It was the best of times, it was the worst of times

We have made some great strides as a community this last year, and had some heart-breaking disappointments.

We won marriage in unexpected places (Iowa?) and lost it in others (Maine)

For a couple of looks back, and looks forward, check out these:

Kerry Eleveld is the savvy political correspondent to The Advocate. She has a year-end review about the View from Washington

The White House has made progress on some gay rights fronts this year to be sure, such as enactment of an LGBT-inclusive hate crimes law, Obama recommitting himself as president to end “don’t ask, don’t tell,” and pushing for Congress to pass a law that would provide benefits to same-sex partners of federal workers.

But by and large, the administration has shown a reticence bordering on negligence for using the power of the executive to honor the commitments of LGBT couples with real, full and equal treatment. ....

Obama campaigned on equality among other things. And while you can make the case that as president he is making pragmatic decisions about our security concerns abroad or about sacrificing the public option in health reform as a guard against letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, not allowing a federal agency to provide health benefits to a federal worker because of an ideology that willfully emphasizes DOMA over a law on federal employee benefits is essentially a form of reasoned discrimination.

Just maybe the inner circle of the White House will wake up one day and realize that their political calculations might not only cost their president the moral high ground on human dignity, but their ability to package Obama as a moderate, let alone a progressive. After all, there’s nothing moderate about erring on the side of inequality.

And, over at the Huffington Post, Lisa Linsky writes a longer view of the whole decade, in Out And About: LGBT Legal -- The Call of the New Decade

These examples of violence, discrimination and human rights violations underscore the view that the glass remains half empty for LGBT people worldwide...Fortunately, we have also seen progress in the past ten years and these advances must not be undervalued.

In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Texas sodomy law in Lawrence v. Texas, finding a constitutional due process right of sexual privacy for consenting adults regardless of sexual orientation. The Lawrence decision resulted in the crumbling of criminal sodomy laws throughout the country leading legal scholar Lawrence Tribe to describe it as the "Brown v. Board of Education of gay and lesbian America."

This was the decade that saw gay people raised as religious leaders....

LGBT people continued to emerge as political leaders during this decade.....

Which brings me to marriage equality. Despite continued resistance to same-sex relationships by many Christian conservatives and other opponents, we have witnessed marriage equality for LGBT people in jurisdictions all over the world.

In 2003, Massachusetts became the first state in the U.S. to recognize the constitutional right of same-sex couples to marry. Same-sex couples may now marry in Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire (as of January 1, 2010), Vermont and the District of Columbia. Marriage equality was won in California in 2008, when the state's supreme court recognized the constitutional right of marriage for LGBT people. The controversial voter referendum known as "Prop 8" subsequently eliminated this right, but 18,000 same-sex marriages already performed were upheld.

In May 2009, Maine's governor signed a freedom to marry law that permitted same-sex couples to marry in that state which was later overturned by a Prop 8-like voter referendum.....

We are making progress toward LGBT equality. But we have not yet evolved as a society to the point where we have implemented a compassionate, non-judgmental, "live and let live" mindset that will lead to full recognition of the civil rights of LGBT people and those in other marginalized groups.....

As this decade ticks to its close, I am left thinking about fear. Racism, heterosexism, misogyny and xenophobia are still fueling our lives and shaping our world, and the common denominator is fear. This fear, says Bishop Gene Robinson, has driven us to stop listening to one another. "Fear is a terrible thing...it is the opposite of faith", writes Robinson in his book, In the Eye of the Storm. Perhaps the call of the new decade will give us the strength to push beyond this fear, listen generously to those we perceive as "the other", and come together to create something extraordinary. Surely Coretta Scott King's wisdom applies to our time: hate is too great a burden to bear.

Andrew Sullivan also reviews progress with a long view. He gives the male conservatives in the GLBT community more credit than I think he should, but it is typically a provocative post. But the lead is heart-felt, and I think, correct:

This first decade of the 21st century has been an astonishing thing. I'm now legally married in both places I reside: in Massachusetts and Washington, D.C. Five states now recognize marriage equality and many countries. My home country offers all the rights of civil marriage to my husband. The cynical use of homophobia by the GOP worked for a while, but has since faded. Meanwhile, the dialogue has deepened and widened, and, as it has done so, attitudes have shifted more profoundly than at any previous point. Ted Olson is now one of the faces of gay equality. The next generation gets the fact that gays are human beings, have relationships as valid as straight ones, and have love as deep.

It can be hard to recognize it, but we have come an enormously long distance, even past the narrow defeats in Maine and California. We have overcome. And we shall again.

Marriage Equality in Mexico City?

From the LA Times:

Mexico City on Tuesday formally put on the books a law allowing same-sex couples to marry and adopt children, with Mayor Marcelo Ebrard rejecting demands he veto the controversial measure.

The law was published in the official government newspaper, and will go into effect in 45 days. It was passed by a comfortable margin by this sprawling capital's legislature last week.

The conservative National Action Party, which controls the federal government, and the Roman Catholic Church have both condemned the law as an affront to the traditional family. Both wanted to block it.

Marriage is good for you

We know that there are many studies about the positive effects of being married.

A focus on the most rigorous recent evidence reveals that marriage has positive effects on certain health-related outcomes. These studies find, for example, that marriage improves certain mental health outcomes, reduces the use of some high-cost health services (such as nursing home care), and increases the likelihood of having health insurance coverage. In addition, an emerging literature suggests that growing up with married parents is associated with better health as an adult.

.THe American Academy of Pediatrics says that marriage equality benefits children.

There is ample evidence to show that children raised by same-gender parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents. More than 25 years of research have documented that there is no relationship between parents' sexual orientation and any measure of a child's emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment. These data have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents. Conscientious and nurturing adults, whether they are men or women, heterosexual or homosexual, can be excellent parents. The rights, benefits, and protections of civil marriage can further strengthen these families.

. Indeed, as pointed out in that article, marriage equality is supported by The American Academy of Family Physicians' Congress of Delegates, The American Psychological Association (APA), The American Psychoanalytic Association, The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) , the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP) , the American Medical Association (AMA) House of Delegates , and the Assembly of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) all agree that same sex couples should have the same rights and responsibilities as straight couples.

Now, the American Medical Association says that restrictions on same sex marriage, as well as the corrosive Don't Ask Don't Tell policy in the US Military, are harmful:

The American Medical Association on Tuesday voted to oppose the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, and declared that gay marriage bans contribute to health disparities.....

Whether the AMA's lobbying power will hasten efforts to overturn the "don't ask, don't tell" law remains to be seen. President Barack Obama has said he is working with congressional leaders to end the policy, and the AMA's stance will likely help, although gay rights issues have been upstaged by Obama's health care overhaul battle.....

The health disparities policy is based on evidence showing that married couples are more likely to have health insurance, and that the uninsured have a high risk for "living sicker and dying younger," said Dr. Peter Carmel, an AMA board member.

Same-sex families lack other benefits afforded married couples, including tax breaks, spouse benefits under retirement plans and Social Security survivor benefits – all of which can put their health at risk, according to an AMA council report presented at the meeting.

Coming out for Christmas (video Sunday)

From the London Gay Men's Chorus

Have a merry Christmas

Where are the gay couples?

The Economist tells us where the gays are.

Those states where gay marriage is legal or where same-sex partnerships are recognised have a higher proportion of same-sex couples than the national average of 4.7. The District of Columbia is home to most gay households with over 14 for every 1,000.

(Click on the image for a larger view).

Athletes get it

Can the NFL Tackle Homophobia?

[A]s a direct result of the movement for marriage equality, there are green shoots for social justice becoming visible in the locker room.

