Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch, finch, beech
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Still No Going Back
Susan the Bruce
Tomorrow's Progressives
Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Krauss
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Primary Wire
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Welch
Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
Ann McLane Kuster
John Lynch
Jennifer Daler
ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC
National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo
50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
(And is this the same Rep. Will Smith who cited George "Carry My Luggage" Rekers in his UL editorial on how gays and lesbians can't be good parents? - promoted by Dean Barker)
Those of us for defending equality were well prepared. the problem started when thirty residents here in New Castle signed a petition calling on the town to vote at town meeting for a statewide referendum on the definition of marriage.In other words, taking away rights.
We had speeches ready to go as to why it's unacceptable to vote to discriminate against our friends and neighbors. People were, shall we say, fired up and ready to go.
Then former Rep Dan Hughes, who was the lead signer on the petition, failed to show up. He asked current Rep Will Smith, who voted against equal marriage rights, to read a letter at the town meeting.
He asked for a vote to indefinitely postpone!
Exactly what we intended to do. So poof! It's gone. Add New Castle to the proud list of towns who say NO to discrimination!
Robert and Carl* are a gay couple who have been together for several years. They live in a state that permits same-sex marriage, and recently tied the knot in a Church ceremony. Like many other married couples, they have established a stable home and are active members of their community. Carl is healthy but lives with a manageable medical condition. Like approximately 1.1 million other Americans, Carl is HIV positive.
Today, HIV positive people are living long, normal, healthy lives...as long as they receive proper medical care. Highly Active Anti-Retroviral Therapy (HAART), a combination of three medications, is now the standard treatment to battle HIV . While quite effective one of the major downsides of treatment is cost. Carl's three medications run about $2,200 per month...a figure that is quite typical. This, of course, does not include approximately six blood tests and physicians appointments per year, bringing his treatment costs to about $3,000 per month.
The US Congress recognized the steep cost of treatment when they reauthorized the Ryan White Care Act in 2009 by a vote of 408-9. This Act authorizes the expenditure of over $2 billion annually to assist with HIV outreach and treatment. It is the 'payer of last resort,' and income guidelines are applied towards recipients, but still it is estimated that some 30% of HIV positive individuals receive some assistance through this program.
More comprehensive coverage, of course, is available through private insurance. More than 25% of Americans work for an employer that offers domestic partner benefits; 51% percent of Fortune 500 companies offer domestic partner health benefits; and 37% of all Americans live in states where some legal protection of same-sex partner arrangements exist (marriage, civil unions, or domestic partner benefits.)
Back to Robert and Carl.
Robert has a full-time, secure job, and both he and his employer contribute towards Roberts' health insurance. When Robert married Carl, they looked forward to Carl's being added to Roberts policy as a spouse, thus providing not only coverage for Carl's HIV medicine, but for the entire range of normal health care for which the typical American might visit the doctor or the hospital. Robert, who had been married before, had already had his children (and formerly, an ex-wife), on his family policy.
Enter the federal Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA").
Under DOMA, the federal government agencies are prohibited from recognizing the validity of same-sex unions of any kind, even when they are authorized under state law. This is a significant change to federal-state relationships, since Family Law issues have always been decided at the state level. As a result, in Rhode Island, Alabama, and Alaska first cousins may legally marry, while in Louisiana, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania such marriages are illegal. The Federal government dos not take a stand on this issue: they accept first-cousin marriages from Alaska as legal, but would reject the validity of first-cousin marriages illegally performed in Pennsylvania. In other words, the federal government normally accepts the states' definition of marriage as authoritative in the matter of marriage.
Under DOMA, however, the federal government will not consider a same-sex marriage, validly performed under state law, as a valid marriage under federal law. And that has serious federal income tax implications.
When Robert added Carl, his lawful spouse, to his family health insurance, his HR office informed him that since Carl was not a spouse under federal law, Robert would have to pay taxes on "imputed income" to Carl. "Imputed Income is the addition of the value of cash/non-cash compensation to an employees' taxable wages," and both federal income taxes and FICA (Social Security) taxes are assessed against the value of this imputed income.
