Lesbian Parenting Study: Research or Propaganda?

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

So I came across a series of headlines that refer to a recent study which says that children of lesbian couples grow up just as well as children in households where there is both a mother and a father. These articles drew my attention because it goes right in the face of one of the core arguments of the effort to protect marriage: the idea that marriage is about family made by mothers and fathers together, who play distinct parental roles.
Dr. Henny Bos,
Dr. Nanette Gartrell,
lead investigator

Upon finishing the article I sat back and thought I better prepare for the onslaught of homosexual activists who will be coming to my Facebook page to post this article and to scream its results at the top of their internet lungs. And then I immediately wanted to know who conducted this study.

I'll be honest. My first impressions of the research team led me to start accepting the study as legit and professional. I mean, the research team is led by a Doctor Nanette Gartrell, an associate clinical professor of psychiatry at the Center of Excellence in Women's Health for the University of California at San Francisco and a former faculty member at the Harvard Medical School. The setting of all this being in San Francisco raised a little red flag but I let it go at the time. After all, coincidences do happen, right?

Also on the team was Doctor Henny Bos, an Assistant Professor of Childhood Education and Family Support at the Department of Education of the Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences at the University of Amsterdam. Talk about a long name, right? Dr. Bos is listed as a co-investigator.

So far my investigation into this study has concluded that it was conducted by an international team of doctors with expertise in relevant fields. The other project research staff includes a registered nurse at the San Francisco General Hospital, a statistical analyst who is a former member of the Stanford Medical School faculty and a clinical instructor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School.

At this point anyone opposed to homosexual parenting must be pretty discouraged. That staff is pretty solid and I'll be the first to admit it. 

That is when the truth became clear to me. At the bottom of their webpage is a link to their supporters and funders. I'd like to go through each of these funders and let my readers decide for themselves if this study was research or propaganda. Remember, the project staff is a highly professional team. So all that is left are those behind the study, providing the grants and necessary financial assistance.

The first funder is The Arcus Foundation. It didn't take me more than ten seconds to understand what their position on this matter is. Upon opening their website, in big orange letters one will clearly read that The Arcus Foundation funds "pressing social justice and conservation issues." Furthermore, they openly claim to "work to advance LGBT rights". LGBT is an acronym used often in this report and stands for "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender". The Arcus Foundation also seems to be interested in protecting the great apes but that's an unrelated matter.

As of June 1st, 2010, they have a new Executive Director, Fred Davie, who is replacing Urvashi Vaid so she can go off to write a book (most certainly a LGBT rights book) and, according to their site, "to continue her longstanding leadership role in the LGBT and social justice movements." I'll come back to Urvashi Vaid later on.

On to funder number two. Based in San Francisco like much of the project research team, The Horizons Foundation is another group which proudly and clearly states its support for the LGBT community on its website - this time in blue. Within ten seconds one will immediately understand that The Horizons Foundation "serves the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community." At least that's what they have printed right smack dab in the middle of their home page.

So what is this organization? Who runs it? Well, its Executive Director is Roger Doughty, who has served in many different posts around the country - all promoting the LGBT agenda. For example, Roger has worked as the Executive Director of Horizons Community in Chicago, IL. For those of you unfamiliar with that group, it is the largest LGBT social service and advocacy group of the Midwest.

Before that, Roger was the Director of Program Administration for the L.A. Gay and Lesbian Center. He was (is?) the President of Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance in Washington, D.C. and since 1998 has been a board member on the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission.

Practically the each of the staff members of The Horizon Foundation are LGBT activists, lawyers and advisors.

Devesh Khatu is their Development Officer. He boasts that he is a "long-time volunteer at organizations that serve the LGBT community."

Their Program Officer, Jewelle Gomez, was a founding member of the Astraea National Lesbian Foundation and wrote a book which won two awards from Lambda Literary - a national gay book review organization that annually celebrates the best of lesbian and gay books.

The third funder is The California Endowment, which after a ten-minute review of their website, board of directors, mission statement, etc, I must say seems like a legit operation not controlled by the homosexual agenda like the first two. The same goes for The California Wellness Foundation, the project's fourth funder. So far we've got two LGBT activist groups and two neutral organizations. 

The Colorado-based Gill Foundation is the fifth funder. In blue letters along the top of its website the Foundation claims its status as "advocates for LGBT equality." The foundation openly supports the legalization of same-sex marriage, same-sex adoption, the repeal of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy (DADT) and passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).

The founder of The Gill Foundation is himself a homosexual, married to another man and claims to be a strong supporter of social justice.

Remember Urvashi Vaid, the outgoing Executive Director of The Arcus Foundation? Well, she has been a board member of The Gill Foundation since 2004. The Gill website also speaks about The Arcus Foundation as "a funder of the LGBT movement," except here they give us more detailed information about Urvashi herself.

