New Poll On New York Marriage Law

There is a new poll which asks Americans nationwide whether the legalization of marriage equality in New York state on July 24th is a positive or negative development. The results show that it depends on whether you are conservative Republican (and/or white evangelical Protestant) or not. If you are, you generally oppose it, if you're not you think it's a positive development.

Democrats and Republicans react in opposite ways to the new law, each facing stark internal divisions that may present challenges to building a winning coalition in 2012. Among Democrats, the divide is between the liberal base and those with conservative or moderate stripes. Liberal Democrats view the law positively by an overwhelming 74 to 25 percent margin. A smaller 54 percent majority of moderate and conservative Democrats say the same. Among African Americans, another loyal segment of the Democratic party coalition, more than six in 10 say the law is a negative development, while roughly one in three see it positively. Republicans broadly reject the law by a 2 to 1 margin, but alignment with the tea party movement complicates political calculations concerning the issue. More than seven in 10 Republicans who support the Tea Party movement view the New York law as a negative development.

This partisan divide in the electorate about marriage equality has been a frequent topic at this blog. Many people believe that the tipping point in favor of marriage equality becoming the law of the land has already reached.

Recently, researches at my alma mater have produced a model of conversion which indicates that when just 10% of a population has an implacable, unalterable position that view will eventually become the majority position, given enough time.

WATCH: MA Congressional Delegation "It Gets Better"

Note, it's almost the entire congressional delegation of Massachusetts. Missing is U.S. Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) who surprisingly won a special election in January 2010, thus giving the Republicans a filibuster-sustaining 41 votes in the United States Senate.

To date, not a single Republican elected official has made an It Gets Better video. Instead, the National Republican Senatorial Committee has started verbally attacking Dan Savage, who has made his feelings about Republicans known. Scott Brown explains his absence from the MA congressional delegation IGB video:

"Senator Brown believes all people regardless of sexual orientation should be treated with dignity and respect. He has been a leader in fighting for anti-bullying legislation at the state and federal level. His main focus is creating jobs and getting the economy moving again. In this case, the individual behind the video has made vile and sexually crude comments about Senator Brown. It's reprehensible for Senator Brown's opponents to associate with this person in order to score cheap political points." -- Eric Fehrnstrom, political adviser.

I'd like to hear from the Log Cabin Republicans an explanation for why not a single Republican elected official can not seem to appear in a video whose intention is to help students who are being bullied (probably because they are LGBT or are perceived to be LGBT) survive the experience and reduce teen suicide.

Who Caused The Debt: Bush or Obama?

This graphic tells the story of how we got to this point where the Republicans are holding the full faith and credit of the United States hostage to their fact-challenged disastrous policy viewpoints taxes and finances.

Celebrity Friday: Luis Lopez, Latino LGBT candidate for AD-45

Luis Lopez is an openly gay, Latino candidate for the 45th
 Assembly District, which is located in Los Angeles

Luis Lopez, a friend of mine, is running for a state Assembly seat in California (he would actually represent the 45th Assembly district in which my house and work is located).

Recently, Luis won the endorsement of the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, the national organization devoted to promote the election of openly LGBT candidates.

Also, this week The Advocate ran an article called "The Other Gay Contenders" which includes Luis:

Sacramento politics are not for the faint-hearted, but Luis Lopez just may have the chops to effectively take on such an unwieldy beast. Running next year to represent California’s 45th state assembly district, Lopez currently serves as a planning commissioner for the funky, diverse L.A. neighborhood of Silver Lake, where he lives with his partner. Lopez, 38, is also part of a parks oversight committee for his city, co-chaired his neighborhood council, and started a Latino LGBT political action committee (his full-time job is as a communications director for a health center).

Aside from that impressive resume, Lopez has some powerful friends who will help him when he faces a primary in June. Jackie Goldberg, a lesbian who represented the Democrat-friendly 45th district from 2000 to 2006, is supporting Lopez in his race, and Lopez’s good friend, John Perez, the out California Assembly speaker, will likely endorse him as well. It’s not yet clear who Lopez will face off against as the current assemblyman, Gilbert Cedillo, is termed-out next year and possible candidates are still coming forward.

