Five hundred days remaining

"A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true sight, restore their government to its true principles. It is true that in the mean time we are suffering deeply in spirit, and incurring the horrors of a war & long oppressions of enormous public debt.... If the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have patience till luck turns, & then we shall have an opportunity of winning back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are the stake."

-- Thomas Jefferson


Saturday, 08 September 2007, is noteworthy. We are only 500 days from Tuesday, 20 January 2009, the day that a new president of the United States of America will be sworn in.

If the American people choose wisely, and if our votes are counted properly, it is only 500 days until:

♦ honor is restored to our White House;

♦ the rule of law is again enforced by our Justice Department;

♦ those who say "I swear to uphold the Constitution" are no longer committing perjury;

♦ the Geneva Conventions are again revered as solemn cornerstones of a civilized society, and as bulwarks against barbarism from within;

♦ chronic, relentless, heinous dereliction of duty in the Oval Office stops immediately;

♦ pursuit of the murderer of three thousand Americans begins in earnest;

♦ the remainder of our weary men and women in uniform come home to the heroes' welcome they deserve;

♦ criminal spying on U.S. citizens on American soil stops;

♦ the lost city of New Orleans begins its resurrection from the dead in earnest;

♦ voodoo is banished from the Surgeon General's office, from the National Institutes of Health, and from the Centers for Disease Control;

♦ polar bears take a step back from extinction;

♦ the wealthy get no more tax cuts in time of war;

♦ a vice president is sworn in who does not go to Capitol Hill to argue in favor of torture, who does not go drinking and shooting, who does not use the vilest of language on the floor of the United States Senate, who does not hide from subpoenas and reporters, who has not been arrested more times than all other vice presidents in American history combined, who is not, in short, an international disgrace and an historic embarrassment;

♦ a president is sworn in who does not hide among schoolchildren in Florida while Americans are choosing between death by fire and death by gravity, who does not hide in Louisiana while Americans are fighting hijackers to the death over Pennsylvania, who does not hide in Nebraska while Americans are wondering where the hell their president is and why he will not lead, who does not use the solemn and historic State of the Union address to Congress to lie our nation into a war against a country that did not attack us and which was no threat to us, who does not invite terrorists to kill American soldiers by taunting them to "Bring it on", who does not strut around in a borrowed flight suit, who does not send our men and women in uniform to fight and die without body armor and without vehicular armor, who does not allow his subordinates to disclose the identity of one of our top intelligence agents to our enemies as political retribution against that agent's spouse, who does not allow two of the most unstable totalitarian regimes in the world to go nuclear on his watch, who has not been arrested more times than all other presidents in American history combined, who is not, in short, an international disgrace and an historic embarrassment;

♦ a president and vice president are sworn in who will appeal to our better natures, who will work to lift up the least among us, who will spend the next four to eight years restoring our nation's credibility, who have learned the lessons of history and who will not repeat it, and who will, as Lincoln said, "bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."

If the American people choose wisely and if our votes are counted properly, it is only 500 days until we get our country back.

We'll be taking the blog down again for redesign. And we're going to Hawaii. We'll be back in a few weeks.

Stonewall Young Democrat elected president of Los Angeles Stonewall Democratic Club

Los Angeles Stonewall Young Democrats co-founder John Cleary has been elected president of the Los Angeles Stonewall Democratic Club, one of the oldest and most successful LGBT Democratic clubs in the country.

The Los Angeles Stonewall Democratic Club was founded after the Stonewall Riots by the venerable Morris Kight, an LGBT pioneer to whom the community owes much. Recent presidents have included Michael Andraychak, Pam Cooke, and Eric Bauman.

The Stonewall Young Democrats was founded in 2004 by Cleary and Andrew Lachman. A description of SYD is on their Wikipedia page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_Young_Democrats .

The web site for the Los Angeles Stonewall Democratic Club is at http://stonewall-dems.org .

The web site for the Los Angeles Stonewall Young Democrats is at http://www.stonewallyoungdems.org .

The deep thinking of Fort Lauderdale Mayor Jim Naugle

This is provided by the folks at Flush Naugle, the umbrella group of Fort Lauderdale citizens opposed to the blatant bigotry and erratic behavior of Mayor Jim Naugle. They do accept contributions on their web site via PayPal.

Naugles

"Atheists and Criminal Lobbying Union" regarding the meaning of the acronym ACLU.

New Times, October 26, 2000


"I don't use the word 'gay.' I use the word 'homosexual.' Most of them aren't gay. They're unhappy."

Sun-Sentinel, July 4, 2007


"I'm supposed to subsidize some schlock sitting on the sofa and drinking a beer, who won't work more than 40 hours a week?"

Sun-Sentinel, May 20, 2006


Regarding a proposal to reduce greenhouse gases, calling it "hate-America stuff" concocted by "a bunch of scientists meeting in Paris who've had too much wine.”

Sun-Sentinel May 9, 2007


"We're trying to provide a family environment where people can take their children who need to use the bathroom without having to worry about a couple of men in there engaged in a sex act."

Sun-Sentinel, July 4, 2007


Stating public restrooms are pickup places for "homosexuals. ... They're engaging in sex, anonymous sex, illegal sex."

Sun-Sentinel, July 4, 2007


"Yes" responding to the question "o homosexuality is a criminal act?"

New Times, October 26, 2000


"The Scum-Sentinel is an advertising tabloid newsblog. They hire reporters and they make them churn out stories without making them get into anything in depth. They do that to feign a resemblance to a real newspaper so that they can sell advertising. And the Sentinel tries to lecture me about affordable housing? I tell people that the day I take advice from a company that has vagrants selling their products in the middle of the street, we're all in trouble."

New Times, April 21, 2006


"That's illegal too [heterosexual sex in public restrooms], but nobody ever complains about that."

Sun-Sentinel, July 4, 2007


"I think a strong rope and a stiff tree would be better than wasting all that electricity."

New Times (Broward Palm Beach Edition), October 26, 2000

Opposition builds to bigoted Fort Lauderdale mayor

Opposition to Fort Lauderdale mayor Jim Naugle continues to build following bizarre remarks he made that buying a $250,000 single-occupancy toilet for the beach would cut down on gay sex in public bathrooms. Naugle also voted against moving a collection of LGBT literature into the city's library.

According to this morning's Miami Herald, hundreds of citizens have contributed about $10,000 to fund a full-blown protest rally against the mayor's bigotry tonight at city hall. Non-LGBT supporters will participate, and the Task Force's Matt Foreman will attend as well.

Seattle Times calls for legalization of gay marriage

Washington state's domestic partnership law took effect Sunday, but gay marriage supporters like out state Senator Ed Murray say it doesn't go far enough.

The Seattle Times agrees in an editorial in today's edition:

First comes partnership, then comes marriage

Gay marriage took another step down the aisle toward the altar of legality when the state's new domestic-partnership law went into effect this week.

The march toward marriage equality in Washington has been a three-decade struggle, which finally gained a foothold when the Legislature passed the domestic-partnership law last year. The state should now go further, and extend marriage to gays and lesbians. The state is already in the business of marriage. It has no good reason to exclude a large swath of residents because of sexual orientation. The domestic-partnership law, which went into effect Sunday, had people swarming to Olympia to register Monday. The law provides gay and lesbian couples some of the rights granted to married couples, such as the right to visit a partner in the hospital. The law also covers heterosexual couples when one partner is at least 62 years old.

The domestic-partnership law fortifies the argument for gay marriage. Supporters need to return to Olympia and push for what they should be civilly entitled to.

"This isn't an end," state Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, who was the force behind the law, told The Seattle Times. He said he and other gay lawmakers will continue to push bills with additional rights for lesbian and gay couples.

Good for them. Murray will need sustained help from non-gay legislators because the path to marriage equality took a hit last year when the Washington Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act, which bans same-sex marriage. The muddied ruling puts the question squarely back in the state Capitol.

Recognizing the rights of domestic partners is not gay marriage, but it is a step in the procession leading to the inevitable: the legalization of gay marriage.

Massachusetts marriage foes concede defeat, will target legislators

Massachusetts supporters of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage admitted they do not have the support to pass such a ban in the democratically-elected legislature, so they are going to target those pesky equality-lovin' legislators.

None of them is divorced, we're sure.

See today's Boston Globe.

Democratic debate's gay questions

On gay marriage, Kucinich shone, Edwards and Dodd stumbled all over their own contradictions, and Obama incredibly argued for states rights, which was historically used to justify racist laws -- including laws against interracial marriage.

Transcript

COOPER: Our next question is on a topic that got a lot of response from YouTube viewers. Let's watch.

QUESTION: Hi. My name is Mary.

QUESTION: And my name is Jen.

QUESTION: And we're from Brooklyn, New York.

If you were elected president of the United States, would you allow us to be married to each other?

COOPER: Congressman Kucinich?

KUCINICH: Mary and Jen, the answer to your question is yes. And let me tell you why.