Apparently, she's a community organizer just like our current President. She worked for four years as the director of the Governance and Civil Society Unit of the Peace and Social Justice Program. She also claims to have worked for many years with the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force in various roles including Executive Director.

She's worked for the ACLU as an attorney and is a former columnist for the Advocate, a gay publication.

In 1996 she authored the book "Virtual Equality: The Mainstreaming of Gay & Lesbian Liberation." So wait a minute. Does that mean that one of the funders of this research project is an expert on "mainstreaming" homosexuality? Wouldn't these research results do just that - make homosexual parenting acceptable and thus, eventually mainstream? 

So the next funder is not going to need any further explanation beyond its name but I will include some for for a little added flavor.

Funder number six is the Gay & Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA) which boasts itself as the "leader in LGBT health since 1981".

Officially, the organization claims to be the world's largest and oldest association of homosexual, bisexual and transgender health care professionals.
However, it's worthy to point out that this so-called "health care association" runs its very own "marriage equality initiative" aimed at creating a link between the same-sex marriage movement and GLMA's supporters in order to "bring the medical community's weight to the table of marriage equality." Their words, not mine.

Funder number seven is the Mertz Gilmore Foundation, which promotes and supports human rights, and according to its website is dedicated to social change and justice in the United States. Their website is seriously deficient of information. Nevertheless, a few minutes of research turned up some details which give us a clue as to its political leanings. This Foundation is listed as a human rights funder on the Human Rights Funders website.

Here is where Mertz Gilmore areas of grant funding are listed. Among those listed are "sexual minorities" and "equality". Now don't let that throw you off. It's part of their overall PR strategy to make homosexuality mainstream. Only relatively recently have homosexual activists begun to inject the word "equality" into the marriage debate. A visual example of this is GLMA's "marriage equality initiative" but earlier the PR strategy was about legalizing "gay marriage" and then it was about legalizing "same-sex marriage" and now it's about "marriage equality". 

After the first glance of the eighth funder, I thought we had our third neutral organization. But that was just my initial impression of the American Psychological Foundation. Any foundation that has been awarded for "combating homophobia" is clearly pro-homosexuality. 

Now combating homophobia maybe a noble cause. Homosexuals are people just like everyone else and should be treated like people. I'm a fierce opponent of same-sex marriage but that's not because of any hated of homosexuals. Nevertheless, boasting about combating homophobia is the type of language only used by those on that side of the issue.

The American Psychological Foundation is brought to you by The American Psychological Association, which removed homosexuality from the list of mental disorders back in the early 1970s. However, in 2009 they quietly confirmed that there is no evidence of a "gay gene".

However, if that doesn't satisfy you for proof of their tilt, I'd like to present for your reading pleasure a February 2010 publication by the American Psychological Association entitled "Claiming a Place at the Family Table: Gay and Lesbian Families in the 21st Century".

The PDF starts out something like this: "In light of recent setbacks to marriage equality…" Setbacks? You mean the restoration of marriage in California in 2008? Or do you mean the rejection of same-sex marriage in Maine in 2009? Those aren't setbacks, those are steps forward and anyone who claims they are setbacks clearly is on a homosexual agenda.

Next on our list of funders is the Susan A. & Donald P. Babson Charitable Foundation, which sports an amateur website and doesn't provide much information at all - at least about its political leanings. The website is dedicated to applying for one of their grants. 

However, a simple Google search of the Foundation provides the information we are looking for. For some reason The Family Equality Council comes up when you search them. Well, what is that organization? Seems like a play on words mocking the Family Research Council, a pro-traditional marriage group which opposes same-sex marriage.

But the Family Equality Council, according to its website, "works at all levels of government to advance full social and legal equality for LGBT families by ensuring that they are included in legislation, policies and practices impacting families." The Equality Council openly supports repealing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the federal law defining marriage between a man and a woman.

So how is that associated with the Susan A. & Donald P. Babson Charitable Foundation? Well, maybe it would have to do with the fact that one of the places I checked my spelling of "Babson" when writing this report was on the list of supporters of the Family Equality Council. Yes, along with the LGBT Bar Association, The Arcus Foundation (remember them?), and The Gill Foundation, the Susan A. & Donald P. Babson Charitable Foundation is listed as a financial supporter of the Family Equality Council. 

The Uncommon Legacy Foundation is the tenth funder on our list and they don't have a website but a Google search pulls it up real quick. Apparently, it's a scholarship fund which dishes out $1,000 to "outstanding lesbian undergraduate and graduate full-time students". In order to receive the scholarship, one must demonstrate their commitment or contribution to the LGBT community.

As a side note they claim to have the website "www.uncommonlegacy.org" but I was unable to load it. That maybe due to the fact that I am in Russia at the moment and for some reason, I often have trouble accessing pro-homosexuality websites. Give it a shot. 

So we have one funder left to discuss and there are only two neutral organizations which funded this research and eight biased financiers which are dedicated to promoting the homosexual agenda.

