Not Out of the Woods Yet

With Pride approaching so quickly, it is easy to get caught up in the euphoria that has resulted from an unprecedented and unpredicted series of victories affecting the LGBT community.  The discriminatory ban on same-sex marriage is falling one state at a time like poorly mounted tiles off a wall.  Just this past week Oregon and Pennsylvania became the 18^th and 19^th states, respectively, to hop on the road to equality. Remember when there only five?  More states are in limbo because of legal challenges that are in process that may also add to the totals. 

Forty-four percent of Americans now live in a state that allows same-sex marriage. A Washington Post-ABC News poll conducted in March show that nearly 3 out of 5 Americans support the right of gays and lesbians to tie the knot.  All in all, North Dakota remains as the sole state where no challenge to their ban has taken place. 

On top of that, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year that legally married same-sex couples cannot be denied the federal benefits afforded heterosexual married couples.

Locally, the recent passage of the Fairness for All Marylanders Act, derided by opponents as “the bathroom bill,” is another reason to celebrate after years of failure.  A signature drive is underway to petition the law to referendum in November, but my gut is telling me it will fail by either the inability to collect the requisite number of signatures or that it will likely lose at the ballot box.

This past year we’ve witnessed history in the world of sports whereby Jason Collins became the first openly gay man to play in a major North American sport league (pro basketball) while still active, and Michael Sam became the first openly gay player to be drafted in the National Football League. 

With the screening on HBO of Larry Kramer’s powerful drama The Normal Heart, we got a glimpse of how our government that is supposed to be “of the people, by the people, for the people” based on Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address turned a blind eye on the developing AIDS crisis that began in the 1980s.  In direct contrast, we now have a president that has moved heaven and earth to help achieve equality for LGBT folks.  If only he had a Congress he could work with.

All this welcome news masks one underlying bit of reality: we’re not out of the woods yet.

More states have legalized same-sex marriage than have non-discrimination protections in place for LGBT workers.  The federal law—Employment Nondiscrimination Act or ENDA—has “celebrated” its 40^th anniversary of non-passage.  It’s been introduced in every Congress but the 109^th without success.  Prospects are dim for the near future that the bill would become law given the Republicans’ staunch opposition to passage despite the fact nearly three-fourths of Americans support nondiscrimination in the workplace for LGBT folks.  The GOP stubbornly continues to trail behind the shifting, progressive public attitudes—a development that weakens the Party nationally.

Despite the progress, old habits don’t die.  There are still haters out there who would physically harm LGBT people if given the chance or deprive them of their rights.  Bullying in schools continues to cause problems for LGBT students, especially among the transgender kids.  And families who rely on a strict interpretation of Scripture still throw their LGBT children out of their homes or make it so uncomfortable for them, the kids become runaways or homeless.

These problems continue to exist but they are more acute outside the U.S. where there is widespread homophobia leading to serious consequences.  We know of the the Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2014 (previously called the “Kill the Gays bill” in the western media).  Instead of the death penalty for being gay, life imprisonment is the penalty.  Whew!

Elsewhere in Africa, new anti-gay laws have been proposed in Kenya, Nigeria, Tanzania, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, and Zambia.  Anti-gay violence has been increasing across the continent.

In 2013 Russia received international criticism for enacting an anti-LGBT propaganda law, which purportedly was to prevent distribution of “non-traditional sexual relationships” ideas among minors.  This, too, has led to anti-gay violence around the country.

China is cracking down on gay activists.  Brunei has a law that allows death by stoning for gay sex.  And then there are the stringent laws in other Middle Eastern countries.

All this means is that as things get better in the U.S. they seem to be getting worse elsewhere.  Jay Michaelson of The Daily Beast opines that these nations are reflecting a backlash to the progress in the U.S. “Thanks to globalization, America’s current infatuation with all things gay has become more visible around the world,” he writes.  “As a result, many countries have become volatile mixtures of 1950s attitudes and 2010s media.  Children may watch Glee on their smartphones, but their parents still think gay people are pedophiles.”

And the AIDS crisis is far from over.  Though it’s no longer considered a “gay disease,” new infections from younger men who have sex with men are on the rise.

We can celebrate the steps we have taken as we move forward—as well we should—but we must understand that there is so much more work left to be done.  Clearly, we’re not out of the woods yet. 

Not by a long shot.

Equality Wins!

Supreme Court strikes down DOMA, reverses Prop 8

On the 10^th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that struck down sodomy laws in Lawrence v Texas, June 26, 2013 turned out to be another seminal landmark in the history of LGBT rights.  By a 5-4 decision the Court struck down Section 3 of DOMA—the Defense of Marriage Act—on the grounds that it violated the equal protection clause in the U.S. Constitution.  

In the case, Windsor v the United States, DOMA was viewed by the majority of the Court, whose opinion was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, as unconstitutional “as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment.”  Justice Scalia was among three justices authoring dissents.

“By creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State, DOMA forces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy. “By this dynamic DOMA undermines both the public and private significance of state sanctioned same-sex marriages; for it tells those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition. This places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage.”

The result is that same-sex couples who were married in states where such nuptials are legal, including Maryland, will be able to enjoy over a thousand Federal rights, benefits and entitlements that are accorded heterosexual couples. They include such Federal benefits as the right to file joint tax returns, federal pension survivors’, Social Security survivors’ benefits and many more.   Government agencies will be required to revamp their regulations to include legally married same-sex couples. 

With the Court’s decision to allow a lower court’s ruling to stand, which struck down Proposition 8 in California based on the equal protection clause, there are now 13 states plus D.C. where same-sex couples can marry. This represents jurisdictions covering over 93 million Americans.

