Gay Rights are Civil Rights

By Steve Charing

We have just commemorated the 45^th anniversary of the three Selma (Alabama) marches. They took place in an effort to gain voting rights for black citizens. Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. was among several prominent civil rights leaders to help organize the marches.

The first of these events occurred on March 7, 1965 and resulted in "Bloody Sunday" when 600 civil rights marchers were attacked by local and state police using billy clubs and tear gas. The third march began on March 21 and lasted 5 days along the 54-mile route to Montgomery.

In retrospect, these marches provided the emotional and political peak of the civil rights movement. The marchers endured the violence to make a statement and opened the country's eyes.

At one time the U.S. Constitution regarded black people as three-fifths of a complete person—the core argument (along with Scripture) to justify slavery, segregation, disenfranchisement and discrimination. While the Constitution had been amended to eradicate that dehumanizing mistake and subsequent federal civil rights laws have been passed, the struggles for African-Americans continue.

It is sad, however, that 45 years later, we find many African-Americans averse to recognizing the struggle by LGBT Americans for equal treatment as a quest for civil rights. Indeed, there are differences. For one thing, lgbt folks do not constitute a race as African-Americans do. We are a swath of the general population—perhaps 5 percent—that covers all races, all religions, all ethnic origins, all socio-economic backgrounds, all political beliefs, and so on.

But LGBT folks can be fired from their jobs for simply being who they are in 38 of our states. Gays and lesbians cannot serve openly in our Armed Forces, yet we have been willing to die for our country. Gays and lesbians cannot legally marry except in 5 states and the District of Columbia. Moreover, the federal government by dint of the loathsome Defense of Marriage Act does not recognize in any fashion the partnership of same-sex couples. And we cannot walk the streets of any place other than a "gay ghetto" hand-in-hand without the risk of a baseball bat being smacked against the back of our head.

If there is any group that is still lacking civil rights, we are it.

Nonetheless, many African-Americans do not see it that way. Delegate Emmett Burns who unsuccessfully attempted to get a bill passed during this year's legislative session to preempt Attorney General Gansler's opinion that allows Maryland to recognize same-sex marriages from outside the state is a good example. During the public hearing for the defeated bill Burns said, "I would not have been able to sit here as a member of the General Assembly during segregation based on the color of my skin. But gays and lesbians could…I cannot hide my color…To say the two are on equal par is anathema to me."

That's the thinking: blacks cannot hide their color but gays can hide. The question begs, why should we have to? In a nation whose Declaration of Independence explicitly says all men are created equal, why then do we need to hide who we are just to have a seat at the table? The mere suggestion of this by Burns and others demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of what civil rights mean.

Coretta Scott King, John Lewis and Julian Bond, just to name three venerated African-American civil rights leaders, have far more stature in the civil rights movement than Emmett Burns. They know the true meaning of civil rights, and they had no problem connecting the struggle for lgbt rights as civil rights. Ms. King spoke for her husband when she said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

John Lewis, who fought alongside Dr. King during the black civil rights battles said, "I've heard the reasons for opposing civil marriage for same-sex couples. Cut through the distractions, and they stink of the same fear, hatred, and intolerance I have known in racism and in bigotry."

And Julian Bond said, "That's why when I am asked, 'Are gay rights civil rights?' my answer is always, 'Of course they are.'"

Emmett Burns dismisses the words of these civil rights icons by snapping "they don't speak for me." Those other African-Americans who refuse to accept our quest for equality as a civil rights movement may have forgotten that gays and lesbians stood shoulder-to-shoulder with blacks in marches and in efforts to register black voters so that they would not be disenfranchised. They risked their lives for the cause of civil rights.

“We had marched with Martin Luther King, seven of us from the Mattachine Society of Washington in 1963," said gay pioneer Jack Nichols. "And from that time on, we’d always had our own dream about a march of similar proportions.”

According to Equality Forum, openly gay Bayard Rustin was the lead organizer of the March on Washington in August 1963. In October 1963, openly gay James Baldwin and Dick Gregory with his wife were the first nationally prominent blacks to protest for voters rights in Selma.

We may or may not need marches to demonstrate that we're in a civil rights struggle. To succeed, however, we must seek the acknowledgement by those who have been through the same battles. We need them at our side now. Equality is civil rights—no matter the color, no matter what.

www.SteveCharing.blogspot.com.

Will Our Wedding Bells Ever Ring in Maryland?

As we witness the joy of numerous gay and lesbian couples getting married in nearby Washington, D.C., we should congratulate our brothers and sisters for this monumental achievement. May their marriages be filled with all the love and commitment that their unions represent.

Another high note was Attorney General Doug Gansler's opinion last month that stated Maryland should recognize the marriages of same-sex couples that are legal in other jurisdictions. The timing was perfect: Maryland's recognition of those marriages outside the Free State came one week before the day the D.C. same-sex marriage licenses could be obtained.

This opinion was eagerly anticipated since last May. We expected a favorable outcome despite pressure from opponents because of Maryland's long-standing tradition of recognizing marriages from out-of-state that would otherwise not be valid here.

Accordingly, myself and my husband Bob (don't need to say "partner" anymore) had wed in Massachusetts last summer. Friends Stefan Freed and Sean McGovern married in Connecticut. Delegate Heather Mizeur (D-Montgomery) and wife Deb did so in California. And Morgan Sheets and Rae Meneses tied the knot in Vermont.

Morgan Meneses-Sheets, as you probably know, is the executive director of Equality Maryland and is spearheading the effort to bring marriage equality to Maryland.

Scores of other Maryland couples have married in those states as well as in Canada, South Africa and countries in Europe that allow same-sex marriage with the hope that they would be recognized by the state government here. And now we can expect hundreds, if not thousands of couples to make the short trip to D.C. to follow suit.

In doing so, they will spend a boatload of dollars for wedding-related expenses, such as receptions, flowers, music, hotel rooms, restaurants, and gifts that could have been spent here to lift the ailing economy. Washington, D.C. will have reaped the rewards instead. The nonpartisan Williams Institute of UCLA had calculated that same-sex marriage in Maryland would result in over a $2 million annual boost to the economy.

Now that Gansler's opinion has been released, the logical question is, will marriages involving same-sex couples ever take place in Maryland, and if so, when?

