More on Referendum 71: secret signatures

From Pam's House Blend, more about Referendum 71. Remember, if enough signatures were gathered (which is questionable), it will put a referendum on the ballot asking the voters to approve the expanded domestic partnerships bill.

We must VOTE "APPROVE" to preserve the Domestic Partnership Expansion Law of 2009 (SB 5688).  Yes, I said APPROVE.  This is due to the way the ballot was worded by the Attorney General:
REFERENDUM 71
Ballot Title
Statement of Subject: The legislature passed Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5688 concerning rights and responsibilities of state-registered domestic partners [and voters have filed a sufficient referendum petition on this bill].
Concise Description: This bill would expand the rights, responsibilities, and obligations accorded state-registered same-sex and senior domestic partners to be equivalent to those of married spouses, except that a domestic partnership is not a marriage.
Should this bill be:
Approved __X__
Rejected ___
......

There has been some misinformation that if we don't vote APPROVED, the entire DP system will be repealed.  This is false.  Referendum 71 is about approving an incremental enhancement to existing DP law.  Existing DP law will remain intact no matter what.

Let's hope it doesn't come to that. Not surprisingly, the opposition are trying agin to hide their hatred under the cloak of anonymity. They tried the same thing in CA, and were fortunately thwarted. Despite their claims that PropH8 supporters would be harrassed, they weren't. And if we're talking harassment, howabout the ultimate harassment of denying a citizen their right to marry, or the right to protect their family? Remember just WHO the real victims are here!

Democracy only works in the sunlight. Or as my mother would say, if you are ashamed to be known for doing something, that is a clue that perhaps you shouldn't have done it.

Another reason for secrecy may be the reports that the signature-gatherers lied about the petitions, and claimed that signing them actually supported GLBT rights (Again, from Pam' House Blend. They may not want to have people who support GBLT rights finding out their signatures were collected under false pretenses. A version of this also happened in CA where marriage equality opponents would show up to pro-equality rallies and tell people to vote YES on PropH8 if they supported gay rights.

Finally, the referendum supporters stand to make money off the sale of those names and addresses to political campaigns, etc etc, if they aren't public. There's a simple explanation for their claims of victimhood. It starts with G and it ends with D and it spells GREED.

This leads me to wonder at the values and integrity of a movement that is based so heavily on lies and misleading people. If they don't have sufficient confidence in the rightness of their cause so that they have to lie about it, what does that tell us?

Catholic bishops withdraw support for immigration bill

An immigration reform bill is working its way through the channels. One issue is how to treat families of people who are in the country working legally. Despite the hype from the anti-immigrant groups like the Minutemen, most immigrants are hard working, tax paying would-be citizens who enrich our lives.

The Catholic church has long been an advocate of humane immigration policies. But it seems there is a problem this time. From the AP:

A key ally in past immigration fights, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said it would not support a measure that has a same-sex provision.

You see, granting any civil recognition of a same sex couple is a deal-breaker for the Bishops, who would rather see people exiled, deported, and miserable than allow any single gay person to benefit. Civil rights for gay people are so dangerous that the bishops would rather see everyone else suffer, lest a GLBT person actually have a family.

The NAACP and the American Bar Association also spoke in favor of including "permanent partners" as part of an immigration bill, saying that current law amounts to discrimination.

But not for the Catholic Bishops. It's just a slightly less lethal version of the Better Dead than Wed policy.

So, about that repeal of Prop8....

Reported in the SF Chronicle last weekend, the No-on-8 campaigns are organizing for 2010. Maybe.

As I've commented here many times, it's beyond time for these guys to get themselves together. EQ-CA and Courage Campaign and others are all working on this. The energy is good, but what is not good is seeing 3 or 4 different booths at the pride parade which argues lack of coordination.

As the Chron says

Oh, yeah. And they still need a leader. And a leadership structure. And a decision-making process.

With that in mind, here's a juicy rumor for you: Would President Obama confidante Steve Hildebrand be interested in coming out to California to lead the next same sex marriage ballot iniative campaign?
......
"The Courage Campaign proposes these four principles for a campaign to win marriage equality:

1) Our campaign to win must begin now, regardless of when we put marriage equality on the ballot.
2) To unite the strength of activists across California, the campaign must be independent, accountable, and not dominated by any one organization.
3) To gain the trust and full commitment of supporters, the campaign needs a representative and functional governance structure.
4) Victory on election day requires a strong, experienced campaign manager who knows California well and has won battles like this before. Our opposition is well-organized, and we need exceptional leadership on our side to prevail."

So as I reported a while ago, some parts of the movement are suggesting we wait till 2012. The NY Times explains:

Under California law, language for a 2010 proposition would need to be submitted to the secretary of state by late September, and then some 700,000 signatures gathered to qualify for the ballot.

Opponents of the 2010 campaign say that window is simply too small to change the opinions of enough voters to win, including groups in which Proposition 8 was popular, like African-Americans, religious conservatives and the elderly.

“What we’ve learned is that yes, you can change hearts and minds, but it takes time, focused energy, and money,” said Matt Foreman, the program director of the Evelyn and Walter Haas Jr. Fund, a frequent donor to gay rights causes. “And once a measure is on the ballot and the campaign begins, its almost impossible to change anyone’s mind, because people are being bombarded with lies.”

I'm going to make a bet with you, based on these articles and the continuing lack of a real organization or fundraising. I'm going to bet this will not be on the ballot again till 2012. And as frustrating as I find that, I think that it would be a disaster to run another awful campaign. And I'm not seeing anything stronger in the offing.

CA to recognize out-of-state same sex marriages?

In the Decision upholding Prop8, the Supreme Court of California recognized existing California same-sex marriages, and prevented future ones. But left unclear was what to do with out-of-state marriages that occurred before the election; for example, couples married in MA. The justices left a big door open on that one and many people feel that they will uphold them.

Still, it will take legislation, and then litigation, to decide.

The first step has occurred. The Advocate reports that CA state senator Mark Leno has proposed SB54, to recognize out-of-state marriages between same sex partners.

You know that the Forces of H8 will be on this like flies, so Equality CA exhorts you to take action and write your legislators in support.

Attacking DPs: WI, WA

In Washington, the state has passed a generous domestic partnership law which as I've discussed here, and also here, is under virulent attack by the forces of hate.

You see, although they insist that they only care about the word "marriage", it's clear that they oppose any civil rights for gay people. It's not about marriage. And we need to call them on it over and over.

So, under Washington law (and not unlike Maine's), with enough signatures they can hold a voting referendum against this new law. So the forces of evil have been busy collecting signatures on what is called Referendum 71. It's been a bit of a challenge, because Washingtonians actually support recognition of gay unions (remember, this isn't marriage, just domestic partnerships/civil unions). So the bad guys have been lying about what's on the petition, claiming that it supports marriage equality (a trick they also used in CA). And they've been lying about the referendum itself.