Baltimore Ravens three-time Pro Bowl linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo came out for full marriage equality, writing in the Huffington Post:

Looking at the former restrictions on human rights in our country starting with slavery, women not being able to vote, blacks being counted as two thirds of a human, segregation, no gays in the military (to list a few) all have gone by the wayside. But now here in 2009 same sex marriages are prohibited. I think we will look back in 10, 20, 30 years and be amazed that gays and lesbians did not have the same rights as every one else. How did this ever happen in the land of the free and the home of the brave? Are we really free?

Scott Fujita, defensive captain of the New Orleans Saints, supports Ayanbadejo's stance. "I hope he's right in his prediction, and I hope even more that it doesn't take that long. People could look at this issue without blinders on...the blinders imposed by their church, their parents, their friends or, in our case, their coaches and locker rooms. Fujita continued, "I wish they would realize that it's not a religion issue. It's not a government issue. It's not even a gay/straight issue or a question of your manhood. It's a human issue. And until more people see that, we're stuck arguing with people who don't have an argument." Fujita ... also endorsed the October 11 National Equality March in Washington.

The last loathed class

From my friend Counterlight, an artist, who writes

Gays appear to be in the global gun sights once again; the favorite target of mad mullahs, evangelical demagogues, Catholic hierarchs, Orthodox hierarchs, Anglican bishops, Muslim, Christian, Jewish, and Hindu fundamentalists, Scientology, Gangsta rappers, rednecks, metalheads, skinheads, die hard Maoists and Stalinists, racists, antisemites, NeoNazis, every son of a bitch with a grudge, a chip on their shoulder, and a spike up their ass.

Gays represent the same thing to every last one of them from mitred bishop to bearded fanatic to tattooed thug. They represent liberal cosmopolitanism and the end of male privilege. These folks may all differ on many things, but they all believe in the Holy Penis. God definitely has one, in their eyes. In fact, they believe in that All Holy Penis before they believe in God. Gays and lesbians are a living breathing rebuke to that faith. Transgenders show us all the transgressive knowledge that while male and female may be biologically determined, masculine and feminine are cultural constructs.

He goes on,

Gays have one thing in common with artists, their capacity to spring up like dandelions through concrete.

I hope!

NY State Senator Diane Savino (video Sunday)

This video, from the debate about marriage equality in New York State, sums it up. How they could vote against it? After speeches like this?

Minnesota Quakers stop marriages

A Quaker Group in Minnesota will no longer marry straight people.

A group of Twin Cities Quakers has decided to stop signing marriage certificates for opposite-sex couples until the state legalizes gay marriage.

"We're simply trying to be consistent with the will of God as we perceive it," said Paul Landskroener, clerk of the Twin Cities Friends Meeting, in an interview with MPR's All Things Considered on Monday.

The congregation will continue to hold both opposite-sex and same-sex weddings at its meeting house, but will no longer sign the legal marriage certificate for opposite-sex couples. Instead, couples will need to have the certificate signed by a justice of the peace.

Donors, boycotts, and mercenaries

Have you ever noticed that those opposed to GLBT rights employ boycotts regularly? They seem to have annual boycotts of Disney and its gay family days. There have been boycotts of Ford , Pepsi, Apple Computer, and Wells Fargo Bank, for daring to be at all friendly to GLBT people.

Of course, like bullies everywhere, they shriek "unfair!" when the same tactics are applied to them. But what's good for the goose, as they say, is good for the gander.

After Prop8, the GLBT community also resorted to boycotts. The targets were mostly businesses whose owners gave donations to Prop8. This prompted a complaint from the Forces of Evil that we shouldn't know who was donating money against us, that we should do business with them anyway. They raised the specter of marauding gangs of homosexuals vandalizing their property to justify keeping donations secret. (There seems to be a lack of evidence of this ever happening, but when did the truth stop them?) Please, what do they think we're going to do, paint their houses tastefully pink in the middle of the night?

Still, our community was divided over the boycotts and the collateral damage. Free speech means we absolutely must respect the rights of people to disagree with us. But do we have to do business with them?

For example, a theatre director in Sacramento resigned, because GLBT and gay-friendly playwrights refused to allow his theatre to use their work any longer. Gay and gay-friendly actors and staff were also very uncomfortable discovering that their co-worker actively opposed their rights. A woman who co-owned a restaurant in LA that was very popular with the GLBT community was boycotted. Both of these donated money to pro-Prop8 because they are Mormon, using religion as a justification for actively hurting other people. They were both understandably upset at the reaction, with the equivalent of, "but it's not personal, some of my best friends are gay!" (Not any longer, I bet.)

I feel sorry for them at some level; but they are effectively using my money to take away my rights. You know what, this isn't a disagreement about health care reform or how to fight a war, something that is external to who we are. This is denying the fundamental equality of another human being --and that human being is supposed to smile sweetly and work with you closely? So while they are perfectly entitled to have their view, and to choose to donate money to that cause, I'm just as entitled not to do work with them. Just like Jim Dobson and Focus on the Family are entitled to boycott the LIttle Mermaid every year.

Then there's the larger order of magnitude of donors like Doug Manchester, owner of the Manchester Grand Hyatt in San Diego. A conservative Catholic, he felt that marriage needed defending from the awful gay people so he gave $125,000 to the bad guys. (Now that he and his wife are engaged in a very nasty divorce with accusations of theft and draining bank accounts, I wonder who will defend marriage from him?) Manchester tried to "make nice" with the GLBT community after the election, claiming that he'd made an equal donation to our side. Actually, he made this "donation" by offering discounts if the GLBT community used his hotel, which doesn't in any way equal, or undo the damage he's done. (I wouldn't go in his hotel if he paid me, personally.)

At least those people actually believed at some level in what they were doing. But surely there is a special circle of boycott hell for the mercenaries who are attacking our rights merely for money. An article in the NY Times last weekend pointed out the industry that has grown up in California, businesses taking Maggie Gallagher's money as consultants for bigotry.

As the political battle over same-sex marriage plays out in state capitals across the country, several California companies have emerged as the go-to players for opponents of the marriages.....

Of the $2.7 million spent to pass the Maine measure, about 75 percent flowed to companies in California, according to campaign disclosure documents. And while large chunks of that money were subsequently paid out to television and radio stations in Maine, California companies billed hundreds of thousands of dollars for consulting work, phone lists, printing and other services.

Frank Schubert, the public face of the campaign with his firm Schubert Flint Public Affairs has even received an award for his vicious "contributions", much to the dismay of many of his colleagues. Schubert claims his campaigns represent Christians, which is a surprise and an afront to many gay Christians, let alone the Unitarians, the Episcopalians, and the Quakers.

Schubert uses a firm called Mar/Com, which the NY Times investigation found only reachable with a PO Box, but is apparently owned by Bill Criswell, of Criswell Associates. This is an advertising agency in San Francisco. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't hire any of them, and I think that anyone who does, should be well aware of the attacks they have authored and the bias that they enable.

These mercenaries fighting marriage equality are perfectly entitled to take anyone's money and conduct their business. But I have an equal freedom to choose the firms to whom I give my money. Just as I may choose to put my investments into socially responsible corporations or green energy, just as many organizations refused to do business with South Africa in the era of apartheid, and, yes, just as Christian Conservatives are currently boycotting Pepsi for being "pro-gay", so do we all have a right (if not a responsibility) to choose with whom we do business, and to choose to do business with those who share our ethical and political values.