“We need to look at leaders who’ve earned the respect of their peers,” Lopez says. ”People who are respected can move an agenda along—there were many times when my colleagues on a given board haven’t agreed with me, but we were still able to make decisions.”

Protecting labor is paramount to Lopez, who grew up in East Los Angeles and started working not long after his mother passed away when he was eight. Voters in his district, which stretches from Hollywood to Chinatown to East L.A. and includes thousands of diverse gay people, are inline with his platform, he says.

I strongly encourage all MadProfessah.com readers, especially if you live in the 45th Assembly District to support Luis Lopez.

Understanding Redistricting, Part 1

It matters how you draw the lines

Dante Atkins of Daily Kos has a very useful article on the importance of redistricting for progressives.

In most states, the decennial maps for congressional districts are redrawn and approved by state legislatures. Why does this matter? Because partisan state legislatures are likely to divvy up the districts in a way that benefits their party. How does this work in practice? At its most elementary, let's hypothesize a state with a population of nine people: five Democrats and four Republicans. And from those nine people, the Census Bureau required creating three districts with an equal number of people. If the state legislature were controlled by Democrats, they might make a map that carves the state in a way that has a majority of Democratic seats. But if Republicans were to control the legislature—something that happens from time to time in Democratic-voting states such as Minnesota—they just might pass a map with different districts that gives the GOP a majority of the seats. 

The 2010 elections will have long-lasting consequences for control of the House of Representatives. The problem isn't just that Republicans won so many seats; the larger problem is that they won them at exactly the right time. Incumbent representatives are hard to defeat, but unseating freshmen is generally an easier task. Unfortunately, having a wave election in a redistricting year allows the new majority party to take advantage of the redistricting process to shore up vulnerable members, usually by taking some friendlier territory from a safer, better-known incumbent—serving essentially to "lock in" that majority for the rest of the decade. In addition, less scrupulous legislators can use the redistricting process to consolidate the districts of opponents to force their members into either retirement or a bruising primary fight and removing them from their seats regardless—a process playing out right now to eliminate Democratic seats in states like North Carolina and Michigan. The GOP has also shown its willingness to use redistricting to ward off potential political disadvantages at the state legislative level as well: for example, Wisconsin Republicans are redrawing the state senate lines in a hurry before the recall elections, even though doing so right now would create a bureaucratic nightmare. Clearly, the GOP is willing to use redistricting as a political weapon in spite of any resulting collateral damage.

While most states have this concern, California no longer does. In 2008, voters passed Proposition 11, which created a so-called Citizens Redistricting Commission that removed the authority to draw legislative lines from the state legislature and put it into the hands of a supposedly non-partisan commission (in 2010, a second proposition was passed that put the authority to draw boundaries for congressional districts as well into the hands of this same body). The Democratic Party opposed this measure for obvious reasons: As Democrats have a substantial majority of seats, they control the redistricting process and could use it to maximize Democratic seats while ensuring no contentious primary battles among the state's delegation. (Full disclosure: I serve on the executive board of the California Democratic Party.)Furthermore, the commission's mandated structure is hardly representative of California's population: despite the fact that California is an overwhelmingly Democratic state, the commission is required to have an equal number of Democrats and Republicans serving, with absolutely no guarantee of geographic or ethnic diversity.

The commission has had other problems, such as missed deadlines and cancellation of draft maps—and right now, the current maps are likely to face suits, especially from organizations in the Latino community who feel that the maps dilute their community's voting power and are thus illegal under the Voting Rights Act. Nevertheless, among Democrats the mood of uncertainty at the congressional level has yielded to a cautious optimism, as the commission's draft maps (should they hold) will likely result in Democratic gains of multiple seats, and defeat or retirement of several longtime Republican members. 

1st Openly Gay U.S. District Court Judge Approved By Senate

As I blogged about earlier this year, J. Paul Oetken is the first openly gay man to be nominated for a lifetime federal judgeship. On Monday, the United States Senate approved Oetken's nomination by a vote of 80-13 to a seat on the Southern District of New York, which covers New York City and is one of the busiest and prestigious federal courts in the country. Amazingly, Oetken will join the same bench that the nation's only openly lesbian federal judge sits on. Deborah Batts is an African American lesbian judge who was nominated by President Clinton and approved by the Senate in 1994. All 13 Senators voting No o Oetken's nomination were Republicans.

