Marriage in Maine, and elsewhere

A moving Op/Ed

Love, monogamy, commitment, integrity and morality are family values offered by the No on 1 campaign. To be around any couple (gay, straight, or lesbian) who advocates for loving, life-long, married commitment, can only enhance my life, my 20-year marriage, and our daughters' lives.

It is a privilege for me and my family to know other couples (gay, straight, or lesbian) who are committed to married life and who raise their children with integrity, love and compassion. I encourage all Mainers to have a tender heart toward gay and lesbian neighbors.

The bottom line is: No on 1 is advocating for committed marriages as a means to express the depth of loving relationships, and that is a beautiful and worthy aspiration for all human beings.

The writer, a faithful Catholic, has been removed from her role as a Eucharistic minister for daring to support civil (NOT religious) marriage equality. And meanwhile the Diocese of Maine is closing even more churches, as it donates money and lies to the anti-equality campaign.

"Why did I fight in Normandy?"

TEstimony from Maine, an 86 year old veteren.
Q: Do you believe in equality for GLBT people?
A: What do you think I fought for on Omaha Beach?

My wife and I did not raise four sons with the idea that three of them would have a certain set of rights, but our gay child would be left out. We raised them all to be hard-working, proud, and loyal Americans and they all did good. I think it's too bad [inaudible] want to get married, they should be able to. Everybody's supposed to be equal in equality in this country. Let gay people have the right to marry. Thank you.

Exposing the lies in Maine

The Science of Gaydar

What makes us gay? It seems pretty clear that it's quite hard wired in most gay men. Lesbians, and women generally, have more fluid sexuality. There's an interesting piece in New York magazine about the science behind sexual preference.

One provocative question: if you know a child were gay, would it be ethical to abort it? Or to genetically manipulate it into heterosexuality?

This all goes back to a post I made some time ago about what it is to be different: I called it "Curing the Variant". When is a difference a "normal" variation and when is it a pathology?

Another No on Question 1 ad (Video Sunday)

Anthem

By the artist Christopher Dallman, an Anthem sample here, available on iTunes:

Me and my love have spent some seven years
building this home that we've made
Still our love is second class
Our Union is still renegade

How long?
Brother of mine, it's a matter of time
How long?
This is love

Hat Tip Madpriest

The Mormon Proposition

A new movie exposes the Mormon backing of Prop 8: The Mormon Proposition. A direct quote: "It would be better to be dead than be homosexual".

Consulting for hate

Political consultants operate under a code of ethics that supposedly prevents them from attacking people on the basis of race or religion. Not, apparently, sexual orientation. This Huffpo article from a few months ago explains how a political consultant for the "Yes on H8" campaign picked up a slew of awards from his professional association. Hate sells:

Political consultants will do almost anything to win. So it was a little surprising to see that their professional association - the American Association of Political Consultants - has a significant and no doubt well-intentioned code of ethics.

Imagine if their members actually adhered to it. Better yet, imagine for a moment what political campaigns might have been like if that code of ethics included no bashing based on sexual orientation and gender identity....

These questions about ethics surfaced after AAPC held their annual "Pollie Awards" on March 29. They're considered that industry's Academy Awards, given in the categories of Campaigns, Public Affairs and Issues and Referenda.

....The Yes on Proposition 8 campaign won a slew of awards, including the "gold" for TV Radio Campaign (produced by Schubert/Flint Public Affairs), the "silver" for Best Fundraising, and "bronze" for the robocall using Barack Obama's voice ....

Yes on 8 Campaign Manager and AAPC board member Frank Schubert accepted the gold award but was apparently not well-received. ....."He detected the chilly reception and acknowledged that many people disagreed with him. But then he said, 'However, I represent those who read the Bible and believe in God.' Some people found that incredibly offensive. At one point, some people were hissing."

Hissing, no doubt, because people of faith supported the No on Prop 8 campaign as well,....

What is ethical about knowingly disseminating false and inaccurate information in order to win a campaign?
....
Imagine how political campaigns might change if the professional association to which most of them belonged decided to ban gay-bashing as a matter of ethics?

Why Referendum 71 matters (video)

Because each of us is protected only when ALL of us are protected.

Washingtonians: Approve Referendum 71. Every family matters.

Recruiting the Faithful

Here's a great site focused on winning over people of faith to the cause of equality: Get to know us first in faith

Through a partnership with the California Council of Churches and California Faith for Equality, we are distributing Study Guides and DVDs to over 5,000 houses of worship. Our kit provides an accessible starting point to discuss the scriptural references to homosexuality and the differences between civil and religious marriage.