Schubert Flint Public Affiars, Mar/Com, and Criswell Associates are actively working against my equal rights. They have told lies, fomented hysteria and attacked our families, because they were paid to do it. And they are very good at it. Those who value equality and social justice should know just who is working against us, and should consider hiring firms with more progressive values rather than lining Frank Schubert's and Bill Criswell's pockets.

And as for boycotts, if you lie down with dogs, don't be surprised if you wake up with fleas.

Is gay marriage inevitable?

From Politico:

“It’s only a matter of time,” said a prominent Republican pollster, who declined to be named for stating a view that runs contrary to those of many of his clients. “Once the dam bursts, which is going to happen, it’s a process that won’t be stopped.”

And that sense of a building flood is part of the reason that the recent setbacks have prompted no serious evaluation of the goals of the gay rights movement and no discussion of backing off a totemic issue — though it’s one that some gay leaders, like Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), have long argued should be postponed for more practical fights. If anything, the energy and money of the gay rights movement are directed toward more energetic, more confrontational tactics; civil disobedience, Mixner suggested, will become more common in 2010.

“The fact of the matter is that in little more than a year, we have multiplied the number of states with freedom to marry by six,” said Evan Wolfson, founder of the group Freedom to Marry, referring to the District and five states. “That’s a good year,” he said.

Marriage Equality in DC

passes by 11-2.

Expect the Catholic Church to withdraw from charitable actions. Of course, they don't have to, but why let the facts interfere with moral blackmail:

Churches are permitted to “opt out” of ERISA. If they do so, they are subject to local law. I do not know whether Catholic Charities of D.C. has opted out, but if it has, it can opt right back in. That’s what Catholic Charities of Maine did. ....Private employers can choose whether to grant employee benefits to same-sex couples. That’s the law, and it means that Catholic Charities has no basis for demanding a special religious exemption.

Given the ease with which Catholic Charities can achieve its stated goals — maintaining its city contracts and extending benefits only to different-sex spouses — I have to wonder why it insists that there is an irreconcilable conflict. Two explanations seem plausible. The church may want the most prominent platform possible for both opposing same-sex marriage and urging an overbroad religious exemption; it gets this by threatening to cut social services. Alternatively, Catholic Charities might be planning to cut its programs anyway because they cost the archdiocese so much money, in which case the same-sex marriage bill provides a convenient scapegoat.....

Now it’s time for widespread acknowledgment that marriage equality in the District creates no justification for Catholic Charities to sever its contractual relationship with the city. Just look at Portland.

California Marriage Protection Act (warning, sarcastic video)

Coming around on adoption

Rob Dreher is a conservative Catholic columnist who (in)famously was terrified that bands of marauding gays were going to attack Prop 8 supporters in the wake of the election. (Of course that did not happen).

His recent column is an interesting one about gay adoption. One expects the worst from Dreher, but he surprises.

I find myself convinced of the truth of the Church's teaching, but also without a good argument for why orphans are better off languishing without loving parents than they are being in a nurturing home with a same-sex couple. I do believe heterosexual couples seeking adoption should be privileged, because I believe a mother and a father are in principle the best arrangement for children. But I can't say I have any real objection to same-sex couples adopting, even though I have a somewhat guilty conscience about that.

So as the Institutional Church refuses to participate in any adoption lest a gay person take in a child (oh, the horror! the horror!) let's also be thankful that even a conservative has to admit the truth of the matter, that GLBT adoption helps kids and kids should be helped.

One step at a time.

Colbert on Gay Marriage (video Sunday)

The Word - Skeletons in the Closet
www.colbertnation.com

Betty Bowers on the Mormons (video)

You know, it's possible to twist and attack any group. We endured lies and curses and vandalism in the run up to Prop8, funded heavily by Mormons. It's not a surprise that the Mormons are getting skewered in return. If you are Mormon, this video will probably offend you. I'm deeply offended that people presumed to vote on my civil rights simply because I'm an unpopular minority. The difference is, no one's civil rights were eliminated by the making or viewing of this video.

Mark your calendars: Jan 11th

That is the day the Prop8 trial begins, which challenges Prop8 on Federal Grounds. The witness list is now available (see the blog LGBTPOV) and includes both pro- and con- witnesses.

From the Brief:

But regardless of the level of scrutiny, Proponents cannot meet their burden to demonstrate that Prop. 8 serves a single compelling, important, or even legitimate state interest. Like the state constitutional amendment adopted by initiative and struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), Prop. 8 repealed the constitutional protection against “discrimination based on sexual orientation,” and put gay and lesbian individuals “in a solitary class” with respect to marriage. Id. at 627. Prop. 8 is therefore an irrational measure that targeted only gay and lesbian Californians and purposeful stripped them—and only them—of their fundamental state constitutional right to marry, in violation of equal protection.

Plaintiffs will demonstrate at trial that discriminatory laws such as Prop. 8, “once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 579 (2003). Because Prop. 8 violates the fundamental liberties guaranteed by our Constitution, it cannot stand.”

Update: Date corrected.

The 9th circuit and DOMA

As I told you previously, a justice of the 9th circuit has ordered the Federal Govt to give one of the court's employees benefits for her (same sex) spouse.

Of course, the Office of Personnel and Management had previously refused to obey. The irony now is that the head of OPM, John Berry, is gay. Will he do as told?

LawDork is on the case.

Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Kozinski’s argument is that federal benefits, under current law, can be provided to the same-sex spouses of employees. The Office of Personnel Management’s long-held view is that this is not permitted under the Federal Employee Health Benefits Act following the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act. ....

OPM’s position is that the law needs to be changed in order to allow for this coverage. It is for that reason that President Obama’s earlier action to provide benefits to same-sex couples did not include health care benefits and that Rep. Baldwin’s Domestic Partner Benefits and Obligations Act is being pushed forward in the House.

Interestingly, fellow Ninth Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt, hearing a similar complaint, reached the same conclusion as OPM.....

In other words, the judge traditionally thought of as a “liberal” concurs with OPM’s view that the benefit law does not allow for equal benefits to be granted unless the law is changed or DOMA is struck down as unconstitutional. The judge traditionally thought of as a “conservative” has found an interpretation that would allow him to grant the benefits without striking down DOMA....

Reinhardt issued “an order that [the employee] be compensated for the expense of providing comparable insurance for his partner.”,,,,

Reinhardt actually resolved the dispute. Levenson is being compensated. Kozinski’s actions have left Golinski’s dispute unresolved.

Time to attack traditional marriage! (cartoon)

Why it matters: Video Sunday

Episcopal diocese of Los Angeles elects lesbian as Bishop

The final results are in. The two suffragen bishop candidates elected by the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles are Diane Jardine Bruce and Mary Glasspool, by all accounts two very talented and energetic priests.

The historical nature of Rev Bruce's election, the first woman bishop elected by the Dio LA, will be somewhat overshadowed by Rev Glasspool's election, as Rev Glasspool is a partnered lesbian. Her election took 7 ballots. Fat, meet fire.

From the LA Times

The Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles today elected the first openly gay bishop since the national church lifted a ban that sought to bar gays and lesbians from the church's highest ordained ministry.
....
But it was the endorsement of Glasspool that riveted much of the convention as well as the worldwide Anglican Communion, of which the Episcopal Church is the U.S. branch. Glasspool is the first openly gay priest to be elected bishop since the ordination of the Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire in 2003.
....

Convention delegates said that Glasspool's sexual orientation was only one factor in their decision, which came on the seventh ballot for the position. They called her a gifted priest with extensive diocesan experience in her current role as canon -- or executive assistant -- to the bishops of the Diocese of Maryland.....

