Election 2007 - Wins and Losses

... but mostly wins. Here's a brief overview:

The Wins

• Same-sex marriage ban REJECTED in Arizona! (the first in the nation)
• South Dakota rejected a law that would ban abortions except to save a pregnant woman's life
• Missouri voted in support of stem-cell research
• 6 states voted to raise their minimum wage above the federal level bringing the total to 29 states with minimum wages above the federal level
• America didn't buy into the Republican Family Values b.s. (it probably didn't help that quite a few high profile republicans have been caught in sex scandals and corruption recently)
• Indiana got rid of Representative John Hostettler, the guy who thinks there's a "homosexual agenda" (I'm sorry, since when is equal rights an "agenda"?) and author of the draft of the Marriage Protection Act
• Pennsylvania gave Senator Rick Santorum the boot who, btw, held the 3rd highest seat in the GOP (he's the guy who said if you grant the right for people to have gay sex then you grant people the right to incest, adultery, polygamy and bigamy)
• And ... Senator George Allen of Virginia CONCEDED to his democratic opponent, Jim Webb!!! (Allen voted 2 times in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment - Webb does not support the Amendment. Unfortunately, Virginia was one of those states where the measure did pass, but only by a small margin.)

The Losses

• 7 states approved same-sex marriage bans (bringing the total to 27 states across the nation)
• Voters in Michigan approved a ban on some affirmative action programs
• Colorado and Arizona passed measures targeting illegal immigrants

Get Out and VOTE!

Tomorrow's the Big Day. November 7th - Election Day.

It is time to put LGBT Friendly politicians in Congress.

HRC has a list of candidates they are endorsing for this election. You can and should, if you haven't already, find out who is in support of LGBT rights. AND VOTE FOR THEM!

For a list of local LGBT Friendly candidates, visit Stonewall Democrats and click on your state. Visit your local chapter's homepage for a list of candidates they endorse.

It is time to alter the power base in Washington.

GET OUT AND VOTE!

Your Opinion - Anything LGBT

We want to know your thoughts!

This is an open call for any and all opinions on anything related to LGBT issues. It doesn't matter if you are for or against LGBT rights. It doesn't matter if you agree with or accept LGBT persons or not. We want to hear your thoughts.

Please post your opinion and check back often for responses.

NJ Will Recognize Same-Sex Unions

By a 4-3 vote, the Supreme Court of New Jersey voted in favor of providing the same rights and benefits of marriage to same-sex couples. However, the Supreme Court kicked the decision back to the State Legislature to decide on the term that will be used.

The State has 180 days to decide whether they will call the union a "marriage" or give it some other term like "civil union." But who cares? As long as full rights and benefits are granted, the rest is just semantics.

While a vote of 4-3 in favor of this decision appears to be a split, it's actually quite the opposite. The 3 who voted against the decision did so because they didn't want to kick the semantics decision back to the State. They wanted to make the decision on what to call the unions within their Supreme Court Ruling, and in fact, they argued the Court should give full marriage rights to LGBT couples, including calling such unions "marriages." So in actuality, the decision was a 7-0 vote, with 4 wanting to defer the semantics to the State and 3 wanting to grant full marriage rights on the spot.

Matt Daniels, President of the Alliance for Marriage, is, of course, upset about the ruling. One of his comments was, "They took the future of marriage out of the hands of the people of New Jersey." The future of marriage .... How is it that allowing same-sex unions has any affect on the future of heterosexual marriage other than now marriage is not an exclusive right?

We've been asking this question for a long time. We have yet to hear a compelling response as to how allowing same-sex marriage will have any adverse effect on heterosexual marriage. If anyone has a compelling reason they can offer, we'd love to consider it.

Interestingly, if you visit the Alliance for Marriage website, part of their mission reads, "AFM exists to educate the public, the media, elected officials, and civil society leaders on the benefits of marriage for children, adults and society." Isn't this what we all want?

Another bonus of the NJ Supreme Court decision is the lack of residency requirements on those who seek to get married. The impact could be huge nationwide. Essentially New Jersey has opened the door for couples to travel to NJ, get married and then return to their own state and challenge the laws there. It remains to be seen how significant this will turn out to be.

There are those who would disagree with our assertion that the remaining decision left to Legislature in New Jersey is one of semantics.

Steven Goldstein, chair of Garden State Equality told the Newark Star-Ledger, "Those who would view today's...ruling as a victory for same-sex couples are dead wrong. Marriage is the only currency of commitment the real world universally understands and accepts."

We respectfully disagree.

Good News for LGBT Civil Rights in Pennsylvania?

Representative Dan Frankel (D-Pa) is the lead sponsor of the reintroduction of a bill in Pennsylvania banning anti-gay discrimination in employment, housing and credit (HB 3000). While a similar bill failed to move out of the committee in the last session, this bill, apparently, has 57 sponsors. The bill would add sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of discrimination categories already banned by Pennsylvania's Human Relation's Act.

The Senate has a similar bill (SB 912) with 19 Senators backing it, including lead Democratic supporter, Senator Jim Ferlo.

Is it possible Pennsylvania could be acting in a "diverse and tolerant" fashion as Frankel describes the state? While the House bill having 57 sponsors may be a relatively strong support for anti-discrimination, 19 supporters of the Senate bill hardly is.

Frankel said, “The fact that someone is gay or straight has nothing to do with his or her ability to do a good job or the ability to be a good neighbor or tenant. It is long past time for Pennsylvania to join the 17 states that already ban anti-gay discrimination on the job.”

Frankel also commented, “This is the right thing to do, and it also makes economic sense to improve our standing as a diverse and tolerant state. This is the kind of indicator that matters to forward-looking companies and individuals.”

But the question remains: If the bill didn't pass in the last session, why would it pass now?

As I sat here pondering Representative Frankel's comment that Pennsylvania is "diverse and tolerant," I wondered why he would take this position. Maybe it's a position of wishful thinking. But I don't necessarily think it's the position of groups who are continually discriminated against in Pennsylvania - I could be wrong though. But my guess is groups that are discriminated against probably have a bit more realistic perspective on tolerance. One thing I can say for sure, though, is it certainly wasn't the position of the man I am about to tell you about.

So I'm sitting in my office composing this post and a knock came at my door. I opened it to a nice looking man who introduced himself as a candidate for State Representative. His name is Lou Guerra, Jr. He wanted to put a "face to the name" and offered to answer any questions I had. Initially I told him I didn't have any. So he handed me his brochure with a picture of his wife, Linda, and their happy family - four kids, Amy, Ryan, Katie and Timmy, all gathered on a lawn, smiling, and invited me to check out his website and offered that if I had any questions, I should feel free to contact him via email.

I told him I did have one question, "Where do you stand on gay rights?" His silence spoke volumes. Eventually he responded in this manner, and I'm paraphrasing, "Well, that's a broad issue." He took a long pause.

I'm thinking, "Okay, not a difficult question, regardless of the scope of the issue. Either you're in support or not." I already know what his position is. Now it's just a matter of how artfully he's going to answer the question.

"While I don't support gay marriage, I also do not support discrimination of any kind."

"Hmmm," I responded, "that doesn't make much sense."

So according to Mr. Guerra, his ability to reap the benefits of the institution of marriage as a heterosexual man and my inability to do so as a lesbian woman does not constitute discrimination.

Sorry, Mr. Guerra, I think I'll vote for the other guy. But thanks for putting a face to the name.

Check out HRC's list of endorsed candidates to see if your candidates are gay-friendly.