Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-California) told reporters at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast last week, “The rule of law keeps America strong. When you break down the rule of law, you break down society,” adding, “There can’t be a system where somebody decides, ‘Well, that’s law, but I just don’t like it.’ It doesn’t matter what the issue is. We have a court system. We have a rule of law we go through. And I think you have to go through the system.”

House Republicans have been defending DOMA since March 2011, when U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder called it unconstitutional, and ordered the Justice Department to stop defending it.

I woke up this morning and realized that I had experienced a dream-within-adream thing last night, but with a twist: the dream that I was- dreaming-I-was-dreaming was somebody else’s dream. In one of those Jungian (or is it Freudian?) glitch-in-the- Matrix deals, I can’t recall precisely if the second party whose dream I was “experiencing” was Rick Santorum or Michele Bachmann (and, honestly, it could have been Ron Paul, who in certain light has an “aging Judy Garland”-thing going on). Anyway, the gist of the dream was this: in the midst of a 9/11-style terrorist attack, the Republican Whose Name Shall Not Be Known was faced with certain annihilation in the streets of a large U.S. metropolis unless he or she was able to take shelter with a group of—wait for it—LGBT Americans who had crafted a makeshift refuge.

Truth be told, I was pulling for whomever the Unknown Candidate was, as this was still technically my dream, and so I got to experience all the raw emotion associated with a borderline nightmare: accelerated heart rate, increase in blood pressure, more perspiration than usual (as witnessed later on my pillow), etc. And you can imagine his/her/my despondency when the leader of the queer survivalists (played in this dream sequence by Tony “Paulie Walnuts” Sirico of “The Sopranos”) refused the request for shelter, saying simply, “There’s no margin,” which is a quaint New York/New Jersey way of saying “no profit margin.” In other words, in the minds of these post-apocalyptic gays, there was nothing to be gained by according Bachmann/ Santorum/Paul/Whomever the same treatment as they would have, say, a dog (ironic, Senator Santorum, no?).

I am not sure if my subconscious was giving me a few stolen, pre-dawn laughs, but it did put me in mind of the rights and privileges we are still denied, under the guise of Judeo-Christian values, or conservative principles, original intent, states’ rights, strict constructionism, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. This weekend, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie defied the will of the people’s representatives in vetoing a marriage equality bill that would have extended the same rights and benefits enjoyed by their straight fellow citizens and taxpayers. The governor reaffirmed his public spiel about letting the voters decide whether to change the definition of marriage in the Garden State. He did this with a “straight” face (pardon my pun) nearly 150 years after citizens of his state fought and died to “redefine” what it means to be a “full” American person (as opposed to the three fifths, pre-1865 definition advocated by that generation’s “strict constructionist-,” “states’ rights-” types).

“I am adhering to what I’ve said since this bill was first introduced: an issue of this magnitude and importance, which requires a constitutional amendment, should be left to the people of New Jersey to decide,” Christie bloviated with the fire of a civil rights supporter, pre- Brown v. the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas (anyone recall separate but- equal?).

This kind of rhetoric is populism for the lowest-common-denominator, “Jim Crow” regurgitated for the Tea Party Generation. Perhaps most malignant about this kind of political talk is that it is couched in the language of reasonableness and the spirit of compromise. In vetoing the bill, Christie proposed creating a state office to oversee compliance with the state’s civil union law, which New Jersey’s same-sex couples say is flawed and promotes discrimination.

Christie, like Ron Paul–another “populist” who appeals to the mouth breathing set—would have us believe that he is defending the conservative values upon which America was founded. Maybe so. But some of those values originate in the spirit of discrimination and exclusion that permeated much of colonial America. True, the Mayflower pilgrims and others came here to practice their religion in an unfettered manner. But the reverse (and largely forgotten) side of that coin was that most felt that the England they were leaving was too permissive in its religious freedoms. In short, they wanted the “freedom” to establish a religious theocracy where intolerance—and certainly a lack of religious freedom for non-believers–was the order of the day.

Their cultural descendants likewise practiced an institutional bigotry that mandated segregation of public schools, public transportation, and public places, including restaurants, restrooms, and drinking fountains for whites and blacks.

