Courage Campaign FlashMob (video Sunday)

At the California State Republican Convention late last year:

Voices of Faith Speak Out: A Catholic Case for same-sex Marriage

From the Washington Post:

As Catholics who are involved in lesbian and gay ministry and outreach, we are aware that many people, some of them Catholics, believe that Catholics cannot faithfully disobey the public policies of the church’s hierarchy. But this is not the case.....

The deeper one looks into the church’s core teachings, the more one realizes that the bishops are not representing the breadth of the Catholic tradition in their campaign against marriage equality. Nowhere is that more true than in the area of Catholic social justice teaching.

Catholic social teaching requires that all people be treated with dignity, regardless of their state in life or their beliefs. It upholds the importance of access to health-care benefits, the protection of children, dignity in end of life choices, and, most importantly, the promotion of stable family units. Marriage equality legislation would be an obvious boon to same-sex couples and their children in each of these areas, yet the bishops are spending millions of dollars opposing it.

In our work within the church, we have met countless people who do not necessarily challenge the church’s teaching on the nature of sacramental marriage, but support civil marriage for same-sex couples with a clear conscience.

Why the 9th made the right decision

William Eskridge, a law professor from Stanford argues that the narrow decision in the 9th circuit on Prop8 was the right thing.

.... In my view, the court got it right, as a matter of law and as a matter of constitutional politics. 

Start with the role of federal courts of appeals in our rule of law system: their role is a limited one, a point these pro-gay commentators have neglected. Such courts (1) are supposed to address the particular factual context presented by the parties, (2) must follow the binding precedent of their own circuit and of the Supreme Court, and (3) ought usually to choose narrow rather than broad grounds for decision. Judge Reinhardt’s Perry opinion is exemplary along all three dimensions.

I agree.  The euphoria that led everyone to reach for the big hit covers up the very real danger of a smack down from the SCOTUS if the decision is as broad as Vaughn Walker's.  Besides, as we see just this week, the momentum is underway.  As Prof Eskridge cautions,

Courts can help put an issue on the public law agenda, and they can channel discourse into productive directions. They can also help create conditions for falsification of stereotypes and prejudice-driven arguments, such as the canard that gay marriage will undermine “traditional” marriage. But courts cannot create a national consensus on as issue about which “We the People” are not at rest. And nationally, the people are not at rest.

News: Maryland Senate approves marriage equality

The governor will sign it.  As in Washington, this is likely headed for a referendum so no changes yet, but it has been quite a month.

Washington:  approves marriage

Maryland:  approves marriage 

DOMA:  found unconstitutional (again), this time in N. California

Prop8:  found unconstitutional (again), in 9th circuit court of appeals

Sadly none of these events will change anything in the short term as our opponents continue to fight fiercely to keep us down.

Also remember there will be ballot fights in Maine, Minnesota, and North Carolina, and very possibly MD and WA will join them.   

A faith-based argument for equality

I am so happy to see faith leaders finding their voices. This piece from New Jersey is signed by an Episcopal Bishop, a Lutheran Bishop, and a Rabbi. (my emphasis)  Preach it!  

In making it clear that he will veto the marriage equality bill now making its way through the state Legislature, Gov. Chris Christie has ensured that the debate over the morality of gay and lesbian relationships will be with us for months to come..... 

Like the religious leaders who oppose marriage equality, we too form our consciences by studying scripture and the lessons that our ancient traditions have taught us. Like them, our opinions flow from our faith. Yet we arrive at different conclusions on the issue of marriage equality, and about the role that religion should play in our current debate. 

Thanks to the wisdom of the First Amendment, differing theological notions about the nature of marriage will continue to flourish across our diverse religious landscape. But a state has neither the right nor the competence to promote one of those theological understandings in opposition to others — particularly when doing so deprives some citizens of the rights enjoyed by others.

Breaking: Another court finds DOMA unconstitutional

In the case Golinski vs OPM, DOMA has been found unconstitutional in another district court.  In this case, legally married Californian Karen Golinski sought medical benefits for her spouse.  This will probably go on appeal to the 9th circuit.  Interestingly both Judge Tauro (in MA, in Gill) and Judge White (in Golinski) are Republican appointees.  More background here.

This isn't the first time.  DOMA (the defense of marriage act) was previously found unconstitutional in district court in the cases consolidated as Gill v OPM, and that is under appeal in the 1st circuit.   So (as with Prop8), despite opinions against it, we still endure it.

From  Poliglot, quoting the decision

The Court finds that neither Congress' claimed legislative justifications nor any of the proposed reasons proffered by BLAG constitute bases rationally related to any of the alleged governmental interests. Further, after concluding that neither the law nor the record can sustain any of the interests suggested, the Court, having tried on its own, cannot conceive of any additional interests that DOMA might further.

It's hard to get excited since it was over a year ago that Judge Tauro had similar findings.  There are at least 8 DOMA cases at various stages of litigation.  And still my marriage is not federally recognized.

Prop8: simply incoherent?

From the LA Times, Dale Carpenter: (Read the whole thing, it's quite good).

So what potentially dooms Proposition 8 as it nears the Supreme Court is not necessarily the distinct whiff of prejudice but a lingering impression of incoherence. Despite what some critics last week charged, to challenge the sufficiency of the reasons offered for Proposition 8 is not to indict traditional marriage itself as bigoted and irrational. There are many rational, indeed compelling, reasons to support marriage between one man and one woman. Among others, getting heterosexuals to take responsibility for the children they conceive is a powerful reason to encourage them to marry. But encouraging heterosexuals to take seriously their familial obligations is no reason by itself to deny same-sex couples the full social and legal incentive to settle down. And to confer parental rights, marital rights and marital obligations on same-sex couples without giving them "marriage," Proposition 8's proponents must more convincingly answer one question. Why?

Prop8 supporters will ask for 9th circuit review.

Instead of going directly to the Supreme Court, it appears that the Prop8 supporters will next try for an en banc hearing at the 9th circuit. From Metro Weekly:

If a majority of the court's judges support en banc consideration, then the chief judge of the circuit, Judge Alex Kozinski, and 10 randomly selected appellate judges from the circuit will hear the en banc appeal, which can involve briefing and oral arguments.

After that decision is reached, theoretically, a party dissatisfied with an en banc ruling of the Ninth Circuit can ask for the full Ninth Circuit to review the en banc panel's decision, but the court has not agreed to do so since adopting the "limited en banc" procedure.

After en banc consideration, the unsuccessful party could then petition the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. At that point, the parties submit written arguments explaining to the court why the justices should or should not hear the case. Then, if four of the nine justices agree to hear the case, another round of briefing occurs, with the parties and outside organizations and individuals arguing the merits of the case to the justices. Oral arguments are then set and held at the Supreme Court, and some time later a decision is handed down.

Why are they doing this? Probably because the very narrow opinion of the recent appeals court had a good chance of not being heard by the Supreme Court, which would have restored marriage to California. By doing this, they ensure that there is a further delay in the case, a further delay to the marriages, and another bite at the apple.

Also, I wonder if they (the pro-H8 side) are hoping for a broader finding than the recent opinion, one that would apply to other states, and would almost certainly be heard by SCOTUS and be struck down. They may be fishing for a bigger decision against them, in order to shut the door long-term. So even if they lose, they could still win.

There are a number of conservative, anti-gay judges in the 9th, so the outcome is not certain. Remember, a 9th circuit panel vacated the DADT case that the Log Cabin Republicans won. And one of the three judges on the recent appeal disagreed about Prop8.

It ain't over.

Quote o f the Day

In the UK, they are debating whether LGBT people should be eligible for civil marriage, instead of the special class of "civil partnerships". A rightist Christian group has launched a petition protesting the move.

In response to the launch of the petition, Ben Summerskill - chief executive of gay, lesbian and bisexual charity Stonewall - said: "Our strong advice to anyone who disagrees with same-sex marriage is not to get married to someone of the same sex."

Gee,Ya Think? (H/T Mad Priest)

Who really defends the Constitution?

Following upon on Chris Christie's veto of marriage equality in New Jersey, and the remarkable idea in contravention to the Constitution that a minority should have its rights voted on by the majority: Andrew Sullivan points out how the minority opposed to marriage equality keeps changing the rules, and can't even manage to be consistent in their "pro-Constitution" views. (My emphasis)

They moved the goalposts on us. When we actually began to win in state legislatures, such as California (twice!), or New Hampshire, or now Maryland and New Jersey and Washington State, that process became suddenly unacceptable - and undemocratic! - as well. Even on an issue many hold to be a core civil right, we were told the courts were irrelevant and now that the legislatures were irrelevant. This was particularly odd coming from conservatives who at one point in time were strong believers in restraints on majority tyranny. But this is what a legislative debate can do that no referendum can, and it's why the founders established a republic not a pure democracy:

...But the way in which a tiny 2- 3 percent minority seeking basic civil equality has been forced now to be subject to state referendums, even after winning legislative victories, strikes me as revealing. It's basically an attack on representative government, a resort to the forms of decision-making which maximize the potential for anonymous bigotry and minimize the importance of representative government, a core achievement of Anglo-American democracy, that can help enhance reason of the accountable against the sometimes raw prejudice of the majority.

Christie is a man whose candor I admire in many ways. But this was an act of cowardice and unfairness and a misguided disregard for representative democracy. How many other duly enacted laws must now be sent to the referendum process for final judgment. Why have a legislature at all? And this from the party that claims to defend the Constitution.

It's Because the Gays are Getting Married (video Sunday)

Lots of activity in the individual states.

Here's a great summary by AP about all the activity in the states this year over marriage equality.  In brief:

MN and NC citizens will vote on amendments to ban marriage between same sex couples, while

ME will try to get the voters to support marriage in a referendum.

MD , WA and NJ have legislative efforts to legalize marriage between same sex couples, while

NH has a legislative effort to repeal marriage equality

In the judicial sphere, we're still waiting for the next chapter of the Prop8 case. At least 8 DOMA cases are winding their way through the courts.

Same sex marriage is NOT a "new right"

From The Richmond TImes-Dispatch:

[J]udges who recognize the right of gay couples to marry are not creating a "new right." Rather, they are extending a right that is already recognized for all other adults. "Marriage" is legal for all adults, except those who are gay or lesbian. To recognize that being gay or lesbian is no impediment to marriage is no more creating a "new right" than to say that 18-year-old adult citizens of Mississippi should be able to marry today rather than wait three years. There may be compelling arguments, on policy grounds, to continue to prohibit gay marriage. Seven states, the District of Columbia, Canada, several European countries, and South Africa (among other governments) have rejected those arguments, if they exist. But one argument that does not stand up to scrutiny is that same-sex marriage is a "judge-created right."

What Prop8 Really Cost Us

GREAT blog from the HuffPo, by a gay dad about his family and their experience of Prop8.  Only difference with my family is that our kids were old enough to be angry.

Prop 8 passed that November. Elizabeth's second-grade class had been following the presidential election, so she knew about percentages and majorities. What she was unable to wrap her mind around was the fact that over half the voters in California thought we had no legal right to be a family. 

It was months before she told me about the nightmares she'd been having, dreams of people with yellow signs coming to our house with torches, trying set fire to our home. I wish I were making this up. Sadly, no. Thanks, National Organization for Marriage. To you I would say this: if, as your misleading campaign ads bleated for months, you main goal is to protect children, how could you possibly do this to mine? 

We got married that very warm, first possible evening in June, not to be part of history or to make some political statement, but because we're a family and want what's best for our kids. Luckily, California's Supreme Court subsequently held that our marriage, and the other 18,000 marriages performed during those five months, had been entered into in good faith and could not be evaporated by a vote. But what about the other families, the ones who weren't lucky enough to marry when they had the chance? 

