The rights splits on marriage equality

From David Frum:

Gay marriage is ruled a federal right for the first time and the response from the GOP is… tepid. Not one nationally prominent elected official thought the issue was important enough to get worked up over. The only cries of outrage were from politically active religious groups.....

The list of conservatives supporting gay equality is growing – from the many Republican appointed judges who have ruled in favor of various gay rights cases, to GOP Solicitor General Ted Olson, Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and even the ultraconservative former Vice President Dick Cheney. Nowadays Margaret Hoover of Fox News sits on the board of GOProud alongside conservative Grover Norquist; and even Elisabeth Hasselbeck has come out in support of gay marriage rights....

What is happening to the GOP? First our elected officials tire of bashing gays and now our pundits? Perhaps Republicans are beginning to see the writing on the wall.....

The religious right may be having a conniption, but younger Republicans increasingly appear to believe that opposing gay equality is inconsistent with a belief in increased liberty and smaller government. Although the religious right will continue to be a strong presence in the GOP for years to come, changing demographics are not on the side of anti-gay forces and the GOP appears to be awakening to this reality.

Meanwhile, Glenn Beck comments that he doesn't care about whether gays marry. Ann Coulter plans to speak at a conservative gay convention. Ken Mehlman comes out. The old social warriors are foaming at the mouth.

Michael Keegan at the HuffPo writes,

[O]n the issue of gay rights, the Right Wing now finds itself up against both the Constitution and the will of a steadily increasing majority....

Opponents of marriage equality still boast outwardly of the merits their case will have before the Court. But it seems that they are beginning to see that this case is likely to be both a far-reaching victory of the principles of dignity and personal freedom, and a powerful sign that anti-gay arguments, though loud as ever, are increasingly being shouted from the legal and social fringe....

Americans of all political stripes believe that their gay friends and family members have the right to equal protection under the law, and there is now a solid legal and factual precedent to back it up, shaped in large part by a conservative lawyer, filed by a conservative judge, and echoed by the traditions of a nation devoted to fairness and respect.

Update from an un-named "Prominent Republican"

"I think there is a growing mass of people in Republican politics who are fundamentally sick and tired about being lectured to about morality and how to live your life by a bunch of people who have been married three or four times and are more likely to be seen outside a brothel on a Thursday night than being at home with their kids... There is a fundamental indecency to the vitriol and the hatred directed against decent people because of their sexuality. People have reached a critical mass with this."

Civil Unions don't work (video Sunday)

From Garden State Equality, regarding the civil union law in New Jersey.

Ken Mehlman: another Republican comes out (video)

It should be noted that Ken Mehlman, former chair of the Republican National Committee and former chair of Bush's re-election campaign, has come out as gay, and in support of marriage equality.

But Mehlman was intimately involved with the Bush campaign that cynically relied on anti-gay ballot measures to get out the vote. Although today he says,

I understand that folks are angry, I don't know that you can change the past. As I've said, one thing I regret a lot is the fact that I wasn't in the position I am today where I was comfortable with this part of my life, where I was able to be an advocate against that [strategy] and able to be someone who argued against it. I can't change that - it is something I wish I could and I can only try to be helpful in the future.

I think that comes down to, "I couldn't do anything about it". Although turns out, he was in the thick of it.

"I think the issue was injected when a liberal court in Massachusetts said they were going to redefine a 200 year old institution in this country by judicial fiat," said Mehlman, who also endorses a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage political catnip for the Christian Right.-- (2006)

It's great that he's on the correct side, now. But he did a lot of damage--a lot of it. And the damage he did is why the one class of people I favor outing, is closeted conservatives who actively promote anti-gay agendas.

I'm glad he's opening his wallet and his rolodex. But if he's really going to support the community and make up for what he participated in during the Bush years, he's going to have to step up, admit it, and use his insider knowledge to defeat the dirty tricks of Roveian politics.

Which is it, Mr Mehlman?

Jon Stewart:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Gay Old Party
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Keith Olbermann:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Attacking gay couples in Wisconsin: cause for a brain drain?

The Marriage Equality battle is not and never has been limited to the M-word. Those opposed to marriage equality are often opposed to any legal recognition of GLBT rights. We saw this in Washington state, where the forces of evil tried to overturn a domestic partnership law. And now, yet again, in Wisconsin which outlaws both marriage and civil unions, but has a paltry little registry to give people a few rights, like hospital visits. But even that is too much for the forces of Hate:

A social conservative group filed a lawsuit ... challenging Wisconsin's domestic partner registry, arguing it is a violation of the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.
...
"A reasonable person observing this registry would easily conclude that it is intended to mirror marriage,'' said Julaine Appling, president of Wisconsin Family Action, . ....

The registry's benefits do not come close to the rights that come with marriage, said Katie Belanger, executive director Fair Wisconsin, the state's largest gay rights group that lobbied lawmakers to approve the registry.

She said the registry extends 43 benefits compared with 200 for married couples under state law. "These are the most basic, critical things that couples need to have to take care of one another,'' Belanger said.....

And here I always thought Wisconsin was liberal.

A few years ago, Wisconsin passed a constitutional amendment banning both same sex marriage and civil unions. A suit was brought against this amendment, arguing that by law it could only do one thing at a time. However, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin upheld the amendment as legal. The debate, much like California's Prop8 case that was tried in STATE court, was not really about the SUBSTANCE of the amendment, but the PROCESS, and the result is that both marriages and civil unions remain illegal.

Previous efforts to preserve domestic partner benefits at the University of Wisconsin also failed . Like Michigan and Virginia, the Republicans in State Government relish denying any recognition to gay couples.

As I've commented before, academe is a pretty brutal marketplace. U Wisconsin-Madison, the flagship campus, has certainly lost faculty over this. There's a good article about GLBT faculty in Nature from 2008:

For many lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender academics around the world, issues such as job security and peer support are top concerns. But a growing number are moving long distances, or out of academia altogether, on the basis of benefits often beyond an employer's power to grant.

The shift has created new tensions between public universities and their funding sources and has prompted fears, especially in the United States, of a brain drain to more accommodating places. .... liberal university towns in the Midwest are bidding farewell to top talent after recent state amendments blocked even straight domestic partnerships. Job-seekers have weeded out prospective employers for the same reason. Scientists from European and other countries are incorporating gay-friendly immigration laws into their decisions about where to work abroad.

Even straight faculty and students are put off by the bias expressed by the absence of partner benefits. And we're not just talking about a faculty member writing a few books and reflected prestige. In the experimental sciences, a professor with a vigorous research program can bring millions of dollars into the university in overhead, quite apart from the money that goes to the lab or pays salaries. Those overhead dollars are something no Dean wants to lose.

