Oct 15, 2009

NOH8 Campaign - The Name Says It All!

It all started with a h8full Proposition in California - take away the legal right for same sex couples to get married. A Proposition fueled by lies, fear, hatred, and most importantly, lots of money from the Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) and the Catholic Church via the Knights of Columbus.

As previously noted here in an earlier blog post, Prop H8 didn't have to end up the way it did. Quite literally, 500 more people voting our way - the way of Love instead of Hate - would have changed the course of history. What we can do now, however, is make the most out of a bad situation by using it to raise awareness, which is exactly what Adam Bouska and the NOH8 Campaign is doing.

Adam, a wildly popular and successful fashion photographer, launched the NOH8 Campaign to raise awareness around the country - and the world - about the effects of discrimination against the LGBT community. Discrimination with regards to civil marriage laws specifically, and civil rights in general.

Since its launch, the NOH8 Campaign has garnered the support of individuals and celebrities alike. People from all walks of life, gay or straight, submit their photos to the Campaign every day. More importantly, celebrities (again gay and straight) are lending their support through photo shoots, letting the world know that they do not support discrimination. Celebrities like Lady Gaga, Marlee Matlin, Debi Mazar, Dr. Drew, Gloria Alred, Michael Emerson, Jillian Reynolds and many, many more. Some of my personal favorites have been the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, Logo's Rick & Steve, and Steve-O's Gay Marriage (to himself)!

In case you have seen them yet, or have been living in a closet, the whole concept of the NOH8 Campaign photos is very simple: a piece of duct tape over the mouth, a "NO H8" tattoo on the cheek, and usually a white t-shirt/outfit. The rest is a matter of fashion/style and varies from photo to photo, depending on the personality of the person in the shot. For example, in Marlee Matlin's photo, her hands were tied.

Obviously not everyone wants to (or can) have their photos posted on Internet, regardless of how great the cause is. This is understandable - no matter how great the strides we've made over the past few decades, or even the past few years, sadly there are still states where a person can be fired from their jobs simply for being perceived as gay. People are killed and injured severely every day by the very people that this campaign is targeted to.

If you want to help, but can't contribute with a photo, be it amateur or professional, consider contributing in another way.
  • Tweet about @noh8campaign, #noh8campaign, #prop8, etc. to spread the word!
  • Blog about it, let people know about http://www.noh8campaign.com
  • Buy a NOH8 Campaign Bracelet (limited edition, get 'em while supplies last!) from the NOH8 campaign store.
  • Buy a NOH8 T-Shirt: http://www.bouska.net/noh8/store.htm
  • Talk to a friend or family member! Remember, Prop H8 lost by less than 400 votes! Was a friend or family member of yours one of those votes? Would talking to them have made the difference?
  • Don't Give Up! We will win this fight, one heart and one mind at a time.
Remember, regardless of peoples' individual religious beliefs, marriage in this country is a civil matter. Marriage certificates are issues in Town Halls, not Church Halls! People can have whatever religious beliefs they want, but they do not have the right to dictate to everyone else how to to run our lives based on their narrow views. Talk to people about this and explain to them in a calm, clear manner about the facts. This is the key to winning them over to our side.

Key Websites:
UPDATE: Just got the word that the NOH8 Campaign is now setup to accept donations through PayPal! Just follow the link here to the official PayPal donation page and follow your heart's dictates! http://tinyurl.com/yfwsozq

 

Sep 14, 2009

The Numbers of Prop 8

One of the most frequent lies I hear among the homophobic bigots about Prop 8 is "Californians voted overwhelmingly against gay marriage."

Apparently, bigotry goes hand-in-hand with ignorance and a lack of ability to do basic math. Of course, are we really surprised by this? No, not really. Bigotry IS a form of ignorance, so a math impairment and lack of basic search skills and understanding of how the electoral system works - in reality.

According to the California Secretary of State, voter turnout on the Prop 8 issue was 79.42%, with only 13,402,566 valid votes cast. Of those votes, 7,001,084 were cast for Prop 8, a total of 52.24% of the vote. Based on the percentage of votes cast, 52.24% itself is not anywhere near "overwhelming", not by any stretch of the imagination! Even in "Conservative speak" I don't see how anyone could consider a margin of 4.48% a "landslide".

Now let's look at the numbers that really count.

The total population of California, at the latest estimate, is 36,756,666 (according to Wikipedia as of 2008). So that means that the people who decided Prop 8 were, in fact, not 79.42% of the population in total but actually 36.46% of the population, or just slightly over 1/3!

The people who cast "Yes" votes on Prop 8? A total of 19.05% of the total population, or slightly under 1/5 of the total population. The number that tipped it over the edge (that 2.14%) itself was approximately 287 people. Yup, that's right - 287 people made the difference between our civil rights being stripped away and our communities continued ability to legally marry in this State.

The total margin of difference between the passage and failure of Prop 8? A whopping total of 1.63% of the total population of the State!

Of course, that total population number doesn't tell us how many are of voting age - I don't exactly know where to get that number at the moment, so if I find it, I'll come back and do an update. I also don't know for certain if that number includes legal residents who are eligible to vote, etc., but this should give you some idea of the absolutely ridiculousness of the claims of those who want to say that Californians voted "overwhelmingly" for "traditional marriage."

So the next time someone tries to pull that crap on you, remember this. While the exact numbers may be up for question with regards to the total number of "voting eligible residents", even when you count those who are registered to vote, there was nothing "overwhelming" about that election at all. 287 people are not overwhelming, they are confused people who probably lacked the opportunity to hear the truth about us because of a very poorly managed campaign by "No on 8".

This is something that we should keep in mind when we think about whether or not to go forward in 2010 versus 2012 for the push to repeal Prop 8. The battle may not be as uphill as some think. Surely we can be persuasive enough to convince 300 people to vote in our favor? Times, they are a changing, and people are waking up to the facts. The scare tactics of the Yes on 8 campaign aren't working any more and the California votes are not as naive as they used to be. The post-election events have had an impact, and we need to take advantage of that, before people forget that, because memories are short.

After all, we have legal gay marriages in California now and the sky hasn't fallen and the State hasn't slid off into the Pacific! Children haven't been corrupted and churches haven't been sued. Hopefully, whoever is coordinating the campaign next time around will take note of these facts and remember to point them out.

Jun 28, 2009

With Liberty and Justice For All

When I was a boy growing up on Air Force bases in the 70s, of course we started every day in school reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. Being an Air Force "brat" there was really no question about being a patriot - it was something I absorbed by osmosis from as early as I can remember. Everything around us, from my father's uniform to our neighbors to the bases we lived on simply shouted AMERICA! Saying that Pledge every morning, those words "with Liberty and Justice for all" really meant something to me, something integral to my very being.

When I was 17, I joined the military myself, opting for the US Navy and spending more than 8 years there. Over 5 of those years were spent in the Trident nuclear missile fleet out of Bangor, Washington doing patrols in the Reagan Cold War era. Now as anyone who has seen "Sharks of Steel" or actually served on a submarine knows, there is not much you can do in the military that gets much more intimate than serving on board a submarine. Believe me - when you return from a 75+ day patrol on a nuclear missile submarine, you really know your shipmates. You don't really have any choice. I lived with those men, I cooked for them, I slept next to them, I even cut their hair. And yes, many - if not most - of them knew that I was gay. Did they care? Not in the slightest. All they cared about was getting their meals cooked on time and tasting good, or was I going to screw up when I cut their hair.

When I left my "sea duty" tour I went to "shore duty" down at Naval Station San Diego, otherwise known as 32nd Street, where I worked for for nearly 3 years managing the barracks. (This was a serious eye opener for me as a gay man in the Navy. I've got news for anyone who thinks there are "an estimated 10% or less" of gay people in the military - you are kidding yourselves.) During this time I got excellent performance evaluations (as usual), was instrumental in winning the barracks a Navy-wide award for barracks-management, helped organize and install an automated computer management system (one of the first in the Navy at the time), and was awarded the Navy Achievement Medal (one of the highest non-combat awards possible) for writing a computer program that saved the Navy millions of dollars a year.

So why did I leave the Navy? Two reasons: 1, it was 1993 and Don't Ask, Don't Tell was on the horizon - I policy I simply could not support or live with. 2. I could see how corrupt and mismanaged the Navy was becoming, especially during Desert Storm, and I could no longer sit by quietly and support them with my silence. I saw Civil Service positions being created out of the blue, specifically for the purpose of creating jobs for military men who were retiring that wanted a cushy job after retirement - for twice the pay they were getting while enlisted, but of course still getting their retirement pay. I saw people getting raped by senior personnel and the issue getting swept under the rug, because the victims were lower rank and 'unimportant'. I saw regulations being violated repeatedly, however, nothing was done about it because careers would be ruined.

I saw a scramble every September to "fill the budget" in every department throughout the command. The CO would send out a memo telling everyone to "cut costs" and trim the budget, but of course that's not what was happening. What really was happening was an unsaid message of "here's our proposed budget: If you don't have line items to fill it up, make sure you add some now, or you lose your money". Sure enough, every year whatever money was proposed in the budget was always filled, whether it was really needed or not. I mean, how many times do you really need to repaint the same buildings, when the paint job is rated for 7 years, and you do it over every 6 months? This is the way we try to balance the budget?

Of course, there's the whole social aspect of being gay in the Navy (or the military in general). Obviously I could do my job - there was NO question about that whatsoever. You don't get the kind of awards and commendations that I received during my Navy service if you can't do your job. Nor is this about sex, national security, unit cohesion, or any of the other BS arguments that are being banded about so frequently by supporters of DADT. This is about being human.

I cannot even being to count the number of times that I had to sit and listen to 'the guys' gathered around during my 8 years of service, talking about their latest sexual exploits, their wives, their girlfriends, their families, their upcoming weddings, any number of subjects that are normal, every day subjects for a normal person to talk about when having a discussion with friends. Gays do not want to serve openly in the military in order to "flaunt their sexuality"! They want to do it so they can live their lives!

Imagine being locked up in a metal tube for 80 days under the water, isolated from everything and everyone you know for that entire time, except for the 175 or so men that went with you. During that entire time you basically did nothing but work and sleep, with very little in the way of distractions or relaxation. Eight times while out to sea, you can get a short message from your loved ones, sent by radio, called a "FamilyGram". When you finally get back to port, you are met at the dock by a huge party! Everyone on the ship has a special loved one, girlfriend or wife, waiting for them with a huge hug and kiss as soon as they cross the gangplank.

Except you. You got no FamilyGram from your loved one, because it would raise too many questions about why someone of the same sex who was "unrelated" sent you a message. You can't put a picture up by your rack, because someone might see it and ask questions. You can't really even bring the pictures with you because someone might see them and ask questions - after all, just having the picture would be "telling". You certainly can't have that dockside Homecoming like everyone else! After all, you kissing another man might "offend" someone else.

Forget about sharing stories or anecdotes with your friends. Sure, you can play the "change the gender" game as some do, but sooner or later you are probably going to slip up as many do, which is going to land you in trouble. So you end up being lonely, left out, miserable and depressed. If you are really lucky, there is a trusted someone that you can talk to onboard, so you won't be totally alone, but it's just not the same.

Marriage? Forget about it. Some probably do, in secret. Before Prop 8 was destroyed by the California Supreme Court, California did offer a "Confidential" Marriage License option that could have been (was?) taken advantage of by military members. Actually, I have seen reference to a lesbian officer who currently serves on an aircraft carrier who is married, going through exactly the same circumstances I have described here. The Navy, at least when I was in it, was always going on about how they couldn't do their jobs without the love and support of the family. How ironic that they are fighting so hard to prevent such a large percentage of their people from having the opportunity to build families and gain that support, based merely on the basis of who they love.

So after all of this, why am I sharing all of this and what does it have to do with "Libery and Justice for All"? It's really quite simple. All of the ones arguing to keep DADT keep using arguments about how allowing gays in the military will "harm" the OTHER military members, but were are the arguments about the harm that DADT is doing to the gay men and women now? What about the human side of the equation? Where exactly IS the Liberty and Justice for All in the organization that is supposed to be protecting these very principles for America?

It's time for America to wake up and stop worrying about whether or not some macho, over-sensitive, bigoted man is going to have his penis seen in the shower by a gay man. It's time to stop worrying about how some people might be offended, for whatever reason, and think about how gay men and women are being offended every single day when they have to stifle their true selves simply to serve their country as true patriots.

It's time, America. It's time, Mr. Obama. Learn from the past, forget antiquated prejudices, learn from countries like Canada, Australia, the UK and Uruguay.

Repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell now.

Jun 6, 2009

WND claims gay marriage and polygamy are "sexual proclivities"

We're all excited by the news that Governor Lynch signed the bill in New Hampshire making them the 6th state to legalize Gay Marriage, and the second one to do so by act of Legislature.

Some, however, will take any opportunity to push their agenda and use every tool in their arsenal to spread lies, disinformation and just plain filth to sway public opinion - especially conservatives. Case in point: WorldNetDaily.com's latest article and poll titled "Next Frontier? Polygamists demand multi-sex marriage".

The story itself would not normally be worth of mention - nothing from WND usually is, as it barely even qualifies as a "rag" by even the most generous standards. What caught my eye on this particular article, however, is the following line:
The fact that polygamists, and indeed those with other sexual proclivities, would use the same "civil rights" and "equality" arguments forwarded by homosexuals seeking "marriage" rights has been predicted for years.
So now that we are finally starting to gain some ground with civil rights for the LGBT community with regards to marriage equality, these idiots at WND decide to stir the pot and rouse up their conservative base - for no real reason - by claiming that polygamists are going to try and use our victories to forward their cause.

Then, insult to injury, they label polygamists (and all LGBT people by association) as people with "sexual proclivities". In other words, people less than human, not deserving of even the most basic of human rights or respect. Exactly what gay marriage opponents would like to have happen, because it works in their favor in those places where the issue is fought in the court of public opinion, like the ballot box.

If you want to read the full article and respond to their poll, you can do so here. Be warned, in typical WND fashion you are not allowed to answer the poll without registering and entering an email address (but confirmation is not required).

I did post a comment, which is below, however they "moderate" all responses in their forum before making them visible to the public. Any takers for a bet on whether or not my comment actually makes it onto the site? Anyone?

How about some action folks? Everyone knows that WND is nothing but a PR tool for the right-wing conservatives, but this is going too far even for them. Let's spread the word about this one and get some people answering their poll to get the numbers back to a reasonable level for something other than the ridiculous, slanted and bigoted answer that's in the lead now. It's time for the Truth to be told.

Here is my post to WND, on the off chance (ha ha ha) that it does not get posted on their site due to their "moderation":

First off, is this supposed to be a NEWS site, or simply a place for the founder to spout off his clearly bigoted opinions? There used to be a time when news organizations, regardless of the media used, reported the facts - and only the facts - without trying to influence the readers by injecting their own interpretations into the stories. Clearly that is not happening here.

In case it has escaped the notice of anyone here (which it obviously has) there is no similarity between same sex marriage and polygamy. If there were, do you think millions of Mormons would have been fighting so hard AGAINST Proposition 8 in California, knowing that that result would lead to the reinstatement of polygamy?

The Same Sex Marriage fight is about the unconstitutional and unjust refusal to grant marriage certificates, rights and benefits to couples of the same sex under civil law based on the prejudices of religious people. All the arguments of "protecting the children", "traditional marriage", etc., are nothing but bunk, designed to evoke emotional responses from people.

Polygamy, however, IS the true traditional marriage. One has but to read the Old Testament to know that. Any scholar of early American history knows that polygamy was legal in this country until the early 1800's, and even then it was only criminalized to penalize the Mormons because of their growing political power in the Utah territory.

What the facts boil down to are these:

1. Same sex marriage is a CIVIL issue. Marriage licenses are issued by the STATE, regardless of and in the absence of religious affiliation, to any couple that asks for them. Denying them to same sex couples is arbitrary and based only on religious and "moral" standards that clearly do NOT stand the test of time.

2. Failure of states to recognize same sex marriages (or civil unions) performed in other states is a clear violation of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution.

3. Same Sex Marriage and Polygamy have no relationship to each other.

4. Legally speaking, the denial of marriage to same sex couples is discrimination based on current civil law. Denial of polygamous marriages would required completely rescinding/rewriting state laws.

5. "Traditional" marriage is anything BUT traditional. Traditional marriage is the transfer of one or more women, as property, to a man in exchange for a dowry to use as he pleases, under complete servitude. As a wife, she has no power, no rights, no property, no voice and absolutely no equality.

6. The idea that "Marriage is between one man and one woman" has been a "tradition" for thousands of years is not only ludicrous, it is completely false and provably so. It wasn't in the time of Jesus, and it isn't even so today around the entire world.

If you want the facts about Gay Marriage start looking for yourself at the REAL truth, not just what some ignorant, holier-than-thou, mega-church preacher says. For a starter, you can go to http://www.gaymarriagetruth.com and educate yourself with some REAL facts. You may surprise yourself about how much you don't know.

May 14, 2009

New Hampshire Governor Will Sign Gay Marriage Bill

OK - so it didn't get done in the same week as Maine, but it's a Victory all the same! Forget "6 by '12" - it's beginning to look like we may actually have 6 by '10, or possibly even '09, at the rate New England is going.


New Hampshire Governor Will Sign Gay Marriage Bill


by David Badash on May 14, 2009
The New Civil Rights Movement

Will Be Sixth State To Legalize Same-Sex Marriage

At 2:15 this afternoon, New Hampshire Governor John Lynch announced that he will sign his state’s gay marriage bill, making New Hampshire the sixth state in the union to legalize same-sex marriage. However, he wants the Legislature to make additional changes, according to New Hampshire Public Radio. Those changes are not yet available, but we will publish them as soon as they are. The much-anticipated news comes eight days after both Houses of the General Court passed the legislation approving marriage equality. Most recently, the House passed the bill by a 178-167 margin.Last month, the Senate passed the bill by a vote of 13 - 11.

Assuming the Legislature agrees, the bill will become effective January 1, 2010.

Earlier, the Governor had stated,

“I still believe the fundamental issue is about providing the same rights and protections to same-sex couples as are available to heterosexual couples. This was accomplished through the passage of the civil unions law two years ago. To achieve further real progress, the federal government would need to take action to recognize New Hampshire civil unions.”

Last month, a poll conducted by New Hampshire’s Freedom to Marry Coalition found that 55% of voters in that state favor gay marriage, with only 39% opposed. Mo Baxley, Executive Director of New Hampshire Freedom to Marry said that a majority of New Hampshire residents have been in favor of gay marriage since 2003.

May 7, 2009

Two In One Week - Again?

(Concord, New Hampshire) The legalization of gay marriage in New Hampshire hinges on the next move of Gov. John Lynch, who remains uncommitted but has said he believes the word “marriage” should be reserved for the union of a man and a woman.

“I’m going to talk to legislators and I’m going to talk to the people of New Hampshire and ultimately make the best decision I can for the people of New Hampshire,” the Democratic governor said Wednesday evening.

The state’s gay marriage bill squeaked through the House on a 178-167 vote after an hour of debate. Both chambers appear to be far short of enough votes to override a veto.

If Lynch signs the bill or lets it become law without his signature, New Hampshire would become the sixth state in the nation to legalize gay marriage after Maine approved the legislation Wednesday.

Gov. John Baldacci, a Democrat who hadn’t indicated how he would handle Maine’s bill, signed it shortly after the legislation passed the Senate on a vote of 21-13 - a margin not large enough to override a veto.

“In the past, I opposed gay marriage while supporting the idea of civil unions,” Baldacci said in a statement read in his office. “I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage.”

Maine’s bill authorizes marriage between any two people rather than between one man and one woman, as state law currently allows. The House had passed the bill Tuesday.

The law is to take effect in mid-September but could be sidetracked before then. Opponents promise to challenge it through a public veto process that could suspend it while a statewide vote takes shape.

Sue Estler, of Orono, said she and her partner of 20 years, Paula Johnson, plan to get married. But she also thinks opponents might collect enough signatures to force the referendum.

A professor at the University of Maine, the 64-year-old Estler said she sent an e-mail to out-of-state friends and family members Wednesday saying “Oh, my god. The governor just signed the bill.”

“But I said, ‘Don’t make your travel plans for the wedding yet. There’s still probably a referendum to go,’” she said.

Legislative debate in Maine was brief. Senate President Elizabeth Mitchell, D-Vassalboro, turned the gavel over to an openly gay member, Sen. Lawrence Bliss, D-South Portland, for the final vote.

Republican Sen. Debra Plowman of Hampden argued that the bill was being passed “at the expense of the people of faith.”

“You are making a decision that is not well-founded,” Plowman warned.

Both states’ bills specify that religious institutions don’t have to recognize same-sex marriages.

The activist group Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders has targeted all six New England states for passage of a gay marriage law by 2012.

Connecticut has enacted a bill after being ordered to allow gay marriages by the courts, and Vermont has passed a bill over the governor’s veto.

Massachusetts’ high court has ordered the state to recognize gay marriages. In Rhode Island, a bill to legalize same-sex marriage has been introduced but is not expected to pass this year.

New England states have acted quickly since gay marriages became law in Massachusetts in 2004 because it’s a small region with porous borders, shared media markets and a largely shared culture, said Carisa Cunningham of the gay defenders group.

Outside New England, Iowa is recognizing gay marriages on court orders. The practice was briefly legal in California before voters banned it.

New Hampshire Rep. David Pierce, who has two daughters with his partner, described telling his 5-year-old that “some people don’t believe we should be a family.”

“When my kids grow up and are old enough to understand what we’re doing here today, I want them to know I did everything I could to fight for our family,” said Pierce, D-Hanover.