Even with Tuesday's court ruling finding Prop 8 unconstitutional, with the inevitable stays and delays as the case likely works its way to the Supreme Court, for months and probably years we'll have California kids standing on playgrounds wondering why they can't have married parents like their friends.

Perhaps Ms Gallagher would like to explain that?

Voices of Faith Speak Out: a conservative proposal

I like what the (Episcopal) Bishop of Washington (state) said:

What [LGBT people] ask of us, the church and the government, is to put boundaries around their relationship, to hold them in the same regard and with the same respect, which would also mean that we expect the same from them.  They are not asking for special treatment.  They are asking for equal treatment.   They are asking to be accountable, as a couple, in community.  To me, this is a conservative proposal.  I am for it, and I hope we will finally make way for this to happen, not only in our society, but also in our church.

HAPPY VALENTINES DAY

To new couples and to old ones, to those married, waiting to marry, wanting to marry, or just starting to think about it, for all those who know that the best relationships are worth all the effort, that love does indeed conquer all,  and most especially to my beloved wife whose presence blesses me every day,

HAPPY VALENTINE'S DAY!

Dissecting the Dissent in Prop8 case

Dahlia Lithwick, writing in Slate describes the weakness of the arguments supporting Prop8, and the floppy dissenting opinion by Judge Smith

The evidence, the data, and the experts overwhelming agree that gay marriage does not harm children. And that leaves opponents of gay marriage to argue a tautology: Gay marriage is wrong because it’s wrong.....

That’s the best case that can be made against gay marriage. An appeals court dissent that rests on the premise that states needn’t act rationally, or offer evidence of rationality, or even be rational in creating classifications, so long as someone publishes a study and someone else believes it. That’s the best they’ve got, it seems.

That is not legal argument or empirical evidence. It is the death rattle of a movement that has no legal argument or empirical evidence. Nobody disputes the fact that Americans opposed to gay marriage believe passionately in their ideas and arguments. But that doesn’t necessarily mean those arguments should win in a court. The best thing that could have happened in the Prop 8 case just happened. The dissent has no clothes.

Video fr Washington debate:outstanding!

Time to retire the assumption that religious people oppose equality

From the HuffPo:

[A] new exploration of 2011 polling by Public Religion Research Institute offers decisive evidence that the old assumptions about battle lines between secular proponents and religious foes no longer hold. Majorities of five major religious groups and the religiously unaffiliated favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry, compared to three major religious groups who oppose same-sex marriage. On the side supporting same-sex marriage.... these religious groups make up approximately 45 percent of the general population.

On the other hand, large majorities of white evangelical Protestants (75 percent), Mormons (75 percent) and black Protestants (63 percent) continue to oppose same-sex marriage. .... Together, these groups comprise approximately 32 percent of the general population.

Within these opposition groups, however, a generational gap signals that with the passage of time, this intense resistance may ebb....

The quirks of specific constituencies and cultures may drive individual statewide legislative and ballot initiative battles this year. But the prominent testimonies of religious elected officials, alongside the perspectives from the people in the pews, certainly demand that the media retire the archaic assumption that religious people oppose same-sex marriage.

The Messed up Mind of Maggie Gallagher

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is a shady group that operates as a front for big money opposed to marriage equality. They have deep links to the conservative wing of the Roman Catholic church (e.g., here and here). Yes, the irony abounds given the majority of Catholics are supportive of marriage equality.

As we make steady progress towards equality, NOM becomes increasingly less about “marriage” and more about demonizing and dehumanizing gay people, telling lies and relying on hysteria and junk science (e.g., here.)

All this as an intro to Salon's illuminating profile about the founder of NOM, Maggie Gallagher.

