Gay Rights Watch

I came across this insightful op-ed and thought I would share with you all.

The driving forces to amend the Kansas Constitution to prohibit gay marriages -- and, gratuitously, gay civil unions -- are Christian pastors and many of their followers.

For example, Rep. Steve Huebert, R-Valley Center, found his House vote easy.

"It is the right thing to do on the truth that was spoken (in the Bible)," he said.

Consistent with the times in which we live, Bible interpretation must be addressed first.

Recognizing I am no more (or less) qualified to deal with this subject than any Christian layman, I am turning to the opinions of the Rev. Craig Sweeney, an Episcopal priest (also husband of our eldest daughter and father of three of Jane's and my grandchildren) that were published in an open forum in the Winfield Courier.

The crux of his statement follows.

"People refer to homosexuality as being against God's will, based on seven disconnected verses in the Bible. As a seminary trained priest I know that each of those seven verses can be honestly challenged, based on the modern interpretation of ancient languages, cultural knowledge of the times when they were written, and the personal backgrounds of the inspired, but fully human authors.

"The real issue is that many Christians are quick to seize on an obscure verse in Leviticus about same-gender sex, while they are content to ignore Jesus' own words on divorce. Even the most conservative Christians ignore many of the 612 rules and a myriad other teachings in the Old Testament each day.

"This picking and choosing is what I call 'selective literalism' and I don't understand it. Each person is free to make choices about biblical authority, but I don't understand why their choice of what is sin and what isn't should bind me or anyone else. What gives them that right and authority? Paul tells us that if we want to be under the law, we have to be 100 percent -- I doubt if any of us want to live that way today."

Father Craig continues, "Since I revere Scripture even though it is confusing and contradictory, I look to the overall message there from God, especially from Jesus.

"That message is the great commandment: love God with all you've got and love your neighbor as yourself. On the night before he died, Jesus did not warn his disciples to follow the rules of the Old Testament. He gave them a new commandment: break bread together in his memory, and love each other.

"Since Jesus is God in human flesh, all Scripture is to be judged by this. Jesus reached out to welcome all people that the Hebrew society had cast out. Today Jesus would reach out to love and include gays and lesbians. The only people Jesus criticized were those 'rule-sticklers' -- the Scribes and the Pharisees. He calls them hypocrites."

Father Craig also discusses that many people believe gays and lesbians choose that lifestyle and refutes it with accepted medical and scientific evidence. And then he turns to the critical question, "What is marriage anyway?"

He praises the modern concept of marriage and deplores its shattered status among heterosexual couples today. He points out marriage is a contract between two people to share their lives and assets. And, that in the Episcopal Church, "we do not create marriage -- we believe God has done that before the couple shows up. What we do is pronounce God's blessing on the marriage."

And then something I hadn't even thought about. "Marriage is not a 'God-given' institution; the church didn't get involved in marriage at all until the Middle Ages." And then "solely to protect the distribution of property through the male lineage. It did women no good, since they were property being sold off to men and had no property rights."

He concludes, "Allowing gays to contract together for a shared life and shared assets has nothing whatsoever to do with our country's shameful divorce rate, the broken homes of heterosexual families and the anguish of single motherhood.

"If some churches do not want to pronounce God's blessings on these relationships -- fine. But passing a constitutional amendment to enforce the religious beliefs of some conservative Christians is a terrible thing to do."

Bill Roy, a retired physician, is a former member of the U.S. House of Representatives. He lives in Topeka.

A recent poll shows a slight increase in support among Americans for legal marriage rights for gay couples, according to the New York Times and CBS News. The poll by the two media groups found adults still are divided over how to formalize gay and lesbian couples’ relationships, but 23 percent of those polled say gay couples should be able to legally marry, a 2-percent rise since a November poll. The research found 34 percent of those responding support civil unions in concept, while 41 percent would offer no legal recognition at all to same-sex partners, the Times reported. Support for civil unions also was up 2 percent since last fall’s polling, and support for no recognition at all was down 3 percent, the poll found.

It's truly amazing how many people in the world feel like this. Do you feel this way? Share your thoughts. Have insight as to why people feel this way? History tells us that significant progress in a civil rights movement takes time. Now, I can understand this, although when you are in the middle of it - it's frustrating. DOMA after DOMA is passing in states all over our country. An all out attack on gays and lesbians is under way and it doesn't seem to be ending.

