- from www.365gay/newswire.com

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT

AT SIGNING OF THE RYAN WHITE HIV/AIDS

TREATMENT EXTENSION ACT OF 2009

Diplomatic Reception Room

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning, everybody.

AUDIENCE: Good morning.

THE PRESIDENT: We often speak about AIDS as if it’s going on somewhere else. And for good reason — this is a virus that has touched lives and decimated communities around the world, particularly in Africa. But often overlooked is the fact that we face a serious HIV/AIDS epidemic of our own — right here in Washington, D.C., and right here in the United States of America. And today, we are taking two important steps forward in the fight that we face here at home.

It has been nearly three decades since this virus first became known. But for years, we refused to recognize it for what it was. It was coined a “gay disease.” Those who had it were viewed with suspicion. There was a sense among some that people afflicted by AIDS somehow deserved their fate and that it was acceptable for our nation to look the other way.

A number of events and advances over the years have broadened our understanding of this cruel illness. One of them came in 1984, when a 13-year-old boy from central Indiana contracted HIV/AIDS from a transfusion. Doctors assured people that Ryan White posed no risk to his classmates or his community. But ignorance was still widespread. People didn’t yet understand or believe that the virus couldn’t be spread by casual contact. Parents protested Ryan’s attendance in class. Some even pulled their kids out of school. Things got so bad that the White family had to ultimately move to another town.

It would have been easy for Ryan and his family to stay quiet and to fight the illness in private. But what Ryan showed was the same courage and strength that so many HIV-positive activists have shown over the years and shown around — show around the world today. And because he did, we didn’t just become more informed about HIV/AIDS, we began to take action to fight it.

In 1990, the year Ryan passed away, two great friends and unlikely political allies, Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch, came together and introduced the Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency Act — the CARE Act — which was later named after Ryan.

In a few minutes, I’m going to sign the fourth reauthorization of the Ryan White CARE Act. Now, in the past, policy differences have made reauthorizations of this program divisive and controversial. But that didn’t happen this year. And for that, the members of Congress that are here today deserve extraordinary credit for passing this bill in the bipartisan manner that it deserves: Tom Harkin and Mike Enzi in the Senate, we are grateful to you for your extraordinary work; Speaker Pelosi, who’s always leading the charge on so many issues; Frank Pallone, Jr., Joe Barton, Barbara Lee and Donna Christensen in the House, thank you for your extraordinary work — oh don’t worry, I’m getting to Henry. (Laughter.) Nancy is always looking out for members, but we’ve got a special section for Henry.

And Chairman Henry Waxman, who began holding hearings on AIDS in 1982, before there was even a name for AIDS, was leading here in Washington to make sure that this got the informed attention that it deserved and who led the House in passing the original Ryan White legislation in 1990.

I also want to acknowledge the HIV community for crafting a consensus document that did so much to help move this process forward. Some of the advocates so important to this legislation are with us here today: Ernest Hopkins from Cities Advocating for Emergency AIDS Relief; Frank Oldham, Jr., President and CEO of the National Association of People with AIDS; and Julie Scofield, Executive Director of the National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors.

And I’m especially honored that Ryan’s mother, Jeanne White-Ginder, is here today. For 25 years, Jeanne had an immeasurable impact in helping ramp up America’s response to this epidemic. While we lost Ryan at too young an age, Jeanne’s efforts have extended the lives and saved the lives of so many others. We are so appreciative to you. Thank you. (Applause.)

You know, over the past 19 years this legislation has evolved from an emergency response into a comprehensive national program for the care and support of Americans living with HIV/AIDS. It helps communities that are most severely affected by this epidemic and often least served by our health care system, including minority communities, the LGBT community, rural communities, and the homeless. It’s often the only option for the uninsured and the underinsured. And it provides life-saving medical services to more than half a million Americans every year, in every corner of the country.

It’s helped us to open a critical front on the ongoing battle against HIV/AIDS. But let me be clear: This is a battle that’s far from over, and it’s a battle that all of us need to do our part to join. AIDS may no longer be the leading killer of Americans ages 25 to 44, as it once was. But there are still 1.1 million people living with HIV/AIDS in the United States, and more than 56,000 new infections occur every single year.

