Update: Same-sex marriage bill not in the pipeline as NYS 'Gang of Three' end stalemate

A flurry of activity emerged today regarding the so-called Gang of Three.

For those of you not up to date: After Democrats gained a slight majority in the State Senate in the November elections, three Democratic Senators threatened to vote with the Republican minority and not to support Democrat Malcom Smith as majority leader come January unless they got some needs met and their egos stroked.

For State Senator (and Pentecostal minister) Ruben Diaz, Sr. the needs included blocking Smith from bringing a same-sex marriage bill to the Senate floor for a vote.

The Albany Times-Union Capitol Confidential Blog and The Politicker have some details but Elizabeth Benjamin at the NY Daily News has the break-down ("Details of a Leadership Deal").

On the possibility of a bill granting marriage rights to same-sex couples in New York State:

A bill to legalize same-sex marriage will not be brought to the floor of the Senate for a vote this year [Ed. note: I assume Benjamin means 2009]. Smith will announce that he does not believe the measure has sufficient votes to pass - a statement that is at this point undoubtedly true, although it's unclear how long that will last if, as Democrats are hoping, the prospect of being in the minority leads to mass GOP retirements.

Which sorta explains the comments that Azi got from Diaz over at The Politicker:

Ruben Diaz Sr., who previously said he wouldn’t vote for any leader that would allow a same-sex marriage bill to be brought to the floor for a vote, told me, “I, Senator Diaz, am relieved everything is going to be OK.”

When asked if that meant he got the assurance he was looking for regarding same-sex marriage, he answered, “I am telling you I am happy, that I am satisfied that everything will be OK.”

According to Benjamin, egos were stroked as well. Here is what the three will get:

• Senator-elect Pedro Espada Jr. will be the majority leader while Smith is president pro tempore.
• Sen. Carl Kruger... will chair a pumped-up Senate Finance Committee.
• Sen. Ruben Diaz Sr. will chair the Aging Committee.

Politics! Oh, so fresh, and oh, so clean!

I know that dirty deals and power plays are part of the process and I'm not necessarily surprised that there were concessions.

What worries me is the reports that Espada will grab the majority leader post (not Smith, who would get a 'president pro tempore' designation). What does that mean if true? Smith was on track to introduce the bill if he became a majority leader and still might down the line. Espada has been gay-friendly until he joined the Gang of Three but - if he does become majority leader - will his pro-gay past matter? It's the unspoken and undisclosed deals and manoeuvres that give me pause. We'll keep an eye on things.

BTW, here's The New York Times City Room blog on how things might work out regarding the sharing of power:

Two people involved in the talks said that Mr. Espada will get the title of majority leader under the deal, though Mr. Smith would be the real leader of the Democratic caucus, with the title of president pro tempore. Still, the deal would make Mr. Espada arguably the most powerful Latino elected official in New York State.

Update 1: "Skelos concedes, Pride Agenda objects" (New York Daily News' The Daily Politics Blog)

Update 2: The Empire State Pride Agenda just sent this to me under the title of "Pride Agenda Responds to Senate Leadership Deal Rumors"...

This afternoon, additional rumors began circulating in the press regarding discussions about a timeline for marriage equality legislation during the State Senate leadership negotiations. We have been told several times by the Democratic Senate Leadership that marriage equality legislation will come to the Senate floor for a vote once we have enough votes to pass the bill. We have no reason to believe that this has changed.

In response to these recent rumors, we have released the statement below. We will continue to update you on this issue.

Pride Agenda Executive Director Alan Van Capelle in Response to Rumors About Marriage Equality and the Senate Leadership Deal

December 4, 2008 - “We are still awaiting the final details of the announced State Senate leadership deal. We would expect that any rumors that marriage equality was somehow a part of this deal are just that—rumors. Civil rights should never be a bargaining chip in any political leadership battle, and we would be outraged if the issue of marriage equality was even part of the discussions.”

Related: Espada majorty leader? (The Village Voice's Running Scared Blog)

Update: Reuters on cloudier prospects for a same-sex marriage bill in NYS

From Reuters:

New York is close to becoming the first state to pass legislation making gay marriage legal but, like many political issues in the state capital Albany, it has fallen victim to a power struggle.

Democrats won a majority in the upper house Senate for the first time in more than 40 years in the November 4 election, but three Democratic senators refuse to back fellow Democratic Sen. Malcolm Smith as majority leader without concessions.

The Republicans could regain their power in the Senate if the three Democratic senators, who include longtime gay marriage opponent Sen. Ruben Diaz, opt to vote with them.

"I will not give my vote to a leader that will bring gay marriage to the state," Diaz, a Pentecostal minister, said in an interview. "Have a voter referendum. Let the people decide"...

Read on: Power struggle complicates NY bid for gay marriage (Reuters, Nov. 26, 2008)

Previously:

• The Gang of Four... no, Three... hm, Two... er, None? (Nov. 24, 2008)
• Rev. Ruben Diaz, Sr. will introduce anti-gay marriage referendum today (Nov. 18, 2008)
• Anti-gay rally by Hispanic religious leaders is a flop (Sept. 8, 2008)

Richard Rodriguez on Prop. 8 and the aftermath

In Latino activist circles, Richard Rodriguez has always been the black sheep of the family... even among Latino LGBT activists... even after he came out...

The (current? former?) NPR commentator and PBS News Hour panelist drew ire for arguing that Latino immigrants should learn English upon arrival in the US and for defending his allegiance to the Catholic church. But deeply, secretly, I have been such a fan.

Weird. I have to say that I am not a religious person. And that I also have been supportive and in awe of ACT UP's daring (and still controversial) action at St. Patrick's Cathedral back in 1989 (something that Rodriguez doesn't share).

But tonight's Salon.com piece ("Why churches fear gay marriage") is such a snapshot at why Prop. 8 opposition failed among some Latino Californians that I'd be remiss if I didn't share.

