VIDEO: CNN Reports on Dispute Between Catholic Church and DC Over Marriage Equality

Recently, the Archdiocese of Washington threatened to end all of its charitable work in the District of Columbia if marriage equality is passed. Father David O'Connell, President of the Catholic University America, appeared on CNN to address the issue.



A few choice quotes from Father O'Connell:

"The archbishop of Washington and the staff of the office of the archdiocese of Washington has indicated as late as yesterday that it has no intention to stop serving the needs of the people of the archdiocese of Washington, especially the poorest of the poor."

"[Marriage equality in D.C.] will force us or put us into a situation where we may be at legal risk because of our own teachings and the beliefs that we experience and express that do not allow us to engage in some of the activities that are supported or promoted in the legislation."

"[The Church] will do its best to continue as usual. The legislation puts our relationship with the District of Columbia at risk, and that's the issue. It's not that we want to do this, that we need to do this, that we have to do this. We can't represent something that goes against our core beliefs, and this is an issue that is part of our core beliefs."

The last sentence is a head scratcher. It sounds like a bit of subtle backtracking but not really. In other words, he says they don't want or have to do this. So why do it?

VIDEO: Joy Behar, Sandra Bernhard and More Cattily Discuss Carrie Prejean Sex Tape and LGBT Rights

As Andy Towle said, "Deliciously bitchy."

Election Aftermath: News Reports, Interviews, Opinions, Rants - Quite a Stir.

I'm a bit behind. Sorry folks. Lots to cover. Here's a roundup of the election aftermath.

Tony Perkins of the staunchly anti-LGBT Family Research Council and Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry appear on AC360 to discuss the defeat in Maine.



Dan Savage counters Yes on 1's claim that they don't hate gays on MSNBC.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

New Yorkers held a rally in Union Square on Wednesday night protesting Question 1's success in Maine. Currently, New York's Senate is supposed to vote on the state's marriage equality bill, but whether or not they will vote is still up in the air.



This MSNBC report is causing quite a stir due to the fact that the reporter used the anti-LGBT jargon "traditional marriage." However, the report itself does a good job of showing the consequences of Maine's Question 1. It includes an interview with a lesbian couple.



Contessa Brewer continues her reporting by interviewing Bishop Harry Jackson, the face of the opposition to same-sex marriage in Washington D.C. She asks the pertinent question, "People seem so energized to go out and fight same-sex marriage. why aren't they spending all that energy fighting divorce?" What a lame, hypocritical response.

She also brings up the half million the Catholic Church spent in Maine. Want to see who contributed? Go here.



Lisa Leff and David Crary write "Gay leaders blame TV ads, Obama for loss in Maine" for the AP:

Stunned and angry, national gay rights leaders Wednesday blamed scare-mongering ads - and President Barack Obama's lack of engagement - for a bitter election setback in Maine that could alter the dynamics for both sides in the gay-marriage debate.

------

"President Obama missed an opportunity to state his position against these discriminatory attacks with the clarity and moral imperative that would have helped in this close fight," said Evan Wolfson of the national advocacy group Freedom to Marry. "The anti-gay forces are throwing millions of dollars into various unsubtle ads aimed at scaring people, so subtle statements from the White House are not enough."

The White House, asked about the criticism, had no immediate comment.

Go Evan.

My two cents: Obama hasn't been there much to back us up when we need him. Why should we be there for him when he extends his hand to us . . . palm up for cash?


Washington Post, "Gay groups say loss won't alter strategy":

For the gay rights movement, the defeat is another setback to its long-held strategy of building the case for marriage equality state by state. Historically, the tactics have been to target places where conditions seem favorable, and Maine, characterized by its governor as a libertarian state, seemed to fit that criterion.

Still, advocates say the strategy remains effective. They point to Tuesday's balloting in Kalamazoo, Mich., where voters approved an anti-discrimination ordinance that provides gays protections in employment, housing and public accommodations. Another victory appeared to be likely in Washington state, where incomplete returns indicate that a majority of voters have approved the legislature's expansion of domestic partnership rights.

Advocates say there was a partial victory even in Maine, where the vote was closer than it had been in previous campaigns.

"We're hopeful that it's a signal that there is increasing support for gay couples to marry," said Dan Hawes, field director for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "Nationally, we're going to continue education efforts to move the needle of public opinion, especially in California."

What do you think? Do you feel that we should keep going down this same road, engaging in a degrading referendum process that allows citizens to vote on each other's civil rights?

Wayne Besen at Truth Wins Out doesn't think so:

It is time we wake up and acknowledge that the GLBT fight for equality is the world’s first “Civil Likes” movement. Each year, a popularity contest is held somewhere on the map and if the locals find us likeable our families are protected. If the natives have a negative view of gay people, we remain second-class citizens.

Given this reality we have to make a major choice.