DOMA was signed into law in 1996 by President Bill Clinton in which the Federal government was barred from recognizing same-sex marriages even if they were legal in certain states.  At the time, no such marriages were legal.

The second landmark decision that struck down Proposition 8 was based on standing that upheld the U.S. District Court of California’s ruling, authored by Vaughn Walker.  “We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to,” read the majority opinion in Hollingsworth v. Perry authored by Chief Justice John Roberts. “We decline to do so for the first time here.”

By taking this approach, the Supreme Court nullified Proposition 8 in California but provided no opinion on the rights of states to ban same-sex couples from being legally married.  Observers characterize the Court’s decision as “punting.”  During the oral arguments in March, Justice Kennedy cautioned that the Court was entering “unchartered waters,” which signaled a more likely narrow ruling as opposed to a sweeping broader one, unlike the DOMA ruling.

Hundreds of equality supporters as well as a lesser number of opponents gathered around the Supreme Court building in sweltering heat and humidity cheering the news amidst a sea of rainbow colored flags and signs.  People came from all over the U.S. with some spending the night before to witness history.

“Today the married lives of same-sex couples in Maryland were made whole,” Carrie Evans, executive director of Equality Maryland, told me.   “We can now access the more than 1,000 protections the federal government provides to married couples. And with the ruling in the Perry case, marriage equality returns to California bringing us to 13 states and the District of Columbia that have marriage equality. We will continue our quest in the remaining 37 states until all loving and committed couples in the U.S. have access to marriage equality.”

HRC president Chad Griffin issued a statement that said in part, “Today’s historic decisions put two giant cracks in the dark wall of discrimination that separates committed gay and lesbian couples from full equality.”

Governor Martin O’Malley, who pushed marriage equality in Maryland, weighed in calling the rulings “a powerful step forward for those who live in states like Maryland.”

The White House issued the following statement: “I applaud the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act.  This was discrimination enshrined in law.  It treated loving, committed gay and lesbian couples as a separate and lesser class of people.  The Supreme Court has righted that wrong, and our country is better off for it.  We are a people who declared that we are all created equal – and the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.

“This ruling is a victory for couples who have long fought for equal treatment under the law; for children whose parents’ marriages will now be recognized, rightly, as legitimate; for families that, at long last, will get the respect and protection they deserve; and for friends and supporters who have wanted nothing more than to see their loved ones treated fairly and have worked hard to persuade their nation to change for the better.” 

“This is a historical day for all gay and lesbians couples,” said Annapolis resident Kim Hinken. “My wife, Adri and I are overjoyed at the repeal of DOMA. Finally, the country recognizes our vows to each other as they do any couple. The legal protections that this ruling allows us will assure that we are seen as a legally married couple in the U.S.”

Still Plenty of Room on the Bandwagon

Hillary Clinton comes out in support of marriage equality

Momentum for marriage equality is so powerful right now it’s surreal.  Much has happened over the past year in this regard; it’s nearly impossible to chronicle in limited space.  But since March alone, major steps to knock down previously sturdy barriers have taken place.

Most of these developments occurred before, during and after the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on two central cases (Prop 8 and DOMA) that potentially can cover the landscape in rainbows.  How the justices will rule will be determined in June—Pride month no less—and regardless of the outcome, the march towards equality will continue.

What is driving this momentum is a shift in attitudes among Americans regarding marriage equality.  The most recent of these surveys, the NBC/WSJpoll, shows that 53 percent of Americans now support same-sex marriage, which is an uptick of two points since December. Some other polls indicate even greater support.  This is a dramatic sea change over the past ten years.

Though politicians are often slow to follow the attitudes of the electorate (e.g. gun control, immigration reform, etc.), they seem to be jumping on the marriage equality bandwagon rather rapidly.  A couple of weeks prior to the Supreme Court arguments, Senator Rob Portman, a Ohio Republican who was a possible VP candidate on the Romney ticket, became the first GOP senator to publicly support same-sex marriage.  He did so because his son, Will, is gay, which clearly put a family member’s well-being above party dogma. 

“It allowed me to think of this issue from a new perspective, and that’s of a dad who loves his son a lot and wants him to have the same opportunities that his brother and sister would have — to have a relationship like Jane and I have had for over 26 years,” Portman was quoted as saying.

Republican Senator Mark Kirk (IL) swiftly followed suit as did a number of Dems, resulting in 54 senators supporting marriage equality and still counting.  Only three Democrats have not as yet: Sens. Mark Pryor (Ark.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.) and Mary Landrieu (La.)—all representing red states.

A little over a week before the Supreme Court proceedings, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also climbed aboard the bandwagon.  In a six-minute video for HRC Clinton said, “LGBT Americans are our colleagues, our teachers, our soldiers, our friends, our loved ones, and they are full and equal citizens and deserve the rights of citizenship. That includes gay marriage.”   Many political pundits saw this as an important step if she decides to run for president in 2016.

Despite the two Republican senators announcing support, the fact that many Republicans submitted friends-of-court briefs to advocate for marriage rights in the Supreme Court arguments, and the party rhetoric saying that the GOP needs to be more inclusive, it is clear their rank-in-file is not ready to approve same-sex marriage.  In that same NBC/WSJ poll, two-thirds of Republicans oppose marriage equality—most of whom are in rural areas.  But the numbers are improving, albeit slower than Democrats and Independents.