Robert was shocked when he saw his next paycheck. In order to cover the imputed value of providing health insurance to his spouse - an action that is never applied to an opposite-sex spouse - his employer had withheld an additional $450/month from his paycheck.
As a middle-class income-earner, the loss of an additional $5,400 annually was too much to absorb. Robert removed Carl from his health insurance policy, and Carl applied for - and received - HIV coverage under the Ryan White Act.
The sad reality is that without DOMA, Carl could have been added to a private insurance policy just as any other spouse could be, without the punishing effect of federal taxes associated with imputed income.
Because of DOMA, American taxpayers will now pay a minimum of $36,000 annually for Carl. And this is just a single instance of a pattern that is replicated across the nation.
There are over 1.1 million HIV positive Americans. 30% receive assistance through the Two Billion dollar plus Ryan White Care Act. Close to half might currently or eventually be eligible for private insurance coverage through spouses, civil unions, domestic partnership arrangements, or company policies.
Fiscal Conservatives, take note: one of the single most significant actions you could take to reduce spending and taxpayer burden, while improving health care provisions for hundreds of thousands of Americans, is to repeal the provision of DOMA that prohibits federal recognition of valid state marriages.
The only real question is whether you believe that punishing homosexual couples is a more important public policy goal.
*Robert and Carl are not their real names, but they are real people and the dollar figures and story are entirely accurate.
--------------------------
SOURCES:
CDC 'HIV Prevalence Estimates -- United States, 2006' MMWR 57(39), 3 October 2008
http://health.msn.com/health-t...
http://aids.about.com/od/hivme...
AIDS Drug Assistance Programs (ADAPs) - Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation Fact Sheet
U.S. Census Bureau. "County Business Patterns: 2000."
Human Rights Campaign, "State of the Workplace: 2006."
http://www.haasjr.org/index.php
http://definitions.uslegal.com...
Yesterday, New Hampshire legislators protected marriage equality by rejecting two bills: HB1590 and CACR28. HB1590 would repeal same-sex marriage in New Hampshire, and CACR28 would amend the NH Constitution to recognize marriage as only between a man and a woman. While both bills were defeated, it makes one wonder why other people's unions should be such a cause for concern. The chief proponents of anti-gay propaganda-the religious right-seems to think that their views must be imposed upon everybody, completely disregarding what the U.S. Constitution says.
Conservative Christian organizations hold fast to their belief that we are a Christian nation, and that the word of God, as they interpret it from the Bible, should be enforced in the U.S.. It is true that Christianity has positively influenced both Americans and our history in countless ways. But what the religious right fails to realize is that this nation was never meant to be an enforcer of religious doctrine. And while it's true that the U.S. has enforced religious laws in the past, the Constitution strongly indicates that laws made on a religious basis are invalid.
The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof [.]" These words established one of our most cherished and fundamental rights--to believe what we choose and to worship as we please. However, it is important to note that our founders also initiated the separation of church and state. Our government cannot--and should not--approve or disapprove of religion: this policy is necessary to promote equal and fair treatment of all citizens. Putting these historic facts into the context of the marriage issue, the critical question is: by prohibiting gay marriage, is our government endorsing and/or rejecting religious ideology?
The answer to this question seems to be: yes, our government is endorsing religion by prohibiting gay marriage. The argument pushed by those who oppose these marriages claim that by allowing them, we are destroying the American family. And just where do these groups draw their definition of the American family from? The answer is nearly unanimous: the Christian Bible. Of course, there are other factors, namely homophobia, ignorance, and adherence to "tradition."
The religious beliefs of homosexuals also comes into play. Our government cannot restrict how people practice their beliefs, and this means that a person can decide to accept homosexuality in their religion. Taken to the extreme, homosexuals could legally create their own religion that considers homosexuality completely acceptable. And since our government "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," a ban on gay marriage can become an infringement on citizens' religious rights.
