But, wait! There are more bills in the air: Michigan has one seeking to repeal its constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and New Hampshire has one seeking to repeal its newly approved-but-not-yet-enacted marriage equality law.

And, of course, there is still Maine, a dropped ball.

Ever since last Tuesday, when voters in Maine voted to repeal the state’s newly approved-but-not-yet-enacted marriage equality law, opponents of same-sex marriage have touted the vote as a decisive renunciation of equal rights for gay couples.

They claim Maine was a “liberal New England state” where they were “grossly outspent.” Supporters of equal rights, who did eventually concede the defeat, the struggle is “about love and family and that will always be something worth fighting for.”

Both sides of the same-sex marriage issue have re-positioned their resources from Maine to these five other states.

New York

In New York State on Tuesday, the Senate was slated to take up a marriage equality bill. The bill  already passed the state Assembly, but the volatile Senate –where Democrats cling to a 32 to 30 majority—has been reluctant to take it up.

That reluctance continued: The Senate did not take up the bill Tuesday. Instead, Senate leaders huddled with Gov. David Paterson and, according to the New York Times, came up with yet another “vague agreement” to vote on the bill “before the end of the year.”

That may be as soon as Monday of next week, but many observers say they doubt the Senate will put the bill on the floor unless the Democratic leadership knows the bill has 32 votes.  Two Democrats have already said they would not vote for the measure, and the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage sent out a statement this week, saying it would “build a $500,000 war chest to fund a primary challenge to any Republican senator who votes for gay marriage –regardless of the outcome” of the Senate vote.

Washington, D.C.

 Meanwhile, in Washington, D.C., counting votes is not an issue. A D.C. council committee voted 4 to 1 on Tuesday to approve a marriage equality bill there. The full Council will vote on Dec. 1; 10 of the 13 Councilmembers are sponsors of the legislation.

But inevitability is not translating into a smooth victory. The Council Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary heard more than 160 witnesses over two days of hearings testify for and against a bill that will provide for gay couples to be able to obtain marriage licenses. Simultaneously, the D.C. elections board heard testimony for and against a proposal to let D.C. voters decide by initiative whether to ban same-sex marriage.

Wait! Wasn’t it just last month that the elections board said there could be no ballot battle over same-sex marriage? Yes, but that was only in regard to D.C.’s just recently passed law recognizing marriage licenses same-sex couples obtain elsewhere, like in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, or Iowa. (New Hampshire’s law doesn’t go into effect until Jan. 1.)

Now, opponents are before the elections board seeking an initiative to establish a statute limiting the definition of marriage to straight couples. The board is expected to rule on that request in the next two weeks, says Human Rights Campaign regional field director Sultan Shakir.  Those opponents are being aided by the aid of the National Organization of Marriage and have the legal aid of another staunch conservative anti-gay group, the Alliance Defense Fund.

Perhaps trying to head off some of the controversy, the Council Committee on Tuesday agreed to amend the marriage equality bill by giving religious institutions more leeway to discriminate against same-sex couples. The original bill allowed religious institutions to refuse to accommodate same-sex weddings through such services as rental of space as long as they did not accommodate straight couples.

 But the Committee agreed to allow religious institutions to refuse only gay couples in spaces owned by the institution. One committee member tried to expand that even further to non-religious institutions, but the Committee said no.

The Committee also amended the legislation to continue providing a domestic partnership option for both straight and gay couples.

 New Jersey

Gay marriage supporters are considering a hurried run at the New Jersey legislature –a hurry necessitated by the defeat of incumbent Gov. Jon Corzine (D) in the Nov. 3 election. Corzine has said he would support of equal rights for gay couples, but his successor, Chris Christie (R), has promised to veto any such legislation.

 The New Jersey legislature passed a civil unions law after the state supreme court ruled that the state constitution required gay couples be able to obtain the same benefits of marriage as straight couples can obtain. Momentum has been growing, however, for full marriage equality.

But New Jersey is also the original home-base for the National Organization for Marriage and that group is already playing its “save the children” radio ads warning that allowing gay couples to marry will lead to homosexuality being “forced” on school children.

The Star-Ledger in Newark reported that NOM funded robo-calls to “every household in selected legislative districts” and that the Catholic church has been distributing letters statewide to rally opposition to any marriage equality bill.

Like New York, passage of a marriage equality bill in New Jersey will require some Republican votes.

Oregon, Michigan, New Hampshire

Meanwhile, efforts are underway in a couple of states to untie the constitutional binds that currently prevent states from treating same-sex couples the same as straight couples when it comes to marriage licensing.

In Oregon, the statewide gay group Basic Rights Oregon announced last week that it is launching a petition drive to put on the ballot in 2012 an initiative to repeal the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage there. Voters approved the ban by initiative in 2004, but in 2007, the state legislature approved a law to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and another law to allow same-sex couples to register as domestic partners.

In Michigan, the House speaker pro tem, State Rep. Pam Byrnes, made good on a promise she announced in June: She introduced a measure seeking repeal of the constitutional ban approved by voters there in 2004. If the bill receives two-thirds approval in the House and Senate, it will then go to voters in 2010.

But in New Hampshire, there is an attempt to repeal a marriage equality law approved earlier this year. The law is set to go into effect Jan. 1.

The idea for the bill emerged long before the vote in Maine, but the conservative Union Leader newspaper got the ball rolling last week with a blistering editorial, claiming that the repeal vote in Maine jostles the neighboring domino.

The paper said at least two bills are already being drafted to undo the marriage equality law –one by legislative repeal, one by voter repeal.

Openly gay State Rep. Jim Splaine, who sponsored the marriage equality bill earlier this year, said he expects opponents to file the repeal bill in January. Because the marriage equality bill passed on very close votes last spring, said Splaine, “we shouldn’t take anything for granted.”

© 2009 Keen News Service

Evan Wolfson of the national gay rights group Freedom to Marry said Monday he thinks “hearts and minds are changing” and that Oregon voters will at some point be willing to reverse their 2004 vote banning same-sex unions.

With states such as Massachusetts and Iowa now allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry, he said, people around the country “are realizing there is no good reason to exclude them from marriage.”

“They are seeing with their own eyes families helped and no one hurt,” said Wolfson, who traveled from New York to address rallies in Portland and Eugene.

The announcement of the Oregon campaign comes as voters in neighboring Washington state are deciding Tuesday whether to uphold that state’s domestic partnership law. Also Tuesday, voters in Maine are deciding whether to uphold a law legalizing gay marriage.

In 2004, Oregon voters passed a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between a man and a woman.

The state’s largest gay rights organization, Basic Rights Oregon, thinks next year’s election would likely be too soon to take the issue back to Oregon voters.

Basic Rights officials said Monday they want to launch a statewide “conversation” with voters on the issue well in advance of placing something on the ballot, in 2012 or beyond.

“The heat of a campaign is no time to have a calm, heartfelt conversation about why civil marriage is so important” to gays and lesbians, said group’s executive director, Jeana Frazzini.

Gay rights advocates have been encouraged by the legalization of same-sex marriage in six states: Massachusetts, Iowa, Maine, Vermont, Connecticut and New Hampshire. They believe Oregon voters eventually will be ready to move in that direction.

The only way for that to happen in Oregon, though, would be to persuade voters to reverse themselves by repealing the state’s existing constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Tim Nashif, a conservative political consultant who led the 2004 campaign to pass Oregon’s gay marriage ban, said he’s seen nothing to indicate that the state’s voters have had a change of heart on the subject.

In the states where same-sex marriage has been legalized, he said, it’s been the courts or the legislature that have enacted those laws, not the voters.

“In California, one of the most socially liberal states, voters last year overturned a court ruling” legalizing same-sex unions, Nashif said.

He also said the same coalition of groups that worked to put Oregon’s ban on the 2004 ballot will make a major effort to defeat any effort to repeal it.

Oregon became one of the first places to allow gay marriage in 2004 when Multnomah County moved to legalize it. That lasted about six weeks until a judge ruled that there was no right to gay marriage under state law, thus invalidating 3,000 marriage licenses issued to gay and lesbian couples. Then voters approved the statewide constitutional amendment.,

Since then, the 2007 Legislature approved a domestic partners law giving same-sex couples some, but not all, of the rights and responsibilities afforded to married couples.

Silverton Together, a nonprofit community organization in Silverton, filed the complaint after Rasmussen wore a short skirt and halter top to speak to a group of teenagers.

“It is surprising and disappointing that an organization chartered to promote diversity and cultural understanding would take a public position of intolerance,” Rasmussen said.

The group’s executive director, Brenda Sturdevant, said that her group regularly sends youth home to change into appropriate clothing. “I expect our public leaders to follow the same guidelines that we have for our youth,” she told the Statesman Journal.