We can declare the current process a disgusting and humiliating insult to our humanity and opt out of all future referendums. The movement would make the case to the nation why such votes are anathema to American values and in the process educate people about our families and quest for equality. A powerful campaign of continued and sustainable civil disobedience would have to supplement this strategy.

Or, we can continue to participate in degrading referendums. But, if we do so, we have to stop pretending that the majority of the American people understand the U.S. Constitution, much less the notion of equality. Those who vote against GLBT rights simply do not like gay people and their antipathy, often masked by religious bigotry, overrides the idea of equal protection. What our public relations experts will have to figure out ways to make us more likeable [sic] and overcome such objections.

Wayne isn't alone. David Mixner is fed up with the current strategy.

How can we have any dignity, honor or pride in ourselves if we validate this continued process of ballot box terrorism? How can we stand tall next to each other if we explain away another's cowardliness? How can we allow people to dehumanize our relationships and our very integrity if we give people passes to sit out the battle for our very freedom? No longer are political timelines a reason for delay, no longer are incremental approaches acceptable and no longer can the political process expect us to be patient and wait our turn. Our turn came long ago and there will be no more waiting.

--------

New tactics must be embraced and honored. Civil disobedience must now be on the table and it is time for a long discussion about how it is to take place in the community. Perhaps we have to fill the jails, block military bases, sit in Congressional offices, block marriage bureaus, etc in order for them to know that business as usual has stopped. Careful and thoughtful consideration must be given now to this option.

-------

No longer can I stand before you in speeches and rallies urging you to stay the course. The course needs changing and we need to toughen up in the process. Yes, we must continue fighting but this time, instead of responding to their strategy, we must forge our own. Make no mistake about it. The days of acquiesce are over. There is no option except one at this stage and that is full equality now.

Freedom,Liberty,Justice are not mere words. They represent a way of life that is being denied to LGBT Americans every day of our lives.

Enough. No More, Enough

On a related note, read NY Times piece, "Gay Rights Rebuke May Change Approach."

I for one am hopeful about the federal challenge to Proposition 8. For the first time ever in a marriage case, there will be full-on public trial, including witness testimony and cross-examination of those behind these discriminatory initiatives to discover their true motives. (Presiding Judge Walker ordered the Yes on Prop 8 campaign to hand over internal communications in an effort to uncover motivation.)

If the Olson/Boies team can prove that these referendums, particularly Prop 8, are done purely out of animus towards the LGBT population, then the state of California will have no bearing interest and render Prop 8 unconstitutional. This would have a direct, nationwide effect.

(Read David Boies editorial in the Philadelphia Inquirer, "Yes: It is a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution.")

It is expected that this case will go all the way to the Supreme Court. But the data discovered in the upcoming January trial will be examined. History in the making.

Barney Frank Explains His Criticisms of the National Equality March

MUST SEE VIDEO: Signorile, Savage, Choi and Rosen Debate Obama's Speech on CNN

MUST SEE VIDEO: AC360 Questions Obama's Progress on LGBT Rights and Interviews Cleve Jones

From CNN's AC360:



With Obama speaking at HRC's fund raising dinner on the Eve of the National Equality March (and some say avoiding the march), a pro-LGBT picket forming outside the black tie dinner to demonstrate against Obama's inaction, and openly gay Rep. Barney Frank qualifying the march as "useless" - any way you look at it, the march is getting coverage, which puts the pressure back on Obama and Congress.

Or is it?

One sign that will indicate either way will be what Obama's speech contains at the HRC dinner. Will it be full of rhetoric and empty platitudes that has thus far mired his monologues on LGBT rights, or will it actually contain calls for action with specific next steps for both the Administration and Congress? According to an article in the Washington Post, "A Democratic source familiar with the White House's thinking on the speech said Obama will stress incremental advancements as evidence of progress."

Incremental. There's a whiff of inaction in that statement.

But who knows, maybe having just won the Nobel Peace Prize, Obama may be inspired to be the leader everyone believes him to be.

It remains to be seen, but you can watch it live on C-Span to find out.

MUST SEE VIDEO: Bill Clinton Tells Anderson Cooper He Supports Marriage Equality

Last night on AC360 with Anderson Cooper, former president Bill Clinton firmly states that he was wrong about "gay marriage" and that he now firmly supports it. As marriage has always been a state issue, he believe that it is up to the states to decide how they should act.



Transcript via Towleroad:

AC: You said you recently changed your mind on same-sex marriage. I’m wondering what you mean by that. Do you now believe that gay people should have full rights to civil marriage nationwide?

CLINTON: I do. I think that, well let me get back to the last point, the last word. I believe historically, for two hundred and something years, marriage has been a question left to the states and the religious institutions. I still think that’s where it belongs.

CLINTON: That is, I was against the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage nationwide, and I still think that the American people should be able to play this side in debates.