Chris Geidner reports:

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who has been supporting the nomination, praised Oetken's background and experience on the Senate floor shortly before the vote, saying "His confirmation will only improve the workings of one of the best and one of the busiest courts in the country."

Of Oetken's place as the first, Schumer said, "At this moment, Paul is not just an excellent candidate, as the first openly gay man to be confirmed as a federal judge and to serve on the federal bench, he will be a symbol of how much we have achieved as a country in just the last few decades."

Before the vote began, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) -- the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee -- also announced that he would be voting for Oetken, who was born in Iowa.

When the vote did come, all Democrats voting approved the nomination, with Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) the sole Democrat not voting. Moreover, a majority of the Senate Republican caucus -- 28 members -- voted to approve the nomination, with 13 Republicans opposing the nomination and six members not voting.

The "no" votes came from Sens. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), John Boozman (R-Ark.), Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), James Risch (R-Idaho), Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and Roger Wicker (R-Miss.). The Republicans not voting were Sens. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) and David Vitter (R-La.).

This is great news. Someone should ask all the Republican presidential candidates whether they would nominate an openly LGBT person to a federal judgeship. President Obama has also nominated an out lesbian, Ali Nathan, to a federal judgeship as well. That nomination is now pending on the Senate floor.

Call 916-445-2841 To Support SB 48 NOW!

Please call 916-445-2841 to urge Governor Jerry Brown to sign SB 48 (The FAIR Education Act) into law. He has until July 20th to sign the bill into law or veto it or let it become law without his signature.

The text of the bill is clear:

SB 48, as amended, Leno. Instruction: prohibition of
discriminatory content.
   Existing law requires instruction in social sciences to include a
study of the role and contributions of both men and women to the
development of California and the United States.
   This bill would require instruction in social sciences to also
include a study of the role and contributions of Native Americans,
African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Pacific
Islanders, European Americans, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender Americans,  persons with disabilities,  and
other ethnic and cultural groups, to the development of California
and the United States.
   Existing law prohibits instruction or school sponsored activities
that reflect adversely upon persons because of their race, sex,
color, creed, handicap, national origin, or ancestry. Existing law
prohibits the State Board of Education and the governing board of any
school district from adopting textbooks or other instructional
materials that contain any matter that reflects adversely upon
persons because of their race, sex, color, creed, handicap, national
origin, or ancestry.
   This bill would revise the list of characteristics included in
these provisions  to include   by referring to
 race or ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, nationality,
and sexual orientation, or other characteristic listed as specified.
   Existing law prohibits a governing board from adopting
instructional materials that contain any matter reflecting adversely
upon persons because of their race, color, creed, national origin,
ancestry, sex, handicap, or occupation, or that contain any sectarian
or denominational doctrine or propaganda contrary to law.
   This bill would revise the list of characteristics included in
this provision to include race or ethnicity, gender, religion,
disability, nationality,  and  sexual orientation,
 and occupation,  or other characteristic listed as
specified.
   Existing law requires that when adopting instructional materials
for use in the schools, governing boards shall include materials that
accurately portray the role and contribution of culturally and
racially diverse groups including Native Americans, African
Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, and European Americans
to the total development of California and the United States.
   This bill would revise the list of culturally and racially diverse
groups to also include Pacific Islanders, lesbian, gay, bisexual,
and transgender Americans,  persons with disabilities,  and
other ethnic and cultural groups.[emphasis added]
   Existing law provides that there shall be no discrimination on the
basis of specified characteristics in any operation of alternative
schools or charter schools.
   This bill would state the intent of the Legislature that
alternative and charter schools take notice of the provisions of this
bill in light of provisions of existing law that prohibit
discrimination in any aspect of their operation.
   This bill also would make other technical, nonsubstantive changes.

   Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.
State-mandated local program: no.


