The Growing Numbers of LGBT Americans

Click image to enlarge

While the Christofascist may have won the battle of the 2016 presidential election by putting Donald Trump, ironically, a morally bankrupt individual, in the White House, they continue to lose the larger cultural war, especially when it comes to the visibility and self-identification of LGBT individuals in American society.  Not only are the number of gays increasing in every state and across ever demographic of the population, but the acceleration of the phenomenon is increasing, especially among Millennials. And with increased LGBT visibility, experience has shown that growing visibility correlates with (i) growing societal acceptance, and (ii)  increases in those who have walked away from organized religion.  Indeed, white evangelical Christians are a shrinking portion of American society notwithstanding the Republican Party's never ending self prostitution to a demographic increasingly know for its hatred of others by a majority of Americans, certainly among  the younger generations.   

A new Gallup survey has a number of findings that religious extremists like Vice President elect Mike Pence will find alarming, not the least of which is that 7.3% of Millennials identify as LGBT. The Christofascist myth that gays are only 1-3% of the population is clearly wrong.  Personally, I have always believed that if the stigma manufactured by religion were to suddenly disappear, the true number of LGBT individuals in society might hit 10% or more of Americans.    Here are some survey highlights:

The portion of American adults identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) increased to 4.1% in 2016 from 3.5% in 2012. These figures, drawn from the largest representative sample of LGBT Americans collected in the U.S., imply that more than an estimated 10 million adults now identify as LGBT in the U.S. today, approximately 1.75 million more compared with 2012.

Millennials, defined here as those born between 1980 and 1998, drive virtually all of the increases observed in overall LGBT self-identification. The portion of that generation identifying as LGBT increased from 5.8% in 2012 to 7.3% in 2016. LGBT identification remained relatively stable over the five-year period at 3.2% among Generation X and declined slightly from 2.7% to 2.4% among baby boomers and from 1.8% to 1.4% among traditionalists.

Among racial and ethnic minorities, the largest increases since 2012 in LGBT identification occurred among Asians (3.5% to 4.9%) and Hispanics (4.3% to 5.4%). Among whites, the comparable figures are 3.2% to 3.6%. Black Americans showed only a slight increase from 4.4% to 4.6%, and among "other" racial and ethnic groups, the increase was from 6.0% to 6.3%.

While the portion of LGBT individuals decreases with income, all income groups saw similar increases in the proportion of adults identifying as LGBT.

The proportion of highly or moderately religious adults who identified as LGBT remained virtually the same between 2012 and 2016, but increased from 5.3% to 7.0% among those who are not religious. As a result, nonreligious adults are now more than three times more likely to identify as LGBT than those who are highly religious.

Self-identification as LGBT represents only one aspect of measuring sexual orientation and gender identity. For example, research shows that direct assessments of same-sex sexual behavior or attraction yield very different (and often larger) population estimates when compared with estimates of LGBT self-identification.

Gallup research shows that data security and confidentiality are not major concerns of millennials. This could be one factor that explains why they are so much more likely to identify as LGBT when compared with other generations. They are more comfortable than their older counterparts with the idea of sharing what some might consider private information on surveys.

Perhaps an even larger factor concerns the differences in social climate that existed when individuals were teenagers and young adults. This is when many LGBT people begin the process of coming out and sharing their sexual orientation and gender identity with others.

Since 1977, Gallup has asked Americans if they think that gay and lesbian relationships between consenting adults should be legal. In July 1986, just 32% supported legalization of same-sex relationships, marking a low point in that support in Gallup polling. By 1999, when the first millennials were becoming adults, half of Americans supported legalization and, as of May 2016, the figure had risen to 68%.

In a span of only five years, the demographic composition of Americans who identify as LGBT has markedly changed. It has become larger, younger, more female and less religious. These demographic traits are of interest to a wide range of constituencies.

Corporate America also increasingly views the LGBT community as a market for consumer products and services and actively courts its support.

As Christofascist in the Trump/Pence nightmare regime - e.g., Jeff Sessions, Betsy DeVos, Rex Tillerson, Ben Carson - wage war on LGBT Americans, I expect the exodus from organized religion will accelerate and the contempt with which evangelical and fundamentalist Christians are viewed will correspondingly increase.  If we are lucky as a nation, the Trump/Pence nightmare will be white heterosexual fundamentalist Christians last hurrah and when looked back upon by history will, in fact, have been what ultimately killed fundamentalist Christianity as a political force.   The over reaching and hypocrisy of these people is about to be put on high display and will show that they care nothing about others and that their policies are the antithesis of the Gospel message. 

P.S., not sure what's going on with South Dakota, but 5% of the population identifying as LGBT was a surprise.

A Divide America - The Past Versus the Future

If one really knows American history one thing that quickly becomes clear: the country and society have never been static and the one constant has always been change.  Often rapid and major change.  A century ago America unknowingly was seeing the end of the Edwardian era which in less than ten years would be swept away away by World War I and the so-called roaring 20's dawned.  Only another ten years later and the Great Depression struck the nation and much of the world.  Now, in 2013, change is sweeping in again and one political party and its supporters are struggling to fight the tide of history and, if possible, restore a mythical version of the 1950's when white privilege still held immense sway and minorities and gays were expected to remain either invisible, suffering in silence, or give obsequious deference to their white Christian betters.  An article in the Washington Post looks at these two very different America, one motivated in my view by self-centered greed and a resentment of those who are different versus a recognition that the "good old days" weren't so good for many Americans.  The ultimate irony to me is that many of the economic challenges the backward looking individuals complain about are, in fact, the result of failed GOP policies.  Here are some highlights:

Bill and Sally Herr built their farmhouse on the outskirts of Fremont in the months after Sept. 11, 2001, and they agreed to decorate it in homage to the country they served and loved. They placed two American flags on the lawn, five flag magnets on the fridge, a flag-themed coloring book in the grandkids’ room and a flag throw blanket on the living room couch. They framed another flag just inside the entryway, displaying it under three words that summarized their philosophy: “God Bless America.”

But lately, when they talked about the state of the country, the phrase Bill preferred was something different, something much less reassuring.  Obama’s America,” he said.

Obama’s America: It was the wood pellets burning downstairs in their latest attempt to lower the energy bill; the constant threats of downsizing at the print shop where Sally has worked for 30 years; the 25 percent drop in tithing at their church; the date nights paid for with gift certificates to Arby’s or Casa Fiesta; the 37-year-old son with a doctorate who had been forced to move back in with them for six months after losing his job as a counselor in Toledo.

What bothered Bill most of all was the way he thought Obama had slighted the military, removing troops from combat zones too quickly and once disregarding Iraq as a “stupid war.”

Bill and Sally were lifelong Republicans who had been wary of Obama from the start, but it was the frustrations of the past four years that had welcomed Fox News as a constant presence into their living room and tea party members to their annual backyard Fourth of July bash. They wanted friends with whom to share their frustrations. Now they forwarded along e-mails from those new friends suggesting murky details in Obama’s family history and traveled to Glenn Beck rallies across the state.

They had sought out a community of others who thought like them, and immersing in that community had changed what they thought.  “The first time he won, I really just considered him inexperienced and misguided,” Sally said. “This time, I think he is purposely taking us to a place we don’t recognize.”

On the other side of the spectrum:

Cathy Morris, an Arm & Hammer quality supervisor, had worked alongside Bill for every one of those years without ever speaking to him about politics. She had overheard enough of his conversations to know: “He’s way over on the other side,” she said — and she preferred to associate only with her own side whenever possible.

She picked out an elliptical machine at the gym farthest from the TVs, because they were always tuned to Fox News. She deleted conservative friends from her Facebook page. She went on Snopes.com to investigate rumors about Obama and then shared her findings mostly with other liberals . . . . 

In what increasingly felt like a fight over basic American principles, she decided her role was to reinforce the stakes with liberals already on her side.

“Why waste my breath talking about the president to somebody who is always going to hate him?” Morris said. “If they can’t understand what he’s accomplished, it is already a lost cause.”

How, she wondered, could anyone not see the proof? The local unemployment rate had dropped from 13 percent to just more than 6 percent. The nearby National Machinery Plant, which had nearly closed its doors a few years earlier, now had trucks lining up at the loading docks like floats awaiting the start of a victory parade. The two colleges in town had become more diverse, and Arm & Hammer had begun offering benefits to same-sex domestic partners. Because of health-care reform, Morris’s youngest daughter, 22, has been able to stay on her mother’s health insurance plan. Morris decided to repay the president by doing something she had never done: making regular donations to Obama’s reelection campaign.

And then the divide - note who suggested the resort to violence:

[T]he area’s once-tranquil town hall meetings had devolved into a shouting match, with one woman suggesting that liberals in Washington should be “shot in the head,” prompting local Democrats to demand a police investigation. Ever since, local politics had all but come to a standstill.

What the article doesn't expressly delve into is the open racism that is now so pervasive in the GOP - what I believe is the overriding beef behind the mindset of folks like Bill and Sally Herr.  A president who is half black in the White House daily reminds these people that their days of special privilege are eroding and will eventually be gone. 

Obama Steps in It Again in Inaugural Benediction Presenter Choice

One has to think that someone on the Obama staff needs to be seriously fired for not vetoing the selection of Rev. Louie Giglio  - a documented anti-gay bigot - to deliver the benediction prayer at the January 21, 2013 inaugural ceremony.  Especially since by some calculation it was the LGBT vote that clinched Obama's re-election.  Are these folks simply incompetent or have they only pretended to be pro-gay in order to garner votes and, of course money.   Either way, they have flipped the middle finger to LGBT Americans.   Let's be clear: Obama needs to tell Giglio to take a hike and select someone else to deliver the benediction.  BuzzFeed looks at the hornets nest that Obama's incompetent staff has stirred up:

The White House on Wednesday was refusing to address comments critical of gay and lesbian people made by Rev. Louie Giglio, who was tapped by President Barack Obama to deliver the benediction prayer at the Jan. 21 inaugural ceremony. 

Think Progress reported that Giglio, an Atlanta pastor, made comments in a mid-1990s sermon criticizing "the aggressive agenda of not all, but of many in the homosexual community."

The inaugural invitation is not Giglio's first interaction with Obama. He also was one of the president's guests at the White House's 2012 Easter prayer breakfast, according to the White House pool report from the April 4, 2012 event.

This past November, Giglio served as the convocation speaker at the Jerry Falwell-founded Liberty University. Although he did not address homosexuality in the speech, he did strongly urge visiting high-school students to attend the college known for its strict policies against homosexual behavior and spoke about the positive influence Falwell has had on his life.

The questions about Giglio come as the administration is still fending off criticism about comments former Sen. Chuck Hagel — now Obama's nominee for defense secretary — made that Clinton administration nominee James Hormel was too "aggressively gay" to serve as ambassador to Luxembourg. 

Both the White House and committee organized to run Obama's inauguration ceremonies later this month refused to comment Wednesday on the remarks reported by Think Progress, in which Giglio said: "That movement is not a benevolent movement, it is a movement to seize by any means necessary the feeling and the mood of the day, to the point where the homosexual lifestyle becomes accepted as a norm in our society and is given full standing as any other lifestyle, as it relates to family."

This is not the first time questions have been raised about those giving public prayers at Obama's big events. Before Obama even took office, his choice of Rick Warren to give his inaugural invocation created what Huffington Post's Sam Stein called Obama's "first real rift with progressives" at the time.

As I said, Obama needs to get his head out of his ass and tell Giglio that he is dis-invited and find someone non-offensive to give the inaugural benediction.  Better yet, he could scrap the  benediction all together.

The Issues Facing LGBT Americans

A report reviewing the major areas in which unfair laws and Christianist fanned stigma create extra burdens for LGBT Americans in their every day lives has been released by a coalition comprised of the Human Rights Campaign, Log Cabin Republicans, the Movement Advancement Project, Stonewall Democrats and the Victory Fund.  The report is aimed at educating straight allies Many of the findings are disturbing and underscore the reality that while life for LGBT Americans have improved in some states. in most states LGBT citizens are treated as third or fourth class citizens at best.  Unfortunately, Virginia is one of the states where there has been little improvement in the legal climate for LGBT individuals.  Indeed, during the last decade in Virginia, other than the invalidation of Virginia's sodomy laws under the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, nothing has improved.  In fact, things have gotten worse (e.g., passage of the Marshall-Newman Amendment in 2006).  Here is the report's abstract followed by some excerpts from the report which can be found in full here:

ABSTRACT: Despite historic gains in the last few years, LGBT Americans are simply still not treated equally under federal law. Contrary to popular belief, federal legislation does not protect LGBT people from discrimination in housing, public accommodations, credit or employment—and LGBT people also lack such protections in most states. LGBT workers often cannot extend their health insurance coverage to their partners or children. Without family and marriage tax deductions, LGBT families pay additional taxes but lack access to critical protections that many Americans often take for granted, like Social Security Survivor Benefits. Due to these and myriad other inequalities, LGBT people are more likely to live in poverty and suffer from health disparities.

