Married and Counting

Watching Married and Counting made me sorry that Stephen Mosher and Pat Dwyer have completed their wedding tour because I would love to have been a part of it. But I'm glad that I got to join them for the world premiere of the moving documentary chronicling their journey.

New Yorkers Stephen and Pat have been a couple for nearly 25 years when they embark on a quest to get married in every place in the United States where it's legal for gay couples to do so - including California, where its status kept changing.

I've read Stephen's blog and I met him in April. Until Saturday, I'd never met Pat. The screening at the Rhode Island International Film Festival was not only my first world premiere - pretty exciting - but the first time I've watched a film with the subjects in the same room.

It's a credit to director Allan Piper that I was so absorbed by their story I didn't think about how they were sitting a row in front of me. Ok, one time I got a little self-conscious thinking I might have laughed too loudly at an old picture of the two of them. I cried, too. How could you not at a film about weddings?

Piper says he's made a love story and that's true in more ways than one. Getting to know Stephen and Pat as they talk about their lives, seeing them with their families, watching them deal with the stress that goes into planning multiple weddings was captivating. I fell in love with them and their band of devoted friends who strive to make each ceremony unique.

Narrated by George Takei, this is also a film that gives you a great sense of place. We travel from New York City to New Hampshire, Vermont and Massachusetts, to Iowa and California and Texas, to Washington, D.C. We're in people's homes, under a covered bridge, on the steps of the Supreme Court and on the beach at Coney Island. It feels like a road trip.

But it's also a journey through the lives and experiences of these two gay men. Along the way, we hear about how Pat and Stephen met in college and fell in love. They talk openly and with great emotion about their struggles to be accepted by their families. We get a glimpse of that when they return home to Texas for a visit.

I'm glad the film focuses on a couple who've been together for so long. If they were heterosexual teenagers who'd known each other for five minutes Pat and Stephen would be able to get a government-issued marriage license anywhere in the United States. But these two responsible, taxpaying citizens - who've been together a quarter century - can't do that.

When Pat drops off their rental van in New Jersey, a state that does not recognize their marriage, he says, “It goes against my feelings about this country and what this country is supposed to be and what it can be." Mine, too. Making this country a more inclusive place does not hurt anyone. It only helps all of us. Marriage equality is the fair, decent, American thing to do.

It also struck me as I was watching how many times in movies, on TV and on stage I've seen gay men portrayed as tragic figures. The short film that preceded theirs, Rufus Stone, was a poignant contrast because it definitely fit into that category. Those are stories that need to be told but they're not the whole picture.

Married and Counting is refreshingly different - in a way, honestly, that more straight Americans need to see. This is a joyous, heartfelt film about a happy couple. Yes, they argue occasionally and there are disappointments and I'm sure there have been challenges. But they've built a strong life together surrounded by people who love them. They could be your relatives or friends or neighbors or coworkers.

After eight weddings, there's only one thing left to say: Mazel tov Pat and Stephen! May your second 25 years together be as fulfilling as the first 25.

For more information about Married and Counting, including upcoming screenings, you can visit the film's web site, follow it on twitter at 8weddings, on Facebook and on Tumblr. The film has also been featured in Time magazine.

President Obama's "We Shall Overcome" moment on gay marriage

President Obama finally had his "We Shall Overcome" moment today when he endorsed the right of gay and lesbian Americans to marry the person they love.

Congratulations, Mr. President. It's about time. 

Forty-seven years ago, President Lyndon Johnson addressed a joint session of Congress to introduce the Voting Rights Act. He talked about the efforts of black Americans to secure for themselves "the full blessings of American life." He said, "Their cause must be our cause, too." He even invoked the words of the civil-rights anthem, "And we shall overcome."

The president's remarks today saying that he believes same-sex couples should be able to get married were not as dramatic or momentous as Johnson's a generation earlier. Made during an interview with ABC News, they lacked the eloquence of a prepared speech.

There was no mention of repealing the odious Defense of Marriage Act. He didn't vow to fight for same-sex marriage. His deference to the states on the matter was a bit troubling. (States' rights, did that not ring a bell for anyone at the White House?)

Yet despite all of that his words, based on his own experiences and his religious convictions, sounded sincere. I like that he mentioned the Golden Rule: Treat others as you want to be treated. And they are powerful for the way they frame the debate. The president finally figured out how to use the White House as a bully pulpit.

It's practically impossible today for any straight American to say that they don't know a gay person. They are our friends, our family, our teachers, our colleagues, our loved ones, our neighbors.

As President Obama said, they are members of his staff, people in committed relationships. They are soldiers and sailors fighting on his behalf. Their children are friends with his daughters. The president of the United States made the issue personal. There are people in his life who are gay and lesbian. And he doesn't see any reason why they should not be allowed to get married.

Anyone - and by that I mean my fellow straight Americans - who cares about this country becoming a more equal place for all of its citizens has a stake in this. The president's comments don't change anything but they push homophobia and anti-gay rhetoric a little further to the fringes of American society - where they belong.

A couple of years ago, Frank Rich wrote in The New York Times that as more people have come out of the closet, we've learned about those in our lives who are gay. "It is hard to deny our own fundamental rights to those we know, admire and love."

I believe that with all of my heart. Today, I'm proud that my president believes it as well and was not hesitant to say it. Their cause must be our cause, too. That statement rings as true today as it did in 1965.

In New York, an exhilarating vote for gay marriage

Despite a lifetime of reading about the civil-rights movement, nothing prepared me for how I'd feel on Friday night during an actual civil-rights victory. I was in New York City when the state Senate voted to legalize gay marriage and in a word, I felt exhilarated.

I'd been checking my Twitter feed all afternoon on the train to New York and before seeing Tony Kusnher's The Illusion, at the Signature Theatre. At intermission, the Senate still hadn't voted.

Well after the play, even before I could turn my iPhone back on, the theatre was buzzing with the news that gay marriage had passed. I heard it standing in line in the ladies room, from women who probably ranged in age from their 70s to their 20s and who were equally elated.

I was excited in 2004 when same-sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts, and in 2008 when Barack Obama was elected as the first African-American president. But this was a different kind of civil-rights milestone. Because of the impact it will have on my friends, it felt more personal.

In The New York Times on Sunday, columnist Frank Bruni spoke for me and for just about every straight person I know when he wrote "how how common it now is for Americans to realize that they know and love people who are gay."

I know several couples in New York, people like my friends Jeff and Matt who've been together for 7 1/2 years, who now will be able to get married in the state where they live. Whatever they decide, I'm so happy that the choice is theirs.

Jeff wrote in his blog, "I'm thrilled that my state now treats me as an equal citizen." And that's how it should be. I think the world of my friends - good people, hardworking, law-abiding and taxpaying. Of course they should have all of the rights that I have. Why is there even a question about that?

On Saturday, I went down to Greenwich Village where preparations were under way for Sunday's Gay Pride Parade, and it felt joyous.

I walked over to the Stonewall Inn, named for the bar where the gay-rights movement was born in the wake of a police raid in 1969. There were lots of people, many with children, posing for pictures. One group held up The New York Times with its banner headline announcing the vote.

During my April trip to New York City I saw Kushner's Angels in America at the Signature, and it was unforgettable. The last scene takes place at the Bethesda Fountain in Central Park. On Sunday, I saw the towering statue of the angel of Bethesda for myself.

The play's stirring final lines are spoken by Prior Walter, a young gay man who has been living with AIDS for five years. The disease has sapped his strength but his determination to live remains strong. He says, in part, "The world only spins forward. We will be citizens. The time has come."

Thankfully in New York, for people I know and love, it has. The law takes effect on July 24.

Joakim Noah's antigay slur

I wasn't going to write about Chicago Bulls center Joakim Noah - another pampered, overpaid athlete shows his bigotry in public. But when I saw a video of the antigay slur he uttered during Sunday's playoff game, I was so disturbed by it.

Noah, sitting on the bench after his second foul, was angry about something a fan said to him. The intensity of his reaction was hate-filled and frightening. Clearly, he wanted to hurl the absolute worst, most hurtful insult he could think of at that moment. And what came to mind: a vile epithet about gay people.

Now, Joakim Noah isn't some stereotypical poor kid from the 'hood who never learned the proper way to treat people. His father is Yannick Noah, the French tennis player of Cameroonian descent, and his mother, Cecilia Rodhe, is an artist and a former Miss Sweden.

Noah has since apologized and he's been fined $50,000 by the NBA. (It would be great if the money went to a group like the Trevor Project, which works to prevent suicide among LGBT youth.)

But the problem is not just what Noah said in the heat of the moment. Unfortunately too many kids, no matter what their background, grow up believing that the word he used is the worst thing you can call someone. You use it because you know it stings.

And honestly, why wouldn't they get that message when the larger society - including elected officials - go out of their way to devalue the lives and relationships of gay people? Here are just two of the most recent examples:

On Sunday, I wrote about a vote by the Minnesota legislature that will place on the ballot in 2012 a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

In Tennessee, the state Senate has approved a bill forbidding the mention of anything but "natural human reproduction science" in kindergarten through eighth grade. (It's been dubbed the "Don't say gay" bill.)

What's particularly cruel about both of these measures is that Minnesota already bans gay marriage and in Tennessee, the family life curriculum doesn't even cover homosexuality. They're examples of pure vindictiveness.

So if you're a gay kid in Tennessee, what are you supposed to think when adults believe that your classmates need to be protected from you, that what you are can't even be mentioned by name? And if you're a straight kid, what message do you think that sends about your gay classmates?