An excerpt:

...the real challenge to the family right now is male irresponsibility and misbehavior toward women. If the Hispanic Catholic and evangelical churches really wanted to protect the family, they should address the issue of wife beating in Hispanic families and the misbehaviors of the father against the mother. But no, they go after gay marriage. It doesn't take any brilliance to notice that this is hypocrisy of such magnitude that you blame the gay couple living next door for the fact that you've just beaten your wife

The full read is illuminating. Click on the link above to read it.

Update: The Gang of Four... no, Three... hm, Two... er, None?

Despite doing some huffing and puffing and threatening to introduce a statewide referendum to ban same-sex marriage in New York State last week, there has been no indication that the Reverend Ruben Diaz, Sr. - a New York State Senator - actually did such a thing.

The Reverend, a Democrat, is among the biggest homophobes in New York State politics and has used his stand on same-sex marriage and his opposition to abortion rights to endear himself to Senate Republicans over the years.

This year, as Senate Democrats gained the upper hand from Republicans by a slight margin, the Reverend saw an opportunity for a power-grab and joined three dissident senators who threatened to vote with Republicans on key issues unless their needs were met (according to Gay City News Diaz wanted "an assurance that either the same-sex marriage bill will not be brought to the Senate floor for a vote or that a statewide referendum be held on the question").

The so-called "Gang of Four" threatened to withhold support for Malcom Smith for majority leader come January demanding that Latino elected officials also be given prominent posts (three of the four dissidents were Latinos).

Within hours, though, the "Gang of Four" was just "Three" as Senator-elect Hiram Monserrate announced that he would back Smith after all (Monserrate, who has a great track record on LGBT, apparently received certain assurances from Smith in return so the whiplash switch wasn't purely altruistic).

Then on Friday came a potential shocker: Politics on the Hudson speculated that the next to abandon "The Gang" and back Smith would be Diaz himself ("'Gang of Three' meeting today").

That Diaz might abandon "The Gang" has been rumored since last week but news that he might actually back Smith? The same Diaz that issued a press release on Nov. 10 with a direct dig at Smith that read "my position as an ordained minister and a pastor will not allow me to support any would be leader that will bring gay marriage to the Senate floor"?

At least one [anonymous and GOP-leaning] blogger hypothesizes that this might mean that Smith has come to the conclusion that he will not have enough votes for a same-sex marriage bill as majority leader and might sacrifice a marriage vote for Diaz' backing - which would mean Diaz would have actually kept true to his stand even if he backs Smith.

Not sure I buy that scenario.

Still, as Elisabeth Benjamin reports today in The Daily Politics, Smith has accepted an invite to an annual Thanksgiving Day celebration staged by Diaz which will take place tomorrow.

Bizarrely, Senator-elect Pedro Espada - the third Latino in the original crew of four and the one least likely to make overtures to Smith at this moment - seems have agreed to support Diaz' same-sex marriage referendum as part of Diaz' conditions for remaining in the "Gang of Three."

I seem to remember that when Espada wasn't trying to be Diaz's BFF he was seeking LGBT support for his campaigns (the two were literally each other's nemesis for decades). Does this mean that if Diaz ends up splitting from "The Gang," Espada will drop his support for a referendum banning same-sex marriage?

Ah! New York State politics, don't ya love the stench of how things get done in the Empire State?

Previously:

• Reverend Ruben Diaz, Sr. will introduce anti-gay marriage referendum today (Nov. 18, 2008)

Wockner: Stonewall 2.0 vs. Activisim 3.0

Rex (right) has a few choice comments about the No on Prop. 8 campaign as well as last weeks Prop. 8 protests across the country. It is worth a read:

The organization No On 8 failed us. Before the TV ad war started, we were up 14-17 points in the polls. Then No On 8 spent some $37 million of your money to spam the California airwaves with really lousy ads, while the other side spent a similar amount to spam the California airwaves with ads that were, whatever else they may have been, effective. While the bad TV ads were not the only component of our loss (last-minute preaching from the pulpits was a factor), had our ads been good ads, we would have held onto our lead. And producing those mindnumbingly expensive ads (which I and many others publicly criticized as they were airing) was one piece of the war that No On 8 had 100% control over...

For the full post click on "The day the music died for the gay leadership"

Previously:

• My beef with the No on Prop. 8 ad targeting Latino communities... (Nov. 1, 2008)

NYS: Revernd Ruben Diaz, Sr. will introduce anti-gay marriage referendum today

One of the striking things about yesterday's El Diario La Prensa editorial backing marriage rights for same-sex couples was their explicit rejection of efforts by New York State Senator Ruben Diaz, Sr. to derail any legislation granting same-sex couples the rights afforded to married couples or to sponsor bills that discriminate against same-sex couples (the Senator also happens to be an ordained minister).

From the editorial which I quoted in full yesterday:

Rev. Diaz and others are supposedly not for denying rights to gays and lesbians but believe that marriage should be between a man and woman. Yet, it’s this very discriminatory position that serves to exclude lesbian and gay couples from accessing rights, benefits and treatment that heterosexuals take for granted.

This use of religious beliefs to block basic civil rights undermines the separation of church and state in this nation.

In today's edition, El Diario La Prensa runs an interview with the not so good Reverend in which he once again spouts off his mouth on his favorite topic: The gays ("Reverend Diaz: Gay marriage goes to referendum" by Jose Acosta).

In it, Diaz announces that he will introduce a State Senate bill today pushing for a statewide referendum on same-sex marriage:

I do not think it is appropriate that a group of lawmakers are the ones to decide whether or not gay marriage is approved in New York. I, as a legislator, do not want to impose my will, and this is why I am asking that there be a referendum on the issue as was done in California, and that the 20 million inhabitants of the State of New York be the ones who decide in a democratic election

OMG, thank you for protecting the electorate from efforts to grant a much-discriminated minority equal rights, Senator! Makes you wonder if the Reverend would feel the same about it if he felt there was enough support for a legislative ban on same-sex marriages!

But how about that pesky separation of church and state? hm...

