DCBigPappa's Blog

Politics & Pop Culture from a homocon.

Category Archives: Marriage Equality

New LCR Ad in The Hill


Funny, I don’t hear the gay left demanding to know where Log Cabin got the money for this add in the The Hill newspaper. LCR_THE_HILL

LCR Issues Statement on House Republicans Defense of DOMA


For Immediate Release Contact: Press Secretary
(202) 420.7873

Log Cabin Republicans Issues Statement on House Republicans Defense of DOMA

(Washington, DC) – Today, Log Cabin Republicans (LCR) Interim Executive Director, Gregory T. Angelo, released a statement criticizing House Republicans for their decision to incorporate ongoing counsel to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) into the new Congressional Rules.

The following is a response from the LCR Interim Executive Director, Gregory T. Angelo:

At a time when sound fiscal policy should be front-and-center, diverting taxpayer funds to defend the Federal Defense of Marriage Act should not be a priority, period. But the beltway buzz about Congressional Rules ignores the big picture: this debate would be nonexistent if DOMA was repealed. Following a week in which Republican Congressmen Richard Hanna and Charlie Bass joined Republican Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen in support of the Respect for Marriage Act and DOMA repeal, we urge the Republican Congress to focus on our core tenets of small government and avoid engaging in distracting social issues that do nothing more than provide political fodder to the left.

Date: 1/3/2013
Copyright 2013 Log Cabin Republicans

Dallas Morning News Endorses Marriage Equality


EDITORIAL

the_dallas_morning_news_logoThis newspaper applauds the Supreme Court’s recent decision to hear arguments in two same-sex marriage cases — one on California’s Proposition 8, which bans such marriages, and one regarding the Defense of Marriage Act, which denies federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples.

Same-sex marriage has been percolating at the state level for several years, leading to a patchwork of laws that create more confusion than clarity. The court can undo that confusion by determining the constitutional parameters of this issue.

We urge the Supreme Court to affirm the right of gay couples to marry based upon the fundamental American ideal of equality before the law. It is critical that the court also make clear that such a ruling won’t require churches whose doctrines oppose same-sex marriage to perform such ceremonies.

Debating the reversal of centuries of views about the institution of marriage cannot be considered without upheaval, and we recognize that the notion of gays and lesbians marrying can divide families, friends and, especially, generations. But the growing support for same-sex marriage, including within families whose gay members have changed the way these unions are seen, makes the embrace of gay marriage less of a radical shift.

Polls show that American attitudes have shifted dramatically on the subject. Surveys by organizations such as Gallup reveal that half or more of Americans support the concept of gay marriage. Equality in marriage laws is particularly embraced by younger Americans, including some younger evangelicals.

Even leading conservatives favor gay marriage. Former Vice President Dick Cheney is among the most notable. So, too, is former Bush solicitor general Ted Olson, who will lead the team arguing in favor of the constitutionality of same-sex marriage.

Olson contends that the federal government lacks the right to deny gay couples the opportunity to marry. He also will argue that the ban denies gay couples the right to due process. As the Republican wrote in Newsweek, “This bedrock principle of equality is central to the political and legal convictions of Republicans, Democrats, liberals and conservatives alike.”

We respect that some religious traditions see same-sex unions as an affront to their canons, scriptures and traditions. The First Amendment protects such places of worship from being compelled to conduct same-sex marriages. Additionally, the justices should take care to carve out strong and significant protections so that the institutions’ religious liberties, for instance their tax-exempt status, are not circumscribed.

In 2004, this newspaper opposed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. We have backed efforts to outlaw discrimination against employees based on sexual orientation. Now, we believe that the Supreme Court should conclude that equality under the law includes the right of gay couples to wed.

What’s at stake before the Supreme Court is how a secular society should respond to the growing demand for same-sex marriage. That is where Olson’s arguments seem so persuasive. How can a secular government grant marriage rights to some but not others?

Not Just My Birthday


This week has been all about life.

Yesterday, I celebrated my 42nd birthday.  And while I relish the revelry that occurs around birthdays – especially mine – I was happy to share the day with two other occasions.  I am also honored (I don’t know if that really is the right word) to have shared life experiences with several friends around this time.

Yesterday back in 1996, my friends Jon and Jackie were married in their hometown of Bethlehem, PA.  Today, they have three healthy wonderful boys (Jared, Justin, and Josh – you see a pattern?) who are full of life and energy.

Also yesterday, we celebrate the official one year anniversary of the repeal of DADT!

