Dennis Kucinich Correct To Not Attend Closed Session Of Congress

Something does not smell right over the closed session of Congress tonight, as the members talk over controversial electronic surveillance legislation. If the Democrats cave in to the President on this issue, who will be so silly as to give more money to the House Democrats this fall?  How would even Howard Dean spin that House fiasco into a silk purse?

To his credit, Representative Kucinich, and a few other members made it known they would not attend the session.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) said debating such an important issue behind closed doors “raises questions about the constitution of the U.S.” arguing that the House floor is “the citadel of free speech” and should not be closed to public view. Kucinich said he would not be attending the session.

House Republicans called for the session—which will be closed to the media and all but the highest level staff–to discuss classified information relating to an update to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Democratic leaders agreed to go along with the session earlier in the day.

Congress has been deadlocked for weeks over the measure, arguing over whether or not to grant retroactive immunity to telecom companies who aided the government in the wiretapping program after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Republicans have argued that if members are able to learn more about the program, they will grant the immunity to the telecoms.

It is just the sixth closed session in House history and the first since 1983 when the chamber discussed aid to Nicaragua. 

Prior to the closed session, several Democrats took to the House floor to express their disappointment with the decision.

“I smell something, and I don’t like being manipulated,” said Rep. Diane Watson (D-Calif.).

Technorati Tags: DennisKucinich, FISA, Congress, Republicans

Karl Rove Can Not Find Harm If Gay Couples Marry

This blog has never waivered from knowing that there is absolutely no justification for denying gay couples the right to marry in America.  I have repeatedly asked exactly who is harmed by allowing loving gay couples to marry?   The answer is always the same.  No one is harmed.  Now even Karl Rove, who was asked the question by a very persistent student at Choate prep school on Monday, also can not state how anyone is harmed by gay marriages.

Marla Spivak, a senior from Hamden, was one of the students invited to have lunch earlier with Rove. That left her somewhat emboldened as she stood before the crowd and asked Rove to explain how giving gay people the right to marry would endanger other people.

Rove took issue with the way the first gay marriages came about, through the Massachusetts Supreme Court. An issue as important as the definition of marriage should be resolved by a legislature or a referendum, not a court, he said.

Gay couples could gain the legal rights of married couples through legislation without actually getting married, he said.

But wouldn’t creating a separate body of legislation for gay people be creating a separate but equal system, a step back?, Spivak asked.

Rove replied with an answer about Mormons changing their views on marriage to conform with the nation’s laws.

Spivak kept pressing. “You never actually answered, how does it threaten anyone?” she asked.

Rove asked, what’s the compelling reason to throw out 5,000 years of understanding the institution of marriage as between a man and a woman?

What, Spivak countered, was the compelling reason for society to allow interracial relationships when they had once been outlawed.

Then Rove invoked the Declaration of Independence before Spivak interjected that its reference to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” seemed to support her claims.

The fact is that only narrow-minded bigotry remains as the roadblock for insuring that all couples who desire to be married can not do so.  It is that same bigorty that means many couples are not treated fairly under the laws of the United States.  Even Karl Rove, by not being able to respond with concrete examples….NOT ONE…speaks volumes about the real reason that over 1,000 rights enjoyed by a heterosexual married couple are denied to a gay couple.

It all boils down to bigotry and small-mindedness.

Technorati Tags: KarlRove, , GayMarriage, CivilRights, Gay, Choate, Bigotry

Wisconsin Representative Steve Wieckert Hypocrite Of The Day

There are times when I wonder how some Wisconsin elected officials look at themselves in the mirror in the morning, and not burst out laughing.  I wonder at other times if they consider how they became so disgusting.  If I seem a bit blunt today it is due to the latest example of what political posturing, and bigotry looks likes when it is combined. 

Representative Steve Wieckert shows us today.

Wieckert was opposed to the idea, when it came time for a vote in the Legislature, to allow all loving couples in Wisconsin to share in the same rights of marriage and the resulting benefits.   He was one of those ‘bright lights’ that made sure there was a constitutional amendment that placed civil rights up for a statewide vote.  Anyone who ever argues that civil rights are are such an unimportant thing that they can be put on a ballot, is full of political malarkey.  Wieckert in the past has rambled on about the sanctity of marriage, and how it had to be defended.  He was never able to concisely inform anyone what exactly it needed to be defended from, but that is the way with these types of Republicans.

But now the Appleton Republican has released a message for a bill he is pushing (LRB 0859) stating  “Marriage is a wonderful thing.  It is something that should be encouraged, not discouraged.”  Did Wieckert include gay people in this bill draft? The disconnect from his previous bile is so stark that it makes anyone with an IQ above the outdoor temperature to sit up and puke.