I am a pastor and cannot, with my vote, bring homosexual marriage to the State of New York. My dissent would come to an end if my colleagues support the bill I am submitting

Well, so much for that! At least he never ceases to disappoint... in a bad way, of course.

As for the chances of a referendum moving forward in New York State, here is how Paul Schindler puts it in last week's Gay City News:

Despite the press play that proposal got across the state and on some blog sites that usually show greater political acumen, the referendum idea is, in fact, a non-starter. New York voters do not currently have the right to initiate such ballot questions, and though Senate Republicans have at times flirted with passing a law to enable them to, they have not seriously advanced the concept, nor are the Assembly Democrats about to surrender their prerogatives in this way.

The only other way to put the question to the voters would be for the Legislature, in two successive sessions, to approve a constitutional amendment referendum. That approach, too, has no support among Democrats, in either the Assembly or the Senate.

Update:

• The Gang of Four... no, Three... hm, Two... er, None? (Nov. 24, 2008)

Related:

• The Center of Attention (Elizabeth Benjamin's The Daily Politics)

Previously:

• Anti-gay rally by Hispanic religious leaders is a flop (Sept. 8, 2008)

New York's largest Spanish language newspaper backs marriage rights for same-sex couples

I might be wrong but this might be a first. Today New York's El Diario La Prensa - the Spanish-language newspaper with the second largest circulation numbers in the United States - published a strong editorial backing same-sex marriage rights for same-sex couples. This in the wake of weekend nationwide demonstrations against Proposition 8 in California and recent anti-gay statements by the reliably homophobic Reverend Ruben Diaz, Sr. (also a NYS Senator).

From the editorial:

A Stand for same-sex marriage
El Diario La Prensa, Nov. 17, 2008

Latinos have fought too hard and long for equal rights. This is why we must rally around a sector of our community that remains even more discriminated against--gays and lesbians.

Across the country this weekend, people protested against measures banning same-sex marriage. One of these bans came as a harder blow in California, where thousands of couples had married since that state’s Supreme Court had legalized same-sex marriage in the spring.

After that legal decision, Governor David Paterson announced that New York state agencies would recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions.

But there are loud voices, among them State Senator Ruben Diaz, who threaten to thwart any legislation that would allow same-sex marriage in New York.

Rev. Diaz and others are supposedly not for denying rights to gays and lesbians but believe that marriage should be between a man and woman. Yet, it’s this very discriminatory position that serves to exclude lesbian and gay couples from accessing rights, benefits and treatment that heterosexuals take for granted.

This use of religious beliefs to block basic civil rights undermines the separation of church and state in this nation. The basis of that separation lies in the experience of early American colonists who had fled religious persecution elsewhere to pursue tolerance and freedom in the “new” world.

Latinos, as well as other groups, should have an honest conversation about homophobia. Discrimination, whether within or outside of our communities, on the basis of color, immigration status, gender or sexuality is just not acceptable.

Across the nation, a gay rights agenda must be representative of LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) Latinos and the deeper inequities they confront. The gap between the struggle for LGBT rights and the struggles for economic and racial justice needs to be closed.

Back in October of 2005 I highlighted their strong editorial against efforts by the Vatican to purge gay priests from their rolls but this is the first time I remember the paper standing unequivocally for same-sex marriage rights.

I say: Thank you! La Opinion, which is based in Los Angeles and has the largest circulation numbers among Spanish-language news dailies in the US, did it first. It is very welcome nevertheless.

Update: Here is the Reverend's unhinged response to the EDLP editorial -

• In Total Disagreement with El Diario La Prensa (Ruben Diaz, Sr., Room 8, Nov. 30, 2008)

Previously:

• La Prensa backs marriage for same-sex couples in California (Oct. 10, 2008)
• Anti-gay NYC rally by Hispanic religious leaders is a flop (Sept. 8, 2008)
• El Diario La Prensa and Latino gay pride (June 24, 2007)
• Newspaper watch: Hoy New York and same-sex marriage (Sept. 19, 2005)

My New York: "Girl, you did not just steal our rights. DID YOU. Seriously?"

NOTE: My entire photo album of today's events in NYC here, a run down of events in other cities at Towleroad and media coverage at Chris Crain's blog.It was supposed to be a rainy day but the rain didn't arrive until a few moments ago. Instead, for what was one of hundreds of demonstrations throughout the United States against California's Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriage, the sun shined brightly on the thousands of people that descended upon City Hall in Manhattan. I haven't seen crowd estimates but overheard a few people say that they thought it was a larger crowd the one on Wednesday (which drew 7,500 to 15,000 - depending on who you ask).

SIGNS OF THE DAY!

Best sign of the day! "Girl, you did not just steal our rights DID YOU? Seriously" (Update: Vinney has the T-shirt here , his flickr page is here).

Runner up: "Prop 8 Kills Kittens" (those on the East Coast who have seen the recent Time Warner commercials will get the joke).

Runner up: "Bisexuals won't settle for 1/2 equal"

Runner up: "If homosexuality is a disease, let's call in QUEER to work. 'Hello,can't work today, STILL QUEER"

SEEN!!!

Heather Matarazzo: There were the usual array of speakers including openly gay Councilmembers Christine Quinn and Rosie Mendez and the openly gay Assemblymember Danny O'Donnell but the one that truly moved my cynical heart was Heather Matarazzo (above). Part of it was that I felt star-struck (I have been in love with Heather ever since I saw her performance in Todd Solondz' "Welcome to the Dollhouse").

But no. I think what struck me of Wednesday's and today's demos were how unlike other demos they were (in terms of drawing record numbers of chi-chi gays - who usually never get caught at a political demo thingie - as well as the throngs of younger people who seem to have engaged in ways that I have never seen).

It's the Facebook generation (or what Rex calls Stonewall 2.0) and for some reason Heather seemed to fully embody the moment. So when she looked at the thousands of people in front of her and choked-up with tears as she said "I love you all" I couldn't help but tear up a bit as well. Yes, old cynical me.