Some communities still experience unacceptably high rates of infection. Gay men make up 2 or 3 percent of the population, but more than half of all new cases. African Americans make up roughly half of all new cases. Nearly half of all new cases now occur in the South. And a staggering 7 percent of Washington, D.C.’s residents between the ages of 40 and 49 live with HIV/AIDS — and the epidemic here isn’t as severe as it is in several other U.S. cities.

So tackling this epidemic will take far more aggressive approaches than we’ve seen in the past — not only from our federal government, but also state and local governments, from local community organizations, and from places of worship.

But it will also take an effort to end the stigma that has stopped people from getting tested; that has stopped people from facing their own illness; and that has sped the spread of this disease for far too long. A couple of years ago Michelle and I were in Africa and we tried to combat the stigma when we were in Kenya by taking a public HIV/AIDS test. And I’m proud to announce today we’re about to take another step towards ending that stigma.

Twenty-two years ago, in a decision rooted in fear rather than fact, the United States instituted a travel ban on entry into the country for people living with HIV/AIDS. Now, we talk about reducing the stigma of this disease — yet we’ve treated a visitor living with it as a threat. We lead the world when it comes to helping stem the AIDS pandemic — yet we are one of only a dozen countries that still bar people from HIV from entering our own country.

If we want to be the global leader in combating HIV/AIDS, we need to act like it. And that’s why, on Monday my administration will publish a final rule that eliminates the travel ban effective just after the New Year. Congress and President Bush began this process last year, and they ought to be commended for it. We are finishing the job. It’s a step that will encourage people to get tested and get treatment, it’s a step that will keep families together, and it’s a step that will save lives. (Applause.)

We are continuing the work of crafting a coordinated, measurable national HIV/AIDS strategy to stem and suppress this epidemic. I’m pleased to report that the Office of National AIDS Policy, led by Jeffrey Crowley, has already held eight in a series of 14 community discussions in cities across the country. They’ve brought together faith-based organizations and businesses, schools and research institutions, people living with HIV and concerned citizens, gathering ideas on how to target a national response that effectively reduces HIV infections, improves access to treatment, and eliminates health disparities. And we are encouraged by the energy, the enthusiasm, and great ideas that we’ve collected so far.

We can’t give Ryan White back to Jeanne, back to his mom. But what we can do — what the legislation that I’m about to sign has done for nearly 20 years — is honor the courage that he and his family showed. What we can do is to take more action and educate more people. What we can do is keep fighting each and every day until we eliminate this disease from the face of the Earth.

So with that, let me sign this bill. (Applause.)

By DEVLIN BARRETT Associated Press Writer © 2009 The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — States that allow gay marriage can’t force the federal government to provide benefits to those couples, the Obama administration argued Friday in court papers in a lawsuit by Massachusetts.

The Justice Department is at odds with Massachusetts — the first state to allow gay marriage — over a 1996 federal law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Massachusetts sued in July, saying that law is discriminatory and deprives gay couples in the state of some federal spousal benefits.

The Obama administration agrees the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is discriminatory and wants it repealed, but says it has an obligation to defend laws enacted by Congress while they are on the books and can be reasonably defended.

The law “does not prohibit gay and lesbian couples from marrying, nor does it prohibit the states from acknowledging same-sex marriages,” according to the court filing by Assistant Attorney General Tony West.

Massachusetts, the filing continues, is trying to claim individuals have a right to federal benefits based on marital status.

“There is, however, no fundamental right to marriage-based federal benefits,” according to the 36-page filing.

The 1996 law denies federal recognition of gay marriage and gives states the right to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

Massachusetts is the first state to sue the government over the DOMA law. Some gay couples have filed their own lawsuits challenging the law, but this case is unique in pitting a state against the federal government over the issue.

Justice Dept. spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said any state “can allow gay and lesbian citizens to marry and can make its own decisions about how to treat married couples when it comes to state benefits.”

“Massachusetts is not being denied the right to provide benefits to same-sex couples and, in fact, has enacted a law to provide equal health benefits to same-sex spouses,” she said.

In earlier filings, the government has sought to dismiss the DOMA lawsuits brought by individuals.

The Massachusetts case could also have implications for Democratic Party politics. The Massachusetts Attorney General, Martha Coakley, is trying to win the Senate seat of the late Edward Kennedy, at the same time her office is leading the lawsuit against the Democratic administration on the issue of gay rights.

The lawsuit brought by Massachusetts says the approximately 16,000 same-sex couples who have married since the state allowed it in 2004 are being unfairly denied federal benefits given to heterosexual couples.

Those benefits include federal income tax credits, employment benefits, retirement benefits, health insurance coverage and Social Security payments, the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit also argues that the federal law requires the state to violate the constitutional rights of its citizens by treating married heterosexual couples and married same-sex couples differently when determining eligibility for Medicaid benefits and when determining whether the spouse of a veteran can be buried in a Massachusetts veterans’ cemetery.

Besides Massachusetts, five other states — Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine and Iowa — have legalized gay marriage.

- from www.gaypolitics.com 10/30/2009

The Birmingham, Alabama Board of Education has passed an anti-bullying policy inclusive of sexual orientation, and gender identity and expression, according to our friend Howard Bayless, a member of the board. A second policy passed by the board protects LGBT teachers from harassment.

Howard writes:

I have some great news. Last night the Birmingham Board of Education unanimously passed the most comprehensive anti-bullying policy in the state of Alabama. I am very proud to have been part of this effort and I want to congratulate my fellow board members on a job well done!

This process began over a year ago. Being the first openly gay man elected in the state and the first openly gay school board member anywhere in Alabama, I knew I wanted our system to be more inclusive and welcoming to ALL of our students, but I also knew this would have to be a process that involved my eight fellow board members.

I first gathered anti-bullying policies from multiple school districts that I felt encompassed what we needed in our policy, and then drafted a policy for Birmingham schools. I then began the long process of having conversation with each board member about why this was important not just as a board policy but also about why it was the right thing to do. I told them my own story of growing up in Birmingham City Schools and being harassed and bullied–and how I carried that pain with me still today. I also helped them to understand how that impacted me and my education. As part of a broader strategic planning process, my fellow board members all agreed that we wanted safer school environments for ALL our children.

I believe these conversations provided the opportunity for all the board members to see the importance of an inclusive anti-bullying policy and to know why they needed to support this policy. None of this would have ever occurred had we not had a voice at the table. It is so critical and so important that we continue to help openly LGBT people elected to public office so we can be the change that we want and need, especially in places like Alabama. I hope you’ll share this with the staff and your supporters.

–Howard

We could not be more proud of Howard, who has worked tirelessly across the state of Alabama and nationally to advance LGBT equality. We need more brave people like him to step up and run for office in their own communities to make change like this possible in places where it doesn’t seem possible. Learn more about running for office as an openly LGBT candidate at www.victoryfund.org.

- by Joe Mont
www.thestreet.com 10/29/09

BOSTON (TheStreet) — As same-sex couples are increasingly being granted rights similar to those of traditional marriages, many will be at a comparative disadvantage as they enter retirement.

The study by the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law says gays and lesbians will have less retirement income and fewer ways to pass savings on to their families after their death. Merrill Lynch, a unit of Bank of America(BAC Quote), helped fund the report.

A large share of same-sex couples will be entering retirement in the next two decades, just as states open marriage and civil-union laws. There are about 1.2 million gay people living with a same-sex partner in America, according to the most recent U.S. Census.

Inequality in retirement savings needs to be addressed, says Naomi Goldberg, author of the survey, titled “The Impact of Inequality for Same Sex Partners in Employer-Sponsored Retirement Plans.”

The study, citing census statistics, shows that traditional couples earn an average of 4% more in combined household retirement income each year compared to same-sex couples. It claims, however, that the statistic only tells part of the story.

Same-sex surviving spouses can’t directly receive the balance of their deceased spouse’s 401(k) plans. Because they must begin making withdrawals immediately, they face a higher tax rate and the loss of accruing interest. Surviving same-sex spouses also pay higher estate taxes.

“The bulk of these inequalities are a direct result of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which forces the federal government to treat same-sex couples differently than married couples when it comes to retirement savings or estate taxes after death,” Goldberg says. DOMA was passed under President Bill Clinton.

There have been changes that have benefited gays and lesbians. The Pension Protection Act of 2006 gives surviving partners of same-sex relationships access to retirement assets.