Although Maryland is a "blue" state with a 2 to 1 Democratic identity and has huge majorities in both legislative chambers with a Democratic governor, it tends to be somewhat conservative on social issues. Aaron C. Davis opined in the Washington Post that the conservative Democrats are impeding progress on same-sex marriage here.

"Democrats are hesitant to embrace many progressive social policies, lest they upset the state's many Catholics, evangelicals and others with deep religious convictions," he wrote.

We have found that resistance among Democratic legislators who are either ministers themselves or who have strong ties to the black churches in and around Baltimore City and Prince George's county. Senator Anthony C. Muse from Prince George's, for example, consistently stands in the way of the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act from moving out of the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee to the floor for a debate and a vote. He applied the same headlock to a bill that would grant transgendered individuals the same protections from discrimination that other citizens enjoy.

Norman R. Stone, Jr., a conservative Democrat from Baltimore County is another nemesis to the lgbt community. He is a sponsor of the Senate bill that would do what Del. Emmet Burns' bill failed to accomplish in the House and that is to prevent Maryland from recognizing those same-sex marriages that Gansler's opinion would allow.

But the real roadblock is perennial Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller (D-Calvert). He mentioned retirement not that long ago, but the power he commands is too gratifying to simply hand over to a lesser being.

Miller constructs the committees. He eschews controversial issues on the Senate floor. He hates filibusters, and he doesn't want to do anything that would erode the Democratic majority in the Senate. So, if Mike Miller does not want same-sex marriage to progress, it won't, regardless of the occupant in the Governor's Mansion.

On the day that Gansler issued his opinion, Miller reassured the press that "gay marriage" is not legal in Maryland, and that will not change "anytime soon."

"This has to stop," says lgbt activist Dr. Dana Beyer." If our state is going to prosper, the only way to change that leadership is to elect real progressives with the courage to inspire and mobilize that progressive majority to get the job done. A progressive legislature will elect progressive leadership."

Dr. Beyer is right on the money. We have to actively try to run and support gay or gay-friendly candidates in Democratic districts where there are conservative incumbents. Equality Maryland is amassing a sizable PAC. I hope they direct those funds to unseat the Muses and the Stones of the legislature. The PAC money ought to help gay-friendly Democratic candidates gain winnable seats, such as in District 9A (Western Howard County), which are currently occupied by two anti-gay Republicans.

Moreover, Equality Maryland needs to maintain an ongoing official dialogue with the Governor and legislative leaders. Election year is all the more reason to keep the pressure on because as soon as the 2010 General Assembly is completed, these politicians will not only be trolling for votes but donations as well. Yes, we do have leverage.

We must also keep our LGBT youth and allies engaged and not discouraged. They will be replacing the older, more conservative voters and the key to eventual victory.

And Equality Maryland should continue its excellent work in building coalitions with gay-supportive clergy, African-Americans, and other groups around the state to mobilize public opinion in our favor.

If all these things come to pass, it will just be a matter of time.

www.SteveCharing.blogspot.com.

Same-sex marriages have only strenthened the institution

Letter appearing in the March 11, 2010 issue of the Howard County Times/Columbia Flier:

Bravo to Diane Brown for her perceptive column on the comparison of the historical battle for interracial marriages with the current struggle for same-sex marriage (“Racial restrictions on marriage seem silly now; same-sex bans will too,” March 4)!

Maryland Attorney Douglas Gansler’s legal opinion whereby the state can recognize the lawful marriages of same-sex couples performed in other jurisdictions was most welcome and is a good first step towards achieving marriage equality in the Free State.

In anticipation of this historic opinion, we decided to celebrate our 30 years together and get married in a civil ceremony in Massachusetts last summer. Massachusetts, as you know, was the first state in the U.S. to legalize same-sex marriage in 2004. Despite the fiery reaction from religious conservatives warning that the institution of marriage would be ruined as a result, we find that the institution was only strengthened when same-sex couples’ unions were recognized by the state’s government. Massachusetts maintains its ranking of having the lowest divorce rate in the U.S., and that rate actually further declined since 2004.

People should understand that the union of loving, committed same-sex couples recognized by the government is not a threat to marriage. Divorce, adultery, poverty, domestic violence, drug and alcohol abuse and children born out of wedlock are the real threats to the institution of marriage.

When we returned from Massachusetts to announce the news, all our straight neighbors and friends embraced our decision to become a family, shared in our joy and wished us the best in the future together. The support we received was extremely warm and sincere, and quite surprising, given the amount of effort spent by opponents of marriage equality to instill fear in the public. They didn’t bemoan this event or see their own marriages in jeopardy as a result. They understood that love is love, and that’s the way it should be.

Now with Mr. Gansler’s opinion, we can receive the same rights, benefits and responsibilities conferred on other couples in Maryland with the hope that in the near future same-sex couples would not have to leave the state to have their love and commitment recognized by the government.

Steve Charing

Bob Ford

http://www.stevecharing.blogspot.com/

Luke Scott: Gunslinger

I was amazed to read in the Baltimore Sun on Feb. 27 that Orioles DH-OF Luke Scott is upset that Major League Baseball has implemented a ban on guns in the locker rooms. "I don't think everybody should pay for the mistakes of a few," he said.

This is insane. Maybe I'm just an old fashioned guy. I never liked the idea of the designated hitter. I never cared for games played on artificial surface. I hate indoor baseball. And I detest the disappearance of Sunday and holiday doubleheaders.

It's bad enough that baseball players are paid in the tens of millions but teachers who actually contribute to the betterment of society are woefully underpaid. But poor Luuuuuuuuuke (as O's fans call him) can't have his gun to go along with his bat and glove.

He comes off as an amiable chap, but I'm sure he's not a proponent of same-sex marriage or other progressive issues. Luke Scott is a Bible-carrying, finger-pointing-to-the-sky player who prays for base hits. Unfortunately for Luke and the O's, God fails to answer his prayers after the All-Star break. All Luke's swings do during his prolonged slumps is fan the fans on a hot, humid day at the Yard.

But Luke wants to carry his gun.

He mentioned the possibility, albeit "unlikely," that terrorists could somehow breach security and enter the locker room. Does anyone with the slightest hint of intelligence truly feel that a terrorist with a bomb strapped to his body would enter the Orioles locker room and blow up a stadium that is one-third filled watching the O's take on those dastardly KC Royals?

Does anyone really believe that such terrorist(s) who are about to blow themselves into the Inner Harbor would be deterred by Cowboy Luke Scott reaching into his gym bag to find the weapon?

What else is he afraid of—his teammates mugging him?

Four years ago, when Scott was a member of the Houston Astros, he told ESPN, "An athlete gets paid a lot of money. And someone who is after that, a thief, a mugger or someone who steals from people, they are taking a chance with the law that if they get caught, they are going to jail or face some other problem."

With a broad smile, he added, "In my case, you are going to get shot."

There have been way too many gun incidents in professional sports with suspended Wizzards' star Gilbert Arenas the most recent. The ban on guns by MLB makes common sense. Luke Scott feels he is being punished. I cannot recall one incident where a player in any professional sport was robbed at gunpoint in a locker room.

Like I said, I'm old fashioned. I used to believe that major league ball players and professional athletes of all sports should be role models for kids. Sadly, in Luke Scott's case, the players are now the kids.

Photo courtesy of ESPN.

'A Good First Step'

AG issues opinion that Md. may recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages.

By Steve Charing

After 9 months of anticipation, Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler (pictured) issued an opinion on February 24 that says that Maryland may recognize the valid marriages of same-sex couples performed in other states or foreign countries. Senator Richard Madaleno (D-Montgmery) had requested the opinion last May.

"The Attorney General's opinion simply states that Maryland law recognizes marriages of couples who married out of state, pursuant to Maryland comity law," Madaleno said. "While this is welcome news for those couples who were legally married in one of the growing number of states with equality in marriage, nothing in the Attorney General’s opinion changes the fact that same-sex couples cannot obtain marriage licenses in Maryland."

Madaleno added, "This important opinion is consistent with the long-standing tradition of legal recognition of valid marriages entered into in other states. And it is a positive development that will mean greater security, stability and peace of mind for legally married same-sex spouses whose marriages should rightfully be honored here at home."

Morgan Maneses-Sheets, the executive director of Equality Maryland, explained that the opinion is a positive development and provides "momentum for full marriage equality in Maryland."

“The Attorney General’s opinion is also consistent with Maryland’s public policy, which has steadily supported increasing legal protections for same-sex couples and their families," Meneses-Sheets said in a statement. "In recent years, the legislature has granted approximately 15 protections of legal marriage to same-gender couples in the areas of medical decision-making and inheritance."

Elbridge James, director of the Maryland Black Families Alliance, an organization consisting largely of straight African-Americans allies, hailed the opinion as "a good, solid first step" in the overall effort to achieve full marriage equality in Maryland.

Questions arose as to how the opinion will be implemented and if it could survive a legal challenge by opponents.

"The opinion is very important, well-reasoned and comprehensive that out-of-state [same-sex] couples are entitled to respect," said David Rocah, staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland, during a teleconference call with the media. He explained it should successfully withstand a potential challenge in the Maryland Court of Appeals.

Rocah indicated that the implementation of the policy throughout the state may take time in some instances and in others it may be simpler. "As chief legal officer for the state, executive agencies rely on [Gansler] for advice."

Governor Martin O’Malley issued a statement following the release of the opinion. “I want to thank Attorney General Gansler for his hard work and thoughtful consideration. Having reviewed the 45-page opinion, we will be guided by the Attorney General’s thorough analysis and legal advice on this matter.

"I am confident that the Attorney General and his office will provide all necessary advice to State agencies on how to comply with the law, and I expect all State agencies to work with the Attorney General’s office to ensure compliance with the law.”

Maneses-Sheets was on a whirlwind mission Wednesday to publicly tout the opinion on TV, radio, and to the print media. She also organized the teleconference call and spoke at a rally later that evening.

At the rally about 50 gathered in front of the First Unitarian Church in downtown Baltimore to hear speakers applaud the opinion and assure the crowd that full marriage equality in Maryland is the ultimate goal. A serenade of honking horns from passing motorists in support of the rally's participants was heard throughout.

That venue was ironically the site of a rally in September 2007 under sadder circumstances. It followed the Maryland Court of Appeals' upholding Maryland state law that bans same-sex couples from marrying.

Opponents of the opinion have already mobilized. A bill that would prevent a pro-marriage recognition opinion from being implemented in Maryland was defeated in a House committee in early February. But the Senate version is still in play. And long-time lgbt nemesis Donald Dwyer (R-Anne Arundel) has filed impeachment papers against Gansler.

Another foe of marriage equality Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller emphasized to the media that the opinion does not mean that "gay marriage" would take place in Maryland, and "will not anytime soon."

Testimony Against HB 90

Below is the text of my testimony before the Maryland House Judiciary Committee on Jan. 28, 2010. The proposed bill would prevent Maryland from recognizing the valid same-sex marriages performed in other states or foreign countries.

Testimony: HB 90

January 27, 2010

Thank you Chairman Vallario and Vice Chair Rosenberg and your colleagues for the opportunity to speak to you this afternoon.

In 4 short days, my partner and I will be celebrating the 30^th anniversary of our relationship. With a divorce rate hovering around 50%, think of the small percentage of heterosexual couples making it that far. Even though there had been no marriage document to bind us, we remained together this long because of our undying love for one another, our endless devotion and deep commitment to our relationship. In every manner except what the State law says, we are a couple.

And there are thousands of gay and lesbian couples and families throughout Maryland who share this commitment and the quest to be legally recognized. I cannot understand how providing us the rights, protections, benefits and responsibilities that an otherwise married couple receive is against the public policy of the State and its interests. Indeed, that is the purported rationale for this heinous and discriminatory bill, HB 90.

Bob and I are good, law abiding citizens. We've worked hard for many years; pay our taxes—hundreds of thousands of dollars in State taxes, in fact, during the course of our relationship. We have volunteered for years in our community and elsewhere and at our local hospital. Our heterosexual neighbors, co-workers and friends love us like family. I was proud to serve our country in the military and performed service in the civilian sector for over 30 years.

Nonetheless, in the eyes of the State, we are considered second-class citizens who are not worthy of marriage recognition here. We are not murderers, rapists, thieves, child molesters, arsonists or drug dealers. Yet that group of people has one common denominator: they have the right to marry and be recognized in Maryland as such. We can't. Is that in the best the interest of the State?