Wilson Cruz: A while back I checked in with the Obama campaign and urged them to recruit Wilson Cruz for their media-friendly events in California if their goal was to attract a younger Latino gay following. When pundits were questioning whether Obama could draw the Latino vote, Wilson was out there challenging that notion and I was glad to have tried to connect him to the campaign. Glad to see him in the crowd although I didn't have a chance to say hi.

Emanuel Xavier was there as well though and got to address the crowd as well (pic courtesy of Leo Toro). Yay! (Wait! I detect a wardrobe change!).

John Norris: Oh, and yeah, MTV's John Norris was just behind me (above in shades).

Matt Foreman: The fabu-tastic Matt Foreman was in his old stomping grounds as well (he now lives in California). That's me on the left, him on the right. Don't mind my spazzy smile: Francisco De Leon, Matt's husband, was making lewd motions at me to get me to smile.

PJ, Steven and the hubby: I hung out all day long with Steven (in the white shirt), PJ (in the cheap leather jacket), and Raul (the hubby, in stripes). Good times.

And then there was flower girl and the ACT UP guy!

Yes, peoplez, it was all about love.

ACT UP guy was holding on to a banner that read:
You might remember a similar banner led the march down Broadway on Wednesday except that one read "God Loves Gay Marriage."

The creator of both banners is none other than rainbow flag creator Gilbert Baker. Perhaps between Wednesday and today he read this piece in POZ magazine by Peter Staley?

Related:

• Write my name in the book of love (Joe.My.God)
• Stonewall 2.0: 25,000 in San Diego (Rex Wockner)
• Wanda Skyes comes out at the Las Vegas demo!! (Vegas Happens Here)
• San Diego: 20,000 to 25,000 (Mike Tidmus)
  

My New York: Gotham City stands up for same-sex marriage tonight

Update: Towleroad, as always, has the most comprehensive rundown.

Oh what a beautiful sight! Thousands of people in a semi-impromptu demonstration the likes I haven't seen since that huge rally in Manhattan after the death of Matthew Shepard. All demanding equal rights for same-sex couples following the passage of California's Proposition 8 and chastising the Mormon church for pouring so much money into the effort to deny same-sex couples the right to marry.

Back then, after the Matthew Shepard rally, I was quoted in the Village Voice marveling at how e-mail networking had made the humongous vigil a reality. Appropriate, then, that tonight's vigil was brought to you pretty much courtesy of Facebook. To be sincere, I expected perhaps 1,000 people or less. As if! One estimate I heard tonight placed the crowd at 16,000 (smaller than the Matthew Sheppard vigil but just an amazing number for something that was almost ethereal in execution. Rex Wockner has a post on what might be called Activism 4.0 (personally - despite the turn out - I am uncertain how the energy can be truly channeled effectively in the future). Kudos to organizer Corey Johnson.

BTW - If you missed tonight there is another protest Saturday (more details here)

Snapshots from tonight:

Winner! Best sign of the night!

Runner up!

Le Joe Jervis est hoaging le camera (jeez! is Joe.My.God everywhere?)

The closing shot: The end of the night rally at Columbus Circle just outside Central Park.

'cept c'est le moi! c/o le Ozed guy! Thanks John!


More pictures here

A short vid below:


Related:

• Prop 8 backlash hits NYC Mormon Temple (Andy Humm / Gay City News)
  
• 15,000 march against Prop 8 in NYC (Wockner)
• NYC: Thousands rally for equality (Joe.My.God)
• Of the instant (John Ozed)
  
• Lavi Soloway's photos here
• NYC against Proposition 8 - aka Prop Hate (Pop Bytes)
  
• Thousands protest Prop 8 in Manhattan (Boy in Bushwick)
• Prop H: Child brides, YES! Gay marriage, NO! (Bitten by a Zebra)
  
• An amazing protest at the Mormon Temple in Manhattan (Father Tony / Bilerico)
• NY turns out for anti-Prop 8 march (Pam Spaulding)
• 10,000 New Yorkers turn out to protest Prop. 8 (Queerty)
• Thousands gather in NYC to peacefully protest proposition 8 (Brian Juergens / After Elton)
  

My beef with the "No on Prop. 8" ad targeting Latino communities...

In my previous post I took a slight dig at the "No on Prop. 8" campaign ads targeting the Latino community in California. I wasn't going to comment further but then comes an article posted online yesterday at The Advocate on the inside game at the campaign ("In the belly of No on 8"):

The media revamp has included a new Spanish-language push, with ads running on Spanish-language media outlets featuring Ugly Betty stars America Ferrerra, Tony Pena, and Ana Ortiz. Getting the ads done was a challenge, considering the three actors were in New York and the campaign had less than a few days to write, produce, and distribute the ads.

“That spot seems to be touching people,” said one of [Patrick] Guerriero’s colleagues, a senior executive at a major media company who took a leave of absence to work full-time on the campaign. “Young Latinos were looking for a way to talk about this with their parents. They didn’t feel comfortable having that conversation in Spanish. This is definitely filling a need.”

I think it's great that the stars donated their time and were willing to be part of the campaign. Kudos to them. But here's what rubs me the wrong way.

1. They used the wrong "Ugly Betty" cast: "Ugly Betty" is an English-language version of an incredibly popular Spanish-language television soap opera. I am no pollster but I have a feeling that the Latino viewers who watch the English version are not the ones that need to be convinced to vote against Prop. 8. They already sit to watch the gayest show on network television to begin with and the fact that they understand English means they probably are more acculturated than recent US citizens which are probably the ones that need to be made at ease about opposing Prop. 8. The "No on 8" campaign might have done better by reaching out to the cast of Mexican version of "Ugly Betty" if they were looking for a bigger impact.