Of course none of this is an excuse for outbursts like Noah's. In addition to being bigoted it was unprofessional -- no matter what the fan said to him. But an apology and a $50,000 fine don't even begin to get at the root of the problem.

In an interview with an ESPN reporter, Noah, 26, said the slur doesn't represent who he is. Now, he has a chance to prove it.

It's 1984 in Minnesota

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Those quotes are from George Orwell's 1984 and apparently, they're a source of inspiration for a Minnesota state representative.

The Minnesota House has voted to put on the ballot in 2012 a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

While gay marriage is already illegal in the state, apparently there's a fear that pesky judges or lawmakers might try to overturn the ban. So Minnesota needs an extra layer of "protection."

(Either that, or someone is hoping for a big turnout of conservative Republicans for the 2012 election. Nah, politicians couldn't be that cynical, could they? I mean, they wouldn't try to whip up irrational fear and hatred of a minority group just for votes, would they?)

I could not believe this quote from Rep. Steve Gottwalt, a St. Cloud Republican and the bill's sponsor:

"This is not about hatred. It is not about discrimination or intolerance," he said during Saturday's debate.

Well, you can frame it any way you want but that is exactly what the proposed amendment is about. Even if it's not what you intended, the measure will enshrine in the state Constitution discrimination against decent, hard-working, law-abiding, tax-paying Minnesota citizens who happen to be gay or lesbian.

Saying it's not about hatred or discrimination or intolerance doesn't make it so.

Don't take my word for it. Here are the more eloquent words of Republican Rep. John Kriesel, a veteran who lost his legs in the Iraq war:

"This amendment doesn't represent what I went to fight for. This doesn't represent that. Hear that out there?" he said, referring to the hundreds of protesters in the hallways of the Capitol, "That's the America I fought for, and I'm proud of that."

Proposition 8 is overturned!

Thank-you, federal Judge Vaughn Walker for ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger that California's Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage, is unconstitutional.

While the case is likely headed to the Supreme Court, it's still a hopeful development for those of us who believe that all Americans are entitled to equal protection under the law. (Slate's Dalia Lithwick has a terrific analysis of the decision.)

Judge Walker notes that California had already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same-sex couples before the ballot measure passed in 2008 - and has suffered no demonstrable harm.

The state, he writes, has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians and "the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples."

The gay and lesbian couples affected by today's decision are not abstractions. They are our friends, our neighbors, our coworkers, our loved ones. They're in loving, committed relationships. I believe that they are entitled to the same rights as any other American citizens.

In 2009, Broadway Impact held a rally for marriage equality in New York City. Among the speakers was actor David Hyde Pierce, who talked about marrying his partner of 25 years, Brian Hargrove, before Prop. 8 was passed.



The road to equal rights for all Americans has been a long and tortuous one and progress doesn't happen nearly fast enough. But we're getting there. And today is one of the good days, because a more just society benefits all of us.

Music for marriage equality

I love checking off new experiences during my trips to New York. This time, I made my first visit to Joe's Pub, named after Public Theater founder Joe Papp, for the Broadway Impact concert with cast members from American Idiot.

I haven't seen the musical so it was nice to hear new performers like Christina Sajous, above, and familiar ones, like Rebecca Naomi Jones, who was in Passing Strange on Broadway.

It was a fun way to end the weekend and at $25 for a ticket, very reasonable. I'm glad my fellow blogger Linda, from Pataphysical Science, invited me to go along. (Although be warned that not all cast members participate and they don't necessarily sing songs from the show.)

While I got a little squished in the packed bar (tables go fast) I was happy to be part of a crowd supporting Broadway Impact. It's a community of actors, directors, stage managers, fans - anybody who's ever worked on or been to a Broadway show - united in the fight for marriage equality.

If I never went to the theatre I'd still support marriage equality - for my friends and because it's the right thing, the American thing, to do.

But being a theatre fan makes it more personal. How can I tell people whose work I admire - onstage and behind the scenes - that if they're gay or lesbian, they shouldn't be allowed to marry the person they love?

Tickets are on sale for the final Broadway Impact concert of the summer at Joe's Pub, at 7 p.m. Aug. 23, featuring cast members from the Tony-winning musical Memphis.

I can't think of a more fitting finale than Memphis, in which a white dj and a black singer fall in love in the 1950s, when it was not only illegal for them to get married in their home state but dangerous to even be seen together as a couple.

Unfortunately, I won't be in New York City for the Memphis show but I'm looking forward to returning to Joe's Pub for another Broadway Impact concert.

It would be great if the cast of every Broadway musical agreed to do one.

My colonoscopy - without the gory details

Two weeks ago I had a colonoscopy. I'm happy to report that my colon is in good shape, thank-you very much. And of course, there's a theatre angle.

