Westboro Baptist Church plans to disrupt Edwards funeral.
Huffingtonpost.com

Federal jury finds Smart kidnapper guilty
 

Federal jury finds Smart kidnapper guilty

December 10, 2010 1:13 p.m. EST

Elilzabeth Smart spent three days on the witness stand, describing what she called "my nine months in hell."

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
NEW: Federal jury convicts Smart kidnapping defendant on both counts
Brian David Mitchell was charged with kidnapping Elizabeth Smart
The second count accused him of transporting her for sexual purposes
Salt Lake City, Utah (CNN) -- A federal jury has found a homeless street preacher guilty of kidnapping Elizabeth Smart in 2002 and transporting the 14-year-old girl across state lines with the intent to engage in sexual activity.
Jurors deliberated for about five hours before announcing the verdict in the case of Brian David Mitchell, 57, court officials said.

This happened earlier but so worth watching.
 

I was gonna say that it's still going on, but, as I am typing, Senator Sanders (who causes me to affectionately yell "Bernie!!!' whenever he's on TV) just yielded the floor.....after over 8 hours!!!!!

The Crimson, Harvard
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

December 12, 2010

LGBT Books Vandalized With Urine in Lamont Library

By Sirui Li, CRIMSON STAFF WRITER

Approximately 40 books dealing with LGBT issues were vandalized with what appeared to be urine in Lamont Library on November 24, according to a report filed Friday by the library security staff to the Harvard University Police Department.

HUPD spokesman Steven G. Catalano wrote in an e-mail that the vandalized books' subject matters included lesbian and gay issues and same-sex marriage. Due to the nature of books, HUPD is currently investigating the incident as a bias crime.

"The HUPD has zero tolerance for any bias-related incidents or crimes," Catalano said.

"Harvard College will not tolerate acts of vandalism, especially those that appear to be motivated by hate or bias," Harvard College Dean Evelynn M. Hammonds wrote in an e-mail to The Crimson. "[As] a community, we will continue to affirm our shared values of dignity and respect for everyone in our community."

The library staff members found an empty bottle next to the vandalized books that may have contained the urine, according to Harvard College Library spokeswoman Beth S. Brainard. The staff initially responded to the incident as a health hazard, quickly removing the bottle and relocating the damaged books to the Collections Conservation Lab on Level D of Widener Library.

Brainard said that the library staff assessed the value of the vandalized books before reporting the incident, accounting for the space of two weeks between the incident and the report to HUPD. The books—which Brainard estimated to be worth a few thousand dollars—will be discarded due to the severity of the damage.

"Once the urine is poured, they can’t really fix [the books]," she said.

It remains unclear whether Lamont will replace the books, since Widener usually has copies of the books in Lamont, according to Brainard.

Marco Chan '11, co-chair of the Harvard College Queer Students and Allies, called the incident "extremely frustrating" and "disconcerting," and said that it represents a concern not only for the LGBT community, but for the Harvard community at large.

"I am very outraged. It is hard to conceive this as a coincidence when there are 40 books on the same subject," Chan said. "The message that this incident sent to me is that we need more resources not only for the LGBT community but also targeted towards other people."

Chan suggested workshops on homosexual, bisexual, and transsexual issues—similar to the mandatory freshman orientation event Sex Signals—as one possible way to respond to the bias evidenced by the incident.

"Everyone in our community should know that they play an important role in adjusting homophobia," Chan said.

Books about LGBT issues are located on Level B of Lamont Library.

—Staff Writer Sirui Li can be reached at sli@college.harvard.edu.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2010/12/12/books-library-incident-community/

Africa Human Rights for LGBTQ
 

Africa's gays said to face increasing persecution

Monday, December 13, 2010

Sudarsan Raghavan, Washington Post


Kampala, Uganda -- Persecution of gays is intensifying across Africa, fueled by fundamentalist preachers, intolerant governments and homophobic politicians. Gay people have been denied access to health care, detained, tortured and even killed, human rights activists and witnesses say.

The growing tide of homophobia comes at a time when gays in Africa are expressing themselves more openly, prompting greater media attention and debates about homosexuality. The rapid growth of Islam and evangelical forms of Christianity, each espousing conservative views on family values and marriage, have convinced many Africans that homosexuality should not be tolerated in their societies.