Rasmussen -who identifies as transgender prefers male pronouns- has called the dress code unnecessary and explained that he wore the outfit due to the heat.

“It was hot and sticky. My attire was completely appropriate to the circumstances and I also received a number of compliments during the day,” he said.

Adams, who is openly gay, has admitted that while campaigning for mayor, he lied about his relationship with Beau Breedlove, but he denies they were involved in a sexual relationship before Breedlove was 18.

Breedlove said he was 17 when he and Adams first kissed, but Attorney General John Kroger said in a report that Breedlove’s account of the relationship lacked credibility because of past inconsistent statements and a prior felony conviction, as well as evidence he sought financial gain from the scandal.

“At times, a responsible prosecutor may seek to charge an individual with a crime based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness,” Kroger wrote. “However, a responsible prosecutor will do so only when there are no serious questions about the credibility of the witness’s account.”

Two former attorneys for Breedlove said they did not know whether he currently has legal representation.

The sex scandal broke in January after Adams took office. The controversy divided Portland’s gay community – some said he should resign, others that he should stay.

“I made mistakes in my personal life that led to this investigation. As a result, the city I love was put through an ordeal,” Adams said in a statement. “I am gratified the investigation has been completed, and I want to reiterate that I am sorry.”

Sexual contact with Breedlove before he turned 18 would have been a misdemeanor.

At a news conference Monday, Kroger said his office was not making any judgment about Breedlove’s truthfulness or his “personal credibility.” Instead, he said, the report questioned “the credibility of his account” in terms of how it would hold up during a hearing.

Breedlove refused to answer certain questions under questioning by Kroger’s office, including how much money he’s made from publicity surrounding the scandal, according to the report. He also refused to provide certain witnesses, the report said.

The report also noted that Adams was slow in providing investigators access to certain phone memory cards and e-mail accounts.

Adams, 45, currently faces a recall effort on behalf of a group that claims he subverted the democratic process with deceptive campaigning and abused his power. The group claims the recall has nothing to do with Adams’ sexual orientation.

Jasun Wurster, one of the organizers of the recall effort, says it will continue despite Monday’s report.

“It’s about deliberately lying to get elected, orchestrating an elaborate cover up, which included lying to the press, and his abuse of power,” Wurster said.

Kroger also looked into whether Adams hired a reporter from the Portland Mercury for a position on his staff in an effort to cover up the relationship with Breedlove, but found no evidence to merit a criminal charge.

The report also considered whether Adams asked for campaign contributions under false pretenses but again found no evidence of a crime.

The 59-0 vote also condemned the recent brutal beating of two gay men at a Seaside, Ore. beach.  The two men, Samson Deal and Kevin Petterson, were on spring break March 22 when several men dressed in black approached them from behind and beat the pair into unconsciousness. 

After an initial review of the case, Seaside Police Chief Bob Goss announced that his department would be treat the beatings as a hate crime because the victims indicated that the assailants had yelled anti-gay slurs during the attack.

The Shepard Act passed the House of Representatives last month and adds sexual orientation to the list of categories covered under federal hate crime law. It currently is before the Senate, but committee hearings have not been set.

Just hours before the House vote, President Obama urged Congress to pass the bill.

” I urge members on both sides of the aisle to act on this important civil rights issue by passing this legislation to protect all of our citizens from violent acts of intolerance – legislation that will enhance civil rights protections, while also protecting our freedom of speech and association,” the President said in a statement.

The legislation was named for Matthew Shepard, the 21-year-old college student who was murdered in an anti-gay hate crime in Wyoming in October 1998. It would provide local police and sheriff’s departments with federal resources to combat hate violence.  

Gay rights groups have been fighting to have the legislation passed for over a decade.

Because there is no federal law mandating states and municipalities to report hate crimes, they are often underreported.  However, the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s own statistics, based on voluntary reporting, show that since 1991 over 100,000 hate crime offenses have been reported to the FBI, with 7,624 reported in 2007, the FBI’s most recent reporting period.  

Violent crimes based on sexual orientation constituted 16.6 percent of all hate crimes in 2007, with 1,265 reported for the year. In addition, while not captured in the federal statistics, transgender Americans too often live in fear of violence.

The domestic partner law allows same-sex couples –  and opposite-sex couples who do not marry -to form legally-recognized partnerships. It was passed by the legislature in 2007 and went into effect in January 2008.