Home to 70,000 Episcopalians across six counties, the diocese is widely viewed as one of the most liberal in the U.S. church of 2.1 million members. Its bishop, the Rt. Rev. J. Jon Bruno, is an outspoken advocate for the rights of gays in the church.

It was only in July of this year that the General Convention of the entire Episcopal Church affirmed that sexuality was no longer a barrier to be considered at all level of the church. As Rev Barbara Harris, the first woman Bishop in the Episcopal Church, said memorably,

"If you don't want GLBT folks as bishops, don't ordain them as deacons, better yet, be honest and say 'we don't want you, you don't belong here' and don't bestow on them the sacrament of baptism to begin with," said Harris to applause. "How can you initiate someone and treat them like they are half-assed baptized."

Updates from Walking with Integrity and the Dio LA website, and on twitter at #LAelection.

Congratulations, Los Angeles! Buckle up, folks! This is bound to stir things up.

Gay marriage in Buenos Aires

From the Guardian:

On Tuesday, Alex Freyre and José María Di Bello, who met three years ago at a conference on HIV, will make history and divide a continent as they become Latin America's first gay married couple.

The ceremony will be a tribute to their determination as well as their love for each other, after a bitter three-year campaign which has divided a city, outraged Argentina's powerful Roman Catholic church and overturned the constitution.....

The most controversial marriage in Argentina's history became possible when a city court judge ruled that it was unconstitutional for civil law to stipulate that a marriage can exist only between a man and a woman. The marriage licence was granted on 16 November. Since then, the couple and their lawyers have come under virulent attack from church leaders, who have warned that the marriage could act as the catalyst for the swift decline of the continent's traditional family values......

Sadly, this heartwarming story has been interrupted as another judge has put a stay on the marriage. Stay tuned.

Stephen Fry on the Catholic Church (video)

A UK debate on the resolution, "The Catholic Church is a force for good in the world".

Gay on Trial

An excellent, excellent article in the American Prospect about Perry v Schwarzenegger, which is the case that is taking PropH8 to Federal court. You should read the whole thing for a full appreciation of the context and the dangers, as well as the promises, associated with this case.

Perry v. Schwarzenegger indeed asks the "ultimate question" of whether gays have a federal right to marry, but because the case is alleging that Prop. 8 violated the equal-protection clause of the U.S. Constitution, the federal court decision will have implications for gay Americans in nearly every arena of public life, from housing to parenting to military service. The court is set to consider questions as wide-ranging as what it means to be gay and whether it affects one's contribution to society. It's not just marriage rights on trial; it's homosexuality itself.....

The quandary for the court in January is, in effect, how to name a reality that we do not all share. The real fight is not over marriage itself. Perry v. Schwarzenegger is only about gay marriage in the sense that Roe v. Wade was about privacy, or Brown v. Board of Education was about school choice. The case is really about the place of gay people in society. Just as reproductive rights allowed women not to be defined by childbirth and desegregation meant skin color no longer determined where you sat on the bus, legal equality for gays would mean that, at least in theory, one's sexual orientation would not determine where he or she fit in.

But it's important to remember that Roe did not guarantee gender equality, nor did Brown end racism in America. Women are still promoted and paid less than men, and a large share of African Americans are still entrenched in poverty. After the stinging marriage-equality setback in Maine on Nov. 3, gay-rights supporters are looking to the federal courts with renewed hope. But Perry will not be a panacea, either.....

The assumption among gay-rights supporters -- and the time frame that's often thrown around -- is that "in 20 years" we will have full equality. If anything, however, the Prop. 8 imbroglio and its legal fallout should serve as a reminder that equality isn't a once-and-for-all achievement. Rights can be rescinded, the ground can shift again. Nor is it an eventuality. Despite Martin Luther King Jr.'s assurance, the arc of history does not bend in any direction -- much less toward justice -- on its own.

Update from the LA Times:

Lawyers for two gay couples told a federal appeals court Tuesday that they need access to internal communications from last year's Proposition 8 campaign to show that the measure banning same-sex marriage was designed to sow "discriminatory animus" toward gays and lesbians.

Supporters of the measure that ended a five-month period when gay marriage was legal in California argued before the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that their 1st Amendment rights would be infringed and future political discussions "chilled" if they were forced to reveal the thousands of e-mails sent out to campaign associates.

NY Senate nixes marriage equality

The NY Democrats could not hold their caucus together, and not one Republican voted in favor of Equality.

Most bitterly amusing response: the Log Cabin Republicans, who scolded the DEMOCRATS. Maybe you guys should get the Log out of your own eye?

Meanwhile, Bloomberg reports:

Senators voted 38-24 to reject same-sex marriages.

“I understand the anger,” Governor David Paterson said after the vote. “I understand the frustration; I understand the feeling of betrayal; and I understand the profound disappointment of those who came to Albany today thinking they could get married tomorrow. But I am also here to tell you that we are not back to square one.”

Senator Thomas Duane, an openly gay Democrat from Manhattan who sponsored the bill, said he went into the vote confident it would pass and suspected some legislators scuttled their support for fear of voter backlash. He said he’ll continue pushing for another vote on the issue. “There was a contagious lack of backbone that occurred here today.”

What is a gay Catholic to do?

From Fr James Martin of America Magazine:

Here's a real pastoral question to consider: What place is there for the gay person in the Catholic church? With the warning from the archdiocese of Washington, D.C., that it would pull out of social services in the city rather than accede to a bill that would afford benefits to same-sex spouses, a question, too long neglected, arises for the whole church: What is a gay Catholic supposed to do in life?

Imagine you are a devout Catholic who is also gay. Here is a list of the things that you are not to do, according to the teaching of the church. (Remember that most other Catholics can choose among many of these options.) None of this should be new or in any way surprising. If you are gay, you cannot:

1.) Enjoy romantic love.....

2.) Marry. ....

3.) Adopt a child. ....

4.) Enter a seminary. ....

5.) Work for the church and be open. .....

At the same time, if you are a devout Catholic who is attentive both to church teachings and the public pronouncements of church leaders, you will be reminded that you are "objectively disordered," and your sexuality is "a deviation, an irregularity a wound."

Nothing above is surprising or controversial: all of the above are church teaching. But taken together, they raise an important pastoral question for all of us: What kind of life remains for these brothers and sisters in Christ, those who wish to follow the teachings of the church? Officially at least, the gay Catholic seems set up to lead a lonely, loveless, secretive life. Is this what God desires for the gay person?

Given all this, it's a wonder any gay Catholics are left. (Frankly I think most of them have become Episcopalian--a huge fraction of the GLBT Episcopalians we have met are RC refugees). Seriously. Has the church really admitted that the only place it sees gay people is in self-loathing dark closets?

The whole post is worth reading, as are the comments, which alternately expose the heartache and pain, and the intransigent opposition, of actual Catholics.

One commenter writes,

And it continues to interest me that my brothers and sisters of the center, many of whom have long since accepted the use of artificial contraceptives in marriage, and have critiqued the ethical norms prohibiting that use (which are precisely the same as those prohibiting homsexual activity), remain silent about this challenge facing the churches. And about the ongoing pain of their brothers and sisters who are gay or lesbian, and who will no more go back to that unconvincing little world of ill-considered certainties about everything and misplaced interest in the afterlife than married Catholics using birth control will.

How do churches work themselves into places when such obvious cruelty appears holy?

On these lines, another blog addresses the question of why the bishops are putting their obsession with sex ahead of social justice.

First they threatened to take down health-care reform over abortion coverage. Now they’re threatening services to the sick and poor of Washington, D.C., over same-sex marriage.
....

