Like This Page to Raise Money for the NoH8 Campaign

Just a quick post today. I wanted to share the story of the amazing Montgomery-Duban Family. When gay marriage was briefly legalized in California in 2008, Chelsea Montgomery-Duban pleaded with her fathers to get married…and they did. Unfortunately, during this time the campaign for Prop 8 began and Chelsea became aware of the ignorance and intolerance of some people. She posted the speech she gave at her fathers wedding on YouTube and the video quickly went viral.

The video also caught the attention of various human rights organizations and she was asked to speak at HRC galas around the country and PFLAG dinners. Speaking at the Human Rights Campaign Los Angeles Gala after Senator Barbara Boxer, she received a standing ovation. Did I mention that she just turned 18 last month? Dennis Lawrence Duban and Kevin Scot Montgomery have raised their daughter well.  Chelsea is truly a remarkable young woman. All three of them have done remarkable things for equality and now they want to do even more. If 100,000 people like the page below by September 1, they’ll donate $10,000 to the NoH8 Campaign. Eleven thousand likes are still needed with just over 22 hours left. So, please visit the page below and like it. Do your part for equality.

http://www.montgomery-duban.com/noh8/embed/

Advertisements

Marriage Equality in World Politics

Recently, a friend of mine posted an interview online of the new Australian Prime Minister’s opposition to same-sex marriage. It was an interesting article, as she has a very different background from most groups that oppose marriage equality, which I will further discuss later on. I wanted to take a look at the various marriage laws and how they came about in different countries. Currently, there are ten countries, 5 U.S. states and Washington D.C. that have legalized same-sex marriage.

On April 1, 2001, the Netherlands became the first country in the world to legalize gay marriage. It wasn’t a quick process. As early as the mid-eighties, a group of gay rights activists asked the government to let same-sex couples marry. In 1995, Parliament decided to create a special commission to research the possibility of same-sex marriages.  The Democratic Christian Appeal was not part of the ruling coalition for the first time since the introduction of full democracy. The commission finished their investigation in 1997 and ruled that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. After the legislative election of 1998, the government promised to tackle the issue. In September 2000, the final draft of the bill was voted on by the Dutch Parliament. The House passed the bill 109-33 and the Senate approved the bill on December 19, 2000. Only the Christian parties, which held 26 of the 75 seats at the time, voted against the bill. The mayor of Amsterdam became a registrar specifically to officiate these ceremonies and on April 1, 2001, four couples were married. Statistics show that by June 2004, more than 6000 same-sex couples had been married in the Netherlands, as Dutch law states that only one of the two people in a gay couple that wishes to marry must have citizenship or reside in the country.

On June 1, 2003, Belgium became the second country to legalize same-sex marriage, but with some restrictions. Originally, Belgian law stated that foreigners could only get married there if similar unions existed in their own countries. However, a law enacted in October 2004 allows any couple to marry in Belgium as long as one of the spouses had resided in the country for at least three months. On May 28, 2002, the bill was introduced to the senate and on November 28 of that same year, it passed by an overwhelming 46-15. On January 30, 2003, the bill passed the House with an even more astounding 91-22. King Albert II signed the bill on February 13, 2003 and by July 22, 2005, the Belgian government announced that approximately 2442 same-sex couple had been married since its enactment.

Spain became the third country to legalize same-sex marriage on July 3, 2005. In 2004, the newly elected socialist government, led by President José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, began campaigning for its legalization. After a lengthy debate, the law was passed by the Cortes Generales (Spain’s bicameral parliament) on June 30, 2005, and approximately 4500 couples were married in the first year. The legalization was not without conflict, however, as Spain is a more religiously conservative country. The Roman Catholics were heavily opposed to the law despite a 66% approval from the population.

