Today DADT, tomorrow DOMA?

Some thoughts for the new year from the LA TImes

Today the military, tomorrow the marriage altar?

In an era when gay Americans have seen stunning progress and many setbacks in the quest for equality under the law, many believe 2010 will go down in history as a watershed that will lead inexorably to more legal rights.

Saturday's vote in the Senate to allow the repeal of the federal law banning gays from openly serving in the military is "one of the greatest, if not the greatest, victory in the history of the movement for gay and lesbian equality," said Aaron Belkin, director of the Palm Center, a UC Santa Barbara think tank that studies the issue of gays in the military. "Going back thousands of years, the marker of a first-class citizen has always been someone who's been allowed to serve in the military."

Most countries that allow gay marriage, he added, lifted their military bans on gays first.

After all, those soldiers are going to have dependents. Is it in any way justifiable that Pfc Smith has benefits for his wife and children, while Pfc Jones has no coverage for his husband and children?

LA Times Editorial: Obama and marriage

Entitled, Enough agonizing, Mr President:

[I]t's irrational, once same-sex couples are given the practical advantages of marriage, to deny them married status. Civil unions, while a vast improvement over the absence of any recognition of same-sex relationships, are almost by definition second-class arrangements.

The temptation is to think that Obama knows this, and that his reluctance to endorse marriage equality is more political than personal. When he ran for the presidency in 2008, it was the conventional wisdom that supporting gay marriage would be politically fatal. With shifts in public attitudes, that probably will not be the case in 2012. According to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, 42% of adults now favor same-sex marriage, compared to 37% in 2009. The trend seems clear.

We'd prefer to think that such considerations wouldn't be uppermost in Obama's mind. What should determine his position is logic and the fact that same-sex couples across America, not just those in his circle, yearn for recognition of their relationships. Enough agonizing, Mr. President. Support marriage equality.

The normalization, and moralization, of Teh Gay

A couple of different commentators have responded to the DADT repeal by thinking of what this may change about society's general views of homosexuality and sexual morality.

First, Gabriel Arana, in The American Prospect, sees this as a normalization of the gay identity.

The true fight has been about what it means to say, "I am gay" -- whether the affirmation is cause for social -- and in the military, literal -- ostracism and exclusion or whether it's a neutral means of describing yourself.

....To religious conservatives, allowing gay people to say who they are is a dire threat to society and the military. … Allowing service members to know their gay colleagues is so threatening to religious conservatives because, as studies have shown, actually knowing a gay person is the best predictor of how one views homosexuality. Once service members can utter the words "I am gay" without an official state sanction, the culture-war battle has largely been won.

Sounds nice, kinda like the HRC representative who was quoted as saying

"If you can fight and die for your country, there's absolutely no reason why you can't be granted the full set of rights" that others have, including the ability to marry a same-sex partner….Americans will deduce that on their own. We won't have to say a thing."

(Keep thinking those happy thoughts, which are yet another example of the disconnect of the HRC from reality. But I digress).

I think it's too simplistic to assume that the awareness of LGB people in the military will make the entire LGBT community somehow validated. It's not all going to get better instantly. It'll help, sure, but it's not enough just to normalize Teh Gay. We are arguing to MORALIZE Teh Gay.

Writing in Slate, Will Saletan tackles this, beginning with confronting the slippery slope argument. We have to "de-sex" who we are, to distinguish this battle from a general loosening of sexual morality.

Shouldn't someone who risked their life for this county be able to marry someone of the same sex, or more than one person, or a biological relative? Or at least share a life with the person(s) he or she loves without a fear that their own government will be against them? Is bravery and valor negated if a man loves another man, or his long lost sister?

Laugh or snort if you want to, but it's a serious question. If DADT repealers are correct that sex is a matter of personal liberty and it doesn't matter "who you love," why shouldn't that defense cover polyamory and sibling couples? Switzerland is proposing to drop its incest law on exactly this basis. …

You can argue that homosexuality is quite different. But to make that case, you have to go beyond privacy and consent. You have to draw moral distinctions. Homosexuality isn't just a matter of who you love. It's a matter of who you are. And it's compatible with traditional sexual values.

The conservative assumption about homosexuality, freely vented in the DADT debate, is that it's a "behavior" and "lifestyle." But nobody who's gay experiences it that way. You don't choose to be gay. You just are gay. …

If homosexuality is an orientation rather than a preference or choice—if it's a matter of who you are, not who you love—then it's detachable from other kinds of sexual deviance. In fact, it isn't deviant. A gay person can be just as faithful and monogamous as a straight person. And military rules of sexual propriety can apply just the same….

If the fall of DADT is ultimately interpreted this way—as a rethinking of homosexuality, not of sexual morals generally—it won't satisfy libertines or libertarians. But culturally, it might prove easier to digest. Is homosexuality about who you love or who you are? That debate, unresolved by the fight over DADT, will rage on.

I agree with Saletan. I don't think that the LGBT community should be reduced to a sex act. The conservatives constantly attack us with participating in a "if it feels good, do it" hypersexualized culture. But that's not what I'm fighting for. I'm actually quite conservative on issues of sexual morality, which is why the fight for MARRIAGE matters.

(A further take-down of the "slippery slope" argument is here, which distinguishes the potential harm and societal benefits of each. Worth a read.)

What do you think?

Maggie Gallagher meets St Peter (video Sunday)

May your Christmas be merry and gay

Comments from Obama about marriage

First, President Obama gave an interview to Kerry Eleveld of the Advocate, where he admitted his views on marriage are evolving.

