There’s no place for this.

Dan Manning, a Democratic military veteran running for Kansas’ 91st State House seat (based in Wichita), has reported receiving a death threat on his front door.

Manning was discharged from the military under the infamous Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy, and while his sexuality has not been a focus of his campaign, the motivations of the coward who left the threatening letter were plain:

Dan’s opponent is long-time incumbent Brenda Landwehr. Landwehr, a notorious far-right conservative, has been a vocal opponent of equal rights for gay, lesbian and transgendered Kansans. Since February, she has used Dan’s sexual orientation to stir up her constituent. She has gone so far as to use language that Dan was told was “too offensive” to repeat.

This weekend, the homophobia and name-calling took a dangerous and criminal turn.

Dan arrived home from work on Saturday to find a death threat attached to his front door. Crudely cut from newspaper headlines was a crass note that read:

“DISTRICT 91 Democrat Dan N. Manning, 29, production supervisor, manningforkansas.com”
“2010 State House Election”
“Will DIE”
“FaGIT”
“Kill”
“HOMO”
“MURDER”
“Head OFF”

[hat-tip Kansas Equality Coalition]

Manning has focused much of his campaign on job creation, education, and renewable energy. And as he explained to Think Progress (which has posted a copy of the letter), Manning does not believe his opponent or her campaign is behind the threat. He spoke out about the incident in an interview with KAKE News in Wichita:

["]Running as a gay man in Kansas and a Democrat, as well, I expected there would be some intimidation, some threats, but nothing I don't think ever really prepares you for that," he said. "It was still quite shocking."

The threats were concocted using newspaper or magazine copy of letters cut out and glued in formation to spell out certain words.

"I think it's important for people to know that there is still hate and bigotry alive and well in this country," Manning explained. "When something like this happens, I think it's important to call it for what it is."

Wichita police are investigating.

The Family Research Council tried to make hay with our Legislative Priorities Survey, which showed (among other things) that over 80% of our readers and newsletter subscribers consider equal rights "somewhat" or "extremely" important. The FRC headline? "Homosexual Agenda is Low Priority—Even for Democrats." Huh?

They got there, of course, by conveniently forgetting about the 33% in the “somewhat” category. By that standard, this Pew Poll showing that only 48% of Republicans strongly oppose same-sex marriage “proves” that opposing equal rights is low priority for Republicans. (To be clear, the Pew survey was a scientifically constructed poll - ours was a non-scientific, self-selecting survey.)

Now, as anyone involved in politics will tell you, 80% of respondents calling an issue important is pretty close to monolithic. Not quite as monolithic or as intense as our education supporters (who are staring down the barrel at billions in school cuts and hundreds of thousands of laid-off teachers) or our job promotion supporters (because of the recession), but overall support for equal rights was in the same ballpark.

So the FRC's glee was more than a bit puzzling. But it did remind us of a Boston Globe article last week about a university experiment exploring what happens when political ideologues are presented with verifiable evidence that something they believe is false:

The participants who self-identified as conservative believed the misinformation on WMD and taxes even more strongly after being given the correction. With those two issues, the more strongly the participant cared about the topic — a factor known as salience — the stronger the backfire. The effect was slightly different on self-identified liberals: When they read corrected stories about stem cells, the corrections didn’t backfire, but the readers did still ignore the inconvenient fact that the Bush administration’s restrictions weren’t total.

"Backfiring" would certainly explain the Family Research Council. They saw a document showing equal rights to be wildly popular among the progressive base, and they thought it proved the opposite. What's more, the FRC is based in Washington, D.C., which approved civil marriage equality last year. Yet faced with such compelling, empirical evidence in his own backyard that equal rights shouldn’t be a big deal, the author of the FRC’s blog post continues to suggest that homosexuality should be considered a mental illness and that gays are “ten times more likely to molest children” than straight people. Both claims have been thoroughly discredited and represent bigotry, plain and simple.

Sorry, but when the DLCC wants scientific commentary, we’ll find someone whose boss didn’t give $82,500 to David Duke or give speeches before racist hate groups identified by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Should no one meeting those strict standards be available, we'll settle for someone with a strong enough grasp of basic arithmetic that they can add two percentages together.

