D.C. Officials Seek Faulty Compromise With Catholic Charities Over Marriage Equality

The Washington Post reports that some of the D.C. Council members and Del. Eleanor Homes Norton are looking for a compromise with the Archdiocese of Washington to find a way to avoid ending the Catholic Charities in the District while at the same time have legal same-sex marriage. Archbishop Wuerl threatened to close the public services if marriage equality was legalized in the capital.

D.C. officials believe a way can be found for Catholic Charities to continue operating under their current contracts with the District while at the same time have their gay employees be treated equally as their straight counterparts if they were to get married.

"The rights of [gay] partners cannot be any different from similar situated couples, but with that said, if other jurisdictions have found a way to accommodate Catholic Charities, that would be very much be desired," said Norton, who wants to avoid Congressional intervention.

While Norton has been doing her best to avoid Congress from intervening (and we really don't want that - lately, it doesn't appear many in Congress has a spine to stand up to the Catholic Church - Stupack Amendment anyone?), marriage equality champions Council members David Catania and Phil Mendelson have written directly to the Archbishop of Washington. I obtained a copy of the letter and will post below.

D.C. Council Members Letter to Archbishop

Susan Gibbs, spokesperson for the Catholic Church, told the Washington Post that the church was pleased to see the council members "finally responding" to their concerns, but that it may not be enough to alleviate the Church's fears of having to end their contracts and shut down public services.

I myself would be sad if the Church felt the need to close these services because they do in fact help many homeless and poor people get by day-to-day. However, I am not satisfied with the proposal given by council members because the solution they offer has to do with domestic partnerships and not necessarily with marriage (though I applaud the effort). And in this case particularly, you will be yet again relegating same-sex couples to a lesser status, but you would also have to do this to employed straight couples. Not very good.

On top of this, the fact that's really itching at the back of my brain is that the Catholic Church has declared full on war with marriage equality throughout the nation.

Back in August I reported on the Church's plan to put aside $2 million to fight marriage equality nationwide, even letting several parishes in Maine close rather than to give up this fight.

Yet this same Church cries foul when they're held to the same standards as any other business receiving public funds. They say they shouldn't be forced to follow discrimination laws because of their beliefs, and if they choose not to receive public funds anymore so they can continue to discriminate, then they'll be forced to close because they won't have enough money to function.

I say, Why not dip into the marriage war chest? Function as a private institution. Instead of using the $2 million to fight fellow citizens' rights, why not use it to do the good work you're already doing and let people live their lives as they see fit?

I'd have more respect for the Church if they did this than if they acknowledged my relationship in a compromised form. Don't want to acknowledge a gay employees' marriage? Don't hire gay employees! As a religious institution, they're exempt (in many circumstances) and able to do so.

As long as they're not receiving government funds.

Ah, but there's the rub. It's about the money.

Gibbs, the church spokesperson, seems to agree with me about the domestic partnership angle of the council members' proposal. She said that Archbishop Wuerl was reviewing the council members' letter, but church staffers wonder how the council can equate domestic partnership in San Francisco with same-sex marriage. See, even the church knows the two categories are not equal. She noted that the District has a domestic partnership law but that the Church is not covered by it.

And the dance continues.

ACTION ALERT! Will They or Won't They? Urgent Need to Lobby New Jersey Legislators for Marriage Equality Monday!

New Jersey. What a roller coaster lately.

Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine said he'll sign a marriage equality bill if it hit his desk. The legislature looked willing and ready. But -

Corzine didn't win re-election and Republican and staunch LGBT opponent Chris Christie won. So now we're in the lame duck session and racing against the clock.

Immediately after elections, Garden State Equality releases ads in hopes of encouraging supporters to call their legislatures to vote in favor of marriage equality.

But there's some hurdles. State Sen. Paul Sarlo, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, said at the beginning of the week that he didn't think the marriage bill would come up.

"Today, as I stand here, we do not have the votes in the Judiciary Committee," said Sarlo. "Until somebody can demonstrate that we have the votes in the Judiciary Committee, it will not be posted."

But according to the Star-Ledger, Sen. Steve Sweeney, who will soon take over as Senate President, is leaving the door open. Probably encouraged by yesterday's poll that showed a majority of New Jerseyans supporting marriage equality. (Though I usually fear a Bradley Effect when it comes to gay issues and polls, New Jersey has been consistent in its support.)

"I would like there to be more discussion about the economy, that’s all. Gay marriage will likely come up in lame duck. I expect it to come up," Sen. Sweeney said.

So we know we're possibly back up and running, at least with a better chance.

The bill's sponsor, Sen. Loretta Weinberg, shares the Star-Ledger's frustration, whose editorial board says same-sex marriage supporters in the legislature need to grow a spine and "man up."

"I’ve campaigned all over the state, and based on my unscientific poll, people in New Jersey don’t care about other people’s marriages," Weinberg says. "I’ve never had a single person bring this up to me. And I’m talking about street fairs, restaurants, wherever. People care about their own marriages, and their ability to support their families."

ACTION: So the time is now folks, and Garden State Equality ain't messin' around.

Urgent! Join us: Garden State Equality is holding an urgent lobby day this Monday, November 23rd, beginning at 8:30am - Meet at our Trenton office across from the State House, 110 West State St. Please attend. No RSVP necessary.

The legislature is back in session on Monday. We have just learned our anti-marriage equality opponents are doing a lobby day on Monday and are turning out in droves to try to intimidate legislators. If ever there was a time to take off from work to help make history, this is it.

Parking is available at the Trenton Marriott Parking lot at 1 West LaFayette Street at the corner of West LaFayette Street and South Warren Street. If needed, Garden State Equality will reimburse you for the parking. Don't go looking for free street parking in Trenton: it's impossible to find and/or you'll have to feed a meter constantly. For a map to walk from the Trenton Marriott parking lot at 1 West LaFayette Street to Garden State Equality's office at 110 West State Street, enter the location at Map Quest.

Food and drink will be supplied. Contact Garden State Equality Field Director Hannah Johnson at Johnson@GardenStateEquality.org with questions.

Extreme Right Wing Group Denied Intervention in Federal Challenge to Prop 8

Remember the big brouhaha when the major LGBT legal organizations filed to intervene as plaintiffs in the federal challenge against Prop 8 because they wanted a say in how the Olson/Boies power team ran the case, but then were subsequently denied?

Well, the Prop 8 proponents pointed to that incident and quipped that we couldn't get our act together and surmised it was a sign of ineffective leadership. (That was them talkin', not me.)

But what's this? Do I see the same thing happening on their side? Why yes I do.

The Campaign for California Families (CCF) is the rival to the Yes on 8 folks, but they're even more extreme in their beliefs, not only believing that same-sex marriage should be illegal but also any sort of recognition of gay relationships whatsoever.

CCF attempted to intervene on Strauss vs. Horton, which the Yes on 8 folks opposed, and they were denied. Then on August 19 they tried to intervene on Perry vs. Schwarzenneger (aka Prop 8 case), but Judge Walker denied their motion. They appealed to the 9th Circuit Court and appeared in a hearing earlier this month.

The Recorder reported that the panel's judges appeared unsympathetic to CCF's Attorney Staver's attempt to identify CCF's particular interest as a proposed Perry party. Staver argued "that the official Prop 8 forces weren't adequately litigating the case and had stipulated away far too many facts" about gays and lesbians.

"As an alleged result, if Prop. 8 were upheld on narrow grounds, Staver claimed that it may be easier to show that gays and lesbians are a 'suspect class' - that they are a minority deserving heightened constitutional scrutiny when they seek constitutional protections," reported Proposition 8 and the Right to Marry.

Let's just say the Yes on 8 folks didn't like this very much because they do in fact intend to argue all the points that CCF are concerned will be ignored, including whether or not sexual orientation is immutable.

Thursday, the 9th Circuit Court ruled, and it declared that CCF does not have a right to intervene. So it will simply be the Yes on 8 folks.

Judge Margaret McKeown wrote, "It is apparent to us that the ultimate objective of the campaign and the proponents is identical—defending the constitutionality of Proposition 8 and the principle that the traditional definition of marriage is the union of a man and a woman."

McKeown added, "Any differences are rooted in style and degree, not the ultimate bottom line."

The full order is below.

9th Circuit Court Ruling Against CCF

So all I have to say is that people in glass houses shouldn't throw shit.

VIDEO: Jon Stewart Issues "Gaywatch" and Pro-Wrestler Mick Foley Vows to Protect Kid Standing Up for LGBT Rights

Jon Stewart's becoming my hero. Well, neck 'n neck with that "right-winger" Stephen Colbert.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Gaywatch - Peter Vadala & William Phillips
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Former Washington Blade Staff Launches D.C. Agenda

It takes a lot to impress me, but I must say, I am today. The former staff of the unexpectedly defunct Washington Blade has come roaring back within less than a week.

On Monday, the venerable Washington Blade was unceremoniously closed when its parent company filed for bankruptcy. Employees were notified with a note taped to the locked office door.

Not to be deterred, the staff met, organized and planned. Before the end of the week was up, they launched D.C. Agenda which went live Friday.

So today, the roles have been reversed and the reporters have become the story. In a press release:

After Monday’s shuttering, 17 former employees vowed to not miss this Friday’s production of Washington DC’s LGBTQ news weekly. Today they delivered on that promise. At 9:30 AM this morning the publication that will replace the Washington Blade – DC Agenda – hit the streets. As demonstrated in the first issue, the new publication provides critical coverage of local and national LGBT issues along with much needed community news.

“The power and effectiveness of the Washington Blade did not die with the name,” said DC Agenda Publisher Lynne Brown, also former Publisher of the Washington Blade and employee of that publication for over 23 years. “That strength actually came from the spirit and intensity of those who wrote the stories and reached out to the community. It’s those same people who are the backbone of this new venture, a group that is the true definition of grit and resilience.”

“It’s been a tough week, but we have been buoyed by the outpouring of support from our colleagues, our community, people all over the city and even beyond DC,” said DC Agenda Editor Kevin Naff. “The DC Agenda represents former Blade employees’ commitment to carry on the important mission and work of the Blade,” said Naff. “We expect this effort to grow and evolve and to eventually include a larger and more diverse group of voices.”

The 17 former Blade staff members, who also celebrated that publication’s 40th anniversary last month, hand-distributed the first edition of DC Agenda on Friday November 20th, 2009 at 10:00 AM EST.

“We thank all those who have taken the risk of advertising in our new venture. We also would like to invite readers to visit our new news website at www.dcagenda.com and our temporary support website at www.savetheblade.com.” said Brown. “We are thrilled with what we achieved this week. This early iteration of our new newspaper is modest but…we did it! And we look forward to doing it again next week.” concluded Brown.

Check out the website at DCAgenda.com.