(APPLAUSE)

Because if our Constitution really means what it says, that all are created equal, if it really means what it says, that there should be equality of opportunity before the law, then our brothers and sisters who happen to be gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered should have the same rights accorded to them as anyone else, and that includes the ability to have a civil marriage ceremony.

Yes, I support you. And welcome to a better and a new America under a President Kucinich administration.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: Senator Dodd, you supported the Defense of Marriage Act. What's your position?

DODD: I've made the case, Anderson, that -- my wife and I have two young daughters, age 5 and 2.

I'd simply ask the audience to ask themselves the question that Jackie and I have asked: How would I want my two daughters treated if they grew up and had a different sexual orientation than their parents?

Good jobs, equal opportunity, to be able to retire, to visit each other, to be with each other, as other people do.

So I feel very strongly, if you ask yourself the question, "How would you like your children treated if they had a different sexual orientation than their parents?," the answer is yes. They ought to have that ability in civil unions.

I don't go so far as to call for marriage. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman.

But my state of Connecticut, the state of New Hampshire, have endorsed civil unions. I strongly support that. But I don't go so far as marriage.

COOPER: Governor Richardson?

RICHARDSON: Well, I would say to the two young women, I would level with you -- I would do what is achievable.

What I think is achievable is full civil unions with full marriage rights. I would also press for you a hate crimes act in the Congress. I would eliminate "don't ask/don't tell" in the military.

(APPLAUSE)

If we're going to have in our military men and women that die for this country, we shouldn't give them a lecture on their sexual orientation.

I would push for domestic partnership laws, nondiscrimination in insurance and housing.

I would also send a very strong message that, in my administration, I will not tolerate any discrimination on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: This next question is for Senator Edwards.

QUESTION: I'm Reverend Reggie Longcrier. I'm the pastor of Exodus Mission and Outreach Church in Hickory, North Carolina.

Senator Edwards said his opposition to gay marriage is influenced by his Southern Baptist background. Most Americans agree it was wrong and unconstitutional to use religion to justify slavery, segregation, and denying women the right to vote.

So why is it still acceptable to use religion to deny gay American their full and equal rights?

(APPLAUSE)

EDWARDS: I think Reverend Longcrier asks a very important question, which is whether fundamentally -- whether it's right for any of our faith beliefs to be imposed on the American people when we're president of the United States. I do not believe that's right.

I feel enormous personal conflict about this issue. I want to end discrimination. I want to do some of the things that I just heard Bill Richardson talking about -- standing up for equal rights, substantive rights, civil unions, the thing that Chris Dodd just talked about. But I think that's something everybody on this stage will commit themselves to as president of the United States.

But I personally have been on a journey on this issue. I feel enormous conflict about it. As I think a lot of people know, Elizabeth spoke -- my wife Elizabeth spoke out a few weeks ago, and she actually supports gay marriage. I do not. But this is a very, very difficult issue for me. And I recognize and have enormous respect for people who have a different view of it.

COOPER: I should also point out that the reverend is actually in the audience tonight. Where is he? Right over here.

Reverend, do you feel he answered your question?

(APPLAUSE)

QUESTION: This question was just a catalyst that promoted some other things that wrapped around that particular question, especially when it comes to fair housing practices. Also...

COOPER: Do you think he answered the question, though?

QUESTION: Not like I would like to have heard it...

(LAUGHTER)

COOPER: What did you not hear?

QUESTION: I didn't quite get -- some people were moving around, and I didn't quite get all of his answer. I just heard...

COOPER: All right, there's 30 seconds more. Why is it OK to quite religious beliefs when talking about why you don't support something? That's essentially what's his question.

EDWARDS: It's not. I mean, I've been asked a personal question which is, I think, what Reverend Longcrier is raising, and that personal question is, do I believe and do I personally support gay marriage?

The honest answer to that is I don't. But I think it is absolutely wrong, as president of the United States, for me to have used that faith basis as a basis for denying anybody their rights, and I will not do that when I'm president of the United States.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: Senator Obama, the laws banning interracial marriage in the United States were ruled unconstitutional in 1967. What is the difference between a ban on interracial marriage and a ban on gay marriage?

OBAMA: Well, I think that it is important to pick up on something that was said earlier by both Dennis and by Bill, and that is that we've got to make sure that everybody is equal under the law. And the civil unions that I proposed would be equivalent in terms of making sure that all the rights that are conferred by the state are equal for same-sex couples as well as for heterosexual couples.

Now, with respect to marriage, it's my belief that it's up to the individual denominations to make a decision as to whether they want to recognize marriage or not. But in terms of, you know, the rights of people to transfer property, to have hospital visitation, all those critical civil rights that are conferred by our government, those should be equal.

Biden campaigns among Iowa City's gay community

Biden campaigns among Iowa City's gay community

Red, white, and blue banners shared the stage with a few more colorful flags as Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., hosted a conversation with the Iowa City gay community on the outdoor patio of Givanni's on Monday night....

David Klemm, an Iowa City resident for 24 years and a gay-rights supporter, wore a "Biden for President" button next to his rainbow ribbon.

"The gay-rights community is an educated and intellectual community, and they, too, have to think about health care, and Iraq, and other issues," he said.

Klemm said he respects that the senator assumed "not one iota of difference of how people are treated in this country."

Toward the end of his speech, Biden addressed gay-rights issues specifically, calling the current administration "homophobic." He praised the community for its efforts in protecting civil rights.

"You've done an incredible service to humanity," he said.

He emphasized to the crowd that gay-rights supporters are the majority, calling the opposition a "dying dinosaur breed."

Follow the headline link for the rest of the story.

Michael Moore may tackle gay rights

He took on General Motors, the NRA, George W. Bush, and the health care system. Michael Moore is now thinking about tackling the anti-gay industry.

Michael Moore may tackle gay rights

Controversial filmmaker Michael Moore has revealed that he might take on homophobia and the anti-gay movement in his next documentary.

"I think it’s a very ripe subject for someone like me to make a movie about," he admitted, in an interview with The Advocate. "Simply because we are not there yet and it remains one of the last open wounds on our soul that we are not willing to fix yet."

Moore, whose latest film Sicko attacks the U.S. health care system, expressed anger at fundamentalist Christians in the U.S. who condemn same-sex marriage.

"There is nowhere in the four Gospels where Jesus uses the word ‘homosexual.’ The right wing has appropriated this guy … and they have used him to attack gays and lesbians, when he never said a single word against people who are homosexual. Anyone who professes to be a Christian and does that is certainly not following the teachings of Jesus Christ."

Follow the headline link for the rest of the story.

Gays included at South Carolina Democratic Convention

Forwarded by Barbra Casbar Siperstein:

Gays Included at South Carolina Democratic Convention

BY GREG HAMBRICK

Six months ago, gay and lesbian Democrats in South Carolina were licking their wounds after losing a battle against amending the state constitution to prohibit gay marriage, with some of those wounds caused by leaders in their own party who refused to oppose the measure, or worse still, openly supported it. Now, the state Democratic Party is doing some fence-mending, setting a goal of including at least three gay and lesbian delegates amongst those heading to the national convention, that ridiculously excited bunch of folks that symbolically selects the party's presidential candidate.

Follow the headline link for the rest of the story.

Note to self: Dodd voted to confirm Roberts

The Supreme Court ended its term last week with a decidedly more conservative bent. The replacement of Justices Rehnquist and O'Connor (a conservative and a swing) by Roberts and Alito (two conservatives) solidified the right wing's hold on the nation's jurisprudence.

A number of decisions were handed down with 5-4 majorities, with Roberts and Alito in the majority in most of them. Among the 5-4 decisions:

♦ the Seattle School District case wherein the Court rolled back racial integration efforts;
♦ a female worker who learns she had been paid less than men has only 180 days to sue for discrimination;
♦ the Bong Hits for Jesus case that substantially reduced the free speech rights of American students;
♦ a ruling that a federal ban on "partial birth" abortions does not put an undue burden on women seeking to end a pregnancy.

Among the four Democratic Senators who are now running for President, Dodd alone cast a vote for this agenda. He voted with all 55 Republicans to confirm Roberts as Chief Justice; Biden, Clinton, and Obama all voted no.

All four voted against Alito's confirmation.

Homophobe fails bar exam, blames gay marriage question, sues

Ironically, his only hope would be in an activist court.

Bar-exam flunker sues, blaming failure on gay question

"A Boston man has filed a federal lawsuit claiming he failed his state's bar exam because he refused to answer a question about gay marriage that he believes was being used as a "screening device."

Stephen Dunne, 30, was denied a licence to practice law after he narrowly flunked the Massachusetts test with a score of 268.866, just shy of the 270 passing grade.

The self-described Christian and Democrat is seeking $9.75 million in damages and will be representing himself in the case."

Follow the headline link for the rest of the story.