FAIR AND INCLUSIVE WORKPLACES:  The vast majority of Americans (73% according to the latest poll by the Center for American Progress) believe that workers should be treated fairly and equally and that no one should be fired for reasons that have nothing to do with their job performance. Yet LGBT people continue to face pervasive discrimination in the workplace. According to an analysis of the 2008 General Social Survey by the Williams Institute, more than one in-four lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) employees (27%) reported experiencing employment discrimination based on their sexual orientation in the past five years.11 The National Transgender Discrimination Survey found that 50% of transgender employees had been harassed at work.12 There is no federal law explicitly prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

As shown in Map 1, only a minority of states have legislation that protects workers for being unfairly fired .  .  .  .

Click on image to enlarge

ACCESS TO WORKPLACE BENEFITS:  LGBT people are less likely to have health insurance coverage.  No federal law requires employers to offer health benefits to the same-sex spouses or partners of LGBT employees, and most employers do not offer such benefits.  Even when employers do offer such benefits, LGBT employees (unlike married straight employees) and employers are taxed on the value of domestic partner health insurance benefits, making health insurance more expensive for LGBT employees and their families. 

FREEDOM FROM DISCRIMINATION:  Many LGBT people experience discrimination when just going about their daily activities–whether eating at a restaurant with their families or friends, trying to obtain safe, clean housing, or applying for a loan. One study found that in 27% of cases, same sex couples encountered discrimination when trying to rent or buy a home, and another study found that 19% of transgender respondents had been refused a home or apartment because of their gender identity or expression.20 Under federal law, LGBT people are not protected from discrimination in housing, public accommodations, credit or employment.

FREEDOM TO MARRY:  Many states in the U.S. have state-level laws banning same-sex couples from marriage and/or prohibiting other forms of relationship recognition. These state-level laws stand in the way of same-sex couples’ ability to take care of one another and tell them that their relationships and families don’t matter.

There much more detail, but these excerpts hopefully will help straight readers realize that there votes against anti-gay politicians are crucial to ending the daily inequality that we in the LGBT community face daily.

Gays - Exluded From the GOP's "Inclusion"

With roughly 2% of the attendees being non-white, the GOP convention organizers went to great lengths to give the faux appearance that today's GOP is inclusive at least for blacks and Hispanics - two groups the GOP base hates and despises as in the image above.  I suspect most viewers figured out the ruse if they paid any attention whenever the cameras panned out across the crowd.   One group, however, didn't even bear mention other than in the party platform deemed by many to be the most reactionary in many decades.  That's right, its us gays or, using the Christofascists' terminology "sodomites."  Frank Bruni comments on this invisibility in the New York Times.  Here are excerpts:

WHAT the Republicans painstakingly constructed here was meant to look like the biggest of tents. And still they couldn’t spare so much as a sleeping bag’s worth of space for the likes of me. 

Women were welcomed. During the prime evening television hours, the convention stage was festooned with them, and when they weren’t at the microphone, they were front and center in men’s remarks. Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney both gushed about their moms in tributes as tactical as they were teary. 

Latinos were plentiful and flexed their Spanish — “En América, todo es posible,” said Susana Martinez, the New Mexico governor — despite an “English First” plank in the party’s regressive platform.

And while one preconvention poll suggested that roughly zero percent of African-Americans support Romney, Republicans found several prominent black leaders to testify for him.

But you certainly didn’t see anyone openly gay on the stage in Tampa. More to the point, you didn’t hear mention of gays and lesbians. Scratch that: Mike Huckabee, who has completed a ratings-minded transformation from genial pol to dyspeptic pundit, made a derisive reference to President Obama’s support for same-sex marriage. We were thus allowed a fleeting moment inside the tent, only to be flogged and sent back out into the cold. 

It was striking because the Republicans went so emphatically far, in terms of stagecraft and storytelling, to profess inclusiveness, and because we gays have been in the news rather a lot over the last year or so, as the march toward marriage equality picked up considerable velocity. We’re a part of the conversation. And our exile from it in Tampa contradicted the high-minded “we’re one America” sentiments that pretty much every speaker spouted. It also denied where the country is so obviously headed and where so many Republicans have quietly arrived.

On the convention stage in Tampa, where estrogen was platinum and melanin was gold, Republicans spoke eloquently about a country that valued every person’s worth and was poised to reward each person’s dreams. Those words would have carried much more weight if coupled with even a glancing recognition of gay and lesbian Americans. Instead speakers tacitly let the party’s platform do the talking. It calls for the kind of constitutional amendment that Romney now supports. 

Sorry, Governor Martinez, you’re wrong. Todo no es posible. Not if you’re gay and live in Wisconsin (Ryan’s home state), Michigan (Romney’s) or 42 others and want to get married. Not if you’re gay and listened to all the soaring oratory in Tampa with the wish for one sentence or syllable of reassurance that the tent stretched all the way to you.

Are Moderate Republicans Now Drinking Kool-Aid?

As I've noted before, once upon a time I was an active Republican in the days before the Christianist take over of the party. Most of my former GOP "friends" dropped me like a hot potato when I came out and I heard frequent reports of how some had dragged my name through the mud because of my "lifestyle choice." Despite this back stabbing and general nastiness, I've remained in touch with some I knew from that time period - generally those who were moderates, some of whom were criticized by the far right elements for not being extreme enough to satisfy the Pat Robertson crowd.

Recently, I had an e-mail encounter with one such moderate (or at least former moderate) which was fairly discouraging because this individual sounded as if their sole source of information was Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. About the only point we agreed on was that the country is in a mess. Missing from my friend's statements was any willingness to accept GOP culpability for any part of the problems facing the country. You know, things like the 44%+ share of the deficit incurred under Chimperator Bush's 8 years of misrule. Also missing was any ability to see another perspective - especially from an LGBT perspective. Indeed, at times I was described as a single issue voter by this individual. Naturally, I disagreed and made a further comment that if the country continued its rightward lurch to insanity, the boyfriend and I might even consider leaving the USA.