Corporate America has shown an increased willingness to recognize same-sex couples. Companies such as Boeing, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Nike and Microsoft offer the same benefits to straight and gay couples.

The federal government has proven less open-minded with its employees. Same-sex couples are unable to receive the same health-care, retirement and family-leave benefits. Congress is debating a bill sponsored by Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) that would change that. The move could affect as many as 35,000 government workers at a cost of $56 million in 2010.

The federal government’s lack of recognition for same-sex marriages — even when legally sanctioned by such states as Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa — has a broader impact. Surviving same-sex spouses and partners are unable to tap Social Security spousal or survivor benefits, losing out on an estimated $5,700 a year.

Goldberg says female couples are at a particular disadvantage.

“A female same-sex couple is more likely to be on public assistance, more likely to continue working older in life and they receive less in overall income,” she says. “Women are more likely to move from job-to-job, whether it is because of taking time out for kids or otherwise. When you have two women who are creating a household together, that disadvantage is compounded.”

The study found that female same-sex couples over age 65 have an average of $3,615 less income than straight married couples.

– Reported by Joe Mont in Boston.

On November 3, Washington voters will have the chance to approve or reject R-71, a measure that will allow same-sex couples and unmarried opposite-sex seniors to access many of the rights and protections granted to married couples. We’re counting down to Election Day with a series of seven videos, each a powerful illustration of why it’s so important to approve R-71.

Reason: Janet, Cindy and their seven kids
Janet and Cindy live in Richland in the Tri Cities area of Washington where Cindy works for the Hanford Site and Janet is a minister at River of Life MCC. They have seven kids, six of whom they adopted from foster care. Janet and Cindy love raising a large family, and when they need an extra pair of hands, Cindy’s mother, who lives next door, comes over to help out.

To watch the video, go here http://gbge.aclu.org/blog/seven-reasons-vote-approve-r-71-reason-3

Here’s what Arnold sent to Tom Ammiano. Note what the letters spell as your read the first letter of each line.

To learn more, go to http://www.365gay.com/news/the-notorious-schwarzenegger-letter/

- from The Courage Campaign Equality Program

Progressives are closer than ever to a victory on health care reform. As 2009 comes to a close, we’ve moved forward on other issues. But what’s looming up ahead could be a disappointment.

On Tuesday, November 3rd, 2009- less than a week away- there will be critical votes on on LGBT equality in three states: Washington State, Maine, and Michigan. With so much attention devoted to other issues in the political realm, bloggers have banded together to ensure we don’t forget the ones with a firm deadline next week.

For that reason, we’ve joined with these three campaigns to put together a summary of who, what, and how. If you haven’t heard of these campaigns, and/or haven’t done anything yet to support them, please consider helping out. If you are a blogger please feel free to grab this content whole cloth and use it for your blog posts. Scroll down to the bottom to grab the formatted HTML to drop into a post.

Last year, as Obama and Democrats were winning across the country, we lost marriage equality in California. It was a bittersweet victory. Pitch in to make sure 2009 isn’t a bittersweet year. Take action to support LGBT equality TODAY.

To learn about how to help and sign up for volunteer shifts, visit http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/content/321CountdownForEquality/

By LOU CHIBBARO JR., Washington Blade
Oct 27 2009

Supporters of same-sex marriage far outnumbered opponents Monday at a sometimes contentious D.C. City Council hearing that lasted more than seven hours.

About 100 people, including Bishop Harry Jackson (left), testified Monday for and against a bill that would enact same-sex marriage in D.C. (Blade photo by Michael Key)

Eighty-one witnesses testified in favor of the bill to allow same-sex marriages to be performed in the District of Columbia, compared to 14 people who testified against it.

Council member Phil Mendelson, who chaired the hearing, pounded his gavel repeatedly as some of the witnesses who opposed same-sex marriage shouted biblical passages at the committee members and refused to end their testimony within the allotted time period.

In other cases, Mendelson consoled same-sex couple members who began crying as they testified about their love for one another and their strong desire to cement their relationships through marriage.

And in one of the hearing’s lighter moments, gay rights advocate Peter Montgomery, a senior fellow with the liberal People for the American Way Foundation, testified that he and his partner’s quest to get married has had the support of their families.

“You’ll make my mother very happy if you pass this bill,” he said.

The bill in question — the Religious Freedom & Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009 — was co-introduced by 10 of the Council’s 13 members, making it almost certain that the Council will pass it when it comes up for a final vote in December. Mayor Adrian Fenty has said he will sign the bill.

Council members David Catania (I-At Large), who wrote the bill, and Jim Graham (D-Ward 1), both gay and longtime supporters of same-sex marriage, were among the 10 Council members who participated in the hearing.

If approved by the Council and signed by Fenty, the bill will go to Congress for a 30-day legislative review. Gay rights backers in Congress say they are hopeful that the Democratic controlled House and Senate will clear the bill, allowing it to become law in early 2010.

But some LGBT activists told the committee they could never be sure whether opponents on Capitol Hill might line up enough votes to block the bill or place restrictions on it that could prevent it from taking effect.

Edward Orzechowski, chief executive officer and president of the Washington Archdiocese’s Catholic Charities, told the hearing that his group would consider suing the city if the current wording in Catania’s marriage bill pertaining to exemptions for religious institutions isn’t strengthened.

Orzechowski and Jane Golden-Belford, chancellor and general counsel for the Washington Archdiocese, said the existing bill would force religious groups providing services to the poor, such as Catholic Charities, to provide health insurance benefits to the same-sex married spouses of organization employees, a development said to go against their “religious beliefs.”

Both said this would prompt Catholic Charities to discontinue their charitable work in D.C., including their operation of most of the city’s homeless shelters and the operation of adoption services.

Mendelson and Catania said they would review the concerns to see if possible compromise language can be drafted. But Catania said he was skeptical about changing the bill in a way that would allow groups like Catholic Charities to discrimination against gay employees, especially when the group received as much as 75 percent of its funds from the government.

“I find it offensive when you enter the public square and take public funds, yet you want to discriminate against people over employee benefits,” he said. “We’ll just see you in court if you have a difference over this.”

Other witnesses, including American University law professor Nancy Polikoff, asked the Council to remove from the bill a provision that calls for ending new domestic partnership registrations in the city by January 2011.

Polikoff and other activists said the issue of whether to phase out domestic partnerships once marriage becomes available to same-sex couples should be taken up later in a separate bill.

She and others, including gay activists Bob Summersgill and Rick Rosendall, testified that the Council should consider whether domestic partnerships should remain as an option for people who might prefer them instead of marriage, as well as to benefit some people who would not be able to marry.

Polikoff noted that D.C.’s domestic partnership law includes a provision that allows any two people living together in a “committed familiar relationship,” including two family members such as siblings, to register as domestic partners. Phasing out new registrations would end the ability of people in those situations to form domestic partnerships, Polikoff said.

“I believe the better course of action … is to leave our domestic partnership scheme intact until marriage equality is in place,” she said. “At that point, I will wholeheartedly support, and gladly participate in, the Council’s careful determination of the needs of the wide range of relationships that make up the families of the District of Columbia.”

Catania said he’s willing to consider removing the domestic partnership “sunset” provision from his bill and would discuss the issue with his Council colleagues as the time the committee prepares a final version of the bill.

Marriage opponent: Hearing ‘is a farce’

That the Council is expected to pass the bill drew expressions of disappointment and anger among some opponents at Monday’s hearing before the Council’s Committee on Public Safety & Judiciary, which Mendelson chairs.

“Don’t invite me to the coronation after you have already chosen the king,” said District resident Geraldine Washington. “This is a farce.”

Kathryn Pearson-West, an Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner from Ward 5, called the hearing a “mockery” and said of Council members that “all of you have already made up your minds.”

Like a number of the witnesses opposed to the bill, Pearson-West called on the Council to add a provision to the bill requiring that it be approved or rejected through a voter initiative before it could become law.

Several witnesses, including Bishop Harry Jackson, the Maryland minister who has emerged as the lead opponent of same-sex marriage in D.C., said they would appeal to Congress either to kill the legislation outright or require that it come before voters in a ballot measure similar to California’s Proposition 8.

Voters in California passed Proposition 8 last year, forcing the state to repeal its same-sex marriage law.

Jackson and several other ministers called on the Council to either withdraw the same-sex marriage bill or vote to place it on the ballot.

“The citizens should be given the right to decide whether the definition of marriage should be changed,” Jackson said at the hearing.

“When you change marriage you change the family,” he said. “When you change family, you change the way you teach kids in school.”

Notably, a greater number of clergy members testified in favor of the bill Monday than against it. Most of clergy members backing the bill said they were members of the recently formed coalition D.C. Clergy United for Marriage Equality.

Among the coalition members to testify for the same-sex marriage bill were Rev. Dr. Dennis Wiley of Covenant Baptist Church in Anacostia; Rev. Susan Hayward of First Congregational Church of Christ of Washington; Rev. Dyan McCray of Unity Fellowship Church of Washington; Rev. Charles Arehart of Metropolitan Community Church of Washington; Rev. Paul Roberts Abernathy of St. Mark’s Episcopal Church; and Rev. Dean Snyder of Foundry United Methodist Church.

Rev. Martin Holley, auxiliary bishop of the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington, testified against the bill.

Rev. Dr. Joseph Palacios, a Catholic priest and Georgetown University professor who testified as a member of Catholics United for Marriage Equality, pointed to public opinion polls showing a majority of U.S. Catholics under the age of 65 support the right of same-sex couples to marry.

Religious excemptions called inadequate

Catania’s same-sex marriage bill allows clergy, churches and all religious institutions to refuse to perform same-sex marriages if doing so is contrary to their religious beliefs.

The bill also allows churches and other religious institutions to refuse to allow their buildings and facilities to be used for same-sex marriage ceremonies or to provide benefits and services related to same-sex marriage.

But it doesn’t provide this exemption to a religious institution that provides services or facilities to the general public rather than just to members of its faith.

Orzechowski and Golden-Belford of the Washington Archdiocese said they oppose the bill in its entirely, but if the Council were to pass it, they would like the exemption to be broadened to allow groups like Catholic Charities to refuse to offer employee benefits such as health insurance to same-sex married spouses of their employees.

Both said providing such benefits would violate Catholic doctrine, which disapproves of same-sex marriage.

“The key provision that would appear to provide a religious exemption to religious organizations … gives with one hand and takes away,” Golden-Belford said.

“It provides an exemption but then says the exemption is not available to any religious organization that serves the public,” she said. “But that is also integral to our faith. That is serving our fellow man and in the many, many ways in which we do it.

“We would like to be able to continue to do that and to comply with the law. But as currently drafted, that isn’t possible.”

- By David Edwards
Tuesday, October 27th, 2009, www.therawstory.com

Comedy Central’s Stephen Colbert lampooned same sex marriage opponents in his “The Word” segment Monday night, turning the argument against “outing” on its head by farcically arguing that the signers of an anti-gay marriage petition should be allowed to stay in the closet.

Opponents of gay marriage in Washington state are trying to keep the signers of an anti-gay marriage petition private. Protect Marriage Washington got enough signatories to mount a referendum against a provision allowing gay couples to enjoy the same benefits as straight couples, but refuses to disclose the names of the signers.

“God knows what would happen to our names if they end up in China,” Colbert remarked. “If those names are released, we would all then know the signers. By which i mean their orientation about other people’s sexual orientation. and that’s a very personal thing.

“Some say ‘too bad, they chose to sign this petition,’” Colbert continued. “But, folks, I don’t believe it’s a choice. I believe you’re born thinking gays don’t have the right to get married. Or even be joined in union.

“The gays have no right to out those people,” he added. “My sexual orientation orientation is a matter of public record. I’ve said countless times that I don’t believe gays should be allowed to marry. or get driver’s licenses or join the subway sub club. But some of these petition signers may have open minded parents who aren’t ready to accept that their child is intolerant. They also may not be ready to tell their co-workers that their friend phillip isn’t just a ‘roommate’ but a very special someone who helps them make up facts about Scandinavia. We need to protect this persecuting minority. And the only way to do that is for Washington residents to vote in favor of gay domestic partnerships. Because then, no one will care who signed the petition. And these people can stay in the closet, that the gay people have abandoned.

“And that’s the word,” he concluded.

This video is from Comedy Central’s The Colbert Report, broadcast Oct. 26, 2009.

To watch the video go here: http://rawstory.com/2009/10/colbert-gay-marriage-petition/

To watch the video, go to http://approvereferendum71.org/10/kcts-9-connects-debating-r-71/