Via JMG: California Legislature Approves Joint Resolution Calling For Repeal Of DOMA

Via press release from Equality California:

Today, the California State Senate approved a joint resolution, AJR 19, calling on the U.S. Congress and President Obama to immediately repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which explicitly forbids the federal government or any federal agency from recognizing state-sanctioned marriages between same-sex couples. Introduced by Assemblymember Julia Brownley (D - Santa Monica) and sponsored by Equality California, the joint resolution was passed by a bipartisan vote of 22-12.

“The Defense of Marriage Act prevents the federal government from recognizing the relationships of loving same-sex couples, even when the states where they live recognize their relationships,” said Equality California Executive Director Geoff Kors. “We’re proud of the California legislature for making the state’s opposition to DOMA official state policy. Now we must overturn this discriminatory federal law and pave the way for the marriages of same-sex couples to be recognized at the federal level.”

Labels: California, DOMA, LGBT rights, marriage equality

reposted from Joe

VIa JMG: Marriage State by State

via jmg: Lambda Legal Responds To Meg Whitman's Planned Defense Of Proposition 8

Meg Whitman surprised no one when she announced this weekend that if she becomes governor of California, she will defend Proposition 8 in court, something Schwarzenegger declined to do. However many are questioning whether the timing of both the election and the appeal to the Ninth Circuit would allow Whitman to do so. Karen Ocamb spoke to Lambda Legal's Jon Davidson:

“At the time of the oral argument that has been scheduled for December 6th, even were Whitman or Cooley to have won the election, they will not have taken office – the new officeholders don’t take office until Jan. 3. 2011. In addition, at that point, the time to file an appeal from Judge Walker’s ruling will have long passed. So, even were they to win, they would not be able to appeal Judge Walker’s ruling if Schwarzenegger and Brown do not – and they have indicated they will not. In addition, Whitman and Cooley would not be able to participate in the oral arguments as parties.

"They might seek to file amicus (friend-of-the-court briefs). The deadline for filing such briefs is 7 days after the brief is due from the party you are supporting. Amicus briefs in support of the proponents of Prop. 8 are due September 24th. It would be unusual for a candidate for political office to file an amicus brief on a measure that they might be in more of a position to weigh in on were they elected, though I guess it could happen. If they get elected, Whitman and/or Cooley might also seek to file an amicus brief after their election or after they are sworn in, which would be after the oral argument. They would need to seek permission to file late. There is no way of knowing whether the Ninth Circuit judges hearing the case would grant such a request to file late.

Davidson adds that there is precedent for newly-elected officials filing amicus briefs when their predecessors chose not to do so.

Labels: 2010 elections, California, Lambda Legal, Meg Whitman, Proposition 8

reposted from Joe

Via JMG: Catholics For Equality Launches

A group of LGBT activists and allies have formed Catholics For Equality. From their about page:

Drawing on the rich tradition of Catholic social justice teachings, American Catholics are among the strongest supporters of equality for LGBT people of any religious group in the U.S. Yet the official voice of the hierarchy is increasingly one favoring discrimination and opposing just, humane, and reasonable efforts to secure legal equality for LGBT Americans. Far too often, that anti-equality voice is portrayed as representing the values of American Catholics. We believe this trend is a repudiation of Catholic teaching about the equal dignity of every person as well as the American and constitutional values of fairness and equality under the law. Catholics for Equality was founded in 2010 to support, educate, and mobilize equality-supporting Catholics to advance LGBT equality at federal, state, and local levels. We’re here to help pro-equality Catholics make a difference.

Catholics For Equality's board of directors includes our own Father Tony Adams and DC activist Phil Attey, who also serves as Executive Director. Yesterday the Catholic News Agency took note of the group in a fairly even-handed story. An excerpt:

Issues listed on the Catholics for Equality website include “marriage equality.” Claiming that same-sex “marriage” does not coerce any religious faith, it invokes the “separation of Church and State” and says “we affirm civil marriage for same-sex couples throughout the United States.” The group criticizes the U.S. bishops’ opposition to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), and advocates opening military service to open homosexuals. “Catholics in the United States live in this social context that allows the free exercise of conscience rather than enforced scriptural fundamentalism or bishops’ and pastors’ exhortations in making decisions regarding homosexuality and gay rights— as is often exercised in Protestant fundamentalist and evangelical denominations and now by increasingly doctrinaire Catholic bishops,” the website argues. It also claims that Catholic priests rarely mention homosexuality or homosexual issues in sermons “except when forced to by the bishops,” saying this coercion happened during the campaign to pass California’s Proposition 8 and Maine’s Proposition 1. Both successful ballot measures restored the definition of marriage to be a union of a man and a woman.