Edward Orzechowski is the president and chief executive officer of Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington. At issue for the church, he said in a press statement, is that the committee drafting the measure in the city council had adjusted the language so that the church would be forbidden from discriminating against same-sex couples in either the adoptions it arranges for the city’s foster-care system, or in the employment benefits it offers to its own personnel.

Many of the people who work for Catholic Charities, Orzechowski told the Washington Post, hail from the LGBT community, so the church would be forced to violate its tenets if the anti-discrimination provision remained in the marriage-equality measure. Just so you have that straight: gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people are good enough to work for Catholic Charities, as long as it’s okay for the church offer them a lower level of benefits than those conferred on heterosexual couples.

(my emphasis). I guess that's where the gay Catholics are: working for social justice. You know, what the Roman Catholic church used to be known for.

Honestly, Do you suppose those Bishops ever think this stuff through? How out of touch can they be? institutions are by their nature corruptable, of course, but this seems ridiculous, especially given the support of the Average Catholic for marriage equality. You also have got to wonder how many of the Bishops are deeply closeted gays who basically have achieved power through a Faustian bargain denying their own truth. Which is tragic at so many levels.

Should we settle for civil unions?

Should we settle for civil unions?

There was a story in the AP last week questioning whether the GLBT community should focus on getting civil unions rather than on marriage.

In the weeks since Maine voters handed the gay marriage movement its 27th electoral defeat in five years, other activists have voiced similar qualms about making marriage their main goal. Gay rights leaders have insisted that anything less than full marriage equality is unacceptable, but some are asking whether the uncompromising strategy has forestalled interim steps that could improve the lives of gay men, lesbians and their families.

At some level this makes sense; what does it matter what you call it? HOWEVER, what we know is that it matters. Here are my reasons:

1) Civil unions (or domestic partnerships; DPs) vary widely from state to state in the rights and protections they provide, from WA and CA where they are supposed to be "just like marriage" to other states where their coverage is incomplete.

2) In fact, even in those states where they are supposed to be complete, they aren't. In CA you don't even get a DP in the same way; a $20 notary form is not the same as a marriage license and personal interview. There are numerous stories about legally registered partners STILL being denied health care access. If you are a state employee, your DP is not covered by the state long-term insurance plan. You have to litigate every single piece of coverage to be sure they are the same. This is why in NJ a commission found that civil unions are NOT the same, and the only remedy is civil marriage.

3) DPs and Civil Unions don't cross state lines or international boundaries. They only exist within the state for state law.

4) I resent like hell the notion that I have to "earn" my rights by some sort of probationary period. "Maybe when they see that the sky doesn't fall," people say. Well, the laboratory of Massachusetts shows that marriage equality has no ill effects on the society at large. I am not a 2nd class citizen and I don't have a 2nd class relationship.

5) The bad guys aren't any happier with DPs. Look what they did in WA: they tried to defeat a law that gave generous provisions to DPs, "marriage in all but name", and they almost succeeded. In Nevada and elsewhere, Republicans have opposed civil union laws. Indeed, they are so eager to outlaw any benefits, that in Virginia you can't even draw up a private contract protecting your partner.

"A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges and obligations of marriage is prohibited." It goes on to add that any such union, contract or arrangement entered into in any other state, "and any contractual rights created thereby," are "void and unenforceable in Virginia."

Virginia is not for lovers. It's a state of hate.

The fact is, it isn't about the name of "marriage" or the concept of "marriage". It's about any recognition of our partnerships and families.

So, no, we shouldn't settle for civil unions. Separate but equal in this country is only separate, never equal.

Courage Campaign withdraws from 2010 repeal campaign

From their press release

The Courage Campaign today called for more research and time to change hearts and minds before returning to the ballot to restore marriage for gay and lesbian couples in California....

Jacobs hailed the work being done in the field by grassroots activists, saying, “We must build our ultimate victory from the lessons of our recent disappointments,” continued Jacobs. “We know that we can change hearts and minds through real conversations with our friends, family, co-workers and neighbors. This takes time and has to be built to scale — so we can’t delay. When we go back to the ballot, we must be strong, clear and embracing.”

Equality CA is also focussing on 2012.

Painful as it is, I think they are right. But that doesn't mean we won't get out there to start the conversation. Because waiting for justice is just not enough.

And why is this taking time? Here's a great article from The Democratic Strategist:

We are losing because we are not persuading swing voters, yes. But that does not mean they cannot be persuaded. People change their views on this issue all the time, as family members and friends respond to a LGBT person’s coming out, or as church congregations vote to become open and affirming. Sometimes it takes years and sometimes it takes weeks. Rarely does it happen without a mixture of love, pain and patience. In these more intimate contexts, we call it transformation rather than “persuasion” and it doesn’t happen due to canvassing and phonebanking. It happens when the truths of someone’s life transcend the doctrine they believe in. Some parts of this process we can map and some remain mysterious to us. It is, after all, the work of the heart we are talking about here....
First, an election cycle is not long enough to completely change someone’s mind about a deeply-held belief, or a conflicted one.

Second, we rely on ineffective methods for persuasion. Scripted, one-off interactions with strangers are simply not going to change people’s minds.

Third, in our strategies and national rhetoric, we make the mistake of treating swing voters, in both subtle and explicit ways, as if they are bigots.

Fourth, we present swing voters with a falsely dichotomous choice – vote no or yes – and then we abandon efforts to personally communicate with swing voters in the final month of the campaign, the period of time during which they are actually making up their mind.

31 years ago (video)

I was a high school student in the Bay Area.

I remember Harvey Milk and George Moscone.

we all should.

This video comes from last year in the run-up to Prop H8, but its message is worth remembering.

ya gotta give 'em hope.


(H/T Lawdork)

Dealing with religion in Iowa (video)

The H8ers return again and again to the tired canard that their religious freedom is imperiled by my civil rights. It's not. I found this statement on the
OneIowa website, which I think explains it quite well:

Some have asked what the Court's decision means for religious institutions.

It's important to know that while the state, its cities and businesses will recognize marriage for gay and lesbian couples, religious institutions will only recognize it if they choose to. Just as some churches are not required to marry a couple that is not a member of their denomination, this decision will not require any religious institution to recognize a marriage contrary to its beliefs.

The Court's decision specifically states, "The sanctity of all religious marriages celebrated in the future will have the same meaning as those celebrated in the past. The only difference is civil marriage will now take on a new meaning that reflects the more complete understanding of equal protection of the law."

Got that?

We ahve to keep repeating this over and over -- it's like the teabaggers and healthcare reform, they lie about stuff long enough and people start to believe it!

Marriage in Mexico?

From the Advocate:

A lawmaker has proposed changing Mexico City's laws to extend marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples. ....

“We only want everyone treated equally under the law, there is no intention to violate anyone's rights, this simply acknowledges the rights of one social sector with no detriment to another,” he said, reported Agence France-Presse.

Trying to get arrested

So they came to DC to get arrested last week. From the Washington Post:

Conservative Christian ministers from across the land, determined to test the bounds of a new law punishing anti-gay hate crimes, assembled outside the Justice Department ... to denounce the sin of homosexuality and see whether they would be charged with lawbreaking.
....

No arrest was made.....

The evangelical activists had been hoping to provoke arrest, because, as organizer Gary Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission put it, "we'd have standing to challenge the law." But their prayers were not answered. Nobody was arrested, which wasn't surprising: To run afoul of the new law, you need to "plan or prepare for an act of physical violence" or "incite an imminent act of physical violence."

Instead of getting arrested, the ministers got something else: A couple of dozen gay activists, surrounding them with rainbow flags and signs announcing "Gaga for Gay Rights" and "I Am a Love Warrior." By the end, the gay rights activists had taken over the lectern and the sound system and were holding their own news conference denouncing the ministers.....