It seems Maggie Gallagher’s obsession with marriage comes from the fact that she bore a child out of wedlock when at Yale, and the father refused to marry her. In a classic example of transference, she has become a primary culture warrior against gay equality. To her gay people marrying is THE cause of family failure: not divorce, not casual sex, not quickie marriages without counseling, not high rates of childbearing out of wedlock, not a crisis in poor communities. It’s the audacity of gay couples asserting a right to be together.

Barely half of the people in the US are married. Those with education are much more likely to be married . Indeed, those awful blue state liberals turn out to be the real social conservatives, with a high rate of marriage and low rates of unmarried parenting (e.g., here ). But the biggest threat to marriage is arguably the economy, as marriage rates collapse in the economically disadvantaged.

Nevermind all this. Maggie Gallagher blames “Teh Gay”. And regardless of facts or experience, she will continue to oppose our marriages because it's all our fault that there are children out of wedlock.

In her forthcoming book, she writes that “including same-sex unions in the legal category of ‘marriage’ will necessarily change the public meaning of marriage for the entire society in ways that must make it harder for marriage to perform its core civil functions over time.” How do we know? We just do.

And even if somehow the evidence showed, conclusively, that same-sex marriage were good for children? Gallagher would still be dissatisfied: “Nothing could make me call a same-sex couple a marriage, because that’s not what I believe a marriage is.” (Salon)

THe illogic of this is so noticeable, the author stresses it again.

She is asserting what to her is a timeless social fact: that institutions and norms are delicate, and that if you mess with them — say, by expanding the definition of marriage — bad things are likely to happen.

There is an obvious problem with this sort of argumentation: it is not really susceptible to evidence. Gallagher is unwilling to make any predictions of what doom will befall families after the legalization of same-sex marriage. She just has faith that marriage, the central institution of good child-rearing, will be weakened if same-sex couples are allowed its prestige and protections.(Salon)

Over at Andrew Sullivan’s blog, Patrick Appel comments about this unwillingness to be moved by evidence

Gallagher's declaration that her mind cannot be changed is the statement of a fundamentalist. There is no greater sin against open debate than to preemptively seal oneself off from evidence.

He goes on,

Before gay marriage was legal anywhere, arguments for or a gainst it were mostly based on first principles and theoretical conjectures. Now that there are real-world examples of same-sex marriages, evidence-based arguments for or against equality are possible. Opponents of equality retreat to first-principles arguments because the facts are increasingly stacked against them.

Political opinions are not science, but they can be informed by science. Gallagher's fact-resistant opinion has almost nothing to do with gays themselves. Her opposition is rooted in theology and was likely reinforced by personal longings for a nuclear family.

So, conservative Roman Catholic, carrying around a huge level of guilt for her own perceived failure, and transfers all of that onto gay couples. Apparently, outside of this issue, she can be a warm person, but it's as though she has this blind spot that she so casually dehumanizes us and our relationships. (Interestingly, her son does not agree with her--he's in theatre, and must have many gay friends who are being deeply injured by his mother's activism.) She really has an almost unnatural ability to view us as deeply "other" so that she hurts us and doesn't really care or notice that it's real people she's hurting!

At one point, breaking from my script of questions, I interrupted her to ask if, despite all of her fears about same-sex marriage, she didn’t find it heartwarming to see those pictures of joyous gay couples in Massachusetts or Iowa or California, crying and hugging as they celebrated their marriages. Before answering, she takes a long pause, the only long pause of our conversation. “Am I happy for them?” she finally says. “That’s a tough question. I like to see people happy. It’s better than seeing people sad. So yes, I am happy for them. But I am sad. But I am not sad because they are happy.” (Salon)

Maggie Gallagher opposes marriage of gay people because she thinks children should be raised by a man and a woman. And even though marriage is not required for procreation, even though procreation is not required in marriage, even though the fight for marriage equality says nothing about raising children, even though denying us marriage in California has, as the recent decision points out, absolutely no effect on child-rearing in a legal sense, even though all this:
Maggie Gallagher opposes letting two men marry because one man walked out on her.