Clinton, Kerry threw us under the train in 2004

From this morning's Washington Post:

In 2004, aides to Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), the Democratic presidential nominee, were so worried about black voters' feelings about same-sex marriage that they put Bill Clinton on a conference call with 3,000 black pastors so the former president could reassure the pastors that Kerry truly did oppose same-sex marriage.

Elderly aunt disses Mitt Romney over gay marriage

House unanimously agrees that marriage is "basic civil right"

U.S. House Resolution 431, introduced by Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI-02), commemorates the 1967 Loving v. Virginia U.S. Supreme Court ruling that overturned state laws against interracial marriage. The resolution states that "marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man' at the heart of the 14th Amendment protections". The House unanimously passed H. Res. 431 on Monday.

Rep. Baldwin presented a learned exposition of the history that led to the Court's decision, and an eloquent argument against bigotry and injustice.

Rep. Steve King (R-IA-05) gave the Republican response, repeatedly referring to marriage as being between "one man and one woman".

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2007_record&page=H6187&position=all"

RECOGNIZING 40TH ANNIVERSARY OF LOVING V. VIRGINIA LEGALIZING INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE -- (House of Representatives - June 11, 2007)

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 431) recognizing the 40th anniversary of Loving v. Virginia legalizing interracial marriage within the United States.

The Clerk read the title of the resolution.

The text of the resolution is as follows:

H. Res. 431

Whereas the first anti-miscegenation law in the United States was enacted in Maryland in 1661;

Whereas miscegenation was typically a felony under State laws prohibiting interracial marriage punishable by imprisonment or hard labor;

Whereas in 1883, the Supreme Court held in Pace v. Alabama that anti-miscegenation laws were consistent with the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment as long as the punishments given to both white and black violators are the same;

Whereas in 1912, a constitutional amendment was proposed in the House of Representatives prohibiting interracial marriage "between negroes or persons of color and Caucasians";

Whereas in 1923, the Supreme Court held in Meyer v. Nebraska that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment guarantees the right of an individual "to marry, establish a home and bring up children";

Whereas in 1924, Virginia enacted the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which required that a racial description of every person be recorded at birth and prevented marriage between "white persons" and non-white persons;

Whereas in 1948, the California Supreme Court overturned the State's anti-miscegenation statutes, thereby becoming the first State high court to declare a ban on interracial marriage unconstitutional and making California the first State to do so in the 20th century;

Whereas the California Supreme Court stated in Perez v. Sharp that "a member of any of these races may find himself barred from marrying the person of his choice and that person to him may be irreplaceable. Human beings are bereft of worth and dignity by a doctrine that would make them as interchangeable as trains";

Whereas by 1948, 38 States still forbade interracial marriage, and 6 did so by State constitutional provision;

Whereas in June of 1958, 2 residents of the Commonwealth of Virginia--Mildred Jeter, a black/Native American woman, and Richard Perry Loving, a Caucasian man--were married in Washington, DC;

Whereas upon their return to Virginia, Richard Perry Loving and Mildred Jeter Loving were charged with violating Virginia's anti-miscegenation statutes, a felonious crime;

Whereas the Lovings subsequently pleaded guilty and were sentenced to 1 year in prison, with the sentence suspended for 25 years on condition that the couple leave the State of Virginia;

Whereas Leon Bazile, the trial judge of the case, proclaimed that "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.";

Whereas the Lovings moved to the District of Columbia, and in 1963 they began a series of lawsuits challenging their convictions;

Whereas the convictions were upheld by the State courts, including the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia;

Whereas the Lovings appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of the United States on the ground that the Virginia anti-miscegenation laws violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment and were therefore unconstitutional;

Whereas in 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to Loving v. Virginia and readily overturned the Lovings' convictions;

Whereas in the unanimous opinion, Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote: "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival....... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.";

Whereas the opinion also stated that "the Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.";

Whereas in 1967, 16 States still had law prohibiting interracial marriage, including Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia;

Whereas Loving v. Virginia struck down the remaining anti-miscegenation laws nationwide;

Whereas in 2000, Alabama became the last State to remove its anti-miscegenation laws from its statutes;

Whereas according to the U.S. Census Bureau, from 1970 to 2000 the percentage of interracial marriages has increased from 1 percent of all marriages to more than 5 percent;

Whereas the number of children living in interracial families has quadrupled between 1970 to 2000, going from 900,000 to more than 3 million; and

Whereas June 12th has been proclaimed "Loving Day" by cities and towns across the country in commemoration of Loving v. Virginia: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) observes the 40th Anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia; and

(2) commemorates the legacy of Loving v. Virginia in ending the ban on interracial marriage in the United States and in recognizing that marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man"at the heart of the 14th Amendment protections.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Altmire). Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) each will control 20 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.

GENERAL LEAVE

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Wisconsin?

There was no objection.

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 431, a resolution I introduced along with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), commemorating the 40th anniversary of Loving v. Virginia, the landmark Supreme Court decision legalizing interracial marriages within the United States.

I thank Chairman Conyers for expedition consideration of this resolution so it could be brought to the floor before the actual date of the anniversary which is tomorrow, June 12.

In June of 1958, two residents of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a black Native American woman, and Richard Perry Loving, a Caucasian man, were married in Washington, D.C. Upon their return to Virginia, Richard Perry Loving and Mildred Jeter Loving were charged with violating Virginia's anti-miscegenation statutes, which made their marriage a felony.

They challenged their convictions, culminating in the June 12, 1967, U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Loving v. Virginia, striking down the remaining anti-miscegenation laws that were still in effect in 16 States.

In the unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court rejected bigotry against interracial relations, recognizing an individual's right to marry under the 14th amendment. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote: "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival ..... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the 14th amendment, is surely to deprive all the States' citizens of liberty without due process of law."

The opinion also stated that "the 14th amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

The Loving decision marked a critical step forward in our Nation's struggle toward equal rights for all, particularly full marriage equality. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, from 1970 to the year 2000 the percentage of interracial marriages has increased from 1 percent of all marriages to more than 5 percent. The number of children living in interracial families has quadrupled between 1970 and 2000, going from 900,000 to more than 3 million. Because of the decision's profound impact in our society, numerous cities and towns across this country have already proclaimed June 12 Loving Day in commemoration of this decision.

Indeed, the Supreme Court's opinion forcefully rejected the argument employed by Leon Bazile, the trial judge of the case, who defended his decision convicting the Lovings as part of God's plan. Unfortunately, after 40 years, similar types of arguments are still being employed by a few to deny full marriage equality to everyone.

In commemorating the legacy of Loving v. Virginia in ending the ban on interracial marriage in the United States, H. Res. 431 reaffirms the Loving court's recognition that marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man" at the heart of the 14th amendment protections.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this timely resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to thank the gentlewoman from Wisconsin for presenting this resolution to this Congress, and I notice that many of the statements that she has made have laid out I think the history of this Loving case very well to the Congress, and so what I will seek to do is perhaps just add and fill in perhaps some of the blanks that may have been left, although I'm not convinced that there are many.

And that is the emphasis on equal protection and due process clause of the 14th amendment. I think it was clear when a unanimous decision in the Supreme Court in the Loving case, and it isn't often that you see an issue that has been traditionally rooted from the time of our Founders up until 1967, have a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court, even though it met that resistance at every step of the way throughout the entire appeals process until it got to the Supreme Court.

Today, it looks like a clear decision. It looks easy; it's simple. None of us would have any trouble with this Loving decision; but, in fact, then it was a matter of an idea whose time had finally come.

But the Supreme Court laid out very clear language in their decision that legislative classifications based on race were "odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality," and further condemned Virginia's interracial marriage statute. And then the Court concluded: "There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the equal protection clause."

I just appreciate the privilege to emphasize those things, and then I'd like to add then some other thoughts to this record, Mr. Speaker, and that is that we rightfully celebrate the anniversary of the landmark decision here today. The institution of marriage between one man and one woman is older than the Nation itself. It predates government itself, and it also limits the power of government because traditional families are the fundamental units of our society.

Through them, we pour through that crucible our values from a father and a mother into the children and the values of our patriotism, our faith, our work ethic, our culture. The things we eat and the things we do, every component of our culture and civilization is concentrated through those values of those children that we have and that we're so well-blessed with; and without marriage, government would be bound to expand to take its place and would try lamely to do so.

But marriage embraces only one principle, and that is the marriage of a union between a man and a woman, and the further distinction of that and to have government draw a distinction between people based upon their ethnicity should be abhorrent to a free people.

And I stand here, Mr. Speaker, before you this afternoon, and I take this position that I believe we are all created in God's image, and what He has created, I believe it's an insult to Him if we draw distinctions between His creation. He has also seen to bless us with some specific characteristics that help us identify one another. And because He has seen to bless us with those characteristics, and in this case it was skin color, it doesn't mean it still isn't a reflection of God's image.

