Quest

Today the mayor of Washington D.C., Adrian Fenty, signed the marriage equality bill as promised. The National Organization for Marriage, NOM, is beside itself. NOM has promised to fight this all of the way, pledging to take up their disapproval with Congress, as the bill now goes up for the 30 day Congressional review.

As I had previously pointed out in an earlier posting (Gay Marriage Lost in New York), New York Senator Ruth Hassell-Thompson was one of the few state legislators that had impressed me as she fought for marriage equality in the New York State Senate before it was voted down on December 2, 2009. Finally, here is the video of that speech. Before the issue had come to a vote, Senator Hassell-Thompson had been undecided on marriage equality. Listen to her personal story and her conviction despite pressure from her religious family and her own church congregation. This is what we need more of from our representatives.

Here is another video. This time of New York Senator, Diane Savino, speaking on the same topic during the same debate. Take a listen. Senator Savino makes some salient points.

Senator Diane Savino

Same-sex marriage is coming to our nation's capital. The city council just passed the measure for the second time in less than a month. The bill will now go to the Mayor for his signature, which he has promised. After a 30 day Congressional review, the signed bill will become law with same-sex marriages beginning in March 2010. This of course, is providing that Congress doesn't intervene, which it is not expected to do.

As a former Houstonian, I can say that Texans have a lot of pride, and probably a little more than they should for many reasons. Having cancelled Face Book earlier this year, I'm not privy to what I imagine is going on over there by my gay friends in Texas. Whether they are boasting or not, for being the largest U.S. city to ever elect an openly gay mayor, I'm sure at the least they are very proud.

I was interviewed by Time Out New York, an arts and entertainment magazine for New Yorkers. The article, Salvation Army Bell Ringers -- Take it or Leave it, highlighted the hesitation to donate to the charity during this tough economy. Putting economic woes aside, the Salvation Army has set a collection goal of $3 million dollars for the greater New York area alone, that's a 30% increase over last year! It seems as if the Army is feeling rather confident; have you seen any of their television commercials this holiday season yet? They are running them in full force, attempting to tug at your heart strings.

However, if you had read my previous posting, Tis the Season, you already know that I have a completely different reason, unrelated to the economy, for not contributing to the Christian organization. The Army has an anti-gay stance in their employment practices, in their lobbying efforts with our government, and in their philosophy on Salvation Army soldiership (very clearly expressed on their website).

Having said all of that, I would like to set the record straight on some of the nuances of the Time Out article. The article pitted me against the director of development and community affairs for the Salvation Army. The director flat our denies any discrimination in their employment policies, yet the Army refuses to give gay employees any domestic partnership benefits, according to a Seattle Times article (Salvation Army says it isn't anti-gay, just wary of rules).

It's not only the domestic partnership policy I take issue with, but also their lobbying efforts in Washington, to see to it that LGBTs are not treated equally or fairly; not to mention the statement issued on their website which reads: ". . . same-sex relationships which genitally expressed are unacceptable to the teaching of scripture. Attempts to establish or promote such relationships as viable alternatives to a heterosexually-based family do not conform to God's will for society."

"For this reason such practices, if unrenounced, render a person ineligible for Salvation Army soldiership, in the same way that unrenounced heterosexual misconduct is a bar to soldiership."

Someone please explain to me how any of these policies, statements, and over-all philosophy is not anti-gay or out-right discriminatory? Please do not give to the Salvation Army until they change their anti-gay policies.

If you haven't been crippled by this economy and still want to make a charitable contribution, take just a few minutes and do some light research to find out which organizations do not discriminate against you or your LGBT friends.

One particular organization near and dear to my heart, which was omitted from the Time Out New York article as an alternative, is Families of Spinal Muscular Atrophy (FSMA). FSMA is a politically neutral organization devoted to funding research to find a cure for Spinal Muscular Atrophy (by which I have been afflicted). Of course there are many others which might appeal to you. I just hope you'll do a quick Google search before you contribute to any organization. Happy holidays to everyone!

I know this is a long video clip, but if you can afford 18 minutes it's so worth seeing. Rachel Maddow was at it again as she confronted Richard Cohen, an UNlicensed psychotherapist. Cohen is an "ex-gay", involved in conversion therapy and making money off of selling books on the topic. This type of conversion therapy is nothing new, but now the Ugandan government has been using his book, Coming Out Straight, to justify their proposed "kill the gays" legislation; although the statistics quoted from the book had been completely fabricated by a discredited authority, the bogus stats suggested that homosexuals were widely responsible for child molestation. Check out the video to watch Maddow mop the floor with him.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The LGBT community has support from an unlikely place, a straight rocker. Well, is it really an unlikely place? Probably not. Bruce Springsteen is well known for his support of Democratic candidates and his progressive political activism. Either way, it's great to have support from a place, which in my distant high school memories represented homophobia and oppression; I'm not speaking of Springsteen, but of my high school peers. Back in the 1980s the students who embraced rockers such as Springsteen, would have had more ignorant views on the topic. Today, however, Springsteen represents a more accepting, liberal, tolerant people.

On his website, Springsteen left this supportive statement on the subject of marriage equality in New Jersey: "Like many of you who live in New Jersey, I've been following the progress of the marriage-equality legislation currently being considered in Trenton," Springsteen wrote on his web page. "I've long believed in and have always spoken out for the rights of same sex couples and fully agree with Governor Corzine when he writes that 'The marriage-equality issue should be recognized for what it truly is -- a civil rights issue that must be approved to assure that every citizen is treated equally under the law.'"

Rock on Bruce!

New Jersey took a step in the right direction yesterday. The state Senate Judiciary Committee approved the marriage equality bill in a vote of 7-6. Now the bill is scheduled for a vote on Thursday by the state's full senate. The New Jersey media report that Thursday's vote will be close. If the bill passes the full senate on Thursday, then it goes to the state assembly for their vote.

OK, word has it that New Jersey will be the next state to vote on the issue of same-sex marriage. As of now, New Jersey has a civil unions law, which provides all of the benefits of marriage without using the word. As most know, this is a "separate but equal" status which is discriminatory. Equality is equality; and, same-sex civil unions are not truly equal unless they are considered official marriages recognized by the state (with all of the federal and state benefits which come along with it).

In a vote of 38-24, New York state lost marriage equality today. There were some impassioned speeches made by several stand-out senators that brought tears to my eyes. It was a historic stand for equality, but in the end we lost.