Catholics in conflict in Maine

As the race for Question 1 in Maine continues to be very close, the Bangor Daily News reports that the Catholic Church is working hard to raise more money and even asking people to fast to "save" marriage.

A recorded message from Bishop Malone was played during the St. Matthews service on Sunday asking church members to do four things — pray that “marriage as we know it” prevails, financially support the campaign, volunteer in support of the campaign and vote yes on Question 1...

“Same-sex marriage is a dangerous sociological experiment that many of us believe will have negative consequences for society as a whole,” he said. “Children need the love of a mother and a father.”

(Aside: don't you get tired of that? They think if they ban same sex marriage, then we will stop having children and suddenly all children will have 2 heterosexual parents? How willfully blind can they be?)

Thankfully, many Catholics are starting to speak out against this civil intolerance. A new Maine group, Catholics for Marriage Equality, has released the following:

As faithful Roman Catholics and citizens of the State of Maine, we believe that the right of every citizen to practice freedom of religion is based on the principle of respect for the dignity of each individual. Without that guarantee, the danger of one religious tradition or doctrine dominating another threatens all and protects none. Making the equality of citizens not only an ideal but a living truth, we affirm the May 6, 2009 act of the Maine Legislature to end marriage discrimination by granting civil marriage for same-sex couples. Our declaration of conscience is based on the following:

The American principle of the separation of Church and State was enshrined in the Constitution to ensure that no particular religious perspective would be imposed on our pluralistic society.

Catholic teaching on social justice has been central to the building of a just society, creating awareness of diversity in the human family, calling us to lives of respect for one another, and not only tolerance.

We remember that Roman Catholics were once denied civil rights, treated with suspicion, ridiculed because of our sacred rituals, and questioned as to our allegiance to “foreign authorities.” Memory challenges us to remain vigilant whenever bigotry and injustice enters into public discourse.

Same-sex civil marriage does not in any way coerce any religious faith or tradition to change its beliefs or doctrine or alter its traditional marriage practices.....

As Roman Catholics, we differentiate between sacramental marriage and civil marriage. Therefore, we perceive that same-sex civil marriage poses no threat to our Church. While we respect the authority and integrity of the Church in matters of faith, our prayers and discernment have brought us to a new openness on this issue. We do not ask the Church to perform same-sex marriages. We do implore the Church to honor the State’s prerogative to authorize civil marriages for our gay and lesbian family and friends.

Grateful for the gift of our faith and the ways that we have been nourished by faith throughout our lives, and also grateful for our citizenship in America and in this State, we sign this statement as Roman Catholic citizens of Maine.

Check it out! (Emphasis mine) And support equality in Maine: vote NO on Question 1, and protect Maine equality.

So there's a march

The March for Equality in Washington DC is 10-11 October 2009. More information on the March and associated events around the USA is available on the Equality Across America website.

Upcoming votes: Vote No on 1 in Maine, Yes on 71 in Washington

Do what you can to help our brothers and sisters. The biggie is Maine: this is the M-word, folks, marriage. The lies have started with the successful PropH8 campaigners up to their usual tricks. The vote will be close. Stand up for equality in Maine: we really, really want to win one at the ballot box. Can you give money? fly out to help? Whatever you can do, please help preserve equality in maine and VOTE NO ON QUESTION 1.


The Washington election is about domestic partnerships, NOT marriage. But, proving that they LIE when they say it's only about marriage, the haters are out in force claiming that DPs ARE marriage. This is simply bigotry. Help keep the DP law intact in Washington state: VOTE YES ON REFERENDUM 71.

Gay parents are no problem for adopted kids

From Reuters:

Gay or straight, the sexual orientation of adoptive parents does not have an impact on the emotional development of their children, according to a new study.

But researchers said that if parents were satisfied with the adoption process, had a stable income and functioned well as a family the risk of emotional problems in children were reduced.

"We found that sexual orientation of the adoptive parents was not a significant predictor of emotional problems," Paige Averett, an assistant professor of social work at East Carolina University, said in a statement.

"We did find, however, that age and pre-adoptive sexual abuse were," she added.

None of this is a surprise, and fits fine with previous studies showing that gay parents raise healthy happy children (even maybe healthier than straights'?) As the new story says,

"We must pay attention to the data indicating that gay and lesbian parents are as fit as heterosexual parents to adopt," Averett added, "because at least 130,000 children are depending on us to act as informed advocates on their behalf."

Hitting back in Maine (video Sunday)

Bangor Daily News comes out against hate

Same-Sex Among us

The debate about the Nov. 3 ballot’s Question 1, the effort to repeal Maine’s newly minted same-sex marriage law, will heat up in the coming weeks. Heat is one thing. Falsehoods are another.

Opponents of the law are bringing children into the fray, suggesting their innocence would be sullied if the repeal fails. It’s a ploy that has been used effectively before.....This time, the claim by repeal proponents is that schools would be forced to teach “gay sex education.” It is baseless and betrays an ignorance about education.
.....
Whether Sally’s or Billy’s same-sex parents are married or living together does not change the discussion the teacher might facilitate. If same-sex marriage remains legal, the teacher would merely be using different terminology than he or she would have used last year or 10 years ago.

So, the question that remains about the repeal proponents is: Are they knowingly misleading people by claiming schools will be forced to teach the details of gay sex, or are they genuinely ignorant that same-sex couples are among us, and that their children are in our schools? Neither speaks well of their argument supporting a yes vote.

Repeal Prop8: it begins

It's begun. Today, Love Honor Cherish submitted ballot language to repeal Proposition H8 in 2010. The first moves are supported by Yes on Equality , who developed the Get-to-know-us-first campaign. Courage Campaign is working on language as well. Equality CA isn't on board with the timing, but is working on the language, with the idea that we all have to be behind whatever happens.

This amendment would amend an existing section of the California Constitution. Existing language proposed to be deleted is printed in strikeout type. Language proposed to be added is printed in underlined type.

Section 1. To protect religious freedom, no court shall interpret this measure to require any priest, minister, pastor, rabbi, or other person authorized to perform marriages by any religious denomination, church, or other non-profit religious institution to perform any marriage in violation of his or her religious beliefs. The refusal to perform a marriage under this provision shall not be the basis for lawsuit or liability, and shall not affect the tax-exempt status of any religious denomination, church or other religious institution.

Section 2. To provide for fairness in the government’s issuance of marriage licenses, Section 7.5 of Article I of the California Constitution is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Marriage is between only two persons and shall not be restricted on the basis of race, color, creed, ancestry, national origin, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or religion.

It's begun. What are you gonna do about it?

First suggestion: HELP MAINE. Our case is strengthened if our east coast friends can preserve equality. Get there and protect equality in Maine.

Second suggestion: HELP WASHINGTON. It's not marriage, but the bad guys are attacking like it is. Approve 71.

Third suggestion: COME OUT COME OUT WHEREVER YOU ARE: as a GLBT person, or an ally. Start the conversation, and get started. Join the repeal effort.

Overturn hate.

Phonebanking Maine

This Sunday you can, as part of the National Day of Action for Marriage Equality, volunteers from all over the country will help us do one of the most important jobs in any campaign -- identify Maine voters who will vote NO on Question 1.

Here's the beauty and simplicity of Sunday's action: all you need is a phone and a computer screen. This campaign is neck-and-neck, but there's good news: it will only take about 250,000 votes to protect marriage equality in Maine.

That means every call you make makes a real difference.

Please, sign up to make phone calls this Sunday as part of the National Day of Action for Marriage Equality.

Landline, cell, iPhone, Blackberry, you pick. But please help us and pick up your phone.

Support equality in Maine. Join Sunday's phonebank (link updated)

Yes on 1 recycles pro-PropH8 ads

The "schoolteacher" is an activist against gay equality in Maine, although yes, she does teach in a fundy school.

SAME EXACT AD, SAME EXACT LIES. We can't let them do this to us again....can we?

Iowans admit, same sex marriage doesn't really affect them

From the Des Moines Register (click for better view):

David Redlawsk, a former political science professor at the University of Iowa, took note of the finding that almost all Iowans say the ruling has had no impact upon their lives.

"Given how hard it is to amend the constitution, by the time a vote will happen, this will be the new normal," Redlawsk said. "There's a core that oppose it and always will, but, for most people, they're ready to move on."

Who's making a mockery of marriage?

From the Chicago Tribune blogger Eric Zorn , who is considering a stunt-marriage that is apparently all the news in the Windy City.

Short version of the story: She's from Norway. He's from Chicago. They met face-to-face last Friday for the first time after getting acquainted on Steinberg's Facebook wall and were legally married Thursday in a ceremony in the observation ledge atop the Willis Tower.

To me, the entire event -- it really borders on a stunt -- utterly trivializes the concept of marriage, all the way down to the phony-baloney baptism the woman went through in order to generate the proper paperwork for a nearly instant marriage license.

I agree with Zorn. Marriage to my ideal should be something that develops from a relationship, not that initiates it. That's why so many churches have a couple go through a counseling period in advance. Zorn continues,

But you know what? Our laws allow for hasty stunt-like weddings of men and women with huge crushes on each other; marriages that arguably make a mockery of more traditional marriages. And I'm fine with that. In part because you never know.

And because in a free society, the state should not presume to tell us what we can and cannot do without a compelling interest. Inotherwords, the state can't stop stupid.

But Zorn is not fine with this:

while the law allows virtually any heterosexual couple to get hitched for virtually any fool reason they want, it still forbids loving, committed gay couples from getting married on the grounds that legalizing such unions would threaten the definition and sanctity of traditional marriage.

Indeed. Let's really think of who is damaging marriage. Is it the long standing gay couple, who has stuck together through thick and thin despite every brickbat and insult the conservatives can throw at them? Or the couple who met on Facebook and married on a ledge on a lark?

This kind of thing really exposes the hypocrisy, don't you think?

Maine Equality: protect love, vote no (Video Sunday)

BREAKING: DoJ argues to dismiss 2nd anti-DOMA case

A while ago, I updated you on the ongoingfederal court cases relevant to marriage equality: Gill and Smelt, on DOMA, and Perry, on Prop8. Smelt was subsequently dismissed, on a technicality.

Gill originates in Massachusetts and argues that it is unconsitutitonal to treat legally married Massachusetts citizens differently under federal law simply because they are gay. According to the NY TImes, Obama's DoJ has just filed a brief asking for the dismissal of Gill. This is another brief that says, "we don't like DOMA, but it's the law and we think it's constitutional".

Lawdork comments,

On the substance of its defense of DOMA, DOJ plays a little too cute, parsing the marriage prohibitions as a state matter and DOMA as just a matter of federal benefits. Id. at 14 (”DOMA deprives same-sex couples of certain federal benefits that are tied to marital status. There is no fundamental right, however, to marriage-based federal benefits.”)......

DOJ then asserts that First Circuit precedent prohibits the District Court from considering this case under the strict scrutiny review urged, in part, by GLAD in its Complaint. Strict scrutiny review is the most search review, in which the government needs to show a “compelling interest” for the law and show that the law is “narrowly tailored” to that interest. DOJ argues:

The First Circuit has concluded, however, that sexual orientation does not constitute a suspect classification under the Fifth Amendment, and that holding is binding on this Court. . . . .

Then, in urging that DOMA be upheld under rational basis — the most deferential — review, DOJ goes into a new and interesting argument, essentially that DOMA prevents federal government benefits from being a mismatch differing by state based on the whims of those states. I’ve not seen an argument like this before:

As the state legislative and constitutional activity in the years since DOMA was enacted demonstrates, same-sex marriage is a contentious social issue. Given the evolving nature of this issue, Congress was constitutionally entitled to maintain the status quo pending further evolution in the states. Otherwise, “marriage” and “spouse” for the purposes of federal law would depend on the outcome of this debate in each State, with the meanings of those terms under federal law potentially changing with any change in the status of the debate in a given State. Federal rights would vary dramatically from State to State. Congress could reasonably have concluded that there is a legitimate government interest in maintaining the status quo and preserving nationwide consistency in the distribution of marriage-based federal benefits.

GLAD's press release in response:

Mary L. Bonauto, GLAD’s Civil Rights Project Director and co-lead counsel in Gill, said “Nothing in the government’s brief addresses the fact that DOMA is the sole exception in a long history of the federal government deferring to the states’ determination that people are married. Obviously we disagree with any argument that DOMA is constitutional. Married same-sex couples are being treated differently from other married couples. To us, that’s a clear-cut violation of the promise of equal protection.”

Gary Buseck, GLAD’s Legal Director said, “We’re seeking justice for the widows and widowers who are denied death benefits, for people who can’t get on their spouse’s health plan, for parents who can’t file taxes jointly and pay thousands extra each year that they could put away for their children’s education or family emergencies.”

I am so tired of my rights as a US citizen been argued in this way.

From the DOMA repeal News conference (Video)

Hitting back about the lies in Maine (video)

Read the Advocate for more about catching the Bad Guys on their lies.

The problem with the DOMA repeal

Andrew Sullivan recently highlighted a survey from the HRC about the harmful effects of DOMA on the GLBT community.

Okay, we all agree that DOMA needs to go. And, refreshingly, there is a bill from Rep Gerry Nadler with 91 cosponsors that would repeal this craven piece of bigotry. There was a press conference Tuesday about it.

But there are several pieces to DOMA, and it is politically much more expedient (and more likely to succeed) if it is eliminated in parts. Because nothing fires up the right wing base of H8 like think that gay marriage is coming to their state.

So, start by eliminating the federal rejection, and then work on the state by state basis to get it passed in individual states. (As we've seen they are in very different places on this topic-- you might want to revisit my stats post on the subject.)

LawDork reports that no less a politician than Barney Frank thinks this is not a good way to go about it. Frank thinks that it endangers other, more achieveable goals, and has problems as written. Much as I long for the death of DOMA, I recognize that it will take some time. Barney's a consummate pol, as well as an out gay man. I'd like to chip away at this thing and start its downfall, rather than tilt at it like a windmill and get absolutely nothing. But don't we have to start hammering?

LawDork explains (in a previous post)

Following clarification from Rep. Nadler’s office, the “certainty provision” would not require a state where same-sex marriages are prohibited to itself recognize a marriage validly entered into by a same-sex couple elsewhere. It would, however, mean that if a same-sex couple married in Iowa moved to, say, Ohio, then the couple’s marriage would still be recognized as valid for federal legal purposes.

Even in that situation, though, a state where same-sex marriages are prohibited by statute or the state’s constitution would, with the bill’s passage, be in the position of having residents that it considers to be unmarried living in the state recognized as married by the federal government. Although not as extreme as compelling the state itself to recognize the same-sex marriage, this seems to me to still cause significant opposition from not only marriage equality opponents but also some who are more agnostic on the issue but want to see the issue “left to the states” to come to their own decision.

I'm really torn. I can see why this is a problem, but the huge, huge issue with DOMA is that legally married citizens are NOT given federal rights. The certainty provision guarantees that. Otherwise, a legal marriage evaporates FEDERALLY if you leave the jurisdiction. I not sure how to get around this, though I agree that the last thing we need to do is start the entire Evangelical movement attacking us again. If you're going to poke a dragon, you'd better have a plan for escaping the flames. Is Frank being too cautious? Is Nadler being too ambitious?

Andrew Sullivan comments,

"The provision that says you can take your benefits as you travel, I think, will stir up unnecessary opposition with regard to the question of are you trying to export it to other states," [Frank] said. "If we had a chance to pass that, it would be a different story, but I don't think it's a good idea to rekindle that debate when there's no chance of passage in the near term."

Nadler defended the legislation in a statement, saying that claims made by repeal opponents shouldn't prevent the bill's introduction.....

Nadler emphasized that the proposed bill wouldn't force any state to marry gay couples or recognize same-sex couples under state law.

It's a real kick in the teeth - and HRC hasn't responded. To have the leading gay congressman say that gay couples can wait helps put into perspective Obama's caution.

There's an old saying: don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I get that. But surely, SURELY, the good demands more than nothing?

Update here's from Rep Nadler's press release:

The Respect for Marriage Act ... would ensure that valid marriages are respected under federal law, providing couples with much-needed certainty that their lawful marriages will be honored under federal law and that they will have the same access to federal responsibilities and rights as all other married couples.

The Respect of Marriage Act would accomplish this by repealing DOMA in its entirety and by adopting the place-of-celebration rule recommended in the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act, which embraces the common law principle that marriages that are valid in the state where they were entered into will be recognized. While this rule governs recognition of marriage for purposes of federal law, marriage recognition under state law would continue to be decided by each state.

The Respect for Marriage Act would not tell any state who can marry or how married couples must be treated for purposes of state law, and would not obligate any person, church, city or state to celebrate or license a marriage of two people of the same sex. It would merely restore the approach historically taken by states of determining, under principles of comity and Full Faith and Credit, whether to honor a couple’s marriage for purposes of state law.

Phone your Congresscritters and urge support: the NOMmers are having a meltdown over this.

Blog Notes

This blog started 4 months ago in the heat of the Prop8 court case. Since then, I have posted once or twice a day nearly every day, with a combination of stories, political reflections, and notes from around the web.

Despite the volume of material (187 posts so far) I get only 6-10 unique visitors a day and very few comments. SO I'm not exactly having a large effect on the discourse.

Since the amount of effort is pretty high for the number of eyes on the screen, I'm going to try posting every other day and see how that works.

As with any blog, if you like this one, please comment, and tell your friends. Shouting into the silence isn't exactly rewarding!

Anatomy of the lies

There is an absolutely OUTSTANDING exposé at Daily Kos explaining how the bad guys won Prop8, and how they might win with Question 1 in Maine. This DK diary lays it all out in stunning detail. Read it, because it's what we're up against, not only in California, but nationally.

The author shows how the key to their victory was framing the question not about our marriages, but about what it might cost them---even if those costs were palpably LIEs about children and education. Coupled with numerous mis-steps on our side it was a masterful bit of swiftboating, as the author terms it.

The story is instructive because Religious Right professionals have succeeded in making it appear as if all people of faith are antigay and anti-marriage equality. Worse yet, they are using religion as an excuse to perpetrate lies and deception – to swiftboat same sex couples in the name of God, when in fact they are just advancing another end-justifies-the-means political scheme.

Don't wait, go here and read it NOW. Because they are trying exactly the same approach in Maine, and they will continue to do this unless and until we manage to expose their lies and dishonesty.

Do the right thing in Maine (Video Sunday)

Protect Maine Families. Vote NO on Question 1.

The lies begin in Maine

The old, familiar arguments have begun in Maine. The Catholic church is holding a second collection this Sunday to fund their attacks on marriage equality this weekend. And what will they do with the money?

How about fund advertisements with known lies? As should be familiar to ANY battle-scarred veteran of the Prop8 war, the haters in Maine are insisting that kids will be taught about gay sex in schools if marriage remains legal. This was one of their most successful arguments in California EVEN THOUGH PROVEN UNTRUE and they are doing the same thing in Maine. The Portland Press Herald exposes the lies told by Marc Mutty's fundraising email (Mutty is on loan from the Catholic Diocese to the haters campaign):

the Rev. Bob Emrich of the Emmanuel Bible Baptist Church in Plymouth, a member of Stand for Marriage Maine's executive committee, said the group stands by Mutty's claim that the same-sex marriage statute will require "explicit homosexual instruction in the classroom."

One problem. Emrich and Mutty are wrong. Nowhere in the law do the words "school" or "classroom" even appear.

And if you're looking for phrases like "explicit homosexual instruction" hidden in some obscure statutory subsection, trust me – it's not there. Not even in code.......

For starters, Maine doesn't "mandate" a "comprehensive family life curriculum" for its schools......

The statute also says that if any family-life education takes place in a school, "a parent may choose to not have (his or her) child participate" in the program.

As for "marriage" – heterosexual or homosexual – the word never appears in the statute. Not once......

As for any "explicit" instruction on homosexuality, [ Superintendent Jim] Morse said it simply doesn't exist – nor will it if the same-sex marriage law is upheld.

"There is no explicit discussion," Morse said.

Which brings us back to the truth – or disturbing lack thereof – in Mutty's misguided fundraising appeal.

The ONLY way that their side can win is to tell lies. (More about this shortly). Resist the lies: support the truth. Donate to the No-on-Question 1 campaign and keep equality in Maine!

Resources to talk about marriage

Some great resources from the website of Freedom to Marry, on how to talk about marriage equality.

From there, I found this article by Evan Wolfson in the HuffPo:

Same-sex couples, their kids and loved ones, and those of us who favor equal justice in America are not working to win "gay marriage." We are working to win the freedom to marry, ending the current unfair denial of marriage to those who are already doing the work of marriage in their own lives.