Here are some quote from folks in Seattle regarding gay marriage/rights.

Ken Rosencrantz: "It's a very small (gay) minority demanding civil rights for a lifestyle choice, demanding the majority accept their views...They are not normal and never will be."

Roger LaRue: "Why should modern society attempt to normalize (homosexual) behavior by recognizing the marriage of pairs of these sick people?"

Tom Ball writes with a similar theme: "Why should society dignify (homosexuals who) behave in a way that most people think is wrong and self-destructive?"

William Stapleton: "When the gay minority try to legislate (or impose) their beliefs on the majority, the majority must stand up and declare that the (gay) lifestyle is perverted and wrong."

Tim Pitts says that if gays can marry: "Why can't I marry my cousin or my sister? ...Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Anything else and it's not marriage any more.

Please feel free to share your comments.

Group wants state ban abolished; Lawmakers had asked to be defendants.

A group of elected officials opposed to same-sex marriage cannot become defendants in the hot-button lawsuit filed by nine couples who want the state's ban on gay marriage erased, Maryland's highest court ruled today.

The decision, issued by the Maryland Court of Appeals a day after it heard arguments and with no opinion detailing its reasoning, returns the lawsuit to Baltimore City Circuit Court, where the same-sex couples last July sued five court clerks who refused them marriage licenses.

The case ground to a halt when eight legislators and another clerk asked to become defendants represented not by the Attorney General's Office -- who was defending the state law and the clerks who were sued -- but by private attorneys.

"They were interjecting for the sole purpose of delaying this case. This case involves important issues that no matter which side of the controversy you are on should be decided promptly," said Andrew H. Baida, one of the couples' attorneys. Their lawsuit is backed by the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation.

Calling the fast and favorable ruling "humane," Lisa Polyak of Baltimore, who sued with her partner, said, "Every day that we wait is another day we have to pay double health insurance and that I have to worry of creating odd legal constructs for us."

The lawmakers and county clerk -- Republican Robert P. Duckworth of Anne Arundel County -- argued in part that the issue should not be decided by the courts, but by voters and the legislature, where efforts to restrict gay rights are stalled.

In a dramatic shift from just one year ago, the Board of Supervisors has enough votes to pass a resolution supporting state legislation that would grant equal marriage rights to same-sex couples.

Yesterday, Supervisor Adrienne Tissier announced she will vote in favor of a resolution to support a bill by Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, that would change state law and allow gay marriage.

“It’s the right thing to do,” Tissier said.

Earlier this week, Supervisor Jerry Hill said he had an epiphany and decided he would also support a county resolution to support Leno’s bill. Board President Rich Gordon, who has been in a same-sex relationship for nearly 23 years, is in support of the resolution and the state bill. Supervisor Mark Church does not appear to be in support of the bill or the resolution and Supervisor Rose Jacobs Gibson has been silent on the issue.

San Carlos resident Ramona Gatto, who has continually brought up the issue of same-sex marriage rights at the county and state level, sees Tissier’s announcement as positive and believes there is still time to make the vote unanimous.

“I’m not looking at the negative side. I’m absolutely stoked, positively elated. It’s fantastic,” Gatto said.

Although the vote would be ceremonial since the county has limited influence over bills at the state level, the fact that a resolution could come forward for consideration is in itself an accomplishment. Approximately one year ago, Ramona Gatto and her partner Arzu Gatto stood at the county clerk’s office asking to be wed. They were refused.

The same day, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom asked the city clerk to allow same-sex marriages at City Hall. The gay rights movement forever changed in San Francisco that day with couple after couple lining up to be married. Couples included the Gattos and Belmont Councilman Phil Mathewson and his partner Bob Griffith.

It didn’t move so fast in San Mateo County.

The Gattos sought for the county to allow gay marriages here, but were denied. In the meantime, the California Supreme Court ordered San Francisco to stop sanctioning same-sex marriages and invited the city to request a judicial review of Newsom’s claim that the state’s ban on gay matrimony violated the civil rights of his same-sex constituents. That legal battle is under way. Later, the Board of Supervisors unanimously condemned a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would ban gay marriage.

This year, when the Gattos asked again to be married at the county clerk’s office on Valentine’s Day, Gordon was outside saying he supported Leno’s bill and the rights of same-sex couples to marry.

Marina Gatto, Ramona’s daughter, said the news the county Board of Supervisors has enough votes to pass a positive resolution gives her cause for cheer.

