Divided We Fall

By Steve Charing

The recent bizarre antics by Delegate Donald Dwyer in attempting to impeach Attorney General Douglas Gansler for his marriage recognition opinion and the backwards-thinking comments made by Delegate Rick Impallaria when he learned that Harford Public Schools agreed to unblock websites that are LGBT-related (not porn) tell us something.

"I am shocked to read that someone has decided to allow 'alternative sexual lifestyle' Web sites to be unblocked, giving County public school students access to them," Impallaria wrote in a letter to the Harford Schools superintendant and board.

And you also have elected officials who wish that we just remain in the closet or crawl back in it. Delegate Emmett Burns, for example, feels we could hide who we are. Why should we have to?

This is what we continue to be up against. We may be living in a blue state, but the mindset of some of our elected officials and the people they represent is closer to Alabama than Maryland.

Our community has more than enough enemies who are determined to thwart the ongoing struggle for equality. And we are not referring solely to marriage equality or transgender equality. We are talking about fairness in jobs, health care, safety and every aspect of our lives that do not relegate us as second-class citizens.

There are religious groups, such as the Catholic Church, who virulently oppose our equality. They are well-funded and have no qualms about injecting their anti-gay messaging, usually lies, in statewide battles. And we have an entire major political party—our Republican "friends"—whose anti-gay positions from employment to military service to marriage equality are entrenched in their dogma.

There is a huge mountain still to climb, but we can do it if we face the challenges together.

But we are a divided community on many levels. Some of these divisions are natural: race, religion, gender, economic status, even age. This is not surprising since the LGBT community is a microcosm of the larger society. Fortunately, over the years, the boundaries around these categories have been blurred, and that's a big step forward. But make no mistake, the boundaries still exist.

Other divisions will hold us back as well. For instance, a large portion of our community couldn't care less about marriage equality. They may not see marriage as a desirable option or even attainable. The subject doesn't interest them. Yet, by not being engaged in the struggle, these folks are forfeiting the opportunity to at least have same-sex marriage as an option should their circumstances change. This would benefit our community members economically and socially.

We are divided by those who are politically active and those who are apathetic. Yes, a lot of us show up for Pride, but how many understand the roots of the celebrations and why we participate? How many engage their elected officials on issues that are important to them—LGBT-related or other? Or participate in political rallies and phone banks?

We have divisions between gays and transgender folks—as a lack of understanding of the complexities of being transgender impedes the formation of a larger movement to strive for transgender equality. Transgender individuals are more likely to be fired from their jobs, kicked out of their apartments, become homeless and even worse, physically attacked on the streets. This partition cannot stand; we need to unify and get behind the plight of our transgender brothers and sisters.

There are divisions within the community with respect to the roles of our LGBT institutions and how they carry out those roles. To be sure, these institutions must conduct their operations with transparency so that suspicions—legitimate or not—do not detract from the important work they set out to do. Organizations that raise funds from our community and allies need to specify how the money is being spent so that the public does not make its own assumptions. Simply stated, if you have nothing to hide, then don't. With the confidence that transparency provides, the organizations will thrive. But there must be that confidence and trust.

Of course, there will always be back-biting in every segment of the population. But to have this in our community, given that we have so many external enemies, is counter-productive. I feel that that the goal of equality at all levels is paramount, and it must be kept within our sights. Bringing the LGBT community together will foster that goal.

The words and actions off our opponents demonstrate how much further we need to travel. There's a much better chance for success if we travel the road together applying our talents, energy and resources to stem the forces that want to marginalize us and keep us down.

We should not expect that we will always be united, but we definitely cannot afford to be divided.

www.SteveCharing.blogspot.com.

Dynasty No More

John Forsyth's passing leads to a nostalgic look back at his most popular TV series and what it meant to gays.

By Steve Charing

He may not have had a cult following among gays in the way the late Bea Arthur did, but John Forsythe, who died on April 1 at the age of 92, will always be linked to gay culture, whether he wanted that or not.

