May Become a Senate Showdown

An amendment sponsored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) would allow U.S. citizens in long-term relationships to sponsor foreign partners for green cards (as opposite sex married couples are allowed by law). Out of the 300 proposed changes that have been filed by Judiciary panel members, this amendment, seems to be causing the most controversy.

Leahy has two amendments: One would implement the Uniting American Families Act; the other would exempt immigration law from the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act that could be struck down by the U.S Supreme Court next month anyway.

Democrats

Gay-rights groups want President Obama to offer more support to immigrants in same-sex marriages.  Equal treatment for same-sex couples was included in the president’s principles for comprehensive immigration reform last January. Yet, the President could do much more to advocate for amendments sponsored by Senator Leahy. Obama has said that “protection for same-sex bi-national couples is “the right thing to do” yet does not say that it has to be part of immigration reform. Through an executive order, it’s speculated that Obama could extend equal treatment to same-sex couples under immigration law.

The lead author of Senate immigration reform legislation and a co-sponsor of Leahy’s Uniting American Families Act, which would extend equal immigration treatment to long-term same-sex couples is Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Dick Durbin, D-Ill. are the two Democratic members of the bill-writing group known as “Gang of Eight.” The eight senators have committed to join together to defeat amendments from either side that could derail the bill. Schumer and Durbin have not said how they will vote.  Durbin, Senate Majority Whip, said the bipartisan coalition did not agree to add the gay partner amendment.

One of Leahy’s amendments would implement the Uniting American Families Act; the other would exempt immigration law from the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act that could be struck down by the U.S Supreme Court next month anyway.

Republicans

The Democrats are in a tough place.  They are being forced by Republicans to choose between delivering a win for gay families and maintaining bipartisan support. They don’t want to tell gay rights advocates that the amendment may not get a vote in the Judiciary Committee and take the blame.

If the amendment gets into the immigration bill, it could endanger the whole comprehensive immigration reform plan.

The four Republicans among the eight senators who  wrote the immigration bill have said that such a provision could cost their support and kill the bill. Said Senator Marco Rubio, R-Fla., “if that issue is injected into this bill, this bill will fail.”

U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) commented on May 13, 2013 that “if the Judiciary Committee tries to redefine marriage in the immigration bill they will lose me and many others.”

Also opposed are religious groups such as the Southern Baptist Convention that have backed the immigration reform

A Stalemate?

Gay-rights advocates said on May 15, 2013, they didn’t know when Leahy will offer his amendment to require equal treatment for same-sex couples.  One source predicted it would come late in the markup of the bill, which is expected to span a couple of weeks, but before the Memorial Day recess.

Senate Bill 1178 Passed the House of Representatives with a 32-24 Vote

Last Wednesday, May 15, 2013, the Arizona House passed a measure that would offer further protection for the religious liberties of its state citizens. The bill seeks to strengthen religious freedom in the state by predominantly giving all “impending” religious liberty violation, as opposed to a violation which has already taken place. The measure also expands the definition of exercise of religion to specifically include both the practice and observance of religion.

Will Bill Hurt Small Business?

The bill passed despite opposition from civil liberties groups who are afraid that the measure will inspire lawsuits over alleged First Amendment violations. They believe that the bill will be a nightmare for businesses because it doesn’t specify what constitutes a potential violation of religious liberty.

The Original Bill

Senator Steve Yarbrough of Chandler, the bill’s sponsor, initially introduced a broader bill that would have alllowed people to sue governments over attacks on religious freedom, regardless if the government was involved in the claim.

The original bill also stipulated that governments could only limit religious liberties to further an “interest in the highest magnitude.” If allowed, that version of the bill, would have been one of the strongest in the nation, according to supporters.

Stricter Language on New Version

Arizona law and the U.S. Constitution already protect the free exercise of religion, but proponents want stricter language.  The Center for Arizona Policy,which supports the bill, said in a statement on its website that “it is necessary to update Arizona’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act and to close loopholes that might jeopardize a person’s free exercise of religion in Arizona.” Persecuting individuals or groups for their religious beliefs creates second-class citizens who are seen as less valuable because of their faith.”

“To ensure religious liberty is protected to the maximum extent possible in our state, “ the bill “makes important clarifications and updates,” says The Center for Arizona Policy.

Drawbacks of New Bill

Rep. Chad Campbell (D-Phoenix) does not like the revamped bill because it does no longer allows a defendant to sue to the government over an attack on religious freedom regardless of the whether the government is involved.  He remarked to the AZ Capitol Times “while you may not be encouraging litigation (with the new version of the bill), …I think you are opening the door for litigation that is probably unnecessary and burdensome, especially for small businesses. “

Yarbrough said on May 15^th that he would have preferred the original version, but he supports the amended measure and wants to see Senate Bill 1178 go to a Senate vote.

The ‘gay ministers’ issue has dominated discussion within the church for some time after an openly gay minister, Scott Rennie, was selected to lead a parish in Aberdeen in 2009.

The general assembly rejected a motion which would have made gay ordination – solely for ministers in civil partnerships or who are celibate – the default position of the Church of Scotland, by 340 votes to 282.

The new deal now has to be written into a new church law and authorised by next year’s general assembly, affirms the traditional teaching of the church as favouring heterosexual ministers, but will allow congregations to opt in to select gay ministers if they wish.

Due to the archaic and complicated law-making procedures within the church little is expected to change until at least 2015, however commentators are applauding this new measure – “This has been one way or another, a massive vote for the peace and unity of the church.” John Chalmers, the Church of Scotland’s principal clerk said, adding that both sides of the debate had moved to agree a compromise.

The Church of Scotland has been edging ever closer towards gay ordination since Rennie’s appointment. During in 2011 the general assembly voted to allow gay ministers already employed, to remain in place, so long as they were in openly-declared civil partnerships or were celibate and had been ordained before 2009.

Not everyone is happy, many critics of gay ordination after still warning the new measure will further drive a dividing wedge in church membership and force some members, ministers or congregations to leave the church.

“Don’t ask, don’t tell” (DADT) was the official United States policy on gays serving in the military from December 21, 1993, to September 20, 2011.  The policy prohibited military personnel from discriminating against or harassing closeted homosexual or bisexual persons from military service.

The act prohibited any homosexual or bisexual person from disclosing his or her sexual orientation or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages of other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces.  The act specified that service members who disclose that they are homosexual or engage in homosexual conduct should be separated (discharged) except when a service member’s conduct was “for the purpose of avoiding or terminating military service: Since DADT ended in 2011, open gays and lesbians have been able to serve.

Veterans’ Eligibility for State Benefits

On May 16, the state House of Representatives voted 134-0 in favor of legislation making veterans eligible for state benefits if they have been denied federal benefits solely because of their sexual orientation. Another requirement is that the veteran’s federal benefits must have been reinstated.

Last month, the bill, in a 34-0 vote, was passed by the Senate. Senator Carlo Leone ( D-36 of Stamford and Darien) said last month that the bill “cannot undo the mistakes of our past but can help restore rightly earned benefits.”

The legislation will soon be on Governor Dannel Mallory’s desk.

After two days of debate, with many amendments offered and discussed, the Culture Secretary and Minister for Equalities, Maria Miller told Mps just before the crucial vote “I accept that for some colleagues their beliefs mean that the principle of this issue is an insurmountable barrier to supporting this change.

“But to other colleagues I say, now is the time. Let us not be side-tracked nor distracted. Let us not expand the remit of this bill beyond its original intention. Let us make equal marriage possible because it is the right thing to do and then let us move on. I am pleased to commend this bill to the House.”

It has been a most dramatic time at London’s House of Parliament, on Monday the bill was in danger of being completely stalled by an amendment from a backbench Tory MP, thankfully in a deal with the opposition leader Ed Miliband, they overcame the wrecking amendment, which was designed purly to slow up and even halt the bill in its

There were a few further complications on Tuesday afternoon because of an amendment calling for Humanist marriage ceremonies to be legalised at the same time. Even though it had widespread support from Liberal Democrat and Labour MPs – the amendment was withdrawn after the attorney general warned that it would fall foul of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Under the bill, the Church of England and the Church in Wales would be banned from offering same-sex marriages because of their strongly stated opposition, unless they changed canon law. Whilst other religious organisations would be able to “opt in” to holding same-sex ceremonies.

Marriage Equality and getting the bill passed the Commons has been an enormous challenge for the UK Prime Minister David Cameron and is seen by many as a key part of his modernisation of the Conservative party, giving it wider appeal to the younger generations. However, such a move has cost the leader support from many old guard in the party, MP Crispin Blunt conceded that it has cost Cameron support – “He’s made his point, everyone knows the fire he’s going through with some of his own colleagues in order to deliver this and I hope people are going to be appropriately grateful for the fantastic leadership that he’s shown on this.” he told gay media in the UK

In terms of the current opposition to the measure, Mr Blunt added: “Once this is done, it’s finished, it’s over and everyone will wonder what on earth all the fuss was about.”

The Bill will now head to the House of Lords where it is likely to face determined and uncompromising opposition. The House of Lord’s are the older unelected chamber in UK’s archaic political system and are well known for their opposition to such moves towards equality. If the bill passes in the House of Lords, it could mean that same-sex marriages could be legal in the UK as early as the autumn of 2014.

May 2-7 poll by Gallup suggests that U.S. support for marriage equality is solidifying above the majority level.

Findings Very Different From 3 Years Ago

Three years ago, only 44% were in favor of gay marriage.  In 1996, only 27% of Americans supported same-sex marriage.

Highlights of the Poll:

• Nearly all U.S. subgroups are more likely to favor gay marriage now.
• Democrats, Independents, and liberals show increasing support for gay marriage, well above the majority.
• Republicans, conservatives, and moderates more likely to favor gay marriage now.
• Left-leaning political groups in last 3 years responsible for percentage increase.

Sixty-nine of Democrats believe in 2013 that gay marriage should be legal as opposed to 58% of Independents.  Only twenty-six percent of Republicans favor gay marriage.

Younger Americans are more likely than older Americans to favor same-sex marriage with the breakdown as follows:

• The highest percentage of approval comes from 18 to 29 year-olds.
• Fifty-three percent of 30 to 49 year-olds favor gay marriage.
• Forty-six percent of people, 50 to 64 year-olds favor gay marriage.
• Forty-one percent of sixty-five and older adults support gay marriage.

When asked their impression of how most Americans feel about the issue, 63% say the public is opposed to gay marriage when in effect, most support it.  Only 30% say the public favors it.  This finding suggests that a segment of Americans who support same-sex marriage believe that their views are in the minority, but they’re really in the majority.

Americans Are Not Convinced that Gay Marriage has Societal Benefits

Only 19% of Americans believe legalizing same-sex marriage will change society for the better.  But this figure is up from 10% in 2003. Forty percent say that legal gay marriage will have no effect on society or will make it worse (39%).

 

From May to October, 2013

While Pride has been traditionally associated with the month of June, some cities are starting as early as Memorial Day weekend and culminating in mid-October during Columbus Day weekend, coinciding with National Coming Out Day.

For a more complete listing, please see http:www.gaycities.com/events/guides.

Atlanta, Georgia Aquarium, October 11 (kickoff Party), Pride Festival, Piedmont Park Festival Grounds, October 12-13.

Boston Pride, Festival at City Hall Plaza, May 31-June 9, 2013.