Seems the A/V guy was sympathetic to gay rights, so let the activists have their say. Heh.

But there was no evidence of persecution at the corner of 10th and Pennsylvania. In fact, the cops at one point intervened to help the ministers, by ordering the gay rights activists to move away.

The Rev. Patrick Mahoney, concerned that the gay activists would look like the victims rather than the religious conservatives, went to the microphone to assure the activists that "we did not ask law enforcement to have you moved off of there. They did that on their own. We believe in free speech."

As he spoke, two men, standing behind Mahoney with the ministers, were kissing each other.

Thanksgiving

On this Thanksgiving day, I am profoundly grateful for the love of my wife, the loving support of our family, the solidarity of our GLBT and straight allies, and our unity in the fight for peace, equality, and justice FOR ALL. May you all spend a joyful day with your loved ones. See you tomorrow!

Catholic Bishops continue to assault marriage equality

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops, once an agent for social justice, has veered into a right-wing focus where they exclusively focus on abortion and gay rights. Their upcoming manifesto on marriage has been leaked, and the liberal National Catholic Reporter has gotten a copy (pdf). Here's part of what it says:

One of the most troubling developments in contemporary culture is the proposition that persons of the same sex can "marry." This proposal redefines the nature of marriage and the family and, as a result, harms both the intrinsic dignity of every human person and the common good of society. Marriage is a unique union, a relationship different from all others. It is the permanent bond between one man and one woman whose two-in-one-flesh communion of persons is an indispensable good at the heart of every family and every society.

Same-sex unions are incapable of realizing this specific communion of persons. Therefore, redefining marriage to include such relationships empties the term of its meaning, for it excludes the essential complementarity between man and woman, treating sexual difference as if it were irrelevant to what marriage is.

Male-female complementarity is intrinsic to marriage. It is naturally ordered toward authentic union and the generation of new life. Children are meant to be the gift of the permanent and exclusive union of a husband and a wife. A child is meant to have a mother and a father. The true nature of marriage, lived in openness to life, is a witness to the precious gift of the child and to the unique roles of a mother and a father. Same-sex unions are incapable of such a witness. Consequently, making them equivalent to marriage disregards the very nature of marriage.

When marriage is redefined so as to include or be made analogous with same sex partnerships, society is effectively stating that the permanent union of husband and wife, the unique pattern of spousal and familial love, and the generation of new life are now only of relative importance rather than being fundamental to the existence and well-being of society as a whole.

Today, advocacy for the legal recognition of various same sex relationships is often equated with non-discrimination, fairness, equality, and civil rights. However, it is not unjust to oppose legal recognition of same-sex unions, because marriage and same-sex unions are essentially different realities. “The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it”. To promote and protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman is itself a matter of justice. In fact, it would be a grave injustice if the state ignored the unique and proper place of husbands and wives, the place of mothers and fathers, and the rights of the child”.

what about MY children? What about MY family? And what about couples who cannot procreate, why are THEY allowed to marry?

It is only a matter of time before the Conference of Bishops uses marriage equality as the same kind of issue as abortion, and tries to deny communion. And not just communion: funerals too. Reported in Time, for performing a funeral for Sen Ted Kennedy

Rome-based Archbishop Raymond Burke.... charged Boston Cardinal Seán O'Malley with being under the influence of Satan, "the father of lies."

You may recall a case in San Diego a few years ago where a gay man was denied a Catholic funeral.

The gloves are off between the Catholic heirarchy and the GLBT community. GLBT Catholics and straight allies need to speak out vociferously against this campaign of intolerance and fight for the intrinsic worth of all persons. Or, join the Episcopalians.

Update Much to their chagrin, I'm sure, a report commissioned by the Bishops finds no evidence that gay priests are more likely to abuse children. How long will we have to wait for them to apologize to the gay priests they have castigated?

Update 2 Conservative Catholics are also signatories to the awful Manhattan Declaration.

"I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish, where no public official either requests or accepts instruction on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches, or any other ecclesiastical source."
--John F Kennedy

The Manhattan Declaration, the Uganda Gay Death Bill, and attacks on GLBT rights

The Forces of Ill have put together something they call The Manhattan Declaration stating their opposition to marriage equality with all the same, tired slippery slope arguments and self-righteous victimhood. From The New York Times:

Citing the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s call to civil disobedience, 145 evangelical, Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christian leaders have signed a declaration saying they will not cooperate with laws that they say could be used to compel their institutions to participate in abortions, or to bless or in any way recognize same-sex couples.

“We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence,” it says....

The manifesto, to be released on Friday at the National Press Club in Washington, is an effort to rejuvenate the political alliance of conservative Catholics and evangelicals that dominated the religious debate during the administration of President George W. Bush.......

The document says, “We will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other antilife act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent.”

It's a pretty creepy document. You can read the whole thing at Good As You. (I won't give the haters' site any hits)

All the Usual Suspects of intolerance have signed it, Maggie Gallagher and all her buddies. And it isn't limited to Americans. One of the signatories is Abp Peter Akinola of Nigeria whom Episcopal Church watchers will know as a fomenter of schism in the US church over the issue of gay rights.

Thus providing yet another link in the chain between right-wing anti-gay Christianist extremists in the US and the African churches that has led to the Ugandan Gay Death Bill (text here). This is the one that increases penalties against GLBT Ugandans, up to and including death.

Although this has been met with protests by some governmental entities, most churches have ignored the subject, tip-toeing around it, afraid to say that KILLING PEOPLE IS WRONG.

Now, a new study Globalizing the Culture Wars: US conservatives, African Churches, and homophobia (PDF) explicitly links the US culture war with the escalation of homophobia in Africa, and argues that the GLBT Africans including those in Uganda, are collateral damage to this effort.
The Executive Summary includes the following:

US Conservatives have successfully recruited a significant number of prominent African religious leaders to a campaign seeking to restrict the human right sof lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people. The flagship issue of this campaign is the ordination of LGBT cleargy by mainline protestant denominations....

American conservatives who are in the minority within mainline churches depend on African religious leaders to legitimize their positions.....

While homophobia in Africa is fomented largely for US domestic purposes, by depicting advances in the United States as evidence of a worldwide neo-colonial homosexual threat, US conservatives have engendered an insidious inverse relationship between LGBT rights in the United State and in Africa. Scott Lively and other evangelicals portray victories for equality in the United States as evidence of the encroaching gay conspiracy, exciting bigotry and violence among their African audiences. In this respect, Africans have become a kind of "collateral damage" of the US culture wars.

Importantly, the report highlights examples where American extremists have rewritten statements that purport to express the African point of view, by opposing social justice in favor of anti-Islamic rhetoric. They have attacked the long history of mainline churches in supporting African churches by linking progressives to homosexuality, and persuaded the African churches to re-orient and switch to conservative-approved funding, which is characterized by absence of accountability, and individual political benefit.

The conservative groups have moved under the radar to patiently develop and assemble a base by which to attack progressive values and social justice. It is similar to their strategy in local politics and school boards in the US, where they establish a majority and then attack sex education and evolution. And nearly every time, well-meaning progressives and liberals are caught off guard by the relentlessly disciplined message of hate. Yes, they really DO hate us. Really.

One of the big advocates in Uganda of The Other Side is Scott Lively, who is a viciously anti-gay activist and Holocaust revisionist ; the Southern Poverty Law Center considers his flagship organization to be a hate group. He claims gays were responsible for the Holocaust. Rick Warren has also attacked homosexuals in African as an ally of a prominent anti-gay pastor, although he is trying to distance himself recently. And of course, our old friend the IRD and its twisted tendrils deep in the Episcopal/Anglican schism.

There's more on this at Religion Dispatches.

The signatories of the Manhattan Declaration just like the haters in Uganda purport to represent Christianity. We know they represent conservative Christianists, Roman Catholics, and others. What's their view of the Uganda Bill...any guess?

The Anglican Church of Canada and Global Ministries of the United Church of Christ & Disciples of Christ have released statements decrying the proposed Uganda law. But other churches are strangely silent. Well, we know that the Vatican has a "better dead than wed" policy towards gays, but I am a little surprised that other denominations are not speaking out.

Now, the battle continues to escalate on our own borders. Emboldened by the success of their dishonest campaigns in ME and CA, the bad guys are ramping up the attack with this new declaration. But it's PAST TIME for the forces of good to stand up to them and say NO MORE in the same forceful terms that they have used against us. Whispers and soft voices have not worked. It's PAST TIME for the leadership of liberal, progressive Christian denominations to SPEAK OUT loudly against intolerance and divisiveness and hatred masquerading under religion's name whether here at home, or overseas. Maggie Gallagher et al do NOT represent all Christians, not by a long shot. It's PAST TIME for there to be strong voices from both civil and religious circles who opposethe Gay Death Bill in Uganda, strong voices that call the Manhattan Declaration out for the prejudiced, intolerant document that it is.

More legal updates: DOMA, Perry, and DPBO

It's been a while since I last updated you on the anti-DOMA court cases, that argue that DOMA unfairly penalizes legally married couples. At that time I pointed out that Obama's DoJ was arguing the remaining case, Gill, should be dismissed. GLAD has now responded (PDF):

"Both sides agree that our plaintiffs have taken on the commitments of marriage, played by the rules, paid into the system, and been denied benefits because of DOMA," says GLAD Legal Director Gary Buseck.

"Now we're asking the court to say once and for all that the federal government must end its blatant double standard of providing rights and protections to all married couples except gay and lesbian married couples."

I wonder if this case will be strengthened by the NInth Circuit orders we discussed on Friday. One thing we know for sure: this won't end soon. (Update: Lawdork has commentary.)

Next, there's the ongoing saga of Perry, which is the case challenging Prop 8 in Federal Court. A while ago, the Judge ordered the Prop 8 supporters to release their documents. Seems a big part of the case relies on whether or not the proponents were motivated by simple animus, or by actual concern about marriage and children. They don't want to turn the papers over, and have appealed up to the Ninth Circuit. Yet another order came out last week demanding that, in the absence of a stay, they have to turn them over. A great blog to follow this is Prop 8 & the Right to Marry which is based on legal commentary. I've book marked it in the information blogroll, on the left sidebar.

Other news: The Domestic Partners Benefits ad Obligations Act (DPBO) passed out of markup Wednesday. A description of the arguments pro and con here. As we discussed last summer, This would allow federal employees with legal same sex partners to have access to proper employment benefits, like health care and pensions. Ironically, however, because of DOMA, those who are legally married, rather than DP'd, might not have relief under this act...like Mr Levenson in the case we discussed Friday. So it enshrines a separate category of not-quite for GLBT people.

What marriage is (video Sunday)

Great review by Dan Savage.

Has Texas Abolished Marriage?

Seems Texas has an anti-same sex marriage amendment. Seems it says,

"This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage."

Architects of the amendment included the clause to ban same-sex civil unions and domestic partnerships.

But Radnofsky, who was a member of the powerhouse Vinson & Elkins law firm in Houston for 27 years until retiring in 2006, says the wording of Subsection B effectively "eliminates marriage in Texas," including common-law marriages.

Ah, I think this is what they mean when they say "hoist on your own petard".

Benefits for married gays ? the Ninth Circuit speaks

As reported in the LA TImes

A federal judge today ordered compensation for a Los Angeles couple denied spousal benefits by the federal government because they are gay men.

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Reinhardt deemed the denial of healthcare and other benefits to the spouse of federal public defender Brad Levenson to be a violation of the Constitution's guarantee of due process and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, which is prohibited by California state law......

Two same sex couples, employees of the Federal Courts, had each married during the Californian Interregnum. Each filed a complaint when they weren't allowed to insure their spouse. By law, such complaints are adjucated by the court, and in each case, the responsible judge ordered that these legally married spouses should have benefits.

But the Federal Government Office of Personnel and Management (OPM) balked, because of DOMA. They told the insurance company not to process the benefits.

So Judge Reinhardt has ruled that if Mr Levenson and his husband can't get benefits, they need to get compensation equivalent to the value of the coverage that was denied. The judge is Not Happy that the Fed disobeyed his order.

The judge's order is expected to resolve the injustice Reinhardt has cited in previous orders in Levenson's case. But it also recognizes the status quo of federal government rejection of gay marriage under the Defense of Marriage Act. Several other challenges by those denied federal benefits, like filing joint tax returns, are making their way slowly through the federal courts.

(That would be Gill et al which we've discussed. More on that next week).

Now, something very interesting here is that another Judge on the Ninth Circuit, Chief Kozinski, had similarly found for HIS staffer, and like Judge Reinhardt, ordered her to be given benefits. He is quite annoyed that the order was ignored, or rather, that OPM interfered. He has now come back with a new order (PDF) too. In fact, he's gone further than Judge Reinhardt, and rather than simply ordered compensation, he's taking on the executive.

OPM's actions implicate an even more fundamental concern: the autonomy and independence of the Judiciary as a co-equal branch of government. In effect, OPM has claimed that its interpretations of the rights and benefits of judicial employees are entitled to supremacy over those of the Judiciary. That's incorrect, and the Executive must henceforth respect the Judiciary's interpration of the laws applicable to judicial employees. ....

He goes on to scold OPM and the executive in no uncertain terms about interfering in the equal branch of the judiciary. And he makes it very clear and unambiguous:

I have determined that, even as limited by DOMA, the FEHBP permits judical employees to provide health insurance coverage to their same-sex spouses....

Hat-tip Dr Primrose, a commenter on Friends of Jake.

Post Mortem on Question 1

From the Huffington Post, No on One campaign director Jesse Connolly.

This was a very painful loss. The simple fact is that their margins were wider in the places they needed to win, and our winning margins were either smaller than we projected, or we lost bigger in places where we needed to keep it much closer. Clearly, there is town-by-town, city-by-city analysis we need to do and much of that is already underway.

Nonetheless, permit me to make a few observations.

First and foremost, marriage equality is a complex issue. Many people are conflicted and we know from national and state specific polling that it is very difficult to move people on this issue, particularly in the confines of short campaigns.

Secondly, our opponents capitalized on that conflict by constant distortion and misrepresentation. It reminds me of the movie, Supersize Me: why order a midsize coke when you can have a giant coke? Their bar is much lower than ours. They only have to plant and feed the doubt. And it is difficult to fully restore any reputation, be it an issue or character, that's plagued by constant doubt.

Remember, this was a campaign where we got up on the air first and where we put genuine Maine values as the context for supporting marriage equality. .....

But here's where it gets tricky and here's where we need some answers over the next several weeks or months. It's clear that polling research, both ours and others, did not capture the intensity of Yes on 1 support. Polling cannot predict turnout and the impact of Tuesday's turnout was counterintuitive. We weren't alone: our opponents, political observers and field operatives all believed a high turnout benefited the NO on 1 vote. With voting approaching 60% in Maine, it's clear that wasn't true.
....

