Pedro Julio outwits NOM Board Member in Spanish-language TV debate about marriage equality in NY

Have you seen this ad? It was produced by an anti-gay organization called the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) in the wake of the recent marriage equality victories in Iowa and Vermont.

Reaction from the gays since it was released on April 7th has generally gone from shock and fear that the tropes used (the imagery and language about diversity, inclusion and change) might be effective; to a realization that perhaps there was some overreaction to the ad; to outright laughter at its portentiousness; which seems to have culminated with a number of online spoofs (the best one is here) and today's OpEd column by Frank Rich in the New York Times ("The Bigot's Last Hurrah").

Or perhaps you also saw that, on Thursday, New York State Governor David Paterson introduced a marriage equality bill.

Of course, there was some virulenty homophobic reaction to the announcement from the usual suspect: The Pentecostal minister - and State Senator - Ruben Diaz, Sr. He certainly was all over the press and media - happy as a peacock for all the attention he was getting.

So you would probably think that if a NOM Board Member spoke to media about the bill, everyone would be all a-twitter about how NOM's Gathering Storm might have arrived in New York.

And it did (quietly):



The two clips above are from Friday's edition of the weekly Spanish-language political show "Pura Politica" on Time Warner Cable's NY1 Noticias (CLICK on video to open larger YouTube window and read my full translation of the exchange). It features a debate between Pedro Julio Serrano from the National Lesbian and Gay Task Force and Luis Tellez from The Witherspoon Institute, as moderated by political reporter Juan Manuel Benitez.

Mr. Tellez also happens to be one of five members of NOM's Board of Directors.

So, while Rev. Diaz was huffing-and-puffing and grabbing everyone's attention, here was NOM's first media foray after the Paterson announcement: No big flashy display and no attention-whoring; just an attempt to speak directly to Latinos in their language. In other words, a similar under-the-radar strategy that foes of marriage equality in California used with minority communities in their successful defeat of Prop. 8

Luckily, Mr. Tellez met more than his match in Pedro Julio. I might be a bit biased since PJ is among my closest friends, but I thought he destroyed Mr. Tellez arguments.

It's clear, as the debate begins, that Mr. Tellez is trying to avoid a strictly religious argument to make it seem as if there is no religious bias in his claims and that his concern is only about the 'institution' of marriage, regardless or religious belief. In responding to a question about the church's role in defining marriage he actually says the following:

I cannot speak for the church - but it seems to me that the role of the church is to back, or... what is already known... er... the institution that has already existed which precedes... which precedes!... all societies that we have known.

And, yet, by debate's end, after his arguments have been destroyed, he reacts in frustration and plays the victim card as he addresses Pedro Julio, claiming that it is his religious beliefs that make him a victim:

...it's so good that you gave me your business card because, upon leaving this place, I can assure you that I will receive 'hate mail' and you won't, won't... won't receive any 'hate mail'. Why? Because those who think as we do, as you said, due to religious education or for facts that we have from common sense, which is still a majority of people in this country, we will... we are attacked. They say we are 'bigots'. NO, we aren't 'bigots'! I have tremendous respect for all the homosexuals.

The best part, though, is that he briefly falls on his own sword. Mr. Benitez. who does a good job of being even-handed by grilling Pedro Julio on why the word "marriage" and why now, asks Mr. Tellez the following question:

As Pedro Julio says there are many children who already live with same-sex couples. Don't they have the right to the same benefits and protections held by children who grow up among heterosexual couples who are married?

Mr. Tellez responds:

Of course, it's clear that all children should have the same rights.

So here we have one of the five NOM Board Members saying that he agrees that all children, regardless of whether they are being raised by same-sex couples or heterosexual partners, should have equal rights. He also goes to acknowledge that adoption by gays is better than a kid not being adopted by anyone.

And the key thing about this exchange, if you remember California's unsuccessful "No on Prop. 8" campaign, is that here we have NOM jumping at the gates to talk about the rights of children (since it worked so well to turn voters against marriage equality in California), but, in this instance you have someone who is willing to take on the lies about a kid being worse off if they are being raised by same-sex partners head on and winning the debate.

Yes, I still remember this ad:


...and the fact that all the "No on Prop. 8" folk did mediawise to counter it was to hire the ENGLISH-language Ugly Betty cast (ugh!).

One final thought: As NOM's Mr. Tellez cries victimization, and says that Pedro Julio doesn't know the half of it, my blood boiled. He would probably have avoided bringing the victimization card if he'd known that, as the first openly gay person to have sought political office in Puerto Rico, Pedro Julio received many a death threat. So much for Mr. Tellez certainty that Pedro Julio has never been and will never be the recipient of 'hate mail' or worse.

Update:

NOM.nom apparently likes Tellez' abismal performance. They posted the Spanish-language version of the interview on Facebook (see screen capture, right) but not the ones with my English-language translation.

Related:

• Frank Rich - 'The Biggots' Last Hurrah'. Is it? (Pam's House Blend, April 19, 2009)

Gov. Paterson announces marriage equality bill, Rev. Diaz throws a hissy-fit

It was as crowded a news conference as I've seen in quite a while. Thursday morning, New York State Governor David A. Paterson announced that he would introduce a bill to grant same-sex couples marriage equality. Yes, I know that Paterson's star has fallen quite a bit in political circles, but I was once again struck by his humility, humor and grace in explaining why he was introducing the bill now and not at a later date. This man who came to be governor due to unforeseen and extraordinary circumstances. This man who was handed a dysfunctional legislature and has struggled to pull it together. And yet, a man who stood by principle and kept his word in introducing this bill.

As for the press conference, it was wondrous in more ways than one.

For one thing, people who just hours earlier were criticising the governor for his renewed push for marriage equality were standing next to him, and legislators who would not have been caught a LGBT rights event just five years ago, were elbowing each other to stand behind Paterson for the photo op.

For another, it was striking that here was the state's first African-American governor making such a bold push for marriage equality, when often minorities are the first to be blamed as not being gay-friendly or supportive of LGBT rights. It also didn't escape me that among the people standing behind him were the first person of Asian descent to be elected to the City Council. John C. Liu, former councilmember Bill Perkins; and Latino US Representative José E. Serrano. A powerful visual, for those attuned to these things, that minorities are not monolithically homophobic as they are sometimes painted to be.

I bring this up because it is at times like these when local media go ga-ga over the homophobic rantings of a certain Pentecostal minister (and State Senator) named Rubén Diaz, Sr. He certainly makes good copy and - unfortunately - he has managed to find himself in a position where his one vote could deny equal rights to hundreds of New Yorkers.

And, like clockwork, there he was on Thursday morning, holding an "emergency meeting" of the New York Hispanic Clergy Association (more like a "Look at me! Look at me!" meeting, if you ask me).

As widely reported, Diaz used the media attention to bash Paterson and say that he would be organizing a series of Sunday mass activities in the month of May leading to a rally of thousands in opposition of the marriage bill. He also said he'd be calling for Governor Paterson to step down (so much for separation of church and state).

Given the Pastor's penchant for running his mouth off, it's not surprising that plans for the rally seemed vague, at best. But he has pulled one such rally in the past when 5,000 people showed up outside the Bronx Courthouse building.

