Uganda bill kills more than gays (video Sunday)

Maryland will recognize out-of-state same sex marriages.

The Attorney General of the state of Maryland, which does not allow same sex marriages, has released an opinion saying that although such marriages are not performed in-state, if they are performed elsewhere, they should be recognized.

From LawDork:

What this means is that agencies will begin adopting regulations and policies to allow for recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages. This, obviously, will include the District of Columbia, where the marriage equality bill is to take effect on March 3. The opinion noted that such changes will be made to the extent possible when not constrained by federal law (primarily, the Defense of Marriage Act). In other words, there are still complications to be resolved.
Although just one (big) step in a complicated process, and though a court challenge appears almost inevitable, this was an important step toward equality that Gansler and his office did a good, honest job of preparing.

What it means to real people (from the WaPO)

"When I looked at the newspaper headline this morning, I was just stunned," said Tibby Middleton, 71, who lives in Frederick with Barbara Kenny, her partner of 44 years. "I was very moved by it, really. I never thought I would live in any place where I would be treated with dignity and respect."

Are Gay Couples Worthy? Prove it.

The argument has been made that GLBT couples should be patient, and should be grateful for the 2nd class status of civil unions, in order to prove that we are worthy of marriage.

Once they see that we can do "marriage lite", the argument goes, then they may---may.... allow us to have access to marriage. Eventually. But we have to earn it.

(This ignores the fact that most vocal marriage equality opponents are just as resistant to civil unions. But I digress).

Now, that's pretty insulting,and of course it's another tactic to stress our "otherness" as though simply because of gender, we don't want/can't achieve "real" marriage. And those of us who are married, of course, prove the opposite entirely.

But what the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia has done is more insulting yet. In response to movements in the national church, and recognition of (gasp!) gay people in their midst, they admit they need to study the issue of same sex blessings (NOT marriage) in their diocese. To do so, they propose bringing together clergy and lay people and lawyers, which is all fine (although one might ask whether civil lawyers are really necessary for an internal church issue as "blessings" which have no civil component....but I digress again.)

Fine so far. However, their resolution also calls to consider whether blessing such unions requires them to consider the following issues:

(c) The age, capacity and degree of kinship, if any, of the parties;

(d) The effect of prior marriages or unions blessed by a licensed clergy person or registered with civil authorities, the responsibility to any former spouse or partner in such union, and responsibility to minor children of any prior marriage or union;

(e) The appropriateness of advance medical screening, if any;
...
(h) Review of financial arrangements to protect the parties in the absence of state law presumptions governing married couples, presumptions intended to protect the weaker party from potential exploitation, oppression, or improvident action by the other party in the relationship;

(i) Other factors listed in the General Convention canons for marriage, Canons I.1.18 and I.1.19, including the baptismal status of the parties, the commitment to life-long union, the voluntariness of consent, the absence of coercion, fraud, mistake of identity of the other party;
...
(l) Any requirement for written affirmation by the couple that the commitment is to a life-long union;
...
(p) Whether any blessing service for same-gender union may be used in lieu of marriage for heterosexual couples under any circumstances, and if so, what those circumstances are;
(q) How these might apply to all members of the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Trans-gendered community;
(r) Any other factor deemed important by the panel.

These resolutions by their very existence suggest that the Dio. VA thinks that GLBT people don't want lifelong unions, would try to join family, are riven with diseases, are coercing their partner for financial reasons. Of course none of these rules apply to straight couples seeking blessings. Because their health, finances, proof of lifelong fidelity, are all tacitly accepted along with the presumption they will engage in proper missionary position man-woman sexual intercourse.

Fortunately for the Episcopal Church, many, many other dioceses are moving ahead and recognizing that Gays Are People Too, who simply want the same rules and expectations applied to them as to straight couples. Many Episcopal bishops have been outspoken advocates for civil marriage rights in different states. Many Episcopal priests are tireless advocates for equality. Many Episcopal parishes, even in Virginia, or perhaps despite it (yes, we're looking at you Margaret!) are working for justice for all people. Many average Episcopalians are advocates for fairness for all.

So horrible as this is, it's a flare from a dying institutional world view that in 20 years will be viewed with the same horror as poll taxes and anti-miscegenation laws. It may be useful to remember that Virginia is politically a State of Hate that has banned recognition of even private contracts that give any semblance of marriage rights. That means, all those legal documents my wife and I have for health care etc. could be ignored in Virginia since their purpose is to give us some marriage-like protections. We don't exist there. We are less than nothing.

Eventually, saner heads will prevail. Meanwhile, they should be ashamed of themselves for this disgusting, insulting resolution.



For those not familiar with the structure of the Episcopal Church, it is very different from the authoritarian Roman Catholics. Episcopalians are ruled by "democratic polity": Bishops are elected by their dioceses, not appointed from old-men on-high, and then must be approved by other bishops and dioceses. Church-wide policy is set by democratic process in a convention every three years, with one house of Bishops and one house of elected lay- and clergy-people. Similarly, diocesan policy is set in part by a diocesan convention. The Episcopal Church is a free standing church in a loose federation with other Anglican churches affiliated with the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is Not A Pope and bears no direct authority over the independent national churches. Individual bishops have considerable autonomy in the responses of their dioceses, and a few have left over The Gay Issue. The mind of the church overall is clearly moving towards full inclusion. If any bona fide Episcopalians are reading this, please correct me if I am wrong!

Born Gay: why it matters.

From the LA Times, a kick-ass editorial by two geneticists:

There was an elephant in the San Francisco courtroom where lawyers contested the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the California law that prohibits the marriage of same-sex couples. One key issue should influence every aspect of the Perry vs. Schwarzenegger proceedings yet remained unspoken: What makes people gay? Is it a choice or is it innate?

....the empirical evidence for the role of genetics in human sexual orientation has been quietly but steadily mounting over the last 15 years. ....The results unambiguously demonstrate that heritability plays a major role in sexual orientation and far outweighs shared environmental factors such as education or parenting.

...critics of sexual orientation inheritance are fond of pointing out that there is no single identified "gay gene." However, they fail to mention that the same is true for height, skin color, handedness, frequency of heart disease and many other traits that have a large inherited component but no dominant gene. In other words, sexual orientation is complex, i.e., many genes contribute...

So why does this matter?