"It has never been harder for gays and lesbians on the continent," said Monica Mbaru, Africa coordinator for the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, based in Cape Town, South Africa. "Homophobia is on the rise."

Fearing for their lives, many activists are in hiding or have fled their countries.

In Uganda, a bill introduced in parliament last year would impose the death penalty for repeated same-sex relations and life imprisonment for other homosexual acts. Local newspapers are outing gays, potentially inciting the public to attack them, activists say.

A day after a newspaper article said gays should be hanged, Sheila Hope Mugisha became a target. As the prominent gay-rights activist neared her home, she said, boys from the neighborhood threw stones at the gate and chanted, "You are a homo." Mugisha ran inside and locked the door. She didn't leave for several days.

"Here, homosexuality is like you have killed someone," she said.

American gay activists have sent money to help the community in Uganda. Western governments, including aid donors, have vocally criticized the bill and denounced the treatment of gays.

More than two-thirds of African countries have laws criminalizing homosexuality. In May, a judge in Malawi imposed a maximum prison sentence of 14 years with hard labor on a gay couple convicted of "unnatural acts" for holding an engagement ceremony. Malawi's president pardoned the couple after international condemnation, particularly from Britain, Malawi's largest donor.

Gays have also been attacked this year in Zimbabwe, and in Senegal their graves have been desecrated. Gays in Cameroon have been attacked by police and targeted in the media. In Gambia, President Yahya Jammeh has vowed to expel gays from the country and urged citizens not to rent homes to them.

A survey by the Forum on Religion and Public Life released in April found that 79 percent of Ugandans consider "homosexual behavior morally wrong," with even higher percentages in other African nations.

One exception is South Africa, whose Constitution was the first in the world to outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation and is among a few countries in the world that have legalized same-sex marriages. Still, even there, negative attitudes toward gays persist in many rural areas and townships.

Mbaru's organization has seen a 10 percent increase in reported attacks against gays in Africa in the past year, she said.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/12/13/MN9S1GPMDM.DTLThis article appeared on page A - 4 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Newsweek Article
 

Are Gay Rights 'Civil Rights'?

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/12/14/a...il-rights.html

/snip
As the fight over same-sex marriage and “don’t ask, don’t tell” rages in the courts, Congress, and the media, gay activists and their allies are invoking the language and imagery of the civil-rights battles of a half century ago.

And their efforts are changing the tenor of the debate. Sen. Joe Lieberman, calling for repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” told a Connecticut reporter earlier this month that the fight for gay rights is the new “front lines” of the civil-rights movement.

When President Obama included protections for gays and lesbians in federal hate-crime legislation earlier this year, the Associated Press called it “the biggest expansion of the civil-rights-era law in decades.”

And at last week’s federal appellate-court hearing in San Francisco on same-sex marriage, one of the judges pointedly asked whether California voters, whose 2008 passage of Proposition 8 stripped gays of the right to marry, were entitled to reinstate school segregation. “How is this different?”
/snip

A CURE for HIV!


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/1..._n_796521.html

US will seek to have gay protection measure returned to UN resolution


The United States said on Friday that it would seek to have a reference to gays and lesbians returned to a UN resolution condemning violence.

Last month, a UN vote removed mention of gays and lesbians from a resolution which condemns extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions and other killings.

Arabic and African countries had lobbied for the amendment. The resolution explicitly mentions other minority statuses.

Gay rights campaigners said that the move would give a “green light” to homophobic countries to target LGBT people.

Speaking at a panel on Human Rights Day, US ambassador to the UN Susan Rice said she was “incensed” at the vote.

“We are going to fight to restore the reference to sexual orientation,” she said.

“We’re going to stand firm on this basic principle. And we intend to win.”

The vote on this resolution is expected to come up in the General Assembly on 20 December 2010.

The resolution, which the UN votes on every two years, has contained a reference to lesbian and gay people since 1999. It condemns extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions and other killings.

It still includes references to a variety of other groups, such as human rights defenders, religious and ethnic minorities and street children.