The Republican National Committee on April 5 approved a resolution that stated: “The Republican National Committee affirms its support for marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and as the optimum environment in which to raise healthy children for the future of America; and be it further resolved, the Republican National Committee implores the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the sanctity of marriage in its rulings on California’s Proposition 8 and the Federal Defense of Marriage Act.”

This is the trap the GOP officials are falling in: they continue to pander to their rural and shrinking base and ignore the fact younger people including young Evangelicals are supporting same-sex marriage.  The issue most likely will hurt the party in 2016 and beyond as these younger people vote and the older, more conservative voters leave us, resulting in more elected officials jumping on the bandwagon.

Evan Wolfson, President and Founder of Freedom to Marry, commented: “With Republican support for the freedom to marry increasing every day—aided by the journeys of leaders like Senators Mark Kirk and Rob Portman—the RNC is showing itself out of touch with this resolution.”

Aside from marriage there is also some LGBT progress in the world of sports, which is by no means insignificant.  Although those in the sports industry do not make laws, their influence on our culture cannot be overstated.  Los Angeles Dodgers co-owner Magic Johnson (who has a gay son) and Mark Cuban, owner of the NBA’s Dallas Mavericks both said they would welcome a gay player on their team.  A growing number of hockey players as part of the You Can Play Project have also publicly stated their acceptance of a gay teammate should one come out.

Ex-Raven Brendon Ayanbadejo told the Baltimore Sun that he is in discussions with as many as four gay players in the NFL who may come out soon as a group in a coordinated effort to mitigate the pressure that would normally be heaped on one individual under that circumstance.

Though much work in other areas needs to be done, the marriage efforts have been paying dividends as well as a possible improvement in the sports environment.  The bandwagon still has lots of room for those to jump on.  France, for instance, is about a month away from approving same-sex marriage. Bienvenue à bord!

The Ball is in Their Court

Ever since the passage and signing of the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” the march towards LGBT equality has picked up in pace that would have been considered inconceivable just five years ago.  Aside from the setback in this year’s Maryland General Assembly where comprehensive non-discrimination protections for trans folks failed to advance again, the rainbow path recently has been lined with victories.

This is especially true in the progress towards marriage equality.  Following President Obama’s announced support for same-sex marriage last spring, the tide has swung in earnest towards the seemingly improbable goal that gay and lesbians in the U.S. will finally no longer be treated as second class citizens.

The apex of this momentum was reached on Election Night as voters in three states, including Maryland, chose marriage equality while a fourth beat back an attempted ban—developments that had never occurred before.

Most recently, March 26 and 27 became another landmark period in LGBT history as two cases contesting the manner gay and lesbian couples are treated with respect to marriage rights made it to the highest court in the land.  Oral arguments were heard by the nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court that on the first day saw the challenge to California’s Prop 8. 

Several hundred marriage equality advocates braved the cold temperatures and assembled in front of the Court in a colorful, raucous rally.  Opponents were fewer in number but they attempted to drown out the pro-equality rally with a lot of noise, chanting their dwindling number of rational arguments against same-sex marriage.

While it is nearly impossible to predict what the Court will ultimately decide based on questioning during this phase, conventional wisdom imparted by legal experts indicate that the Court will either strike Prop 8 down or even more likely revert back to the lower court’s ruling in that the measure is unconstitutional in California only. 

In that case, gay and lesbian couples in that state will again be able to marry.  If that occurs, some 30 percent of all U.S. same-sex couples would then be living in states that legally allow such marriages with several more looming on the horizon. 

There will likely be no sweeping edict that would affect same-sex couples in the rest of the country.  In other words, the Court is not likely to say in general terms that gays and lesbians have the legal right to marry, which is what marriage equality advocates had hoped for.  The least likely scenario, however, is that the Court will uphold Prop 8.

The picture seemed brighter and somewhat clearer following arguments on the second day. The constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act or DOMA, which denies over 1,100 federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples, was being questioned.  At least five justices had key problems with DOMA’s purpose and constitutionality.   

The case had been brought to this point by Edie Windsor, 83, who had to pay $363,000 in federal estate taxes after her spouse, Thea Spyer, died. Because Windsor would have been eligible for an estate tax exemption had Spyer been a man, she argued that DOMA's Section 3 violates her equal protection rights under the Fifth Amendment.

Again, it is not certain if the Court will grant eligibility for the 1,100 federal benefits to same-sex couples that are legally married.  Should that happen, it would constitute a huge victory for those couples married in the nine states (including Maryland) plus D.C.  Social Security survivors’ benefits and tax breaks would be among the major benefits if Section 3 of DOMA was struck down.  And it could form a precedent for future litigation.

The U.S. Supreme Court has a well-deserved reputation for being plodding and incremental and often lagging behind the social attitudes of the general public.  Sweeping landmark cases are rare, and these two could (and should) have been among them. 

The punditry noted correctly that attitudes on “gay marriage” shifted dramatically since 2004 when Republicans used the issue as a wedge among Democratic voters.  Indeed, according to a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll, support for marriage equality has increased in virtually every demographic, region and party affiliation except those from rural areas and those between the ages of 50 to 64.  Blue collar workers represent the largest increase in support.

African-Americans, long seen as a group that had not supported marriage equality, increased their support by 19 percent since 2009 alone.  Analysts credit Obama’s change in his position on the subject as a significant contributor to the shift.

Moreover, young adults who will be playing a larger role in elections and are overwhelmingly supportive, will be replacing the older generation as they leave us.  But even though folks over 65 do not favor same-sex marriage (37% - 54%), their support has increased substantially since 2004 (16% - 80%). 

The justices’ votes have already been tabulated, and their rulings will be announced in June.  As most of the LGBT community will be celebrating Pride that month, the announcement will be eagerly anticipated.  

The justices would be wise to consider the trends in public acceptance because if the rulings do not unequivocally confer the same legal rights, benefits and responsibilities for all Americans, you can be sure the younger people will be back again knocking on the Supreme Court’s door.  For now, the ball’s in their court.

Pride Arrives in January

No, it’s not yet June with its clammy hot weather and the Pride parade and festival just around the corner.  Instead, it’s January—in the dead of winter but it feels like Pride has arrived already.

As the clock ticked past midnight on New Year’s Eve into 2013, we celebrated scores of gay and lesbian weddings that were made legal by Maryland’s voters selecting love over bigotry.  There was a sweeping amount of pride by those in the LGBT community who although they may not have yet participated in this momentous life-changing development, saw it as a victory for Maryland’s gay and lesbian families after years of hard work and near-misses.

While these nuptials and engagements were taking place during and after January 1, our community became ecstatic over the playoff run by our hometown darlings of the gridiron, the Baltimore Ravens.  First, the methodical dispatching of the Indianapolis Colts 24-9 at M&T Bank Stadium sent the Ravens to the next round.  They were inspired by the announced retirement of Ray Lewis.

A week later, following a stunning overtime thriller over the much-favored Denver Broncos on the frigid turf of Sports Authority Field at Mile High, Baltimore began getting its purple on in earnest.  Enthusiasm that had been dormant earlier in the season, sprung loose as soon as mighty Joe Flacco’s miracle pass to Jacoby Jones in the game’s last 30 seconds tied the score that was eventually won by a Justin Tucker field goal moments into the second overtime period.

Next on tap was a rematch with the dreaded New England Patriots and Tom Brady on January 20.  As Ravens fans well remember, a year ago at Gillette Stadium in Foxboro, the Ravens were a TD catch in the final seconds from winning the AFC Conference championship, but the ball was stripped away from then Ravens receiver Lee Evans.  Seconds later a botched field goal try by Billy Cundiff sealed the fate as Baltimore, who outplayed the Pats, left in defeat.  It was a bitter setback.

But this year, Purple Pride showed up in January and as a result of the Broncos upset, the underdog Ravens had their chance at redemption at Foxboro.  The same battle for the title and a trip to the Super Bowl awaited a more confident Ravens squad, and it showed.

They were on a mission, and after a rather sleepy first half trailing 13-7, the purple giant awoke.  Reeling off 21 unanswered points led by a stingy defense and another sterling performance by Flacco and his offense, the Ravens prevailed 28-13, and off to the Super Bowl we go!

With just a night’s sleep to savor this unlikely season and a momentous January so far, we saw history made at the second inauguration of President Barack Obama merely 15 hours later.  There was an abundance of pride as the first African-American president who proved it was no fluke with his reelection, took the oath of office for his second term on Martin Luther King Day no less. 

Then his inaugural address brought more pride in January.  For the first time in history, a U.S. president included references to LGBT equality and gay rights in an inaugural speech.  He mentioned Stonewall, Seneca Falls and Selma in the same sentence, equating gay rights with women’s rights and civil rights for African-Americans.  That is a huge step forward and a source of deep pride in reflecting upon the decades of struggles that led to this point.

“We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths – that all of us are created equal – is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall; just as it guided all those men and women, sung and unsung, who left footprints along this great Mall, to hear a preacher say that we cannot walk alone; to hear a King proclaim that our individual freedom is inextricably bound to the freedom of every soul on Earth,” he said.

The president added, “Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.” 

These words were beautiful to listen to and a validation of our cause.  As he had demonstrated time and time again in his first term, President Obama has been a consistent ally for LGBT rights and a source of pride.  From the passage of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act to the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ to his endorsement of marriage equality to appointing more openly LGBT officials than any other president, Mr. Obama has given our movement a dynamic push, while our country is coming along faster than anyone expected.

These were incredible events that have galvanized our community and allies.  Sure, football is just a game played by rich men for even richer owners.  So what?  Civic pride is an effective and welcome antidote to the day-to-day problems that beset us.  It is also inspiring.  The Ravens are underdogs who show us that with hard work anyone could overcome adversity and succeed. 

Barack Obama was also an underdog with an unconventional family and childhood.  Look what he had to overcome.  And look what he is accomplishing for “our gay brothers and sisters.” 

Equality pride, purple pride and presidential pride.  They’re not related but connected nonetheless.  A prideful January to be sure.

Winning Question 6

I must confess I didn’t believe what occurred on the night of November 6, 2012 would ever happen.  Marriage equality failed all 32 times it had been decided through state ballots, and I didn’t get that warm and fuzzy feeling that this time it would be any different. 

I did not have confidence early on in Marylanders for Marriage Equality—the organization with a diverse array of coalition partners who assumed the lead to defend the Civil Marriage Protection Act against a referendum by opponents who rapidly amassed three times the number of signatures needed to place a minority’s rights up for a popular vote. 

The planning for a likely referendum fight began late, in my view.  A former staffer told me that the campaign was fritting away too much time and money on getting “pledges” signed.

HRC brought in their people to get the effort started and ultimately hired Josh Levin as the Campaign Manager. 

Early polls looked too good to be true and were shrugged off by many.  Yet, a national trend towards public acceptance of marriage equality was unmistakable.

Things started to break, however.  President Obama went public with his support following Vice President Biden.  Former President Bill Clinton did likewise.  Democrats installed marriage equality as part of the party’s platform.  