This latter remark set off a defense of the USA as the best country in the world and how could I think such a thing. My response was as follows:

It's a sad reality, but the USA is no longer the a land of freedom of religion or equality under the law for all its citizens. No country is perfect, but for LGBT Americans more and more foreign countries offer a better life. I have more legal rights in all of these countries than I have in the USA/Virginia:

Marriage rights:
Argentina
Belgium
Canada
Iceland
Netherlands
Norway
Portugal
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
Civil unions or domestic partnerships:
Andorra
Austria
Brazil
Colombia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Ecuador
Finland
France
- New Caledonia
- Wallis and Futuna
Germany
Greenland
Hungary
Ireland
Isle of Man
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
New Zealand
Slovenia
Switzerland
United Kingdom
Uruguay

I'm not saying any one of them is perfect, but in terms of recognizing me as a full citizen with a valid relationship (and non-discrimination protections in many cases) they offer more than the USA. Republicans and supposed conservatives have no idea - not that most of them even care - of the damage that they do to the lives of LGBT individuals. Gay teens continue to kill themselves in disproportionate numbers yet Bachmann and others in the GOP continue the message of hate. No, I'm not sorry that I posted the remark.

Not surprisingly, that ended the interchange and I've received no reply. Sometimes facing the truth is not easy, but until those in the GOP will take a good look at themselves in the mirror, things are not going to get better. I've never been a "America Right of Wrong" citizen. I believe that sometimes the greatest patriots are those who will speak the truth and criticize what's wrong.

Quote of the Day - U. S. Senator Chris Coons

Thirteen U. S. Senators (sadly only 13% of the total) made an "It Gets Better" video which I have posted above. Besides the video appearance, Senator Chris Coons of Delaware has a post on Huffington Post where he talks about civil equality for LGBT Americans. In it he states in part as follows:

*

But as legislators, it is our responsibility to try to build a nation that not only tells our youth that 'it gets better' but actually helps make it better. All of the senators who participated in our video are cosponsors of the bill to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. Most are cosponsors of the Student Non-Discrimination Act, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or the Uniting American Families Act. All supported the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

*

As my Senate colleagues and I say in the video, it's up to me, it's up to you, it's up to Democrats, it's up to Republicans, and it's up to every American who believes that equality for all is an equality indifferent to sexual orientation.

*

Would that there were more elected officials who recognized their obligation to make the the promise of equality in the U. S. Constitution a reality as opposed to the farce that is today's reality. Religious based discrimination needs to become just as toxic in the public eye as racism is in most quarters.

NPR Poll Spells Bad News for Democrats

Over the weekend I triggered a bit of a firestorm of debate with a post I did on The Bilerico Project that addressed the continual betrayals of LGBT Americans by President Obama and Congressional Democrats. Regardless of one's views on the merits of LGBT voters sitting out the November, 2010, elections, the issue I raised in terms of the disillusionment of Democrat voters is real - very real in fact. Yet the Democrats refuse to realize that disillusionment is what happens when campaign promises are broken or when the promised legislation ends up as some piss poor reflection of what voters wanted. A new NPR Congressional Battleground Poll ought to be spreading terror among many incumbent Democrats facing serious challengers - yes, Glenn Nye, I mean you in this group - yet elected officials like Virginia's Senator Jim Webb continue to feel that the Democrat base can be lied to and thrown under the bus - often not even graciously. As I have stated before, from my perspective we are now seeing at the national level the same thing that occurred in Virginia in 2009: enthusiastic and motivated Republican base opposed to a disillusioned and apathetic Democrat base. If Democrats refuse to vote and act like Democrats, rightly or wrongly, people only remember the broken campaign promises, not what the GOP opponents MIGHT do. Here are some highlights on the poll findings:
*
The results are a wake-up call for Democrats whose loses in the House could well exceed 30 seats. In the named-congressional ballot in the 60 Democratic districts, Democrats trail their Republican opponent, 42 to 47 percent, with only a third saying they want to vote to-relect their member. In the top tier of 30 most competitive seats, the Democratic candidate trails by 9 points (39 to 48 percent) and by 2 points in the next tier of 30 seats (45 to 47 percent). On the other hand, the Republican candidates are running well ahead in their most competitive seats ( 53 to 37 percent). As we saw in the special election in PA-12, Democrats will have to battle on a seat-by-seat basis — that has shifted these kinds of numbers this year.
*
The effort by individual campaigns will have to push against walls that seem very hard to move at this point. We tested Democratic and Republican arguments on the economy, health care, financial reform and the big picture for the 2010 election. The results consistently favored the Republicans and closely resembled the vote breakdown. Democrats are hurt by a combined lack of enthusiasm and an anti-incumbent tone.
*
Bottom line? The Democrats need to convince their base that having Democrats in office leads to a different result. In the case of LGBT voters, Democrats have delivered almost nothing. Add to that the ineffective health care "reform" passed this year, and there is little reason to be enthusiastic. The Democrat incumbents have no one to blame but themselves.

LGBT Community Needs New Rules for Democrats

This past Thursday I was asked to consider joining the local Democratic City Committee as a voice of the LGBT community. In addition, I was asked to attend an event on this coming Tuesday evening where the state party leadership will be in attendance. I accepted the invitation with a warning that I am none too happy with the Democrats and, in fact, am an advocate for the "Don't Ask, Don't Give" campaign. I asked are you sure you want to hear what I've got to say, because the Democratic leadership probably isn't going to like what I have to say. On issues ranging from DADT repeal to employment non-discrimination protections, Democrats give plenty of lip service in terms of supporting full legal equality for LGBT citizens, but fall miles short on delivering real action. The sell-out DADT repeal compromise that might not even pass the U.S. Senate is a perfect example of nice talk but only less than half measure action. Ironically, Act on Principles has a new post on what the LGBT community needs to tell the Democrats are the new operating rules. They mirror my own thoughts and I will certainly deliver this message come Tuesday. Here are some highlights:
*
RULE ONE(Democratic Treasurer rule):
*
Old Rule: It is more important to win a Democratic House and Senate Majority than lose that majority or potential majority fighting for LGBT equality. And both are mutually exclusive of one another. This rule can also apply to the Presidential race.
.
New Rule: It is AS important to fight for LGBT equality, as winning or keeping a House and Senate Democratic Majority. And neither are mutually exclusive. This rule also applies to the Presidential Race.
*
RULE TWO:
*
Old Rule: Money and support will be given by the LGBT community to Democratic candidates, in turn for the expectation that they will be supportive of LGBT issues.
.

New Rule: Money and support will “earned” by Democratic candidates who demonstrate CONTINUED SUPPORT of LGBT issues.
*
RULE THREE:
*
Old Rule: LGBT donors will give to Democratic candidates and Committees first (DNC, DSCC, DCCC) and expect leadership on LGBT equality later.
.
New Rule: LGBT donors will FIRST expect Democratic candidates and Committees (DNC, DSCC, DCCC) SUPPORT for equality, and will DONATE LATER.
*
RULE FOUR (Harold Ford Rule):
*
Old Rule: African American and/or Southern Democrats get a pass on advocating for LGBT equality.
.
New Rule: African American and Southern Democrats are expected to be MORE VOCAL for LGBT equality as those communities are disproportionately impacted by homophobia and inequity.
*
RULE FIVE:
*
Old Rule: It is ok and understandable if a Democrat refers to his or her culture, religion, or upbringing as reasons not support full LGBT equality.
.
New Rule: It is offensive and no longer acceptable if candidates embrace the bigotry of their culture, religion and/or upbringing as reasons not to support full LGBT equality.
*
RULE SIX:
*
Old Rule: If LGBT community supports Democratic candidates and the candidate is successful in their race, the LGBT community can then ask the newly or re-elected Democrats to support equality. If key votes or legislation are not delivered, the candidate should continue to receive the same support during re-election.
.
New rule: If LGBT community supports Democratic candidates and the candidate is successful in their race, the LGBT community will demand the newly or re-elected Democrats to support LGBT equality. If key votes or legislation are not delivered, the candidate WILL NOT and SHOULD NOT receive similar support during re-election.
*
Will the Dems like the new rules? I doubt it, but it is time for LGBT Americans to stop being used by Democrats who claim to be gay supportive and then never follow through. Barack Obama's broken campaign promises illustrate the cycle that must be broken. How many times do we have to be played for suckers before we say NO MORE?

Gay Candidates Get Support That Gay Rights May Not

The New York Times has a story that looks at the public's bi-polar like approach to gays: they are more and more willing to elect LGBT candidates to public office even as they resist giving LGBT citizens full equality under the civil laws, especially in terms of marriage equality. Annise Parker's recent election as mayor of Houston is an example of what would appear to be a disconnect of reason and logic given Texas' anti-gay laws. Why is it an individual can be evaluated on the basis of their abilities and accomplishments, yet as a group LGBT Americans continue to be demonized in the majority of states where gays can be fired, denied housing and other rights because of religious based discrimination? True, intellectual honest and Christianists are mutually exclusive, but nonetheless the disconnect is baffling. Here are some highlights from the Times story:

*
HOUSTON — When an openly gay woman won the mayor’s race here this month, it was the latest in a string of victories by gay candidates across the country, a trend that seems to contradict the bans on same-sex marriage that have been passed in most states in recent years. Take Texas, by many measures one of the most conservative states in the nation. In 2005, it enacted a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage; the voters passed the referendum by a ratio of three to one.
*
Yet in the last decade, an openly gay woman has twice won election as the sheriff in Dallas County, and another openly gay woman was elected district attorney in Travis County, which includes the city of Austin. Gay candidates have also won city council seats in Austin, Fort Worth and Houston. Then, this month, Annise Parker, the city controller who is a lesbian, swept to a solid victory in the mayoral race in Houston, the nation’s fourth largest city.
*
There are currently at least 445 openly gay and lesbian people holding elected office in the United States, up from 257 eight years ago, according to the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, a political group that supports gay candidates. . . . Some political scientists say the rise in openly gay candidates’ winning public office is a better barometer of societal attitudes than are the high-profile fights over same-sex marriage.
*
“Gay marriage ballot measures are not the best measure,” said Patrick J. Egan, a political scientist at New York University who studies issues surrounding gay politicians. “They happen to be about the one issue the public is most uncomfortable with. In a sense, they don’t give us a real good picture of the opinion trend over the last 30 years.”
*
One reason for the shift in attitudes, some political scientists contend, is a rising number of gays acknowledging their sexual preference openly in various walks of life, from workers on factory floors to Hollywood stars. “More and more people have been coming out,” said Sean Theriault, a political scientist at the University of Texas who tracks gay politics. “Ten years ago, you could talk to a lot of people who didn’t know a single gay person, and now, especially in the cities, you would be hard pressed to find someone who doesn’t know anyone who is gay.” Yet, most of the openly gay politicians who have won races recently have done so by avoiding being labeled as single-issue candidates, several gay politicians said.
*
One key to victory for gay politicians has been building reputations in their communities as candidates well qualified for the job. Voters who may be uncomfortable with homosexuality in the abstract are often willing to vote for a gay individual they feel they know, political strategists said.

Continued Homophobia in the Legal Profession

ENDA appears to be going nowhere this year and as a result LGBT employees in a majority of states - including ever backwards Virginia - will continue to have no employment non-discrimination protections. That includes LGBT attorneys and paralegals who either cannot get hired by law firms in the first place or who must live in fear in the professional closet so as to not be fired from their jobs. While this post will focus on Virginia, the problem identified occurs all over the country where states do not protect LGBT citizens from employment discrimination. As I have noted before, I was forced from a large law local firm in 2004 because I was gay - true, they tried to dress it up as something else, but one did not need to be a NASA scientist to know what was going on - and I have a good friend who experienced a similar fate when his sexual orientation was discovered at another prominent local law firm.

*

The major disconnect in this wide spread picture is that most prominent law schools require interviewing employers as a condition to recruiting on campus to abide by employment non-discrimination policies that bar discrimination based on sexual orientation. In Virginia, the leading law schools, The University of Virginia School of Law (my alma mater), The College of William & Mary School of Law, The Washington & Lee University School of Law, and The University of Richmond School of Law all have such policies (click on the school to view its respective policy). Research has shown that Virginia’s mega law firms – Williams Mullen, P.C., McGuire Woods, L.L.P., and Hunton & Williams - actually have such policies in place at their firms, as does Leclair Ryan. Yet, the majority of Virginia law firms that conduct on campus interviews do NOT actually have official non-discrimintation policies that comply with the law school mandated non-discrimination policies. In fact, two local law firms - Wolcott Rivers Gates and Willcox & Savage, P.C. - have fired LGBT staff due to their sexual orientation.