CLINTON: But me, Bill Clinton personally, I changed my position. I am no longer opposed to that. I think if people want to make commitments that last a lifetime, they ought to be able to do it. I have long favored the right of gay couples to adopt children.

AC: What made you change your mind? Was there one thing?

CLINTON: I think, what made me change my mind, I looked up and said look at all of this stuff you’re for. I’ve always believed that—I’ve never supported all the moves of a few years ago to ban gay couples from adoption. Because they’re all these kids out there looking for a home. And the standard on all adoption cases is, what is the best interest of the child?

CLINTON: And there are plenty of cases where the best interest of the child is to let the gay couple take them and give them a loving home. So I said, you know, I realized that I was over 60 years old, I grew up at a different time, and I was hung up about the word.

CLINTON: I had all these gay friends, I had all these gay couple friends, and I was hung up about it. And I decided I was wrong.

CLINTON: That our society has an interest in coherence and strength and commitment and mutually reinforcing loyalties, then if gay couples want to call their union marriage and a state agrees, and several have now, or a religious body will sanction it, and I don’t think a state should be able to stop a religious body from saying it, I don’t think the rest of us should get in the way of it.

CLINTON: I think it’s a good thing not a bad thing. And I just realized that, I was, probably for, maybe just because of my age and the way I’ve grown up, I was wrong about that. I just had too many gay friends. I saw their relationships. I just decided I couldn’t, I had an untenable position.

Read Michael Jones' article at Change.org, "The Five Things Bill Clinton Should Do to Take a Firm Stand on Gay Marriage."

CNN VIDEO: Michelangelo Signorile and Log Cabin Republican Charles Moran Discusses Obama's Inconsistent Stance on LGBT Rights

Log Cabin Republican spokesman Charles Moran and Michelangelo Signorile discussed Obama's inconsistent stance on LGBT rights on CNN today with anchor Don Lemon.

CNN: Tobias Wolff and NOM's Maggie Gallagher Debate Marriage Equality

On Thursday Tobias Wolff, professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania, faced of with the National Organization for Marriage's Maggie Gallagher on CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight.

In the debate, Maggie cannot come up with an answer to the question about how same-sex marriage assaults the "institution" of marriage. She also blames "four judges in Massachusetts" for "gay marriage" not "homosexuals." Huh? I see, so then I can blame the government for the high divorce rate in this country because it enacted divorce laws, not the cheating spouses that cause many divorces. Rock on.



Transcript:

DOBBS: Another promise made by the president during his campaign, to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. The Clinton-era law recognizes marriage as between a man and a woman, allows states to ignore same- sex marriages from other states and withholds federal marriage rights for same-sex couples. Here now to debate the issue on our face-off tonight is Maggie Gallagher. She is the president of the National Organization for Marriage.

Good to have you with us, Maggie.

MAGGIE GALLAGHER, NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE: Thank you.

DOBBS: And Tobias Wolff, law professor at the University of Pennsylvania.

Good to have you with us.

TOBIAS WOLFF, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Thank you, Lou.

DOBBS: Let's turn to first what the administration said in its brief in defending the act this week. It reads, "The administration believes the Defense of Marriage Act is discriminatory and should be repealed," that according to the Justice Department.

Maggie, you say you were shocked by this brief. Why so?

GALLAGHER: Well, there's two issues of trust. One is, yes, it's true the Obama -- the candidate had a position paper that he's against the Defense of Marriage Act. But he also went in a big publicized interview, and he promised the American people in an interview with Rick Warren that although he's for equal rights for gay people, he doesn't include marriage among them. And now his administration is filing a brief saying the one federal law that defends marriage as one man and one woman is discriminatory.

But there's a second level of trust here. I mean, both gay marriage advocates and gay marriage opponents are concerned because this is a brief in which the administration says it's against DOMA and then pretends that it's trying to defend it.

More...

DOBBS: Right. OK.

GALLAGHER: But there's more shocking things in there than what you said on the stage.

DOBBS: All right. Well, we're going to get to those. We're going to get to those.

GALLAGHER: Sure, OK. Thanks.

DOBBS: Tobias, your reaction? Do you agree with what Maggie said?

WOLFF: Well, I don't. And let's be clear about what this statute is about. There are six states right now and a bunch of folks in California as well -- six states that allow gay and lesbian couples to get married. This is about whether those couples are going to be discriminated against by the federal government. This has nothing to do with the federal government telling states what they have to do in their marriage policies.

DOBBS: Well, here's the Justice Department saying it's discriminatory.

WOLFF: Absolutely.

DOBBS: And at the same time defending it.

WOLFF: Well, I'll tell you the Justice Department is...

DOBBS: Work us through -- work through that one.