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

  SECTION 1.  Section 51204.5 of the Education Code is amended to
read:
   51204.5.  Instruction in social sciences shall include the early
history of California and a study of the role and contributions of
both men and women, Native Americans, African Americans,  Mexican
Americans,  Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders, European
Americans, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans, 
persons with disabilities,  and members of other ethnic and
cultural groups, to the economic, political, and social development
of California and the United States of America, with particular
emphasis on portraying the role of these groups in contemporary
society.
  SEC. 2.  Section 51500 of the Education Code is amended to read:
   51500.  A teacher shall not give instruction and a school district
shall not sponsor any activity that  reflects adversely upon
persons  promotes a discriminatory bias  on the
basis of race or ethnicity, gender, religion, disability,
nationality, sexual orientation, or because of a characteristic
listed in Section 220.
  SEC. 3.  Section 51501 of the Education Code is amended to read:
   51501.  The state board  or   and  any
governing board shall not adopt any  textbook  
textbooks  or other instructional materials for use in the
public schools that  contains   contain 
any matter reflecting adversely upon persons on the basis of race or
ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, nationality, sexual
orientation, or because of a characteristic listed in Section 220.
  SEC. 4.  Section 60040 of the Education Code is amended to read:
   60040.  When adopting instructional materials for use in the
schools, governing boards shall include only instructional materials
which, in their determination, accurately portray the cultural and
racial diversity of our society, including:
   (a) The contributions of both men and women in all types of roles,
including professional, vocational, and executive roles.
   (b) The role and contributions of Native Americans, African
Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders,
European Americans, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
Americans,  persons with   disabilities,  and
members of other ethnic and cultural groups to the total development
of California and the United States.
   (c) The role and contributions of the entrepreneur and labor in
the total development of California and the United States.
  SEC. 5.  Section 60044 of the Education Code is amended to read:
   60044.  A governing board shall not adopt any instructional
materials for use in the schools that, in its determination,
contains   contain  :
   (a) Any matter reflecting adversely upon persons on the basis of
race or ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, nationality, sexual
orientation,  occupation,  or because of a characteristic
listed in Section 220.
   (b) Any sectarian or denominational doctrine or propaganda
contrary to law.
  SEC. 6.  It is the intent of the Legislature that alternative and
charter schools take notice of the provisions of this act in light of
Section 235 of the Education Code, which prohibits discrimination on
the basis of disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity,
religion, sexual orientation, or other specified characteristics in
any aspect of the operation of alternative and charter schools.

Of course, the heterosexual supremacists are saying that this bill is about "The Promotion of the Homosexual Lifestyle in School Curriculum" when actually all it does is include the LGBT community to the existing California Education Code which mandated the inclusion of the racial and cultural diversity of California.

CALL NOW. It literally takes 90 seconds. There is a phone tree set up when you dial 916-445-2841 and go through 2 or 3 options then you are asked about SB 48 and you can Press 1 to demonstrate your support for the FAIR Education Bill!

CA-36: Hahn Barely Leads Huey In Special Election

Janice Hahn (D) has a lead of 8 points over a Tea Party Republican
 in tomorrow's Congressional special election in the 36th District

Daily Kos has a new poll of the 36th Congressional district special election which should scare the bejeezus out of every Democrat in Southern California! In the special election between Democratic Los Angeles City Councilwoman Janice Hahn and Tea Party Republican businessman Craig Huey

Here are the poll results:

Janice Hahn (D): 52 

Craig Huey (R): 44 

Undecided: 4 

Margin of Error: ±3.9%

The margin of error is important. The spread between the candidates is a mere 8 points but the margin of error is ±3.9 which means that Hahn's lead could theoretically be 0.2 percentage points (or it could also be 15.8 points). Another interesting factor there is the undecided number: just 4 percentage points. That is pretty low, as it should be, since election day is tomorrow Tuesday July 12th. However, people in the 36th district have been voting absentee-by-mail for weeks. However, there is not so good news there for Hahn either.

Dave Catanese of Politico has these totals by the party registrations of those people who had requested vote-by-mail ballots as of Friday July 1st:

Republican/Libertarian — 13,343 

Democratic/Green — 14,035 

Non-affiliated — 5,512

Democrats/Greens outnumber Republican/Libertarian absentee voters by a mere 692 votes! However, in California, it is more likely than not that Hahn is winning the vast majority of the Decline To State ("Non-Affiliated") voters so in that case she should be going into tomorrow's election with a lead, but that's a BIG IF.
The 36th is a pretty tricky district, even if Obama carried by 30 points (64-34), which is a bit less than the 69-31 longtime incumbent Jane Harman had carried it by.