Two weeks ago was the five year anniversary of my good friend Kathee being cancer free!  Her husband, and also my good friend Greg, carefully orchestrated a surprise party for Kathee in their very own back yard.  He arranged for her parents and close friends to fly up from Louisiana.  His family came down from Pennsylvania.  One of our friends offered up his band to play, while another of our friends who could not attend sent the magical gift of an Elvis impersonator.  Yours truly was on the scene, of course, to play DJ.  Not even that crazy monsoon that bowled through the region was enough to stop us.

Last weekend, I was fortunate enough to witness two friends express their love for one another in a beautiful wedding.  While not my first gay wedding, it was my first in a church – the National City Church at Thomas Circle.  Absolutely georgeous!  Congratulations, Rick & Steve!

Sadly, the other night I received the news that another friend lost his father after heart surgery.  Now, he and his partner are on their way down to Brazil for memorial services.

So while I selfishly celebrate my birthday, I am humbled to share in the life experiences of my friends on and around this day.

A Viking Stands Up for Equality


Needless to say, this makes my day. …from Deadspin.com

Baltimore Ravens linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo has spoken out in favor of a Maryland ballot initiative that would legalize gay marriage. Yahoo has published a letter that Maryland state delegate Emmett C. Burns Jr. wrote last week to Ravens owner Steve Bisciotti, urging him to “inhibit such expressions from your employee.” This is Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe’s (@ChrisWarcraft) response to Burns.

Dear Emmett C. Burns Jr.,

I find it inconceivable that you are an elected official of Maryland’s state government. Your vitriolic hatred and bigotry make me ashamed and disgusted to think that you are in any way responsible for shaping policy at any level. The views you espouse neglect to consider several fundamental key points, which I will outline in great detail (you may want to hire an intern to help you with the longer words):

1. As I suspect you have not read the Constitution, I would like to remind you that the very first, the VERY FIRST Amendment in this founding document deals with the freedom of speech, particularly the abridgment of said freedom. By using your position as an elected official (when referring to your constituents so as to implicitly threaten the Ravens organization) to state that the Ravens should “inhibit such expressions from your employees,” more specifically Brendon Ayanbadejo, not only are you clearly violating the First Amendment, you also come across as a narcissistic fromunda stain. What on earth would possess you to be so mind-boggingly stupid? It baffles me that a man such as yourself, a man who relies on that same First Amendment to pursue your own religious studies without fear of persecution from the state, could somehow justify stifling another person’s right to speech. To call that hypocritical would be to do a disservice to the word. Mindfucking obscenely hypocritical starts to approach it a little bit.

2. “Many of your fans are opposed to such a view and feel it has no place in a sport that is strictly for pride, entertainment, and excitement.” Holy fucking shitballs. Did you seriously just say that, as someone who’s “deeply involved in government task forces on the legacy of slavery in Maryland”? Have you not heard of Kenny Washington? Jackie Robinson? As recently as 1962 the NFL still had segregation, which was only done away with by brave athletes and coaches daring to speak their mind and do the right thing, and you’re going to say that political views have “no place in a sport”? I can’t even begin to fathom the cognitive dissonance that must be coursing through your rapidly addled mind right now; the mental gymnastics your brain has to tortuously contort itself through to make such a preposterous statement are surely worthy of an Olympic gold medal (the Russian judge gives you a 10 for “beautiful oppressionism”).

3. This is more a personal quibble of mine, but why do you hate freedom? Why do you hate the fact that other people want a chance to live their lives and be happy, even though they may believe in something different than you, or act different than you? How does gay marriage, in any way shape or form, affect your life? If gay marriage becomes legal, are you worried that all of a sudden you’ll start thinking about penis? “Oh shit. Gay marriage just passed. Gotta get me some of that hot dong action!” Will all of your friends suddenly turn gay and refuse to come to your Sunday Ticket grill-outs? (Unlikely, since gay people enjoy watching football too.)

I can assure you that gay people getting married will have zero effect on your life. They won’t come into your house and steal your children. They won’t magically turn you into a lustful cockmonster. They won’t even overthrow the government in an orgy of hedonistic debauchery because all of a sudden they have the same legal rights as the other 90 percent of our population—rights like Social Security benefits, child care tax credits, Family and Medical Leave to take care of loved ones, and COBRA healthcare for spouses and children. You know what having these rights will make gays? Full-fledged American citizens just like everyone else, with the freedom to pursue happiness and all that entails. Do the civil-rights struggles of the past 200 years mean absolutely nothing to you?

In closing, I would like to say that I hope this letter, in some small way, causes you to reflect upon the magnitude of the colossal foot in mouth clusterfuck you so brazenly unleashed on a man whose only crime was speaking out for something he believed in. Best of luck in the next election; I’m fairly certain you might need it.