There are days when the hypocrisy meter in the Statehouse hits red.  This is one of those times.  And I suspect that Wieckert has no inkling that he has done anything wrong.  I bet that he has no awareness that he has argued marriage from both sides.  I also strongly suspect that he has no idea of the disadvantage that his stand against allowing gay people to marry, or to join in civil unions, has effected many Wisconsinites.  The only thing that ever matters to those like Wieckert is how much more power they can assume.  And how recklessly they can wield it.

This is what happens when we allow conservatives to use gay people as wedge issues and political pawns for their own gain.  It is pathetic, and the public should call Representative Wieckert on it.

Technorati Tags: , SteveWieckert, GayRights, CivilUnions, GayMarriage, Appleton, Wisconsin, Madison, Republicans, Conservatives,

Say It With Me…Gay Civil Unions Do Not Equal Marriage

In past posts here on the need for equality for gay men and women in relation to the marriage issue, I have likened civil unions to children sitting at a separate table during the holidays.  No matter how you slice it there is a difference between the two and no one really can argue the point successfully.  The same is true with gay civil unions versus the right of marriage for straight men and women.  There is only one way to get all the rights, benefits, and social recognition in a relationship and that is through the bonds of marriage. 

When New Jersey became the third state to allow for same sex couples to be joined through civil unions many were happy.  Both gay and straight saw the New Jersey decision as a win.  While I was pleased that society was moving forward with gay rights and trying to tackle the marriage issue, I was not pleased with the half-a-loaf outcome that the Garden State decided to follow.  The New Jersey Supreme Court had found their Constitution “guarantees that every statutory right and benefit conferred to heterosexual couples through civil marriage must be made available to committed same-sex couples,” and told the legislative body to correct the problem. 

Even though the logical and morally correct option was full and complete marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples a decision was made to create civil unions.  The fact that it is not working should not surprise any of us who undersood the issue then, and care about it now.  As The New York Times reported this week there are many issues that ONLY gay marriage can solve.

Nevertheless, residents who work for companies headquartered in other states, and those whose insurers are based outside New Jersey, have found it difficult if not impossible to sign their partners up for health insurance. Unions and employers whose self-insured plans are federally regulated have also denied coverage in some cases. Staff members in doctors’ offices and emergency rooms have questioned partners’ role in decision-making. Confusion abounds over the interplay of state and federal laws governing taxes, inheritance and property.

Some 229 couples obtained civil unions in New Jersey in the first month they were available. Gay-rights advocates say they have collected two dozen discrimination complaints, laying the groundwork for a legal challenge to the civil union law that would essentially re-petition the Supreme Court for same-sex marriage.

And well they should!  There is no…..absolutely NO…..reason…other than pure unadulterated bigotry for marriage to be denied to gay couples.  Both Connecticut and California are also experiencing similar problems with civil unions/domestic partnership arrangements and therefore are examining their legal options.

Cases such as one mentioned in The New York Times story this week makes the case (again) for the need for marriage.

Timothy Zimmer, a computer programmer who works in Newark for a Massachusetts company he declined to name, said his insurance company, United Healthcare, had told him that his partner would not be covered even if they got a civil union.

“First, the NJ civil union is not deemed to be a marriage under NJ law,” the insurer wrote in an e-mail message to him. “Therefore there is no ‘spouse’ as defined in the MA plan. The MA law recognizes marriages between members of the same sex only for marriages performed in MA between MA residents. Since the NJ members are not ‘married’ under either NJ or MA law, there is no ‘spouse’ eligible for coverage as a dependent.”

Mr. Zimmer, 52, said in an interview last week, “Apparently the civil union law gave us all the rights of marriage, except the ones we really need.”

As I wrote on February 19th, ’separate but equal’ is a wrong policy.

Some may call this ‘almost marriage’ but history is my guide, and proves ’separate but equal’ is a wrong policy.

The fact that marriage and all the rights that follow cannot be replicated by any other social contract, including civil unions, is the main reason I have problems with the outcome from the Garden State. When we say the word marriage we all know what it means both in tangible and intangible ways. There is no way to shortcut the path to justice.

Technorati Tags: CivilUnions, GayMarriage, Gay, NewJersey, Law, NewYorkTimes

New Jersey Civil Unions Not Enough

In light of the Garden State becoming the third state to allow for civil unions for gay couples, I offer a cautionary note over getting too excited about ‘justice’.

The old adage that half a loaf is better than none at all seems to work for some when considering the recent actions by New Jersey. Needless to say civil unions are a remarkable step forward in our nation’s social progress. I don’t think any of us would have predicted 25 years ago that the legal barriers to justice for gay relationships would come crumbling down so fast as we have recently witnessed. But that still does not resolve the inequity between marriages that are protected by a whole series of laws and rights, and civil unions, which are akin to the children’s table in the corner during the holiday.

