An organizing committee in formation, made up of leaders from around the state, is in the process of creating and launching a statewide federation of local organizations: Organizations United Together, Inc. ("OUT").

OUT's mission will be to connect and empower local organizations to share resources, skills and information in order to forge statewide strength in the pursuit of equality and justice for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Floridians. OUT intends to work hand-in-hand with other state and national organizations that share similar goals.

A first meeting of local leaders from around the state will be hosted by OUT in Orlando, Florida on January 24, 2009. The meeting will provide additional information on OUT, as well as news on several important projects related to LGBT equality from various parts of the state. If you, or your local LGBT or allied organization, are interested in attending this meeting, please contact us at info@outfl.org. More detailed information, including starting time and the address for the meeting location, will be provided prior to the date of the meeting.

Also, if you know someone who should be invited to this meeting, please forward this message and ask that person to contact us at the email address above.

Lisa Livezey Comingore, Leon - Impact Tallahassee
Karen Doering, Pinellas
Rand Hoch, Palm Beach - Palm Beach County Human Rights Council
Ted Howard, Hillsborough - Unity Leadership Conferences
Cathy James, Hillsborough - Tampa Bay Family Pride
Michael Kenny, Broward
C.J. Ortuno, Miami-Dade - SAVE Dade
Heddy Pena, Miami-Dade
John Ruffier, Orlando
Michael Shelton, Sarasota - Sarasota Equality Project

By Stephen McCauley | Boston Globe

MAYBE IT'S the holiday season making me uncharacteristically optimistic, or maybe I just quit therapy too soon - after all, 25 years on the couch isn't that long in the grand scheme of things. Whether crazy or merely upbeat, I found myself at a friend's Thanksgiving dinner arguing that the lack of coverage given the embarrassing arrests of two more Republican politicians last month is a positive sign, and that Senator Larry Craig's refusal to retire could be read as an act of gay liberation.

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't heartbroken to read, on some obscure blog or other, about the November arrests of Florida State Representative Bob Allen and Daytona Beach City Commissioner and mayoral candidate Mike Shallow, Republicans busted in separate sting operations. I enjoy a political sex scandal at least as much as the next guy. And when the politician is one of those religious fanatics who wields his "values" voting record like a badge of moral superiority, the guilty pleasure can be intense.

I've had plenty of reason to gloat for the past 16 months or so. One high profile conservative after another seems to get caught with his pants down - either online (Mark Foley), on a madam's private phone log (David Vitter), or in a men's room (Craig).

If you consider the Reverend Ted Haggard a political figure - and given the current blurring of church and state, why not? - you can't help but notice that the vast majority of these incidents involve same-sex encounters. Haggard, once a spiritual adviser to President Bush, is the sanctity-of-marriage preacher who talked to reporters about his dalliances with crystal meth and a male prostitute while leaning across his wife and children in the front seat of his sport utility vehicle.

For those of us who feel personally stung by the Republican Party's demonization of gay marriage and homosexuality in general, these stories serve as vindication, irrefutable proof of the hypocrisy behind the homophobia. Ditto, on a grander scale and with more tragic consequences, the ongoing pedophile scandals of the Catholic Church.

Additionally, the misfortunes of Larry "I Am Not Gay" Craig and others like him have made public a truth of human sexuality privately known by a lot of us for quite some time: A surprising number of men believe that marrying a woman is enough to make you heterosexual, and that lying convincingly is enough to make you monogamous.

"If that's all true," said my Thanksgiving dinner companion, "I'd think you'd want as much media coverage and humiliation as possible for every disgraced hypocrite."

I'd think so, too, but Christmas is coming. And the truth is, I've begun to feel guilty gloating over the outing of another "not gay" man as a result of police entrapment and kiss-and-tell hustlers. Call me old-fashioned, but it seems to me if you're selling sexual favors, keeping your mouth shut about your customers should be included in the purchase price. And personally, I'd feel a lot safer flying if I thought the undercover cops working at airports were trolling for explosives, not married men with restless legs syndrome.

One glance at Craig's anti-environment, homophobic voting record makes me wish he'd done what his party hoped he'd do - resign and slip off quietly to some sexual deprogramming camp where Haggard and other lost causes are allegedly straightened out. But when you compare the contempt Craig received from the Republican hierarchy with the forgiveness shown to Vitter for his heterosexual transgressions, you can't help but notice a double standard at work. Couldn't you read Craig's return to the Senate, after spending less time in retirement than Paris Hilton spent in jail, a radical act, the equivalent of refusing to give up a seat at the front of the bus?

Maybe his reemergence - and the lack of coverage of the two Florida busts - are evidence that we're getting a little Frenchified in our attitudes. Maybe we're finally accepting that human sexuality is a lot more complicated and insistent than is convenient, and that restoring honor and decency to the White House and other political institutions has little to do with an elected official's sexual orientation. The latest polls rank Bill Clinton so far ahead of George Bush in competence and credibility, a majority might gladly allow the occasional Oval Office romp in return for eight years of peace, prosperity, and grammatically coherent press conferences.

"You're crazy," said a dinner guest to my left. "Craig's in such denial, he believes his own excuses. As for those guys in Florida, they're just not photogenic enough to get coverage. These days, the media has high standards, even for mug shots."

Too bad. I was hoping optimism was a sign of mental health.

Stephen McCauley, a guest columnist, has written five novels and teaches at Brandeis.

The well-publicized failure of Gov. Ernie Fletcher's campaign to secure a last-minute surge in conservative voters by telling them that Gov.-elect Steven Beshear would recreate Kentucky as a "new San Francisco" marks an important change in both Kentucky and national political strategies.

New analyses of Census Bureau data suggest that this failed "gay card" strategy may in part be a result of a dramatically more visible lesbian and gay population in some of the most conservative parts of the country -- including Kentucky's largest city, Louisville.

Since 1990, the Census Bureau has tracked the presence of same-sex "unmarried partners," commonly understood to be lesbian and gay couples. From an initial count of about 145,000 same-sex couples in 1990, the 2006 data show that this population has increased fivefold to nearly 780,000 couples. The number of same-sex couples grew more than 21 times faster than did the U.S. population.

Kentucky has seen an astounding twelve-fold increase from 862 same-sex couples counted in 1990 to more than 10,300 in 2006. In the same time period, the number of self-identified same-sex couples in other socially conservative Mountain, Midwest and Southern states exceeded a six-fold increase. Compare that with liberal East and West Coast states, where increases have been less than four-fold. Now either there's been a wildly successful gay recruitment campaign, or lots more lesbian and gay couples are "coming out" on government surveys.

Evidence strongly points to the latter. In a 1992 survey by the University of Chicago, 2.8 percent of men and 1.4 percent women identified themselves as lesbian, gay or bisexual. Ten years later, a National Center for Health Statistics study pegged that figure at 4.1 percent -- almost one-and-a-half times more men and three times more women.

At the same time, national support for gay people grows. In the late 1980s, Gallup polls found about 30 percent of Americans thought "homosexual relations between consenting adults" should be legal. A May 2007 poll finds this figure has risen to 59 percent.

Louisville, now home to nearly 2,000 same-sex couples, serves as the bellwether for these changes in Kentucky. Since 2000, the city experienced the biggest percentage increases (151 percent) among the nation's 50 largest cities. As a result, its ranking among those cities for the percent of same-sex couples in the population has moved from 41st in 1990 to 28th in 2006.

While Louisville's increases in same-sex couples are consistent with those seen in other parts of the South, the reasons for the increase are a bit different. States in the upper South have experienced relatively modest population growth, suggesting that most of the increases in same-sex couples are likely a product of more gay visibility among natives, rather than a large-scale migration to the area. In contrast, Louisville has experienced above-average population increases that no doubt include an influx of gay people. Such changes are moving the social and political climate barometer (drawing on those ubiquitous red and blue maps) in a decidedly purple direction.

Kentucky now has five openly lesbian or gay officials, including council members in Louisville and Lexington, the vice-mayor of Lexington and a state senator. That's more than in regional neighbors Tennessee, Alabama and Mississippi combined. Louisville has an ordinance banning discrimination based on sexual orientation, and last year the University of Louisville began offering domestic partner benefits for same-sex couples. And now it looks like the Jefferson school board is about to expand harassment and employment policies to protect gay and lesbian workers. Sounds pretty purple to me.

Closets are emptying in Kentucky and across the heartland, belying the notion that the rights of gay men and lesbians are somehow separate from those of mainstream America. As Americans across the country meet their lesbian and gay neighbors, all evidence suggests that they will become more supportive of gay rights. Politicians beware -- playing the gay card may just assure a losing hand.

Gary J. Gates is a senior research fellow at the UCLA School of Law's Williams Institute and co-author of The Gay and Lesbian Atlas.

Opponents stress that measure could affect straight couples

By WILLIAM MARCH The Tampa Tribune

Published: Sep 26, 2007

TAMPA - If you've been following the news about the Florida presidential primary, you may have asked yourself: How did we get in this mess?

The "mess" is that Florida's Democratic presidential primary may not count because the state may not be allowed any delegates to the Democratic National Convention.

Democratic candidates, meanwhile, said they plan to boycott Florida starting Saturday.