Still, I remain unconvinced that the Reverend reaches much more than a fringe element even in Latino communities and believe that money, time and effort countering his rants and rallies would be better spent highlighting the support of people like José E. Serrano and finding allies among Republican Senate members to counter the anti-gay votes of a few homophobic Democrats.

Having said that, it is clear that calls to his office from LGBT rights proponents in recent months have gotten under his skin. From an interview he did on Thursday with New York 1 Noticias:

DIAZ: By picketing my office, by calling my office, by sending investigators, by calling me 'homophobic', by calling me - eh - whatever you want, by calling me personal names, they will never get me to change my view. There is no way.

The only way that they will be able to get homosexual marriage: That more Democratic senators reach the Senate, and then my vote will not be necessary - and Governor Paterson is not helping out in that respect.

By the way, the guy responding on behalf of the National Lesbian and Gay Task Force? My great friend, Pedro Julio Serrano. He rocks! I'll be writing a bit more about him in my following post.

Related:

• Dem NY State Senator Ruben Diaz organizing anti-gay marriage equality rally (April 19, 2009)
  
• Bronx Senator organizing protest of marriage bill (New York Times, April 16, 2009)
• Bronx Dem rallies ministers against gay marriage (WNYC, April 16, 2009)
• Gay marriage foe to call for Governor's ouster (The Advocate, April 17, 2009)

One Day Equals...

On Tuesday, April 28, hundreds of New Yorkers will be making their way to the state capital, Albany, to demand LGBT Equality & Justice. In this, what promises to be a pivotal year in the fight for marriage equality in the state, the Empire State Pride Agenda hopes to show strength in numbers by topping last year's attendance of 1,100 participants. The registration deadline is near so please register now! They even provide busing for folk who register but don't have transportation so please consider attending.

Although the lobby-day focuses on much more than marriage equality, advocacy on marriage rights have gained a certain immediacy with reports yesterday that Governor David Paterson intends to re-introduce legislation to legalize marriage rights for same-sex couples.

As with Prop. 8 in California and Jointheimpact.com, it's great to see independent initiatives rise-up in support. The "One Day Equals" campaign, which is not affiliated with Pride Agenda, simply came from a desire by three individuals to pool their resources, time and effort to raise awareness about this year's LGBT Equality & Justice Day.

As Joe Liebman writes to me:

The campaign is called One Day Equals. Drawing parallels between the march on Albany and historical events like the Storming of the Bastille, the Boston Tea Party and the Fall of the Berlin Wall, ads all end with the same message: ONE DAY CAN CHANGE THE COURSE OF HISTORY. One day equals us all one day becoming equals. OneDayEquals.com

The Pride Agenda, in the meantime, also has it's own video out:



So, if you have the time, please consider donating one day of your life for LGBT equal rights by registering now.

Rally in NYC tomorrow! Marriage equality in VT!

Last week it was Iowa's Supreme Court allowing same-sex couples the right to marry.

Today it was the Vermont legislature that shockingly and wonderfully defeated their Governor's veto of a bill granting equal marriage rights to Vermonters by an overwhelming vote (becoming the first state in the country to grant such rights through a legislative process and the fourth state that currently allows same-sex couples to marry in the US including Massachusetts, Connecticut and, of course, Iowa).

So what are we New Yorkers to do? Rally! Again! In support! Of course!

Last week, Civil Rights Front invited you to celebrate the victory in Iowa on Friday (Joe.My.God has got the goods here). Now they have been joined by Marriage Equality New York, The Power and The Wedding Party in urging you to rally TOMORROW WEDNESDAY APRIL 8TH in honor of the Vermont victory at the south side of Union Square from 6:30pm to 7:30pm.

In the meantime, Gay City News is reporting today that New York and New Jersey LGBT rights leaders Alan Van Capelle and Steven Goldstein are stepping up their calls to action for marriage equality in each state

In a statement from the Empire State Pride Agenda sent earlier today, Van Capelle stated that he was "embarrassed" for New York State and urged the state legislature not to be left behind:

We hope that our State Senate in New York will now look at three of the states that surround New York—Massachusetts, Connecticut and now Vermont—and realize that we are falling behind. Governor Paterson, Senator Schumer and Senator Gillibrand, every statewide official, the New York State Assembly, and a majority of New Yorkers already support passing a bill that would provide same-sex couples with the 1,324 rights and protections that come with a New York State marriage license.

His New Jersey counterpart, Steven Goldstein, Director of Garden State Equality, also expressed "embarrassment" and went a step further, stating that the legislative win in Vermont meant the end for arguments that 'civil unions' were the same as marriage rights for same sex couples:

Today’s enactment of a marriage equality law in Vermont marks the official end of the failed civil union era in America. Civil union laws now join the Edsel, New Coke and 8-Track Tapes in the dustbin of history’s failed inventions.

New Jersey’s separate and unequal civil union law is an abject embarrassment to the nearly nine million people who live in our progressive state. Vermont, the state that invented civil unions in 2000, passed a marriage equality law today because legislators have seen that civil unions did work – and will never work – to provide equality as marriage would.

Vermont understands, and so does the clear majority of New Jerseyans who support marriage equality:

Civil unions are to equality what AIG bonuses are to corporate integrity.

The time to act is now.

OMG! I love Steve Goldstein press releases!! Edson? New Coke?! 8-track Tapes!!! YES!!!

And I also love Karen Pike's photography, which is where I got the image above from today's dramatic events in VT. For the complete gallery go here.

Related:

• With victories, gay rights groups expand marriage push (New York Times, April 8, 2009)

Update: My brother, Iowa, Vermont and marriage equality

I won't write much about the tremendous marriage equality victory today in Iowa or yesterday's vote by the Vermont House of Representatives to pass a marriage equality bill. Other sites have better analysis and information than I would be able to offer. But I will share a personal anecdote and also tell you how you can make the Vermont vote stick in light of the state governor's threat to veto marriage equality this Monday.

Iowa: My brother Gabriel (right), who lives in Iowa City, called me this evening to give me an up to the minute report on a celebratory rally taking place downtown Iowa City this evening. He was at a restaurant sitting near a wide window and was watching dozens of gay and lesbian Iowans walk by holding hands and carrying signs on the way to the rally. He even spotted some co-workers and said he was glad for them.

No biggie, just a brother speaking to a brother. But that's why I love my family. They are always there with me - and celebrate these LGBT rights victories with me - in a way that makes me so grateful for having the parents and the brothers that I have.

BTW, blogger Andrew Sullivan predicted that Iowa might go this way at last Sunday's "The Chris Matthews Show" on NBC. His exact words?

Vermont's legislature has just overwhelmingly voted to have marriage rights for gay couples, but the big future shock will be Iowa, where we will have marriage rights.

Vermont: Which brings us to VT. Andrew's 'overwhelmingly' comment means that the Vermont House of Representatives voted in favor of marriage equality by a margin of 95-52. A HUGE margin except that it falls five votes short of the 2/3rds majority needed to avoid a governor's veto that could come as soon as Monday!