Biology cannot be avoided in determining whether fundamental rights are protected under the equal protection clause of our Constitution. This is because "immutability" is one of the factors that determine the level of scrutiny applied to possible violations and that determine whether gays are awarded "suspect class" status, which would give them more constitutional protection. Heritability is not necessary for immutability or suspect class status (religion is the usual counter-example), but it should be sufficient; we do not choose our genes, nor can we change them.,,,polling data [shows] that people who believe that gays are "born that way" are generally supportive of full equality, whereas those who believe it is "a choice" are opposed.

In the Advocate, a commentator pushes this further, and challenges the political decision not to bring this up strongly in the advocacy for marriage rights.

Eighty percent of voters who believe people are born homosexual vote yes on gay rights. Our strategists intentionally ignore this. Economists call this opportunity cost: what we could and should be doing strategically instead of what we are. It is shocking to realize it, but the “empathy” and “letting people hear our stories” ads that Garden State Equality and the Empire State Pride Agenda use our money to run are, in their political opportunity cost, just as toxic to us as the ads run by Schubert Flint and the National Organization for Marriage. We're being killed by friendly fire because our own people dislike the fact that Bob Schieffer’s question, "Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?" moves voters. So they don’t ask it. 


Okay, but why ignore it? The commentator provocatively suggests,

Homosexuality is inborn. The problem is that this contradicts liberal ideology. The leaders of the gay rights movement are (logically) almost all liberals, and so viscerally opposed to the idea that behavioral traits are innate. Yet those 25 percentage points we get from making voters understand that homosexuality is innate are exactly what will make us win. Result: We've got a serious problem here.

A deliberate decision, he suggests, for political or ideological reasons. He goes further,


What we are doing wrong is simple. We’re failing the Schieffer test. We’re refusing to answer the only question America is asking us. This is political suicide. 

In an interview with Rex Wockner six weeks before voting day in Maine, Jesse Connolly, No on 1’s campaign manager, dismissed the other side’s strategy: "These are the same old doomsday tactics that opponents of equality have been using ... in every state."

In an e-mail to Connolly, Wockner observed, "And those tactics worked in every state."

Connolly: "Question 1 is only about fairness and equality."

Wockner: "'Fairness' and 'equality' are lovely words and beautiful high-minded concepts. But they were beyond useless ... " 

Wockner.... made the cool, ballot-box-math, matter-of-fact observation: "They like us better if we're born gay." And they just do. 


So how would the mantle of biology help counter the arguments used against us? (Used, we must remember over and over again with considerable success).

Schools can't "teach" homosexuality any more than they can "teach" handedness. (Although they can teach understanding and acceptance.) Teachers can't "promote" innate traits like being black or female, and if your TV spots claim they can, it reveals antigay forces to be the idiots that they are.

SO, time for a big change. I am glad to see this brought up--and it's critical to the argument in the Prop8 case. It is well past time to explain that for most gay people, it's not a choice. We aren't a pathology. It's who we are. So stop making such a big deal of it, give us our dam' rights, and let us work together on things that really matter.

Are you listening, Rick Jacobs? Are you listening, Geoff Kors? Are you listening, Jesse Connelly? Are you listening, HRC, EQCA, Courage Campaign?

What are you going to do about it?

Greatest hits from the Prop8 trial

The Courage Campaign has assembled a list of some of the highlights of the Prop8 testimony.

I just want to get married…it’s as simple as that. I love someone. I want to get married. My state is supposed to protect me. It’s not supposed to discriminate against me.” – Plaintiff Paul Katami

Check it out for a summary.

God don't make no trash (video Sunday)

Gay adoption legal in anti-gay states?

From Gay Couples Law Blog:

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that Louisiana has to recognize the New York same-sex adoption of a Louisiana child even though Louisiana does not itself grant same-sex adoptions.

From the SD Union Tribune:

Yesterday’s unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel upheld a lower-court ruling. The judges said state law requires the registrar to list both adoptive parents’ names and said the official was violating the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution by refusing to honor an out-of-state adoption, even if the adoption wouldn’t have been granted to the same-sex couple under Louisiana law.

Full faith-and-credit is what makes most marriages legal across state lines too. Except ours, thanks to DOMA.

As a matter of law, as well as justice, the failure to recognize GLBT relationships is not defensible. This ruling is another crack in the wall.

The APA on marriage equality

Once thing we learned from the Prop8 testimony is that our opponents aren't interested in facts or science. Still, it's worth having access to this Fact Sheet from the American Psychological Association which includes references to studies proving each point (PDF here):

There is no scientific basis for the assertion that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons are not fit to marry or to become parents of healthy and well-adjusted children.

Marriage bestows substantial psychosocial and health benefits to individuals, due to the moral, economic, and social support to married couples. The denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples, therefore, adversely affects the health and well-being of the individuals involved, as well as their families and friends. ...

Scientific research provides no evidence that would justify discrimination against same-sex partners and their families. In its 2004 resolution on sexual orientation and marriage, APA strongly supports policy and legal decisions that support the health and well-being of same-sex couples, their children, and their communities.

What's happening in Utah?

The Salt Lake Tribune reports that support for gay rights has climbed over 11 %, and 2/3 favor employment protections, hospital protections, and inheritance rights. But they still oppose civil unions and marriage.

Anti-equality amendments are bad for our health

A new study from the American Psychological Association shows that there is a negative effect on the GLBT community from anti-marriage amendments.

Amendments that restrict marriage rights for same-sex couples spark psychological distress among lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender adults and their families, find three studies in January's Journal of Counseling Psychology (Vol. 56, No. 1). Researchers say an increase in exposure to negative conversations and media messages about same-sex marriage creates a harmful environment for the LGBT population that may affect their health and well-being.

....The negative campaigning that comes with a ban is directly responsible for the increased stress, says Rostosky. Past research has shown that minority stress is linked to health risks such as risky sexual behavior and substance abuse.

Two other studies examined personal reports from LGBT adults and their families living in Memphis, Tenn., immediately after a successful 2006 ballot campaign banned same-sex marriage. Most respondents reported feeling alienated from their communities, afraid that they would lose custody of their children and that they might become victims of violence. ....

"The stories of same-sex couples who have married in California make it clear that they are feeling very betrayed, angry, confused and anxious," Rostosky says.

Maps: Laws against inter-racial marriage, laws against same sex marriage

The Map Scroll is a wonderful blog all about different maps. Here are two US maps from that blog. The first shows the repeal of laws against anti-miscegenation laws.