Of course, these answers alone are not enough to validate gay marriage. Many of those in opposition to it claim that they are acting for the good of the country, to save America's families from this corruption. This is not an invalid claim. If an offender says that the first amendment gives the right, in the name of religious belief, to steal or murder, he is nonetheless punished for his crime. The restriction of government from accepting or rejecting religious ideology is no excuse for allowing harmful behavior. So we now have another critical question to answer: does gay marriage pose a threat to the American people's well being?
Despite what the opposing organizations say, there is scant evidence that homosexuals (and therefore their unions) are harmful to anybody. This can be most clearly seen in the few states that have permitted gay marriage. Their social structure has not been decimated or reduced to barbarianism. Like most of us, the majority of gays and lesbians live decent, law-abiding lives, and are not interested in destroying the meaning of family. Rather, they simply want to be accepted and treated fairly in our society, just like everyone else. It is unfortunately true that there are some radicals who behave just as the anti-gay marriage groups claim, antagonizing people and acting hostile toward the traditional ideas of family. It is important, however, to remember that they are in the minority, just like the civil rights advocates who favored violence were a minority to those who favored peace.
With the religious organizations and the gay rights advocates refusing to back down from the fight, there is no clear end to this struggle. While their concerns are understandable, religious groups are violating individual rights by trying to ban gay marriage and causing grief for an untold number of couples. We are in the middle of a movement against prejudice, the third major civil rights movement, and creating progress will be no easier than in the previous two. America will have to decide whether we prefer homosexuals to stay locked in the closet or to come out and get some fresh air.
I just got back from the party. Our hosts had a commitment ceremony 5 years ago, in another state, when it meant nothing legal, and still meant everything to them. They had a civil union two years ago, when it became legal in New Hampshire, because their commitment to each other is central to their lives. And they had a recommittment celebration tonight, at 12:01, when the paperwork they filed finally turned their civil union into a marriage.
I once thought civil union vs. marriage was a trivial distinction. I was wrong about that. There was not a dry eye tonight, and my friends are married. It was the most meaningful and joyful New Year celebration I have ever been to. Congratulations, New Hampshire, and Happy New Year!
Senator Geoge D Aiken and the 1964 Civil Rights Bill
While I respect Rep. Steve Vaillancourt's intellectual abilities and his grasp of historical precedent, I feel he was in error in Wednesday's vote on gay marriage. One must be pragmatic if social progress is to be made.
I look to the late Senator George D Aiken R-Vt. of Vermont for answers. When the 1964 Civil Rights bill ran into stiff opposition. Aiken suggested that those who rent four or fewer rooms be exempt from the law (the Mrs. Murphy's boarding house exception,) His compromise allowed this landmark piece of legislation to forward.
Two steps forward, one step back...And you are still one step ahead.
The marriage equality bill falthered on the rocks of Vaillancourt's impassed speech of dissident, but by two votes. Had Vaillancourt kept to his affirmative vote instead of jumping ship, the tie would have been broken by another affirmative vote by the house speaker.
Rep. Steve Lindsey
Ches-3
Keene, NH
See: http://learn.uvm.edu/aiken/200...
As some of you may have noticed (but most of you haven't) I have a web site TimothyHorrigan.com, which has Google AdSense ads on it. Basically, I give Google a few square inches of space which they auction off to advertisers and if someone clicks on the ads, I get a cut of the proceeds. Right now, many of the ads are incongruously urging Gov. Lynch to veto HB436.
Some actual information from the WhoIs database is shown below. The NOM is based at the same address as a conservative think tank known as the Witherspoon Institute, which sponsors seminars like "Natural Law and Economics."
The New Hampshire Senate approved a same-sex marriage bill today 13 to 11. Governor Lynch hasn't said whether or not he will allow the bill to become law without his signature or veto the bill. While the New Hampshire House still needs to vote on the Senate bill it had previously approved a same-sex marriage bill so there is almost no doubt that it will be passed and so it'll all be up to Governor Lynch about whether or not to permit same-sex marriage.
Blue Hampshire has Lynch's statement regarding the passage of the bill and they think it might be a veto. In anticipation of this, we, progressives, would like New Hampshire Citizens to write, call or fax the Governor in support of same-sex marriage. You can do that by:
Office of the Governor
State House
25 Capitol Street
Concord, NH 03301
(603)271-2121 - phone
(603)271-7680 - fax
I'm guessing that if Governor Lynch doesn't sign the bill he won't be the Democrats top pick in 2010. But, that's just my opinion.
Currently "forty-two percent of Americans now say same sex couples should be allowed to legally marry, a new CBS News/New York Times poll finds. That's up nine points from last month, when 33 percent supported legalizing same sex marriage."
And that support is showing progress in the Northeast. The Legislature's Judiciary Committee voted 11-2-1 today in support of a bill to allow gay marriage in Maine...Eleven members voted in favor of the bill, two voted against it, and one voted to send it to referendum."
It is starting to look more and more like the Northeast (New England + New York) will be a bastion for same-sex marriage by 2010. That's bound to bring the issue up in the 2012 Presidential Election. Of course, California is still the site of the most contentious fight over same-sex marriage. Amidst todays revelations the National Organization for Marriage announced that Miss California would star in their new ad against same-sex marriage.
While Conservative Groups fighting against same-sex marriage think California is the be all end all it's pretty clear that the best they can do now is delay the inevitable. We could see 5 or 6 states supporting Gay Marriage by the 2010 midterms.
I think that Nate Silver's timeline didn't factor in the possibility of a tipping point. Considering that a majority of New Yorkers support Governor Patterson's same-sex marriage bill its certainly time to start talking about whether or not same-sex marriage is at a tipping point.
After demonstrating a courageous commitment to defending heterosexuals' marriages from impending doom, a number of voters will undoubtedly turn to Senator Deb Reynolds for a similar reassurance that she be equally vigilant in protecting New Hampshire against the swine flu.
Although President Obama acknowledged on Monday that the threat of spreading swine flu infections is a matter of concern, but "not cause of alarm," one can trust that Senator Reynolds will not fall prey to the soothing words of a president who doesn't know her constituents, nor respect their fears.
He came home much happier than when he left in the morning, smiling as he handed his mother, Masika Bermudez, a glowing report card full of A's and B's. She gave him a high-five and he went upstairs to his room as she prepared dinner.
A little later, when his younger sister called him to come down to eat, Jaheem didn't answer.
So mother and daughter climbed the stairs to Jaheem's room and opened the door.
Jaheem was hanging by his belt in the closet.
"I always used to see these things on TV, dead people on the news," says Bermudez. "I saw somebody die and to see this dead person is your son, hanging there, a young boy. ... To hang yourself like that, you've got to really be tired of something."
What could drive an eleven year-old over the edge?
For Jaheem, it was being teased about his supposed sexuality:
"He used to say Mom they keep telling me this ... this gay word, this gay, gay, gay. I'm tired of hearing it, they're telling me the same thing over and over," she told CNN, as she wiped away tears from her face.
He's not the first and he won't be the last:
Less than a month before Jaheem's death, a boy in Massachusetts killed himself after being bullied, harassed and called "gay."
Eliza Byard, executive director of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, says to be effective, awareness programs need to include education about the harm that can be done by teasing someone about sexuality or perceived sexuality.
"Anti-gay language is really the ultimate weapon for a bully who wants to degrade his or her peers," she says. "And any effective response to bullying has to take that on."
Does it matter that we as a society send a message that there is a right and a wrong answer when it comes sexuality? And that you just might be on the wrong side of that?
Yeah, to an eleven-year-old boy who doesn't know who he is yet, it can matter quite a lot.
I had someone fairly close to me last night tell me in an extended conversation that I was being unreasonable, that this was a distraction. After all, there are so many other items on the agenda, and it's just words, right? Why can't "they" wait? Just until we get the important stuff out of the way?
But any parent who looks at that photo knows that there is no "they". There is us, there is the message we decide to pass on to our kids, there is the legacy we will leave.
Was Jaheem gay? Was he straight? Did he worry it might be true?
I spent a couple of hours yesterday going through all the written testimony submitted at the NH state senate hearing on HB436, on making the marriage laws in NH gender-neutral. I wondered in particular whether I'd find any arguments against GM that I hadn't run across before. I have to say that I did -- and not in a good way.
I also saw at least one reason I hadn't heard before in support of GM. And I got some insights into the testimony process I probably wouldn't have any other way. Check 'em all out below.
(A little unusual for me to be basically FP-ing a link, but it goes to a great post on the hearing today. If there are other Hamsters who have eye-witness accounts, please feel free to post them. And finally, don't miss susanthe's report on yesterday's public hearing, or her own testimony. - promoted by Dean Barker)
Not much text here as I wrote it for Daily Kos -- but it got to the Rec List so it must be good enough to shill here. :)
http://www.dailykos.com/story/...
Update: Because this went front-page, I'm cross-posting the entire diary below the fold. Still feel free to hit the original Daily Kos version -- almost 100 comments.
What an incredible week! Concord was rockin' as the winds of change blew through the capitol.
No matter which side of the political aisle you call home, or if your place of comfort is to straddle the aisle, this most recent session of the New Hampshire House of Representatives - the people's legislature - should have left you exhilarated.
Granted, no one is totally satisfied with the legislation passed. Count me as displeased with several outcomes. But I can live with that. And so can you.
And for still more, here's the text of the bill, including this summary:
This bill eliminates the exclusion of same gender couples from marriage, affirms religious freedom protections of clergy with regard to the solemnization of marriage, and provides a mechanism by which same gender couples who have entered into a civil union prior to the enactment of this bill may obtain the legal status of marriage.
Now would be a great time to contact your Representatives on this.
Of the 11 Dems, 9 supported the bill: Reps. Brendon Browne of Dover, Paul Hackel of Nashua, David Nixon of Manchester, Fran Potter of Concord, Gary Richardson of Hopkinton, Bob Thompson of Manchester, Janet Wall of Madbury, Rick Waltrous of Concord, and Lucy Weber of Walpole. One Republican, Tony DiFruscia of Windham, was the 10th supporter.
We did lose two Democrats, each of whom I respect so I won't say anything negative about their votes. Of those who spoke in defense of the bill, I have to single out Gary Richardson and Lucy Weber, each of whom did much to make the Civil Unions Law a reality two years ago. Bob Thompson, a first-termer from Manchester, was also extra-fantastic.
"I spent my whole life saying what I believe and why I believe it. Sometimes people agree with me, sometimes they don't, but I hope that in the end they respect the fact that I'm willing to tell you exactly how I feel," Horn said in an interview with Politico.
Horn described herself as a conservative Republican but said she is more moderate in supporting civil unions for same-sex couples and favoring "common-sense restrictions to protect kids from guns."
Jennifer Horn, August:
"I oppose gay marriage and would support a constitutional amendment defining marriage ... Civil unions are a culturally redefining issue and should have been put in the hands of the people through referendum."
Note also, from the second link, that Horn is a mirror match to Bradley in NH-01 - the only Republican candidate willing to enshrine discrimination into our Constitution, instead of deferring the issue to the states, like the others.
It seems that separate-but-equal civil unions in New Jersey aren't so equal. Hundreds of employers, including UPS, are refusing to treat their NJ, civil-unioned employees as married as the NJ law had intended. UPS states that their benefits are governed by federal law, not state law. However, UPS does recognize married MA same sex couples as married. Is it just the word then?
(Watching this makes me proud to live in NH. - promoted by Dean)
In the long debate last Wednesday, over whether or not to amend our Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage, Rep. Carole Estes (D-Plymouth) delivered a final speech before the vote, leaving Representatives Hall in a frenzy of applause I have never before witnessed...
Carole's words were featured in this week's edition of the House Democratic Caucus's newsletter.
Honorable Mention: Rep. Maureen Baxley, who after Carole's speech showed what a real parliamentary inquiry sounds like:
Madame Speaker, If I know that the Constitution is the document that protects our civil liberties and that this documents has never been amended to restrict or take away the rights of minorities, would I now press the green button and support the committee recommendation?