This past summer Bob and I traveled to Massachusetts to get married. We did not "sashay up to the altar" as Del. Burns would have you believe. We had a brief, dignified secular ceremony officiated by a Justice of the Peace in Provincetown—our first and favorite vacation place.

Having our union recognized in Massachusetts did not result in the catastrophic destruction of the institution as the opponents of marriage equality predict. In fact, thousands of same-sex marriage ceremonies have been performed in the state since it became legal in 2004, and guess what? Massachusetts maintains its standing as the state with the lowest divorce rate in the country. To my knowledge, not one heterosexual couple ended their marriage because of a marriage between gay men or lesbians.

While we enjoyed the sentimental and emotional connection of being married in Provincetown, we truly want to have our marriage recognized in our home state—the state we love. In every respect, we are no different from legally sanctioned married couples except that we are financially disadvantaged from the lack of government recognition.

And we want to honor our relationship in the greatest way our society has to offer, by making a public commitment to stand together in good times and bad, through all the joys and challenges family life brings.

Thank you again for this opportunity.

Window Closing Fast

Changing political climate does not bode well for LGBT progress.

By Steve Charing

Back in March 2009 when President Obama's approval rating was still gaudy, I wrote that we had a window of opportunity to secure key legislative LGBT victories. ENDA, the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," repeal of DOMA and the passage of a comprehensive hate crimes bill (recently enacted) all seemed within grasp.

The President's popularity, his campaign promises, and a more lgbt-friendly Democratic-controlled Congress created the formula for potentially historic victories in the lgbt arena. The time was right.

I also opined that we needed to seize this window of opportunity now because things can change in a hurry. In March I wrote:

"If history has taught us anything, nothing lasts forever. Mr. Obama could stumble as the economy tumbles more. He could be accused of allowing “bonus-gate” to erode an already low trajectory for consumer confidence. There could be an international crisis—somewhere, anywhere. Patience could easily wear thin. .. Anything can happen that could derail this presidency."

And so it did.

Much of the country now seems angry at President Obama and his policies. They rail against a 10% unemployment rate because he couldn't wave a magic wand to instantly fix the bleeding economy he had inherited from 8 years of Bush-Cheney. He was stuck with 2 wars, a healthcare crisis that needed mending, and giant corporations and financial institutions about to go under that would have led to a worldwide depression had there not been government intervention. In fact, had such calamities taken place, we'd be at 40% unemployment or worse.

Nonetheless, people are angry and fed up. This was evidenced in the Massachusetts debacle. The anti-incumbent fears are growing—nationally and locally—which is likely to result in a slaughter for Democrats in November unless there are dramatic improvements.

While Democrats in Congress (and the President) have been slow to act on LGBT initiatives due to other priorities, such as the economy, healthcare and national security, imagine the prospects of success with the GOP either in control or in a position to squash any progressive legislation. The Republicans win on "Gays, God and Guns."

Yes, the window is closing real fast—nationally and locally.

In Annapolis, the anti-incumbent environment will indeed affect how lawmakers react during the current General Assembly; therefore, the prospects for LGBT successes are just as dim. There is absolutely no chance whatsoever that the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act will be passed in this session even if brought to a vote.

This bill, as is the case of the measure that would offer protections based on gender expression and identity, has been tied up in the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee the past few years because Senate President Thomas V. "Mike" Miller wants to maintain, if possible, a super majority of Democrats and is loathe to bring additional controversial measures to the floor.

Moreover, lawmakers who are squeamish about marriage equality are emboldened by the actions of their counterparts in New York and New Jersey, not to mention the voters in Maine that prevented same-sex marriage from becoming a reality. They will not stick their necks out on this hot button issue. Not this year. They have enough on their plates as they grapple with the state's severe budget deficit and the political posturing that accompanies such debate.

Same-sex marriage is not an issue that will see the light of day, despite the best efforts of activists. It's simply a casualty of the political reality on the ground.

In November all delegates and senators are up for re-election, as is the governor. There could be major changes in the composition of each chamber, and there is a possibility that Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr. (or his wife Kendal) could move back into the mansion. Who would have thought that after 2006? There is an angry electorate, so anything is possible.

That doesn't mean we should give up. Far from it. We still have a chance, albeit a slight one, to make progress in 2010. But that window is closing fast in Washington as well as in Annapolis.

www.stevecharing.blogspot.com

2010: A Rebound Year?

2009 was a roller coaster ride for the lgbt community—both nationally and locally. We began the year optimistically with a new president being inaugurated who had declared himself to be a fierce advocate for LGBT rights.

Later, hope turned into anger by many because of the slow pace of ending discrimination in the military, in the workplace and partnership recognition. Tens of thousands took to the streets of DC to express their impatience and frustration.

We did witness some important victories, however, in New England, Iowa and Washington D.C. that offered us hope here in Maryland with respect to marriage equality. The election of a lesbian mayor in Houston confirmed that competence will win out regardless of sexual orientation. The signing into law of a Federal hate crimes bill—the first significant piece of federal legislation that protects the lgbt community—was monumental.

But there were also those bitter disappointments in Maine and New York. The outcome in Maine clearly proved we are not ready to win marriage equality at the ballot box.

And the news of high-profile murders and suicides linked to anti-gay hate and bullying tempered any victories. It demonstrates that there still are some who hate us; we clearly have a way to go.

Maryland didn’t shine either. While some welcome inheritance tax relief for same-sex couples was achieved during the 2009 General Assembly, more significant legislation to protect transgendered individuals and a bill to legalize same-sex marriage never saw the light of day.

We witnessed the demise of esteemed long-time LGBT institutions like the Washington Blade and Lambda Rising bookstore towards the end of the year. And, sadly, it is possible that others may follow.

As up and down as 2009 was, the energy and passion, particularly from lgbt youth and allies, could help make 2010 historic. We are confident that the Employment Non-Discrimination Act has a good chance of passage in 2010 and that concrete steps towards repealing "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" are a real possibility.

Although we do not expect to see marriage equality legislated during Maryland’s 2010 General Assembly, we are calling for our readers and the community as a whole to press lawmakers to ensure that a bill that adds gender identity and expression to the state’s nondiscrimination law and the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act escape the shadows of a committee and make it to the floor so that a full, vigorous debate can take place.

That process can begin during Lobby Day on February 8 when there will be an opportunity to tell your personal stories directly to lawmakers. And it can continue by inundating the responsible committee members’ offices with, letters, phone calls and e-mails.

We also call on Equality Maryland, the state’s largest LGBT civil rights organization, to hold substantive meetings with the Governor and legislative leaders prior to the session to help pave the way for these initiatives.

The fact that 2010 is an election year should not stymie these efforts. When IS the right time?

We should also keep the pressure on Congress and the President to make good on promises yet at the same time recognize that our LGBT-related priorities must compete with the economy and national security.

So, it will be up to all of us to help make 2010 a rebound year that could steady the wild ride of 2009. Have a happy, healthy and safe 2010.

http://www.stevecharing.blogspot.com/

NY Defeat on Marriage Offers Another Lesson

By Steve Charing

As we lose at the ballot box and in state legislatures, we pick up some valuable lessons in our quest for marriage equality in Maryland.

Legislators in Maine earlier in the year approved same-sex marriage and the governor signed it into law, only to have it undone by referendum. That vote in November stripped marriage equality from the state’s LGBT couples. From this we learned that winning marriage equality at the ballot box is a long way off, if it ever happens, and it should be avoided at all costs.

Even with fewer resources (as was the case in Maine) our opponents seem to effectively launch smear campaigns against LGBT couples. Through the use of advertisements, letter writing and e-mail blasts, they lie with impunity concerning our relationships. They rally religious institutions to preach against us. They scare neighbors. They scare educators. Ultimately they scare the voters who buy into this hooey. And since there are far more straight people than LGBT folks and allies, we would be well served to avoid allowing minority rights to be put to a popular vote. The numbers aren’t there yet for us.

Where do we go? Ballot initiatives are out of the question. The judiciary, sensitive to the fictitious label of “activist judges,” is resistant to accepting individual lawsuits plus the legal machinations of these can take eons.

We move on to state legislatures, which, in theory, reflect the attitudes and positions of the electorate. Lawmakers are political animals and are sensitive to the movement of the political winds.

When we were losing the image war in 2004 over gay marriage, politicians—including most Democrats—jumped out of the way as if a wayward bus was driving on the sidewalk. We lost every ballot measure that election and gave politicians the cover to avoid the subject.

Things started to improve slightly as the experience in Massachusetts—the first state to legalize same-sex marriage—proved that the predicted destruction of civilization failed to materialize.

In New York, it seemed that we were on the precipice of adding another state to the five whom have seen the light. The state’s Assembly voted several times in favor of legalizing marriage for same-sex couples. But a handful of Democrats in the state Senate changed their minds and voted against the bill. By a vote of 24-38, the Senate killed the measure that Gov. Paterson was eager to sign into law.

Of course, no Republican voted for marriage equality and proponents of same-sex marriage had counted on the eight Dems who bailed. This defeat occurred despite a recent Marist College poll showed that 51 percent of New York voters support legalizing same-sex marriage while 42 percent opposed it.

Following the vote on December 2, Alan Van Capelle, executive director of the Empire Pride Agenda who pushed for the bill said they now have a road map for 2010. “We certainly know who are our friends. We certainly go to bed tonight knowing where our support is, and that’s a victory,” he said.

And that’s our lesson.

In Maryland we have been completely stymied by the fact that the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act and its predecessor bill has yet to make it through the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee. This, despite the fact we have a Democratic governor, Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate and an overwhelming majority of Democrats in each chamber. That committee has also been responsible for applying a stranglehold on transgender protection legislation.

By keeping the marriage bill as well as the transgender measure bottled up in committee, we are deprived of an up-and-down vote to determine who our friends—and our enemies—really are.

Those close to the legislative process believe that Senate President Thomas V. “Mike” Miller wants to keep it that way because he is loathe to see such a potentially contentious and divisive bill make it to the floor.

But we need to help shake it loose during the 2010 General Assembly, which will begin next month. As a community, we must support Equality Maryland’s efforts to free the bill from being held hostage by the Judicial Proceedings Committee.

We will be told that it is an election year and little will happen on the marriage front because of it. That song is getting old. Because it IS an election year, there is all the more reason to put pressure on the lawmakers, especially Democrats, as they will be trolling for contributions and ultimately votes later in the year.

Check out Equality Maryland's website to obtain contact information on the committees’ chairmen and members. We must barrage these people with phone calls and e-mails to make things happen.

Don’t depend on Equality Maryland to do all the heavy lifting.Grass roots organizing will be essential to accomplish our mission. At the very least, we must push for these bills to leave the shadows of the committee and make its way on the floors of the Senate and House so that the spotlight can shine on the legislators who must go on record with a vote.

That should be our immediate strategy and a lesson well learned from N.Y.

www.SteveCharing.blogspot.com.

Going Rogue: Adam-Style

Was Adam Lambert’s performance at the AMA over the top or marketing genius?

By Steve Charing

We’re at the time of the year where we have earned the right to escape, albeit temporarily, from such weighty matters as Afghanistan, the economy, the vitriolic healthcare debate, and how Levi Johnston’s Playgirl photos disappointed. Instead, we will go light and examine the antics (or strategy) of the newest gay centerpiece, Adam Lambert.

As you probably know, the 27 year-old Californian was the runner-up in last year’s American Idol. Throughout the season Lambert mesmerized the audience and judges with his exceptional vocals and his flamboyant appearance (guyliner, sequins, black nail polish, etc.).

He tried to keep a public lid on his sexuality by not directly addressing the question lest homophobia do him in at the contest’s end. He wasn’t very good at that as photos of his kissing other males surfaced on the Internet. By the time the finale rolled around, Lambert was all but out to America. He made it "official" in a Rolling Stone interview following that show.

Alas, Adam lost to the bland but charming "safe" choice, Kris Allen. Although Lambert was arguably the most compelling performer ever to compete in the show’s eight seasons, he lost to Kris due to a combination of reasons with homophobia clearly at the forefront.

On the national tour virtually all the media’s attention and general buzz were directed towards Lambert, not the winner. That says more about the voting process than anything else and how the winner could seem more irrelevant than those contestants who had been eliminated. Case in point: Taylor Hicks the winner, Chris Daughtrey eliminated in Season 5.

At the recent American Music Awards, on the eve of his first release, For Your Entertainment, Lambert’s appearance was hyped throughout the evening until he finally emerged at the end of the otherwise banal show to perform the sexed-up title track from the album. Any lid Lambert attempted to keep on his sexuality during Idol was immediately blown off by a 100-mph wind gust.

