BREAKING NEWS
June 3, 2009
Traditionally conservative New Hampshire today became the sixth state in the nation to legalize gay marriage, after a bill was enacted by both the state House and Senate and then signed by Governor John Lynch.
“Today, we’re standing up for the liberties of same-sex couples by making clear they will receive the same rights, responsibilities, and respect under New Hampshire law,” Lynch said before signing the bill at about 5:20 p.m.
Lynch said it was a New Hampshire tradition “to come down on the side of individual liberties and protections, and that tradition continues today.”
In early May, Lynch reiterated his position that civil unions were best for the state. But two weeks later, he said his thinking had changed. He said society’s views on civil rights have “constantly evolved and expanded” throughout our history. “That is what I believe we must do today.”
Lynch said at the bill signing ceremony that he hoped that despite passionate debate about the issue, citizens would respect each other as they had after the civil union law was passed.
“It is my hope and my belief that New Hampshire will once again come together to embrace tolerance and respect and to stand against discrimination,” he said.
Gay marriage is now legal in Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Massachusetts — all of the new England states, except for Rhode Island. Gay marriage is also legal in Iowa.
Steve Schmidt’s Speech on Same Sex Marriage & Rights
May 16, 2009
Former Campaign Manager for John McCain speaks on same sex marriage rights
Thank you for that introduction, and for your invitation to join you today. I haven’t done much public speaking since the election. I haven’t done any, in fact. But over five months have passed since the election, and in gratitude for your contributions to our party and out of concern for its future success, I appreciate this opportunity to share a few thoughts with you about the direction I hope our party takes as it seeks to recover the support and trust of the American people.
To state the obvious: the Republican Party needs to grow. A review of the exit polls and current demographic trends in the United States should make it clear to all but the most determined optimist that our coalition is shrinking, and losing ground with segments of the population that are growing. Whether it’s with suburban voters, working class voters, college educated voters, Hispanics or left handed Albanian psychics, the percentage voting Republican has declined. Perhaps, the most alarming of these various and generally worrying results of the last election is the huge margin by which we lost voters under 30. Having said that, it is not a foregone conclusion these are long term trends or even trends at all. They might just be the results of two lost elections, although I doubt it. And even if they do represent movement toward a center left political realignment, unanticipated events could arrest or begin to reverse them even in the near term.
Political scientists and campaign consultants tend not to account for contingency when they are busy predicting the future. The McCain campaign, for instance, initially thought our most difficult problem would be the war in Iraq, an assumption we made based on exit polls from the 2006 mid term elections. Obviously, we guessed wrong, thanks in part, paradoxically, to Senator McCain’s statesmanship as an early advocate of the surge.
We had many environmental challenges that made our campaign an uphill struggle from start to finish. In addition to the President’s unpopularity and two wars the country had tired of, we had historic wrong track numbers, record high gas prices, an unprecedented resource disadvantage, and a disparity in press coverage. While we worried about these and many other challenges in 2007 and early 2008, we never believed the election was unwinnable, and had by early September managed to fight our way to a rough tie, and even a very small lead. None of us, however, expected a global financial crisis to be one of them. I’m pretty confident, President Obama’s campaign didn’t anticipate one either. It was the last obstacle imposed on a very challenged campaign. It proved to be insurmountable. And no one had really seen it coming.
Should the recession grow deeper or linger longer; should President Obama’s hugely expensive domestic policies begin to worry swing voters more than they are reassured by his skill at promoting them; should some national security disaster happen or any number of other contingencies occur, the advances made by Democrats in the last two elections might be short-lived. But no one should take comfort from knowing our Party’s success could come at the expense of the country or must rely on blunders by the Administration and the Democratic Congress. Moreover, while I think projections of a political re-alignment are premature based on the results of two elections, I would rather be in the Democrats’ shoes than ours. Their coalition is expanding. Ours is shrinking. Their vote share is increasing among voter segments that are growing. Ours is not. The rapid growth of the Hispanic-American population, for instance, could soon cost Republicans the entire Southwest if we don’t recover our previous share of their vote. Had Senator McCain not been the Republican nominee in 2008, I’m convinced we would have lost Arizona. It’s very hard to see how we put together 270 electoral votes without the Southwest.
