"Gay Marriage for NY" skewered by gay supporters for anti-straight article.

Around midnight, "Gay Marriage for New York"(GM4NY) chose to post to Facebook a letter by Dan Amira that first appeared in New York Magazine. The letter asked straight couples not to sign up for marriage licenses in New York on July 24, the first day on which gay couples can get married. Expecting a rush of marriages, NY officials have instituted a lottery system to award licenses on that day.

In promoting the letter, GM4NY chose to repeat and highlight a particularly offensive passage from the letter:

Hear this, straight people: Maybe it's convenient for you to get married over the weekend, or maybe you just like the novelty factor of tying the knot on a historic day. But the opportunity means a hell of a lot more for gay couples. Every spot in the lottery occupied by one of you means a gay couple misses out on an experience with much deeper personal significance."

Within an hour, 113 comments had been lodged on the Facebook site, with only two individuals supporting GM4NY's posting of the letter. All others took the organization to task. A representative sample of comments:

Chelle Panzica: I dont think its fair to ask heteros not to get married on the 24, weddings typically are planned way ahead of time and to even ask that is kind of rude. and im gay! and from ny

Denise Gibaldi: equality means EVERYONE should be able get married!

Shannon McNeece: You are just as ignorant as you claim "straight people" are. "Listen up straight people"? Really?


Todd Joseph: agreed, it is a day to celebrate EQUALity- for everyone, we must act within the constraints of what we demanded. lets the state rejoice together

Andrew Arslan: Kinda wrong...if they want to get married that same day let 'em. Without their support we wouldn't even have that day.

Penni Blizzard- McGrath: Seriously? "Listen?" We've been listening and we applaud equal rights - don't ask for "special" rights now. THAT attitude is why so many are clueless.

James Carter Giardina Jr.: I'm gonna have to agree, I do not feel comfortable asking (demanding) the right to marry, and than turning around and asking other couples not too. That date could have a very specific and special meaning to a heterosexual couple just as it will to gay ones. The day will mean no less, if it is shared with heterosexual couples. If anything it will mean so much more.

Alyssa Andrew: Rude, rude, RUDE.

Danny-Timothy Patrick Tyrell: Someone, please contact NYMag and let them know this is a big mistake to print. Gay Marriage for NY. I can't believe you even reposted this. Bad Form, very Bad Form.

Brittany Cable: I'm going to agree with everyone else -- straight people have just as much of a right to get married on that day as we do. To ask them not to because the day is somehow "more special" to us is rather rude and insensitive of us.

Matthew Mackey: I do not agree with this article one bit. Asking for straight ppl to wait to get married is exactly OPPOSITE of what we were fighting for. PPL who are fighting against our rights and equality are going to use this article against us. Their marriages are just as important as ours are.

As the hits came coming, GM4NY attempted to distance themselves from the letter with the excuse that they only were posting it "for discussion purposes." However, they never asked for discussion, comment, opinion, or input: instead, they simply quoted and posted the pointed paragraph above.

Let's be frank: GM4NY is not a 'discussion group' - it is an advocacy organization with over 140,000 followers that has used social media to pursue specific political agendas. Someone thought a bit too highly of themselves and chose to pursue an offensive agenda that is not supported by the GLBT community, and then found themselves backtracking and excuse-making.

In blunt terms: this is a freaking stupid-ass campaign. Who the hell at GM4NY thought that this idiocy was a good idea? Straight couples and legislators were our allies throughout the Marriage Equality process, and 'reserving' a date just for same-sex marriages is insulting and asinine. We ALL deserve to tie the knot if we want to - thats what Marriage Equality was all about! We argued we wanted Equality; our opponents argued that we wanted "special rights." Any effort to reserve a date as 'special' for gay marriages alone validates our opponents arguments that we wanted 'special rights.'

What we want is Equality, not special treatment. Someone at Gay Marriage for NY needs a swift kick in the ass for this...and for digging in its heels and refusing to accept the criticism of the vast majority of its followers - many of whom worked tirelessly for Marriage Equality - who were insulted, upset, and horrified by their position.

#LGBT #GM4NY

Is Drag becoming a Drag?

Yesterday, someone writing on behalf of the Waterworks Pub (a gay bar in Albany, New York) lamented on Facebook that yet again, no Drag Queens had stepped up to host their mid-week drag night. Apparently the bar was offering $50 to the performers in order to help them market their shows and draw in patrons. (My boyfriend remarked, “$50, that’s all? They’ll spend more than that in makeup!”) The comments that followed fell into two categories: those who were getting a little tired of the obsession with drag performances…and a defensive response from the bar that included the charge that ‘the community’ was complaining rather than supporting the bar’s efforts. The entire thread was then quickly deleted.

It reminded me of an incident a number of years ago, where some local Bears planned a fundraiser for a local New Hampshire AIDS Service agency. Drawing on their own natural interests, they began putting together a pool party at a local hotel, complete with a burgers-and-beer cookout. Unfortunately, some in the Agency immediately insisted on having their Drag friends do an Esther-Williams-styled, in-the-water Drag Show at the BBQ…and the entire event fell apart before it was held.

This brings me to the central (and controversial) question of this blog post:

“Has the GLBT community ignored its own members by having gone overboard in its obsession with Drag?”

I want to make it clear from the start that I appreciate a good Drag performer, especially one that actually sings rather than simply lip-synchs. I admit that Ru Paul’s Drag Show is a guilty pleasure of mine, and I’ve gone to Boston to see Jujube, Raven, and Pandora Boxx. For Mother’s Day, my sister, brother-in-law, and boyfriend took my mother to see Priscilla, Queen of the Desert on Broadway. Attending the annual Invasion of the Pines is on my personal bucket list. I have no objection to, and in fact enjoy, good Drag.

Having said that, there *is* such a thing as too much of a good thing, especially when that ‘good thing’ begins to become socially ‘required,’ ‘expected’ and ‘normative’ of the entire community.

The gay male community has a seemingly reflexive ‘need’ to use Drag Queens as their ‘symbols and spokespersons.’ The result is that it conveys an image to the world, that Drag is, in fact, what all gay men are all about. As a younger man struggling with the coming out process, I told myself many times that I couldn’t possibly be gay, ‘because I’m not like that – I don’t want to dress up like that.” And unfortunately, I have discovered dozens upon dozens of men who were closeted for much of their lives because they felt the same conflict; in essence, the gay male community did not ‘communicate’ its muscle-bear-and-leather masculine role models to the general public the way it did with its Drag Performers.

Even in retelling the history of the Stonewall Riots, we have created a mythology surrounding Drag Queens: it is almost accepted without question in gay circles that the Stonewall Riots were begun by the Fierce Queens who took off their stiletto heels and began fighting back against the police. The objective reality is that the riots began when a lesbian, hit on the head with a billy club after complaining that the handcuffs they slapped on her were too tight, turned to the crowd and shouted, “Why aren’t you guys doing something?!” The crowd – largely anti-authority young people, hippies, and gay males (but not Queens) – erupted into the “riot.” The Stonewall was not full of Drag Queens – in fact, official Stonewall Policy was to limit the number of transvestites allowed to enter to less than a handful each night. But our Drag mythology remains…

It seems to me that there is a parallel between the Drag Art Form and the Black Minstrel Art Form of a century earlier.

In the late 1800s, many white performers donned black face and appeared in shows that lampooned black people. Using extreme forms of caricature and stereotype, blacks were characterized as simple, childish, lazy, and superstitious. It was, by its nature, "over the top" for its silliness. Eventually, the most successful minstrel artists were black performers themselves, who perfected this niche entertainment market: Billy Kersands, James A. Bland, Sam Lucas, and Wallace King became greater performers than whites in blackface.

The problem with the success of minstrel, of course, is that it perpetuated a stereotype of the entire black community: the art form that gave these men a voice and a safe place to make their way against all odds, also served to cement, in the public’s mind, a certain ‘image’ of Americans of African descent.

In much the same way, Drag has been the same type of double-edged sword. It has allowed talented performers to engage in outrageous caricatures, with seven-inch heels, four-foot hairdos, five pounds of make-up, three-inch lashes, sequined dresses and super bitchy, self-indulgent attitudes that elicit smiles and laughs from an entertained audience…and often, in its earliest days, it was performed in clubs where gay men could be considered relatively ‘safe.’

But, like minstrel, it also perpetuates the stereotype that gay men are effeminate, female-wannabes among the general heterosexual public. And the more I speak with gay men, the more I hear frustration and even resentment that GLBT community leaders continue to push the notion of the Drag Queen as the highest form of ‘community spokespersons.’

Most if us – quite frankly, more than 95% of us – are simply not personally into drag. But it is continually thrust upon us, and its adoration ‘required’ of us.

At last month’s Mariage Equality rally in Albany, NY, several hundred people – straight allies, lesbians, gay men – gathered to press for legislation in the Capital West Plaza. Among this crowd – which looked like it could have been any crowd at any political event – there was a single outrageously dressed Drag Queen. We watched a news reporter show up to get a scoop on the day’s events...and, as could have been predicted, she headed straight for the Drag Queen, conducted her interview, and filed her story.

There it was: 250-300 of your most average looking neighbors supporting marriage equality, and when the news hit the public airwaves, the public was left with the suggestion that we're all about cross-dressing queens.

And the Waterworks Pub still insists on its weekly drag nights, rather than listen to patrons who suggest it's not what they really want...

Government Stupidity: Outlawing Vegetable Gardens

This week's "Authority Running Amock" Prize goes to the city of Oak Park, Michigan, where homeowner Julie Bass faces 93 days in jail for the crime of growing tomatoes in her front yard.

The Bass's front yard was torn up after replacing a sewer line, and after the work was completed Julie Bass decided to grow a vegetable garden, planting basil, cabbage, carrots, tomatoes, and cucumbers in five raised beds and bringing down the wrath of the city's central planners.

Julie Bass said, “We thought we’re minding our own business, doing something not ostentatious and certainly not obnoxious or nothing that is a blight on the neighborhood, so we didn’t think people would care very much.”

In another day, the Basses would have been considered 'patriots' for planting a 'victory garden.' But some obnoxious neighbor complained about the aesthetics of cucumber blossoms, and called the city. The city then sent out code enforcement.

“They warned us at first that we had to move the vegetables from the front, that no vegetables were allowed in the front yard. We didn’t move them because we didn’t think we were doing anything wrong, even according to city code we didn’t think we were doing anything wrong. So they ticketed us and charged me with a misdemeanor,” Bass responded.

The Oak Park City code says that all unpaved portions of the site shall be planted with grass or ground cover or shrubbery or "other suitable live plant material." The code was clearly meant to insure vegetated ground cover, as opposed to expanses of bare, eroded dirt. But apparently, a power-triping city Planning and Technology Director Kevin Rulkowski has insisted that peppers are not suitable. He said, “If you look at the dictionary, suitable means common. You can look all throughout the city and you’ll never find another vegetable garden that consumes the entire front yard.”

Excuse me? I checked five dictionaries, and not one equated "suitable" with "common." Sounds like a petty official caught shooting his mouth off and now scrambling to defend himself.

He continued, "...if you look around and you look in any other community, what’s common to a front yard is a nice, grass yard with beautiful trees and bushes and flowers.”

Really? "Beautiful" trees and bushes? Just what is the legal criteria for deciding what is "beautiful?" Is a Weeping Willow beautiful, or a mess? Are a field of Black-Eyed Susans 'beautiful flowers,' or 'overgrown weeds?' Are bushes with red flowers preferable to bushes with small white ones?

As "The Agitator" reported, "God forbid your yard doesn’t include beautiful trees, bushes and flowers. It’s your job, Oak Park citizens, to give Kevin Rulkowski pretty things to look at."

Furthermore, Mr. Rulkowski is dead wrong: I have seen plenty of yards in multiple states in the Northeast that have planted vegetables in the front yard...and I myself, as I write, have green peppers, chives, and oregano planted in the front, alongside tall, grassy field daisies.

The city prosecutor intends on going all the way through a jury trial for this awful insult to the community...meaning 93 days in jail if he wins. What a waste of city money...what a waste of resources...what an abuse of the power to jail.

In a time when we are experiencing 10%+ unemployment - with Michigan at the top of the nations' jobless basket cases - discouraging anyone from growing vegetables because they are not 'pretty' enough is indefensible idiocy, and, quite frankly, neither the neighbors nor the city's business.

Oak Park wins our first "Authority Running Amock" Award. We hope that Bass's neighbors start planting beautiful flowering chives and flowering squash in their front yards, so that by becoming 'common,' they will also become 'suitable.'

Or, better yet, just ignore this stupid law altogether and ask the city to find Mr. Rulkowski something worthwhile to do.

Afghanistan: a combat medic's perspective and insights

[Today's post is a copy of an address given to the Rochester (NH) Knights of Columbus by combat medic Jeff Ballard, who was deployed in Afghanistan. It is a very worthwhile read by someone in the midst of the war...and who offers some compelling insights into our successes and shortcomings there. Towards the second half of the address, Mr. Ballard gets into some of these issues. Reprinted by express permnission of Mr Ballard]

Good Morning and Happy Birthday to the United States of America. This 4th of July has an extra special meaning as justice was recently served with the killing of Osama Bin Laden. Though his death does not bring back the victims it helps us to close the door on a horrible chapter of our nations history.

My name is Jeff Ballard and I am a combat medic in the Army National Guard. Last year I left my full time job as an RN in the Emergency Department at Wentworth Douglass Hospital to deploy to Afghanistan in hopes of using my medical skills wherever needed.

I would like to thank you all for joining us today. I'd like to thank Mayor T-J Jean, Joel Plante the New Hampshire State Deputy of the Knights of Columbus and all of the groups which comprise the Rochester Veterans Council who are with us today.

As I stand here in front of you this morning, I am deeply aware that I am just one of many in a long line, both men and women, that have been involved in defending our country against our enemies...We have always valued freedom and defended others around the world, as well as our families here at home ...hoping that peace and democracy can be brought to all of the people of the world.

We are Americans and we honor all that have made this country so great.

As we celebrate with our friends and family I ask that you remember those who are still in harms way fighting to ensure that America gets to celebrate another 235 birthdays.

With us today are my wife, Stephanie and son Tyler and I would like to publicly thank them and recognize the sacrifice that they made to keep our family running smoothly while I was away. For Stephanie this included us buying a new house and moving in by herself, her company moving from Wolfeboro to Pembroke which made her commute increase from 20 minutes to an hour and a half and her running my successful campaign for State Representative, though the other guy got more votes, so now we are waiting for 2012.

Let me start of by saying that my statements today are in no way endorsed by the Department of Defense. They are all my own independent thoughts based on my unique personal experiences.

I am happy to say that while in Afghanistan I had more positive experiences than negative ones. My company, Charlie Company 3/172 Infantry brought all of our soldiers home and only had one soldier who needed to be evacuated out of country due to a gun shot wound. Our soldiers did suffer a significant number of head injuries and concussions due to IED and mortar attacks. Many of these soldiers are still dealing with the effects of those injuries today.

Sadly our battalion did lose two soldiers who were killed in combat. Sgt's Tristan Southworth and Steven Deluzio were killed in action on Aug 22, 2010 in the Jaji district of Paktia Province. They will always be remembered and honored.

We served in a mountainous region of Afghanistan called Paktia Province which is 3800 square miles or about a third the size of New Hampshire. The elevation ranged from 7000 to 8500 feet. The climate was very arid with average temperatures being in the 70's during the summer months.

Paktia province has a historical value both in ancient history as well as more recently as it is the area of the country where Osama Bin Laden planned the 9/11 attacks and later escaped to Pakistan from.

Our journey to Afghanistan started in Oct 2009 with several months of training and supplying with thousands of dollars of new gear and flame resistant uniforms.

When the time came for us to leave the US in the first week of March we flew out of Louisiana in the middle of the night. Our first stop was in Bangor, Maine. We arrived around 6am in the morning and the Freeport Flag Ladies were all ready there to greet us. This is an amazing group of volunteers who partners with our own Pease Greeters to ensure every flight returning or departing is greeted. A lot of people have bumper stickers that say we support our troops, but very few people can say they do like these two groups.

Life in Afghanistan for us was surprisingly comfortable most of the time. We lived in B huts and almost all of us had private rooms which were about 8 by 8 and we were free to customize them however we wanted to based on the materials we could secure. There were some very creative rooms to say the least.

I quickly got to know a lot of the locals who worked on our base. I enjoyed the Afghans and their sense of humor. They joke around much like us and enjoy pulling pranks on one another. They are also the most generous people I have ever met. These people live in severe poverty, but they don't think twice of sharing anything they have, even with us Americans who make more in a day than most of them do in a year. With this years budget in Concord and the hits on the poor and mentally ill I think the legislatures in Concord could learn a lot from the Afghans. Frankly I believe most Afghans would be embarrassed by our budget and our lack of generosity for the less fortunate.

The first half of my tour I spent acting as a medic for a Military Police platoon. With them we worked closely with the Afghan Uniformed Police. We would conduct duel patrols and raids based on intel gathered by the AUP. Most of these raids would end with us finding small weapons caches which were more likely for self defense than attacking us, but it showed our presence and that we knew what was going on in the villages.

