Rebutting NOM's anti-marriage ad in Rhode Island (video sunday)

Quote of the day: let's stop talking about homosexuality

From Dan Savage in last week's NY Times:

Social conservatives long to raise their children in a country where they don’t have to hear about homosexuality every time they turn on the news. I’d like raise my son in a country like that too. And guess what? In countries like Canada — where the fight over gay rights is essentially over, where there is gay marriage, open military service and employment protections — homosexuality hardly ever makes the front pages of newspapers. There’s nothing much to report.

Conservatives can’t get rid of us, but they can hear less from and about us. They just have to bend toward justice.

Good news from the states

In Maryland, a flash of good news, as a marriage equality bill will be introduced. But if it passes, it will almost certainly have to go to the ballot and we know how that turns out. The Washington Post polls the public at 51% supportive. (But don't be complacent. Early polls in California, prior to Proposition H8, also found a majority supportive. ) Trying to fend off marriage, the Republican leader proposed a civil unions bill. In yet another example of the official Republican lockstep, he is now no longer the Republican leader. So much for moderates. Let's be clear: Republicans do not want ANY recognition of LGBT couples. They are irrevocably opposed to equality.

In Rhode Island, also some good news as the new governor supports marriage equality. The Roman Catholic Bishop of Rhode Island leads the opposition, but polling appears robust in favor. Deliciously, Roman Catholics are amongst the staunchest supporters.

Hawai'i is on track to put forward civil unions. I don't like civil unions, as they are 2nd class status. But they are certainly far better than nothing.

On these lines, Illinois Governor Quinn will sign a civil unions bill.

Bad news from the states

Wyoming's legislature continues with its push to deny recognition to same sex couples. Not satisfied with outlawing same sex marriage, Wyoming is now pushing to make sure that no scrap of protection can be given a gay couple. Given that WY styles itself "The Equality State", given that it has a strong libertarian streak, and given that it directly witnessed the gay-bashing murder of Matthew Shepard essentially crucified on a fence in Laramie, I would have hoped for better.

In New Hampshire, although the Republicans are threatening a legislative overturn of marriage equality, some of them admit that there are more pressing issues, like the economy, stupid. Amusingly, however, the anti-gay NOM machine has attacked the senior Republican by sending out flyers in his district complaining that he won't put marriage repeal front and center.

Bettencourt said the National Organization for Marriage sent a direct mailer to his district in Salem saying he doesn’t support traditional family values. He said the mailer was the result of his announcement last week that the House Republican agenda did not include repealing gay marriage….

I just love it when they turn on their own.


In Iowa, the newly empowered Republicans in the legislature are also on the warpath to repeal marriage equality, , as well as any other recognition of gay couples. Emboldened by their success in punishing the judiciary, they plan a legislative attack as well. Because clearly the very fabric of society is crumbling ever since the gays started to marry there. Fortunately the state Senate remains Democratic, but you can't always trust the Dems on this.

In Washington DC, some Congressional Republicans are threatening to overturn marriage equality in the District. While this seems far-fetched, there are actually strategies that would allow them to do this without a veto--unless the Democrats can stand up to them.

Benefits and taxes: gay couples and friendly employers

It used to be that modern, forward thinking companies could be recognized by whether or not they give benefits to the partners of same sex couples.

But that's a double edged sword. If you are married, the IRS views those benefits as a perk of the relationship. But if you are NOT married, federally speaking (and no gay couple is married in the eyes of the federal government, thanks to DOMA), the IRS views those benefits as taxable.

These days, the modern, forward thinking companies are increasing the pay of the gay employee to cover their additional costs incurred by covering their partners. From the NY Times:

A growing number of companies are covering the extra costs that same-sex couples pay for domestic partner benefits — and even more companies are thinking about it. …. A handful of companies cover those extra costs, but not until Google adopted that policy earlier this year did the movement to equalize benefits begin to gain traction. Apple is the latest boldface name to join the effort.

A provision within a draft of the health care overhaul bill would have eliminated the tax, but it was ultimately dropped. The Human Rights Campaign said it continued to work on getting a bill passed, but until that happens — if it ever does — employees or their employers must pay the extra tax. (Many companies will cover the costs only for same-sex partners, since opposite-sex couples have the option to marry.) …

The biggest deterrent, of course, is the cost. Many companies support efforts to eliminate the tax altogether, but they’re unwilling to cover the costs employees now face.

Okay, I'm really happy that the companies are doing this. Of course. But there's another sting to the tail, here, and that is that it entrenches a second class status for LGBT people, even if they are married: an asterisk by their name. I'm married, dammit, I have the license to prove it. There should be no difference in my treatment by the IRS.

And, on the other hand, it also gives LGBT a sort of a "bye" from the commitment of marriage.

My employer provides benefits for same sex partners. When I started this job a number of years ago, to prove the partnership, they required evidence of "co-mingled finances": both names on a lease, a joint checking account, or a common car ownership*. That's not marriage, that's co-habitation.

It's not enough for a straight couple, if they want benefits. But for LGBT people in many places, it's all they've got. How do we distinguish a faithfully committed MARRIAGE from a simple co-habitation? Unless we have marriage, we can't.

Marriage matters. LGBT people should have the same access as straights to marriage-associated benefits--and importantly, they should have to be married to get them.