Sincerely,
Chris Kluwe

P.S. I’ve also been vocal as hell about the issue of gay marriage so you can take your “I know of no other NFL player who has done what Mr. Ayanbadejo is doing” and shove it in your close-minded, totally lacking in empathy piehole and choke on it. Asshole.

Quoted in the Washington Examiner re. Chick-Fil-A


Yeas and Nays

D.C. Log Cabin Republicans don’t mind eating at Chick-fil-A

July 19, 2012

Chick-fil-A’s popularity in the District is booming thanks to their new food truck, but the company has presented an ethical conundrum to locals who love chicken and think same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. The company’s president, Dan Cathy, revealed just how strongly opposed to gay marriage he is. (“I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about,” Cathy said in an interview this week.)

Robert Turner, president of D.C. Log Cabin Republicans, provided his thoughts on the matter to Yeas & Nays. He sees no issue with enjoying a spicy chicken sandwich and also supporting the right of two men or women to walk down the aisle together.

“No problem at all,” he said. “At the end of the day, if one looks deeply at the companies one patronizes — eating at Chick-fil-A, shopping on Amazon, ordering a Coke with your meal — you’ll find a multitude of issues where you and that company disagree.”

As for the crest of tweets urging folks to boycott the chain, Turner said, “People need to make up their own minds and not succumb to peer pressure.”

Turner added that private companies are entitled to their religious beliefs, though “if people believe that marriage is a religious institution, then let’s get the government completely out of marriage. No more marriage licenses, no more justice of the peace weddings, no more tax breaks.” The Log Cabin Republicans officially oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment, which seeks to define marriage between a man and a woman.

As for Cathy’s recent remarks, Turner wasn’t surprised. “I’m not sure why this should come as a shock to anyone,” he said. “Their religious beliefs have been well-known for years. Have you ever seen a Chick-fil-A open on a Sunday?”

My Take on Chick-Fil-A


Just talked with a reporter for the Washington Examiner about the latest Chick-Fil-A brouhaha.  I thought I would share my thoughts as I expressed them to the reporter.

With the recent uproar of Chick-Fil-A opposing marriage equality, I’m not sure why this should come as a shock to anyone.  Their religious beliefs have been well-known for years.  Have you ever seen a Chick-Fil-A opened on a Sunday?

I fully support a person or a private company’s right to have their own religious beliefs.  But when it involves the state, then equal protection under the law should take effect.

If people believe that marriage is a religious institution, then let’s get the government completely out of marriage.  No more marriage licenses, no more justice of the peace weddings, no more tax breaks.

At the end of the day, if one looks deeply at the companies one patronizes — eating at Chick-Fil-A, shopping on amazon.com, buying a Coke with your meal — you’ll find a multitude of issues where you and that company disagree.  People need to make up their own minds and not succumb to peer pressure.  Peer pressure, after all, is another form of bullying.

Quoted in National Journal


The following article appears in the latest issue of National Journal and quotes me talking about adding INCLUSIVE language to the Republican platform.

Platform Puzzles

No cakewalk: The debate over gay marriage.

What’s black and white, rarely read, and often fiercely contested? Hint: It’s not a newspaper.

By Beth Reinhard

Family Research Council Action, a leading crusader for social conservative values, is sounding the alarm: Support for gay marriage is creeping dangerously close to the Republican platform.

“Strong voices within the Republican Party would like nothing more than to change the official stance in regards to marriage between one man and one woman,” warns a recent e-mail blast from the organization that rattles off a list of alleged heretics topped by former Vice President Dick Cheney and former first lady Laura Bush.

The e-mail promises that donations will be used to send reinforcements to the platform-committee meetings leading up to the Aug. 27 national convention in Tampa, Fla. “Someone has to keep an eye on them,” the group avows.

At a time when virtually all Republican-leaning states have banned same-sex marriage, could the GOP be on the verge of embracing gay rights in its sacred platform? No chance. The Family Research Council e-mail is less smoke alarm and more fundraising ploy—as well as a kick in the pants to the conservative grassroots in an election year.

Yet platform battles, even when stirred up by special-interest groups, the opposition party, or the media, often mark important political and cultural mileposts. The dustup over gay marriage is no exception. With President Obama this year becoming the first chief executive to embrace the cause of same-sex marriage, the issue may be eclipsing abortion as the central front in the culture war. And that shift, inevitably, will reverberate through the platform discussions of both parties this year and beyond.

Throughout American history, platform skirmishes have mapped critical shifts in each party’s balance of power. The Democrats’ abandonment of Prohibition in their 1932 platform, for instance, showed that, behind Franklin D. Roosevelt, the party’s urban northern wing had regained the upper hand over its evangelical solid southern one. Conversely, the GOP’s abandonment of support for the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1980 platform signaled that social conservatives had eclipsed coastal moderates as the dominant force in their party.

