Bullying Must Stop. Period.

Ellen is so right to say that the bullying must stop.

But that is not all:

Committing acts of violence against people who are different must stop.

Converting people in the name of love and religion must stop.

Discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity must stop.

Demonizing politically unpopular groups must stop.

Eradicating rights from loving same-sex couples must stop.

Moronic parenting must stop.

Apologizing for your reaction to bullies must stop.

Simply put, the hate and ignorance must stop.

We have such a long ways to go. It is regrettable and unfortunate that some young people deal with their challenges in our current society with the ultimate consequence. How many more gay teens such as 13 year olds Seth Walsh and Asher Brown (THIRTEEN, DAMMIT) must take their own lives by suicide before We The People get the point?

The bullying must stop.

What, Who, and the Inevitable Repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell

I've read with interest the diverse opinions people have about the inevitable repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I find it intriguing how so much focus is placed on who and what this is about. For example, some might say:

During a combat situation, "the last thing that one would want then and there is a romantic attachment between any of those men, even if it is unexpressed in overt sexual conduct." (emphasis added)

Now substitute the emphasized phrase in that statement as follows:

During a combat situation, the last thing that one would want then and there is a romantic attachment between any of those men and women, even if it is unexpressed in overt sexual conduct.

The only difference in the two statements is who is involved. Excuse me, but during a combat situation lives are at stake. Sex and romance should be furthest from anybody's mind. I would agree that the last thing people should be thinking about is the romantic interest or sexual attraction between any two people.

In the wake of an increase of sexual assault reporting -- presumably among heterosexual people -- should heterosexual women be allowed to serve if men fear that they will be sexually attracted to the men, and vice versa? Is unit cohesion only an issue when politically unpopular groups are involved? Does it make sense to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation within military ranks?

Hundreds of military careers have been destroyed since this discriminatory policy was enacted; destroyed for no apparent reason. To focus on the "what" and "who" is to miss the point of the need to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Great Vision, But Obama Could Speak Out And Ask For More..

Of course, I just had to listen to President Obama's State of The Union address. I found it to be a great speech. Yes, it had its share of rhetoric. That is to be expected: this is, after all, politics. We are each entitled to our own individual vision and his speech and vision are always subject to individual interpretation.

His speech included indisputable facts, such as the budget surplus from 2000 which took a nosedive at warp speed in the years that followed. Of course I'm paraphrasing. By the way.. did Senator McCain say "blaming Bush?" after President Obama stated that fact?

Anyway, I enjoyed listening to President Obama's vision of unity and I found his wrap-up quite inspiring. Here's hoping that both democrats and republicans in the House, Senate, and Supreme Court listen closely to what Obama had to say.

But that's not what I'm writing about tonight. As with any political speech, there were also rather unremarkable moments.

Take this one:

"[...] we are all created equal, that no matter who you are or what you look like, if you abide by the law you should be protected by it; that if you adhere to our common values you should be treated no different than anyone else."

An interesting post and commentary is over at zackfordblogs.com regarding the very brief mention of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

The comments in that post refer to the above statement from the State of The Union, which reminds readers about a certain Proposition 8 thing going on California which Obama seems to be a little quiet about.


Then there was the following:

"As we have for over sixty years, America takes these actions because our destiny is connected to those beyond our shores. But we also do it because it is right. That is why, as we meet here tonight, over 10,000 Americans are working with many nations to help the people of Haiti recover and rebuild. That is why we stand with the girl who yearns to go to school in Afghanistan; we support the human rights of the women marching through the streets of Iran; and we advocate for the young man denied a job by corruption in Guinea. For America must always stand on the side of freedom and human dignity."

Hmm. I took note that there was no mention of the plight of gays in Uganda. He discussed working with communities around the world. It is really too bad that President Obama appears to have chosen to be quiet about a certain death penalty for gays that is under consideration in Uganda.


Don't get me wrong: great speech, great vision. I do believe he is doing the best he can. I'd rather have this vision to look up to than the one we had to live through before Obama assumed office. This great vision would be even better if he'd take a visible stand on more for gays.

Tax Breaks For Pets, Not For Domestic Partners

Unreal. There are a couple of Republicans out there who would like to setup a tax break for pet owners. As some of my friends on Facebook have commented, whatever happened to giving tax breaks for domestic partners?

Looks like to at least two individuals, man and his best friend are more entitled to this benefit compared to two men in a long-term committed relationship. Hasn't it been the rule for some conservatives to be staunchly against domestic partnerships and gay marriage because of a slippery slope argument? You know the one: it includes spewing rhetoric that on recognizing gay couples, domestic partners, civil unions, look-alike marriage, etc. we'll eventually be forced to allow people to marry animals.

Wait a minute: my partner of 11 years and I each own a cat, so if this bill gets passed we're eligible for double the credit.. hmm..? ;-)

NPR Article:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113791908

Bill information on Thomas Library Of Congress:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR03501:@@@L&summ2=m&

He Just Got A Letter, He Just Got A Letter! But What Would You Do?

So there has been quite the chatter about Attorney General Van Hollen's decision to not defend the domestic partner registry legislation. Now, we're being informed that he has written a letter to Governor Doyle to explain his decision. Apparently he will not defend the legislation because he believes it is flawed and that a domestic partnership may be substantially similar to that of marriage.

Well.. I'm curious about the full contents of that letter. So far the news hasn't revealed much more which hasn't been revealed before. Except of course that the AG believes the law is flawed.

I, for one, am wondering if religious conservatives are capable of putting their beliefs aside and constructing a legal status which grants rights to same-sex couples.

Our governor believes that all couples deserve legal protection. Up until now, not all couples have had that the ability to receive protections through the government. No matter how you look at it, the solution now in place has the best of intentions: to provide basic protection to same-sex couples. Some such as the Journal Sentinel's Patrick McIlheran would have you believe that this is not about legal protection, but only about sanctioning love or the right to love. Believe what you want because we're all free-thinking individuals. Just don't remind me that all couples have the option of purchasing legal protection. That suggests that opposite-sex couples have had TWO options for legal protection -- one a fraction of the cost of the other -- while same-sex couples only have had ONE EXPENSIVE option. And this doesn't even include the cost of the commitment ceremony or wedding, for those couples that choose to have a celebration.

I will go out of my way, however to say this. I agree: the domestic partnership declaration and the marriage license are identical in many ways except in who each is for and which rights are granted.

A quick side-by-side comparison of marriage licenses and domestic partnership declarations (based on my understanding) shows:

• Two distinct audiences: one is for opposite-sex couples, the other for same-sex couples.
• Different sets of rights:
  • Mathematically, 43/1200+ is less than 4%.
  • The declaration grants 43 rights from the state and no federal rights.
  • The license grants 200+ rights from the state and 1000+ federal rights.
  • Unlike marriage, the declaration does not grant adoption rights, legal support obligations, and comprehensive property rights.
• Unlike marriage, divorce law is not required to end the domestic partnership.
• They cost the same to obtain.
• Both have the same qualification criteria.
• Both are granted by the same process and same government officials.
• A member of clergy is not required for both.

I'm forced to ask: when it comes to any legal construct which would grant rights to same-sex couples in Wisconsin:

• Should it cost a percentage of the charge for a marriage license? In other words, should the domestic partnership declaration cost 4% that of a marriage license? In Waukesha County that would be $3.7625 instead of $105.
• How long should they be together before they can become eligible for basic rights and protections?
• What process should they follow and how should the process be administered?
• From whom should they obtain the documentation for said legal construct?
• What words should be spoken when granting the documentation?

I seriously doubt a casual definition to determine who is eligible, as McIlheran suggests, would fly with Joe the Voter. Might as well include Julaine Appling's "two men in an ice shanty" statement as a qualification to register.

So to all these people who are basically complaining about this small taste of equality that Wisconsin gay couples now have, I dare you to answer the following questions:

• What will it take for you to allow and to work towards establishing a legal construct to grant rights and protections for same-sex couples, instead of using law to eradicate access to those rights?
• What makes those rights special to opposite-sex couples?