Secretary of State's office spokesman David Ammons says, "The state supreme court has said you can lie in campaign utterances and campaign materials. We have no jurisdiction over extra words and sales pitches that sponsors choose to put on petitions." In other words, the Referendum 71 petitions could claim that the measure would ban abortion, impeach the governor, guarantee salvation... almost anything (short of threats or bribery) to persuade people to sign it.

Wow. Just wow.

This weekend the Referendum 71 supporters handed in their signatures. It will take awhile to know whether they got enough to get it on the ballot, or whether Washingtonians were smart enough to see through their lies. If it does get on the ballot, expect another expensive fight as in CA and ME. The alliance here is Washington Families Standing Together.


Meanwhile, the same sickness has hit Wisconsin. A group has challenged, yes, a domestic partnership bill as being "unconstitutional" because of the state constitutional ban on same sex marriage. But it's not marriage, you say. I agree. The problem is that Wisconsin's Hate Amendment also bans " legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals". So is a domestic partnership substantially like a marriage? Or not?

"We are hopeful that the state Supreme Court will recognize that domestic partnerships are not substantially similar to marriage, and will arrive at a fair and just decision that upholds these basic protections for same-sex couples," Katie Belanger, executive director of Fair Wisconsin, said in the statement.

Here's the problem. Even amongst states, the term "domestic partner" or "civil union" does not have a common meaning. In California, DPs are supposed to have all the rights of marriage (until every one of those rights is litigated, we'll ahve to see). In Wisconsin, DPs have few rights. In Washington, it's something in between. And the forces of hate attack gay couples state by state. Support FairWisconsin.


The conflict is neatly summed up in this US News article:

Conservative Christian groups criticizing the president's memorandum extending certain benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees are alleging that the president is approximating the benefits of marriage—that he's basically creating "marriage light." It's an interesting line of argument because polls show that most Americans support benefits for gay partners but oppose gay marriage.

I'm not saying religious conservatives are acting purely politically—many do believe that providing benefits to gay couples is a sneaky way of legalizing gay unions. But given those poll numbers, it also makes political sense for religious conservatives to try to reframe the benefits issue as a gay marriage issue.

Gay rights advocates, meanwhile, see benefits and gay marriage as much different issues, since extending some benefits to gay partners still excludes key benefits of marriage.

Finally, some revealing quotes from the other side. First, from the NY TImes, about the conflict over 2010 vs 2012 for repeal:

For opponents of same-sex marriage, meanwhile, the debate among gay rights advocates has been entertaining.

Because, of course, denying faithful couples any rights is SO funny.

Second, the LA Times quoted a leader of the movement that is attacking domestic partnerships in Washington state:

"It's the last incremental step to gay marriage for gay activists," said Gary Randall, president of the Faith & Freedom Network, who is helping coordinate the signature campaign. "We're not trying to take anything from anyone. We're simply trying to defend and keep marriage as it has always been throughout all of human history."

So what do you call it when you repeal a law that grants people basic rights? If that's not taking something away from someone, what is? We know they lie. But really, isn't it time someone call them out on it?

Voices of faith for equality (video)

HRC is pushing the relationship between religion and equality:

What do you think? I think they give way too much time to the opposition, front loading it with hate. Not sure what it will accomplish. Still, it's something.

Religious supporters are coming out

From San Diego's pride parade last weekend, one of the many, many churches that participated:

(Credit here. My wife and I marched with over 100 other folks from St Paul's Episcopal Cathedral, a few groups back from this one, which I described here )

Out of state Hate

Poor Maine is suffering the indignity of a ballot referendum on gay marriage. Can you say, Proposition 8? All the usual suspects have been arriving: the Knights of Columbus, the Mormons, Maggie Gallagher's NOM group (of the Scary Video), and the Roman Catholic church.

The Sun Journal reports,

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland contributed $100,000, the Knights of Columbus of Washington, D.C., chipped in $50,000 and Focus on the Family, a Christian group based in Colorado Springs, Colo., donated $31,000 to the political action committee seeking to repeal the gay marriage law.

Nearly half of the group's fundraising, $160,000, came from the National Organization for Marriage, a New Jersey-based group.

However, quite interestingly, the paper also reports that

The campaign finance report also shows four Maine citizens contributed a total of $400 to the cause.

Four people from the state in question donated $400 of the $340,000 the haters have raised. Four people! By contrast,

Maine Freedom to Marry, the group campaigning to maintain the law, raised a total of about $138,000 from more than 350 donors during the same period, according to a release.

Donations from Mainers totaled about $80,000, with the remaining $58,000 coming from out of state.

So, Mainers themselves support marriage equality by a ratio of 350:4.

We saw this in California, when a flood of donations from out of state drove the Prop8 campaign to record expenditures. The Roman Catholic bishops provided political cover for the Mormons, and the conservative Catholic group the Knights of Columbus poured money into the state. Coupled with failures on the "No" side to mobilize and do outreach, this proved lethal. The final insult was the triumphalism of the SF and LA Archbishops in telling the gay community to shut up. So, the same thing in Maine so far....let's hope we can block that triumphalism thing and instead see a chastened statement of defeat.

An interesting question is where the Roman Catholic church gets all that money. Seems that RC in Maine has been in financial straits, closing down parishes. As the Sun Journal reported in a different article,

In the face of recent firings at the Trinity Catholic School and the plans for closing two Catholic parishes in Lewiston, both due to declining revenue, the revelation that the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland had spent $100,000 on efforts to repeal the recently passed same-sex marriage law took some Catholics by surprise.

"I saw that $100,000 figure in the paper and it was very demoralizing," said David Webbert, an Augusta lawyer, who for years attended Auburn's St. Philip's Church with his family and now occasionally attends in Winthrop.

Remarkably, in an economic climate of joblessness and need, the Roman Catholic church in Maine can't keep churches open and can't help the poor, but it can sure attack the civil (not religious, but CIVIL) marriages of Mainers at great cost.

But as we've seen in Washington state, it's not about Marriage per se. It's about denying gay citizens any secular rights at all. And that, dear friends, is nothing more than hate.

Support Equality Maine.

Kissing in Utah

IS there a new sensitivity afoot? There seem to be a lot of gay folks getting arrested for exchanging a kiss.Most recently, a gay couple was arrested for kissing in front of the LDS temple. The plaza they were walking through was ceded by Salt Lake City to the LDS church, so it is private property.

According to the AP, the men say they simply kissed. The Mormon security guards claim much more:

...church officials contend their behavior was lewd.

"There was much more involved that a simple kiss of the cheek," Farah said in a statement Friday. "They engaged in passionate kissing, groping, profane and lewd language, and had obviously been using alcohol."

Hmmm, this reminds me of the Fort Worth assault, where the police said that there was lewd behavior and groping that provoked them to slam a man into a wall, while the witnesses say there was no such thing. Because of course, you know those gay people can't keep from having sex in the streets, and "gay panic" is still an excuse. However

The men have said they were walking home from a nearby concert and cutting through the plaza on their way home.

A police report said they sat down for a kiss and were approached by a pair of church security guards, who asked them to leave because their behavior was "unwanted."Both were handcuffed and Aune was pinned to the ground.

THat doesn't sound like sex in the streets to me.

Of course on private property, the LDS has the right to regulate behavior. Even if it is a double standard that allows displays of affection between straight couples but not gay. However, throwing them to the ground seems a bit much.

So there was a kiss-in to protest, which predictably brought the counter-protesters out.

[A]bout 100 people gathered to stage a "kiss-in" to protest the treatment of two gay men cited for trespassing July 9 after they shared a kiss on the plaza owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Both gay and straight couples exchanged kisses during the protest.

Demonstrators were greeted at the south entrance by a group of protesters carrying large signs that denounced homosexuality, prompting a heated verbal exchange.

Police say no one was arrested or cited, despite a large group exchanging kisses by a reflecting pool at the plaza's center.

With the eyes of the world on them, they decided not to throw them to the ground for en masse handcuffing and arrest. Good choice.

REmember, Utah is actually moving backwards on gay rights. Yay, Mormons.

Not.

So look for a kiss-in opportunity near you: GLBT and straight allies, all are welcome to pucker up.

Update San Diego had a kiss in at the Mormon temple on Weds.

Boies in the WSJ: a fundamental right to marriage

David Boies, who with Ted Olson is challenging Prop8 in federal court, wrote an op/ed in the Wall Street Journal.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the right to marry the person you love is so fundamental that states cannot abridge it..... basic constitutional rights cannot depend on the willingness of the electorate in any given state to end discrimination. If we were prepared to consign minority rights to a majority vote, there would be no need for a constitution.

The ban on same-sex marriages written into the California Constitution by a 52% vote in favor of Proposition 8 is the residue of centuries of figurative and literal gay-bashing. California allows same-sex domestic partnerships that, as interpreted by the California Supreme Court, provide virtually all of the economic rights of marriage. So the ban on permitting gay and lesbian couples to actually marry is simply an attempt by the state to stigmatize a segment of its population that commits no offense other than falling in love with a disapproved partner, and asks no more of the state than to be treated equally with all other citizens.....

There are those who sincerely believe that homosexuality is inconsistent with their religion -- and the First Amendment guarantees their freedom of belief. However, the same First Amendment, as well as the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses, preclude the enshrinement of their religious-based disapproval in state law......

The argument in favor of Proposition 8 ultimately comes down to no more than the tautological assertion that a marriage is between a man and a woman. But a slogan is not a substitute for constitutional analysis. Law is about justice, not bumper stickers.

(my emphasis). Read the whole thing!

The Education Question

"I don't want my kids taught in school that gay marriage is okay." But as we saw it has nothing to do with marriage. What they are really saying is "I don't want my kids taught that GAYS are okay."

In a society such as ours, lots of people do things that we don't approve of. Roman Catholics don't approve of contraception, divorce, or remarriage after divorce. Observant Jews don't eat pork. Vegetarians won't eat meat. Mormons eschew caffeine. Values are taught in the home, and the only lessons the schools teach is that people are different, and we need to tolerate our differences.

Why is this so difficult? We don't live in a theocracy. Why is the potential fact of gay marriage so much more offensive than the presence of non-Christians, or meat eaters, or the divorced? The fact is we already have to deal with many people with whom we disagree on value judgments. It's completely unclear why "Teh Gay" (TM) are so much more reviled.

The fact is that gay families exist, and their children go to school. Children of straight parents will inevitably meet children of gay parents. To admit that these families exist is not to say you approve (any more than a Catholic "approves" of someone on their third marriage). Yet it is their very existence that is under attack. The infamous case of David Parker in Massachusetts is a case in point. He protested about a book that showed a picture of a gay family--not in any sexual context, mind you, simply a book that showed all sorts of families.

But he wanted his children removed from any situation where they could be "exposed" , even segregated from classmates who had gay parents, lest those classmates contaminate his child by mentioning they have two daddies. It wasn't gay marriage per se. It wasn't any endorsement. It wasn't anything about sex. It was the very fact of the existence of gay families that he objected to. (The group supporting him, MassResistance, has been labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.. More about the case and their lieshere.)

"I don't want my kids going to a gay wedding!"

Ah, that was one of the great lies of the Prop8 campaign, wasn't it! Yes, a teacher invited anyone in her class who wanted to, to attend her wedding. No one was forced, it was not a school sanctioned event, yet anyone who went had to have a parental permission slip. And some parents didn't send their kids. Indeed, the ugly irony is that the pictures of children at the wedding that were used in the pro-prop8 campaign were children of supportive families who wanted their kids there. Needless to say, the Pro-Prop8 campaign used these photos without permission. So much for parental consent, eh? The ironies abound.

You see, even though the parents who wanted to opt out, did, their problem is that ANYONE was able to go. They want to completely silence anything about gay couples, even for people who approve. It's not about marriage. It's not about their rights as parents. I have come to realize it's about their desire to impose their beliefs on EVERYONE by rendering gay people invisible, and sanctioning discrimination.

But one thing is clear in the aftermath of the Prop 8 decision. They did not eliminate our families. In fact the court held, 7:0 , that gay families must have exactly the same rights as straight families. All the court let them take away from us was the term "marriage".

So the kids will still need to learn about gay couples, in civics class, and from their classmates. The teacher will still invite her class to her wedding to see her "DP'd". And we will still have protections for our families and our children and take our part in the fabric of society.

Because we're still here.

Don't tolerate me.

From the NEw Civil Rights Movement, No tolerance, please.

I am an American citizen. I pay taxes. I vote. I have a passport. I volunteer my time and voice and donate money to charities or causes I believe in. I have a college degree from a pretty good school. For most of the time since I was fifteen I have worked, often 60 - 80 hours a week. I am in a committed relationship. I try to call my mother a few times a week.....

I want to get married. I can’t, because I’m gay.....

I no longer am sad, I’m glad I’m different, and I’ll be damned if I’ll ever be ashamed of who I am or what I believe. Because what I believe is that we are all the same. We are all equal. We all deserve to love and have our love recognized.

