Voices of Faith Speak Out: The Real Assault on Marriage

A conversation with Rev Dr Nancy E. Petty, Senior Pastor of Pullen Memorial Baptist Church in Raleigh, North Carolina.

“One of the actual threats to marriage in our society today...comes from people misusing the Bible to define marriage. If you look at the Old and New Testaments, you will not get one picture only of what constitutes marriage. In fact, often in the Bible, men had numerous wives, and women were bought and sold as property. The claim that the Bible defines marriage for today is false....

“The real assault on marriage is to be found in right-wingers’ support of inequality within marriage, with a man given more power than a woman. If you look at what Jesus said about relationships, he calls us into relationships that are loving, just, compassionate and equal. Where [anti-marriage activist] Crouse says that love is not the most important thing in a marriage, her argument is morally, spiritually and ethically bankrupt. The real assault on marriage is Crouse’s use of hateful language spoken in a total void of what love means. For obvious reasons, it does not work well, generally, for a homosexual person to marry a heterosexual one. Where one social group, feeling itself superior, is beating another group down in order to get ahead, that is not talking about what is of value in loving commitments, and it certainly is not an authentically Christian way of being. The foundational Christian message is to love one another.”

The Chicago Catholics and Religious Freedom

Enough with this religious freedom argument already!  As I've told you before, it is specious as well as illogical.

FACT:  you are all free to practice your religion any way you choose.   


Regardless of the hyperbole, no one is, or will, ever step foot into any church and force them to marry anyone they don't want to.  After all, the Roman Catholics are free to deny marriage to anyone divorced, even though marriage following divorce is civilly legal.  No divorcé is suing the church for marriage, are they?

• Actually, what they are doing is buying "annulments", kinda like indulgences, which is why serial adulterer and thrice-married Newt Gingrich is now a Roman Catholic.  Note to cardinals, do you really think Newt is the best examplar of the meaning of marriage?

What you are NOT free to do is:

• force anyone else to practice your religion.
  For example, lots of faith groups disagree with the Roman Catholics about who can marry. The Episcopalians allow divorced people to remarry in the church, and in many jurisdictions where it's legal, they allow LGBT people to marry, neither of which are allowed under of Roman Catholic doctrine. Same for the MCC, the UCC, the Lutherans, reform Jews, etc etc etc. These faith groups should be free to practice THEIR faith, not be forced to be unwilling Roman Catholics. 



• get the government to pay for it.
  Yes, we know that Catholic Charities in IL is shutting down, rather than let gay people adopt children-- but they do not have a constitutional right to federal funding.  Catholic charities are more than free to keep providing discriminatory adoption services, if they choose to pay for it.  They just aren't perfectly free to keep using my gay taxpayer's dollars to fund discrimination against other gay people. 

And let's be very clear; this is a choice.  As the NY Times points out, 

Taking a completely different tack was the agency affiliated with the conservative Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod, which like the Catholic Church does not sanction same-sex relationships. Gene Svebakken, president and chief executive of the agency, Lutheran Child and Family Services of Illinois, visited all seven pastoral conferences in his state and explained that the best option was to compromise and continue caring for the children.

That is, you can keep taking public money and compromise.  You can not take public money, and do as you please.  Or you can shut down and scream "martyr!"

Here's the basic fact: claiming that you are being discriminated against, if you are not allowed to discriminate against others, is like killing your father and claiming sympathy for being an orphan.

Update:  Jay Bookman, writing in the Atlanta Journal Constitution:

...the church is not being persecuted. It is not persecution to be held to the standards that are applied to every other contractor that does business with the state. To the contrary, the church is demanding “special rights” to violate the law and to use taxpayers’ money to do so.  

Gay in Michigan? The Governor wants you to leave

The right-wing Michigan Governor has outlawed health benefits for unmarried partners of government employees. From the Advocate:

A bill to end health insurance coverage for domestic partners of government workers in Michigan was signed into law today by GOP governor Rick Snyder....

“Governor Snyder’s support for this bill is appalling," Emily Dievendorf, director of policy for Equality Michigan, said in a statement. "Today, the governor told unmarried public employees that they can no longer care for their partners or children. He has put hardworking gay and lesbian couples and their children into harm’s way by eliminating important health care coverage. He has spent the last two years talking about creating a welcoming state with a attractive business climate, and this bill flies in the face of those goals."

This will particularly hit academic institutions, as I've described before.  Academics don't like working in places where there is institutionalized bigotry.  Good time to be picking up talented faculty from U-Michigan.  And since more and more companies support benefits (indeed, quite a large number of major firms are actively opposed to DOMA ), this will also hit the business climate.

So Michigan may be purer, but it will surely also be poorer.

The repeal of DADT: the lies they told

By now, you've seen this image, I'm sure, of the US Navy petty officer claiming the traditional right of the "first kiss" after the ship comes home.  It's a long tradition, with a twist:  this time it's two young women.  And no one really cares that they are a same-sex couple serving openly.  Far more important, as any servicemember will tell you, is that the sailor is home from the sea.

There has been little real response to DADT repeal. Indeed, the biggest thing to notice is how little it's been noticed.  A Marine officer goes to the Marine Ball with a boyfriend.   A decorated airman can finish his career honorably.   Even the Marine commandant who was originally opposed to repeal, is pleased at its results.  And I'm not particularly surprised.   Living in San Diego, I  know quite a few military, largely Navy but a few Marines, and they are above all professionals.  Of COURSE they've done what they should--it's what a professional force does.

And, frankly, sexuality is a non-issue to them, across the board-- from BP's cousin, an aviation technician from a carrier who danced at our wedding in his dress blues, to the young sailor my stepdaughter dated briefly, who had no issue with her gay parents or his gay colleagues (and yes, even before DADT repeal, he knew who they were), to the retired Navy Captain in his 80s who always greets us with a big hug, and asks how the battle for marriage equality is going.

Writing in the HuffPo, Nathaniel Frank challenges those who made dire predictions about DADT destroying the American military to admit they were wrong (emphasis mine):

During the years I spent researching and writing about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," I frequently pointed out that when other countries lifted their bans, nothing bad happened. But people weren't convinced that the same would hold true here. As my colleague Aaron Belkin has theorized, in the U.S., fear and anxiety about change had swelled into full-blown paranoia. And this sentiment was being exploited and inflamed by political opportunists. There is even firsthand evidence that military and cultural leaders exaggerated the threat to unit cohesion throughout the debate over "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," in an effort to give credibility to what was, at bottom, simple prejudice. 

....Throughout our history, opponents of equal treatment have insisted that it would wreak havoc on society, indeed that it would cause such grave disruptions that equality was an unacceptable threat to civilization. This "disruption" theory was wielded against African Americans, immigrants, women, gays and lesbians, and transgender people, to name a few. It is perhaps the sharpest tool in the arsenal of people who refuse to rise above passions and prejudice, but who know that they can't win their argument using religious and moral dogma alone. So they deploy arguments that sound secular and pragmatic -- equality will somehow harm kids, undermine the family, destroy civilization -- to mask what really amounts to feelings of discomfort, resentment or simple opposition to sharing first-class citizenship. 

The "disruption" theory was exactly what was applied -- and finally defeated -- in the effort to keep gay people from serving openly in uniform.... 

