Barack Obama: Sometimes he makes me feel all lightheaded. But not in a good way.

Before I get accused of hurting Democratic party unity, let me repeat that I will absolutely vote for Barack Obama in November. I mean, what else can I do?

But I still think he must be held accountable for his continued effort to please everyone on the issue of equal marriage for all. His die-hard supporters have always promoted him as a man of strong conviction, a man who will fight for what's right. So when I hear him in an interview like the one he did last night with Jake Tapper of ABC, I am disappointed. His verbal gymnastics as he tries to please everyone and offend no one, are just painful:

TAPPER: OK, last one, and that is same-sex marriage is now going on in California.

OBAMA: Right.

TAPPER: You oppose same-sex marriage.

OBAMA: Yes.

TAPPER: Do you think that the fact that this is now going on in California, does that cause you to re-think your pledge to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act?

OBAMA: No. I still think that these are decisions that need to be made at a state and local level. I'm a strong supporter of civil unions. And I think that, you know, we're involved in a national conversation about this issue.

You know, I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, but I also think that same-sex partners should be able to visit each other in hospitals, they should be able to transfer property, they should be able to get the same federal rights and benefits that are conferred onto married couples.

And so, you know, as president, my job is to make sure that the federal government is not discriminating and that we maintain the federal government's historic role in not meddling with what states are doing when it comes to marriage law. That's what I'll do as president.

TAPPER: Does it bother you, what California's doing?

OBAMA: No.

Please! Someone get me the Dramamine, 'cause all this back and forth is making me seasick!

Happy Loving Day!

Forty-one years ago today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that it is unconstitutional to outlaw interracial marriages in the United States. As someone who was raised in Virginia, I can tell you that the Supreme Court decision didn't change a whole lot of attitudes in 1967. No, it has taken decades for society as a whole to accept what is right. But finally, it has.

Look around today. I know many interracial couples. I know one young married couple in their mid-twenties who acknowledge that they are still a little unusual, but don't feel the need to explain themselves to anyone. They are the product of a much more accepting society than the one I grew up in.

Oh, yeah, and then there's Barack Obama.

So read a little bit of history about Loving Day, and then join me in the dream that perhaps 41 years from now we'll have a presidential candidate who (gasp!) has two mommies.

Does he get extra credit just for saying the word "gay"?

Barack Obama in Oregon:

"We argue about gay marriage. You know, in the meantime the planet is, you know, potentially being destroyed. We've got a war that is bankrupting us. And we're going to argue about gay marriage? I mean, that doesn't make any sense."

Um, actually, I think gay marriage is kinda worth arguing about. I mean, I understand that it is a divisive issue, but there are a lot of problems in the world that need our attention on which there is not universal agreement: the war in Iraq, poverty, hunger, the environment — so why single out the discussion on gay marriage as the one that "doesn't make any sense"?

I promised earlier that I would never again use the phrase "throw them under the bus" but it sure would be appropriate here ... My civil rights seem to be wearing tire treads ....

ht/to PageOneQ

Happy Valentine's Day. Now can I please marry my partner?

Ah yes, love is in the air. My sweetie and I will be going out to dinner tonight to celebrate this international day of love. We've been together for almost 10 years, through graduate school, career changes, unemployment and underemployment, no health insurance, home buying, surgery, family deaths and births. In other words, through sickness and in health, for richer, for poorer, for better, for worse, in sadness and in joy.

But god forbid we get in an accident tonight and one of us has to go to the hospital. You see, we have basically no legal rights to make decisions of health or welfare for each other. For example, although we both pay the mortgage, only my name is on the deed. The cost of adding my partner's name is prohibitive. It is easily affordable to add one's spouse to a deed, but of course, she's not my spouse. In the eyes of the law, she might as well be a renter. And thank god she has a job with health benefits now -- for 5 years she didn't, and I couldn't add her to my health insurance. We paid a lot of money out of pocket during those years for a trip to the emergency room and for prescription drugs.

We, like so many of your neighbors, are taxpaying good citizens. We mow our lawn and plant flowers. We recycle. We're members of the neighborhood association. We live in a committed relationship of marriage. Yet in an instant our lives could be turned upside down should some health or financial tragedy strike.

This is the 11th annual national Freedom to Marry week. The Constitution's guarantee of equal protection and the right to marry belongs to us all. Please join me in signing the marriage resolution from the Freedom to Marry to help end this discrimination. When we protect and value all of our citizens, we build a stronger and more stable community -- and nation.

Join me in supporting Maryland's Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act

To all my friends and readers who live in Maryland, I'm asking you to take a few minutes of your time to work for the civil rights of your fellow Marylanders. Our state legislators return to Annapolis this week to begin their 90-day regular session. This is the critical window of time to gather cosponsors for The Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act. No matter what your religious convictions, I think you will agree that it's time for Maryland to institute freedom of religion. Freedom of religion means that churches, synagogues, mosques or other religious institutions may decide whether to marry any particular couple. No religious institution will be forced to perform or honor the civil marriage of a same-sex couple.