Governor O’Malley championed the cause following years of uncertainty as to how equality should be achieved.  He was a true leader during this fight, persuading wavering legislators to help pass the bill and then traveling around the country to raise needed funds for the battle ahead.

But according to a report in the Baltimore Sun, the campaign was having trouble as late as August in raising the necessary funding.  Delegate Maggie McIntosh stepped in to handle the Campaign’s strategic decision-making and asked former Gov. Ehrlich’s chief-of-staff Chip DiPaula to persuade Evan Wolfson of the national organization Freedom to Marry to jump in with monetary support.  He did. 

Marylanders for Marriage Equality ultimately raised nearly three times the amount of money than the opponents—a total of $6 million.  There was speculation that the Church of the Latter Day Saints who donated tons of money against marriage equality during California’s Prop 8 battle decided to sit these four marriage contests out lest they hurt Romney politically.  

The Campaign developed a sophisticated infrastructure for executing a potent ground game using nuts and bolts grass roots efforts.  The “Vote For 6” signage had a great design—eye-catching and recognizable in their blue and white scheme.

They oversaw a superb ad campaign that mostly featured religious leaders and straight individuals to validate the cause.  The Campaign developed direct mail and TV advertisements featuring Julian Bond, Revs. Donte Hickman and Delman Coates, Todd Schuler, and Presidents Obama and Clinton.  They enlisted the public support from celebrities, such as the Ravens’ Brendon Ayanbadejo and actor Josh Charles to win the hearts and minds of voters regardless of sexual orientation, political party, race, age, gender, religion or ethnic background.    

Their efforts were bolstered by all the thousands of volunteers in and out of the campaign’s organization who knocked on doors, engaged strangers, family members, neighbors and co-workers, participated in phone banks, raised and contributed funds and developed innovative methods for getting the message out.

I began to feel more confident on Election Day as I worked the polls at Clarksville Middle School.  Not only were voters pronouncing their support for Question 6 but did so with intensity and enthusiasm.  Sure, there were opponents—some of them even rude.  But the overwhelming majority (63 percent in actuality) appeared to be on our side, and it gave me hope that perhaps later that night there would be cause for celebration.

That momentous night, when the voters re-elected President Barack Obama, the most pro-LGBT president ever, we were creating another headline.  For the first time in U.S, history, Maryland, Maine and Washington succeeded via the ballot to legalize same-sex marriage.  Minnesota beat back an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment.  Moreover, six LGBT candidates were elected to Congress, including for the first time, an openly lesbian person, Tammy Baldwin, who was elected to the U.S. Senate.

In Maryland proponents of marriage equality defeated the forces who would deny the legal, economic and social benefits that marriage equality would confer by a 52-48 margin or more than 90,000 votes. 

A review of the election results should lay to rest the myth that African-American voters are the key to marriage equality defeats.  Both sides were clearly courting African-American voters, but the pro-equality side’s messages of fairness broke through. 

The president’s support as well as the National NAACP’s endorsement had to be huge.  And the testimonies offered by African-American pastors Donte Hickman and Delman Coates on TV ads were received very positively.  This helped reassure voters that religious institutions would not be affected by the law and fairness for all was underscored.

We don’t know yet how the black vote went, but the fact is that Baltimore City with Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake as a key advocate had a sizable plurality for Question 6, and Prince George’s deficit was much smaller than anticipated.  Consequently, the recent hateful comment by a pastor stating gays and supporters “are deserving of death” most likely did not sit well with fair-minded voters regardless of race.

Governor O’Malley, the gay and lesbian members of the legislature and their colleagues who voted for the bill and defended it during the referendum battle deserve much praise and gratitude.

Josh Levin and his team should be applauded for ultimately getting the job done. The 200 coalition partners, such as HRC, NAACP, SEIU, ACLU, Equality Maryland and PFLAG as well as leading clergy were instrumental in this battle.

All the volunteers and contributors including the 2,000 poll workers on Election Day and those who began this fight and laid the groundwork for success should be thanked.

And most of all, thanks to all of you for coming out to vote and making November 6, 2012 a historic milestone in the history of LGBT rights.

Oh, What a Night!

I must confess I didn’t believe what occurred on the night of November 6, 2012 would ever happen.  Marriage equality failed all 32 times it had been decided through state ballots, and I didn’t get that warm and fuzzy feeling that this time it would break that skein. 

I did not have confidence early on in Marylanders for Marriage Equality—the organization with a diverse array of coalition partners who assumed the lead to defend the Civil Marriage Protection Act against a referendum by opponents who amassed three times the number of signatures needed to place a minority’s rights up for a popular vote.  This organization appeared too guarded, too evasive and too elusive for my taste as I am a “severe” proponent of transparency.  More on them later.

With this effort affording gays and lesbians perhaps the one last shot at marriage equality in Maryland in a generation, I believed that nothing should be left on the field.  I was particularly disappointed by the squeamishness of some elected officials who had built-in persuadable constituencies and multiple platforms and tools available to vociferously laud the virtues of equality and fairness.

These politicians—especially Democrats—had all the cover they needed.  President Obama went public with his support following Vice President Biden.  Former President Bill Clinton did likewise.  The Democratic Party installed marriage equality as part of the Party’s platform.

The President, in particular, had much more to lose as he took on this political risk.  A pronouncement in support of same-sex marriage could have hurt him with conservative Democrats in swing states.  But he had the guts to do it, proving once again what a true leader he is and offered a blueprint as to how to become one.  He was astutely aware that  this issue was trending positively across the nation.