WOLFF: They are in a rotten situation here. And here is why. They want this statute repealed, as does the president and his administration. There is a longstanding tradition that the Justice Department...

DOBBS: Then why not do it?

WOLFF: Well, there's a difference between repealing a statute, which the president is working with Congress to do right now...

DOBBS: Yes.

WOLFF: And by the way, it's part of the Democratic party platform to get rid of this statute. It's time for Congress to step up to the plate and start working on it. There's a difference between that and what the Justice Department's obligation is when there's a constitutional challenge brought to a statute.

DOBBS: Right.

WOLFF: Now, let me just say...

DOBBS: Let me just interrupt, if I may.

WOLFF: Yes, sir.

DOBBS: This is where the economists describe President Obama. Barack Obama tends to become incoherent when discussing gay rights. During the campaign he said he supported equal rights for gays, but also that marriage should be between a man and a woman. How do you -- you know, I mean, what you say is fine. But wouldn't marriage be a fundamental right? And why would there be any equivocation?

WOLFF: Well, let me tell you, Lou. I agree with you about that. And I spent a lot of time working for the campaign and having respectful (ph)...

DOBBS: Well, I'm not taking a position. I'm just asking...

WOLFF: Well, I hear you. But what the Defense of Marriage Act is about is not telling states who's allowed to get married and who's not. What it's about is whether the federal government is going to discriminate against couples who are legally married in their states.

DOBBS: Well, it says here...

WOLFF: It's about...

DOBBS: ... the Justice Department says it's discriminatory.

WOLFF: Absolutely.

DOBBS: But they're going to defend it.

That's a bizarre position, Maggie, for them to be in and for the government to be in. Isn't it?

GALLAGHER: Well, even worse is they're pretending to defend it. But in response to pressure from political groups, they've changed their argument. The federal government is now saying the Obama administration is telling the courts in your behalf and mine that the government has no interest at all in bringing together biological parents to raise their children together.

It is repudiating the idea that marriage has anything to do with mothers and fathers raising children together, which is the one great argument that all the liberal courts who have upheld marriage: New York, Maryland, Washington. They've always done it on that reason.

DOBBS: May I ask a...

GALLAGHER: So it's very deceptive, I think, what he's doing.

DOBBS: Yes, well, it's deceptive. It's confounding in terms of reason. Of all of the things that I have seen over the course of my career, you know, listening as an assault on heterosexual marriage, I have never seen -- and you correct me. I mean, where does gay marriage stand? Where is it in the queue for threat against heterosexual marriage?

GALLAGHER: Well, I think...

DOBBS: And what is the causal relationship?

GALLAGHER: Well, I think that when the government changes the definition of marriage, it changes for everyone. And when the government says the idea that marriage...

DOBBS: No, I'm not (inaudible) about -- no, no, no. Excuse me, please.

GALLAGHER: Yes.

DOBBS: I'm not asking -- I'm not asking anybody to change the definition of anything. I'm just asking you how is a heterosexual couple in marriage in any way assaulted by a homosexual couple in marriage.

GALLAGHER: Well, because the government has changed what marriage is. For a lot of us, Lou, a marriage is a husband and wife. And the government is proposing to change that.

DOBBS: Right.

GALLAGHER: The Obama administration is saying that idea is discriminatory. Our children are going to be taught that by public schools, that our ideas of marriage are discriminatory.

DOBBS: OK.

GALLAGHER: It's hard enough to raise, you know, people...

DOBBS: All right.

WOLFF: Let's bring this down.

GALLAGHER: It's hard enough to get men and women together to do this thing without our government saying and the Obama administration saying the idea itself is discriminatory.

DOBBS: Well, my God. I'm sorry.

WOLFF: Let's bring this down to some real specifics. This is about couples who have been together for 30 years being denied their full Social Security benefits. This is about couples being denied access to health care. This is about couples who are being denied equal treatment in the tax laws after they've spent their entire lives...

DOBBS: But you would have that if you had civil union.

WOLFF: ... paying federal taxes.

DOBBS: You would have that if you had civil unions.

WOLFF: What you have...

DOBBS: See, those arguments are not particularly persuasive.

WOLFF: Not true. Let me make sure you understand.

DOBBS: Please do.

WOLFF: This is about the federal government taking couples who are legally married and saying we are not going to give you equal access to the Social Security benefits that every married couple in this country is entitled to.

GALLAGHER: Listen, if...

WOLFF: That's what this is about.

GALLAGHER: ... the only trouble.

WOLFF: That's what this is about.

GALLAGHER: If you have a trouble with Social Security, you could amend that act. You don't need to go into court...

DOBBS: All right.

WOLFF: Well, Ms. Gallagher, are you out there?

GALLAGHER: ... and say that marriage itself is discriminatory.

WOLFF: Are you out there trying to fight for equal treatment for gay and lesbian couples in Social Security?