My very first mission in country was to conduct a cordon and search of a village suspected of harboring the Taliban. It had the potential of being a very dangerous raid as no Americans had been there for 4 years and the long road there was suspected of being heavily IED'd. Due to the hillside location of the village they would see us coming from miles away and would have time to place ambushes for us.

Luckily our large convoy of 30 or so trucks made it to the village with no IED's going off and once we started searching a few friendly villagers quickly gave up the location of the large caches. We found RPG's, Mortars, AK-47's, Machine Guns as well as hundreds of pounds of IED making materials. By taking these out of the enemies hands we saved countless lives that day without suffering a single injury.

My next major mission was a large combined Air Assault mission which was the largest since Operation Anaconda at the beginning of the war and also took place in some of the same villages. This mission ended up being a bust as the village we searched no longer appeared to be a safe haven for the Taliban as we had feared. None the less it was an exciting experience and one I will always remember.

After I returned from leave I was transferred to Zormat to be with 3rd Platoon Charlie Company 3/172. This was an exciting move for me as the majority of fighting had taken place in Zormat.

My first mission was to move to a village called Raymen Kheyl to help secure it while a new American combat outpost was being built. The Taliban had been launching daily mortar attacks at the new base from the village so we were there to stop them. It was an enjoyable two weeks as our daily routine involved getting to know the local children, sleeping in if you were not on guard duty and enjoying the Afghan summer. Of course we had no running water, no hot food, only had basic shelter which we built ourselves, but we were able to grow beards so we enjoyed it none the less.

It was here that I saw for the first time the effect of children growing up with war in their back yards. About a half a kilometer away a civilian vehicle hit an IED and exploded. The explosion was followed by AK-47 firing from a nearby AUP unit (they often shoot indiscriminately at the sound of any explosion). Despite an explosion close enough to feel the shock wave and automatic rifle fire the children did not miss a beat in the game they were playing. Sadly it has become that much of their everyday life.

Despite what you hear one the news we are doing a great job in Afghanistan and winning the people over. I feel the problem is in our approach. We are trying to do a top down recovery, trickle down, if you will. The people at the top are hoarding the money and moving off to places like Dubai while the work that is being down is shoddy at best since the money intended for the projects is not being spent on them. If we started a bottom up approach where Company Commanders went to the villagers and asked them what they needed and then provided it to them it would give them a reason to stop fighting us.

A lot of Taliban fighters have nothing against America, they just have no other way to provide for their families. While it would do little to stop the hard core fighters, providing real jobs would take away the fighters who fight because they have no other way to feed their families.

I enjoyed teaching the Afghan medics what I could. Their basic diet consists of almost everything being cooked in animal fat so indigestion is a common problem. Once they discovered Zantac I quickly became a hero as I always carried a bottle with 1000 pills so I could dispense a week or two's worth to every Afghan. I would always try to supply the medics with an extra supply of Zantac too.

Sadly we got to treat many children with injuries. Burns are very common since their food is boiled in animal fat over an open fire. It was rewarding to ease their pain and provide proper care to them to prevent infection and minimize scarring.

I had negative experiences too. I saw things done to a human body that no one should have to see. I had one Afghan Soldier so severely injured there was no way I thought he could be alive. He was literally a ball of flesh, yet somehow he managed to live for nearly an hour. We did what we could to keep him comfortable and to provide him dignity.

I'll end with sharing my personal story. When I arrived home I was not able to get the psychological help I needed right away due to some physical injuries that took precedent. It became much too easy to resort to alcohol instead. If you are a veteran suffering from PTSD I urge you to go to the Vet Center or any other resource to help you. In just a few visits I was able to identify my problems, and I was given coping mechanisms so now I can have a drink when I want one, but I never NEED one.

Thank you for giving me the chance to share my story today, as many of the vets here know there can be healing in opening up and sharing your experiences. I would encourage you to also share your story when you are ready and begin your own healing processes if you haven't already.

Thank You!

You Say You Want a Revolution?

What follows are the list of reasons contained in the American Declaration of Independence which compelled us to engage in revolution. One can only wonder where that fiery, rebellious spirit has gone:

"...He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands…

(Like the refusal of Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform…and Arizona’s and Alabama’s requirements that immigrants show ‘papers’ in order to travel)

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers…

(Like removing terrorism trials from Judicial Review by calling them ‘military tribunals’)

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance...

(Need I start listing government regulations, offices, and rules?)

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures...

(Like a vague “war on terror” as a pretense for increased militarization and global adventures, and the use of our National Guard as an overseas military force)

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power...


(Like asking the Generals how they feel about “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” rather than telling them what to do)

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation…

(Like the World Trade Organization…)

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States…

(Like arresting citizens for videotaping police brutality incidents on their cell phones)

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world…

(Like embargoes on Cuba and Iran)

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent…

(Like Imputed Income Tax on same-sex spouses covered by health insurance)

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury…

(Like confiscation of property in tax and drug cases prior to trial)

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences…

(Like Guantanamo Bay)

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies…

(Like replacing Common Law remedies at law with statutory penalties)

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments…

(Like suspending Writs of Habaeus corpus under The Patriot Act, and eliminating the need for a warrant to search cars, library records, and bank accounts)

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.


(Like gerrymandering districts to insure the outcomes of elections, making it almost impossible for third parties to get on the ballot, and passing laws against victimless crimes and regulating our private lives).

What will YOU do this year to continue the Spirit of the American Revolution?

ROLL CALL: New York Adopts Marriage Equality!

Four days after it had intended to adjourn for the season, the New York State Senate gave its approval to Marriage Equality by a larger-than expected margin of 33-29. All Democrats voted in favor of the bill, except for Bronx Homophobe Senator Ruben Diaz. The majority of Republicans opposed the measure, but three broke ranks to provide the margin of victory: Sen. Alesi (Rochester) and Sen. McDonald (Saratoga), both of whom announced support a few days ago, were joined by Poughkeepsie's Stephan Saland and North Buffalo's Mark Grisanti.

The Democratic-controlled Assembly has already approved the Senate's version earlier this evening, so it is now expected that Governor Andrew Cuomo's signature will be imminent, thus making New York the seventh - and most populous - American jurisdiction to enact equality (after Connecticut, DC, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont).

I am a New Yorker by birth, and never cease to be proud of the Greatest State in the Union. Below are the results of the roll call vote:

Adams (D) Yes
Addabbo (D) Yes
Alesi (R) Yes
Avella (D) Yes
Ball (R) No
Bonacic (R) No
Breslin (D) Yes
Carlucci (D) Yes
DeFrancisco (R) No
Diaz (D) No
Dilan (D) Yes
Duane (D) Yes
Espaillat (D) Yes
Farley (R) No
Flanagan (R) No
Fuschillo (R) No
Gallivan (R) No
Gianaris (D) Yes
Golden (R) No
Griffo (R) No
Grisanti (R) Yes
Hannon (R) No
Hassell-Thompson (D) Yes
Huntley (D) Yes
Johnson (R) No
Kennedy (D) Yes
Klein (D) Yes
Krueger (D) Yes
Kruger (D) Yes
Lanza (R) No
Larkin (R) No
LaValle (R) No
Libous (R) No
Little (R) No
Marcellino (R) No
Martins (R) No
Maziarz (R) No
McDonald (R) Yes
Montgomery (D) Yes
Nozzolio (R) No
O'Mara (R) No
Oppenheimer (D) Yes
Parker (D) Yes
Peralta (D) Yes
Perkins (D) Yes
Ranzenhofer (R) No
Ritchie (R) No
Rivera (D) Yes
Robach (R) No
Saland (R) Yes
Sampson (D) Yes
Savino (D) Yes
Serrano (D) Yes
Seward (R) No
Skelos (R) No
Smith (D) Yes
Squadron (D) Yes
Stavisky (D) Yes
Stweart-Cousins (D) Yes
Valesky (D) Yes
Young (R) No
Zeldin (R) No

Scorecard on NY Marriage Equality: The Players and the Numbers

With all the tweets and [contradictory] news reports, I thought it might be helpful to give Non-New Yorkers (as well as confused New Yorkers) a scorecard on where things stand.

New York's Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo and the Democratically-controlled lower house (the Assembly) are in favor of Marriage Equality. In fact, the Assembly has passed a Marriage Equality bill three times.

The hang-up is in the Senate, which is controlled by the Republicans by a slim margin of 32 - 30. There are a total of 62 Senators; unlike the US Senate or other states, a 31-31 tie is *not* broken by the Lt. Governor or some other figure. Therefore, in order to pass the Senate, 32 votes are needed.

29 Democrats are on record in support of the bill; one (Sen. Ruben Diaz of the Bronx) does not. That means supporters need to get three Republicans to support the Bill.

2 Republicans have, in fact, announced full support (Sen. Mark Alesi of Rochester, and Sen McDonald of Saratoga). That makes 31. One more is needed.

Who the 32nd vote could be is a matter of conjecture (and I offer my own conjectures below). The Senate was supposed to recess for the summer on Monday; Senate leaders have been meeting relentlessly with the Assembly leaders and the Governor in order to insure that religious institutions are protected from lawsuits if the bill is adopted. The discussions go beyond protecting churches from performing same-sex marriages (they are already protected under the US Constitution's First Amendment), but also protecting quasi-businesses (Catholic Knights of Columbus Halls renting their facilities for weddings) and sectarian Adoption Agencies that receive government grants to operate.

So, if these issues are resolved, and a 32nd vote is found, does that means Equality is won? NO.

The leader of the Republican Caucus in the Senate, Sen. Dean Skelos of Long Island, has the 'right' to place the bill on the Senate's agenda for a vote - or to refuse to place it on the agenda, thus killing the bill by thwarting a vote, even if a majority of the Senate favors the bill. Skelos has promised to make this decision based on his closed-door negotiations with the Republican Senators.

In other words, one or more Republican Senators can pledge support for the bill, but since the majority of Republicans oppose it, they can block it from even coming to the floor for a vote.

If it DOES come up on the floor for a vote, and if it DOES pass, it's not over: the Senate's version of the bill is already known to be different than the version passed by the Assembly; therefore, the Assembly will have to be called back into session to pass the Senate's version. Democratic Assembly Leader Sheldon Silver has pledged to do this. It is assumed that the Assembly will support any bill passed by the Senate, but if the religious 'protections' are too broad, there *could* be a revolt in that chamber.

The Main Players:

Mike Long, Chair of the Conservative Party of New York State. In New York, 'minor' parties are able to 'cross-endorse' major party candidates, so that a candidate may run for election as a Republican and as a Conservative. The votes from both 'lines' are combined to give the candidates their winning totals. Even though the Conservatives control only 5% of vote, that is enough to provide the margin of victory in many districts. Long has threatened to withhold Conservative Party endorsement from any Republican who votes for Marriage Equality...and has gone further in demanding that the Repubicans not even allow the issue to be voted on. Ironically, Republican candidates in tight re-election races are caught between a rock and a hard place: they may very well need the Conservative Party line to win, but if their district is that close, they risk losing independents and moderates who overwhleming support Marriage Equality.

Countering Mike Long is Frank McKay, Chair of the Independence Party of New York. Though the Party does not have a stance on the bill, McKay favors it...and the Independence Party often delivers three times the number of votes than the Conservatives do. Many Republican Senators run with the support of both the Conservative and the Independence Party - but after this vote, they may be forced to ally themselves with one over the other.

Long Island Senator Dean Skelos is the Republican leader of the Senate. He has run with Conservative Party cross-endorsement, and has been consistent in stating he opposes the bill. As the highest-ranking Republican legislator who controls the Senate chamber with a razor-thin margin, he could be expected to try and mollify Conservatives, and even block a vote...or at least use it for political horse-trading on other issues with the Governor. However, Skelos has also repeatedly stated that he will allow the Republican caucus to decide whether or not to allow a vote. It is not known whether this is his way of avoiding personal responsibility for the issue, or whether he is buying time to twist Republican arms to gather support for the vote. Interestingly, Skelos regularly refers to the issue as "Marriage Equality," a phrase that supporters use (opponents usually say "gay marriage.") In addition, at least one Albany-area GLBT activist close to legislative activities privately confided to this blogger that Skelos secretly supports the bill.

Sen. Ruben Diaz of the Bronx, the only Democrat who opposes the bill, and who once stated, "I AM the Church AND the State." He has actively fought the bill, and busloads of church groups from his home district have arrived in Albany over the last few days in an effort to pray and sing the bill away.

Sen. Mark Alesi of Rochester, the first Republican to break ranks and declare his support for the bill. Alesi not only declared support, but personally appeared and spoke at a pro-Equality rally on the West Capitol Plaza on Tuesday, to the cheers of the crowd.

Sen. Roy McDonald of Saratoga, the second Republican to break ranks, who did so with this colorful announcement:

"You get to the point where you evolve in your life where everything isn’t black and white, good and bad, and you try to do the right thing. You might not like that. You might be very cynical about that.

Well, fuck it, I don’t care what you think. I’m trying to do the right thing.

I’m tired of Republican-Democrat politics. They can take the job and shove it. I come from a blue-collar background. I’m trying to do the right thing, and that’s where I’m going with this.”

State Senator Greg Ball of the Lower Hudson Valley, long considered a swing Republican vote on the issue, who used his status to maximize media attention, including a well-publicized Twitter campaign asking for feedback. In spite of overwhelming support among responses, Ball announced two hours ago he was voting no, winning him the "Media-Whore-But-A-Thorough-Coward" award of the session. No real surprise: he had Conservative Party cross-endorsement last time, but not Independence Party support.

The Republican Swing Votes: Follow the votes of the following Senators, for the stated reasons: From Long Island, where polls show strong support for the bill: Senator Kemp Hannon , who has a fairly safe district with R-C-I support, who was involved in negotiations with the Governor on this bill, and who has been the beneficiary of numerous gay campaign workers, including this blogger; Sen. Chuck Fuschillo, who won without Conservative Party support; Sen. John J. Flanagan, who had both Conservative & Independence Party support and is officially "undecided"; and Sen. Jack Martins , who won without Conservative Party endorsement, and whose district includes heavily Democratic, liberal and Jewish neighborhoods in Great Neck, Lake Success, Roslyn, Manhasset and North Hills.

In addition, Sen. Andrew J. Lanza from Staten Island, who won without Conservative Party support in 2010; Sen. Stephen Saland an influential Senator from Poughkeepsie, who never had Conservative Party support to begin with, and who was involved in negotiations with Cuomo over religious protections on this bill; Sen. Patty Ritchie of Watertown, who did not have Conservative support but whose district is part of a Congressional District that elected a Democrat in last years special election; and Sen. Mark Grisanti, from North Buffalo, who ran on three lines last time (R, C, I) and won with significant support from organized labor. His law practice specializing in taking up the causes of the disenfranchised.

The Clock is ticking....

Rest in Peace, Finally, Mark

Mark Parsons was a big-hearted man, a philosopher, a theologian in his own right, a housemate for over a year, and, most of all, a wonderful man and a true friend.

He wrote the following last night, before taking his life this morning. The message is universal:

Hate creates Hate and here is proof

"I am a gay man with AIDS. I have been living with it for 27 years now. I always see bible thumping christians pontificating about the evils of homosexuality but did you know an even more incideous hate exitsts very close by where the people have access to you heart and Soul? Your sisters perhaps? You know, the "I love you but wish you weren't gay thing". Always a but.......Here is a quote from my Loving sweet sinister, [name ommitted by me]

You fucking AIDS faggot! I wish you would die fucking soon so me and the rest of our family can catch a break! Will you please fucking die and get it over with!

This is the woman I chose to be my health care proxy. I know, that is kind of like a jew asking hitler over for dinner. But i have a forgiving heart, but after all haven't I been forgiven by so many! But I thought this would be a good lesson for ME because now I will know the results of manifesting Hate in the world. I have always wondered what that was like and Now I will now. What I may do with the information I am not really sure. I will let you know in a follow up. I can't really recall ever manifesting hate before. I wonder if it will make me feel guilty. Probably not because guilt really only comes from judging doesnt it? Ulnimately the lesson will be mine. I wonder if all the "Loving" people in my life will turn on me. That would be interesting. Maybe I will get suid but thats no problem because i don't have anything. Or i guess I could go to jail but they at last will provide three hots and a cot."

Love you always, Mark....

Rally in Albany: Tues Jun 21, 12 Noon

If you are within a half day's drive of Albany, New York, you can be part of what could be one of the most important civil rights milestones of our generation.

Time: Tuesday, June 21 · 12:00pm - 1:00pm
Location Albany, NY -- West Capitol Park, outside the State Capitol

*Please join New Yorkers United for Marriage: Rally for Love and Marriage*

There are a number of issues still to be resolved in Albany, which means the Legislature will be staying beyond the original June 20th deadline.

We are heartened that there continues to be respectful and productive dialogue on the issue of marriage equality and believe we are getting close to a vote on the Governor's marriage bill.

New Yorkers United for Marriage asks you to join us at a Rally for Love and Marriage tomorrow --Tuesday June 21 -- at noon outside the Capitol in Albany. Together, we will make sure that all New Yorkers will soon be able to marry the person they love.