The second shows a map of the projected passage of marriage equality laws.

Notice that the South lags behind both movements. The Northeast leads the way. The West is a little different.

The MapScroll blogger writes

it took nearly 200 years between the first state ban on interracial marriage to be lifted (Pennsylvania, in 1780) and the Supreme Court decision that ended such bans once and for all. And the progress was very fitful.....

Are there lessons to be drawn here about the future of same-sex marriage? One would seem to be that progressive change is not inexorable; or if it is, it can still be delayed by quite a lot, as the 1887 to 1948 lacuna in repealing marriage bans shows. And, though the generational divide on gay marriage is really stark, according to polls like this one, which found that 41% of people under 45 support same-sex marriage, as opposed to 18% of people over 65, even young people are only split on the issue, so it would seem wrong to view the inexorable spread of marriage equality as a fait accompli.

Nonetheless, I think there are good reasons to think that an outcome in which same-sex marriage becomes broadly accepted within a generation is likely. ....The taboo on gay relationships is on the way out the door, and I can't help but think that it's only a matter of time before the law reflects this reality.

Protect children (and mean it): Video Sunday

You will know they are "Christians" by their hate

Recently there has been a spate of commentary from the loony wing of the Christian right, calling for the criminalization of homosexuality in this country.

Item Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council said that gays should be imprisoned.

"I think that the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas which overturned the sodomy laws in this country was wrongly decided," said Sprigg. "I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior."

"So we should outlaw gay behavior?" asked Matthews again.

Yes,” said Sprigg.

Item Bryan Fischer of the American Family Associationwrote

If you believe all Scripture is inspired, then you are compelled to accept that legal sanctions may appropriately be applied to those who engage in homosexual behavior.

Item Gary Glenn of the American Family Association of Michigan says:

"We believe that states should be free to regulate and prohibit behavior that’s a violation of community standards and a proven threat to public health and safety — including, as most of the United States did throughout its history, homosexual behavior.”

Item This goes along with the "Kill the gays" bill in Uganda, which is of course a direct result of American Evangelists' influence. They may be embarrassed that their contribution got out, but until then they had no problem with a death-to-homos bills.

But not all of them are embarrased. Cliff Kincaid, of the group Accuracy in Media writes to justify the death penalty

The Ugandan bill does provide for harsh measures against homosexual conduct, including the death penalty for such practices as pedophilia, facilitating homosexual activity, and deliberately spreading AIDS. As such, however, Ugandan Christian ministers see the legislation as a necessary and continuing part of Uganda’s successful anti-AIDS effort.

At the blog PamsHouseBlend, commenter Alvin McEwen is wondering whether this represents a new coordinated angle by the religious right.

Consistent with this, a winger group has filed a suit against the hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, claiming that its itent is to

"criminalize the Bible and use the threat of federal prosecutions and long jail sentences to silence Christians from expressing their Biblically-based religious belief that homosexual conduct is a sin."

Of course, it does no such thing--unless their Biblically based views call for violence.

Meanwhile, I'm getting tired of them claiming the "Christian" card, okay? I'd like to see robust pushback from the mainline religions who support GLBT equality, on the misuse of the term "Christian". (One of themore surreal set of questions in the Prop8 testimony was the Forces of H8 listing all the churches that DO support marriage equality. Of course in total membership they are much smaller than the big kahunas of the Mormons and the Catholics, but to find that even the other side had to admit that religion did not speak with one voice gave me a little hope for reason. Their attorneys had a bad case, but I don't think they are stupid. But I digress.)

What could be gained by this fulminating, this hate-mongering? The right wing is nothing if not organized. It isn't by chance that multiple groups hit on the same argument.

One possibility is that they are concerned that they are losing momentum on the equality issue. Most fair minded people are "live and let live". They may not want to give us marriage equality, but most people don't obsess about us. So those opposed to equality know that they get the most response when they demonize us, thus they are fighting hard to fan the flames of hatred. This is one way to plant the seeds in people's minds that we are so dangerous, how could we possibly have any rights! We should consider ourselves lucky we aren't in prison where we belong! it's the "Ick factor" writ large.

I suspect in a time of economic stress and frustration, most people want to feel above someone else. "At least I'm better than X." In many parts of the US, I'm sure that poor whites felt superior to poor blacks. But that kind of overt racism is no longer acceptable, whereas antigay bias is. There is a bullying mob-tendency to attack the vulnerable, when one is weak oneself.

That's what they are doing here. And make no mistake, this language of hatred and anger is not inert. Bias crimes have already gone up. We need to be vigilant. And we need to push back against hatred. None of us should be threatened with jail, orworse, fore the rare gift of love.

Marrying a stranger is "family values"? (videos)

Of course, it's fine to marry a total stranger for no reason at all. As long as you are of opposite sexes.

From Buffalo, NY:

Entering the City Clerk’s office, Kitty and long-time partner Cheryl attempted to apply for a marriage license. Armed with the appropriate documents City employees informed them due to New York State law, they would be unable to grant them a license. As the clerk’s office employees gathered to watch, a tearful Lambert explained the benefits only available to straight couples with a marriage license.

With news cameras rolling, Kitty then turned to the crowd and asked for any male who would be willing to get married to her. A gay man named Ed stepped forward and volunteered. They briefly exchanged information and presented the appropriate documents along with $40. City staff verified the information, and proceeded to give them a marriage license.

Kitty’s point in approaching the City Clerk for a marriage license is that there is no religious basis for marriage, and it serves only as a legally binding contract in our society. Instead of being offered the ability to receive a license with her long-term partner, she was able to secure a license with a virtual stranger, strictly based on their gender.

Only straight white Christian men can be objective

So, the press have finally gotten hold of the "open secret" that US District Court Judge Vaughn Walker is gay. Judge Walker is presiding over the Prop8 trial.

The response has been predictable. The forces of H8 claim that they can't get a fair hearing from Judge Walker, because he is gay.

Funny, you didn't hear anyone obsessing about the sexuality of the SCoCal justices when they found for, and then against, marriage equality.

Why is it that it is automatically assumed that a straight white guy isn't a homophobe, or a bigot, or an anti-Semite, but it IS assumed that a woman, a African American, or a gay, has to be biased? Apparently, only straight, white, Christian men can be objective. And moreover, apparently they always ARE objective. While chicks, blacks, and fags are completely untrustworthy, at least where their own minority status is concerned.

