UPDATE: ACTION: Urge Vermont Governor NOT to Veto Same-Sex Marriage Bill

UPDATE: Vermont Freedom to Marry is also calling for action. There will be a protest at the state house this Friday at 8:45am EST. Check it out!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From WCAX.com:

Gov. Jim Douglas, R-Vermont, says he will veto the same-sex marriage bill if it passes the legislature. He made the public announcement this afternoon.

The Vt. Senate gave its final stamp of approval Tuesday to a bill that would allow same-sex couples to marry in Vermont. Passage came on a voice vote with no debate, one day after the Senate gave the bill preliminary approval on a 26-4 roll call vote. Now the issue moves to the House, where the Judiciary Committee has scheduled a week's worth of testimony on the issue. It is expected to pass.

Governor Douglas has said that he opposes the bill, and this afternoon he announced he plans to veto it. He said he made the announcement to stop speculation and to focus attention on economy.

From the Burlington Press, the Governor is quoted:

"I believe our civil union law serves Vermont well ...I believe that marriage should remain between a man and a woman. ... I'm announcing that I intend to veto this legislation when it reaches my desk."

"The speculation about my decision has added to the anxiety of the moment, and further diverts attention from our most pressing issues, and I cannot allow that to happen. On such an intensely divisive issue as this, I expect all members will vote as their individual conscience dictates and in the best interest of their districts, and not as political leadership requires. That said, I'm sure that legislative leaders would not have advanced this bill if they didn't have the votes to override a veto. I will accept the outcome of their vote, either way.

"In the meantime, I'll turn my attention and energy away from this issue and back to the issue that matters most to Vermonters: Growing our economy and creating more jobs. I respect the passion and opinions of individuals on both sides of this debate, and hope that when the Legislature makes its decision, whatever the outcome may be, we can move our state forward and provide a bright future for our children and our grandchildren," he said.

It is unclear if the 100 votes to override his veto are available.

ACTION: Contact the Governor and tell him NOT to veto the bill. With most of the state congress supporting the bill, to veto it will be acting irresponsibly and abusing his power to advance his view that's held only by the minority.

Phone: 802 828-3333
Email the Governor

"Christianism" vs. "Christianist"

Part of Unite the Fight's mission statement is to learn about the opposition to LGBT equal rights and why they move against us. Though it's the easy route to throw all Christians under the bus and accuse them of being bigots and opponents to our cause, that is far from the case. Many Christians do in fact practice what they preach and truly do love their neighbor as themselves. Including the LGBT community.

And then there are those who wave "God Hates Fags" signs.

It is essential that we learn the difference because if we are to win this battle, we need our allies. We can't afford to group people into one lump category, just as they can't do that to us.

Equal Marriage Now, a blog aimed at providing comprehensive information on the fight for marriage equality, recently posted on identifying the differences:

While there’s some debate who coined the terms originally, it’s pretty clearly Andrew Sullivan who’s brought them into the modern conversation about religion and politics.

His basic definition splits Christianity into the Christian faith as spiritual experience versus a Christian-identified political imperative:

"the critical distinction between a Christianist and a mere Christian. One wants to infuse politics with religion; the other wants to respect both, separately, and to keep religion private. I should add I do not want to banish the word “God” from the public square. But I do want that invocation to be as thin and as empty and as formal as the Founders intended." (1)

That wasn’t the first time he used the term, however. He originally defined the idea in an essay for Time Magazine, in which he described its meaning in greater detail:

More...

"So let me suggest that we take back the word Christian while giving the religious right a new adjective: Christianist. Christianity, in this view, is simply a faith. Christianism is an ideology, politics, an ism. The distinction between Christian and Christianist echoes the distinction we make between Muslim and Islamist. Muslims are those who follow Islam. Islamists are those who want to wield Islam as a political force and conflate state and mosque. Not all Islamists are violent. Only a tiny few are terrorists. And I should underline that the term Christianist is in no way designed to label people on the religious right as favoring any violence at all. I mean merely by the term Christianist the view that religious faith is so important that it must also have a precise political agenda. It is the belief that religion dictates politics and that politics should dictate the laws for everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike." (2)

A subsequent blog post adds a layer of nuance. It’s not just the difference between leaving one’s religious belief out of politics or not, it’s about the fundamental way that belief interacts with the uncertainties and diversities of the world:

"The thing about fundamentalism, though, is its totality. There is something in the fundamentalist psyche that not only demands complete submission to a certain “truth”; but subsequently a frenzied effort to remove and obliterate all threats to that truth - because it has become so psychologically important for your own spiritual survival. Doubt, in this view, is not a goad to faith, but a terrible threat to it - so doubt must be eradicated. That inevitably leads to the empowerment of government for the pursuit of Christianist ends, and to the loss of empirical prudence in governance." (3)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Sullivan, Andrew. “The right and religion.” The Daily Dish. 14 December 2007. http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/12/the-right-and-r.html (retrieved 19 December 2009).

(2) Sullivan, Andrew. “My problem with Christianism.” Time. 7 May 2006. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1191826,00.html (retrieved 19 February 2009).

(3) Sullivan, Andrew. “Christianism, Debated.” The Daily Dish. http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2006/05/christianism_de_3.html (retrieved 19 February 2009).

UPDATE: ACTION ALERT: Hawaii Civil Unions Bill May Be Revivied

UPDATE: Sen. Gary Hooser plans to pull the civil unions bill out of committee tomorrow and onto senate floor for a vote, March 25th.

And support for the bill continues to grow with clery members voicing their support by lobbying their legislators.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last heard from Hawaii, the civil unions bill, House Bill 444, was deadlocked in a subcommittee. Yet numbers released Saturday show that 81% of Hawaii agree with civil unions.

Sen. Gary Hooser, the bill's sponsor, highly encouraged by these numbers, is now working to push the bill to the floor for a vote and get it passed the deadlocked committee.

“As the person who was the sponsor of the Senate Bill, and as the majority leader ... most would believe that I would be the appropriate person to make the motion,” said Hooser, a Democrat representing Kaua‘i and Ni‘ihau, in a phone interview with The GardenIsland.com. “If there’s a majority consensus, I would make a motion in my capacity as majority leader. If there’s no consensus, then I’ll make the motion as an individual senator.”

Having passed the House in February and sensing that 18 of 25 senators will vote for the measure, Sen. Hooser needs to get a motion passed in the committee by one-third of its members to pull the bill to the floor for a vote.

“The preferable way to conduct business is if you have the votes to pass something, then you’d initiate a pull. But it’s not the only way. Sometimes you don’t know if you’d have the votes until the pull is initiated,” he said. “I would prefer, and my hopes are, that the bill is pulled with support from the majority. (But) as an individual senator, I have an obligation, and the right thing to do is to allow the full Senate to vote on it.”

He has until next month to successfully pull the bill, otherwise the bill could stall until next month.

ACTION: Do your part and contact the Senate Judiciary Committee to pull the bill and get it to the floor for a vote. Their constituency supports it. So should they.

Senator Robert Bunda [OPPOSED]
808-586-6090
senbunda@Capitol.hawaii.gov

Senator Sam Slom [OPPOSED]
808-586-8420
senslom@Capitol.hawaii.gov

Senator Mike Gabbard [OPPOSED]
808-586-6830
sengabbard@Capitol.hawaii.gov

Senator Brian Taniguchi [SUPPORTS]
808-586-6460
sentaniguchi@Capitol.hawaii.gov

Senator Clarence K. Nishihara [SUPPORTS]
808-586-6970
sennishihara@Capitol.hawaii.gov

Dwight Takamine [SUPPORTS]
808-586-7335
sentakamine@capitol.hawaii.gov

"The Ripping, Nagging, Feeling That I Am Inferior"

A 17-year old testifies for same-sex marriage in Vermont this past Friday.

Let's Not Forget Our Pledge of Allegiance

I pledge allegiance
To the Flag
Of the United States of America
And to the Republic
For which it stands
One nation
Under God
Indivisible
With liberty and justice
For all

When was the last time you really thought about the words that you had to speak everyday at the beginning of class throughout your childhood? At that time, after awhile, you spoke it by rote while barely placing your hand over your heart, not really paying attention to what you were saying, giggling with your friend at the next desk over about some joke on the playground. So over time, it lost all meaning.

But suddenly, your rights are stripped away, and you think, "How the hell did this happen?" And then you remember. "Didn't I pledge something, about a Republic?" And suddenly, that droning recital you gave every morning at school has a whole lot of meaning.

I pledge allegiance

Those of us fighting for our equal rights have been accused of being non-American, of trying to thwart the very foundation of our country. Yet, if I remember right, my history teacher told me that the very reason our country exists was because the colonists who worked their hands to the bone to establish this country (or worked their slaves' hands to the bone), believed they didn't have a voice in how they were governed. "Taxation without representation," became their motto. And if I'm not confused, am I not paying taxes NOW for numerous benefits I'm being denied? Where's my representation? So fighting for my rights, my equal rights, to those benefits, is in the exact nature of how our country even began! I'm standing by my allegiance!

To the Flag
Of the United States of America

. . . 48, 49, 50. Yep, there's still fifty stars on that flag. Meaning, all states make up the Union. Oh, wait, there's thirteen stripes, representing the original thirteen colonies that fought for their voices to be heard. So if I'm interpreting the flag correctly, those fifty stars stand in solidarity with the intent of the colonies to have equal representation.

So why is it that each state can decide for itself whether or not to allow some people marry? Why is that I can get married in Connecticut, but then drive to North Carolina and suddenly not be married? That doesn't sound like a Union to me.

And speaking of the Union as a whole - the federal government doesn't recognize some marriages while it does others? Even going as far as to discriminate against its employees? Doesn't that go against the very essence of equal representation that its creation was based upon?

And to the Republic
For which it stands. . .

A republic. A republic? What's that?

A Republic is representative government ruled by law (the Constitution). Then what's a democracy? A democracy is direct government ruled by the majority (mob rule). A Republic recognizes the inalienable rights of individuals while democracies are only concerned with group wants or needs (the public good). Of course, if everyone remembered this, or agreed with said definitions, maybe I would still have my rights. Hopefully, President Obama will remember.

One Nation
Under God

More...

"Under God" was an addition first introduced by the Knights of Columbus. Need I say more? Their version of God is not quite mine. I do believe in a higher power, but I don't believe that the higher power is condemning me to hell for loving another person, whether or not they are of the same sex as I.

Indivisible

One nation. I pledged that. I'm not trying to tear us apart. I'm trying to regain my rights and fight for the rights that my fellow citizens already enjoy. If anything, that's unifying our nation. But I believe if someone is actively trying to take someone's rights away, they're trying to divide. So in effect, are they not breaking their pledge?

With liberty

I don't have the liberty to marry whom I want. I did. At least in California. But that was taken away. But a bare majority. (Re-read what a Republic is)

. . . and justice for all.

Ah. Justice. I'm still waiting to see if the California Supreme Court will issue justice here. During the Proposition 8 arguments, they kept referring to the will of the people, almost as if they had the final say. But in a republic, "people" is singular. Each individual has a say. Each. And their say is protected. In a democracy, "people" is plural, and the majority rule.

I believe I am a "people." I believe my LGBT community is a "people." And my will, along with theirs, is to have the same rights as my fellow citizens.

Having those rights is justice. FOR ALL.


Sources:
Citizens for Constitutional Government, "Republic vs. Democracy"
Wikipedia, "Addition of the words 'Under God'"

Meghan McCain Believes in Gay Marriage

Meghan McCain, daughter of John McCain, the Republican's nominee for last fall's presidential race, is proving to be more the maverick than her father ever was, or more than her father ever hoped to be.

Last night, the "progressive Republican" appeared on CNN's Larry King Live and proclaimed her support for gay marriage.



As I've mentioned before, and as Meghan states here, real change lies in the hands of the new generation that is now standing up and speaking out. Not that the current generation can't bring about change, but true change in the minds of the populace will occur when the young generation matures and becomes the majority. That doesn't mean we sit back and wait. The tide is turning. Let's go surf.

EVENT REMINDER: Stop a "Prop 8" from Happening in North Carolina

North Carolina is the last southern state to not have an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment, but if the right-wing has any say in the matter, that will change very soon.

You can help Equality North Carolina by contacting the state's legislature and filling out ENC's form and telling them that you do NOT support such an amendment.

Another action you can perform is to attend ENC rally at the state's capitol on Tuesday, March 24th to lobby for equality. If you know anyone who lives in the state, tell them about it! Details can be found here.