Our final funder is The Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law. According to its website, the Williams Institute "advances sexual orientation law and public policy through rigorous, independent research and scholarship," which it hands over to "judges, legislators, policymakers, media and the public."

Bradley Sears, the Executive Director of the Williams Institute, interned for Lambda Legal Defense Fund, the national gay rights legal advocacy group which is currently involved in lawsuits around the Nation to legalize same-sex marriage and to repeal DOMA. He also interned for the ACLU's National Gay and Lesbian and AIDS Project. 

The Williams Institute's Research Director, Lee Badgett, is an author of two gay-themed books focusing on the economic lives of homosexuals and about the future of society after the legalization of same-sex marriage.

Its Development Director, Matt Strieker, is a board member of the Lesbian and Gay Lawyers Association of Los Angeles. He's also active in the Young Professional's Council, which is affiliated with the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center.

The list of participants at the Williams Institute goes on and on - too far for me to list them all but it even goes as far as Taya Ball, the Administrative Assistant, who wrote a gay-themed thesis for her B.S. in Psychology. 

This Institute is monopolized by the gay agenda.

Let's bring it full circle. Doctor Nanette Gartrell, the one who led the twenty year study is herself a Williams Distinguished Scholar. Yes, of the Williams Institute at UCLA mentioned above. Beyond that, personal lives are personal lives but in this case it can't be ignored. Dr. Gartrell is a lesbian and married to the feminist, activist and filmmaker Diane "Dee" Mosbacher. 

So long story short, I'd hope that my investigative report has at the very least provided you with reason to not accept the results of this new study (propaganda?) as they are presented to you.

Nine out of eleven of the project funders openly and actively support the homosexual agenda. One of its key members is a specialist focused on making homosexuality a mainstream part of society. This is a clear aspect of their plan - present "research" (propaganda), which contradicts the common belief that homosexual households are not the best environment for raising children.

Children not only need a mother and a father but have the right to a mother and a father. When circumstances don't permit that, it is unfortunate. It doesn't mean that we should start promoting and encouraging that unfortunate circumstance by supporting same-sex marriage/adoption or the general homosexual agenda as a whole.

This article was originally printed on June 7, 2010 on our original website. It has been reposted here as we continue to transition to this website.

READ MORE - Lesbian Parenting Study: Research or Propaganda?

Charlie Crist Supports Same-sex Civil Unions and Why it's Wrong

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Most of the talk about compromising on the issue of same-sex marriage revolves around legalizing civil unions for homosexual partners as an alternative to same-sex marriage. This is a compromise that should be avoided if you value the traditional meaning of marriage between a man and a woman.

Some are saying that
the once Republican,
now Independent
Charlie Crist will say
anything to get elected.
Florida Governor Charlie Crist, a candidate for Senate running against Republican Marco Rubio and Democrat Kendrick Meek as an Independent after bowing out of the Republican primary after facing defeat, has recently come out clarifying his support for gay rights, including support of civil unions and same-sex adoption.

On the other hand, Crist underscored his opposition to same-sex marriage. To support same-sex civil unions in the place of same-sex marriage is a losing stance to take, historically speaking and here's why.

Currently, five states and the District of Columbia recognize and perform same-sex marriages. Three of these states – Connecticut, Vermont and New Hampshire – all started with civil unions for same-sex couples.

On July 1st, 2000 Vermont became the first U.S. state to legalize civil unions for same-sex couples which provided the same rights and status as marriage. Nine years later, when Vermont would legalize same-sex marriage in the spring of 2009, Jennifer C. Pizer, the national marriage project director for Lambda Legal, praised Vermont for its ‘important steps forward’.

“Vermont opened an important back door,” she said, referring to the civil unions. “Now it has invited gay people to enter through the front door of marriage.”

In neighboring New Hampshire, there is another same-sex-civil unions-to-same-sex-marriage pattern. In 2007, the New Hampshire House and Senate passed its civil unions bill, which provided the same rights and status of marriage. Governor Lynch said he supported same-sex civil unions because it was a matter of “conscience, fairness and preventing discrimination,” and the new law became effective January 1, 2008.

It would be only two short years before New Hampshire state legislature passed a bill to legalize same-sex marriage and on January 1, 2010, the law took effect. Per the same-sex marriage law, couples who entered into civil unions will see those civil unions legally designated and recorded as a marriage on January 1, 2011 if they don’t manually apply for a marriage license before then.

Gov. Lynch changed his
stance on same-sex
civil unions, too: That
they weren't enough. 
Mr. Lynch, who is up for re-election this year, defended his flip flop on the issue saying that he had heard “compelling arguments that a separate system is not an equal system.” He would go on to repeat his reasoning for supporting same-sex civil unions and apply it to same-sex marriage:

“Today,” he said, “we are standing up for the liberties of same-sex couples by making clear that they will receive the same rights, responsibilities — and respect — under New Hampshire law.”

Isn’t that why the homosexual activists pushed for civil unions in 2007? New Hampshire State Senator Fenton Groen’s comments on the same-sex marriage law couldn’t be any more accurate: "The pro-gay marriage people have been very disingenuous. They told us two years ago that if civil unions were passed, that would completely satisfy them. Within two years, they have completely changed their minds."

Well, what did one of New Hampshire’s gay residents, Rob Davis, who entered into a civil union in 2008 with his partner Dean Davis, say about the civil unions? "It didn't go far enough."

In Connecticut the situation was very similar. Legalized in 2005, civil unions for same-sex couples provided for the same rights and responsibilities as marriage. By doing this, Connecticut became the second U.S. state to adopt civil unions.

Connecticut, like its neighbor to the north, brought up legislation for same-sex marriage only two short years after implementing civil unions. It passed the House Judiciary committee that year and although Governor Jodi Rell promised to veto the legislation because she felt that civil unions for same-sex couples “covered the concerns that had been raised,” the Supreme Court of Connecticut guaranteed same-sex marriage rights the following year in 2008.

So in this case the court intervened to convert civil unions into marriage. Was it a surprise? Not for lesbian Anne Stanback, president of the Love Makes a Family consortium. In 2003, she was advocating domestic partnerships for same-sex couples where she argued: “Would passage of such a bill be an important step forward? Absolutely. Would it be the end of our fight? Absolutely not!”

Brian Brown, President of the
National Organization for Marriage.
Brian Brown, who once worked with the Family Institute of Connecticut and is now the President of the National Organization for Marriage, put it this way: "Some legislators thought civil unions was a way out," he said. "They falsely think it is some kind of compromise, but the proponents have made clear that civil unions is only a stepping stone to full same-sex marriage."

That’s exactly right, Brian, and it can be seen in New Jersey, too. In fact, had Republican Chris Christie lost in his election bid to replace Jon Corzine as Governor of New Jersey, gay marriage would be legal there today and would likely be legal in New York State, too.

New Jersey legalized civil unions for same-sex couples back in 2006, which made the Garden State the third U.S. state to offer such civil unions. Saundra Toby-Heath and her partner were among the seven gay couples who sued the State of New Jersey to redefine marriage. With the adoption of civil unions in 2006, Saundra said "We acknowledge this is a huge step forward."

According to an Associated Press news article from December 15, 2006, gay rights groups also shared her sentiment, saying that not calling the civil unions “marriage” created a different and inferior institution. They did, however, welcome the civil unions as a step towards full same-sex marriage.

Then in 2008 a commission full of gay rights advocates was set up to examine civil unions in New Jersey. You know what they concluded? That the civil union law created “a second-class status” for same-sex couples.

According to a statement on one of New Jersey’s largest gay rights organizations, Garden State Equality, the goal is same-sex marriage: “Garden State Equality is fighting for real marriage equality and will not settle for civil unions, which are separate, unequal and do not consistently work to protect same-sex couples in the real world. But civil unions are a notable step forward.”

New Jersey’s state legislature voted against same-sex marriage late last year after Chris Christie was elected and lawmakers failed to rush the same-sex marriage bill to outgoing Governor Corzine’s desk in a midst of scheming that gave democratic process in New Jersey a bad stink. That was luck. Before the election, the gay marriage bill was on track for passage and approval by the governor.

Political winds at the time allowed a republican to be elected governor of one of America’s bluest states. Had Corzine been re-elected, he would have fulfilled his promised to sign same-sex marriage legislation into law in early 2010.

Civil unions have historically
not been satisfactory for
same-sex couples and have
paved the way to eventual
same-sex marriage. 
So this point here is that the homosexuals and their activists pushing the homosexual agenda are not up for compromising. Their goal is same-sex marriage; gender-neutral marriage in every state across the Nation.

Legalizing civil unions is not a good strategy because a few years later, they will use that as the framework as a steppingstone to pushing for same-sex marriage. In their own words it is clear. Barbara Cox, associate dean at California Western School of Law and co-chair of the national Freedom to Marry Organization:

“But we aren’t going to get marriage until we get civil unions. You know, the people that I have talked to in Vermont, the people who are doing this nationwide, keep saying we need to do that [civil unions] as an important first step. But what I believe that what we have to do as a community is that each one of us has to
walk out of here tonight saying. ‘This is something that I can do to make a step forward.’”

Don’t allow same-sex civil unions. Supporting same-sex civil unions is the same as supporting same-sex marriage. If you value marriage between a man and a woman you must oppose any form of relationship recognition for same-sex couples that mirrors or mocks marriage.
READ MORE - Charlie Crist Supports Same-sex Civil Unions and Why it's Wrong

What impact will 2010 elections have on same-sex marriage movement?

Friday, September 10, 2010

Going into the highly anticipated Fall 2010 midterm elections, there are some 27 bi-cameral state legislatures which are controlled by the Democratic Party and 14 bi-cameral state legislatures under Republican control.

Another 8 state legislatures are divided between the Democrats and Republicans whereas one party controls the State Senate; the other the General Assembly. Nebraska, unique in the Nation, maintains a non-partisan, unicameral state legislature.

Red represents legislatures controlled by Republicans
 Blue represents legislatures controlled by Democrats
Purple represents split legislatures
As for Governorships, the Democrats maintain a plurality going into November, as well. Twenty-six states have a Democrat Governor while twenty-three have a Republican. 

Florida’s current Governor, Charlie Crist, who is running for Senate in Florida recently changed party from Republican to Independent after facing defeat in the Republican primary against Marco Rubio, making Florida the only state with neither a Democrat nor Republican governor.
Of the twenty-seven states controlled by the Democratic Party, seven of them have seen or are expected to see important legislative battles on the issue of same-sex marriage.

In New Hampshire, a state in which same-sex marriage became legal on January 1 this year saw two attempts shortly after the law went into effect to restore the traditional definition of marriage in the state. The constitutional amendment proposal failed 201 – 135 while the follow-up attempt to repeal the recently enacted same-sex marriage law failed 210 – 109.

Going into November, the Democratic Party holds a majority in the New Hampshire House of Representatives 219 –174 and there are 7 vacancies. The State Senate is also Democratic-controlled, but not by such a wide margin. Fourteen Democrats hold the majority over ten Republicans.

Louis Jacobson, a staff writer with PolitiFact.com and former deputy editor of Roll Call, claims that both the New Hampshire State House and State Senate are toss-ups. He writes:  “Both chambers of the legislature are tossups, both the narrowly divided Senate and the enormous state House, where Democrats demonstrated in 2006 that a party can flip many seats in a single election.”

Whether or not a change from blue to red in New Hampshire’s state legislature will have an impact on the state’s same-sex marriage law remains to be seen and is likely dependent on who wins the gubernatorial election.

Governor John Lynch of
New Hampshire
John Lynch, a Democrat who campaigned against same-sex marriage for years only to sign the gay marriage bill in 2009 has been hovering at or just below 50% throughout the year. He was +11 against likely challenger John Stephen in a poll of 500 likely voters by Rasmussen Reports from August 5, 2010. New polling data from that race is ought to be coming soon but any incumbent polling on average under 49% over the past seven months is vulnerable.

In a state where 73% feel their personal finances are getting “worse” or are “about the same” and in a state where Barack Obama defeated John McCain by 10 points, the President is holding onto a 49% approval rating. Even the President acknowledges that the economic recovery is sluggish, therefore, an opinion that the economy is “about the same” is negative, not positive.

New Jersey is not holding any state legislative elections this year so perhaps a handful of the Garden State’s progressive politicians will be spared the coming GOP wave. It was last November, however, when the state saw its GOP wave in the election of Republican Chris Christie and the defeat of incumbent Democrat Jon Corzine.

Republican Christ Christie was elected
Governor of New Jersey, ousting liberal
Democrat Jon Corzine. Christie is seen as
a rising star in the Republican Party.
As you can remember, December 2009 was a critical month for those in favor of and opposed to, same-sex marriage. With Democratic majorities in the State House and State Senate and liberal Democrat Jon Corzine in the Governor’s Mansion, New Jersey was on track to be the next U.S. State to legalize same-sex marriage. Then Chris Christie happened - a Republican who believes in marriage between a man and a woman was elected Governor in a reliably Democrat state.

This is undeniably the single most important factor in the defeat of the same-sex marriage bill. Realizing a Republican opposed to same-sex marriage was on his way in, the Democrats scurried and attempted to pass same-sex marriage while Governor Corzine was on his way out. The bill failed after the holiday break by a 20 – 14 vote twelve days before the new governor was inaugurated.

As long as Christie is Governor, and short of any judicial action, the prospects for any attempt at legalizing same-sex marriage through legislative action are dim although there will not be any change in the Democrat’s majority of the state legislature.

Around the same time, New York State was flirting with its same-sex marriage bill, which had been passed multiple times by the New York General Assembly, majority Democrat 107 – 42 but had been held up by the State Senate, where the Democrats hold a two seat advantage over the Republicans 32 – 30.

The New York General Assembly passed the same-sex marriage bill in April 2009 by an 89 – 52 vote. In November, the State Senate opened a special session to take on economic matters and to consider the same-sex marriage bill but ultimately it was postponed until the end of the year.  On December 2, it was soundly defeated 38 – 24 in the Senate after the General Assembly passed it again 88 – 51.

Governor Patterson's approval
ratings along with numerous
scandals forced him out of the race.
New York’s current Governor, the legally blind David Patterson, had championed the bill and aggressively sought its passage, promising to sign it into law. Patterson, sporting record low approval ratings eventually bowed out of the 2010 gubernatorial election paving the way for the popular Andrew Cuomo to announce his bid to become New York’s next governor.

Cuomo has been openly supportive of same-sex marriage on the campaign trail and is highly expected to win in November. A late August poll from Rasmussen Reports puts Andrew Cuomo +32 points over likely Republican nominee Rick Lazio.

Yet the Governor’s Mansion is not where a GOP take-over is expected. Nor in the General Assembly.  Both are predicted to remain under Democratic control after November.

It’s the State Senate that’s possibly in for a GOP take-over. For a Senate chamber that voted against same-sex marriage with a Democrat majority, the prospects for passage of same-sex marriage in a Republican Senate are all the more less likely. Louis Jacobson writes of the election: “Despite a cycle of party switches, lockouts, fiscal problems, a dysfunctional relationship with the governor and an excess of scandal-tarred figures, the slim Democratic majority is getting away with a designation of tossup, thanks to the state's general Democratic lean…".

Rhode Island is an interesting state. The Democrats in the State House and State Senate hold a larger majority in a legislative chamber than I’ve ever seen. The Democrats control the State House by more than an 11-to-1 margin with 69 Democrats and 6 Republicans. Similarly, the Rhode Island State Senate outnumbers Republicans by more than an 8-to-1 margin with 33 Democrats and 4 Republicans.  Barack Obama won the state by nearly a 28-point margin over John McCain in 2008. Today he’s enjoying an approval rating of about 56%, which represents more than an 8-point drop in support.

Rhode Island’s last two governors have been Republicans and the party has occupied the Governor’s Mansion since 1995. Somehow the state has remained a beachhead of reason in liberal New England, not having legalized same-sex marriage as its neighbors to the North and West have.

Rhode Island's current governor, Donald Carcieri, is a
strong advocate for traditional marriage. 
Rhode Island’s current Governor, Donald Carcieri, is a strong advocate of marriage between a man and a woman and a member of the Rhode Island chapter of the National Organization for Marriage but is barred from seeking a third term due to term limits. He’s leaving office with an approval rating at about 49% up against 48% who disapprove.

The election this November between Clinton-backed Frank Caprio, former U.S. Senator Lincoln Chafee and John Robitaille, a Republican and current aide to outgoing Governor Carcieri, is a toss-up according to the Cook Political Report, the New York Times, Real Clear Politics and CQ Politics.

Most recent polling from Rasmussen Reports puts Caprio 6-points ahead of Chafee and 18-points up on Robitaille. That poll was taken in mid-August. Again, new polling data ought to be coming.

A spokesman from the Caprio campaign told OneMan-OneWoman.org that Caprio was for same-sex marriage, citing a pledge Caprio made at a March, 2010 rally to sign a same-sex marriage bill if it were to reach his desk. Lincoln Chafee, a known supporter of same-sex marriage, who was endorsed by the Human Rights Campaign when running for Senate, made the same pledge.

However, Caprio also claims to be a practicing Catholic and personally against same-sex marriage. In a January 2009 interview, Caprio said: "I would continue to be consistent with personal views and if I could wave a magic wand I would like if people followed my views and my church's teachings...If I were to run [for governor] I wouldn't be running to advocate [same-sex marriage]."

His pledge to support same-sex marriage also drew skepticism from Attorney General Patrick Lynch, who referenced the same interview. Lynch has since dropped out of the primary, set for September 14.

Iowa, a state that voted for Barack Obama over John McCain by over 9 points is not looking at Democrats so favorably this time around. The President is currently holding onto a 48% approval rating.

Iowa’s State Senate is majority Democrat 32 – 18 over the Republicans. Jacobson categorized the State Senate as leaning Democrat. Likewise, the State House is run by a 56 – 44 majority of Democrats and is categorized as a toss-up.

Republicans tried a handful of times in 2009 to force a vote on a same-sex marriage ban, all of which ultimately failed or were ruled out of order by the Democratic majority. In fact, the leader of said Democratic majority, Senator Gronstal, vowed to block a vote on a constitutional amendment to define marriage between a man and a woman “at every opportunity.”

The political atmosphere is boosting the GOP’s chances at “winning back one or both of the state's legislative chambers,” Jacobson said. “The state House is a tossup and the state Senate leans Democratic, but these ratings could bounce around in the coming months.”

Former Republican Governor Terry
Branstad is vying for his old job back.
Meanwhile, Real Clear Politics has placed the Iowa gubernatorial race in the “likely GOP” column, with polls favoring Republican challenger and former Governor Terry Branstad +16 in the poll from Rasmussen Reports from August. Iowa’s current governor, Chet Culver, refused to intervene in the state’s 2009 legalization of same-sex marriage by judicial order. Culver is holding onto a 37% approval and a stark 61% disapproval rating.

Three of the judges who voted to strike down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, including the state’s Chief Justice, are up for a retention vote this year and Republican Bob Vander Plaats from Sioux City has organized a campaign called “Iowa for Freedom” to oust them. Governor Culver is openly critical of the effort.

Is it conceivable that a newly elected Republican majority in the State House and/or the State Senate, alongside their likely Republican counterpart in the Governor’s Mansion would seek to pass a constitutional amendment and put the issue before the voters of Iowa? They attempted as the minority party, they’ll go for it as the ruling party for sure. When the Republicans controlled the Iowa State House in 2005, they passed a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. The State Senate at the time was evenly divided and never took a vote on the issue.

Iowa’s neighbor to the North is another state where this year’s midterm elections will play a role in the future of same-sex marriage in America. Democrats in the Minnesota State Senate outnumber Republicans by more than a 2-to-1 margin with 46 Democrats and 21 Republicans. The State House is not as tilted against the Republicans but the Democrats still enjoy a commanding majority with 87 seats to the Republicans’ 47 seats. Due to what Louis Jacobson ties to Minnesota’s fiscal situation, “a shift of control – especially in the House – isn’t out of the question.”

Efforts at amending the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage failed as recently as 2009. Likewise, attempts to legalize marriage for same-sex couples in the State House and State Senate were never given hearings in their respective Judiciary Committees.

The fate of those bills were not very positive anyway, as the Governor of Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty, a likely 2012 presidential contender staunchly defended traditional marriage throughout his political career. That is why this year’s gubernatorial election will be the key factor in deciding the fate of same-sex marriage in the land of 10,000 lakes.

Republican Tom Emmer is tied with Democrat Mark Dayton
in a recent poll by Minnesota Public Radio. 
Most recent polling data courtesy of Minnesota Public Radio has Republican State Representative Tom Emmer, who opposes same-sex marriage and former State Senator Mark Dayton, who supports same-sex marriage, tied at 34 points apiece with Independent candidate Tom Horner, also a supporter of same-sex marriage, racking in 13 points. In the same poll, 44% said if Barack Obama were to endorse Mark Dayton, they would be less likely to vote for him.

Nonetheless, the July – August average of polling data on Real Clear Politics puts Mark Dayton up 8.3 points and thus the state is categorized as “lean Democratic”. Minnesotans haven’t elected a Democratic governor since 1986. Yet a victory by the Democrats in November in the election of Mark Dayton as Governor may inject life and a sense of opportunity to pass same-sex marriage legislation.

In Maryland, while the strong Democratic majorities in the State House (104 – 36) and State Senate (33 – 14) are not considered to be in play this November, the race for the next Governor is considered a toss-up.

Same-sex marriage advocates have been touting recent polling from Maryland that indicates that a plurality of voters in Maryland support same-sex marriage. Gay and lesbian activists inaccurately portrayed the polling data as a ‘majority’ when in fact it was merely a ‘plurality’.

Nevertheless, the data puts Maryland on our scopes for states endangered by the homosexual agenda as the polling data from the Washington Post undoubtedly encouraged anxious activists to expand their agenda into the Old Line State. Most recent polling data from Rasmussen Reports puts Republican and former Governor Bob Ehrlich and incumbent Democrat Martin O’Malley tied at 47%.

Maryland is a solidly blue state like New Jersey and is giving President Obama a 56% approval rating, (45% disapproval rating), only two years after the state voted for him over McCain by more than 25 points. Likewise, 54% of Marylanders approve of the job O’Malley is doing compared to a 45% disapproval rating. The two-percent discrepancy between Obama and O’Malley are unsure how they feel about the latter. At the same time, 55% of Marylanders felt the economy was in “poor” condition and 64% felt the economy was “getting worse” or was “about the same” compared to 31% who felt the economy was “better”.

Nevertheless, a Democratic governor with a 54% approval rating in a Democratic state won by a Democratic president two years ago by 25 points should be safe. Yet the race is categorized as a toss-up and the results could be critical in the struggle against same-sex marriage.

By no means are these seven states the only states where this year’s midterm elections will have a significant impact on the course of and determine the success or failure of same-sex marriage in the near future. The seven states are merely quick glimpse into some of the more embattled regions of the Nation where the issue is more on the forefront than we’d actually want it to be.

Across the Nation, the current economic situation, budget deficits, a growing federal government, high taxes, government bailouts, Obamacare, and unemployment, among a slew of other problems intensified by Barack Obama’s domestic agenda are for sure having at least one unintended consequence for gays and lesbians and their supporters: decreased likelihood of successful legislative efforts to legalize same-sex marriage.

Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia and founder of Sabato’s Crystal Ball, an online newsletter that touts nearly 100% accuracy predicting U.S. House, U.S. Senate and Governor races, as well as Electoral College results since 2004, is currently predicting that the GOP will pick up some 8 governorships and gain 300 - 500 seats in state legislatures across the land resulting in taking majority control in at least 8, possibly up to 12 state legislative chambers.