“I continue to encourage the Legislature to trust the people of New Jersey and seek their input by allowing our citizens to vote on a question that represents a profoundly significant societal change. This is the only path to amend our State Constitution and the best way to resolve the issue of same-sex marriage in our state,” said Christie, who could just as easily have been speaking in the Alabama, Mississippi, or Arkansas of the 1960s’ segregationist south, channeling the spirit of George Wallace, Ross Barnet, or Orval Faubus, preservers of conservative values one and all. No matter how well-meaning the supporters of civil unions and domestic partnership legislation may be, they must understand that for LGBT Americans, we cannot, we will not, endure an era of “Jim Queer” laws and be thankful that things are “starting to move our way.” That’s just plain un-American.

Cliff Dunn - Editor

If legalized, Washington would become the seventh state to recognize marriage equality.

A study by the University of California-Los Angeles law school’s Williams Institute reports that “the total spending on wedding arrangements and tourism by resident same-sex couples and their guests will add an $88-million boost to the Washington economy over the first three years.

This spending is likely to generate $8 million in tax revenue for state and local governments.”

According to a press release from the report’s sponsors, estimates show that “same-sex couples will spend $39 million on weddings in Washington in the first year alone.” Study co-author Angeliki Kastanis, a Public Policy Research Fellow at the Williams Institute, noted: “That translates to approximately $3.4 million in tax revenue, given Washington sales tax rates.”

State Rep. Matt Shea (R-Spokane Valley) offered two amendments to the House bill, one which would require six months’ residency in Washington State before applying for any type of marriage. During the committee vote, Shea warned that passage of the law could lead to discrimination suits against wedding-industry professionals, such as photographers or florists
who refuse to provide their services to gay couples.

For those who believe the national Republican Party is progressing on LGBT issues, think again. With the rise of the Tea Party, the GOP has never been more homophobic. While gay Democrats and progressive allies have pushed the Democratic Party closer to embracing full equality, gay Republicans from Log Cabin and GOProud continue failing to bring their party into the twenty-first century.

Since conservative Republicans took control of the House of Representatives after the elections in 2010, they have focused not on jobs and the economy, but on their old standbys, God, guns, and gays. When President Obama declared that his administration would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court, the “deficit-obsessed” Republicans in Congress tripled the salary cap for lawyers to defend DOMA, from $500,000 to $1.5 million.

As House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi leads 130 members of her Democratic caucus in filing a friend-of-the-court brief challenging Republican determination to maintain the federal ban on marriage equality, House Republicans continue developing other ways to energize their base by attacking the LGBT community.

The Obama administration’s Depart-ment of Defense has authorized that military facilities be made available for private functions and ceremonies “on a sexual-orientation neutral basis.” So the House Armed Services Committee has passed an amendment forbidding U.S. military bases to be used to solemnize same-sex unions, and prohibiting military chaplains on base from performing these unions. All 35 Republican committee members supported the amendment; 23 of 26 Democrats were against it.

Eighty-six House Republicans have sent a letter urging the Senate leadership to pass similar legislation, declaring, “The use of federal property or federal employees to perform anything but opposite-sex ceremonies is a clear contravention of the law,” meaning DOMA. One of the signatories of this letter was Florida’s anti-gay Representative from District 22, Allen West.

In the Senate where the Democrats still hold a slim majority, the Judiciary Committee on November 10 voted to recommend passage of a bill to nullify DOMA. The Respect for Marriage Act would repeal DOMA, and offer federal benefits to same-sex couples married in states that recognize their relationships. It was passed on a straight party line vote: every Democrat voted in favor; every Republican opposed.

Reactions from two politicians over this Senate committee vote highlights the partisan divide on gay issues. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrat from New York, described her support for The Respect for Marriage Act this way: “Every loving, committed couple deserve the basic human right to get married, start a family, and have access to all the same rights and privileges that my husband and I enjoy.” In contrast, Iowa Republican Chuck Grassley showed his complete disdain for gay families by maintaining that marriage should be limited to heterosexuals to “foster unions that can result in procreation, create incentives for husbands and wives to support each other and their children,” and to promote “stable families, good environments for raising children, and religious beliefs.”

The Respect for Marriage Act has 31 co-sponsors in the Senate who are all Democrats, and 133 co-sponsors in the House, 132 Democrats plus one Republican, Florida’s Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. There is zero chance for this bill to become law while Republicans maintain control of the House.