Under the partnership law, couples who register are guaranteed the right to visit partners in the hospital and make medical decisions, file joint state tax returns, and have joint health insurance plans or take sick leave to care for their partners.

But a growing number of same-sex couples have complained the law was cobbled together and ended up causing problems.

“Oregon’s domestic partnership system creates a patchwork of protections for committed same-sex couples,” said Jeana Frazzini, Executive Director of Basic Rights Oregon. 

There are three main revisions to the law. 

The first creates a uniform and streamlined process for domestic partners seeking a name change, updating this process to reflect the law for opposite-sex married couples.

The second provision clears up confusion for same-sex couples whose relationships are recognized as civil unions or marriages in other states. 

The third preserves a long-standing state practice related to taxation on employer-provided partner health care. 

State Rep. Tina Kotek (D) said that the existing law is “confusing and problematic not only for the couples but also for the agencies involved.”

The bill passed the House by a vote of 51 to 8 and moves to the state Senate for consideration.

The vote came after a gay man was kicked out of the hospital room of his sick partner earlier this month.

While the law allows registered domestic partners to visit one another in the hospital and make medical decisions, an uninformed nurse told the man he had to leave his partners’ bedside, just as end-of- life decisions came under discussion.

LGBT advocates said that the experience indicates that Oregon’s domestic partnership law is falling short of its promise.

“Can you imagine a nurse at our state’s premier teaching hospital telling a woman that she wasn’t allowed to visit her husband’s hospital room when he was on his death bed? This couple’s experience demonstrates all too well that Oregon’s domestic partnership systems falls far short of its promise. Without the honor and respect that comes with marriage, caring and committed couples have a long way to go before they experience equality,” said Frazzini.

The original domestic partner law was passed after a legal battle for gay marriage failed.

The issue of same-sex marriage in the state arose in March 2004 when Multnomah County began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. 

Soon after, the county was ordered to stop, but not before 3,000 marriage licenses had been granted. The constitutional amendment, known as Measure 36, was passed that November.

Current school District policy prohibits non-district-sanctioned clubs from making announcements or posting information on school grounds that is considered “proselytizing.”

Connie McNair, a junior and member of the school’s Gay Straight Alliance, said that the school was censoring the group.

“We just want the same privileges as other clubs have.”

This week Lambda Legal sent a letter to South Medford High School Principal Kevin Campbell, Medford School District Superintendent Phil Long, and the School Board reminding them that students are protected by the First Amendment and the federal Equal Access Act.

The EAA prohibits schools receiving federal funds and which allow any extracurricular student groups to meet from discriminating against other groups.

The letter accuses school officials of imposing restrictions on the Medford High GSA to which no other on-campus group is subject and that seriously burden club members’ free speech and associational rights.

These include requiring GSA members to get prior approval for their announcements and activities from an assistant principal, deeming the club’s legitimate educational activities illicit “proselytizing,” and even prohibiting the club from formally announcing today’s “Day of Silence.”

In the letter, Lambda Legal Staff Attorney Tara Borelli writes “While we hope that the school’s actions to deter the GSA’s activities are simply the result of confusion about its obligations, the law in this area is well–established and school’s unequal treatment of the GSA is difficult to understand and should be remedied swiftly.”

“It’s simply unlawful for South Medford High School to create unequal obstacles for Connie or the GSA, or to stifle the GSA’s announcements about the Day of Silence,” said Borelli.  “We want to remind South Medford school officials that they have a responsibility to protect lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students, and we’re asking them to lift any restriction applying to the GSA but not to other groups.”

A school district spokesperson said that the district has policies designed to protect LGBT students.

“This is an opportunity for us to learn and refine what we’re doing,” said Doug Jantzi, Medford schools secondary education director. “Our goal is that students will have a voice and equity, and we will make corrections if needed.”

The names of the two victims are being withheld, but police told KPTV that both men are from Washington state.

The two men were on the beach near downtown Seaside around 3 a.m. with a group of people around a beach fire.  When the two got up to walk to the water, they were assaulted. 

When the men regained consciousness, their attackers were gone.  The pair helped each other to a nearby hotel and then transported to hospital.

Police told the station they are treating the attack as a hate crime and are appealing for witnesses – particularly the other people who were with the men prior to the beating.

Local residents told KPTV that Seaside is not known as unfriendly toward gays.

“It’s a small town. Only time it gets crazy is when there’s a lot of tourists and people in town,” Evan White told the station.

The domestic partner law allows same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples unable to marry to form legally recognized partnerships. It was passed by the legislature in 2007 and went into effect in January 2008.

