As the Democratic Primary draws near (Sept. 9th!) some more people are speaking out on the First Civil Court race in Brooklyn. I want to offer up the opinion of the Brooklyn Papers and Lambda Independent Democrats on Roger Adler and Devin Cohen (the two candidates running). Let me remind our readers of my standard disclaimer: one of the candidates, Devin Cohen, is a friend of mine, so I am biased.

That said, most people seem deeply disturbed by Roger Adler's anti-gay stands, ties to the Conservative Party, ties to jailed former machine head, Clarence Norman, and his public admission that he openly participates in a pay to play political system. By contrast people seem to like Devin Cohen for his even temperment and honesty. From what I can tell, Devin Cohen has practically all the endorsements while Roger Adler has more money.

The Brooklyn Paper has a pretty good rundown on both candidates. To quote:

Awhile back I wrote about Marty Markowitz decline from popular Brooklyn Clown to a vindictive, rampaging creep. Markowitz was shocked, SHOCKED I TELL YOU, at the vehement opposition to his becoming Bruce Ratner's Rat. He blamed extremists who don't understand him for the opposition (myself probably included).

Now he has another group of "extremists" who just "don't understand" the clown. Brooklyn's Gay and Lesbian community is outraged at Marty Markowitz's endorsement of the unqualified, homophobic Noach "Call Me Noah" Dear for judge.

From The Brooklyn Papers:

A Civil Court race pitting firebrand former Councilman Noach Dear against a lesser-known judge has been thrust into the spotlight by gay and lesbian activists because of Borough President Markowitz’s endorsement of Dear, who was rated as unqualified for the bench by the City Bar Association...

Two months into New Jersey's civil unions law, and over 200 same-sex couples now enjoy benefits equal to those of their married hetero--

Hold the phone!

According to the NY Times, many civilly united couples are being denied health insurance. In the case of one female couple, one of them may be denied coverage for a mammogram, because the insurance company won't list both partners as female.

This could have been predicted. In fact, it was predicted by many people. Even I predicted it last December on my own blog when I wrote:

The only way to eliminate discrimination in our laws against members of the LGBT community must include opening marriage to any two adults. Anything less denies the right to divorce, full child custody, and a host of other rights based solely on sexual or gender identity.

To all the legislators in New Jersey, I hate to say, "I told you so," but...

Larry Kramer, playwright (The Normal Heart) and founder of ACT UP, wrote an op-ed piece with the above title for the L.A. Times last Tuesday. If you're registered, or register online, you can see the entire piece here.

He lashes out in the piece at more than the "usual suspects," putting a lot of heat on Democrats and gays themselves. For the Democrats:

Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama tried to duck the questions that Pace's bigotry raised, confirming what gay people know: that there is not one candidate running for public office anywhere who dares to come right out, unequivocally, and say decent, supportive things about us.

We have seen this time after time, even from supposedly progressive politicians such as President Clinton with his "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the military and his support of the hideous Defense of Marriage Act.

For gay activists:

Our feeble gay movement confines most of its demands to marriage. But political candidates are not talking about — and we are not demanding that they talk about — equality. My lover and I don't want to get married just yet, but we sure want to be equal.

There are those who claim that Hillary Clinton is congenitally and pathologically unable to take a position, any position, on anything, other than that of insistent supplicant on the fundraising circuit.

These people are entirely wrong. Hillary is capable of taking at least one position: she wants the U.S. military presence in Iraq to continue into the first term as President this vain, substance-free woman has deluded herself into believing she can win.

E Pluribus Media:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a "remaining military as well as political mission" in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.

Or maybe these people are entirely correct. Asked whether she agreed with the recent comments by General Pace, who happens to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that homosexuality is immoral, she said:

"Well, I'm going to leave that to others to conclude."

Good thing that she's not running for President and people don't care what her opinion is, right? Oh wait, she is; never mind.

Every day that dawns brings a new reason to doubt Hillary Clinton. This is not leadership; it's leadering, something that looks like leadership, but is not. Too bad for Hillary that more and more Americans are noticing the difference.

[Update]: New York Blade says 'Hillary is a poor choice for gay voters'. Zing!

The Sun reports that marriage equality is making gains in Albany - but the Senate remains a roadblock.

According to the article, Gov. Spitzer seems to be ready to make a push for legalization of gay marriage after the budget fight is over, and it's looking increasingly likely that the Assembly will go along:

The Empire State Pride Agenda, a leading gay advocacy group in New York, says 54 members of the 150-person Assembly have expressed support for a gay marriage bill, up from 35 when it polled the chamber in September.

"We think it has a real shot of passing in the Assembly this year," the executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda, Alan Van Capelle, told The New York Sun.

One of those 54 Assembly members is Richard Brodsky, a Democrat who represents a district in Westchester. Mr. Brodsky said he senses that support for a bill is growing in his conference. "I think the prejudice is diminishing. People are thinking about it in reasonable terms," he said.

Brodsky's in the weeds on Albany reform, but he's got the right idea civil rights, it seems.

However, not only would a marriage equality bill die in Joe Bruno's Senate, it might not fare much better in a Democratic Senate, either.

(More below the fold...)

So Ann Coulter all but called John Edwards a "faggot." Surprise! And the members of CPAC cheered -- again, nothing new here.

Of course, Coulter's hate remark, and CPAC's hateful response, was not even mentioned on the Sunday morning political talk shows. In fact, they seemed to go out of their way to avoid the issue.

But the worst part of this whole mess is the Democratic presidential candidates. The three "major" names, Clinton, Obama and Edwards, have all come out against equaltiy. Every one of them waffles and hems and haws, but they all say what amounts to the same thing -- they are against equal rights for all people.

And neither Nancy Pelosi nor Harry Reid has said a word.

The Democratic party is supposed to be the party of reform and equality. It is supposed to stand up for those who are kept down. But when the rubber hits the road, where are the leaders of the party? They're hiding their heads in the sand.

It's disgusting!

I, for one, will not to contribute a dime to anyone who, on the issue of equality, is as much a miserable failure as George W. Bush.

Shame on you, Hillary. Shame on you, Barack. Shame on you, John. And shame on all Democrats

Here is footage of the candidates running for the 40th City Council district answering a question from the Stonewall Democrats.

I should note that as far as I know Stonewall Democrats has not endorsed in this race, but Zenobia McNally has received the Lambda Independent Democrats endorsement.

One of the most important points illuminated in Al Gore's groundbreaking documentary on global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth," is the simple fact that there is no scientific debate on global warming. In fact the scientific community and virtually every bit of scientifically valid research is unanimous in its conclusion that global warming is well underway. The only "debate" is the spin war waged by self-serving, dishonest or ignorant politicians, certain corporate interests and their media lackies. The "scientific" debate on the issue as protrayed in the media is completely fabricated.

The same paradigm is in play with homophobia, with big business replaced by certain players in big religion. And again, the media is very much the culprit in this dangerous and harmful game, relentlessly portraying homosexuality as a hotly contested scientific debate. In fact, there is simply no science that in any way suggests the homosexuality is a form of mental illness or moral dysfunction. And no number of declarations from mentally ill and self-loathing public figures like Ted Haggard is going to change that.

So it was with some pain and great disappointment that I read today's "New York Times" article on homosexual "reparative" therapy: "Reining In Desires Proves Complex At Best."

My native state can beat up your native state. Consider the "Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance", who offer a modest proposal that would test whether citizens of the Evergreen State really agree with the logic of anti-marriage equality crowd:

The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance seeks to defend equal marriage in this state by challenging the Washington Supreme Court’s ruling on Andersen v. King County. This decision, given in July 2006, declared that a “legitimate state interest” allows the Legislature to limit marriage to those couples able to have and raise children together. Because of this “legitimate state interest,” it is permissible to bar same-sex couples from legal marriage.

The way we are challenging Andersen is unusual: using the initiative, we are working to put the Court’s ruling into law. We will do this through three initiatives. The first would make procreation a requirement for legal marriage. The second would prohibit divorce or legal separation when there are children. The third would make the act of having a child together the legal equivalent of a marriage ceremony.

WDoMA is currently collecting signatures to put on the ballot Initiative 957, which would do the following:

• add the phrase, “who are capable of having children with one another” to the legal definition of marriage;
• require that couples married in Washington file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage automatically annulled;
• require that couples married out of state file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage classed as “unrecognized;”
• establish a process for filing proof of procreation; and
  make it a criminal act for people in an unrecognized marriage to receive marriage benefits.

Will I-957 make the ballot? It looks unlikely. But silly as it sounds, the WDoMA folks are deadly serious about civil rights - and about making the anti-gay lobby squirm:

By getting the initiatives passed, we hope the Supreme Court will strike them down as unconstitutional and thus weaken Andersen itself. And at the very least, it should be good fun to see the social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation be forced to choke on their own rhetoric.

I'd like to see that! Why not give them a hand?

(Cross-posted at alien & sedition)