Despite what the Free Press has characterized as “silence” on environmental issues (limited free access/paywall) during the presidential campaign, there’s plenty of noise being made here in Vermont. To whit, the Vermont League of Conservation Voters has just released its environmental scorecard for the legislature.

The group looked at votes on eight legislative bills in the 2011-12 session, including, in the House: Act 51 (wildlife bill, no more pet moose); Act 47 (net metering, support for clean energy minus Entergy VY); Act 73 (citizen input to environmental violation fines); Act 152 (fracking ban); Act 142 (working lands); Act 138 (regulation of flood hazard areas, river corridors), along with two others. Five of those bills were also scored in the Senate.

From the press release:

In the House, eighty-nine legislators consisting of Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and Progressives received the VT LCV endorsement. All of these representatives had a positive environmental voting record for the 2011/12 biennium of 75% or better.

In the Senate, twenty members consisting of Democrats, Republicans and Progressives received the VT LCV endorsement. All of these senators had a positive environmental voting record for the 2011/12 biennium of 80% or better.

In addition, VT LCV announced the endorsements of three former House members that are currently candidates for the Senate. These individuals have demonstrated strong environmental leadership in the House and have an excellent lifetime voting record.

No surprise that the Democratic House members’ average score was 90%, compared to a Republican House members’ average score of just 33%. The Progressives just beat the Democrats at 93% for an average, both lagged by the Independents at 82%.

It was a lot closer in the Senate on average: Progressives 90%, Democrats 86%, Republicans 83%.

Some mild surprises after the jump.

You can check out the list for yourself here.

First, I confess I follow most environmental issues only through their large outlines, not the details. So perhaps I shouldn’t have been surprised to see Sen. Richie Westman (R-Lamoille), Sen. Bill Doyle (R/WF-Washington), and Sen. Dick Mazza (D-Grand Isle) on the list of those receiving endorsements. (OT: One also wonders how both Doyle and Anthony Pollina, P/D/WF, got the Working Families party endorsement.) Doyle voted 100 percent for the scored bills; even Sen. Philip Baruth (D-Chittenden) opposed one of them.

And, I notice, Sen. Dick Sears (D-Bennington) didn’t make the cut, while Sen. Joe Benning (R-Caledonia) did.

Rep. Anne Donahue (R-Washington-1) is the only Republican on the House list of endorsees. And the Republicans wonder why they can’t get good candidates and more voters to put them in office. No surprise that Dustin Degree, the one-term Republican rep from St. Albans, friend of developers everywhere, didn’t make it onto the endorsement list, but a little surprise that Carolyn Branagan (R-Georgia) also didn’t.

Rep. Kathie Keenan is the only Franklin County Democrat to receive the VT LCV’s endorsement. Presumably Sen. Sara Kittell’s name is absent because she chose not to run again. But what happened to Rep. Michel Consejo (D-Sheldon/Swanton), who voted well below (50%) his lifetime average of 77%? Gary Gilbert (D-Fairfax), retiring, had three absences, which count as no votes.

The only House members to score a goose egg were Phil Winters (R-Williamstown), with five absences and three votes against scored bills; Ron Hubert (R-Milton) with six votes against; and Patrick Brennan (R-Colchester), with two absences and six votes against.

All of the Progressives and most of the Independents made the endorsement list, suggesting that they get it about the environment as an overall issue and in the particular ways that environmental consciousness affects their constituents’ votes.

The whole list, with bill descriptions, scores and votes, is well worth your time if you haven’t already voted.

( – promoted by Jack McCullough)

Rep. Peter Welch’s name appears on a list of 26 Congresspeople who have taken part in the No H8 Campaign by sitting for photos in a session in September. The project is in support of equality, specifically for lgbt community members. Ten Representatives (no Senators have taken part as yet, although Bernie Sanders reportedly expressed an interest) participated in a previous session last February.

His photo is number 14 in the slide show here.

And here’s what he had to say for the occasion:

“We’re all the same. This campaign reminds us that we have much more in common and that we ought to embrace diversity and love one another.”

Well done, Peter! This would be a really great image for inclusion on your campaign or Congressional web page, don’t you think?

Florida* Congresswoman and DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz also took part in the No H8 on the Hill Campaign session.

Republicans were invited, none responded.