Under the partnership law, couples who register are guaranteed the right to visit partners in hospital and make medical decisions, file joint state tax returns, and have joint health insurance plans or take sick leave to care for their partners.

The law was passed after a legal battle for gay marriage failed.

The issue of same-sex marriage in the state arose in March 2004, when Multnomah County began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Soon after, the county was ordered to stop, but not before 3,000 marriage licenses had been granted. The constitutional amendment, known as Measure 36, was passed that November.

In 2005, the state Supreme Court ruled the amendment legal and efforts to enact the domestic partner registry began.

An analysis by The Oregonian newspaper of the couples who have registered shows that about half of the same-sex couples live in Multnomah County and 70 percent are women.

LGBT rights activists say for some couples the partner law may not be practical, others are holding out – hoping the amendment eventually will be overturned and the state will allow them to marry.

If Adams had exploited an innocent youth or abused his power in office to obtain sex, I would not be defending him. The affair with Beau Breedlove, however, was consensual and Breedlove told the Oregonian newspaper:

“I do not see any relationship that I ever had with Sam as me being taken advantage of. I do not feel like I was ever a victim.”

Given this reality, I am having a difficult time understanding exactly why this is a controversy. The hypocrisy, double standard and anti-gay undertones are unmistakable. If a 42-year-old male politician had hooked up with an 18-year-old Hooter’s girl, he would get high fives. If he’s gay, people with pitchforks want to hang him from a high tree. For the conquering straight male, the affair would be a sign of virility. For the gay man, it is the mark of vulgarity.

This all goes back to the despicable stereotype that evil homosexuals recruit children into the so-called “lifestyle.” People have to realize that sacrificing Adams won’t erase this insidious myth from the minds of ignorant people who choose to believe it.

As in most self-righteous inquisitions, the pious finger pointers say it is “not about the sex, it is because Adam’s lied” to the media about the tryst. This is the same disingenuous nonsense that Ken “Porn” Starr and the GOP used to rationalize their attempted coup of Bill Clinton.

In my view, Adams is the victim of an overzealous media asking questions about a relationship that was none of their business. There were only two legitimate questions that should ever have been asked of Adams:

Was Breedlove of legal age?

Did Adams supervise him at work?

We know the answer to the first question (barely legal), and Breedlove was an intern in the state capitol, which had nothing to do with the city council, where Adams had served as a commissioner.

So, why is this a story?

When asked about this affair during his campaign, Adams had every right to mislead reporters. What detractors call lying, was really just personal discretion. What next, are we going to pass sunshine laws that mandate public officials must sign sexual disclosure forms listing all sexual liaisons and post their names on the Internet? Because, that is essentially what people want when they insist Adams had an obligation to discuss his private life with the media.

Like starving vultures, the press is now sensationalizing the issue. For example, ABC News’ website published an Associated Press story headlined, “Gay Teen Sex Scandal Mayor Won’t Resign.” This is misleading and irresponsible journalism that makes Adams appear to be a letch who hangs around middle schools with lollipops.

To be fair, Adams did let down the GLBT community. When asked about the affair during his campaign, he should have either told the truth or said, “none of your business.” Instead, he accused his primary opponent of gay baiting and complained, “This is one of the worst smears you can make against a gay guy. It preys on the homophobic stereotype that gay men cannot be trusted with young people.”

Adams diminished the noble cause for equality when he hid behind it to conceal his relationship. He should have acted with more integrity and not made his personal saga about the larger GLBT community.

Still, Adams did apologize profusely and should be allowed to move on. Human beings are not perfect, especially politicians. Last week, hundreds of citizens rallied in front of City Hall in support of Adams, giving him the strength to fight on.

Finally, I’m not begrudging those who think that it is irresponsible and wrong for Adams to have had sex with someone half his age. Those who believe that Adams does not share their values, have every right to vote him out of office when he is up for reelection. But the notion that Adams should be recalled is nothing short of an ugly witch-hunt.

The political judgment of Sam Adams is certainly questionable. There is no question, however, that his actions do not warrant the harsh judgment of those who demand that he resign. One may not like the mayor’s personal choices, but this so-called “scandal” is nothing more than a fake crime scene in search of a real crime.

Adams is no superman, as many supporters thought he once was, but he is also no scoundrel. It is time people stop taking potshots at the mayor, and let him return to work so he can repair the potholes his constituents elected him to fix.