With a back-up ensemble of scantily clad dancers of both genders and a clear S&M motif throughout, Lambert, wearing a silvery suit with spikes on his left shoulder led two male dancers by a leash. He simulated oral sex with another dancer, and (gasp!) he kissed his straight male keyboardist right on the lips. Lambert also stumbled on the stage during the number but recovered seamlessly. That stumble, however, was completely overshadowed by the suggestive moves during the song.

The AP reported 1,500 complaints to ABC from viewers over Lambert’s antics, which the network characterized as "moderate." And the network’s Good Morning America cancelled his appearance the next day.

Lambert was taken aback by the fuss.

"It's a shame because I think that there's a double standard going on in the entertainment community right now," Lambert told Rolling Stone after the show. "Female performers have been doing this for years -- pushing the envelope about sexuality -- and the minute a man does it, everybody freaks out. We're in 2009; it's time to take risks, be a little more brave, time to open people's eyes, and if it offends them, then maybe I'm not for them."

Adam Lambert is right on. Back in 2003, Britney Spears, Madonna and Christina Aguilera stuck their tongues in each other's mouths at the MTV awards but didn’t get much protest from the viewers. Women kissing does not elicit the "ewwws" as men kissing does for sure.

And gay men are a whole different category altogether.

In October when straight Mormon Donny Osmond (eventual winner) planted a kiss on the cheek of ABC’s Dancing With the Stars gay judge Bruno Tonioli and suggested more out of the camera’s view in an embrace and a dip, there was no ostensible brushback from the viewers. It was seen as a joke. But when the gay man kisses another guy, the earth falls off its axis.

Lambert performed on CBS’ Late Night with David Letterman three days later. He closed the show with a sterling but non-controversial performance of Whataya Want From Me.

On a night at the AMA that included a flesh-colored bodysuit worn by Lady Gaga, a total of 29 crotch-grabs from Janet Jackson and a duet from Eminem and 50 Cent that had virtually every other lyric bleeped, the gay man was the villain. Adam Lambert raised the ire of the public and caused the only backlash.

That tells you all you need to know about where we stand in America. But having this controversy and its attendant buzz right before the release of his album will serve Adam well as far as sales are concerned. And as he demonstrated on Letterman, he knows how to tone it down when he needs to. Adam Lambert is a star.

Photo: Courtesy of Kevork Djaansezian/Getty images

http://www.stevecharing.blogspot.com/.

Happy Birthday, Guerilla Gay Bar Baltimore

After only one year, GGBB is making a difference.

By Steve Charing

On the night Guerilla Gay Bar Baltimore celebrated its 1st anniversary at Mother’s Federal Hill Grille, three young women approached Byron Macfarlane (r.), one of the two co-founders and leaders of the GGBB phenomenon who was standing at the front end of the bar. They asked him for the now familiar purplish stickers that adorn those who participate in the monthly ritual of "invading" a straight bar or club in Baltimore City.

But in this case, the three women weren’t lesbians. They were straight, and it’s notable that even they wanted to be part of this growing movement.

Guerilla Gay Bar Baltimore was launched last November as an means to offer LGBT folks in the Baltimore area an alternative to the local gay bar scene and perhaps make new friends and allies outside the LGBT community.

"The primary goal of GGBB has been to better integrate the LGBT and straight communities in Baltimore," says Byron Macfarlane, an attorney and who is running as an openly gay candidate for Register of Wills in Howard County. "Along with that, we wanted to provide members of our community with opportunities to travel outside the ‘gayborhood’ and see parts of the city they may not be familiar with or may not feel comfortable in if they are by themselves or in a small group."

The popularity of GGBB took the founders by surprise. "I believe it has been a good year and we certainly have exceeded my expectations of the group," explains Mark Yost, Jr. (l.), a lobbyist and law student who is the other co-founder and leader of GGBB. "A year ago, Byron and I had hoped to have a good time doing this and expected slow steady growth. I think if you had told us that we would be having crowds of 300 on average, we would have been shocked."

In fact, the crowds have often exceeded that amount each month. Both Yost and Macfarlane seek out Baltimore venues that cater to a predominantly straight clientele and are not only willing to accept a large contingent of LGBT people but also have the capacity to accommodate the "invasion."

The announcement of the location is made two days before the scheduled event, which is the first Friday of the month. Using social networking, principally Facebook and word-of-mouth, the group has expanded by leaps and bounds.

The unforeseen growth over the year has been a major development. "Having over 1,500 ‘members’ is phenomenal and we truly enjoy our monthly gatherings," says Yost. "It’s been a place to meet old friends, make new ones and have a good time."

Macfarlane points out that bar owners and patrons around the city now know about the group and are welcoming and accepting. "Bar owners have been clamoring for our group to patronize their establishments. And now, a huge number of lesbians, gays, and allies have the first Friday of every month already booked on their calendars for GGBB and are upset when something comes up and they can't make it."

While most of these invasions have gone off smoothly, there was one hiccup at the Mad River bar in Federal Hill on the Friday of the July 4 weekend. There had been a lapse in communication between the GGBB organizers and management of the bar. That led to the Mad River’s staff not being informed of the invasion, and some ugliness ensued that resulted in the termination of two bar employees for their alleged homophobic actions. The manager profusely apologized for the miscommunication and for the employees’ conduct.

"Along the way, the people of Baltimore have shown that deep down, they are good and decent people, but we know we still have a lot of work to do," says Macfarlane.

But that mishap was just a blip during the past year. "The response has been overwhelmingly positive both from within the gay community and in the larger Baltimore community," Yost points out. "I think we are using our gatherings, which are to be fun, to also softly promote our goals of equal rights. The more ‘out’ our community is, the better served we are going to be in being accepted in society."

GGBB has not restricted itself to once-a-month straight bar invasions. "We're especially proud that we have partnered with establishments in the city to give back to those in our community who really need help. We've raised money for organizations like Brother Help Thyself and AIDS Action Baltimore," notes Macfarlane.

Yost explains, "In order to support GGBB, other LGBT causes and our own community, GGBB has returned home to ‘our base.’ It helps us recharge, regroup and to bring some new exciting events our own community." To that end, GGBB has held special theme events at Grand Central, such as Bootcamp Night, White Party and Octoberfest Sausage Party.