The kit uses a DVD, and a 5 page handout to facilitate discussion.

You can adopt a congregation, or suggest one.

All the materials are available for viewing on their website.

Check it out!

God vs Gay? Not so fast!

From The WaPo, Marriage Equality's False Divides:

[F]ew would expect the two of us -- a straight, black Baptist minister from east of the Anacostia River, and a gay, white Unitarian minister from Columbia Heights -- to share the same position on same-sex marriage. Our solidarity exposes two of the myths perpetuated by opponents of marriage equality and by the media. Let's call these myths "God vs. gay" and "black vs. white."

Opponents of marriage equality would like us to believe that one cannot be both pro-God and pro-gay. Yet we lead a coalition of nearly 200 D.C. clergy who support marriage equality precisely because of our commitment to God's inclusive love and justice. Our clergy are black, white, Latino and from every ward in the District. We are Baptists and Jews, Catholics and Methodists, who have worked side by side for years on issues ranging from peace to affordable housing, and who now stand together again to raise a faithful voice for justice. Let us be clear: God vs. gay is a myth we reject. God vs. injustice is a truth we affirm.

Meanwhile, opponents of marriage equality have tried to use this issue to divide our communities along racial lines, and the press often plays into their hands. The gay community is repeatedly characterized as a group of well-to-do white folks, while all people of color are portrayed as heterosexuals who oppose gay marriage. This is the myth of "black vs. white." To suggest that the struggle for marriage equality in Washington affects only a small number of white people from Dupont Circle is an affront to the rich diversity of the District's gay and lesbian community, and it erases the lives of thousands of gay and lesbian people of color, some of whom are members of our churches.

Sing it!

Together: Vote yes on 71 (WA) (video Sunday)

Voting on Marriage

Many, many of the proponents of Prop8 and similar bans on marriage equality argue that the voters have spoken, and we should just shut up. What they fail to understand is something that was very clear to our Founding Fathers: pure democracy is mob tyranny. The point of the Constitution is to protect the minority from the majority, so that all consent to be governed.

In 1948, the Supreme Court of California struck down laws that prevented inter-racial marriage, in Perez v. Sharp.

In 1968, in Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down such laws nationally.

Now, what was the view of the people? As shown by Gallup, not until 1991 did a plurality of Americans approve of inter-racial marriages. Indeed, one might argue that the decision of 1968 sped it up, and even then, the electorate only caught up with the law 30 years later.


And even today, relationships between black and white can be politically perilous. Despite having a mixed-race president in the White House.

A sharp counterpoint was the 2006 Tennessee Senate race which then-Rep. Harold Ford, an African-American, lost narrowly to Republican Bob Corker after the final days of the campaign were consumed by a Republican National Committee ad linking Ford to a scantily clad young blond woman. Ford’s allies charged it was a thinly veiled attempt to tap into old Southern fears about black men and white women.

And it seems to be a current that still remains just below the surface in Tennessee politics: Ford’s subsequent marriage to a white woman was widely viewed as a major barrier to another run.

And, in case you think that's an aberration, think again. Reported in the AP,

A Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have. Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.

"I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way," Bardwell told the Associated Press on Thursday. "I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else."

Racism and other forms of bigotry run deep. But don't tell anyone to wait for the electorate to catch up. Justice delayed is justice denied. Still, we believe that the arc of history bends towards justice.

Equality March review (video)

Haven't talked much about this, and the way that the split between the angry grass-roots on the streets, and the softly-softly high gays in beautiful suits listening to the President make a campaign speech. Make it happen.

Mom in Maine (video) UPDATED

Update
Reported by US News, the other side are demanding that this ad be taken down because....well, here's what it says:

This new ad opposing a Maine ballot initiative that would reverse the recent legalization of gay marriage in the state features a Roman Catholic mom. "I've been a Catholic all my life. My faith means a lot to me," she says, as her son, his male partner, and their son sit nearby. "Marriage to me is a great institution that works, and it's what I want for my children, too."

The conservative Catholic group CatholicVoteAction.org today is calling for the ad to come down. Here's part of a statement the group just sent out:

CatholicVoteAction.org President Brian Burch said, "For decades gay and lesbian groups have attacked the Catholic Church for refusing to accept their skewed views on human sexuality and marriage. Having lost that battle, they have now launched this desperate and despicable attempt to curry favor with Catholics by pretending that the Catholic faith supports their radical agenda."