Think it through. To follow the Other Side's argument to its logical conclusion, women can't hear cases about women, blacks can't hear cases about blacks, and Jews can't hear cases about religion. But straight white Christian men get a bye on any suspicion of bias, even though they too have a gender, a race, a religion, and an orientation.

Judge Walker has had a distinguished career. He is a Republican appointee, who was opposed by many liberal and gay groups for his legal arguments against "The Gay Games" and other issues. There is no evidence of any judicial misbehavior. He was assigned randomly to this case. And the Other Side's lawyers did not complain about the judge. Regardless of who was hearing this trial, they put on a very bad case.

but you see, if they can reduce any of us, or all of us , to our sexuality and dismiss us. As Andrew Sullivan says,

And reduction of gay people entirely to their orientation - rendering them outside civil institutions as just citizens, rather than as members of a minority group - is, of course, precisely the Christianist argument. As readers know, I don't believe in using someone's identioty against them in this way. And one might add that Walker was not truly "outed." He was not leading a secret life. He was openly gay but didn't make a fuss of it and wanted not to make a fuss of it in his office.

Man, these culture wars grind up people's lives and souls.

UpdateHere are a couple of good articles on the subject of Judge Walker's orientation. First, from the SF Chronicle:

Vaughn Walker almost lost his chance to reach the federal bench because of claims that he was anti-gay and hostile to civil rights. Two dozen House Democrats, led by Rep. Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, opposed his nomination because of his alleged "insensitivity" to gays and the poor. His first appointment, from President Ronald Reagan in 1987, stalled out in the Senate Judiciary Committee.....He was harshly criticized for putting a lien on the home of a gay-games leader who was dying of AIDS. Walker insisted that he was not anti-gay and was only doing his best to serve his client.....We now know what Walker never bothered to reveal when he was being castigated as anti-gay: He is gay, which changes neither his legal history nor his fitness for this assignment.

A judge's sexual orientation does not inherently shade his ability to read and interpret the U.S. Constitution with clear-eyed wisdom. Assuming this case advances on appeal, no matter how Walker rules, there almost certainly will be jurists who will need to set aside their religion's teachings - and, quite likely, the impact of their ruling on close friends or even a family member - as they do their utmost to uphold the meaning of the Constitution.

Walker did not think his private life was relevant to his ability to preside with fairness in the Prop. 8 trial. There is nothing in his long and laudable career to suggest otherwise.

And, from the Advocate, UC Irvine Dean of Law Erwin Chemerinsky writes

Judges constantly decide cases that might personally affect them or their family members. Female judges of reproductive age are allowed to decide cases involving the availability of abortion. Catholic judges can hear challenges to abortion laws even if their church threatens to deny them communion if they support abortion rights. Judges who are also parents can hear challenges to affirmative action programs even if they have children who might benefit or be hurt by the eventual decision..... there is no way to know what, if anything, Walker thinks on the issue before him as to whether Prop. 8 violates the U.S. Constitution.

And even if his views were known, that doesn’t require his disqualification. Everyone knows how Justice Antonin Scalia or Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will vote when the Supreme Court is next asked to overrule Roe v. Wade. Yet no one would ever suggest that this requires their recusal. Judges inevitably have views on the issues that will come before them.

Thinking of the Children

From the NY Times:

While opponents of same-sex marriage worry that schools will teach that gay and straight relationships are equal, many supporters focus on a different, but still child-centered, issue: What about the children now being raised in families headed by gay men and lesbians? How does the lack of marriage benefits for their parents affect them?

...

Many gay rights activists think that hearing articulate children of same-sex parents ask why their families should have fewer rights than their neighbors goes a long way toward turning the family values argument on its head. ....Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, a New York-based organization that advocates for legalized same-sex marriage, said: “There is no good reason to punish children raised by gay parents by denying parents marriage and its protections. It harms kids rather than helping them.”

Of course, then there's

“The real question is whether same-sex relationships benefit children to the same extent that living with a married mother and father does, and we believe they do not,” said Peter S. Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies at the Family Research Council, the conservative Christian organization. “Children do best when raised by their own biological mother and father who are committed to one another in a lifelong marriage.”

So you think our kids will suddenly revert to the Cleavers if we can't marry? That we won't have kids? Or that we'll all become straight and marry opposite sex partners? Honestly, the (il)logic of these people!

Update: Amongst the many powerful amicus briefs for the Prop8 trial is this one from the American Anthropological Assn, American Psychoanalytic Assn, National Assn. of Social Workers, American Academy of Pediatrics California Chapter

The positive benefits children accrue from being raised by civilly married parents are independent of those parents’ sexual orientation. It is the consensus view of the field of developmental psychology of children, the traits of an effective parent do not depend on the gender of that parent. This is because the factors that must affect child development … have nothing to do with parental gender or sexual orientation.”

They also added:

“Depriving same-sex couples of the ability to marry has adverse effects on their children.”

“The stigma created by the state’s differential treatment of gay men and women has severe psychological and social impacts.”
“Singling our gay men and women as ineligible for the institution of marriage invites the public to discriminate against them.”

Moving the Middle on Marriage

The group Third Way has done a study looking at the response of the "middle" to the issue of marriage equality. Their study is now released. They define the "middle" as people who don't support marriage per se, but do support some recognition of GLBT couples.

Our biggest insight is that the “equality” argument is not connecting with the middle on marriage. Instead, we must show the middle that gay and lesbian couples are seeking to join in the true spirit of how the middle sees marriage. The middle thinks of marriage as an ideal as opposed to a legal construct, and they are not yet persuaded that gay couples fit into this ideal. For the middle, the ideal of marriage is about lifetime commitment, sacrifice, responsibility, and obligation—not rights and benefits. To reach the middle, we need to show respect for the tradition of marriage and demonstrate that gay couples want to undertake the responsibilities that come with it, including making a lifetime commitment to another person.

That's huge, don't you think? (my emphasis) They don't buy the "separate is not equal" argument. They don't buy cold, clinical arguments (like those that the no-on-8 campaign used in its infamously gay-free ads in California).

The report says,

They are not yet convinced that gay couples see marriage the way they do: as a weighty responsibility of making a lifetime commitment to another person.

(And I'll tell you, people lauding "open relationships" as some sort of future-of-marriage aren't helping!)

Drilling down deeper, they identify two areas of concern.

The Middle’s First Concern: Redefinition of Marriage...
When asked whether gay and lesbian couples were trying to join or change the institution of marriage, 55% of the middle said change, and only 34% said join. ....They said allowing gay couples to marry would undermine the sanctity of marriage before God (34%), change the way children perceive marriage (20%), and “cheapen” traditional marriage (13%)

I think this is why it is really important for churches to be part of the equality movement so that the religious commitment can be seen. And despite the Prop8 proponents attempts to paint marriage as procreative in purpose, we know it's not. And how does my marriage have any effect on anyone else's? In fact many people who know us have said that our marriage is one of the strongest they know.

The Middle’s Second Concern: What Marriage means for Kids... When we asked them about some of these broader concerns, 40% of the middle thought kids would be more likely to experiment with homosexuality if marriage was upheld, and 58% said they were concerned about that issue. And, as noted above, many of the people who worried that allowing gay couples to marry would change that institution said it would do so by changing the way children perceive marriage

What I found interesting in this part of the report is that they express much less concern about our kids--in fact, they seem to agree that our kids are helped by marriage--and much more concern about their own. I still don't understand how anyone can think that simply by us marrying each other, their kids somehow become more at risk. It's not as though we are suddenly going to swoop down on the community or the schools. We're already there.

The report goes on to suggest three strategies for our side.

1. Show that gay couples will honor and respect the tradition of marriage..... We can do that by talking about the value of marriage as the middle sees it, articulating how important the institution of marriage is to society, and focusing on the sacrifices and responsibilities it entails, instead of the rights and benefits.

I think this is true, and I've really started to try to do that.

2. Demonstrate that gay couples see marriage as a lifetime commitment...... We can capture the true spirit of marriage by highlighting gay couples who are talking about why they want to get married, demonstrating that they take the institution very seriously, and showing that they want to make the major life decision to honor and cherish it.

That means lifelong commitment, monogamy, fidelity, and a certain conservatism about family and sex. It's why I'm SO PISSED at self-satisfied swingers trying to justify "open relationships". It may be a relationship but it's NOT a marriage.

3. Encourage gay people and allies to talk to others about why they support marriage....talking to a gay person helps to convince the middle that gay couples want to get married for the same reasons straight couples do—and that those couples will do their best to honor the lifetime commitment, sacrifices, and responsibilities that marriage entails.

This is SO IMPORTANT. It's why we have been very committed to using the term "wife" for each other, and coming out again and again. It's hard work, frankly, to always be coming out to strangers but as my wife says, we have to be the witnesses for what we are trying to achieve.

Marriage is a huge huge thing. It's not a casual jump over a broom. It's not a form notarized at Kinko's. It's monstrous and immense and incredibly important. We don't want to redefine it. We only want to participate in it, and by our participation, strengthen the fabric of our common society with our commitment to each other.

That's what we have to get across.

Go read the full report at the Third Way website--it's excellent!

Why it matters: spouse denied benefits

From St Louis:

The recent death of a Missouri Highway Patrol trooper is putting the rights of same sex couples in Missouri under a microscope. The long-time partner of Corporal Dennis Engelhard believes he should receive death benefits.

43 year old Kelly Glossip says he and Engelhard were together for nearly 15 years. Yet, he says he's being ignored when it comes to the agencies who normally reach out to the families of fallen law enforcement officers.

"He was my true love and he always referred to me as his one and only true love and the man of his dreams," Glossip said. "We were hopelessly in love with each other."

Engelhard was killed on Christmas day while waiting with the driver of a disabled car for a tow truck. He got out of his vehicle and was hit by a passing SUV. It happened on Interstate 44 in Eureka.....

Glossip believes that has at least something to do with Missouri's law forbidding same sex marriages. That's a law he thinks needs to be wiped out.

"I should have the same rights as any other spouse, as heterosexuals would have. And I just don't understand why people are so bigoted."
....
And for their part, the Missouri Highway Patrol tells us some of Engelhard's benefits will be paid out according to beneficiaries he listed. But a spokesperson says Glossip is not eligible for any benefits through Engelhard's retirement pension because the two aren't legally married in Missouri.

Yup, because the bigots think that Mr Glossip should lose everything, that the love and family he built up for years counts for nothing. Because that's their idea of family values.

That's why it matters.

Update: The Episcopal Cathedral of St Louis is raising funds for Mr Glossip.

You can't turn the lights off now (Video sunday)

Don't ask....66,000 already serving.

I don't comment on this blog about most issues (this is unabashedly a one-issue blog) but I have to say something here. In the wake of the hysteria over Obama's declaration that DADT will be repealed, the Republicans are ranting on about gays in the showers, rampant gay sex in the barracks, etc etc.

Forget for a moment that they are just playing on the stereotype of gay men as sexually uncontrolled predators.

The whole point of DADT is not to keep GLBT troops out of the service. It is to keep them in the closet. THEY ARE ALREADY IN THE MILITARY.

There are gays and lesbians serving honorably at all levels of the military all ready. There are already gay men in the showers, guys. In fact, if you talk to young servicemen, they know some of their colleagues are gay and don't care. And I can say this from personal experience; my stepdaughter dated several young guys in the Marines or Navy, and brought them home for dinner. (Nothing does more satisfaction to a pair of cooks then feeding an appreciative boy in uniform!) They were well aware of gays in their units, and it was simply a non-issue. As long as they both do their jobs, and work as a team, it doesn't matter who they sleep with off base.

Quoted by Andrew Sullivan:

An estimated 66,000 lesbians,gay men, and bisexuals are serving in the US military, accounting for approximately 2.2% of military personnel....

Approximately 13,000 LGB people are serving on active duty (comprising 0.9% of all active duty personnel) while nearly 53,000 are serving in the guard and reserve forces (3.4%).

While women comprise only about 14% of active duty personnel, they comprise more than 43% of LGB men and women serving on active duty.

Lifting DADT restrictions could attract an estimated 36,700 men and women to active duty service and 12,000 more individuals to the guard and reserve.

Since its inception in 1994, the “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell” policy has cost the military between $290 million and more than a half a billion dollars.

The military spends an estimated $22,000 to $43,000 per person to replace those discharged under DADT.

UpdateIn the testimony on Tuesday, Joint Chief of Staff Adm Mullen said that GLBT people should serve openly.

The military's top uniformed officer on Tuesday made an impassioned plea for allowing gays to serve openly in uniform, telling a Senate panel it was a matter of integrity and that it is wrong to force people to "lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens."

The comments by Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, set the stage for the Defense Department's yearlong study into how the ban can be repealed without causing a major upheaval in the military.....

"No matter how I look at the issue," Mullen said, "I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens." Noting that he was speaking for himself and not for the other service chiefs, Mullen added: "For me, it comes down to integrity — theirs as individuals and ours as an institution."....

Mullen said it was his sense that rank-and-file troops would support the change.
"I have served with homosexuals since 1968," he said in response to questions from Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. "There are a number of things cumulatively that get me to this position."

Prop8 on trial: whose religious liberty?

Judge Walker of the Prop8 trial has allowed "friend of the court" (amicus) briefs to be filed by parties who want to weigh in on either side of the case.

A brief from an interfaith alliance of church groups has been filed that argues the religious freedom aspect:

Allowing same-sex couples the right to marry threatens religious liberty of Catholics no more than does allowing civilly divorced citizens to marry in contravention of Catholic doctrine.

Allowing same-sex couples to marry no more threatens the religious liberty of those who oppose such unions in their churches and synagogues than permitting interfaith marriage threatens religious liberty of synagogues and rabbis who interpret their scripture and tradition to prohibit such unions. No one can force clergy of any denomination to solemnize any wedding that conflicts with his or her faith tradition, and no church synagogue, or other place of worship loses its tax exempt status for refusing religious rites of marriage to citizens possessing a civil right to marry.

The real threat to religious liberty comes from enforcing as law religious doctrines of society’s most powerful sects, to outlaw marriages that others both recognize and sanctify.Clergy and congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association, the Northern and Southern California Conferences of the United Church of Christ, the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches, the Union for Reform Judaism, the Jewish Reconstructionist Federation, and others, proudly solemnized the legal marriages of same-sex couples – until Proposition 8 adopted other sects’ doctrine to outlaw those marriages.

and

Proposition 8 finds no rational basis in concern for anyone’s religious liberty. The Marriage Cases opinion itself had carefully specified that

affording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.

Read more at Prop8TrialTracker.

Let's remember that despite the fact that no religious group can be required to perform a marriage of which they do not approve (think Catholics and divorce) this continues to be a canard that the equality opponents raise. CA State Senator Mark Leno has introduced The Civil Marriage Religious Freedom Act, SB 906.

Leno’s legislation is sponsored by the California Council of Churches, IMPACT a nd Equality California, which was the main group opposing Prop. 8.....

"We strong support religious freedom and the rights of clergy to only solemnize weddings they want to solemnize," [Geoff]Kors, [director of EQCA] says. The bill would not apply to government employees who perform weddings, who would have to treat gay and straight couples the same. It would also protect the rights of churches to reserve church facilities for their own members [as long as they don't rent them to the general public].

Equality CA urges Californians to write your state legislators in support. I agree!

This piece of legislation codifies in state law that no member of clergy is required to solemnize a civil marriage that is contrary to the tenets of his or her faith or that would infringe on his or her right to freedom of religion as guaranteed by the California Constitution and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The bill also clarifies that civil marriage is a civil contract that requires a state-issued marriage license.

Both the California and U.S. Constitution currently protect religious freedom. However, until such protections are codified under law, there is ambiguity. It is necessary to strengthen these religious protections for clergy through state law to eliminate any uncertainty. The state cannot compel clergy to solemnize any civil marriage.

The anti-equality guys have claimed this is one of their big concerns. Even though they already have the protections, let's call them on it. Take this excuse away. Call or write your state senator and urge them to sponsor this bill. Keep a bright line between civil and religious unions.

Pope attacks UK equality laws

Religious leaders in the UK vigorously oppose a non-discrimination law that protects GLBT people. (Because you just KNOW Jesus would discriminate in hiring homos.) The Pope weighs in. The British are pissed off.Choice comments highlighted:

In a letter to the Catholic bishops of England and Wales, many of whom are currently in Rome on an "ad limina" visit, Pope Benedict publicly criticised Britain's equality legislation for the first time.

"Your country is well known for its firm commitment to equality of opportunity for all members of society," he wrote. "Yet as you have rightly pointed out, the effect of some of the legislation designed to achieve this goal has been to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs.

"In some respects it actually violates the natural law upon which the equality of all human beings is grounded and by which it is guaranteed." ....

In a social milieu that encourages the expression of a variety of opinions on every question that arises, it is important to recognize dissent for what it is, and not to mistake it for a mature contribution to a balanced and wide-ranging debate. It is the truth revealed through Scripture and Tradition and articulated by the Church’s Magisterium that sets us free.

...The Pope's comments were a clear assault on the Equality Bill, which consolidates the past 40 years of equality legislation and aims to expand rules stopping employers from discriminating against gay employees because of their sexuality. Churches and religious organisations are currently exempt from the legislation, an exemption the Pope believes his bishops must make sure they maintain.

Because Jesus would TOTALLY discriminate.

Open relationships? HELL NO

One of the complaints about GLBT relationships by our enemies is that we don't understand monogamy. So stories like this in the NY Times don't help:

A study to be released next month is offering a rare glimpse inside gay relationships and reveals that monogamy is not a central feature for many. Some gay men and lesbians argue that, as a result, they have stronger, longer-lasting and more honest relationships. And while that may sound counterintuitive, some experts say boundary-challenging gay relationships represent an evolution in marriage — one that might point the way for the survival of the institution.

New research at San Francisco State University reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians in the Bay Area. The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years — about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners.

Here are my problems with it:

1. They studied men exclusively.
2. If those were urban men, in the über-gayborhoods of San Francisco, they are not representative of people elsewhere.
3. If I think of my gay friends, I have a hard time coming up with any who fit this model--most of them being together years longer than my wife and I have.

Of course the NY Times article also points out other examples:

Open relationships are not exclusively a gay domain, of course. Deb and Marius are heterosexual, live in the East Bay and have an open marriage. She belongs to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and maintained her virginity until her wedding day at 34. But a few years later, when the relationship sputtered, both she and her husband, who does not belong to the church, began liaisons with others.

“Our relationship got better,” she said. “I slept better at night. My blood pressure went down.”

But what do you want to bet that our enemies will ignore that example.