Phrases such as "gay marriage" or "same-sex marriage" imply that same-sex couples are asking for something other than marriage. They imply that same-sex couples deserve something different or lesser than the security, protections, safety-net, and respect that married couples cherish. ( And they play into the right-wing's fear-mongering that gay people are a threat to marriage, that equality and inclusion would somehow unacceptably "redefine" the law (in a country dedicated to those very values), and that "Defense of Marriage" is the answer to committed couples seeking to participate in a precious institution.

Marriage is not defined by who is excluded from it, and gay people are not the first to challenge its denial. This year we celebrate the 60th anniversary of the first court ruling striking down race restrictions on who could marry whom. In Perez v. Sharp, the California Supreme Court held that "the essence of the right to marry is freedom to join in marriage with the person of one's choice." The court explained that "human beings are bereft of worth and dignity by a doctrine that would make them as interchangeable as trains"; when you are denied the freedom to marry the person precious and irreplaceable to you, it's not like you can just catch the next one.

Fittingly, as we mark the 60th anniversary of that courageous court decision, other couples now stand before the same court which will hear argument on March 4, 2008. Those couples are not seeking "gay marriage," any more than Mrs. Perez sought "black marriage," or her husband sought "Latino marriage." They all claim, and deserve, marriage itself, the freedom to marry, which the U.S Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia, noted "has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

As we speak out about why marriage matters and how the denial of marriage harms couples and kids, undermining our nation's commitment to fairness and freedom, we've seen states move in the right direction, but falling short of equality. States such as California, Connecticut, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, and Vermont have created new legal mechanisms, called partnership or civil union, to provide parallel legal protections and responsibilities for gay people and their families. These new mechanisms - "gay marriage" - are better than nothing, but no substitute for marriage itself (PDF). Happily, in each of these states the debate continues and awareness is deepening that the work is not done, civil unions don't work, separate is not equal, and it's time to finish the job of ending exclusion from marriage, not just repackaging it.

Marriage Lite: lessons from France and Vermont

In France, they do not allow same sex marriage, but have a civil unions law. However, for various reasons, these unions are available to gay or straight couples.Here's how it works:

France's civil union law was created in 1999 because gays were not allowed to marry, and they didn't want gays to be able to marry. However, in crafting the new law, which was understood to be for gays, the legislators left the language vague about gender. (Maybe this was because of the strong European Union rules requiring gender neutral and sexual orientation neutral language in new legislation -- they didn't want to trigger any challenges.)

Now, after 10 years, one third of all straight couples getting "hitched" in France, opt for civil unions instead of marriage. The number of civil unions has grown annually from 6000 in the first year of the law, to 140,000 in 2008 --- with 92% of the civil unions last year involving straight couples.

The main reason seems to be that a civil union offers about the same rights and benefits of marriage, but is easier to get out of than a marriage.

Obviously, the idea was that it would be enough for the gays, and the straights would still opt for marriage. (Remember in France, marriage is a civil contract held at the mairie, separate from any religious ceremony.) It hasn't worked out that way, so the conservative view, of denying gays full access to "marriage", has actually ended up in hurting marriage even more.

Interestingly, back when this law was passed, David Frum (no friend to gay marriage) argued that exactly this would happen.

[G]ay marriage will turn out in practice to mean the creation of an alternative form of legal coupling that will be available to homosexuals and heterosexuals alike. Gay marriage, as the French are vividly demonstrating, does not extend marital rights; it abolishes marriage and puts a new, flimsier institution in its place.

But the problem with his conclusion is that actual gay MARRIAGE wouldn't have changed everything. It was the insistence that gays NOT be given "real" marriage and instead by given "marriage lite" that has caused the problem. If gays had been given access to the true institution of civil marriage, then nothing would have changed. It's not the gays' fault that straights want to live outside of marriage. And it's not the gays' fault that the government insisted that there be a "lite" form.

Andrew Sullivan picked it up:

In this, the gay movement, in its support for civil marriage equality, is a force right now for social conservatism; and the Christianist movement is the one fomenting the real attack on the institution of marriage. Christianist doctrine - unrelated to the social facts of our time - is, in fact, a social solvent. It helps destroy the family (ask the Haggards); it undermines civil marriage's uniqueness; and it discourages social responsibility. That's because it is about maintaining the stigma toward homosexuality rather than about supporting the important social role of marriage in keeping society together.

Now, let's look to our own country. Vermont was the first state to offer civil unions, which were ground breaking at the time. This was in response to a court decision finding that gay people should be given all the same rights as straight people. However, separate proved not to be equal. A few months ago, the Vermont legislature voted in favor of marriage equality, even overturning a gubernatorial veto to do so, and on Tuesday, gay couples were able to marry legally there. As we celebrate the weddings in Vermont this week, let's remember the words of the Episcopal Bishop of Vermont, as he testified in favor of full marriage:

Marriage equality means different things to different people, but among the things it means to me is that the values I hold dear in my own marriage can be honored, displayed and celebrated by all. Those values include the mutual love and support of another person in a committed life-long relationship, in which fidelity, joy, help and comfort in all circumstances can be respected and practiced, and through which the stability of family can be provided for those who choose to care and nurture children. I do not believe that this legislation will diminish, damage, or compromise the integrity of marriage (certainly not my marriage). On the contrary, I believe it has the possibility to strengthen our understanding and appreciation of marriage as we witness the love and fidelity of gay and lesbian couples alongside that of straight couples.

So the next time people tell you that we should be happy with "Separate But Equal" remind them of what happened in France. And then point them to what happened in Vermont!

May your weddings be joyful, Vermonters!

Cross posted at Daily Kos.

Quote for the day

From the always passionate Dan Savage:

And our equality isn't going to deprive you of anything. The coming of legal same-sex marriage will not result in "traditional" marriage—opposite marriage—perishing from the face of the earth. That's seriously not our goal—heck, most of us are products of "opposite marriage." Once we've achieved full marriage equality you can go right on having your "traditional" marriages while we enjoy our "non-traditional" marriages. You can have your opposite genitalia, we can have our matched sets. You can have your vulgar church weddings, we can have our dignified civil ceremonies (and some of us will have church weddings too, of course, but only in churches that support marriage equality). And you can go right on teaching your children that gay marriage is wrong and that gay people are sinful, while we teach our children—most of whom will be straight when they grow up—that love and marriage, gay or straight, are beautiful things and that it's too bad some hateful, clueless bigots out there can't see that. And we're going to live our lives openly and without shame to give hope to your gay children.

3,000 years of marriage history: not!

Are you tired of the pro-H8 people telling us that we are daring to challenge 2000 or 3000 years of tradition? Me too. So I was delighted to find this Letter on Marriage with a History of Marriage written during the Massachusetts marriage debate by Stephen Schloesser, Professor of History Boston College (and a Jesuit priest), to a politician. It's worth reading the whole thing, especially the details about Catholicism. But here are a few highlights:

Maybe the most frustrating thing I have heard in the recent debate is this claim that has become a mantra: that we are in the processing of changing some allegedly unchanging 3,000-year-old institution called "marriage." Of course, the decision to grant marriage licenses would be a "change" in marriage practice‹ but "marriage," whatever that is, is always in the process of being changed. To pretend that its alteration is somehow a rupture in what is otherwise a three-thousand year continuity is just silly.

It seems helpful to me to recall what traditional marriage is: it is a community's legal arrangement in order to pass on property. In it, a male acquires (in the sense of owning and having sovereignty over) a female for the sake of reproducing other males who will then inherit property.

Not surprisingly, there has been a long tradition of thinking about slavery and marriage as companion institutions....

In any case, the idea of marriage as "one man and one woman" is a true rupture and innovation in the tradition. The tradition in nearly every major ancient culture --at least, for those players who had power and thus for those whose marriages we have written records of -- has been polygyny: one male who owns several (or many) females.....

For the New Testament /Christian period....I do think there are very valuable things worth noting. The first is that early Christianity was really not into marriage, and it takes quite a leap of the imagination to spin biblical Christianity as somehow being the party of "family values." St. Paul thought the world was ending the day after tomorrow; understandably, since there were perhaps only weeks, days, hours or minutes to live, he counseled his followers: "It is better not to marry." ...

....When Christianity was transformed overnight from being an outlaw sect to being the Empire's religion, several shifts took place: one was that Christians went from being anti-imperialist pacifists to serving as infantrymen and officers in the Christian Emperor's military; another was St. Augustine's many ways of transforming Christianity into a religion that no longer looked for the rapture but had rather faced the fact that they were in the world for the long haul.

... In general, during the early medieval Church, all sex is a problem, and all sex is equally a problem. In the sixth-century penitentials, the penalties imposed on monks for having sex with a man and a woman are equal: three years of penitential activities...

Marriage, both in the Roman and the early medieval periods, was the moment that marked the passing of the rights over a woman from her father to her jusband; not just rights over her property, but her mund (protection / brideprice), that is, both the obligations to protect her and, if something bad happened, rights to any fines that accrued from her death or injury. In other words, she wasn't a person under the law: instead, she was first her father in law, and then her husband. Thus, when a man and a woman committed adultery, the woman was executed (for committing a sin) and the man paid a fine to the husband for violating his property rights.. ...

In the twelfth century, the idea of marriage as a "sacrament"--i.e., as something fundamentally regulated by the Church--was established along with priestly celibacy and primogeniture. The simultaneous appearance of these practices shows the way in which the preservation of property suddenly became an issue of great anxiety: celibacy prevented church property from passing on to priests' wives and children; primogeniture insured that property remain intact as it passed on to only the eldest son; and Church surveillance of marriages made sure that an authority larger than, say, the most powerful warrior / aristocratic families on the block, was overseeing the passing on of dowries...

Marriage as an "emotional unit" as opposed to an "economic unit" was largely an invention of the early nineteenth century ... for the males, prostitution is seen as an integral part of the new arrangement of marriage. .... Since the end-game must be the safe transfer of bourgeois property on to a new generation, the state takes over the task of regulation....Divorce, finally legalized again in France in the 1880s, emancipated men but perhaps not women unless they had reserved some independent means...

It is hardly coincidental: this is also the period during which the idea of "homosexuality"‹ and then, later, "heterosexuality"‹ was invented. It is also the moment in which bestiality appears to decline. ....

