While the President does not weigh in on every single ballot measure in every state, the record is clear that the President has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same sex couples. That’s what the Minnesota ballot initiative would do - it would single out and discriminate against committed gay and lesbian couples - and that’s why the President does not support it. — A statement from President Obama’s Minnesota campaign on why he opposes a proposal to define marriage in Minnesota as one man and one woman. I really think he’ll come around. More. (via gaywrites)
many people out there are against the equal marriage rights for all, but if people actually opened up their minds and took the chance to actually understand where the equal marriage rights act is coming from, then something might actually change in this country. if you deny another human from entering a committed relationship with another based off of their sexuality, then you have got to be kidding me. that is just plain wrong on so many levels. sexuality isn’t chosen. it’s not determined by how you were raised or if you had too many tonka trucks or barbies growing up. it’s how our brains are wired from birth, and no one gets to choose it. oh and there is no such thing as a gay gene either. people just need to accept one another for who they are and not try to make them fit into a specific mold, because that will never happen and all that will is you being left disappointed.
Judge strikes down DOMA -
A California judge struck down a “key provision” of the Defense of Marriage Act tonight in a case involving a federal employee seeking benefits for her same-sex partner - the first ruling like this since the Obama administration announced it would no longer defend DOMA.
Karen Golinski, a lesbian woman married to her spouse under California law, brought the suit after she was unable to secure federal health benefits for her same-sex spouse.
U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey S. White said, “In this matter, the court finds that DOMA, as applied to Ms. Golinski, violates her right to equal protection of the law under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution by, without substantial justification or rational basis, refusing to recognize her lawful marriage to prevent provision of health insurance coverage to her spouse.”Woohoo! Every single news blurb like this represents a small but significant victory. We’re getting there.
Pennsylvania holds off on marriage ban -
Today in Pennsylvania a House panel was set to consider a measure that would ban marriage equality recognition in the state, but the committee has delayed voting on the bill.
The measure was expected to clear this morning, but it has been pulled from consideration. Pennsylvania already bans same-sex marriages, but this would also ban recognition of any same-sex unions, essentially taking away all chances for civil unions or domestic partnerships.
I really don’t understand some politicians’ commitment to taking away rights. We’ll see what happens.
Secret's out: Mitt Romney has donated to NOM -
These are not good times for anyone affiliated with the National Organization for Marriage, and not surprisingly, that includes Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.
Documents circulated by the Human Rights Campaign show that Romney donated $10,000 to NOM a few years ago, a contribution that may well have made a huge impact when NOM was fighting for Prop 8. A while back Romney also signed a pledge from NOM promising to fight marriage equality in this country.
More info on the current NOM controversy:
As a donor and presumably a member of NOM, since a portion of all donations automatically goes toward membership dues, it’s possible that the Romney campaign saw the “confidential” memo in which NOM outlines its strategy to “drive a wedge between gays and blacks — two key Democratic constituencies.”
HRC and others are calling on Romney to denounce NOM. But as a 2012 candidate he’s signed a pledge from the group that commits him to its ideals, including a ban on marriage equality via an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, an effort to repeal marriage equality in Washington, D.C., and the formation of a presidential commission to investigate NOM’s opponents.
Crazy stuff. I will never stop saying it: do your research before going to vote in November.
LGBT high school opens in Arizona -
A new school has opened in Phoenix that’s the first of its kind in Arizona - a high school designated for LGBT students.
Q High is one of only a few schools in the country that are made to cater to LGBT students who, for whatever reason, don’t feel right or safe or respected in previous high schools. Many students who go to these schools have been bullied for their sexuality and are looking for a safe haven.
The school offers classes online during the day while its physical building serves as a youth center for LGBT students, offering resources like “a class on coming out.” 14 students are currently enrolled, with room for 25 total.
“For me personally, it’s about creating a safe space for our youth to feel welcome,” said Q High Program Coordinator Kado Stewart. “We’re offering an alternative to students who do not feel safe at (traditional) schools.”
What do you think of this? Good idea? Bad idea? Neutral idea?
Case for Nevada marriage equality moves forward -
For the first time ever, Lambda Legal is filing in federal court seeking marriage rights for LGBT couples in Nevada.
The organization is filing on behalf of eight same-sex couples in the state, some of whom have been together for as long as 40 years and have raised children and met grandchildren together. Same-sex couples in Nevada can get some domestic partnership benefits, but the state’s constitution bans marriage equality. Staff attorney Tara Borelli is quoted as saying:
“One of the reasons that we’re suing in the state of Nevada is that this is a particular equal protection problem that this case examines. It’s the kind of problem created where a state excludes same-sex couples from marriage deems them fit for all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage through a lesser, second-class status — in this case, domestic partnership.”
Okay, this is perfect.
first time I met someone who was gay, and I knew it, was when I was 7. Her name was Abby and she was my babysitter at the time. When I tell some of my friends now a days that are anti-gay about her, they are flabbergasted that my parents would expose myself to a lesbian at such a young age. What do I reply? I say: “Abby wasn’t the first lesbian or gay man that I have met; I have met many before then, due to my mother being a hair dresser, but the reason why I say that Abby was the first is because she is one that I can distinctly remember from childhood. She was the coolest babysitter that I ever had, because her head was shaved and she had a tongue ring, that she tried to hide from my sister and I.” Abby will ever stay in my memory because she is no different than me or any other person for that matter. She will always be my babysitter with a tongue ring, and it will never matter to me if she has a girlfriend because she is happy and that is all I could ever wish for, for her.