Look, people can do what they want in the privacy of their own relationships. That's fine. but don't DARE extrapolate this study to all of us, any more than Jeri Ryan's relationship represents all straight marriages. UpdateSome people may try to justify this for their particular choices, but I believe in fact that most people (including gay men) are monogamous. Maybe "open" works for some fraction of couples, but to assume this means everyone is non-monogamous would be wrong. In an article in the Advocate, as self-styled "sexologist" lauds open relationships including his own, but it is clear from the comments and even his own description that these do not account for the "majority" of relationships. And while these may be relationships, they aren't marriage.

I'll be crystal clear and honest. I believe marriage is about fidelity and monogamy. I don't believe in "open" relationships. I think they debase something that I have worked very hard to earn and continue to fight for. And I'm angry as hell if this study, released at this precise time, and directed at a group which is in no way representative of all GLBT people, is used to throw mud on the most precious experience of my life: marrying my beloved wife.

Update Turns out my concerns were valid. The Box Turtle Bulletin takes on the misleading Times reporting, with information about the study.

To be eligible participants had to have been at least 18 years old, have been in a their current relationship for at least 3 months, have knowledge of their own and their partner’s HIV status, be fluent in English, and be residents of the San Francisco Bay Area.

As the research was not applied separately by relationship structure or length, this study says nothing about gay marriage or even domestic partnerships. And any use of the results which makes (or even implies) a comparison to straight relationships is bogus and irresponsible.

NO KIDDING. Someone in a relationship for 3 months gets equated to "marriage"? TOTALLY BOGUS.

Field research staff reached potential participants either by handing out study postcards or placing flyers and postcards in gay-identified social venues such as bars, clubs, and cafes, as well as in community health and HIV and AIDS service organizations and by placing advertisements in gay-oriented publications, Web sites, and listserves.

Recruitment materials contained text describing the study as “one which examines important relationship dynamics associated with HIV.” Recruitment strategies were designed to produce a diverse sample in terms of race or ethnicity as well as serostatus.

Recruitment in bars and clubs and on listserves skews the sample towards those who are actively seeking sexual connections. While some gay people go to bars solely for social interaction, monogamous couples that do not regularly go to bars or look at Craigslist were far less likely to hear of this study.

Additionally, this study was more likely to attract those who were interested in how relationship dynamics impact HIV transmission. I think it is a reasonable assumption that, on average, couples committed to monogamy might not have the same interest level as those who have open relationships.

Again, this study was focused on a subset of MEN who participate in the bar scene. That is, places where people are looking for relationships--and not one noted for a high fraction of married folks.

And then there's this:

For two of the studies, 41% of the participants were HIV positive (Study 3 had 32%). While this may be advantageous to a study which seeks to look at sexual agreements, it is not representative of the population of San Francisco, and has almost no reflection of the gay male population at large. Only about 12% of gay men in the United States are infected with HIV.

Put another way: Populations with a higher fraction of HIV-positive members are more likely to have sex with multiple partners. Given that HIV is sexually transmitted, this is not a surprise.

The BTB concludes:

But in my opinion, Scott James’ statement that “New research at San Francisco State University reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians in the Bay Area” may be among the most irresponsible reporting I’ve ever seen. The study says nothing whatsoever about lesbians and it tells us little about “just how common open relationships are” among anyone. It’s pure sensationalism and shoddy journalism.

But the real culprits are those who saw this study and decided that it says something about, for example, gay couples marrying in Iowa or New Hampshire. This was either lazy response or a deliberate attempt to fraudulently demonize gay couples for political gain.

In short, those reporting on this study got it wrong.

Update 7/20/10
The study and another have reared up again and Box Turtle Bulletin again nails the fatal flaw: these aren't a well-designed, open studies at all.

.... based on the pattern of the stories and my communication with the authors, I have a new conclusion: When the news repeatedly and consistently reports conclusions that cannot possibly be determined from your data, it’s not because you’re trying to correct them. Hoff has, in all occasions I’ve seen, made broad generalizations about the nature of gay relationships – not just those in her study – that lead me to wonder if her research is little more than an attempt to provide talking points to support her presumptions......

Hoff, Lowen and Spears want to believe that gay men are non-monogamous. It fits their preconceptions. But they didn’t study that.

Hoff did not conduct a study of gay men to see who is monogamous; she studied how HIV-positive men negotiate communication and agreements. And Lowen and Spears did not conduct a study of gay men to see who is monogamous; they sampled non-monogamous couples to see if they liked it.

Biased, in otherwords, based on an artificially and inappropriately limited sample.

Following up on Prop8 trial and other equality issues

Margaret Talbot, of the New Yorker, has kept a blog about the Prop8 trial. Well worth reading.

You sometimes hear it said that a courtroom is not the best venue for playing out battles in the culture wars—better that they be fought in the legislature, or at the ballot box, or even in the blogosphere. But following the Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial over the past three weeks has been a reminder that a courtroom can also be a great and theatrical classroom, where the values of thoroughness, precision in speech, and the obligation to reply have a way of laying bare the fundamentals of certain rhetorical positions.

And, it isnt a slam dunk to get to the Supreme Court, either. From FindLaw:

This case is, as noted above, destined for the Ninth Circuit. But whether it goes any farther depends on what the Ninth Circuit does. If the Ninth Circuit (either through a three-judge panel or the whole court sitting en banc) rules in favor of the plaintiffs and invalidates Proposition 8, then the Supreme Court may very well feel it must take the case, since same-sex marriage would be a federal right west of Rockies but not in most other parts of the country. But if the Ninth Circuit rejects the plaintiffs' claims, don't expect the Supreme Court to take the up the issue of same-sex marriage anytime soon. Still, when the Justices do address some future anti-same-sex-marriage measure enacted into law by a state -- and down the road, they may have to do so -- they'll have the benefit of the trial record in the Proposition 8 case, as well the opinions and/or evidence from other cases that will have been decided in the interim.

Meanwhile, a right-wing religious nut from the American Family Association calls to imprsion all gays. Thus making our point for us. Commentary from Inch at a Time (I won't link to hate sites). Let's be clear what we're up against.

Update Last night on Hardball, a different nut, Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council said that gays should be imprisoned.

"I think that the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas which overturned the sodomy laws in this country was wrongly decided," said Sprigg. "I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior."

"So we should outlaw gay behavior?" asked Matthews again.

Yes,” said Sprigg.

And then he laughed.

As Rob Tisinai writes,

You know, it’s the laughter that gets me. I live in L.A., where I can pretend this sort of thinking is limited to the extreme, bigoted fringes of society. But this is on MSNBC, and Sprigg is a spokesperson for a group that brings in over twelve million dollars a year. We see what their position is — and how can you compromise between full civil equality and being thrown in prison? What would that compromise even look like?

No matter what we do, no matter what we offer, it won’t be enough for these folk. If we agree to everything-but-the-word, they’ll go to work on the “everything.” They’ll chisel away at civil unions and domestic partnerships until they strip us of even the right to claim the dead body of your partner from the morgue. They’ll keep chiseling — chiseling until we’re in prison.

Meanwhile, Daily Kos polled self-identified republicans and finds they are overwhelmingly opposed to GLBT rights. A substantial number also oppose birth control and fully half think Sarah Palin is more qualified to be president than Barack Obama. Whom they consider a racist. And these people could be standing next to you in the supermarket.

Why it matters: Partner denied family leave

Why does it matter? Because of stories like this one from the Dallas Voice:

Bryan Dickenson and Bill Sugg have been together for 30 years. For the last 12 of those years, Dickenson has worked as a communications technician for Dallas-based AT&T.

After Sugg suffered a debilitating stroke in September, Dickinson requested time off under the federal Family Medical Leave Act to care for his partner.

But AT&T is refusing to grant Dickenson the 12 weeks of leave that would be afforded to a heterosexual spouse under the act.
....Dickenson’s attorney, Rob Wiley of Dallas, said he initially thought AT&T’s refusal to grant his client leave under FMLA was just a mistake on the part of the company. Wiley said he expected AT&T to quickly rectify the situation after he sent the company a friendly letter.

After all, AT&T maintains the highest score of 100 percent on the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index, which ranks companies according to their treatment of LGBT employees. And just this week, HRC listed AT&T as one of its “Best Places to Work.”

But AT&T has stood its ground, confirming in a statement to Dallas Voice this week that the company isn’t granting Dickenson leave under FMLA because neither federal nor state law recognizes Sugg as his domestic partner.
....
“There are circumstances under which our administration of our benefits plans must conform with state law, and this is one of those circumstances,” Sharp said in a written statement. “In this case, neither federal nor state law recognizes Mr. Dickenson’s domestic partner with legal status as a qualifying family member for a federal benefit program. There is no basis for this lawsuit or the allegations contained in it and we will seek its dismissal.”

Sharp didn’t respond to a request for further comment.

Wiley said Sharp’s statement doesn’t make sense. No law prohibits the company from granting Dickenson an unpaid leave of absence, which is what he’s requesting. Wiley also noted that no lawsuit has been filed, because there isn’t grounds for one.

Our families and our loves are just as important as anyone else's. Except when they aren't.

Update ATT finds a way to fix it. From Towleroad:

"AT&T regrets that there has been confusion over the administration of family leave with respect to registered domestic partners. AT&T has taken steps to ensure that FMLA is extended to employees with registered domestic partners for the purpose of caring for the partner, regardless of the state in which the employee resides. AT&T has a long history of inclusiveness and we embrace and celebrate diversity of race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation in our workforce."

We'll keep you posted. But this is a good sign: if a major corporation realizes that to screw our families, even in bigoted states, reflects poorly on them...well, that's a good sign. They need our talent and hard work. That means they need to treat us properly.

The ethical dilemma of Mr Pugno: did he break the law for Prop 22?

Before Prop8 in California, there was Proposition 22, the "Knight Initiative" that outlawed same sex marriage. This was struck down by the Supreme Court of California n 2008, as unconstitutional under the state Constitution, which led to legal same sex marriages during the California Interregnum. Proposition 8 sought to amend the state constitution to once again outlaw marriage equality, and as we know, it succeeded.

The "Knight Initiative" was written by Pete Knight, a State Senator from Lancaster, CA. Its dislike of GLBT people is all the more striking because Knight's middle son is gay and he came out during the campaign to oppose his father. Some dad, eh?

But I digress. Yesterday, an investigative reporter published evidence that one of CA State Sen. Knight's staff, Andrew Pugno, worked in the Senator's office using official letterhead to coordinate the strategy for Prop 22 with the Mormon church.

The Mormon church's involvement and financial support in California's gay marriage debate is well documented. But Pugno's newly unearthed memo, written on state government letterhead, is striking evidence of how closely the Mormon church has been involved in the gay marriage debate in California for more than a decade.

So what? Well, there's a problem. Seems California law is explicit that there has to be a bright line between the business of the people's representatives using the people's money, and campaigning. Basically, you can't spend your senate budget, use your senate letterhead, or your senate fax machine for a political campaign.

As for Pugno using Senate letterhead for a political issue – and asking Wardle to use the government fax machine and phone lines – the law is fairly strict. One regulation does allow for "incidental" campaign use, but Roman Porter, executive director of the state Fair Political Practices Commission, said about cases like this in general: "The use of public funds for campaign purposes is unlawful." (The statute of limitations on any violation from 1998 has likely passed.)

So the progressive Courage Campaign is filing a complaint for an investigation of Mr Pugno.

Why does this matter? Well, as the Courage Campaign explains it best:

Pugno is of course the general counsel to ProtectMarriage.com, and a candidate for the Republican nomination for the 5th District State Assembly seat. He is a key figure in the campaign strategy used for both Prop 22 and Prop 8, and for the legal defense of Prop 8 in both the California Supreme Court and in Judge Vaughn Walker’s federal courtroom. As longtime Trial Trackers know, Pugno also played a key role in trying get this website shut down by suing Courage Campaign over the logo we use at this site.

At some level, the PropH8 supporters think that the laws don't apply to them: campaign transparency, openness, funding sources--all dispensible if they choose. We've seen this for PropH8, as well as for Question 1 in Maine and for Referendum 71 in Washington State. They even now have a case before SCOTUS about whether or not on the issue of marriage equality in particular, campaign transparency laws should be put aside. All because of false claims of violence--apparently if they say it enough they think someone will believe that there are marauding bands of 'mos attacking them. (More in my previous post, SCOTUS and equality opponents: the courage of conviction?).

Now, we have further evidence that they think they are above the law. The law is for the little people and the homosexuals.

So it will be interesting to see what happens to Mr Pugno. My prediction? Not a thing. Being a gay, married Californian has left me very cynical about the other side.