Gay Republicans are quick to point out that the two most notoriously anti-gay pieces of legislation, the now repealed DADT, and DOMA, were signed into law by Bill Clinton, a Democratic president. But since the 1990s, the national Democratic Party has moved closer to the American ideal of equality for all; the Republican Party, not so much.

Republican presidential candidates Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, and Mitt Romney have all signed an anti-marriage equality pledge from the National Organization for Marriage. According to Brian Brown, president of NOM, “Gay marriage is going to be a bigger issue in 2012 than it was 2008, because the difference between the GOP nominee and President Obama is going to be large and clear.”

Brown is correct in noting the stark difference between the candidates on marriage equality. While President Obama has yet to embrace full marriage equality for gays, he supports federal recognition and all federal rights for gay couples, and opposes changing the U.S. Constitution to ban marriage equality. Mitt Romney, the likely Republican nominee, has pledged to support amending the Constitution to ban gay marriage, and to nominate Supreme Court justices, federal judges, and an attorney general committed to “rejecting the idea our Founding Fathers inserted a right to gay marriage into our Constitution.”

In his November 6 column, Miami Herald writer Leonard Pitts spoke to right wing incredulousness over the Democratic Party’s hegemony with black voters: “So why don’t blacks vote Republican? The answer is simple. Black people are not crazy. Being not crazy, they understand a simple truth about conservatives: They have never stood with, or up for, black people. Never.”

In the last ten years, the gay community has seen progress on LGBT issues at the federal level and in many states, when the Democrats hold the reigns of power. But too often we’ve seen our rights stagnate or even reversed when Republicans are in charge. One day, when the national Republican Party ends their war on LGBT people, the GOP will earn our voting consideration.

Until then, gays will also be “not crazy.”

Marc Paige is a writer, LGBT activist, and an AIDS prevention educator who is based in Fort Lauderdale. He can be reached at marcpaige@msn.com

“Living in a condo we often get taken back not only by the rules and regulations but by the horror stories we hear and read about regarding the alleged unprofessionalism in dealing with such organizations and their responsibilities to the owners and the public,” noted Jack Majeske, the club’s Vice President.  He continued, “With this educational and social outreach effort, we wanted the program to be more than just ‘politics as usual’ and offer the community a degree of insight into an area that focuses on the growing public frustration and confusion within the diverse Condo and HOA real estate market.”

The event will be held at the offices of Atlantic Properties, 2039 Wilton Drive, in Wilton Manors. Coffee and cake will be served at 6:30 p.m., Florida State Representative George Moraitis will speak at 7 p.m. and 7:30 p.m. to address the issues.

For information about the event, please e-mail jackmajeske@aol. com or call Mrs.

LAS VEGAS, NV – During last week’s CNN GOP presidential debate, former Senator Rick Santorum was eager to respond to a question about how the Republican Party would reconcile its anti-immigration policies and appeal to Latino voters.

His answer was to turn them against the LGBT community.

DEAR EDITOR,

I read the opinion piece by David Stack, “Why Give Obama a Second Term?” And he is right on. I hope it is read carefully and will stimulate as many people as possible. His analysis was careful and factually correct and it really needs to sink in. So many of my friends are quite disillusioned with the President and their natural impulse is to “throw the baby out with the bathwater” or worse, to simply disengage. Stack’s piece paints the broader picture that it is not just about our disappointment but about what will happen if he loses this election to Romney or Perry. To let the Republicans back in would be disastrous on so many levels. Future SCOTUS appointments are only the beginning of how the right-wing power shift would manifest itself in a democracy. My greatest fear is that the Democrats, Independents, moderate Republicans and all those who got behind Obama in 2008 will not be energized enough to make the same thrust for 2012 where it will be needed even more. Regardless of their rationale, they ask themselves “Why should I, Obama has not delivered or fought as hard as I had hoped?” What they don’t realize is that it’s not as much about Obama as it is about YOU and ME and the future of this country. It hasn’ t hi

t home yet that the consequences of Obama losing are dire. We must get folks energized again and I don’t see it happening yet.

Sincerely,
Paul M Smith

 Please send all your comments and letters to Editor@FloridaAgenda.com

According to Politico, it’s not that the issue has disappeared from the political landscape, it’s just that President Obama is taking heat from his left flank for declining to support same-sex marriage and state legislatures across the country are still working to define marriage.

The emphasis has shifted to economic issues and poll results that show the American public has become more comfortable with same-sex unions have combined to push the matter further back in GOP priorities.