I reject anything for gay Americans that fall short of the full and complete rights afforded all citizens. While I understand the argument of moving one step at a time with this idea to allow some parts of society to adapt to reality, I do not want to hear people talk, as I did today, of civil unions as a major victory. It is not. To even imply that there is something just about withholding the right to marry for gay couples is no better than saying blacks should sit in the back of the bus, or cannot enter into marriage with a white person. The complete and utter stupidity of such thinking cannot, and must not, go unchecked.

Among the hundreds of benefits under the civil unions law, gay couples get rights dealing with adoption, child custody, visiting a hospitalized partner, making medical decisions and getting the same access to health insurance coverage that employers offer spouses of workers. Civil union partners also now have the right not to testify against a partner in state court.

However, the federal government and most states do not recognize the unions. That means, for instance, that a surviving member of a civil union would not be entitled to his deceased partner’s Social Security benefits. And if a partner is hospitalized in another state, the other may not be allowed to visit.

Some may call this ‘almost marriage’ but history is my guide, and proves ’seperate but equal’ is a wrong policy.

The fact that marriage and all the rights that follow cannot be replicated by any other social contract, including civil unions, is the main reason I have problems with the outcome from the Garden State. When we say the word marriage we all know what it means both in tangible and intangible ways. There is no way to shortcut the path to justice.

Gay Civil Unions Short Of The Mark

The old adage that half a loaf is better than none at all seems to work for some when considering the recent actions by the New Jersey State Legislature as they passed a civil unions bill for gay couples this week.   Needless to say civil unions are a remarkable step forward in our nation’s social progress.  I don’t think any of us would have predicted 25 years ago that the legal barriers to justice for gay relationships would come crumbling down so fast as we have recently witnessed.  But that still does not resolve the inequity between marriages that are protected by a whole series of laws and rights, and civil unions, which are akin to the children’s table in the corner during the holiday. 

I reject anything for gay Americans that fall short of the full and complete rights afforded all citizens.  While I understand the argument of moving one step at a time with this idea to allow some parts of society to adapt to reality, I do not want to hear people talk of civil unions as a major victory.  It is not.  To even imply that there is something just about withholding the right to marry for gay couples is no better than saying blacks should sit in the back of the bus, or cannot enter into marriage with a white person.  The complete and utter stupidity of such thinking cannot, and must not, go unchecked. 

The fact that marriage and all the rights that follow cannot be replicated by any other social contract, including civil unions, is the main reason I have problems with the outcome from the Garden State.  When we say the word marriage we all know what it means both in tangible and intangible ways.  There is no way to shortcut the path to justice.

Massachusetts had the political will to pass a marriage bill for gay couples and last I looked their world had not come crashing down.  All the harsh rhetoric from conservatives proved to be only bigots with too much time on their hands.  New Jersey should have found the same moxy and followed the leader.  Sadly, they did not. 

Technorati Tags: GayRights, NewJersey, CivilUnions, GayMarriage

Bravo To Mary Cheney And Partner Heather

I understand the rich irony in the news that Mary Cheney, the Vice-President’s gay daughter is pregnant, and lives with her partner in Virginia, a state that is as backwards as Wisconsin when considering civil unions or gay marriage.  I understand the desire to throw a few cheap shots given that many Americans know that the Bush Administration has been mean spirited towards gay people, and that Mary Cheney has not been the best advocate for gay rights. 

But at the center of all the debates from the progressive side about gay rights is the idea that any adult couple should be able to live their lives together without legal barriers and the divides caused by bigotry. With that in mind I offer Congratulations to Mary and Heather.  I do not envy them late night crying or endless diapers.  But I do applaud them over the way they are living their lives as they see fit, as opposed to how outside critics might have them construct their relationship.  Those who have only nasty things to say from the right should just stay quiet.  And quips from the left about Dick Cheney and his grandchild should be flushed.

Several years ago the mother of Matthew Shepard spoke in Madison and commented on the many people she had met while traveling and speaking around America.  She had discovered that gay people were just as ordinary, average, and in some cases as boring, as the straight people that claimed to have all the answers.  Mary and Heather are proving in a public way that the ordinary and everyday happenings for heterosexual couples also happen to gay couples.  In the end there is really no difference between loving couples except the barriers that some create as a result from bigotry and a lack of education.

The motherhood of Mary Cheney and Heather is a very important thing for much of America to witness.  What could not be achieved through debates and newspaper editorials in relation to gay civil rights this fall might make more progress with the birth of a child. 

Technorati Tags: MatthewShepard, MaryCheney, DickCheney, GayRights, PresidentBush