I knew that once you reach a certain age - which I uh, attained last year - you're supposed to have one. Everyone I talked to said it was no big deal - they put you to sleep and the next thing you know, you're in the recovery room.

I also knew that the preparation, which involves a liquid diet and a thorough cleansing of the system, was going to make me physically uncomfortable. It did. I'll spare you the gory details but even now I shudder just walking past a display of Gatorade at the supermarket.

So, I kept putting it off. I had plenty of time, it wasn't the right time of year, I didn't have a family history of colon cancer, whatever. I'm very good at procrastination, especially when it involves physical discomfort.

Now, here's where the theatre angle comes in.

One of my regular blog reads is Guy Dads, written by Ed and his husband Eddie, who live in Northern California. They have a big, blended family, they're San Francisco Giants fans, opera buffs and they love theatre. I love reading about their marathon theatre trips to New York City.

Well in October, Ed wrote that he had colon cancer. Thankfully, it was caught early and although it's been a harrowing nine months involving multiple surgeries, he's doing great. I'm looking forward to reading about their next theatre trip to New York, whenever that might be.

When Ed was too ill to post, Eddie has kept friends, family and readers informed. One thing he wrote struck me as so important:

I cannot tell you how wonderful it has been to be in a state, city and hospital system where not one person has blinked an eye every time I walk in anywhere with Ed or where I call or show up and say I am his spouse.

The doctors, nurses, receptionists, social worker, medical records clerks, etc. have each and every one treated me with respect and as the person who of course should be monitoring and managing Ed's health care.

I cannot imagine how much more difficult this whole situation would have been in most of the other states of this 'free' country. In many, I would not have been allowed in most of the offices. I certainly would not be called by the doctor, emailed with the test results, or allowed to ask anyone any question and get it answered.

This is why President Obama's April mandate, that hospitals extend visitation rights to the partners of gay and lesbian patients and respect their right to make decisions for their partners, is so important. A new study by the Human Rights Campaign finds 42 percent of the nation's 200 biggest hospitals lack policies to protect gay and lesbian patients.

Ed's cancer diagnosis was certainly a wake-up call for me. Without it, I probably would have put off the colonoscopy even longer. The day before wasn't pleasant but the test was a piece of cake (if only I could have had a piece of cake that morning!) - and it beats the alternative.

Normally I wouldn't get so personal but as the Talmud teaches, if you save one life it's as if you've saved the entire world.

In Iowa, a marriage-equality anniversary

One year ago today the Iowa Supreme Court handed down its unanimous decision in Varnum v. Brien, paving the way for gay and lesbian couples to get married.

So happy anniversary for marriage equality in the Hawkeye State!

You've shown that the freedom to marry isn't something that matters only on the coasts. It's an American issue, an issue of fairness.

A Des Moines Register poll in September found that 92 percent of Iowans said same-sex marriage had brought no real change to their lives. But they were evenly divided on whether they'd vote for a constitutional amendment barring it.

The folks at One Iowa are at the forefront of efforts to safeguard the rights of gay and lesbian citizens. So far, lawmakers have resisted attempts to overturn the court's ruling, which struck down a law banning same-sex marriage as unconstitutional.

I like what Iowa Gov. Chet Culver had to say this week. While he personally believes that marriage should be between one man and one woman, he says his personal views shouldn't infringe on the civil rights of others.

"I think the overwhelming majority of Iowans do not want to amend our constitution in such a way that's discriminatory. That's the bottom line. Iowans want to move forward and the Supreme Court has spoken loudly and clearly. I think it's time to move on."

Sure, it would have been nice if Culver had experienced a change of heart over the past year - and I hope he's had a chance to meet some of his fellow Iowans who've tied the knot.

But what's more important is the distinction he draws between his personal beliefs and public policy. We're free to believe what we want but we don't have the right to enshrine discrimination into law or deprive our fellow citizens of their civil rights.

While same-sex marriage hasn't affected the lives of the vast majority of people in Iowa, it's obviously had a great impact on the gay and lesbian couples who have been able to get married. It has made them more secure and better protected as they plan their lives together.

Expanding civil rights to groups that have historically been denied them only strengthens our society. All of us who have care about making the United States a more just and equal place have something to celebrate today.

It's Freedom to Marry Week

It's Freedom to Marry Week, a time to talk about love and equality and fairness.

If two unrelated adults who are in love, building a life together, in many cases raising children together, want the benefits and protections of marriage, they ought to get them. It shouldn't matter whether they're two men or two women or a man and a woman. It's a matter of equal protection under the law.

The campaign of fear, the scare tactics, that opponents of gay marriage use are deeply offensive to me. To imply that allowing gays and lesbians to marry threatens children or heterosexual marriage is bigotry, pure and simple. It's immoral and unAmerican.

My friends who are gay and lesbian pay taxes, are good citizens, decent people with the highest values. They shouldn't be treated like second-class citizens when it comes to marriage.

I look at their loving, committed relationships and I compare them to John Edwards and Eliot Spitzer and Mark Sanford, three heterosexual married men, with children, who did not take their vows seriously at all. I wonder: Who presents the real threat to the sanctity of "traditional marriage?"

I know how fortunate my friends feel to have found the love of their life. And I know how truly happy and fulfilling their lives are together. The longer I know them, the more strongly I feel that they should have the freedom to marry the person they love. They will certainly honor the sanctity of marriage better than Spitzer, Sanford and Edwards.

In Sunday's New York Times, Frank Rich wrote about the push to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," which prevents gays and lesbians in the military from serving their country openly. He said, "Most Americans recognize that being gay is not a 'lifestyle' but an immutable identity."

Like a lot of straight people, there was a time when I didn't know many people who were openly gay or lesbian. But times change and so, too, should our concept of equality. This comment sums up how I feel:

"As more gay people have come out — a process that accelerated once the modern gay rights movement emerged from the Stonewall riots of 1969 — so more heterosexuals have learned that they have gay relatives, friends, neighbors, teachers and co-workers. It is hard to deny our own fundamental rights to those we know, admire and love."

In the week leading up to Valentine's Day, that's a statement worth taking to heart.

The unfinished business of equality

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
Rev. Martin Luther King
Letter from Birmingham Jail
April 16, 1963

I've mentioned before that when I was in high school, I had the honor of briefly meeting Coretta Scott King. It's an experience that I will never forget.

Mrs. King, who passed away in 2006, spoke eloquently on more than one occasion on the connection between the fight for equal rights for African-Americans and for gay and lesbian Americans. Her words are truly inspiring.

“I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people.... But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.' ''

Today we honor the life and legacy of her husband, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. While it's important to remember what Dr. King and the civil-rights movement accomplished - making this country a more just and fair place - we can't forget the unfinished business of equality.

This year, Martin Luther King Day falls in the midst of a trial in federal court in California challenging Proposition 8 - the voter initiative that banned same-sex marriage.

The legal team is headed by Republican Theodore Olson, former solicitor general under President George W. Bush, and David Bois, a Democratic trial lawyer who was his adversary in Bush v. Gore.

Some people have questioned whether this is the best time to bring such a case forward, potentially to the Supreme Court. But in Newsweek, Olson makes a compelling, sincere and conservative argument in favor of same-sex marriage.

Like Mrs. King, his words are eloquent and worth repeating.

"When we refuse to accord this status to gays and lesbians, we discourage them from forming the same relationships we encourage for others. And we are also telling them, those who love them, and society as a whole that their relationships are less worthy, less legitimate, less permanent, and less valued. We demean their relationships and we demean them as individuals. I cannot imagine how we benefit as a society by doing so."

Olson reinforces an important point: marriage equality is not a liberal issue or a Democratic issue or a blue state issue. Rather, it's an American issue - how we treat our fellow citizens. He writes, "I have no doubt that we are on the right side of this battle, the right side of the law, and the right side of history."

Last year, Martin Luther King Day fell one day before the inauguration of Barack Obama as president of the United States - the first African-American president of the United States. It was a day honestly, I thought would never come.

Maureen Dowd wrote in The New York Times on Sunday, "legalizing gay marriage is like electing a black president. Before you do it, it seems inconceivable. Once it’s done, you can’t remember what all the fuss was about."

We know who was on the right side of history in the civil-rights movement: the people who fought to end segregation, to allow African-Americans to vote, to bring down the ban on interracial marriage.

If he had lived, Dr. King would be 81 years old. No doubt he would still be marching, still be speaking out. And I have no doubt which side he would be on in the struggle for marriage equality: the side of justice for his fellow Americans who happen to be gay or lesbian.

In New Jersey, a setback for equality

Let's go back for a minute to the early 1960s, when the question of civil rights for black Americans was considered a divisive subject in the United States.

Suppose there had been referendums on the ballot or votes in state legislatures to repeal Jim Crow laws, the legal segregation that relegated black people to second-class citizenship. How many legislatures, how many states, would have voted to repeal those laws?

I'll give you the answer: None.

Not the members of one legislature, not the residents of one state would have voted to grant black people equal citizenship, much less allow marriages between blacks and whites. It took the courts, and eventually Congress, to guarantee those rights.

And the opponents of equality? They would have made arguments that sound all too familiar: they would have cited the Bible and warned of threats to children and talked about "tradition" and claimed that separate was equal.

I'm disappointed by yesterday's vote in the New Jersey Senate defeating a bill that would have allowed gay and lesbian couples to marry. But the outcome has nothing to do with justice, with what is right and fair, with the concept of equal treatment under the law.