The sentiment I expressed then is still where I am — which is, like a lot of people, I’m wrestling with this. My attitudes are evolving on this. I have always firmly believed in having a robust civil union that provides the rights and benefits under the law that marriage does. I’ve wrestled with the fact that marriage traditionally has had a different connotation. But I also have a lot of very close friends who are married gay or lesbian couples.

And squaring that circle is something that I have not done yet, but I’m continually asking myself this question, and I do think that — I will make this observation, that I notice there is a big generational difference. When you talk to people who are in their 20s, they don’t understand what the holdup is on this, regardless of their own sexual orientation. And obviously when you talk to older folks, then there’s greater resistance.

And so this is an issue that I’m still wrestling with, others are still wrestling with. What I know is that at minimum, a baseline is that there has to be a strong, robust civil union available to all gay and lesbian couples.

Then, he made a similar comment to Jake Tapper of ABC news at a Press Conference.

With respect to the issue of whether gays and lesbians should be able to get married, I've spoken about this recently. As I've said, my feelings about this are constantly evolving. I struggle with this. I have friends, I have people who work for me, who are in powerful, strong, long-lasting gay or lesbian unions. And they are extraordinary people, and this is something that means a lot to them and they care deeply about.

At this point, what I've said is, is that my baseline is a strong civil union that provides them the protections and the legal rights that married couples have. And I think -- and I think that's the right thing to do. But I recognize that from their perspective it is not enough, and I think is something that we're going to continue to debate and I personally am going to continue to wrestle with going forward.

Then, Vice President Biden commented that marriage equality is "inevitable":

Biden said there is "an inevitability for a national consensus on gay marriage."

"I think the country's evolving," he said. "And I think you're going to see, you know, the next effort is probably going to be to deal with so-called DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act). He said he agreed with Obama that his position in gay marriage is "evolving."

However, this article in the WaPo points out that marriage will be a tough sell--right now, anyway.

Much more likely is some movement on DOMA, however, for those who ARE legally married. Expect resistance on that, too. The Right Wing is all for state's rights, except when they don't like the rights the states give.

Still, I'll take these comments by Pres Obama and VP Biden as a nice little lift for my Christmas!

New LGBT advocacy site: Equality Matters

Equality matters is a new "communications war room for gay equality" from Media Matters featuring heavy hitters like Kerry Eleveld (Washington DC correspondent for the Advocate) and Richard Soccarides (former Clinton advisor and LGBT activist)


They also have a blog, which is frequently updated and keeping track of the media. Particularly the "free pass" given anti-gay talking heads by main stream venues like the WaPo. There's also commentary:

The key issue President Obama and other policymakers face now is gay marriage. In the civil rights community, it has become a litmus test of sorts on whether one supports full equality. …While some policymakers still exist in both parties who think that support for marriage equality is too much to ask, positions on this issue are changing rapidly as the culture of the country progresses. ….Supporting full equal rights is no longer out of the political mainstream, nor should we let our elected officials fail to seize this moment in history to embrace the dignity of each and every human being. Anyone who misses the opportunity will undoubtedly find themselves on the wrong side of history.

I've added them to the advocacy links on the sidebar. Putthem in your reader--you want to keep up with them.

UN votes to condemn gay executions

Remember a few weeks ago when the UN narrowly voted to eliminate condemnation of execution on the grounds of sexual orientation? From UN Ambassador Susan Rice (my emphases)

Today, the United Nations General Assembly has sent a clear and resounding message that justice and human rights apply to all individuals regardless of their sexual orientation.

Several weeks ago, on November 16, the General Assembly’s Third Committee voted by a narrow margin to eliminate any mention of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals from a resolution condemning extrajudicial killing of vulnerable people around the world. The United States fought hard for that reference when it came to a Committee vote, and we lost. As I have said before, I was incensed by that vote.

In the weeks following that setback, the United States was proud to introduce an amendment to restore this critical language to the biennial resolution on Extrajudicial, Summary, and Arbitrary Execution before it came for a final vote of the full UN General Assembly. On December 10, at an event marking Human Rights Day, I announced our effort and said, “We’re going to stand firm on this basic principle, and we intend to win.”

The U.S built a broad coalition of partners and together we galvanized member states to support this effort – and to win.

Today, the General Assembly voted by a significant margin, 93 to 55, to approve the U.S.-led amendment and condemn the extrajudicial killing of people around the world due to their sexual orientation.

The voices of civil society and human rights defenders around the world have been heard today, and for that my delegation is especially proud. Less than two weeks after we celebrated the 62nd anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, today’s vote ensures that the principles enshrined in that Declaration are put into practice – and indeed live on – in the 21st Century.

That's good news. But let's not forget that being gay is a capital crime in many countries around the world, particularly in the third world. A sobering list of punishments can be found at the website Foreign Policy. And this report from NPR talks about how the violence against LGBT people in Uganda is traceable directly to American evangelicals.

DADT consigned to history--almost.

The DADT repeal was signed today, which will allow LGB service members to be open about who they are. (Transgenders are in a different category, militarily speaking, and are not covered by DADT nor by the repeal).

As the NY Times noted, the Defense Dept plan for repeal (PDF) was released at the same time as the survey of the troops, to little attention. It makes it clear that there is a plan for implementation that has thought through the common concerns. The theme is Leadership-Professionalism-Respect.

Regarding religious freedom:

Service members are not expected to change their personal religious or moral beliefs; however, they are expected to treat all others with dignity and respect, consistent with the core values that already exist within each Service.

Service members do not have the right to refuse duty or duty assignments based on a moral objection to another’s sexual orientation.