Prop 8 Trial Tracker ( A Little more info)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
House votes to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”; Courage Campaign to host conf. call with Rep. Patrick Murphy
By Adam Bink

Just now, the House voted to pass legislation repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”. The vote count was 250-175, with 9 not voting. We got 10 more Republicans voting yea than in May, with 16 more yea votes overall than in May. I’ll have a full list of the yeas and nays when it’s available.

Tonight at 4 PM PST/7 PM EST, Courage Campaign will be hosting a post-vote strategy conference call with Rep. Patrick Murphy, an Iraq veteran and the lead sponsor and advocate in the House, to discuss the most important next steps for advocates and what the landscape looks like in the Senate. And you’re all invited! Click here to obtain the call-in number.

http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/s/UrgentDADTCall

I will be updating this post with reactions and further info on the timeline. One good update- Sen. Snowe announced she will vote to repeal DADT.

See you on the call

Just received this email from one of my senators :( (by the way, I did not write to him as "Mr." anything.



*
Dear Mr. _______,
*
Thank you for contacting me about current Department of Defense (DoD) policy regarding sexual orientation and military service. *I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this matter.
*
As you know, in 1993, Congress passed legislation to codify the existing military “don’t ask, don’t tell” (DADT) policy, which governs homosexuals serving in the Armed Forces. *This policy has served our nation well, and I oppose any effort to repeal it. *The readiness of our Armed Forces must always be the foremost consideration in any decision regarding military personnel policies, especially as our troops are serving in harm’s way in two active theaters of conflict. *Now is not the time to increase the level of stress on our force through such a dramatic policy change.
*
Moreover, as you may know, three of the four military service chiefs recently testified before Congress as to their clear reservations with repealing the policy at the present time. *I believe that it would be a profound mistake to disregard the informed opinion of these military leaders, and I am deeply concerned by the blatant disregard that some members of Congress have shown to their concerns by including provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 5136; S. 3454) that would repeal this law. *For these reasons, I opposed the motion to proceed to consideration of S. 3454, and I will continue to oppose the attempt to repeal the DADT policy.
*
The United States Government has no higher purpose than keeping the American people safe from harm. *Our national security depends on the ability of our Armed Forces’ to maintain military readiness at all times. *The linchpin of military readiness lies in maintaining cohesive units consisting of competent, fully trained personnel who share a sense of common purpose and confidence in their unit’s ability to accomplish its mission. *Our Armed Forces recruit the finest individuals possible and help them develop into world-class Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines.
*
My father served in the military for thirty-one years, and I was privileged to grow up around men and women dedicated to protecting our country. *As such, I remain committed to ensuring that our military is the best-trained, best-equipped force in the world and able to maintain a strong national defense. *I appreciate your thoughts regarding current military policies, and you may be certain that I will keep your views in mind as these matters are discussed. *Thank you for taking the time to contact me.
*
Sincerely,
JOHN CORNYN
United States Senator
*
*
517 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Tel: (202) 224-2934
Fax: (202) 228-2856
http://www.cornyn.senate.gov
*
Please sign up for my monthly newsletter at http://www.cornyn.senate.gov/newsletter.
*
PLEASE NOTE:
Due to the nature of electronic communication, if you did not receive this e-mail directly from my office, I cannot guarantee that the text has not been altered. *If you have questions about the validity of this message, or would like to respond to this message, please use the web form available at my website, http://www.cornyn.senate.gov/contact.

Birds Do It, Bees Do It, Even French Heteros Do It
 

New York Times

December 15, 2010

In France, Civil Unions Gain Favor Over Marriage
By SCOTT SAYARE and MAÏA DE LA BAUME

PARIS — Some are divorced and disenchanted with marriage; others are young couples ideologically opposed to marriage, but eager to lighten their tax burdens. Many are lovers not quite ready for old-fashioned matrimony.

Whatever their reasons, and they vary widely, French couples are increasingly shunning traditional marriages and opting instead for civil unions, to the point that there are now two civil unions for every three marriages.

When France created its system of civil unions in 1999, it was heralded as a revolution in gay rights, a relationship almost like marriage, but not quite. No one, though, anticipated how many couples would make use of the new law. Nor was it predicted that by 2009, the overwhelming majority of civil unions would be between straight couples.