In fact, it seems more correct to say that the idea of a "civil marriage"--between anyone whomsoever‹was the genuine modern innovation in marriage practice, and that its transformation from a Christian sacrament (or at least a church ceremony, since many Protestants recognize only Baptism and Eucharist as "sacraments") to a civil union has been incomplete, messy, and perhaps incoherent....

In short: this mantra of "3,000 years of unchanging history" can and ought to be summarily dismissed.

My own discussion of this was here.

DOMA repeal bill to be filed in Congress?

From Unite the Fight:

U.S. Rep. Jerry Nadler, who announced in July he would be working on a partial repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), will be ready to circulate his bill to his colleagues to garner support in a matter of weeks, putting the Obama Administration on the spot. .....

At the time he announced his intention to work on repealing the 1996 DOMA, Nadler told the Bay Area Reporter that the repeal would only extend to marriage and not civil unions and domestic partnerships, meaning that only those legally married will receive federal benefits.

Also, the bill looks to only repeal Section 2 of DOMA, which restricts the government from recognizing any marriages other than heterosexual. Section 3 will most likely remain, which allows states to decide whether or not to legalize marriage equality within its borders.

Rachel talks about Massachusetts (video Sunday)

Rachel Maddow points out that Massachusetts, where same sex marriage has been legal for 5 years, has the lowest divorce rate in the country. What's really defending marriage? The Gays!

NOM gets slapped in Iowa too.

Maggie Gallagher's hate group, the National Organization for Marriage, has been soliciting donations around the country to attack marriage equality. Part of what they promise is anonymity.

Letters and emails from NOM Executive Director Brian Brown .... stated:

“And unlike in California, every dollar you give to NOM’s Northeast Action Plan today is private, with no risk of harassment from gay marriage protestors.”

Only hiding your donors peeves ethics and openness standards of different states.

As mentioned yesterday, Maine's Ethics Commission is investigating, following a complaint from Californians Against Hate

And in Iowa, the Iowa Ethics Board is also cross:

In a August 27 letter, the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board, warns the National Organization for Marriage about their campaign activities in Iowa. Here are the key points of the warning:
>>only an “insignificant and insubstantial amount” of NOM’s income is permitted to come from business organizations

>>if advocacy activities in Iowa exceed $750, NOM must form a PAC and disclose contributors

>>“To continue to file an independent expenditure statement for future elections in Iowa would mean that your organization is not raising more than $750 from outside sources for such purposes”

Last Friday NOM filed an independent expenditure report for nearly $90,000 worth of ads. The letter makes clear that to continue to file in this manner would run afoul of Iowa election laws.

The Advocate reports:

NOM’s lawyer, Barry Bostrom, has flat-out denied the allegations, calling them “unfounded and scurrilous.”

“These accusations and complaints are intended to inhibit our freedom of speech and freedom of association,” Bostrom told The Iowa Independent. “But we intend to aggressively safeguard these rights, while complying with all state and federal laws.”

But Des Moines attorney Sharon Malheiro says the lack of transparency undermines the democratic process.

“Election laws are necessary to protect public confidence in our democratic system,” she says. “When outsiders try to pervert the justice system and work around the election laws of our state, our public officials must call them out and hold them accountable.”

Time for NOM to take off the hoods.

The only good news in this? That $90K in ads was to influence an election for the Iowa House, where a pro-equality Democrat was paired against an anti-equality Republican. But despite potentially breaking the law to donate secret monies, their candidate lost. Good on yer, Iowans!

In Maine,things heat up.

The Catholic church in Maine is in tough financial straits....closing parishes, cutting programs. But they can still donate against gay marriage, to the dismay of many Maine Catholics. Indeed, it's an irony that as the Bishops spend more and more to fight marriage equality around the country, they are completely out of touch with the average Catholics in the pew who have different priorities (like health care, and caring for the least amongst us.)

In fact, remarkably nearly all the money donated against gay marriage in Maine has come from institutions, and only a few hundred dollars from individuals.

The Group Californians Against Hate suspects this is money laundering.

Letters and emails from NOM Executive Director Brian Brown were included where he stated:

“And unlike in California, every dollar you give to NOM’s Northeast Action Plan today is private, with no risk of harassment from gay marriage protestors.”

“Donations to NOM are not tax-deductible and they are NOT public information, either.”

“Your gift is confidential: no public disclosure! "

Californians Against Hate suggest that this is an effort to get around the Maine disclosure laws, and the Maine Ethics commission will investigate.

There's a reason haters want their names secret. It's the same reason, frankly,that the Klan wore hoods.




Cartoon from The Southern Voice.

Health Care Reform and Family Values

The US pays more per capita than any other developed nation for health care. For that vast sum of money, we do not cover all our citizens. Our outcomes are worse (infant mortality, for example, is higher in the USA than in Cuba). And medical bills, even for insured people, can be catastrophic, resulting in bankruptcy. In fact, 62% of bankruptcies come from health care bills, most of which are people who have insurance. If you think it couldn't happen to you, you're wrong. Nearly all of us would be wiped out, even with what we think are solid insurance plans, by a significant and expensive illness.

Marriage has a significant benefit in insurance costs. Most employer plans will allow the employee to cover his/her spouse and children, for an extra fee. And this is part of being married. Unless you are gay, naturally. If my wife were covered on my employer's health plan, my employer would have no problem. But the IRS would look at the value of that coverage, and consider it taxable income. That would be a sizeable boost in my income and therefore taxes that a straight married couple wouldn't pay, leading to a significant financial disincentive.

Of course, that wouldn't stop creditors from bankrupting us for medical bills. Unlike the government, THEY have no problem seeing us as married. Which leads to stories like this one about a woman whose husband was diagnosed with dementia:

The disease is degenerative, and he will become steadily less able to care for himself. At some point, as his medical needs multiply, he will probably need to be institutionalized.

The hospital arranged a conference call with a social worker, who outlined how the dementia and its financial toll on the family would progress, and then added, out of the blue: "Maybe you should divorce."

"I was blown away," M. told me. But, she said, the hospital staff members explained that they had seen it all before, many times. If M.'s husband required long-term care, the costs would be catastrophic even for a middle-class family with savings.

Eventually, after the expenses whittled away their combined assets, her husband could go on Medicaid -- but by then their children's nest egg would be gone, along with her 401(k) plan. She would face a bleak retirement with neither her husband nor her savings.

Kristof reports that the laws are written to allow seizure of assets up to 5 years post-divorce.

So let's get this straight, so to speak: "family values" in this country not only deny gay families protection including access to insurance, but specifically require straight couples divorce to avoid bankruptcy and ruin of the family and impovershment of the children.

THESE are the "family values" of the Republicans: a big F*** you to families whether straight or gay. Divorce, or go bankrupt. THis is the "status quo" and the "sacredness of marriage" that Republicans support.

There is NO justification for any of this. NO justification to deny gay families legal rights, and NO justification to preserve the status quo of a system that destroys families in financial ruin.

The immorality of this system is truly breathtaking. These people have the audacity to claim morality and Judeo-Christian values. But who would Jesus bankrupt?

NJ Bishops try to pre-empt marriage equality

From the NJ Star Ledger:

Catholic bishops in New Jersey have begun a campaign against same-sex marriage in anticipation of a possible vote on the issue by state legislators sometime after the November election.

The bishops directed Catholic priests throughout the state to distribute in parish bulletins last Sunday a 2,300-word letter opposing same-sex marriage. The priests are also expected to speak about the issue from the altar after Labor Day.

This politicking is legal, unfortunately. However, I believe the polls in NJ are largely pro-marriage--including the Catholics

Official Catholic teachings against same-sex marriage are widely known, although polls indicate U.S. Catholics don't collectively heed church teachings. In a Washington Post/ABC poll this spring, 46 percent of white Catholics favored legalizing same-sex marriage, compared with 49 percent of the general population.

The Catholic bishops have decided to make gay marriage their big thing. In Maine, they are closing parishes but sending money to the hate campaign. In Washington State, they oppose domestic partnerships. In WashingtonDC , they refuse to lend their weight to immigration reform because it dares to give same sex couples benefits. Internationally, the Catholic church would rather see people killed lest any rights for gays lead to marriage: the better dead than wed policy.

Let's see this for what it is: institutionalized bigotry. Catholics of good will need to be vocal against the BIshops, who are leading their church into injustice and hatred.

Update: The DC Bishop is in on the act. From the Advocate:

Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl has increased the Catholic Church's involvement in opposition to marriage equality in the nation's capital.....Wuerl has joined forces with Baptists, mainly African-American preachers, in pressuring D.C. officials to allow public voting on the legalization of same-sex marriage.

David A. Catania, the openly gay city council member who introduced the bill to legalize same-sex marriage in D.C. this fall, is undaunted by the Catholic Church's participation in the debate. "We have a long tradition in this city of evolving toward equality and a better, more expansive view of human rights, and in 2009 this includes marriage equality for same-sex couples," said Catania. "I respect the bishop for his view…but we live in a representative democracy where there is a separation of church and state. We do not live in a theocracy."

If the hierarchy of the Catholic church really wants to pick a war with the GLBT community, they better realize they are picking it with their own congregations. I don't think that will be very pretty.

True Marriage Equality In Vermont

Today, same sex couples can legally marry in Vermont. From the AP:

After 17 years together, Bill Slimback and Bob Sullivan couldn't wait another minute to get married. So they didn't.

With Vermont's new law allowing same-sex marriage only a minute old, they tied the knot in a midnight ceremony at a rustic lodge, becoming one of the first couples to legally wed under a law that took effect at midnight Monday.
....
Vermont is one of five states that now allow same-sex couples to marry. Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa are the others. New Hampshire's law takes effect Jan. 1, 2010.

"We've waited a long time to do this — basically, our whole lives," Slimback said Monday. "We've been waiting for a chance to actually solidify it," he said. He and Sullivan said they never wanted to obtain a civil union because they believe that's a kind of second-class recognition.

Iconic ice cream makers Ben and Jerry's have renamed "Chubby Hubby" to "Hubby Hubby" in honor of this event. On a web page supporting the freedom to marry, they write,

In partnership with Freedom to Marry we are gathered here to celebrate Vermont and all the other great states where loving couples of all kinds are free to marry legally. We have ceremoniously dubbed our iconic flavor, Chubby Hubby to Hubby Hubby in support, and to raise awareness of the importance of marriage equality.

Now THAT'S a company I can support!