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.

Another milestone for civil rights

This is what a civil-rights milestone looks like.

President Obama signed legislation today repealing "Don't ask, don't tell," allowing gay and lesbian Americans to serve openly in the armed forces. (And what a contrast with this picture, of President Johnson signing the 1964 Civil Rights Act.)

Obama's remarks were inspiring, especially a story he told about an Army private, Lloyd Corwin, whose life was saved by a fellow soldier during the Battle of the Bulge in World War II. Decades later he learned that Andy Lee, the man who rescued him when he tumbled 40 feet down the side of a ravine, was gay.

The president said Corwin "didn’t much care. Lloyd knew what mattered. He knew what had kept him alive; what made it possible for him to come home and start a family and live the rest of his life. It was his friend.

"And he knew that valor and sacrifice are no more limited by sexual orientation than they are by race or by gender or by religion or by creed; that what made it possible for him to survive the battlefields of Europe is the reason that we are here today."

Well, I get choked up just reading that anecdote.

Corwin's son Miles was present at the bill-signing ceremony. He's a former Los Angeles Times reporter who wrote about his father's friendship with Lee in 1993. (At the time, Lee didn't want his name used, so Corwin calls him Frank.)

Like most straight people, I've had the experience of learning that friends and colleagues are gay or lesbian. Sometimes it doesn't happen until years after we've met. I understand that coming out is a difficult decision. There have been times when I've hesitated to tell someone that I'm Jewish and the stakes aren't nearly as high.

But I'm always honored that my friends and colleagues have trusted me enough to tell me something so personal. It doesn't change the way I feel about them. Being gay or lesbian is simply an immutable part of who they are and knowing more about them makes our friendship stronger.

I'm fortunate to have a diverse group of friends. (It would be pretty boring if I only knew people who were exactly like me.) Lloyd Corwin was right - sacrifice and valor are no more limited by sexual orientation than they are by race, creed, ethnicity or gender. Neither are generosity, integrity, patriotism and friendship.

It's unacceptable that my friends who are black or Latino or gay would be treated as anything less than decent, honorable people, as less than full and equal American citizens. So when I read this on Twitter today, from a writer named Mark Blankenship, it truly moved me and made me smile:

"The US president just declared the honor of gay people and took action to defend it. What strange joy to feel welcome in my country."

Now, Americans who are serving our country bravely will no longer have to hide who they are. That benefits all of us. You shouldn't have to hide who you are to do any job.

Like the president said, "We are not a nation that says, 'don’t ask, don’t tell.' We are a nation that says, “Out of many, we are one.” Today that includes even more of my friends, making me very proud - and joyful.

Senate repeals "Don't ask, don't tell''

Congratulations to the U.S. Senate, you did remember how to pass a civil-rights bill! I was afraid you'd forgotten.

Fifty-five Democrats, 8 Republicans and 2 independents voted Saturday to repeal "Don't ask, don't tell" and allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. Their stand in favor of equality benefits all Americans, gay and straight, because a more just society benefits all of us.

A week ago I did not think this vote would happen. But for once, Congress surprised me in a good way - the House earlier in the week and the Senate yesterday. (My fellow blogger The Tin Man writes about how we got to this point.)

So kudos to Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi. And Joe Lieberman, who helped spearhead the effort in the Senate, nice to have you back on the side of the angels. To the Republicans who broke party ranks, thank-you for demonstrating that equality is a bipartisan issue. President Obama, thank-you for keeping a campaign promise to end DADT.

I have to admit that when Bill Clinton announced "Don't ask, don't tell" in 1993, I didn't give it much thought. I didn't have any close friends or coworkers who were openly gay. I didn't appreciate what meant to be in the closet, to be forced to live a lie in order to serve your country.

But times have changed. Laws like "Don't ask, don't tell" and the Defense of Marriage Act affect my friends, coworkers, neighbors, people I love and admire. I understand now that those measures are unfair and un-American. That wasn't something I could have said 17 years ago. And I think that's true for a lot of straight people.