“This county has definitely come so far in my eyes,” she said.

By Jon Mays Daily Journal staff

Seth Kilbourn, national field director for the Human Rights Campaign, said that Maryland now joins Idaho as the only two states thus far to kill anti-gay marriage measures introduced during the 2005 legislative session.

The Maryland General Assembly rejected two anti-gay marriage bills last week, including one that would have been the first step toward a constitutional amendment to ban marriage for gay couples.

The House Judiciary Committee voted 11-10 against a bill brought by Del. Emmett Burns (D-Baltimore County), which in addition to prohibiting Maryland from recognizing out of state gay unions, would reinforce the state’s existing ban on same-sex marriages.

The committee also agreed to table a constitutional amendment brought by Del. Charles Boutin (R-Cecil & Hartford Counties) that would have banned gay marriage in Maryland.

“Thank goodness the bells of fairness have rung loudly in the Free State and this amendment will not see the light of day,” said Dan Furmansky, executive director of Equality Maryland in a prepared statement.

Jo Deutsch, who lives with her three children and partner Teresa Williams in Prince George’s County, praised lawmakers for rejecting the anti-gay initiatives.

“Obviously, we are thrilled that the state of Maryland did the right thing, that lawmakers realized putting this language into the constitution is unnecessary and discriminatory,” Deutsch said. “We are very happy but we still can’t get married. We don’t have the legal protections that other couples have.”

“Looks like it’s anal sex week.”

Lou Novak, first vice president for the Rental Housing Association of Puget Sound, upon seeing an AIDS awareness group at the Washington State Capitol. Novak later resigned his position over the remark, which was heard by the group that included a 13-year-old girl and 16-year-old boy. (Associated Press, March 3)

“Oppression is oppression is oppression. Just because we’re not the ones who are being oppressed now, do we not stand with those oppressed now? That is the biblical mandate. That’s what Jesus is all about.”

Rev. Kelvin Calloway, pastor of the Second AME Church in Los Angeles, said about the new breed of black religious leaders who are siding with Republicans on gay rights issues. (New York Times, March 6)

Statewide network gathering forces for April 5 election:

Calling it a "David versus Goliath" effort, a new group on Thursday announced its statewide campaign to defeat the proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

"We're obviously a new organization that doesn't have a lot of time to get its feet under it," said Bradley Kemp, of Lawrence, a spokesman for Kansans for Fairness. "The opposition is pretty well-organized, well-funded, and has a lot of Kansans' ears. ... It looked like the amendment was just going to go sailing through without anyone making a concerted or sophisticated effort to campaign against it."

Kansans for Fairness formed Feb. 12, shortly after the Kansas House approved putting the amendment to a public vote. But it wasn't until Thursday that the organization announced it was coordinating and promoting the efforts of grassroots groups in cities across the state, including Salina, Manhattan and Wichita.

"For once you're going to see kind of a unified message and effort," said Bruce Ney, of Lawrence, chairman of Kansans for Fairness.

The group is producing a testimonial advertisement featuring the mother of a gay man that will run on the group's Web site -- http://www.kansansforfairness.org/ -- and possibly on television.

The campaign will highlight the efforts of organizations around the state, such as a group in Manhattan that's distributing literature door-to-door and another in Salina that produced a show on the subject for local public-access television.

Ney said the campaign also made contact with a coalition of Baker University students from the group Students Active For Equality. On Thursday, anti-gay minister Fred Phelps, of Topeka, announced he was picketing Baker because of the students' plan to travel the state during spring break in opposition to the amendment.

Kemp wouldn't say how much money Kansans for Fairness had raised so far, but he said "we're not a rich campaign." Much of the group's money has come from individual donors, he said, but Human Rights Campaign -- a national gay rights organization -- has chipped in $1,000.

Kemp said the campaign would appeal to Kansans' sense of fairness. Another goal is to call attention to the lesser-known "Part B" of the amendment, which prohibits even civil unions, by saying no relationship other than marriage is entitled to the rights of marriage.

Some attorneys have said the amendment could restrict the rights of unmarried heterosexual couples or prevent private companies from offering insurance benefits to gay employees' partners.

The amendment goes to a statewide vote April 5.

Scott Hanks, pastor of Heritage Baptist Church in Lecompton, said he was surprised by the campaign's use of the David and Goliath story.

"It's amazing that they want to use a Bible character such as David and Goliath to go against the Bible's principle that homosexuality is sin," he said.