Labels: activism, Catholics, Father Tony, LGBT rights, Phil Attey, religion

reposted from Joe

Via JMG: Obama's Shifting View On Gay Marriage

Over at the New Republic, James Downie has posted an excellent timeline of President Obama's evolving positions on same-sex marriage. I'm excerpting Downie's piece below, but do go read the entire article.

1996: "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages."

1998: "Undecided." (Candidate poll response.)

2004: "Strategically, I think we can get civil unions passed. I think that to the extent that we can get the rights, I'm less concerned about the name."

2006: "I believe that American society can choose to carve out a special place for the union of a man and a woman as the unit of child rearing most common to every culture. "

2007: "If I were advising the civil rights movement back in 1961 about its approach to civil rights, I would have probably said it’s less important that we focus on an anti-miscegenation law than we focus on a voting rights law and a non-discrimination and employment law and all the legal rights that are conferred by the state."

2008: "I have stated my opposition to [Prop 8]. I think it is unnecessary. I believe that marriage is between a man and woman and I am not in favor of gay marriage, but when you're playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that that is not what America is about."

2010: "He does oppose same-sex marriage, but he supports equality for gay and lesbian couples. He supports civil unions. That’s been his position throughout. So nothing has changed." (White House adviser David Alexrod responding to the overturn of Prop 8.)

Partially in response to the above article, New Republic senior editor Richard Just today published a demand that the president get onboard with marriage equality. From his essay titled Disgrace, which compares Obama's position on same-sex marriage to that of President Woodrow Wilson's recalcitrance in supporting women's suffrage:

The final lesson from Wilson is that what a president says and does matters. The day after Wilson’s January 9 statement, the House endorsed women’s suffrage by two votes. Wilson, albeit years late to the cause, would go on to lobby senators and, eventually, the governor of Tennessee, which became the final state to ratify the nineteenth amendment. Obama, meanwhile, seems to have convinced himself that he can’t make a difference on gay marriage, so why wade into the issue? But, while he may not realize it, Obama is already leading on gay marriage; he is just leading in the wrong direction. Every time Obama or a surrogate reiterates his position, it reinforces the idea that gay marriage is a bit too scary for the political mainstream. Worse, Obama’s stance seems to be a way of conveying to the country that he knows a lot of people still aren’t completely comfortable admitting gays and lesbians as full participants in American life, and that this is OK because he isn’t either. It is about the most cynical gesture you can imagine from an allegedly liberal leader—and we deserve better. I am speaking to you as an American, Mr. Obama.

Labels: Barack Obama, LGBT rights, marriage equality, White House

reposted from Joe

Via JMG: Pet Shop Boys - Being Boring

Two from Huffington:

Christine Pelosi: Social Security Turns 75: Democrats Celebrate While Tea Party Republicans Grab the Ax

The next time someone asks you about the difference between the parties, just remind them that when Social Security turned 75, Democrats celebrated while Tea Party Republicans grabbed the ax.

Robert Reich: Corporate Rotten Eggs

Corporations that play fast and loose with one set of laws are likely to cut corners on others. Scarce inspection resources should be targeted at them rather than at the good eggs.

Via 365 Gay: Germany considering income tax equality for gay couples

 (Berlin) Germany’s justice minister says she is considering changes to income tax laws to iron out disadvantages for gay couples.

 

Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger told Thursday’s edition of the Muenchner Merkur newspaper she thinks homosexual legal partners should be granted income tax breaks similar to those enjoyed by heterosexual married couples.

Germany’s highest court this week ruled that gay partners are entitled to the same inheritance tax privilege as heterosexual spouses. A decision on income tax rules is pending – a touchy issue as the constitution privileges marriage.

Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger says the government shouldn’t wait for the court’s decision as the direction of its rulings is clear.

Today's bilingual Double Post Quote:

Talvez, o meio da estrada (ou, meio caminho andado), é assegurar que as pessoas acreditem naquilo que elas fazem. Mas, acima de tudo, o que é mais motivador, mais valioso e mais poderoso para que nos tornemos conscientes de nossas responsabilidades, é saber que os outros acreditam em nós. Não há palavras que descrevam como nos sentimos sobre os sacrifícios que foram impostos àqueles que creram, não somente em nós, mas naquilo que nós cremos.

Perhaps the middle of the road (or the half way point) is to have people believe in what they do. But above all, what is most motivating, most valued and most powerful in making us conscious of our responsibilities, is to know that others believe in us. There are no words that describe how we feel about the sacrifices imposed on those who not only believed in us but believed in what we believed in.

- Albert Einstein

Buddha Is My Hero | One Of A Kind

On a continent where over 20 countries still consider being gay a crime,  in a country riddled with poverty, strifed with political turmoil, in 2007 Nepal’s Supreme Court ordered the government to extend equal protection to LGBT and interesexed people. This is due in a large part to the efforts of Nepal’s first openly gay politician Sunil Babu Pant.


Under the threat of arrest and persecution, Pant has led The Blue Diamond Society from handing out condoms in parking lots, to a network of over 20 groups working on Gay rights, social justice, HIV, and environmental issues.  The BDS has won the Utopia Award;  In 2009 Pant was name a Person of  The Year by Advocate Magazine; and received the  ”Felipa de Souza Award” from the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission.


It wasn’t until attending university in Belarus that Pant even realized that there was a word which distinguished people based on their sexual preference.

What was it like when you returned to Nepal, now realizing there was a distinction based on sexual preference?
I wanted to meet other gay people like myself, as I did I started to learn about their struggles. There was torture, black mail, sex abuse, especially for transgender people, a lot of gay men were forced into a straight marriages and living a double life. There was little awareness of AIDS, and they knew nothing about safer sex.   There were married men, who were having unprotected sex and bringing it home to their wives.  So I just started talking to them about safer sex, and offering them condoms.


How did this grow from you handing out condoms to a movement?
After about 6 or 7 months, I thought we needed to get organized. This was not a plan, I was just living life day to day and responding to the needs of the people I was interacting with. We had to say we were a  mens health organization since there was no mention of “gay” in Nepalese law.  We  needed to have a board of directors, no one was willing to put their name down on the forms.   They were all afraid of persecution, of going to jail, or being harassed.   So I asked my family to sign the papers.  They knew it was a human rights organization, but not exactly the whole truth at that time.


Having learned about their arrests, torture, was there any hesitancy or fear for yourself in “getting organized?”
I didn’t think too much about my safety and security, because it would have been too easy a justification to not lead this movement.  I thought,  if this is the right thing to do, that is enough reason to do it.  It is doing the right thing, trying to do the good thing.  All of these are opportunities to learn more, opportunities I couldn’t miss.


What happened when the media wanted to interview you, and the people your organization served?
They all disappeared.  They were scared to have their names or identities revealed.   Other people had concern, probably the environment around them, their families were not so good; I was lucky, I think.  Also, I believe it was the right thing for me to do.  I didn’t think it was pushing boundaries or anything, it was just the right thing.


You stayed for the interviews though?
I was the one calling the journalists how could I disappear?


There are numerous incidents where your peers and colleagues were afraid to have their identities revealed.  They didn’t want to be members of your board, talk to the media, some even were in sham marriages leading double lives.  How come you didn’t follow that path?
After I knew I was  gay, that  my orientation was not inclined towards woman, I couldn’t ruin someone else’s life.   Honesty was a strongly held principle.  I was more worried about my own dishonesty than someone rejecting me. It’s up to them.  For me my actions are what’s important.  I shouldn’t be hiding or lying.
Having values helps a lot.     You don’t obsess with values, you practice and make them part of your life.  Do not intellectualize them too much. It’s a simple thing, not an intellectual one.


Some people are conditioned in a difficult way that they probably had to hide something, which is very difficult.  I understand that very much.  I also feel compassion for them, that they have to hide something.  Ideally it’s a free life, and you should enjoy the freedom.


What advice or suggestion would you have for someone who is having the struggle enjoying their freedom?
Even today gay people end up in straight marriages. In that way, a simple formula is: coming out is an obstacle, but a relatively short obstacle, a higher intensity for a short while; the other option is you live a double life for the rest of your life.  The short term uncomfortable for the long term freedom.
Every  moment is a test, we pass sometimes, a lot of time we also fail the test.  But life has moved on.  Becoming conscious of how we can pass more of the time.  The wisdom is not limited, so never stop learning from anything any incident, anybody any moment.


On this whole journey on pulling this whole movement together, you almost make it sound easy, was it?
I didn’t face any death threats, people have been very kind.  It’s always been easy somehow.  People always give a great level of trust.  They walk with me.  No challenges that stopped us. There have been some conflicts, I don’t avoid them or get paranoid with them.  These are the things we all have.  Buddha had a lot of conflict,  so deal with it.


You need to have somebody who is being very difficult.  They are actually a friend in the face of life, A teacher.   If you deeply think, they are a person helping you to grow.


Do you have any mentors?
A lot of people, everyone I meet.  Even people I don’t meet,  I do read a lot of Buddhist books, so people ask me who is your hero.  Buddha is my hero.  His are very simple teachings.   Life and the world are impacted from your actions, so if you do a good action -good karma – it makes all of humanity better,  including yourself.  You attain a level Buddahood, you master certain things like compassion, wisdom, toleration, mediations, all of the obstacles help you.


How has  being a member of parliament changed things?
You can really make a unqiue and quite an impact.  It is an important time, we are about to rewrite our constitution and it will include the rights for all persons, regardless of sexual orientation.  In this sense,we are more advanced than the West.  This is a country, where not to long ago a woman did not have her own passport, because she was part of either her father’s or husband’s household.

make the jump here to read the original article

Right To Love "An American Family" Preview

Via JMG: Meg Whitman: I'll Defend Prop 8

GOP gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman has announced that she will defend Prop 8 in court if elected.

"The issue right now is, as I understand is 'Will Proposition 8 have the appropriate support to actually make an appeal to the circuit court of appeals?' " Whitman said. "And I think the governor, the attorney general today has to defend the constitution and has to enable the judicial process to go along and has to enable an appeal to go through. So if I was governor, I would give that ruling standing to be able to appeal to the circuit court." The appeals court plans to hear the case in December, but Supreme Court appeals are planned by both sides, so Whitman would have plenty of time to intervene if she wins and takes office in January.

Whitman and Jerry Brown are essentially tied in the latest polls.

Labels: 2010 elections, California, GOP, LGBT rights, Meg Whitman, Proposition 8

reposted from Joe

Via JMG: New Hampshire LOL

(Tipped by JMG reader Brian)

Labels: California, marriage equality, New Hampshire

reposted from Joe

Quote of the day (via Doreen on Facebook):

 “What we do for ourselves dies with us. But what we do for others and for the world, remains and is immortal.”

- Albert Pine

 

Via JMG: NOM Loses Again In Maine

NOM has lost yet another court battle to cloak the names of their donors in Maine.

Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, said Thursday his group is disappointed in the ruling, but feels its arguments will hold sway with an appeals court. NOM will pursue an expedited appeal to the U.S. First Circuit Court in Boston, he said, because of the short time before the upcoming election season. Though Thursday's decision will delay NOM's plans for political activity in Maine, Brown said, the group is reviewing the decision to gauge a potential timeline for action. NOM plans activity in Maine both on behalf of candidates that support "redefining marriage," said Brown, and on candidates that support traditional marriage.

He declined to say whether NOM would be active in the state's governor's race, as well as the legislative races. Brown also expressed frustration at the legal hurdles spurred by what he called "frivolous" lawsuits filed by their political opponents, one of which, Californians Against Hate, asked the Maine ethics commission to investigate NOM. That group, one of the primary advocates for preserving California's gay marriage law that was repealed by voters there in 2009, questioned whether NOM raised more than $5,000 to directly repeal Maine's same-sex marriage law.

It's not a complete win for the good guys, however, as the judge also ruled some parts of Maine's campaign finance disclosure laws to be "unconstitutionally vague" and struck down the requirement that donations over $250 be reported within 24 hours.

