Tuesday May 31st 6:30pm – Littleton, NH

The State of New Hampshire established a commission to study ‘same-sex marriage and all of its legal equivalents. This commission has determined that one of the ways it will gather information and a sense of what the citizens of NH want is to hold four public hearings around the state.

There will be one in Littleton at the Opera House which is on Route 302 at the intersection with Route 115. (The other hearings will be held in Portsmouth, Nashua and Keene.)

It is critically important that the supporters of same sex marriage make a positive impact on the commission members in Littleton.

Contact: Ed Butler EdoftheNotch@aol.com (603)374-6131

NHFTM Message points on Marriage Equality

The following memo includes messages and talking points on marriage equality. We have also included some questions and answers on these topics.

Message points on marriage equality

• Marriage is a commitment. It is about sharing, love, trust, and compromise. Two adults who make this private personal choice to form a life-long commitment should not be denied the right to marry just because they are gay or lesbian.

• Gay Americans serve in the military, keep our communities safe as firefighters and police officers, staff our hospitals, build our cities, and pay taxes. Denying gay couples the right to legally marry takes away legal rights in pensions, health insurance, hospital visitations, and inheritance that other long-term committed couples enjoy. We should end this discrimination.

• Today we look back, almost disbelieving, on the time when many Americans did not tolerate marriage between Catholics and Protestants, between whites and blacks. Unfortunately, our laws continue to deny a basic right to marry to two adults simply because they are gay or lesbian.

Talking points on marriage equality

1. Frame the debate as “denying the right to marry” and “discrimination.” Avoid talking about “recognizing,” “allowing” or “supporting” gay marriage. These terms suggest to voters an approval of gay behavior, which is a larger leap for many voters than no longer denying rights or doing away with discrimination. The frame of not “denying” rights is easier to agree with because these voters can still disapprove of the behavior personally but argue that gay individuals should not be discriminated against and that gay couples in life-long committed relationships should not be denied the right to marry.

2. Talk about marriage as commitment, sharing, loving relationships, and a personal choice that should not be denied to couples just because they are the same sex. Avoid terms such as “gay marriage,” “same-sex marriage,” “civil marriage,” or others because they only serve to set gay couples apart as different and do more harm than good for long-term communications. Instead talk about not denying the right to marry to two people of the same sex.

3. Remind the public that gay Americans are American citizens who pay taxes and protect our communities as fire fighters, police officers, and by serving in the military, and therefore desire the same rights and protections as other Americans.

4. Illustrate the harm of denying these rights – lack of legal rights – hospital visitation, inheritance rights, etc.

5. Without attacking the tradition of marriage directly, remind people that there comes a time when our country breaks with traditions that wrongly discriminate against individuals. For example, today we look back almost disbelieving on the time when many Americans did not tolerate marriage between Catholics and Protestants, or between Blacks and Whites. Unfortunately, our laws continue to deny the right to marry to adults just because they are gay or lesbian.

6. Never say lifestyle as this implies orientation is a choice.Questions & Answers

Question and Answer.

Q. Hasn’t marriage been traditionally defined as between a man and a woman?

A. Marriage is about commitment, love, sharing, and compromise. It is a private, personal choice that should not be denied to couples just because they are the same sex.

Not long ago it was a tradition in America that women were not allowed to vote and that Blacks had to sit in the back of the bus. There came a time when America decided these traditions needed to be fixed to end discrimination.

Q. What about religious groups who believe homosexuality is wrong – won’t this pressure them to recognize homosexual couples?

A. No. We are not asking people to change their religious beliefs. There are many things about modern society that religious organizations disagree with, such as divorce and birth control that are now legal in this country.

Q. What about those people whose say their religious beliefs are threatened by gay marriage?

A. We are not asking people to change their religious beliefs. Just as we did not ask them to change their religious beliefs when we legalized divorce and legalized birth control. Ending discrimination of gays and lesbians is the same thing.

Q. The majority of Americans feel gay marriage is wrong. What do you say to them?

A. American attitudes toward marriage are complex. Americans’ attitudes toward the rights of gays and lesbians are evolving just as attitudes on civil rights of other groups of Americans have evolved over time. We do know from the polling data that Americans oppose discrimination of gays and lesbians.

Marriage is about commitment, love, sharing, and compromise. It is a private, personal choice that should not be denied to couples just because they are the same sex.

Q. Won’t marriage persuade young people to be gay?

A. Being gay is not a matter of choice -- it is something you are born with. People cannot be persuaded to be gay or straight. It is just part of who they are.

Q. What about the impact on children?

A. Allowing two people who are in a loving and committed long-term relationship to have legal protections will have a positive impact on the children they parent, adopt and care for, and for other children in their communities.

New York state's comptroller announced that 198 convicted rapists and sex offenders had been reimbursed by Medicaid for Viagra between Jan. 1, 2000, and March 31, 2005.