Chicago Pride, May 24-25, 2013 and June 22-30, 2013

Dallas Pride Festival, September 14-15, 2013

Denver Pride, Civic Center Park, June 12-16, 2013

Houston Pride, Montrose, June 21-30

Key West Pride, June 5-9, 2013

Las Vegas Pride, Clark Co. Gov. Center, September 6-7, 2013

Matinee Las Vegas Festival, Memorial Day weekend, 2013

Los Angeles Pride, June 2-9, 2013

Napa and Sonoma, Ca., Gay Wine Weekend 2013, June 14-16, 2013

New Orleans Pride, French Quarter, June 21-23, 2013

New York City Pride, June 15-30, 2013

Philadelphia Pride, Wednesday, May 29, 2013  

Portland Bear Town 18, BearWrecked, Jupiter Hotel, June 6-7, 2013

Portland Pride, Tom McCall Waterfront Park, June 15-16, 2013

San Diego Pride, Hillcrest, Jul. 12-14, 2013

San Francisco Pride Parade:  Market Street Festival: City Hall Plaza, June 22-30, 2013

Washington, D.C., Capital Pride, Wednesday, May 29, 2013

Minnesota became the 12^th State to Legalize Gay Marriage on May 13, 2013.  Governor Mark Dayton signed the bill the following day that allows same-sex couples to marry on August 1^st.

Just four days after the House passed the bill on a 75-59 vote, Minnesota became the third state in the past eleven days,after Rhode Island and Delaware, to recognize gay marriage.  In Illinois, a gay marriage bill awaits a House vote after clearing the state Senate.

Minnesota becomes the first state in the Midwest to make gay marriage legal by way of a legislative vote.  Iowa, since 2009, has had same-sex marriage approved by a court ruling.

Minnesota Reverses Itself from November’s Voting

Less than a year ago, voters in Minnesota were weighing a constitutional ban on same-sex unions. Some thirty states have constitutional bans on same-sex marriage that can require a statewide vote to overturn.  Two years ago, Minnesota’s legislature that was controlled by Republicans backed a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, defining marriage as strictly between a man and a woman.  The measure failed last fall, with 47% of the vote.  The legislature, controlled by the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, with a 39-28 majority, wastold by Democratic Governor Dayton that he would sign a bill legalizing same-sex marriage if lawmakers could pass one.

Those Opposed to the Bill

Most Republicans, except for Branden Petersen of suburban Andover, opposed the legislation.  In the Minnesota House and Senate, votes were allied along party lines. except for three Democrats, all from rural Minnesota who voted against the bill.   Opponents argued that gay marriage threatens religious liberties and contradicts biblical teachings.  They are also afraid that churches, schools, and businesses could be accused of discrimination because they oppose homosexuality.

The issue of gay marriage has pitted Minnesota’s most urban area around the Twin Cities against rural sections of the state which are not as enthusiastically in favor. Hotly contested, the bill considered drew thousands of spectators last Thursday after the House vote.

Next month, the United States Supreme Court is expected to deliver a ruling that may establish same-sex marriage as a right.

I would have to say that throughout my life, I have had a varying degree of faith; in myself, in religious entities, politicians and in other people generally.  While I have had many breaches of faith, and moments of self doubt and have been disappointed in the faith I had in people in whom I placed a certain degree of trust, I can say with a relative degree of confidence that I have always been a faithful person.  Even in my darkest moments, I clung to a belief in an unseen power within myself; one that could ultimately lift me out of whatever predicament I found myself in.  It is such leaps of faith that guided me through many difficult times and which will sustain me in any future moments in which a leap of faith will be necessary to  reach the next plateau.

Life changing decisions usually involve a leap of faith in order to make them.  I made one when I came out, 15 years ago now, which created immense momentum forward in my journey of self introspection and growth, culminating in the person I am today; an advocate, activist and proud queer male, not afraid to express his feelings about issues of the day and to work toward equality for all, without fear of repercussion.

I have recently taken another HUGE leap of faith in myself and my abilities, and arrived at a life changing decision; a decision which many people would not even dare make or dream of making.  After 20+ years working for the City of Oneonta, as its City Clerk, I tendered my resignation, effective on a mutually agreed upon date sometime in the middle of July.  I had anguished over this decision for literally a number of years, before finally taking the leap of faith to follow through with what I knew I had to do to move ahead in my life.

Change is never easy, but sometimes we must muster the courage within and do that which our internal inspiration compels us to do.  I see this as a bold life changing decision that will open many new opportunities for me, and yet to some, may seem like a crazy, suicidal action.

However, as is the case with water, if it does not circulate and move and get refreshed it stagnates and begins to stifle life and creativity.  Unfortunately, I had begun to stagnate and I felt the need to pursue more a more creative venue or venues in which to function.

Life is a book and chapters must end, and alas, it was time to close this chapter and move on to the next.  I look forward to the chapters yet to be written and the many wonders of life that await me.. I do not want to be 20 years out, at age 72, wondering what could have been if I hadn’t made the decision to leave my post.  My gut compelled me to move on and choose a new path.

What issue are you facing at the moment that requires a leap of faith?  Are you agonizing over a decision that must be made in order to complete yourself?  If you are, I encourage you to muster every bit of strength you can in order to propel you forward past your anguish and fear, and to make the decision you need to make to clear the path in order to continue your journey forward in life.  If you do not, you will be stuck at the fork in road like I was for many, many months, agonizing over whether or not to make the decision I knew I needed to make.

You deserve to be happy.  Happiness and contentment is derived from doing what you know is best for yourself.  Staying in a situation that you do not want to be in is not healthy and will cause undue stress and take years off your life.

Have faith in yourself and make the decision that is right for you!  Find your leap of faith that will clear your path and help you choose which one to take at the fork in the road. Do it today! Do not hesitate. Once you make your decision, do not look back. Do not second guess yourself, as that will only delay your personal growth forward unnecessarily.

Bill Likely Heard by full Senate week of May 13

Will Minnesota become the twelfth state to legalize same-sex marriage?  It’s inching closer with the passage of House File 1054 in the Democratic-Controlled House on May 9^th. With much debate beforehand, the bill’s sponsor Representative Karen Clark, a Democrat and lesbian, called the vote “ an historic day for same-sex marriage. In Minnesota, we don’t turn our backs on family.”

The Legislation Itself

A major section of the legislation was an amendment that calls for the use of the term “civil marriage” in all instances, regardless of whether the couples are of the same or opposite genders.  The amendment also includes a guarantee that religious organizations cannot be fined, punished, or stripped of special status for refusing to marry gay couples.

Representative Tim Kelly had proposed an amendment that would have created civil unions for same-sex couples rather than equal marriage rights, but The House rejected the vote 22-111.

Four Republicans ( Rep. Jenifer Loon, who said “there comes a time when you just have to set politics aside and decide in your gut what is the right thing to do,” Pat Garofalo, David Fitzsimmons and Andrea Kieffer) out of the sixty-one Republicans voted for same-sex marriage and two (Patti Fritz and Mary Sawatzy) out of seventy-three Democrats voted no.  The issue was more hotly contested in the more rural districts, far from the Twin Cities.  Minnesota voters in November had turned back efforts to ban gay marriage in the Minnesota constitution.

Same-sex marriage is expected to pass in the Senate next week and Governor Mark Dayton, Democrat, has promised that he will sign the bill.  With passage, gay marriage could start as soon as August 1.

How the Midwest Fares with Gay Marriage

Iowa has gay marriage decided by the courts in 2009.  In Illinois, State House members are considering a same-sex marriage bill already approved in the Democratic-led State House. Presently, Illinois has same-sex civil unions.  If this bill is signed, Minnesota would become the first state in the middle of the nation’to make a choice through legislative action, following eastern states Delaware’s and Rhode Island’s actions this month.