I think I’m a pretty good person. I know I’m as good as anyone else. I have done little enough wrong to deserve your forgiveness. I’ve done nothing that deserves your pity. And I know that I am good enough to not deserve your tolerance.

Tolerance is for someone who doesn’t know better, like my dog who likes to jump on people. Tolerance is for someone whose views negatively impact your life, like people who want to stop me from loving the man I love, with all my heart. I do not want your tolerance. I do not deserve your tolerance. I will not accept your tolerance, any longer. What I will do is my best to ensure that we are all given equality and the legal right to love and marry the person who loves us back. From now on I will tolerate nothing less.

Equality is Equality

Chris Geidner quotes Andrew Sullivan from a 2000 piece in The New Republic called "Separate but Equal?" (I can't find an online link to the original):

Legalizing gay marriage . . . is not a radical reformulation of an unchanging institution. It is the long-overdue correction of a moral anomaly that dehumanizes and excludes a significant portion of the human race....

There is in fact no argument for a domestic-partnership compromise except that the maintenance of stigma is an important social value–that if homosexuals are finally allowed on the marriage bus, they should still be required to sit in the back. This “solution” smacks of the equally incoherent half-measure of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” another unwieldy contraption that was designed to overcome discrimination but instead has ruthlessly reinforced it. Equality is equality. Marriage is marriage. There is no ultimate moral or political answer to this question but to grant both. And to keep marshaling the moral, religious, civic, and human reasons why it is an eminently important and noble thing to do.

The acceleration of gay rights

This graph charts the change in overall view of gay rights in the US. As Andrew Sullivan notes, something happened around 1990 that accelerated the approval of gay relationships. He takes a fair bit of credit for it, for which theory YMMV. But I think he does have a point that the changes from being an outcast defiant counter-culture, to demanding to be part of the dominant culture, has something to do with it. Frankly, we started coming out, and most of us are pretty average folks. We are sons and daughters, fathers and mothers, friends and relatives. And we aren't scary at all.

When combined with other data we've reviewed on states views on a variety of issues as well as on the rate of change on the marriage issue state by state, we can see that in some states, it's approaching a non-issue. But still, over 50% in the "always wrong" category does not bode well for change at a national level anytime soon.

Why the Episcopal church's national convention matters to the rest of us

From the Huffington Post:

It doesn't matter if you attend religious services weekly or if you have fallen away, if you're atheist or agnostic, if you think religion is the opiate of the people or the road to peace - established religion in America is an important force.

So when the bishops of the Episcopal Church voted this week to affirm gay clergy, it was an important move..... to all of us who support gay and lesbian rights, for a couple reasons.

First, the Episcopal Church is seen as the canary in the coal mine by other mainline Protestant Churches. They are waiting to see if accepting gays and lesbians as full members of the church will lead to a breaking away from the international church, or whether different views will be able to co-exist happily.

If the Anglican fellowship survives with an inclusive Episcopal Church, it might lead other denominations - Lutherans, Presbyterians - to follow the example of the United Church of Christ and become fully inclusive of gays and lesbians as well.

And once all Mainline Protestant churches start approving of gay marriage, it will be very difficult for politicians and anti-marriage advocates to make a religious argument against gay marriage, since it will be even more clear that not all denominations agree on this issues.

Secondly, however, the entire issue points out something that those of us who are American gays and lesbians often forget: the rights (or lack thereof) of gays and lesbians internationally has an effect on us here at home.....

More rights here can mean more rights abroad. And more rights abroad, means more rights and respect here.

And what did the Episcopalians do? They voted to reiterate their support that GLBT people can be bishops, and yesterday, voted to allow same-sex blessings in their church.

The NY Times describes it,

The bishops of the Episcopal Church agreed Wednesday to a compromise measure that stops short of developing an official rite for same-sex unions, but gives latitude to bishops who wish to go ahead and bless such unions, particularly in states that have legalized such marriages.....[T]he vote was a momentous step for a church that has been mired in intrafactional warfare over homosexuality for more than a decade. ....many Episcopalians at the convention here believe they will have support and will not be ostracized. They are drawing on the testimony of Anglican guests from Africa, Asia and Latin America, who they have brought to the convention here as proof that they have international allies.

How's that canary singing?

2010, or 2012?

A new coalition called Prepare to Prevail has released a statement recommending that any effort to repeal prop8 wait till 2012. Their statement argues

Unlike Proposition 8 in 2008, any upcoming electoral campaign for marriage equality would be one of choice, not one of necessity in fending off an attack from religious-right foes. Timing is ours to determine. Going back to the ballot to remove the voter-imposed ban on same-sex marriage from the state constitution in 2010 would be rushed and risky. We should proceed with a costly, demanding, and high-stakes electoral campaign of this sort only when we are confident we can win. We should choose to Prepare to Prevail.

Meanwhile, LoveHonorCherish disagrees:

Recently, a letter was circulated in the activist community entitled “Prepare to Prevail: Why We Must Wait in Order to Win.” This letter, which was signed by about 30 organizations, some small and some large, argued that 2010 is too soon to seek the repeal of Prop 8. It gave eight reasons. Here are the reasons, and the response to each...

They go on to refute each argument.

I can see reason to both sides of this argument, but just as with the Boies/Olson anti-DOMA case, it seems too often that the GLBT groups form circular firing squads and snipe at each other, rather than our common enemies. Come on, people. Let's formulate a reasonable message and remember that the Bad Guys are already unified, AND raising money to continue to attack us and our families.

Obama watch

Steve Hildebrand was Obama's deputy campaign director. He was recently interviewed by gay journalist Rex Wockner. A few choice quotes:

[Obama] reassured me that he will not disappoint the gay community during his time as president, that the promises he made during the campaign are promises he will fulfill, and he was very forthright about his commitment to equality. And, people will accuse me -- probably rightfully so -- that I'm a Kool-Aid drinker, that I believe in this guy, but I've been around a lot of very important politicians in my lifetime and I think this guy is different and I do trust him to do what is right. I also believe that he knows how to get things done, and that he will make a significant difference in a positive way in the lives of gay and lesbian Americans.

On how to make a difference:

I don't think our voices are as powerful as they should be. I think too many people in the gay community do not push their elected officials as hard as they should. If you had 20 gay people together in a room and asked how many of them actually have reached out and either called, e-mailed or sent a letter to their member of Congress over the last two months, I would say the vast, vast majority of them will have done nothing. My suggestion is that people need to become strong activists, that we need to multiply by hundreds the number of activists we have in the gay community. We need more voices, we need louder voices, and we need to tell politicians at every level we're not willing to take their excuses anymore......if people want things done, they should demand action from Congress, they should demand action from the president, they should demand action from their school boards, from their city council members, their mayors, their legislators, their governors, everybody. They should demand action within their churches.

Read the whole thing!

Meanwhile, President Obama sat down with the Catholic Press over the fourth of July. Let's listen in to what he said (from US News):

For the gay and lesbian community in this country, I think it's clear that they feel victimized in fairly powerful ways and they're often hurt by not just certain teachings of the Catholic Church, but the Christian faith generally. And as a Christian, I'm constantly wrestling with my faith and my solicitude and regard and concern for gays and lesbians.

The US News reporter thinks this will "effortlessly" appeal to social liberals because he's "struggling" to reconcile faith and equality. I don't think so. Uh, Mr President? Lots of Christians support gay rights from a place of faith. We've talked about that here, here, here and here. There are even (Gasp!) gay Christians. So you don't have to place your faith in opposition to our rights. They go hand in hand.

Uh-oh. Another mob vote attacking marriage coming up!

The Huffington Post reports,

In Maine, the Stand for Marriage Maine coalition said it took only four weeks to gather more than the 55,087 signatures necessary to put gay marriage to a vote.

The Maine law to legalize gay marriage had been scheduled to go into effect Sept. 12. It will be put on hold after the signatures are submitted and certified by the secretary of state's office. Voters will then decide in November whether the law should stand.

Prepare yourselves, for the hatred, the bigotry, the lies and the ire. They have hate on their side. We have only love.

Go give Equality Maine some love. They're going to need it.


Update: Irony alert. Apparently the opponents of gay marriage in Maine are painting themselves as a poor harassed minority and are hiding their HQ from marauding bands of queers.

But by complaining loudly and often that they've been called names and heard things go bump in the night since they launched their campaign, might Stand for Marriage Maine's organizers also be portraying themselves as an oppressed "minority" (Mutty's word, not mine) in the hope that they will be perceived as the victims this time around?....

Maybe not, but Stand for Marriage Maine's secretive ways contrast sharply with the see-through strategy of the Maine Freedom to Marry coalition.....

Those who are trying to overturn Maine's same-sex marriage law are learning – many for the first time – how frightening it can be when someone gets in your face or dials your home phone out of the blue and calls you a nasty name.

At the same time, those who are defending the law are learning – many for the first time – that the more the social pendulum swings their way here in Maine and beyond, the less they need to live in fear.

Update 2: Americablog reports that the usual suspects (The Catholic Church, the Knights of Columbus, NOM, and Focus on the Family have contributed quite a lot. Our side is lagging behind. HRC, other national orgs, where are you?

The first campaign finance report in the Maine marriage campaign came out today. The Diocese of Portland, which has been shutting down parishes for lack of money, contributed $100,000. The Knights of Columbus chipped in $50,000. And the National Organization for Marriage donated $160,000 (and we really don't know who gave NOM that money, but we suspect some bigots based in Salt Lake City.) In a separate report, Focus on the Family Maine Marriage Committee reported raising $42,000 for the campaign to take marriage rights away.

This is only the tip of the iceberg.

Our side will report raising around $138,000.

Domestic Partner Benefits and Obligations Act (H.R. 2517)

A couple weeks ago during the last DOMA kerfuffle in DC, a great production was made about giving gay Federal Employees some family benefits. Only it turns out they weren't much--no health care, no retirement, ostensibly because of DOMA.

THe President pointed at a bill in Congress that would allow the Fed to recognize gay families to some extent: Domestic Partner Benefits and Obligations Act (H.R. 2517) or DPBO, sponsored by Tammy Baldwin in the House. HRC gives us the background:

DPBO would bring employment practices in the federal government in line with those of America’s largest and most successful corporations. Fifty-seven percent of Fortune 500 companies provide domestic partner benefits to their employees. In addition, 19 states and over 200 local governments offer their public employees domestic partnership benefits. A May 2000 poll conducted by the Associated Press found that a majority of Americans favor the extension of health insurance coverage to same-sex partners. In addition, this legislation has been endorsed by the American Federation of Government Employees, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Harvard University, National Treasury Employees Union and United Church of Christ.

How the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act Would Work-- Who’s eligible?
Same- or opposite-sex couples who:
Include a federal government employee, excluding members of the armed forces, and his/her domestic partner;
Live together in a committed, intimate relationship; and
Are responsible for each other’s welfare and financial obligations.....

Domestic partner is deemed a spouse for purposes of receiving benefits.

You can almost predict the opposition to this, and Chris Geidner at Lawdork is on it:

GOP Rep. Jason Chaffetz (UT) repeatedly expressed repeated concerns about discrimination . . . against heterosexuals. Among his comments, per Eleveld, is one that “heterosexual couples who are not married would not have the same benefits as same-sex couples under this bill.” Baldwin, per Eleveld, responded: “Should heterosexuals desire those benefits, they would have the opportunity to marry.”

Geidner goes on to consider other issues that put this bill in conflict with DOMA and others.

As much as Baldwin might be able to dismiss that concern as to Utah and Wisconsin citizens, and as poorly as Chaffetz appeared to ask the question, there is a related question there that is very real and that the language of the bill does not resolve. The bill speaks only in terms of “domestic partners” with that almost quaint in some areas of the country “affidavit” requirement where same-sex couples, basically, attest that they are married in all but name.

The reality today, though, is that there are an ever-growing number of states in which there are same-sex couples married in name as well as in theory. That means that, for example, a married federal employee in Massachusetts married to a partner of the same sex, following the hypothetical passage of this bill, would be married under Massachusetts law, in a domestic partnership under federal employment regulations and single under federal tax and other laws.

If that doesn’t illustrate the long-term unsustainability of this mismatch of laws, I don’t know what does.

Expect to see a battle regardless.

Every heart matters

Fort Worth's Stonewall?

On the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall riots, the Fort Worth police and the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission decided to raid a new gay bar in Fort Worth.

Now, a slight young man is in the hospital with severe head trauma, several other people were seriously injured and witnesses are decrying police brutality. Hard to believe that this is 2009. As reported in the NY Times last week,

Fort Worth’s police chief, Jeffrey W. Halstead, initially stood behind his officers, saying Monday that patrons had provoked the scuffle by making sexual gestures toward officers.

Ah, yes. The old "gay panic" defense. Because of course a bunch of gay guys in a bar are stupid enough to assault a policeman. Or somehow going to make a big strong policeman feel sexually threatened.

But as the week went on, Chief Halstead backed away from that stance. By Thursday, he had ordered an inquiry, suspended operations with the state beverage commission and promised to give police officers “multicultural training.” He declined a request for an interview.

Witnesses claim that no one was drunk, the kid with the head injury had a bottle of water, and despite requests for breathalyzer tests, the cops refused.