Last night, Republican Governor Linda Lingle broke a promise and dismissed the will of Hawaiian citizens as she vetoed HB 444, which would have allowed both same-sex and heterosexual couples to enter into civil unions with all the rights enjoyed by married couples.

Michael Sargeant, Executive Director of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, issued the following statement in response to Governor Lingle’s veto of the civil union bill:

“We at the DLCC are disappointed in Governor Lingle for ignoring the will of Hawaiian citizens as expressed by the Hawaii legislature’s passage of this landmark legislation. Governor Lingle also broke her campaign promise not to veto a civil union bill if passed by the state legislature. She has denied Hawaii the opportunity to become the latest example of states leading the way on equality.”

Vetoing the legislation broke a promise Lingle made in her first campaign for governor in 2002.

It was during a live debate broadcast on PBS Hawaii that Lingle was asked by moderator Linda Taira about her position on the arrangements for gay couples with rights such as family and bereavement leaves, probate rights and hospital visitation.

"On the issue of domestic partnerships, I have stated that if the Legislature (should) pass legislation granting certain rights I would not veto that legislation," Lingle said [emphasis added].

Democratic legislators did their part and voted their conscience on “that legislation,” after a marathon 18 hours of earnest debate. But their work was undone by the Governor's broken promise.

And in breaking her promise, Governor Lingle denied hundreds of thousands of her own citizens a right she probably takes for granted.

The Governor’s veto is a sad setback in the ongoing fight for equality. But that fight continues.

One day, America will look back on the struggle for equal rights and wonder why it was so difficult. Governor Lingle will be one of the reasons.

Today could mark a significant milestone for civil rights in our country.

By the end of the day, a bill that allows both same-sex and heterosexual couples to receive the same protections under law as married couples (HB 444) will be

A. Signed into law by Governor Linda Lingle,
B. Vetoed by Governor Lingle, or
C. Allowed to become law automatically, without any action by the Governor.

July 6 is the deadline for Governor Lingle to take action on a list of bills she designated in June as ripe for veto. The civil unions bill was on that list.

We helped collect some of the thousands of citizen petitions supporting HB 444, and we were pleased to add them to the voices of local citizens, the business community, and other equal rights supporters from all over the country demanding this important step towards equality.

If this civil unions bill becomes law, seven states and the District of Columbia would either grant full civil marriage equality or recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. Another eight states - including Hawaii – would allow same-sex couples to form civil unions or domestic partnerships.

So after today, nearly 108 million Americans could live in states where same-sex couples enjoy legal status and at least some or all of the protections enjoyed by other married couples.

Governor Lingle’s signature on HB 444 – or even her failure to veto it – would be only the most recent example of states outpacing the federal government and forging ahead in the path towards equal rights.

But we've seen this before, and that's what gives us hope. State-based health care reforms led to national health care reform, and state-based clean energy laws are adding momentum for national climate action.

That means the harder states push for equal rights - and more state-level momentum we build - the closer we get to equality for everyone.

One day, America will look back on the fight for equal rights and wonder why it was so difficult. When that day comes, we'll have the states to thank.

The far-right Republican platform-writers are at it again, this time in Montana, where the recently-adopted GOP platform fully embraces the idea of government officials policing people’s bedrooms:

(…)the Montana Republican Party has adopted a platform that would criminalize “homosexual acts”:

Homosexual Acts

We support the clear will of the people of Montana expressed by legislation to keep homosexual acts illegal.

Ironically, the platform uses some form of the word “constitutional” at least 10 times and even argues that constitutionality should be decided by the states. But the Montana Supreme Court struck down the State’s sodomy law in 1997 and ruled that it violated the constitutional right to privacy. [H/T Think Progress]

The Montana Supreme Court, of course, was about six years ahead of the U.S. Supreme Court, which declared state anti-sodomy statutes unconstitutional in 2003. In the facts surrounding that case, Lawrence v. Texas, a sheriff’s deputy had burst into the apartment of one of the petitioners and arrested them both under Texas’ anti-sodomy laws. It was literally a case of the government policing people’s bedrooms.

And speaking of Texas, the GOP platform there also seeks to turn back the clock and return to a pre-Lawrence authoritarian utopia:

The 2010 GOP platform in Texas supports laws that criminalize sodomy and suggests that straight people who support same-sex marriage should be penalized with jail time. The GOP platform was quoted as openly stating:

“We oppose the legalization of sodomy. We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy,” the GOP platform reads. Meaning that even though the U.S. Supreme Court overturned sodomy laws last decade (ironically in a case that stemmed from Texas), Texas Republicans would like the state to have the power to criminalize LGBT folks for having sex.

Thankfully, this is one idea where Republicans are clearly swimming against the tide of equal rights.

Eleven days ago, it seemed possible that Hawaiian civil unions legislation would pass its final hurdle in becoming law as early as today.

But instead of signing the historic civil unions bill into law, Governor Linda Lingle has dodged her deadline by giving herself an extension.

Since its approval by state lawmakers in April, this legislation, which would enable both same-sex and heterosexual couples to receive the same protections under law as married couples, has languished on Governor Lingle’s desk. Today the governor included the legislation on a list of bills she may veto.

Now she has until July 6 to take action—or not—on the bills on this list, including the civil unions bill. If she has not vetoed the measure by that date, it will become law without her signature.

Declining to veto the bill will mark the fulfillment of a promise Lingle made in her first campaign for governor in 2002.

It was during a live debate broadcast on PBS Hawaii that Lingle was asked by moderator Linda Taira about her position on the arrangements for gay couples with rights such as family and bereavement leaves, probate rights and hospital visitation.

"On the issue of domestic partnerships, I have stated that if the Legislature (should) pass legislation granting certain rights I would not veto that legislation," Lingle said [emphasis added].

It seems odd to ask—to hope—that Governor Lingle take no action on this historic civil rights legislation. But all signals given by the governor since the bill’s passage by the Hawaii state legislature indicate that she will not sign the measure into law.

Inaction can be a form of action. The governor’s inaction on this civil unions bill will lead to same-sex couples in Hawaii receiving the same rights and protections as married couples. If she won’t act to affix her signature to the bill, her inaction through July 6 is most welcome.

Join the call for equal rights in Hawaii- Sign the petition today!

Eleven days – that’s how long we have to make our voices heard on a crucial piece of equal rights legislation. Republican Governor Linda Lingle of Hawaii has announced that she’ll decide whether to sign or veto her state’s new civil unions bill when she returns from an overseas trip.

Gov. Linda Lingle will decide whether to sign or veto a contentious proposal to allow same-gender couples to form civl [sic] unions after returning from a two-week-long working trip to China and Japan, she said yesterday. (…)

Speaking at a state Capitol news conference, Lingle said she likely will take until June 21, the deadline by which she must tell the Legislature which bills she may veto. She then has until July 6 to veto those measures if that is the action she chooses.

Measures not on the June 21 list would become law, either with or without her signature.

Lingle's trip to Asia begins Friday and she is due to return June 19.

Given the impact her decision will have on many of her state’s residents, it’s unfortunate that Governor Lingle will not also be stopping in Australia or New Zealand, both of which provide for same-sex civil unions (nationwide in New Zealand, but only in certain Australian political subdivisions). If she did, she would realize that human society has not, in fact, collapsed in either country – rather it has been strengthened.

But so long as the Governor plans on waiting until after this trip to make her decision, we plan to have one last batch of petitions waiting for her when she returns.

If you haven’t already, please click here to add your voice.

If Governor Lingle signs the Hawaii civil unions bill, she will only be keeping a promise she made during her 2002 campaign for governor:

It was during a live debate broadcast on PBS Hawaii that Lingle was asked by moderator Linda Taira about her position on the arrangements for gay couples with rights such as family and bereavement leaves, probate rights and hospital visitation.

"On the issue of domestic partnerships, I have stated that if the Legislature (should) pass legislation granting certain rights I would not veto that legislation," Lingle said.

Whether sincere or not, Lingle probably never expected that civil unions would come to occupy the “middle ground” of American politics as quickly as they did. 2002 was before Massachusetts became the first civil marriage equality state, and it was just two years after progressive Vermont approved civil unions because of a court ruling that was extremely controversial at the time. In that context, Lingle coming out in favor of civil unions in 2002 – as a Republican – put her at the vanguard of the equal rights movement nationwide.

Was it nothing more than shameless pandering – a ruse to burnish her “moderate” credentials in a heavily Democratic state? Or was it something else?

One June 21st, Hawaiians will find out once and for all.

Help us make sure she does the right thing.

Republicans in Iowa are upset that their state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage went down in flames three months ago. But really, keeping gay couples and their children out of family-designated campsites? That’s just petty:

Plans to allow married same-sex couples to qualify as families for camping permits reflects an “insidious pattern” of state agencies seeking to change rules to benefit such couples, an Iowa lawmaker charged Monday.

Sen. Merlin Bartz, a Republican from Grafton, opposes same-sex marriage and was troubled that the Department of Natural Resources would propose the new rules. He said the changes, considered Monday by a legislative committee, follow similar moves by state agencies that oversee public pensions and income taxes.

The proposed change would allow married same-sex couples with children to stay in family designated camping areas and have more than one tent or trailer on a single site.

Iowa, of course, is currently one of the only marriage equality states in America. Sen. Bartz’ antics, if successful in causing the Iowa Department of Natural Resources to reverse course, would mean that same-sex spouses enjoy all the same rights and responsibilities as other married couples -- except the right to a family camping permit.

Here at the DLCC, we applaud the state of Iowa’s “insidious pattern” of treating all married couples equally -- as they should be. We're also generally puzzled about why camping, of all issues, is where Republicans have decided to draw the line on equality.

But Iowa Democrats are holding firm, and they're certainly not intimidated by this latest ploy. We’ll let the Iowa Senate President have the last word on Bartz’ objections:

“Who the h--l[sic] cares what the relationship is?” Senate President Jack Kibbie, D-Emmetsburg, asked during a hearing on the issue Monday before the interim Administrative Rules Review Committee, which didn't vote on the change. “To me it's a non-issue.”

The Democratic sponsor of Hawaii’s civil unions may face a tougher than normal re-election fight in the wake of the April 29th vote to grant gays and lesbians the right to join civil unions. Still, State Rep. Blake Oshiro was heartened by the outcome:

It was really heartwarming to me, to know that at the end of the day people are willing to do what they need to do, do what they came here to do, and not just worry about keeping their jobs.

Rep. Oshiro, who is openly gay, rarely discusses his sexuality with the media, but he made an exception when discussing this bill and what it means to him in an interview with Honolulu’s KITV News. Video of that interview is available here.

Meanwhile, the DLCC is continuing our petition drive asking Governor Lingle to sign the bill. The latest reports say the Governor is “up in the air” about what she’s going to do (her description). She’s planning a series of meetings with community leaders and is asking for more public input before making the decision.

So if you haven’t already:
Click here to sign the petition!

On April 29th, the Hawaii Legislature overwhelmingly passed House Bill 444, which grants same-sex couples in civil unions "the same rights, benefits, protections, and responsibilities" as those enjoyed by married couples.

Republican Governor Linda Lingle is reportedly undecided about whether to sign or veto Hawaii's civil unions bill. Her decision could come any day.

The DLCC is collecting petitions asking that the civil unions bill be signed. Click here to add your voice!

IF SIGNED INTO LAW, this bill will dramatically improve the lives of thousands of Hawaii families, and it will help add momentum to the nation-wide movement for equal rights.

IF VETOED, it could be years before Hawaiians get another chance to take a step towards equality.

Every bit of momentum for equal rights is at a premium right now, and this is the most important legislative action we’ve seen in months.

Civil unions and marriage aren’t the same thing, and we know that. But we believe every step toward equality, wherever it happens, is a step we need to take.

Click here to sign the petition!

Sincerely,
Michael Sargeant
Executive Director
The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee