A crucial vote today in the Minnesota House positioned the state to become the 12th in the United States to permit gay marriages and the first in the Midwest to pass such a law. 

 

The 75 to 59 vote was viewed as the first pivotal step for the bill to become a law; the law would permit same-sex couples to marry beginning August 1st. The vote represents a starting shift in the state, where just six months prior voters surprisingly rejected an effort to ban same-sex marriages in the state’s constitution. 

The Minnesota Senate is expected to consider the bill on Monday, and leaders anticipate that the measure will pass. Governor Mark Dayton has pledged to sign the bill into law if it passes. 

 

Hundreds of people on both sides of the debate rallied Thursday at the state Capitol, which was under tighter than the usual security. Pro-marriage supporters lined the hallways outside the House Chambers. Many of these individuals were dressed in orange and held signs that read< “I support the freedom to marry.” Behind these supporters were opponents who held up their own signs, reading simply “Vote No.”

Eleven other states in the U.S. currently permit gay marriage, including Delaware and Rhode Island, which approve the measure in the past 6 days. If the bill passes, Minnesota would be the first state in the Midwest to permit gay marriages out of its legislature. 

 

Iowa; however, permits gay marriages because of a 2009 court ruling, and leaders in Illinois claims that the state is very close to having the votes needed to approve gay marriages. That said, the majority of other states surrounding Minnesota implement constitutional bans against same-sex marriages, so the shift in support may not spread the country’s heartland nearly as quickly as it has to the liberal areas, particularly the coast lines and New England. 

 

The push for gay marriage in Minnesota grew out of last fall’s successful campaign to strike down a constitutional amendment that would have prohibited it. Minnesota thus became the first to turn back such an amendment after 26 states had passed one. 

This same election put Democrats in control of the state government for the first time in more than 20 years, which is a perfect scenario for gay marriage supporters to quickly pursue legalization. 

 

 

Source: Human Rights Campaign

 

A Nevada Assembly Committee underwent a testimony on the Senate Joint Resolution 13 yesterday when many of those who previously testified earlier this year maintained their opposition or support for the measure that would effectively repeal the state’s constitutional ban against same-sex marriages. 

 

That said, there were some new opinions offered at the testimony, including Assemblywoman Michele Fiore who announced her support for gay marriage. 

“My mother is gay,” said Fiore. “My two daughters and I are straight. My mother is a democrat. My two daughters and I are both staunch Republicans. I am the person I am today, because of the upbringing and guidance of my mother who is a gay woman.”

Senators Pat Spearman, Tick Segerblom and David Parks, all democrats out of sin city, introduced the resolution to the Committee on Legislative Operations and General Elections. 

 

James Ohrenschall, the committee chairman, allowed those who opposed gay marriage to testify first. Mr. Ohrenschall wanted to ensure that everyone offering an opinion had an equal opportunity to have their voices heard. With more than 50 individuals signed in to testify, speakers were given two minutes to make their case for or against gay marriage in Nevada. 

 

Those who opposed gay marriage spoke of their concern that the law would infringe on their own religious viewpoints and freedoms, These individuals stated that they did not believe the proposed amendment, which would permit religious institutions to exercise their right to not marry gay men or lesbian women, was insufficient. 

 

“This is a significant constitutional amendment as no other state in the U.S. has actually placed it in their constitution; the proposal does far more than simply repealing gay marriage,” said a spokesperson for the Nevada Eagle Forum. 

 

Riley Roberts, a local high school student and the son of lesbian parents, was one of the young residents of Nevada who testified in support of the gay marriage initiative. Roberts became highly emotional as he described how his parents were no different than straight couples and therefore should be awarded the same rights as heterosexual marriage couples. 

 

“I was born in this state 18 years ago and guess who was there? My mother Gretchen Miller and Pamela Roberts, my loving parents,” Roberts said. “My mothers were also there to watch me take my first steps.”

 

The committee wrapped up after three hours of testimony on proposition 13; no action was taken, but it will be brought to committee again for an expected resolution sometime in the near future. 

 

 

Source: Human Rights Campaign

 

President Obama’s $3.77 trillion budget proposal for 2014 calls for long-term changes to Social Security and Medicare in hopes of reducing the deficit by $1.8 trillion over the next decade.

 

The budget’s blueprint, which has already drawn criticism from both the right and left, offers changes to Social Security and Medicare. The budget also includes tax increases that would hit high-income corporations and homes. 

 

The Obama budget also calls for greater spending on infrastructure, nondefense research and early childhood education programs. These investments would be funded by other measures to avoid further adding to the deficit. 

 

“Debate in Washington has raged between reducing our deficits and making investments needed to grow our economy. My budget answers this argument; we can grow our economy, and reduce our deficits,” said the President. 

 

President Obama’s budget was released with a delay, coming after the House and Senate each passed separate and different 2014 budget frameworks. 

 

While the proposal is not expected to fly on Capitol Hill, Obama’s budget sets a powerful marker for continuing debt talks with lawmakers. 

 

President Obama’s budget calls for a $50 billion investment to repair bridges, highways, airports and transit systems. The budget would also create a National Infrastructure Bank to merge public and private capital for noteworthy projects.

 

Obama has already faced heavy criticism from the left for supporting a switch to a chained CPI measure, which is a new way to track inflation to ultimately reduce federal spending by slowing the growth in federal benefits which are adjusted each year for cost of living purposes. Obama’s budget; however, calls for ways to compensate low-income veterans and recipients of Supplemental Security Income. 

 

By 2020, the use of the chained CPI measure would yield an average tax increase of $311 among the 80 percent of homes that would see a tax increase. 

 

Among the President’s new tax measures, Obama plans to place a cap on the tax-advantaged portion of a person’s savings across tax-preferred retirement accounts, such as IRAs. 

 

The President’s debt reduction proposal comes from an offer he made to House Speaker John Boehner during last year’s fiscal cliff talks. The proposal, if accepted, would replace the automatic budget cuts, which took effect last month.  

 

 

Source: whitehouse.gov

 

A recent wave of tremendous cyber-attacks has proven it is possible to bend, but not shatter the Internet. 

 

It is easy for a virus to take down a website; attack methods known as “distributed denials of service” enable cybercriminals to direct considerable amounts of traffic to a website to overwhelm its servers and render the site unreachable. Government websites, banks and financial exchanges have been commonly targeted venues for distributed denial of service attacks. 

 

However last month, European spam-prevention service Spamhaus was rocked by the largest known cyber-attack in history causing Internet speeds to slow throughout large chunks of Europe. The attackers utilized nearly 100,000 servers to transmit 300 gigabits of traffic per second during the breach. The attack was more than three times larger than the Iranian-sponsored cyber-attacks of September 2012, which impeded access to some American banks’ websites for days. 

 

Yet many experts contend that the entire Internet cannot just be flipped on or off like a simple light switch. “The infrastructure of the Internet is highly robust and designed to guarantee reliable traffic at a high quality of service,” said Dr. Schneck, chief technology officer at Intel’s Internet security division. 

 

Despite the relative ease of taking down individual websites, it would be particularly difficult to sustain a widespread level of attack for a lengthy period of time, let alone a continuous flow of traffic that would exceed the limits of Internet service providers. 

The Internet is also too widely distributed to fall victim to a widespread attack. There have numerous occasions when regional access to the Internet was disrupted, either by attacks on vital services, accidental cable cutting, or a government-run utility limiting or shutting off access. Yet the Internet continued to work for billions of people outside of those regions. 

 

In the United States, a number of redundancies are built into the Internet; if one or two avenues are disrupted from your local network to the Internet, you likely won’t even notice a hitch. 

 

Another reason why the Internet is impossible to take down: cyber attackers depend on the Internet to operate. “The Internet is what the attackers need to deliver their attack,” said Gavin Reed, the director of engineering and products for Cisco. “I suppose it is possible for an attack to be large enough to destroy large chunks of the Internet, but we have not seen that happen.” 

 

Only government bodies have the ability to grind the entire Internet to a halt for a sustained period of time. So even as cyber-attacks increase in frequency and size, cyber criminals will never be able to take down the entire Internet. 

 

Source: whitehouse.gov

 

 

As the battle for the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act heats up in the state of New York, two prominent members of the Trans Rights Coalition have launched powerful media campaigns to educate New York residents about discrimination on the basis of expression and gender identity. 

 

The New York State Pride Agenda movement—often known as the Empire State Pride Agenda Campaign—has been broadcasting a radio spot in a number of media markets throughout the state. These advertisements serve as a reminder to listeners that New York employees should be judged on their accomplishments and merits, and not on the basis of their expression or gender identity. The Human Rights Campaign issued a simply statement to back the initiative of the Empire State Pride Agenda campaign, by saying “nobody deserves to be fired from their job or not hired for an employment opportunity because of who they are.”

 

Housing works has issued several postcards that illustrate the struggles that transgender New Yorkers face on a day to day basis. Housing works also explains on its webpage why the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act is such a critical piece of legislation to an initiative whose mission is related to the homelessness and HIV populations. 

 

Both campaigns draw attention to the prominence of New York State passing the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act this legislative session. This piece of legislation would prohibit discrimination against transgender people in employment, education, housing, credit and public accommodations. The state of New York protects lesbian, gay, bisexual, and heterosexual people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. 

 

The Human Rights Campaign claims that it is time for the state of New York to close the gap and guarantee that transgender individuals are afforded the same vital anti-discrimination protections that are provided to the rest of the population. Currently sixteen states, Washington D.C., and 166 cities and towns in the United States institute similar laws, including Buffalo, Albany, New York City, Suffolk County, Rochester, and Tompkins County in the state of New York.  

 

 

Source: Human Rights Campaign

 

Support for same-sex marriage is now seemingly a wide held belief among adults born after 1980 as 70 percent claim that they believe lesbian women and gay men should be able to marry.

 

These results were released today from Pew Research; the poll showed millennial support for same sex marriage far outpaces any other generation in the United States. Among those Americans born between 1928 and 1945, only 31 percent support gay marriage. Meanwhile, nearly 40 percent of Baby Boomers and roughly half of Generation X-ers say they believe gay men and lesbian women should be allowed to legally marry. 

 

The prodigious support of the millennial generation has driven a significant shift in the country’s overall attitude toward same sex marriage. Presently, roughly 50 percent of Americans are in favor of legalizing gay marriage while 44 percent are opposed to the formation. This is a dramatic reversal from just 10 years ago, when over 58 percent of Americans opposed gay marriage and just a third of Americans were in favor of gay marriage. 

 

Last Tuesday, Rhode Island became the 10th state in the U.S. to legalize gay marriage. The state Senate of Delaware is set to vote tomorrow on a measure that only narrowly passed in the state House that would also allow gay men and lesbian women to secure a legal marriage. 

 

Earlier this year, the United States Supreme Court heard a pair of cases that challenged the constitutionality of a federal law that prohibits the government from conferring benefits on gay spouses and a California state law that prohibits the formation of gay marriages. The results of these cases are expected to be rendered sometime in June. Gay rights activists and supporters are hoping that the Court will rule in a matter that will legalize gay marriage in more or all of the 50 states in the U.S. 

 

 

Source: Human Rights Campaign

 

Today, President Barack Obama welcomed President Park Guen-hye of South Korea to the White House to celebrate 60 years of bilateral partnership between the United States and South Korea. 

 

Established after the Korean War, the United States-Republic of Korean Alliance is a linchpin of security and peace on the Korean Peninsula and within the Asia Pacific Region. 

 

Today, the two leaders affirmed that they would continue building on the last sixty years of stability by adapting and strengthening the alliance to adhere to the security challenges of the 21st century. 

 

“Guided by our shared vision, we are investing in the shared technologies and capabilities and missile defense systems that allow our forces to operate and succeed with one another,” said President Obama. The President added, “we are determined to be fully prepared to meet fully any challenge or threat to our nation’s security.”

President Park and President Obama also agreed to continue implementing the historic trade agreement between South Korea and the United States, which is already yielding benefits for both of our nations, President Obama said. 

 

“The United States is selling more exports to South Korea, more services, more manufactured goods, and more agricultural products,” the President said. “And even though we have a long way to go, our automobile exports are up nearly 50 percent, and the Big Three (Ford, Chrysler, and GM) are selling more and more cars in South Korea.

The agreement between the two nations is expected to boost American exports by roughly $10 billion and support tens of thousands of American jobs, in addition to creating employment opportunities in Korea, President Obama said. 

 

President Obama thanked President Park, who is the Republic of South Korea’s first female President, for choosing the United States of America as her first foreign trip. The visit between the two presidents reflects South Korea’s progress over the past 60 years,” President Obama said, “from the lowly depths of war, to one of the globe’s strongest economies; from a recipient of international aid to a donor that now helps other countries develop.”  

 

 

Source: whitehouse.gov

 

Greenwich Village, the birthplace of the American gay rights movement, remained in a state of shock on Sunday over the shooting of a homosexual man by gunman who police claimed uttered anti-gay slurs prior to targeting the victim. 

 

Mark Carson, age 32, was shot and killed in Greenwich Village near midnight on Friday in what Police describe as a hate crime. Others are postulating that the shooting could be a backlash against the advance of gay marriage laws across the nation.

 

The New York City neighborhood has long been a haven for artists, and its Stonewall Inn has served as a landmark for gay rights since a 1969 conflict when patrons of the gay bar stood firm against a police raid. 

 

Sympathizers built a shrine to the victim on Sunday, leaving flowers, cards, and lighting candles at the spot where he was slain, on Sixth Avenue at Eighth Street.

“This area is supposed to serve as the world’s capital for gay rights,” said Josh Steinman, age 42, who paused for a moment in front of the memorial. 

 

The killing marked the 22nd anti-gay hate crime in the city this year, compared to only 13 incidents at this time last year, said New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly. 

 

“It is abundantly clear that the victim was murdered solely for the fact that he was thought to be a homosexual,” Kelly said. “There is no question about the motive; there were derogatory remarks, and the victim did nothing to instigate or antagonize the shooter. It was only because the shooter thought his victim was a homosexual.”

A suspect, identified as Elliot Morales, age 33, was arrested and charged with second degree murder as and a hate crime shortly after the shooting. Mr. Morales is currently being held without bail and two of his accomplices are cooperating with authorities. 

“I cannot fathom that something like this happened in the village,” said Carmine Tzavis, a bartender at the Stonewall Inn.

 

Residents of the Village said they were scared and feared the violence may have been motivated by the advancement in gay marriage laws throughout the country.

Last week, Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton signed a bill to make his state the 12th in the nation to allow gay couples to marry. 

 

 

Source: Human Rights Campaign

Gay Marriage Passes in the House of Commons

 

The House of Commons voted to permit gay marriage in Wales and England, despite 161 members of Parliament opposing the British government’s plans. 

 

Several Tory Members of Parliament spoke openly against the bill, which have caused a rift in the party, but leaders of the Labour and Democratic Party backed them. 

The Same Sex Couples Bill will not go before the House of Lords for final approval.  

Prime Minister David Cameron hopes the Same Sex Couples Bill to become law soon with the first gay marriages taking place by next summer. 

 

If passed the Same Sex Couples Bill will allow gay couples, who are currently allowed to hold civil ceremonies, to legally marry in Wales and England. 

 

According to the bill, religious institutions would be required to “opt in” to offering same sex weddings, with the Church in Wales and the Church of England being banned in law from doing so. 

 

The Secretary of Wales Mr. David Jones and Environment Official Owen Paterson voted against the Same Sex Marriage bill at its third hearing—these two officials were joined by 10 junior ministers of the nation. 

 

In total, 133 Tories opposed the same sex marriage bill, along with 15 Labour Members of Parliament, four members of the Liberal Democratic Party, one independent, and eight Democratic Unionists. Again, the proposal will now go to the House of Lords tomorrow, where it is expected to generate heated discussion. 

Demonstrators who oppose the proposed law held a vigil across from the Palace of Westminster as the vote took place. A woman was arrested by police after attempting to drive an automobile through the gates of the Palace as the vote was underway. 

The bill’s third reading was supported by 366 Members of Parliament, giving it the necessary majority of 205. There was a smattering of applause in the chamber after the results were announced. 

 

The result represents a marginal improvement for the Prime minister compared to the second reading, when 175 Members of Parliament opposed the plans. 

 

 

Source: Human Rights Campaign

 

Delegates to the yearly meeting of the Boy Scouts of America issued a landmark statement today, voting to allow openly gay young members to join their organization. 

Boy Scouts of America is comprised of a 1,400-member national council, which voted for the policy change that is set to take effect on the 1st of January next year. 

 

“No young person shall be denied membership in the Boy Scouts of America on the basis of their sexual orientation or their sexual preferences,” says the approved resolution. The Boy Scouts of America; however, will maintain its ban on gay adult leaders. 

 

“Today is a monumental day for Boy Scouts across the United States who want to be a part of this great national institution,” said Chad Griffin, the President of the Human Rights Campaign. “However, the new policy does not go far enough. Adults and parents of good moral characters, regardless of their sexual preferences, should be able to volunteer to mentor the next generation of great Americans.”

 

“The Boy Scouts of America can do a better job with their inclusion of homosexual members,” said Zach Wahls, the Executive Director of Scouts for Equality and an Eagle Scout. “We welcome the news with open arms that the ban on homosexual scouts is now a part of the past; however, our work is not over until we honor the Scout Law by making this great American institution open to all.”

 

In addition to the ban on homosexual scout leaders, the new policy does not answer the issue of employment discrimination. Currently, the job application for the Boy Scouts of America for positions for “professional commission” explicitly states that gays should not apply. The job application, which comes from the organization’s national office and appears to be used across the United States, reads: “The Boy Scouts of America will not accept applications from atheists, agnostics, and known homosexuals.”

 

 

Source: Human Rights Campaign