As a percentage of the total vote, younger voters didn’t really increase in the last election. But the Democrats’ margin with those voters certainly did. In short, we were crushed by the Obama campaign with voters under 30. President Obama was a uniquely attractive candidate to younger voters, in matters of style as much as substance. And maybe as those voters grow older and acquire greater responsibilities they will develop a better appreciation for Republican values of limited government, fiscal discipline, low taxes and a strong defense. That has happened in the past.
But even if they do, I doubt they will abandon social attributes that distinguish them from older voters; among them, a greater acceptance of people who find happiness in relationships with members of the same sex. And I believe Republicans should re-examine the extent to which we are being defined by positions on issues that I don’t believe are among our core values, and that put us at odds with what I expect will become over time, if not a consensus view, then the view of a substantial majority of voters.
Of course, a party cannot grow if it subtracts while it tries to add. Social conservatives remain an indispensable part of the Republican coalition. I don’t subscribe to the notion that social conservatives are a monolithic bloc of close minded people who would tread on the rights of Americans who disagree with them. Nor do I think conservatism will or should abandon its reluctance to change or abandon social conventions that are important to the strength and stability of our society.
The institution of marriage is the foundation of society and alterations to its definitions shouldn’t be lightly undertaken. It has always been defined as the legal union of a man and a woman, and it’s understandable that many Americans are apprehensive about making a definitional change to so profoundly an important institution. But it is a tradition, not a creed, or, at least, not a national creed. It is not how we define ourselves as Americans. And while we shouldn’t carelessly dismiss the importance of enduring traditions, we should understand that traditions do change over time in every society. And as long as those changes do not conflict with the tenets of our national creed then they can, and inevitably will, be modified by a society that has come to view them as inequitable.
Our national creed is a declaration of natural rights not a compact for the preservation of social customs, as important as many of those customs are. It was precisely and elegantly defined 233 years ago as adherence to certain self-evident truths. All are created equal and endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Americans’ fidelity to that creed ended the tradition of slavery because it was understood that slavery denied to the slave the universal rights America was founded in blood to protect. Women were constitutionally disenfranchised. But in time that injustice was rectified because the nation realized such discrimination violated our national creed.
The argument of the pro-life community acquires its moral force because it holds that the life of the unborn is not distinct in its dignity from the life of the born, and, thus, possesses a God-given right to be protected. The same protection cannot be argued to extend to the institutional definition of marriage as exclusively the union of persons of the opposite sex.
It can be argued, although I disagree, that marriage should remain the legal union of a man and a woman because changing it to admit same sex unions would undermine the most basic institution of a well ordered society. It can be argued according to the creeds and convictions of religious belief, which I respect. But it cannot be argued that marriage between people of the same sex is un-American or threatens the rights of others. On the contrary, it seems to me that denying two consenting adults of the same sex the right to form a lawful union that is protected and respected by the state denies them two of the most basic natural rights affirmed in the preamble of our Declaration of Independence – liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, I believe, gives the argument of same sex marriage proponents its moral force.
I know mine is a minority view among Republicans, and I don’t honestly expect our party will reverse in the very near term its opposition to same sex marriage. Nor do I yet see support for it from a strong majority of the general public. And, I do believe that such a highly charged political question such as this should be settled by the freely expressed will of the people, and not by the courts. That doesn’t relieve advocates of the responsibility to make their case urgently. I understand how tired many Americans are of being admonished to be patient to right what they believe is an injustice. But I’m confident American public opinion will continue to move on the question toward majority support, and sooner or later the Republican Party will catch up to it. And I believe the nation’s acceptance of same sex unions as lawful marriage would provide a far more secure guarantee that the change made to this profoundly important social institution will be permanent than would judicial fiat.
If we cannot achieve a consensus today on recognizing the marriages of gay couples, surely, in simple justice, we can respect their human dignity by protecting their rights to assign unique privileges and responsibilities to another person. Whether you are for or against same sex marriages, every Republican ought to value the right of people to make such personal decisions for themselves. As former Vice President Cheney observed, freedom means freedom for everybody. And I think Republicans should always be on the side of freedom and equal rights.
I, and I believe most people, believe you are born with your sexuality. It is not a choice. It should offend us as Republicans and Americans when gays are denigrated as degenerates or un-American or undeserving of the government’s protection of their rights. And the Republican Party should give voice to genuine outrage when anyone belittles the humanity of another person. It is offensive in the extreme to the values of this nation, and we should be in the forefront of rejecting such truly un-American prejudice. Moreover, if you believe we are born with our sexual orientation, it is hard to deny the inequality under the law that exists when people of one sexual orientation are allowed to marry and people of another are not.
Even though a majority of Republicans remain opposed to it, we must respect dissent on the subject within the party and encourage debate over it, and should not reject out of hand and on specious grounds the question that the party might be in the wrong on the question. We should publicly affirm that gays are entitled to the same respect and protections we accord heterosexuals to be secure from discrimination in their employment and the places they choose to live; to enter into contractual relationships with another person that grant them the same benefits and privileges allowed married couples, such as tax advantages accorded married couples or the responsibilities to make end of life decisions for one another.
There’s nothing inherently objectionable about debating whether same sex marriage would undermine the institution and, by extension, society. Some people believe strongly that it would. I argue that it wouldn’t. But that debate should be conducted with respect for the dignity of all parties involved. Opponents to giving women the vote argued such a change would undermine marriage and other social institutions. I think the institution would be strengthened by the inclusion of more couples who are genuinely committed to each other. But even if you believe marriage would be changed for the worse by same sex unions, I’m not sure it’s a compelling argument for their exclusion. We don’t forbid divorce, a more proven and prevalent threat to the health of our society.
As I said, I respect the opinions of Americans who oppose marriage for gay couples on religious grounds. I may disagree, but if you sincerely believe God’s revealed truth objects to it then it is perfectly honorable to oppose it. But those are not the grounds on which a political party should take or argue a position. If you put public policy issues to a religious test you risk becoming a religious party, and in a free country, a political party cannot remain viable in the long term if it is seen as sectarian.
Last February, an opponent of same sex marriage, David Blankenhorn, and an advocate, Jonathan Rauch, suggested in a New York Times op-ed a compromise that could serve the interests and values of both. They wrote that Congress should grant federal civil union status to same sex marriages and civil unions licensed at the state level as long as those states recognized religious conscience exceptions for religious organizations that do not want to recognize same sex unions.
I think that idea makes a lot sense. While it might not satisfy either side completely, it respects and values the rights of both, and would go a long way to correct the existing inequality.
Some Republicans believe the period of self-examination within the party necessitated by the loss of our majority status is mostly a question of whether the party should become more moderate or conservative. I think that’s a false choice. We need to grow our coalition, but as I said, that’s hard to do if we lose some votes while gaining others.
There is a sound conservative argument to be made for same sex marriage. I believe conservatives, more than liberals, insist that rights come with responsibilities. No other exercise of one’s liberty comes with greater responsibilities than marriage. In a marriage, two people are completely responsible to and for each other. If you are not willing to accept and faithfully discharge those responsibilities, you shouldn’t enter the state of matrimony, and
it doesn’t make a damn bit of difference if you’re straight or gay. It is a responsibility like no other, which can and should make marriage an association between two human beings more fulfilling than any other.
Many studies have shown that married people are generally happier than unmarried people. Marriage gives greater purpose to life, and, to borrow from Pastor Warren, the more purpose driven your life is, the happier it is. Marriage does not or should not depend on transitory emotions. It is a partnership in all aspects of life that changes the way not just society, but the individual perceives him or herself, and gives greater incentive to an individual to live a good and virtuous life because the happiness, not just momentary pleasure, but the lasting happiness, of others depends on it. Marriage can be a profoundly gratifying state that strengthens the virtue of individuals and societies, and increases the measure and quality of the happiness we enjoy. It seems to me a terrible inequity that any person should be denied that responsibility, and the emotional enrichment it can provide. And I cannot in good conscience exclude anyone who is prepared for such a commitment from the prospect of such happiness.
In closing, I’ll return to our national creed, what Lincoln called the inestimable jewel of American history, and offer my respect for and urge my fellow Republicans to respect every human being’s rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness as much as they cherish their own.
Customs change. Societies change. People change. But that creed must never change. It is the foundation upon which the success of not just of our party, but our country rests. If you do not impede my pursuit of happiness, I must not impede yours, but stand with you, as fellow Americans, lovers of liberty, to defend your natural right to seek happiness in life and love according to dictates of your heart and your heart alone.
Shanna Moakler – The True Miss Californian
May 14, 2009
Let’s focus on the positive for a change, enough of this Carrie Prejean character, how about a former Miss USA who is actually making an attempt at uniting people together. And never mind that she’s far more smokin’ hot, and far more superior when it comes to human activism that “the other one” that the media have now made ridiculously famous. Time to turn the tables and focus on the true Californian.
Shanna Moakler, mostly known for her marriage to Travis Barker of the Blink-182 fame, is also a former Miss USA, not a Miss California, and is also the director on the Miss California pageant and a member of the panel of judges on the latest national edition, which ended in the Miss California controversy because of diverging opinions on marriage. After speaking up against Carrie Prejean and amidst intensifying backlash, Moakler is again making a stand by participating in the NO H8 campaign.
Just a week after posing for a pro-gay marriage PSA, Moakler spent part of today shooting print and television spots for a new campaign, which she says was inspired by the Miss California controversy.
The campaign is, according to Us Magazine, aimed at slamming Proposition 8 and eliminating discrimination on the grounds of orientation, which is precisely what Prejean did on the Miss USA finale, it is being said. Because Moakler has already spoken her mind about Miss California’s answer regarding marriage, it is believed the campaign is her way of showing the younger beauty queen just how wrong she was when she said that only a man and a woman should be free to legally wed. The fact that two other former California beauty queens are also featured in the new ads only comes to reinforce this.
“It’s called ‘I Believe,’” Moakler explained to me earlier today. “It’s a campaign trying to show the diversity of California and really spreading equality. The Miss California Organization’s slogan is ‘The Beauty of California,’ and that represents everything. That’s what we try to celebrate in our organization.”
Last Friday, Moakler unveiled a PSA for NOH8, which features her and two other former pageant title-holders with duct tape over their mouths as a symbol of pro-gay voices not being heard.
The latest endeavor, produced by the Miss California Organization (Moakler is its executive director), includes about a dozen Miss Universes and Miss USAs.
”I’m really proud and excited about it,” Moakler said. “I think it’s really important that people understand that though Carrie Prejean is allowed to have her opinions, they don’t necessarily coincide with the Miss California Organization.”
And get this—”I Believe” wasn’t the only PSA Moakler shot today. I actually caught up with her while she was filming E!’s very own “Drive Safe” campaign promoting responsible drinking.
Now that’s what I call a positive image for Miss California. Way to go Shanna.
Fresno key for same-sex marriage supporters
May 12, 2009
Fresno key for same-sex marriage supporters
By John Ellis / The Fresno Bee
http://www.fresnobee.com/local/story/1388870.html
The next skirmish in the battle over same-sex marriage will be in Fresno, where supporters plan a large rally to kick off a campaign they hope will change minds — and votes. Their goal: to undo Proposition 8.
In choosing Fresno, supporters of same-sex marriage are moving far from the supportive urban environs of San Francisco and West Hollywood, and coming to hostile territory.
Last November, the central San Joaquin Valley overwhelmingly approved Prop. 8, the statewide ballot initiative that eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry.
Supporters of same-sex marriage plan to rally on the Saturday after the state Supreme Court rules on Prop. 8’s legality. The high court has until June 3 to rule.
That ruling is widely expected to affirm the will of the voters. But supporters of same-sex marriage — buoyed by decisions in Iowa, Maine and three other states to allow such marriages — said they plan to put an initiative on the November 2010 ballot to legalize the practice in California.
And if they want to have any chance for a statewide ballot-box victory, supporters say, they must win hearts and minds in Fresno and other parts of inland California that approved Prop. 8 by wide margins.
The rally is being called “Meet In The Middle For Equality.” Actress Charlize Theron is expected to attend, and organizers predict the rally could attract up to 3,000 people from throughout California.
“It has a literal meaning in that Fresno is at California’s midpoint, and it also has a figurative meaning in the sense that if advocates are going to change the way people think about same-sex marriage, we have to go to Fresno,” Rick Jacobs, chairman of the Courage Campaign, a Los Angeles-based advocacy group that supports same-sex marriage, said of the rally’s title.
It’s unknown whether same-sex marriage supporters will run into any opposition here.
The Rev. Jim Franklin, pastor of Cornerstone Church in downtown Fresno and one of the driving forces in the local pro-Prop. 8 effort, said he supports the right of same-sex marriage supporters to hold their event and has no plans to counter the rally.
Still, he doubts its effectiveness locally.
“The greatest results are the last election,” he said. “The numbers are the numbers.”
Last November, more than two-thirds of voters in Fresno, Kings, Madera and Merced counties approved Prop. 8. In Tulare County, more than 75% of voters said yes. Statewide, 52% of voters said yes.
The idea for the rally was conceived by local gay rights activist Robin McGehee. She said Prop. 8 opponents blundered last year by focusing their efforts on the strongly Democratic-leaning Los Angeles and San Francisco urban areas and ignoring places like Fresno.
McGehee, a Fresno resident, said mainstream gay rights organizations “left our families behind enemies’ lines with no resources” last year.
Though the ultimate goal is legalizing same-sex marriage in California, McGehee said the longer-term battle lies in altering attitudes towards gays and lesbians.
McGehee is a Mississippi native who came to Fresno as a college student because she expected to find tolerance in California. What she found, she said, was that Fresno was a lot like her hometown of Jackson.
And like the gap between the end of slavery and true equal rights for blacks, McGehee said, it will take longer to gain acceptance of gay rights than it will for same-sex marriage to be approved.
Rally organizers plan to bus in supporters from throughout the state. A march from Selma to Fresno — a march reminiscent of 1960s civil rights marches — is planned, and then a City Hall rally from 1 to 3 p.m.
After that, McGehee said, two teams will spread out across Fresno and Clovis where they will go door to door in neighborhoods to speak on behalf of same-sex marriage.
Some of those will be veterans of a boot camp known as Camp Courage, which was organized by Jacobs and the Courage Campaign. The camp is modeled after community-organizing boot camps employed during President Barack Obama’s campaign. The camps teach volunteers about such strategies as walking door to door and making phone calls to support a cause.
It was at the second Camp Courage, held in Fresno in early March, that McGehee made what Jacobs called “an impassioned pitch” for his organization to join in organizing the “Meet In The Middle For Equality” rally.
Franklin thinks busing in outsiders could backfire because central San Joaquin Valley residents don’t like getting lectures from San Francisco residents, whom they perceive as too liberal.
He also said it would give a false impression of local support for same-sex marriage.
“You’re not making a statement,” he said of busing people in. “You’re just moving the chess pieces around.”
Same Sex Marriage in Washington D.C.??
May 7, 2009
Washington D.C. has approved a bill that recognizes all same sex marriages performed anywhere in the U.S.
Also, if you missed it yesterday, Maine became the 4th State to legalize Same Sex Marriage. New Hampshire is next in line, they’re just waiting for the governor to make the final official sign or veto it. If he signs it, then that leaves Rhode Island as the remaining “New England” state to legalize Same Sex Marriage. It’s a mighty movement, and I’ll be happy once it’s everywhere and we can all move on to more important issues that need rallying and advocating, like the Economy and Poverty.
Senator Chris Buttars Forced to Resign for inciting HATE
February 24, 2009
A picture of what most Republicans, Conservatives and Yes on 8 supporters look like now or will look like when they get older, sexy huh:
Welcome to The Senate Site
Friday, February 20, 2009For the RecordBy Chris Buttars
State Senator, District 10 I was disappointed to learn of the Utah State Senate’s censure on Feb. 20, 2009. However, this action will not discourage me from defending marriage from an increasingly vocal and radical segment of the homosexual community. In recent years, registering opposition to the homosexual agenda has become almost impossible. Political correctness has replaced open and energetic debate. Those who dare to disagree with the homosexual agenda are labeled “haters,” and “bigots,” and are censured by their peers. The media contributes to the problem. Increasingly, individuals with conservative beliefs are targeted by a left-leaning media that uses their position of public trust as a bully pulpit. This pattern of intimidation suppresses free speech. For the record, I do not agree with the censure I see it as an attempt to shy away from controversy. In particular, I disagree with my removal as Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, since my work there is entirely unrelated to my opposition to the homosexual agenda. Still, I’m a grown man and I can take my knocks. When it comes right down to it, I would rather be censured for doing what I think is right, than be honored by my colleagues for bowing to the pressure of a special interest group that has been allowed to act with impunity. Thanks to the many citizens who have written and called to express their support. Please know that I’ll live through this to fight another day. In years to come, we’ll all look back at this point in history and see it as a crossroads. I have no intention of resigning.” Previously:
Buttars also came under fire after earlier this month speaking on the floor about a school-funding bill. “This baby is black,” he said according to the Salt Lake City Tribune. “It’s a dark, ugly thing.” The local NAACP demanded that he resign, calling his words “despicable.”
|
POLL SHOWS MAJORITIES OF U.S. ADULTS FAVOR LEGAL PROTECTIONS FOR GAY AND TRANSGENDER AMERICANS
December 3, 2008
Pulse of Equality Survey, Conducted by Harris Interactive, Reports that 75% Favor Either Marriage or Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships for Gay and Lesbian Couples
 |
New York, December 3, 2008 – A new survey conducted by Harris Interactive in the wake of the passage of and protests against California’s Proposition 8 reveals that majorities of Americans favor a broad range of policies and legal protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people.