After one year, like any organization the co-leaders are taking stock of what was accomplished and where they want to go. "We dispelled any notion that the concept had started to get a little old when we had over 600 members attend this month's invasion," says Macfarlane.

"There clearly is still the desire in the lgbt community to have these interactions on an ongoing basis, and as long as that desire is there, GGBB will provide the outlet and the experience.

"GGBB is part of the slow, quiet, non-aggressive activism that can and will change attitudes toward members of our communities and, ultimately, lgbt rights. When people who are on the fence about our issues or are ardent opponents see us as people just like them rather than the caricatures they see on television and in the movies, we're making a big impact."
Mark Yost adds, "Baltimore is a great city, and we are trying to make it just a little more fabulous once a month."

For more information visit ggb-baltimore.com.

The Maine Effect

We are not ready for marriage equality to be won at the ballot box.

By Steve Charing

When Proposition 8 succeeded in California a year ago there was legitimate outrage throughout gay nation. How can justice and equality fail in a blue state that went overwhelmingly for the first ever African-American president? With all the time to prepare for the battle, how did LGBT leaders manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?

Blame was quickly affixed to African-American voters, the Mormon Church, senior citizens, and a failure by LGBT Prop 8 to effectively reach out to non-traditional supporters. With varying degrees, all of these factors led to a dismal outcome.

Then came Maine’s Question 1 on November 3. Maine is a state with strong independent tendencies, a blue state with the only two moderate Republicans remaining in the Senate, and marriage equality already in place throughout New England except Rhode Island.

There weren’t enough black voters in Maine to scapegoat this time. The Mormon influence was not as dominating. And our side raised far more money than the opposition. We still managed to lose by six percent.

When we put two and two together, this time the answer is zero. Two blue states, two ballot measures, results the same: failure.

In some ways the results in California and Maine could have been reversed had we been able to offset the scare tactics. Opponents of marriage equality used their money to effectively instill fear by lying with scary messages about same-sex marriage and its influence on children. They succeeded in convincing the electorate that "defining" marriage should not be left up to "activist" judges. And, of course, the convenience of cherry-picked Scripture always comes in handy during these battles.

But we haven’t found that shield against such smear jobs, and until we do, we cannot win by referendum.

A well-known political axiom that had its roots in Plato’s Republic states you should not put a minority’s rights in the hands of the tyranny of the majority. People vote by emotion, and if submitted to a vote, we would still have segregation, racial discrimination and a ban of interracial marriage in the U.S. While in some cases gay rights succeeded by referendum as in the case of Washington State, same-sex marriage, as has been demonstrated now in 31 states, is a non-starter among the voters.

On this issue we must avoid such ballot measures lest we continue to fail. There are far more motivated straight people voting against us than lgbt folks and allies can turn out. It’s a numbers game, and we don’t yet have the numbers. And we haven’t found an effective answer to the lies.

In Maryland, we have successfully fought off such ballot initiatives ever since same-sex marriage has been thrust onto the agenda by way of the Massachusetts ruling in 2003. It’s easier to stonewall here because same-sex marriage is not on the books. In fact, our Constitution defines marriage to be a union between a man and a woman. Therefore, elected officials do not see the imperative for a constitutional amendment, which would then be up for the voters to decide.

Instead, we try to win over legislators with the hope our governor signs marriage equality into law. That has not happened yet, and it will be years away from such an eventuality. But if it did, a more powerful effort will be made to undo the actions of the legislature and the governor by pushing the issue to the voters.

For proponents of same-sex marriage, that should be our greatest fear. Maryland is a blue state, as is California and Maine. And put to a vote, we’d fail, too, unless our stories are told rather than the lies promulgated by our opponents.

That’s where we all have a role. We need to get OUR message out to the voters because our arguments are legitimate and truthful.

http://www.stevecharing.blogspot.com/.

Homophobia Mars Alderman Election in Annapolis

By Steve Charing

Scott Bowling (picured in foreground) knew the odds were stacked against him when he announced his candidacy for Alderman in Annapolis' 3rd Ward last January. He is a white man running in a heavily-populated African-American ward that covers the southwest corner of Annapolis and includes the neighborhoods of Parole, Homewood, Southwoods, Greenbriar, Annapolis Gardens, Bowman Court and Fairfax.

He is a Republican in a ward that has an 8 to 1 Democratic edge.

And he is openly gay.

Despite these daunting challenges, things were looking bright for Bowling heading towards the election. He waged an issues-oriented campaign as much against the status quo as he did against incumbent Democrat Classie Gillis Hoyle.

"Annapolis is headed in the wrong direction and I have decided to run for Alderman of the 3rd Ward to help bring an end the apparent paralysis at City Hall," said Bowling when he announced his candidacy. "While our nation and its citizens are trapped in a fiscal crisis, our leaders at City Hall are focused on frivolous laws, resolutions and analysis that do little to improve the quality of life for their residents. The people of Annapolis deserve better."

Bowling, a Mortgage Banker with Wells Fargo, didn’t run on gay rights issues nor did he draw special attention to his sexuality; he was a hundred percent focused on such local matters as taxes, fiscal restraint and planning. But at the same time he never shied away publicly from his sexual orientation. His life partner, Dave Miller (rear in photo), is the campaign’s treasurer.

Recent polls predicted a razor-thin contest with Hoyle. Bowling’s sexual orientation didn’t surface much until he picked up key endorsements, notably former candidate for mayor Democrat Trudy McFall, the local Firefighters Union and the Annapolis Capital. Then there were more frequent attempts to raise the issue of his being gay, Bowling told OUTloud, in an effort to instill fear in the Ward’s voters. "They tried to associate me with the Sam Shropshire incident implying that all gay men are pedophiles."

Shropshire, an Alderman in Ward 7, is accused of fondling a male Navy midshipman last spring, and a trial date is set for February. He has repeatedly denied that he’s gay. "The scandal has stained the city," said Bowling "and they tried to link me to it."

In the days leading up to Election Night, the Hoyle campaign accused the Scott Bowling team of removing Hoyle’s campaign signs. This was immediately denied by Miller, and in a message to supporters said, "There is no room for childish issues such as sign removal in an adult campaign on important matters."

Then the ugliness deteriorated more just 48 hours prior to the election. The following statement was issued by the Bowling camp:

"An anonymous and illegal flier is being distributed in Ward 3. The flier is filled with hatred and bigotry intended to motivate the historically African-American communities within Parole to vote for Democrats Josh Cohen and Classie Hoyle. Scott Bowling, a candidate for Alderman in Ward 3 has called on the U.S. Attorney General's Office as well as a Maryland Attorney's General's office to investigate this as a hate crime and as a violation of the Voting Rights Act."

"I am disappointed that in 2009 there are factions within Annapolis that insist on engaging and bringing this type of racist and hate filled activity into our City Elections, said Bowling.

"Such hateful language can very quickly lead to violence. We, as a community, must seek out the originators of these hateful statements and turn them over to authorities. There is no place in any City, State or society for such hateful and abusive language. I denounce such activities and hope that my opponent as well as the leadership of both political parties would do so as well; there is no room for hatred, bigotry or this type of politics in Annapolis." He added, "I am hopeful that the citizens of Annapolis and Ward 3 will rise above such a blatant attempt to prey on people's ethnic, racial, and religious fears."

Bowling told OUTloud that the flier contained specific references to his being "homosexual." It reminded voters of the Schropshire scandal and warned that electing such a person would be dangerous to children.

He said that Hoyle did not condemn the flier and refused to when confronted by other members of the media. Ms. Hoyle did not return a phone call to OUTloud requesting a comment on the flier.

Scott Bowling lost by 130 votes pending the absentee ballot count, which will not affect the ultimate outcome. He said the flier was definitely responsible for his defeat as some voters told him it changed their minds.

Off to a Good Start

Federal action on hate crimes is wonderful news and long overdo, but the harder legislation is down the road.

By Steve Charing

It took over 10 years since the brutal murder of Matthew Shepard and the dragging-to-death killing of James Byrd, Jr. for substantive action to be taken. But when President Obama signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act into law last week it represented the first time the federal government provided protections to LGBT Americans.

What a difference it is in having Barack Obama as president instead of George W. Bush. The inclusive Hate Crimes bill that added sexual orientation to the list of categories protected by the legislation was never going anywhere when Congress had last considered it two years ago. President Bush announced in advance that he would veto it.

Conversely, President Obama stated throughout the presidential campaign he would support such a measure. He reiterated that during a number of speeches to lgbt activists since taking office. He quickly signed it into law and spoke eloquently in front of Judy and Dennis Shepard among others at a White House reception following the signing.

"You understood that we must stand against crimes that are meant not only to break bones, but to break spirits — not only to inflict harm, but to instill fear," the president said to the gathering. "You understand that the rights afforded every citizen under our Constitution mean nothing if we do not protect those rights — both from unjust laws and violent acts. And you understand how necessary this law continues to be."

Indeed, lgbt Americans are victimized by bias-related crimes at a disproportionate rate than the general population. President Obama cited FBI statistics in which there were 12,000 reported hate crimes based on sexual orientation over the past 10 years. Imagine the number of incidents that went unreported.

Critics, who for reasons that are incomprehensible other than being pure libertarian at best or homophobic at worst, opposed the legislation. They call it "thought police." We hear that "some people are more equal than others," according to one unidentified dim-bulb blogger in the Baltimore Sun. Others scoff at the fact that the hate crimes provisions were tacked on to a Defense appropriations bill and would not have succeeded on its own merits.

Perhaps.

But the outcome is all we had wanted, and we will take any victory we can get. It finally put gay and lesbian Americans on an equal footing as other citizens when it comes to federal protections. One never knows if he or she will be a victim of a hate crime based on sexual orientation even in a more improving environment for LGBT folks.

The late Senator Ted Kennedy was a champion of this cause, as were the tireless efforts of the Shepards. And, of course, there were many others. It still was a tough go to get it done. We needed a change of administrations to accomplish this feat, and we should all be grateful for its support.

As difficult as this was to finally pass a comprehensive hate crimes bill, the other boilerplate initiatives advanced by lgbt activists and others are going to be much tougher. The Employment Non-discrimination Act, popularly dubbed ENDA, is next on the horizon. Employers in over half the states can legally fire an individual simply for being gay. In nearly 40 states the same can be done to a transgendered person.

Languishing in Congress for over three decades, the measure would make it illegal for employers to discriminate against individuals based on sexual orientation or gender identity. This includes firing, refusal to hire or refusal to promote lgbt employees. The House Education and Labor Committee recently convened a hearing on the transgender-inclusive ENDA [H.R. 3017], so ENDA is in motion once again.

Opponents attack the bill for the "vagueness" in the language that would spark much litigation. And religious groups, who already have enormous sway in government, oppose it lest religious organizations be forced to compromise their beliefs. Memo to religious groups: the bill contains very strong protections, so don’t sweat it.

The repeal of "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" is also in the hopper, and President Obama pledged publicly and repeatedly that he is sympathetic to the repeal and will make it happen. The challenge of getting this done is not rooted in public opinion. That is because the country is overwhelmingly supporting such a change. To be sure, recent polling data suggest that as many as 80 percent of Americans support repeal.

Resistance is embedded throughout the military, whose officers and NCOs are still comprised of largely conservative Southerners and rural folks who aren’t welcoming of gays and lesbians in the ranks. The top brass knows this and fear an insurrection of some kind, which is not a good thing when we are fighting two wars and have assumed the role of world policeman. That’s their mindset.

Why President Obama is hesitant to establish a timeline to the repeal effort is understandable. He needs to fight two wars himself: one is with members of Congress who have a large military representation in their districts and the other with the military itself to convince them that discrimination has no place in the Armed Forces and that previous social changes to the military structure were opposed but then adopted with no lasting ill-effects.

This is the educational process that needs to take place. And that’s why it cannot be pinpointed as to when it will happen. As I and many others have suggested before, the President could issue a "stop loss" order to prevent further discharges based on the policy. That sets the right tone. It demonstrates his commitment. And it prepares the legislators and the military that the end of "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" is near.

When these other legislative initiatives succeed, and they will, we could then try to wipe out DOMA—the Defense of Marriage Act. That’s going to be the hardest to accomplish, especially if the Administration keeps defending it in court. Let’s get these other measures passed first, for that will push the momentum further for the repeal of DOMA. The Hate Crimes bill was a good beginning.

Photo credit: Judy Rolfe and courtesy of Human Rights Campaign

http://www.stevecharing.blogspot.com/.