And I recall stepping into a church in Port Gibson, Mississippi, the Catholic church there that was built in 1848 by the hands of some of the family of Jim Bowie, and the priest in that church was Father Tony Pudenz, and he showed me in the church that this church that was built in 1848, the floor of the church was built for whites, the balcony was built for blacks. And just a week before that, they had buried the editor of the newspaper who had in 1967 taken his white family from the floor of the church and walked his five children and his wife up there where they sat in the balcony with the African Americans, thereby sending a statement where half of the congregation walked across the street to the Episcopal church where they go to church to this very day. But the balance of that congregation is an integrated congregation.

And so I would say we can't be for equality if we're not in support of intermarriage. God has created us all equally, and based upon that, I support this resolution. I think it's appropriate that we bring it today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, the Loving v. Virginia decision was a milestone in our continuing efforts to fulfill the original promises of our Constitution, fulfilling the blessings of liberty for all Americans. It is highly fitting that we remember and honor the decision on its 40th anniversary. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) that the House suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 431.

The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the resolution was agreed to.

A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Senator Craig Thomas (R-WY) dead

Senator Craig Thomas (R-WY) has died. He had the following HRC scores, with a career average of 12:

2006 (109th Congress) 0
2004 (108th Congress) 0
2002 (107th Congress) 14
2000 (106th Congress) 14
1998 (105th Congress) 33
1996 (104th Congress) 22
1994 (103rd Congress) 0 (House)

Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA-02) indicted

Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA-02) has been indicted on multiple bribery and conspiracy charges. He has the following HRC scores, with a career average of 85. Oddly, his scores started on a precipitous decline shortly after the indictment says that the alleged bribery conspiracy began.

2006 (109th Congress) 38
2004 (108th Congress) 77
2002 (107th Congress) 100
2000 (106th Congress) 100
1998 (105th Congress) 100
1996 (104th Congress) 78
1994 (103rd Congress) 100

Biden statement on New Hampshire civil unions

BIDEN ISSUES STATEMENT ON GOVERNOR LYNCH'S SIGNING OF THE CIVIL UNIONS BILL
Published: 05/31/2007

Wilmington, DE – Sen. Joe Biden issued the following statement today on Governor John Lynch’s signing of H.B. 437, the Civil Unions bill.

"I applaud Governor Lynch and the leaders in the State House for fighting to protect individual rights – which today has resulted in the establishment of civil unions in New Hampshire. Government has an obligation to ensure that freedom and justice are equally applied to each American - that no individual is discriminated against because of race, gender, religion or sexual orientation. As a nation, we are making progress recognizing civil unions as an issue of individual liberty. The state of New Hampshire has once again proven to be one of the nation's leaders on this front."

Obama statement on Pride month

Obama Statement on Pride Month
June 01, 2007
CHICAGO , IL-- U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) today released the following statement to commemorate Pride Month.

"Pride Month is a reminder that while we have come a long way since the Stonewall riots in 1969, we still have a lot of work to do."

"Too often, the issue of LGBT rights is exploited by those seeking to divide us. But at its core, this issue is about who we are as Americans. It's about whether this nation is going to live up to its founding promise of equality by treating all its citizens with dignity and respect."

"It's time to turn the page on the bitterness and bigotry that fill so much of today's LGBT rights debate. The rights of all Americans should be protected -- whether it's at work or anyplace else. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" needs to be repealed because patriotism and a sense of duty should be the key tests for military service, not sexual orientation. Civil unions should give gay couples full rights. And those who commit hate crimes should be punished no matter whether those crimes are committed on account of race, religion, gender identity, or sexual orientation."

"This Pride Month, let's make our founding promise of equality a reality for every American."

Clinton statement on Pride month

Senator Clinton not only sent out a press release with the words "gay" and "lesbian", but one with "bisexual" and "transgender" this time:

Statement from Hillary Clinton On Gay & Lesbian Pride Month

"As we celebrate Gay and Lesbian Pride Month, I want to commend the LGBT community on a historic year that brought our country closer to equality and closer to ending discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans. Just a year ago, I worked with my Democratic colleagues in the Senate as well as with LGBT leaders to defeat the divisive and discriminatory Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA). Since then, we not only defeated FMA, but we have been able to make real progress in achieving fairness for all Americans. In fact, since June 2006, New Jersey and New Hampshire became the third and fourth states to adopt civil unions and Washington and Iowa were added to the list of states that outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. A similar bill in Colorado is expected to be signed into law soon. And in Congress, we are finally on the verge of passing the Matthew Shepherd Act, which would expand hate crimes laws to include sexual orientation and gender identity. What a difference a year makes.

"The start of Gay and Lesbian Pride Month is a great time to celebrate these recent victories but also to reflect on all the work that still needs to be done. Unfortunately, while this is the first time in years that hate crimes legislation has a strong chance of passing both houses of Congress, President Bush has already signaled that he would veto this landmark bill. The truth is we will see little progress for the LGBT community at the national level until we have a new Democratic president. For six long years, the Bush Administration has only seen the families that matter to them. It's been a government of the few, by the few, and for the few. And no community has been more invisible to this administration than the LGBT community.

"I'm running for president to replace the divisive leadership of the past six years -- leadership that views no issue and no family above the reach of politics. America deserves a president who appeals to the best in each of us, not the worst; a president who values and respects all Americans, gay and straight; a president who treats all Americans equally no matter who they are or who they love.

"I'm proud of my record standing up for the LGBT community during my years as First Lady and as a U.S. Senator. But when I take office in January 2009, we'll finally be able to define success by more than the bigotry we stopped and the bad decisions we prevented. America will finally have a president who moves this country forward. When I am president, we will work together to make sure that all Americans in committed relationships have equal benefits and that nothing stands in the way of loving couples who want to adopt children in need. We're going to finally expand our federal hate crimes legislation and pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. It is just plain wrong that in the year 2007, people who work hard and do a good job every day can still be fired because of who they love. And finally, we will put an end to the failed policy of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Courage, honor, patriotism and sacrifice -- the traits that define our men and women in uniform -- have nothing to do with sexual orientation.

"I am honored to have the support of so many people in the LGBT community and look forward to working with the community closely throughout the campaign. Together, we can continue the journey America has been on from the very beginning -- to form a more perfect union and realize the goals and values we believe in. That's the promise of America -- and that's why I'm running for president."

Hometown newspaper calls on Baldwin to join impeachment movement

The Capital Times, one of out Democratic Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin's hometown newspapers in Madison, Wisconsin, is calling on her to join the burgeoning impeachment movement against Bush and Cheney. Excerpts from the editorial:

Baldwin and impeachment

When U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin held a listening session in Fitchburg this week, the Madison Democrat got an earful from constituents asking her to sign on to various efforts to impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney, particularly a proposal by Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich that targets Cheney and that has attracted a number of co-sponsors....

...Baldwin should sign on with Kucinich and others who are backing Cheney's impeachment.

Dodd addresses Connecticut and New Hampshire civil unions

Rep. Patricia Todd responds to Alabama Democratic Party Chair Joe Turnham

As reported earlier this week, Alabama Democratic Party Chair Joe Turnham responded to attacks against DNC Chair Howard Dean by the head of the Alabama GOP with comments that amounted to gay-baiting (see here and here).

State Representative Patricia Todd, Alabama's only out elected public official, has written this thoughtful and direct letter to Mr. Turnham expressing concern about his comments:

Joe:

I am writing to express my concern about your comments regarding gay marriage during Gov. Dean's visit to Alabama. As you can image, I have received numerous emails about the comment and many LBGT and our supporters are angered by implying that our civil right to marry is NOT supported by the Democratic Party.

These sort of "off the cuff" remarks are harmful to our ability to recruit progressive thinkers to our party base and also hurts Stonewall's ability to raise money for the party and our candidates.

You and I have had numerous conversations regarding my frustration with the party trying to out maneuver the Republicans on social issues. I understand the need for a "moderate" approach in Alabama, but is it really worth bashing a group of supporters to look more conservative? Why even respond to Rep. Hubbard's remarks at all? The Republican Chair's remarks were so reactionary that they needed no response. The Republicans are obviously threatened by Gov. Dean's visit.

I am a firm supporter of the Democratic Party and the issues we support nationally. I am willing to discuss this further at your convenience and stand ready to develop fair solutions to build a stronger party.

Sincerely,

Patricia Todd

Readers may continue to send polite but firm messages to Mr. Turnham about his comments here, and supportive messages to Rep. Todd here.

Since Mr. Turnham made his comments in the context of visits by Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean and presidential candidate John Edwards, messages may be sent to them asking that they disassociate themselves from Mr. Turnham's comments:
Howard Dean at the DNC
John Edwards campaign

Gay political feud over tainted Obama fundraiser

Today's Chicago Sun-Times tells of a nasty fight over one of Barack Obama's gay fundraisers, who was punished in recent months for ethics lapses regarding his stewardship of a trust fund benefiting young relatives.