Hello.. my name is Leonel.. and I'm a minion..

I'm proud to be among them! The law-abiding, decent ones that is. After all, I have a good paying job, a great family, the best friends anyone could ever have, a nice home, and a partner of 11 years.

Yes, I cannot help but draw attention to Yankee transplant Julaine Appling. During her quest to eliminate and eradicate equal access to particular rights for people of different sexual orientations, she has referred to us as minions of a certain demonic figure. Hey -- these are her words, paraphrased of course, not mine! She'll do anything to prevent same-sex couples from obtaining equal access to basic rights and protections.

I'm catholic and I find it embarrassing and humorous to hear someone use Christ's name to use language like "Satan and his minions" to describe decent people. Wouldn't any reasonable person?

http://www.wifamilycouncil.org/Media/Radio%20transcripts/2009/764_010509.htm

(8/12 Supplemental - Julaine Appling has updated her Twitter profile and removed the Yankee reference. Forgive me folks for not giving credit where due. See for yourself what her profile once read here: http://foxtrot-echo.blogspot.com/2009/07/julaine-appling-carpetbagger.html. That is where I first heard about her use of the Yankee reference. I believe within a week after the article appeared, she changed her profile.)

Wisconsin's Domestic Partner Status Is Not Substantially Similar To Marriage. Period.

It is done. Wisconsin has redeemed itself and its progressive history. It is the first state in these United States which bans marriage for same-sex couples and also grants them basic legal protection. Opponents of basic rights for all couples are going to have a field day and have been working to eradicate basic rights for same-sex couples ever since the conception of Wisconsin's domestic partner status.

It should be an interesting situation to watch. When considering the constitutionality of domestic partners there is something else these.. challengers.. will need to push beyond: their own words. Why? In Wisconsin, legal process includes a test for legislative intent.

The state already recognizes that State Representative Mark Gundrum, R-New Berlin and amendment author, intended to prohibit look-alike marriages and not prohibit domestic partner benefits. The leaders of the campaign to pass the disgusting ban via constitutional amendment have expressed that the ban would not affect domestic partner benefits.

From the state summary itself:

There is evidence of intent ... to support the position that it is reasonable to conclude that the provision does not prohibit the domestic partner proposal included in (the state budget). The intent of the second sentence ... was discussed in a 2006 memorandum prepared by (Gundrum's) office.

Further down in the state summary is Gundrum's own explanation that the proposal:

.. does not prohibit the state, local governments or private entities from setting up their own legal construct to provide particular privileges of benefits, such as health insurance benefits, pension benefits, joint tax return filing, hospital visitation, etc. as those bodies are able and deem appropriate. As long as the legal construct designed by the state does not rise to the level of creating a legal status 'identical or substantially similar' to that of marriage (i.e., marriage, but by a different name), no particular privileges or benefits would be prohibited.

Then there is the recorded media account, again accounted for in the state summary:

Note, too, that media accounts of statements from supporters of the constitutional amendment that created (the same sex marriage ban) would be relevant in determining intent. In order to determine not only the legislative intent behind a constitutional amendment but also to determine the intent of the electorate in approving a constitutional amendment, a court will review expressions made in the media.

http://www.legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb/2009-11Budget/Budget%20Papers/391.pdf


I wonder if that review of media would include..

Journal Sentinel
Appling said she has "no plans to be involved in litigation." She added "the government is free to give benefits to unmarried individuals on a basis that does not approximate marriage."

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/29180609.html

Wisconsin State Journal
State Attorney General Van Hollen "..agreed with Lautenschlager's recent opinion that a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage would not prevent local governments or private employers from providing health benefits to the same-sex partners of employees."

http://www.madison.com/archives/read.php?ref=/wsj/2007/01/13/0701130011.php

Marriage Equality New York
"If the state Legislature wants to take up adoption and inheritance rights, it can do that" if the amendment becomes law, Appling said. "Nothing in the second sentence prohibits that. Nor does it in any way affect existing benefits given by local governments or the private sector."

http://blog.marriageequalityny.org/2005/12/wisconsin-anti-gay-amendment-passed-by.html

Capital Times
When critics of Wisconsin's proposed ban on gay marriage and civil unions warned it would threaten domestic partner benefits, supporters of the measure said they were crying wolf.

"That's just an absurd argument," Julaine Appling of the Family Research Council told The Capital Times in February 2006.

http://www.madison.com/tct/news/CTstaging/440370

Need I say more? Not really, except to end with stating what the new legal status does not include:

• The mutual obligation of support that spouses have in marriage.
• The comprehensive property system that applies to spouses under the marital property law.
• The requirements of divorce law for terminating a marriage.

The new legal status grants a limited set of 43 benefits, rights, and protections to same-sex couples.

Would someone PLEASE explain to me how, exactly, is the legal status of domestic partner identical or substantially similar to that of marriage? At least the intent of the amendment is pretty clear to me with regards to basic legal protection for same-sex couples. Thank you, Wisconsin!

Congratulations, Iowa Same-Sex Couples! Regarding Wisconsin..?

Will you look at that..! Iowa has become the third state in the union to legalize same-sex marriage. It is awesome to see a state away from the coasts take this bold, forward, progressive step.

From the unanimous Iowa Supreme Court decision:

"We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective. The legislature has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification. There is no material fact, genuinely in dispute, that can affect this determination."

"We have a constitutional duty to ensure equal protection of the law. Faithfulness to that duty requires us to hold Iowa’s marriage statute, Iowa Code section 595.2, violates the Iowa Constitution. To decide otherwise would be an abdication of our constitutional duty. If gay and lesbian people must submit to different treatment without an exceedingly persuasive justification, they are deprived of the benefits of the principle of equal protection upon which the rule of law is founded. Iowa Code section 595.2 denies gay and lesbian people the equal protection of the law promised by the Iowa Constitution."


I've already been asked. What does the Iowa ruling mean? Doesn't civil marriage only grant a handful of protections anyway? Can a same-sex couple from Wisconsin go to Iowa, get married, and be recognized as married in Wisconsin?

Having been involved in the community for some time now, the second question is easy for me to answer even though I don't know all the fine details. Each state grants different sets of protections when a couple obtains their marriage license or enters a civil marriage. A religious ceremony is not required to obtain a marriage license. I have no idea what Iowa grants to its married couples. Wisconsin grants 200+ protections with its license. On top of that, the federal government grants many protections and privileges, the most commonly known being the ability to file a joint tax return. No matter how you look at it, a marriage license grants basic legal protection to a couple and their family.

Regarding the first question, the way I see it is this. I am definitely not an expert. Iowa had legislation which defined civil marriage. That state's Supreme Court determined that the civil marriage definition did not comply with their equal protection clause. So, the court reasoned logically that civil marriage must be changed to include same-sex couples in order to comply.

Then there's that third question. If only it were that easy. Wisconsin has an obscure law which states that Wisconsin residents are prohibited from marrying in another state if that marriage is prohibited here. Apparently we have the stiffest law of that kind, according to JSOnline.

In any case, civil marriage is quite the big deal. No offense to anyone, but I find it fascinating, intriguing and not surprising how some straight couples don't realize just how "big a deal" civil marriage really is. Some don't realize the cost of the marriage license alone compared to the rest of the ceremony if they choose to have one.

Anyway, this is what equal protection clause in Iowa's Constitution states:

All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.

Pretty clear stuff.

Now compare that to Wisconsin, where equal protection is determined by interpreting Article 1 of our state Constitution and the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and by going through a bunch of legal tests. From a quick Google search, the tests include heightened scrutiny and rational basis. Heightened scrutiny is further broken down as strict or intermediate. Somewhere along the way I found a reference to legislative intent and compelling governmental interest. If Wisconsin's equality clause sounds familiar, it should be: I understand it was based on the Declaration of Independence.

Wisconsin Constitution Article I:
Equality; inherent rights. SECTION 1. [As amended Nov. 1982 and April 1986] All people are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights; among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; to secure these rights, governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. [1979 J.R. 36, 1981 J.R. 29, vote Nov. 1982; 1983 J.R. 40, 1985 J.R. 21, vote April 1986]

U.S. Constitution Amendment 14:
SECTION 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Don't even ask me to explain or figure out the legal mumbo-jumbo. Dammit, I'm a queer mexican trekkie, not a lawyer! I found the following page which seems to cover it pretty well. One thing is certain: it has suddenly become even more clear why Wisconsin is forced to go to the separate and unequal route of enacting a domestic partnership registry which grants 43 out of 200+ protections for same-sex couples.

www.legis.state.wi.us/LRB/pubs/consthi/02consthiII03.pdf

No matter. In the grand scheme of things, its always just a matter of time. There are always possibilities..!

Two Men From An Ice Shanty Walk In To The Courthouse..

Are you kidding me? Appling has made an ice shanty comment which sounds like the start of a bad joke. A fairly recent Madison Times article just showed up in my Goggle Alerts. The article states the following:

As for Doyle's plan itself, Appling says it's broad and vague.

"One of our concerns is that this kind of partner registry could be available to two guys sitting in an ice shanty somewhere."

First off, now she is the one crying down the broad and vague river. Funny.. there's an amendment out there that is rather broad and vague. But I digress: that's an old story.

Seriously, folks. Two men in an ice shanty? According to the general provisions, only if:

• each individual is at least 18 years old and capable of consenting to the domestic partnership


• neither individual is married to, or in a domestic partnership with, another individual


• the two individuals share a common residence [even if only one of the individuals has legal ownership of the residence or one or both of the individuals have one or more additional residences not shared with the other individual, or one of the individuals leaves the common residence with the intent to return]


• the two individuals are not nearer of kin to each other than second cousins, whether of the whole or half blood or by adoption


• the individuals are members of the same sex.

The application must contain the social security number of each party who has a social security number. It requires that each party must present satisfactory, documentary proof of identification and residence. The individuals who register as domestic partners must swear, or affirm, to the application before the clerk who is to issue the declaration of domestic partnership.

So I suppose if the two do own the ice shanty and can prove ownership, they can register. Which reminds me. There's no way an opposite sex couple would ever just shack up and obtain their marriage license inevitably leading to divorce, right? That has never happened.. except maybe Brittany Spears?

Oh, what do I know as a gay male with a same-sex partner of 10+ years. No matter. I'll continue to do what I can to educate against Appling's.. misconceptions.



PS: Apparently my link to the general provisions does not work. Try cutting and pasting the following link into your address bar to see them.

http://www.legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb/2009-11Budget/Governor/general%20provisions.pdf

About The Limited Set Of Protections..

So, what the heck does the proposed statewide domestic partner registry do, anyway? Here's my take based on skimming through the general provisions for the budget proposal. Basically, it grants a limited set of 43 legal protections to same-sex couples who choose to register as domestic partners.

As has been widely discussed, the statewide registry if passed as proposed in the budget grants specific protections. The helicopter view is that they grant basic protections and other miscellaneous rights and protections to same-sex couples. The basic protections include requiring hospitals and nursing homes to allow visitation for domestic partners, providing the ability to make end of life decisions for a domestic partner if he or she is unable to, and permitting family leave in the event of the death or serious illness of a domestic partner.

Tell me which couple does not deserve to have the aforementioned basic protections and why. Explain who the hell you think you are to have the right to judge why they are not deserved. In the interest of separation of church and state convince me why your view is more right than any other one without invoking the name of any given deity and religion.

Imagine being encouraged by your boss to lie in order to use personal time to care for a loved one in the event of a serious illness. It is among the most unusual choices to ever be faced with. Believe me, it is not a pleasant situation. It is an example of the extraordinary situations same-sex couples are faced in caring for each other.

Our state motto is, "Forward!" Our governor believes that same-sex couples deserve some basic legal protection as their opposite-sex counterparts do. These protections fall under specific provisions, and try putting a price tag on some of them..

• Victim Notification by the Department of Corrections


• Evidences - Privileges


• Damages, Recovery, and Miscellaneous Provisions Regarding Actions in Court


• Crime Victim Compensation Program


• Ownership of Property-Joint Tenancy


• Administration and Transfer of a Deceased Individual's Estate


• Revocation of Certain Provisions in Favor of a Former Spouse


• Unintentional Exclusion from a Deceased Individual's Will


• Default Rules for the Transfer of Property to Heirs in the Absence of a Will


• Priority with Respect to Certain Personal Property


• Right to Purchase Deceased Individual's Interest in Joint Home


• Exempting Certain Property Transferred to the Surviving Spouse or Surviving Domestic Partner from General Creditors' Claims


• Family Support During Administration of the Deceased Individual's Estate


• Accelerated Distribution and Closure of Small Estates


• Active State Duty National Guard Member Civil Relief


• Private Employer Health Care Purchasing Alliance Program (PEHCPAP) Rights of Residents in Care Facilities


• Consent to Admissions to Nursing Homes, CBRFs, and Hospices.
  
• Mental Illness, Developmental Disability and Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse (AODA) Treatment Records


• Health Care Records


• Power of Attorney for Property and Finances


• Power of Attorney for Health Care


• Consent to Autopsies


• Consent to Make an Anatomical Gift


• AIDS/HIV Health Insurance Premium Subsidy Program


• Insurance Provided by Fraternal Organizations


• Notifications Made to Family Members Following the Release of Certain Persons


• Real Estate Transfer Fee


• Family and Medical Leave


• Worker's Compensation Death Benefits


• Employee Cash Bonds Held in Trust


• Wage Payments


• Insurance for Employees of Local Governmental Units


• Manufactured Home Title Transfer Fee


• Motor Vehicle Titles

To think that for an average of $80 opposite-sex couples get automatic access to the above protections and substantially many more when they purchase their marriage license. For more about the above as they are laid out in the budget proposal, check out its general provisions.

Flip-Flopping At The Expense Of Taxpayers Regarding Same-Sex Couples

I wasn't quite sure how to remark on an old, unmarried, closed-minded, religious heterosexual woman leading a crusade to protect the religious institution of marriage.

Julaine Appling was interviewed for this week's Eye To Eye on CBS 58. During that interview, she made something perfectly clear. She is ready and willing to legally challenge the proposed statewide domestic partner registry which would grant 43 basic protections to same-sex couples in Wisconsin.

Appling has made it clear in the past that the absurd, disgusting, and far-reaching amendment which bans civil unions and "look-alike marriages" was not intended to affect benefits. Now she wants to challenge the 43 protections should the budget be passed with the registry intact. I wonder if she considers these protections to be benefits..

If she thinks of the protections as benefits, then she has in effect flip-flopped her position. I have a vague recollection of her stating to the residents of Waukesha back in 2006 that she would not do that. How many people crowded the UW-Waukesha campus and witnessed that?

What the hell?

Regardless this change in attitude is no surprise, whatsoever. But there's another thing: she gripes about the expense to the taxpayer for extending domestic partner benefits to state employees. On the other hand, she wants to put the government through the cost of a legal battle over her apparent flip-flopped position.

Again: what the hell?

The point is this. Wisconsin opposite-sex couples have the choice to enter a civil contract which automatically grants 200+ legal protections for their relationships and if applicable for their families. Same-sex couples do not have that choice.

Yes, its true that all couples have the choice to spend hundreds if not thousands on strong legal protections. Not everyone is blessed to have that kind of money. Especially now during a struggling economy. Same-sex couples which do not have the financial means to purchase strong legal protection are in effect -- I hate how this sounds -- out of luck.

I don't want my tax dollars going to a legal battle over an old, unmarried, closed-minded, religious heterosexual woman's belief that some couples do not deserve basic legal protection and that the constitution should be used to eradicate their choices and rights.

Do you?

Bush's Common Ground With Some Islamic Nations

Say it wasn't so. The Bush administration was opposed to a gay rights declaration over at the United Nations? Really?

Gee, no surprises here.