It may turn out to be simply this: that by moving this basic premise of equality from the sink hole of catastrophic defeat state after state, year after year, to within striking distance of a win, that we are almost to the finish line. This tide is turning and you can tell by the histrionics from our opponents, from their "gathering storm."

It appears that the Bradley effect is alive and well: that is, polling on this subject routinely understates the opposition to equality. Well, at least they are ashamed to tell the pollsters that they hate us. I suppose that's progress of a sort.

DC slaps back at bigotry

Resisting the blackmail, the DC office of Elections and ethics says,

Under current law, the District recognizes as valid same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. The Board concludes that that Marriage Initiative of 2009 would, if passed, strip same-sex couples who have entered into such marriages of rights afforded to them by that recognition. Accordingly, the Board orders in its memorandum that the Initiative be received but not accepted under D.C. Code section 1-1001.16(b)(2), which prohibits the Board from accepting an initiative that authorizes discrimination prohibited under the District of Columbia Human Rights Act.

“We have considered all of the testimony presented to the Board and understand the desire to place this question on the ballot,” said Board Chairman Errol R. Arthur. “However, the laws of the District of Columbia preclude us from allowing this initiative to move forward.”

I DON'T HAVE A LIFESTYLE

Aren't you TIRED of the term "the homosexual lifestyle"? It's derogatory, scornful dismissal. I recently got cross in a comment thread on a blog when someone bleated "what 's wrong with the term homosexual lifestyle?" And this is what I responded:

Try these terms:

"left-handed lifestyle"

"red-haired lifestyle".

Do they make any sense?

The word "lifestyle" implies trivialities, like choosing which supermarket to patronize or which clothes to buy. A dictionary definition: "a set of attitudes, habits, and possessions regarded as typical of a particular group or an individual". Synonyms: "fashion, style, mode".

There is no such thing as a "homosexual lifestyle". Sure gay people may choose the same range of actual "lifestyles" as any straight people, ranging from suburban earth-moms to urban partiers. But our sexuality isn't part of that choice.

To use that term to refer to our LIVES is profoundly offensive It says our LIVES are trivialities and stylistic choices. But our lives have same value, depth, and complexity of anyone else's. My marriage, my family, and my life are not a "lifestyle".

I don't have a "lifestyle". I have a LIFE.

NoH8 campaign (video Sunday)

NoH8 is a photo campaign. Check it out at www.noh8campaign.com

Blackmail in DC?

As reported in the Post,

The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it will be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city doesn't change a proposed same-sex marriage law, a threat that could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and health care.

Under the bill, headed for a D.C. Council vote next month, religious organizations would not be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings. But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians.

So, flush with Catholic success as the 800-pound gorilla in Maiine, the DC Archdiocese is throwing its weight around and making threats.

The church's influence seems limited. In separate interviews Wednesday, council member Mary M. Cheh (D-Ward 3) referred to the church as "somewhat childish." Another council member, David A. Catania (I-At Large), said he would rather end the city's relationship with the church than give in to its demands.

"They don't represent, in my mind, an indispensable component of our social services infrastructure," said Catania, the sponsor of the same-sex marriage bill and the chairman of the Health Committee.

What about religious exemptions? Well, the DC law provides that for institutions. But not for individuals. You don't get to deny service to someone because they're gay, any more than you can deny service because they're black.

"The problem with the individual exemption is anybody could discriminate based on their assertion of religious principle," Mendelson said. "There were many people back in the 1950s and '60s, during the civil rights era, that said separation of the races was ordained by God."

I hope the city stands up to this crass attempt to attack GLBT families.

Update DO you suppose the Archdiocese has any employees who are remarried after divorce? Do you suppose they get employment benefits that cover their family?

Why Gay Marriage is Wrong (warning, sarcastic video)_

Rhode Island Gov: GLBT have no rights to plan partner's funeral

From the Advocate:

Gov. Don Carcieri vetoed legislation Tuesday that would have given same-sex couples in Rhode Island the right to plan funerals for deceased partners.

The socially conservative Republican said the proposed protection represents a “disturbing trend” of the incremental erosion of heterosexual marriage, reports the Associated Press. Rhode Island does not recognize same-sex marriage.

The mind boggles, doesn't it? Because obviously, letting a grief-stricken partner take care of their loved one's arrangements is a chink in the door of HUMAN DECENCY and we can't have that, now, can we?

From the Boston Edge:

[RI] State Rep. David Segal (D-Providence) said the bill "would have let domestic partners claim the bodies of their deceased partners, and arrange funerals for them."

Segal noted the funeral planning bill was supported by the overwhelming majority of members of the Assembly who oppose marriage for gays and lesbians It passed by a vote of 63-1. And Segal expressed outrage over Carcieri’s veto.

"This bitter, cruel, pathetic man is grossly unworthy of the esteem the people of Rhode Island have bestowed upon him," Segal wrote in a blog post on Rhode Island’s Future.

Carcieri has a contentious history with Rhode Island’s LGBT activists. The Governor was widely condemned for his appearance at a Massachusetts Family Institute fundraiser last month. The governor told the 300 attendees he believed marriage was "not a civil right.".....

A statement on MFI’s Web site describes homosexuality as "an unhealthy practice and destructive to individuals, families and society." The organization also maintains gays and lesbians can be cured through prayer.

Update this veto was overridden in January 2010.

No Health Care for GLBT families?

So much for including all Americans. From the Washington Blade:

[T]he bill, H.R. 3962, uses the terms “family” and “dependent,” and advocates say the new Health Choices Commissioner — a position established in the legislation to oversee the insurance exchange — could interpret this language to mean someone’s opposite-sex spouse, but not a same-sex spouse.

For example, the section describing the retiree reinsurance program — for which employer-based programs could submit claims to the government — says claims could be made on “employment based health benefits provided to a retiree or to the spouse, surviving spouse, or dependent of a retiree.”

Brian Moulton, the Human Rights Campaign’s chief legislative counsel, said the term “dependent” and “family” in the bill are “fairly open-ended” and “leave a lot of discretion to the new commissioner to define them.”

“Certainly, there is some use of the term ‘spouse’ in the bill in some of the provisions, and certainly DOMA would control that definition of spouse,” he said. “I think there are some areas where there’s a potential there won’t be access to some of the benefits.”

You see, my marriage doesn't count. And neither do Domestic Partnerships, right now. But thanks to DOMA, it's even possible that my legal marriage would be explicitly excluded, even if DPs are allowed. How's THAT for a cruel irony?

Meanwhile, Dick Durbin and others are doing a chicken little with respect to GLBT rights. THey are running hard from our community, and are shutting the door on a repeal to Don't Ask Don't Tell aka DADT.

You see, apparently a couple of Republican governors getting elected outweighs two new Dems in the House. NOw, remember, most people (even straight conservatives) support a repeal of DADT. Domestic Partnerships won in Washington State, and anti-discrimination protections in Kalamazoo. There were several gay people elected in contests around the country. But the beltway bias is that we are poison and even the Democratic National Committee wouldn't support us. Back under the bus, boys and girls.

As David Mixner writes,

How can we have any dignity, honor or pride in ourselves if we validate this continued process of ballot box terrorism? How can we stand tall next to each other if we explain away another's cowardliness? How can we allow people to dehumanize our relationships and our very integrity if we give people passes to sit out the battle for our very freedom? No longer are political timelines a reason for delay, no longer are incremental approaches acceptable and no longer can the political process expect us to be patient and wait our turn. Our turn came long ago and there will be no more waiting.

I'm still waiting for "fierce advocacy". ::crickets:: Meanwhile, my wallet will be open only for causes and candidates who share ALL my values.