Michael Bauer receiving Anti-Defamation
League award from Joe Biden

Michael Bauer, who has raised tens of thousands of dollars for Obama and who serves on the lesbian and gay advisory committee of the Senator's presidential campaign, is serving a nine-month suspension of his law license for looting a trust fund benefiting his brother's children. Several prominent Illinois LGBT activists want Obama to boot him as a fundraiser and as an advisor. Obama is so far standing by his $60,000 man, but the nieces and nephew still haven't received restitution for their missing money.

The missing amount is about $300,000, which, coincidentally, is about the amount that Bauer gave to political candidates during the same period that the money went missing. No word on whether Obama or the other beneficiaries of Bauer's political largesse will remit the money to the kids' trust fund.

Ex-prawn conversion therapy doesn't work

This is making the rounds on the internet this weekend:

One day two prawns were swimming around in the sea. One was called Justin and the other called Christian. The prawns were constantly being harassed and prawn-bashed by sharks.

Finally one day Justin said to Christian, "I'm fed up with being a prawn. I wish I was a shark, and then I wouldn't have any worries about being eaten."

A large mysterious cod appeared and said, "Your wish is granted." Lo and behold, Justin turned into a shark. Justin was overwhelmed with gratitude, and he begged the stranger to tell him his name. "Cod. Just one name, like Madonna and Cher", said the stranger, who then swam away.

Unfortunately, Christian was terrified by his friend's new appearance, and he also swam away, afraid of being eaten.

Time passed, and Justin found life as a shark boring and lonely. All his old friends swam away whenever he came close to them.

While swimming alone one day, he saw Cod again and he thought perhaps the mysterious fish could change him back into a prawn. He approached Cod and begged to be changed back; and lo and behold, he found himself turned back into a prawn.

Happy as a clam, Justin swam back to find his old friends. Arrivng at his old reef, he asked the closest fish, "Where's Christian?"

"He's at home, still distraught that his best friend changed sides and became a shark", came the reply.

Eager to put things right again and end their estrangement, he set off to Christian's abode. He banged on the door and shouted: "Christian, it's me, your old friend Justin. Come out and see me again."

Christian replied, "No way man, you'll eat me. You're a shark now, and I won't be tricked into being your dinner."

Justin cried back, "No, I'm not. I've changed. I've found Cod. I'm a prawn again, Christian."

More anti-gay rhetoric from Alabama Democrats Chair

When Alabama Democratic Party Chair Joe Turnham spoke to a reporter for this morning's Montgomery Advertiser about Republican candidates' views on gay marriage, he wasn't some politican who suddenly had a microphone shoved in his face and who said something dumb without having had time to think first. Gay marriage is something that Mr. Turnham has been thinking about lately. And he doesn't like it.

In an official state party Message from the Chairman, Mr. Turnham responds to Republican "red meat" attacks with much standard Democratic boilerplate, but he then throws in some gay bashing to play to the good old boy vote. His message is reproduced in its entirety below; the cringe-causing typos, sentence fragments, sentence run-ons, and tortured syntax are all his:

CHAIRMAN TURNHAM WELCOMES JOHN EDWARDS AND CHAIRMAN DEAN TO ALABAMA ON SAME DAY, REBUKES 'DIVIDE AND CONQUER' REPUB CHAIR

5/24/2007

http://algop.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=5030

Joe Turnham

see Repub press release here...as long as they refer to the Democratic Party as the 'Democrat' Party, they should be refered to as the 'Repub' Party.

It might be the lingering Lee Atwater, Ralph Reed or maybe Karl Rove influence, but Alabama Republicans can't resist what they term as 'raw meat' moments to bash national Democratic visitors when they come to Alabama.

After Alabama Repubs have filibustered 27 straight legislative days away and after the Repub Party has welcomed 'pro-abortion, pro-gay, anti-gun' Rudy and Mitt to Alabama...what do they do but pull that same 'old play card' on us today...never mind the deficits (trade and budget), Iraq, Drought, Gas Prices...

Notice in their press release is no praise of former ALGOP Saint George Bush and his now 42% Alabama job approval rating or the 58% majority of Alabamians who agree with Howard Dean and John Edwards about setting withdrawal timetables for the war in Iraq, but only Repub trite and old stereotype politics of characterization.

A recent party ID poll in Alabama shows that by a margin of 42 to 38 percent more Alabama voters identify themselves as Democrats verses Republican. Two thirds of Alabama voters deem global warming to be a serious problem that ALGOP and George Bush deny.

While Lt. Gov Folsom overrode Repub and Riley efforts to end the legislative session, budgets, local bills are now moving in the Alabama Senate.

Both Senator Edwards and previosly Senator's Obama, Clinton and Dodd have challenged Alabama Democrats to solve problems and tackle the issues of the day that may define our survival as a human race. That challenge should surpass petty and mean-spirited press releases.

DNC Chair Howard Dean even challenged Democrats today to reach out to Republicans to hear their ideas, and offered ethics reform, accountability in governments as central to our party. Can ALGOP challenge those notions?

As our crops burn, Iraq explodes, gas prices rise, more homes are foreclosed, and 50 million unisured Americans read about the 17 seasonal hurrricanes/ tropical storm predictions of global warming...can' t Alabama Repubs even pretend to have a debate about our future?

Our party is not perfect nor is it broken. It is full of national and local democrats who give of their lives, fortunes and minds to solve problems and seize opportunity that can move Alabama forward. I welcome these national dems to Alabama and rebuke the character assassination launched ALGOP using methods of old that have damaged our state, nation and world.

Survival, peace and prosperity rest upon a collaborative effort by the imperfect of us all to affect change, hope and cheer in the hearts of all people.

Joe

Polite but firm messages may be sent to Alabama Democratic Chair Joe Turnham about his gay baiting here.

Since Mr. Turnham made his comments in the context of visits by Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean and presidential candidate John Edwards, messages may be sent to them asking that they disassociate themselves from Mr. Turnham's comments:
Howard Dean at the DNC
John Edwards campaign

It might also be useful to send a supportive note to Democratic state Representative Patricia Todd, Alabama's only out elected official, here.

Alabama Democrats Chair slams gay marriage

In this morning's Montgomery Advertiser, Alabama Democratic Party Chair Joe Turnham responds to attacks by his GOP counterpart by slamming gay marriage.

Referring to a visit to Alabama by Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean, Alabama Republican Party Chair Mike Hubbard had said:

"Every time Howard Dean opens his mouth in Alabama, it makes our state Republican Party stronger and recruits more members to our conservative cause....I encourage him to visit our state often and share his left-wing agenda with the citizens of Alabama."

In response, Mr. Turnham said that Mr. Hubbard didn't have any room to criticize, given what Mr. Turnham believes are the positions of some GOP presidential candidates:

"He has gun control in New York with Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney with gay marriage in Massachusetts....He shouldn't be taking shots at Howard Dean."

Billy Jack Gaither

Even if Mr. Romney did support gay marriage (he opposes it), Mr. Turnham's swipe at a political figure for such putative support is noxious gay-baiting deep in the heart of Dixie. Let's hope that Mr. Turnham won't need another horrific Alabama anti-gay murder like that of Billy Jack Gaither in 1999 to remind him of the consequences of homophobia.

Democratic Senate fundraising doubles GOP's

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) continued to bring in twice as much money as its GOP counterpart in April, according to The Hill.

Transcript and video: Laura Richardson at 01 Jun 2004 Long Beach city council meeting

Below are the video and transcript of remarks made by then-Councilmember Laura Richardson at the 01 Jun 2004 Long Beach city council meeting regarding a resolution to oppose the anti-gay federal marriage amendment. The resolution was introduced by then-Councilmember Dan Baker, an openly gay Democrat. Richardson voted against the resolution, helping to defeat it on a 4-4 tie vote. She is now running against state Senator Jenny Oropeza for the Democratic nomination for Congress to succeed Juanita Millender-McDonald, who passed away last month.

Richardson's remarks are rambling almost to the point of incoherence, but she manages to make several points clear:

♦ she was sick and had originally planned to be absent from the council meeting, but she rose from her sickbed expressly to vote on this resolution, which she helped to defeat;

♦ she asserted that she is a born-again Christian, and that she struggled her entire time on the council with the conflict between her private views and her public responsibilities; and

♦ she asserted that she is "the product of a bi-racial marriage", which was illegal in many states; and yet she feels no qualms about voting to "preserve what a definition of marriage means".

Richardson was sharply criticized for homophobic campaign literature that she used when she was running for a state Assembly seat against Gerrie Schipske in 1996. Schipske, an openly lesbian Democrat who is now a member of the Long Beach city council, defeated Richardson. Some of Richardson's supporters are now trying to claim that the incident is in the distant past and that she is no longer homphobic; but this vote and these comments, which are easily found on the internet, were made a little over a thousand days ago. Memory sometimes fails, but Google is forever.

Richardson speaks for seven minutes, starting when the time clock on the media player says 4hrs 09min here . One can move the Seek button to that point rather than wait through the entire video.