Labels: campaign finance, hate groups, Maine, NOM

reposted from Joe

Via BoxTurtle: California marriages go civil

Timothy Kincaid

August 20th, 2010

Yesterday the California state assembly approved SB 906, which will make the following changes to California’s marriage law:

300. (a) Marriage Civil marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, established pursuant to a State of California marriage license issued by the county clerk, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary. Consent alone does not constitute civil marriage. Consent must be followed by the issuance of a license and solemnization as authorized by this division, except as provided by Section 425 and Part 4 (commencing with Section 500).

and

400. Marriage Civil marriage may be solemnized by any of the following who is of the age of 18 years or older:
(a) A priest, minister, rabbi, or authorized person of any religious denomination. No person authorized by this subdivision, or his or her religious denomination, shall be required to solemnize a marriage that is contrary to the tenets of his, her, or its faith. Any refusal to solemnize a marriage under this subdivision shall not affect the tax exempt status of any entity.

The bill goes on to revise the rest of the law by replacing reference to “marriage” with “civil marriage.”
Officially this bill does nothing, but the symbolism is interesting. It says that the State of California isn’t interested in how your church defines marriage, only in the civil aspect. Further, it assures churches and clergy that they need not conduct any marriages that they don’t find appropriate to their faith, even though such assurances are unnecessary due to the US Constitution’s religious protections.
And the wing-nuts are furious.
You’d think that ensuring and emphasizing protection for clergy would be welcomed. But wing-nuts don’t want such protection; it distracts from their deceptive talking points. They want to be able to scare people into thinking that their church will be forced to conduct same-sex marriages and have discovered that most voters don’t really understand that the First Amendment already protects them. This revision would make it harder to lie.
As the Ruth Institute, the National Organization for Marriage’s college outreach, laments

The real intent behind this bill is to make it appear as though it eliminates one of the main objections to same-sex marriage, that it jeopardizes religious freedom, in what gay activists hope will be an effort to get gay marriage on the ballot in California in 2012. They think that doing this will make gay marriage seem more acceptable to the voters of California and make it easier for such an amendment to pass. The idea is that if this bill passes, they can claim that allowing same-sex marriage won’t have any affect on religious freedom.

And anything that makes it more difficult for NOM and their allies to deceive voters is a threat to their power. Going into a potential 2012 constitutional amendment to reverse Proposition 8 (assuming that this isn’t all resolved through Perry v. Schwarzenegger by then), they didn’t want to have to defend “civil marriage” or lose one of their biggest scare points.
The bill passed with support of virtually all Democrats along with two Republicans. It had previously passed the State Senate but will return for a concurrence vote before going to the governor for signature.

make the jump here to read the full article

Via Himalaya Crafts: Buddha's Teachings

 

He wrote nothing, but challenged fundamental Hindu teachings and belief in gods and goddesses. He taught that a person gains enlightenment by following the "Middle Path" between selfindulgence and self-mortification.
Buddha summed up his teachings in the Four Noble Truths:

# Life consists of dukkha, which encompasses suffering, anxiety, dissatisfaction, frustration, pain, and misery. All of life is sub-ject to change and decay.
# Dukkha is caused by a desire or craving (tanha) for material possessions or intellectual gratification, which does not last and is ultimately unsatisfactory.
# Escape from tanha (desire or craving) is essential for inner peace and tranquillity. By eliminating tanha, one eliminates dukkha (suffering, etc.)
# The path or way to escape from tanha is the Noble Eight-fold Path. These are not successive stages or steps to be followed in sequence, but should be practiced and realized simultaneously. The Noble Eight-fold Path consists of the following eight points:

• Right Understanding: Believing the Four Noble Truths.
• Right Intention: Renouncing worldly life.
• Right Speech: Abstaining from lies, slander, abuse, and idle talk.
• Right Conduct: Abstaining from killing, stealing, lying, committing adultery, and using intoxicants.
• Right Occupation: Avoiding questionable occupations.
• Right Endeavor: Striving for good and avoiding all that is evil or wicked.
• Right Contemplation: Controlling one's mind so that emotions, including joy and sorrow, do not disturb one's calm.
• Right Concentration: Developing the mind to heights beyond reason.

The goal of the Noble Eight-fold Path is nirvana, a term that is difficult, if not impossible, to define. The term literally means "extinction," as the flame of a candle is said to be extinguished. However, nirvana is not a state of total annihilation, except as an annihilation of tanha (desire or craving) and dukkha (suffering). Nirvana is not an intellectual concept referring to a place or state of existence.

Nirvana is enlightenment, an awareness beyond that which can be reached with the mind, senses and reason. It is the final, peaceful bliss.

Death does not mark the end of existence because nothing is permanent. Nothing is unchanging, eternal, or immortal, according to Buddhism.

The wheel is a well-known Buddhist symbol. As the wheel turns, so do the cycles of change. If anything is permanent in Buddhist thought, it is change.

A fundamental point of Buddhist thought is the anatman, or "no self." The Buddha rejected the Hindu teaching that the individual self or soul is really identical with Brahman, the impersonal Oversoul out of which all that exists has come. Buddhism rejects the Hindu idea that a soul is trapped in a body, but teaches that a person is made up of a "bundle" of five particles or "waves" which temporarily come together to form a "body." They are: form (the physical body), feelings, perceptions (transmitted by the sense organs), impulses, and consciousness. This bundle causes a person to falsely think of himself or herself as a separate individual self.

Since all of life is change, these waves eventually move apart and the "self" disappears. Buddhists talk of reincarnation, by which they mean these waves will eventually join together to form another "self." One can be reincarnated, if enlightenment is not achieved, in six lokas or places as non-human beings, humans, sub-deities, animals, hungry ghosts, or sent to hell, depending upon one's actions (karma) in this lifetime. The well-known book, The Tibetan Book of the Dead, speaks of events between death and reincarnation for all who do not achieve enlightenment. Still, Buddhists insist no "soul" or "self" is reincarnated into another body as in Hinduism. While rejecting Hinduism, popular Buddhism borrows ideas from Hinduism which causes an outsider to find inconsistencies within Buddhism.

Buddhism does not require an orthodox belief; a systematic theology such as is found in Christianity is absent in Buddhism.

Buddhists reject belief in a personal God, although Buddhists may borrow Hindu deities. In Mahayana Buddhism, the Buddha is deified and seen as a savior.

Via HRC:

Dear Daniel, Winston Churchill said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. As this summer leads into the 2010 election season, it's not difficult to find examples of our system being complicated, gritty, messy and sometimes devastating-and equal reminders of why it is better than anything else we have ever tried. Thanks to the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, corporations may contribute to certain political committees. As you have read in our action alerts and in the news, Target and Best Buy recently donated large sums of money to a Minnesota group supporting a strongly anti-LGBT gubernatorial candidate. Before making this contribution, both companies had excellent records of support for the LGBT community, scoring 100% on the Corporate Equality Index. Target has since refused to right its wrong, and Best Buy has not responded to our call to remedy its action.  What does this mean for our democracy? Well, for starters, a democracy is as good as the players in it-corporations or humans. These companies made the wrong choice; knowing our opponents, that contribution could go to a dishonest campaign full of scare tactics and attacks.  Fortunately, that is not the last word. This week, we announced that we will devote $150,000 of our own resources to help elect a pro-equality governor and legislature in Minnesota. Victory in these elections could put marriage equality within reach in the North Star State. Each campaign cycle becomes more expensive than the last. The cost of campaign ads drives fundraising higher and higher. In ballot measure campaigns, donors from across the nation often contribute. To ensure that the voting public has a clear understanding of who is behind each measure, many states have enacted disclosure laws. The laws don’t prevent anyone from exercising their free speech rights, but they do ensure that democracy is conducted in the light of day, and not by secret organizations lurking in the shadows.  Although the public overwhelmingly supports knowing who is paying for the campaign ad that they’re watching, proponents of anti-LGBT ballot measures don’t. The so-called National Organization for Marriage, which contributed the majority of funds in the campaign to dismantle marriage equality in Maine, lost its challenge to Maine’s disclosure law. This ruling was yet another rebuke to NOM's efforts to undermine campaign disclosure laws that preserve democracy by letting the public know who is behind the ads and campaigns.  Democracy is a competition among ideas and principles. If you believe in what you are asking someone to vote for, you can be honest. If you believe that people would vote with you if they knew who you were, then you could come out of the shadows. Our opponents' attempts to escape their obligation to be forthright speak more loudly than any ad that they finance. When Congress returns and as the campaign season moves forward, we will speak louder still. Joe Solmonese President, Human Rights Campaign

Via JMG: LadyJava Music Video for JavaZone (High quality)