[*Correction: As originally posted this story identified Debbie Wasserman Schultz as a representative from California.]

It’s worth noting when a family we know expands its level of service to the people of Vermont. Cary Brown has just been hired as the new director of the Vermont Women’s Commission.

The Vermont Women’s Commission is a non-partisan state agency dedicated to  countering discrimination against and encouraging opportunities for women and girls.

For those of you who don’t know, Cary Brown is married to our illustrious founder John Odum, who ran and was elected as Montpelier’s City Clerk. Upon his ascension to that exalted post, he turned over the blog to the rest of us, with the addition of jvwalt.  

From the agency’s web page:

“As a second term Commissioner, and as an Advisor to the Commission for many years before that, I know firsthand the powerful work the commission does and the real impact it has had on shaping conversations around women’s and girls’ experiences in the state.  I’m both honored and excited to have been selected for this position,” said Ms. Brown.  “Vermont is rich in individuals and organizations that are making a huge difference in the lives of women and girls, and I look forward to opportunities for new and strengthened partnerships.”

Wow. Congrats to Cary on her new position and to the Brown-Odum family on their service to Montpelier and to Vermont.

I’ve been thinking about anniversaries lately.

Scrolling through my past bits here, I (re-)discovered that my first post, on September 26, 2006, was about whether anyone had fact-checked Martha Rainville’s claim to have stood up to the Pentagon over body armor for National Guard troops being sent to Iraq.

That makes today my 6th anniversary (with 124 diaries) as a scribbler, observer, curmudgeon, hopeful cynic, and weary believer in democracy (if not always in all Democrats) on this site. It’s been … interesting. And I appreciate founder John Odum’s invitation to join the scrum.

Today is the Vermont party primary election. You know what to do.

Endorsement Update: The Repubican-leaning St. Albans Messenger has endorsed TJ Donovan for Attorney General. Unfortunately, Emerson Lynn, the paper’s publisher and the author of the editorial endorsement, does not post editorials online. Here’s a few of his pithier statements:

But after 15 years with Mr. Sorrell as the state’s Attorney General, it’s time for a change. Mr. Donovan is the better choice. […] Mr. Donovan has already provided Vermonters with new approaches to old problems […] he is capable of communicating at a level that will benefit Vermonters directly. He is one among us and looks at problems at a community level, which is where he lives and works. […]

Mr. Donovan’s [Rapid Intervention Community Court] program is an example of the productivity that comes from his work at the grassroots level. […] He engages.

Lynn discusses the issue of Sorrell’s recent high profile failures, and says that despite the millions of taxpayer dollars the losses will cost the state, the blame attached to Sorrell for losing is misplaced. He continues:

Here is the important difference between Mr. Sorrell and Mr. Donovan: Mr. Donovan says he would not argue a case before the Supreme Court. He’s not an appellate lawyer and hasn’t the necessary experience or expertise. He would hire someone who did. Mr. Sorrell, whose legal background is comparable to Mr. Donovan’s, said Vermonters expected the AG to have the “guts” to argue before the court.

It’s not about guts, it’s about winning. It’s not about ego, it’s about leadership. It’s smarter to hire the best legal talent and let them work than it is to push forward with a substandard skill set, reducing the chances of victory. It’s often cheaper as well.

That is the level judgment Vermonters should expect from their Attorney General, which Mr. Donovan exhibits, and Mr. Sorrell does not.

[…] It’s a choice [of] which candidate offers Vermont the best ideas going forward and which candidate can best engage with Vermonters in a way that encourages their participation and makes our communities better, safer places to live.

That candidate is T.J. Donovan.

Donovan has had my support since he got into the race, and I’ve already cast my vote for him. I hope you will too.  

Whatever happened to Gay Pride this summer? Or so I’ve heard folks wonder. Are we so assimilated that there’s no need to march – or parade – for equality, resistance to het norms, for finding ourselves and each other?

Well, there are Pride things happening (including events in Randolph, which I didn’t attend and are not part of this diary), just not necessarily where and when we’ve come to expect.* And three or four recent episodes of homegrown homophobia underline the fact that while we’re legally equal in the Green Mountain State, we still face ignorance and prejudice.

[The Pride Parade and Festival are scheduled for Sept. 21-22 in Burlington, according to the organizing committee’s press release.]

Stonewall ‘Memorial’ at the UU Church

In June, on the actual very anniversary of the Stonewall Rebellion (the 27th, into the wee hours of the 28th originally), the first well-publicized event of this year’s Vermont LGBT Pride was held at the Unitarian Universalist Church at the top of Church Street in Burlington.

It was billed as a “memorial” for the rebellion, and the organizers attempted to keep it solemn and “non-political”: Reverend Roberta requested no applause, although there was laughter, thanks to Sam Sanders and Paige Bailey, among others. I brought a “New Glory” flag into the church and sat with it off to the side.

Sanders and Bailey related their memories of being in New York before, during, and after the police raid on a seedy, mafia-run bar where queers and drag queens and street kids hung out. Sanders in particular painted word pictures with such detail, it was a  “You Are There” moment. Bailey reclaimed and proclaimed her identity as a “bulldagger,” as her African American community named her.

The NYC police never expected a bunch of pansies, dykes, and drag queens to fight back against their arrest – they never had before, they knew the routine: the search to identify three items of gender-appropriate clothing, the gathering of names cross-checked with IDs, then a quick release for most, and a perp walk to the waiting wagon for those who refused or who conformed the least. In the rising tension, a butch dyke in handcuffs, who had fought and escaped from the wagon repeatedly, was hit by a cop with a baton, and manhandled into the wagon. “Isn’t anyone going to do anything?!” she cried out. And the dam broke. The queers fought back, forcing the cops to hole up inside the bar awaiting reinforcements, watching as dykes, bulldaggers, faggots, crossdressers and assorted street folk black and white, young and older, rammed the doors with a parking meter ripped out of the sidewalk.

There was no applause, as requested, just a wave of sighs as listeners slowly came back to the Burlington UU, here where we have a legal right to exist and our relationships are not clandestine because of fear of arrest.

Susan Murray (co-founder of Vermont Freedom to Marry, and co-counsel on Baker v. State that resulted in the legislative “compromise” of Civil Unions in 2000, followed by marriage equality in 2009) ably emceed the event. There was a short candle-light vigil on the steps of the church after the ‘memorial.’

It was so assimilated, and so frustrating to those of us who had lived through the years of no rights and no official help when gay guys started dying of the disease later named AIDS. I wanted to make three points before the crowd dispersed. And here’s what I said:

“One: This was called a ‘memorial.’ BUT WE AIN’T DEAD YET!

“Two: We’ve done a lot of work to get equal rights here, BUT WE AIN’T DONE YET!

“The third thing is: Don’t you DARE take the rights we have here in Vermont for granted, they can all disappear in a day. And that day is THE FIRST TUESDAY IN NOVEMBER: VOTE, PICK A CANDIDATE AND WORK TO KEEP OUR RIGHTS!”

[After the jump: Heroes, Saints & Martyrs; Separation of Church & Hate, more …]

Heroes, Saints, & Martyrs at St. Paul’s Episcopal

The next event that I attended in this year’s extended LGBT Pride celebration was an art show at St. Paul’s Episcopal Cathedral (anyone beginning to see a trend here?). The show consisted of 40 depictions in photos, drawings, and calligraphy by Judith McMannis of martyrs, saints, and heroes. It included the gay Franciscan priest and NYFD Chaplain Father Mychal Judge, who died ministering to the fallen in the North Tower command post when the South Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001. Among the heroes was Beth Robinson, who argued Baker v. State before the Vermont Supreme Court where she now sits as one of the Justices, and worked tirelessly to get legal marriage equality in Vermont. There were actual church-denominated saints and martyrs, noted for faithful ‘friends’ of the same gender, and for whose sake they had been kidnapped, or tortured. The parents of one local gay man were honored as heroes for making an about-face from their church’s antigay teachings when their son came out.

The thing that was missing was any acknowledgment that Christian churches have been largely responsible for creating lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender martyrs since before the Inquisition. There was no apology (unlike at the Chicago Gay Pride parade, although more research has revealed troubling information there, too).

So I brought my own sign to the event. I’ll say this for the Christians at the opening reception: it was a well received conversation starter.

Churches and LGBT Pride

Now, don’t get me wrong. It’s great when churches stop persecuting us queers and teaching their members to hate and fear us. The UU folks were one of the earliest churches to welcome lgbtq members. Vermont Episcopal Bishop Tom Ely was instrumental in persuading Rep. Jeff Young (a Democrat who had voted against the marriage equality bill) to vote in favor of overriding Governor Jim Douglas’s veto, and I deeply appreciate that effort toward civil equality. The Episcopals just accepted a “blessing” liturgy for same-sex couples – not a marriage liturgy, mind you.

Yet I can’t help but notice that almost every Christian church identifying itself as “welcoming” to lesbians and gay men wants to march in the Pride Parade with their banner and their gay, lesbian, and ally members all decked out in rainbow colors. They’re advertising – just as the bars with their floats and the nonprofit organizations are – trolling for customers and donors; the churches want us to swell the ranks of their congregations, and, oh btw, we should bring our tithes, too.

And I have to ask whether these Jesus-come-lately organizations have really earned a right to be in the Pride Parade. Have they or their denominations made any apologies for their long histories of preaching against us?* Have they ever offered to work behind the scenes with the parade organizers? They could, for example, work in traffic control or security, so the lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, and transgender folk who are doing those volunteer jobs might get a chance to participate in the joyful dance up Church Street one time. Not one church, not once has made such an offer to my knowledge in my memory of more than 25 Pride marches and parades.

*[The Episcopal Church has, in fact, apologized for its rejection of gay and lesbian people in a statement that was accepted at a national church gathering. I have seen it, but I cannot now locate the document online.]

Separation of Church and Hate

Have the “Welcoming” churches attempted dialog with the evangelicals and fundamentalists on the theological basis of acceptance and Jesus’s “greatest commandment” to “Love God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself”? If so, I haven’t heard of it. Have they ever attended those churches and spoken individually at whatever social gathering might follow the service and just chatted with the members about being in a welcoming church? There are not even any rumors about such a thing happening.

So I wonder why it is that this year’s lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer Pride celebration seems so focused on Christian churches (although some would not count the UU as “Christian”).

A friend on the Pride organizing committee said the churches “offered.” With June about to expire sans celebration, the Stonewall memorial was pulled together quickly, and the UU agreed to host the event on short notice. The St. Paul’s art show was cosponsored with the local chapter of Integrity.

Homegrown Homophobia

Do those two events balance somehow the continued existence of homegrown homophobia? To wit:

A local Salvation Army chapter has fired a worker who came out as bisexual during a conversation with her boss.

Local UVM ice legend Tim Thomas, the Bruins’ goalie (who has been on leave since well before this tempest), wants to “stand by” the anti-gay remarks of the president of Chick-fil-A, which have become an online controversy in the last couple of weeks. The Muppets know more about equality and integrity than Tim Thomas does.

You remember Chick-fil-A, the company suing Vermont tee shirt maker Bo Muller-Moore over his slogan, “Eat More Kale.”

And in my own hometown, a member of the combined Methodist-Congregational (United Church of Christ) church in the middle of the village said that gay people would not be welcome there, that the bible says gay people should be killed. She said it to the next-door neighbor of friends of mine, a gay couple looking for a church to attend, perhaps to join. The neighbor warned them away, leaving them amazed and daunted that such institutional and personal homophobia could still exist here in gay-friendly Vermont.

The list could be much longer, including the parental abduction of a child born into a civil union (NYT tiered subscription) and the alleged assistance of the abductor’s church (BFP subscription with 10 freebies/month) in getting the newly “born again” parent out of the country so as to not comply with court-ordered visits by the “other mother.”

Separation of Church and State

The reason the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed Congress in 1996 (Senator Leahy voted for it, but has since had a change of heart as a sponsor of S.598, the Respect for Marriage Act) was as a sop to right wing religious fanatics, who, with the connivance of the Republican Party, threatened to push for a constitutional amendment that, if ratified by two-thirds of the states, would have enshrined anti-lgbt bias in the constitution. The law prevents the federal government from legally recognizing same-sex marriages or civil unions regardless of their legal standing in any state. And it allows states to ignore the principle of “full faith and credit,” which essentially requires that contracts executed in one state be honored in another.

There is no such amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But 30 states have passed amendments to their state constitutions defining marriage as “one man, one woman.” Six more do not recognize same sex marriages or civil unions from other states. These laws are based in a particular and highly selective Christian reading of their holy book. They have no place in state policy in a country that pledges itself to equal treatment of all under the law.

Repealing DOMA and enacting ENDA, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act would be two small but important steps toward get some religion out of the federal government. Having liberal churches in conversation with their gay-oppressive co-religionists would make even bigger steps possible.

Among Democratic Party activists at the Hamburger Summit, some of whom attended this morning’s VDP State Committee meeting, the overall perception was that Attorney General Bill Sorrell is campaigning badly. A few even suggested he’s “phoning it in,” whether from ineptitude, laziness, or a sense of entitlement. Several themes emerged in discussions of Sorrell’s endorsement loss.

Among them:

• Sorrell failed to file his endorsement paperwork on time to receive a co-endorsement with TJ Donovan in May, despite outreach from the VDP staff to facilitate that outcome.
• None of the State Committee members received a call from the candidate asking for their votes (a Tip O’Neill moment).
• The candidate didn’t come to the meeting, citing a prior commitment to a parade in Lyndonville (Northeast Kingdom, where no doubt there was a ton of Democratic primary voters).
• Sorrell used a non-union shop for printing campaign materials which have been in distribution for more than a week.
• Sorrell’s surrogates, campaign manager Mike Pieciak and Chief Deputy AG Janet Murnane, did not do a good job selling the candidate or his approach to issues raised by State Committee members.
• Sorrell has a long history of refusing to contribute to the coffers of the Coordinated Campaign.

The overall impression is that the incumbent Sorrell has barely moved into campaign mode, although his campaign staff was on board more than three months ago. Further, several observers identified Sorrell’s approach as “taking it for granted” that he would be endorsed.

[After the jump: what happened at the meeting.]

 

Pieciak opened his presentation by ineffectively apologizing for his candidate’s absence, saying, in part, “We only just found out earlier this week that this meeting was happening today …”

And that is the sort of political ineptitude that keeps happening for Sorrell’s campaign, and is unexpected from a 15-year incumbent. Although, one observer noted that Sorrell was appointed to the position (once his predecessor was moved on to the state Supreme Court) and has rarely faced opposition since.

The questions raised at the meeting included Sorrell’s recent court losses on state control of the Entergy Yankee nuclear power plant’s closure, campaign finance regulation, and protection for physicians from datamining-based marketing by pharmaceutical companies.

The ethics of Chief Deputy A.G. Janet Murnane’s status as an employee campaigning for her employer was also questioned, along with Sorrell’s inaction on other states’ DOMA (the federal Defense of Marriage Act) cases.

Murnane sprinkled some form of the word “active”  throughout her explanation of her office’s current activities, about every sixth word: “Bill Sorrell is actively pursuing …” “We are taking an active role on …” But the argument was obviously not convincing.

In the committee meeting there was a lot of discussion as to the meaning of a State Committee “endorsement.” The process originated as a way to support Bernie Sanders’ first run for the Senate; without a state party endorsement, he could not receive help from the DNC. In a couple of cases since then, it has also allowed the committee to keep Republican ringers out of the state party’s campaign funds and off the Democratic ballot line. The bylaw provision is, said VDP Treasurer and longtime activist Linda Weiss, more of a certification that this person is a bonafide Democrat. (Or, in the case of Bernie Sanders, someone Democrats should and would support due to shared values.)  

In an odd twist that led to today’s vote, the committee is allowed to “endorse” multiple candidates for the same office.

Rutland County Democratic Committee Chair Kathy Hall apparently shared Sorrell’s expectation of an easy and automatic endorsement. Visibly and audibly angry at the results, she said she was leaving, because the vote did not reflect explanations of the meaning of the “endorsement” vote she heard at the May meeting where T.J. Donovan was successful. She walked out of the meeting and sat in a hallway, despite a plea from Weiss to stay.

“We’re Democrats, this is what we do: we fight with each other,” said Weiss. “We don’t walk out, we sit down and try to figure out how to make it better.”

In reaction, we expect Bill Sorrell to discount the importance of the vote and maybe even to denigrate the State Committee rather than take responsibility for his own campaign errors.

There’s a faint chance that Sorrell’s pre-primary campaigning in the Republican-friendly Northeast Kingdom instead of among his own party activists, may be a counter-intuitive strategy: courting Republican voters to cross over to vote for him in the Democratic primary.

If he wins the primary, the State Committee’s no-confidence vote will likely come back to haunt its members.

Vermont’s Democrats apparently know where they’re going and why, if today’s no-drama, no-shenanigans nominating convention is an indicator.

After a predictable speech by the venerable Senator Leahy, and the assumption of duties as convention chair by Jake Perkinson, the first order of business was a motion, submitted by yours truly:

National Marriage Equality Resolution

WHEREAS: Gender equality is one of the most significant moral and legal issues of the 21st Century; and,

WHEREAS: The Vermont Democratic Party has unequivocally endorsed and supported equality in all aspects of American life;

NOW THEREFORE: Be it resolved by the Vermont Democratic Party, in convention this 26th day of May 2012

FIRST: That the platform of the Vermont Democratic Party and the platform of the National Democratic Party should endorse unqualified support for marriage equality under civil law for same-gender couples; and,

SECOND: That all delegates selected to represent the Vermont Democratic Party within Vermont’s borders or beyond, in state or national conventions or meetings, are directed to fully support as a matter of policy the inclusion in the National Democratic Party’s Platform a plank committing the Party to the complete and immediate implementation of gender equality and equal treatment for same-gender couples under state and federal law.

It passed by acclamation. Which is as it should be for Democrats and Vermonters.

It commits the slate of two dozen national convention delegates from Vermont elected today, and another handful of 15 so-called “At-Large and PLEO delegates,” or what used to be called “super-delegates” (and 2 alternates), to support a national marriage equality plank in the platform. PLEO stands for “Political Leaders and Elected Officials.”

Passage without comment or amendment was not necessarily a no-brainer, given Jake’s abrupt about-face on this issue on May 4, followed by an announcement of his personal gratification a week later when the President decided he’d “evolved” enough.

It went well.* Even if it’s a symbolic gesture because likely no Vermont delegates will be on the Platform Committee, it’s good that the VDP is now on record supporting a national marriage equality plank.

*Addendum: To be fair, one reason the motion was accepted and passed without objection (“went well”) was that Chair Jake Perkinson facilitated its passage. By report from a couple of sources, he announced in a VDP staff meeting the week before the convention that he supported the resolution and wanted it to pass. He was cooperative and consulted with me on the best time to bring the motion and whether passing by acclamation was an acceptable process and outcome (um, yeah).

Caught this story first on Andrew Towle’s gay blog Towleroad.

It was announced (with a link to this story) that 11 state Democratic Party chairs had signed on to support the call for a marriage equality plank in the national Democratic Party platform. Among the 11 was Vermont’s Jake Perkinson.

I emailed the VDP chair with a brief word of thanks for taking the stand. He wrote back about how he “fully supports this issue,” but he never actually signed on, and Freedom to Marry (the national group) took a very preliminary conversation and ran with it without confirmation, permission, or acknowledgment.

I told him he could just take the credit for the stand (thinking, if he’s really on board, what harm?), and give Freedom to Marry a short reading of the riot act, if he thought it was worth his time.

But no. He couldn’t do that.

He’s backpedalling as fast as possible, with New York’s state Dem chairman spinning right along side.

Perkinson, meanwhile, said that while he supports gay marriage and thinks the question of a plank is one worth discussing, that he never signed off on being in the release and felt like his comments with the group were “hijacked.”

“I had had a conversation with the Freedom to Marry people and had said that I was personally supportive of their efforts, but the press release that went out was not anything that was run by me,” he said. “It certainly was a little bit overreaching to put my name on something that I hadn’t even reviewed at that point. The whole thing just seems premature…the conversation was, do you support gay marriage? And yes, obviously I do. I said, what’s the next step? They said that’s all we need for now, and we’ll get back to you….that was two weeks ago.”

Yeah, Freedom to Marry likely jumped the gun, didn’t cross its t’s or dot its i’s. The process was probably cracked.

But gosh, Jake, I had such hopes that you would take the cannoli (and an honest-to goodness stand) and leave the gun, er, the grumbling aside. I would not blame lesbian and gay Vermonters for questioning the sincerity of your commitment to national equality now.

It’ll be interesting to see how you dance around this one at tonight’s dinner honoring out gay Democratic activist and former state chairman David Curtis.