One may read her remarks as the video plays:

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR.

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU ASK FOR.
WHEN THIS ISSUE WAS BROUGHT
FORWARD LAST WEEK, I HAD SAID
THAT I WAS GOING TO BE SICK ON
TUESDAY, AND BE AT HOME, AND
HERE I AM SICK, BUT I’M HERE.
AND I’M HERE BECAUSE THIS IS
WHAT WE’RE HERE TO DO.
WE’RE HERE TO DEAL WITH THE
GOOD ISSUES AND, UNFORTUNATELY,
SOME OF THE VERY TOUGH AND
DIFFICULT ISSUES THAT FACES
THIS COUNCIL.

I’D LIKE TO KIND OF STEP BACK A
LITTLE BIT IN TIME AND BRING A
LITTLE HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
VERY BRIEFLY HERE, AND THEN I
HOPE -- I THINK WE MIGHT
ACTUALLY BE IN THE PROCESS OF
CREATING SOMETHING THAT WE CAN
LIVE WITH THAT CAN ADDRESS, I
THINK, BOTH ISSUES THAT HAVE
BEEN TALKED ABOUT THIS EVENING
AND STILL HAVE SOME WHOLENESS
IN OUR COMMUNITY, WHICH IS WHAT
I’M CONCERNED ABOUT.

I AM THE PRODUCT OF A BI-
RACIAL MARRIAGE.
THERE WAS A TIME AND A PERIOD
WHEN MANY PEOPLE FELT THAT THAT
WAS SOMETHING THAT THAT WAS ILLEGAL.
IN FACT, IT WAS ILLEGAL IN MANY
STATES.

AND SOME PEOPLE FELT THAT
SOMEONE LIKE ME WAS
INSIGNIFICANT, THAT MY BRAIN
WASN’T AS GOOD BECAUSE IT HAD A
LITTLE BIT MORE OF ONE DROP OF
SOMETHING THAN SOMETHING ELSE.

AND SO EVEN THOUGH I COME FROM --
I WAS BORN AND RAISED FROM A
RELIGIOUS BACKGROUND, I BECAME
A BORN-AGAIN CHRISTIAN WHEN I WAS 14.
EVEN WITH ALL OF THAT, I ALSO
KNOW THAT WITH YOUR FAITH,
THERE IS ALSO A JOB THAT WE
HAVE TO DO HERE WHICH HAS TO DO
WITH PUBLIC POLICY AND WITH
LAW.

AND I THINK ONE OF THE BIGGEST
THINGS THAT I HAVE HAD TO
STRUGGLE WITH IN MY NOW FOUR
YEARS OF BEING A COUNCILMEMBER
IS WHEN SOMETIMES, WHAT HAPPENS
WHEN YOUR PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE
MIGHT BE IN CONFLICT WITH WHAT
YOU FEEL IS BY LAW OR BY PUBLIC
POLICY WHAT IS THE RIGHT THING
TO DO?

I WANT TO BRING SOMETHING ELSE
ALSO TO YOUR ATTENTION.
THIS COUNTRY — WELL, NOT
NECESSARILY THE COUNTRY, BUT
THIS STATE -- WAS DIVIDED BY
PROPOSITION 187.
AND YOU KNOW WHAT,
I THINK WHEN IT’S ALL SAID AND
DONE, SOMEBODY OVER THERE IS
LAUGHING AT ALL OF US, BECAUSE
YOU’VE GOT -- I SIT HERE AND IT
REALLY GRIEVES MY SPIRIT TO SEE
THE YOUNG PEOPLE SITTING HERE
LISTENING TO SOME OF THIS,
LISTENING TO SOME OF THE
LAUGHS, LISTENING TO SOME OF
THE COMMENTS.
AND I WOULD JUST URGE ALL OF
US TO REMEMBER, LOOK BACK ON SOME
OF THE MOVIES THAT YOU’VE SEEN.
LOOK AT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT
WHEN YOUNG PEOPLE WERE TAUGHT
CERTAIN PERSPECTIVES AND
CERTAIN IDEAS AND WHAT WERE
THE RESULTS AS THEY GREW UP AND
SOME OF THAT HATE WAS BUILT
WITHIN THEM.

IN PROPOSITION 187, THAT WAS
BROUGHT FORWARD TO SAY THAT
HEALTH BENEFITS SHOULD NOT BE
PROVIDED TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.
AND THAT PASSED RESOUNDINGLY IN
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
BUT WHAT HAPPENED WAS THE
COURTS FOUND THAT THAT WAS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

AND AGAIN, I THINK SOMETIMES
WE’RE GOING TO FIND OURSELVES
WHERE OUR PERSONAL BELIEFS MAY
NOT NECESSARILY MATCH UP WITH
APPROPRIATE PUBLIC POLICY.
WHEN I’VE LISTENED TONIGHT -- AND
I THOUGHT A LOT ABOUT WHAT WAS
GOING TO BE HAPPENING TODAY;
IN FACT, I’VE SPENT A LOT OF
TIME THINKING ABOUT IT OVER THE
LAST FIVE OR SIX DAYS -- AND I’VE
REALLY HEARD TWO DIFFERENT
THINGS. AND I WOULD VENTURE TO ASK YOU
TO PLEASE VENTURE WITH THIS
IDEA THAT I THINK THAT THESE
ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS HERE.

I HEARD ONE GROUP OF PEOPLE
TALK ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF
MARRIAGE AND WHAT MARRIAGE
MEANS AND WHAT IS THE
DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.
BUT I DIDN’T HEAR OF, IF I’M NOT MISTAKEN,
I DIDN’T HEAR, OF ALL OF
THE PEOPLE WHO TALKED ABOUT WHY
THEY WANTED MARRIAGE TO STILL
BE WITH A MAN AND A WOMAN, I
DIDN’T HEAR ANY OF THOSE PEOPLE
SAY THAT THEY DIDN’T FEEL THAT
PEOPLE WHO MAY HAVE A SAME SEX
RELATIONSHIP DO NOT DESERVE
EQUAL RIGHTS, AND THAT’S WHERE
I THINK THAT SOMEBODY OVER
THERE IS LAUGHING AT ALL OF US.

AND IN THE SAME HAND, I DIDN’T
HEAR PEOPLE HERE WITH -- WHO ARE SAYING
THAT THEY WANTED THE RIGHTS
THAT WERE SAYING THAT THEY FELT
THAT MARRIAGE WAS ONLY THIS ONE
WAY.

AND SO FOR ME, I’M KIND OF
CAUGHT IN A QUANDARY, BECAUSE I
PERSONALLY HAVE A PERSPECTIVE,
BUT I ALSO HAVE A PROFESSIONAL,
AND I THINK A JOB TO DO.
AND SO WHAT I’VE ASKED MY
COLLEAGUES, I BELIEVE,
COUNCILMEMBER -- VICE MAYOR --
COLONNA PUT FORWARD A
SUBSTITUTE MOTION. I WOULD
SUPPORT HIS SUBSTITUTE MOTION
IF HE WOULD ACCEPT A FRIENDLY
AMENDMENT THAT WOULD SAY WE NOT
ONLY SUPPORT, WE SUPPORT LAWS
THAT COME FORWARD THAT
SUPPORT THE RIGHTS OF EVERYONE BUT WE
WOULD ALSO OPPOSE ANY LAWS THAT
WOULD PROHIBIT THE RIGHTS OF
ANYONE. [Note: Vice Mayor Frank Colonna had
offered a vague substitute motion to support
constitutional amendments that guaranteed
citizens' rights, making no mention of the federal
marriage amendment. --LB]

AND NOTICE THE WORDS “THE
RIGHTS OF ANYONE”.
AND I THINK THAT’S ULTIMATELY
WHAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT HERE
TONIGHT.

I’M VERY CONCERNED THAT WHEN WE
WALK OUT OF HERE I SEE A LOT OF
PEOPLE -- AND SOMEONE MENTIONED
OF ALL THE ISSUES WE HAVE
FACING THIS COUNCIL, WHY AREN’T
ALL THESE PEOPLE HERE WHEN
WE’RE TALKING ABOUT THAT WE’RE
GOING TO CLOSE LIBRARIES ONE
DAY A WEEK. AND I JUST -- I STRUGGLE
WITH THAT, BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT THIS
COUNCIL IS ABOUT. THIS COUNCIL IS
ABOUT PROVIDING THE BEST SERVICES
FOR OUR COMMUNITY.

AND SO I’M STRUGGLING UP HERE,
AS MANY OF YOU ARE.
I WOULD URGE YOU -- I’M REALLY
DISAPPOINTED WITH SOME OF THE
THINGS THAT I’VE HEARD SAID,
AND I JUST HOPE THAT WE CAN
WALK AWAY TONIGHT WITH BEING
ABLE TO BUILD A BETTER LONG
BEACH AND US WORK TOGETHER AND
NOT SPENDING 99% OF THE TIME
TALKING ABOUT THE 1% OF WHAT WE
DON’T AGREE UPON.