Governor O’Malley championed the cause following years of uncertainty as to how equality should be achieved.  He, too, was a true leader during this fight, persuading wavering legislators to help pass the bill and then traveling around the country to raise needed funds for the battle ahead.

Instead, these other elected officials were quiet supporters but supporters nonetheless.  To use a baseball analogy, it’s akin to a batter needing to hit a two-run homer to win the game but wound up with a double, putting runners on second and third, and leaving the potential heroics to the next guy.

Well, that “next guy” came through.

First, Marylanders for Marriage Equality raised nearly three times the amount of money than the opponents.  They developed a sophisticated strategy for executing a potent ground game using nuts and bolts grass roots efforts as well as solid use of social media.  They oversaw a superb ad campaign that mostly featured religious leaders and straight individuals to validate the cause.  They enlisted the public support from celebrities as well to win the hearts and minds of voters regardless of sexual orientation, political party, race, age, gender, religion or ethnic background.    

Their efforts were bolstered by all the volunteers in and out of the campaign’s organization who knocked on doors, engaged strangers, family members, neighbors and co-workers, participated in phone banks, contributed funds and developed innovative methods for getting the message out.

I began to feel more confident on Election Day as I worked the polls at Clarksville Middle School.  Not only were voters pronouncing their support for Question 6 but did so with intensity and enthusiasm.  Sure, there were opponents—some of them even rude.  But the overwhelming majority appeared to be on our side, and it gave me hope that perhaps later that night there would be cause for celebration.

That momentous night, when the voters re-elected President Barack Obama, the most pro-LGBT president ever, we were creating another headline.  For the first time in U.S, history, Maryland, Maine and Washington succeeded via the ballot to legalize same-sex marriage.  Minnesota beat back an anti-gay constitutional amendment.  Moreover, seven LGBT candidates were elected to Congress, including for the first time, an openly lesbian person, Tammy Baldwin, who was elected to the U.S. Senate.

In Maryland proponents of marriage equality defeated the forces who would deny the legal, economic and social benefits that marriage equality would confer by a 52-48 margin. 

I thank everybody who helped make this historic struggle in Maryland a reality.  I especially thank Governor Martin O’Malley for his leadership in the battle along with all the legislators who supported and voted for the Civil Marriage Protection Act.  The gay and lesbian members of the legislature were particularly effective in their efforts.  And a special thank-you goes to Sen. Allan Kittleman, a Republican, for his vociferous and unyielding support for marriage equality.

I thank Josh Levin, campaign manager for Marylanders for Marriage Equality and his team, for ultimately getting the job done. I thank the coalition partners, such as, HRC, NAACP, SEIU, ACLU, Equality Maryland and PFLAG as well as leading clergy for their superb work and commitment. 

I thank all the volunteers and contributors who walked that extra mile.

I thank all those who began this fight and laid the groundwork for success.

And most of all, I thank you, the voters, for coming out to vote and making November 6, 2012 a historic milestone in the history of LGBT rights.

Revealing Their True Colors

I’ve been fighting for LGBT rights for over 30 years.  Over this timeframe, I have listened to an ever-shrinking pool of arguments against us—none of them convincing.  Most of these have been used in the struggle to obtain full marriage equality under the law.  While I do not doubt the sincerity of some of those who truly base their opposition on strong religious convictions, even their arguments have become weak.  For others, I suspect homophobia, plain and simple, as the reason for denying gays and lesbians the rights and protections afforded to heterosexual married couples. 

Many people are repulsed by gay folks: we’re dirty, sinful, promiscuous, predatory, child-molesting, and according to Reverend Robert Anderson of Colonial Baptist Church in Randallstown, “deserving of death.”   I wish there was a way to prove it, but I’m willing to bet that the vast majority of people who have voted throughout the U.S. over the years and will do so in Maryland and three other states this election vote against same-sex marriage because of homophobia.

Few will admit it, of course.  Yet even their biblical references from which they hide their true beliefs are suspect.  “Marriage has always been a union between one man and one woman.”  Not true.  King David had what, several hundred wives?  And concubines were common.  When it comes to traditional marriage, which tradition are you talking about?

Leviticus’ oft-quoted verse whereby man lying with another man is an abomination is a point that should be expanded.  Here is where people cherry-pick Scripture to justify their bigotry.  If homosexuality is a sin, so is eating pork and shellfish.  Right near where I live there are posters advertising a local church’s ham and oyster dinner.

The way I like to respond to those who love to talk about “sin” is that murder is a sin.  But murderers can get married.  I’ve never heard a legitimate response to that rhetorical jab.

Then there is the notion that marriage is intended to produce babies.  The problem is, other people have babies who aren’t married, and there are numerous couples who no longer have the ability to procreate or want to.  There is no push, however, to have their marriage licenses revoked.

We hear all the time that “same-sex marriage will destroy the institution.”  News flash: heterosexual couples are doing a fine job of that already with their 50 percent failure rate.  And in Massachusetts where same-sex marriage has existed longer than anywhere in the U.S., that state maintains the lowest divorce rate in the country. 

Furthermore, no one could come up with a single instance whereby a heterosexual couple split up because a gay or lesbian couple had their nuptials.  Thus, when they say that same-sex marriage threatens the institution or in the case of Ravens’ player Matt Birk’s weird assertion that same-sex marriage would “dilute” it, ask how?  I’m sure you won’t get a good answer, if at all.