The young men and women in the American military will adapt. They're already serving with gay and lesbian soldiers who are doing their jobs quite well. I lived for a year in Israel - where gay soldiers serve openly. And no one would say that Israel doesn't have a strong army, whose troops face enemies every bit as tough as the ones U.S. troops face in Iraq and Afghanistan.

When I was watching C-SPAN, one vote in favor of repeal stood out - 86-year-old Democrat Daniel Inouye of Hawaii.

Inouye, a Medal of Honor recipient, lost an arm fighting in Italy in World War II. His unit, the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, comprised of mostly Japanese-Americans, was among the most highly decorated in the history of the U.S. military.

Here is what he said afterward:

“Finally, all brave men and women who want to put on the uniform of our great nation and serve in the armed services may do so without having to hide who they are. My only regret is that nearly 13,000 men and women were expelled from the military during the 17 years that this discriminatory policy was in place.

"In every war we have had men and women of different sexual orientation who have risked their lives for their country. I fought alongside gay men during World War II and many of them were killed in combat. Those men were heroes. And once again, heroes will be allowed to defend their country, regardless of their sexual orientation.”

Of course they were heroes - and now all of America's heroes will be able to serve openly and proudly.

As the president stated: "gay and lesbian service members - brave Americans who enable our freedoms - will no longer have to hide who they are. The fight for civil rights, a struggle that continues, will no longer include this one."

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 yesterday was one of the good days.

Senate fails on "Don't ask, don't tell''

Senate Democrats and President Obama, shame on you for failing on a matter of fundamental civil rights like repealing "Don't ask, don't tell."

Is this the same party that in the 1960s won the struggle against racial segregation, that enshrined into law the right of black Americans to vote? You used to be good at this kind of thing.

Just a reminder, here is how you did it. With the vocal support of President Johnson, Sen. Hubert Humphrey and his colleagues managed to get the Civil Rights Act of 1964 through Congress despite entrenched Southern opposition.

And it was a bipartisan effort. On the day of the historic vote to end a filibuster over the bill, Republican Minority Leader Everett Dirksen echoed the words of Victor Hugo: "Stronger than all the armies is an idea whose time has come."

Here's another idea whose time has come:

Gay and lesbian Americans serving in the military, as in all other walks of life, should be able to live their lives openly and without fear. The time for requiring Americans to hide who they are in order to serve their country has passed.

Just like that vote 46 years ago, this is about one thing: equality.

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.

Bigotry and the health care debate

The disgusting slurs hurled yesterday at Georgia Rep. John Lewis and other African-American members of Congress over the health care bill reminded me of something I once witnessed from the other side of the political spectrum.

In November 1997, when I was living in Israel, I went to a peace rally in Tel Aviv held in memory of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who had been assassinated two years earlier.

About 200,000 people crowded into the square in front of City Hall, where Rabin had spoken moments before he was killed. At the time, as now, the right-wing Likud Party was in power.

It was a young, mostly secular, left-leaning crowd at what was supposed to be a nonpartisan event, although I did see a few posters opposing then-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

When the sole government representative in attendance began to speak, Industry and Trade Minister Natan Sharansky, some people started to boo him.

I couldn't believe it.

Booing Sharansky, the man who languished in a Soviet prison camp for the "crime" of wanting to immigrate to Israel? The man whose plight galvanized Jews around the world? Even if you dislike the policies of the government, how could you be so disrespectful?

Thankfully, Ehud Barak, the leader of the opposition Labor Party, walked over to Sharansky, held up his arm and called him an Israeli hero, silencing the crowd.

Well, John Lewis is an American hero, a man who was arrested and beaten as he marched and organized throughout the South in the 1960s to win African-Americans their civil rights, including the right to vote.

The invective hurled yesterday at black lawmakers, as well as at openly gay Rep. Barney Frank, is un-American and unacceptable.