GALLAGHER: What I'm trying to fight for -- it's funny that you talk about the tradition...

WOLFF: Are you the one who's going to take away Social Security benefits from gay and lesbian couples?

GALLAGHER: ... of the Justice Department.

WOLFF: Are you the one who's going to take health care benefits away from people who need them?

GALLAGHER: I am the one who is standing for the right of American taxpayers not to have a union, same-sex union treated as marriage without their consent.

DOBBS: OK, I...

WOLFF: And there are six states that have said that they want gay and lesbian couples to be treated equally in our marriage laws.

GALLAGHER: And the federal government overwhelmingly...

WOLFF: And the federal government should step out of the way.

GALLAGHER: The federal government overwhelmingly, bipartisanly said the federal definition of marriage is one man and one woman. And I support that. And I think the Obama administration should live up to its campaign promise to support marriage and change its mind.

WOLFF: They should absolutely live up to their promise to repeal this statute, yes.

DOBBS: Well, apparently there are two promises here implicit that would satisfy one of you or the other, but not both. Let me again go to this thing because the Defense of Marriage is sort of a peculiar construction. When the primary, as everything I've been able to study -- the primary reason for divorce is financial. One in two marriages in this country, heterosexual marriages, ends in divorce.

We are watching two-thirds in some cases of children born out of wedlock. We have a disaster in this country. And, I mean, it could be argued, it seems to me, at least -- and forgive me for saying it this way -- that you're blaming homosexuals for an institution that's under assault from just about everyone but gays.

GALLAGHER: I'm not blaming homosexuals for anything. It's four judges in Massachusetts, not homosexuals, who brought us gay marriage.

DOBBS: OK.

GALLAGHER: And it's a bunch of Democratic legislatures in blue states who are not, as far as I know, gay. Some of them may be -- who brought us gay marriage in those states. This is a political movement to change the law. It's going to have a lot of consequences.

I do not understand how we can possibly rebuild a marriage culture with the president of the United States and the government saying the idea that marriage means a husband and wife, because you need a mother and father, is discriminatory. That's the problem. These aren't separate battles. They're related.

DOBBS: You get the last word, very quickly.

WOLFF: Look, at the end of the day, this is about treating people fairly and equally and with dignity. And getting rid of the Defense of Marriage Act is going to allow us to get the federal government out of the way of states who have made that decision.

DOBBS: Thank you both.

Maggie, appreciate you being here.

Tobias, thank you.

WOLFF: Thank you.

CNN Coverage of Bill Clinton's Netroots Nation Showdown with Blogger Lane Hudson Not Very Forgiving

CNN covered the now widely talked about interruption of Bill Clinton's keynote speech at Netroots Nation. Blogger Lane Hudson stood up and shouted, "Mr. President, will you call for a repeal of DOMA and Don't Ask, Don't Tell? Right now?"

Clinton snapped back, placing blame back on the LGBT population. However, CNN calls Clinton's take "classic Bill Clinton version of history - 'It wasn't my fault.'"



CNN isn't alone.

Blog Godless Liberal Homo takes extreme umbrage with Clinton's portrayal of Don't Ask Don't Tell's passage.

Let's start with the military ban. Bill Clinton claims that the problem with his deceptively labeled "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy was with its implementation despite the fact that he deliberately designed it to increase the number of discharges and witchhunts. Queer veterans groups at the time were warning people that this version was even worse than the version Reagan put in place as an Executive Order.

Clinton also lied about congressional support to sustain a veto of a military ban. In 1993, 35 Senators voted to lift the ban completely with no support from the Clinton White House. It only takes 34 Senators to sustain a veto.

Here are a couple of facts about the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that you may not know.

1) Military commanders are allowed to launch investigations of sexual orientation without anyone coming out based on any or no evidence. These witchhunts even have involved placing undercover military police in gay bars.

2) If a soldier tells her mother she is a lesbian, she is violating "DADT" and is subject to discharge.

3) If a marine tells his boyfriend he is gay, he is violating "DADT" and is subject to discharge.

(That's why it pisses me off when people call it "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" itself is one of Bill Clinton's homophobic lies.)

Bill Clinton also lied about DOMA. He said he didn't want to sign it, yet he ran campaign ads in 1996 on fundamentalist Christian radio bragging about signing it. Oops!

Given now that we have another president who claimed to be a "fierce advocate" in his campaign but shows less action while in office, this debate about Clinton's legacy seems very timely, especially with talk that Obama hesitates making moves on LGBT rights because he fears making the same mistakes Clinton did.

It's all about context. Like Clinton said at Netroots Nation, that was 16 years ago.