On the Republican side, the impact of primary votes may be diluted because Florida may lose half its delegates to the Republican National Convention.

Here are some answers as to how this came about.

Don't the Constitution or federal law control primaries?

No. They spell out how to elect a president, but not how to choose the nominees.

The result: A hodgepodge system that developed over the years based on tradition, political maneuvering, unintended consequences and sheer accident.

National political parties set their own rules for choosing nominees and running their national conventions, and state parties choose their delegates to the convention.

State governments decide whether or when they hold primary elections.

Usually, the outcome of the primary election determines how the state party chooses its delegates to the convention, and those delegates then vote at the convention for the winning candidate. But in some states, including Florida, the state party may instead choose delegates based on a caucus or some other method.

In any case, the delegates' convention votes actually pick the nominee.

Why are the political parties trying to tell Florida when it can hold its primary?

That's not exactly what they're doing, although it's close.

Both national parties have rules intended to discourage states from holding primaries before Feb. 5, 2008. But the parties don't control Florida's primary - the state Legislature voted last spring to hold it Jan. 29.

The parties' rules actually concern selection of national convention delegates. They apply penalties - loss of half of more of the delegates - if a state party chooses its delegates based on a primary or caucus held before Feb. 5.

The Democrats, but not the Republicans, allow exceptions for four "early states": Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.

Why those four states?

Iowa and New Hampshire are the traditional early states, New Hampshire with the nation's first primary and Iowa with the first caucus. Both are small states where candidates campaign in person before small groups, instead of on TV. Some political experts say that results in better informed voters.

Nevada and South Carolina were added because they're also small, and the Democrats hoped to give more influence to minority voters - Hispanics in Nevada, blacks in South Carolina.

Why do the parties care about primary dates?

States have been moving their primary dates earlier and earlier, making the campaigns longer and more expensive. Many people don't like that.

Why do states want their primaries to be early?

Candidates who win early primaries get momentum. Therefore candidates cater to early states, promising them and their political leaders benefits.

One example often cited is the ethanol subsidy program, sustained by presidential candidates who support it in order to win favor in Iowa, a corn state.

Florida leaders want a national catastrophe fund for hurricanes, and limits on oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and the Everglades. That's part of the reason the Legislature voted to move Florida's primary to Jan. 29.

How did Iowa and New Hampshire get to be the "traditional early states"?

By accident.

New Hampshire's early primary date originally was chosen to coincide with town meetings held in early March, when roads would still be frozen, not muddy, and farmers could get to town.

Iowa chose an early date for its precinct caucuses in 1972 because of its state convention schedule.

Both states found that the early dates made them the center of attention, and liked it.

They've since passed laws requiring that their events remain the earliest in the nation.

Couldn't the candidates just ignore the early primaries?

Yes, and sometimes they do, but it's a risk. A competing candidate may campaign hard, win, and get the momentum.

So what happened to Florida?

Florida Democrats could have avoided the national party's penalty by finding another way besides the primary to choose their convention delegates, such as a caucus or direct-mail ballot, as long as it was held on or after Feb. 5.

But the state party decided this week to stick with the primary. The reasons:

•The party doesn't have the millions a statewide caucus or mail ballot would cost. A small-scale caucus, involving only a few thousand party activists, would be affordable but undemocratic, state party leaders believe.

•The Jan. 29 primary vote will be held regardless of how delegates are chosen - the Legislature has said so. After the bitter controversy over uncounted votes in the 2000 presidential election, Florida Democrats don't want the Jan. 29 election to seem not to count.

State Republicans also are sticking by the primary.

As result, the national Democratic Party has voted to eliminate the Florida convention delegation, and Republicans face loss of half their delegation.

In addition, Democratic Party leaders in the four early states asked the Democratic candidates to sign a pledge to boycott any state that violates the national party rules. Not wanting to alienate the crucial early states - particularly Iowa, where the race is close - the leading candidates agreed.

Republican legislators who favored the Jan. 29 date said they're happy to accept the penalties in return for the increased influence of an early primary. Republican candidates are campaigning hard here, ardently seeking the favor of state party leaders.

What happens next?

Both national parties will issue final rulings on the state convention delegations - the Democrats on Saturday and the Republicans by Dec. 31.

Florida Republicans say they'll fight sanctions. But ultimately, the rulings may not matter.

Most experts think one candidate in each party will win enough delegates before the convention to become the clear winner - the "presumptive nominee." That candidate will take over convention planning, and probably will seat the Florida delegates.

Meanwhile, the Democratic candidates' boycott starts Saturday, with the national party ruling, and remains in effect until the Jan. 29 primary.

And the whole thing may go to court.