A columnist at The Dallas Morning News:

First, witnesses say the officers showed up ready to make arrests, their fists full of plastic zip-cuffs.

"They were hyped up. They were loaded for bear," said Todd Camp, a veteran journalist who was there celebrating his birthday with friends. "They were just randomly grabbing people, telling them they were drunk."

Camp told me he has been in bars during TABC/police "checks" before, "and it was never anything like this." Usually, he said, officers discreetly walk through, looking for anybody who has had too much. This was different.

"They were shoving patrons," Camp said, "asking, 'How much have you had to drink?' "

Maybe you can call that a difference in perception, a disagreement over the degree of aggressiveness on both sides.

But there are flat contradictions about how Chad Gibson was injured. The Dallas Voice reported Monday that Gibson is hospitalized with bleeding around his brain.

"He was taken down hard," said Camp, with "four or five" officers wrestling him to the floor inside the club.

Cellphone photos shot by patrons and posted to blogs show a person being held facedown by officers in a short hallway inside the club, then show a dent in the wall where his head was apparently banged.

But a Fort Worth police spokesman told me Gibson was injured outside , when he fell and struck his head because he was so drunk.

"He was the one that groped the TABC agent," said Sgt. Pedro Criado. "He was injured by falling and hitting his head.".....

What Camp says, and what other people who claim to have been there say in comments posted to news stories, is that they were scared.

"I hate to say I was afraid of my own police department, but I was," Camp said.

His description of frightened, distraught patrons just does not seem to square with police accounts of being subjected to a drunken, groin-grabbing gantlet during a routine "bar inspection."

Massachusetts sues over DOMA

Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country. So it appears that letting its gay citizens participate in the formal commitment of marriage has not caused a massive destruction of the institution.

The Attorney General of the Bay State has become annoyed that the Federal Government treats legally married Massachusetts citizens unequally, and is challenging DOMA on those grounds.

"Our familes, our communities, and even our economy have seen the many important benefits that have come from recognizing equal marriage rights and, frankly, no downside," Attorney General Martha Coakley said this afternoon at a news conference announcing the lawsuit. "However, we have also seen how many of our married residents and their families are being hurt by a discriminatory, unprecedented, and, we believe, unconstitutional law."

The suit filed in US District Court in Boston claims that the Congress, in enacting the DOMA, "overstepped its authority, undermined states' efforts to recognize marriages between same-sex couples, and codified an animus towards gay and lesbian people."

At a news conference, Coakley said:

"They are entitled to equal treatment under the laws regardless of whether they are gay or straight."

Way to go, Massachusetts.

For shame, California! For shame!

Update: The Volokh Conspiracy points out this is a very different case from Olson and Boies:

The lawsuit is different from other pending challenges to Section 3, see here and here, because it's brought by a state, not gay couples, and because the core issue is federalism, not individual rights.

, although it sees some danger in this by potentially accelerating a federal, rather than state definition of marriage.

Is anybody there?

Hello....(tap tap tap).....is this thing on? Can you hear me?

Is anybody out there?

Okay, folks, I've been running this blog a couple of months now, with 1-2 posts each day, and we barely have 10 unique visitors a day. I know that some people follow it through the readers, and they don't show up on the counter. So.....

Can you do me a favor? Please "click through" from your reader today, so my counter catches you, and/or leave a comment to this post to tell me if you think it's worth it.

Thanks!

Another victim of DADT

I don't understand the argument about DADT (Don't Ask Don't Tell). THe conservatives go on about the dangers of gays in the military. Well, numerous civilized countries have openly gay service people and they see no degradation in their military function. I think the UK is a fine example.

But what I really don't understand about the conservative mindset is that they seem to think that DADT keeps GLBT folks from serving. It doesn't. There are plenty of GLBT service people serving with honor and distinction. DADT just keeps them from being honest about who they are. And by treating them as though they should be ashamed, it puts them danger.

LIke Seaman August Provost, who was murdered and his body burned at Camp Pendleton CA. From HRC:

According to local media reports, the Navy and Marine Corps confirmed that a sailor's body was found on the base at about 3 a.m. Tuesday morning. A military spokesperson confirmed that there was evidence of foul play in the killing and that the case is a murder investigation. It is also understood a “person of interest” is in custody at Camp Pendleton but has not been charged with a crime. Local activists report the victim may have been targeted because of his sexual orientation.

Steve Benen at Washington Monthly picks it up, but suggests that orientation may not be the issue.

Here's what we know as of now.

First, Navy officials reported that Provost was discovered dead, shot while standing sentry at his post Tuesday night. He had not, however, been bound or gagged. Someone tried to light a fire at the guard shack, and investigators believe it was an attempt to "destroy evidence" of the shooting.

Second, investigators are still looking for evidence about Provost's suspected murder being a hate crime, and have taken at least one "person of interest" into custody. The victim's aunt believes the shooting may have been related to Provost's sexual orientation, race, or both.....

Third, Navy Capt. Matt Brown, a career Navy officer (not a political appointee), spoke to reporters about the crime the other day. Though he wouldn't go into too much detail, Brown suggested Provost's killing may have been more a matter of his location and timing, not his race and sexual orientation. "What I can tell you, unequivocally at this point, based on the preliminary information that we have, is that regardless of the person standing watch in that sentry station, this crime would have most likely been carried out in the same way," Brown said. "In other words, another sailor could have been on that post and would have been the victim of this crime."

So, will this end up being a murder of someone who happened to be gay, or a murder of someone because he was gay? The problem is that the GLBT community mistrusts the military, which has certainly had more than enough cases of gay-bashing and associated coverups. If Provost was killed in an anti-gay hate crime, no one expects the Navy to admit it. So regardless of what they say, expect outrage in the GLBT community.

And regardless, thanks to DADT, Provost's partner back in TX heard about his murder from a reporter. Because Provost could not tell the Navy who his family was, since that would be "telling".

It seems to me the issue is not with the GLBT service people. It's with the shelter the military gives to the haters. They will recruit gang members and felons now, but not a straight-A student who is gay. Time Magazine picks up the story:

The murder last week of an apparently gay sailor at California's Camp Pendleton has raised new questions over the readiness of the armed forces to accept openly homosexual personnel....Provost's murder comes almost 10 years to the day that Army Private First Class Barry Winchell was killed at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, after he was suspected of being gay. Gay activists argued at the time that an antigay climate at Fort Campbell played a role in Winchell's July 6, 1999, murder; the soldier convicted of his killing was sentenced to life in prison.

“When I was in the military, they gave me a medal for killing two men and a discharge for loving one.” — the tombstone epitaph of decorated Air Force Sgt. Leonard Matlovich.