The "creative economy" that drives modern growth is gay-friendly. People don't want to be part of an anti-gay environment. Marriage equality correlates with economic growth. It's a good time for other universities to cherry-pick Wisconsin faculty, and potential faculty and students would do well to consider what sort of values they want around them.

Judgement entered on DOMA cases: will DoJ appeal?

Remember those two cases from Massachusetts about DOMA? To summarize, a Federal District Judge found that it was illegal for the US government to discriminate against same sex married couples by denying them benefits given to married couples, and he overturned the section of DOMA that forbids federal recognition of married gay couples on grounds of equal protection and state sovereignty.

As pointed out by Chris Geidner and Lisa Keen, that judgment has now been formally entered. Which means the clock starts ticking: Obama's DoJ has 60 days to file an appeal.

I will rely on my legal friends to correct, but my understanding is that if the DoJ do NOT appeal, that section of DOMA no longer applies to Massachusetts couples. It does not affect anyone else. If they DO appeal, it could bring down section 3 of DOMA in the whole 1st circuit. And of course, if SCOTUS got to it, it could potentially have national implications.

The same ticking clock applies to the Prop8 case, of course; I do not think that judgment has been entered. But there's an election this year in CA, and if the judgment is NOT entered soon, then a new governor or attorney general could decide to appeal. So the two sides of the Prop8 debate better pay attention to the candidates and get involved in the messy business of CA state politics, because it matters.

Go Away till 2012: a cynical liberal leader.

Kerry Eldveld of the Advocate alooks at the Obama Administration's recent pushback against the left. (Emphasis mine)

....marriage equality — a subject the administration would clearly harpoon if it could.

I get the distinct feeling that the White House hopes it can simply duck the marriage question straight through 2012, and I’d also bet dollars to doughnuts it won’t be able to. What became clear to me while interviewing attendees of the August 6 meeting was that while the friendly audience may have cut the administration some slack on legislative items like the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and the Defense of Marriage Act, the one place advocates unapologetically stood their ground was on marriage equality.....

Make no mistake, this is an issue that the president’s chief advisers have misjudged from day one. They underestimated how angry people were that candidate Barack Obama wasn’t more vocal in his opposition to Proposition 8; they dismissed the devastation felt by millions of queers who poured their hearts into electing Obama only to watch Prop. 8 proponent Rick Warren give the invocation at the inauguration; they remained silent in 2009 as gay Mainers fought to preserve their right to love, marry, and build a life with their partner; and then David Axelrod reassured the nation two weeks ago that the president still opposes granting the freedom to marry to all Americans.....

Read the whole thing.

Then, in a New Republic Op/Ed on the CBS news site, Richard Just draws an unflattering comparison:

In the fall of 1912, as his campaign for president entered its final stage, Woodrow Wilson was speaking in Brooklyn when he was asked for his opinion on women’s suffrage. ... he responded by insisting that it was "not a question that is dealt with by the national government at all." The woman who had asked the question was apparently displeased by this blatant dodge. "I am speaking to you as an American, Mr. Wilson," she retorted......

An evasive stance on a controversial civil rights issue from a liberal president; an insistence that the issue is primarily local, rather than national, in character; a complete failure of sincerity, nerve, and will: If these things sound familiar in 2010, it is because Barack Obama is taking exactly the same approach on gay marriage.

Obama has said that he wants to restore American moral leadership in the world. But how can he claim the mantle of moral leadership when we are being outpaced by so many countries and so many foreign leaders on one of the central civil rights issues of our time?

....Obama's stance seems to be a way of conveying to the country that he knows a lot of people still aren’t completely comfortable admitting gays and lesbians as full participants in American life, and that this is OK because he isn’t either. It is about the most cynical gesture you can imagine from an allegedly liberal leader-and we deserve better. I am speaking to you as an American, Mr. Obama.

Be sure to read that one too.

Religious freedom in CA: SB 906 restates the obvious

The Rev. Susan Russell, an equality activist, points out this insanity from the conservative CNSnews:

Religious leaders warn that if an Aug. 6 ruling by a federal judge on same-sex marriage is upheld, it could wind up putting a gag on Christians speaking out about homosexuality – a gag that a top Southern Baptist leader says his denomination will not accept.

Go over to Susan's site and see her righteous takedown of this craziness.

The first amendment protects religious speech. And any clergy person may legally refuse to marry any couple, for any reason. These are simple facts.

Despite this, however, the Prop8 campaign and the liars of the anti-equality movement have inflamed fears that they will be forced to marry gays, or that they will have to stop preaching against gays. This has allowed them to frame the argument as an issue of religious freedom: as though denying OTHERS' religious freedom somehow benefits theirs. And many people during the campaigns have bought this talking point.

In a recent poll released by the Public Religion Research Institute, specifically about Prop 8, the pollsters found that support for marriage equality in the Golden State is around 51%. If, however, civil unions are an option, 42% support marriage, with another 31% for unions.

However, support for marriage increases with specific reassurances:

A significant number of Californians who initially say they support civil unions but not same- sex marriage are willing to support marriage equality if the law addresses either of two basic concerns about religious marriages. When presented with an assurance that the law would guarantee that “no church or congregation would be required to perform marriages for gay couples,” nearly one-third of Californians who initially only supported civil unions are willing to support marriage equality. With this religious liberty reassurance, support for same-sex marriage increases 12 points, from initial support of 42% to a solid majority at 54%. Similarly, when Californians are presented with an assurance that the law “only provided for civil marriages like you get at city hall,” more than half of Californians who initially supported only civil unions are willing to support marriage equality. This civil marriage reassurance results in a 19-point increase in support for same-sex marriage, from 42% to more than 6-in-10.

To make this freedom explicit, CA State Sen Mark Leno introduced Senate Bill 906, which has now passed the Assembly. THis bill

reaffirms the separation of church and state and clarifies under state law that no member of clergy will be required to perform a civil marriage that is contrary to his or her faith. The Assembly approved Senate Bill 906 with a 46-25 vote. The bill will return to the Senate for a routine concurrence vote before going to the governor’s desk.

“This bill simply affirms that California is a diverse state, and that we can all co-exist and make space for each others’ beliefs without compromising the tenets of any religious group or individual,” said Senator Leno. “With the recent federal court ruling, we know that marriage for same-sex couples in California is on the horizon. Under the Civil Marriage Religious Freedom Act, churches and clergy members who fear their religious views are threatened by marriage equality will have clear and solid protections under state law. In addition, churches that welcome same-sex couples will continue to fully recognize those families within their faith.”

Of course, the right wing opposes this bill, with lunatic arguments like this one from a Roman Catholic opponent of SSM:

"SB 906 seeks to cause confusion by creating a new 'civil' class of marriage, implying it is different from religious marriage.

Of course, there has always been a separate civil marriage, given that couples can be married by the county clerk with no religious expression at all.

" It also creates the illusion of new protections for 'religious' marriage by essentially saying that religions can't be forced to change their doctrine on marriage (which is already prohibited by the 1st Amendment).

Yup, it does simply restate the 1st Amendment. It does this because the opponents to SSM apparently don't understand what religious freedom really means.

"It is clear this bill will be used to fool the voters into thinking that same-sex 'marriage' will have no impact on churches and people of faith."

Umm, is that because it WON'T have any impact--except on those churches who WANT to marry same sex couples.

They are panicked out of their mind to lose this favored talking point and spinning their wheels violently. Because if protections are explicitly stated, support for equality goes up.

Church v. State : the Roman Catholics take on the courts in Mexico and the US

In Mexico, same sex marriages are now legal.

The court hewed to Mexico's strict separation of church and state and said the constitution did not indicate that marriage had to be defined as the union of a man and woman. To deny gay couples the right to adopt, the court said, would amount to discrimination.

"There is nothing that indicates that homosexual couples are less apt parents than heterosexual ones," Justice Arturo Zaldivar said in televised proceedings this week.

In sputtering fury, Cardinal Sandoval Iniguez of Guadalajara accused the Mexican Supreme Court judges and Mayor Ebrard of Mexico City of being bribed.

The LA Times further reports,

Sandoval made the allegations on Sunday during an event in Aguascalientes state. He also used a slur against gays while decrying the recent high court decisions that were called victories for the gay-rights community......

In the secular institutional corner, the Supreme Court censured Sandoval's statements unanimously, and Ebrard issued a stark warning to the highest-ranking prelate of Mexico's second-largest city: "We live in a secular state, and here, whether we like it or not, the law rules the land," Ebrard said....

"The cardinal must submit to the law of the land, like all other citizens of this country."

The US Roman Catholic Bishops are also pushing back against the courts, this time over the Prop8 decision.

Cardinal Francis George, head of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), rejected [Judge Vaughn] Walker's claims, stating that "no court of civil law has the authority to reach into areas of human experience that nature itself has defined."....

Fr. Francis de Rosa, parochial administrator of two parishes in Virginia, responded to the judge’s ruling in an e-mail to CNSNews.com. “We are not opposed to the human rights of someone with same-sex attraction,” he wrote. “Rather, we assert that there is no such thing as a special category of ‘gay’ rights. Why? Because homosexuality is a pyscho-sexual disorder that harms the person and society.”
 
“Condoning such behavior and encouraging people to engage in it by the passage of permissive and protective laws does the real harm, not the position that warns people of the destructive consequences and nature of homosexual acts,” wrote Fr. De Rosa.

Did you get that? NEver mind the view of actual medical and scientific bodies that being gay is not a pathology. No, to the RC's, it's a birth defect, a variant to be cured.

We need to remember that the Roman Catholic church, in particular its current Pope, have referred to gays as "objectively disordered", simply by being gay, and our lives and loves as an "intrinsic moral evil". The vicious lies are apparent in the quotes above. The gross moral evil is the mediaeval views of the Roman Catholic church, that attacks GLBT people, that considers women second class, and rates an attempt to ordain women as no better than child abuse.

NOM's assault on the family (video Sunday)

Rob Tisinai's latest:

Support for same sex marriage, state by state

Writing in today's NY Times, Andrew Gelman, Jeffrey Lax, and Justin Phillips look at data state by state supporting marriage equality.

I've highlighted some of their data previously, here and here, where they did exhaustive studies of the views on a variety of GLBT equality issues, by state and by age. The trend is clear.

And support for same-sex marriage has increased in all states, even in relatively conservative places like Wyoming and Kentucky. Only Utah is still below where national support stood in 1996....

This trend will continue. Nationally, a majority of people under age 30 support same-sex marriage. And this is not because of overwhelming majorities found in more liberal states that skew the national picture: our research shows that a majority of young people in almost every state support it. As new voters come of age, and as their older counterparts exit the voting pool, it’s likely that support will increase, pushing more states over the halfway mark.

Today's column updates their paper from last year, Upcoming in Gay Rights in the States: Public Opinion and Policy Responsiveness Jeffrey R. Lax and Justin H. Phillips Columbia Univ. American Political Science Review, Vol. 103 (3), 2009, which provided these graphs. Click for a closer view.

Target flash mob: are corporations people? (Video)

Are you boycotting Target? (In case you haven't heard, the company gave $150K to a conservative, anti-gay candidate for Minnesota governor, despite being generally gay-friendly otherwise. Because advocating for justice is bad for the bottom line.)

Creative counter protests

From the HuffPo, via Aravosis, creative responses to anti-gay protests:

Why it matters: medical malpractice

There's been a malpractice case in Connecticut, and the victim of malpractice won a settlement which under ordinary circumstances would go to her spouse. However, that may be moot, because the state didn't recognize the spouse at the time of the malpractice.

Mueller, 62, died last January and although she was legally married to her lesbian partner, Charlotte Stacey, at the time of her death, the case must still wind through probate court to determine whether Stacey can collect any of the verdict.

Mueller's lawyer, Joshua Koskoff, of Bridgeport, said a judge had previously ruled Stacey could not be a plaintiff in the case, even though she claimed she suffered emotionally from her partner's medical plight, because the state didn't make their relationship legal until after the alleged malpractice.

The state's civil union law was passed in 2005, and in 2008 the state Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have the right to wed in the state.

Stacey called the earlier ruling excluding her from the case unfair. "I don't think it's right; we were together the entire time. We were a complete couple in every sense of the word."

You know, over and over and over again, all they do is legitimize bigotry and bias and disadvantage. And they smile sweetly and wave their Bibles. What does it cost them? Why do they hate us so much, those sanctimonious bigots?

Cooper's revenge?

Time magazine has excellent coverage of the appeal from the pro-Prop8 side.

The proponents' lead attorney, former Reagan-era Justice Department lawyer Charles Cooper, has tipped his hand about where he'll strike with his appeal, now due Sept. 17. It's a remarkable — and, with the court's permission, longer than normally permitted — brief, which in 75 pages lays out a vigorous defense of Prop 8 that stands in stark contrast to the generally anemic defense his side presented at trial....

Cooper's brief reveals a strategy that looks like nothing if not a plan to proceed as if the trial didn't happen. All but ignoring Walker's conclusions to the contrary, Cooper argues that the right to marriage does not include the right to same-sex marriage, which he said would be a new right — and one not subject to the same strong protections enjoyed by fundamental rights like marriage. He argues, too, that gays and lesbians as a class are different than racial minorities, or even gender classes, because sexual orientation is harder to define, and gays lack the political powerlessness that racial minorities were enduring when they were given constitutional protections.

As a result, he argues, the government interest in laws like Prop 8 needs be subjected only to the lowest level of constitutional scrutiny, an equal-protection standard known as rational-basis review. Ten previous courts have held that laws discriminating against gays need only survive scrutiny under the more permissive rational-basis review, he argues. "The unanimity of these decisions is no accident, for the question whether gays and lesbians satisfy the requirements for suspect-class status is not a close one. As an initial matter, homosexuality is a complex and amorphous phenomenon that defies consistent and uniform definition. As well-respected researchers have concluded, 'there is currently no scientific or popular consensus on the exact constellation of experiences that definitively 'qualify' an individual as lesbian, gay or bisexual.' "

Read the whole thing.

The stay will continue

No immediate prospect of legal marriages for gays and lesbians in California. The LA Times reports that the 9th circuit has continued the stay, and allowed for an expedited appeal by December.

"I think there are strategic reasons why even the most ardent supporter of gay marriage could opt for a stay," said [Loyola Law School professor Richard] Hasen, an expert on federal court stays. "The concern is that rushing things to the Supreme Court could lead to an adverse result [for supporters of gay marriage.] If this case takes another year to get to the U.S. Supreme Court, there could be more states that adopt same-sex marriage and more judicial opinions that reach that conclusion."

Update Although I thought this meant They have been given standing, I'm corrected by our friendly lawyer Paul (A), who quotes the order thusly:

"In addition to any issues appellants wish to raise on appeal, appellants are directed to include in their opening brief a discussion of why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing. See Arizonans For Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 66 (1997)."

So standing is NOT a given at this time. make your case, lads!

For those tuning in late, "standing" here is whether a party is entitled to participate. Generally, the court has been fairly restrictive about it, so you can't appeal or enter into a case just because you are interested in it, but have to have a real "dog in the fight". In this kind of case, the "standing" belongs to the State of California, but the Governor and AG have decided not to appeal. So the question is, whether the Defendant-interveners who defended Prop8 have the right to appeal, since Prop8 in no way affects or injures them personally (I'm sure PaulA will correct me again if needed!)

Update 2: From Paul (A) in the comments:

Federal courts are limited by the Constitution to deciding "cases and controversies". Precedent has interpreted this to mean that actual parties who have a real stake in the outcome of the case must be represented on both sides. The Arizonans for Official English case held unanimously that proponents of a successful state initiative were not proper parties before the Supreme Court. The Proposition 8 proponents appear to be in the same boat. They will have to convince the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that this is somehow a different situation.

John Culhane blogs,

Standing might not be the most viscerally satisfying way of expressing judicial rejection of this ugly impulse, but in its way it affirms an important truth: Those who support initiatives aren’t the ones directly affected by them. Their ability to get enough signatures for the ballot, and then to play to primal fears (nativist, Christianist, and so on) to get their measures passed, can’t and won’t deter courts from discharging their constitutional duty.

The Gay Agenda, summed up

From Andrew Sullivan

I take the "forever" seriously myself. And I think that core vow - never to abandon one's spouse, to make living together work even when exit might seem easier - is central to marriage's power. It is unreasonable - which is why we promise it. The vow establishes the arc of our ambition, and a sense of marital love's eternity. This is why it remains sacred to me - because committing to another human being for ever - is always sacred. And when we commit to something this profound, we need to find some, well, awe to understand it.

Whoa, scary stuff, isn't it?

For better for worse....

David Boies: We put fear on trial (video Sunday)

"In a court of law you've got to come in and you've got to support those opinions, you've got to stand up under oath and cross-examination," Boies said. "And what we saw at trial is that it's very easy for the people who want to deprive gay and lesbian citizens of the right to vote [sic] to make all sorts of statements and campaign literature, or in debates where they can't be cross-examined.

"But when they come into court and they have to support those opinions and they have to defend those opinions under oath and cross-examination, those opinions just melt away. And that's what happened here. There simply wasn't any evidence, there weren't any of those studies. There weren't any empirical studies. That's just made up. That's junk science. It's easy to say that on television. But a witness stand is a lonely place to lie. And when you come into court you can't do that.

"That's what we proved: We put fear and prejudice on trial, and fear and prejudice lost," Boies said.

Transcript: CBS news

We took apart the "kids do better...." argument here. There are NO studies suggesting that kids with GLBT parents do worse. Perkins can argue all he likes, but the facts do not back him up.

Facts, someone said once, are stubborn things. ;-)

The cognitive dissonance of the "Fierce Advocate"

Kerry Eldveld continues to be one of the best reporters on GLBT issues.

“The president does oppose same-sex marriage but he supports equality for gay and lesbian couples in benefits and other issues,” David Axelrod assured Savannah Guthrie and Chuck Todd on MSNBC the morning after Proposition 8 was overturned. “He supports civil unions and that's been his position throughout, so nothing has changed.”
....

And for the Obama administration, the inconsistencies abound and only stand to grow with time. Let’s remember that Axelrod said the president “opposes” marriage equality, which is actually one step further than just reminding people that he supports civil unions.

Here’s a sampling of their dilemma: Explain how the President denounces Proposition 8 but doesn’t favor the marriages that would be allowed if it were overturned; why he believes DOMA should be repealed and supports full federal benefits for same-sex couples but he doesn't support the marriages that will afford that type of federal recognition.

And then there’s the idea that the president continues to “promote equality for LGBT Americans” even as he opposes same-sex marriage and supports a separate-but-unequal alternative.

Will the Right Yield California to keep other marriage amendments intact?

From Right Wing Watch, an interview with the Other Side.

So there's an effort underway to say "California, please don't appeal this. I mean, if you appeal this, its bad for you guys but live with it, but don't cause the rest of us to have to go down your path."....knowing what Kennedy has already done in two similar cases to this and knowing that he's the deciding vote, the odds are 999 out of 1000 that they'll uphold the California decision.

If they do, there's not a marriage amendment in the country that can stand. And so the problem is that instead of California losing its amendment, now 31 states lose their amendment. And that won't happen if California doesn't appeal this decision. It's just California that loses its amendment.

Montana and Alaska couples sue for equal rights

From the ACLU:

Seven committed same-sex couples have sued the state of Montana for failing to offer legal protections to same-sex couples and their families in violation of the Montana Constitution’s rights of privacy, dignity and the pursuit of life’s basic necessities and its guarantees of equal protection and due process. The goal of this lawsuit is to see that same-sex couples are able to protect their families with the same kind of legal protections that the State offers to different-sex couples through marriage.

Because there is a constitutional amendment in Montana barring marriage for same-sex couples, this lawsuit is not seeking marriage. The couples in the suit are seeking the protection of state-recognized domestic partnerships.

Read here about the couples themselves. And, more information about the case here.

This lawsuit, which is being brought in state court and is making state constitutional claims, only directly addresses protections under state law. It is these protections, however, that grant married couples some of their most important safeguards during times of greatest need. Under Montana law, it is possible for same-sex couples to be barred from visiting their partners in the hospital and left out of conversations about emergency medical care. Montana inheritance laws refuse to recognize same-sex couples, leaving surviving partners with nothing if their partners die without valid wills. Similarly, it is possible for surviving partners to be barred from making funeral arrangements. Denying same-sex couples legal protections can also have devastating effects on their children because they are denied the security of knowing that their parents have a legally recognized relationship with one another, setting them apart from many of their friends.

Another case is moving forward in Alaska, again with committed gay couples suing for equal rights.

Step by step, make them try to justify treating their citizens as second class.

Update Here's info on a case in Wyoming.

Stay lifted...sort of.

marriages may begin 18 August, unless the other guys get another stay from the 9th circuit court.

New CNN poll: majority supports marriage equality

CNN has a new poll that says 52% of Americans support marriage equality. This has been a striking increase in support even in the last year. This may also explain why the Republicans have been relatively quiet in the face of Judge Vaughn Walker's finding re. Prop8. The NOM bus tour also has been less than successful with the sorry NOMmers outnumbered by Equality Supporters at just about every stop.

Nate Silver, über-pollster, comments,

At the same time, it is probably also no longer safe to say that opposition to same-sex marriage is the majority position, and it is becoming dubious to call it the plurality position. Opinion on the issue, instead, is close to evenly divided, with results varying somewhat depending on things like question wording. It may be noteworthy that CNN tends to find slightly higher levels of support for gay marriage with a question that is explicitly framed around constitutional rights, echoing arguments that are very much at the center of the ongoing legal case against California Proposition 8

And in a separate piece, Silver provides a graph of the long term trends. The rate of acceptance is increasing faster. That is, over the last year or so, people have moved to our side at about 4%, whereas in previous years it was a steady 1% or so.

It's not over, but is the tide turning?



Data from 538.com

Prop8 fallout: Conservatives risk the wrong side of history

From Fox News (!) commentator Margaret Hoover:

As a conservative Republican representing the next generation of attitudes towards gays and lesbians, I encouraged the readers of FoxNews.com last January to take a careful look at the arguments and evidence in the Prop 8 trial, Perry v. Schwarzenegger....The trial assembled a thorough record of evidence that Prop 8 unreasonably discriminates against gays and lesbians, relegating them to second-class citizenship....

Surprisingly, the defense’s two lone witnesses also offered compelling reasons [in] favor of marriage equality. ...The trial testimony ... demonstrates that the defense could muster no sound line of reasoning for the laws to discriminate against gays and lesbians....

Now, with a decision handed down that social conservatives despise, a judge whose sterling reputation as a conservative for twenty years on the federal bench is under attack....The irony of this case is that Judge Walker is not a liberal activist judge but one whose career has proven him to be a tempered judge, true to the Reagan-Bush conservative jurisprudence that he was nominated to represent on the bench.

Conservatives cannot deny that our Founders intended the judiciary as an equal and independent branch of government purposed to ensure the protection of every citizen’s rights. ...

The aforementioned arguments against Judge Walker’s Perry v. Schwarzenegger decision risk undermining legitimate conservative gripes about the judiciary and putting conservatism once again, on the wrong side of the latest chapter in American civil rights.

Read the whole thing. Some people get it.

Meanwhile, Russ Douthat and others try to balance their religious views, and Andrew Sullivan takes Douthat to task. Elsewhere, Sullivan writes,

There was and is something about these words - engaged, married, husband - even though they may contain a mountain of different experiences, that made us a family. I think conservatives should favor the unification and mutual love and support of families. And that means they must by definition favor the mutual love and support of the gay people in them.

This is not about creating something new. It is about making a home for people who have been here all the time for centuries. It is about making the human family whole.

And Glenn Greenwald:

Churches, synagogues and mosques are free -- as they should be -- to sanction only those marriages which their religious dogma recognizes. Parents are completely free to teach their children that certain marriages are superior and others immoral. And columnists like Douthat are free to argue that the relationships they want to have are not just best for themselves but are, as an objective matter, morally and theologically superior.

They just can't misuse secular law to institutionalize those views or coerce others who don't accept them into having their legal rights restricted based on them. But if they're as right as they claim they are, they shouldn't need to coerce others into acceptance through legal discrimination. Their arguments should prevail on their own. The fact that they believe they will lose the debate without that legal coercion speaks volumes about how confident they actually are in the rightness and persuasiveness of their views.

All eyes on Justice Kennedy

In the wake of the Prop8 decision, the case will now be appealed to the 9th circuit Court of Appeals. It will be heard by three judges. It can then be appealed to the 9th circuit "en banc", with 11 of them. Only then does it go to the Supreme Court.

The US Supreme Court is very divided. Four are center-left or liberal. Four are very conservative. The swing is Justice Anthony Kennedy, who flips back and forth between the blocs.

In two previous cases relevant to GLBT rights, Kennedy was on the side of justice. In Romer v. Evans, he wrote the decision to overturn a discriminatory Colorado law that singled out gay people and said they were not entitled to protections.

Its sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests.

And, in the landmark Lawrence v. Texas, he swept away anti-sodomy laws.

The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government..... times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.

So it is no surprise that many pundits think Judge Kennedy wrote for one audience member. Dahlia Lithwick:

Any way you look at it, today's decision was written for a court of one—Kennedy—the man who has written most eloquently about dignity and freedom and the right to determine one's own humanity. The real triumph of Perry v. Schwarzenegger may be that it talks in the very loftiest terms about matters rooted in logic, science, money, social psychology, and fact.

Nate Silver:

It seems to me that most of the "intangibles" bear upon Justice Kennedy in ways that favor his finding Constitutional protection for same-sex marriage. For one thing, he'll be 75 or 76 by the time the SCOTUS hears this case, and will probably be thinking about his legacy. Given that, in 50 years' time, American society will almost certainly regard the plaintiff's position (the Constitution does not permit discrimination in marriage on the basis of sexual orientation) as the right one, that legacy would be better served by casting the decisive vote in favor of the plaintiffs.

But Kennedy is unpredictable. He might try to split the baby and try to enshrine a "separate but equal" civil union status. Or he might undercut all his previous words, and find against us.

It ain't over by a longshot.

Ted Olson articulates the case to Fox (videos)

From Fox News, of all places.

Ted Olson makes the conservative case and takes apart the parroted talking points that Chris Wallace brings up: "activist judges", "gay marriage is not in the Constitution", "Supreme Court impinging on States' Rights as with Roe v Wade".

I'm glad I don't have to argue with this guy Olson. He's like a steam roller.

Can they appeal?

There is much discussion in the blogsphere that technically, the defendants of the Prop8 case can't appeal the decision that went against them. This is because the Prop 8 case is addressing a state legal issue, and the state refuses to defend it. Both the Governor and Attorney General agree with the Judge's decision. The ones who DID defend the case are called "Defendant/intervenors" because they had to intervene, otherwise there would have been no defense.

The argument has been made that they lack standing, that is, aren't entitled to an appeal, because they aren't representing the state, and under some forms of appeal, private parties aren't allowed to stand in for the state.

Chris Geidner, an attorney who follows the Court, writes,

Although the argument was not fully laid out in the filing on Friday, it looks quite weak to me on the legal merits. All of the cases cited by plaintiffs appear from my review to relate only to instances where permissive intervention was granted and not intervention of right, as the proponents have here. Additionally, the cases cited appear to involve situations in which the state whose law or initiative was at issue did itself defend the law and, at some point in the appellate process, decided against appealing a lower decision. Here, of course, the intervening defendants were the only individual or entity defending the amendment even at trial.

If there were no appeal, Judge Walker's ruling would stand--but only with respect to California.

And of course, the bad guys would go apoplectic about "activist judges".

And if the state government were to change...then would the state be able to mount an appeal after the fact? Whitman is doing depressingly well against Brown. Is there a statute of limitations on appeal?

As Geidner concludes,

The case laid out at trial by the legal team led by Ted Olson and David Boies was impeccable. The argument -- legally, publicly and morally -- was nearly flawless. For all of the reasons described above, however, I see fighting the decision of the intervening defendants to appeal as a potential -- and unnecessary -- misstep.

I would keep the stay, and let the appeal go forward. That's me. you lawyer types, your thoughts?

What happened to the defense?

Writing about the Prop8 Trial, Jonathan Capehart in the WaPo:

In the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the plaintiffs went before Judge Vaughn Walker with the legal equivalent of the New York Yankees. The defense showed up with the Bad News Bears. The pro-Prop 8 defense single-handedly undermined just about every argument that has ever been used to justify denying gay men and lesbians entry into the institution of marriage. Thus, Walker handed down a sweeping victory for marriage equality.....

Look. I’m happy with the outcome of the case and with Judge Walker’s ruling. The consequences of it will make themselves known soon enough. But if I were the conservatives I would troop back into court -- and sue the pro-Prop 8 attorneys for malpractice.

And from PoliticsDaily:

Take, for example, the bizarre courtroom display ... by Charles Cooper, the lead attorney for defenders of Prop 8. His side presented only two witnesses during the long course of the trial, neither of whom was particularly compelling. ... When you have bad facts, you argue the law. When you've presented little evidence, or the evidence you've presented is not so hot, you say that evidence doesn't matter. That's partly why Cooper told Judge Walker during closing arguments, "Your honor, you don't have to have evidence for this."

... Later, after Cooper admitted he didn't know what effect the banning of same-sex marriage would have, Judge Walker said: "Is that enough to impose restrictions on some citizens that other citizens don't suffer?" The exchange is telling because the "effect" of Prop 8 is a factor judges must weigh in the great constitutional balancing this case requires.

Being no potted plant, Ted Olson for the plaintiffs jumped all over Cooper's remarks. Olson said: "Mr. Cooper: 'We don't know. We don't have to prove anything. We don't have any evidence.' You can't take away the rights of tens of thousands of persons and come in here and say 'I don't know' and 'I don't have to prove anything.' " This is a statement that every appellate judge who looks at Judge Walker's ruling will also ponder. ...

The sort of minimalist strategy of litigation by defenders of Prop 8 is either cocky, cynical or suicide. It's cocky if Cooper and Company believe the Constitution is so clearly against same-sex marriage that no set of facts would matter. It's cynical if Cooper believes that Judge Walker's factual findings will be irrelevant to the analyses that will spring up at the 9th Circuit. And it's close to suicide if Prop 8's defenders really believe that Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose swing vote will decide this whole thing a year or two from now, will be comfortable endorsing a ban on same-sex marriage based upon such little courtroom evidence supporting it. There are a lot of "ifs" in a tactic like this.

...The evidentiary record is massively skewed in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. At closing, Olson told Judge Walker: "Heterosexual people are not going to stop getting married or stop having children or abandon their marriage because the next-door neighbor has a same-sex marriage." In the meantime, Massachusetts, the first state to recognize same-sex marriage, has the lowest divorce rate in the nation.

Freedom to Marry campaign (video Sunday)

The Will of the People

Brian Devine, at Prop8trialtracker

In 1803, the Supreme Court decided Marbury v. Madison. This case articulated the Judiciary’s power of “judicial review,” the power to decide the constitutionality of the actions of the other two branches of government (a law passed by the Legislative branch or an action by the Executive branch.) Ever since then, every citizen’s rights have been protected by the Court’s power of judicial review. The reason judicial review exists is to protect the rights of unpopular minorities against what Alexis de Tocqueville described as the “tyranny of the majority.” In our system of government, the majority does not get to take away rights that are protected by the Constitution from a minority group, no matter how unpopular that group is.

Using the power of judicial review, our Courts have decided several controversial issues and have forced the majority to accept ideas with which it vehemently disagrees. Ideas like school integration. In Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruled that laws that created segregated schools violated the Equal Protection rights of racial minorities. Like Proposition 8, those laws were passed with a majority of people supporting them. And like Proposition 8, those laws were unconstitutional because they violated the rights of the minority.

Another idea popular among the majority was prohibiting inter-racial marriage. In the 1950′s and 1960s, most people believed that non-white people should be prohibited from marrying white people. Several states (including California) passed laws making interracial marriages illegal. These laws were very popular and passed with a majority of the people’s representatives. They were based on many of the same arguments on which Proposition 8 is based (fear of the slippery slope: absurd arguments like “if black people can marry white people, how long before people can marry dogs?”) But the laws were unconstitutional because they violated the rights of the minority. And in Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional all laws that prohibited inter-racial marriage.

Our history is rich with cases where the Courts have overturned the will of the majority and protected the rights of the minority. In Debra Saunders’ ideal world, however, these cases would not exist. In Debra Saunders’ world, Brown v. Board of Education would have been decided the other way, leaving the dreadful Plessy v. Ferguson decision to be the law of the land and permitting racial segregation. In Debra Saunders’ world, Loving v. Virginia would have been decided the other way, and states would be free to prohibit inter-racial marriages.

The Prop8 report: how we lost the election (video)

Regardless of the decision in federal court, our movement continues to suffer at the ballot box. At some level, until we achieve the voters' support, the criticism of "activist judges" and "ignoring the will of the people" will be used against us.

Right now, support for marriage equality in California is around 51%. That sounds terrific, until you remember that it was also at 51% six months before Prop8 passed. So we are back where we started.

So how did we lose the election? A new report examines what happened to shift our narrow victory to a sound defeat. Dave Fleischer, the author has an oped in the LA Times summarizing his findings.
The executive summary has the précis.

Notably, we were outplayed by the bad guys. As we all know by now, we didn't lose the African-American religious community--we never had them to lose. We lost the white soccer Moms who were terrorized by propaganda that their kindergarteners were going to be taught how to have gay sex if Adam wed Steve. Those were the biggest reasons for the loss, along with mis-management by the No-on-8 people, and a terror of mentioning the word "gay".

THe Advocate details what this means:

[P]arents with children under 18 living at home played a potentially decisive role in the passage of Prop. 8, constituting more than three quarters of nearly 700,000 voters, most of them white Democrats, who switched sides in the most heated days of the campaign and voted to oppose same-sex marriage. Given that Prop. 8 passed by 52% to 48%, or a margin of nearly 600,000 votes, parents and like-minded voters could have swung the contest at the last minute, the report suggests.

The report doesn't pull any punches in pointing out that we were (in Prop8) and continue to be (e.g., in Maine's Question 1) outplayed by totally predictable campaign strategies of the opposition. I think many of us found the Maine campaign depressing, because the anti-equality side ran exactly the same ads as they ran in California (literally the same, in many cases ) and STILL our side hadn't figured out how to respond.

Unless and until we can spike the guns of this argument, and respond forcefully (or better, pre-empt it) we will continue to lose people in the middle who SHOULD be our supporters. And that 51% "support" will continue to be too soft to count on.

PROP8 RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL (updated, with quotes)

Judge Walker's decision find Prop8 unconstitutional on both equal protection and due process grounds.

Some choice quotes from the decision:

Proponents presented two expert witnesses and conducted lengthy and thorough cross-examinations of plaintiffs’ expert witnesses but failed to build a credible factual record to support their claim that Proposition 8 served a legitimate government interest.

The judge took apart both witnesses for the ProProp8 side, and also scolded them for withdrawing their other witnesses even after the trial was made secret. He also noted that the other witnesses for the defense basically agreed with the plaintiffs, so it's pretty clear they were withdrawn not over fears of personal safety but because they couldn't make the case.

The testimony of several witnesses disclosed that a primary purpose of Proposition 8 was to ensure that California confer a policy preference for opposite-sex couples over same-sex couples based on a belief that same-sex pairings are immoral and should not be encouraged in California.

The Judge also noted that the Prop-Prop8 campaign really played on fears and animus. As for the voters,

An initiative measure adopted by the voters deserves great respect. The considered views and opinions of even the most highly qualified scholars and experts seldom outweigh the determinations of the voters. When challenged, however, the voters’ determinations must find at least some support in evidence. This is especially so when those determinations enact into law classifications of persons. Conjecture, speculation and fears are not enough. Still less will the moral disapprobation of a group or class of citizens suffice, no matter how large the majority that shares that view. The evidence demonstrated beyond serious reckoning that Proposition 8 finds support only in such disapproval. As such, Proposition 8 is beyond the constitutional reach of the voters or their representatives.

The judge also noted the slippery arguments in court were different than those made to the voters:

Proponents elected not to call the majority of their designated witnesses to testify at trial and called not a single official proponent of Proposition 8 to explain the discrepancies between the arguments in favor of Proposition 8 presented to voters and the arguments presented in court.

Then of course there was the complete absence of any evidence that same sex marriage has any effect on anyone else.

The evidence shows beyond debate that allowing same-sex couples to marry has at leasta neutral, if not a positive, effect on the institution of marriage and that same-sex couples’ marriages would benefit the state. Id. Moreover, the evidence shows that the rights of those opposed to homosexuality or same-sex couples will remain unaffected if the state ceases to enforce Proposition 8. FF 55, 62. The contrary evidence proponents presented is not credible. Indeed, proponents presented no reliable evidence that allowing same-sex couples to marry will have any negative effects on society or on the institution of marriage.

And as for religious freedom,

Marriage in the United States has always been a civil matter. Civil authorities may permit religious leaders to solemnize marriages but not to determine who may enter or leave a civil marriage. Religious leaders may determine independently whether to recognize a civil marriage or divorce but that recognition or lack thereof has no effect on the relationship under state law.

Okay, on to the big issues: Equal protection, Due Process, and whether GLBT people are subject to "strict scrutiny" as an historically disadvantaged class.

Proposition 8 cannot withstand rational basis review. Still less can Proposition 8 survive the strict scrutiny required by plaintiffs’ due process claim. The minimal evidentiary presentation made by proponents does not meet the heavy burden of production necessary to show that Proposition 8 is narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest. Proposition 8 cannot, therefore, withstand strict scrutiny. ... Accordingly, Proposition 8 violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The judge takes apart the rational basis argument, and then makes this shot:

Although Proposition 8 fails to possess even a rational basis, the evidence presented at trial shows that gays and lesbians are the type of minority strict scrutiny was designed to protect.

As for the endless children argument,

Proposition 8 has nothing to do with children, as Proposition 8 simply prevents same-sex couples from marrying. FF 57. Same-sex couples can have (or adopt) and raise children. When they do, they are treated identically to opposite-sex parents under California law. FF 49.

And as for the motivation:

The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples. See FF 48, 76-80. The evidence fatally undermines any purported state interest in treating couples differently; thus, these interests do not provide a rational basis supporting Proposition 8.

And,

In the absence of a rational basis, what remains of proponents’ case is an inference, amply supported by evidence in the record, that Proposition 8 was premised on the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples.....Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians. The evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples....Because Proposition 8 disadvantages gays and lesbians without any rational justification, Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

So, it fails on both due process and equal protection, it's not even rational, but if it were, GLBT still deserve strict scrutiny.

CONCLUSION Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that oppositesex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional

Judge Walker hits it out of the park.

What next? Nothing changes: the decision has been stayed, pending motions for appeal. The right wing is exploding over "activist judges" as this Bush-appointed conservative libertarian is clearly a disguised liberal activist.

One chip at a time....

Expert commentary at Poliglot, and Prop8trialTracker and the NY Times.

Opinion at the NY Times , LA Times and San Diego Union-Trib.

Prop8 Decision: reading the tea-leaves

The Defendants (=pro Prop8) have ALREADY filed a motion asking for any decision to be stayed, pending appeal (though their logic may have some issues).

Now the Plaintiffs (=good guys) have asked that the judge not stay the decision until their countering motion is heard.

Pundits are taking this as evidence that we won this round (the attorneys typically get the decision in advance of the public on a high-profile case).

For more info:

• Good review on the different possible outcomes at Prop8TrialTracker
• Excellent FAQ on the legal questions from Chris Geidner

BREAKING: Prop8 decision to be released Weds

From Prop8trialtracker, the Prop8 decision will be released tomorrow, Weds Aug 4.

I will update here. Also there will be responses in the community; for sites near you look at www.prop8decision.com.

Remember: regardless of the decision, it will be appealed. This is one stage in the journey, but it is a critical one.

UpdateChris Geidner has an excellent FAQ discussing the legal issues here. As I understand it, the Big Questions are as follows:

1. Equal protection argument. Are gays and lesbians a minority that qualifies as a "suspect class"?

• If so, then any law disadvantaging us must substantially serve an important government interest. If not, then any law must only meet a "rational basis" test: a much lower standard, but still one that Prop8 fails to meet.

2. Due process argument. Is marriage a fundamental right?

• The bad guys argue that gays are "redefining" marriage which must be man-woman. The good guys argue that (as Ted Olson argued) "it isn't changing the institution of marriage. It is correcting a restriction based upon sex and sexual orientation."

Straight people attacking marriage

There's a new Pew study that shows an increased fraction of women choose not to have children. Significantly, it also shows that an increased fraction of women who have never married, nevertheless have had children.

Thus, marriage is increasingly uncoupled from child bearing. Married people are having fewer kids and unmarried people are having more.

The news report says

One in five women aged 40 to 44 reported that they've never had children. Meanwhile, just 41 percent of Americans say having children is necessary to a good marriage, compared to 65 percent in 1990.

The study suggests that the two trends may well arise form relaxed social pressure about having kids....

"Social pressure to bear children appears to have diminished for women and that today, the decision to have a child is seen as an individual choice," Pew researchers Gretchen Livingston and D'Vera Cohn write. "Improved opportunities and contraceptive methods help create alternatives for women."

Since the Prop8 defenders say that the only purpose of marriage is procreation, then all these childless straight people are obviously attacking the very fabric of marriage. Who lets these people stay married? Write a proposition! Marriage is for procreation, these people should be divorced!

Debunking the myth that kids do better with straight parents

How often have you heard the words, "Studies show," and then a statement to be taken as fact? Increasingly, we need to apply a caveat emptor to such statements because around the GLBT issue, the opposition has a regrettable tendency to mis-state those studies.

I told you recently about a new study that shows kids of lesbian parents are doing in some measures better than kids with straight parents. Well, it turns out that study isn't alone.

A new paper, How Does the Gender of Parents Matter? from THe Journal of Marriage and Family (72:3-22 (2010)): takes on the frequently heard claim that "children do better with a mother and a father" , performs a meta-analysis of prior studies, and discredits the statement.

One of the authors comments (emphasis mine)

Significant policy decisions have been swayed by the misconception across party lines that children need both a mother and a father. Yet, there is almost no social science research to support this claim. One problem is that proponents of this view routinely ignore research on same-gender parents. The bottom line is that the science shows that children raised by two same-gender parents do as well on average as children raised by two different-gender parents. This is obviously inconsistent with the widespread claim that children must be raised by a mother and a father to do well.

When you go to the paper itself, it says (emphases mine)

Almost all of the studies [...] cited, however, compared single-mother with married-parent families. .....To support its claim that "a child who is not living with his or her own two married parents is at greater risk of child abuse" [they] cited studies of children who live alone with single mothers, in stepfamilies, or with their mother's boyfriends.It ignored research on lesbian and gay parenthood....

The entrenched conviction that children need both a mother and a father inflames culture wars over single motherhood, divorce, gay marriage, and gay parenting. ....Current claims that children need both a mother and father are spurious because they attribute to the gender of parents benefits that correlate primarily with the number and marital status of a child's parents since infancy. At this point no research supports the widely held conviction that the gender of parents matters for child well-being.

What does this mean? It means that if you actually analyze the research, the claim that "a child does best with a mother and a father" is not true. What IS true is that a child does best with two committed parents in a stable relationship.

The sort of people who write comments in response to news articles or tweets have argued that the recent Pediatrics study cannot be true, because there may have been gay advocates supporting it. This is another version of only straight white Christian men are objective fiction, and completely ignores the fact that the study was published in a rigorously peer reviewed journal, which than you can say for most of their stuff. Indeed, those opposed to equality frequently point to studies from the anti-gay group NARTH. This is a long-discredited group that supports "gay cures" and their website (to which I won't link, as I will not send traffic to hate sites) is full of lies and misinformation.

Using NARTH as a source for scientific data on homosexuality is like using the Flat Earth Society for studies of Earth's geology.

But then, when has the right wing cared about science and facts?

SO: if you want to back up your contention that gay and lesbian parents do just as well and sometimes better than straight parents, send your opponents to the following studies for starters. Think of the Church and Galileo- you have truth,and the facts, on your side, and E pur si muove!


Biblarz, T.J., Stacey, J. (2010) How Does the Gender of Parents Matter? Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 3-22

Gartrell, N. and Bos, H., Pediatrics (2010) US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Psychological Adjustment of 17-Year-Old Adolescents Pediatrics (online prior to publication) DOI10.1542.peds.2009-3153

Tasker, F. (2005). Lesbian mothers, gay fathers, and their children: A review. Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 26, 224–240.

Telingator, C. J., Patterson C. (2008). Children and adolescents of lesbian and gay parents. Journal of American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 47, 1364–1368.More important than the gender of parents’ partners for teenagers’ adjustment, it seems, is the quality of relationships within the families they have.

More resources here, at the COLAGE website.

But here's the big one: From the American Psychological Association, Lesbian and Gay Parenting document, intended to provide resources "for the use of clinicians, researchers, students, lawyers, and parents involved in legal and policy issues related to lesbian and gay parenting." Here's what they conclude:

In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbian women or gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of lesbian women or gay men is compromised relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth.

Update reviewing data that the kids are doing fine, from Alternet.

Update New study from U. Virginia shows that the gender/orientation of adoptive parents does not affect how well the kids are doing.

Update Media matters has another helpful summary here.

McDonald's, a la français (video Sunday)

But back here in the US, the Advocate reports,

The National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce has severed its relationship with McDonald’s in light of a top executive’s suggestion that a gay-friendly commercial, which aired in France, would never be played in the United States.

According to The Huffington Post, the organization, the largest LGBT business group in the country, representing 1.4 million businesses, issued a letter in response to Don Thompson, McDonald’s chief of operations. Earlier this month he told the Chicago Tribune that different “cultural norms” would prevent a commercial like the French ad featuring a gay teenager and his father from airing in the United States.

I'm not sure why you would boycott the guy for telling the truth.