TRANSPORTATION INFO --

**Megabus:
Departs 7:00 AM New York, West Side of 9th Ave between 31st St and 33rd St
Arrives 9:45 AM Albany, Rensselaer Station
2hrs 45mins
1 seat = $12.00
www.megabus.com

NY Senate Republicans Stalling of Equality exposes Cowardice

According to Michael Gormley of the Associated Press, "Senate Republicans in New York say protecting religious groups that won't perform gay weddings or offer services to gay couples is a major factor in their refusal so far to bring same-sex marriage to a vote."

Marriage Equality in New York - which would probably pass if a vote was taken in the Senate - is being held up because the Republican-controlled Senate is (so far) not permitting the bill to be scheduled for a vote. The Senate adjourns on Monday.

Their reason? That religious institutions are not being protected in the bill.

A reason, that, in plain language, is a pure crap.

Religious institutions have ALWAYS been protected under the US Constitution to create their own rules for membership and marriage. Since our birth as a country, heterosexuals have had the right to marry; However, NO Roman Catholic Church has been forced to marry non-catholics. Synagogues have not been forced to marry non-Jews. Every religious institution has ALWAYS had the right to define who was eligible for marriage within that religious institution.

What the proposed law in New York State refers to is the legal right to be married in a CIVIL ceremony, as recognized by the STATE - it has NO effect on the right of religious institutions to conduct their own policy as they have seen fit, just as they have always done. This delay tactic by the GOP, presumably to protect religious institutions, has nothing to do with churches and everything to do with playing politics with peoples lives. And, quite frankly, not having the balls to stand up to the the RC Archbishop, Hassidic Jewish leaders, and the Conservative Party, which has threatened to withhold its endorsement from any Republican supporting the Marriage Equality Bill.

To be sure, the Conservative Party can deliver the margin of victory in a race, as it commands about 5% of the vote in many districts. However, the Conservative Party is notoriously weak and disorganized - if not entirely unorganized. When Conservative Party leaders are challenged by insurgents, it has been standard operating procedure for those leaders to call upon Republican operatives to step in and do their campaign leg-work for them...and yet, the NY GOP - once the most progressive in the nation - continues to allow itself to be emasculated as the Conservative Party becomes the very small tail that wags a once very large dog.

To be fair, in recent years, there have been two series of court decisions that, on their face, have seemed to require religious institutions to provide services to gay couples, and this may be part of the fear that some Senators have. It makes sense, then, to look at these two decisions.

The first is the Ocean Grove, New Jersey case, where the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association was stripped of its non-profit status because it would not allow gay couples to rent their oceanfront boardwalk pavilion for weddings. Conservatives immediately pointed to this as evidence that 'gay marriage' would force religious institutions to provide services against their beliefs. But a closer look at the Ocean Grove situation shows their fears to be empty.

The pavilion is not owned by the United Methodist Church (as is often claimed), but by an independent organization called the "Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association." (There are "Camp Meeting Associations" associated with revival meetings within Methodism all up and down the eastern seaboard). The OGCMA owns all the land in a 1 square mile section of Neptune Township, but leases most of it out to homeowners and businesses. The pavilion in question received its tax exemption NOT BY BEING A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION, BUT THROUGH THE NEW JERSEY "GREEN ACRES" PROGRAM, whose purpose is to provide tax breaks for properties which help preserve open space for enjoyment and use by the public, without discrimination. The OGCMA never reserved the pavilion for Christian weddings or religious services of ANY kind, and received its tax exemption for preserving open green space. Thus, this case did NOT involve an infringement on religious rights, but on the terms of a state program exchanging tax relief for public access.

The second series of cases Conservatives point to involve adoption services offered through religious-oriented agencies such as Catholic Charities. In Illinois, Maryland, and Massachusetts, courts or legislatures have made it clear that these agencies can not discriminate against applicants, if they receive state tax money. In a number of jurisdictions, Catholic Charities has chosen to longer place children in foster care or adoption rather than comply with these rulings.

However, they had another choice: they could have stopped taking taxpayer funding. In each case, the agencies were prohibited from discriminating precisely because state governments were contracting with them to perform state functions - the placement of children into foster care or adoptive families. Catholic Charities can not claim to be both a private religious institution on one hand - and then stay afloat by using tax dollars paid for by Americans of all religious stripes on the other - and expect to be able to serve only those with their own religious viewpoint. (It should also be pointed out that these agencies were not only prohibited from discriminating against gays, but also against single moms and cohabiting heterosexuals).

Even though both of these cases turned on very specific, non-religious issues - tax exemption for open space, or state contractual duties using taxpayer money - Conservatives continue to claim that gay marriage will destroy religious groups' ability to practice their own faith. This, of course, is complete nonsense.

And the New York Republican Senate's efforts to avoid and stall Marriage Equality based on these arguments is shallow and cowardly.

Dean Skelos, Kemp Hannon, Chuck Fuschillo, John Flanagan, Mark Grisanti - your constituents deserve better than kowtowing to the Conservatives and throwing up religious smokescreens to avoid doing the right thing...

Open Letter to NYS Senators Hannon, Skelos & Fuschillo:

Dear Senators Hannon, Skelos, and Fuscillo:

As a former Baldwin resident and Past President of the Nassau County Young Republicans, who worked tirelessly on your campaigns for a decade, I am asking that you stand for what is right and support Marriage Equality in New York State.

Kemp, in the late 1970s, you ran for NYS Assembly for the first time. I met you daily, running ahead of you to make sure that we knocked on every door in South Hempstead for your first campaign. I spoke to voters, delivered literature, and worked phone banks on your behalf. While I certainly can’t claim credit for the victory that launched your life-long electoral career, I can recount the endless effort I put into your campaigns. You accepted that help gratefully. You didn’t ask whether I was gay or straight, and it didn’t seem to matter.

Dean and Charlie, your very electoral survival is due, in part, to the tireless efforts of gay men on your behalf. When Ronald Reagan ran for President in 1980 and again in 1984, there were serious concerns that he could not carry a state such as New York….and that his coattails (or lack thereof) might damage ‘local’ Republicans. None of you complained when Terry Dolan, a gay man, founded and operated NCPAC (the National Conservative Political Action Committee) out of a Greenwich Village rowhouse, to insure a lopsided Reagan victory in New York. Rolling into the 1990s, you all were nervous when Bill Clinton was polling double-digits ahead of George HW Bush, and, later, Bob Dole on Long Island….but that didn’t stop you from calling on the expertise of Art Finkelstein – another gay man – who had practically set up shop out of Nassau Co GOP Headquarters, beginning with his engineering of Al D’Amato to the statehouse. As Clinton steamrolled over the GOP in NY, Finkelstein coordinated media messages that resulted in victories from Pataki down to yourselves. And in spite of the Democratic wins in NY and nationally, you all managed to hang on to your seats for three decades.

All with the help – acknowledged or not – of gay men you on whom you were more than happy to rely.

I organized rallies, manned phone banks, coordinated enthusiastic youth for your events, ran local headquarter operations, and responded to every request.

And so now, as an “out,” gay man in his 50’s, I ask this of you: Do the right thing, and take this opportunity to end the apartheid treatment of your gay and lesbian constituents.

I now live in New Hampshire, arguably a far more conservative state than New York. We have had full Marriage Equality for a year and a half now. The sky has not fallen. Churches have not been forced to do anything contrary to their beliefs. Marriages across society have not suffered. Children have not been harmed.

Rather, people have avoided bankruptcy and unaddressed illness because they’ve been covered by their spouses health insurance. Children have been able to refer to their parents, rather than “mom and her friend.” Hospitals and banks have been able to afford spousal recognition on marital property. Couples have been afforded security and equality. And society has continued, stronger than ever.

Gay men and women are all around you. They have voted for you, strategized for you, and campaigned for you. They have the same dreams for their children, the same hopes and dreams for their future as any other of your constituents.

Do the right thing, and be a part of history in New York.

Sincerely,

T. Thomas Fitzsimmons
(f/k/a Thomas Simmons)

"Loving" and the Fight for Marriage Equality

Cherry Grove vs. Fire Island Pines

[2013 Update at end of post...]
 
Growing up as a Long Island beach bum, Fire Island was never too far away, and for many years I worked up a full-body tan at Lighthouse Beach in Kismet. But this Memorial Day Weekend, my boyfriend and I decided to make the ultimate gay men’s beach pilgrimage to the more ‘fabulous’ communities on the island, and took an early morning ferry over to Cherry Grove. What follows are the experiences and reactions of two middle-aged Fire Island ‘virgins.’

After disembarking, we followed the boardwalk to the Grove Hotel, a complex that includes the Ice Palace dance club, pool and poolside bar, beach store, and pizza parlor. We had no reservations, but walked into the ‘lobby’ and were rented a room. The office staff introduced themselves by name, and set the ‘atmosphere’ for what would be a very laid-back, ‘no-problem,’ relaxed location. While the hotel itself bears the salt-blasted, foot-worn, not-quite-level, and dry-rotted evidence of an old wooden family resort, our room was clean, roomy, bright, and we thought, quite a bargain.