Now - I've always known the religious right to be a crazy bunch - but this? Looks like SpongeBob has 'overcome' and is now being sent to schools in his new video. Here's the latest...

A children's music video that conservatives charge is part of an effort to encourage acceptance of homosexuality is being distributed to more than 60,000 schools nationwide this week, producers said Thursday.

The video features about 100 children's TV characters including SpongeBob SquarePants, Miss Piggy and Oscar the Grouch singing the disco hit "We are Family." It will be accompanied by a teaching guide that promotes tolerance of diversity.

"The opportunity to bring that message to children around the entire country is truly exciting," said Caryl Stern, senior associate national director of the Anti-Defamation League. "We know at ADL that people are not born as little haters, we learn to hate. And just as we learn to hate, we have to unlearn to hate."

To produce and distribute the video, the ADL has teamed up with the We Are Family Foundation, a nonprofit organization founded by music producer Nile Rodgers, who co-wrote the hit 1979 song "We Are Family."

Television networks and production companies also are involved, and FedEx has agreed to ship the videos for free.

The effort sparked controversy in January when the Mississippi-based American Family Association, in an article by the editor of its monthly journal, charged that the video had a pro-gay subtext. (story)

"On the surface, the project may appear to be a worthwhile attempt to foster greater understanding of cultural differences," wrote Ed Vitagliano. "However, a short step beneath the surface reveals that one of the differences being celebrated is homosexuality."

The video was also criticized by James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, who alluded to SpongeBob SquarePants' role in a "pro-homosexual video" during remarks to a pre-inauguration dinner in Washington.

In a telephone interview Thursday, Vitagliano said he does not object to the "innocuous" video itself but to the accompanying teaching guide, which he said "distorts the definition of family to produce a nontraditional model."

Although the guide does not specifically mention sexual orientation, Vitagliano said it is designed to lay the groundwork for acceptance of gay parents.

He pointed to a section where children are asked who is in a family, and if they say "a mommy," "a daddy," "a sister" or "a brother," the teacher is prodded to "ask further questions of the class."

"We feel that this is part of an attempt to include same-sex couples in the institution of marriage and the family," he said.

Rodgers, who joined ADL officials and others at an event launching the video at Public School 87 on Manhattan's Upper West Side, said the project is not about sexual orientation.

"We're not talking about sex at all," he said. "This is for young children."

Christopher Cerf, the author and children's TV producer who is another of the video's creators, said he was "amazed" by the criticism.

"At first I thought this was so ridiculous that it's funny," he said.

First-graders at P.S. 87 sang along with the catchy disco classic as the video was screened Thursday. It features characters from popular children's TV shows including "Sesame Street," "Blue's Clues," "Dora the Explorer" and "Winnie the Pooh," with cameos by Bill Cosby, Diana Ross and Whoopi Goldberg.

Afterward, children were asked to share artwork they had made about their families and to say what family means to them.

Answers included "Family means to me that when you want to do something you can sometimes do it with your family, and they'll take you and you'll have fun" and "It means that when I'm mad they let me be mad."

Source: AP

Rumors has been floating around that a ruling would be coming this week - most say late in the week like either today or tomorrow. Chances are that will not happen, but it does look like it will be ruled on in the very near future sources tell us. Possibly this next week.

The Oregon Supreme Court heard the case of Li V. State of Oregon on December 15th, 2004, filed in March by Basic Rights Oregon, the ACLU and nine plaintiff couples seeking marriage equality for same-sex couples.

Let's hope for the best. In the wake of state after state creating more and more harmful DOMA's, this could be a true testament to the belief in fairness and equality that we have come to expect from The State of Oregon.

Ok - so it's a true fact in life that there are thousands of incredible families that have same-sex parents. It's no trend, although as it becomes more and more accepted there will be more and more. So what gives? Why does the right wing feel that they need to hide this?

From Boston:
U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-4th, will film an ad defending same-sex parenting in response to the flap over a PBS children's program denounced by the Bush administration for showing kids with lesbian mothers.
The gay-rights group Family Pride Coalition asked the Newton Democrat to appear in the public service announcement after Bush Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings warned PBS in January not to show an episode of "Postcards from Buster."
PBS decided not to distribute the episode in which an animated rabbit visits Vermont to learn about making maple syrup with real children, two of whose parents are lesbians.