So they think that because a Catholic disagrees, it's a despicable attack on Catholicism? The mind boggles.

Update 2A commentator notes,

Such a response will backfire, because it fails to acknowledge a distinction between rank-and-file Catholic voters (many who, like Dumont, support marriage equality) and the Church hierarchy. Maine is a very Catholic state, but it also has one of the lowest levels in church attendance – which suggests that many Catholics are already a bit disillusioned with their Church leadership. The reason they cite for pulling the ad will only infuriate Maine Catholics, because it says they cannot have a different opinion from the hierarchy.

In fact, it reminds me of a famous political gaffe in 1990 that happened in Minnesota. The late Paul Wellstone was running for the U.S. Senate against incumbent Rudy Boschwitz. Both men were Jewish, and in the final days of the campaign Boschwitz sent a fundraising letter to conservative Jewish donors, asking for support because he had been a “better Jew.” Wellstone, he explained, had married a non-Jew - and had not raised his children in the Jewish faith. The letter infuriated Jews, not to mention the 97% of Minnesotans who are Lutheran. I'm not suggesting the Catholic attack on the “No on 1” will have the same potency, but it's never good politics to start questioning a religious person's convictions.

Way to go, Ah-nuld

The Governor of California is an old-style Republican. You remember those: the ones who believe that the government did not belong regulating your life.

Good on you, Governor Schwarzenegger. He has signed two important bills.

First, after getting a veto from the governor last year, the state will now declare May 22 Harvey Milk Day (not a day-off though). The recognition for a man who was dedicated to pushing for equal rights for himself and his community is an important marker for the fight for full equality for the LGBT community. It does not win us any additional rights, but it does give the state a chance to pause and reflect on a man who gave everything for the struggle.

On the other hand, Sen. Leno's SB 54 does have an immediate and real impact that goes beyond symbolism. The bill would grant marriages performed outside of the state before Prop 8 was passed full marriage status, just as the same-sex marriages performed between June and November. Marriages that were performed after that Nov. 5 date will get all the rights and benefits of a California marriage save the moniker "marriage."

Apparently Arnold saw the confusion brought about by the situation that Californians who had previously been married in, say Massachusetts, were in. They were told that they didn't need to renew their marriage, but the law was entirely unclear on the issue.

It ain't perfect. On TG rights, he still lags. But you know? This is a start. A Republican governor voted for equality. And that's something.

And the sad thing? This Republican Governor has a better record on gay rights than our president. Please, someone, explain why gay Americans are better off today than 18 months ago?

Gay marriage in the polls

Nate Silver is a genious pollster. Well, not so much that, but he certainly knows how to evaluate data and extract meaning and was more on track for the recent presidential election than anyone. His site, www.fivethirtyeight.com, is essential to keep up on polling data.

Silver recently reported that Gay Marriage is losing some of its "oomph" as a conservative talking point, in the wake o the conservative love-fest called the Values Voter summit. The big issues for these people is abortion, then religious liberty. Gay marriage is down around 7%. Silver comments,

These are not the tea-partiers, who have a libertarian bent. This is a forum, rather, sponsored by the Family Research Council, an organization which continues to insist that homosexuality is curable and to link it to pedophilia. But the actual attendees at the forum -- religious conservative activists from around the country -- just don't seem to be all that riled up about the prospect of two men getting married.

This is not to suggest that these voters have become pro-gay marriage.....But the last time this poll was conducted, in October 2007, gay marriage was the top choice of 20 percent of the attendees. That's quite a decline, particularly given that gay marriage has been more in the news than abortion for the past couple of years.

Public opinion is moving toward acceptance of gay marriage. But it is doing so very slowly, at a rate of perhaps a point or two per year, and has at least a few years to go before it is the majority opinion. In the near term, the more relevant dimension may be 'passion', or depth of feeling. It used to be that the conservatives were ahead on passion -- they were strongly opposed to gay marriage, whereas liberals were, at best, lukewarmly in favor of it. Increasingly, that dynamic seems to be reversing.

Something mildly encouraging, maybe.

Marriage Equality Ireland (Video Sunday)

Does this look familiar? Yes, it's based on one a few years ago here:


Still, the intent is sound and that Irish accent....so charming. Better video quality too.

Marriage Equality in Washington DC?

From the AP:

A bill that would allow same-sex couples to marry in the nation's capital was introduced Tuesday, a measure that even opponents acknowledged seems almost unstoppable.