Isn't it nice to see Bush share common ground with some Islamic nations? Can't forget the Vatican. They opposed the declaration as well. Regrettable that this common ground is regarding gay rights.

Milwaukee's Protest Of The California Ban On Gay Marriage

Unfortunately I was unable to attend Milwaukee's protest of Proposition 8. In part because I've been domesticated, which isn't the worst thing.. ;) Seriously: Steve and I had family obligations for a good part of the day.

For those of you living in a cave or crawling out from under a rock, Proposition 8 is an amendment to the California Constitution which eradicated the right for same-sex couples to marry. This horrible amendment is one which even Governor Schwarzenegger opposed and has expressed hope that his state's Supreme Court will be able to overturn it.

This year's election may have brought more people of all colors out to vote, but one unfortunate consequence, possibly due to the turnout, is that gay marriage is now banned in more states than before.

Click here for a video of the Milwaukee protest.

Together We Represent A Perfect Ideal (??)

Soon after I woke up, I started replaying parts of the debate in my mind. I remembered Sarah Palin's statement, "together we represent a perfect ideal." Then I pulled a Bill O'Reilly and unfortunately became fixated on that. It doesn't sit well in the context of the conservative tendency to work towards eliminating rights from gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Americans.

Here's the full statement, from the Commission On Presidential Debates web site, with emphasis added:

My experience as an executive will be put to good use as a mayor and business owner and oil and gas regulator and then as governor of a huge state, a huge energy producing state that is accounting for much progress towards getting our nation energy independence and that's extremely important.

But it wasn't just that experience tapped into, it was my connection to the heartland of America. Being a mom, one very concerned about a son in the war, about a special needs child, about kids heading off to college, how are we going to pay those tuition bills? About times and Todd and our marriage in our past where we didn't have health insurance and we know what other Americans are going through as they sit around the kitchen table and try to figure out how are they going to pay out-of-pocket for health care? We've been there also so that connection was important.

But even more important is that world view that I share with John McCain. That world view that says that America is a nation of exceptionalism. And we are to be that shining city on a hill, as President Reagan so beautifully said, that we are a beacon of hope and that we are unapologetic here. We are not perfect as a nation. But together, we represent a perfect ideal. And that is democracy and tolerance and freedom and equal rights. Those things that we stand for that can be put to good use as a force for good in this world.

John McCain and I share that. You combine all that with being a team with the only track record of making a really, a difference in where we've been and reforming, that's a good team, it's a good ticket.

Click here for the full transcript.

The VP Debate: Do Gays Fit In "A Perfect Ideal?"

Together, we represent a perfect ideal. And that is democracy and tolerance and freedom and equal rights. Those things that we stand for that can be put to good use as a force for good in this world.

John McCain and I share that.

--Governor Sarah Palin, 2008 Vice Presidential Debate

Here are my quick thoughts on tonight's debate. It exceeded expectations. I appreciated hearing that both Biden and Palin agree on their stance on gay marriage. On a side note, it was neat to watch the Biden and Palin families interact on the stage after the debate.

I'm feeling surprisingly good about the two vice presidential candidates after tonight. It was a relief to actually hear an attempt to explain, in a public forum, that the purpose of the Constitution is to grant rights and privileges and not to eliminate them.

Amazing the power of one word, no? This word, marriage, conjures up thoughts of two very intertwined concepts: religious ceremonies and civil contracts. It intertwines church (religious ceremonies) and state (civil contracts).

Not all religions are the same. Some religions are more tolerant than others. Some embrace and value their gay followers. Some allow their gay followers to become high ranking leaders in their organization. Some recognize the union of two loving people regardless of sexual orientation.

Due to the separation between church and state I will never understand why the church is able to waive a pen on the civil contract that is part of marriage.

Thank you for your tolerance Governor Palin. I think we want a little more than that:

• We want the same access to that civil contract as heterosexuals do.
• We want the legal protections and privileges that both church and state are able to grant at the stroke of a pen.
• We want a Constitution that does not exclude and eliminate.

We want equal rights. We hope to be included in that perfect ideal.