SO I’M GOING TO DO MY BEST IN
THIS VOTE. I’M PRAYING THAT IT’S GOING TO
COME UP WITH THE FRIENDLY
AMENDMENT THAT I HAVE SUGGESTED
TO VICE MAYOR COLONNA, AND I
HOPE THAT WITH THAT, WE CAN
WORK ON THE NEXT STEPS.

THE LAST THING I WOULD JUST SAY
IS THAT OF THE TWO BILLS THAT
COUNCILMEMBER BAKER SHARED WITH
ME, THEY ARE IN COMMITTEE. [Note: This is a
reference to the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House
versions of the federal marriage amendment. --LB]
I DID CONTACT TO SHOW, TO TALK ABOUT THE
STRUGGLE OF THIS WHOLE ISSUE, I
CONTACTED MY CONGRESSPERSON,
BECAUSE THAT’S WHO THIS IS
COMING TO, AND MY CONGRESSPERSON
SAID THAT THIS IS NOT
COMING BEFORE A VOTE OF THE
CONGRESS THIS YEAR. [Note: A motion to invoke
cloture was voted on in the U.S. Senate only 33 days later, on 14 Jul 2004 -- which was also Nate's and my one-year wedding anniversary. Memory will never fail me on this one. --LB]
SO I THINK THAT THERE IS A LOT OF WORK THAT
NEEDS TO BE DONE.

I BELIEVE -- I AM THE OPTIMIST THAT BELIEVES
THAT WE CAN PROTECT THE RIGHTS
OF PEOPLE AND YET PRESERVE
WHAT A DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE
MEANS.

SO I LOOK FORWARD TO HOPEFULLY US
COMING TOGETHER AND BUILDING
A BETTER LONG BEACH.

THANK YOU.

Video and minutes of 01 Jun 2004 Long Beach council meeting

Here are links to the video and the minutes of the segment of the 01 Jun 2004 Long Beach city council meeting that dealt with the resolution by then-Councilmember Dan Baker to oppose the federal marriage amendment. Baker is an openly gay Democrat. The resolution, Agenda Item 22, failed on a vote of 4-4.

Then-Councilmember Laura Richardson voted against the resolution. She is now running against pro-LGBT state Senator Jenny Oropeza for the Democratic nomination for Congress to succeed Congresswoman Juanita Millender-McDonald in the 26 Jun 2007 primary election. Richardson was sharply criticized over a decade ago for using homophobic litrature in her 1996 state Assembly campaign against Gerrie Schipske, an openly lesbian Democrat. Schipske defeated Richardson in that contest. Supporters of Richardson's are now trying to claim that she is not homophobic.

From the minutes of the Long Beach City Council meeting, 01 Jun 2004

22. Resolution opposing Federal Marriage Amendment (H.J. Res. 56 and S.J. Res. 26).

Action: Request City Attorney to prepare a resolution opposing the Federal Marriage Amendment (H.J. Res. 56 & S.J. Res. 26).

Lerch moved to receive and file, seconded by Webb

Reverend James Shaw spoke in opposition.
Trip Hoefield spoke in favor.
Albert Demalis spoke in opposition.
Linda Alexander spoke in favor.
Pastor Michael Elay spoke in opposition.
Pastor Michael Cole spoke in favor.
Davey Cop spoke in opposition.
Elisa Maconahy spoke in favor.
Pastor Garon Harden spoke in opposition.
Diana Lejin spoke in favor.
Joe Esposito spoke in opposition.
Evan O'Grady spoke in support.
Pastor David Smith in opposition.
Whitney Uldman spoke in favor.
Jillian Eastman spoke in opposition.
Barbara Smith and Jacob Bedina spoke in favor.
Johnny Esposito spoke in opposition.
Joy spoke in favor.
Pastor John Wilkerson spoke in opposition.
Julia Curtis Steel spoke in support.

Motion: Amend the substitute motion and request the City Attorney to prepare a Resolution opposing the Federal Marriage Amendment (H.J. Res. 56 and S.J. Res. 26).
Moved by Baker, seconded by Lowenthal.

Substitution motion moved by Vice Mayor Colonna, seconded by Carroll, to support only those changes or amendments for our Constitution that guarantees the right of all men, women, and children to equal protection under the law.

Motion: Amend Substitution motion moved by Colonna, seconded by Carroll, to prepare resolution to support only those changes or amendments for our Constitution that guarantees the right of all men, women, and children to equal protection under the law and oppose amendments that would deny equal protection under the law.
Moved by Colonna, seconded by Carroll.

Motion: receive and file the item.
Moved by Lerch, seconded by Webb.

Richardson aked that Vice Mayor Colonna accept a friendly amendment to support equality for everyone as long as it support equal rights for everyone.

Colonna motion Voted 7/1 Lerch in opposition.

Vote 4/4 on Baker motion. Lowenthal, Baker, Reyes Uranga, Carroll - yes [emphasis added -- LB]

Vote: Motion carried 5-3.
Yes: Colonna; Carroll; Richardson; Webb; Lerch
No: Lowenthal; Baker; Reyes Uranga
Absent: Kell

Mayor declared 5 minute break.

Lowenthal left the meeting at 10:43 p.m.

Barney Frank in a sling

He hurt his arm at the gym. See the Washington Post.

Ohio Democratic Governor signs non-discrimination order

Ohio Democratic Governor Ted Strickland today signed an executive order banning discrimination of current or prospective state employees on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity:

Executive Order 2007 – 10S
Establishing Policy Against Discrimination
Based on Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity

1. The State of Ohio Should Treat Employees Respectfully. Persons employed by the State of Ohio are a vital part of creating and fostering efficient governmental practices and ensuring that all citizens of Ohio receive the support and services that they need and to which they are entitled. Because of the contributions that State employees make, their colleagues and supervisors should treat them with respect and dignity.

2. The State of Ohio Should Seek to Attract Top Quality Employees. The government must compete for the best employees it can obtain. Discriminatory conduct in hiring and other employment related decisions undermines the State’s ability to attract and retain the best possible employees.

3. State and Federal Law Already Prohibit a Range of Discriminatory Practices. Ohio law, consistent with federal law, prohibits employers, including the State, from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, national original, veteran status, disability, age, or sex. However, there are no such laws that prohibit employers from discriminating in employment related decisions on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

4. Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Discrimination is Currently Occurring in State Government. Information compiled by the Ohio Civil Rights Commission documents ongoing and past discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity in employment-related decisions by personnel at Ohio agencies, boards and commissions. Such discriminatory conduct undermines the effectiveness of employees discriminated against, prevents the State from attracting the best available talent to work on behalf of the people of Ohio, and offends basic notions of human dignity.

5. Applicable Definitions. The following definitions apply to the requirements of this Order:

a. Sexual Orientation: A person’s actual or perceived homosexuality; bisexuality; or heterosexuality, by orientation or practice, by and between adults who have the ability to give consent.

b. Gender Identity: The gender a person associates with him or herself, regardless of the gender others might attribute to that person.

6. Prohibition Against Discrimination. For the reasons stated above, I am declaring it to be the policy of the State of Ohio that no person employed by a Cabinet agency or by a State of Ohio Board or Commission may discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in making any of the following employment related decisions:

a. Hiring

b. Layoff

c. Termination

d. Transfer

e. Promotion

f. Demotion

g. Rate of Compensation

h. Eligibility for In-Service Training Programs

7. Management of Discrimination Complaints. Any person who believes that an agency, board, or commission employee has discriminated against him or her in violation of this Order may file a discrimination complaint with the Equal Opportunity Division/Equal Employment Opportunity Section of the Ohio Department of Administrative Services. All such complaints will be investigated and resolved within the timeframe allowed for claims of discrimination that are recognized by Ohio law. Persons engaging in discrimination in violation of this order will be subject to discipline commensurate with the sanctions that would be applied to illegal discriminatory conduct.

8. I signed this Executive Order on May 17, 2007 in Columbus, Ohio and it will expire on my last day as Governor of Ohio unless rescinded before then.

Video: Rep. John Lewis on hate crimes bill

John Lewis is a giant in the civil rights movement, with scars from the Selma marches to prove it. He spoke at the 1963 March on Washington minutes before Dr. King gave his I Have a Dream speech. He has represented Georgia's fifth congressional district since 1987.

He wasn't afraid of racist police with clubs, and he's not afraid to say the words "gay" and "transgender" on the floor of the United States House of Representatives.

McCain on Falwell, 2000 and 2007

Jerry Falwell died earlier today. Compare and contrast statements made about Mr. Falwell in 2000 by GOP Presidential candidate John McCain versus Mr. McCain's statement today:

2000: Those like Jerry Falwell who "practice [division and slander] in the name of religion or in the name of the Republican Party or in the name of America shame our faith, our party and our country....Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance." Falwell is among the "people who have turned good causes into businesses."

2007: "Dr. Falwell was a man of distinguished accomplishment who devoted his life to serving his faith and country."

Fundraising dries up for GOP closet case Dreier

The Los Angeles Daily News is reporting that fundraising for California GOP closet case Congressman Dave Dreier (CA-26) is drying up.

Dreier pulled in less than $27,000 over the last two quarters, and Democrats see his seat as vulnerable in next year's elections.

Dreier's sexual orientation notwithstanding, he has been a loyal Republican when it comes to voting against the LGBT community. His HRC congressional scores have been dismal, averaging 18 over seven Congresses:

2006 (109th Congress) 38
2004 (108th Congress) 22
2002 (107th Congress) 17
2000 (106th Congress) 10
1998 (105th Congress) 25
1996 (104th Congress) 00
1994 (103rd Congress) 14

Dreier's antipathy for the LGBT community has been so extreme that he has repeatedly voted against or refused to sponsor the hate crimes bill, civil unions for D.C. citizens, immigration equity for same-sex families, and gays in the military. He will not even institute a non-discrimination policy encompassing sexual orientation for his own congressional office.

In the September 2005 Republican House leadership shakeup that resulted when indicted Majority Leader Tom Delay stepped down, Dreier was tapped by then-Speaker Dennis Hastert to replace Delay. Conservatives in the caucus revolted against this decision after the blogosphere speculated widely on the prospect of a heavily closeted gay man being Number 2 in the GOP's House hierarchy. Dreier's candidacy evaporated, and John Boehner of Ohio was eventually chosen for the position.

Don't ask about Don't Ask

As Bush prepares to reappoint Peter Pace to head the Joint Chiefs, the Army is trying all sorts of incentives to keep its officers from running away. Repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell apparently is not among those incentives.

Pope criticizes "age so full of hedonism"

Pope Benedict XVI, speaking at the canonization of a Brazilian saint, decried an "age so full of hedonism". It is not clear if he was wearing his Prada ruby slippers or his Gucci shades when he said this.

Bush likely to reappoint Pace to Joint Chiefs

The New York Times is reporting that Bush is expected to reappoint General Peter Pace to head the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Pace is the U.S. armed forces chief strategic manager who stated in March that he thinks that homosexuality is immoral. It might be suggested that his attentions are more in need in Iraq.

"Bush Expected to Renew Term of Chairman of Joint Chiefs"

By DAVID S. CLOUD
Published: May 11, 2007

WASHINGTON, May 10 — President Bush is expected to nominate Gen. Peter Pace of the Marines for a second term as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, opting for continuity during a critical phase in the Iraq conflict, two Defense Department officials said on Thursday....

In March, he caused debate when he said that he believed homosexual conduct to be immoral, a remark that he later was forced to acknowledge he should not have made. Rather than expressing his personal views, he said, he should have focused on his support for a current Pentagon policy that prohibits openly gay people from serving in the armed forces.

A nomination to a second term would require that General Pace be confirmed by the Senate....

Blair, about to step down, looks back on U.K. lesbian and gay progress

U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair announced today that he will step down 27 Jun 2007. In a valedictory address that he gave before a Stonewall Equality gathering in March, he reviewed progress for U.K. lesbians and gays under his government:

22 March 2007

Prime Minister:

Thank you very much, thank you. Thank you very much indeed. It is a real honour to be with you here this evening at the Stonewall Equality Dinner and to say thank you to Ben for that kind introduction.

Just before I came here tonight, and this is probably a sad reflection on the type of thing you do as you end your time in office, I actually got out one of my old speeches and re-read it. It was a speech back in 1994 on an amendment by Edwina Currie and Neil Kinnock [a well-known Conservative M.P. and a well-known Labour M.P., respectively --LB], interestingly enough, it wasn't a combination that was often found, but they came together to move an amendment on the equality of the age of consent. And the thing that really struck me, re-reading the speech this evening, was just how a whole lot of things that nowadays we would more or less take for granted, you had to start literally from the very first principles, including arguments like: "how do you stop people being persuaded to be gay?" And I was thinking that is an interesting idea. I have got five really good arguments in favour of being gay. And I remember saying to the guy who was on the opposite side afterwards: "You know, I am not gay and I wouldn't be persuaded by five really good arguments." And he said to me: "No, no, of course not, of course not." And I said: "But maybe it is the same the other way round?" He had never thought of it like that at all obviously.

But the interesting thing is that you then fast-forward to last night in the House of Lords and the fact is the vote was won, which is an incredible thing. [The Lords upheld the U.K.'s new Sexual Orientation Regulations anti-discrimination law, which included gay adoption rights without an exemption for church-affiliated adoption agencies. --LB]

And I really just wanted to say two things about the changes that have happened over the past ten years, which you will know very well. And there were a lot of important things, but I think the civil partnership is really the thing that, as I was saying to people earlier, it is a thing that doesn't just give me a lot of pride, but it actually brought real joy. I don't know whether you remember the very first day, and I don't by what bizarre circumstance, the first set of ceremonies were actually in Northern Ireland, but it was just, sort of just so alive, and I was so struck by it. I remember seeing the pictures on television, and it is not often you do a little sort of skip around in my job - I can assure you. But it really the fact that that the people were so happy and the fact that you felt just one major, major change had happened, of which everyone can feel really proud. And now I think we were just saying, was it 16,000 civil partnerships, and what is interesting now is that other countries in Europe are looking at this legislation, and it is very divisive still in Spain and Italy at the moment. But nonetheless it is happening.

The fascinating thing, and this is my second reflection about it all, because you know all the different pieces of legislation and so on, and there is no point in rehearsing them, but what has happened is that the culture of the country has changed in a definable way as a result of it. And here is what I think is really interesting, that the change in the culture and the civilising effect of it has gone far greater than the gay and lesbian community.

In other words, by taking a stand on this issue and by removing a piece of prejudice and discrimination, and by enabling people to stand proud as what they are, it has had an impact that I think profoundly affects the way the country thinks about itself. And I like to think of Britain as a country with an immensely proud history, but it is able today to stand on its own merits and look at the 21st century and say, we have got a great future.

And the one thing that I think is really important about any country that will succeed in the future is that you make the most of the talents and abilities of your people, and if you allow discrimination to fester, that is the complete rejection of that modernising and civilising notion of making the most ... [APPLAUSE]

So that is what has been important about it, and it is why as the day approaches, I mean even I get casual about this legacy business - well I think it is actually part of the last ten years - that certainly I will look back on with a lot of pride.

However, there is one final thing I wanted to say, which is this: it wouldn't have happened without you. I mean some people have been very kind in saying that it took a certain amount of political courage. Well yes it did, but you know I remember back in the early '80s when this type of issue was condemned as political correctness, when this was the loony-left, as it were, engaged in this. Stonewall in my view played a fundamental and often insufficiently recognised part in achieving this.

And I want to tell you why. Because when you are trying to do something that is difficult, divisive, and to be honest about it, as a politician you are doing something that you know is going to be very controversial, you know it is all very well, you say we are going to do this, and you can see some of your people are absolutely up for it, and some of your people are thinking mmm.

And you know what actually matters enormously is that the people from the outside of politics that you are trying to do it with have a sufficient intelligence and sensitivity and what I call, which is really how I define the Stonewall campaigning, I define it as a polite determination. In other words there was a complete you know push and drive to get the thing done, but also a way of doing it that was always looking to bring people on-side, that was always looking to understand sensitivities, that was always looking to say look this is something you know we would like to help get done with you in a sensible and intelligent way. And what Stonewall did, and Angela Mason, who I thought was absolutely fantastic when she was the Head, and now Ben what they did was remarkable and it is a real tribute.

And you seen here we are this evening at the Stonewall Equality Dinner, and the interesting thing is that a lot of the tables from some of the best known names in business and commerce, and this is part of the diversity agenda now of these big companies, and all of that is fantastic. Sometimes people have said to me "well now that all the political parties are in favour of this, you know there is going to be greater competition for the so-called gay and lesbian vote." And I say actually it is a fantastic thing that all the party leaders today, and in the future actually all of them will be, I think, in favour of equality, and that is a sign of how much things have changed and we shouldn't be worried about that, whatever political party we are in, we should be actually glad of it, because it is a great achievement for our country.

So anyway I just wanted to say this evening how deeply grateful I am for what I regard as a real honour in coming along and being able to address these words to you at the start of your dinner tonight. And I would like to thank each and every one of you for participating in the dinner, for helping, you know this has been a good fund-raiser for Stonewall and it will be an important signal that this is part of the mainstream part of our society today and that progress actually does come about, and it comes about because people are determined when they see injustice, to correct it. And that is what you have done through Stonewall, and we have played our part in that.

But I want to say to a lot of people who have been very kind tonight, and said thank you to me, but I want to say thank you to you, because we couldn't have done it without you. And when I do look back on it, with pride, I think I should acknowledge rightly that the pride and the honour is shared with you.

Thank you very much.