Update a new website launching on this issue: Letthemserve.com

Cartoon from Slate

Catholic Bishops attack domestic partnerships in WA

Washington state recently passed a law with a generous domestic partnership benefits, like those in marriage. And as we've discussed, It's under attack.

Now, you may recall that in Prop8, the proponents argued that it wasn't the benefits that they were after, but the word "marriage". Yet, as we've seen, that's just another one of their lies.

THe word marriage is nowhere in the Washington law. But the Catholic bishops are going after it just the same. They argue that this is just a step to marriage. Therefore, in order to prevent gay marriage, they have to block ANY rights. They write,

While opposing all unjust discrimination against any individual, WSCC upholds marriage as a union between a man and a woman, which is the foundation of our civil society.

So discriminating against my family is "just" discrimination? No, it's JUST DISCRIMINATION.

Remember, the Vatican also opposed a UN resolution that decried criminalization of homosexuality, including imprisonment and execution. Because obviously, protesting if backward nations execute gays is just like gay marriage. I called it the Vatican Better Dead than Wed policy.

Is this the Catholic Hierarchy simply standing up for the Church's view on marriage? NO. Because if they were protecting their ideals of marriage, they would be political activists against civil divorce and remarriage, which are not supported by the Roman Catholic church. (You will note that no one is forcing any Catholic church to marry divorced people, which gives the lie to their "religious freedom" and "religious values" arguments against gay marriage. But I digress.)

So, let's be clear on what the Catholic Bishops want. Because it was clear what they wanted here in California. They want gays to have NO civil rights. They want gay families to have NO legal protections. We need to call them on it. And the people who REALLY need to call them on it are the Catholics in the pews, in whose name this is ostensibly being done.

As gay Catholic priest Fr Geoff Farrow writes,

At a certain point, Catholics in the pews need to ask how the hierarchy is spending funds, which they have donated for charitable endeavors. Beyond that, California citizens and Americans as a whole need to begin to ask why religious organizations, which enjoy non-profit tax exemptions, are permitted to operate like non-tax exempt PACs (Political Action Committees). ......Politics is the primary role of the laity not of the hierarchy. When the hierarchy usurps the role of the laity in this area, they invariably create more problems than they solve and they undermine the role of spiritual teachers which is their primary role.

Updated: link fixed.

Update2: The Seattle Times urges that people decline to sign the referndum:

WASHINGTON voters have every good reason to ignore signature gatherers who seek to block an expansion of rights for registered domestic partners. ..... The effort should fail.

The legislation, Senate Bill 5688, is fundamentally about gay and lesbian couples and their families living within the framework of the law, with all its practical realities and complexities.

These are adults in committed relationships, raising children, running businesses and owning property. They have real estate, pensions and sick leave, and child-custody issues that are part of the work-a-day world...... The legislation is no more radical than helping our neighbors and their families live their lives.

And that's what the Catholic Bishops want to stop.

Stonewall's unfinished legacy

From the Guardian newspaper:

Post-Stonewall improvements in the lives of many LGBT people have been profound, though neither swift nor easy. The American Psychiatric Association finally removed homosexuality from its handbook of mental disorders in 1973. The US supreme court finally invalidated all remaining laws that criminalised sexual acts between consenting same-sex adults in 2003. Millions of us have come out of the closet – in our workplace, to our families and in our neighbourhoods, proving that we are, indeed, everywhere. LGBT publications and organisations abound, including 4,000-plus Gay/Straight Alliances in the nation's schools.

Still, the trajectory of LGBT rights has not been one long, unbroken upward arc tending towards justice. A dozen years after Stonewall, the federal government wilfully ignored HIV/Aids for so long, as it thought it affected only men who had sex with men and other "undesirables". No federal law protects LGBT people in the areas of workplace discrimination, housing or hate crimes, while the (significant) handful of states that do have laws often omit transgender people and LGBT youth from their protections. Anti-gay bullying runs rampant in our schools, and a disproportionate percentage of homeless youth is LGBT. Over 16,000 service members have been ousted from the US armed forces under the "don't ask, don't tell" (DADT) policy – an average of two per day.

Last November, Proposition 8 in California overturned an earlier court decision granting marriage equality. Though five states now recognise same-sex marriage, the 1996 Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA) deprives legally married same-sex couples of the 1,381 privileges that federally recognised heterosexual couples enjoy, including rights regarding pensions, social security survivor benefits and immigration. It also bars us from filing a joint income tax return and levies a heavy "gay tax" on health insurance and inheritance. Small wonder a recent UCLA report on poverty in the LGBT community found that same-sex partners are more likely to be poor than our heterosexual counterparts.

You've come a long way, baby, but you aren't nearly done walking.

Diagramming the gay marriage debate

Click for larger view:




(H/T Joe.my.god

Surprise: Gays are Christians too!

George Barna, who runs a conservative Christian polling company, has released a study on the spiritual profile of GLBTs. Reported in USA Today

A significant majority of gays and lesbians — six in 10 — say faith is important in their lives, but heterosexuals generally state such commitments more often, according to a new survey by a Christian research firm.

"People who portray gay adults as godless, hedonistic, Christian bashers are not working with the facts," said George Barna, founder of the Barna Group, a Ventura, Calif.-based research company."A substantial majority of gays cite their faith as a central facet of their life, consider themselves to be Christian, and claim to have some type of meaningful personal commitment to Jesus Christ active in their life today."

Barna goes on

“It is interesting to see that most homosexuals, who have some history within the Christian Church, have rejected orthodox biblical teachings and principles – but, in many cases, to nearly the same degree that the heterosexual Christian population has rejected those same teachings and principles. Although there are clearly some substantial differences in the religious beliefs and practices of the straight and gay populations, there may be less of a spiritual gap between straights and gays than many Americans would assume.”

Ya think?

Perhaps, some of the opposition to marriage equality are finally realizing that there are gay people in their churches too.

From the Episcopal church's GLBT group, Integrity:

Do same-sex marriage bans promote HIV infection?

Interesting study suggests yes:

An Emory University study claims to have found a link between same-sex marriage bans and HIV rates.

By applying economic theories to calculate how social attitudes and policies affect HIV transmission, Hugo Mialon and Andrew Francis estimate that a constitutional ban on gay marriage raises a state's HIV rate by four cases per 100,000 people....

“Tolerance for homosexuals causes low-risk men to enter the pool of homosexual partners, as well as causes sexually active men to substitute away from underground, anonymous, and risky behaviors, both of which lower the HIV rate,” the study reads. “Social acceptance of gays may consequently induce gay men to interact in open and socially mediated venues associated with less risky sexual behaviors.”...

Mialon said, “Intolerance is deadly.”

But let's remember that that National Review disagrees:

One still sometimes hears people make the allegedly “conservative” case for same-sex marriage that it will reduce promiscuity and encourage commitment among homosexuals. This prospect seems improbable, and in any case these do not strike us as important governmental goals.

Sure. Because conservatives think better dead than wed.

Gay rights in the states: more statistics

Expanding from the marriage issue, FiveThirtyEight highlights a study examining a variety of GLBT issues in the states including marriage, civil unions, adoption, and non-discrimination. Discussion of the statistics and links in the thread here and on the original author's site here. Click on the image to open a bigger version of the graph in your browser or you can get aPDF version.

As noted in this and other posts at FiveThirtyEight, in the few states where support for marriage equality exceeds 50%, there is good correlation with it being legal (filled red circle). Curiously, however, although support for civil unions/domestic partnerships exceeds 50% in about half of states, many of those states do not allow it (compare the filled blue to open blue circles). And it's even more striking for other issues. Interestingly, well over 50% of people in nearly all of the states support non-discrimination policies for housing and jobs, hate crimes legislation, and access to health care benefits, although large numbers of states have no legal policies supporting those.

We have a long way to go before this country treats its gay citizens as, well, citizens.

Update: the study can now be found here. Upcoming in Gay Rights in the States: Public Opinion and Policy Responsiveness
Jeffrey R. Lax and Justin H. Phillips Columbia Univ. American Political Science Review, Vol. 103 (3), 2009

Taking Issue with Aravosis

John Aravosis at Americablog broke the story about the DOMA brief from DoJ and the comparisons in it to underage or blood marriages. He's been baying full-throated on this topic for some time.

But is he right? Lawdork's Chris Geidner says no.

That John repeats the contention, without suggesting that anyone — let alone several preeminent legal scholars, from Arthur Leonard to Nan Hunter to Laurence Tribe, who write extensively in support of LGBT equality — disagrees with his contention that Obama is “in his rights” to “oppose DOMA in court,” shows that John’s purpose is not to inform but to persuade and incite, facts be damned.

That John continues to write about “pedophilia” at all despite the fact that the 16-year-old whose marriage was invalidated in the case cited in the brief — Wilkins v. Zelichowski, 140 A.2d 65, 67-68 (N.J. 1958) — would today have reached the age of consent, if not the age at which a marriage would be found to be valid, in 32 states shows that John’s desire to advance the “pedophilia” story is without any merit. Moreover, as pointed out by PG in comments to the earlier post, this case was cited by none other than Lambda Legal in one of its own briefs — for the same purpose it was cited in the Smelt brief. The LGBT equality legal group wrote:

Conventional choice of law and comity principles are routinely applied in every state to address non-uniformity in many aspects of domestic relations laws, including disparities among states in the requirements for marriages or their dissolution. See, e.g., Wilkins v. Zelichowski, 26 N.J. 370, 377-78 (1958). These familiar legal tools, not the deprivation of the constitutional rights of a minority, offer the answer to any purported concern about uniformity with other states.

That John continues to write about “incest” is, as I have stated since the brief was filed, overstating facts in order to enrage. One of the cases cited, Catalano v. Catalano, 170 A.2d 726, 728-29 (Conn. 1961), is a regularly cited case in Family Law casebooks and law review articles regarding out-of-state marriage recognition. For John, a lawyer, to repeatedly state that a lawyer citing a regularly cited case for a general proposition that “certain marriages performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with the public policy of the forum” equates to the lawyer comparing same-sex marriages to incest is dishonest. John knows that the brief is analogizing a state’s policy against recognizing one type of marriage to a state’s policy against recognizing another type of marriages. Though a slight distinction, John knows that, as a lawyer, such distinctions matter.

The final case cited, In re Mortenson’s Estate, 316 P.2d 1106 (Ariz. 1957), is one with which I was unfamiliar but have found that both it and Catalano were cited by a Columbia Law Review piece criticizing DOMA for “deep flaws in both aspects of the Act.” Scott Ruskay-Kidd, Note, “The Defense of Marriage Act and the Overextension of Congressional Authority,” 97 Colum. L. Rev. 1435 (1997). If opponents of DOMA have cited both of these cases since the year after its passage, then — as John knows — it would be bad-faith for a lawyer charged with defending the law to fail to raise arguments in its defense that previously have been raised even by opponents of the law. Was this third case cite necessary? Probably not, as the point was illustrasted by Catalano. But to demonize the author of the brief and everyone on up to the President as comparing same-sex relationships to incest for doing so, as John has done repeatedly, is exceptionally unfair and dramatically overstates the proposition advanced in the brief.

Now, Geidner is not a fan of the brief, which he calls "offensive". But he considers AmericaBlog's language to be inaccurate and needlessly inflammatory.

Look, it seems clear to me that the Obama White House is not going to move on GLBT issues easily. They are going to try to keep us quiet, and placate our community (which means divide it, sadly easy to do). As reported by Pam's House Blend, our pushback is important because they want to silence us. But, the nature of the pushback matters . I argue that we are dealing with subtle and smart people. We have to be smart back. Our voices will be silenced if we are over the top or inaccurate--we can't be crying "wolf". We have to be cold, calculated, and correct. Aravosis has a bully pulpit, but he needs to use it carefully. There's enough wrong with what they're doing that we shoudn't undercut ourselves with inaccurate accusations.

I have learned a lot from this episode. I continue to find Aravosis a provocative blogger who is very plugged in and has great information. But I now more actively seek corroborating detail and context from other bloggers, like Pams House Blend, conservative Andrew Sullivan, and Lawdork . There's a list of these and other "Pro-gay marriage" bloggers in the sidebar. There are also news and advocacy sites like The New Civil Rights Movement and The Advocate. These and others are listed in the sidebar under "Information and Advocacy".

Prompt trial on Federal Prop 8 case

Lawdork reports,

An order was issued today by Judge Walker in the Perry federal Proposition 8 challenge brought by attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies. The court granted the intervention of the Proposition 8 proponents and continued the Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction....

The judge’s decision makes a lot of sense on two very basic levels: (1) an injunction of Proposition 8 would mean that, immediately and during trial, same-sex marriages would be taking place in California, which would raise many difficulties both legal and practical and (2) the issues involved in granting a preliminary injunction in a case like this are not likely all that different than those to be decided in the full consideration of the case. As such, this is not an altogether surprising decision from Judge Walker.

From the SF Chronicle:

Former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, one of the lawyers representing the two couples, said Tuesday that he was not disappointed by Walker's decision. Judge Walker, Olson noted, made a point of indicating in Tuesday's proposed order that gay couples have sufficient evidence to show they have been harmed by Proposition 8.

"We are very happy. What we have wanted all along is for this case to move expeditiously to a final judgment that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional," he said.

More commentary from Pam's House Blend gives a full background to this case.