On July 20, 2005, Canada became the fourth country in the world and the first in the Americas to legalize same-sex marriage, enacting the Civil Marriage Act, which provides a gender neutral definition of marriage. Court decisions in 2003 had already legalized gay marriage in eight of the ten provinces and one of the three territories. Interestingly enough, the Ontario government decided to uphold a marriage performed in Toronto on January 14, 2001, which makes Canada the location of the first legal same-sex marriage in the world.

Same-sex marriage was legalized in South Africa on November 30, 2006. This was probably the most surprising victory for me considering how many gays and lesbians live in fear of their lives in other African countries, such as Uganda, where politicians are currently pushing the Anti-Homosexuality bill, which calls for the death penalty for gay people. This is such a discriminatory and controversial law that even the Roman Catholic Church is publicly opposed to it.

Sweden became the seventh country to legalize same-sex marriage on May 1, 2009 following the passage of a new gender-neutral marriage law by the Swedish parliament. One of the things that I found most surprising about Sweden’s story is that on October 22, 2009, the governing board of the Church of Sweden voted 176-62 for allowing their priests to wed same-sex couples in the new gender-neutral ceremonies, including the use of the term marriage. They were the first Church to take a positive position on the new law. The second and third largest Christian denominations, the Catholic Church and the Pentecostal Movement respectively, said they were “disappointed” with the decision of the Church of Sweden.

Norway legalized same-sex marriage on June 1, 2009, when a gender-neutral marriage bill was passed by the Norwegian legislature. Norway became the first Scandinavian country and the sixth country in the world to legalize gay marriage. Four different polls conducted by Gallup Europe in 2003, Sentio in 2005, Synovate MMI in 2007, and Norstat in 2008, concluded that 61%, 63%, 66%, and 58% respectively, of the Norwegian population supported gender-neutral marriage laws.

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Iceland since June 27, 2010. This was yet another gender-neutrality bill that was passed by the Icelandic Althing (their national parliament) on June 11 of that year. No members of parliament actually voted against the bill and public opinion polls show that it was heavily supported bill.

Argentina followed soon after on July 22, 2010. The bill was passed by the Chamber of Deputies on May 5, 2010, and July 15, 2010 by the Senate. Argentina was the first Latin American country and the second in the Americas, following Canada, to pass the law. In a country where the majority of the population is Roman Catholic, the bill passed despite large opposition from the Catholic Church in Argentina led by the Catholic Primate (title or rank given to bishops in certain Christian churches) of Argentina, the Archbishop of Buenos Aires Cardinal Jorge Mario Begoglio. Evangelical groups also joined the opposition.

The final full country to legalize same-sex marriage was Portugal on June 5, 2010. The Prime Minister, José Sócrates, introduced the bill in December 2009 and it was passed by the Assembly of the Republic in February 2010. As with other largely Catholic countries, the bill was met with a great deal of opposition. The Catholic Church of Portugal was opposed to the law, and even though Portugal is a constitutionally secular country, its history as a Catholic country was a main reason for the media sensationalism which heightened the controversy. On May 13, 2010, during an official visit, Pope Benedict XVI publicly opposed the bill, calling it “insidious and dangerous”.

In addition to the countries around the world that have legalized same-sex marriage, many jurisdictions have their own laws. For instance, same-sex marriage became legal in Mexico City on March 4, 2010. Even though that’s the only city in Mexico where these unions can be performed, anyone in Mexico can get married there. In the U.S. there are six states and D.C. that perform same-sex marriages: Massachusetts legalized it in 2004, Connecticut in 2008, D.C., Iowa, and Vermont in 2009, New Hampshire in 2010 and New York in 2011. With the Defense of Marriage Act being signed into law in 1996, states are not required to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. The Obama administration has now declared DOMA unconstitutional and it’s being considered for repeal.

Gay marriage has begun, and life has not changed for the citizens of the commonwealth (referring to Massachusetts being the first U.S. state to legalize same-sex marriage), with the exception of those who can now marry.  –  Brian Lees (One of the original sponsors for the amendment to ban gay marriages.)

It’s amazing to see how far we’ve come even in the last 10 years even though we still have a long way to go. Homosexuality was not fully legalized in the United States until 2003 when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Texas’ anti-sodomy law in Lawrence vs. Texas. Meanwhile, it’s still illegal in all of Northern Africa with penalties ranging from two years in prison up to the death penalty depending on country. There are a few reasons that I wanted to do this piece on the marriage laws in the world. I wanted to take a look at the reasons for opposition as well as the change in public opinion. Looking back, public opinion has been changing for a while now. Where the majority of the population of the world opposed same-sex marriage when the advocacy groups started their campaigns, with a little education, public opinion over the last decade has swung in our favor. I have noticed that the great majority of opposition comes from religious conservatives. I have heard three main arguments that I want to address: 1. We have to preserve the sanctity of marriage. (With a 53% divorce rate in the U.S. and Larry King on his ninth wife, I’m not sure this argument is really valid.) 2. We have to protect our children. (An Alabama case took a lesbian woman’s children away and gave custody to her abusive ex-husband. How is that protecting our children?) 3. Homosexuality is an abomination. (See my article: Equality vs. Religion.) So, if the main arguments are marriage, children, and religious beliefs, what is the Prime Minister of Australia’s excuse?

In an interview, the new Prime Minister of Australia, Julia Gillard, stated that she’s against gay marriage. Now, we’re definitely used to government leaders opposing these unions. However, the majority of them have conservative and religious beliefs to back up their reasoning. That doesn’t seem to be the case here. She’s never been married (she actually lives with her boyfriend), she has no children and she’s an atheist. When asked why she opposes the change in law, she talked about her conservative upbringing and her “respect” of other people’s beliefs. She also mentioned that current opinion prefers that the law continues defining marriage as one man and one woman, but this seems to be a contradiction, as public polls actually show that the population is largely in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage. She has made it clear that as long as she’s prime minister, gays and lesbians will not be allowed to marry, and she’s taking her anti-gay policy global. She has instructed the Australian government to deny couples access to CNI (Certificate of No-Impediment to Marriage) documents, thereby prohibiting same-sex couples from getting married overseas.

While our governments have the final say, they do listen to public opinion (most of the time), so I would encourage everyone to get involved. I have often said that we can’t keep complaining about the inequality in the world if we’re not willing to stand up and do something about it. I urge everyone to reach out to your local legislators and let them know where you stand on these issues. Sign this letter to your lawmakers urging them to repeal DOMA. If you want to contact your legislators separately and you don’t know who they are, here’s a list of legislators by district in Maryland. As many of you know, I’m also a huge advocate of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and they’re always looking for volunteers for their coalition of marriage campaigns. So, please, reach out. Let your opinion be known. It matters!

***On a side note***

When you use the Bible as your excuse for restricting marriage equality, know what you’re supporting:

NOM Pledges $2 Million to Fight Marriage Equality

We knew it was coming, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) has pledged “at least” $2 million towards the 2012 election to fight against marriage equality and to try to reverse the bill being passed in New York.

“The Republican party has torn up its contract with the voters who trusted them in order to facilitate Andrew Cuomo’s bid to be president of the U.S. Selling out your principles to get elected is wrong. Selling out your principles to get the other guy elected is just plain dumb” (NOM, 1).

Members of NOM feel that passing the marriage equality bill will have dire consequences for the next generation, for parents, for religious people, even for small business owners. I’m not sure I really understand the connection to that one.

They have stated many times over the last couple of weeks that they feel the Republican Party has betrayed them and they have vowed to fight against the reelection of the four Republican senators who were, in my opinion, brave enough to put aside the beliefs of their upbringing and look at the bigger picture. This wasn’t a decision any of them made lightly. They knew what vote their supporters favored and they were aware that they would lose some of that support. My favorite explanation for his change of vote came from Mark Grisanti, a Republican senator from Buffalo, explained his change of vote the best. He stated that while he was uncomfortable with the use of the word marriage as applied to same-sex couples, he couldn’t legally think of any reason they shouldn’t be allowed to wed. The biggest factor in his decision seemed to be the benefits being denied to gay and lesbian couples.

New York has passed the marriage equality bill, Governor Andrew Cuomo has signed it, and it will go into effect July 24. There are several factors we can credit for this bill getting passed: the immensely popular Governor Cuomo, the most aggressive advocacy campaign in U.S. history, Republicans wanting to be on the right side of history and public opinion swinging in our favor.

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) speared-headed the most aggressive field campaign in U.S. history, spending $1 million in its efforts. An unprecedented 30 field organizers from across the state produced over 151,608 constituent contacts, including:

–          Delivering more than 75,515 post cards from constituents to state senators

–          Generating more than 47,199 emails from New Yorkers to their state lawmakers

–          Generating more than 25,622 phone calls from constituents to their state senators

–          Running twice weekly phone banks

–          More than 3,272 hand-written letters to targeted state senators

Here’s just one example of why this campaign was so important. Senator Joe Addabbo announced at a press conference that two years ago 73% of his constituents were opposed to marriage equality. This year, 80% of them urged him to support it. That’s what won his vote. Without the HRC reaching out to these supporters, the senator might not have been aware of the change in public opinion.

We all know the draw of celebrities, and the HRC is well aware of the publicity they could generate for the campaign. Over the last six months, the HRC has released 51 video testimonials featuring celebrities, sports figures, media personalities, everyday people, and politicians, all in support of marriage equality. These videos received over 1 million views on YouTube and drew a great public awareness to the issue.

In the end, it was these efforts that won our fight, but as I stated before, the fight’s not over yet.  And if we want to continue coming out ahead, we need all the help we can get. As the HRC is entirely funded by its members, I urge everyone to get involved. Whether you become an HRC member or volunteer your time, it doesn’t matter.  Every little bit helps.

1. “NOM to GOP Senators: ‘We Pledge $2 Million to Reverse Same-Sex Marriage in New York’”. Nation For Marriage.com. June 24, 2011. July 6, 2011. http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=omL2KeN0LzH&b=5134145&ct=10885939&notoc=1.

Obama’s Strive for Change

Whew, New York’s had a busy week. Haven’t had a chance to catch up? Here’s what you missed…

First, in an amazing upset, the GOP-led New York Senate passed the marriage equality bill on June 24, 2011, more than doubling the population among which same-sex couples can legally marry. (New York has a population of 19,378,102 accordingly to the 2010 US Census, while Iowa, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut and DC have a reported combined population of 15,671,450.)  For a while it seemed like this vote wouldn’t even take place.  If a revision granting religious protections to clergy refusing to perform these unions hadn’t taken place, it’s likely that the bill would have been tabled until next year, much like the delay Maryland’s legislature is currently dealing with.

Supporters believe that the passage of the marriage equality bill in New York will pave the way for others to follow suit.  Over fifty percent of Americans are now showing to be in favor of same-sex marriage, so one can only hope that progress will continue all the way to the White House. Presently, Obama hasn’t come out in support of same-sex marriage. In several instances he has been reported as saying that he believes marriage to be between a man and a woman.  However, now that public opinion seems to be changing, he’s been more hesitant to state his beliefs openly and some wonder if he’s going to come out in support of legalizing same-sex marriage in his campaign. Whether or not that happens, he’s done more for LGBT rights than any of his predecessors.

President Obama delivered the above speech on June 29 at the White House for an LGBT event  in which he addressed his term and all that has been accomplished. For those who haven’t followed all the news, here are a few of the victories that have occurred.

With the help of Judy Shepard, he signed the Matthew Shepard act into law. This piece of legislature is named after a boy who, in 1998, was tied to a fence, beaten and left to die because he was gay. Originally, Matthew’s murderers, Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson, tried to use the gay panic defense, which was shot down by the judge saying it was either a temporary insanity or diminished capacity defense, neither of which are allowed in Wyoming. After the trial, though they recanted their testimony saying it was just a robbery gone awry (their girlfriends denied that claim), Judge Donnel told the court and the accused that he remained convinced that Matthew’s sexual orientation played a roll in his murder. In his sole reference to Matthew being gay, the judge said the grisly crime was “part because of his lifestyle, part for a $20 robbery.” The new law expands the existing federal hate crimes law to include a victim’s actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. Before this bill was signed, of the 45 states that had hate crimes laws, only 32 included sexual orientation and 11 included gender identity.

Obama also changed the way hospitals treated same-sex partners of patients. In many cases if someone wasn’t an immediate family member, they weren’t allowed to visit with the patient. While this affected a lot of people that were cared for by friends or other service providers, gays and lesbians were uniquely affected in that they were often denied visitation with a partner they had been with for decades. This was the case with Janice Langbehn. In 2007, her partner of 18 years, Lisa Pond was stricken with a fatal brain aneurysm. Although, Ms. Langbehn was her power of attorney and they had four children together, the hospital refused to let her visit. Ms. Pond died while Langbehn was still trying to argue her way in. In April 2010, President Obama called her to say that he had been moved by her case and was working to change the policy. He also apologized to her for how they’d been treated; something the hospital still refuses to do. Now under the new law every hospital that accepts Medicare or Medicaid has to grant visitation to same-sex partners.

In October 2009, Obama announced that he would lift the HIV travel ban. This ban barred HIV-positive non-citizens from entering the US for more than two decades. HIV-positive non-citizens were also banned from becoming citizens except in a very small number of exceptions. This marked a huge step forward, since this policy had been almost universally criticized from both inside and outside of the US since its instatement.

In July 2010, the Obama administration announced the first national strategy to combat HIV/AIDS: a strategy to boost awareness about the disease and redirect $25 million in funds towards states for patients on waiting lists for HIV/AIDS drugs. This plan is designed to redirect HHS (Health and Human Services) funds from dozens of different programs throughout the organization to the most at risk and affected groups: gay and bisexual men and African-Americans.

And then of course, in December 2010, in one of the most well-known and bold maneuvers of the Obama administration, the president announced that he would repeal DADT (Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell). Sodomy has been grounds for discharge from the military since the Revolutionary War. As the US prepared to enter WWII, they added a psychiatric screening to the enlistment process, which automatically eliminated the LGBT community as homosexuality remained on the books as a mental disorder until 1973. In 1982, the Department of Defense issued a policy that stated that homosexuality was incompatible with military service because their presence “would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability” according to Title 10 of the United States Code. “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” was a compromise to the ban that was passed in 1993 during the Clinton administration, in which they could serve as long as they didn’t admit to their homosexuality. Over 14,500 soldiers were discharged under this policy. Needless to say, DADT was flawed: soldiers were still harassed for their perceived sexual orientation and now had no way to report this to their superiors without outing themselves. This was the case with Navy Sailor, Joseph Rocha who suffered abuse for two years by his fellow servicemen. He endured constant hazing while he served with military dog handlers based in Bahrain before finally seeking discharge by coming out to his commanding officer. He has since been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. A Washington Post article from 2009 quotes Rocha as saying, “I told no one about what I was living through. I feared that reporting the abuse would lead to an investigation into my sexuality.” Polls conducted in the months prior to the repeal of DADT showed that approximately 77% of Americans were in favor of the repeal. However, within the military only 28% were in favor with 37% against and another 37% unsure. Since 2007, 28 retired officers tried to get DADT repealed, stating that there was evidence of over 65,000 gays serving in the military. Unfortunately, this repeal comes too late to save some officers who were harassed and even murdered due to their sexual orientation. For example, US Navy Radioman Third Class Allen R. Schindler, Jr., who was brutally beaten to death in 1992 for being gay. Or Army Infantry Soldier Barry Winchell, who was also the victim of a brutal beating in 1999. Even though Obama made the original announcement at the end of last year, we’re still waiting for it to go into effect. Studies had to be done to make sure that the repeal wouldn’t affect military readiness, which is especially important during wartime. After that, there’s a mandatory 60 day waiting period. However, Obama stated in his speech that he expects to sign the official repeal in a matter of weeks, not months, as originally suggested.

Obama’s administration is working on the repeal of DOMA (the so-called Defense of Marriage Act) as well, but until that day comes to pass, they will no longer defend it in court. This is a huge victory for the LGBT community. The Defense of Marriage Act is one of the most discriminatory laws in recent US history. It federally defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. This means that states are not required to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, and that bi-national couples can’t sponsor their spouses for green cards. In another bold move, last week the Department of Justice released a brief in Karen Golinski’s federal court challenge, supporting her lawsuit seeking access to equal health benefits for her wife and arguing strongly that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional in terms unparalleled in previous administration statements. In the brief, the DOJ admits to the US Government’s “significant and regrettable” part in discrimination in America of gays and lesbians. Unlike in other cases where DOJ has stopped defending DOMA in accordance with President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision that Section 3 of DOMA – the federal definition of marriage – is unconstitutional, DOJ lawyers last week made an expansive case in a 31-page filing that DOMA itself is unconstitutional.

As with any controversial subject, there are two sides to the argument of marriage equality. The conservatives that are against equality mostly oppose it on religious grounds, which I will further discuss at a later date. Putting that aside, this debate is now more about legalities than religion. The fact of the matter is that same-sex couples are denied 1138 benefits that married couples currently take for granted, including pension, healthcare, adoption, and hospitalization, among so many others. A 1997 study completed by the GAO (United States General Accounting Office) originally found 1049 denied benefits. When they repeated the study in 2004, they found the number had increased to the current figure. Stopping the defense of DOMA is a big step, but the real coup will come when it’s finally repealed.

As Obama stated in his speech, these things take time. Progress is being made, and while we might be impatient for true equality, we have to take a look at how far we’ve come. More and more Americans are coming out in support of us and some of these supporters are coming from surprising places, like Mark Grisanti, a Republican Senator from Buffalo. His explanation of his vote in favor of the marriage bill was one of the most moving speeches of the evening and helped tip the bill into passage. In his speech, Grisanti noted that he was Catholic, but that he was also a lawyer and studied the legal ramifications of this bill. For him, this meant that he had a problem with the word marriage because of his upbringing, but also had a problem with the rights denied to same-sex couples and that he could find no legal reasons why they shouldn’t be allowed to marry. He said that he had never researched a subject so much as he did this one. He felt that the religious amendment to the bill provided adequate protection to clergy and benevolent organizations and if the bill didn’t pass, they wouldn’t be there next time. His most reiterated quote from the speech is, “A man can be wiser today than yesterday, but there’ll be no respect for that man if he has failed in his duty to do the work.”

Until the journey to marriage equality is complete, we’ll celebrate the victories we have along the way. New York certainly adopted that philosophy as evidenced by the turnout they had at NYC Pride last weekend. Way to go, New York! Happy Pride, you deserve it. May the rest of the country look to you for direction.

If you wish to see what else President Obama and his administration can accomplish, please consider getting involved here.

For other interest in aiding our fight for equality or to have your voice heard, please visit one of the following organizations:

National Interest: Human Rights Campaign

Local Interest: Equality Maryland or Equality Virginia

New York Senate Votes Yes on Marriage Equality

Today is a historic day. Just three hours ago, the New York Senate voted in favor of the marriage equality bill 33-29. This makes New York the sixth state to legalize same-sex marriage. There has been a lot of controversy on this bill, with the biggest issue being the religious protections it provides. Republicans were worried that religious leaders would be penalized for their beliefs if they refused to perform same-sex ceremonies and for a while it looked like the bill wouldn’t even come to a vote this session.

Well, it looks like the amendments to the religious protections’ section appeased the senate’s concerns because the bill passed with thunderous applause. Meanwhile, I was one of 48,000 people who tuned in to the live stream. Twenty-nine Democrats and four Republicans voted yes on the bill, while all but one of the no votes were from Republicans. While, the Republicans who voted against marriage equality definitely weren’t pleased with the outcome, the loudest outcry came from the lone “no” Democrat, Ruben Diaz Sr, who took the stand and told the senate president he should be ashamed of himself for supporting the bill. He also called the “yes” Republicans turncoats.

With a bill of this importance, one had to realized that there would be a long drawn out discussion once the results were announced. Indeed, it seemed like not one senator would be able to stick to his allotted two minute explanation of his vote. Listening to the senate president try to guide these men’s points to conclusion, I was starting to be reminded of the Oscar’s acceptance speeches. I was waiting for the music to queue up.

There were a couple of speeches that stuck with me, though. The two that moved me the most were openly gay Democrat Tom Duane of Manhattan and  Republican Mark Grisanti of Buffalo.

Duane gave a very emotional speech relating the story of his life and family. He talked about coming out to his Catholic parents and his fight for gay rights. He mentioned that his nieces and nephews already thought of him and his partner as married. He also said that he and his partner, Louis, were a family, but that marriage would strengthen that family even more.

Grisanti”s speech really made me think and even reconsider a few points. I’m the first to admit that sometimes my brain is so far in the left corner, it kind of blinds me to everything else, but I could really see Saland’s point of view. He talked about being raised Catholic and how his conservative upbringing taught him that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. However, he also mentioned that he believes in equal rights, so while he doesn’t like the word “marriage” for same-sex couples, he also doesn’t want to deny them the 1138 extra benefits that heterosexual marriages have. He voted against the bill in 2009, but this time he did a lot of research on the matter and weighed the pros and cons. He was undecided for a while. He met with a lot of people on both sides of the issue. A lot of his concerns also stemmed from the debate on the religious protections issue. Once edits were made to the bill, he felt that religious leaders were sufficiently immune to discrimination suits if they declined to perform same-sex ceremonies based on their beliefs. And when push came to shove, he decided that the need for equal rights outweighed the risk of sharing the word “marriage.”

If anyone wants to watch Grisanti’s speech, here it is:

Republican senator Stephen Saland of Poughkeepsi’s vote in favor of the bill marked the victory. He was the 32nd senator to vote yes, which secured the majority. Just four days ago, Governor Cuomo was one vote shy of the needed 32. He campaigned hard for those last votes. That, in addition to the push we made for all New Yorkers to call their senators, got the final needed votes. See? We can make a difference. This is definitely a significant step in the right direction for equality. New York was the largest state to vote in favor of same-sex marriage. It officially doubles the number of same-sex couples who can get married now. I know we have a long way to go, but for a second, lets enjoy this victory. We’ll start working on the other states tomorrow…like California.

Hey, is anyone out there involved with the NOH8 Campaign? If anyone isn’t aware, they’re a great organization that’s campaigning against prop 8 in California. If you’ve ever seen those gorgeous portraits where the models have duct tape over their mouths and NOH8 on their faces, that’s them. If anyone’s in the London, UK area, they’re doing an open photo shoot at the Soho Hotel on July 3. You should check it out. All proceeds go to the campaign. They’re also going to be at the W Montreal in Montreal on July 30 and in Philadelphia, PA on August 5. There aren’t any details on the locale for Philly yet, however, since I’m in Maryland, I might be there. Let me know if anyone else will be. Also, does anyone know of any upcoming rallies or events, either involving the NOH8 campaign or another organization against Prop 8, that are coming up in California?

I’ll be signing off for now, but in the meantime, to check out more information on the NOH8 campaign, please visit:

http://www.noh8campaign.com/