We hear that letting gay couples marry will disrupt the social fabric of American life, undermine marriage, kill a "culture of life," dry up the Western population, and threaten our civilization. If this is what was said about gay people serving openly (which it was), and if none of it happened, then the lesson is monumental: a culture of anxiety has become a politics of paranoia, which has pulled the wool over our collective eyes in service to maintaining an unjust status quo. Will we let it happen again and again and again? Will anyone be held accountable for steering us so terribly wrong?

And the other thing I'd like the naysayers to do is apologize to our military.  To assume dire consequences is to insult their professionalism.   Somehow, though, I think we'll be waiting a long time for that.

A reprise: coming out for Christmas (video)

From the London Gay Men's Chorus

Love makes a family (video Sunday)

Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays from our home to yours.

 The video is from MoveOn.

 

Voices of Faith: An open letter to homophobic Christian parents at Christmas

I'm lucky that my parents immediately welcomed my partner (now wife) into our family life. But lots of people aren't so lucky. Here's a letter by an MCC minister:

To be Christian means to seek to be like Jesus, to follow His teachings and example, right? That's what makes your rejection of your LGBT children and their partners so richly ironic. The good news is that the upcoming holiday season provides you with a perfect opportunity to take a step toward turning things around....

Of course, my mother wanted me to come “home” for Christmas – me and my children. But my partner was not welcomed. ...I desperately searched for some kind of compromise. ...She was so genuinely convinced that she was obliged to "take a stand" about my life and my relationship -- that she would not meet me any fraction of the way. I had to choose. And the "wrong" choice would break her heart.

But here's another great irony in all of this, my partner -- the very same person that my mother refused to allow to sit and break bread at her table on Christmas Day -- insisted that I go to my Mom's house for Christmas.....She said she didn't want my mother to have a heavy heart on Christmas Day because of my absence.

"If Jesus were the head of our family, sitting there at the head of the table Christmas Day, how would He have handled this?" Based on everything I've read about Him, every encounter He had with His society's "undesirables," every word that I've read that He said and what He oh-so-conspicuously did not say -- not one word about homosexuality -- I believe that when my partner dropped me and my kids off in front of my mother's house, He would have said to my partner, "Come on in. Have some dinner."

That's what I wish my mother had been willing to do. It will never happen now because my mother has passed away. I’ve gone from spending Christmas with my mother and without my partner to spending it with my partner and without my mother. The opportunity for me to spend Christmas -- or any time -- with the two most important women in my life in one room is gone.

If you are reading this, it’s not too late for you to give your son or daughter that gift. You don't have to understand his or her intimate relationship. You don't have to approve. Just hear this: Jesus clearly never saw spending time in the company of “sinners” and “undesirables” as condoning their behavior. Even He did not see Himself as too “holy” to hang out with them. So you, too, can be kind to your gay children and their partners without “condoning” anything you believe to be wrong. You can just love your child, and be open to the possibility of growing to love someone else who loves your child. It is not too late for you to give him or her that precious gift. Christmas is coming. Invite your child -- and his or her partner -- to come on in and have some dinner. Do that, because, -- in your heart -- you must know that Jesus would. Just be like Jesus. He is, after all, the One whose birth we will celebrate.

Christmas flash mob with unexpected ending (video)

A good flash mob, but goes a bit different around 3.30.  It's significant that this comes from Canada, a civilized country on our northern border.

Homo for the Holidays: a religion survival guide

Do you dread your relatives?  Is Aunt Patsy likely to harangue you about "hating the sin"?  Is your embarrassing brother in law going to glare at you? Are you a straight ally looking to deflect conflict?  In this Survival Guide, the Rev Jay Johnson gives you some talking points.

Here's the most important thing: religion is supposed to draw us together, create community, and deepen our love for one another. You love your uncle, and you love your lesbian daughter. Religion should never force you to choose between them. That's the good news of religion this holiday season: God loves LGBT people just as much as your beloved uncle. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Why it matters: marriage is good for your health

From the Boston Globe:

It turns out that legal marriage for gay couples reduces reliance on health care and decreases medical expenses, according to a new study being published in the American Journal of Public Health. 

Researchers analyzed health data from a group of gay men in Massachusetts for the twelve months before and the twelve months following the legalization of civil marriage for same-sex couples in mid-2003. 

The results? 

The number of visits to health care facilities dropped significantly. Accompanying costs went down as well. 

How can this be?  Because when you are an equal citizen, and have equal rights, a very significant source of stress and ill health in your life is eliminated.

Marriage is good for people.  Shouldn't we encourage stable relationships and mutual respect?

Why DOMA discourages marriage

From New York:

After the euphoria of attaining same-sex marriage in New York, gay and lesbian couples—and the companies that employ them—are now confronting mundane but maddening red tape because the federal government doesn’t recognize their unions.

Wrestling with complications from income tax returns to health insurance plans to estate tax planning, businesses have sought outside help from consultants and training courses to learn how to comply with contradictory state and federal laws for their gay and lesbian employees who marry.

DOMA is punitive and unfair. There are now multiple cases in different federal districts challenging Clause 3, the part that forbids federal recognition of legally married lesbian and gay couples. Of course, the dysfunctional Congress won't do anything about repeal, because of the hyper-partisan anti-gay Republicans. Some day.... maybe...

How to explain gay rights to an idiot

From Buzzfeed:

How to talk to your family this holiday about marriage equality (video Sunday)

From EqualityMaine:

Voices of Faith Speak Out: Bishop Gene Robinson on Rick Perry's ad

From the Washington Post, a blog from Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson (the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal church) taking on Rick Perry's now-notorious anti gay advert:

It is breathtaking (and not in a good way) when someone who aspires to be the Commander in Chief denigrates the soldiers he means to command....The blood of gay and lesbian soldiers flows as readily and as redly as that of other young Americans fighting in Afghanistan, yet Gov. Perry feels free to use them as political cannon fodder for his campaign. In an attempt to garner conservative Christian votes, he would stigmatize these brave young men and women who are, as we speak, risking their lives on our behalf. If this is patriotism, count me out!...

Christians - or at least many of us - value the separation of church and state and see no harm in drawing these careful lines of separation for the good of a diverse nation. We don’t need the enforcement of the state in making our case for a loving God. We offer numerous and ample opportunities for public prayer in our churches and religious gatherings. We don’t need them or want them in school. Besides, we learned long ago that allegiance to God can’t be a forced march.

Christians everywhere should be alarmed that a candidate for our nation’s highest office would play fast and loose with both the Constitution and our men and women in uniform. It would be simply pathetic that Gov. Perry would do so in an effort to entice conservative voters, if it weren’t such an abuse of religion and a violation of the Constitution...

Well said, Bishop. I also like this badge that has been making the rounds on Facebook:

Hearing today on DOMA

Today, there will be oral arguments on one of the many DOMA cases working their way through the federal courts: the Golinski case, in which a legally married California woman, Karen Golinski, was denied health coverage for her spouse. (The kicker here is that she works for the federal courts). Frankly, I would much rather see this go to the Supremes than Prop8, right now--I don't trust the Supremes on Prop8, but the DOMA clause 3  issue is a slam dunk failure of equal protection big enough for Antonin Scalia to see.  Legally married couples are treated differently by the federal government for no reason but their gender.