But WAIT!! There is something you can do tonight and over the weekend! You can e-mail VT legislature to ask them to override the veto. Please do because marriage equality in VT may be only still in play if you take action between now and Monday.

Again, if you would like to see Vermont join Iowa, Massachusetts, and Connecticut in granting equal rights to same sex couples, please click on the previous link.

And, if you have some time on your hands, please head over to this video which has some incredibly moving testimony from last night's VT House debate on the marriage bill.

NYC rally on Vermont and Iowa same-sex marriage decisions

Because California and New York are not the only states that matter when it comes to the ongoing battle to insure that same-sex couples have the right to marry, it's good to point out that there are imminent decisions from Vemont and Iowa on the issue.

In Vermont, the state Senate already approved a bill legalizing same-sex marriage and today it's the state House's turn. As I write, the Burlington Free Press is livestreaming the House floor debates (here) and a vote that could potentially grant same-sex Vermonters the right to marry might come tonight.

Vermont Governor Jim Douglas has vowed to veto it if it reaches his desk but a 2/3rds majority vote of support for the bill would make it veto-proof.

In the meantime, tomorrow is Iowa's turn as that state's Supreme Court will be releasing its decision on same-sex marriages. If the Iowa Supreme Court votes in favor of same-sex marriage, it will make Iowa the first Midwest state to approve same-sex marriages

New York City rally (Friday, April 3, 2009): Regardless of which side the Vermont legislature or the Iowa Supreme Court fall upon, a New York City rally is being organized in response to be held tomorrow at Union Square (gathering on the South Side). It will be held from 6:30pm to 7:30pm.

The rally is being organized by a direct group called Civil Rights Front which is described as "an all inclusive, direct action group working towards marriage equality and full civil rights for the LGBTQ community."

Recently, they incorporated members of the local chapter of Join the Impact, which was the leading force behind the national rallies that followed the Prop. 8 vote in California. The groups decided to join forces earlier this month. They are calling for your support by showing up tomorrow and passing the information to others.

For information on Civil Rights Front, on tomorrow's rally or on future actions, please visit the following:

• Civil Rights Front on Facebook
• Civil Rights Front website

Venezuela: Same-sex unions are NOT being considered by Assembly despite reports, says legislator

Almost a full week after a Venezuelan legislator announced that a parliamentary commission was putting the recognition of same-sex partnership rights on the fast-track, a colleague held a press conference yesterday to play down any possibility that such a bill was on the horizon.

Background: On Friday, Romelia Matute - one of seven member of the Family, Women and Youth Commission - stated that a gender equality bill being drafted for a parliamentary vote in June would include language creating the recognition of "co-inhabiting associations" as a way to allow "the union of two people of the same gender."

If approved, she said, the bill would grant legislative recognition to "the joint-living associations formed by two persons of the same gender, on mutual accord and free agreement, with the full legal and patrimonial effect".

She also indicated that members of the Venezuelan Assembly had met with LGBT rights organizations and activists and that the bill would soon be voted upon and approved.

Not so fast: But yesterday, Marelys Pérez - the Commission's Chairwoman - denied that any such language was being considered as part of the gender equality bill and said that the National Assembly was not ready to legislate on same-sex unions or same-sex partners living together.

Accoridng to El Tiempo, Pérez said that she had decided to make a public statement to express concern that national and international press were reporting that the National Assembly and the Venezuelan government would legally recognize same-sex unions.

"The 'Organic Law for Gender Equity and Equality' Act establishes respect for those who those who have a sexual option, safeguards their human rights, calls for no discrimination, but it is something different than granting legal [recognition] to homosexual unions," she said, "that is not the objective of this law."

When she was reminded that it was another Commission member who had set the ball rolling by indicating that same-sex partnerships would advance as part of the bill, Pérez replied that Assemblymember Matute had spoken about a personal initiative that had yet to be taken under consideration and which did not involve the National Assembly as an institution.

According to Cadena Global, Pérez said that the Commission would debate the same-sex partnership rights initiative but that they would leave it out of the current bill and probably wait for reforms to the Civil Code or a future anti-discrimination bill.

The bill as currently drafted would still grant "the right of every person to live a pleasurable, responsible and freely decided sexuality, and the capacity of exercising a sexual orientation and identity without discrimination and in conditions of equality", according to the paper.

Previously:

• Same-sex partnership rights on fast track to being legally recognized, says legislator (March 22, 2009)

Venezuela: Same-sex partnerships on fast track to being legally recognized, says legislator

[PLEASE READ THE 3/26/09 UPDATE WHICH DEBUNKS THIS POST: SAME-SEX UNIONS ARE NOT BEING CONSIDERED BY LEGISLATURE, SAYS ANOTHER LEGISLATOR - GO HERE FOR FURTHER INFO]

Romelia Matute (left), a member of Venezuela's National Assembly and Deputy of the Assembly's Family Commission, has announced that the Venezuelan legislature is well on its way to approving a bill that would grant same-sex couples legal recognition, including shared patrimony and inheritance rights.

As reported on Friday in Spain's ABC, Matute stated that "the report on the 'Organic Bill for Gender Equality' is almost ready for a second - and final - [legislative] debate," adding that it would include language allowing "the union between two people of the same gender" in the form of something she called "co-inhabiting associations".

Matute said that members of the National Assembly, a majority of whom belong to President Hugo Chávez' party, had met "several times" with gay rights organizations and said that it was those organizations who requested that the "co-inhabiting association" term be used.

She said that the government would recognize "the joint-living associations formed by two persons of the same gender, on mutual accord and free agreement, with the full legal and patrimonial effect".

Matute also said that the bill would address transgender issues: "Whoever changes their gender through quirurgical means, or any other means, exercising their freedom, has the right to their identity, and to drafting or changing all documents associated with their identification".

In a statement distributed today by Radio Reflejos of Venezuela - which operates an online LGBT news radio show - they call it a collective achievement for the LGBT Venezuelan movement and single out a few individuals who, they say, have attended meetings with those drafted the bill: Transgender rights activist Rummie Quintero from Transfemenina, who is said to be the first transgender person to be ever called for consultation by the National Assembly; Elena Hernaíz from the Reflejos Foundation; transgender attorney Tamara Adrian, from Diverlex (pictured right); and organizations such as Union Afirmativa, the Lesbian Feminist Collective, and others.

Interestingly, they do not mention the United Socialist Bloc for Homosexual Liberation or their leader Heisler Vaamonde, who has aligned himself with the Chávez government over the years despite few advances in LGBT rights during his decade-old rule.

The activists do urge people to contact the Deputies of the Family Commission to offer support for this initiative as it reaches the parliamentary floor for a vote. They include:

• Marelys Pérez Marcano: marelysperez@an.gob.ve
• Flor Ríos florrios: @ an.gob.ve
• Carmen Rodríguez Rauseo: carmenrodriguez @ an.gob.ve
• Juan José Molina: juanmolina @ an.gob.ve
• Diluvina Cabello: diluvinacabello @ an.gob.ve
• Alberto Castellar: albertocastelar @ an.gob.ve

There are no specific details on when the bill might reach the floor for a vote.

Sources:

• Legislative bill allows gay unions in Venezuela (El Nacional)
• Venezuela will legalize gay unions as "co-inhabiting associations" (ABC Spain)
• Venezuela seeks to be on even keel with countries that are more advanced on LGBT rights (AG Magazine)

Hawaii: Don't be gaycist!

You might have heard that the Hawaiian House of Representatives passed a same-sex civil unions bill a week ago today.

You might have heard, as well, that a certain Hawaiian guy recently visited the Big Apple.

Well, a post by Joe.My.God earlier this week on the Hawaiian bill certainly caught my eye. It said that an estimated two thousand Hawaiians, most wearing red shirts, descended upon the state capitol in an anti-gay rally to protest passage of the bill.

Joe later excerpted a blog post at Pam's House Blend by guest blogger Keori which described the scene as she made her way out of the capitol on Tuesday after witnessing the legislative debate on whether the bill would be sent out of committee for a Senate vote:

...[I] forget to take off my little green and gold "equality" sticker on the way out of the building, and be followed to the bus stop by a bunch of red shirts with signs. Three 6'5", 200 pound Islander guys with signs saying "Gay marriage is wrong" and "John 3:16" followed the lone little white girl with her laptop case across the street, yelling at me, "Repent!", calling me a bitch and a whore, telling me, "You just need a real man to fuck you straight." Nothing I haven't heard before.

Then one of them said, "We know who you are now, and what you drive. We saw you last Thursday. You better watch yourself, fucking haole bitch." Not one of the 20 people standing around the bus stop said anything to them. I got on the first bus that came along, got off three stops down the street, and caught my right bus a few minutes later. I rode home all alone, with my headphones on, praying no one bothered me. I don't want to ever hear another fake apology from these people saying that they don't actually hate queers, they're just "protecting traditional marriage". It's just the latest lie in their christian hate grab bag.

It certainly doesn't change her awful experience as she made out of the capitol building but guess who was infiltrating the red homophobic masses.

Why, it's recent Big Apple visitor Kawika! Who probably confused quite a few by holding his "Don't be Gaycist" sign. Love it!

Bolivia: New constitution bans discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity

An unpublished comment from an anonymous reader dated February 4th asks "Why no story on Bolivian voters voting last week for a constitution that outlaws discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation?"

Short answer: Because I wanted to include one specific piece of information and kept looking for it with no luck... until today!

Here are the basics: Following similar efforts by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa, Bolivian President Evo Morales won a huge political victory on January 25th when 61 percent of Bolivian voters voted in favor of adopting a new constitution.

The constitution, which goes into effect today, "promises more power for the poor, Indian majority; recognizes communal justice; grants some regional autonomy; and declares coca a part of the nation's heritage", according to an article posted today by the Associated Press.

It also allows Morales, the first Bolivian president of indigenous background, to run for a second term and to further establish a socialist vision for the country, even as it also leaves deeper divisions between those who backed the changes and does who did not.

LGBT community protected from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity: So, as the reader noted, there was more to the new constitution than the AP reports. Here is what it says under Article 14.II:

In the title 'Fundamental Rights and Guarantees': The State prohibits and punishes all form of discrimination founded on the basis of sex, skin color, gender, age, sexual orientation and gender identity, origin, culture, nationality, citizenship, language, religious beliefs, ideology, political or philosophical affiliation,

That, according to an article in El Deber comparing misleading arguments being made by the opposition to the actual constitutional text (the full document can be downloaded here).

Constitution defines marriage as that between a man and a woman: According to some reports, earlier versions of the constitution paved a way for the recognition of civil unions between same-sex partners. Instead, that language was dropped and replaced with Article 63 (an attempt to appease religious leaders who had complained):

I. Marriage between a woman and a man is constituted by legal ties and is based on equal rights and responsibilities between spouses; II. Free or common-law unions that meet conditions of stability and singularity, and be maintained between a woman and a man without legal impediment, will produce the same rights as a civil union, not only in the personal and patrimonial relationships between co-inhabitants, but also with respect to sons and daughters who are adopted or born from those partnerships.

To put it mildly, this did not appease religious leaders and, particularly, those on the right. Days before the vote, right wing religious leaders launched a predictable but nevertheless incredibly ugly attack on the proposed constitution.


The attack ad: I had read that the religious right had launched an incredibly offensive television ad as a last-ditch attempt to defeat the constitutional changes. It told believers that the new constitution would "throw God out of Bolivia" and that a vote against it would be a vote in favor of God. I searched for it on YouTube and elsewhere in vain but no luck... Until today! I've uploaded it on YouTube and posted it above.

I am struck by the imagery: A still from Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" (which I have also seen widely used by local NYC Latino Evangelical leaders to whip-up resentment against gays and lesbians); Evo Morales shown in a traditional Indian costume which probably serves to inflame racist sentiments against indigenous cultures; what appears to be an image of a US-based couple kissing, which of course perpetuates the idea that homosexuality is being imported from elsewhere; an image of an aborted fetus which is a staple of those used by the religious-right in the United States; and, of course, an image of children holding the Cuban flag to tie it all up to Communism.

The AFP says that the ad was so offensive that it was banned by the country's independent electorate tribunal but that television stations who opposed approval of the constitution continued to run it until election date.

If you have read this blog in the past, you might be surprised that I am backing the constitutional changes in Bolivia. Then again, neither Morales not Ecuador's Correa are the egotistical maniacal figure represented by Venezuela's truly despicable Chavez (even as they follow his every step).

This is why socialism is capturing the hearts and minds of folk in Latin America (and why Chavez is so successfully in his quest to remain in power indefinitely): The political alternative is even worse! They champion discrimination against minorities, the worst sort of right-wing ideals, policies that discriminate against indigenous communities and, of course, anti-choice and anti-gay sentiments left and right. Heck! They are decrying that the additional anti-discrimination protections covering indigenous communities are an infringement on their freedoms! Their true fear? The new constitution establishes a separation of church and state for the first time ever in Bolivia which means that they have lost a certain grasp on the legislature.

I mean, considering what they are willing to do in the ad above and if you had a similar choice, wouldn't you back Evo as well?

Related:

• Bolivians appear to back charter (The Washington Post, Jan. 26, 2009)
• Touching a nerve: Freedom of religion in the Bolivian constitutional debate (Andean Information Network, Jan. 16, 2009)
• Bolivian constitutional referendum analysis: An Overview (Andean Information Network, Jan. 14, 2009)

Colombia Diversa on yesterday's landmark ruling granting equal rights to same-sex couples

I am still wrapping my brain around yesterday's ruling by the Constitutional Court in Colombia.

Reading the first news brief that appeared online in El Tiempo, it promised less than the article's title implied: "Full recognition from Constitutional Court to same-sex partners."

Yes, the Court had ruled that a series of rights afforded to long term heterosexual partners should be also granted to long term same-sex partners BUT it seemed to stop short of granting civil union or common-law union status (unlike a blurb at The Advocate online implies today).

In fact, I consciously decided not to translate the article's title in my post yesterday because I wanted to make sure that I wasn't misreading the information before calling it a "full recognition" of same-sex partnerships.