The Pulse of Equality survey, commissioned by the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), shows that majorities of Americans favor either marriage or civil unions/domestic partnerships for gay and lesbian couples, as well as gay- and transgender-inclusive hate-crimes laws and non-discrimination laws, and allowing openly gay service members to serve in the armed forces, while a majority opposes laws that would ban adoption by qualified gay and lesbian couples.
According to the Pulse of Equality telephone survey among 2,008 U.S. adults ages 18 and older, conducted from Nov. 13-17, 2008, Americans support key policy proposals that affect lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. Among them:
- Three-quarters of U.S. adults (75%) favor either marriage or domestic partnerships/civil unions for gay and lesbian couples. Only about two in 10 (22%) say gay and lesbian couples should have no legal recognition. (Gay and lesbian couples are able to marry in two states, and comprehensive civil union or domestic partnership laws exist in only five others and the District of Columbia.)
- U.S. adults are now about evenly divided on whether they support allowing gay and lesbian couples to legally marry (47% favor to 49% oppose).
- Almost two-thirds (64%) of U.S. adults favor allowing openly gay military personnel to serve in the armed forces. (The current “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law bans military service by openly gay personnel.)
- About six in 10 (63%) U.S. adults favor expanding hate crime laws to cover gay and transgender people. (Hate crimes laws cover gay and transgender people in 11 states and the District of Columbia, and an additional – 20 states’ laws cover sexual orientation but not gender identity.)
- A slight majority of U.S. adults (51%) favor protecting gay and transgender people under existing laws that prohibit discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations. (Existing non-discrimination laws cover gay and transgender people in only 12 states and the District of Columbia, and eight other states’ laws cover sexual orientation but not gender identity.)
- Nearly seven out of 10 U.S. adults (69%) oppose laws that would ban qualified gay and lesbian couples from adopting children. (In several states, gay and lesbian couples are banned from adopting.)
“In the Pulse of Equality survey, we observed a positive relationship between knowing a gay or transgender person and one’s attitudes toward them and the policy issues that affect their lives,” said Laura Light, Vice President of Public Relations Research for Harris Interactive. “Based on other surveys we have conducted on attitudes toward LGBT people and issues, the results of this survey suggest that public sentiment in the U.S. is trending toward greater acceptance of gay- and transgender-related policy issues.”
Across the LGBT-related policy proposals, there were statistically significant differences in support with respect to age, gender, race/ethnicity and religion. People under 65, and especially those 18-34, were more supportive than people over 65. Women were generally more supportive than men, with women age 18-34 often being more supportive than other segments. Hispanics were more supportive than Whites and African-Americans in showing strong support for allowing openly gay military personnel to serve in the armed forces. African Americans were more strongly supportive than Whites and Hispanics of expanding existing hate crimes laws to cover gay and transgender people. Mainline Christians (a category that includes, among other denominations, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians and Episcopalians) and Catholics were more supportive than Evangelical Christians, and Mainline Christians were often among the more supportive segments on a variety of issues.
The survey also revealed that there has been greater acceptance of gay and lesbian Americans over the last five years. Approximately two in 10 Americans (19%) reported that their feelings toward gay and lesbian people have become more favorable over the past five years, with contributing factors including: knowing someone who is gay or lesbian (79%), the fact that laws have been passed that protect gay and lesbian people (50%), opinions of family or friends (45%) and religious leaders (21%), news coverage of gay and lesbian issues (41%), and seeing gay or lesbian characters on television (34%) and in movies (29%). Nearly three out of four Americans (73%) personally know or work with a gay or transgender person, and half of those who know or work with someone who is gay or transgender know five or more gay or transgender people.
