Looks like DC beat New York State to the gay-marriage punch on a technicality : D.C. Council votes to legalize same-sex marriage - washingtonpost.com

After months of debate, the council passed the bill 11 to 2. It still must take a second vote in two weeks before the measure can go to Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D), who has said he will sign it.

If the bill survives a required congressional review period, the District will join New Hampshire, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont and Massachusetts in allowing same-sex marriage.

There was a rumor floating around this morning that the New York State Senate was poised to vote on their version of the same-sex marriage bill that was passed by the Assembly earlier this year. What may end up holding the vote hostage? The DRP or Deficit Reduction Plan the NYSenate has been squabbling about for what seems now like an eternity.
 read more »

One year ago, Kieth Olbermann said it just right:

What I don't understand is how two consenting adults loving each other threatens anyone else? My marriage isn't threatened if gays can marry!

The so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" (PL 104-199), began life as H.R.3396, and was introduced by Bob Barr, R-GA, who turned out to have most likely cheated on his second wife with the woman who would become his third wife (yeah, he knows something about marriage all right).

It has three sections.

Section one is the title of the act, which is generally shortened to its acronym, DOMA (I can't call it by its full, official name).

Section two relieves states, territories and possessions of the U.S. (and "Indian tribes") from having to accept same-sex marriages performed in other states. It doesn't outright prohibit states from accepting them, merely lets them refuse to do so. This is in direct conflict with Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which begins: "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."

In other words, section two of DOMA seeks to let states not give "Full Faith and Credit" to same-sex marriages performed in other states; it is clearly unconstitutional.  read more »

In the latest skirmishes over the 39th City Council race, things have taken a somewhat bizarre and, to me, unexpected turn.

Recently, one candidate, probably the most conservative in the race, John Heyer, has come under attack from Gatemouth on Room 8, district leader Alan Fleishman, and others for his anti-choice and anti-marriage equality (though, often ignored, pro-civil union) stands. This should have come as no surprise to Heyer and his campaign since the district is overwhelmingly pro-choice and pro-marriage equality and in any circumstance when a candidate holds views distinctly different from that of the majority of voters in the district, that candidate HAS to be ready to address why, despite this difference of ideology, that candidate will still represent the voters in that district.  read more »

WNBC-TV's coverage of Sunday's competing marriage equality rallies was biased due to inexcusable (read: "deliberate"?) factual inaccuracy.

In their piece (available on their website), they correctly state that the anti-equality rally had "[t]housands of protesters." But they only credited "several hundred people" for showing up at the pro-equality rally.

There were thousands. I know; I was there.

In addition, their broadcast coverage of Mayor Bloomberg made it unclear which side he was on, although the webpage makes it clear.

Finally, their webpage showing pictures from the rally and attendant events has an error -- slide 10 lists Tom Duane as Daniel O'Donnell.

It's bad enough that we have to deal with inbred prejudice among too many of our state senators; we shouldn't have to deal with the same bias on broadcast television.