Urge CNN to Consider Gay Life in America

With the popular series "Black in America," CNN shed light on the black American experience. They also have an upcoming series called "Latino in America" this October. Considering the vast amount of misinformation regarding sexual orientation, social attitudes, homophobia and rising support for gay equality, encourage CNN to tell the story of gay life in America. American LGBT is a community of unsung heroes, unimaginable hardship, expressive culture and a unique American experience that major news networks have, in many respects, failed to capture.

Contact CNN's team and request a similar documentary for the LGBT community; "Gay in America."

Sign the petition at gayrights.change.org

Crossposted with Queers United.

CNN Interviews Episcopal Bishops About Church's Pro-Gay Measures

Last week, the Episcopal Church took a huge leap forward in accepting the LGBT population into its fold by approving a measure that will end a moratorium on ordaining gay and lesbian clergy, and in an amazing move, they have now allowed clergy to give blessings to same-sex couples.

CNN speaks to Episcopal Bishops James Curry of the Diocese of Connecticut and Bishop Andrew Doyle of Texas about the recent moves.

NAACP Struggles to Take Official Stance on Marriage Equality

The new president of the NAACP, Benjamin Todd Jealous, spoke with CNN's T.J. Holmes on the organization's struggle to take a stance on marriage equality.

In the interview below, he states they do support many issues concerning LGBT, including hate crimes, but when it comes to marriage, it's a divisive issue within their membership.



Something that struck me rather quickly in this interview was Jealous' incorrect recitation of the chant, "Gay, Straight, Black, White, Marriage Is a Civil Right." He quoted it as, "Gay, Straight, Black, White, Same Struggle, Same Fight."

This may seem like a minor detail, but it's not. Many African Americans I've spoken to or have read object to LGBT rights movement being directly compared to their rights movement. Now, I've been to countless protests, marches and rallies, and I've not once heard the chant that Jealous recited. I'm not accusing him of twisting the language purposefully to support his argument, nor that it's never been chanted, but I'm pointing out how the LGBT rights movement can be perceived and interpreted.

This is a delicate issue. I don't see the LGBT civil rights movement as being the same as the African American civil rights movement. Big differences exist, different effects of different types of discrimination. But in my opinion, it still boils down to the rights granted to us by the government, whether that be the protection of a minority or the benefits afforded to tax paying citizens. Either way you look at it, when the government is involved, it's a civil issue, and when that government discriminates, it's a civil rights issue.

The NAACP is a civil rights organization founded during the African American civil rights movement with that segment of the American population in mind. Yet to be leaders, you sometimes have to make unpopular decisions, even if it will anger those who follow you. In this case, people are looking to the NAACP to make that decision. They need to, soon, no matter what it is.

But I would like to remind them of the words of MLK's widow, Coretta Scott King:

"Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union. A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing, and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages."

"We are all tied together in a single garment of destiny... I can never be what I ought to be until you are allowed to be what you ought to be," she said, quoting from her husband. "I've always felt that homophobic attitudes and policies were unjust and unworthy of a free society and must be opposed by all Americans who believe in democracy."

"Gays and lesbians stood up for civil rights in Montgomery, Selma, in Albany, Georgia, and St. Augustine, Florida, and many other campaigns of the Civil Rights Movement. Many of these courageous men and women were fighting for my freedom at a time when they could find few voices for their own, and I salute their contributions."

"We have a lot of work to do in our common struggle against bigotry and discrimination. I say 'common struggle,' because I believe very strongly that all forms of bigotry & discrimination are equally wrong and should be opposed by right-thinking Americans everywhere. Freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation is surely a fundamental human right in any great democracy, as much as freedom from racial, religious, gender, or ethnic discrimination."

Chicago Sun Times, April 1, 1998, p.18. "She said the civil rights movement 'thrives on unity and inclusion, not division and exclusion.' Her husband's struggle parallels that of the gay rights movement, she said."

Here is a quote from the Rev. Eric Lee, President of the Los Angeles chapter of MLK's Southern Christian Leadership Conference, who faces being fired because he took a stand for marriage equality.

"Any time one group of people are denied the same rights as other people, it is unequivocally a denial of civil rights."

Joint Chief of Staff Ad. Mike Mullen Believes in "Measured" Approach to DADT; Colin Powell Withholds Judgment

"I haven't done any kind of extensive review. And what I feel most obligated about is to make sure I tell the president, you know, my - give the president my best advice, should this law change, on the impact on our people and their families at these very challenging times," Mullen said.

So naturally, my response, "What about our families? What about DADT impact on us? I guess we're beside the point of consideration."

See former top Clinton aide and lawyer Richard Socarides response to Mullen's comments at America Blog.

Even more disappointing is Colin Powell, who in 1993 helped get DADT passed.



Michael of Michael-in-Norfolk blog observes, "Powell's comments are particularly ironic since at the time President Harry Truman integrated the military there were many racist whites who viewed blacks much the same way gays are viewed by homophobic bigots. Using Powell's analysis, Truman should not have made the move he did - waiting instead for the country to be ready for the change. Living around the military as I do, it is likely the most anti-change institution there is save perhaps the bitter old queens at the Vatican."