“The visibility of the past several years, and the intense conversations of the past few weeks, seem to have galvanized a majority of Americans’ support of equality for gay and transgender Americans,” said GLAAD President Neil G. Giuliano. “While this expression of support is encouraging, particularly after the setbacks we experienced on Election Day, it’s not something we can rest on. There is a lot of work to be done. We must all do what we can to sustain and expand this emerging wave of grassroots activism so that it leads to laws and policies that extend full equality under the law to all Americans – lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and straight.”
Giuliano suggested that one of the crucial issues facing LGBT people is that many Americans aren’t aware of the injustices that they face.
“Majorities of Americans clearly favor equality for gay and transgender people,” Giuliano added, “but we’ve seen that too many still mistakenly believe that the intolerance and injustices we face are things of the past. So it’s more vital than ever that we tell our stories, illustrate the injustices we face, and remind people of the common ground we share.”
About the Survey
GLAAD commissioned Harris Interactive to conduct a nationally representative survey among U.S. adults over the age of 18. The objective of the study was to understand public opinion on LGBT people and LGBT-related policy issues. The total sample includes 2,008 U.S. adults ages 18+, surveyed from November 13 to November 17, 2008. Interviewing was conducted by telephone using random digit dialing (RDD). Results were weighted as needed using age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, region, number in household, and household income to be representative of the U.S. population of adults age 18 and over.
About GLAAD
The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) is dedicated to promoting and ensuring fair, accurate and inclusive representation of people and events in the media as a means of eliminating homophobia and discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. For more information, please visit www.glaad.org.
About Harris Interactive®
Harris Interactive is a global leader in custom market research. With a long and rich history in multimodal research, powered by our science and technology, we assist clients in achieving business results. Harris Interactive serves clients globally through our North American, European and Asian offices and a network of independent market research firms. For more information, please visit www.harrisinteractive.com.
###
Yes on 8 Supporters Get Slap On the Hand
December 3, 2008
Resolution Opposing Prop. 8 Introduced in California Legislature
It looks like all those Yes on 8 supporters are on their way to finally getting that hard slap in the face they all deserve. Justice is on it’s way and is going to be served, because any kind of hate is intolerable, and voting to take rights away from a group of American Citizens is not only disgusting, but it’s inexcusable in the eyes of the law.
Members of California’s senate and assembly introduced a resolution on Tuesday, opposing the passage of Proposition 8. With the resolution, sponsors Sen. Mark Leno and Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, both San Francisco Democrats, suggest that Proposition 8 represents an improper revision of the state constitution. They maintain that both houses of the California legislature must approve any proposed revision to the constitution by a two-thirds vote before it can even go on the ballot, which was not the case with Prop. 8.
The California supreme court is slated to hear arguments for and against the proposition in March 2009. Legal and civil cases and suits have been filed with the Supreme Court on November 5 and since challenging the validity of the marriage ban. The suit was filed even before Equality California, the official group that organized to defeat Prop. 8, had conceded defeat.
The court has repealed only two ballot measures in its history, a 1966 law that would have allowed racial discrimination in housing, and an anti-immigration proposition passed in 1994, according to the Los Angeles Times.
The resolution is a public decree, showing that the state legislature takes an official stance on an issue, and not actual legislation. While the document has no law-binding power, it is likely to be directed to the supreme court as it make its decision next spring. This is only the beginning in a long line of justice serving retaliation against the Yes on 8 supporters to put an end on hate.
Defending Traditional and Biblical Marriage
December 2, 2008
Defending Biblical Marriage
Since certain politicians are working diligently to prevent marriage between two people of the same sex, I believe we should draft a Constitutional Amendment codifying all marriages entirely on biblical principles. After all, God would not want us to “pick and choose” which of the Scriptures we elevate to civil law and which we choose to ignore. Below is a draft of such an amendment, I hope this helps to clarify the finer details of the Government’s righteous struggle against the infidels and heathens among us.
Draft of a Constitutional Amendment to Defend Biblical Marriage:
* Marriage in the United States of America shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.)
* Marriage shall not impede a man’s right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)
* A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)
* Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30, 2Cor 6:14)
* Since marriage is for life, neither the US Constitution nor any state law shall permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9-12)
* If a married man dies without children, his brother must marry the widow. If the brother refuses to marry the widow, or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)
* In lieu of marriage (if there are no acceptable men to be found), a woman shall get her father drunk and have sex with him. (Gen 19:31-36)
After reading this, ask yourself one question: “Are you sure you want to defend the traditional biblical definition of marriage?”
Catholic leaflet’s support for gays
December 1, 2008
|
|
|