It remains unclear whether the idea of a civil union, called a pacte civil de solidarité, or PACS, has responded to a shift in social attitudes or caused one. But it has proved remarkably well suited to France and its particularities about marriage, divorce, religion and taxes — and it can be dissolved with just a registered letter.

“We’re the generation of divorced parents,” explained Maud Hugot, 32, an aide at the Health Ministry who signed a PACS with her girlfriend, Nathalie Mondot, 33, this year. Expressing a view that researchers say is becoming commonplace among same-sex couples and heterosexuals alike, she added, “The notion of eternal marriage has grown obsolete.”

France recognizes only “citizens,” and the country’s legal principles hold that special rights should not be accorded to particular groups or ethnicities. So civil unions, which confer most of the tax benefits and legal protections of marriage, were made available to everyone. (Marriage, on the other hand, remains restricted to heterosexuals.) But the attractiveness of civil unions to heterosexual couples was evident from the start. In 2000, just one year after the passage of the law, more than 75 percent of civil unions were signed between heterosexual couples. That trend has only strengthened since then: of the 173,045 civil unions signed in 2009, 95 percent were between heterosexual couples.

“It’s becoming more and more commonplace,” said Laura Anicet, 24, a student who signed a PACS last month with her 29-year-old boyfriend, Cyril Reich. “For me, before, the PACS was for homosexual couples.”

As with traditional marriages, civil unions allow couples to file joint tax returns, exempt spouses from inheritance taxes, permit partners to share insurance policies, ease access to residency permits for foreigners and make partners responsible for each other’s debts. Concluding a civil union requires little more than a single appearance before a judicial official, and ending one is even easier.

It long ago became common here to speak of “getting PACSed” (se pacser, in French). More recently, wedding fairs have been renamed to include the PACS, department stores now offer PACS gift registries and travel agencies offer PACS honeymoon packages.

Even the Roman Catholic Church, which initially condemned the partnerships as a threat to the institution of marriage, has relented; the National Confederation of Catholic Family Associations now says civil unions do not pose “a real threat.”

While the partnerships have exploded in popularity, marriage numbers have continued a long decline in France, as across Europe. Just 250,000 French couples married in 2009, with fewer than four marriages per 1,000 residents; in 1970, almost 400,000 French couples wed.

Germany, too, has seen a similar plunge in marriage rates. In 2009, there were just over four marriages per 1,000 residents compared with more than seven per 1,000 in 1970. In the United States, the current rate is 6.8 per 1,000 residents, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

France is not the only European nation to allow civil unions between straight couples, but in the few countries that do — Luxembourg, Andorra, the Netherlands — they are not as popular. In the Netherlands in 2009, for example, there was just one civil union for every eight marriages.

If current trends continue in France, new civil unions could soon outnumber marriages, as they already do in Paris’s youthful 11th Arrondissement.

François Lambert, 28, and his girlfriend, Maud Moulin, 27, signed a civil union in 2007 for what he described as logistical reasons. Both public schoolteachers, they would be assured of postings to the same district only if they filed joint tax returns, which civil unions allow.

“We didn’t have time to prepare for a marriage,” he said. “It was a question of speed.”

Sophie Lazzaro, 48, an event planner in Paris, signed a civil union in 2006 with her longtime companion, Thierry Galissant, who is 50. (She said she was drawn to a civil union largely for the legal protections and stability it offered.)

“I have two daughters, and if something happens to me, I want us to stay together as a family,” she said. “But without getting married.”

In addition to their practical advantages, she said, civil unions are ideologically suited to her generation, which came of age after the social rebellions of the 1960s. “We were very free,” she said. “AIDS didn’t exist, we had the pill, we didn’t have to fight. We were the first generation to enjoy all of this.” She added, “Marriage has a side that’s very institutional and very square and religious, which didn’t fit for us.”

Though French marriages are officially concluded in civil ceremonies held in town halls, not in churches, marriage is still viewed here as a “heavy and invasive” institution with deep ties to Christianity, said Wilfried Rault, a sociologist at the National Institute for Demographic Studies.

“Marriage bears the traces of a religious imprint,” he said, often anathema in a country where secularism has long been treated as a sacred principle. “It’s really an ideological slant, saying, ‘No one is going to tell me what I have to do.’ ”

For some, civil unions are simply a form of premarital engagement. Ms. Anicet, the student, said she and her boyfriend would probably be married were they not of different religions. She is Catholic, he is Jewish, and his mother disapproves of marrying outside the faith, Ms. Anicet said.

“We’re realizing that this is a test,” she said, “a way to get our families used to it.”

Though the two had considered a civil union for tax reasons, now “it’s a jumping-off point to getting married, later,” she said, adding after a pause, “I hope.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/wo...nted=2&_r=1&hp

FROM THE PROP 8 BLOG
 

Sen. Reid schedules Saturday cloture vote on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal
By Adam Bink

Just this evening, Sen. Reid filed cloture on DADT repeal, paving the way for a Saturday vote.

The time period delay is because the cloture motions have to “ripen” or “mature” (one of the quirky parts of the Senate) for a few days until the vote can be taken. On Saturday, the Senate will vote first on the DREAM Act (on which Reid also filed cloture), and if it does not pass, will proceed immediately to a vote on DADT repeal. If the cloture vote, which requires 60 votes to pass, succeeds, then there will be 30 hours of debate until the final vote. The 30 hours can be waived if DADT repeal opponents agree to do so, but that remains to be seen.

Also, concerns that Sen. Wyden would miss the votes because of impending surgery are lessened, as he announced he would make both votes. There is a concern, though, that because Scott Brown said he would only support cloture if tax AND government spending legislation were enacted, and Reid just pulled the omnibus spending bill from the floor for lack of support, that Brown may not come through. However, Collins, Murkowski and Snowe haven’t (so far) made any such conditions, so we may still have 60 (and perhaps more, as Lieberman has hinted).

This is very good news, though, as he’s perhaps listened to Sen. Lieberman’s call today to put repeal ahead of the new START treaty. This is a wiser move on the merits.

So, stay tuned for a busy Saturday, and perhaps an early one for those of you on the West Coast. I’ll be up and Adam (rimshot!) blogging the coverage as usual.

Update: I should clarify that the above schedule assumes the DREAM vote will fail. If it passes, they go 30 hours of debate, have a final vote on the DREAM Act, then vote on cloture for DADT repeal, go 30 hours, vote. So, a vote on DADT repeal could come as early as Saturday depending on what happens with the DREAM Act, but it could also be Sunday.

Update 2: To answer another procedural question, the 30 hours encompasses time for consideration, not just debate. E.g., if they go into quorum call and everyone just mills about, that counts against the 30 hours. So do motions, parliamentary inquiries, etc. So don’t expect 30 hours of Senators talking non-stop with the clock stopping and starting.

Update 3: Another question on amendments. Under Senate Rule XXII, amendments have to be filed by 1 PM on the day following the filing of the cloture petition. E.g., 1 PM tomorrow. It appears that Reid filled the amendment tree has been filled so no hostile amendments at all (read: fun and games from Sen. McCain) will be allowed. You can motion to suspend Rule XXII and allow late amendments, etc., but that requires 67 votes to pass and is unlikely. So, it looks like we’ll be fine on the poison pill amendment front.

HELP TO UNDERSTAND THE PROCEDURE OF CLOTURE VOTES
 

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” cloture vote and the story on amendments
By Adam Bink

The most common question asked lately about the impending Senate vote this weekend is “will there be amendments/poison pills that could screw the whole thing up”?

The short answer is no. Sen. Reid, using his prerogative as Majority Leader, has filled the “amendment tree“, which precludes other Senators from offering amendments. Filling the tree generally means blocking anyone from offering anything. The Majority Leader uses his preferential recognition to file friendly or even pro-forma amendments solely for the purpose of blocking anyone else from offering friendly or hostile amendments. A brief explanation from CRS (via, oh noes, Wikileaks!):

”Amendment trees” are charts that illustrate certain principles of precedence which guide the Senate amendment process. When all of the amendments permitted simultaneously by these principles have been offered and are pending, an amendment tree is said to be ”filled,” and no additional amendments may be offered until one or more of those pending is disposed of or laid aside. Given that the presiding officer traditionally affords the Senate majority leader or his designee priority over all others in being recognized, a majority leader can repeatedly secure recognition and ”fill the amendment tree” himself by sequentially offering all of the amendments permitted under applicable circumstances. By doing so, a leader can ”freeze” the amendment process in place, blocking additional floor amendments, at least temporarily. A majority leader might ”fill the tree” in this way to prevent the offering of or voting on of non-germane amendments, to try speed consideration of a measure, or to control the subject or sequence of amendments that may be offered.

[...]

A Senator, particularly the majority leader, might pursue a strategy of “filling the amendment tree” for several reasons, including preventing non-germane (and perhaps politically controversial) amendments to a measure from being offered or voted upon;

attempting to expedite overall Senate consideration of legislation by limiting the overall number of amendments offered;

[...]

After filling an amendment tree, the majority leader may file a cloture petition, either on a pending amendment or on the underlying measure. If cloture is invoked on the measure, not only does it establish a 30-hour limit for further consideration of the bill, it limits amendments that may be offered to those that are germane and any pending nongermane amendments fall. By keeping a tree full until cloture is invoked, a majority leader may be able to prevent action on a pending non-germane amendment, prevent all non-germane amendments from being offered, or limit the consideration of additional amendments altogether.

According to the Senate calendar, Sen. Reid filled the amendment tree last night, which means no room for McCain to offer “poison pill” amendments that could sink the whole bill. You can always try to offer a motion to suspend Rule XXII, which governs cloture, and allow late amendments, etc., but such a motion would need 2/3rds (67 Senators) and is unlikely to happen.

Of course, Sen. Scott Brown’s spokesperson said “if and when a clean repeal bill comes up for a vote, he will support it”, so if the Majority Leader has any substantive amendments that are added that could complicate matters, but if they are merely pro-forma amendments for the purpose of blocking hostile amendments and we get a clean, straight up-or-down vote, then the chance increases that cloture would be invoked on the bill. But the bottom line is that, as David Waldman over at DKos notes, there will be a “straight shot” at the issue as hostile amendments are blocked.

From Yahoo
 

Breaking News:President Obama signs bill to extend tax cuts

Big shock....not

Senate paves the way (via cloture vote) for final vote on the repeal of DADT

vote 63-33 in favour of repeal

http://www.towleroad.com/2010/12/dadt-vote.html

DADT Senate advances to historic vote on repealing DADT 63-33
 

I'm watching too... seems to be dragging on forevah!!

:party: This is great news!

Today is very big news indeed. One more step toward full equality.

Yeah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What a great day! I served in fear of being discovered back in the 80's. I marched as part of the Uniformed Color Guard at the March on Washington in 1993 when the theme was to "Lift the Ban on Gays in the Military" and now here we are, 17 plus years later and it is finally a reality!! A huge day in history for GLBT Service Members and Veterans!

Glynn

More than 13,500 service members have been dismissed under the 1993 law.

"It is time to close this chapter in our history," Obama said in a statement. "It is time to recognize that sacrifice, valor and integrity are no more defined by sexual orientation than they are by race or gender, religion or creed."