Lt Dan. Choi Trial Begins Tomorrow Morning - Sign a Letter of Support

Tomorrow, Lt. Dan Choi will face a panel of colonels who will decide whether or not to fire fire him -- to discharge him for "moral and professional dereliction" under the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

Show your support for Lt. Dan by signing this letter of support that will be given to the members of the board.

So far, 141,262 have signed.

Yesterday, Lt. Dan spoke to CNN about the fight for equal rights and the 40th Anniversary of Stonewall.

CNN Interviews 'GLAAD' President Jarrett Barrios About Obama and LGBT Rights

Jarrett T. Barrios, a former State Senator from Massachusetts who now heads a leading health care foundation, recently became GLAAD's new president.



See GLAAD's press release announcing Barrios as new president which includes his bio.

Pastor of Church Performing Exorcism of "Homosexual Demon" Speaks to CNN - "Everything Carries a Spirit."

CNN today just interviewed Sr. Pastor Patricia McKinney of the Manifested Glory Ministries, the church at the center of the controversy of the exorcism of the "homosexual demon" video, which depicts the elders and the pastor attempting to cast a gay demon or "spirit" out of a young congregant.



Some quotes from the pastor:

"I just wanted to tell the world out there that Manifested Glory Ministries is not against homosexuality. We do not hate them, we do not come up against them - we just do not believe in their lifestyle. We believe in the power of the holy spirit."

She claims the young man threw himself on the ground asking to be delivered from his homosexuality.

Asked if anyone is welcome to the church, including homosexuals, she responds:

"When you come in [to the church], you can get delivered by the power of the holy spirit. We welcome anyone in our church. Alls [sic] were saying is that we do not like the lifestyle of a man with a man and a woman with a woman. And that's our beliefs. We do not say that they cannot come in our church. They are all welcomed in our church. They just have to be delivered."

"Everything carries a spirit. It's just not the homosexual spirit. You have the alcohol spirit, you have the crack cocaine spirit, you have the adultery spirit - everything carries a spirit. It can be a good spirit. It can be a bad spirit."

Asked if the man was delivered from homosexuality, if his lifestyle has changed, she says:

"Yes he's doing much better . . . He is a very intelligent young man. He is a very powerful young man. And he's a very spiritual young man . . . We are a spiritual church.

"I am an end-time prophet. I declare the word of the Lord. And alls [sic] I'm doing is the work of the Lord. We're not coming up against the gay community. We're not coming up against homosexuality."

When it's pointed out that she's judging homosexuality as wrong when comparing it to adultery and addiction, she claims:

"I am a recovering addict. I am recovering crack head and heroine addict. And I knew that I was under the power of a demonic force that caused me to use crack cocaine and that caused me to use heroine. Now I've been clean and sober through the power of the holy spirit for 15 years now. But it took the deliverance of the holy spirit to get me free. I've been through jails and I've been through programs that did not help."

Asked what we would see if the whole context of the video was portrayed:

"You would've seen that we're just people that love the Lord, we're people that worship him in spirit and truth...If you would come into our church, you don't see that we're not just exorcising and casting out demons. We do so many good things in the community..."

"I love God's people. I don't care if you're a homosexual, I don't care if you're a lesbian, I don't care if you're a drug addict. Everything carries a spirit. And when I say about gay couples - that their prerogative. But my beliefs [sic] is that a man should be with a woman and woman should be with a man. When God created the earth, he created Adam & Eve. And I believe that there is a power and a force behind homosexuality, not just homosexuality, but adultery, lesbiism [sic], all kinds of spirits. I just want to put my story out there because it making it seem like I'm a murderer, it making it seem like I hate the gays."

Having come from a Christian and highly spiritual background, this controversy comes at no surprise to me. Though I believe this pastor and the church have good intentions, it appears to me their own past dire pasts have been projected upon each other. This brainwashing does irreparable damage, including to this young man who hates himself enough to willingly subject his body and mind to this "exorcism."

Sounds like this pastor's "demons" are still hanging on to her. What a shame.

VIDEO: Reactions to Obama Memo Signing; Rep. Frank Changes Mind and Supports DOMA Brief; ACTIONS You Can Take

Rep. Tammy Baldwin talks to Rachel Maddow while HRC's Joe Solmonese talk to Keith Olbermann about Obama's memorandum extending limited federal benefits to gay employees.



Oscar-winning screenwriter of "Milk" Dustin Lance Black and attorney and former Clinton adviser Richard Socarides talk to Anderson Cooper. Both believe the Obama Administration is behind the curve. Iowa has marriage, and Obama can barely give any benefits to his own employees.



But the drama continues. The highest ranking gay U.S. representative, Barney Frank, has now down a 180 and actually comes out and supports the insulting DOMA brief issued by Obama and the DOJ. He claims his initial statement was made before he had actually read the brief. Oye.

“Now that I have read the brief, I believe that the administration made a conscientious and largely successful effort to avoid inappropriate rhetoric. There are some cases where I wish they had been more explicit in disavowing their view that certain arguments were correct, and to make it clear that they were talking not about their own views of these issues, but rather what was appropriate in a constitutional case with a rational basis standard – which is the one that now prevails in the federal courts, although I think it should be upgraded.”

“It was my position in that conversation with the reporter that the administration had no choice but to defend the constitutionality of the law. I think it is unwise for liberals like myself, who were consistently critical of President Bush’s refusal to abide by the law in cases where he disagreed with it to now object when President Obama refuses to follow the Bush example. It is the President’s job to try to change the law, but it is also his obligation to uphold and defend it when it has been enacted by appropriate processes. It would not be wise, in my judgment, for those of us who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender, or who sympathize with the fight for our rights, to argue for a precedent that says that executives who disagreed politically with the purpose of the law should have the option of refusing to defend it in a constitutional case.”

Read the full statement. With the Washington Blade promising to show up to Frank's LGBT DNC fundraiser, taping all who attend the boycotted event with their cameras, donors are dropping like flies. Tsk tsk, Frank. This statement isn't going to help.

John Avarois, an attorney who writes at America Blog, had a few choice words of reaction, saying, "Our senior most gay member of Congress actually said that had Obama argued in court that DOMA is unconstitutional, that would be akin to George Bush not going to court to, for example, get a warrant to spy on Americans. Get it? Defending gay people is like spying illegally. But comparing us to incest and pedophilia, using what I'm told was pretty much the original brief the Bush administration used against us years ago, is somehow a sign that we're better than the Republicans - by repeating their arguments in court."

John also wrote an amazing summary at Salon.com about what lead up to the LGBT population feeling betrayed by the Obama Administration, titled "President Obama betrays the gay community: We supported you. Time to live up to your promises."

In it, he writes:

The president would like us to believe that he's awfully busy being president, and if we only wait a little while longer, we'll get our rights. Of course, the president isn't too busy to stab the community in the back by continuing the military discharges, defending DOMA, and comparing us to pedophiles. (On Wednesday, White House spokesperson Robert Gibbs was given a chance to repudiate the DOMA brief's language about incest and pedophilia and would not.)

When, Mr. President, will be a good time to set my people free? When will the leader of the free world get a breather, a presidential timeout as it were? (And I thought this was the administration that could walk and chew gum at the same time.) Are we really to believe that 2010, a congressional election year, will be any more timely than today? Or 2011, the beginning of the presidential primaries? Or 2012, with a congressional and presidential election? There is quite literally no time like the present.

Many others have chimed in, including the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times.

ACTION: So what can we do to keep the pressure up on Congress and the Administration to give us our federal rights (other than sitting around and griping, which I admit, I'm good at)?

1. Tell the President and Congress to DUMP DOMA! Our allies at the People for the American Way have had this form up for awhile, but let's flood it now with messages to our leaders to take action against this discriminatory law. And a big thanks to our allies!
   
2. Hate Crimes against LGBT has skyrocketed. URGE Congress to pass the Hate Crimes Bill by signing Change.org's petition.
3. Contact Congress and demand ENDA be passed so the whole LGBT population can work without the fear of being fired from their jobs just because they're LGBT. Also, check out SharedAgenda.org to learn more.
4. Sign the Courage Campaign's Don't Ask Don't Tell petition to the president urging him to end this law that is far from supporting our national interest.
5. If you are interested in organizing federally, a big opportunity is coming in October with the National March for Equality, where grassroots representatives from all 436 congressional districts (who are chosen locally) will come together to network and strategize on how to organize not only to gain federal rights, but to pool resources for major local battles ahead, such as in Maine and California who have referendums on marriage equality coming up. Find out more at NationalEqualityMarch.com.
   

We have proven this past week that when we speak in unison, we are heard. When we close our wallets, politicians scramble. When we organize, we win.

Let's not stop now. We have a lot more to accomplish.

VIDEO: Jerry Brown Speaks to CNN on His Support for Marriage Equality

California Attorney General Jerry Brown speaks to CNN about his support for the federal case against Proposition 8 and his belief that extending full rights to same-sex couples is the way of the future.

VIDEO: CNN Discusses Prop 8 Dustin Lance Black

CNN interviews Juan Rivera and Eric Manriquez, an openly gay couple who married in California, discuss their marriages remaining valid in the state. Dustin Lance Black, Oscar winner for scripting "Milk" discusses Prop. 8 and challenges facing LGBT youth.