*This was before marriage in CA, before Prop8, and at the beginning of Domestic Partnerships. And what's a DP, really? It's a form you download from the internet to give you 2nd class status. It has no meaning outside of the state. Even today many attorneys do not recommend LGBT people get DPs, because they are legally uncertain in many respects, and there are many cases of them being ignored. Until these cases are litigated, it isn't clear that they really WILL get you any rights. And of course, neither marriage nor DP gets you anything from the Fed, so you still have to pay $$$ for trusts etc etc.

It's going to be a long 4 years

Nan Hunter, writing at the blog Hunter of Justice looks at the map of the US from the point of view of LGBT rights. The states that have any recognition for LGBT people , such as antidiscrimination laws, and/or partnership/marriage protections, are left white. (However, many of the white states are explicitly anti-marriage so it's a pretty low bar.) The remaining states are blue (for Democratic legislature and governor), red (for Republican) and purple (for mixed). Unsurprisingly, the white states are largely blue or purple.

However, in important swing states where at least an employment law should be an achievable goal - Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania - there is a solid red wall. The same wall extends to large states that should be targets for job protection laws in five years: Florida, Georgia, Texas, and Virginia.

Montana is an exception to the pattern, in that it is a totally blue, non-southern state that does not have either an anti-discrimination law covering lgbt people or a mechanism for recognition of gay relationships. …

For the most part, though, the maps illustrate that at least for the next few years, advances in lgbt rights are likely to continue...in the states that already have the best laws. And there is likely to be virtually no forward movement in the rest of the nation. On this set of issues, the red/blue split in legal and political geography is going to get much sharper.

What I find striking is that even by the low standards of ANY pro-LGBT legislation, so much of this country is unfriendly. I am so fortunate to live in a state where I can be out, let alone be married. How brave, how lonely, how threatened must the LGBT in the red states feel.

Step by step, new federal rules protect LGBT people

Two things of note last week. First, from ABC news:

Patients at nearly every hospital in the country will now be allowed to decide who has visitation rights and who can make medical decisions on their behalf -- regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity or family makeup -- under new federal regulations that took effect Tuesday.

The rules, which apply to hospitals participating in the Medicare and Medicaid programs, were first proposed by President Obama in an April memorandum and later implemented by the Department of Health and Human Services after a period of public review

This isn't specifically about LGBT people, but is intended to prevent hospitals from discriminating against gay and lesbian couples in the wake of cases like this.

Second, from Poliglot

Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan unveiled new regulations being proposed by HUD that would prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in several of the federal agency's programs -- from government-backed mortgages to public housing.
...

Most notably, the rules would prohibit lenders from using sexual orientation or gender identity as a basis to determine a borrower's eligibility for Federal Housing Administration-insured mortgage financing.

Donovan noted that this rule would have a significant impact because the "FHA represents one-third of all mortgages in this country." HUD officials later clarified that this would mean that private lenders seeking to issue FHA-insured loans would be required to follow the new rules.

Additionally, Donovan said that the rules today proposed clarify that "the term 'family' includes LGBT families and couples" as covered individuals and families in all HUD programs….

Finally, Donovan said the proposed rule "prohibits inquiries regarding sexual orientation or gender identity" in all HUD-assisted housing, or housing whose financing is insured by HUD. …

[T]he rule made available today will be published in the Federal Register on Jan. 24, which will then put in motion a 60-day public comment period that will end on March 25. A spokesman for the department said that publication of the final rules will depend upon the volume of comments received and any necessary changes to them. He said that he expects the final rule to be published before the end of 2011.

You just KNOW what those comments will be….

Last week in Prop8 (video Sunday)

This week in Prop8--this one's a week out of date, but you can check them out at Stop8:

And another DOMA case comes into view

From the SF Chronicle:

In a victory for gay rights advocates, a federal judge has ruled that state employees in California can sue for discrimination over the federal government's exclusion of their same-sex spouses from a long-term health care program.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken of Oakland denied an Obama administration request to dismiss the suit Tuesday and signaled that she is likely to overturn provisions of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which denies federal benefits to same-sex couples....

... Wilken said the 1996 law actually changed the status quo by "robbing states of the power to allow same-sex civil marriages that will be recognized under federal law."

She also rejected arguments that the law's sponsors put forth in 1996, that the legislation was necessary to promote procreation and preserve heterosexual marriage.

"Marriage has never been contingent on having children," Wilken said, and denying federal benefits to same-sex couples "does not encourage heterosexual marriage."

She said sponsors' "moral rejection of homosexuality" had been obvious in congressional debate. The U.S. Supreme Court has found that bias against gays is an unconstitutional justification for passing a law, Wilken noted.

....

The couples sued in April over the California Public Employees' Retirement System's refusal to enroll the spouses in a federally approved long-term care plan. ...

The California agency has refused to sign up same-sex spouses because the Defense of Marriage Act denies federal tax benefits to any state that covers them.

. THe case is Dragovich v. U.S. Dept of the Treasury. More background here, telling us

CalPERS’ plan allows members to enroll their parents, in-laws, siblings, and opposite-sex spouses. Same-sex partners may not apply.

So you can cover your brother in law but not your spouse.