I fully expect Janice Hahn to replace Harman in Congress representing the 36th District tomorrow. It should be interesting to see what happens to the 36th District in the final round of redistricting and if Huey will have a better chance of unseating Hahn in a less partisan district.

Election Results for tomorrow can be found here at LAvote.net.

CT Gov Signs Transgender Rights Bill Into Law!

Democratic Governor Dan Malloy

Democrats have full control of the legislature and governor's office in Connecticut and one of the most important bills that has been acted recently is a bill to include transgender people in the state's civil rights laws prohibiting discrimination. (Note the state has had marriage equality since 2008!)

Raw Story has more details about HB 6599 which Mallow signed into law on July 6, 2011.

The new law adds the phrase "gender identity or expression" to all existing state sex discrimination laws, making Connecticut the 15th state to specifically protect transgender people. 

Anything under authority of the state's Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities is subject to the new rules, including employment, housing, public accommodations and credit. 

"An Act Concerning Discrimination" -- or HB-6599 -- defines "gender identity or expression" as follows: 

a person's gender-related identity, appearance or behavior, whether or not that gender-related identity, appearance or behavior is different from that traditionally associated with the person's physiology or assigned sex at birth, which gender-related identity can be shown by providing evidence including, but not limited to, medical history, care or treatment of the gender-related identity, consistent and uniform assertion of the gender-related identity or any other evidence that the gender-related identity is sincerely held, part of a person's core identity or not being asserted for an improper purpose.

The law will go into effect on October 1, 2011 and Connecticut will become the 15th state to ban transgender discrimination, not just in employment but in the areas of most traditional civil rights laws such as housing, credit, public accommodations and education.

With full Democratic control and since the state now has basically almost every LGBT protection imaginable I would hope the next bills Connecticut enacts are progressive priorities like an increase in the minimum wage and same-day voter registration (and restitution of voting rights for felons after they have served their time).

UN Passes Historic Resolution On LGBT Rights

The United Nations has passed a landmark resolution acknowledging that LGBT rights are human rights. The  United Nations Human Rights Council has formally adopted the resolution I blogged about earlier by a vote of 23 in favor, 19 opposed and 3 abstentions (very close!).

The list of which countries voted which way is provied by TransGriot:

The UN resolution passed with 23 countries voting in favor, 19 countries against and 3 countries abstaining

The nations voting YES were: Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Cuba, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Hungary, Japan, Mauritius, Mexico, Norway, Poland, Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland, Ukraine, Thailand, UK, USA, Uruguay.

The nations voting NO were:  Angola, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Cameroon, Djibouti, Gabon, Ghana, Jordan, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Moldova, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Uganda.

Abstentions: Burkina Faso, China, Zambia

Absent: Kyrgyzstan, Libya (suspended)

The resolution text includes (pdf):

Expressing grave concern at acts of violence and discrimination, in all regions of the world, committed against individuals because of their sexual orientation and gender identity

1.  Requests the High Commissioner to commission a study to be finalised by December 2011, to document discriminatory laws and practices and acts of violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity, in all regions of the world, and how international human rights law can be used to end violence and related human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity;

2.  Decides to cenvene a panel discussion during the 19th session of the Human Rights Council, informed by the facts contained in the study commissioned by the High Commissioner and to have constructive, informed and transparent dialogue on the issue of discriminatory laws and lractices and acts of violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity;

3.  Decides also that the panel will also discuss the appropriate follow-up to the recommendations of the study commissioned by the High Commissioner;

4.  Decides to remain seized of this priority issue.

Note that the United States voted in favor of the resolution, which was sponsored by Brazil and South Africa. Recall that, the next time some idiot tells you it doesn't matter if Obama or a Republican is President.

Anthony Weiner To Resign

U.S. Representative Anthony Weiner has let it be known that he intends to resign from Congress today.

Politico reports:

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) will resign from his seat in Congress, heeding calls from President Barack Obama, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and dozens of other congressional Democrats, sources confirm to POLITICO.

The resignation ends nearly three weeks of tumultuous political controversy since the New York congressman sent a lewd picture of himself over Twitter on the Friday of Memorial Day weekend. After spending over a week claiming that the photo was sent by someone who hacked his account, Weiner admitted last Monday that he had sent it himself, and that he had carried on online sexual relationships with at least six women in the last three years. 

Weiner is expected to make his resignation official in a statement to the press at 2 p.m. at a senior center in Brooklyn where he announced his first run for the New York City Council in 1993.

I agree with Rachel Maddow that I don't understand why a progressive Weiner has to resign over a virtual sex scandal when it took years for U.S. Senator John Ensign (R-NV) to resign after committing an adulterous affair with a subordinate's wife and then paying hush money AND U.S. Senator David Vitter (R-LA) who repeatedly paid prostitutes to have adulterous, kinky sex refuses to resign and has been re-elected!

Why are Democrats such wimps?

Gov. Cuomo Introduces Marriage Equality Act

As I mentioned yesterday, today Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York introduced the Marriage Equality Act (pdf) which would end discrimination in the issuance of civil marriage licenses on the basis of the gender of the couples.

The Office of the Governor's press release:

Albany, NY (June 14, 2011)

Governor Andrew M. Cuomo today submitted a program bill to bring marriage equality to New York state. The Marriage Equality Act permits all couples to enter into marriage in New York state, thereby removing the current barrier same-sex couples face in recognizing their relationships, protecting their families and obtaining essential benefits.

Specifically, the Act grants same-sex couples who seek to marry equal status under the law as well as hundreds of rights, benefits and protections that are currently limited to married couples of the opposite sex.

"From the fight for women's suffrage to the struggle for civil rights, New Yorkers have been on the right side of history. But on the issue of marriage equality, our state has fallen behind," Governor Cuomo said. "For too long, same-sex couples have been denied the freedom to marry, as well as hundreds of rights that other New Yorkers take for granted. Marriage Equality is a matter of fairness and legal security for thousands of families in this state – not of religion or culture. When it comes to fighting for what's right, New Yorkers wrote the book, and Marriage Equality is the next chapter of our civil rights story."

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the freedom to marry is "one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free people." Further, the state assigns hundreds of protections, benefits and mutual responsibilities in a variety of areas to couples who marry, including health care and hospital visitation rights, child custody issues and financial matters.

However, in New York, many individuals who currently seek to exercise the freedom to marry their partners may not do so solely because they are of the same sex.

The Marriage Equality Act would remove these barriers by amending New York's Domestic Relations Law to state:

• A marriage that is otherwise valid shall be valid regardless of whether the parties to the marriage are of the same or different sex
• No government treatment or legal status, effect, right, benefit, privilege, protection or responsibility relating to marriage shall differ based on the parties to the marriage being the same sex or a different sex
• All relevant gender-specific language set forth in or referenced by New York law shall be construed in a gender-neutral manner
• No application for a marriage license shall be denied on the ground that the parties are of the same or a different sex

To ensure that the bill does not intrude into matters of religious belief, the Marriage Equality Act affirms that no member of the clergy can be compelled to solemnize any marriage. This bill grants equal access to the government-created legal institution of civil marriage while leaving the religious institution of marriage to its own separate and fully autonomous sphere. The bill also guarantees that religious institutions and benevolent organizations such as the Knights of Columbus remain free to choose who may use their facilities for marriage ceremonies and celebrations or to whom they provide religious services, consistent with their religious principles.

New York has always been at the forefront in advancing equal rights. In 1983, New York banned discrimination based on sexual orientation in state employment. In 2002, the state extended the same principle to the private sector by enacting the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act. That same year, the state recognized same-sex relationships by extending workers' compensation benefits to all those who lost a partner on 9/11. Passage of the Marriage Equality Act represents yet another significant step in granting full and equal rights to all citizens of New York state.

The Marriage Equality Act bill memo is available here. The bill text is available here.

This action is significant because Governor Cuomo had earlier said that he would not introduce a bill this session (which ends next Monday) unless it would pass.

There are currently 30 declared supporters  (29 Democrats and 1 Republican) of marriage equality legislation in the 62-member State Senate, which has passed the state Assembly 3 times. More announcements by Republican supporters are expected prior to a decision on whether a vote will occur on the bill by the Republican caucus on Wednesday June 15.

NY Marriage Equality Prospects Improve Dramatically

James Alesi is the first Republican state senator to publicly announce
 he will vote in favor of a marriage equality bill in New York State

There is finally good news out of the state of New York on the prospects of marriage equality becoming law this year. Three Democrats who voted against the measure in 2009 have publicly announced they will vote yes this time.

The New York Times reports online:

The three Democratic senators — Joseph P. Addabbo Jr. and Shirley L. Huntley of Queens and Carl Kruger of Brooklyn — all voted against the measure in 2009, when it failed by a wide margin. Their switch to the yes column leaves all but one Senate Democrat supporting same-sex marriage — and the fate of the legislation in the hands of the Republican majority in the chamber.

“I believe that votes will be there for marriage equality if the vote happens,” Mr. Cuomo, a first-term Democrat who has made same-sex marriage a top priority, told reporters at the Capitol Monday afternoon.

[...]

Mr. Cuomo spoke to reporters along with all three of the Democratic senators, who explained why they were changing their positions on the marriage issue. Each of them said that the sentiment in their New York City districts has changed over the last several years, and that they have changed along with their constituents.

“What we’re about to do is redefine what the American family is,” Mr. Kruger said. “And that’s a good thing. The world around us evolves.”

Mr. Addabbo said that just two years ago, 73 percent of the constituents who contacted his office opposed same-sex marriage. But this year, he said, he had heard from 6,015 people in his district, of whom 4,839 wanted him to vote for same-sex marriage.

“In the end, that is my vote,” Mr. Addabbo said

It should be noted that the 2009 marriage equalitybill failed by a vote fo 24-38 even though Democrats held a 32-30 advantage at that time. Now Republicans hold a 32-30 advantage but 29 of 30 Democrats have publicly announced they will vote for the bill (only the religious extremist, heterosexual supremacist, rabidly homophobic Rev. Ruben Diaz, Sr. is voting against).

And as I was writing this blog post the first Republican member of the New York State Senate, James Alesi has announced he will vote in favor of the marriage equality bill, leaving the measure a scant two votes short of a declared majority of 32 votes in the 62-member body. These must come from the Republican caucus.

The Times-Union reports online:

Sen. Jim Alesi, emerging from a meeting with Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Lt. Gov. Bob Duffy, said he will vote for same-sex marriage.

“It was very liberating,” Alesi said, describing how “anguishing” it was to vote against the bill in 2009. “If you live in America, and you expect equality and freedom for yourself, you have to extend it to others.”

He is the first sitting Republican senator to declare his support for the same-sex marriage. He joins three Democratsin the chamber who committed to support the as-yet-introduced measure Monday, bringing the total number of committed yes votes to 30. (Thirty-two votes are needed for passage.)

The current tally of Senators to contact are (courtesy Adam Bink at Prop8TrialTracker.com):

Joe Addabbo (15, Queens) (518) 455-2322

James Alesi (55, Rochester suburbs) (518) 455-2015

Greg Ball (40, Putnam County) (518) 455-3111

Joe Griffo (47, Utica) (518) 455-3334

Mark Grisanti (60, Buffalo, Grand Island, Niagara Falls) (518) 455-3240

Shirley Huntley (10, Queens) (518) 455-3531

Carl Kruger (27, Brooklyn) (518) 455-2460

Andrew Lanza (24, Staten Island) (518) 455-3215

Betty Little (45, North Country stretching from Plattsburgh to Glens Falls) (518) 455-2811

Jack Martins (7, Nassau County/Garden City) 518-455-3265

Roy McDonald (43, north and east of Albany: Troy, Saratoga Springs, Clifton Park) (518) 455-2381

Interestingly, I used to live in Troy, New York for 8 years (1986-1994) when the odious State Senator Joseph Bruno was my representative and Republican Majority Leader did his best to bottle up and kill the New York gay rights bill (SONDA) for a decade or more. Happily, he was indicted and convicted of corruption.

The current Republican majority leader of the state senate is Dean Skelos and had said that he would allow a vote on a marriage equality bill prior to the Republicans winning a majority last November.