The greater the number of cosponsors, the more pressure on undecided legislators. Legislators will only cosponsor if they hear from their constituents. So it's up to you and me to make sure our legislators know how important this legislation is to the security and well being of LGBT families in Maryland.

Last fall, I had some simple surgery done at one of the many great hospitals in Baltimore. Although in the end everything turned out fine and I'm in great health today, there was a complication during surgery that required me to stay an extra night in the hospital, and to spend one night in the ICU. Fortunately, my surgeon has known both me and my partner for years, and was very compassionate during this stressful time. We know that we are extremely fortunate. In another hospital, with another doctor, my partner could have been completely excluded from my care. As it was, she waited for 6 hours while I was in surgery. Can you imagine if she had been told she could not see me in ICU because she was not "family"?

Without passage of this important legislation, that just as easily could have happened. A marriage license brings with it hundreds of state protections that same-sex couples in Maryland are denied. Here a just a few:

• Ability to extend health insurance benefits to a spouse
• Right to hospital visitation with and to make medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse
• Added protection for children
• Ability to inherit property without incurring tax penalties
• Ability to name your spouse as primary beneficiary of life insurance without him/her incurring tax penalties
• Right to make burial decisions
• Right to sue for wrongful death

With the Court of Appeals failing to end this discrimination, the struggle to win the freedom to marry for same-sex couples now turns to our elected officials in Annapolis.

Please join me in contacting our state legislators to ask them to support the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act. A civil marriage is a civil right. Please click here to read more about the Act, and to send a message to your state legislators in Annapolis.

Headline of the month: "Yoga Instructor Zapped by Officer for Yelling"

I must have missed this story in all the pre-Christmas hoopla. Everyone else must have missed it, too, because otherwise I would think (that is, I would hope) that it would get more press than just a couple of paragraphs.

From The Ledger:

DAYTONA BEACH | A police officer used a stun gun to zap a yoga instructor who yelled at her in a crowded department store, drawing questions about the non-lethal weapon's use.

Elizabeth Beeland, 35, went to a Daytona Beach Best Buy on Nov. 26 to purchase a CD player for her father. Her lawyer said she stepped outside the store when she received an emergency call about her daughter, leaving her credit card behind.

A store clerk suspected Beeland was using a stolen card and called over Daytona Beach Police Officer Claudia Wright, who was at the store.

When Wright approached Beeland, she became "verbally profane, abusive, loud and irate," Wright reported.

In a video posted on the Daytona Beach News-Journal Web site, Beeland is seen backing away and avoiding Wright before crumpling to the floor after being hit with the Taser's 50,000 volts.

She was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct and resisting a police officer without violence.

The "Don't taze me bro" story from earlier this year got lots and lots of attention and outrage at the time. Unfortunately we were all subjected to repeated showings of the young man badgering John Kerry at the Florida speech, and I guess eventually we all thought, well, he was getting kinda obnoxious. After watching the video over and over again, well, tasing started to seem almost reasonable. I at least wanted to flick him in the forehead.

But here we have a woman who's in the pre-Christmas shopping nightmare that is Best Buy, and she mouths off to a security guard. And that's enough to get her tased?! Good lord almighty! What's next -- Customer Service will have a handy taser behind the counter for when customers get upset about an expired 30 day warranty?

I emphasized the final sentence in the news story because this is where your civil rights just gasped their last sigh: She was not violent, yet she was tased. The arresting officer said the woman was "verbally profane, abusive, loud and irate."

Sister, I taught six years of middle school. Do you know how many hundreds of students I would have tased if that were the benchmark? There was a time in this country when we were allowed to be an irate customer.  Have we become so afraid of the terrorist shadow that even that little slice of our lives has been taken away?

I, for one, plan to continue to be an irate customer when warranted. But I guess I'd better invest in one of those t-shirts: "Don't tase me, bro!" for whenever I hit the mall.

Why Civil Unions Aren't Enough

I have often been asked my opinion on “gay marriage.” First off, I hate that phrase. How about instead we say “marriage, including gay people”? You see, when it's phrased as “gay marriage” it sounds like some special kind of marriage — and it's not. It is a commitment between two people, which gives each person in the relationship responsibilities and rights concerning property, finances, and health care.

Some people find the phrase “civil union” more acceptable, but there's a major flaw in this phrase: not every state recognizes it. And even in the states that do recognize civil unions, such as New Jersey, many couples are still being denied access to their employer's benefits for their spouse.

I accept, though I disagree with, religious beliefs against marriage of two gay persons. I do not accept that anyone's religious beliefs have any bearing on my civil rights. Some religions think women should not drive cars, and Americans have voiced outrage at such an idea. Yet how is that any different than a religious belief banning me from marrying my partner?

For an excellent description of the real flaws in the concept of civil unions, check out AlterNet.org.