In a move many anticipate will help move the debate toward equality, the American Psychological Associate has unanimously approved a resolution in support of same-sex marriage.

From USA Today: WASHINGTON – The world’s largest organization of psychologists took its strongest stand to date supporting full marriage equity, a move that observers say will have a far-reaching impact on the national debate. The policymaking body of the American Psychological Association (APA) unanimously approved the resolution 157-0 on the eve of the group’s annual convention, which opens here today. The group, with more than 154,000 members, has long supported full equal rights for gays, based on social science research on sexual orientation. Now the nation’s psychologists — citing an increasing body of research about same-sex marriage, as well as increased discussion at the state and federal levels — took the support to a new level. “Now as the country has really begun to have experience with gay marriage, our position is much clearer and more straightforward — that marriage equity is the policy that the country should be moving toward,” says Clinton Anderson, director of APA’s Office on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Concerns.
]]>

The Rhode Island Senate has passed a civil union bill, which the governor has said he’ll most likely sign. While it may seem surprising, a number of lgbt activists are opposed to the bill and urged the governor to veto it. Apparently it includes extreme “religious exemptions” that allow both organizations and individuals to essentially ignore the civil unions. For instance, in theory, if someone was in a Catholic hospital, the hospital could refuse their civil-unioned partner admission to the room. If it passes we’ll have to see how this actually plays out. From the New York Times: PROVIDENCE, R.I. — Less than a week after same-sex marriage was legalized in New York, the Rhode Island State Senate on Wednesday evening approved a bill allowing not marriage, but civil unions for gay couples, despite fierce opposition from gay rights advocates who called the legislation discriminatory. The bill, which already passed in the state’s House of Representatives and which the governor said he was likely to sign, grants gay and lesbian couples most of the rights and benefits that Rhode Island provides married couples. It was offered as a compromise this spring after Gordon D. Fox, the openly gay speaker of the Democratic-controlled House, said he could not muster enough votes to pass a same-sex marriage bill. Gay rights advocates say the bill is unacceptable because it allows religious organizations not to recognize the unions. For example, they say, a Catholic hospital could choose not to allow a lesbian to make medical decisions on behalf of her partner, and a Catholic university could deny family medical leave to gay employees. “It’s a permission slip to ignore legal obligations,” said Karen L. Loewy, a lawyer at Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, or GLAD. [emphasis mine]]]>

Don’t expect this imported Cheesehead to stay silent for long. He explains that he left well enough alone because he needed some grace and mercy, since he’s been “down a little lately as you can imagine.” It would never, ever, occur to any of these very prayerful people that God did indeed answer their prayers and they just don’t like what He had to say. From the New York Times: Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan did not exactly hide his opposition to efforts to legalize same-sex marriage in New York. Yet on Sunday, Archbishop Dolan made no mention of gay marriage during the 10:15 a.m. Mass at St. Patrick’s Cathedral. He did not criticize state lawmakers, or offer an impassioned defense of the church’s view of marriage.
It was not until after services when the archbishop tackled the issue, and explained to reporters why he chose not to do so during his homily. “This is about prayer,” he said inside the cathedral. “I sort of needed a good dose of the Lord’s grace and mercy because I’ve been down a little lately as you can imagine.”]]>

From the Christian Science Monitor: The passage of a same-sex marriage bill in New York State was a landmark event in one of the most profound and contentious issues in US politics today. But what comes next? And will it have any impact on the 2012 elections, especially President Obama’s reelection bid? [SNIP] As the Hill newspaper points out, the issue could rise to political significance early next year when Republican leaders in New Hampshire hope to repeal the state law allowing same-sex marriage – right around the time of New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation presidential primary election. But beyond 2012, Columbia Law School professor Suzanne Goldberg tells Reuters, “Having same-sex marriage in New York will have tremendous moral and political force for the rest of the country – in part because New York is a large state, and in part because it hasn’t come easily.”]]>

We should know by tomorrow. I’m not sure they can wait for another legislative session, let alone the time it will take to replace the no-votes.]]>

I’ve kept my expectations on this far in the basement, but then we hear from people like mayor Bloomberg saying he’s convinced the votes in the Senate are there, if only they bring it to a floor vote. One the one hand, I believe him. On the other hand, I cannot be surprised if the Republicans, suspecting it might actually pass, keep it from a vote. We now have only one day left, Monday, for this to pass. Maybe it would be done in the special session the governor says he’ll call to get the rent control law renewed, but maybe not. As I’ve come to view it for a long time now, I’ll believe it when I see it. Meanwhile, the archbishop of New York continues to refer to me marrying my partner as an “ominous threat” and immoral. This from a man who’s taken a vow of celibacy and whose function in life is to be a Vatican mouthpiece. Does he not know how hurtful it is to have your committed, till-death-do-us-part relationship referred to as a threat and a violation of nature? Even the intellectually gifted can be ignorant.]]>

Considering this site is devoted to LGBT people over 50, it’s always a little uncomfortable writing about the “other” older population – the ones who consistently vote Republican, oppose gay equality and don’t seem to think they know any gay people, or at least none they don’t think twice about hurting. Seniors in Minnesota support a constitutional amendment restricting marriage to a man and woman by a 57/34 margin. The rest of the state is evenly divided. From On Top Magazine: A new poll released Wednesday finds Minnesotans nearly evenly divided on a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. The Public Policy Polling survey found 46 percent of respondents in favor of the amendment, 47 percent opposed, and 7 percent undecided. “Voters in the state are about as evenly divided as they could be on gay marriage,” Tom Jensen said in a post announcing the poll’s results. “As usual the generational divide on the issue is staggering – seniors support a ban by a 57/34 margin while every other age group opposes it.” A large majority of respondents (72%) said the relationships of gay and lesbian couples should be given legal recognition (38% marriage, 34% civil unions). It is the second poll to gauge Minnesota voter’s opinions since lawmakers approved the amendment last week, sending it to voters for their approval in 2012. “There aren’t a lot of policy issues I would say this about but public opinion on gay marriage is shifting so quickly that it wouldn’t surprise me if opposition to this amendment grows by 5 or 6 points in the 17 months between now and next November’s election.”]]>

personal blog for that. So when I saw an op ed by a senior who obviously favors the Republican plan to change Medicare, I thought I should highlight it. My personal opinion is that the GOP plan would not change Medicare, it would destroy it. And I noticed that early on the commentator suggests seniors should not over-react since the changes only effect people currently under 55. Well, that’s me, and I may be wrong but I sense in that argument the attitude that we’ve got ours, the kids under 55 are the one who’ll get screwed, so who cares? It seems very easy for people whose benefits won’t be touched to talk about fiscal responsibility. If I could be assured that insurance companies would be required to accept a government voucher in the amount in which it’s issued to me, I would be less skeptical. From DaculaPatch: I am a senior citizen and proud of it. Like most seniors I get confused once in awhile and pass it off as senior moment. Lately I have noticed many of my fellow seniors having what appear to be senior moments about the proposed changes to Medicare and Social Security. Congressman Rob Woodall’s Dacula town hall meeting was the most recent example. Given that the proposed changes for both entitlement programs will not affect anyone 55 or older, why is there such resistance among our age group? First, fear is a great motivator. Many of our greatest accomplishments were the results of trying to avoid an outcome that we feared. Many of our less admirable moments were the result of fear. Fear brings out our best and our worst. Democrats, aided by MoveOn.org, AARP and the mainstream media, are using fear in an attempt avoid the hard budgetary decisions necessary to restore order to the American fiscal house. [emphasis mine] Continue reading]]>