The bill was nearly certain to pass the D.C. city council, but whether it becomes law is more complicated because Congress gets an opportunity to review D.C. legislation before it takes effect. Still, even challengers in Congress acknowledged the bill was likely to become law.....

His bill specifically says religious leaders and institutions are not required to perform the marriages or rent their space for same-sex ceremonies unless they let the public use or rent them.

If the bill becomes law, the city will follow Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and Vermont, which issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. New Hampshire will begin issuing them in January.

But it isn't a slam dunk.

The Catholic Church and Washington's archbishop, Donald Wuerl, have been vocal in opposing the legislation. And a group led by Bishop Harry Jackson, the pastor of a Maryland church, had previously asked D.C.'s board of elections to authorize a ballot initiative defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

The board will consider the request later this month.

"We are prepared to go to court," Jackson said.

Yes, the Institutional Roman Catholic Church continues to attack the civil rights of gay people. We won't forget.

Former DOMA supporters now support repeal

As reported in the Advocate:

The man who singed the bill into law, President Bill Clinton, and the man who authored the legislation, Bob Barr, along with seven representatives who voted to pass it in 1996, now support the law’s repeal

“When the Defense of Marriage Act was passed, gay couples could not marry anywhere in the United States or the world for that matter,” Clinton said in a statement. “Thirteen years later, the fabric of our country has changed, and so should this policy.”

Barr, who was a member of the House at the time, joined Clinton, saying, “This legislation would strengthen the principle that each state is free to set the definition of marriage the citizens of that state have adopted.”

DOMA supporter Rep. Earl Blumenauer from Oregon writes in the HuffPO

Having given it much thought, I was convinced that by voting for this one federal statute against the recognition of same-sex marriage, it would somehow take the steam out of the Newt Gingrich-Tom Delay Congress, which was using the homophobic right-wing agenda to mobilize their base at the expense of millions of gay, lesbian, transgendered, and bisexual Americans. My hope was to simply move on and get to more pressing business at hand, including smaller steps for equality based on sexual orientation, like legislation against employment discrimination.

Since I was an outspoken supporter of anti-discrimination, I assumed that my calculations would be understood by my friends in the community and that we would lay this obnoxious political vendetta to rest. Wrong on all counts.

It should have been obvious to me that we would not be able to quell this assault based on sexual orientation. Far from stopping it, this vote fed the bigotry. Once Congress had put its imprimatur on DOMA, it was a logical step for the homophobes and political cynics to intensify their efforts and make permanent a ban on gay marriage in both the U.S. and state constitutions -- spawning many state initiatives and intensifying the assault.
....
I long ago recognized and acknowledged the mistake I made, and I have spent time understanding the problems in my thinking and analysis. It has resulted in frank and important conversations with many gay and lesbian friends, and if anything it has strengthened my commitment to the cause of banning discrimination based on sexual orientation and has made me a better lawmaker.

I will work to make sure that my colleagues who once, for whatever reason, joined me in supporting this ill-advised measure take this opportunity to correct their record and eliminate an injustice.

And former president Bill Clinton says,

"I think if people want to make commitments that last a lifetime, they ought to be able to do it," Clinton said, in his most extensive and affirmative statements to date on the subject. Clinton had previously said his views on the matter were "evolving" and later added that he was "basically in support" of marriage equality.

Clinton said during the interview that he realized he was "hung up about the word" marriage.

"I was wrong about that," he said. "I just had too many gay friends. I saw their relationships. I just decided I couldn’t, I had an untenable position."

The US: way behind the civilized world.

From Andrew Sullivan:

In socially conservative Germany, an openly gay man, representing a politics of free enterprise and limited government, will now become vice-chancellor and foreign minister....Westerwelle is now the world's leading non-leftist gay leader. ... He came out formally five years ago. The Germans paid no mind.

Meanwhile, in America, there are almost no openly gay politicians, and one major party seeks to marginalize and disenfranchise gay people, stripping them of all relationship rights, and running ad campaigns focused on the "threat" that openly gay couples pose to schoolkids.

The other party, while offering lip service to gay equality and being disproportionately financed by gay donors, enforces the federal ban on gay soldiers, refuses to repeal the law that requires the federal government to treat gay couples as strangers to one another, and has no openly gay people in any but minor roles in government.

As the world moves forward, Washington has more in common with developing countries in its treatment of its own gay citizens than with the civilized world. And this president and Congress have no intention of changing that in any foreseeable future. The opposition is even worse - with discrimination against homosexuals written into its party platform. They even want to amend the federal constitution to enshrine gay people as second class citizens and moral pariahs.

Yep: America was the model for many of these other countries' evolution on gay rights. But, while American society has made huge strides in acceptance and inclusion, American federal government remains hostage to bigotry and fear.

Support Washington's Referendum 71

Approve Ref. 71
Preserve the Domestic Partnership Law
SIX SIMPLE THINGS YOU CAN DO

Phonebank at our campaign office to spread the word
Donate to support the Approve 71 campaign
Change your Facebook photo to the Approve 71 icon and talk about Approving 71 in your status messages
Link to Approve 71 from your email signature.
Change your voicemail message to tell your friends and family to Approve Referendum 71.
Print out and distribute the handouts from our website.

For more great things you can do check out: WWW.APPROVE71.ORG
Facebook icons are under Spread the Word at the top, and handouts are under Handouts on the right.
Now: Go tell 10 friends to do these things, too!

Leonard Matlovich and the Equality march

Marriage updates around the nation

Washington DC

After months of buildup, D.C. Council member David A. Catania (I-At large) announced Wednesday evening he would introduce his proposal to legalize same-sex marriage in the District at Tuesday's council meeting.

Illinois

The race to marriage equality for the fifth largest state in the Union was kicked off this morning when State Senator Heather Steans became the first Illinois Senator to introduce a marriage equality bill - SB2468 the Equal Marriage Act - in that chamber.

Texas

In a first for Texas, a judge ruled Thursday that two men married in another state can divorce here and that the state's ban on gay marriage violates the U.S. Constitution.

And progress on the legal front. On the Boies and Olson case Perry, which challenges Prop8 in Federal court, the judge ruled that materials from the Prop8 campaign cannot be kept secret.

The judge agreed with lawyers for two unmarried same-sex couples who have sued to strike down the ban, known as Proposition 8, that confidential communications between the campaign's leaders and professional consultants could reveal a rationale for denying gays the right to wed that is relevant to the case.

The lawsuit argues that the measure was motivated by hostility toward gays and as such must be struck down as inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equality.

So I think this means that if there is evidence of hostility to GLBT people in the correspondence, that suggests that animus drove the campaign, not the coverup of "children" or "religion". The SF Chron agrees:

If the courts find that the ballot measure was motivated by discrimination, they could strike it down without having to decide whether gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry.

"The intent or purpose of Prop. 8 is central to this litigation," Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker declared Thursday in requiring backers of the November 2008 measure to give the opposing side their internal campaign communications.

In Maine, anti-marriage group NOM is getting into further trouble, and the commission on ethics voted to investigate further.

Fred Karger of Californians Against Hate filed a complaint with the commission saying the group should be required to disclose the names of donors. In response, Brian Brown, executive director of NOM, said they have not raised money specifically for Maine and therefore are not required to report individual donors.

If NOM is specifically raising money to fight marriage equality in Maine without disclosing donors, that would be illegal. An interview with Fred Karger, who brought the charges, here.

The Golden Girls on Marriage Equality (video Sunday)

Family Day 2009

Apparently, we should all be grateful that when the White House released a proclamation about "Family Day 2009" the president actually admitted we exist!.

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release September 28, 2009
FAMILY DAY, 2009
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION

Our family provides one of the strongest influences on ourlives. American families from every walk of life have taught ustime and again that children raised in loving, caring homes have the ability to reject negative behaviors and reach their highest potential. Whether children are raised by two parents, a single parent, grandparents, a same-sex couple, or a guardian, families encourage us to do our best and enable us to accomplish great things.

And this is revolutionary? That there are, (gasp) same sex couples raising families?

Welcome to the 21st century. I'm sorry, but this is pathetic...we're all supposed to be grateful that the president finally noticed that we have families too? (Maybe someone should tell the Roman Catholic Bishop of Maine).

Californians: Call the Governor to recognize legal marriages!

One of the things we have learned in the equality fight is the need to be vocal. Politicians need to hear from us -- because they are definitely hearing from the other side.

The same people who passed Prop. 8 are now flooding the Governor with calls about Equality California’s legislation authored by Senator Mark Leno that will recognize the marriages of same-sex couples performed in other states and countries.

They claim we are trying to circumvent the law, undercut the Constitution and disregard the will of the people.

Help counter their lies and set the record, er, straight. Call the Governor today and express your support for SB 54, the Marriage Recognition and Family Protection Act (Leno, D-San Francisco).