Florida's Democratic U.S. senator, Bill Nelson, who has been trying to find a compromise, said Tuesday that he's giving up and filing a lawsuit. Two Tampa Democrats have already filed a federal lawsuit claiming the sanctions violate their voting rights and asking a judge to straighten things out.

What if there's no "presumptive nominee" in one or both parties?

Convention floor fights and brokered nominations are possible.

At least five states, and probably six or more, face loss of Republican delegates - the four early states, plus Florida and Michigan, which has also voted to move its primary date to before Feb. 5. That could be enough to change the outcome.

Florida Republicans have announced they'll fight to seat their full delegation. If the other states do the same, a convention battle over credentials could decide the nomination.

Florida and Michigan face loss of their full Democratic delegations, which also could affect the nomination outcome.

Is anyone trying to fix this mess?

Yes. There have been many proposals over the years for federal laws establishing national primary systems, but some worry that reforms would bring problems or unintended consequences of their own.

One of the latest proposals is backed by Nelson: a system of regional primaries held on six election dates between March and June, with states rotating into the early spots.

Reporter William March can be reached at (813) 259-7761 or wmarch@tampatrib.com.

A few key dates in the development of the U.S. primary system:

Before the 1830s - Presidential candidates are chosen by caucuses of Congress members.

1824 - The congressional caucus nominating system breaks down in the hotly contested 1824 election. In the 1830s, a system of nomination by national party conventions evolves.

Late 1800s - Political bosses' domination of national conventions spurs calls for reform. The Progressive Movement presses for primary elections.

1901 - Florida passes the nation's first legislation allowing parties to elect delegates to their national conventions through primaries, but makes it optional.

1910 - Oregon becomes the first state to require party primaries to choose national convention delegates and require delegates to vote according to the primary outcome.

1912 - Theodore Roosevelt wins nine of 12 Republican primaries in a challenge to incumbent President William HowardTaft. Taft engineers a nomination win at the convention but loses the general election. This dramatizes the claim that primaries reflect the will of the people.

1916 - New Hampshire decides that its primary date will coincide with its statewide town meeting day, the second Tuesday in March, chosen so roads would still be frozen before mud season and farmers could get to town. This originates New Hampshire's "first-in-the-nation" presidential primary.

1917 - Twenty-five states now have laws allowing presidential primaries, but reform zeal dies during the Depression and World War era.

1952 - A New Hampshire primary win vaults Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower to GOP front-runner status, even though he is still posted in Europe. He eventually wins the hotly contested nomination and the presidency.

1960 - John F. Kennedy enters and wins seven Democratic primaries including New Hampshire, helping overcome questions about whether a Catholic is electable. This helps shape the modern campaign strategy of gathering momentum with early primary wins.

1968 - Anti-Vietnam War candidate Eugene McCarthy's close second place to sitting President Johnson in New Hampshire helps persuade Johnson not to seek another term. The acrimonious Democratic primary battle and convention, inflamed by the Vietnam War controversy, spurs more calls for reform. More states switch from caucuses to primaries.

1972 - Iowa keeps its caucus, but to comply with new Democratic Party reform rules, it must move the start of its caucus process, the precinct caucuses, to early January. Iowa thus joins the other "first-in-the-nation" state, New Hampshire.

1988 - Twenty states, mostly Southern and including Florida, set their primaries for March 8, then an early date, hoping they can force nomination of a moderate Democrat. It doesn't work; Al Gore and Jesse Jackson split the Southern vote, and Michael Dukakis gets the nomination. But it accelerates the trend of states moving up primary dates to influence the nominations.

1999 - Faced with an onslaught of states moving up, New Hampshire passes a law requiring that its primary be a week or more before any other primary. Iowa has similar laws.

2006 - Seeking to control the primary calendar, Democrats adopt rules saying no state can choose its 2008 national convention delegates based on a primary or caucus held before Feb. 5, 2008. Republicans already had adopted a similar rule. Democrats allow four exceptions: traditional early states Iowa and New Hampshire plus Nevada and South Carolina to increase minority influence.

May - The Florida Legislature moves up its presidential primary date to Jan. 29, setting the stage for conflicts with both national political parties.

September - Florida faces sanctions from both national parties because the state parties say they intend to choose national convention delegates based on the too-early Jan. 29 primary. U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., says he will sue to overturn the sanctions.

Compiled by Tribune research; Sources: "Presidential Primaries and the Caucus-Convention System," by James W. Davis; "Presidential Primaries and Nominations," by William Crotty and John S. Jackson III; New Hampshire Political Library ( www.politicallibrary.org); "A Brief History of the Iowa Caucuses," University of Iowa ( www.uiowa.edu/election/history); political scientist John Belohlavek, University of South Florida