House Republican leaders have denounced it but I'd like to see them leave the comfort of a CNN studio and directly confront their bigoted Tea Party supporters, some of whom seem to have a problem with the fact that we've elected a black man as president.

I have no patience with extremist behavior, whether it comes from the left or the right. Whatever your argument, it's impossible for me to take you seriously. Why anyone would think that I'd listen to the ravings of bigots is is beyond me.

The music that changed history

Last week at the White House, President Obama hosted "A Celebration of Music from the Civil Rights Movement." It aired on PBS but I caught the concert online here.

I love the music of the 1960s, especially the songs that became civil-rights anthems. They were designed to inspire and lift the spirits of people who had been battered and bruised in the fight for equality. This was music meant to be actively sung, not simply listened to passively.

As Jon Pareles put it in his New York Times review, "If any music can claim to have changed history, it was the songs of the civil rights movement."

And how stirring to see and hear these songs not in some grainy black-and-white news footage from some small Southern town but in the elegance of the East Room.

Yolanda Adams sang Sam Cooke's "A Change is Gonna Come," a song that always gets me choked up. I liked John Mellencamp's rockin' "Keep Your Eyes on the Prize."

How cool was it to hear Bob Dylan sing "The Times They Are A-Changin" for an audience that likely included actual senators and congressmen!

Of course, Joan Baez sang "We Shall Overcome," the song she performed at the March on Washington in 1963. What a perfect bookend to history.

It was incredible to listen to these songs and think about the people who sang them half a century ago, people who were beaten and jailed and even killed simply for trying to register African-Americans to vote.

Now, these same songs are performed at the White House in front of our country's first African-American president. Could anyone ever have imagined it?

Here are the performances by Adams:



And Dylan



And Baez

Why does repealing DADT take a year?

I'm glad Defense Secretary Robert Gates said today that the Pentagon has begun the process of repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." But I don't quite understand why that process will take a year to complete.

According to Gates, the Pentagon has put together a working group that will "reach out to the [military] ... to authoritatively understand their views and attitudes about the impacts of repeal."

With all due respect, who cares about their views and attitudes? Should the views and attitudes of white soldiers have been a factor in President Harry Truman's decision to desegregate the armed forces by executive order in 1948?

In this case, it's even easier.

By one estimate, 65,000 gay and lesbian Americans are already fully integrated, proudly and honorably serving our country. The only difference is, they're forced to hide something so basic to who they are or risk being discharged.

That's not the American way.

As Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said, "No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens."

If tomorrow, all 65,000 were able to serve openly and honestly, what would change? They'd still be exactly the same individuals doing exactly the same jobs. The only difference is, they would no longer be forced to deny who they are, forced to live a lie.

I think that would make our armed forces, our country, better.

Sitting down and making history

I can't let this day go by without noting a milestone. Fifty years ago today, on Feb. 1, 1960, four black college students sat down at a Woolworth's lunch counter in Greensboro, N.C., and refused to leave until they were served.

That quiet, dignified act helped spark similar protests across the United States. "They spread to Nashville, Atlanta, Miami, Durham, N.C., and Little Rock, Ark.," says historian Andrew Lewis. "More than 70 cities and towns in eight weeks. By summer, more than 50,000 people had taken part in one."

The lunch counter was desegregated on July 25, 1960. (You can see a section of it at the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History, which is my favorite museum in the world.)

Sit-ins became part of a movement that helped make this country a more just, more equal and better place. "Greensboro was the pivot that turned the history of America around," says historian Bill Chafe, of Duke University.

Today, the International Civil Rights Center & Museum is opening in Greensboro, at the site of that Woolworths. Here's a review of the museum from The New York Times.

And here's an interview from the Greensboro News & Record with the three survivors of the Greensboro sit-in: Joseph McNeil, Franklin McCain and Jibreel Khazan (formerly Ezell Blair Jr.) The fourth, David Richmond, died in 1990.

For me, one of the most interesting aspects of the civil-rights movement is the extent to which it was a movement of young people - blacks who took part in the marches and sit-ins and freedom rides, whites who came to the South to register voters.

McNeil says of those who joined the protests in the 1960s, “They didn’t come back and say, 'What’s in it for me?’ That’s something we hear a lot of today. People gave of their lives, their time and their money.”

It's difficult today to imagine how much courage it took those four young men to act. They faced arrest, physical violence, expulsion from college, the disapproval of their families.

But it was liberating, too. "The best feeling of my life," McCain said, was "sitting on that dumb stool."

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.

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."

Rest in peace, Mary Travers

Mary Travers passed away Wednesday in Connecticut at age 72, after a lengthy struggle with leukemia.

For some reason, this one hit me harder than some of the other recent celebrity deaths. Maybe it's because I've been listening to Peter, Paul and Mary forever.

I saw them in concert once, in Boston in the 1980s, and they played many of the songs I loved. I mean, who doesn't love "Blowin in the Wind," "If I Had a Hammer," "Puff the Magic Dragon," "I'm Leaving on a Jet Plane." I'm so glad I had a chance to hear them perform live.

I didn't realize this, but Travers appeared on Broadway three times - two of them were concerts with Peter, Paul and Mary in the 1980s, to benefit the New York Coalition for the Homeless. But in 1958, she was part of a short-lived musical comedy revue called The Next President, with Mort Sahl, that played at the Bijou Theatre, where the Marriott Marquis now stands.

As part of the folk trio with Peter Yarrow and Paul Stookey, Travers sang the songs that became anthems for the civil rights and antiwar movements. Peter, Paul and Mary performed "If I Had a Hammer" at the 1963 March on Washington, where the picture was taken.

The New York Times obituary notes that the group's politics were somewhat risky for attracting a mass audience.

“There was a real possibility that we would lose the entire Southern market over the issue,” Ms. Travers told Robbie Woliver, the author of Hoot!: A Twenty-Five Year History of the Greenwich Village Music Scene, an oral history. “But we felt that the issue was more important than the Southern market.”

Amen to that. Rest in peace, Mary Travers.

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.

At Stonewall, stepping into history

Sometimes it's nice to go "off the grid" of midtown Manhattan's numerically organized streets, which is why I love walking around Greenwich Village. So on the evening I was seeing Our Town at the Barrow Street Theatre, I went early to explore and enjoy a terrific dinner before seeing a great play.

Another thing I love about New York is that I'm always stumbling across someone or something unexpected.

On Christopher Street, I spotted The Stonewall Inn. I knew about its place in the gay-rights movement and I'd read Frank Rich's column in The New York Times on the 40th anniversary of the uprising that followed a police raid on the bar, on June 28, 1969.

I love seeing the places where history was made, so after snapping a few pictures, I went in to look around. (Later I learned that this isn't the original Stonewall, which was a little disappointing. But I think it's close to the original location.)

I made some personal history, too - it was my first time in a gay bar. It's not that I avoided them, I've just never been a big bar-hopper and I never had the opportunity, never had any friends take me to one.

Inside, it's a pretty ordinary place - subdued lighting, a pool table, rainbow-colored decorations hanging from the ceiling. It wasn't crowded on a Thursday afternoon - some men sitting at the bar. I thought about what it must have been like 40 years earlier and how the men in the bar that night could have been my friends, people I love.

I walked around, looking at historic photos and newspaper clippings on the walls, including one from a New York City paper the Sunday after the incident that made Stonewall famous, with the unbelievable headline: "Homo nest raided, queen bees are stinging mad."

I know that raids like the one at Stonewall are far from history. In fact, Texas authorities raided a gay club in Forth Worth in June, on very anniversary of the Stonewall riots, sending one person to the hospital with a head injury.

Coincidentally, I visited Stonewall the same afternoon that President Obama was in New York, speaking to the 100th anniversary gathering of the NAACP. The president talked about how far we've come in dealing with prejudice and discrimination but noted that we're not there yet.

To his credit, he did mention the struggle by gay and lesbian Americans for equal rights. Although I wish the rhetoric would be backed up by action to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the Defense of Marriage Act and to push for passage of the Matthew Shepard Act that would authorize the Justice Department to investigate hate crimes based on sexual orientation.

The president also talked about how change in America comes from the people, including the four black college students who sat down at a Woolworth's lunch counter in Greensboro, North Carolina, in 1960 and refused to leave until they were served.

While that was an act of nonviolent resistance, being in Stonewall still reminded me of those fearless young men. Sometimes history is made in the most unlikely places, at times when ordinary people who have been discriminated against, oppressed or shut out decide that they've simply had enough.

Of course today, no one would deny that our rights as Americans should include the ability to have a cup of coffee at the lunch counter of our choice. It seems to me that those rights should also include sitting down in a bar and having a drink without fear.

In 1999, when Stonewall and the area around it were added to the National Register of Historic Places, Assistant Interior Secretary M. John Berry said:

''Let it forever be remembered that here -- on this spot -- men and women stood proud, they stood fast, so that we may be who we are, we may work where we will, live where we choose and love whom our hearts desire.''

Frank Rich on Stonewall

I truly admire the way New York Times columnist Frank Rich continually reminds us that this country's work on civil rights is not yet complete.

Last month, he took the Obama administration to task over its failure to push for the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the Defense of Marriage Act. Today, he has a column on the 40th anniversary of Stonewall and he's still holding the administration's feet to the fire.

(I love this line: "If the country needs any Defense of Marriage Act at this point, it would be to defend heterosexual marriage from the right-wing “family values” trinity of Sanford, Ensign and Vitter.")

Rich recalls how he was caught up in the civil rights and antiwar movements of the 1960s but never heard about the demonstrations that followed a police raid on a gay bar in Greenwich Village on June 28, 1969. Even if he had, he wonders whether he would have cared. After all, he didn't know anyone at his Ivy League university who was openly gay.

"It was typical of my generation, like others before and after, that the issue of gay civil rights wasn’t on our radar screen. Not least because gay people, fearful of harassment, violence and arrest, were often forced into the shadows."

I'm younger than Rich, but I've always been interested in the history of the 1960s, particularly the civil rights and antiwar movements. I read widely on those subjects when I was in college in the late '70s and early '80s. And I never remember reading anything about Stonewall. Like Rich, when I was in college, I didn't know anyone who was openly gay.

Well, things are, thankfully, different today. Frank Rich cares, and so do I.

My audience may not be as large as the Times' but I intend to keep writing, too. How could I not? How could I tell my friends who happen to be gay or lesbian - people I love and admire - that there are some rights they don't deserve, that our laws shouldn't protect them as much as they protect me, that they shouldn't be allowed to marry the person with whom they want to spend the rest of their life?

On Monday, Rich notes that President Obama will mark the Stonewall anniversary at the White House. And he repeats his disappointment in the administration, which I share. Congressional Democrats, too. I'm not letting you off the hook. Judging from this Times story, there's plenty of foot-dragging in the legislative branch.

One line in Rich's May column gave me pause, when he said that "changes aren’t coming as fast as many gay Americans would like." I noted that there are plenty of "straight Americans" who want equal rights extended to everyone in this country. It's important for our elected officials to know that this isn't a "gay issue."

Apparently, he's been reading my blog because this time, he gets my point:

"It’s a press cliché that “gay supporters” are disappointed with Obama, but we should all be. Gay Americans aren’t just another political special interest group. They are Americans who are actively discriminated against by federal laws."

"If the president is to properly honor the memory of Stonewall, he should get up to speed on what happened there 40 years ago, when courageous kids who had nothing, not even a public acknowledgment of their existence, stood up to make history happen in the least likely of places."

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.