One remark that particularly infuriated me was from Democratic Sen. Stephen M. Sweeney, who said that voters would look unkindly on the legislature if it pushed for a social issue at a time of economic suffering. (He didn't vote on the same-sex marriage bill.)

A social issue?

What does he think marriage means to gay and lesbian couples? Marriage equality ensures that you can plan every aspect of your life together. It's about health benefits and hospital visitation rights and all of the other protections and benefits that come from being legally joined together.

My friends who happen to be gay or lesbian are not second-class anything and they shouldn't be treated as second-class citizens under the law. Votes in Maine and California and New York and New Jersey don't change that.

Perhaps the courts are where this struggle for civil rights will ultimately be won, just as it was for black Americans in the 1960s. Or perhaps it's just a matter of time. The vote in Maine was close and by all accounts, opposition to same-sex marriage is a generational issue.

In the meantime, I will continue to support my friends as they live life to the fullest, to celebrate their long and loving relationships. Gay and lesbian couples will continue to form families. No ballot measure or legislative vote is going to shove them back in the closet.

And I'm not totally disheartened this week.

Iowa Senate Majority Leader Michael Gronstal has ruled out any debate in the current session on amending the state Constitution to ban same-sex unions. That means the earliest the matter could be put to a public vote would be 2014.

Senator Gronstal, you are still a hero to me!

By 2014, the first gay and lesbian couples to marry in Iowa will be celebrating their fifth anniversaries. Hopefully their friends and family, neighbors and coworkers will realize that the social fabric did not unravel but rather, was made stronger.

Bruce and I wish you a Merry Christmas

Peace, love and Merry Christmas to everyone celebrating today.

Here's Bruce Springsteen, 2009 Kennedy Center honoree and supporter of marriage equality in New Jersey, with "Santa Claus is Coming to Town":



"Like many of you who live in New Jersey, I've been following the progress of the marriage-equality legislation currently being considered in Trenton. I've long believed in and have always spoken out for the rights of same sex couples and fully agree with Governor Corzine when he writes that, "The marriage-equality issue should be recognized for what it truly is -- a civil rights issue that must be approved to assure that every citizen is treated equally under the law." I couldn't agree more with that statement and urge those who support equal treatment for our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters to let their voices be heard now."

Thank-you for speaking out, Bruce!

A disappointing vote in New York

Another vote on gay marriage, another disappointment.

This time, from the New York State Senate, which defeated a bill that would have legalized same-sex marriage by a vote of 38 to 24.

I am so angry at the "arguments" (in reality, the scare tactics) that opponents of gay marriage use: it'll harm children and families and "traditional" marriage.

Yes, the "traditional" concept of marriage that once banned unions between black and white Americans, that once regarded women as the possessions of their husbands and families.

Do you know what harms families and children in the United States?

Try unemployment, poverty, hunger, crime-ridden neighborhoods, substandard schools, domestic violence and a skyrocketing divorce rate that ends up leaving many women and children impoverished.

Do you see gays and lesbians on that list anywhere? I didn't think so.

The language used by the opponents of gay marriage reminds me of the Southern demagogues who used to whip people into a frenzy over what would happen if schools were integrated. I mean, if little black boys were allowed to sit next to little white girls in the classroom well, who knows where that might lead!

This is not a religious issue. You are entitled to your beliefs, as long as they don't impinge on the rights of anyone else. But I'm sorry, you are not entitled to enact your beliefs into law. I know people of deep faith and the ones I admire most live by the Golden Rule.

When my elected representatives vote, the only document I want them to consider is the Constitution of the United States. And I hope they believe that all Americans are entitled to equal protection under the law. I hope they understand that our laws are designed to protect the rights of minorities, not to impose the will of the majority.

Gay and lesbian Americans - families - deserve the same protections afforded by marriage as straight Americans.

I don't understand why same-sex couples who have been in a relationship for 5, 10 years or longer can't get married when any straight couple can show up at a drive-through wedding chapel in Las Vegas and tie the knot.

Allowing gay and lesbian couples the right to marry does not affect the marriage of any heterosexual couple. It's ludicrous and insulting to imply that it does.

What this vote does is tell gay and lesbian citizens that their rights aren't important, that it's acceptable to discriminate against them. Well, it's not acceptable.

This is bigotry - pure and simple.

Maine and the majority/minority divide

Voters in Maine appear to have approved a ballot measure overturning a never-implemented law legalizing same-sex marriage. It's infuriating and tragic and wrong and unAmerican to deny some American citizens their full and equal rights, indeed, to deny them their very humanity.

But I think the results, this year in Maine and last year in California, are also a reminder of how genuinely difficult it is for people in the majority to understand what it's like to be part of a minority group.

The year I spent in Israel was unique in many ways. As an American Jew living for the first time in an overwhelmingly Jewish country, it was a fascinating and sobering experience to be on the other side of the majority/minority divide.

There are tangible signs: the displays for your holiday are at the front of the supermarket and you don't have to take a vacation day from work to celebrate it. And you never have to fumble around for what to say when someone wishes you a Merry Christmas.

Then there are the intangible ways you know you're in the majority. You never have to listen to anyone say the United States is a Christian nation and feel like they're excluding you. And you never have to think about the minorities in your midst.

It's not even a conscious decision to ignore them. The majority in any society is so overwhelming, so omnipresent, that if you belong to it, you don't have to think about the people who can get left out - through ethnicity or race or gender or sexual orientation.

In most cases, I think it requires an unusual strength of character or a personal connection to break through that indifference. You have to make an effort to put yourself in the other person's shoes. A lot of people simply don't understand, aren't willing to take the time, don't see why they ought to do so.

For me, it's personal. As a Jew, I look at the votes in Maine and California and think: What if they want to put my civil rights up for a popular vote next? Jews are a tiny percentage of the U.S. population. We'd probably lose.

It's not personal solely because I'm Jewish.

It's also personal because I have wonderful friends who are gay and lesbian, who enrich their communities and my life every day I know them. And I don't see any reason for my friends who are in committed relationships to be denied the right to marry the person they love, to be denied the benefits and protections of civil marriage.

It's incredibly disheartening that people would vote to take civil rights away from their fellow citizens. I don't have any answers this morning. I just know how difficult it is to get through, especially to straight people who think they don't know anyone who's gay or lesbian.

I wish they would realize what they've done - to their neighbors, their coworkers, maybe even to their friends and relatives by denying them equal protection under the law. I wish they'd realize what they've done to themselves, to their state and to their country when bigotry and fear triumph over reason.

But we have to keep trying to make them understand. I have to keep trying.

Save marriage equality in Maine

Maine residents are voting today on whether to repeal a law legalizing same-sex marriage. The measure was passed by the legislature and signed by Governor John Baldacci in May but has never taken effect.

It's unbelievable to me that we even allow some Americans to decide whether other Americans are entitled to equal rights. Civil rights should never, ever be subject to a popular vote.

Allowing gay and lesbian citizens the benefits and protections of civil marriage does not take away anything from anyone else in Maine. Just the opposite - expanding civil rights to include groups that have historically been excluded benefits all Americans.

As Philip Spooner, an 87-year-old veteran, Maine resident and father of four sons, one of whom is gay, says so eloquently, "This is what we fought for in World War II, the idea that we can be different and still be equal."

Really, is that so difficult to understand?

A straight girl speaks out for equality

I wish I could be in Washington, D.C., tomorrow for the National Equality March, to show my support for the friends who have done so much to enrich my life.

The goal of the march is simple: equal protection for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in all matters governed by civil law in all 50 states.

And we are making progress. On Thursday, the House passed a bill that would broaden the definition of hate crimes to include attacks based on sexual orientation.

But there's more work to be done, including repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", which would allow gay and lesbian members of the military who serve their country bravely to serve it openly.

We need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act so that gay and lesbian couples can have the same benefits and protections as their straight counterparts. We need to advance marriage equality and protect it in places where it's under attack, most notably this fall in Maine.

I'm speaking out on my blog, as I've done in the past, because this is not gay issue, it's an American issue, an issue of fairness. No one in this country should be denied equal rights because of the way they were born - whether they're gay or lesbian or black or Hispanic or Asian or a woman.

I can't be silent because silence implies consent.

Simply put, I can't tell my friends who are gay and lesbian that they're second-class citizens, that they aren't entitled to the same rights and protections I have. We're talking about good people, hardworking, productive, taxpaying citizens, people with the best family values I know. They're people I love and admire and I want the world for them.

I know there's been a split among gay-rights advocates about the wisdom of focusing attention on the federal government instead of concentrating efforts in individual states but I don't think it's an either/or situation.

We need both efforts because no one should have to wait for their civil rights at any place or at any level - in the workplace, at school, in their community, state or nation.

Tonight, President Obama will address the Human Rights Campaign dinner. I'd like to remind him of what another African-American recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., said in his Letter from the Birmingham Jail:

"For years now I have heard the word 'Wait!' It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This 'Wait' has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."

Two from the Banned Books shelf

It's Banned Books Week, that time of year when the American Library Association draws attention to censorship and promotes the freedom to read. The first I'm against and the second I heartily endorse! (Thanks to Amanda at The Zen Leaf for alerting me.)

According to the ALA, 513 challenges were reported to the Office of Intellectual Freedom in 2008.

The 10 most "controversial" (scare quotes!) titles include two that I've read: Khaled Hosseini's much-praised The Kite Runner, about his native Afghanistan; and the children's book Uncle Bobby's Wedding, by Sarah S. Brannen, about two male guinea pigs who tie the knot.

The Kite Runner made the list because it contains offensive language, it's sexually explicit and "unsuited to age group." I don't quite understand that last part because as far as I know, the novel's "age group" is adults. This isn't something a young child would be interested in at all.

While there is a scene of sexual violence, it's not done in a titillating way and it's absolutely essential to the story. And I don't remember an excessive amount of profanity.

This is an absorbing, thoughtful novel that a teenager could definitely handle. It's a window into a country and a culture in which Americans ought to have a great deal of interest. It's also an immigrant story, as the main character and his family struggle to make new lives for themselves in the United States.

Uncle Bobby's Wedding made the list because it's "unsuited to age group and homosexuality." I first heard about it in 2008, when Colorado librarian Jamie LaRue wrote about a challenge from a patron.

This is a sweet, beautifully illustrated story about a little girl gerbil named Chloe who's afraid of not being able to spend as much time with her favorite uncle once he gets married.

I can't imagine anyone possibly being offended unless they have a heart of stone. It's about the importance of family and the vocabulary seems totally appropriate for the intended age group. The love between Bobby and Jamie (the two male gerbils) is presented matter-of-factly. There's no big discussion about it.

What offends me are people who find books with gay and lesbian characters offensive, as if it's something we can't talk about "in front of the children." It's just as demeaning and bigoted as banning books with black, Latino or Jewish characters.

Besides, "the children" may already have a classmate with a gay or lesbian parent or family member. Those kids have the right to find books about their families on the shelves, too.

Do parents have a right to pick their children's library books? Absolutely. Do they have a right to pick the library books for other people's children? Absolutely not.

To honor Senator Kennedy, repeal DOMA

Today, Democratic Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York is expected to introduce a bill repealing the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. If Democrats truly want to honor the memory of Sen. Edward Kennedy, this would be a good place to start.

Reading the obituaries for Kennedy, who died last month of brain cancer at age 77, I was struck by the fact that he was one of only 14 senators to vote against DOMA.

I looked up the Senate roll call on the act, which bars the federal government from recognizing gay unions, and I could not believe some of the people who voted for it, including many Jewish members of Congress.

I don't understand how Jews, especially, could vote for a bill whose sole purpose is to target a minority group that continues to face discrimination. Only one word describes it: shanda. We're supposed to be on the side of protecting civil rights, not taking them away.

I know some of Nadler's colleagues, including Rep. Barney Frank, think introducing a bill to repeal DOMA at this time is a bad idea. And even Nadler's staff acknowledges that there's little chance of the matter coming to a vote anytime soon.

Frank's argument is that there are other, more achievable goals, like repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and passing legislation that would prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Of course those things are important and Democrats in Congress should get to work on them. There was an editorial Sunday in The New York Times that noted in 29 states, it's still legal to fire a worker for being gay. That's un-American and unacceptable and disgraceful. It's just as wrong as someone losing their job because of the color of their skin.

But it's also unacceptable that thousands of legally married gay and lesbian couples, many of them with children, are denied their rights under federal law.

Ted Kennedy had an unwavering commitment to equality and often called civil rights "still the unfinished business of America." In 2007, he made this statement regarding the Employment Nondiscrimination Act:

“America stands for justice for all. Congress must make clear that when we say 'all' we mean all. America will never be America until we do.”

I can't think of a better tribute to the Massachusetts senator than making sure that work gets finished.

Gay rights = human rights

This New York Times editorial is totally on the mark in taking the Obama administration to task for its downright offensive lack of commitment to equal rights for gay and lesbian Americans.

The Times criticizes a brief submitted by the Justice Department on a challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act in which government lawyers used hurtful and just plain wrongheaded language, comparing gay relationships to incest and adults marrying children.

Personally, I'm offended at having the committed relationships of my friends, of people I love, referred to in such a derogatory manner. As someone who voted for Mr. Obama, this is very disappointing and unacceptable.

The editorial quotes a letter to the president from Joe Solomonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign: “I cannot overstate the pain that we feel as human beings and as families when we read an argument, presented in federal court, implying that our own marriages have no more constitutional standing than incestuous ones.”

The Times notes that the president has a lot of pressing issues on his plate. But it urges the administration to work toward the repeal of DOMA and "don't ask, don't tell" and for a federal law banning employment discrimination. "Busy calendars and political expediency are no excuse for making one group of Americans wait any longer for equal rights."

The president won in a landslide. He has a huge mandate for change. He should use it. It's time for him to acknowledge that this is a civil-rights issue, a human-rights issue, a measure of how committed we are as Americans to equal rights for everyone.

It's time for a Lyndon Johnson moment: this is not a "gay" issue, it's an American issue.