2. All Latinos are not the same: For some of us who watch the show from time to time, one of the most jarring thing is that the cast of the US show is the fact that we recognize that the actors all come from different ethnic backgrounds even if they are supposed to be from the same Queens family. America Ferrera, who plays Betty, was born in Los Angeles to Honduran parents; Ana Ortiz, who plays her sister Hilda is of Puerto Rican-Irish descent; and Tony Plana, who plays their father Ignacio, was born in Cuba - and it shows in the way the carry themselves. This is fine for a television show where you can look over these type of discrepancies but I'm not that certain that using the actors to carry the message to Latinos in California speaks to California Latinos specifically. As with the presdiential campaign, it looks as if the folks who decided to use the cast of the American version of "Ugly Betty" fell for the generalization that any Latino can sway another Latino and that's just not the case (it's that mythical political Latino block that has been so elusive this year). Ferrera, who made her career in California, looks and feels authentically Californian which actually really counts when it comes to the Latino community in California.

3. Accents: In the Spanish version, below, Tony Plana is the only one of the three actors who speaks Spanish without an Americanized accent. Not that America or Ana do bad at all (actually, they do great) but you still notice it. But, again, I have a feeling that the movable Spanish speaking masses might be more movable if it came from spokespeople who did not have an Americanized accent when they spoke Spanish.

4. La familia: OK, I acknowledge this is a personal pet peeve but how come every time someone says 'We gotta reach Latinos' the immediate reaction is 'familia'? "For Latinos family is important" says the video. Hm, yes? Same as with other cultures? To be fair, this Latino familia trope is not limited to Anglos seeking Latino authenticity. Latino organizations do it too. But, personally it drives me up a wall. It brings up trite hacienda images of abuelita rocking in her rocking chair as her grandson makes a call on an AT&T phone or of Jimmy Smits in the trite (and cancelled) "Cane". But that's just me. Perhaps swayable Latino Californians truly really think about family above all but methinks a lot of them don't necessarily have the wealthy extended hacienda-type families of "Cane". I'm just sayin'.

Which brings us back to quote from The Advocate. Statements that the campaign only sought to create a Spanish language campaign late in the game (as they "revamped" the message) and assurances that it "seems" to be touching people betray the fact that they should have known for a long time that minority communities should have been included in the game plan long before now.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Perhaps I'm being one of those angry politically correct Latinos who only think about la raza! (Hm, not really?). And perhaps I read waaaay too much stuff into little things. But come Tuesday (and I truly hope that Prop. 8 is defeated and for some reason I think it will) it speaks to the divide between state and national LGBT organizing strategies and LGBT communities of color.

Spanish language version of the ad below:

The gays MADE Eduardo Verastegui, in return he stabs them in the back

With the presidential election just days away, the other nerve-wracking waiting game for the gays is seeing if attempts to ban same-sex marriages rights in California (Proposition 8), Florida (Proposition 2) and Arizona (Proposition 102) pass muster on Tuesday - with a very real chance of defeating all three (please click on each link and find out more and, if possible, donate).

Although the campaigns to defeat the discriminatory initiatives in AZ and FL must feel relegated to the sidelines as they look at the mammoth battle taking place in CA, it must be said that a California loss will be devastating to efforts to build a future where same-sex couples are not discriminated in the United States based on who they love. If passed, California would also become the first state to strip away marriage rights already granted to its state residents (couples who have gotten married would not lose their marriage status but unmarried partners and future partners would not be able to have access to them).

The extreme right-wing certainly understands that it's the battle to end all battles when it comes to the issue and have been acting accordingly treating it as if it were Armageddon itself or the final End of Days battle (a poll released yesterday shows a 49% to 44% lead for "No on 8" which is good but that lead might evaporate come election day).

Tonight, the Associated Press has the latest ("Anxious eyes on California gay marriage vote").

The Latino vote: Despite the slight lead, it's a slight lead that might easily evaporate.

Unfortunately this has led to some generalizations on both sides of the equation that the minority vote might end up deciding the future of same-sex marriages in California with the common assumption that most blacks and Latinos will vote do deny rights to the gays.

First came fears that a strong minority showing for Barack Obama in the California voting booths might mean additional support for the marriage ban ("Obama surge confounds gay marriage"), then came indications that both sides were targeting Latino voters believing that they might be the ones to push the ban over the treshhold or keep it from passing ("Leaning on Latinos" and "Prop. 4, 8 campaigns battle fiercely for crucial Latino vote").

Let me say this: I don't have much money but I have donated to the "No on 8" campaign to support their efforts (as well as "No on 2" in FL and "No on 102" in AZ); I also know that they have attempted to make inroads among Latino communities; but I was less than thrilled by their discourse in media during these last few days on the issue of Latino voters and not too impressed by their ads targeting Latino media.

Sure, they got the stars of "Ugly Betty" to do an ad in English and and ad in Spanish. Not sure how it plays out to California Latinos and particularly those undecided or supporting Prop. 8 but to me it certainly plays up the stereotype that familia trumps everything in our lives (it may or it may not but not in that La Cosa Nostra creepy way that ends up implying all Latinos are conservative because we love La Familia - which plays right into the right wing's hands). And, secondly, I also have a feeling that Latinos who watch "Ugly Betty" on ABC are not necessarily the Latino population that needs their mind changed on Prop. 8. I mean, they probably get Justin already .

Having Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa be a lead spokesperson and supporter is much better but I have yet to see efforts to engage truly popular Spanish-language television stars or singers that might reach out to a wider Latino community. This, despite the fact that Paulina Rubio and Gloria Trevi - who are hugely popular among the Mexican and Mexican-American communities in California - came out strongly against Prop. 8 this week. They should be in ads today!

[BTW: No poll is perfect but a poll released yesterday and forwarded to me by my friend Evan Wolfson actually shows Latinos in California OPPOSING the ban 51% to 46%].

Now, I've been peppering this post with a few images that seem to have no relation to the topic at hand. Heck, if you go for that metrosexual, pouty-lip, hairless chest bimbo look, you might even still be reading this post because of him. Me? Eek! Not my type at all.

Now, watch this video of the '90's Mexican boy-band (er, man-band?) Kiero and pay attention to the guy with a wife-beater shirt and no leather jacket or - alternatively - no shirt and lotsa sweat plus all his queerrific dance moves:

 

Why it's Eduardo Verestegui! And ever since he was introduced as the Latino face of the "Yes on 8" campaign I have heard nothing but shock and disgust from most of my Spanish-speaking Latino friends throughout the country.