*

Of the other locally based law firms, one - Kaufman & Canoles, P.C. - has a nondiscrimination policy that on its face excludes sexual orientation. The rest as well as some in other parts of Virginia have non discernible non-discrimination policy whatsoever: Vandeventer Black, L.L.P., Watt Tieder Hoffar & Fitzgerald LLP, Taylor & Walker, P.C., Christian & Barton, P.C., Hirschler Fleischer, P.C., and Huff, Poole & Mahoney, P.C (Taliban Bob McDonnell's former firm). Obviously, something is seriously wrong with this picture if these firms are allowed to recruit on campus at leading laws apparently giving a wink and a nod to the law schools' non-discrimination policies. As a result, I sent the following letter to the deans of four of Virginia's top law schools asking how and why this situation exists in light of their law school's respective non-discrimination policies:

*
VIA E-MAIL AND U. S. MAIL
*
Paul G. Mahoney, Dean - pmahoney@virginia.edu
University of Virginia School of Law
580 Massie Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22903-1738
*
Davison M. Douglas, Dean - dmdoug@wm.edu
William and Mary School of Law
P.O. Box 8795
Williamsburg, Virginia 23187-8795
*
Rodney A. Smolla, Dean - smollar@wlu.edu
Washington and Lee University
School of Law
Sydney Lewis Hall
Lexington, Virginia 24450
*
John G. Douglass, Dean - jdougla2@richmond.edu
University of Richmond School of Law
28 Westhampton Way
University of Richmond, Virginia 23173
*
Re: Employer Recruiting Non-Discrimination Policy
*
Gentlemen:
*
To introduce myself, I am an attorney (UVA Law 1977) admitted to the Virginia, Alabama, and Texas bars. To my knowledge, I am one of only two (2) publicly and professionally “out” LGBT attorneys in the Hampton Roads area – a region with a population of approximately 1.5 million residents. I am also a contributor to LGBT/political blogs. Because of my extensive involvement in the Hampton Roads LGBT community, I believe I can safely say that none of the large local law firms have any “out” attorneys. A few have LGBT attorneys who live in the closet if you will and live in fear of being fired should their sexual orientation become known.
*
As the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (“ENDA”) continues to languish in the U.S. Congress, LGBT Virginians continue to have no legal employment protections against being terminated from employment or not hired in the first place due to their sexual orientation. This situation is not unique to Virginia and holds true in many other states. Each of your law schools have put in place policies that require recruiting law firms and corporations to agree to adhere to a non-discrimination policy that bars employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. For this I and others in the LGBT community applaud your institutions.
*
Unfortunately, there is a major disconnect it seems when it comes to law firms actually adhering to the non-discrimination policies required by your institutions. Research has shown that while Virginia’s mega law firms – Williams Mullen, P.C., McGuire Woods, L.L.P., and Hunton & Williams - actually have such policies in place at their firms, the majority of law firms do not. Instead, they either have a policy that does not include sexual orientation – e.g., Kaufman & Canoles, P.C. – or have no stated policy that I can identify: Willcox & Savage, P.C., Vandeventer Black, L.L.P., Watt Tieder Hoffar & Fitzgerald LLP, Wolcott Rivers Gates, P.C., Taylor & Walker, P.C., Christian & Barton, P.C., Hirschler Fleischer, P.C., and Huff, Poole & Mahoney, P.C. To make matters worse, two of the named firms - Willcox & Savage, P.C and Wolcott Rivers Gates, P.C – have in the past forced LGBT individuals from those firms because of their sexual orientation.
*
I am writing you for two reasons. First, I would like your reactions to the manner in which the majority of Virginia’s law firms seem to fail to follow through on their supposed agreement to abide by your institutions’ nondiscrimination policies. Second, I would like your thoughts on what your institutions can do to actually enforce your respective policies. For example, should law firms be required to have formal non-discrimination policies in place in order to interview on campus? Will there be real consequences for firms that fire attorneys and staff based on sexual orientation?
*
I plan on doing a story on this issue that will be both published on some blogs as well as circulated to other writers at news outlets, bloggers and activists. I look forward to your responses. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
*
Sincerely,
*
If and when I receive responses from these law schools I will post one or more updates. Meanwhile, I would encourage others to contact other prominent law schools and ask how/why they allow homophobic law firms to recruit on campus notwithstanding the law school's employment non-discrimination policies for would be employers.

The Importance of Attracting and Retaining Gay Attorneys

As I have stated on many occasions, the Hampton Roads area legal community is extremely homophobic and the reality is that as an "out" attorney, I am basically deemed unemployable by local large firms. This mindset does not prevail everywhere in the South. During the National Equality March we met another UVA Law graduate who was not forced from his firm in Nashville when he came out after years of marriage and three children. In fact, he said that the firm had recently recruited an openly gay new associate. Long term - as evidenced by the "Gay Index" that I spoke of over the weekend - areas that want to be economically successful need to embrace tolerance. Sadly, Hampton Roads seems Hell bent to remain an economic and high tech backwater given its failure to welcome gays, Hispanics and other minorities. Given this reality, I found an article by BCG Attorney Search - one of the largest legal recruiters in the USA - to be further evidence of the backwardness of the local legal community. In this article, the case is made that attracting and retaining gay attorneys should be a must for law firms seeking to thrive. Here are some highlights:

*
Historically, law firms have been conservative environments, and as a result, gay attorneys (which includes gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered attorneys) have largely kept their sexual orientations to themselves out of fear of being ostracized, rejected, and discriminated against. Many of us have witnessed or heard of stories in which a very highly regarded attorney’s sexual orientation was somehow disclosed (or leaked) to his or her firm, resulting in negative consequences for the attorney.

*
While law firms have traditionally been unfriendly to gay attorneys and staff, changing a firm’s atmosphere can be done — and many firms are doing so with great success. While it may not be easy, as discussed in detail below, it is vitally important for firms that want to remain competitive in the marketplace, and there are some concrete steps that firms can take to help create a comfortable working atmosphere for gay attorneys.

*

There is a very simple reason that firms should care about attracting and retaining gay attorneys: to help recruitment and retention of staff. . . . Gay attorneys have always made significant contributions to the law, regardless of whether their peers were aware of their sexual orientation, and in today’s incredibly competitive recruiting environment for the top lawyers, firms can only benefit from pulling from a larger pool of attorneys. Diversity also conveys a loud message that the culture of the law firm is one of inclusion, and as a consequence of this message, the firm is bound to attract the best attorneys from all walks of life.

*
Firms are also feeling increased pressure from their clients to increase diversity and provide an atmosphere of inclusion for gay attorneys. Clients often ask for the firm statistics regarding gay and lesbian attorneys, and some gay business owners are more comfortable working with gay attorneys, or at least firms that support gay attorneys.

*

The article then goes on to discuss steps that can be implemented to accomplish a positive change in firm atmosphere. With more and more gays living openly, the dramatically higher acceptance of gays by the younger generations, the fact that many families have a LGBT relative, and the increased number of gay owned businesses, it is simply good business to end homophobic practices within law firms. Will the Hampton Roads area wake up? I'm not holding my breath and by the time the legal community wakes up to the lost opportunity, I hope I have cornered much of the LGBT market. (I am also marketing to the Hispanic community and other groups that currently are looked down upon by arrogant and homophobic law firms.)

Obama Tactics Put Key Constituencies At Risk

In follow up to my last post concerning David Mixner's call to turn off the LGBT ATM for unsupportive Congressional Democrats, Roll Call has a story that looks at the fall out from President Obama's - and Congressional Democrat's - failure to deliver as promised to key constituencies within the Democrat Party. Frankly, I believe a good portion of the lagging campaign of Creigh Deeds here in Virginia flows directly from voter funk with Obama and the Democrat controlled Congress to make good to date on promises. Taking votes from the LGBT, black, Hispanic and other minority communities for granted is NOT a wise move. Yet so far, no one seems to be taking the likely fall out seriously, including the White House. Here are some story highlights:

*

President Barack Obama is playing a perilous political game with some of his core constituencies, pursuing policies that threaten to diminish the enthusiasm of groups that helped put him into office.

*

In his first nine months, Obama has followed an agenda that raised concerns among unions, Jews, gays and Latinos — groups that backed him overwhelmingly and without which he cannot be re-elected. The complaints for now are mostly muted, and any damage done can be reversed. But all have high expectations for the president, and a few — particularly labor leaders and gays — view his presidency as the first, and perhaps the last chance for some time, to achieve long-coveted goals.

*

Obama has promised much to the gay community, and the pressure for him to deliver — as well as the growing frustration that he has not — is palpable. His agenda includes an end to the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, legislation to bar discrimination against gays in the workplace and a repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, which limits how federal and local governments can recognize domestic partnerships and allow benefits. Obama may soon sign legislation that would make assaults on gays hate crimes. . . . Critics have focused on the lack of a timeline for fulfilling many of his promises. “The expectations were very high,” wrote Joe Sudbay, a prominent gay blogger. “The president spoke for approximately 25 minutes. And, tonight, he did not deliver anything new or exciting. He did not assuage our concerns.”

*

Failure to make a sincere stab at immigration reform would hurt him with Hispanic voters, according to Brett Wilkes, executive director of the League of United Latin American Citizens. About two-thirds of Hispanic voters cast their ballots for Obama in 2008.

Obama's Indifference to LGBT Americans

The Advocate raises the following question: As a candidate Obama promised us a lot; as president he’s delivered very little -- and many gay people are getting impatient. Does the outcry unmask this president’s indifference, or reveal our own impotence as a movement? . . . The hero was a player after all.

*

Sadly, at this point I do not believe that Obama meant a single word of his campaign promises to LGBT Americans. We had two things that he wanted: votes and money, and he obtain a lot of both. Many in our community were played for suckers and I confess I was one of the suckers. It will be a cold day in Hell before I support Obama on anything unless and until he delivers on his promises.

Wanted: President with Empathy

A contributor to Pam's House Blend has posted a letter that she has written to President Obama in regard to his failure to deliver on ANY of his campaign promises to date to LGBT Americans. The letter is moving and lays out why movement by Obama on LGBT issues is important and should not be put on the back burner for attention "someday" or "later." We are talking about real lives and real people who are deprived of equality because of religious based discrimination - something that ought to already be forbidden under the U.S. Constitution. The letter is lengthy but I encourage you to read the whole piece. Here are some highlights:

*

Dear President Obama,

*

I write to you today as a parent, and I am asking you to hear my plea not as President of the United States, but as the parent of two beautiful daughters. My husband and I cried tears of joy that November night back in 2008 when you were declared the victor and 44th president of the United States. But despite our tremendous relief that George W. Bush would soon be gone and you would soon be taking over, it was still a bittersweet night for us. Yes, our hopes and prayers had been answered. Yes, the eight year nightmare finally felt almost over. But our intense joy was overshadowed by the passages of hateful marriage amendments in both Arizona and California.

*

My husband and I understood exactly what those horrible marriage amendments were really all about and we knew it had nothing to do with protecting the sanctity of our 27-year marriage, and everything to do with hate, ignorance and bigotry masquerading as a mandate from God. It was also the point at which we painfully realized that enough of our fellow Arizonans, possibly friends and neighbors among them, felt so strongly that our son was not worthy of the same rights they enjoyed that they could pull the lever for enshrining his second-class citizenship into our state constitution. I cannot describe the pain we felt. Saying it was excruciating just doesn't do it justice.

*

But thankfully I was able to console myself with the knowledge that these amendments represented the last of the divisive political tactics used by the previous administration to pit American against American simply to win, with no regard to the damage it would do to our country. We just knew that with your election this kind of stuff would soon be an ugly memory and that we would soon have a man of honor and dignity coming into office - a man who promised, over and over, to make things right.

*

Mr. President, we were deeply moved by all of the inspirational speeches you gave during your campaign. We hung on to your every word. We were so desperate for change and your words filled us with so much hope and optimism. We believed you when you promised you'd fight for legal equality for gays and lesbians by expanding the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to include sexual orientation and gender identity, we believed you when said you'd urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws, we believed you when you promised you'd repeal the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, and we believed you when you said you'd support the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

*

But maybe I was wrong. Yes, I know, you walked into a horrific mess on January 20th, 2009. Yes, your plate is full. Yes, there are many urgent matters that must be dealt with. And yes, you must make some tremendously difficult prioritizing decisions. But your silence on every single one of these LGBT issues Mr. President, is deafening. And it is a crushing disappointment.

*

The fact that I am pleading with you nearly 5 months into your presidency to keep the promises you made while asking for my vote is telling. The fact that I have to beg you to make my son an equal citizen of this great country is something I cannot believe I'm being forced to do. The idea that the constitutionally protected rights of a minority can be put up for a vote by the majority is un-American, unconstitutional, and just plain wrong.

*

So I ask you Mr. President, how would you feel if you were forced to beg your friends, your neighbors, your fellow citizens, and even the President of the United States to treat one of your precious daughters the same way they treat their own children? How would you feel? Horrified? Indifferent? Filled with seething rage? I need to know, because your answer to that question will tell me just how much empathy you have.

Obama Insults LGBT Americans Yet Again

Work hard for a candidate, contribute time and money to support his election and what is your reward? Well, if the candidate was Barack Obama and you are an LGBT American your reward and thank you will consist of a series of insults and a number of weak kneed episodes of whining where he'd rather kiss the asses of those who lie and denigrate gays daily and seeks to undermine him at every turn as well. Based on Obama's invitation to folks at Concerned Women for America and the Family Research Council to come t the White House to discuss "policy," I full expect David Duke, other white supremacists, Neo-Nazis and the Imperial Wizard of the Klu Klux Klan to soon be receiving invites to the White House. Or maybe a group seeking to honor Adolph Hitler's birthday on April 20th. In fact, based on this invitation to these two extreme Chistianist organizations who deem themselves exempt from the Commandment against lying and bearing false witness - and who are in essence racist and have not condemned rumors that Obama is a Muslim or not born in the USA - one can only assume that every nutcase organization that seeks to subvert the U. S. Constitution will soon be visiting the White House.

*

I truly find it dumbfounding that Obama seems to seek out opportunities to insult LGBT Americans as he at the same times kisses the asses of those who loath him and likely wish him dead. I truly do not understand it. These folks will NEVER work with him or his administration and are responsible for a large measure of the hate and intolerance that has come to permeate politics in this country. Is Obama deliberately trying to tell LGBT Americans to go f*ck themselves? That message can't be more deliberately delivered than by meeting with vitriolic anti-gay groups like FRC and CWA. In retrospect, I continue to wait to be convinced that Obama is not an opportunistic liar who used LGBT Americans for his own purposes during the presidential while having no intentions of making good on his speeches taking about equality for all Americans. Here are some highlights from Right Wing Watch:

*

Since taking office, the Right has opposed just about every aspect of his agenda, from his choice of nominees to the economic stimulus legislation. But nothing has outraged them more than reversals of President Bush’s stem cell and “Mexico City” policies.

*

Given that FRC’s and CWA’s stance regarding life issues is to vehemently oppose anything that does not move the country toward curtailing, and eventually outlawing, of reproductive choice, what is the Obama administration’s best option for dealing with such groups? Why, inviting them to White House for a discussion on how to reduce the need for abortion, of course.

*

If the Obama administration thinks that it is going to win support for anything that it does on this issue from groups like CWA and FRC, it is sorely mistaken … which is something they will presumably learn once this meeting takes place.

*
These are not moderate, open-minded groups looking for common ground – they are militant, anti-choice groups committed to, above all, making abortion illegal everywhere and for everyone, with no exceptions.

*
It is hard to understand what the administration expects to gain by meeting with such groups to discuss efforts to reduce abortion considering that the only option such groups support is to outlaw them entirely.

*

Meanwhile, we have disingenuous and faux news organizations like CBN News - yep, you read it correctly, Pat Robertson's news arm - gloating over Obama's intent to meet with the FRC and CWA hate mongers:

*

Concerned Women for America and the Family Research Council will meet with Joshua DuBois, the man who leads the administration’s office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. Wendy Wright, the president of CWA reached out to the Obama administration and they responded by inviting CWA and some of these other conservative Evangelical groups to The White House. The meeting plans to focus on the need to reduce abortions in the country and on responsible fatherhood programs. Also present at the meeting will be Tom McClusky, Senior Vice-President of the Family Research Council as well as representatives from the Christian Medical Association and Care Net, a pro-life Evangelical pregnancy crisis group. . . . The abortion conscience clause protection issue could come up too.

*

Please excuse me as I go vomit and then throw out any Obama paraphernalia that I did not already throw out when Obama selected to Rick Warren to give the Inauguration invocation.

Anti-Gay Hate Triumphs

UPDATED: One generally gay affirming retired clergy's comment on this post was that I need to be more "positive' and look at what has improved and also be more patient. My resonse to him:

*

Every day, gays – especially teens - kill themselves because of the poison put out by “Christians.” People ARE dying due to this stuff. Remember, I have lost two friends to suicide because of the “Christian” message and know many more that are emotionally scarred for life (perhaps me included). All the while too many church leaders are afraid of offending the sensibilities of bigots within their churches and congregations who apparently need to feel superior to others in order to feel good about themselves. Being patient and positive does not stop the ruined lives and suicides.

*

I should be thrilled today, but the glow of the Obama victory is severely diminished by the triumph of the Christianist/Mormon haters in the anti-gay initiatives in Arizona, Arkansas, Florida and probably in California. For me, these results underscore that for LGBT Americans those who allege themselves to be Christian remain our number one enemy. I am left feeling physically ill and demoralized. True, many Christians worked for gay rights such as the churches I have highlighted in prior posts. Too many allegedly progressive denominations, however, sat by and did nothing and allowed the forces of hate to win. Personally, I remain with the feeling that anyone Christian is an enemy of gay equality until proven otherwise. And I am sorry, but just saying that a denomination or congregation is accepting doesn't cut it. As the saying goes, talk is cheap - I want to see affirmative actions.

*

As for my country, to be honest, if I received an acceptable marriage proposal from someone living in a country with gay marriage - a marriage of convenience to give me citizenship would do - I'd be sorely tempted to leave the USA. I am tired of waiting to be a full citizen. Here are highlights from Autumn Sandeen at Pam's House Blend that looks at the wins by our enemies (note that in California farm animals rate higher than same sex couples - it doesn't get much more insulting):

*

In Arizona, the same-sex marriage ban appears to be passing. With 99% of precincts reporting, the results were 56% to 44%. This initiative is currently projected to win; this is an initiative that needed 50% plus one vote pass -- the state itself was called for Obama.

*
In Arkansas, the ban on gay and lesbian couples adopting children appears to be passing. With 96% of precincts reporting, the results were 57% to 43%. As of this moment, this initiative has been called; this was an initiative that needed 50% plus one vote pass -- the state itself was called for McCain.

*
In Florida, the same-sex marriage ban appears to be passing. With 99% of precincts reporting, the results were 62% to 38%. As of this moment, this initiative has been called; this was a constitutional amendment that needed 60% of the votes to pass -- the state itself was called for Obama.

*
And in California, we had Proposition 8. As of this moment, with 89% of precincts reporting, the constitutional amendment to the California State Constitution limiting marriage to one man and one woman is ahead 51.8% to 48.2%. The constitutional amendment hasn't yet been called -- but the amendment needs just 50% plus one vote pass -- the state itself has been called for Obama.
*

Here in my odd world of California, there is a weird comparison of initiatives between California initiatives can be made between Propositions 2 and 8. Proposition 2 is an initiative that was described in the initiative as follows: The purpose of this Act is to prohibit the cruel confinement of farm animals in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs.

*
So in my mind, perhaps the saddest commentary on "liberal" Californians sense of equality and fairness is to say that in my home state where, to this point, 63.3% of its voters found the mistreatment of farm animals something worthy of being legislated against, and 52.8% of voters believed eliminating the fundamental right of gays and lesbians to marry worthy of a state constitutional amendment.

*

It dampens my hopes in what a Democratic Congress and Democratic Congress will do with a fully inclusive ENDA, a Matthew Sheppard Act, and with Don't Ask, Don't Tell being repealed. The tide just doesn't seem to be flowing in the electoral direction of LGBT citizens.