This carries significant meaning as the next legislative sessions will be using data collected by the 2010 Census for appropriation of representation in Congress and the redistricting of their congressional districts. The majority party gets to draw the lines.

Running a campaign focused on fiscal issues, the Republican candidate for Governor of Maine, Paul LePage, has been leading in the polls by double digits. LePage is socially conservative, having posted on his campaign website “I also support traditional marriage, joining a majority of Maine voters who decided last fall that the traditional definition of marriage should be preserved.”

If elected, LePage will be replacing Governor Baldacci, who signed a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in 2008. Most recent polling data from Public Policy Polling has LePage up 14 points against Democratic challenger and a 32-point lead over the Independent challenger. His election is critical due to the fact that the State House, which voted to approve same-sex marriage, is not considered to be in play this November and considering the fact that Jesse Connolly, the campaign manager for Protect Maine Equality, had this to say after Mainers rejected same-sex marriage in 2008: "We'll be here fighting. We'll be working. We will regroup."

The State Senate, however, is. Louis Jacobson says: “The nearly 2-to-1 Democratic margin in the state House should hold even in a tough midterm cycle for the party. But the state Senate, which is much closer and which has often been competitive in past cycles, is in play once again. Maine's celebrated independent streak and its public-financing law could meld with anti-incumbent sentiments to produce a volatile fight for control. It rates leans Democratic for now, but that could change.”

It is fair to say that, according to the current political winds, which everyone must accept can change rapidly, that the GOP is going to do very well this November. This success will undoubtedly create a safer legislative environment for the institution of marriage and families.

Having said that, one must keep in mind why the GOP is expected to do so well this year. After all, they are not necessarily popular with the voters, either. In this way, many frustrated and angry voters will be voting Republican this year as it is the lesser of two evils.

So why are the Republicans expecting huge political gains this November? The answer to that question is what (or more likely, who) gays and lesbians can blame and conservatives can thank, for stalled legislative efforts to redefine marriage in the next couple years.
READ MORE - What impact will 2010 elections have on same-sex marriage movement?

"Seven Senators" Video Targets Boxer, Feingold

Sunday, September 5, 2010

This week we decided to focus our 2010 election efforts on defeating incumbent Senators Barbara Boxer of California and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin. The two of them are among the fourteen Senators who voted against the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.

Their opponents are Carly Fiorina and Ron Johnson, respectively.

Carly supported and voted for Proposition 8 while Barbara Boxer was a vocal opponent of it. Ron Johnson supports marriage between a man and a woman along with 60%+ of his fellow Wisconsinites, who went to the polls in 2006 to approve a statewide ban on same-sex marriage by nearly 2/3rds.

Accordingly, we have donated to their campaigns and intend on doubling, if not tripling, our contributions in the coming weeks. We are also pushing our newest video on the Internet.

This year we have a real chance to vote them out of office. It is our goal to work and to continue to work to ensure that each politician who voted against the Defense of Marriage Act is voted out of office.

Republican Dino Rossi is challenging incumbent Democrat
Patty Murray in a close senate race in Washington.
We've also been donating and working to support Dino Rossi's senate campaign in Washington State to defeat and retire incumbent Senator Patty Murray and will continue to do what we can to help on that front as well.

Patty Murray has been rated 100% by the Human Rights Campaign, which means her support for gay rights goes well beyond 'rights'.

Although there is no right to same-sex marriage, Patty Murray continues to think otherwise.

As a side front along these same lines, we've decided to reach out to Boxer and Feingold's small donors. We feel as though these people can't fully understand to whom they are donating their money. If they did, then we don't see any conceivable circumstance that they would continue donating to them.

Using a similar strategy thought up by advocates of same-sex marriage in Washington State in the Referendum 71 battle, we will be using public records available from the Federal Elections Commission and encourage people to hold their neighbors accountable. We are going to be asking people to explain themselves.

In our view, if you support a politician who votes away the foundations of our country one vote at a time, then you are just as guilty and you have some explaining to do. This is no longer just an issue of supporting one party over another. There are bad politicians in both parties.

This is not a call for violence or confrontation. This is a call for civil engagement. If someone in your neighborhood is donating to someone like California Senator Barbara Boxer or Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold or Washington Senator Patty Murray, it isn't out of malice or disdain of country. We truly believe they have the best of intentions.

However, they do not know thy senator. Thus, we've begun using the #KnowThySenator hashtag on our Twitter posts for this topic and we will engage them and ask them for an explanation for their political actions.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled in Doe V. Reed that the names of those who sign a petition can not be hidden from the public eye. In that April, 2010 ruling, Justice Alito wrote ''Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed,'' and this is exactly what we seek to do.

Take a look at our video (above) and spread this message.
READ MORE - "Seven Senators" Video Targets Boxer, Feingold


November 2010

Support Marriage

Sign Our Petition