which there were). If only more Catholics, and especially progressive Catholic organizations, had as much courage as her to look within their own faith and see one of the gravest examples of injustice and discrimination at play in the U.S. today.

(Photo courtesy of maveric2003's photostream on Flickr, used under a Creative Commons license.)

Sir Ian McKellen's Grudge with Leviticus

by Michael A. Jones, change.org

How's this for the premise of X-Men 4: Magneto decides that instead of seeking world domination, he's just going to wage battle against radical right-wing religious folks who use the Bible as a means of beating up on LGBT people.

Well, it might hit a little close to home for Sir Ian McKellen, the out British actor who plays Magneto. As it turns out, he's been quietly waging a war against the use of religion as a weapon of oppression against LGBT people all along in his real life. His method? At every hotel he visits, he rips out a page in Leviticus that fundamentalists use to label LGBT people as sinful.

McKellen tells Details magazine that he's not intending to vandalize the Bible. He just thinks the world would be better off if people took the passages in Leviticus a little less literally.

"I'm not proudly defacing the book, but it's a choice between removing that page and throwing away the whole Bible," McKellen says.

For those not familiar with Leviticus 18:22, it might be interpreted as the most homophobic verse in the Bible. It starts with the familiar refrain, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind," and finishes up with a powerful "it is an abomination" punch. But the passage is often misunderstood, and all too often used to justify hatred and violence toward LGBT people -- as was the case earlier this month in New York, where the friend of a gay basher said that attacking gay people was justified because the book of Leviticus approved.

Taking such a literal interpretation of this passage of Leviticus is an irresponsible way to look at the historical context of Scripture, according to many progressive theologians. For instance, look at the way Rev. David Eck puts it on his "I'm Christian, I'm Gay, Deal With It!" blog. Rev. Eck writes, "It is a misuse of the Bible to quote Leviticus as an answer to today's ethical question of whether homosexuality is right or wrong. Leviticus was not addressing this question. The concern in Leviticus, the cultural context of that text, and the meaning of male-male sex in ancient Israel are all very foreign to the present situation."

Better yet? The use of the word "abomination" is actually better translated as "taboo," and not "go out and beat gay people up in the streets because of their sin." Having sex with people of the same gender might have indeed been "taboo" thousands upon thousands of years ago in a political context. But that says absolutely nothing about its morality or immorality.

Really, the point is that there are a 1,001 ways to interpret the passages in the Bible that are typically used to bash homosexuality. That's an awful lot of ambiguity to be taking a passage in Leviticus so seriously.

So perhaps what Sir Ian McKellen should do is stop ripping pages out of the Bible, and instead start inserting a few pages. And maybe add this disclaimer: "Keep in mind that the Bible was written by men, thousands of years ago, and that whatever certain televangelists might tell you, this book isn't so cut-and-dry on a lot of things."

(Photo courtesy of http://backstage.blogs.com)

text size: A | A | A Montgomery Council Throws Support Behind Same Sex Law

News Channel 8

ROCKVILLE, Md. - Monday, the majority of the Montgomery County Council showed up alongside supporters of a same sex marriage law in Maryland to, in their words, "send a strong message" to the residents of the county and lawmakers in Annapolis.

"Where you have two committed people in a relationship...these are families and this is just the kind of thing Montgomery County wants to support," said Montgomery County Council Member Nancy Floreen.

While Montgomery County can't adopt a same sex marriage law without it first being approved statewide, council members say they are doing what they can to help partners in same sex unions by introducing their Equal Benefits Bill.

Under the bill, most contractors and subcontractors working for the county would get the same benefits as county employees who are in same sex unions, such as health and dental coverage and life insurance.

Council member Nancy Navarro authored the legislation.

"I think it sends a very strong message that our county is tolerant and it's welcoming," said Navarro.

The law would cover the contract worker and spouse if their union is recognized by a marriage license or civil union granted by other states and by the same sex partner definition under Maryland law.

"So those who have made the trip to California or, like me and my partner, who went to Vermont would be able to have legal protections when you come back home," explained Morgan Maneses-Sheets with Equality Maryland.

Those who oppose the law say they have serious concerns.

"We would have a concern about any kind of legislation that starts requiring different kinds of marriage benefits to do business in the county" Susan Gibbs with the Washington Archdiocese.

Council members will introduce the bill Tuesday.

The Nation: Marriage In Maine In Dead Heat

by Daniel Chandler, NPR

Today, November 3, the people of Maine will decide whether to keep a law, passed just six months ago, that made Maine the fifth state (of six) to legalize gay marriage. Polls are predicting a nail-biting finish, with the most recent showing those in favor of repeal ahead by 51 to 47 percent, effectively a tie (the poll has a 2.9 percent margin of error). With early voting already underway, both sides are ramping up their campaigns to reach out to Maine's voters and to ensure strong turnouts in this unusually intense off-year campaign.

A victory for the "No on 1" campaign would be the nation's first popular vote in support of gay marriage. It would build on momentum from a string of important victories in Vermont, Iowa and New Hampshire earlier this year. It would put an end to more than thirty consecutive defeats of marriage equality at the ballot box — including California's Proposition 8 one year ago — as states across the country have passed constitutional amendments defining marriage as between one man and one woman. (A 2006 vote in Arizona which rejected such a constitutional amendment is the only exception, but that was followed by a 2008 measure banning gay marriage which passed by a comfortable margin.) A defeat on Tuesday would be a major blow, reinforcing the argument that gay marriage has been won only through the actions of "liberal elites" in state courts and legislatures.

While Tuesday's vote is clearly of national significance, the campaigns run by both sides in Maine have kept their message local. Maine's Governor John Baldacci, who opposed gay marriage before changing his mind and signing the bill in May, has since then thrown his weight behind the campaign to keep the new law. He insists to the New York Times that this is not a national issue, or about gay rights in general, but is "Maine-specific." Supporters of the law "don't mind being part of a national address on this issue," he told me, but they "are going through this because there are Maine individuals and families that would be negatively impacted if we didn't provide equal protection under the constitution." Whether or not Maine's LGBT community is so narrowly focused on state issues, this message may prove critical in winning the support of undecided voters.

Baldacci points to public hearings held by the state legislature in April this year as a pivotal moment, not only for himself, but for the broader debate in Maine. The hearings, attended by an unprecedented crowd of 3-4,000 people, an estimated three-quarters of whom wore red shirts to show their support for marriage equality, included powerful testimonies in support of gay marriage from a wide range of people: rural farming families, World War II veterans and children from LBGT families. (One especially moving testimony, from an 86-year-old World War II veteran and lifelong Mainer Philip Spooner, has since received over half a million hits on YouTube.) Baldacci, a lifelong Mainer, described the testimony as "completely remarkable...unique and different than anything I have experienced in my history in this state." It was "really a baring of the soul" and "people in Maine...realized that we're not talking about people in California or Washington, we're talking about people here in Maine."

"Maine people getting up and telling their stories" had a huge impact on legislators," says Mark Sullivan, communications director for the No on 1/Protect Maine Equality campaign. Baldacci hopes that other Mainers have "gone through the same process that I have," and insists that "it has been a real growing process for us all...regardless of the outcome."

Faith Moritz and Janet Jones, who have been together for almost twenty-four years and have two 6-year old children named Benjamin and Lucy, found the hearings "empowering" just because "we were being listened to." For Stephen Ryan and Jim Bishop, who have been together for thirty-four years, and who testified, the hearings were a "bittersweet" experience. On the one hand, the "hurtful, untruthful, filthy testimony" of opponents of the legislation brought them back to the terrible things the kids would say to one another during their school days forty years ago. But they saw with their own eyes the impact "one story after another of how not being able to marry had hurt a family, a child or...a surviving partner" was having on legislators, who for the first time appreciated that the demand for gay marriage was not an "infantile want" but a plea for crucial legal protections.

For both couples the absence of the legal and financial protections of marriage is a constant source of concern. Faith and Janet carry around a stack of papers documenting their adoption rights and medical powers of attorney. Stephen and Jim worry about getting old, about whether nursing homes would honor their wishes "to be together until the very end," and whether the property management business they have spent a lifetime building together would be hit by an inheritance tax, from which married couples are exempt, should one of them die. The implications are emotional too: Faith wonders whether, despite being in a deeply committed relationship, marriage would take their relationship to "a whole other level that we've never had the chance to experience."

While the Protect Maine Equality campaign has echoed the optimism of families like Faith and Janet, appealing to "Maine values" of family, fairness and equality, Stand for Marriage Maine has opted for an ominous message, borrowing heavily from the tactics and strategists used in the Prop 8 campaign. The company managing strategy and media for pro-repeal Maine groups is Schubert Flint Public Affairs, the Sacramento-based company that managed the the California campaign against gay marriage. As in California, their ads play on fears that legalizing gay marriage will lead to homosexuality being taught in schools. They warn of such dire consequences as "gay-friendly books in day care facilities." "Don't be fooled," one ad concludes, "Gay marriage will be taught in Maine schools unless we vote Yes on Question 1."

When it comes to funding, the National Organization for Marriage, a conservative Christian group at the forefront of battles against gay marriage in other states, has provided more than half of the $2.5 million raised by Stand for Marriage Maine. While the Mormon Church has played a far smaller role than it did in California, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland has provided over half-a-million dollars. Despite these large donations, the campaign to repeal has been significantly out-funded by Protect Maine Equality, which has raised over $4 million. Campaign manager Jessee Connolly reported more than 22,000 donations, as opposed to 710 donations that came in to Stand for Marriage Maine. Protect Maine Equality has used this funding to create a sophisticated grassroots campaign, with over 8,000 volunteers, five regional offices and several major phone banks. They have already made hundreds of thousands of phone calls, and expect to make 300,000 more in the final six days of the campaign — all in a state whose population, at 1.3 million, is roughly the same as that of San Diego.

Despite the apparent superiority of Protect Maine Equality's organization, Tuesday's result remains far too close to call. The last few days of campaigning will be crucial as remaining undecided voters take up a position. Even more important will be the "get-out-the-vote" efforts on Tuesday, with supporters of same-sex marriage counting on younger voters and college students, and opponents hoping proposals to cut taxes will bring out older, more conservative voters. Governor Baldacci is hopeful, if not confident: "History shines a light on you once every so often. We have an opportunity as individuals to do the right thing."