Pam Spaulding's Blog, page 66

Fort Bragg army wife told to stop breastfeeding - created non- 'business-like atmosphere'

This is outlandish - there is zero excuse for this in 2011.  Jess Lanham, who has a husband deployed, went to  Picerne Housing to apply for on-post accommodations. The company, contracted by the Army to provide the service at Fort Bragg, decided Lanham's breastfeeding broke some kind of business protocol at the office.   (WTVD's Greg Barnes):

"I was made to feel like I was doing something wrong by feeding my child," Jess Lanham said.

She was filling out paperwork in a private office when her 8-month-old daughter needed to nurse. Lanham says she covered her child's head, unbuttoned her shirt and began feeding her.

"And when I declined, she said I could come back at a more appropriate time and she started packing away my paperwork, implying we were done if I was feeding my child," Lanham explained. "And I said, 'Why can't I nurse her here?' And she told me they need to maintain a business like atmosphere."

Repeat - the woman was told to leave after entering another room to nurse. She had the right to do so in the waiting room, let alone a private office. That employee just broke state and federal law - mothers have the right to nurse their babies in public.

At least in this case, there was an apology:

The spokesperson said she talked with Lanham Thursday night and "deeply apologized for the comments." She added, "We plan to educate all of our employees to ensure sensitivity to breastfeeding mothers."

NH GOP House Leader Calls Catholic Bishop A "Pedophile Pimp"

This doesn't Bode Well for the unholy alliance of the Catholic Church and New Hampshire Republican party to repeal marriage equality in that state. The Concord Monitor (in New Hampshire) is reporting the Leader of the Republican NH House posted a rant on his Facebook wall, and it's not pretty:

This morning, Bettencourt posted on his personal Facebook page:

“Bishop John McCormick (sic) of the Catholic Diocese of NH told the crowd, ‘It’s a moral concern (because) the vulnerable take priority in our society.’ Would the Bishop like to discuss his history of protecting the “vulnerable”? This man is a pedophile pimp who should have been led away from the State House in handcuffs with a rain coat over his head in disgrace. He has absolutely no moral credibility to lecture anyone.”

At issue is the state of New Hampshire's budget, which the Bishop criticized for providing insufficient, funds for the needy. Quoted in the Monitor's follow-up, Bennencourt used far more measured and diplomatic language:

Bettencourt, a Republican from Salem, said in an interview that he posted the Facebook message because he believes McCormack failed to protect children when he worked in Massachusetts under Cardinal Bernard Law. He said he was not calling McCormack himself a pedophile.

“Bishop McCormack was assigned, when he worked under Cardinal Law, reassigning priests who they had knowledge were sexually abusing children,” Bettencourt said. “What he did is he shuffled them from church to church, knowing that they had this history.”

Bettencourt, a Catholic who said he is a member of the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic men’s group, said in the interview that “I just really took exception to his questioning the things that we tried hard to do, which is to make sure that we cared for those who couldn’t care for themselves.”

I never imagined I'd find myself on the same page as Bettencourt, although, on a different issue. But his more measured, more diplomatic point did sound a lot like something I said just last week:

Frankly, I rather resent being scolded on my morality by a organization that just paid out $250,000,000 to settle 700 cases of abusing and raping children, cases that will never be prosecuted.

This can't sound like the Heavenly Choir to the ears of the National Organization of Marriage (NOM).  NOM is little more than a front group for unholy alliance of the Roman Catholic and Mormon Church, so they can play politics with the civil rights of LGBT Americans without acquiring the unseemly appearance of looking like they are funneling millions of dollars into playing politics with LGBT Americans civil rights. They are trying desperately to hide that fact, despite several judgments in Washington and Maine compelling them to disclose their donors (they have yet to comply).

Regardless, this attack on their real bosses, can't improve NOM's relationship with Bettencourt, the GOP Leader tasked with repealing marriage equality. It appears the relationship is already seriously strained. NOM worked hard in the 2010 elections to put an end to the marriage equality currently enjoyed by the NH citizens. And they are not happy about the foot dragging that's going on over there. They have already started attacking their allies. NOM bombarded Bettencourt's district with mailers in January alleging Bettencourt:

“stand[s] with [Democratic] Governor Lynch and does not support traditional family values.’’

Acutally, Lynch is pretty popular, so that's probably not so much an attack, NOM.

At the end of the day the political process is not well-served when people speak in such inflammatory rhetoric as Bettencourt did on his Facebook page. And such behavior is certainly beneath the dignity one might expect of any party leader. And, seeing as the Republicans assembled the budget, even without having read it, I have full confidence the Bishop is probably correct, it probably does put the poor and needy in danger. Because, that's what the GOP does best: steal from the poor to give to the rich.

The Bishop is fighting the good fight for once, if his concern for the less fortunate is rather selective. Bishop McCormick is however, a member of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. The USCCB recently lobbied the Department Housing and Urban Development not to adopt non-discrimination policies for LGBT Americans. Some less fortunately, like the gay and homeless, don't need help as much as others, I guess.

That said, I am going to pop some corn, and sit back enjoy the show. Hard to know whether to cheer for Godzilla or Mothra in this throw-down between the Catholic Church and the Republican Party. So long as they're not aligned, I'm happy. Hopefully the Chuch will decide to get out of the politics business and task their millions to helping the poor.

When the dust settles, I hope the poor still have a safety net, and the gays can still get married.

  More from Blue Hampshire:

[GOP] Speaker of the House William O'Brien said he shares Bettencourt's feelings, but said he would have phrased them in a more genteel fashion.

Yeah, that's good. Dig in on ticking off the Catholic constituency.

NH GOP House Leader Call Catholic Bishop Is a "Pedophile Pimp"

This doesn't Bode Well for the unholy alliance of the Catholic Church and New Hampshire Republican party to repeal marriage equality in that state. The Concord Monitor (in New Hampshire) is reporting the Leader of the Republican NH House posted a rant on his Facebook wall, and it's not pretty:

This morning, Bettencourt posted on his personal Facebook page:

“Bishop John McCormick (sic) of the Catholic Diocese of NH told the crowd, ‘It’s a moral concern (because) the vulnerable take priority in our society.’ Would the Bishop like to discuss his history of protecting the “vulnerable”? This man is a pedophile pimp who should have been led away from the State House in handcuffs with a rain coat over his head in disgrace. He has absolutely no moral credibility to lecture anyone.”

At issue is the state of New Hampshire's budget, which the Bishop criticized for providing insufficient, funds for the needy. Quoted in the Monitor's follow-up, Bennencourt used far more measured and diplomatic language:

Bettencourt, a Republican from Salem, said in an interview that he posted the Facebook message because he believes McCormack failed to protect children when he worked in Massachusetts under Cardinal Bernard Law. He said he was not calling McCormack himself a pedophile.

“Bishop McCormack was assigned, when he worked under Cardinal Law, reassigning priests who they had knowledge were sexually abusing children,” Bettencourt said. “What he did is he shuffled them from church to church, knowing that they had this history.”

Bettencourt, a Catholic who said he is a member of the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic men’s group, said in the interview that “I just really took exception to his questioning the things that we tried hard to do, which is to make sure that we cared for those who couldn’t care for themselves.”

I never imagined I'd find myself on the same page as Bettencourt, although, on a different issue. But his more measured, more diplomatic point did sound a lot like something I said just last week:

Frankly, I rather resent being scolded on my morality by a organization that just paid out $250,000,000 to settle 700 cases of abusing and raping children, cases that will never be prosecuted.

This can't sound like the Heavenly Choir to the ears of the National Organization of Marriage (NOM).  NOM is little more than a front group for unholy alliance of the Roman Catholic and Mormon Church, so they can play politics with the civil rights of LGBT Americans without acquiring the unseemly appearance of looking like they are funneling millions of dollars into playing politics with LGBT Americans civil rights. They are trying desperately to hide that fact, despite several judgments in Washington and Maine compelling them to disclose their donors (they have yet to comply).

Regardless, this attack on their real bosses, can't improve NOM's relationship with Bettencourt, the GOP Leader tasked with repealing marriage equality. It appears the relationship is already seriously strained. NOM worked hard in the 2010 elections to put an end to the marriage equality currently enjoyed by the NH citizens. And they are not happy about the foot dragging that's going on over there. They have already started attacking their allies. NOM bombarded Bettencourt's district with mailers in January alleging Bettencourt:

“stand[s] with [Democratic] Governor Lynch and does not support traditional family values.’’

Acutally, Lynch is pretty popular, so that's probably not so much an attack, NOM.

At the end of the day the political process is not well-served when people speak in such inflammatory rhetoric as Bettencourt did on his Facebook page. And such behavior is certainly beneath the dignity one might expect of any party leader. And, seeing as the Republicans assembled the budget, even without having read it, I have full confidence the Bishop is probably correct, it probably does put the poor and needy in danger. Because, that's what the GOP does best: steal from the poor to give to the rich.

The Bishop is fighting the good fight for once, if his concern for the less fortunate is rather selective. Bishop McCormick is however, a member of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. The USCCB recently lobbied the Department Housing and Urban Development not to adopt non-discrimination policies for LGBT Americans. Some less fortunately, like the gay and homeless, don't need help as much as others, I guess.

That said, I am going to pop some corn, and sit back enjoy the show. Hard to know whether to cheer for Godzilla or Mothra in this throw-down between the Catholic Church and the Republican Party. So long as they're not aligned, I'm happy. Hopefully the Chuch will decide to get out of the politics business and task their millions to helping the poor.

When the dust settles, I hope the poor still have a safety net, and the gays can still get married.

  More from Blue Hampshire:

[GOP] Speaker of the House William O'Brien said he shares Bettencourt's feelings, but said he would have phrased them in a more genteel fashion.

Yeah, that's good. Dig in on ticking off the Catholic constituency.

The Netherlands celebrates 10 years of marriage equality

Today marks the 10th anniversary of marriage equality in the Netherlands.  At midnight on April 1, 2001, Amsterdam's mayor Job Cohen officiated at the marriage ceremony of four gay and lesbian couples.  The event is widely viewed as a turning point in the worldwide struggle for gay equality.

Ten years on, I can say that among my Dutch friends and family, gay marriage is a complete non-issue.  However, for Dutch gays, the struggle continues.  Like American couples married in one of the five equality states (Iowa, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont and New Hampshire), Dutch couples face the loss of rights and status when they cross the border.  At home, barriers still exist to adoption and access to IVF, and municipal officials are still allowed to refuse to solumnize marriages for gay and lesbian couples.

Despite the ongoing need bring rights for gays into parity with rights for heterosexuals, today is a day to celebrate this huge milestone.  We've all come so far, and we're never going back!

Check out this photo exhibit celebrating 10 years of marriage equality, now on display at the Amsterdam city hall.  Below is a video featuring commentary by some of the couples and government officials involved in making marriage equality a reality then and now.

Here are a few Dutch marriage facts from Radio Netherlands (here and here):

The world's first gay wedding took place at midnight on 1 April 2001, when Amsterdam Mayor Job Cohen married four same-sex couples.

Between 1 April 2001 and 1 January 2011, there were a total of 14,813 same-sex marriages in the Netherlands. The number of marriages between two women (7,522) was slightly higher than those between two men (7,291). In the same period, there were 761,010 marriages.

One fifth (19.5%) of all marriages were gay; In the same period, there were a total of 761,010 marriages and 323,549 divorces. Note from Laurel: Wild Clover points out that the 19% figure must be incorrect and after consulting other online sources I agree.  Perhaps the reporter of the erroneous statistic may have gotten it confused with this statement: "Since 1 April 2001, when the Netherlands became the first country to legalise same-sex marriage, some 15,000 gay and lesbian couples have tied the knot.   That is two percent of all marriages celebrated in Holland, and just 20 percent of the 55,000 same-sex couples the country numbers."

During that period, there were 1,078 same-sex divorces in the Netherlands, two-thirds of them between women (734), and 323,549 divorces in general.

Ten countries have legalised same-sex marriage: the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland and Argentina. In the United States it has been legalised in five states: Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont, as well as Washington, D.C.. In Mexico it has been legalised in Mexico City.

The total number of same-sex marriages in these countries is not clear. In many relevant statistics are not available, and in some such unions were only legalised last year. In Belgium there were 13,055 same-sex marriages between 2004 and 2009.

Still the exception - just 20 percent of same-sex couples are married in the Netherlands, compared with 80 percent of mixed-sex couples.

Both straight and gay couples prefer to tie the knot in spring or summer

The Netherlands celebrates 10 years of marriage eqaulity

Today marks the 10th anniversary of marriage equality in the Netherlands.  At midnight on April 1, 2001, Amsterdam's mayor Job Cohen officiated at the marriage ceremony of four gay and lesbian couples.  The event is widely viewed as a turning point in the worldwide struggle for gay equality.

Ten years on, I can say that among my Dutch friends and family, gay marriage is a complete non-issue.  However, for Dutch gays, the struggle continues.  Like American couples married in one of the five equality states (Iowa, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont and New Hampshire), Dutch couples face the loss of rights and status when they cross the border.  And home, barriers still exist to adoption and access to IVF, and municipal officials are still allowed to refuse to solumnize marriages for gay and lesbian couples.

Despite the ongoing need bring rights for gays into parity with rights for heterosexuals, today is a day to celebrate this huge milestone.  We've all come so far, and we're never going back!

Check out this photo exhibit celebrating 10 years of marriage equality, now on display at the Amsterdam city hall.  Below is a video featuring commentary by some of the couples and government officials involved in making marriage equality a reality then and now.

Here are a few Dutch marriage facts from Radio Netherlands (here and here):

The world's first gay wedding took place at midnight on 1 April 2001, when Amsterdam Mayor Job Cohen married four same-sex couples.

Between 1 April 2001 and 1 January 2011, there were a total of 14,813 same-sex marriages in the Netherlands. The number of marriages between two women (7,522) was slightly higher than those between two men (7,291). In the same period, there were 761,010 marriages.

One fifth (19.5%) of all marriages were gay; In the same period, there were a total of 761,010 marriages and 323,549 divorces.

During that period, there were 1,078 same-sex divorces in the Netherlands, two-thirds of them between women (734), and 323,549 divorces in general.

Ten countries have legalised same-sex marriage: the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland and Argentina. In the United States it has been legalised in five states: Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont, as well as Washington, D.C.. In Mexico it has been legalised in Mexico City.

The total number of same-sex marriages in these countries is not clear. In many relevant statistics are not available, and in some such unions were only legalised last year. In Belgium there were 13,055 same-sex marriages between 2004 and 2009.

Still the exception - just 20 percent of same-sex couples are married in the Netherlands, compared with 80 percent of mixed-sex couples.

Both straight and gay couples prefer to tie the knot in spring or summer

An Open Letter -- With An Ask Of Sen. Brian Frosh

I've been talking to a bunch of folk in Maryland behind the scenes for awhile now. Definitely weeks, maybe a couple of months. Whether one supports this gender identity bill without public accommodation or not, how this bill has been processed has been...interesting.

And as if things haven't been weird enough in Maryland lately...

The gender identity bill (House Bill 235) passed the House on Saturday, March 26 by a vote of 86-52. An impressive margin of victory. The credit for that passage would need to go to Equality Maryland, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the Maryland Black Family Alliance, the ACLU of Maryland and the many organizations who worked hard to secure this, which I'd call a victory. I do know; however, many of my peers in trans community no doubt disagree with me on that.

Under normal circumstances, the bill would have gone to the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee (JPR) for a hearing, a vote and an eventual vote on the Senate floor. The chair of JPR is liberal champion Sen. Brian Frosh (D-District 16), an avowed supporter of the bill.

There is some weird history here, though. Senator Frosh has previously shown a great deal of hostility to this bill, going back to 2007. There are allegations that he killed the bill that year, and that he refused to bring it up for a vote in subsequent years despite committee support for it. Veteran equality activists, including former EqMD Executive Director Dan Furmansky, have called Frosh the biggest threat to the bill in the Senate. Dan was quoted in the Blade on Monday afternoon, March 28.

Monday evening transgender activists, parents, and other advocates are at a meeting with Sen. Brian Frosh. He said publicly that he supports the bill and will do all he can to get it to a vote in JPR and out to the Senate floor.

But, I'm told he made a cryptic comment in the middle of this declaration. He said that there's a "rumor" that the bill isn't going to JPR but to the Rules Committee, the graveyard of bills disfavored by Senate leadership. It's a quick line, and Sen. Frosh immediately backtracks and says no, the bill's coming to JPR and I will support it.

Within an hour after the meeting adjourns, guess what? The HB 235 went to Rules, the only one out of over 90 House bills that passed over the weekend that has been given what is pretty well understood as a death knell for the bill.

The outrage was immediate. And the word was that Senate President Mike Miller sent the bill to Rules for two reasons: first, because he was mad at House Speaker Mike Busch for the Senate having taken some tough votes (marriage equality, the DREAM Act) on bills that have either died or are in trouble in the House; and second, because Senator Frosh asked him to send the bill to Rules. Senator Rich Madaleno, the Senate's only openly gay member, first affirms to the Washington Blade that Miller made the "Frosh asked me to do it" statement in front of the Democratic caucus, but later backtracks and says that Miller subsequently told him he must have misunderstood.

In the midst of all of the outrage, Senator Miller subsequently came up with another version of events: the gender identity bill has been heard in the Senate for four years running, there wasn't sufficient support in JPR during those four years, and there isn't now. And that's why he sent the bill to Rules. Senator Frosh, in a similar vein, says he doesn't know what the support for the bill is on JPR, because he has four new members and he hasn't asked them.

Wow. That's some great leadership there from Sen. Frosh. That's for a bill that he claimed to support and would do all he can to get it to a vote in JPR and out to the Senate floor.

But the truth more than appears to be that Sen. Frosh doesn't believe what he's saying. From here, he appears to oppose the bill, but he can't seem to bring himself to do it in the light of day -- it appears he needed Sen. Miller to do his dirty work. Sen. Miller did it by sending the bill to Rules, and it now appears he's covering up for Brian Frosh. To me, it appears Sen. Frosh has achieved the unique double experience of being both sleazy and weak both at the same time.

And how do we know this? Because it is just nonsense to compare the JPR membership of 2007-2010 with the 2011 membership. The 2007-2010 committee was comprised of 7 Democrats and 4 Republicans. Two Democrats, Anthony Muse and Norm Stone, were and are actively hostile to all LGBT issues. Combined with the committee's four Republicans, that was sufficient to kill most LGBT bills.

And Sen. Miller knew this - this was how he set up the committee, to bottle up potentially divisive bills like marriage equality.

The 2011 committee, however, has 8 Democrats and 3 Republicans. While Norm Stone remains, Anthony Muse has been replaced by Bobby Zirkin, and a new Democrat is now on the committee, Victor Martinez, who is a reliably liberal vote.

This, too, was obviously done by Sen. Miller deliberately, to give marriage equality advocates their shot at getting the bill out of the Senate, which hadn't happened before because the bill couldn't get out of JPR. And what do you know, the marriage bill passed by a vote of 7-4, and then passed the Senate 25-21 -- only to founder on the House of Delegates floor.

Similarly, those same seven senators, at least based on their public statements, support this bill: Brian Frosh, Lisa Gladden, Jim Brochin, Jamie Raskin, Jennie Forehand, Bobby Zirkin and Victor Martinez. Bobby Zirkin is a maybe, although it appears pretty clear that he will vote for it as well. That would make seven. To reiterate, that's the exact same group that voted out the marriage bill.

Anyone with questions about this whip count on JPR should ask Senator Jamie Raskin, who was prepared to champion this bill through both JPR and the Senate floor.

So this suggestion by Sens. Miller and Frosh that the votes aren't there for the bill and that Senator Frosh doesn't know what his new committee members think is just so much bullsh**. Senator Frosh claimed that he supported the bill and would work to get it out of JPR.

Of course, it didn't actually come to JPR.

There's two ways to look at this: either Sen. Frosh was lying when he said he would support the bill, because he knew that it was headed for Rules, or alternatively, he didn't know that Sen. Miller was sending the bill to Rules and made his statements anyway, which makes him look like a weak and ineffectual committee chairman.

Here's some free advice for the Senator from Bethesda. If you oppose the bill, come out in the light of day and have the courage to say so. If that tarnishes your liberal reputation, well, you make your choices and you have to live with them. But publicly professing your support for a bill while privately killing it is craven and weak, and sullies your reputation even further than it is now. If you can't be forthright on issues as important as civil rights legislation, nobody will ever trust your word again.

If you support the bill, as you claim, then call on Sen. Miller, publicly, to have the Rules Committee send the bill to JPR, do so in your role as Vice Chair of Rules, and then do your job as JPR committee chair and get the bill passed.

So whatever you do, Sen. Frosh, at least have the courage of your convictions and stand behind your position. Right now, you look incredibly timid, two-faced and weak. Not exactly the portrait of a guy who openly wants to be the next Senate president.

Civil unions blocked by GOP in Colorado; opponents fear End Times & 'AIDS Tax'

Holy hell. It's bad enough that Colorado's civil unions bill, SB 172, died in committee, but some of the homophobic testimony was downright deranged. The Wonk Room has the audio.

Douglas Napier of the Alliance Defense Fund led the formal opposition against the bill and maintained that civil unions would likely lead to same-sex marriage, despite a 2006 voter-approved constitutional amendment that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The debate quickly disintegrated from there, as witnesses began quoting the Bible, regurgitating thoroughly debunked claims about ex-gay therapy and even predicting the end of times. The Family Research Institute's Dr. Paul Cameron - whose so-called 'research' on homosexuality has been condemned and refuted by most major medical organizations in the United States and Canada - provided the most colorful testimony.

Some of the choice bits:

"If you take all your clothes off and stand in front of a mirror, and your plumbing is on the outside, you're a male."

"Every Coloradoan now has basically a $112 AIDS tax from gays in the United States...if we as a society allow it to be accepted, we will get more of it...when gays are partnered they are more apt to get sexually transmitted diseases."

"They found Sodom and Gomorrah two years ago buried underneath the ash heap so that proves right there by archaeology that any society that allowed homosexuality, including the Jewish society, disintegrated completely."

"If you vote otherwise, you are going to help end - not tomorrow, the sun will come up - but you will help to end this most successful civilization.

Tennessee anti-gay group steals tacky video from Florida

crossposted on Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters

The tactics of homophobia are never new. They are as old as the Earth itself - appeal to people's ignorance and fear and you will have success. Case in point is this ad by the The Family Action Council of Tennessee:

Does the ad look familiar? It should. In 2009, a group which called themselves Citizens for Good Policy out of Gainesville, FL ran the same ad in an effort to defeat an anti-discrimination ordinance:

Luckily the effort to defeat the anti-discrimination ordinance in FL lost by a large majority, proving that people don't always fall for vindictively inaccurate scare tactics about men in women's restrooms.

Hopefully Tennessee will be further proof of this. It's pathetic that these groups can't think of a reasonable argument against anti-discrimination ordinances so they have to conjure up lies about children in danger.


Hat tip to Truth Wins Out.

Q of the day: gastronomic delights you miss

I posted this one status entry on Facebook and lo and behold the comments flowed in at a rapid clip:

I have a craving for one of those nice hot, crispy, chewy, charcoal-y pretzels from a NYC vendor cart. Nothing like it down here in NC.

Of course it made me think about other yummy things I don't have access to here that I love about NYC:

decent bagels (sesame, cinnamon raisin and "everything" are my faves), A local chain in NC, Breuggers, makes a pale imitation of the NY bagel; but it's the best option we've got.pizza (Randy's here in Durham comes the closest to authentic NY style)cheesecake: Junior's in Brooklyn has the best by far.burgers: Junior's in Brooklyn wins again; nice and chargrilled (and you can get them cooked to order including rare).fries: I don't know what Nathan's Famous puts on its fries but they are like crack.Good thing those foods aren't accessible! All bad for you.

So what are the foods that you get a craving for that aren't available to you in your current location?

Basic Rights Oregon launches a major marriage equality ad campaign

Basic Rights Oregon has launched a 3-week television campaign that is blanketing the state with these two ads.  

The goal is simple: reach out to people who haven't yet formed strong opinions about marriage equality and encourage them to consider the issue in perhaps a new way.

People who have talked to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) folks and straight allies about marriage equality are twice as likely to support it.  But not everyone has someone in their lives to ask them to consider the issue.  That's where the ads come in, Jeana Frazzini told me in an interview earlier this week.  Ms. Frazzini is Executive Director at Basic Rights Oregon.

We've set out to build a campaign to get folks talking, get out of the head and into the heart.  Get people connecting on the values that we all share.  Whether you're a same-sex couple, opposite-sex couple, straight or gay, Oregonians can agree that we believe in fundamental fairness.  

We believe in treating others as we want to be treated, and we have a shared understanding of what marriage is.  It's about love and commitment and taking care of one another in good times and bad.  This ad campaign is about bringing that conversation to a much broader audience.

It's terrific to be at a point now where we've laid such a solid foundation and been able to build so much enthusiasm for the effort that we were able to raise the resources to run a statewide ad campaign like this.  It expands the scope of this conversation in ways that outside of t.v. advertising you really can't reach such a large number of people.

It's really exciting to think about the kind of change that that makes both in terms of building support on the issue of marriage equality but I think fundamentally in shifting how people view their gay and lesbian neighbors.  These are real families, real people who live, work, play and love right alongside folks all across Oregon, and they're sharing their stories of why marriage matters to them.  I think it's really lovely.

If the ads and other aspects of BRO's education campaign (door-to-door canvassing, phone banks, community meetings, etc.) are successful in creating a pro-equality majority in Oregon, BRO will take marriage equality to the ballot.  Most of us are adamant about not putting the rights of a minority up for a popular vote.  But in Oregon there is no other choice.
Here's why:

In 2004, Oregon voters passed Measure 36, which amended the state constitution to specifically exclude gay and lesbian couples from marriage. Basic Rights Oregon worked with the best attorneys in the state and challenged this measure in court, but the Oregon State Supreme Court refused to take up the case. And the Oregon legislature does not have the authority to amend our constitution - they can only refer the issue back to the voters.

This means that to win the freedom to marry, the voters themselves must amend the state constitution to replace the current discriminatory language with inclusive language.

Because the courts have refused to take action and the legislature cannot amend the constitution, the only way to achieve the freedom to marry for all committed couples in Oregon is through the ballot.

BRO is eying 2012 as the earliest date to go to the ballot, "but that decision has yet to be made," says Frazzini.

In terms of the decision of whether or not to go to the ballot in 2012, we see that as a shared responsibility between our organization and the community.  It's something we'll spend a lot of time engaging the LGBT and our allies over the course of the summer through all of the pride festivals.  We'll be out gathering input from folks.  We'll be doing town hall meetings.  We really see this as a shared responsibility where we need to decide wholeheartedly that we're going to put the energy and resources behind it.

In some ways that is a monumental opportunity, because in every ballot measure here in Oregon on all of the issues we face, but across the country on marriage in particular, we've been on the defensive.  It's been the opposition that's called the shots.  This is a chance for us to do the work on our own terms and on our own timeline and build our support.  And given the expense of putting on a ballot measure campaign, really making the decision to go when we have a reasonable expectation of success.

One enormous advantage that BRO has in setting its own timeline is that it can conduct this education campaign well in advance of an electoral campaign, when voters are open to persuasion.  A study released last summer showed that voters attitudes on marriage equality remain steady over the course of an election campaign, the implication being that to be effective, a voter persuasion campaign on marriage equality must happen during the quiet times between political campaigns.  Like right now in Oregon.

The ads have been getting rave reviews from BRO supporters.  Here are a few of the earlier comments left on BRO's Facebook page:

I noticed the ads running today and I think they are very poignant and well done. I am impressed ! good work !

I just saw it during Ellen! It was great!

YEAHHHHHH! I just saw a commercial too. Makes me happy and proud. Thank you!

Just saw 2 different ads and they're great! Nice work.

Just saw it on KATU, got goose bumps!

Love this ad! It's the perfect message.

Just saw it on GLEE - awesome!

Over 1,000 shares of this page in the first day! THAT's awesome!

We just saw the commercial on Medford's network! Hurray! Thanks for showing it in our neck of the woods!

Love is love. Let's make it happen across Oregon and America!

KGW ran the ads earlier today. Good job, they should have some influence for the petitions and election. Tell your friends, relations and neighbors.

I saw several of you ads and was very impressed by them. Good job and thank you, BRO!

So exciting to see the ad during Glee - what a great campaign! Great work, BRO!

So now I'm crying because that's so awesome!

It was talked about on Channel 2 news this am...love it! I even know one of them! Nice job

Saw it, loved it, looking forward to seeing it again and again.