Part of the shock for some friends is that they assumed Verastegui was gay (a lot of them grew up watching him perform with Kiero and playing leads in popular Mexican soap operas). I mean, just by the photos and video above there's no doubt in my mind he knew exactly who his fanbase was and that it was tres-gay. So forgive some from feeling ultra-betrayed.

But those are the gays. He also has a huge female fan base (for some reason they love the bimbo pouty-lipped look too) and he certainly used it to play up his Hollywood debut in the failed attempt at cross-over success otherwise known as "Chasing Papi".

Enter his 2006 anti-abortion message movie "Bella" and his embrace of the whole US right wing enchilada (immigration issues be damned!) and lo-and-behold - he becomes a poster child for the worst right-wing policies being channeled by the McCain camp as of late (Hey! What do ya know! He endorsed McCain this week as well!).

As a matter of fact, bimbo-boy's fabulous right-wing adventure was what elicited reactions from Mexican mega-star Paulina Rubio (who called him "ignorant") and Gloria Trevi (who taped her own message urging voters to vote against the California and Florida propositions).

Let truth win on Tuesday! Vote "No on 8" if you live in California.

Related:

• Pérez Hilton lashes out at Verastegui over Proposition 8 (New York Daily News, Oct. 31, 2008)
• Mexican Soap Star shills for 'Yes on 8' (Joe.My.God, Oct. 28, 2008)
• Tell Eduardo your dreams! (Latin Gossip, Oct. 27, 2008)
• Manic Eduardo Verastegui hearts Prop. 8, McCain (Intersections)
• Perpetually nude dude has no problem with deciding other's morals (Riptide 2.0, Oct. 27, 2008)
• Eduardo Verastegui is against abortion, gays and gaybortions (Guanabee, Oct. 21, 2008)
• Spanish-language gossip show criticizes Paulina Rubio for standing up to Verastegui, Verastegui responds to Rubio's comments (Escandalo)

Barack Obama's image used to push CA gay marriage ban; his campaign objects and reaffirms opposition to ban

A despicable "Yes on 8" campaign flyer featuring Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama to push a same-sex marriage ban in California got into the wrong hands today. Namely, long time San Francisco HIV awareness and LGBT rights advocate Michael Petrelis who describes it here. He also cross-posted it at Daily Kos which got massive reax.

The mailer was also received by the offices of the Bay Area Reporter who posted this story on their website today.

"Needless to say," Michael added on his blog, "the Obama campaign should denounce the use of Obama's image... while he should also personally speak out this weekend encouraging a strong NO NO NO vote."

Rex just sent out a press release sent out tonight by the "No on Prop 8" campaing which quotes the Obama campaign as saying the following:

"Senators Obama and Biden have made clear their commitment to fighting for equal rights for all Americans whether it's by granting LGBT Americans all the civil rights and benefits available to heterosexual couples, or repealing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Senator Obama has already announced that the Obama-Biden ticket opposes Proposition 8 and similar discriminatory constitutional amendments that could roll back the civil rights he and Senator Biden strongly believe should be afforded to all Americans."

To see how you can support the "No on 8" campaign, click on this banner:

Related:

• Yes on 8 sends mailer to black voters with Obama's image (The Mad Professah Lectures)

Update: Manhunt.net responds to comments in Mexico's La Reforma

Having written a post on Tuesday about some eye-raising comments allegedly made to a newspaper by Manhunt.net's promotional representative in Mexico ("Was Manhunt.net rep racially insensitive?"), I certainly hope that what carried through was that these were words attributed to the rep and not the company itself.

I certainly didn't expect Manhunt.net to respond but, to their credit, I just received the following message from the Chief Executive Officer of Manhunt.net, Adam Segel:

Adam Segel, MANHUNT CEO, responds to the alleged comments made by MANHUNT's Mexico Promotional Representative Javier Espinosa, published in Reforma Newspaper:

At MANHUNT, we go out of our way to assure that we are as inclusive as possible and that diversity flourishes throughout our membership. After all, our members are generally considered a minority group by the world at-large and continue to face discrimination every day.

Mr. Espinosa disputes having made the comments accredited to him in Reforma Newspaper and MANHUNT is investigating the matter.

Whether the comments were said or not, they do not reflect the thoughts or opinions of anyone at MANHUNT. We never allow or promote hateful speech or ideas on our site. We apologize to those who were offended by the remarks and share in the disdain for them.

By the way: Today The Advocate.com reports that Larry Basile and Jonathan Crutchley, owners of Manhunt.net, just donated $10,000 to California's No on 8 campaign which is fighting an uphill but crucial battle in safeguarding marriage rights for same-sex couples. This is the one battle we must win if marriage rights for all will ever be attained in all of the United States, folks, and I already made my donation. If you would like to donate, please go here.

Colombia: Senate rejects same-sex partnership bill AGAIN; gay-friendly Notary Public shot to death in Bogota

Without much fanfare, a Colombian Senate committee rejected a bill on Wednesday that would have brought the legislative branch of the Colombian government up to speed with several Constitutional Court rulings determining that same-sex couples should be granted access to limited partnership benefits.

According to a statement released by Senator Gloria Inés Ramírez, the bill would have addressed what the country's top court identified as a legislative "deficit of protection" for same-sex couples. It would also have extended all the legal rights and protections already afforded to heterosexual couples in a common-law unions or long-term partnerships to same-sex couples.

It was the sixth time since 1999 that such a bill was rejected (the last time being June of 2007 when a similar bill was widely expected to pass and be signed by President Alvaro Uribe into law).

In the last two years, Colombia's Constitutional Court had determined that same-sex couples must be granted the right to share their common assets (Feb. 2007), their social security and health insurance benefits (Oct. 2007), and their pension benefits (Apr. 2008).

The Senate's failure to act does not mean that same-sex couples have lost any of these limited protections. If I understand correctly, it means that same-sex partners can continue to avail themselves by registering their names at at a notary office - but it still falls short of having the actual relationship be recognized as a civil union or marriage.