That day, there were several drag-queen lead events taking place at poolside. We tend to be more ‘at home’ with a Bear-crowd, and decided to skip the Queen events and head out to the beach for the day. But I need to add that while there is a century-long love affair between The Grove and its Drag Queens, the population that weekend was entirely diverse: Queens, bears, twinks, young, old, black, white, hippies and preppies, lesbians, and liberal-minded straight couples with their children all mingling together on the narrow boardwalks and the beachfront for the weekend. Our nakedness on the beach in the middle of all this was pretty much ignored and accepted…although we discovered later that day that a remote stretch between The Grove and The Pines was a more popular with nude sunbathers.

Everywhere we went, people – both visitors and Island employees – were friendly and laid-back, but quick to laugh. At the hotel bar, we quickly learned the bartenders names (Todd, John, Ken, Chuck), and hanging out at poolside quite literally meant hanging out with our new bartender-friends, as well as other guests who joined in the ‘party’ and bought rounds of shots.

The friendliness continued everywhere we went – at Floyd’s, we enjoyed the most incredibly delicious breakfasts and great conversations with the Irishwoman who owns the place, and when I went into the Island Breeze to order some dinner and a drink, the bartender greeted me – like so many people here – by introducing himself with a handshake.

In walking around the Grove, we detected a very strong sense of community – a sense created, in part, by the tightly-clustered patterns of modest-sized homes that ‘fit’ into, and became part of, the beachside landscape, and by the narrow (five feet max?) boardwalks that forced eye contact and a bit of physical maneuvering between those out for a walk.

In one of our conversations, a well-meaning woman suggested that we head down to Fire Island Pines for a day. She added, “…there’s got to be about 200 Chelsea boys down there…,” a reference to the young muscle boys from the Chelsea gyms in Manhattan. Since we were just ‘taking the island in,’ we figured that should be our next stop, and we headed off through the trails in the “Meat Rack” and wound up in Fire Island Pines.
The physical difference between the two communities impacted us immediately. Upon arriving in the Pines, we found narrow boardwalks as in the Grove, but we also found ourselves on an actual dirt/sand roadway that would have accommodated two-way vehicular traffic. And in fact, those would be large vehicles: dump trucks and service trucks, filled with landscaping tools and bags of compost, used to service huge houses which exploded out of the landscape. In one of the most brutal landscaping assaults I have ever seen, one homeowner had sited his home at the back of his lot, and cleared the entire yard of the native sand, beachgrass, and beach flora. Instead, the bulldozed plot was planted with unnatural-looking birch trees and covered with – of all things – wood chips. Wow. How to stick out like a sore thumb and import your suburban mindset onto a barrier island….

As we walked this ‘road’ towards the harbor, others past us buy, but they generally avoided eye contact and conversation. We were clearly visitors – or perhaps seen as imported ‘help’ – in someone else’s kingdom.

Upon arrival at the Harbor, we hoped to have a few drinks and lunch, but first stopped at a small retail shop, Jalston’s, to buy a hat for my boyfriend, who was beginning to feel the effects of the sun beating down on his uncovered head. With the exception of a woofy man doing some plumbing work there, the visit to buy a hat was a complete disaster. They had no clue as to their prices, and flipped indiscriminately through folders and papers to find a price. After more than 15 minutes of waiting, the sales clerk (Owner? I don’t know – we never learned his name) – said, ‘take the hat…go have some drinks…give me $60 as a deposit…we’ll settle up later.”

Frustrated with waiting, we agreed. The clerk then insisted that he personally walk us to a pool and bar on the harbor, and “set us up.” Off we went to poolside…along a walk littered with garbage and debris. We were then set up under a desert-tent-looking shelter, which, in the sun, simply retained heat, and our clerk/host took off. I went up to the bar to order, and realized that some shaded tables at dockside were actually much cooler than at poolside, so we switched tables, and I ordered our drinks.

I would learn that I could not wait at the bar and get my drinks…rather, they had to be ‘delivered’ to me by the bartender – who never once said hello, or introduced himself, or established eye contact, or spoke to us after delivering the drinks – drinks that cost us $32.50 for TWO (yes, TWO) Jack Daniels & 7-ups.

We decided this was not the place for us. We returned to Jalstons where they had not yet uncovered the price, and then suddenly exclaimed, “Oh, here it is! $54.00 and change! See how close we estimated?!” I was handed back a $5 bill as change. My boyfriend promptly tweeted: “Jalstons: Overpriced, disorganized, poor service, not a recommendation at all, steer clear.” With that, we decided to head back to the Grove by trying a different path, hoping to leave with a better impression than the one created upon our arrival.

No such luck.

We passed an older gentleman in a negligee who chose not to respond to our nods of “hello” as we passed him. The woman (the only woman we’d seen in The Pines) with whom he was walking, however, commented on a ‘flock’ of plastic pink garden flamingoes, calling them “geese.”

Danny and I looked at each other and couldn’t even begin to deconstruct this odd encounter. We quickened our pace, and returned to the Grove.

Our first stop? Our hotel.

“Can we stay an extra night?,” we asked.

“Of course!” our friends responded.

And so, for $60, we had another day in Cherry Grove (as opposed to that same amount buying us three drinks, or a hat in The pretentious Pines).

So, back to our new friends Todd, and John, and Ken, and Chuck, at the Poolside Bar in Cherry Grove, and Floyd’s, and the Island Breeze,

We’ll return to Fire Island again and again, that’s for sure.

To Cherry Grove.
--------------------
 2013 Update:  SO, we have done more than simply 'return' to the Grove.  We have become summer residents. 

Throwing in on a house-share arrangement, we are fortunate to have a rental just a few steps from the dock.  We are now here at the end of April, and the last weeks of May, June, July, August, and September, and a five day stretch in October. When the weekend party crowds dissipate, we ae surrounded by "known" faces - other summer residents who already know our names, or at least recognize us.  We have "our" barstools at Cherry's On The Bay (my new favorite bar), where I can drink all day if I want, wear no shirt, and smoke my pipe, all while watching the boats arrive and depart at the dock.  We spent Memorial Day weekend 2013 chasing clueless people off of the sand dunes, erecting "Stay Off The Dune" Signs, and pining back the National Park Service's ears for overzealous enforcement.

It feels like "home," and, for me, retirement is a mere 2 years away.

Justice, 10 years later. Osama bin Laden is Dead.

Unions Should be Stronger, not Weaker

In Wisconsin, in Massachusetts, in my home state of New Hampshire, and indeed, across the country, a battle over the rights of unionized labor is playing out in state legislatures. In the last half century, as we have moved from a manufacturing economy to a service and information economy, union membership has fallen from 40% of the workforce to barely 10%...and these members are highly concentrated in certain industries - automakers, steelworkers, mining, health care, and public services such as firefighters, police, and teachers.

It has been fashionable in many political circles to blame unions for the nations economic woes: when auto makers sought government bailouts, unions were blamed for the company's poor cash flows, and Tea Party advocates have criticized the success of public employee unions for obtaining pay and benefit packages that they claim are better than most Americans get. When workers show up to protest legislation aimed at eliminating their right to negotiate the terms of their employment contracts, their detractors call them 'union thugs' and 'mobs,' and often throw in cheap shots about the power of 'union leaders.' This name-calling and rhetoric does little to add to objective public debate about the proper role of unions.

Others have more reasonably questioned the status of unions, suggesting that since the days of sweat-shops and dangerous working conditions are over, unions are no longer needed. It is to these 'thinking people' that I would like to respond, drawing on basic economics.

Any one of us knows that when driving about, even in unfamiliar territory, about what to expect to pay for a cup of coffee at a roadside coffee shop or gas station. No one expects to pay a quarter, but no one expects to pay $5.00 either. I recently took a quick survey of 30 students, and asked them to write down what they'd expect to pay in such a situation for a medium-sized coffee. With a single exception, everyone wrote down a number between $1.00 and $2.00, with an absolute majority between $1.25 and $1.75.

This, in spite of the fact there is no law anywhere dictating the price of coffee. It is the result of the natural interplay of the forces of Supply and Demand: thousands of consumers, and thousands of sellers of coffee interacting in the marketplace, with the natural result that a functional price exists. Consumers know that if they stop in a coffee shop and the price is outrageous, they can go elsewhere; and if the price is too low, they may suspect the quality of the product. There is much transparency in a market such as this, as even my students who are not coffee drinkers were aware of the general price level of the product. This is an example of a market that functions well, and it functions well because there are many consumers, with much information, and many suppliers in competition with one another.

But what happens when these perfect market conditions do not exist?

Consider a hypothetical case where hundreds of farmers sell their chickens to any number of processing plants, which in turn package the meat and then sell it to supermarkets. But now consider the results if all the processing plants decided to merge, so that only one chicken processor existed.

If there was only a single Processor, they would constitute a Monopoly insofar as they would be the sole seller of packaged chickens to supermarkets. As most consumers know, when you desire a product that is sold by only one firm, that firm can demand a price far higher than they would be able to if they had to compete with other producers. Consumers paying electric bills to Monopolistic providers know this all too well. However, in our example, we shouldn't presume that the higher prices paid by the supermarkets means that the chicken farmers will get a higher price for their chickens.

In fact, the truth is just the opposite.

The relationship between the Processor and the farmers is called a Monopsony - not a word that is as popular in the public mind as Monopoly. A Monopsony - rather than being the sole provider of a product - is the sole Purchaser of a product. In other words, with only one Processor, the chicken farmers can only sell their product to one buyer. If that buyer should say, "We're paying .25 per chicken - take it or leave it," the farmers have no place to turn. In such a case, the price the farmers receive will be less than under normal market conditions where there are a variety of both producers and consumers.

As a result, our Monopoly/Monopsony Processor is able to depress the price it pays the farmers, and increase the price it charges to supermarkets, and ultimately, the consumer. This is due to unequal bargaining power (or concentrated "Market Structure") of the Processor...and it would simply be erroneous to blame the farmers or the high prices the consumer was ultimately paying.

There are two solutions to this imbalance of market power: the Processor's power can be reduced or divided; or the farmers power can be increased. In the former, the state would use anti-trust laws to 'break up' the Processor into several smaller companies, thus restoring balance in the negotiating of prices; or, the farmers could band together and speak with one voice to negotiate a price for their product with the Processor (This is precisely what cranberry growers have done, by creating the farmer's cooperative known as Ocean Spray).

Now, let's apply these principles to Labor Markets.

Individual Workers, rather than raising and selling chickens, sell their labor to Employers (which could be private employers, or to governing structures). Those employers then sell the final products (whether goods or services) to consumers. In the case of public employment, the consumers are taxpayers, who have little say: they 'purchase' these services with their tax dollars, and face legal repercussions if they refuse. Understandably, from time to time these consumers may complain about either the price or the service...but just as chicken farmers are not the natural enemy of the consumer, neither are public employees the enemy of the taxpayer.

In fact, just as the Processor in the above example wields market power to increase prices to consumers while simultaneously depressing the prices the farmer gets, so too do the structures of government (and many private corporations) increase the price (or tax) they charge to consumers, while wielding the ability to depress the price (or wages) it offers to its employees. Unlike private industry where employment contracts are enforceable in a court of law, government can - and does - change the terms of its employees compensation through a mere act of the legislature. The terms of employment that labor counted on can be changed with a legislative vote and a pen stroke, with few legal rights of recourse. The unilateral power of governing structures to dictate the terms of employment means that, left unorganized labor is in no better condition than the farmers in the above example.

Unlike the example of the Monopoly/Monopsony Processor, however, there are fewer solutions available to public employees to 'even the playing field.' Anti-trust laws can not be applied to government structures, and government can not be 'broken up.' No one seriously suggests that there should be multiple State Troopers, or competing Registries of Deeds, or three different fire departments competing to provide service in one city. No one seriously believes that there should be multiple public school systems in the same town, with the resultant duplication of administration and buildings.

The only solution, then, to create equivalent market power, is to permit those at the bottom of the chain - the laborers - to organize and speak with a single voice. And that is what unionism is all about. It is the only option available to create equivalency of bargaining power between those seeking to sell their labor and the governing structures hiring them, and to counteract the arbitrary and raw power those institutions can exercise if unchecked.

And for those who claim that public employees, or any other employees, 'make too much,' or have 'extravagant' benefits as a result of union agreements - perhaps they should turn that question around:

What has happened to the average Americans pays and benefits as a result of the decrease of unions in this country over the last half-century?

By most measurements, Americans are now losing purchasing power. Their health benefits are less than at any time in the last 50 years. Their vacation, sick, and personal time lags behind every major industrialized nation in the world.

Those who complain about the effects of unions remind me of the 1971 song recorded by "Ten Years After" titled, "I'd Love to Change the World." One of the more memorable lyrics in that song went,

"Tax the rich, Feed the Poor,
'Till there are no Rich no more..."

I have always believed that the writer, Alvin Lee, got that all wrong. Rather, it should be:

"Tax the rich, Feed the Poor,
'Till there are no Poor no more..."

Our goal as a nation should not be to make everyone equally miserable by impoverishing everyone...but to ensure that all our citizens share in the wealth our society creates.

Irish Foreign Minister: end ban on gays in NY St Patrick's Parade

"...They need to celebrate Ireland as it is, not as people imagine it. Equality is very much the center of who we are in our identity in Ireland," said Irish Foreign Minister Eamon Gilmore, speaking yesterday with prominent New York Irish gay community leaders and groups at the Irish Consulate on Park Avenue in NYC.

"This issue of exclusion is not Irish, let's be clear about it. Exclusion is not an Irish thing..... I think that's the message that needs to be driven home."

After a financial debacle more serious than America's, Irish elections last month catapulted Fine Gael into the leadership of Ireland. They replaced Fianna Fail (relegating them to third place status), which had been the largest party in Parliament since 1932. The winds of change are strong according to Gilmore: The new government is committed to a constitutional convention to draw up a new constitution for Ireland in time for the 100th anniversary of 1916 Easter Rebellion. The government plans to introduce a provision for same sex marriage. (Civil Unions are currently available for legal for same-sex and heterosexual couples in Ireland)

"Ireland has changed," said Gilmore. "..For the majority of Irish people being gay is no longer an issue."

While often perceived as having a very conservative approach to sex and gender issues, the Irish actually have a very 'progressive' past: in medieval Ireland, women had the right to divorce their husbands, own property, and figured prominently in Irish legend and history, including Queen Maeve and St. Bridget. The 12th century historian Gerald of Wales records ceremonies for same-sex male unions taking place as early as the 1100's. The 16th C. English Poet Edmund Spencer was appalled by Irish men, writing that they were "a bunch of lascivious bisexuals who offered themselves freely to both women and men." Spencer recommended the extermination of the Irish race but was himself burned out of his famous castle in County Cork.

The imposition of a strict Puritan code under the Elizabethans, Cromwell, and the Victorians; the loss of 1/3 of the population during an Gorta More (the Great Hunger); and the resultant alliance of independence-minded Irish with the Catholic Church against Protestant Ulstermen resulted in a strong social ethos of conservatism in matters of gender and sex - at least on the surface.

But those of us who really know the Irish, know that the real Ireland is emerging once again...

Michele Bachmann: Ignorance knows no bounds....

In previous posts, I have complained about young people’s lack of grasp of history, and thus, their inability to place current events and political proposals into some sort of context. As serious and problematic as that is, it’s even worse when a current Member of Congress and Presidential aspirant repeatedly displays a thorough ignorance of American history.

Many news outlets have picked up on Tea Party darling Michele Bachmann’s recent trip to New Hampshire. Speaking to the Republican Liberty Caucus in Manchester, NH, Bachmann addressed her crowd by stating,

“You’re the state where the shot was heard around the world at Lexington and Concord. And you put a marker in the ground and paid with the blood of your ancestors.”

I know that when I was in school, I learned that Lexington and Concord were in Massachusetts. That Paul Revere rode out from Boston, Massachusetts. That the early Revolutionary War skirmishes – the Tea Party, the Boston Massacre – were in Massachusetts. How does a Congressman and Presidential wannabe get this wrong?
One could be charitable and assume she misspoke – but this was the second time in two days she made that claim. Speaking a day earlier in Portsmouth, she said the same thing.

When called out on her lack of grasp of basic American history, she responded on her Facebook Page by saying,

"So I misplaced the battles Concord and Lexington by saying they were in New Hampshire. It was my mistake, Massachusetts is where they happened. New Hampshire is where they are still proud of it!"

Her cavalier dismissal of her own ignorance is disturbing…as is her unnecessary and snide insinuation that somehow Massachusetts is not proud of its heritage.

If this was a one-time occurrence, or occurred late in the campaign season when candidates are exhausted, it would be easy to write it off as a simple error. But Bachmann exhibits a scary tendency to rewrite history over and over in order to whip up passion among her base.

In a speech given to “Iowans for Tax Relief” in January of this year, Bachmann included these incredible statements:

“For 21 generations in America we have listened to Lincoln’s words…”

“We republished the Mayflower Compact in the Declaration of Independence…"

"[In our first years as a nation]…it didn’t matter the color of their skin, it didn’t matter your economic background– once you got here, we were all the same”

Is this woman serious?! Is she completely ignorant of American history, or does she simply not care what she says in order to attract the votes of the under-educated?

Since Lincoln was President in the 1860s, 150 years have passed. Squeezing 21 generations into 150 years would result in a new generation every SEVEN years. I realize that the age at which girls are becoming fertile is dropping, but even this is a little hard to grasp.

There is not a single phrase from the Mayflower Compact included in the Declaration of Independence.

And when African slaves came here, they were considered 3/5 of a person. Catholics were forbidden from holding office in New Hampshire, and non-property owners were forbidden from voting in many states. The Irish were greeted with NINA signs, and American citizens of Japanese ancestry were put into concentration camps. Native Americans in the east were marched to Oklahoma.

We were not “all the same” once we got here.

Bachmann acknowledged that slavery took place, but she countered that,

“… we also know that the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States”

Huh? You mean the founders who (a) owned slaves, (b) specifically voted DOWN an anti-slavery clause drafted by Jefferson in the original Declaration, and (c) who were all DEAD when the Civil War was fought?

I’ve collected a series of Bachmann quotes that establishes a pattern of ignoring or rewriting facts to fit her political goals. Below are some of the most astonishing for their shear stupidity:

“Unelected bureaucracies will decide what we can and cant get in future health insurance policy. Thats why theyre called death panels.” (They were not called death panels – that’s what Sarah Palin called them)

”And what a bizarre time we’re in, when a judge will say to little children that you can’t say the pledge of allegiance, but you must learn that homosexuality is normal and you should try it.” (No Judge has ever said a child could not say the Pledge of Allegiance, and no Judge has required that children should learn about and ‘try’ homosexuality)

”I’m very concerned about the international moves they’re making, particularly … moving the United States off the dollar and onto a global currency, like Russia and China are calling for.” (Neither Russia nor China are calling for an international currency. In fact, our current trade situation with China is difficult precisely because China tightly controls the value of its currency)

”I find it interesting that it was back in the 1970s that the swine flu broke out under another, then under another Democrat president, Jimmy Carter. I’m not blaming this on President Obama, I just think it’s an interesting coincidence.” Ummm….if you’re not blaming this on Democrats or Obama, why did you say that?

“The President of the United States will be taking a trip over to India that is expected to cost the taxpayers $200 million a day.” (Bachmann does not understand that the original report was expressed in Indian currency – rupees – where the exchange rate is 45:1)

And my favorite:

“I just take the Bible for what it is, I guess, and recognize that I am not a scientist, not trained to be a scientist. I’m not a deep thinker on all of this. I wish I was. I wish I was more knowledgeable, but I’m not a scientist.”

Taken together with her previous quotes, Bachmann reveals her hand: Theology, not science or facts or history, drives her program. She parrots a re-written version of American History that has been developed by a narrow fundamentalist agenda seeking to portray America as a Divine Gift to the world, and the GOP tea partiers as the righteous remnant battling the socialists, the ungodly, the blasphemous, the homosexual, and all who think ‘differently.’

If this is the new and representative face of GOP, scary times are indeed ahead.

Can the President refuse to defend a law?

After it was announced that the Obama Administration would no longer defend DOMA in court, Republican Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown had the following comment today:

"...We can't have presidents deciding what laws are constitutional and what laws are not. That is a function of the judicial branch, not the executive."

Brown is echoing what many Republicans have said. He is also betraying his own ignorance of the American political system. As a sitting United States Senator, that is rather sad.

In reality, *no* branch of government has been designated the specific function of declaring laws unconstitutional - not even the Judiciary. While it is often said the Judiciary fills that role, the fact is that nowhere does the US Constitution authorize the Supreme Court to do so. The seed of that 'authority' was planted in 1803, when the Court decided in Marbury vs. Madison that a Congressionally-enacted law was invalid due to its unconstitutionality.

However, the development of that authority within the Judiciary does not mean that other branches of government are free to ignore issues on Constitutionality. When the President takes his oath of office, he specifically swears the following:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The President takes an oath to defend the US Constitution. He is not defending the Constitution if he or his administration are trying to preserve laws which violate that same Constitution.

The error Scott Brown makes - and one which many critics of Obama's decision are making - is the adoption of a simplistic view of government that ignores the overriding importance of the concept of the separation and balance of powers between the three branches of government.

On a simple level, it is often said that the Legislature "makes" the laws, and the Executive "carries out the laws." But that view skews the balance of power and makes it appear as if the President is merely a servant or administrator to Congress, whose only function is to do as he is told. Such a view sees the Legislature as superior to the President, and able to order him about to carry out their orders.

That is NOT how the structure of our national government was envisioned. Rather, it was conceived as being comprised of three separate branches, co-equal, each providing checks and balances to the others...and deliberately inefficient and inexact in the exercise of its powers. The ability of one branch to "check" another branch is one of the most basic features of the American System.

In 1788, within months of the adoption of the Constitution, James Madison, quoting the great political philosopher Baron de Montesquieu, wrote in Federalist Paper No. 47,

"When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person or body," says he, "there can be no liberty, because apprehensions may arise lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws to execute them in a tyrannical manner."

In other words, when these two branches 'merge' - or when one branch of government has the authority both to create laws AND force them to be carried out - tyranny may result.

It IS the President's responsibility to defend the Constitution...just as it is the Legislature's responsibility, AND the Judiciary's responsibility. No branch of government is 'superior,' and none is merely a servant to carry out the wishes of the other.

We see this all the time in less controversial settings:

Congress passes a law, and the Supreme Court refuses to convict someone under it.

The President authorizes a program, and Congress refuses to authorize spending to carry it out.

A Legislature passes laws against smoking marijuana, and the Executive branch (Mayors, Police Departments) choose NOT to enforce that law during a huge rock concert.

A president nominates Judges and Cabinet Appointees, and the Senate refuses to vote them up or down.

This happens on a regular basis. There is nothing different in the present case. Congress passed a law, DOMA, that is clearly Unconstitutional on multiple levels. Several Courts have already held that DOMA is Unconstitutional. The President is merely carrying out his responsibilities under the US Constitution to defend that document against laws which violate both its letter and spirit. It is a messy system, but it is messy on purpose...and any effort to insist that the President merely do as Congress tells him is certainly as un-American as it gets.

BREAKING: Obama will not defend DOMA

US Attorney General Eric Holder has announced that the US will no longer defend Sec 3of DOMA (“Defense of Marriage Act”) in court. This section prevented the Federal Government (and is agencies, such as the IRS) from recognizing the legitimacy of same-sex marriages validly performed in the 5 states and District of Columbia where such marriages are legal, and resulted in tax and survivorship inequities. This means that for all practical purposes, the recent rulings by Federal Courts in the northeast holding DOMA to be an unconstitutional overreach of federal authority into state matters will stand.

From Holders statement:

“...After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President’s determination.

Consequently, the Department will not defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA as applied to same-sex married couples in the two cases filed in the Second Circuit. We will, however, remain parties to the cases and continue to represent the interests of the United States throughout the litigation. I have informed Members of Congress of this decision, so Members who wish to defend the statute may pursue that option. The Department will also work closely with the courts to ensure that Congress has a full and fair opportunity to participate in pending litigation...”

Humanity, Love, and Heartbreak...

This post is for all who believe that "Gay Marriage" is not "real marriage," who believe that people with AIDS "get what they deserve," and who are so devoted to free markets in health care that they lose sight of humanity. If you read it prepare to have your heart ripped out. It was authored, and is reposted annually on this day, by Joe Jervis of Joe.My.God. (The Village Voice's choice as Best Blog in NYC)


I Will Hold You Ten Times

1. I will hold you, Daniel.

2. The lesions don't bother me, I will hold you.

3. I will pretend nothing is wrong when you want me to pretend and when you want me to hold you, I will hold you.

4. I will make plans with you to go to your favorite places that we both know you can no longer go and I will sit with you and look at your pictures of these places and I will hold you.

5. I will ride with you on the train to your doctor's office and when you get sick in the station, I will hold you.

6. I will see the Post-It notes you put all over the house reminding yourself to do everyday things like "Turn off stove" and "Lock front door" and I'll pretend the disease isn't robbing your mind and when you tell me something for the third time in ten minutes, I won't let you know, I will hold you.

7. I will go to Safeway with you because you need to get out into the world, and when the diarrhea overwhelms you and you shit your pants in the middle of the store, I will call us a cab and in the cab, I will hold you.

8. I will make you mix-tapes of our favorite songs from last summer, just like you asked me to, and when the memories make you sad instead of happy and you throw the tapes in the trash, I won't get angry, I will hold you.

9. I will sit up all night with you because the fevers and night sweats won't let you sleep. In the morning, I will change your drenched sheets and help you out of the shower and when you weep from the sight of your withered body in the mirror on the bathroom door, I will hold you.

10. I will hold you, Daniel.