
What are The Dallas Principles? This is the new rubric for the advancement of Equality for LGBT people in this nation.
Will it replace the
HRC, The
Victory Fund,
GMHC,
NCLR, The Task Force, Lambda Legal and state and local organizations? No. Will it allow us to reframe our fight and our vision and reshape our language so that we are more effective? Maybe.
Should you sign on? Absolutely.
Even the Washington Post is giving it attention. The momentum in the community is sparking talk of another march on Washington. Its been 11 years--
isn't it time for the next big call for justice?
NATIONAL/WHITEHOUSEWATCH: C
alifornia Rep Berman, who introduced a bill into the House which included a provision to allow same-sex partners of State Department workers to receive the same benefits as heterosexual partners, has dropped the provision because the
STATE DEPARTMENT HAS INSTEAD BEGUN THE PROCESS OF CHANGING THE RULES ITSELF! GO HILARY! Related, however (though not in the White House), both houses of our Congress have
introduced a same-sex DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP BILL FOR ALL FEDERAL EMPLOYEES! Moreover, Berman has brought up an interesting speculation that the White House is planning a big LGBT announcement to coincide with the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots. Too good to be true?
The President DID meet with Judy Shepard this week about
the Hate Crimes bill that passed the house, and is slowly making its way through the Senate.
Obama also nominated out lesbian Jenny Durkin to U.S. Attorney in Seattle. The
White House has also said officially that it IS reviewing what it can do about Don't Ask Don't Tell.
We've been giving them hell, and they've been noticing.
Why can't Obama do what Truman did?
Rachel Maddow keeps pressing.
Lieutenant Colonel Victor J. Fehrenbach says that there is NO MORE TIME TO WASTE! Today a gay former Army Ranger has written a WALL STREET JOURNAL Op-Ed about ending DADT. You rock, Sargent Hughes! The
military is already recruiting lesbians in anticipation! When it comes to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA),
Gibbs proves that he knows what it is! And thats about it. Obama vowed to end the HIV Travel Ban, but as he hesitates,
a Cuban refugee is denied entrance into the U.S. because he is positive.
HOWEVER,
on the subject of these "Religious Reassurances," I think we really need to work these into our work.
Independent voters, who feel more comfortable when they know their lives won't have to change, are on the rise. Studies show that
ministers polled on their views of recognition of Marriage Equality support that recognition at EXTREMELY HIGH numbers IF they are reassured that no church will EVER be forced to perform or recognize such unions. Governor Lynch may be on to something here. WE AREN'T TRYING TO FORCE ANYONE TO MARRY US THAT DOESN'T WANT TO. We just want legal recognition. This REALLY isn't about the church. Honestly. I can already have my relationship
consecrated in almost ANY mainstream church in C-U, and I don't want to get married in front of a congregation that hates me anyway! So why don't we put it out there up front? What if we tell them we absolutely don't want to force religions to recognize our marriages, but we need full Equality--not a separate institution with a different name--but full Equality.
Beyond the financial impact, there is a personal toll that is taken on same-sex couples that cannot have their relationships recognized. It affects the relationship and the individuals that are a part of it. When you're married, you're married, and noone can take that away from you. However, if you've got a long-time "partner" its scoffed at, and noone need take it seriously. You're constantly asked "Oh, are you still seeing..." or "are you and so and so still together?" Same-sex relationships are viewed as transient--even in our own community at times--but everyone knows that Marriage is solid. There is divorce--true--but how many of you have gone up to a real married friend and said "So, are you still with..."?
The marriage license comes from the courthouse not the church house. “I think folks should take the religious factor out of marriage, or realize that the religious part is a ceremony based on their liking, not a requirement. that’s why the marriage license comes from the courthouse not the church house. When you start to deny tax-paying citizens the right to enter a legal binding agreement because of sexual orientation, its flat out discrimination, no matter who is for it or against it. If the churches don’t wanna perform the ceremony, that’s cool. But for the law to forbid the right is as discriminating as being counted as 3/4 of a person during slavery.”
- Sasha Springer
Amen. Of course, though, Liberty University would disagree about the distinction--they've just kicked out their Student Democrat group.
TOAST TO ILLINOIS! WOO!
PS-THANKS ACE FOR HAVING ME ON YOUR AWESOME SHOW!
Comments