If you want to know how your senators voted on the repeal of DADT


State Senator How They Voted
AK Begich (D) For Repeal
AK Murkowski (R) For Repeal
AL Sessions (R) Against Repeal
AL Shelby (R) Against Repeal
AR Lincoln (D) For Repeal
AR Pryor (D) For Repeal
AZ McCain (R) Against Repeal
AZ Kyl (R) Against Repeal
CA Boxer (D) For Repeal
CA Feinstein (D) For Repeal
CO Bennet (D) For Repeal
CO Udall (D) For Repeal
CT Dodd (D) For Repeal
CT Lieberman (I) For Repeal
DE Carper (D) For Repeal
DE Coons (D) For Repeal
FL LeMieux (R) Against Repeal
FL Nelson (D) For Repeal
GA Chambliss (R) Against Repeal
GA Isakson (R) Against Repeal
HI Akaka (D) For Repeal
HI Inouye (D) For Repeal
IA Grassley (R) Against Repeal
IA Harkin (D) For Repeal
ID Crapo (R) Against Repeal
ID Risch (R) Against Repeal
IL Durbin (D) For Repeal
IL Kirk (R) For Repeal
IN Bayh (D) For Repeal
IN Lugar (R) Against Repeal
KS Brownback (R) Against Repeal
KS Roberts (R) Against Repeal
KY Bunning (R) Did Not Vote
KY McConnell (R) Against Repeal
LA Landrieu (D) For Repeal
LA Vitter (R) Against Repeal
MA Brown (R) For Repeal
MA Kerry (D) For Repeal
MD Cardin (D) For Repeal
MD Mikulski (D) For Repeal
ME Collins (R) For Repeal
ME Snowe (R) For Repeal
MI Levin (D) For Repeal
MI Stabenow (D) For Repeal
MN Franken (D) For Repeal
MN Klobuchar (D) For Repeal
MO Bond (R) Against Repeal
MO McCaskill (D) For Repeal
MS Cochran (R) Against Repeal
MS Wicker (R) Against Repeal
MT Baucus (D) For Repeal
MT Tester (D) For Repeal
NC Burr (R) For Repeal
NC Hagan (D) For Repeal
ND Conrad (D) For Repeal
ND Dorgan (D) For Repeal
NE Johanns (R) Against Repeal
NE Nelson (D) For Repeal
NH Gregg (R) Did Not Vote
NH Shaheen (D) For Repeal
NJ Lautenberg (D) For Repeal
NJ Menendez (D) For Repeal
NM Bingaman (D) For Repeal
NM Udall (D) For Repeal
NV Ensign (R) For Repeal
NV Reid (D) For Repeal
NY Gillibrand (D) For Repeal
NY Schumer (D) For Repeal
OH Brown (D) For Repeal
OH Voinovich (R) For Repeal
OK Coburn (R) Against Repeal
OK Inhofe (R) Against Repeal
OR Merkley (D) For Repeal
OR Wyden (D) For Repeal
PA Casey (D) For Repeal
PA Specter (D) For Repeal
RI Reed (D) For Repeal
RI Whitehouse (D) For Repeal
SC DeMint (R) Against Repeal
SC Graham (R) Against Repeal
SD Johnson (D) For Repeal
SD Thune (R) Against Repeal
TN Alexander (R) Against Repeal
TN Corker (R) Against Repeal
TX Cornyn (R) Against Repeal
TX Hutchinson (R) Against Repeal
UT Bennett (R) Against Repeal
UT Hatch (R) Did Not Vote
VA Warner (D) For Repeal
VA Webb (D) For Repeal
VT Leahy (D) For Repeal
VT Sanders (I) For Repeal
WA Cantwell (D) For Repeal
WA Murray (D) For Repeal
WI Feingold (D) For Repeal
WI Kohl (D) For Repeal
WV Manchin (D) Did Not Vote
WV Rockefeller (D) For Repeal
WY Barrasso (R) Against Repeal
WY Enzi (R) Against Repeal

I'm kinda feeling like sending handmade valentines this year to those who voted for the repeal and maybe for those who abstained too.

My Senators are Boxer and Feinstein, and my Rep is Woolsey; it's generally not necessary to check a list to see how they voted 'cause they tend to do the correct thing :thumbsup:

I should probably drop a couple thank you notes...

I live in Texas so I don't generally have to look to know they probably did the incorrect thing. :/

2010 Census Increases Red States Congressional Seats
 

According to Census Bureau data released Tuesday morning, Texas will gain 4 congressional seats. Florida will gain 2 seats. Arizona, Georgia, South Carolina, Utah, Washington and Nevada will each gain an additional congressional district.

New York and Ohio will each lose two congressional seats. Eight states will lose one congressional district in reapportionment: Iowa, Illinois, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan and New Jersey.


http://www.politico.com/arena/

The population shifts to Republican-leaning states are clearly good news for the GOP.

I demand a recount......

Fresh Off ‘Don’t Ask’ Win, Gay-Rights Groups Look Ahead
By Bennett Roth
Dec. 20, 2010, 6:05 p.m.

The repeal of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy” has boosted the spirits of gay-rights activists, but it is not expected to bolster the rest of their legislative agenda, which likely will hit roadblocks in the 112th Congress.

Lobbyists for gay-rights organizations say that next year they will focus on unfinished business including employment nondiscrimination legislation, providing domestic partnership benefits to federal workers and repealing the Defense of Marriage Act.

But they are not optimistic that Republican leaders in the House will push through their issues.

“I don’t think they will go negative on us. I just think they will not do anything to bring about positive change,” said Fred Sainz, the vice president for communications and marketing for the Human Rights Campaign, the largest gay-rights organization.

Some of the activists’ priorities, such as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, have been lingering for years. The House passed a version of ENDA in 2007, but a revised measure that included protections for transgendered people did not make it out of committee this year.

Sainz said his group will focus more on executive branch agencies to pursue equality issues for gay people as well as lobbying at the state level for passage of laws allowing gay marriage. Outside the legislative arena, HRC is pushing more companies to enact gay-friendly policies, such as domestic partner benefits.

R. Clarke Cooper, president of the Log Cabin Republicans, said GOPers have made it clear they will focus more on fiscal rather than social issues next year.

But he added that Republicans may be receptive to legislation that deals with taxes, such as extending tax breaks on health benefits for partners of employees.

Cooper cited as progress the fact that many Republicans have become more comfortable with having gay advocates in their midst, noting that his group participated in the Young Guns events spearheaded by GOP House leaders during the 2010 midterm campaigns.

Cooper also said he has met several times with Speaker-designate John Boehner (R-Ohio), including having his first conversation with the leader at a fundraiser at the Capitol Hill Club.

“He said, ‘Not everyone can be a Susan Collins or Ileana Ros-Lehtinen,’” said Cooper, referring to two socially moderate Republicans, the Maine Senator and Florida House Member, who voted for the repeal.

Cooper said Log Cabin agreed to help raise money and work on behalf of certain Republican candidates. In return, Cooper said, he asked that Republican leaders convey to social conservatives in the party that “if they had nothing nice to say about gays and lesbians that they say nothing at all.”

And a number of conservative Republicans, including Rep. Jeff Flake (Ariz.) and Sen. Richard Burr (N.C.), surprised gay activists in their support of the DADT repeal.

The Log Cabin Republicans had also successfully sued in federal court in California to overturn the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Cooper said that his group would likely wait to drop the suit until after the Pentagon completes its implementation of the new policy, which could take months.

Before the repeal is officially dropped, the president, the defense secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff must certify that the military is ready for the change.

Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which has been active in pushing for the repeal, said his group will now pivot to monitoring the certification process.

Sarvis added that the Pentagon should not prolong the next stage. “They’ve had 10 months to work on these things,” he said.

In the past year, gay-rights lobbyists have spent much of their time and financial resources on fighting to repeal the Clinton-era policy banning openly gay people from serving in the military.

HRC spent $3.5 million on its lobbying efforts, the most ever for any advocacy campaign spearheaded by the association, Sainz said.

He added that the Senate’s approval of the repeal should bolster the group’s fundraising among donors who might otherwise have been dispirited if the measure had failed.

Raising money, however, will be more difficult for groups whose mission has been primarily advocating on behalf of gay members of the military.

“This will definitely change the fundraising calculus for us,” said Alex Nicholson, the executive director of Servicemembers United, a group that advocates on behalf of gay soldiers. Nicholson said about half the group’s funds come from gay foundations.

But he added that his group will still play a major role providing support for gay military members, who now may feel more free to join such an association.

Nicholson, who tangled with some of the other gay-rights groups, said the lobbying campaign was challenging. Part of the difficulty, he said, was having to “cut through the inter-organizational politics.”

“Various groups can be vicious sometimes,” he said, referring to arguments about “who’s going to stand next to whom.”

Other gay-rights lobbyists, however, complained that Nicholson, who criticized Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) for his strategy, was often impolitic in his public comments.

There were also disputes among gay-rights groups over whether celebrities such as Lady Gaga helped their cause by publicly lobbying for the repeal.

Despite the lobbying challenges, gay activists see the final results as historic.

“I liken what happened on Saturday to the Berlin Wall coming down,” Sainz said.


http://www.rollcall.com/news/-201746-1.html