I called my local office and spoke to a Real Person. She was very friendly and simply asked my name and where I was calling from.

Please call the Gubernator and be counted for equality. And send this around to your friends!

Capitol Office (automated line)
Phone: 916-445-2841
Fresno Office
Phone: 559-477-1804
Los Angeles Office
Phone: 213-897-0322
Riverside Office
Phone: 951-680-6860
San Diego Office
Phone: 619-525-4641
San Francisco Office
Phone: 415-703-2218

David Mixner: the time for Obama to speak is now

Democratic activist David Mixner calls on President Obama to speak out about Maine.

The time for President Obama to make clear that he opposes the ballot measure in that state is now. If he waits any longer, the Maggie Gallagher brigade against human rights will use his opposition to marriage to prove that he supports the proposition. During his presidential campaign, then-Senator Obama was quite clear that he opposed all such measures, despite his opposition to marriage equality.

If the president doesn't want his own words to be used in a hate-filled campaign then he better speak up now. We all remember what happened in California. Even though Obama opposed Proposition 8, his profile on the initiative was very low. As a result, the YES on 8 folks did mass mailings using Obama's own words against marriage equality to imply that he supported the divisive measure. Many liberals and African-Americans were confused and voted "YES ON 8" as a result of those mailings and ads. Let's not let that happen again.

To avoid a reocurrence of that disaster, the president should immediately, strongly and unequivocally oppose the proposition in Maine. He should denounce the efforts of the right-wing to put human rights on the ballot to be voted upon as if it was just another measure for the voters. The president must not mince words or be tepid in his support or once again go into his belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. We got that, Mr. President. Time to come down without clever political language for full equality for the LGBT community.

Whaddya think?

Yeah, me too.

::crickets::

Why MARRIAGE EQUALITY matters: lesson from Florida

In Florida, a woman collapsed and a hospital refused to let her partner or kids in to see her or have any say in her care despite a medical power of attorney. She died. The partner sued. Remarkably, the court's response is a "Tough @%$":

Lambda Legal reports,

While on a family cruise leaving from Miami, Lisa Pond, a healthy 39 year-old, suddenly collapsed. She was rushed to Miami's Jackson Memorial Hospital with her partner Janice and three children following close behind. There, the hospital refused to accept information from Janice about her partner's medical history. Janice was informed that she was in an antigay city and state, and she could expect to receive no information or acknowledgment as Lisa's partner or family.



A doctor finally spoke with Janice telling her that there was no chance of recovery. Other than one five minute visit that was arranged by a Catholic priest at Janice's request to perform last rites, and despite the doctor's acknowledgement that no medical reason existed to prevent visitation, neither Janice - who provided the hospital with a medical Power of Attorney document - nor their children were allowed to see Lisa until nearly eight hours after their arrival. Soon after Lisa's death, Janice tried to get her death certificate in order to get life insurance and Social Security benefits for their children. She was denied both by the State of Florida and the Dade County Medical Examiner.

Today's ruling comes after the Public Health Trust of the Miami Dade County, the governing body of Jackson Memorial Hospital, filed a motion to dismiss the case. The court ruled that the hospital has neither an obligation to allow their patients' visitors nor any obligation whatsoever to provide their patients' families, healthcare surrogates, or visitors with access to patients in their trauma unit. The court has given the Langbehn-Pond family until October 16 to review the ruling and consider all legal options.

So please, haters and bigots who oppose marriage equality and civil partnerships: explain to me why you think this is a just and proper response to a loving family ripped apart by an awful tragedy. Does this make you smile? Does it make you happy? It must, because this is exactly what you are praying for: that gay families have no rights whatsoever, that gay people die alone. What on earth justifies treating any loving family in this way? Do you really think this is what Jesus would have you do?

This family did everything right on legal grounds, and they were treated like scum by people who probably consider themselves "Christians" (at least it sounds like the family got some help from a Catholic priest, good for him). I hope there's a hot couch in hell for that hospital staff for their bigotry and needless emotional violence against that suffering family. And I hope that the justices of the District Court never sleep again without nightmares of their loved ones dying alone, while they rail and wail in a remote waiting room.

Meanwhile, this story should be held up from Maine to Washington as a major reason WHY IT MATTERS. Force the bad guys to defend the indefensible. I hope someone makes a Youtube about this--I'll post any competent viral video on my blogs and accounts if you do.

More commentary at PamsHouseBlend.

The surviving partner, Janice, comments on her blog.