They received the medication after they were paroled or completed their sentences for crimes against victims that Comptroller Alan Hevesi said were as young as 2 years old.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said he will introduce legislation to make sure sex offenders cannot use Medicaid to pay for Viagra. "The fact that some of the most dangerous perpetrators are allowed access to Viagra on the taxpayer's dime is mind-boggling," he said.

from USA Today

I am not sure how I feel about this. The Ring Wing and Frist's Crazy are PISSED!!! That is good. The rank and file nuts don't like this deal. The real answer to whether this was a good or bad deal will probably take time to be seen. Russ Feingold and David Sirota don't like it.

From Daily Kos:

Still no details beyond the AP's brief description:

Under the agreement, Democrats would pledge not to filibuster any of Bush's future appeals court or Supreme Court nominees except in "extraordinary circumstances."

For their part, Republicans agreed not to support an attempt to strip Democrats of their right to block votes.Some of the judges will get their up and down vote, at least two others will not. Frist doesn't look to happy on the Senate floor. Reid seemed happy.

Thing is, we don't know that we had the votes. We had 49. We needed two more. Did we have them?

Now, some wanted to roll the dice, but had we lost, Dobson would've chosen the next Supreme Court justice. I wasn't willing to make that bet, and I'm glad we didn't have to.

On top of everything, Frist looks weak. He's failed his crazies. He's finished.

More from Daily Kos:

For those who want to be angry at the deal, Feingold is with you:

This is not a good deal for the U.S. Senate or for the American people. Democrats should have stood together firmly against the bullying tactics of the Republican leadership abusing their power as they control both houses of Congress and the White House. Confirming unacceptable judicial nominations is simply a green light for the Bush administration to send more nominees who lack the judicial temperament or record to serve in these lifetime positions. I value the many traditions of the Senate, including the tradition of bipartisanship to forge consensus. I do not, however, value threatening to disregard an important Senate tradition, like occasional unlimited debate, when necessary. I respect all my colleagues very much who thought to end this playground squabble over judges, but I am disappointed in
this deal.

As an aside, the following judges are NOT getting an up or down vote: William Myers, Henry Said, Brett Kavanaughm William Haynes.

From SirotaBlog:

His first thoughts:

The "deal" on the filibuster essentially lets Bush have a number of his most extreme judicial nominees, meaning policy-wise, Democrats agreed to let the filibuster as a regularly-used tool be weakened, or at least be frightened into a corner. It also could be eliminated (or severely reduced) in practice because now Democrats may refrain from using it for fear of raising another "nuclear" debate. The effect of all of this could be to kill/weaken the filibuster IN PRACTICE - one of the GOP's big objectives, so they can ram their agenda through Congress, and fire up their right-wing base.

However, the other goal of the GOP is to keep the filibuster around as a CONCEPT or threat - as a demon for conservatives to continue railing against. As Tom Frank aptly notes in his writings, the conservative movement does not function unless there is some target to run a permanent campaign against ("obstructionsts" is one of the big ones). The continuation of the CONCEPT or threat of a filibuster by Democrats - especially now that its profile has been elevated by the media - gives the GOP that target, even though it may not be used, and has been weakened in PRACTICE.

Second Thoughts:

First and foremost - the radical right is freaking out. That means that, policy-wise, we've not only done something right by defeating the "nuclear" option, but politically we've opened up a divide between the lunatic fringe wing of the GOP, and the (albeit dying and tiny) mainstream wing. It also may split open a divide between the economic fat cats and the religious right that make up the GOP base. This is no small achievement - and bodes well for Democrats. As the Republicans themselves have shown in unfortunately splitting Democrats apart on core economic issues, when parties break apart, their own power is weakened.

Secondly, in the short term, the defeat of the "nuclear" option will be chalked up to moderation, and credited to Democrats. With polls showing disapproval of Congress at a high, that's especially good. The polls mean that people don't like what Congress is doing - and if Democrats get credit for stopping some of what Congress is doing, that's a positive, at least in the short term. As long as they don't get labeled obstructionist ON GOOD THINGS (like they dishonestly did on the creation of the Department of Homeland Security), that could also be a good thing in the long term, as long as Democrats play it right.


Sirota Offers Good Advice:

I'm going suck up my worry for now, have faith, and be an optimist (something that doesn't come natural to me) - a cautious one, but an optimist. Here's hoping the party can turn this into a long-term victory.

Let's say this is a win for us and see what happens.

Recent Senate Votes

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users - Vote Agreed to (89-11)The Senate passed this $295 billion bill that would fund transportation projects over the next six years.
Sen. Judd Gregg voted NO......send e-mail or see bio
Sen. John Sununu voted NO......send e-mail or see bio

Recent House Votes

Department of Homeland Security Appropriations, FY 2006 - Vote Passed (424-1, 8 Not Voting)The House passed this $30.1 billion bill funding the Department of Homeland Security for the 2006 fiscal year.
Rep. Charles Bass voted YES......send e-mail or see bio

Department of the Interior Appropriations Act, FY2006 - Vote Passed (329-89, 15 Not Voting)The House passed this $26.2 billion bill funding the Interior Department and the Environmental Protection Agency for the 2006 fiscal year.
Rep. Charles Bass voted YES......send e-mail or see bio

Right-wing radio host and president of the right-wing group "American Families Association" Tom Wildmon claims liberals have more time to fight for their issues because they "don't have the kind of family responsibilities that most people have, and certainly not church responsibilities."