Service members remain obligated to follow orders that involve interaction with others who are gay or lesbian, even if an unwillingness to do so is based on strong, sincerely held, moral or religious beliefs. As expressed in the Manual for Courts-Martial regarding a Service member’s obligation to obey orders: “the dictates of a person’s conscience, religion, or personal philosophy cannot justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order .”

Those who disagree:

The views and beliefs of those who are opposed to “open” service by gays and lesbians on well-founded moral or religious grounds are not being rejected, and leaders have not turned their backs on them. We do not expect individual Service members to change their personal religious or moral beliefs about homosexuality, but we do expect every Service member to treat all others with dignity and respect, consistent with the core values that already exist in each Service.

Chaplains:

The Service should reiterate the principle that chaplains, in the context of their religious ministry, are not required to take actions inconsistent with their religious beliefs, but must continue to care for all Service members, and that evaluation, promotion, and assignment of chaplains will remain consistent with these long-standing principles.

What about sexual behavior?

Service standards of conduct must be sexual orientation neutral. All members are responsible for upholding and maintaining the high standards of the U S military at all times and in all places.

And those benefits...

The Defense of Marriage Act and current benefit laws do not allow the Department of Defense to extend many key benefits—including dependent medical coverage, dependent-rate BAH, and dependent-based travel and transportation allowances—to a Service member in a relationship with a same-sex partner …

For the time being, all Service members not in a Federally-recognized marriage will be treated as “single” for the purposes of benefits eligibility. The Department of Defense is studying ways to extend additional benefits to Service members to improve personal readiness, especially during deployments and other stressful times.

Of course, the backlash has begun:

• Mitch McConnell tried to block the repeal with a poison amendment to the Defense bill.
• A Virginia state Delegate wants to bar gays from the Virginia National Guard (what do we expect from the State of Hate?)
• And several antigay groups pledge to repeal the repeal.

As many pundits have noted, having gays serve openly in the military will scuttle many of the arguments the opposition has used to keep us demonized as "the other." It's a big crack in the wall of "normalcy." And it's hard to see how DOMA can last if a brave lieutenant can't have benefits for his legal husband.

Still, expect the shrill hysteria to get louder before it gets better. And of course, the repeal may be signed, but DADT is still the law until it is "certified" properly. That could take months or longer. LGB servicemembers will continue in the closet till then.

Photo from NY Times

A new DOMA case

On Friday, a new DOMA case began: Golinski v OPM. I've told you previously about the ongoing effort of Karen Golinski, an employee of the Ninth Circuit court of appeals, to get medical coverage for her wife. (The Ninth Circuit is hearing the Prop8 appeal.)

Chief Judge Kozinski, who heard Golinski's employee grievance, agreed, because the Ninth does not allow discrimination on the basis of orientation. But the Office of Personnel Management refused to comply because of DOMA. (It's a great irony that OPM is headed by John Berry, the highest ranking gay appointed by President Obama.)

Now, Ms Golinski is suing OPM in US District Court. The Advocate reports,

Part of Lambda's argument against OPM in this case is that DOMA is unconstitutional, specifically because it discriminates based on sex and sexual orientation and it infringes on the right to privacy. Lambda is arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which in 2003 overturned laws against sodomy, set a precedent for the federal government respecting one's familial relationships.

Lambda Legal also plans to tell district court judge Jeffrey White that he need not find DOMA unconstitutional to rule that Golinski's spouse is entitled to health insurance. "OPM, under the authority of President Obama, is part of the Executive Branch of the federal government, and lacks authority to override internal personnel decisions made by the Judicial Branch as it works to end discrimination against lesbian and gay court employees," says a press release from Lambda Legal.

It's worth reminding you that OPM has already been sued twice on DOMA: First in Gill v OPM. In this case, a legally married Massachusetts resident sued for a federal work benefit for her wife. Federal Judge Joseph Tauro found that the clause of DOMA that prevents federal recognition of legal same sex marriages was unconstitutional. Obama's Department of Justice is appealing the ruling. (The appeal is necessary if it is to extend beyond Massachusetts--it has to get into the Circuit courts of appeal and up to the SCOTUS).

The second case, currently pending, is Pederson v OPM, which challenges state and private entities that rely on DOMA to deny benefits to married same sex couples.

Now we can add Golinski v. OPM. As always, I will follow these here..

Picture from the Advocate

Civil Unions: A love Story (Video Sunday)

Voices of Faith Speak Out: taking on Leviticus

Writing in the Washington Post, Bishop Gene Robinson on misuse of the Bible:

First, and most famous, of the scriptural texts used to condemn homosexuality are the two references in the Holiness Codes of Leviticus... 

In practice, we modern day Christians have regarded most of the injunctions in the Holiness Codes of Leviticus and Deuteronomy as culturally bound to the ancient times of the Hebrews--but not binding on us. These same purity codes forbid eating shellfish, planting a field with two different kinds of seed or wearing simultaneously two kinds of cloth. They would prohibit us from ordaining to the priesthood any handicapped person - not to mention women. We cannot, then, isolate these passages about homosexual acts and impute to them the kind of enduring authority which we ascribe to nothing before or after these passages. One has to wonder why the biblical literalists who cite this passage against homosexuality don't seem to go all the way and advocate for death as the punishment for homosexual behavior! We cannot have it both ways.... 

Given these changes in our modern understandings and contexts, it is no longer appropriate for us to condemn men who have intimate sexual relationships with other men based on this proscription in the Leviticus Holiness Code. Either all of these proscriptions must be tossed out as binding on us, or they all must be adhered to. Biblical "literalists" cannot have it both ways, picking and choosing which proscriptions are still appropriate.

DADT passes the Senate 65-31

Now the Pentagon can move ahead with plans to end this stupid policy. But LGBT servicemembers can't leave the closet just yet. NY Times story here.

But the Senate is still broken. B efore the DADT vote, the DREAM act got 55 votes, in the modern Senate, but that isn't enough to move it ahead. This act would give young people who grew up with illegal status a path to citizenship through the military.

DADT news

Having torpedoed the Defense bill because of Teh Gay, John McCain continues his attacks.

So they took the not-quite-repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" out of the big bill, and made it a stand alone bill.

Challenge One: get the House to pass this new bill. Which they did, bless 'em, at even higher rates than before: 250-175.

Some cover might be provided by this new ABC/WaPo poll showing 77% of Americans support DADT repeal .

Now, it's back to the Senate. Harry Reid filed cloture and it will come up for a vote tomorrow (Saturday).

Amazingly, enough REpublican Senators agree that it might actually pass.

Whether the votes are in place no longer appears in doubt. Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) endorsed repeal on Wednesday, and Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) was even stronger in his support yesterday morning. By mid-day, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) confirmed that she's a "yes" as well.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) announced late yesterday that he will be treated for prostate cancer today, but he also expects to be on the floor to support DADT repeal.

By my count, that's 61 votes, and if passage appears assured, I wouldn't be surprised if a few other Republicans jumped on the bandwagon when all is said and done.

But don't be complacent. The Republicans are still capable of great mischief. If your Senator is a Republican, even if they say they support repeal, they STILL need to hear from you to prevent their spine from wavering.

Meanwhile, activist Dan Choi, removed from the Army for being gay, has been hospitalized for a nervous breakdown-- a reminder of the many human costs of this policy.

From a gay soldier:

The silence is the hardest part. I listen intently as my fellow soldiers talk about facing the reality of leaving their loved ones for a year and all the life events that will be missed. I don't talk about my own experience at all, because it's easier to come across as cold and removed than to risk slipping and mentioning that my loved one is of the same gender. For all I know, there are other gay soldiers in my unit, ones who understand what I'm going through. My gay friends in civilian life are supportive, but they don't often understand the military or soldiering. That camouflage is another burden I carry as I prepare to leave.....

]I'm reminded of the moral courage of my partner, who encourages me everyday to continue to put on that uniform; who believes that some things are worthy of our energies; who quietly plods along and prepares for my deployment as I do the same. I know as a soldier, it is the people we leave behind who bear the real brunt of deployment, who hold it all together, who send the care packages and pray for our returns. He'll have to do it on his own though. There are no support groups for the gay partners left back home.

In the meantime, gay soldiers who are still serving in silence will continue to put on our rucksacks and do what our country asks of us –- and wait.

Cartoon from Mike Luckovich

Making health decisions for your partner? We can't have that!

Rob Tisinai points out a video from the American Family Association (which SPLC calls a hate group), where the AFA disagree with letting LGBT partners into the hospital to make decisions about their loved ones, because that's like marriage!

they want to recognize domestic partners as the same as marriage. So, eventually, what I think [uh] Health and Human Services is going to do, is gonna ramp this policy up a little bit, and go beyond merely visiting in a hospital room . . . to who’s allowed to make decisions with regards to treatments, if [if] a [uh] person is in the hospital unconcious, those kinds of things. I think where this will eventually head is a domestic partner is the same as a spouse, and they will have equal rights in determining [uh] what those decisions should be.

What's spectacularly missing of course is whom the AFA thinks SHOULD be making decisions when a partner is in the hospital.

What they want is us to die alone. They really do hate us. Really.

Remember, it's not just about "Marriage". It's about ANY recognition at all of us as equal citizens.

Just a word? the prop8 appeal

Technically, lesbian and gay Californians who get a domestic partnership get all the rights the state provides married straight couples.

(How you get it is rather different, of course: you download your DP form from the internet, rather than go personally to the county clerk; notarize it at Kinko's, rather than have a JP, marriage commissioner, or minister perform a marriage, and then you mail in to the state with a check, rather than file with the county to be sent a proper copy. But i digress.)

So, there is really nothing that marriage in the state of California confers that is different than a DP.

And that may be the crux of the appeal. Because with Prop8, the voters did not take away any of those RIGHTS associated with marriage--the California Supreme Court ensured that. They simply took away the WORD marriage, which is freighted with symbolic meaning. As Attorney Therese Stewart argued for the plaintiffs, the only reason to do that was to deny lesbian and gay Californians access to the symbolism: they wanted them to be treated as a separate, lesser class.

The questioning by the judges in the district court suggest that this affirmative act of taking away the symbolism of the word, and not anything of substance, may make Prop8 particularly vulnerable on Constitutional grounds.

Taken further, this viewpoint would suggest that once you give LGBT people any partnership rights, then you are creating them as a second class by denying them marriage. By this argument, states with DPs may indeed be on the "slippery slope" to marriage equality, while those states that deny their LGBT citizens any protections may be inoculated.

This does not get into the thorny area of "strict scrutiny" of LGBT people as a class or equality issues overall. While that's the question Ted Olson wants to litigate (one that could have nation-wide significance to the equality movement), that may not be the question upon which these judges will rule.

Instead, it may all hinge on the fact that we had the right to get married--and 18,000 of us did. And then the voters took it away.

The talking points from the hate groups

From the Southern Poverty Law Center, about that tactics from extremist groups who oppose LGBT rights (like the American Family Association or the Family Research Council):

They have gravitated toward three particular tactics: “love the sinner” rhetoric; secular validation; and depicting gays as a global threat.....

Not long ago, anti-gay propaganda was remarkable for its vulgar and wild-eyed tone — depicting homosexuals as immoral, feces-eating, disease-ridden pedophiles. And some of that tone, particularly the idea that gays seek to “recruit” children in school, remains in certain quarters. But that kind of approach doesn’t resonate much with younger audiences, who grew up with positive images of openly gay actors, musicians, artists, politicians and business leaders. As gays came out of the closet, others increasingly found they had gay friends and relatives.

Now, more and more groups on the religious right are framing their arguments with words that are meant to show respect for gays and lesbians. There is no better example of that than the Manhattan Declaration...

Another emphasis has been in seeking secular validation for anti-gay arguments — scientific evidence of the alleged pitfalls of homosexuality. Many on the religious anti-gay right now frame their arguments almost entirely around the idea that homosexuals present various dangers to children, that they will live short and unhappy lives, that they are more vulnerable to disease, and so on.

....There’s just one trouble with this approach. Almost all the “facts” trotted out by the religious right about gays turn out to be false or misleading....

A final new emphasis being used by many of the hard-core anti-gay groups is the charge that homosexuals make up, in effect, an active conspiracy whose agenda includes the destruction of Christianity and, ultimately, Western civilization. Sometimes, their propaganda sounds noticeably like Nazi descriptions of Jewish plots....

...The upshot, in all likelihood, is that violence, hatred and bullying of those perceived as homosexual will continue into the foreseeable future. Although leaders of the hard core of the religious right deny it, it seems clear that their demonizing propaganda plays a role in fomenting that violence — a proposition that has sparked a number of Christian leaders to speak out in the wake of the latest series of tragedies.

“The recent epidemic of bullying-related teen suicides is a wake-up call to us moderate Christians,” the Rev. Fritz Ritsch, pastor of St. Stephen Presbyterian Church, wrote in October in the Fort Worth, Texas, Star-Telegram. “To most unchurched Americans — meaning most Americans — the fruit of the church is bitter indeed. … [T]he bullying crisis has put a fine point on the need for moderates to challenge the theological bullies from our own bully pulpits. We cannot equivocate. Children are dying. We need to speak up. If not now, when?”

How to recognize a lesbian (video Sunday)

Voices of Faith Speak Out: Fan the Flame of Love

Excerpts from sermon by the Rev Ed Bacon, Episcopal Priest

Selective Science

One of the features of the conservative movement is a suspicion of the educated. As David Frum recently pointed out, it's an odd characteristic of American populist movements that it's the educated elites that they attack, rather than the economic elites that actually oppress them. THis leads to suspicion, where as Frum says

many refuse to believe that the so-called experts care for the interests of anyone beyond their narrow coterie and class.

. Little wonder that educated people continue to move away from the Republican culture of ignorance.

In the case of LGBT rights, those opposed to equality refuse to believe myriad findings that homosexuality is a normal human variant and not a pathology, that kids of gay parents do just as well as kids of straights, and they peddle such endless lies and propaganda that the Southern Poverty Law Center labels many of them "hate groups."

The media plays into this, in an aberrant expression of "balance" that gives the most perverse minority view equal standing with actual mainstream thought.

In fact recently Dan Savage called out CNN for giving Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council "equal time" to peddle his lies.

The Southern Poverty Law Center labels these groups as hate groups and yet the leaders of these groups, people like Tony Perkins, are welcomed onto networks like CNN to espouse hate directed at gays and lesbians. And similarly hateful people who are targeting Jews or people of color or anyone else would not be welcome to spew their bile on CNN.

They invent official sounding organizations, like the so-called College of Pediatrics, which is really about a hundred conservative malcontents founded by George "lift my luggage" Rekers, who dislike the fact that the mainstream medical community accepts gay people. The American Academy of Pediatrics, which is the real organization of 60,000 pediatric professionals, is supportive of LGBT people and of same sex marriage.

Last week, Chris Matthews of MSNBC's Hardball, had to clarify that this group cited by Perkins as a justification for his bile is a fringe offshoot.

Notorious anti-gay activist Paul Cameron, who has been thrown out of the mainstream groups and willfully misrepresents the facts, actually says

“We can no longer rely — as almost all pro-family organizations do today — on gleaning scientific ‘bits’ from those in liberal academia… . [W]e must subvert the academy by doing original, honest research ourselves and use this to advance the historic Christian faith"

Remarkably Cameron continues to get away with this. He out and out lies, but still manages to provide a veneer of respectability to the other side, despite the fact he has been soundly repudiated by a vast majority of physicians. And he keeps at it: this from a recent interview

God’s 11th Commandment is “Thou shalt not corrupt boys,” Cameron told me. He celebrated the Ugandan anti-gay bill, in which the penalty for gay activity could be death. “Whatever they decide, I’m OK with,” he said.

Cameron believes homosexuality should be criminalized in America. He proposes heavily taxing single American adults and homosexuals because of their failure to procreate. He would also like to see gays undergo a “public shaming,” though he offered no specifics.

Amazingly, he still gets an outlet for this crap.

They do it with official sounding words, but examination of the data shows that they focus on small reports and on mis-stating the findings of actual papers to the dismay of the authors.

The same sort of selective facts are characteristic of the conservative attacks on climate change, evolution, as well as other issues. Do you remember the cigarette company CEOs standing in front of Congress, each stating "I do not believe smoking causes cancer"? An excellent book documenting this is The Republican War on Science.

In a world where knowledge drives economic growth and development, this legitimization of fringe viewpoints as somehow "equal" to the mainstream is a dangerous step into willful ignorance.

So how do we counter this gullibility of the media and calculating abuse by the opponents of actual facts? One way is to be ever vigilant. The bad guys are good at sounding "official," which is why Chris Matthews fell for the College of Pediatrics But he was called to task and corrected it. Now it would have been more effective if he had been aware enough to challenge it when it started--but expecting our media to be informed and responsible appears a pipe dream. (Except for Anderson Cooper, who is pretty on the ball).

Another way is to work to get the facts out there. Of course, people must be susceptible to the facts, which leaves out the tea party persuasion, but there are still reachable people in the middle.

It's why I keep writing, and sourcing this stuff, in hopes that I can give my readers the resources needed for vigilance.

UN: Okay to Kill The Gay

From the HuffPo (my emphases):

Last week, the Third Committee of the United Nations General Assembly voted on a special resolution addressing extrajudicial, arbitrary and summary executions. The resolution affirms the duties of member countries to protect the right to life of all people with a special emphasis on a call to investigate killings based on discriminatory grounds. The resolution highlights particular groups historically subject to executions including street children, human rights defenders, members of ethnic, religious, and linguistic minority communities, and, for the past 10 years, the resolution has included sexual orientation as a basis on which some individuals are targeted for death.

The tiny West African nation of Benin (on behalf of the UN's African Group) proposed an amendment to strike sexual minorities from the resolution. The amendment was adopted with 79 votes in favor, 70 against, 17 abstentions and 26 absent.

A collection of notorious human rights violators voted for the amendment ….They are all on the list of nations that do not think execution of gays and lesbians is worthy of condemnation or investigation…. In most countries in the Middle East, it is a crime to be gay--in some, like Saudi Arabia, it is punishable by beheading and in others, like Iran, by hanging.

The UN has a remarkable track record of doing virtually nothing when presented with mass killings or genocide. "Never again!" was the cry after the holocaust. Since then, the world has witnessed a dozen more never agains with strong condemnation from the UN coming after the corpses pile up. A resolution of the sort that was voted on in the General Assembly is significant for its clarity of message: "It's okay to kill the gays."

Marriage opponents want to ban Constitution

Part of the argument in the appeal of the Prop8 case was that the judges should not substitute their opinions for the views of 7 million Californians. Somehow, they seem to believe that if the majority of voters approve of something, it's untouchable.

I often wonder what part of the Constitution these folks read, because they clearly have missed some of the foundations of our republic.

By their logic, a majority of voters in any state could outlaw Jews from holding office, re-instate separate water fountains, or deny women the right to vote.

At some point in our history, a majority of Americans in one jurisdiction or another have approved of each of these. The pro-Prop8 voters in CA are no different.

"But being gay is different!" sputter the Prop8 supporters. Of course it are: is disadvantaged group is different in some way, it's why they are picked out as different. Civil rights are defined as "the rights of citizens to political and social freedom and equality." It was a civil rights battle when women fought for the vote. It was a civil rights battle when the rules against Asian immigration restriction were challenged. It was a civil rights battle to eliminate Jim Crow. And this is another civil rights battle.

The Constitution exists in part to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. The Courts are the final, independent arbiter of those rights and can only be so if they are free of threats.

The supporters of Prop8 may wish that their votes supersede my rights. But to do so would be to fundamentally change the foundation of our country. It would eliminate the protections associated with an independent judiciary.

Indeed, NOM and others are engaged on an attack on the judiciary--it was the foundation of their punitive campaign in Iowa, where they recalled three of the state supreme court justices in a retention campaign. This does not change anything about the pro-marriage decision in Iowa. It's just a punitive reaction and anger from a mob with the modern equivalent of pitchforks.

If NOM had their way, they would open the doors to outlawing religion. While they fulminate that that is the "agenda" of the gays, in fact what they are doing is far more dangerous to their own interests than anything our side plans. indeed, our side has taken steps to protect free speech and religious expression. Their side wants to destroy them.

The anti-equality side has become a particularly dangerous anti-Constitution campaign. That's why they are listed as hate groups. The only hope is that the more extreme they become, the more the folks in the middle realize who the extremists are--and choose instead to support the rule of law, and love.

Prop8 appeal hearing, followup (updated)

I did not see the hearing, being in meetings all day. For some good commentary of what transpired and what it might mean:

• The LA Times thinks it went well.

  The judges explored at least two routes that could achieve that goal. One would be a ruling that California, having granted marriage rights to same-sex couples, could not take them away by popular vote. The other would avoid a decision on the constitutional issues by declaring that gay-marriage opponents lacked the legal standing to appeal a lower court striking down Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that amended the state Constitution.

• San Jose Mercury News has a detailed article.

  [Judge] Smith, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, also repeatedly challenged [Prop8 defense attorney] Cooper. Smith was particularly troubled by the fact that California has broad protections for same-sex couples under its domestic partnership laws, yet forbids them to marry.
  
  "What is the rational basis then if homosexuals have all the rights heterosexual couples have?" Smith asked. "We're left with a word: marriage."

  
  
• Standing, Romer, and the Word from Prop8 trialtracker, again focusing on the idea that uniquely, California gays have all the rights but the word--and they used to ahve the word.
• SLugfest on gay marriage and standing in 9th Circuit, from lawyer Nan Hunter. Read this for a detailed discussion of the standing issue. She concludes,

  On the merits, the most important exchanges related to whether the court could determine the constitutionality of only Prop 8, that is, without reaching the question of whether bars to same-sex marriage in other states would be unconstitutional. Asked that direct question of whether the court could avoid ruling as to other states, Ted Olson said yes, although he added that the decision he wanted would be on broader grounds. If I had to bet on the merits, my money would be on a decision affirming the district court that applies only to California, and based on reasoning so limited to California that it would not be binding on any other state, even the other states within the Ninth Circuit. In my opinion, that would be the best possible outcome in this case, since it would make it possible that the Supreme Court would decline to review it at all.

• Also an excellent overview from Elizabeth Wydra at the HuffPo.
• Scotusblog: Deciding what to decide:

  Judge Reinhardt conceded that voters could amend their own constitution, but, he said, the key question is “what are you amending?” If the measure is taking away a right that previously existed, the judge suggested, that would not be open to voters to do. The problem, the judge said, would arise if a state were “taking away a right for a particular class with a reasonable reason.” And, he suggested, picking up on Judge Smith’s point, what was reasonable about giving gays and lesbians all the privileges of marriage, as California does, while taking away the title of marriage (which homosexuals had gained in a California Supreme Court ruling overturned by Proposition 8).
  
  Several times, Judge Smith made it clear that he was worried, as he put it, about the rational basis for going as far as California had gone. While the judge speculated about some reasons that California voters might have, he seemed uncertain that those were strong enough. The judge even wondered whether a state that had not given any rights to same-sex couples might have a stronger argument for denying marriage rights than Californians had.\

• Shannon Minter's reaction from Pam House Blend

  Therese Stewart, Chief Deputy City Attorney for San Francisco, did a brilliant job of laying out why Prop 8 is uniquely irrational because it took away an existing right, because California continues to give same-sex couples all of the substantive rights and benefits of marriage, and because the stated purpose of Prop 8 in the ballot materials was to counter the idea that being gay is "okay."
  
  Stewart also made a crucial point about what it means for a court to determine that the only justification for a law is "animus," or bias, against a group of people, which would be unconstitutional. Contrary to how the proponents have framed this question in the media and in court, Stewart rightly argued that from a constitutional perspective, finding that a law was based on "animus" does not have to mean that the voters intentionally sought to harm gay people. Rather, unconstitutional "animus" can include situations where the voters failed to think about what is really at stake for the targeted group, or failed to guard against a natural tendency toward stereotyping of unfamiliar or historically disfavored groups.

• Feisty questions on standing and merits from Keen News Service.
• And let's not forget what they really think, since part of the decision sits on whether or not Prop8 was motivated by animus. There was a rally outside the courthouse. Syd Peterson reports

  As I made my way up the courthouse steps, a Christian with a bullhorn and a huge yellow sign that read, “HOMO SEX IS SIN,” yelled from across the street: “You are an abomination!” He continued, “You don’t know anything about marriage! You don’t know anything about love! You know about lust!”

Updated: Prop8 back in court: Appeal will be heard today

Three judges of the 9th circuit will hear the appeal of the recent Prop8 decision, in which Federal District Court Judge Vaughn Walker declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional.

Oral arguments will be held this morning at 10am. The arguments will be based on two issues.

First, given that the state of California is not appealing Judge Walker's decision (neither current nor incoming Attorney General, nor Governor, will appeal), does any other group have the right to appeal? This is the question of "standing". Prop8 supporters were given the right to intervene in the original case, but it's not clear that they suffer any harm that gives them the right to an appeal.

The second argument will be on the substance of Judge Walker's findings about equal protection and due process. These are irrelevant if the bad guys don't have standing.

Watch it on C-SPAN.

Update

• Follow live blogging at Prop8 Trialtracker
• Prop 8 Argument Day FAQ
• Viewers' guide to the arguments
• Follow on Twitter with #prop8

Calling out the hypocrisy in Illinois (video Sunday)

Illinois State Senator Rickey Hendon on the Civil Unions bill in Illinois. Preach it, brother.

Voices of Faith Speak Out: time to stand up

From the Methodist blog John Wesley Club

In light of these recent tragedies, perhaps it’s time to look at the church’s liability, or at least their culpability in the suicides of teens who feel repressed, hated, and bullied by society and institutions in our society.
....
And as they always like to use the expression “hate the sin, not the sinner” when often they’re covering up for  the hatred that they affirm for that sinner, then I will also say, I hate their bigotry, their prejudice, their bullying, and the faux “Christian” cover they give for hateful and destructive acts. I hate the words that they choose that lead children to end their own lives. And I hate when they take their church in the direction of that hatefulness and call it Holy.
....
Laity, it’s time to remind your minister that you expect his or her sermons to reflect a message of Christ’s love, Grace, and peace.  You know, like in the Bible. And then make sure that you support him: participate in the governance of the church, or in a group that helps kids in emotional crisis, or participate in a ground level physical effort to raise awareness.   That DOES NOT mean just “put out a message on facebook once in a while”.   The angry and prejudiced mob knows about ground level work, and they willing to get their hands dirty.  They are obviously not fazed by some blood at their church door.   Tell your friends that you no longer want to participate in a message that pushes children to suicide.

Clergy, it’s time to come together and get out of the closet.  You are indeed being bullied and threatened both explicitly and implicitly.  So perhaps you too, should band together.  Has there been one published petition denouncing the homophobic bullying of kids in our communities?  Has any group of pastors or Bishops denounced the church’s “official” discriminatory position that tells kids and adults they are unworthy?  Are there ten pastors in leadership positions that would sign a letter to the editor?

Wash your hands of this blood, or surely He will wash his hands of us all.

SPLC declares AFA, FRC and others are "hate groups"

The American Family Association, the Family Research Council, and other such conservative groups claim to have a principled objection to the reality of homosexuality. But their rhetoric is based in lies, propaganda and hatred--so much so that the Southern Poverty Law Center has declared these groups as "Hate Groups".

For example, regarding the AFA, the SPLC reports,

In 2009, it hired Bryan Fischer, the former executive director of the Idaho Values Alliance, as its director of analysis for government and policy.... Fischer claimed in a blog post last May 27 that “[h]omosexuality gave us Adolph Hitler, and homosexuals in the military gave us the Brown Shirts, the Nazi war machine and 6 million dead Jews.” .... Fischer has described Hitler as “an active homosexual” who sought out gays “because he could not get straight soldiers to be savage and brutal and vicious enough.” He proposed criminalizing homosexual behavior in another 2010 blog post and has advocated forcing gays into “reparative” therapy.

Then there's the Faithful Word Baptist Church and its pastor Steven Anderson

Much of his venom was aimed at homosexuals, who he suggests should be killed (“The biggest hypocrite in the world is the person who believes in the death penalty for murderers but not for homosexuals”). In an August 2009 sermon, he attacked the United Methodist Church, saying “10% of their preachers are queers” and adding, “they got a dyke and a faggot behind the pulpit.” He has described gays as “sodomites” who “recruit through rape” and “recruit through molestation.”

And of course, the lying Family Research Council:

[T]he FRC has been a font of anti-gay propaganda throughout its history. It relies on the work of Robert Knight, who also worked at Concerned Women for America but now is at Coral Ridge Ministries (see above for both), along with that of FRC senior research fellows Tim Dailey (hired in 1999) and Peter Sprigg (2001). Both Dailey and Sprigg have pushed false accusations linking gay men to pedophilia ...

More recently, in March 2008, Sprigg, responding to a question about uniting gay partners during the immigration process, said: “I would much prefer to export homosexuals from the United States than to import them.” He later apologized, but then went on, last February, to tell MSNBC host Chris Matthews, “I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions on homosexual behavior.” “So we should outlaw gay behavior?” Matthews asked. “Yes,” Sprigg replied. ...

Tony PErkins of the FRC also has links to white supremicists.

The AFA can complain as much as it likes about this designation, but John Aravosis (Americablog) has collected examples of their bile over the years.

The SPLC also debunks 10 of the most prominent anti-gay myths these groups tell--a useful resource.

Update: naturally, the AFA and others aren't happy with this. But their attempt to recycle their lies and propaganda is soundly slapped down by the SPLC here.

Judicial impartiality and Prop8

The Bad Guys argued that Judge Vaughn Walker couldn't be fair in the original Prop8 finding, because he is reputed to be gay. By their logic, only straight white Christian men can be fair.

Some on our side argued that because Judge Randy Smith, one of the three 9th circuit judges scheduled to hear the Prop8 appeal next week, might be Mormon, that he should be suspect. Fortunately this was shot down as completely inappropriate, for exactly the same reasons that the other side's protest against Judge Walker was unjustified. It doesn't matter.

But the Bad Guys don't believe that. WHile they would have yowled if our side had protested Judge Smith, they next demanded that Judge Stephen Reinhardt, another of the panel, recuse himself because his wife works for the Southern California ACLU. Judge Reinhardt said "no".

Funny how the conservatives believe such rules only apply to liberals. On the Supreme Court, Justice Clarence Thomas's wife ran the tea party group Liberty Central. More directly concerning are the actions of Justices Thomas and Scalia, who themselves attended conservative political meetings organized by the mysterious Koch brothers, and Justice Samuel Alito, who actively participates in conservative fundraising.

IOKIYAR, I guess.

Attacking Civil Unions in Illinois

You remember how it's just the word "Marriage" that the opposition dislikes, right? Only, as we know, it's not about that word at all. Illinois is the latest state where the Roman Catholic Church and NOM are attacking civil unions.

Meanwhile, Cardinal Francis George has called upon lawmakers to reject civil unions. "Everyone has a right to marry, but no one has the right to change the nature of marriage," he said in a press statement.

"Marriage is what it is and always has been, no matter what a legislature decides to do; however, the public understanding of marriage will be negatively affected by passage of a bill that ignores the natural fact that sexual complementarity is at the core of marriage," the cardinal said.

In the statement, issued by the Catholic Conference of Illinois, the church's lobbying arm, George went on to argue, "There is an inherent conflict between this legislation and religious liberty."

The cardinal suggested that civil unions could require faith-based institutions to provide adoptive or foster-care services or an array of other social services to same-sex couples in civil unions. And, George said, the legislation does not protect small businesses if their owners do not wish to extend family benefits to employees in civil unions.
....
"NOM's attacks on proposed civil unions are as misleading as they are predictable, and I am appalled at the length to which NOM would go to harm our families," said Bernard Cherkasov, CEO of Equality Illinois, in a press statement.

"We are especially disturbed at the misleading statements by the [ conference ] and [ the cardinal ] that the law would force churches to recognize civil unions. The bill explicitly states: 'Nothing in this Act shall interfere with or regulate the religious practice of any religious body,'" explained Cherkasov.

Consequently, faith-based clergy and various denominations are ''free to choose whether or not to solemnize or officiate a civil union,'' according to the bill.

Sure enough, civil unions enjoy wide support among people of faith. More than 300 ordained clergy have signed Equality Illinois' Faith Petition to legislators. The signers of the petition represent more than 270 congregations and seminaries from nearly 80 cities throughout Illinois.

Rick Garcia, Equality Illinois' director of public policy, went even further in voicing vexation about George. "The Cardinal is either misinformed on the nature of the bill or is lying," he told Windy City Times. "The bill has nothing to do with adoption, foster care or the status of marriage, and has everything to do with fairness for same-sex couples."

Fortunately, the Illinois House passed the law yesterday, and now it moves to the state Senate and the governor.

Update it passed the state Senate, and now goes to the governor who is likely to sign it.