The gay marriage battle has dominated the queer landscape over the past few years. Now, as more and more states offer restricted rights, Washington state lawmakers and activists are branching into new territory.

Less than a year after winning the right to establish domestic-partnership contracts through the state, the gay and lesbian community is seeking the rights that go with divorce.

"We are not only asking for the benefits, we are also asking for gay divorce," said Sen. Ed Murray, D- Seattle, sponsor of a new gay rights bill.

Supporters of the legislation unveiled Tuesday say it seeks to provide financial security for same-sex couples by establishing community property rights, probate protections and joint responsibility for debts.

Social conservatives aren't biting, of course, and dismiss the proposed legislation as nothing more than "an incremental step toward gay marriage," said House minority leader Richard DeBolt.

After opposing gay civil union legislation and employment non-discrimination initiatives in the Washington Assembly, State Rep Richard Curtis suddenly finds himself battling allegations of homosex tendencies according to Spokane newspaper The Columbian:

I am not gay," Curtis told Columbian Editor Lou Brancaccio. "I have not had sex with a guy."

Curtis says he's the victim of an attempt by an alleged male prostitute and would-be extortionist seeking to take advantage of his kindness and generosity after "trying to help somebody out."

Fellow politico State Senator Joe Zarelli's advice to Curtis? "Come say your piece and do your thing."

It seems doing precisely that is what got Curtis in his present predicament in the first place.

"Curtis Denies Wrongdoing, Says He Is Not Gay" [The Columbian]

Wham, bam, thank you, Washington. An estimated 100 couples took advantage of the Pacific Northwest state's new domestic partnership law.

Under the law, which went into effect yesterday, cohabitating queer couples can enjoy many marriage-esque rights, including inheritance, hospital visitation and the ever-important autopsy authorization. Ring a ling!

64-year old Jim Malatak and his younger beau, 53-year old Rick Sturgill were the first couple registered yesterday. Malatak rejoiced after sharing a civil kiss with his main man, calling the historic event, " Wonderful. Supremely wonderful. I hope this can be the model for young gays coming up."

CONTINUED »

On the surface it sounds ridiculous and, yes, The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance recognizes the sheer preposterousness of their proposed ballot measure to force married couples to make themselves procreationally useful, but it's also pretty fucking genius.

The non-profit's Initiative 957 will force married couples to have children within three years or have their marriage annulled. It stems from Washington State Supreme Court's 2006 barring gay marriage. In that case, Andersen v. King's County, the majority ruled:

The plaintiffs have not established that they are members of suspect class or that they have a fundamental right to marriage that includes the rights to marry a person of the same sex. Therefore, we apply the highly deferential rational basis standard of review to the legislature's decision that only opposite-sex couples are entitled to civil marriage in this state.
…
DOMA bears a reasonable relationship to legitimate state interests - procreation and child-rearing.

The state has a vested interest in maintaining the federal bloodline, if you will. The Defense Alliance, then, intends to make the court enforce that ruling.

CONTINUED »

Don't you hate coming down off a high? We sure do, especially when said high's a result of progressive gay marriage rulings.

Too bad for us (among others) that Washington State's Supreme Court has refused to reconsider their ban on same-sex marriage, meaning that their decision this summer stands. 365 Gay reports:

In its 5 - 4 July ruling the Supreme Court said that the ban on same-sex marriage, the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, was not unconstitutional. The court did, however, say that the legislature could repeal the law and pass legislation allowing same-sex marriage.

Ug, what's the point of having a supreme court if they don't flex their muscle a little? Sure, checks-and-balances is great and all, but we want results!

"While Mark Foley's plasticine body remains at auction over at eBay", the House Ethic Committee started its third week of investigation into Foley's conduct with Congressional pages and who knew what, when, how, and why. (And probably where, too.)

Today, Sally Vastola, Rep. Tom Reynold's political aide, went before the Committee today. As usual, there's no word of what she actually said, but we're sure she reiterated the "fact" that Tom Reynolds (R-NY) found out about the emails last spring.

Woo.

Later in the week, however, the Committee will get the treat of sifting through the (alleged) pile of bullshit that's being funnelled out of Speaker Dennis "Hasturd" Hastert's office. 365 Gay reports:

The panel also is expected to hear testimony this week from top aides to Hastert, including chief of staff Ted Van Der Meid, who had frequent interactions with former clerk of the House Jeff Trandahl about House operations, including problems in the page program. Hastert's top political aide, Mike Stokke, is also likely to testify this week, and the speaker himself could also testify.

Testimony from Hastert's aides - so far virtually silent about long-known problems about Foley and pages - would go a long way toward wrapping up the interviews required for the panel to make its findings, though it's unclear whether the panel will have enough time to issue a report before Election Day.

In other Foley news, you have catched the Washington Post article yesterday about now Foley used to target the "hot" boys. No? Well, here's a snippet discussing one of Foley's correspondence with a would-be hook-up:

The messages were innocent at first. But after the young man moved home, he recalled, Foley started asking about "my roommates, if I ever saw them naked." Within months, the congressman was dangling a job offer, "because I was a hot boy," he said. Two years later, when he contacted Foley for advice on D.C. hotels, the congressman wrote back: "You could always stay at my place. I'm always here, I'm always lonely, and I'm always up for oral sex."

Foley's a saucy little man, isn't he?

In light of that article (and also that we think it's relevant, interesting, and discussion worthy), we recently received an email from The Stonewall Libertarians - you know, the group that's just like the Libertarian champions of small government, big individuals, and lower taxes, only gay.

We've pasted the entire press release after the jump, but the gist of it is that the entire Mark Foley scandal has high-lighted the tyranny of governmental age of consent laws. President of Stonewall Libertarians New York, Jeff Grizlo, says:

The male pages who sought to pursue a personal relationship with Rep. Foley knew exactly who they were getting involved with when they exchanged e-mails and instant messages with the Congressman. It was no secret Mark Foley was gay. If any of the male pages weren't interested in such a relationship, they could have terminated the communications at any time…I would have beeneager to pursue a personal relationship with Rep. Foley had the opportunity been presented to me. I've been a Bent Wanker for as far back as I can recall.

Nice…

What Grizlo forgets, however, is that not all the boys were "bent wankers" (love that gay speak, by-the-by), but were kids who wanted to support their government. If you recall the Washington Post article:

"I didn't want to piss off a member of an institution that I really revered," said a former Republican page from 2002, who said that, shortly after he finished the program, he exchanged a handful of messages with Foley over two months and that they gradually became sexual. He played along, then slowed his responses until Foley took the hint and stopped. He never considered reporting Foley to authorities. "I figured maybe someday I will want to be involved in Congress," he said. "I didn't want to make an enemy."

We're not sure where we stand on this whole issue (and we're also way tired to get into where consent laws comes from, why we have them, where they should be stuck, etc), so we'll let you guys duke it out in the comments.

CONTINUED »

Well, it seems our friend Mike Rogers and his homies are at it again.

Those of you who read either Blogactive or Page One Qover the weekend saw the post in which they out notoriously anti-gay Oklahoman Republican Tom Coburn's (pictured) legislative director, Roland Foster. No? Well, head on over there and check it out.

Oh, and to that certain ill-adjusted blog that removed our link after our previous Rogers-outing post: that makes us sad.

We were just about to ask you to go steady…

Now that Anthony Mercieca, the priest who admitted to having "intimate" and "inappropriate" contacts with a young Mark Foley, has broken his silence, he can't seem to shut up. Nor, it seems, can he comprehend that nature of his crimes. According to The Advocate, Mercieca gave a reasonably demented explanation:

"Once maybe I touched him or so, but didn't, it wasn't—because it's not something you call, I mean, rape or penetration or anything like that, you know. We were just fondling."

"He seemed to like it, you know? So it was sort of more like a spontaneous thing," Mercieca told WPTV, a West Palm Beach, Fla., station, rejecting Foley's allegations of sexual abuse. "See, 'abuse,' it's a bad word, you know, because abuse, you abuse someone against his will. But it involved just spontaneousness, you know?

Um, who is this guy? Not only is he trying to justify his molestation of a young boy put in his holy charge, but he's doing so with made-up words! His degenerate ways know no bounds! This is like saying a rape victim liked it because she was moaning. Guess what, those weren't moans, those were screams.

Oh, and along the same lines of refuting Foley's claim that it was, in fact, abuse, Mercieca says this:

I would say that if I offended him, I am sorry, but to remember the good time we had together, you know? And how really we enjoyed each other's company. And to let bygones be bygones. Don't keep dwelling on this thing, you know?

Yeah! Just put it all behind you! Sure, you're career's in the shitter, you may face criminal prosecution, and even if you don't go to jail, you'll be ostracized for the rest of your life. The trauma caused? Feh! Walk it off. Remember when you beat me at Space Invaders? Now that's a memory to cherish…

We couldn't resist posting this comic from Salon. We figured you would all get a kick out of it and given the fact that many of you don't have Times access, we guessed you don't have a Salon membership, either.

There have been so many twists and turns in the Mark Foley scandal that we nearly forgot it all started with some emails from a lad in Louisiana. So, how important is said lad? Apparently not at all.

Testifying before the House Ethics Committee yesterday, Louisiana Representative Rodney Alexander insisted that while the boy received emails from Foley, he knew nothing of Foley's other contacts. The New York Times reports:

Representative Rodney Alexander, Republican of Louisiana, said Wednesday that the page, who lives in his district, was not familiar with Mr. Foley’s pattern of conduct and should not be a focal point of the investigation.

“His parents have been almost physically sick about the attention that he’s gotten,” said Mr. Alexander, speaking to reporters after testifying for three hours before the House ethics committee. “We just look forward to the committee continuing their investigation, and hopefully this will come to a conclusion.”

The former page, who told a Congressional aide that Mr. Foley’s request for his photograph was “sick, sick, sick, sick,” has not been identified and has not spoken publicly about the case.

One has to admire this kid's ability to keep mum. If we started a scandal that threatened to take down key members of the government, we'd be all over the television, radio, newspaper, and maybe even a billboard. But that's just us.

Apparently, he just wants to put this whole Mark Foley thing behind him. We're sure Mark Foley wants to be behind him, as well.

In related news, after extensive interviews, the FBI still hasn't found any evidence proving Foley broke federal sex crime laws. Never fear, though, prosecutors still have about two months to decide how to proceed. We have a feeling something will come up. How could it not? If we've gone through all of this and there's not even a trial, it'll be the biggest let down since…well…we don't know. But it'll be big!

(Yep, we've pasted the article for all you cheap bastards.)

CONTINUED »

Sounds disgraced former Congressman Mark Foley has had some time to think since checking himself into rehab last month. If you don't recall (or have been in a coma), Foley whisked himself off to get help for his alleged alchohol problem after some troubling emails between him and former Congressional pages came to the surface of the swamp-land known as Washington.

While Foley's announcement that he liked boys surprised some, and the next one that he adored the hooch shocked his colleagues (many of whom have publicly questioned his so-called addiction) his next bombshell may have been the biggest yet: he had been molested by a clergyman.

What? A drunken homo Congressman was molested by a man of the cloth?

Disturbing, yes, but not least of all to the Archdioscese of Miami, under whom Foley practiced when a lad. In the days following the big news, the Archdioscese asked Foley to name his abuser. Foley, in the dry heaves of withdrawal, no doubt, remained mum.

Now, as the House Ethics Committee investigation heats up in Washington and GOPers are outed by the second, Foley's decided to name the boy-loving priest. The Palm Beach Post reports: "At a news conference Tuesday, Foley's civil attorney, Gerald Richman, said Foley has decided to identify the priest, who is still living."

Goodness gracious, this is more sordid/contrived than Dynasty.

Can't get enough gay political scandal? Neither can we and, thankfully, neither can our friends over The Cup of Joe Blog.

With the revelation that Senator Larry Craig loves cock, they've generated a list of ten sample questions for Tim Russert from NBC's Meet the Press to ask Craig.

We've reprinted them after the jump. Number four is our particular favorite. (As if you care…)

CONTINUED »

In related news, the former House Clerk under Speaker Dennis "Hasturd" Hastert, Jeff Trandahl, will testify before the House Ethics Committee investigating the Mark Foley scandal.

As a crucial Washington and Congressional insider, openly-gay Trandahl's (pictured, looking pretty cheer in The Times) testimony has the potential to make or break this investigation. The New York Times Reports:

The House clerk, a vestige of the patronage system, serves at the pleasure of the speaker and, in recent years, Mr. Hastert’s influential chief counsel, Ted Van Der Meid. House investigators are trying to deduce whether a deteriorating relationship between Mr. Van Der Meid and others in the Capitol, particularly Mr. Trandahl, had a role in the handling of the complaints about Mr. Foley.

So Trandahl served "at the pleasure" of old Speaker Hasturd? That poor, poor man…

The issue at hand is whether or not Trandahl actually alerted Turdie's office or if he gave the information to Kirk Fordham. One thing we do know is that Trandahl confronted Foley about the emails last year. Apparently his words fell flat.

Determining the exact sequence of events will help investigators piece together who knew what when and whether or not key Republican figures helped cover up Mark Foley's "overly-friendly" emails with Congressional pages.

And, yes, we've posted the entire Times article after the jump.

CONTINUED »