Well, after translating the statement below and discussing the ruling with Colombia Diversa's director Marcela Sánchez, I have come to realize that this is much bigger than I originally thought particularly outside a framework that puts same-sex marriage as a measure of full equality.

In fact, Marcela is quoted today by El Tiempo stating that the ruling gives same-sex couples in Colombia "equality".

"We are not putting ourselves above others, instead we were putting [ourselves] as equals," she says, "They are not additional rights but the same (as those of heterosexuals)."

In a brief e-mail exchange I asked if it was truly "equality" and she said "Yes, it is equality; We have all the rights of a common-law union, minus adoption."

She also told me that the organizations that brought the lawsuit before the court made a conscious decision to specifically ask for the rights and not for civil or common-law unions which is the reason why the court did not pronounce itself on those matters.

So, here is a concept: Colombian same-sex partners, following a series of High Court rulings including the one announced yesterday, probably enjoy more rights than same-sex couples in any other Latin American nation with the exception - perhaps - of Uruguay which approved civil unions in December of 2007 - and yet they have achieved this without having yet been granted civil marriage or common-law marriage status?

Just amazing and it speaks to the hard work of hundreds of LGBT advocates throughout Colombian history including my friends Germán Humberto Rincón Perfetti and Manuel Antonio Velandia Mora who did so much in the a980's and 1990's to bring equal rights issues to the forefront in Colombia.

Through their efforts, as well as hat of many others, different same-sex partnership bills have come close to being adopted by the county's legislature (the last one was rejected by the Senate in October of 2008). With yesterday's ruling, passage of such a bill seems predestined.

---
Colombia Diversa, the leading LGBT rights organization in Colombia and one of the organizations that asked the Constitutional Court to determine whether same-sex partners should enjoy all the rights of heterosexual partners, released the following statement on yesterday's landmark ruling (I have translated it from the Spanish language original):

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT RULES FOR EQUALITY

Historic ruling by the Constitutional Court in Colombia recognizes equality between heterosexual common law partners and those of the same sex.

Today, January 27, 2009, the Constitutional Court brought the country one step forward - a fundamental one - in matters of human rights. The High Tribunal acknowledged that a number of civil, political, social, economic, criminal and immigration rights, among others - previously reserved for heterosexual couples, also apply to same-sex couples.

In this way, Colombia has made progress in fulfilling its international commitment to incorporate Equality into its domestic legal norms, on behalf of a population that has historically been vulnerable due to their sexual orientation. Eighteen years after the enactment of the 1991 Constitution, [promoting] equality between all people, this principle has effectively been by lifting a series of limitations in Colombia that weighed down on rights, depending to the sexual orientation of individuals.

It was confirmed that equal rights cannot allow qualifications, nor exceptions nor mitigating circumstances that depend on sexual orientation.

Plaintiffs

The path that led to the Court's recent ruling began with a lawsuit. On April 28, 2008, Colombia Diversa, The Law, Justice and Society Study Center (Dejusticia), and The Public Interest Rights Group of the University of Los Andes, filed a lawsuit seeking equal rights between permanent partners, heterosexual and homosexual, and thus eliminate all forms of discrimination.

The lawsuit was actively supported by a diverse group of 32 human rights organizations, most of which do not represent an exclusive advocacy for LGBT rights. Such was the case with Human Rights Watch, the Colombian Commission of Jurists and Sisma Woman among many others (see list). Their primary interest was to bring domestic legislation in Colombia closer to a genuine concept of Equality.

Rights and responsibilities recognized

Specifically, it was a claim of inconstitutionality en masse against a series of laws that guarantee these rights and responsibilities to unmarried heterosexual couples, so that same-sex couples could be included as beneficiaries.

The plaintiffs asked the Court to extend the protections inherent in all rights afforded to heterosexual partners in a common-law union, to same sex-couples. At the same time, there was a request for the same order of duties and responsibilities for both types of couples.

In short, the rights and responsibilities that were demanded and recognized by the Court are related to:

• Civil rights norms which establish limitations to the access and exercise of civil service and the establishment of contracts with the State.
• Civil and political rights, such as housing protections, so that the so-called 'family patrimony' cannot be seized and [establishes] joint family housing rights [la afectación de vivienda familiar].
• Access to a Colombian nationality, and residence in the department of San Andres and Providencia.
• The right to benefits, allowances and compensation measures of a social nature in favor of same-sex couples.
• This is the case with the special social security norms that apply to public law enforcement, family allowance, family allowance for housing, subsidies for rural access to property, and indemnity coverage for death in a traffic accident of a permanent partner.
• Crime punishment and prevention norms, misconduct and the guarantee not to incriminate a partner.
• Rights for permanent partners of victims of heinous crimes.

Here is how EFE breaks it down:

The ruling means that property of homosexual couples that is considered part of the family possessions, including the home, can not be embargoed or distrained.

On the other hand, if a foreigner enters into a same-sex union with a Colombian in Colombia, he or she may obtain Colombian citizenship if and when that union has been under way for more than two consecutive years.

Members of same-sex couples cannot be forced to testify against their partners.

Regarding public officials, when one takes the oath of office, that person's same-sex partner - if any - will also take the office.

Update: Former right-wing congressman Victor Velazquez is incensed! From Colombia Reports (based on this article from El Espectador)

Former congressman Victor Velasquez petitioned the high court to reverse its ruling, accusing the Court it is out of line and should leave legislation about gay rights to Congress.

Velasquez called on the Catholic Church to denounce the ruling and wants a referendum held to let the Colombian people reverse what "undermines the morale of the country."

"With this decision the Court wants to put the country in reverse; the countries that ruled in favor of homosexuals are left without population, because two men and two women can't reproduce," the former lawmaker told the press.

Related:

• Colombia's Highest Court mandates equal rights for same-sex couples (LeonardLink)
  
• Colombia's Constitutional Court grants gay couples full equal rights (Colombia Reports)

Best Spanish language articles so far on yesterday's court ruling...

• Colombia: Gays with additional rights (BBC Mundo, Jan. 29, 2009)
• Colombia: La Justicia ampía los derechos de las parejas hmosexuales (AG Magazine, Jan. 29, 2009)
  

Colombia: High Court rules that same-sex partners should be held accountable to same rules that govern heterosexual partners

[NOTE: I have posted a MAJOR UPDATE on this story: Click on "Colombia Diversa on yesterday's landmark rling granting equal rights to same-sex couples" - Andrés]

Breaking news this evening on a ruling by Colombia's Constitutional Court which broadens the recognition of same-sex partners in the South American nation. From El Tiempo web portal:

The high court ordered changes to 42 norms that range from Criminal, Civil and Disciplinary Codes, to the special health plan available to military forces.

The Magistrates embraced a position paper submitted by their peer, Rodrigo Escobar Gil.

They ruled that the challenged dispositions did not justify the discrimination they instituted, or that the variances with regards to same-sex couples placed these people in a position of vulnerability before the law.

And in both cases, the Constitutional Court held that the right to equality was violated.

Hence, provisions such as those contained the Disciplinary and Penal Codes, which establish the right against incrimination by a spouse, should also be applied to heterosexual partners.

Another instance is that of crimes related to domestic violence; victims can be same-sex partners or aggravation imposed by law for crimes against the person.

This includes cases where reparations are made to victims of heinous crimes.

Whew! Translating that was a doozy! In short, regulations that determine criminal or violent conduct by persons involved in same-sex partnerships will be held to the same standards as those applied to married heterosexual couples. Or that is what I get from the article?

UPDATE: In a message posted tonight on Facebook by leading Colombian LGBT rights organization Colombia Diversa, they say that the ruling also establishes that gay Colombian citizens can grant foreign same-sex partners immigration rights in the same way that married heterosexual partners can sponsor their spouses for immigration purposes.

Previously:

• Colombian court rules that former paramilitary member can dress as a woman while imprisoned (Jan. 18, 2009)
• Colombian Senate rejects same-sex partnership bill AGAIN; gay-friendly Notary Public shot to death in Bogotá (Oct. 11, 2008)
• Tuluá mayor bans 'riding bitch' on a motorcycle, the gays are NOT happy (Sept. 6, 2008)
• Colombian same-sex partners get pension rights (April 17, 2008)
• One Bogotá notary office, a hundred same-sex partnership registrations (Feb. 13, 2008)
• Colombian same-sex partnership rights bill is DEAD (June 19, 2007)
• Colombian Congress passes gay rights bill (June 15, 2007)
• Coverage of Colombia gay rights victory (Feb. 8, 2007)

Breaking News: Malcom Smith is 1st African American NY State Senate Majority Leader

Tonight, Elizabeth Benjamin - who blogs on political issues for the New York Daily News - is reporting that Queens State Senate Representative Malcom Smith will indeed become the first African American to hold the NY State Majority Leader post ("Mr. Majority Leader").

It is a momentous occasion in a year that will see the first African American president be sworn into office later this month. But it is also an unresolved moment for those of us who had great expectations for Smith - particularly on his commitment to LGBT issues - as he wavered on the issue of same-sex marriage in order to grab enough votes to become majority leader.

The good news? Smith is set to become Majority Leader as a friend to the LGBT community. The bad news? It is still unclear what it means for the prospect of a same-sex marriage bill being passed in the State Senate, despite gloating from homophobic State Senator Ruben Diaz, Sr.

The one clear point: Sen. Smith will be Majority Leader and Sen. Diaz will not. We will measure Smith's commitment not only by his past commitments but also by his actions as Majority Leader.

Mexico: As Pope slams the gays, the gays await Vatican-led international "Family" confab

As expected, international LGBT-rights organizations and leaders are not too happy about the latest homophobic rantings by Pope Benedict XVI. If you haven't heard, on the eve of the Christmas holidays, his Holiness implied that saving the world from homosexuality was akin to saving the world from environmental destruction ("Gay Groups Angry at Pope's Remarks," BBC, Dec. 23, 2008).

Neither the Pope's comments nor the angry reaction should surprise anyone but they certainly come right on time for the Vatican-sponsored 6th World Annual Meeting of Families taking place in Mexico City from January 13th to January 18 of 2009. It's not clear if the Pope will attend but the event, the 6th organized by the Catholic Church since 1994 and the first to take place in North America, is expected to draw an estimated 30 Cardinals and 200 priests from around the world in addition to laymen interested in taking part.

Of course, by "families" the confab doesn't really mean all families. Just the heterosexual ones. And by "families" they also mean specially NOT the gay ones. Which is why a few Mexican LGBT-rights advocates are planning some actions.

Diego Cevallos, writing for Inter Press Service in a Spanish-language article published online today, says that some "social activists" as well as same-sex couples are planning to let their voices heard at the event ("Gays raise arms against hostile meeting of families").

From the article:

"They say we are not family, but we are and, additionally, Catholics and proud of it," said to IPS Esteban Castillo, a professional in electronics that lives in a common law partnership with another man.

Carrillo and a group of friends plan to be present at the site of the encounter in Mexico, which will be at the convention center that belongs to Banamex, and loudly, with posters and a "surprise", will claim "our right to be who we are, to be respected and recognized as Catholic believers", he said.

For his part, Víctor Espíndola, Director of the widely read online Mexican LGBT news portal Anodis.com, said that several important protests were planned but would not divulge details. He told IPS that the diversity of those who were planning demonstrations meant that there was also the possibility that certain actions might arise from one day to the other without much planning and that he expected some of them to be just as big.

Mexico City, as IPS notes, has in the last few years adopted resolution granting partnership rights to same-sex couples, allowed transgender individuals to change their identity and name in public documents, allowed terminal patients to decide if they should end their lives and allowed women to have access to an abortion within the first twelve weeks of pregnancy - all of which clashes with the Catholic hierarchy of a deeply Catholic country.

By the way, somewhat related, in terms of the Pope's latest statements is the following blog post by Arthur Leonard which I recommend:

• Pope desperate to preserve the Catholic Church (Dec. 23, 2008)

And here is Andrew Sullivan:

• What Benedict actually said (Dec. 24,2008)

On the road: Light Up the Night, San Diego

You might remember a post I did on Nov. 15 about the rally that took place outside the New York City Hall in protest of passage of Proposition 8 in California ("Girl, you did not just steal our rights. DID YOU. Seriously?"). Well, that was the result of a multi-state effort coordinated by Join the Impact.

Back then then the largest demo took place in San Diego, California, as was captured and described by Rex Wockner over on his blog ("Stonewall 2.0 - 25,000 in San Diego"). And, while Join the Impact has served as a conduit for some additional actions since then (most notably the recent "Day without a Gay" action which was promoted but not organized by them), tonight was supposed to be the big follow up to the Nov. 15 actions.

The idea? Light up the night for equality which called on people to hold candlelight vigils at shopping malls across the United States "for the rights of 18,000 same-sex couples who married and look forward to the day when those rights are available again."

Lucky be a lad tonight, Dec. 20th caught me visiting Rex here in San Diego so I tagged along as he went to cover one of the local vigils as a journalist (unfathomably, instead of calling for a vigil at a single mall here in San Diego, they called for vigils at six different venues!).

I'm not sure how it went in other San Diego sites, much less across the country, but at the Fashion Valley Mall, right in front of Bloomingdale's, a crowd of 150 to 200 stood in line holding candles and a few signs on a chilly evening.

It was a mixed crowd with some younger folk...

Some bears...

And a smattering of The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence...

I took a few more pictures and some of them are here. No real drama despite the man who shouted "Immorality!" as he sped by in a small expensive car.

As reports come from elsewhere, I'll also update this post with additional links to other Light Up the Night actions.

Rex Wockner's take - including more photos - available at "Light up the night for equality - San Diego version"). From his blog:

Join The Impact's next nationwide action is Jan. 10 - when the group has called for marches on the 50 state capitols to remind Barack Obama that he has promised to repeal the anti-gay federal Defense of Marriage Act, aka DOMA.