But WGBH in Boston, which produces the show, made the episode available to other stations.
"She didn't think children should know there are such things as lesbians in the world, and when you have the administration at that point, it's appropriate to say I think that's not a good way to bring up kids," Frank said.
Frank will film the ad Monday.
Actor B.D. Wong and Karen Pike, one of the mothers from the episode, will also appear in it.
The PSA will appear on a variety of Web sites later this month and will be provided to television outlets. Since it is not a paid ad, the stations must choose to run it.

On Tuesday the House voted on the ban - passing easily. Today the Seante voted and also passed it without a single objection. It will now go to the voters of Alabama and we all know where it will end up - in the constitution.

A year after a wave of gay marriages swept America, the Alabama Legislature approved a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriages in the state and refuse to recognize those from other states.

The Senate voted 30-0 to give final approval to the proposed constitutional amendment, which the House passed on Tuesday. The measure still must be approved by Alabama voters at the next election; which currently would be the party primary election scheduled for June 2006.

Gay weddings became a national issue last year, starting Feb. 12 in San Francisco when Mayor Gavin Newsom open the city's wedding registry to gays couples. Gay weddings jumped to Oregon in March, then New Mexico and New Paltz, N.Y., before a court ruling in May cleared the way for thousands of gay marriages in Massachusetts.

A backlash followed with voters in 11 states approving constitutional amendments in November to ban gay marriages. Voters in two other states, Missouri and Louisiana, barred gay marriages earlier in 2004.

Sen. Hinton Mitchem, D-Albertville, had been trying for four years to pass the ban. He said the gay weddings last year heightened public interest and helped get his proposal passed.

"It's not good for our children to see," he said.

Howard Bayless, chairman of the board of the gay rights group Equality Alabama, accused the Legislature of "meddling into the lives of families. The government is deciding what our families are and what families are made of and to me that's unconscionable."

Rumor is that the couple mentioned below will be donating a portion of the $25 million (if won) to gay rights groups who fight discrimination and homophobia. That's almost like having this right wing organization in the pocket of the Bush administration paying out what could be millions to gay rights groups. It all makes me smile - smile big.

[Updated at bottom - Judge bans group's use of gay pair photo]

‘USA NEXT’ SUED FOR $25 MILLION: Portland Couple Used in Homophobic Anti-AARP Ad Files Federal Lawsuit.

WASHINGTON, DC A $25 million lawsuit was filed today against right-wing front group USA Next and political consulting firm Mark Montini International for stealing an Oregon couple’s wedding photo and using it without permission in a high-profile gay-bashing ad designed to drum up support for social security privatization.

Following an admission of photo theft by the creator, advertiser and publisher of the ad, the couple whose image was stolen - Rick Raymen and Steve Hansen of Portland, Oregon - today filed a four-count lawsuit in federal court in Washington, DC. The suit alleges that the use of the couple’s image without permission constituted an invasion of privacy, was libelous, violated their right of publicity and constituted an intentional infliction of emotional distress.

In one version of the USA Next ad disseminated widely on the Internet in February, and aired repeatedly by television news programs and newspapers nationwide, the couple’s image, superimposed with a green checkmark, is side-by-side a picture of a US soldier with a red “X” across it. Below the photos is the phrase “The REAL AARP Agenda.”

A copy of the ad can be viewed online here: http://images.mydd.com/images/admin/antiaarpgop3

“Our privacy and personal integrity were violated when our wedding photo was stolen and used to portray us as treasonous, unpatriotic, and a threat to American troops,” Rick Raymen said. “We have been harassed and humiliated by this hateful ad campaign and by the bigotry and anger it has generated against us nationwide.”

“Our lawsuit is intended to make USA Next and Mark Montini pay for the harm they have caused and to send a message to them that they cannot recklessly play with peoples’ reputations and make them targets of hate, as they have done with us,” Raymen said. “When we get our judgment, we intend to donate to those who fight the kind of hate and homophobia that USA Next and Montini have demonstrated.”

Christopher Wolf, counsel for the Oregon couple, and a partner in the Proskauer Rose law firm, explained the basis of today’s lawsuit in the complaint filed with the court. “When they created and published the advertisement, defendants knew or should have known that the publication of the plaintiffs’ image would subject them to an invasion of privacy and ridicule,” Wolf wrote in the complaint. “As a result of the publication of the advertisement, plaintiffs have suffered embarrassment, extreme emotional distress, and invasion of privacy. In addition, as a result of the libelous statement communicated by the advertisement about plaintiffs, their reputations as patriotic American citizens has been severely damaged.”