Although Forsythe had been a stage actor and appeared in over two dozen films since the early 40's and numerous television shows as well, he will always be best remembered for his performances in Bachelor Father, Charlie's Angels, and his biggest of them all—his role in Dynasty.

Dynasty was an extremely popular campy series that ran from 1981-1989 and was the ABC network's answer to CBS' Dallas. But, it was oh so much more fun!

Yes, the plotting, bitchy, conniving Alexis played by Joan Collins was the darling of gay men during the show's run, and her catfights with co-star Linda Evans' character (Krystle) were legendary. But the primetime soap opera's plot revolved around the family's patriarch, Blake Carrington—the debonair, gravelly-voiced oil tycoon played by Forsythe. He was the only actor to have appeared in all 220 episodes and received three Emmy nominations. Forsyth also appeared in the short-lived spin-off The Colbys from 1985-1987.

Other than the outrageous campiness that attracted such a legion of gay fans, Dynasty had specific gay subplots. Forsythe's character Blake had a son who was gay—Steven—played by Al Corley. Blake wasn't exactly the model PFLAG dad at first and overtly argued bitterly with Steven over his sexual orientation.

Under pressure from ABC, Dynasty turned Steven into a closet heterosexual leading Corley to exit the show in protest after two years. In came the replacement, actor Jack Coleman, who had no physical resemblance to Corley. The plot line, as I recall, had Steven in an oil rig accident, sustained massive burns, and Coleman magically emerged sans bandages from extensive plastic surgery. For all intents and purposes, the gutsy move to include an openly gay character on a highly-rated primetime drama in the 80's went up in flames along with the oil fire. Steven ostensibly was gay no more.

Nonetheless, Dynasty Parties were prevalent throughout the decade. Gay bars across the country held such events each Wednesday night. Private parties were also common in people's homes. It was quite the rage then.

Darkness and tragedy hit the set of Dynasty. From 1984-1985 well-known actor Rock Hudson, who landed a role in the series as Krystle's love interest, experienced a marked and noticeable deterioration in health and his appearance. His speech, too, was affected, and rumors were flying as to what is happening to this once strapping Hollywood icon.

Hudson had been diagnosed with AIDS on June 5, 1984. When it was obvious he was seriously ill, his publicists put out the word that he had inoperable liver cancer. It was not until July 25, 1985 while in Paris receiving treatment did the news break that the actor, who never publicly disclosed his sexuality, was suffering from AIDS. He died on October 2, 1985.

Hudson's death put an important face on AIDS because there was so much misinformation about the disease and its transmission; it was an abstraction to most people. But a prominent celebrity like Hudson gave it more humanity and opened the hearts of minds since his death. Even his old friend then President Reagan finally came to grips with the scourge of AIDS albeit in his second term.

On the Dynasty set, there was a lot of controversy stemming from the revelation about Hudson's battle with AIDS. Still uncertain about the disease's transmission in 1985, Linda Evans publicly expressed deep concern about her kissing Hudson in a number of scenes while he had the disease. She was also angry that the revelation occurred after she had participated in that activity.

Dynasty, as it turned out, was a soap opera within a own soap opera. The controversies among cast members, the plot lines, the ill-advised Moldavia wedding shoot-out, the oddball cliff hangers, contract squabbles and the Rock Hudson matter were pushed to the forefront. But John Forsythe, just like his character Blake Carrington, kept the ship afloat with his strong, steady hand.

Rest in peace, and thanks for the memories, John.

Ehrlich Redux

The former governor wants his old job back. What does it mean for us?

By Steve Charing

The much ballyhooed re-entry to the political arena by former Republican Governor Robert Ehrlich is now official. He will once again go head-to-head against Governor Martin O'Malley in November but this time as a challenger and not an incumbent as was the case in 2006.

Seeing what he perceives as a Republican resurgence and anti-incumbent sentiment, the former governor is staking his political career on a gamble to win back the Governor's Mansion. And a gamble it surely is.