“Marriage has never been redefined before,” we’re told.  Many cultures had defined marriage in alternative ways.  Until rather recently, marriage had been a business and property arrangement between the wife’s father and the husband.  And even more recently, Loving v. Virginia redefined marriage to allow people of different races to marry.

“Children need both a mother and a father.”  That has received more play now that the other arguments appear unpersuasive.  Most studies from reputable sources point out that children do better with two parents as opposed to one.  The findings do not reflect the gender of the parents. 

“Gays and lesbians can’t procreate so they try to recruit children.”  That B.S. isn’t worth the space to dignify such nonsense, but it was advanced recently and may have an effect.

The money shot: “If same-sex marriage is approved, children will be taught about it in schools.”  This is a favorite of the National Organization for Marriage, and the ad is already running here.  It is the opposition’s ace-in-the-hole when polls show growing support for marriage equality.  It worked in California the last weeks of the campaign over Prop 8 as well as in other states.  The message is designed to scare otherwise non-religious parents who have children in school.

Though I don’t personally object that children learn there is a diverse world out there, changing school curricula cannot be accomplished without input from parents and local school boards.  It is not done by laws that are enacted.

There are so many more but this is a sample of the rationale used against us past and present. 

The “love the sinner, hate the sin” mantra has been exposed.  Though the marriage debate has been framed by Derek McCoy and his Maryland Marriage Alliance as one in which gay people would be respected but should not be allowed to “redefine” marriage, he showed his true colors.

During a recent town hall at the Manna Bible Baptist Church in Baltimore, the aforementioned Rev. Anderson talked of how the Bible states that gays and their supporters are deserving of death. “If we don’t vote against it, than we are approving these things that are worthy of death,” said Anderson.  Seated next to the reverend was none other than Derek McCoy, nodding and muttering in agreement. 

It’s all recorded, and as much as McCoy dismisses it, the video doesn’t lie.  To no one’s surprise, Manna took it down.  McCoy, in defending Anderson’s comments said, “Supporting traditional marriage does not make anyone anti-gay.”

Yup, we’ve heard that line before.

Rep. Cummings Could Make the Difference



Rep. Elijah Cummings

We are fast approaching the November 6 election and all that goes with it.  

Included among several ballot initiatives is the referendum on marriage equality.  The actual language for Question 6 reads as follows: “Establishes that Maryland’s civil marriage laws allow gay and lesbian couples to obtain a civil marriage license, provided they are not otherwise prohibited from marrying; protects clergy from having to perform any particular marriage ceremony in violation of their religious beliefs; affirms that each religious faith has exclusive control over its own theological doctrine regarding who may marry within that faith; and provides that religious organizations and certain related entities are not required to provide goods, services, or benefits to an individual related to the celebration or promotion of marriage in violation of their religious beliefs.”

Both sides are amping up the message war that will befall us up to Election Day.  They will have to scratch out limited air time to compete with the gambling question, political candidate ads and the ubiquitous Luna commercials.

Polls have indicated positive support for defending the Civil Marriage Protection Act that was signed into law in March.  One would be wise, however, to view the poll numbers with caution, if not skepticism, as people tend to respond in “politically correct” ways when social issues are put before them.

One thing is very clear: the African-American vote in Maryland is likely to be crucial on Question 6.  When California voters in 2008 upheld Proposition 8, which defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman, the conventional wisdom at the time incorrectly blamed black voters for the disappointing outcome.  It should be noted that African-Americans in California comprise less than 10 percent of the population; they did not have a significant impact on the result.  It was more generational.

In Maryland, it is expected that blacks will account for at least 25 percent of the voters, especially with an African-American president who is seeking reelection on the ballot.  Turnout will be high, so gaining support among African-Americans for marriage equality will be crucial here.

There are several reasons to be optimistic in the Maryland vote that were not evident in California four years ago.  There has been a discernible upward trending by the public over the past few years favoring same-sex marriage.  Perhaps significant here is President Obama’s public support for marriage equality.  Religious African-Americans may still not share the president’s views on this matter and will likely vote “No,” but non-religious blacks may be convinced on the merits of the fairness argument the president offered.

Moreover, the national NAACP led by its president Benjamin Jealous, also came out in favor of marriage equality that could have a reinforcing effect.

But as esteemed as these individuals and organizations are, especially in the African-American community, a more local official with a high level of respect and standing could be a difference-maker.  And that individual is Democratic Representative Elijah Cummings.

We need Rep. Cummings to step forward and support marriage equality.  Until now, he has stated he would not oppose the Maryland congressional delegation’s backing of marriage equality, but he has not joined the team.  He decided to leave the matter to the voters.

Rep. Cummings, who has represented Maryland’s 7^th Congressional District since 1996 covering Baltimore City and parts of Howard County, left an opening, though.  In a statement dated June 27, he said, “Like many of my friends and colleagues, I have been on a journey when it comes to supporting same-sex marriage. When you come from a religious background where you’ve been taught all your life that marriage is between a man and a woman, and then you find yourself looking at how a society is changing and how many in your own community are seeing the issue in terms of fairness and equality, it makes you re-think your position.”

If anyone ever attended an event where Rep. Cummings is a speaker, you will know how this man is filled with passion, displays great oratory gifts, and could coax a mountain lion off a mountain.   He also has strong ties to his church, which could be influential among religious voters. 

It would be a difficult decision for him, especially in light of his solid relationships with African-American pastors.   But Rep. Cummings also has plenty of political cover.  For one thing, he has a safe seat whereby he has garnered no less than three quarters of the vote in any election. 