Related Blogs:

• San Diego: UTC San Diego (Pam's House Blend)
  
• NYC: Across the Universe (John Ozed)
• Miami: Light Up the Night (Knuckle Crack)
• Miami: Out of the Darkness (The Lair of the Okapi)
  
• Hollywood: Light Up the Night for Equal rights (Chisme Time)
  
• San Francisco: Light Up the Night (Love not H8)
  
• Dallas: Light Up the Night @ The Dallas Galleria (Why do we fail, sir)
• Philadelphia: Light up the night in Philly (Whiskey Mambo)
• Albuquerque: We'll never change hearts and minds this way (Byzigenous Buddhapalian)
• Chicago: Photo Essay: Light Up The Night (Chicago Gay Examiner)
  

Related media:

• NYC: Prop 8 Rally held in Midtown (NY1)
• Ithaca, NY: Food drive aims to link gay rights, faith-based charities (The Ithaca Journal)
  
• Eureka, CA: Prop. 8 protesters hold Eureka vigil (Eureka Times-Standard)
• Santa Cruz, CA: Hundreds ather for same-sex marriage vigil (Santa Cruz Sentinel)
  
• Vacaville, CA: Group takes narriage equality message to shoppers (The Reporter)
• Valencia, CA: A loud and clear message, quietly (The Signal)
  
• Boise, Idaho: Light Up the Night for Equality Draws Crowds (Fox 12)
  
• Asheville, NC: Asheville event protests prohibition on gay weddings (Asheville Citizen-Times)
• Charlottesville, VA: Gay rights advocates gather in C'ville (NBC29)
  

Uruguay: Bill that would allow change of name and gender in public documents approved by Senate

"Minors under 12 years of age will be able to change registered gender with parents' permission": That's the sensationalistic headline for an article in El País on the Uruguayan senate's approval yesterday of a bill that would allow transgender individuals to legally change their name and gender in all public documents.

"Transsexuals have won half a battle," said El País. A version of the bill would have to be approved by the South American country's House of Representatives in order to become law.

The most heated exchange during the debate came when opponents argued that it would open the door to same-sex marriage. Their argument was that since the bill does not require gender reassignment surgery as prerequisite for a change of identity in public documents, and since those who change their identity would be allowed to "exercise of all the rights inherent in their new condition" including marriage to a person of the opposite gender, it would result in marriages by couples with similar sexual organs.

Proponents argued that the bill was not a same-sex marriage bill and that, in any case, it would only apply to a small number of individuals for whom the bill would greatly improve their personal lives.

A last minute agreement did result in an amendment to the bill's language which requires that "minors under 12 [years of age] should have permission from their parents to initiate the process." The language was added in response to opponents who said that children as young as four would be able to have access to the law without their parents' knowledge or oversight.

If the bill becomes law, it would require a person seeking to change their public documents to go before Family Court and submit an evaluation proving that the person has had at least two years of conflict with his or her gender identity. According to AFP, the two year requirement would be waived for those individuals who have previously undergone gender-reassignment surgery.

A temporary panel would be created to work with the Family Court on specific cases for what is expected to be an initial surge of requests (the panel would disband later as petitions decrease and Family Court staff become better qualified to oversee the process).

It would also require that the Civil Registry discretely inform a future spouse of a partner's previous change in gender.

The week in Ruben Diaz, Sr.: Blame the gays, again

It never ends, does it? His power-grabbing deal falling around him, criticism coming from several fronts and political insiders calling him for comments on the power-play upheaval and what does the not-so-good Reverend do? Blame the gays!

I know. Shocking.

It began on Tuesday when Senator Ruben Diaz, Sr. launched into an angry tirade on the phone with New York Daily News political blogger Elizabeth Benjamin just as the deal with the so-called 'Gang of Three' was evaporating. Said the Reverend then:

The gays are calling my office. They're jamming my phones. They're going to see what we can do. They've going to see exactly what we can do. Ed Koch is going to see what we can do. They're just going to see. That is what I'm telling you.

Yes, he actually said "They've going to see exactly what we can do". Which, come to think of it sounds a tad threaten-ish. Don't ya think?

Well, after the phone outburst, the Reverend seemed to think he might have gone a bit too far so what followed was a statement posted on the Room Eight blog in which he sought to set the record straight:

I need to state exactly what I told Liz Benjamin from the NY Daily News this past Tuesday evening because some of the important facts that I told her were not reported:

I told Liz Smith Benjamin that the gay community has been jamming my office phone line and making threats to me and my staff. I told her that I am very angry that my office has received phone calls threatening my life and calling the women on my staff “whores” and “bitches”. I told her that to add to those names, Ed Koch called us rats.

I told Liz that the only rat is Ed Koch. I told her that when he was Mayor and was rejected in my community, the only person who stood by him was this rat, and that now this rat is good no more. I told her that I am so angry that because of their calls and editorial boards and because of the insulting Koch statement, there is nothing else that they can do to us or say to us, and that they will see what we can do.

That, my friends, was the basis of my anger, not because the gay community is jamming my phone lines. I am an elected official and I am an old man, and they can do this any time. It was the content of their calls that made me angry. I welcome people to call my office – but with respect to me and to my staff.

When I told Liz that they will see what we can do, this was not at all meant to be a physical threat. As far as what we can do, we have many options, which include: going to the Republican Party, staying neutral to create an impasse, or going to the Democratic Party.

So that is the whole story, and I hope it will set the record straight, for good or for bad.

That begot the following blog post by Ms. Benjamin:

In case you haven't seen it, Sen. Ruben Diaz Sr. has put out a press release to "set the record straight" regarding an interview he gave to me following the implosion of the deal the Gang of Three struck with Senate Minority Leader Malcolm Smith.

Basically, Diaz wants to stress he wasn't upset his phones were being jammed by members of the gay community who are infuriated that he insisted as part of the deal that a smae-sex marriage bill not come to the floor of the Senate for a vote.

What made Diaz angry, he says, is the fact that the people who were calling were allegedly threatening his life and calling his staffers names.

He also seems to think I somehow construed that when he said "just wait to see what we can do" it was some kind of physical threat, when what he really meant was that the Gang of Three might go back to the Republicans, remain neutral to create never-ending gridlock or return to renegotiate with the Democrats.

Unfortunately, the senator mixed me up with gossip columnist Liz Smith, who is a blonde, has a few years on me (with all due respect) and works for a rival publication.

I'm not sure I've ever before been the subject of a press release, and while I wish I had received a friendly heads-up about it, it seems only fair to post Diaz's statement in its entirety.

So from almost maneuvering himself into a sweet deal to spouting off homophobic rants in the blogosphere in frustration in one short week. Life is sweet!

As for the state of State politics, not sure anyone came out winning.

Gang of Three deal kaput; "Real reform cannot and should not ever include limiting the civil rights of any New Yorkers," says Smith

In a stunning turnaround, Senate Democratic Leader Malcom Smith announced this morning that the deal he had brokered with the so-called "Gang of Three" to get their backing for State Senate Majority Leader come January is all but dead.

The deal would allegedly have come at the expense of a same-sex marriage bill that had been expected to be introduced in the upcoming legislative term.

Now we have this statement from Smith:

Today I am announcing that the Democratic Members of the Senate have elected to cease negotiations on reorganization matters with all three Senators as discussed both in private and in the press. We are suspending negotiations, effective immediately, because to do so otherwise would reduce our moral standing and the long-term Senate Democratic commitment to reform and to change. We believe that ultimately, we must do what is right for the people of the State of New York. Furthermore, real reform cannot and should not ever include limiting the civil rights of any New Yorkers. Those issues must be part of the legislative process.

The members of this Conference have come a long way to consider the demands placed on the table. But frankly, we would rather wait two more years to take charge of the Senate than to simply serve the interests of the few. New York State cannot afford the type of self-serving politics being proposed and I will not be the leader to sacrifice what is right for New York for a quick political solution.

The Empire State Pride Agenda, the leading LGBT-rights organization in New York State, also has a statement out from Alan Van Capelle, their Executive Director:

We applaud Senator Malcolm Smith’s ongoing efforts to lead the new Senate Majority that voters chose during the recent elections. By stating that reform in the Senate cannot include bargaining away civil rights, Senator Smith has once again demonstrated his commitment to standing up for all New Yorkers.

The Pride Agenda looks forward to continuing to work with Senator Smith when the legislative session starts. In the meantime we will be working with legislative leaders—Democrats and Republicans—and continuing to do what we’ve been doing all along: working with our community and our allies across New York, including those from communities of faith and organized labor, to earn the votes we need to bring the marriage equality bill to the floor of the Senate for passage.

For their part, the Gang is reacting to the morning's announcement with the Reverend Ruben Diaz, Sr., claiming that they were the ones to break up the deal and, as only as he can do, painting the developments as an anti-Hispanic move by Smith and Pedro Espada saying that Smith is not ready for prime time.

By the way, Diaz is also doing what he does best: Blaming the gays! [h/t Joe.My.God], telling the New York Daily News' Elizabeth Benjamin the following:

The gays are calling my office. They're jamming my phones. They're going to see what we can do. They've going to see exactly what we can do. Ed Koch is going to see what we can do. They're just going to see. That is what I'm telling you.

I guess Jeff Campagnia's phone-in campaign must have gotten under his skin. Pardon my French, but what an asshole. This man needs to be run out of office ASAP.

I wish I could say, as other bloggers are saying out there, that Smith finally grew a spine and decided to stand on his principles. I certainly respected him a great deal before this mess began. Unfortunately, I am afraid that the collapse of the 'deal' is more a representation of how unattainable his promises to the 'Gang of Three' had become in light of increasing anger from Democrats of what the 'deal' would cost. Smith certainly comes off looking worse than when this began.

Here is some of the coverage of today's developments:

• Smith: Deal off with dissident NY Senate Democrats (AP)
  
• Senate Democratic deal collapses (NY Times City Room Blog)
  
• Democrats may not gain control of New York State after all, as Gang of Three get too greedy (New York Daily News)
  
• Collpse of State Senate deal reopens infighting (Buffalo News)
  

NYS Senate Leader-elect Espada: 'Not happy' that same-sex marriage bill might be shelved

The latest -

From Elizabeth Benjamin's blog at the NY Daily News:

NYS Senator-elect Hiram Monserrate, who abandoned the then-'Gang of Four' before the 'Gang of Three' emerged with a deal might be one of the biggest losers in the way that things have played out so far.

Rumors that a New York State same-sex marriage bill might be put on hold as a result of the deal-making seem to be true.

Openly gay State Senator Thomas K. Duane says that he will support Malcom Smith as the State Senate Democratic leader (his official title would be president pro tempore) even if the marriage bill is held off as a result of the Gang of Three deal.

Also, after a behind-the-doors meeting that took place this morning in Albany in which Smith allegedly spelled out details of the deal, senate leaders emerged saying that they were "united" behind Smith. There are still wildly conflicting reports as to what was promised and what was not set in stone.

In the meantime Gay City News has this: "Advocates Thread Carefully Responding to NYS Senate Ledareship Deal."

From that article, an exclusive quote from Alan Van Capelle, Executive Director of the Empire State Pride Agenda:

Not one single senator has told me that as part of the deal that was reached there was an agreement to delay the timing for marriage.... Malcolm Smith has earned the opportunity for our community to give him a chance to explain what the deal is. I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt for now. But I am not going to waste one minute - I will continue to be talking to senators in their districts and in Albany about this issue.

Espada says he is not happy about chances that a same-sex marriage bill might be shelved: Finally, as I've been saying, the man who would be Senate Leader has, in the past, not shown homophobic proclivities.

In a New York 1 report posted today, Pedro Espada talks about being poised to become the first Hispanic State Senate Democratic leader and says this about the same-sex marriage bill:

I am not happy about it. And I don't expect the advocates who are in favor of same sex marriage to be happy, nor should they be.

So all of a sudden the Gang of Three doesn't seem as monolithic on the same-sex marriage issue. Perhaps there is light in the midst of all the wheeling and dealing.

El Diario La Prensa on 'Gang of Three' deal, NYS same-sex marriage bill

For the second time in less than a month, El Diario La Prensa, New York City's largest Spanish-language newspaper, has come out inf favor of a bill granting same-sex couples the right to marry.

In "Representation that Counts" the paper's editors warily welcome the power-sharing deal that three dissident Democratic State Senators grabbed yesterday as a condition of getting back into the Democratic fold.

On the issue of Latino empowerment, [Ruben] Diaz and [Pedro] Espada Jr. both complained, and rightfully so, about the under-representation of Hispanics in government. They may have succeeded in beginning to turn a page. And they have an opportunity here to build momentum not only for increasing representation, and the quality of it, but ensuring that it yields effective policies and resources for families struggling to get by every day.

But they also take exception on one specific issue: Same-sex marriage.

But what is troublesome is that Democrats will not put gay marriage on the table any time soon, to Diaz’s relief and the disappointment of people who have been denied this right.

On November 11th, in the wake of the passage of Proposition 8 in California, the paper unequivocally stood behind marriage rights for same-sex couples in New York for the first time ("A stand for same-sex marriage"):

...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.

At the time I noted that it was striking that the paper had rightly singled out Diaz for scorn on this issue. In a terse response posted at the Room 8 blog, Diaz returned the favor by railing against El Diario, New York State Governor David Paterson and Hillary Clinton - while praising Republican leaders ("In total disagreement with El Diario La Prensa").

One of The Gang's most compelling criticisms before they ended their stalemate yesterday was the lack of Latino leadership in what was shaping up as the axis of power in Albany for the next few years. But is showering them with perks and titles the best way to increase Latino representation or just a reward for their intransigence and self-serving moves?

Guess which three Democrats have learned that they can grand-stand their way to power the next time the Democratic Senate majority stands in the way of one of their pet projects.

Update: Today's New York Times on the deal ("3 Senate Democrats End Holdout in Return for Power Sharing"):

More important, said people involved in the negotiations, Mr. [Ruben] Díaz is now confident that there will be no vote in the Senate next year on legislation to legalize gay marriage, something which most Senate Democrats support but which Mr. Diaz strongly opposes.

Word of the potential retreat on a same-sex marriage legislation disappointed some backers of equal treatment for gay people.

“All civil rights movements have moments where they move forward, and moments of perceived setbacks,” said Assemblyman Daniel J. O’Donnell of Manhattan. “If in fact our civil rights were bargained away, that’s deplorable. But in the end, I think justice and fairness will prevail.”