Maryland is a state that holds a 2 to 1 advantage by Democrats over Republicans. And almost as important, O'Malley has a war chest of around $5 million while Ehrlich's is about $140,000. While Ehrlich surrogates maintain this election is about the message and the messenger, money in the till will ultimately determine the effectiveness of the message as well as the messenger.

As governor from 2003-2006, Robert Ehrlich didn't distinguish himself much. Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller described Ehrlich as "lazy." He was known more for his battles to adopt slots as a source of state revenue, his frequent skirmishes with the Democratic-controlled legislature and the print media, and his penchant for raising taxes and calling them "fees" than any major accomplishment. Moreover, he did not address the structural problems with the budget that still plagues the current administration.

Ehrlich's defeat to O'Malley in 2006 was due in part to his record as governor but also to the anti-Bush and by extension anti-Republican tide that was sweeping the country. Nonetheless, Ehrlich's loss was unique in that he was the only sitting governor, regardless of party, to be upended in the 2006 election.

For LGBT citizens of Maryland, Ehrlich displayed much of the anti-gay record which characterized his tenure as state delegate and as a member of the U.S. Congress. Unfortunately, he always considered gay rights to be "special rights." Ehrlich's record in Congress earned him a score of only 25 out of 100 from the Human Rights Campaign. Although he ran as a moderate in a heavily Democratic state, when it came to lgbt issues, he governed from the right—the far right in fact.

Ehrlich's grossest misfire was vetoing the Medical Decision-Making Act in 2005 that prevented members of same-sex couples from visiting a sick partner in the hospital as well as other provisions designed to give unmarried couples—gay and straight—the right to make key medical decisions. He also vetoed the Transfer & Recordation Tax Exemption Bill aimed at tax relief for gay and lesbian couples.

These vetoes resulted in a strong rebuke by lgbt activists and put Ehrlich squarely in the camp of the right wing. "He is a pawn of the far right elements of the Maryland Republican Party, who have as many moderates in the General Assembly as I can count on two hands,” said then executive director of Equality Maryland Dan Furmansky at the time. “Unfortunately, he is a coward that is afraid to stand up to the anti-gay zealots who have officially taken over the Republican Party in this state.” Ehrlich did go along with a revised measure the following year—an election year.

Moreover, Ehrlich was a staunch opponent of same-sex marriage and vowed that such a policy would not happen on his watch. This was mind-boggling considering he had employed two openly gay men as his chiefs of staff.

Ehrlich's record during his public service career will not provide a reason for lgbt Marylanders to celebrate should he overcome the odds and be elected in November. For his part, however, Governor O'Malley hasn't exactly enthralled us either during his term.

Although O'Malley was supportive of most LGBT issues as Mayor of Baltimore and as a member of the City Council, he has been rather tepid on lgbt issues during his term as governor. He has not come out for marriage equality but would sign such a bill if presented to him, and he opposes a constitutional amendment to ban it. O'Malley favors civil unions, and he has extended domestic partnership benefits to state employees. But O'Malley certainly has not been a leader on these issues.

It has been disappointing that with a Democratic governor and a legislature that has huge Democratic majorities, key legislation on marriage equality and transgender protections have not been passed during these past four years. There are several factors in play; it seems that it will have to wait at least another year. But that is only if Ehrlich fails in his bid; it would take longer otherwise.

Handicapping the election seven months away is a daunting challenge. The anti-incumbency sentiment could fade as the economy picks up, and that would take any steam out of the Ehrlich express. And few voters wax nostalgic for the Ehrlich years as they were marked by strife and a lack of remedies to the overall budget morass.

But O'Malley who only won by about seven percent in 2006 is not especially popular. The economy could continue to falter, which fairly or unfairly could be problematic for the governor. And linking Ehrlich to Bush won't be as effective this time around.

LGBT citizens who have staunchly supported O'Malley in the past may not have the same degree of enthusiasm this cycle, which could affect contributions as well as votes. And not all gay folks vote according to lgbt issues. But I'm betting that for those folks where lgbt issues matter, O'Malley will still garner the vast majority considering the alternative.

www.SteveCharing.blogspot.com.

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.