The President of the United States, who had supported civil unions as does Rep. Cummings, backs same-sex marriage completing his evolution on the issue.  The national Democratic Party included marriage equality as part of the 2012 platform.  Maryland’s governor Martin O’Malley has emerged as a strong advocate.  So have both Senators and most of Maryland’s congressional caucus.  Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake has been supportive even before she held the position.  And the list goes on.

Leading civil rights icons have lent their support as well.  Among the most noteworthy was the late Coretta Scott King.  “Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism,” she said... “in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood.”

Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), a long-time soldier in the battle for civil rights, is another staunch supporter of marriage equality as are the Rev. Jesse Jackson and the Rev. Al Sharpton—admired leaders in the African-American community.

And former NAACP head Julian Bond recently penned an op-ed in the Afro-American where he argued that marriage equality in Maryland is good for black gay and lesbian couples.  “There are thousands of African Americans - our brothers and sisters, cousins, neighbors, and co-workers – who are gay, in committed relationships, and want to marry,” Mr. Bond points out.

Rep. Cummings would be the perfect person to join in support.  An individual of his stature persuading people that marriage equality is right would go a long way towards defending the bill in November’s referendum.

To contact Rep. Elijah Cummings, visit here. 

Let's Not Get Carried Away

A recent wave of positive events has added momentum to the effort to defeat a near-certain referendum on the Civil Marriage Protection Act that was signed into law in March.  Not the least of which was President Obama’s offering public support for marriage for same-sex couples.  That was followed by the NAACP’s endorsement of same.  Then Colin Powell added a powerful voice to the cause.  And rapper Jay-Z also weighed in with a strong message. 

These developments are seen by the pro-equality forces as huge steps in helping to mitigate opposition within the African-American community in Maryland given that this support was expressed by well-respected, influential individuals and organizations.

Adding to this string of welcome developments was a Public Policy Poll released May 24 and commissioned by Marylanders for Marriage Equality that revealed an astonishing 20 percent margin—57 percent to 37 percent—favoring the marriage law in Maryland. 

In a memo, PPP pollster Tom Jensen notes there has been a “major shift in opinion about gay marriage among black voters [in Maryland].” Fifty-five percent of African Americans now say they would vote for the law and only 36% oppose it. These numbers have essentially flipped since PPP conducted an identical poll in March.”

Rather than viewing these numbers through rose-colored lenses, however, they should be examined with caution.  Even if the results are accurate, which would be great news, let’s not get carried away.

You may wonder, why put the damp cloth over what appears to be an outstanding and historic few weeks in the quest for marriage equality?  Simply put, we’ve been led down this primrose path before with favorable polling data and we had our hearts broken.  It behooves us to learn why.

Anybody who is associated with Marylanders for Marriage Equality and all other advocates and supporters should make the Prop 8 Report  required reading.  This in-depth analysis of the failed Prop 8 campaign in California is instructive, and it would be foolish and irresponsible to ignore the lessons provided. 

You see, in the equivalent period before the decisive voting took place in 2008, the polling numbers were similarly favorable.  The “No on 8” group (pro-marriage equality) raised  tons of money (over $43 million) and had a record-setting number of volunteers (51,000), so the playing field was level even considering the influences of the Mormon Church, the Roman Catholic Church and others pushing the “Yes on 8” vote.

So what went wrong?  Many erroneously blamed African-American voters who turned out in large numbers to vote for Barack Obama and are generally opposed to same-sex marriage..  But while that group did support Yes on 8 by a decent majority, they are not the principal reason for the disappointing failure.  In fact, African-Americans only comprise about 6 percent of California’s population.  In Maryland it’s close to 30 percent.

According to this report, a large number of people—regardless of race—who claimed they supported marriage equality in the months prior to November 2008 changed positions at the end.  In three-fourths of the cases, those who shifted were parents who have children under age 18 living at home.  The report states, “When parents hear that their kids are in danger, even if it’s a lie some of them believe it—particularly when the lie largely goes unanswered.” 

This swing from supporting marriage equality to voting for Prop 8 occurred several weeks before the election—following a series of TV ads that charged that schools would expose kids to inappropriate information about gay people.  This is the key weapon for marriage equality opponents and why they have won every state ballot measure in the past: scare families that children in school will be taught about the evils of homosexuality.   And there was a two and a half week delay in rebutting the ads by the No on 8 side—a costly tactical misstep—allowing the lies to sink in.

Accordingly, polling taken today does not necessarily presage similar results in the future.  When our highly motivated opponents use their proven tactics of lies and exaggeration—and they certainly will—people could be influenced to change their minds.  And conservative religious leaders will continue to use their pulpits to hammer away at the one “sin” (ignoring all the others) and framing marriage in biblical terms.  The current rosy picture we are witnessing today could be quickly crushed.

On the bright side, the Prop 8 campaign was waged without any national leaders like Barack Obama and Colin Powell expressing support for marriage equality. Their recent pronouncements could make a substantial difference with those voters in Maryland who are soft on the issue and are not tied to deep religious convictions.

But it’s critical that the folks at Marylanders for Marriage Equality do not fall into the same trap that wrecked other states’ efforts.  They should not interpret these positive news developments and poll results as a juggernaut of support.  They cannot afford to take their eye off the prize. 

Fundraising and a solid ground game is crucial.  And we must engage and galvanize our own community to be part of the effort.  There should be no perception that we have this in the bag.  

But equally as important, these leaders should read that Prop 8 report, learn from past mistakes, and use that to formulate a blueprint for this campaign.  As American philosopher George Santayana wrote, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Good things are happening now, but complacency can be a killer.