So, I think that makes 4 or 5 DOMA cases percolating right now at various stages. Legally married same sex couples: equal rights under the law, or not?

The battle reignites in Iowa

Another effort at an amendment. It ain't over till....when? (my emphases)

A constitutional amendment that would mandate that marriage between one man and one woman is the only legal union that is valid or recognized in the state was introduced Wednesday in the Iowa House, marking the beginning of what promises to be one of the most contentious debates of the 2011 legislative session.

Fifty-six of the GOP’s 60-member majority signed on as co-sponsors to House Joint Resolution 6. Four Republican lawmakers...and all 40 Democrats refused to sign on as co-sponsors. The legislation goes beyond just banning same-sex marriage. It would also ban civil unions, domestic partnerships and any other legal recognition of same-sex couples.

The amendment would invalidate the Iowa Supreme Court’s unanimous 2009 ruling that legalized same-sex marriage. ...

[says a proequality activist]...."Writing discrimination into the Constitution will only divide us at a time when we need to work together to tackle common concerns. Iowans expect their elected officials to focus on issues that matter to everyone, like creating jobs, providing educational opportunities, and improving healthcare. Going backward on equal rights sends the wrong message.”

Since when do they care? hate is hate.

Marriage Equality in Wyoming: disappointing news from "the equality state"

From WyomingNews.com

Legislation to clarify Wyoming's definition of marriage split along party lines to pass out of a House committee 7-2 on Monday.

Wyoming law already defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman, but state law also requires the state to recognize marriages performed in other states. House Bill 74 would close that loophole, specifying that same-sex marriages performed in other states or other countries wouldn't be considered valid in Wyoming....

[Torrington resident Butch Nollsch] criticized conservative lawmakers for arguing against gun control but in favor of "marriage control." Nollsch asked if it meant that marriage is more dangerous than guns, saying that HB 74 doesn't benefit the state in any way.

The old tired arguments of course, that they don't hate gays they just want to protect procreating straight people. And how does denying me any protections do that?

Marriage Equality in DC: Supreme court refuses to hear challenge

From Poliglot:

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court turned down a request by Bishop Harry Jackson and others to hear their case seeking an initiative on marriage equality in the District....

The Supreme Court receives thousands of requests to hear cases annually, yet hears significantly fewer than 100 cases each year. Nearly its entire docket is discretionary, and so today's action -- a denial of the certiorari petition filed by Jackson -- legally signifies nothing other than that the Supreme Court is not going to review the case in question further.

For D.C., though, the action puts an end to the legal questions remaining for marriage equality here....

Calling the issue a "relatively obscure matter of law," longtime District gay rights activist Bob Summersgill told Metro Weekly, "This was not about the merits of marriage, it was whether the council in 1979 had the authority to restrict initiatives and referenda from violations of the Human Rights Act."...

Despite the absolutism on that point, he added a counterpoint.

"This is also a victory for the incremental approach that we took," he said. "Our critics were correct that we could have passed marriage soon, but we could not have kept it. Keeping it was the hard part.

"We see in California and Maine, you can get the law passed -- but if you're not prepared to keep it, you may not. Making sure that we could keep it was the challenge for 10 years."

Roman Catholic Bishop calls for war against marriage equality

In Rhode Island, progress is being made towards marriage equality. Right on cue, Roman Catholic Bishop issues a clarion call to "defend marriage"last Sunday (emphases mine).

I submit that today, in the State of Rhode Island, we are faced with a challenge to our baptismal promises to renounce the modern day evil works of Satan and confess our belief in Christ and His holy Catholic Church. …

This challenge takes the form of an attempt to grant to same sex couples that recognition reserved for the oldest and the only institution God created in His own image: Man as male and female united in marriage. ... there can be no vocation to an immoral partnership that contradicts God’s own Word!

There are many reasons to oppose as equal to marriage the recognition of unions between people of the same sex… .

However, for the sake of brevity, permit me to confront the essence of this problem. Let’s be frank about it; namely, it stems from the desire of some to grant to homosexual relations the same validation given to relations between men and women. In short, many are seeking public approval of homosexuality. Yes, when all is said and done, that is the crux of the problem and it must be said that according to God’s revelation homosexual acts are deviant. …

There is much more that can be said about this issue but unless we confront it from God’s point of view, then we will continue to be confused about a matter that is being portrayed either as harmless to the rest of society or a matter of equal rights or an issue of privacy or an effort to eliminate discrimination—and it is none of these. ...

With regard to the duty of elected officials and jurists, they must be sensitive to the fact that civil laws are the principles that structure society, for good or for ill. The right to make laws does not mean that the laws so made are right!

Furthermore, to accord a recognition to same sex unions that equates immoral activity with the sanctity of marriage is to expose young people to erroneous ides about sexuality and marriage, and confuses young minds by sending the signal that an evil tolerated is an evil approved and legalized.

Remember the title Jesus gave Satan: “The father of lies.” Many lies will be told in this campaign to distort the first creation of God. To accord the same recognition we give to marriage to unions between people of the same sex is to distort God’s plan for a civilization based on obedience to His commandments and love for His law. Mark well that we will pay the price, as did Sodom and Gomorrah, whether that destruction comes from moral rot within our society or a weakening of our will as one nation under God in whom we claim to trust.

In this battle, there is no neutrality, no demilitarized zone. If our baptismal promises mean anything to us, then we know clearly which side we are on, for it is the side that God is on. And do not think for a moment that God forgets!

Holy war, anyone?

You'd think in the wake of the hyperbolic rhetoric around the Giffords attempted assassination, he might have toned it down a bit (he gave his sermon on Sunday 1/7). Still, we've been warned…and we'll know who they are by their words of violence.


(H/T Prop8 Trial Tracker)

Does it matter that Daniel Hernandez is gay?

The quick thinking of Daniel Hernandez, an intern in Rep Giffords' office, may have saved her life. He's being called a hero by the President as well as many others.

If you read the comments to the articles, people are saying "why does it matter that he's gay?"

It matters. Because this brave young man is nevertheless a second class citizen.

Daniel cannot serve in the military. DADT repeal is a process, not yet complete, the Department of Justice is still defending DADT in court, and service members are still at risk if they come out.

Daniel cannot marry the person of his choice in Arizona. If he does marry in one of the few states that allow it, there is no legal recognition by the US government, which continues to defend DOMA. He will be described as "single" on his tax forms and his passport; and his marriage is simply viewed as nonexistent in at least 41 states of the Union.

Daniel can be fired simply for being gay in most states, including Arizona.

Republican candidates fall over themselves to explain how much they despise people like Daniel, how they aren't deserving of rights or protections. Religious figures compare the gay rights movement to the works of Satan.

Daniel Hernandez is a fine young man and we should be proud of him. And the fact that he is denied full civil rights is certainly germane to the discussion of his selfless and brave acts in Tucson. Once we have equal rights, then indeed our sexuality will be irrelevant. How I long for that day. But since the nation MAKES us different, that difference matters.

Freedom to discriminate (video sunday)

Obama DoJ and the DOMA appeal

The president may coyly suggest that his feelings about marriage equality are "evolving", but his DoJ is still claiming rational government interest in DOMA, the so called defense of marriage act. They are appealing the Massachusetts federal district court that found it unconstitutional to deny legally married Massachusetts couples the federal benefits of marriage.

As Politico notes:

"There are some improvements in tone in the brief, but the bottom line is the government continues to oppose full equality for its gay citizens," said Equality Matters chief Richard Socarides in an e-mail. "And that is unacceptable."

From Chris Geidner at Poliglot:

Despite that "ongoing dialogue," the government asserts three reasons to justify DOMA's continued validity:

1. Congress Could Have Rationally Concluded That DOMA Promotes A Legitimate Interest in Preserving a National Status Quo at the Federal Level While States Engage in a Period of Evaluation of and Experience with Opening Marriage to Same-Sex Couples.

2. Congress Could Reasonably Conclude That DOMA Serves a Legitimate Federal Interest in Uniform Application of Federal Law Within and Across States During a Period When Important State Laws Differ.

3. Congress Could Reasonably Have Believed That by Maintaining the Status Quo, DOMA Serves the General Federal Interest of Respecting Policy Development among the States While Preserving the Authority of Each Sovereign to Choose its Own Course.

Although each is slightly different, these three "rationales" do read like different shades of the same argument, which is more or less that DOMA made sense -- or, is rational -- because the states hadn't reached a uniform decision.

BUT as I've noted before, the DoJ basically has to appeal this if it is to have any bearing outside of Massachusetts. And there are some interesting statements in the brief (see the original for the references)

This one is interesting because it undercuts the primary argument being used by the defenders of Prop8: gays can't procreate. The government is conceding that this argument is not rational.

[T]he government does not contend that DOMA serves a governmental interest in “responsible procreation and child- rearing.” As the government explained in district court, since the enactment of DOMA, many leading medical, psychological, and social welfare organizations have concluded, based on numerous studies, that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents. The district court nonetheless addressed that rationale, and certain other rationales the government did not advance, and rejected them as irrational. The government does not challenge those specific aspects of the district court ruling on appeal.
p.50

This one is an admission that times are changing, and the way things are is harmful to gays and lesbians.

When DOMA was enacted, the institution of marriage had long been understood as a formal relationship between a man and a woman, and state and federal law had been built on that understanding. But our society is evolving, and as is well-established, the “science of government . . . is the science of experiment.” Over the years, the prevailing concept of marriage has been challenged as unfair to a significant element of the population. Recently there has been a growing recognition that the prevailing regime is harmful to gay and lesbian members of our society.

p51

This one points out the complications without DOMA.

Without DOMA, federal benefits would vary for same-sex couples from state to state. Couples in a state that allowed same-sex couples to marry would receive certain federal benefits, while couples in a state that did not authorize such marriages would not. Further, several states have created a civil union or domestic partnership regime that provides, under state law, virtually all of the same rights and benefits as marriage. Under current federal law those partnerships – whether same-sex or opposite-sex – do not qualify as marriages. Given the differing treatment in the states of committed relationships between same-sex couples, Congress could have rationally concluded that a uniform federal definition was warranted. And while it may be preferable as a policy matter for Congress to have provided the same benefits to all married couples, the uniform path that Congress chose was permissible….

THe argument being that it's better to just lump the gays into disadvantage than try to figure out the inconsistencies from state to state.

Of course, the lunacy of this is notable in California, where the brief argues that it wouldn't be fair to have married gay couples have benefits that are no longer available to other gay couples.

….a uniform federal definition eliminates not only variations among the states, but variation in federal benefits for same-sex couples within the same state. As explained above, in California, same-sex couples married between June 2008 and November 2008 remain in recognized marriages in that state, but no more such marriages may be performed. Thus same-sex couples formally united during that period would benefit from federal laws regarding marriages, but other same-sex couples seeking to marry in the state would not. p.67

Stay tuned, we'll keep you posted.

You can't get married in TX but maybe you can get divorced.

From The Austin Statesman, the story of two women married in Massachusetts who moved to TX and now want to divorce. The Attorney General of Texas did not agree that a court granted them a dissolution, apparently believing that to grant them a divorce suggests they were married, and preferring them to STAY married. Not that the AG has any interest in a private divorce, it seems….

An appellate court ruled … that Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott may not intervene in a Travis County same-sex divorce case, a finding that lets stand for now the divorce of two women who were married out of state but does not affect Texas’ ban on gay marriage….

There are certain circumstances where the state could enter a case after a judgment has been entered, including when state statutes are under attack, the court ruled.

“This case, on the other hand, is not a suit to declare a statute unconstitutional or enjoin its enforcement, but a private divorce proceeding involving issues of property division and child custody,” said the court’s opinion, written by Justice Diane Henson.

Genetics Aside #3: Chromosomes and sex determination

The conservatives have a rigidly deterministic view of biology. Sex seems pretty simple. Men are XY, women are XX. You get a Y chromosome from Dad, you're a boy. You get an X chromosome, you're a girl.

Mostly, but not always.

Due to defects in chromosome segregation, it's possible to be XYY. These individuals are male (and pretty indistinguishable from "normal" males; attempts to correlate extra Y chromosomes with violent behavior were discredited years ago).

XXY chromosomes give rise to Klinefelter's Syndrome. These patients are male, but generally have reduced testicular function and increased levels of female sex hormones. They are generally infertile.

By contrast, XXX females have relatively few symptoms and may not even be diagnosed.

It's possible to be XO--that is, one X chromosome only. Those with this "monosomy X" are female. It's called Turner Syndrome and is accompanied by a higher rate of cardiovascular and kidney abnormalities, and delayed puberty and infertility. (Women who are mosaics, that is only some of their cells lack the second X, are generally less severely affected).

But even if you are "normal" XY or XX, you may not be typically male or female. For example, you may be XY chromosomally, but phenotypically (that is, in appearance) female, if you have complete androgen insensitivity syndrome. That means a mutation in the gene required to respond to the masculinization effects of testosterone. The "default state" is to develop as a female. This may not be diagnosed till puberty, when failure to mature leads to diagnosis. These women generally identify as straight females.

That's just one example. There are many others where sex or gender are ambiguous for a variety of reasons. There are many ways to be biologically intersexed, sometimes with physical features of both sexes. It used to be that doctors at birth would decide "which sex" they thought an intersexed child should be, often with disastrous consequences. Increasingly, parents and intersexed individuals are demanding the right to be left alone and decide on their own gender identity as they grow up. In many cases, empowered young people decline the invasive surgeries that would make them more "normal," but this isn't true for everyone.

A now discredited view suggested that absent sex organs, a boy could be successfully raised as a girl, which was used to justify many "sex reassignment" surgeries of intersex children. The most famous victim of this was David Reimer, whose penis was accidentally cut off at circumcision. His parents were encouraged to raise him as a girl, but he was never happy in that identity and when he learned the truth, reverted to being a male. He died of suicide, ultimately unable to resolve the conflict between how he was forced to live growing up with who he was. And revolting abuses still continue, notably regarding girls who might be.... "less feminine."

Given this diversity, it's not surprising that gender identity is not necessarily a strict binary. It's also not surprising that some people identify as transgendered; just from these few examples, we can see that there's a wide range of biological reasons that may lead to differences in how someone feels about themselves, versus how they are "plumbed".

Isn't it about time that we stopped trying to put labels on people and shove them into strict boxes?



To read this entire series in order, visit the Genetics Page.

The changing face of "traditional" marriage

It has long been pointed out that Biblically "traditional" marriage is one guy with multiple wives. But even in modern times, marriage has changed in really revolutionary ways. From the WaPo, marriage scholar Stepanie Coontz writes, Gay marriage isn't revolutionary. It's just next..

...We are near the end of a two-stage revolution in the social understanding and legal definition of marriage. This revolution has overturned the most traditional functions of the institution: to reinforce differences in wealth and power and to establish distinct and unequal roles for men and women under the law.

Coontz goes on to point out that really traditional marriage was about controlling property and power. Think of arranged marriages between the aristocracy, loveless marriages that merged companies and estates. Marriage was, frankly, a contract between men: a groom and the father of the bride. The woman was simply part of the payment.

For many people, marriage was an unavoidable duty. For others, it was a privilege, not a right. Often, servants, slaves and paupers were forbidden to wed.

But a little more than two centuries ago...Love, not money, became the main reason for getting married, and more liberal divorce laws logically followed. After all, people reasoned, if love is gone, why persist in the marriage? Divorce rates rose steadily from the 1850s through the 1950s, long before the surge that initially accompanied the broad entry of women into the workforce.

Okay, so there's revolution number 1: it allows that the couple who are to marry are the ones to make the decision, not their fathers, not their clans, not their tribes. This is a hallmark of modern society, but even so has not uniform. Lots of cultures still arrange marriages. And brides are still property, commanding a bride price, or a dowry. (Aside: interesting, isn't it, that in some traditional cultures the groom is essentially bribed by a dowry, while in others, he has to pay for her.)

Adopting love as the basis for marriage meant other changes, too, especially greater acceptance of the idea that men and women had a fundamental right to marry, even to people of whom their parents - and society - disapproved. By the 1940s and 1950s, many state courts were repealing laws that prevented particular classes of people from marrying. In 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for states to prohibit interracial marriage. In 1978, that court struck down a Wisconsin law prohibiting marriage by parents who had not met prior child-support obligations. In 1987, it upheld the right of prison inmates to marry.

So, we can see this as the broad culmination of 2 centuries: we can choose our partners. SO that's part of the argument. But really, as in much of LGBT rights, the issue is entangled with sex roles and the status of women.

...marriage continued to be based on differing roles and rights for husbands and wives: Wives were legally dependent on their husbands and performed specific wifely duties. This was part of what marriage cemented in society, and the reason marriage was between men and women....By the early 19th century, the old ideas that women needed to be under male authority because they were more prone to sexual passion and religious error than men, and that husbands ruled the home just as monarchs ruled their kingdoms, had given way to a gentler but equally rigid gender ideology.... Women were frail dependents whose nurturing nature and innate sexual purity predisposed them to sweet submission.

This redefinition of gender allowed 19th-century Americans to reconcile the new ideal of married love with a continued claim that husbands and wives had completely different rights and duties. And in the 20th century, even as the right of individuals to choose their partner became the cultural norm and legal reality, the insistence that marriage united two distinct gender stereotypes became increasingly shrill.

It's worth reminding you here that in the US, women were not allowed to vote until 1920. Contraception was outlawed in many states, and it wasn't until 1965 that the Supreme Court found that there was a right to contraception. It was legal for a man to rape his wife, because she belonged to him and owed him sex. Of course, this is all tangled up with property and power too, because of inheritance. Culturally, we have a lot invested in the control of women and their fertility.

During the 1940s, '50s and '60s, sociologists and psychiatrists remained adamant that marriage required strict adherence to traditional feminine and masculine roles....Well into the 1970s, marriage was still legally defined as a union that assigned differing marital rights and obligations according to gender....

During the 1970s and 1980s, however, a new revolution in marriage rolled across North America and Europe. As feminists pressed for the repeal of "head and master" laws enshrining male authority in the household, legal codes were rewritten so that they no longer assigned different rights and duties by gender. ...

And that's really the root of the issue. Homophobia (heterosexism) is just one strand to SEXISM. The problem with same sex marriage is that it makes explicit that marriage is a partnership between equals, not an unequal power arrangement. Both have equivalent rights. It's a change, of course, but as Coontz makes clear, it's not the gays who have made the change. Perhaps it's the pace of the change that is the problem. As Coontz points out, it's no accident that Judge Vaughn Walker in the Prop8 federal case spent some time on discussion of gender roles. And it's no accident that many if not most of the opponents of LGBT marriage equality have very old-fashioned "traditional" views of marriage.

Opponents of gay marriage argue that this trend will lead to the destruction of traditional marriage. But, for better and for worse, traditional marriage has already been destroyed, and the process began long before anyone even dreamed of legalizing same-sex marriage.

Gay rights a wedge issue in Republican politics

There aren't many conservatives here, so you might have missed the recent shenanigans around CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference, which brings the hard right together to strategize. (Conservatives are so much better organized than liberals.) Last year, the anti-gay groups that attended held their noses because several gay conservative groups were there: the Log Cabin Republicans, and GOProud. This year, however, the anti-gay groups have put their feet down demanding that the homos stay at home. And since the gays are coming, the anti-gays are boycotting the CPAC.

Says Jonathan Rauch:

Here’s the problem: conservatives’ hostility to homosexuality isolates them politically from the rest of the public, and the anti-gay consensus is fracturing even on the right (44 percent of Republicans say homosexuality should be accepted by society).

Translation: an issue which once divided and dispirited the Democratic coalition while uniting and energizing conservatives now cuts the other way. It’s a wedge issue against the right. Not just temporarily, either…..The anti-gay right is losing its grip, but it won’t surrender without a fight…

I think that's a little too hopeful, because the social conservatives are still very powerful particularly at the state and local level. And it's also worth remembering that having lost the DADT fight, the social conservatives are really going to dig in their heels about marriage equality. Whether it's repealing marriage in New Hampshire or repealing DP benefits in Wisconsin, there's a lot of venom left in the snake and it's still biting.

The Homosexual Menace (Video Sunday)

Progress in other states?

Notes from around:

• We already mentioned that Maryland may be favorably disposed towards equality.

• And maybe in Rhode Island? The Advocate reports,

  Energized by the support of newly sworn in Gov. Lincoln Chafee, gay rights advocates will reintroduce a bill in Rhode Island’s House Thursday to legalize marriage equality…..
  
  Chafee declared his support for marriage equality while being sworn in on Tuesday.
  
  “When marriage equality is the law in Rhode Island, we honor our forefathers who risked their lives and fortune in the pursuit of human equality,” Chafee said during his speech.

• New Mexico could recognize out-of-state same sex marriages. The Advocate reports

  Gay couples legally married in other states and countries will be recognized in New Mexico, the state’s attorney general said in a legal opinion issued Tuesday...
  
  A spokesperson for New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez issued a statement saying, "Gov. Martinez made it clear during the campaign that she opposes same-sex marriage. It's important to note that no New Mexico court has ruled on this issue."
  

  Nan Hunter adds,

  the opinion states that such marriages should be recognized not only for couples who marry legally in another state and later move to NM, but also for NM residents who travel out of state in order to secure a marriage that is not available locally. This latter practice - known as evasive marriages - is often less favored under conflicts law. However, the AGO notes that NM law supports non-recognition only of marriages that conflict with "an overriding public policy." …
  
  If the issue becomes a flash point in state politics, conservatives may press the state legislature to consider "junior DoMA" legislation that would establish formal state policy against recognition.

The Boston Marriage

It would be remiss of me not to comment on the recent joyful wedding between The Very Rev. Katherine Ragsdale (Dean of the Episcopal Divinity School) and The Rev Mally Lloyd (Canon to the Ordinary for the Diocese of MA), whose marriage was performed by Massachusetts Bishop Thomas Shaw at the Cathedral Church of St Paul in Boston.

From the EDS press release

At the marriage attended by close to 400 guests, Bishop Shaw commented: “God always rejoices when two people who love each other make a life long commitment in marriage to go deeper into the heart of God through each other. It’s a profound pleasure for me to celebrate with God and my friends, the marriage of Katherine and Mally.”

From the Bridgewater Patriot-Ledger:

The Rev. Lloyd said Monday night she hopes fellow Episcopalians and others won’t focus on her marriage as a gay ceremony, but instead see it as “a commitment and marriage like any other.”

“We are asking God’s blessing, and asking the community and our friends to bless our marriage,” she said.

Exactly: bless a marriage, not a "lesbian marriage". As Susan Russell puts it in her post about the event,

I believe the values that make up a marriage transcend the sexual orientation of the partners who vow to love, honor and cherish each other until death do they part. My partner and I don't pay lesbian taxes, take out lesbian trash, make a lesbian tithe to our church or fold lesbian laundry. Marriage is marriage. Period.

Meanwhile, the Bridgewater Patriot-Ledger also quotes other sensible voices,

“Same-sex marriages are not new in Massachusetts, and the marriage between two members of the clergy in the Episcopal Church also has a history,” … said [the dean of the Episcopal Church Divinity School of the Pacific in Berkeley, Calif., the Rev. Mark Richardson].

“I am grateful that their life together can have this public recognition…."

Yes. Isn't that what a wedding is? Claiming the blessing, if you will, and the support of the public? I know we found that an amazing part of our wedding.

A lot of the gay-themed blogs picked it up too, although they may miss some of the nuance of church politics. Still, the fact that The Episcopal Church has The Gay Bishop(s) and performs same sex marriages, is making a great witness to a community historically hurt by Christian faithful. What they do gets noticed, and provides tremendous evangelism.

Of course, not everyone is happy. AmericaBlog Gay, approving of this wedding of "high level Episcopal Priests", quoted a "Catholic response" from "Catholic Online;" I clicked over for the predictable outrage only to find that it was written by a known Anglican schismatic, not a Roman Catholic. Not surprisingly, it drips with snide remarks, but given that his audience of Roman Catholics doesn't even consider Episcopal marriages to be marriages, I'm not sure what the point is of writing there.

Marriage in Massachusetts between same sex partners has been legal for more than 6 years. Several Episcopal Dioceses have been performing marriages, where legal. Others are blessing unions and previously performed civil marriages. These aren't even the first gay priests to marry. There really is nothing new here.

Meanwhile, we needn't be bothered by him. Instead, let's focus on the good news in this high-profile witness to inclusion. We send many hearty congratulations to the new brides, who have far more joyful things to think about. Fresh days of love accompany thy hearts!

As Susan Russell concludes,

Marriage equality is an increasing reality in this country and in this church and the significance of Saturday's wedding is in offering yet-another icon to the church, the communion and the world of the affirmation of the Good News of God's inclusive love made available to all. It is an opportunity for both celebration and evangelism.... it's good news for the diocese and for the church as we all work together to move beyond the "inclusion wars" and forward into God's future of love, justice and compassion.

Sing it!

Photo from here. You DID get the joke about Boston Marriage, right?

More on France and Marriage Lite

Remember France? As I told you before, they have a civil unions law for LGBT couples who are not allowed to marry. But for various reasons, those unions are available to straight couples.

And what's killing marriage in France is straight civil unions. From the NY Times:

Whatever their reasons, and they vary widely, French couples are increasingly shunning traditional marriages and opting instead for civil unions, to the point that there are now two civil unions for every three marriages.

When France created its system of civil unions in 1999, it was heralded as a revolution in gay rights, a relationship almost like marriage, but not quite. No one, though, anticipated how many couples would make use of the new law. Nor was it predicted that by 2009, the overwhelming majority of civil unions would be between straight couples.

It remains unclear whether the idea of a civil union, called a pacte civil de solidarité, or PACS, has responded to a shift in social attitudes or caused one. ....

As with traditional marriages, civil unions allow couples to file joint tax returns, exempt spouses from inheritance taxes, permit partners to share insurance policies, ease access to residency permits for foreigners and make partners responsible for each other’s debts. Concluding a civil union requires little more than a single appearance before a judicial official, and ending one is even easier....

Though French marriages are officially concluded in civil ceremonies held in town halls, not in churches, marriage is still viewed here as a “heavy and invasive” institution with deep ties to Christianity,...

For some, civil unions are simply a form of premarital engagement. Ms. Anicet, the student, said she and her boyfriend would probably be married were they not of different religions. She is Catholic, he is Jewish, and his mother disapproves of marrying outside the faith, Ms. Anicet said.

“We’re realizing that this is a test,” she said, “a way to get our families used to it.”

Though the two had considered a civil union for tax reasons, now “it’s a jumping-off point to getting married, later,” she said, adding after a pause, “I hope.”

Yes, but that part isn't available to LGBT people.

It's deliciously ironic that by forbidding LGBT people access to marriage, the civil unions undercut marriage.

Breaking: news on Prop8 appeal

From the Prop8 Trial Tracker

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals today issued a “ruling” of sorts on the appeal of Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling that found Prop 8 to be unconstitutional*. The “ruling” was actually a certification of a question to the California Supreme Court about the all-important matter of whether Prop 8 proponents have standing to appeal Judge Walker’s decision. Here’s the question they want answered:

Whether under Article II, Section 8 of the California Constitution, or otherwise under California law, the official proponents of an initiative measure possess either a particularized interest in the initiative’s validity or the authority to assert the State’s interest in the initiative’s validity, which would enable them to defend the constitutionality of the initiative upon its adoption or appeal a judgment invalidating the initiative, when the public officials charged with that duty refuse to do so.

....

So what does that all mean? Let me boil it down. Basically, California’s constitution and various CA Supreme Court decisions in the last few decades have indicated that the initiative power is a right inherent to the people of the state, and does not stem from the Legislature. It sets up the people as a kind of fourth branch of government, with its own sovereign power. And therefore, if the Governor and the Attorney General refuse to defend a proposition in court, that could essentially nullify the fundamental rights of the voters. Since ballot initiatives stem from the people, presumably the people – in the form of the initiative proponents – DO have standing to defend Prop 8 in court and to appeal it to the 9th Circuit in order to preserve the people’s initiative power.

But because such a ruling would have a significant impact on future legal battles over California ballot initiatives, the 9th Circuit is deferring to the CA Supremes.....

The CA Supremes can take as long as they want in answering the 9th Circuit. It could be days, weeks, or months. Whatever the outcome, it shows again the need to reform our initiative process. One reason our state government fails is that we’ve essentially set up a fourth branch of government – the people – that can negate anything done by the other three branches, but without any real checks or balances on the powers of that fourth branch.

Update: More commentary from lawyers and legal observers:

• Battle of the brains: how the standing question could have been avoided
• Ninth Circuit sends a question....
• Appeals Court punts

Repealing marriage equality in New Hampshire?

Same sex marriage in New Hampshire is legal, under action of the legislature. But thanks to the 2010 Republican victory, that could be shortlived.From user jpmasser at Daily Kos:

Already four Legislative Service Requests (precursors to formal bills) with intent to redefine marriage solely between a man and a women have been filed by members of the new legislature. It seems all but certain that one such bill will be brought up and passed in the coming session, vetoed by Democratic Governor John Lynch, and then a veto override attempted.

What will it take to sustain the Governor's veto? Assuming all remaining Democrats would vote to sustain the veto, it would take four Republican Senators, for a total of 9 votes of out 24, or 32 Republican House members, for a total of 134 votes of out 400 to deny a two-thirds supermajority. My understanding is that the former (finding four Republican Senators) is considered extremely unlikely, leaving it to defenders of marriage equality to round up at least 32 House Republicans (and possibly more, if there are Democratic defectors) -- approximately 11% or one in every nine Republican House members.....

[A]re national LGBT organizations up to fighting these bills-to-be before they become law in any sort of serious way? So far I've seen little to suggest that national organizations like the Human Rights Campaign or the Courage Campaign are focusing effort on New Hampshire. Did they fail to learn the lessons of California in 2008, and then again, of Iowa in 2010 where the battle was never even joined?

From notes on their web site, the New Hampshire Freedom to Marry group seems to be organizing, but I suspect they will be outgunned, outspent and outpeopled by NOM and other hate groups unless there is aid and assistance from national groups.

Opponents of equality will stop at nothing to gain the victory they so desire: a rollback of human rights in New Hampshire. It's time for the LGBT Community and supporters to wake up from the pleasant dream that was the vote on Don't Ask, Don't Tell's still-to-be-realized repeal and smell the stench that is about to rise in New Hampshire. However badly I mix metaphors.

It ain't over even when we think we win.

Stop the Bullying: Seth's Mom tells his story (video Sunday)

Because every child is precious.