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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marriage Equality in Mexico City?

From the LA Times:

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

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

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

Marriage is good for you

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coming out for Christmas (video Sunday)

From the London Gay Men's Chorus

Have a merry Christmas

Where are the gay couples?

The Economist tells us where the gays are.

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

(Click on the image for a larger view).

Athletes get it

Can the NFL Tackle Homophobia?

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

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

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

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

The last loathed class

From my friend Counterlight, an artist, who writes

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

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

He goes on,

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

I hope!

NY State Senator Diane Savino (video Sunday)

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

Minnesota Quakers stop marriages

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

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

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

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

Donors, boycotts, and mercenaries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is gay marriage inevitable?

From Politico:

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

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

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

Marriage Equality in DC

passes by 11-2.

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

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

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

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

California Marriage Protection Act (warning, sarcastic video)

Coming around on adoption

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

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

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

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

One step at a time.

Colbert on Gay Marriage (video Sunday)

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

Betty Bowers on the Mormons (video)

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

Mark your calendars: Jan 11th

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

From the Brief:

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

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

Update: Date corrected.

The 9th circuit and DOMA

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

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

LawDork is on the case.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Time to attack traditional marriage! (cartoon)

Why it matters: Video Sunday

Episcopal diocese of Los Angeles elects lesbian as Bishop

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

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

From the LA Times

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gay marriage in Buenos Aires

From the Guardian:

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

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

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

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

Stephen Fry on the Catholic Church (video)

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

Gay on Trial

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

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

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

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

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

Update from the LA Times:

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

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

NY Senate nixes marriage equality

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

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

Meanwhile, Bloomberg reports:

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

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

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

What is a gay Catholic to do?

From Fr James Martin of America Magazine:

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

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

1.) Enjoy romantic love.....

2.) Marry. ....

3.) Adopt a child. ....

4.) Enter a seminary. ....

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

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

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

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

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

One commenter writes,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should we settle for civil unions?

Should we settle for civil unions?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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