Governor Andrew Cuomo says he intends to introduce a marriage equality bill on Tuesday, so it would seem the votes are there on the Senate floor for final passage by the end of the week. The question is will the majority leader allow it. With nearly 60% of the adult public approving of marriage equality in New York in multiple polls it would be a truly anti-Democratic (is that the definition of Republican?) move to make to prevent a bill from becoming law when the votes are there. Do you really want to be the Governor Wallace of your generation?

New TV Ad For Marriage Equality in New York

Since I lived in New York State for 8 years I stll pay careful attention to politics (especially LGBT politics) there. The battle to pass legislation to enact marriage equality in New York when the Governor, the lower House and as much as 58% of the general public support is fascinating to me. Republicans control the State Senate and they seem adamant about not allowing legislation to move forward. There are two weeks left of this legislative session, which ends JUne 20.

New Yorkers United for Marriage has released a second television ad which will start airing this week around the state.

Obama Administration List of LGBT Commitments

The Obama Administration’s Commitment to Winning the Future for the LGBT Community

VERMONT: Democrats Enact Single-Payer Health Care!

Peter Shumlin is the Democratic Governor of Vermont

Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, individual states have the opportunity to enact their own health care reform policies which suit each individual state. In Vermont, Democrats control the state legislature and the governorship for the first time in a long time. When Republicans gain legislative control they use their power for evil, in Minnesota (putting an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment on the 2012 ballot), in Wisconsin and Michigan (to eviscerate unions and disempower working families), in Ohio and Florida (disenfranchise elderly and minority voters) and in South Carolina and Tennessee (legislatively bully LGBT citizens and deny them equal access to constitutional rights).

Democrats, however, use their power for good, like in Vermont where they are ensuring that all state citizens will have access to health care.

Amy Goodman of TruthDig reports:

Vermont hired Harvard economist William Hsiao to come up with three alternatives to the current system. The single-payer system, Hsiao wrote, “will produce savings of 24.3 percent of total health expenditure between 2015 and 2024.” An analysis by Don McCanne, M.D., of Physicians for a National Health Program pointed out that “these plans would cover everyone without any increase in spending since the single payer efficiencies would be enough to pay for those currently uninsured or underinsured. So this is the really good news—single payer works.”

Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin explained to me his intention to sign the bill into law: “Here’s our challenge. Our premiums go up 10, 15, 20 percent a year. This is true in the rest of the country as well. They are killing small business. They’re killing middle class Americans, who have been kicked in the teeth over the last several years. What our plan will do is create a single pool, get the insurance company profits, the pharmaceutical company profits, the other folks that are mining the system to make a lot of money on the backs of our illnesses, and ensure that we’re using those dollars to make Vermonters healthy.”

Governor Peter Shumlin did indeed sign the bill into law. 1 state down, 49 to go. California also has a single-payer health care bill pending in the legislature. MadProfessah has endorsed this legislation.

NY Gov Cuomo Issues Video Urging Marriage Equality Support

CA-36: Hahn Leads Primary, Bowen Currently 3rd

The preliminary results from yesterday's election in Los Angeles County are in and there are some surprises in the race to replace Jane Harman in the 36th Congressional District of California, CA-36.

Here are the numbers right now (as of 05/17/2011 23:27):

JANICE HAHN        DEM            13,137    24.66 
CRAIG HUEY         REP            11,648    21.87 
DEBRA BOWEN        DEM            11,442    21.48

Only the top two vote getters regardless of party advance to the July 12th run-off election, thanks to the nonsensical Proposition 14 which was passed by voters in June 2010 and is now in effect.

MadProfessah had endorsed California Secretary of State Debra Bowen as the true progressive in the race (U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein endorsed Hahn, blech!) so I was distressed to see her in 3rd position behind a self-financed Tea Party Republican candidate. However, there does seem to be some kind of indications that she may be able to pick up the 207 votes she needs to reach the #2 position. If that doesn't happen, then presumably Hahn would be the next Congressmember from the 36th District, and would set up another special election to fill her then-vacated Los Angeles City Council seat.

In better news, Scott Svonkin has almost certainly won his run-off against another tea Party Republican (named Lydia Gutierrez) for a seat on the Los Angeles Community College District Board. That race was the only contest on the ballot when I voted yesterday.