“Our lawsuit seeks to hold the defendants accountable for taking two private citizens and maliciously making them targets for homophobic bigots,” Wolf said today. “Our clients did not volunteer to be models in a right-wing hate campaign. There are serious legal consequences for deploying them against their will.”

Simultaneously with the filing of the complaint, Wolf filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction against USA Next and its ad agency to get them to stop using the photo. The motion also seeks the return of all pictures containing the couple’s image and an accounting of all places where the photos have been used or sent, in light of the refusal of USA Next to retract or apologize for its ad.

The dispute leading to the lawsuit began a few weeks ago when Raymen and Hansen noticed their wedding photo published on the conservative America Spectator Web site as part of a homophobic USA Next ad meant to slur AARP. Not having given their permission for use of the photo, Raymen and Hansen contacted the copyright holder, the Portland Tribune, and the paper quickly confirmed that it had not sold the photo to anyone and that the image had likely been stolen from its Web site.

In the meantime, the intentionally controversial ad quickly achieved USA Next’s goal of being viral marketed for free to millions of viewers on the Internet, on network television, and in major news publications across the country.

On behalf of Raymen and Hansen, attorney Christopher Wolf wrote USA Next chairman and CEO Charles Jarvis on February 28, 2005, demanding that USA Next immediately stop using photos of the couple and that it publicly apologize for the ongoing harm it is causing.

While refusing to respond to the letter, USA Next repeatedly told the media that it had lawfully purchased the photo and that Raymen and Hansen were being “silly.” In fact, USA Next and its surrogates were surreptitiously trying to buy the photo at the same time they were assuring the media that it had already been purchased.

Raymen and Hansen have yet to receive an apology from USA Next.

[Update]

A federal judge on Thursday prohibited a conservative group supporting President Bush's Social Security plan from using a photo of a gay couple in its online ads attacking AARP.

USA Next had posted the ad for a week in mid-February on the Web site of The American Spectator. The ad portrayed AARP, the seniors lobby leading the opposition to Bush's plan, as opposed to U.S. soldiers and supportive of gay marriage.

U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton issued a temporary restraining order forbidding use of the photograph by USA Next.

The Portland, Ore., couple, Richard Raymen and Steven Hansen, filed suit against USA Next on Wednesday, saying they hadn't consented "to serve as models for a homophobic and mean-spirited campaign for a political group with whose views they strongly disagree."

The Internet ad showed a photo of a soldier with a red X over him and, next to it, a photo of two tuxedoed men kissing, with a green check mark over them. The photo was taken by the Portland Tribune on March 3, 2004, the day Multnomah County began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

"We took the banner ad down before we even learned that these gentlemen claimed that their picture had been misused. We have not used their picture since then. We do not intend to do so," USA Next Chairman Charlie Jarvis said after the judge's ruling.

(Washington) The Human Rights Campaign has appointed a longtime Democratic political activist as its new president.

HRC, the nation's largest LGBT civil rights organization, Wednesday named Joe Solmonese to the post vacated last year by former Massachusetts State Senator Cheryl Jacques.

Solmonese comes to HRC from his post as chief executive officer of EMILY's List, the nation's largest political action committee.

He has been at EMILY's List for the last twelve years serving in several key capacities from deputy political director, to chief of staff and the CEO position he's occupied for the past two-and-a-half years.

A native of Massachusetts, the out Solmonese is 40 and lives in Washington, DC. He is a graduate of Boston University and has a bachelor of science in communications.

"Joe has an unrivaled track record at the nation's foremost progressive electoral powerhouse," said Vic Basile, co-chair of the HRC Foundation Board. "We are confident that he will appeal to Americans across the political and ideological spectrum."

He will officially take over at HRC on April 11. Solmonese said one of his first acts will be a tour of the country to "meet with the American people, GLBT community members and leaders at town hall meetings and other events in the workplace, communities of color and in communities of faith."

"We must tell the stories of our lives and the struggles we face to our straight friends, co-workers and family members," Solmonese said in a statement

"Increasing our presence and visibility across America will be a top priority of my tenure."

The appointment won praise from the nation's most visible gay Member of Congress.

"I am very happy that Joe will be the next President of HRC," said Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) "By his talent, commitment and experience, he is ideally suited to help lead the fight for the central American value of equal rights under the law."

Even gay Republicans were satisfied.

"Joe has an impressive record as an effective fundraiser, proven manager and smart political leader," said Patrick Guerriero, President, Log Cabin Republicans.

"As HRC's new President, Joe will be a strong and passionate voice in our fight for equality for LGBT Americans. Joe has my personal and organizational support as we work together to develop a smart and ambitious bipartisan strategy to realize full equality for all Americans in the years ahead," Guerriero said.

Jacques resigned as HRC President in November, three weeks after the general election. Her tenure at the organization was marked by friction with the Board.

(Montgomery, Alabama) A proposed amendment to the Alabama constitution banning same-sex marriage and civil unions is likely to appear on the 2006 primary ballot.

The House approved a Senate version of the bill on Tuesday adding the civil unions ban. It now goes back to the Senate for final ratification - likely to occur on Thursday.

The House voted 85 - 7 on the measure with little debate. The sponsor of the House version, Rep. Yusuf Salamm (D-Selma), said that no "civilized society" has every accepted same-sex marriage.

"The Legislature has a right to promote the general welfare of this state and, to be quite frank, we should be leery of any social experiment that does not have any precedent whatsoever in human history," he said.

Alabama law already prohibits same-sex marriages. But lawmakers in favor of the amendment said they wanted a constitutional ban to prevent courts from striking down the state law.

Rep. Alvin Holmes (D-Montgomery) argued that even though the measure was sponsored by a fellow Democrat it was little more than an effort to help Republicans win elections in 2006.

"This bill has nothing to do with ethical, moral or religious issues. It has to do with the governor's race in Alabama," Holmes said.

Another member asked about the amendment's impact on the transgendered.

"What happens if John becomes Joan through this kind of surgery they do and marries Sarah — are we dealing with same-sex marriage or not?" asked Rep. Demetrius Newton (D-Birmingham).

OLYMPIA, WA — The campaign for gay rights trained its hopes for marriage equality on nine men and women inside the Temple of Justice yesterday.

Attorneys for 19 lesbian and gay couples, their expectations high, made their case for state-sanctioned civil marriage before the Washington Supreme Court as the state, King County and a group of intervenors argued that the traditional look of marriage should not change.

The celebrated occasion became a spectacle on the Capitol campus as thousands of demonstrators, the majority of them religious opponents of same-sex marriage, filled the air with chants and gospel music. Gay-marriage advocates also turned out, forming a human chain to give some of the plaintiff couples access to the courtroom and later applauding as they left.

David Shull, a pastor at University Congregational United Church of Christ in Seattle, and his partner, Peter Ilgenfritz, are plaintiffs in the lawsuit. He called the event "totally awesome and humbling at the same time. The possibility of gays and lesbians finally being able to marry is so right."

The few couples who were able to squeeze into the courtroom listened with rapt attention as the justices pelted questions at the attorneys — questions that offered a glimpse at the scope and complexity of the issues they are grappling with.

The legal and social impact of the high court's ruling, which could come by fall, will reach far beyond this state.

A victory by the couples would make Washington the second state, after Massachusetts, to legalize marriage for gays and lesbians and the first to give out-of-state same-sex couples that right.

DOMA being challenged

At issue is the state's Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed overwhelmingly by the Washington Legislature in 1998 to restrict marriage to one man and one woman.

"This is an important case that speaks to the type of community that we are," Paul Lawrence, attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, told the justices.

"Will we be a community that protects individual rights ... and treats all its citizens with respect, or one that sanctions discrimination and embraces prejudice? We're asking this court to adopt a vision of our community as one of fairness by striking down DOMA."

But attorney Steve O'Ban, representing the intervenors, a group of legislators and religious leaders, told the justices that no court has ruled that marriage is a fundamental right. "And we have made the determination that the optimal environment for raising a child is in a household headed by a man and a woman."

The 19 couples are part of two lawsuits — Andersen v. King County and State of Washington v. Castle — filed a year ago. In August, King County Superior Court Judge William Downing and later Thurston County Superior Court Judge Richard Hicks ruled in favor of the couples, striking down the DOMA statute as unconstitutional.

The state and county appealed in both cases, setting the stage for the consolidated case to reach the high court on a fast track.

State Sen. Val Stevens, R-Arlington, a sponsor of the original DOMA and one of the intervenors in the case, said that if the law is not upheld, "We will see the diminishing of a tradition that you and I hold dear, and that is unacceptable."

Rep. Gigi Talcott, R-Tacoma, said early yesterday that she and other DOMA supporters were optimistic that the court would uphold the law, but also were prepared to take the issue to voters in the form of a constitutional amendment. Two resolutions to make that possible have been introduced in the state Senate, although in a Democrat-controlled Legislature they may be unlikely to pass.

Those who gathered outside the Capitol yesterday to protest gay marriage numbered 5,000 to 7,000, according to police estimates. The rally drew entire families and others who waved signs such as: "One man, one woman: you do the math." A prayer corner was set up so participants could look at photos of the nine justices and pray for them as they heard the case.

Pastor Joe Fuiten, president of Washington Evangelicals for Responsible Government, told the crowd that "marriage is like Noah's Ark: Sometimes it may stink, but it's the best thing to stay afloat.

"All kids deserve a mom and a dad, and we need a policy that makes it so," he said.

The couples who sued the state and the county built their case around the premise that marriage is a fundamental right.

They argued that by denying gays that right, DOMA violates the state constitution's privileges-and-immunities clause, which requires that any privileges granted by the state to one group of citizens must be offered to all.

In defending DOMA, the state must convince the justices that the statute can pass the so-called "rational review" test, by showing that it serves a legitimate state purpose.

William Collins, the senior assistant attorney general who argued for the state, told the justices that rational basis stems from the fact that "only sexual relations between a man and a woman can create children — planned or unplanned."

Justice Tom Chambers pointed out that assisted-fertility techniques have allowed gays to have children.

Collins said, "It's not irrational for the state to encourage sexual relations to occur in the context of marriage. A vast majority of children come into the world the old-fashioned way. That's the rational basis."

The justices raised questions about defining gays as a suspect class, a legal designation that confers minoritylike status on certain groups based on characteristics such as race or gender.

They also asked attorneys from both sides about the application in this case of the state Equal Rights Amendment, passed in 1972, which says in part that "Equality of rights and responsibility under the law shall not be denied or abridged on account of sex."

Attorney Patricia Novotny said each individual has a right to be treated equally regardless of gender.

Darren Carnell, an attorney representing King County, said the state's Equal Rights Amendment does not confer the right to gay marriage.

Novotny, an attorney with the Northwest Women's Law Center, which along with Lambda Legal sued King County on the couples' behalf, noted that the court has previously identified what makes a marriage, looking at marriagelike relationships such as cohabitation and pooling resources and support.

"Never has it looked at whether there are children involved," she said.

Justice Barbara Madsen suggested that DOMA doesn't define marriage as much as it outlines the qualifications for marriage.

But Novotny said: "We're left with a scheme that favors one set of children not because of the way they were brought into the world but by the identity of the parents."

Justice Susan Owens pointed out that the plaintiffs reject calling what they seek anything other than marriage, yet "they are all civil unions," she said.

Novotny said the court faces a single question: Is DOMA constitutional or not?

Sounding a theme familiar to civil rights, Novotny argued: "Separate is not equal."

When will we stop being used as political tools for the rightwing?

Legislation aimed at preventing same-sex marriage in New Mexico cleared the Senate Wednesday.

The upper house voted 25 - 12, moving the measure to the House.

The so-called defense of marriage act would define marriage in New Mexico as the union of one man and one woman.

Democrats argued that such a definition is discriminatory.

“If we choose to vote for this bill today, we choose to give up our freedoms. Not because there’s a valid reason to do it, but because we believe in our fears, not in our hopes,” Democrat Cisco McSorley, “ told Senators before the vote.

Sen. Phil Griego in an impassioned speech told fellow senators about his late brother Billy. Griego said that Billy and his partner, Jim were part of every family get-together and celebration.

"I would rather have seen Billy and Jim raise 10 kids than some heterosexual couples," Griego said.

"We have a measure here today that will define a certain group of New Mexicans, cut them out and separate them. . . . That's not right," Griego said.

But Republicans were adamant that the legislation was needed to protect traditional marriage.

“Defining marriage for many of us is relatively easy when you view marriage, the central social institution of our society, as an evolution of the natural order,” said Republican Mark Boitano.

Governor Bill Richardson says that he would sign a bill defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, but only if it had a civil union component that would protect same-sex couples.

Legislation that would permit civil unions remains tied in a Senate committee.