This case is a big deal,because the Department of Justice will actually be arguing against DOMA, which will be defended by the expensive lawyer bought by the Republicans in Congress (called BLAG). From The Advocate:

Tony West, assistant attorney general of the Justice Department’s civil division, told The Advocate that his Friday arguments in federal district court will center on why Section 3 of DOMA, which bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages, should be subject to heightened judicial scrutiny — in part given the long history of discrimination against gays and lesbians in the United States.

“This issue is really about whether the federal government, in distributing health insurance benefits, can pick and choose on the basis of sexual orientation when deciding whom to confer benefits,” West said. “Here is a married couple who, for all intents and purposes, is the same as anyone else, with one distinguishing characteristic, and that is sexual orientation.”

The Advocate also tells us about some of the specific questions the judge hearing the case has put forth for the attorneys:

Earlier this week, U.S. district judge Jeffrey S. White issued a two-page list of questions to attorneys on DOMA’s constitutionality and whether the law should be subjected to heightened scrutiny. Among them to be addressed Friday in court: 

• How does treating some state sanctioned marriages different from others promote consistency or maintain the status quo? 
• How does the withholding of federal benefits to children of families with same-sex parents encourage responsible parenting and child-rearing?
• Is the [Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group] actually bipartisan? Does BLAG have the support – and funding for the increasing cost of defending DOMA – from a majority of Congress or just from the House of Representatives?
• How does BLAG distinguish the line of authority treating classifications based on religious affiliation as a suspect class from classifications based on sexual orientation?

LGBT report card for presidential candidates

Thanks to a commentator below, who points us at this excellent comparison from MarriageEquality.org

Mitt Romney meets a gay vet in New Hampshire...

Mitt Romney who once claimed he would be "better than Teddy Kennedy" on gay rights, is now firmly in the anti-gay camp. He opposes open service, marriage equality, etc etc. So what happened when he went to a campaign stop in New Hampshire and met a vet? Seems the conversation turned to marriage:

As the Boston Globe reports,

With that, it started to become clear that a routine campaign conversation could become hostile. Though Romney had no reason to know it, Garon – a 63-year-old from Epsom, N.H. -- was sitting at the table with his husband.

Garon challenged Romney, saying, “If two men get married, apparently a veteran’s spouse would not be entitled to any burial benefits or medical benefits or anything that the serviceman has devoted his time and effort to his country, and you just don’t support equality in terms of same-sex marriage?”

Romney reiterated his support for the Defense of Marriage Act, and added, “And we apparently disagree.”

“It’s good to know how you feel,” Garon said. “That you do not believe that everyone is entitled to their constitutional rights.”

Yeah, because even old vets in flannel can be gay, Governor Romney.

First they came for the gays....

The vicious homophobia that has developed in Africa is fanned by the efforts of anti-gay Evangelical activists from the United States. We saw that in Uganda. NOw, in Nigeria, they are proposing death for gay people.

Tsk, tsk, say the straights. How unfortunate.

But straights are also at risk. From the WaPo:

Under the proposed law, couples who marry could face up to 14 years each in prison. Witnesses or anyone who helps couples marry could be sentenced to 10 years behind bars. That’s an increase over the bill’s initial penalties, which lawmakers proposed during a debate Tuesday televised live from the National Assembly in Nigeria’s capital Abuja.

Other additions to the bill include making it illegal to register gay clubs or organizations, as well as criminalizing the “public show of same-sex amorous relationships directly or indirectly.” Those who violate those laws would face 10-year imprisonment as well.

So, if you are a gay-friendly straight person in Nigeria, you can go to prison.

And don't think for a minute there aren't people here who would like to do the same thing to LGBT people and their allies.

New Ads from Maine (video Sunday)

You may recall that Maine's marriage equality law got Prop8'd, before anyone actually got married. The bad guys used the same exact tactics as Prop8 in CA and it worked. But Maine is trying to reverse this bias and bigotry. Here's one of the new ads they're running. What do you think?

Why it matters: Ed Watson dies without equality

From the LA Times:

Derence Kernek and Ed Watson became prominent faces in the California gay community's campaign for the right to marry when they urged a federal appeals court earlier this year to halt the enforcement of Proposition 8 so they could wed before Watson succumbed to advancing illness. 

On the eve of a Thursday hearing on challenges to a 2010 ruling that the voter initiative banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, Watson died at age 78 of complications from Alzheimer's disease, diabetes and hypertension. 

Gay rights activists lamented Watson's death as a reminder of the harm inflicted on same-sex couples throughout the state because they are denied the right to marry.

So, I'm sure NOM founders Brian Brown and Maggie Gallagher are happy over this. After all, Ed and Derence  have been devoted to each other for 40 years, but have been prevented from irrevocably damaging marriage, while Brian is off supporting marriage by supporting the campaign of serial adulterer Newt Gingrich.  Hypocrisy, much?

Prop8 in court, yet again, today

There are now four issues being litigated in the 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeal around Prop8.  Two of these will have a hearing today:

1. Should the tapes of the trial be released?  The supporters of Prop8 say "no", but that's hard to argue given that everyone knows who testified and what they said.  What the supporters REALLY don't like is that their witnesses didn't bolster their case (and one actually supported marriage.)  So far, all the lower courts have supported release.


2. Should the whole case be vacated because Judge Walker is gay?  Everyone knew this going in, although he didn't make a big deal about it.  But now the supporters of Prop8 say that because he might someday want to marry, he can't be fair.  That's like saying a black judge can't hear a case on race, or a woman judge can't hear a case on abortion--because she might want one.  The district court firmly said Judge Walker's sexuality is irrelevant.

Two additional points have already been argued.  Additional briefs have been filed, but it's in the hands of the judges now.  Those questions:

1. Do the supporters of prop8 have standing to appeal?  The California court says they do, under California Law.  Now the federal court can decide.


2. Is prop8 constitutional?  This is the main show, the argument about the merits of the case rather than all the peripheral stuff.  Judge Walker said it is not constitutional.  The big question:  was that decision correct?

Human rights for gay people: Thank you Mr President

Yesterday, something amazing happened.

The Secretary of State gave a long, powerful speech supporting the rights of gay people around the world.

From the LA TImes:

In a speech to mark Human Rights Day, which is celebrated Saturday, Clinton declared that protecting the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people is "now one of the remaining human rights challenges of our time" and compared it to the battles for women's rights, racial equality and religious freedom.

(Video and transcript here). Along with this, the Obama Administration has released a memo detailing its efforts.

Now, as you know I'm an advocate for marriage equality.

But many of our issues here in the US are "luxury" issues.  Gay people in many parts of the world don't have the luxury of marriage, or serving in the military. They are lacking even fundamental rights like life and liberty.  Gay people in many places, particularly but not exclusively Africa,  are at risk of violence, imprisonment, and even death simply for being who they are.

There are people here who advocate the same thing. They pop up in the comment threads of articles on line, they write hateful things on the pages of NOM's facebook, they buy NOM"s lies.  But they aren't the majority.  So they export their hate.

And now, the US is saying with the weight of officialdom, "Being gay is NOT a crime." Well done.


Update:  Rick Perry, presidential wanna-be, complains:  "Promoting special rights for gays in foreign countries is not in America’s interests and not worth a dime of taxpayers’ money."

Andrew Sullivan fires back: "Not getting murdered is NOT a special right."

Children deserve loving parents

The main argument that the right wingers use these days to oppose marriage equality is "children deserve a mother and a father."  This argument is specious and illogical and I am really tired of it.  It makes no sense.

Do they think that gay people will stop raising children if they can't marry?  Of course we won't.  WE already have children and they aren't magically whisked away if we aren't married.

Do they think that gay people can't adopt or foster children if they can't marry?  California's prop8 said nothing about children or adoption. No anti-marriage amendments touch this.  Gay couples in California and many other states continue to provide loving homes for foster children and adopted children despite the bias against us.  Banning marriages between gay people has nothing to do with adoption.

Do they think that gay people will stop having their own children if they can't marry?  We already have biological children, from previous (straight) marriages, or by other means, such as surrogacy--all perfectly legal, and unaffected by marriage.

Do they think that gay people who want children and aren't allowed to marry, will turn straight?  To which one answer is, would they want a gay man to marry their daughter for the sole sake of breeding?

Do they think that straight people will stop having children if gay people marry? Obviously the species is in no peril, since straights outnumber gays by 10:1 at least!  And remember, nearly all gay kids had straight parents.

The fact is that by denying civil marriage to us, they willingly put our children at risk.  Marriage between parents is good for kids.  If they cared about children, they'd care about ALL children.  

And the fact is that that civil marriage is not linked to childbearing, nor to adoption:  they are completely separate issues.

Now, if you want to use that argument to try to forbid gay couples from adopting, that would be logical.  Wrong, but logical.  But as I've shown, it has no bearing on the question of whether two faithful and commited people who happen to be of the same sex, should be able to marry.

Roman Catholic Don't Ask, Don't Tell

I'm getting seriously annoyed at the Roman Catholic Church. The Conference of Bishops recently met and rather than being concerned about social justice, they discussed how to wage the culture war: particularly,  marriage equality.

East Bay Express

USA today

LGBTQnation

These are three of the most vocal bishops against us. Bishop Salvatore Cordileone, now Bishop of Oakland CA, was formerly in San Diego. He's extremely smart and widely considered the architect of Prop8. Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York puts forward an avuncular face, but he's lobbying the president and vigorously fighting a rearguard action in New York trying to challenge equality there.  Archbishop John Nienstedt of Minneapolis is mobilizing troops in each parish to pass a Prop8-style anti-equality amendment. He has infamously suggested that parents can't support their gay children and be Catholic.

 These men are intelligent, very powerful, and implacable foes of the LGBT community.

Their new meme is that marriage equality threatens religious liberty. To which the proper answer is, POPPYCOCK. There is no religious liberty if the Roman Catholic bishops impose their will on everyone else. The Episcopalians want to marry same sex couples: how is religious liberty protected if they are unable to do so?

The FACT is that the Roman Catholics are and will be free NOT to marry same sex couples, just as they are free NOT to marry previously divorced people, non-Catholics, or the unbaptized. But right now, most Episcopalians aren't able to perform legal marriages for their LGBT congregants. So say again, who's liberty is being infringed?  Bilerico follows this up, highlighting the explicit lies being told by Abp Dolan in New York.

As you may know, there is some irony that Roman Catholics overall are the religious group most supportive of marriage equality. Thus, the laity is simply ignoring the bishops, much as they do on birth control (I mean, how many RC have more than two children, these days?)

But I'm getting very frustrated with their "Don't Ask Don't Tell". Because while they simply ignore the Bishops, they continue as good Catholics to support the Church, and essentially function as enablers of the Bishops' war against gay people. We have many dear, supportive RC friends who love us to death, but none of them are standing up and saying, "no more!" to the institutional Church as it continues its attacks. None of them are calling out the Church on its actions; none of them are withholding their donations.

 Our friends  tried to persuade my wife to stay Roman Catholic: "just don't tell Monsignor that you're gay," they advised, and seemed unaware of the cost of pretending to be "in Communion" with an institution that reviles you.  My wife is now a joyful Episcopalian, free to be who she is.  (I am an ex-Catholic myself, baptised and confirmed, and parochial school educated.  My departure from the church led me to become a non-believer, but with my wife I have found a home with the tolerant and inclusive Episcopalians.)

But all those supportive Roman Catholics, who ignore the Church's teaching on LGBT people just as they ignore the Church on birth control?  It's the Roman Catholic version of the NALTs (not all like that).

Many RC find it hurtful when their church is criticized. After all, they themselves have no problem with their LGBT friends. But I want to get across to my RC friends: The institution that is your church is attacking us.  What are you doing--really DOING--  to stop them?


Updated: from the National Catholic Reporter, we learn that Catholics care far more about caring for the poor than for issues around gays marrying.

But the Bishops are putting their effort behind an anti-gay web site (I don't link to such sites; google it if you want to find it).  And they (the Bishops) continue to tell lies and bear false witness.

Tell me, Bishops,  What WOULD Jesus do?

The "We Do" campaign in North Carolina (video Sunday)

In North Carolina, voters are considering an amendment to outlaw marriage between same sex couples. It's already not possible for same sex couples to marry, as this video shows. Gay folks are asking for a marriage license, pastors in tow, and being refused.

Why it matters: lesbian binational couple forced apart

This is a great article from SheWired about the real human costs of being a binational same-sex couple.

As I sit here writing this, a few hours from now my wife will be waking up on her 44th birthday without me by her side. I know that she’s already struggling with this idea because at 4 a.m. UK time I received a text that read, “Laying here drowning in my tears, I miss you so much, I can’t stand being away from you. You are the only one who will make me whole. Need you!”

Quite honestly I didn’t know how to respond, as any words I have to offer won’t change the fact that I can’t give Inger what she needs for her birthday; me there with her.

The real costs of DOMA and Prop8 are ignored by the Roman Catholic and Mormon hierarchies who finance the prejudice against us. And increasingly, I find it to be hatred--unChristian, brutalizing, bigoted hatred. Why would a true Christian want our families to suffer? But they do not consider us families, and I believe they do not consider us human.

Taking liberties with Shakespeare,

Hath not a gay eyes? hath not a gay hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a hetero is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die?

And too many of us ARE dying, apart and alone. And that's what they want.

DP benefits for federal employees redux?

Federal employees have only limited benefits for their partners--some moving expenses, that kind of thing. Big ticket items like health coverage or pensions are not allowed. There's some effort to bring benefits to federal employees with domestic partners. The Advocate reports,

The bill would allow federal employees and their same-sex domestic partners to participate in federal retirement, life insurance, health, workers’ compensation, and family and medical leave benefits to the same extent as married employees and their spouses. They would also be subject to the same antinepotism rules and financial disclosure requirements that apply to married heterosexual workers.

The irony? Thanks to DOMA, those of us legally MARRIED as opposed to living in the second-class civil unions will not be eligible.

Both BP and I have employers who would cover both of us. However, as I've explained before, thanks to DOMA, the federal government does not consider us married. If BP were on my health plan, the costs would be reported as extra income to me, which would incur a fairly substantial tax liability. So we could get the coverage, but we would pay dearly for it. Fortunately we are both employed but it means that we have to navigate two very different policies and often can't use the same providers.

Yet another insult from my government confirming my second-class citizenship, and forcing me to live under Roman Catholic/Mormon rules.

What's with all these court cases?

If you are getting confused about the DOMA and Prop8 legal cases,you are not alone. Here's a great summary covering the various state and federal legal challenges around marriage equality.

These cases fall into two broad categories: challenges in federal courts to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) of 1996, and challenges in state courts to state marriage laws. Here is an overview of both categories.

There are 8 DOMA cases in federal courts now. This site also gives a great overview of what has happened in individual states regarding marriage equality.

DOMA case moves forward

The San Jose Mercury News reports that the Golinski case will be heard in December.

This is the one where an employee of the 9th circuit tried to put her wife on her benefits, but was denied because of DOMA, even though the 9th circuit judges agreed with her. It is one of several cases on DOMA moving through the federal courts in different districts.

DOMA treats legally married couples, like me, differently depending on their gender. It is under assault not just in the judicial system, but also there is now movement legislatively towards repeal. That won't go anywhere, as the Republicans make anti-gay policies a plank in their platform, but it's a start.

Many legal observers think that DOMA is much more vulnerable at the Supreme Court level than Prop8. It's probably a better case to move up there. Golinski's might be just the one.

It's Time

Watch this. It doesn't need words to make the point!

Updated: The Right to Love (video Sunday)

Trailer of a new film:


Here's an Advocate article on the project.

Happy Thanksgiving!

May all your turkeys be fabulous.

Voices of Faith: Baptist Pastor says marriage equality good for ALL marriages.

From the WInston Salem Journal. Remember, North Carolina has a hate-amendment on the ballot.

How much more foundational is the year-to-year faithfulness embedded in the marriage covenant? Don't we stand amazed when couples voice their mutual promise to love and to cherish, regardless of circumstances, until parted by death? Such risk-taking astonishes. But more to the point, does not faithful promise-keeping in one relationship strengthen this capacity in us all?

Yes, some promises are broken. Our hopes can be dashed. Covenants crack and crumble. Forgiveness must come alongside promise-making in order for futures to be possible. But even when agreements are broken, no one questions the essential value of faithful promises, both large and small. Promises made and promises kept are the glue that holds life together.

Same-sex couples within their covenants share the same hope that I have with my wife. They, too, make promises to love and cherish until parted by death. In no way do they threaten the rest of us who enjoy the legal rights of marriage. Rather, they strengthen our capacity for lasting commitment. Their courage, in the face of rejection, emboldens our courage. Their persistence, in the face of opposition, fortifies our stamina. And their yearning for covenants blessed and legalized is an invitation to join them in this struggle for fairness. They are for marriage, not against it. They help us all hold high the bar of covenant love.

Washington State to move on Equality

From The Seattle Times:

Two years ago, Washington voters backed a broad guarantee of legal rights for same-sex couples, endorsing the Legislature's passage of a domestic partnership law nicknamed "everything but marriage."

Now, gay-marriage backers say the time has come to take that final step. This week, they'll roll out a campaign to make Washington the seventh state to legalize marriage for lesbian and gay couples.

More info from Washington United for Marriage.

All Children Matter (video Sunday)

The long road to equality

From the NY Times, an op-ed:

Behind these numbers is a remarkable generational divide. Some 70 percent of Americans between 18 and 34 support marriage equality, up from 54 percent in 2010, according to Gallup. Support among people aged 35 to 54 is 53 percent, falling to 39 percent for those 55 and older. This widening gap between public opinion and discriminatory laws means anti-gay forces will have a harder and harder time selling their views.

A repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act and changes in state laws could lead to expanded rights for gay couples in more states. But revoking those state constitutional bans would take years, if not decades. Until then, rank discrimination under law will persist.

Update: Prop8 federal case: CA court says the opponents DO have standing to appeal

Amongst the many Prop8 ripples (see the graphic timeline for a refresher) is a request from the (Federal) 9th Circuit court of appeals to the California (state) Supreme Court, asking, "Yo! Should these proponents of Prop8 , who defended the case in the federal district court, be allowed to appeal Judge Walker's finding, given that the Governor and Attorney General of CA don't want to appeal?"

There is a lot in this: not every decision should be appealed and there is not a requirement to appeal.If you give people who have no "interest" in the case the right to appeal (meaning they can't demonstrate that THEY are harmed in any way by the decision), what sort of Pandora's box do you open?

And, just to complicate things further, the 9th circuit may say, "okay, California, that's STATE law, we'll still evaluate this under FEDERAL law." So it doesn't really matter either way.

But the California Court rules that yes, they do have standing.

Mapping discrimination

Freedom To Marry has a great interactive graphic about the individual states and their views of marriage.  Here's part of it:

 

Debunking anti-gay myths

I have discussed in several places the antipathy of the right towards science, and how they get away with dismissing scientific consensus if it doesn't conform to their views.

THe site LIveScience dismisses 5 prominent myths about LGBT people, pointing at data to show that these are false. THese myths are the misperception that homosexuality doesn't exist in animals, that gay people aren't capable of long-term relationships, claims that gays are pedophiles and vv, or bad parents, or that sexuality is purely a choice. Each of these is demonstrably false. But the right-wingers persist in believing them.

What's depressing is the comments, some of which dismiss the findings as "pro-gay propaganda" and one which strikingly calls for "incurable" gays to be locked up in camps.

They really hate us, don't they?

New study about marriages between same sex couples

The Williams Institute at UCLA, which is a terrific think tank on gay legal issues, has done a study (PDF) comparing gay and straight couples in terms of marriage and divorce, and civil uions.

 There's a good article in the HuffPo summarizing the findings, which include the fact that upto 20% of LGBT couples identified in the census are in some sort of legally recognized union. What else we learn:

 Firs,t marriage is much more attractive to same-sex couples than a legally equivalent registration as civil union or domestic partners. This finding is consistent with other studies that have shown that same-sex couples are more interested in the social symbolism and community acceptance that is bestowed by marriage, as opposed to the "dry" technical benefits of a domestic partnership or civil union. This should not surprise us -- increasingly, gay and lesbian folks seem to be not all that different than straight couples when it comes to love and romance. 

 This goes along with my recent post about commitment. As Californians, we could have been "DP'd" but getting a form notarized at Kinko's and mailing it to Sacramento isn't really marriage.  It's like registering a car.  (My view.)

Second, marriage is more appealing to women than to men. 

 Turns out,about  2/3 of married same sex couples are lesbians.  But we're sort of the forgotten community. The expressions of disgust from our opponents, the "ick" factor,  and their bizarre fascination with the mechanics of sex are pretty much exclusively directed at gay men.

  Third, the divorce rate is lower for same-sex couples than straight couples. ... I suspect that this can be attributed to the types of couples getting married in these early years of same-sex marriage, and not a testament to the stability of lesbian and gay relationships. There's no statistical data out yet on this particular dynamic, but in my experience as a lawyer working with same-sex couples, the partners getting married tend to be those who have already been together for some time. They already have weathered the stormy middle years of coupledom, and they are consciously committed to being a family. 

This also makes sense to me.  

So, as it turns out, gay couples who marry really aren't that different from committed opposite sex couples.  Marriage is,indeed, marriage.

What the DOMA repeal vote really means (video Sunday)

The Commitment of Marriage

USA Today has a story describing a new, bipartisan movement towards marriage equality that stresses commitment rather than benefits:

A group of high-profile Democrats and Republicans who back legalizing gay marriage are calling on advocates to shift the focus on the issue from an argument about equal rights to promoting the value of commitment.….

Advocates have long made the case that legalizing marriage for gays and lesbians is a matter of equality, but those who frame the issue that way might be reinforcing a belief among many Americans in the middle on the issue that gays and lesbians want to marry for different reasons than straight couples, according to polling ....

I think this is a smart move.

There is a small slice of the population in the middle that is the swing vote on equality. Prior to Prop8, they were pretty friendly, until the opposition ran their campaign telling lies about teaching children gay sex. The moveable middle panicked, and Prop8 passed. I don't think they really realized what harm they did, because they figured gay couples had domestic partnerships, not realizing that they aren't the same, are not recognized the same, and are treated as inferior.  (BP and I never got a DP,  because, well, it's not marriage!)

Right now, thanks to DOMA (the mis-named Defense of Marriage Act), BP and I do not obtain any of the numerous federal benefits of marriage. We actually accrue significant disadvantage, such as having to do taxes twice, because the state recognizes us but the fed does not. We aren't on each other's medical plans, because that would be treated as a directly taxable benefit that would cost more than it saves. We have to pay an attorney to set up trusts and so forth, since because of DOMA, we are legally strangers on the street when it comes to inheritance and so on.

So what DOES marriage net us,since doesn't net us any of the typical benefits?

Oh, wow. It's everything. 

Every morning I wake up and feel blessed that I am united in marriage with my beloved. That we have made the permanent, joyful commitment to one another, in joy and pain, in sickness and health, till death us do part. I may not yet get any of the legal benefits of marriage, but I wouldn't change for the world the FACT of being married, of looking at that ring on my finger and knowing what it represents. 

In her recent blogpost, Susan Russell describes values that make up a marriage:

values that transcend the gender and sexual orientation of the couple. Values like fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and love -- the values that we in the Episcopal Church have held up as the standards we hold for relationships blessed by our church.

Yup, that's what the values of marriage are. Legal benefits? Sure, we'd like them in all fairness, but they aren't anything next to the experience of standing before friends and family and publicly vowing to uphold those values. I wouldn't exchange for the world the experience of being married, which I blogged for you 3 years ago.

BP reminded me recently that it wasn't till the summer after Prop8 passed when the CA Supreme Court decided that our marriage would NOT be annulled. Can you imagine what that felt like?  The sword of Damocles had nothing on it!

So virtually on the blogs, and in real life, we advocate for marriage. And person by person, we explain all of this. For example, this last weekend we were at a birthday party for a friend, and met a charming older gentleman. "How do you know R.?" he asked, and we explained that we had met R and his partner at church. As we are wont to do, we exclaimed over the welcome we have felt in the Episcopal church, and as the conversation moved on we mentioned that we were married, and that our marriage had been blessed there.

Turns out the charming older gentleman was a retired Roman Catholic priest. He was friendly (as I suspect many priests really are--it's the Bishops who are the problem), and admitted to a certain fascination with us. You see, he's not from California, and had not met a legally married gay couple before. He quizzed us, gently, on our marriage and our blessing and we responded much as I have here. This clearly delighted the gentleman, and we enjoyed chatting (and dancing!) with him during the evening. And he will take his experience of us back to his unfriendly state, and be able to witness in turn as to what married gay couples are really like.

Making a Commitment.

Living those Values.

That's why we are married. That's the right every couple should have. And that's why I make that witness.

Michigan's bully protection law: the religious right plays victim

Why is Michigan protecting religious tormenters? You may have heard by now that Michigan passed an "anti-bullying law" that exempts anyone who bullies based on religious belief. That is, if a "Christian" kid harasses a gay kid, and says that his religions says gays are an abomination, it's protected speech.

Because, you know, the real question is Who Would Jesus Bully?

Amy Sullivan writes,

This year, Republicans only agreed to consider an anti-bullying measure that did not require school districts to report bullying incidents, did not include any provisions for enforcement or teacher training, and did not hold administrators accountable if they fail to act. …. But it was the addition of special protections for religiously-motivated bullying that led all 11 Democratic senators to vote against the legislation they had long championed.…

To understand what happened in Michigan, it’s important to know that social conservatives consider themselves the real victims. ....In other words, social conservatives believe that efforts to protect gays from assault, discrimination or bullying impinge on their religious freedom to express and act on their belief that homosexuality is an abomination. That’s stating it harshly, but it is the underlying belief.

This belief, however, relies on a warped understanding of religious liberty. Freedom of religious expression doesn’t give someone the right to kick the crap out of a gay kid or to verbally torment her. It doesn’t give someone the right to fire a gay employee instead of dealing with the potential discomfort of working with him.

It’s also a highly selective conception of religious liberty. The same religious conservatives who applaud the religious exemption in Michigan’s anti-bullying bill would be appalled if it protected a Muslim student in Dearborn who defended bullying a Christian classmate by saying he considered her an infidel.

Remember, the current battle over LGBT equality is with the religious right who bleat that they are the victims, that the big mean gays will storm their churches and destroy their religion, and therefore, they need unique protections from The Gay. This victim card is being widely played and needs to be recognized for what it is: the last resort of the true bullies, whose only goal is to hurt and inflict pain.

After all, you don't get to kill your parents and then claim mercy because you're an orphan.

"ex-gay" leader admits change is not possible

From The New Civil Rights Movement:

John Smid, one of the most important leaders within the so-​called “ex-​gay” or “reparative therapy” movement — known as “pray away the gay” — finally admitted after 30 years, that conversion therapy is a crock, and that it is, indeed, impossible to change one’s sexual orientation. Smid, appearing on Chris Matthews’ “Hardball,” said, “there’s an intrinsic homosexuality that, I haven’t seen many people who have seen an orientation change.” Smid says, “predominantly, I’m attracted to men.”

But, as the right wing continues to deny science (including evolution and climate change), and because they fundamentally misunderstand science (no single "gay gene"! There's no "tall" gene either) they continue to make excuses and claim that we choose to be who we are. They never quite answer WHY we would choose to be gay, if we weren't oriented this way.Let alone, HOW. I mean, I find the idea of sleeping with men repulsive. So does this mean that straight women also find sleeping with men repulsive? Somehow I don't think so. I'm not lesbian because of abuse or unstable family or anything else. I'm lesbian like I'm right-handed, or have curly hair: I just AM.

Over 70 companies file brief opposing DOMA

The Advocate tells us that 70 companies and organizations, including Google, Microsoft,and Starbucks, have filed an amicus brief in one of the DOMA cases now winding through federal court. The companies complain that DOMA hurts their recruiting, and causes unnecessary administrative burdens. Good to see!

Their brief points out that the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives is defending DOMA in court on the notion that it imposes "a uniform rule" on whose marriage is recognized. "The perspective of the American employer who must implement DOMA is very different," the companies state. "Employers are obliged to treat one employee spouse differently from another, when each is married, and each marriage is equally lawful."

The companies say DOMA "forces" them "to investigate the gender of the spouses of our lawfully married employees and then to single out those employees with a same-sex spouse." For example, HIPPA laws usually consider marriage a "qualifying event" that automatically enrolls a spouse in an employee's health insurance. Companies now spend time and money weeding out any gay employees who get married.

If companies don't want to discriminate, because it hurts their recruiting efforts or they're just opposed to it in principle, then DOMA causes a bunch of "workarounds" that come with wasteful administrative costs of their own.

Companies complain that when a same-sex couple legally marries, it requires them "to maintain two sets of books." That's because the couple is considered married under state law but not married under federal law. "The double entries ripple through human resources, payroll, and benefits administration," they write.

Charting our progress: support for marriage equality

We know that mainline Protestants and Roman Catholics have a majority in favor of marriage equality. Those unaffiliated with religion are even more supportive. But it's interesting to see the trendlines. Of course, the Roman Catholic hierarchy is an implacable foe, regardless of the view from the pew. Isn't it time for those supportive RC to stop living "don't ask don't tell" and stand upto their bishops? From the Pew Forum:

Video Sunday: Yep, it's bigotry

And no, your religion does not have the power to legitimize bigotry. Bigoted beliefs do not become excusable just because a church or a book endorses them. You don’t get a pass on bigotry by claiming that a god agrees with you. People came up with the very same justifications for all kinds of prejudice. It changes nothing. Like it or not, your religion will evolve. It might deny this, it might lag behind, but religions are dragged along with the moral climate of society at large. The Catholic Church doesn’t hold trials of alleged witches anymore. Mormon leaders decided that God changed his mind about allowing black people to be ordained. And some day, you will have to face the reality that your 2,000 years of moral theology are helpless next to a moment of moral reflection.

Report details how lack of marriage hurts kids of gay parents

From the AP:[

A report] Compiled by an alliance of advocacy and child-welfare groups, ... summarizes how laws and social stigma create distinctive challenges for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender families.

"There are myriad ways that our families are discounted by government at all levels, and children are hurt the most," said Jennifer Chrisler of the Family Equality Council, one of the three groups authoring the report. ....

Among the barriers and inequities they face, as detailed in the report:

—Many government safety net programs use definitions of family tied to marital status which may exclude same-sex partners.

—Because of lack of legal recognition for their unions, gay and lesbian parents can face heavier tax burdens, higher costs for health insurance, and diminished financial protections in the event of death or disability.

—When same-sex parents separate, one parent may lose custody or visitation rights, even in cases where he or she had been a child's primary caregiver.

...Many of the obstacles and inequities outlined in the new report would be addressed if same-sex marriage — now legal in six states and Washington, D.C. — were legalized nationwide and recognized by the federal government. However, the report includes numerous recommendations for less sweeping changes that would benefit children with gay parents

See the full report, All Children Matter

The "Respect for Marriage" Act which would repeal DOMA, will be discussed in the Senate Judiciary Committee today. This effort is welcome, but in the current climate, somewhat quixotic. From Wikipedia:

The 2011 bill was introduced by U.S. Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York on March 16, 2011, and a U.S. Senate version was introduced by Dianne Feinstein of California on the same day. President Obama announced his support for the bill on July 19, 2011.[3] In September 2011, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida became the 125th cosponsor of the bill in the U.S. House of Representatives and the first Republican member of the U.S. Congress to announce support for the bill.

From MSNBC:

A committee vote could happen Nov. 3rd, but is more likely a week later. All 10 committee Democrats support repeal of DOMA, but the bill's prospects are less certain in the full Senate. It faces virtually certain defeat in the Republican-controlled House.

Thank you, Kim Kardashian

From the Rev. Susan Russell, of All Saint's Episcopal Church, Pasadena CA, a thank you to Kim Kardashian. I hope Susan forgives me the lengthy quote, but this is just TOO GOOD not to share widely:

I am not sure you can appreciate just what a gift it is to have the extraordinarily well publicized news of the end of your hysterically hyped marriage come the very week our congressional leaders are set to begin debating the Respect for Marriage Act on Capitol Hill.

Seriously. As a marriage equality activist I cannot thank you enough for your gift of the stunning example of how the gender of the couple saying "I do" clearly has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with respect for the institution of marriage. It is a gift -- I promise you -- that will keep on giving.

As we continue to work for Family Values that value all families and a Protect Marriage Movement that protects all marriages we will have your example to add to Britney Spears' 55 hour marriage, Larry King's eight marriages and Newt Gingrich's three (just to name a few) as proof positive that marriage needs protection all right -- but not from gay and lesbian couples who want to pledge to live together until death do they part.

We will have another great example to contrast to those couples building lives, families and a future without the 1138 federally protected rights that you and Kris Humphries enjoyed for the 72 days you were married to each other. Rights like social security, inheritance, taxation, hospital visitation and immigration status. Just to name a few.

We will have another opportunity to talk about the values that make up a marriage -- values that transcend the gender and sexual orientation of the couple. Values like fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and love -- the values that we in the Episcopal Church have held up as the standards we hold for relationships blessed by our church.

And it will give me the chance to talk about the marriages I know about that actually embody all those traditional values which were so utterly lacking in your $10 million dollar nuptial debacle. Like Alec and Jamie. Gay men who have been together for 10 years. Married since 2008. New parents to a 5-year old son adopted out of the foster care system. A son they are raising in a stable, loving home, bringing him to Sunday School every Sunday ... .

So thank you again, Kim. As we work without ceasing to secure for Alec and Jamie and their family the rights you and Kris threw away after 72 days of marriage, I hope you will know how deeply grateful we are for the "on a silver platter" gift you gave us this week as we head into Senate Judiciary Hearings on the Respect for Marriage Act and look ahead to the repeal of DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act). Honestly, we just can't thank you enough.

SPLC report on anti-gay hate groups

You can read the report “The Anti-Gay Lobby: The Family Research Council, the American Family Association and the Demonization of LGBT People” here (PDF).

Gov Andrew Cuomo calls for equality nationwide

From the NYTimes:

Shifting his sights beyond New York in a way he has not done before, Mr. Cuomo demanded that the federal Defense of Marriage Act be repealed. His voice rising in intensity as he spoke, he also called for federal legislation that would bar discrimination against gay men and lesbians in housing and employment.

And in his most forceful terms to date, Mr. Cuomo called for his counterparts across the country to embrace what he framed as an issue of equal rights and to push for the legalization of same-sex marriage in their own statehouses.

“We need marriage equality in every state in this nation,” Mr. Cuomo said. “Otherwise, no state really has marriage equality, and we will not rest until it is a reality.”

Rick's Rant: Time to come out (video Sunday)

Rick Mercer is a Canadian performer. He tells us that it's way past time to come out--before another kid sees no future and kills himself.

Image of the day

Brazil's top court rules for marriage equality

From the HuffPo:

Brazil's top appeals court has ruled that two women can legally be married....

It was in May that Brazil's Supreme Court ruled that gay civil unions could be recognized. But the top court stopped short of recognizing full marriages.

Since then, several couples have petitioned to have their civil unions recognized as full marriages. Some of those have been approved at lower courts, others blocked.

Tuesday's ruling by the Supreme Appeals Court overturned two lower court's ruling against the women. .

Military families mount legal challenge to DOMA

From the WaPo:

Gay and lesbian troops and veterans plan to file suit Thursday challenging the constitutionality of the federal ban on gay marriage and federal policy that defines a spouse as a person of the opposite sex....

The suit also challenges provisions of federal code regarding spouses that lawyers said bar gay couples from accessing a range of benefits provided by the Pentagon and Department of Veterans Affairs, including military identification cards, access to bases, recreational programs, spousal support groups and burial rights at national cemeteries.

Massachusetts Army National Guard Maj. Shannon McLaughlin, 41, and her wife, Casey, 34, are serving as lead plaintiffs in the suit, which also includes five other troops and two career Army and Navy veterans. ...

Pentagon spokeswoman Eileen Lainez said Wednesday that officials are “engaged in a careful and deliberate review” of whether some benefits could be extended to same-sex partners.

“Service members continue to have some benefits for which they may designate beneficiaries, regardless of sexual orientation,” Lainez said in an e-mail. But eligibility for other benefits is restricted by DOMA, she said.

At Veterans Affairs, spokesman Josh Taylor said department lawyers plan to review the case once it is filed.

Once DADT finally fell (and there wasn't much noise when it finally went), it made the repeal of DOMA inevitable. You cannot expect someone to risk their life for the country while refusing support to their families.

Attempt to repeal marriage in New Hampshire passes committee

Although New Hampshire now has marriage equality, opponents are trying to pull a Prop8 and repeal it.  From Standing up for New Hampshire Families:

With great disregard for what more than 60% of voters want, the House Judiciary Committee today approved a legislative proposal sponsored by Rep. David Bates (R-Windham) that repeals New Hampshire’s popular marriage law. Today’s vote didn’t pass with even the majority necessary to override the governor’s veto, meaning this effort to undermine New Hampshire families lacks momentum as Republicans and Democrats are united in bipartisan opposition.

Meanwhile, one of the leaders of the effort to repeal cheerfully admits that he wants to repeal civil unions and deny all protections to LGBT couples, but he'll settle for repealing marriage....for now:

While some people may want a complete restoration of marriage, and also having no civil unions or anything like mutual beneficiaries, the political reality is I don’t think that’s possible at this time. The bill isn’t perfect — no bill is — but I still think this is a step in the right direction.

At this time....he fully intends to attack our families further.

Clearly this is a fringe view -- a narrow majority of Americans favor marriage equality, and a much larger majority favor civil unions. But just as they have been able to elevate fringe views into Congress, they are working hard (and one must concede, doing so efficiently) to elevate fringe views into law in the states as well. We have to continue to shine a bright light on the hatred.

Let's be clear. The gloves are off. Because it's not just about the word marriage. It never was.

Denmark, which has civil unions, to legalize marriage

Scandanavia is always ahead on issues of equality. From The Advocate:

[The Danish] government plans to introduce a bill after the New Year that would allow same-sex couples, who are currently entitled to the civil status of “registered partnerships,” to hold weddings in the Church of Denmark and be considered “married” under the law....

Civil unions between same-sex partners became legal in Denmark in 1989. Recent polls show that almost 70% of the population supports allowing same-sex couples to marry in the church.

Transparency, and hate: the names in Washington are released

In the referendum on domestic partnerships in Washington state last year, there was a bitter signature gathering campaign. Our side was suspicious that bad guys were not fairly describing the petitions, and getting signatures under false pretenses. There was also concern about their validity. For these reasons, under state law, petitioner names are supposed to be public.

However, in the now-typical fashion, the anti-equality forces whined that they would be attacked by marauding gays if the names were released and asked to make an exception to the law to keep them hidden. This case has bounced up to the SCOTUS and back down again, and now the judge has issued a smackdown of the anti-equality forces in his ruling (H/T Pam's House Blend)

“Doe has failed to supply sufficient, competent evidence that the publically known donors–as active supporters of R-71–have experienced sufficient threats, harassment, or reprisals based on the disclosure of their information in connection to R-71 that would satisfy the reasonable probability standard that Doe must meet in this case.”

“Doe has only supplied evidence that hurts rather than helps its case.”

He details the descriptions, which include things like one man getting a mean email from his brother in law . Oh, the horror!

The FACT is that despite their desire to hide their bigotry, they can't.  And the consequences have been mild.  Some rude remarks.  A business boycott.  (Remember that the anti-gay forces ROUTINELY boycott pro-gay businesses.  Goose, gander?)   Yes, there have been some glitter bombs.

But remember the aftermath to Prop8 in California, hate crimes against LGBT people went up by nearly 17%.  Crimes against whining religious rightists, not so much.

Let's be clear on what real hate looks like. Let's be clear on which side is doing the hurting. And let's be clear on which side is doing the hating.  

Update In California, state law requires that the names of donors of >$100 be public. There was much fussing over the website that had the donor names on it (note that this includes donors on both sides). In a bid to keep Prop8 donors secret in retrospect has also been denied. Yes, the election was three years ago, but the Prop8 supporters consider that this is such a volatile issue that their donors are "at risk".

The judge read from a batch of declarations in which people claimed yard signs were stolen, that they received harassing phone calls, or, in one case, that people protested outside someone's business. "That's the extent of what happened," he said.

Get over yourselves, H8-ers! If "defending marriage" is so important to you, show the courage of your conviction.

SPLC debunks 10 common anti-gay myths

Check it out here. I'll have more to say about the SPLC report when I have a chance to read it.

Voices of Faith Speak Out: being gay is a gift from God

From Episcopal priest Ed Bacon:

I believe it is no longer enough for LGBT people to come out and let the world know who they were created to be, although that continues to be a courageous and transformational act. It is time for Christians to come out and let the world see the Church as it was created to be: a vehicle of love and justice, not a bastion of bigotry and homophobia.

It is time for people of faith to speak out against the religion-based bigotry that has for too long fueled the fires of homophobia that perpetuate violence against LGBT people and plant the seeds of self-loathing in LGBT youth.

And it is time to take to heart the words of Rabbi Abraham Heschel, who famously said, "Few are guilty, but all are responsible." I may not be guilty of the religion-based bigotry that has wounded countless members of God's beloved LGBT children, but I am responsible for offering a counter-narrative to the lies that have been told about the God I serve -- the God of love, justice and compassion.

My faith tradition teaches that the truth will set you free -- and the truth is: God loves.

The truth is: love trumps.

And the truth is: Being gay is a gift from God.

Blog hiatus and poll (link fixed)

I'm taking a break for a little while.  This blog gets about 20-50 pageviews a day, but individual posts get many fewer. I can't tell how many subscribe to the feed.  Aside from a couple of stalwarts, there are few comments and no substantive discussion.

There are lots of gay news sites, bigger and more active.  Am I having any impact?  Do the 920 posts I've made, make any difference?    So, I'm going to leave you with a poll to see what you think.