Gay-friendly notary public shot to death last night in Bogota: Now, back in February, I reported that it didn't seem to matter to a number of same-sex couples that access to a few rights did not mean that same-sex civil unions had been or were even close to being recognized by the government: They treated it as such anyway.

According to El Tiempo, notary public Norberto Salamanca - who oversaw partnership registrations at Notary Office 76 - stated that he'd "seen couples and guests carrying wedding invites in their hand, reading statements, taking pictures of the event and exchanging rings," adding "Some couples kiss each other to seal the ceremony" (see "One Bogota notary office, a hundred same-sex partnership registrations").

For his willingness to be on camera and to be interviewed by media during some of these ceremonies, Mr. Salamanca became perhaps the best-known notary public accepting these types of registrations (at the time El Tiempo had identified only two notary offices willing to register -sex couples in all of Bogota and said that Mr. Salamanca's office led in number of registrations putting the figure at 100).

Imagine my sadness this morning when I read reports online that Mr. Salamanca had been shot to death at 8:15 last night while he sat in his car.

Mexico's Milenio says that the police were looking for two gunmen who "escaped with great velocity towards an unknown destination."

They also note that Salamanca was well-known for his work with gay couples, "which cost him criticism from diverse conservative organizations that graded him as a detractor of morality."

Colombia's El Espectador says that Mr. Salamanca had driven his Mercedes Benz and had parked outside a building in an upper-class Bogota neighborhood as he waited to pick up his children from their place of residence. He was shot four times and died before his body was brought to a nearby hospital.

El Tiempo says that authorities are offering a reward equivalent to $24,000 dollars to anyone who provides information that leads them to the killer, who was said to be between 22 and 24 years of age, and said that they were also looking for a second man who was seen running away from the scene.

General Rodolfo Palomino, Director of the Bogota Police Department, said that they assume that those responsible for the crime are people who are opposed to same-sex partnerships but Salamanca's family told the paper that they didn't see a clear reason as to why someone would want to kill Mr. Salamanca.

In the meantime, El Espectador has uploaded a Caracol News segment on YouTube (below) which includes an interview Mr. Salamanca gave to CM& News hours before he was killed.

In the interview, Mr. Salamanca is asked whether notary officials should be authorized to act as judges while hundreds of judicial workers are engaging in a current ongoing strike. (bringing to a halt thousands of court cases).

Mr. Salamanca argues that notary officers can indeed serve as judges in some cases if only to assist with the backlog and that the notary office system provides a viable infrastructure for these cases to move forward in light that the court system has shut down.

Eerily he begins the interview with these words: "Since in Colombia there is no justice..."

Let's hope that's not the case and that justice comes in his murder.

La Prensa backs marriage rights for same-sex couples in California

Wait! Wasn't that the same headline as yesterday's post? Actually. No! This is the bi-weekly and bi-lingual San Diego newspaper La Prensa (we do love the bi's). And, though probably not as influential as yesterday's La Opinion editorial, in some ways it's a whole lot sweeter since this is a smaller Latino community newspaper and, unlike La Opinion, a little bit more unexpected:

Proposition 8: Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment - Majority Approval Required

Shall the California Constitution be changed to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry providing that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California?

Whereas opponents to Prop. 4 had the support of the State Supreme Court and the voters, Prop. 8 is different. In the year 2000, California voters approved the designation that a legal marriage is between a man and woman. It was the State Supreme Court (in May 2008) that denied the provisions of Prop 4, citing that it violated the equal protection clause of the California Constitution. Same sex couples have been getting married ever since the May 2008 ruling.

A Yes vote on Prop. 8 would be a vote for marriage as legal only if it was between a man and woman. A No vote would allow the State of California to continue recognizing the legal union between same sex marriages.

First and foremost, marriage is a statement of love between two people. Same sex marriage as a legal union will not diminish the value of heterosexual marriages. Legal recognition for same sex marriages provides a sense of pride, dignity, accountability, and as the State Supreme Court ruled: equal protection under the law.

Gays and Lesbians have been a part of society since the beginning of time. This is a community that continues to grow and speak out. The Gay community is an integral part of our society and their elected numbers continues to grow. We can no longer marginalize this part of our community. Rejecting the legal designation of a Gay marriage will do nothing more than to polarize this community toward working harder for full recognition as a part of society.

This proposition is nothing more than one group trying to impose their moral standards on another. Fortunately, the world is made up of many different people and you simple can’t contain all people in a single box. Instead we should celebrate our differences and work together to make our world a better place for all to live in happiness and in love.

We believe that if two people are in love and they want to get married, we as a State should not legislate against the happiness of these people. We Urge a No Vote on Prop. 8.

Yes, if you haven't heard, today Connecticut became the third state (after Massachusetts and California) to allow same-sex marriages (I actually cried watching this) but the current battle in California will define the issue for decades. Wouldn't it be rad if now that Connecticut has done the right thing we also beat back efforts in California to protect marriage rights for same-sex couples? The answer is YES by voting NO on Prop. 8.

La Opinion backs marriage rights for same-sex couples in California

[NOTE: Above, the latest ad for those seeking to safeguard marriage rights for same-sex couples in California. For more info and to support NO on Prop. 8 efforts head directly here]

In an editorial published today in Los Angeles' La Opinion ("An unnecessary proposal"), the paper asks Latino voters to vote 'NO' on California's Proposition 8 and against efforts to undo a state top court decision legalizing same-sex marriage (It counts quite a bit: La Opinion is the Spanish-language paper with the largest circulation in the United States).

While not surprising (the paper also supported the same-sex weddings that took place in San Francisco under Gavin Newsom's watch back in 2004), the editorial comes at a key time when foes of same-sex couples seem to have the upper hand and Latino and African-American voters are being mentioned as a reason why the ban could pass (not sure I am convinced by the arguments).

I am taking the liberty to reprint the English version of the editorial in its entirety.

Proposition 8 seeks to amend the California Constitution to expressly guarantee that marriage must be between a man and a woman.

We believe this is an unnecessary initiative that would impose a constitutional restriction on rights now held by a group of Californians whose mutual commitment before the law and society poses no danger whatsoever.

The idea behind this initiative and the title its proponents wanted to give it was the "California Marriage Protection Act".The state attorney general changed the title to the more accurate "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry."

That right was declared in May by the California Supreme Court, ruling that such a ban is discriminatory. To arrive at that decision, the judges based their opinion on a 1948 legal precedent that determined that it was illegal to prohibit marriage of couples of different races.

It is subjective to claim that the voluntary marriage between two adults is a threat to an institution which, ironically, these people are fighting to join.

The true threats to marriage are lack of communication, infidelity, domestic abuse, and economic pressures.

The driving force behind the measure comes from Evangelical, Catholic, Mormon, Baptist, Orthodox Jewish, and Adventist congregations, with money, sermons, prayers, fasting, and very respectable and respected opinions.

But that does not mean it is acceptable to impose these beliefs on all of society, and much less, change the State Constitution.

We recommend voting NO on Proposition 8.

Related:

• Los Angeles Times: Gay marriage foes ramp up outreach to Latinos
  
• Orange County Register: Latino adults: Marriage desirable, but too 'risky'
• Rex Wockner: Polls flip, gays now losing marriage in Calif.
• Gloria Nieto: No on Prop 8

Ecuador: New constitution grants gays civil union rights, bans adoption rights

I am no fan of the nouveau-socialist movements sweeping Latin America (at least in the Hugo Chavez or Evo Morales guise) but if you have to give credit where credit is due, that means Ecuadorian president Rafael Correa gets props for defeating the massive anti-gay evangelical fringe in his efforts to push for a new constitution that recognizes some rights of same-sex couples (among other savory and unsavory things).

From the Associated Press (via Gay365.com):

The new constitution guarantees civil rights for gays and lesbians, including civil unions affording all the rights of marriage... Preliminary results showed 65 percent support with 5 percent of the vote counted, mirroring earlier exit polls and quick counts that indicated overwhelming voter approval...

This despite virulently homophobic political opposition as we have reported in the past (see below). But, as someone comments on the Gay365.com board:

Hate to rain on the 'We love Ecuador' parade, but Spanish readers will note that next to the clause on civil unions is a line affirming that marriage is only between a man and a woman, as well as a ban on gay adoption (Article 67 and 68). So, it is more of a “one-step forward, two-steps backwards” sort of constitution. English language gay media tends to over-exaggerate the progress in other countries (while undermining the substantive gains that have achieved in the Anglophone world itself).

He is partly right! Correa says that the new Ecuadorean constitution would afford "all the rights of marriage" but, of course, the fact that it would bar adoption rights for same-sex couples means it does not.

It is still way more than the United States government has ever done. And, considering the concerted efforts by the religious right in Ecuador to sink any recognition of same-sex rights it is a tremendous victory. Let's wait and see how the mandate is implemented.

Previously:

• President Correa falls into political trap, accedes to right wing demands, says gay couples deserve some rights (April 7, 2008)
  
• President Correa on same-sex marriage, abortion and including 'God' in the constitution (March 31, 2008)
  
• A push to eliminate constitutional protections for gays and lesbians (March 26, 2008)
• Defense Minister resigns in midst of a 'gays in the military' controversy (September 6, 2007)

California Nuptials: Gloria Nieto & Jo Kenny / Matt Foreman & Frank De Leon

Four of my favorite people got married this weekend in California.

Jo Kenny and Gloria Nieto got married on Saturday at their San Jose home surrounded by friends and family on a glorious sunny day. The couple asked guests to donate to the Barack Obama campaign or to the Equality for All campaign in California in lieu of gifts. Equality for All is the lead organization in fighting efforts to nullify the right of same-sex couples in California to marry.

I know that both Jo and Gloria, as so many other people, were mourning the passing of 87 year-old Del Martin on Wednesday, particularly because they personally knew her and her surviving spouse Phyllis Lyon so to be able to celebrate vows in light of the news must have been bittersweet, incredibly moving and life-affirming. Martin and Lyon became the first couple in California to 'remarry' earlier this year when the state officially recognized their right to marry (they had already been married at the 2004 San Francisco ceremonies that pushed California forward on the marriage issue).

I have known Gloria ever since she was a board member of the now-defunct National Latino/a Lesbian and Gay Organization (LLEGO) and have grown closer in recent years. I mean, I did bring her to the Obama side and all! My love to Jo and Gloria and my apologies for not haveing been able to be there to celebrate with them. BTW: The ceremony was officiated (sp?) by the lesbo-rrific councilwoman Jamie McLeod (above with Jo & Gloria). Gloria wants you to know that she is in a tough re-election campaign against a homophobic contender and wants you to support her as well by heading here and finding more about the race. Also, Gloria blogs here.

In the meantime Matt Foreman finally made a good man out of Frank De León (or was it the other way around?). Well, at least they finally stopped living in sin! At least in God's eyes (still, what's up with all that leather? Yikes!).

The boys were married on Saturday in San Francisco with the amazing Shannon Minter officiating (OMG, how LGT of them!). Read all about it in yesterday's New York Times!

Matt I've known forever. At least since he was the Executive Director of the New York City Anti-Violence Project and through his leadership at the Empire State Pride Agenda (he recruited me back then for the agency's board) and through his recent stint as Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. His recent move to san Francisco to become director of gay and immigrant rights programs at the Evelyn & Walter Haas Jr. Fund means we get to see less of Matt here in New York which is sad. Frank, who I've also known forever, continues to run his great FADesign here in New York so hopefully there'll be future lunches with the happy couple. Congrats Matt & Frank!

Photo credits: Photo of Jo and Gloria courtesy of Ed Rader via Gloria; Photo of Matt and Frank taken in February by yours truly at the Creating Change conference in Detroit, MI, as Matt bid a public farewell to the Task Force.