Platform battles also reflect the particular ideology of that year’s nominee, because every standard-bearer tends to stray from the party line on some issues. Republican Bob Dole tried to dilute the party’s antiabortion stance in 1996. George W. Bush’s moderate positions on immigration reform colored the 2000 and 2004 Republican conventions, while John McCain’s apostasies on stem-cell research, campaign finance, and climate change worried conservative activists in 2008.

This year, Mitt Romney has committed himself to unwaveringly conservative positions on social issues (including support for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage). But in a sign of the times, the District of Columbia Republican Committee—the equivalent of a state party—last month became the first official voice to call for inserting language into the platform that reads: “Individuals, without regard to sexual orientation, are entitled to full and equal protection under the laws and the Constitution.”

The D.C. Republicans don’t expect much support for their cause in Tampa. “I don’t think there will be a huge push for gay marriage at the convention this year, but we see this as the first spark,” said Robert Turner, a member of the District committee and the president of the local chapter of the Log Cabin Republicans, which advocates for gay rights. “I do see it happening more four years from now and four years after that.”

Could Turner be right? Only 23 percent of Republicans supported legalizing gay marriage in a May 29-31 CNN/ORC International poll. But all surveys show support for gay marriage rising among young people. And Tom McClusky of Family Research Council Action worries about what might be called the Ron Paul effect: an increase in the number of convention delegates with libertarian streaks. The D.C. Committee’s push, even if it’s ahead of its time, isn’t likely to be the last try to force Republican platform writers to debate this issue.

If there is a platform shift on gay marriage this year, though, it likely won’t come until the Democratic convention opens on Sept. 3 in Charlotte, N.C. Currently, the Democratic platform calls for equality and opposes discriminatory measures but stops short of endorsing same-sex marriage. But with Obama’s embrace of gay marriage—and the same CNN poll showing that more than two-thirds of Democrats and exactly three-fifths of independents back the idea—that  language does not satisfy leading advocates. “We think it’s important to say the words, for the platform to be clear and say what a majority of Democrats support,” said Evan Wolfson, founder and president of Freedom to Marry, a gay-advocacy group. “It’s important for the party to get there.”

Wolfson’s group began agitating to include support for gay marriage in the platform even before Obama’s recent seal of approval brought its goal within reach. Freedom to Marry has secured support from 22 senators (strangely, several Democrats from red-leaning and swing states aren’t on the list!) and four former party chiefs. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi are on board. So is the chairman of the 2012 convention, Los Angeles Mayor Anthony Villaraigosa.

The vast majority of voters will never read the fine print, or even the bold headlines, of their party’s platform. But activists on the left and right recognize it as a useful yardstick in their larger effort to tilt parties toward their causes. “For those of us who work with candidates and elected officials, the platform sets a standard to hold them to,” McClusky says. “It comes down to accountability. We think it’s important to be very exact in the wording.” Which is why advocates on both sides of the gay-marriage debate will be watching every clause and comma when the party platform writers hunker down this summer.

This article appeared in the Saturday, July 14, 2012 edition of National Journal.

Huffington Post Piece on Young Conservatives for Freedom to Marry

Young Conservatives for the Freedom to Marry


Last night, at the Capitol Hill Club, an initiative for a new conservative group was launched – Young Conservatives for the Freedom to Marry.  I can just hear the leftists cracking jokes about the event was probably held in a janitor’s closet.  But know this, last night’s event was held in one of the largest rooms of the Capitol Hill Club to a packed house!  For those of you who don’t know, the Capitol Hill Club is an annex of the Republican National Committee and is a mere half a block from the Cannon House Office Building.

This campaign will spotlight and increase awareness of conservatives around the country who are speaking out on why marriage matters to same-sex couples and their families, and why conservatives should be supportive.

In a coalition with Log Cabin Republicans, Freedom to Marry recognizes the importance of forging a bipartisan partnership, instead of labeling all Republicans and conservatives as anti-gay bigots.  A message other large movement organizations would do well to heed.

In the coming days, you will likely see articles and blog posts from the Washington Blade, the Huffington Report among others.  Those are the ones I saw last night who came up and asked me for quotes.  But take a look at this piece by Julie Bolcer at The Advocate.

Freedom To Marry, the national advocacy group, launched the initiative, Young Conservatives for the Freedom To Marry, on Tuesday. The campaign intends to show the bipartisan nature of marriage equality by providing a platform for conservatives, Republicans and Libertarians under the age of 44 who believe the issue “fulfills basic conservative values of responsibility and community, as well as limited government and individual freedom,” according to a news release.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,660 other followers

%d bloggers like this: