Blogcabin California

 The GLBT community has been on a crash course with DOMA destiny since the Clinton era but recently it appears that the velocity is increasing and cracks in the separate but equal civil union/domestic partnership laws are looking like structural foundation cracks.Although New Jersey’s civil unions law was supposed to give same-sex couples the same rights and responsibilities as marriage it is not recognized by a growing number of companies - all with federally regulated benefit plans.

Under DOMA the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriage.  The law allows those insurers to reject same-sex couples.

Nearly one in eight couples who have had civil unions have been turned down for company benefits, Garden State Equality’s Steven Goldstein said.

Garden State Equality is having to come to terms with the inequality of the states civil union law becasue people are coming to GSE and their stories are being told.  One involves a woman who told her employer she and her partner had a civil union and was told by the company, “We’re not going to provide benefits.  We still need the word ‘marriage’ and you two aren’t married.”  That couple has been  together 16 years and they have adopted three special needs children. 

“[C]ivil-unioned couples across New Jersey are still being denied equal protection of the law” said Goldstein.

Most likely it will wind up before the New Jersey Supreme Court again and I bet that separate but equal will be struck down requlting in marriage equaltiy in New Jersey.  This in turn will probably result in the same employers refusing to recognize the marriages under DOMA and this in turn might lead to a show down in the Supreme Court regardless of whether we like it or not.

It is our date with destiny.

–Kevin

The following is from a piece penned by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) of California and Governor Jodi Rell (R) Of Connecticut from the Monday, May 21st Edition of The Washington Post:

 Lead or Step Aside, EPA
States Can’t Wait on Global Warming
By Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jodi Rell
Monday, May 21, 2007; A13

It’s bad enough that the federal government has yet to take the threat of global warming seriously, but it borders on malfeasance for it to block the efforts of states such as California and Connecticut that are trying to protect the public’s health and welfare.

California, Connecticut and 10 other states are poised to enact tailpipe emissions standards — tougher than existing federal requirements — that would cut greenhouse gas emissions from cars, light trucks and sport-utility vehicles by 392 million metric tons by the year 2020, the equivalent to taking 74 million of today’s cars off the road for an entire year.

Since transportation accounts for one-third of America’s greenhouse gas emissions, enacting these standards would be a huge step forward in our efforts to clean the environment and would show the rest of the world that our nation is serious about fighting global warming.

Yet for the past 16 months, the Environmental Protection Agency has refused to give us permission to do so.

Even after the Supreme Court ruled in our favor last month, the federal government continues to stand in our way.

Another discouraging sign came just last week, when President Bush issued an executive order to give federal agencies until the end of 2008 to continue studying the threat of greenhouse gas emissions and determine what can be done about them.

To us, that again sounds like more of the same inaction and denial, and it is unconscionable.

Under the Clean Air Act, California has the right to enact its own air pollution standards, which other states may then follow, as long as the EPA grants California a waiver. The waiver gives California, and other states, formal permission to deviate from federal standards. California has requested more than 40 such waivers over the past 30 years and has been granted full or partial permission for most of them.

By continuing to stonewall California’s request, the federal government is blocking the will of tens of millions of people in California, Connecticut and other states who want their government to take real action on global warming.

The EPA is finally holding the first of two hearings on the waiver request tomorrow, and we welcome the opportunity to call attention to the harmful effects that global warming is having on people and the environment.

But we are far from convinced that the agency intends to follow the law and grant us our waiver.

If it fails to do so, we have an obligation to take legal action and settle this issue once and for all.

The threat is real. Scientists tell us that if nothing is done to stop the warming of Earth’s atmosphere, we can expect an increasing number of droughts, greater risk of forest fires, a reduction in our snowpack, an increase in sea levels, more flooding in winter and hotter temperatures in summer.

There can be little debate anymore on whether the effects of climate change constitute a looming threat to the public’s health and welfare.

Republicans and Democrats in statehouses around the country have already spoken loudly that federal inaction on climate change is unacceptable and have acted on their own initiative.

Whether it is Northeastern states uniting to reduce greenhouse gases from electric generators or Western states looking to reduce emissions throughout the economy, momentum is building everywhere but in Washington. The federal government should not stand in the way of dealing with the most serious environmental challenge facing the world.

While the United States represents just 5 percent of the world’s population, it produces 25 percent of the world’s greenhouse gases.

With the landmark legislation authored by former assemblywoman Fran Pavley and passed in 2002, California demonstrated that it is serious about cutting down these emissions from cars. Connecticut also has a strong record on greenhouse gas reduction, which includes adoption of California’s tough standards for vehicle tailpipe emissions.

California, Connecticut and a host of like-minded states are proving that you can protect the environment and the economy simultaneously.

It’s high time the federal government becomes our partner or gets out of the way.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, is governor of California. Jodi Rell, a Republican, is governor of Connecticut.

According to a recent Gallup Poll, 60% of Republicans support the expansion of federal hate crimes legislation to include sexual orientation.  The bill, having passed the House, is also in the Senate and is known there as The Matthew Sheppard Act.  The president has threatened a veto.  Unfortunately for “W”, the poll shows that he is just out of step with the majority of Republicans on this issue.  Remember, the train has already left the station on the issue if there should be hate crimes legislation.  There is already hate crimes legislation.  This bill expands it to protect members of the GLBT community.  Despite what Dr. James Dobson of Focus on Family says, the bill would not penalize  persons from speaking out against homosexuality.  That appearently is the religious rights’ argument they are making to the President.  Or for that matter, Rep. Dan Lungren, who represents suburban areas near Sacramento, who believes that the bill’s lack of a definition for sexual orientation threatens to “enshrine” in law protections for the North American Man/Boy Love Association, or NAMBLA. Despite the rumors, the law will not legalize same gender pedophilia or curtail anyone’s First Amendment rights.  I hope OUR President listens to the majority of Republicans and Americans in general who support the Matthew Sheppard Act and ignores the illogical arguments Dr. Dobsen and Rep. Lungren.   

–Kevin

Do you hate that song?  Do you remember why you hate that song?

Well if you do, now is your chance to hate another song and you can vote on which song to hate too.  This is all in good fun but click here if you are in the mood to have a good laugh.

 P.S.-I voted for “Ready To Run” by the Dixie Chicks-LOL

LCR DOES NOT ENDORSE ANY CANDIDATE IN THE PRIMARIES. THIS ENTRY IS BASED ON FACTS AND MY PERSONAL OPINION

Today, 05.11.07, in Texas of all places, Rudy Giuliani worked to present a more consistent platform on the campaign trail.
According to the New York Times, “Giuliani said that he favors abortion rights, certain restrictions on gun ownership and gay rights — he is for civil unions, he said, although not for marriage between people of the same sex.”
I really have to applaud America’s Mayor for his support of the original core values of the Party of Lincoln: personal responsibility, and individual liberty.  Honesty is such a refreshing change from the generic antiabortion views and anti-gay rights views of the past decades expressed by the Republican candidates for president.
I, like Rudy Giuliani, personally oppose abortion but believe in a woman’s right to make her own decisions.  We both believe in the right to bear arms, but also favor certain aspects of gun control (Virginia Tech-HELLO!),  And while we differ on support of gay marriage, we both support civil unions and GLBT rights in general.  It is also important to remember that none of the leading candidates from either party support same gender marriage but the growing trend is to support marriage equality.  The Mayor’s position is a major step in the RIGHT direction for our party and is consistent with the founding principles of LCR.
On 9/11, as I panicked, his leadership skills got us through one of our worst nightmares so far of the 21^st Century and I imagine KATRINA with President Giuliani in charge.   He has earned my support.  I remember living in New York in the 1980s and he stood up against the real life SOPRANOS.  He did not budge.  Rudy is a man of conviction and if we had a parliamentary form of government, I would call on elections today.

–Kevin

Blue America the PAC online clearing house for Democratic Action ENDORSED and encouraged its memers to vote for Rep Chris Carney in the PA-10.  722 responded from the page for a total of $8,210.00 and ActBlue had an additional 1,797 responses for an additional $94,575 for this so called call to action.  Rep. Carney voted against the most recent HATE CRIMES legislation.  Gosh, if people are not in the GLBT community, one would think that members of Blue America (or ActBlue–if cannot figure that one out) would care about the GLBT commmunity.  I guess not.  I am glad that none of my friends in LCR would ever be so self-hating that we would write a check for someone who is against HATE CRIMES legislation.

At LCR WE ARE COMMITTED TO GETTING THE HATE CRIMES BILL SIGNED INTO LAW.  So much for Blue America.

–Kevin