From C4AP

Representatives from the American Psychiatric Association – the country's leading mental health organization – voted Sunday to support marriage for same-sex couples. The group is the first major medical association to give its support to the issue.

From C4AP

There is a really good speaker going to Littleton this Wednesday. Please come out if you can.

The North Country Democratic Committee will be meeting this coming WEDNESDAY May 25, 2005 at the Clam Shell Restaurant, Littleton.

The guest speaker is David T.Z Mindich, the author of TUNED OUT, Why Americans Under 40 Don't Follow the News.

An optional social time and dinner will be from 5:30 P.M. to 7:00. Prof. Mindich will be on at 7:00 P.M. The speaker's program is free and open to the press and public.

Here's what Walter Cronkite said about the book: "This is a very important book. Professor Mindich has undertaken to determine the extent of the news illiteracy of an entire generation of American young people, and, to speculate with authorities in broadcasting and print as to what can be done about it. This volume is a handbook for the desperately needed attempt to inspire in the young generation a curiosity that generates the news habit. Their lack of knowledge or even interest in our government bodes a critical danger to democracy as they become the nation's voting majority."

More information can be found at: Http://academics.smcvt.edu/dmindich

After Professor Mindich completes his remarks they'll be an abbreviated business meeting of the NCDC, to adjourn at 9:00 P.M.

Nuke subsidies being added to McCain-Lieberman climate bill

The latest draft of the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act proposes hundreds of millions of dollars in new subsidies for the nuclear power industry, in the form of a cost-splitting arrangement that would have the feds shoulder half the expense of developing and getting regulatory approval for three new nuke-plant designs. The proposal (not yet finalized) is reportedly a bargaining chip to win conservative support for caps on greenhouse-gas emissions. One might expect the idea to run into a brick wall of opposition from environmental groups, but that wall shows signs of cracking. Several high-profile greens have recently argued that given the grim realities of global warming, nuclear power deserves a second look. But Thomas Cochran of the Natural Resources Defense Council urges enviros to keep the focus where it belongs: "The issue isn't: Do you support nuclear? The issue should be: Do you support massive subsidies to the tune of billions of dollars for nuclear power? The answer is no."

straight to the source: The New York Times, Felicity Barringer, 15 May 2005

From Weekly Grist 5/17/05 http://www.grist.org

Newsweek ran a sensational claim based on an anonymous source who turned out to be completely wrong. While one can't blame the subsequent violence entirely on this report, it's fair to say that credulous reporting like this contributed to a climate in which many innocent Muslims died.

The inaccurate Newsweek report appeared in the magazine's March 17, 2003 issue, on the eve of the invasion of Iraq. It read in part:

"Saddam could decide to take Baghdad with him. One Arab intelligence officer interviewed by Newsweek spoke of 'the green mushroom' over Baghdad--the modern-day caliph bidding a grotesque bio-chem farewell to the land of the living alongside thousands of his subjects as well as his enemies. Saddam wants to be remembered. He has the means and the demonic imagination. It is up to U.S. armed forces to stop him before he can achieve notoriety for all time."

Unlike a more recent Newsweek item (5/9/05), involving accusations that Guantanamo interrogators flushed a copy of the Quran down a toilet, Newsweek has yet to retract the bogus report about the "green mushroom" threat. The magazine's Quran charge has been linked to rioting in Afghanistan and elsewhere that has left at least 16 dead; alarmist coverage like Newsweek's about Saddam Hussein's nonexistent weapons of mass destruction paved the way for an invasion that has caused, according to the best epidemiological research available (Lancet, 11/20/04), an estimated 100,000 deaths.

Newsweek was right to retract the Quran story--mainly because the magazine claimed to have "sources" for the information, when Newsweek's subsequent descriptions of how it acquired the story mention only a single source. But it's far from clear that Newsweek's source was inaccurate in saying that U.S. investigators had uncovered abuse of a Quran in the course of a recent investigation; similar allegations have repeatedly been made by former Guantanamo prisoners (Washington Post, 3/26/03; London Guardian, 12/3/03; Daily Mirror, 3/12/04; Center for Constitutional Rights, 8/4/04; La Gazette du Maroc, 4/12/05; New York Times, 5/1/05; BBC, 5/2/05; cites compiled by Antiwar.com, 5/16/05).

It has been repeatedly said--including by Newsweek itself, in its initial apology (5/23/05)--that the magazine's source erred in saying that the Quran incident was contained in a report for the Pentagon's Southern Command. In fact, the original report said that the incident was "expected" to be in the report--an expectation that could have easily been altered by the fact that the explosive allegation became public.

Newsweek's retraction of the Quran story, contrasted with the lack of any correction of its "green mushroom" claim and other similarly erroneous WMD coverage, is quite illustrative of the actual rules--quite different from the ostensible rules that are taught in journalism school--that govern contemporary journalism:

* Anonymous sources are fine, as long as they are promoting rather than challenging official government policy.

* It's all right for your reporting to be completely wrong, as long as your errors are in the service of power.

* The human cost of bad reporting need only be counted when people who matter are doing the counting.

from Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting