New poll on SSM; how long do we wait?

From Sarah Posner at Religion Dispatches:

Sherkat performed the analysis on the GSS data following the publication of his 2010 paper, "Religion, politics, and support for same-sex marriage in the United States, 1988–2008," published in Social Science Research. That paper concluded (as the above data through 2008 showed) that public opinion was indeed trending upward for support for same-sex marriage and downward for opposition, and noted, "Our findings suggest that in a little over a decade the majority of Americans will support the legalization of same-sex marriage." While the 2010 data doesn't show an over-50% majority, it does show, far more quickly than Sherkat expected, support outpacing opposition.

The data indicate that nearly everyone is modernizing except "sectarian PRotestants" and Republicans. If you identify strongly as a conservative Christian or Republican, you disapprove.

If you look at the data for inter-racial marriage, even today about 20% of Americans disapprove. I am going to bet that you will never, ever convert that rump of conservative evangelical Republicans to support same sex marriage.

The question is, will we put the rights of the minority, and the approval on the majority, aside for the views of this group?

Catholic Priest speaks out for equality (Video Sunday)

This from the debate in Maryland that may lead to marriage equality. Fr Joe Palacios is one brave priest.

Claiming the blessing

Many of you followed me here from my other blog and know all about this, but for those who haven't, I want to tell you a story.

Too often LGBT people, attacked and injured by conservatives and fundamentalists, see religion as their enemy. This is because those opposed to equality and justice for all often coat their bias with a cloak of religion, particularly Christianity. But it isn't religion, or Christianity, that's the enemy of love. It's those who misuse it, through their fear, or ignorance, or hatred.

So while we endure the right wing claiming the mantle of "Christian", there are many, many Christians who welcome their LGBT brothers and sisters,and work tirelessly to change their churches to do the same. These folks aren't giving us a free pass; they want LGBT people to be called to the same standards and expectation they have for straight people -- a call to enter at the strait gate, so to speak.

Although I'm not a believer, my wife is quite devout. She left the Roman Catholicism of her youth to join the Episcopal church, which in core doctrine is almost indistinguishable. The Episcopal Church (TEC) has come a long way, although like any institution, it moves slowly in mandating nation-wide recognition for LGBT couples. Still, TEC is known for two openly gay and partnered bishops (as well as numerous clergy), and in many cases, generous local options for same sex couples, at the discretion of their bishops. So in many Dioceses where marriage equality is the law of the land, those Episcopal bishops will allow you to be married in church. Others may not perform the actual marriage, but will perform a blessing.

In parts of Europe, of course, civil marriage is …uh, divorced, if you will ;-) from religious recognition. So there's nothing new in having the civil celebration separated from a religious blessing.

Last summer, our local Bishop gave permission to our parish to bless faithfully partnered same sex couples. We went through the process, which included obligatory counseling, copies of our marriage license, and letters to the Bishop seeking his approval, which he gave. So, today, my wife and I will have our marriage blessed in the church community in a special mass with our friends and family.

Not a gay marriage. Not a same-sex marriage. Just a marriage, like any other marriage, now with the added expectations of a religious community. As it should be.

Next time someone tries to tell you that "Christians" are all opposed to equality, remember this.

And don't be afraid to claim the blessing.

Theological resources for fighting the anti-gay Christians 1) From the Episcopal Church, "Doing the Theology": Claiming the Blessing To Set our Hopes on Christ Same sex relationships in the life of the church Holiness in relationships 2) Dealing with the Bible arguments: What the Bible says, and doesn't say, about same sex relationships (From Soulforce) From Bishop Gene Robinson: What the Bible says: reading the texts of terror Part 1 Part 2 (Leviticus) Part 3 (Sodom and Gomorrah) Part 4 (New Testament, Romans) Part 5 (Corinthians, Timothy) 3) The book, Reasonable and Holy: engaging same sexuality, by the Rev. Tobias Haller, BSG

The waves spread outward: the DOMA decision fallout

Initially, the DoJ said this decision was about the 2nd circuit. But like waves from a stone tossed in the water, the ramifications expand. From Metroweekly:

The fallout has been rapid and expansive ..., the Department of Justice filed a letter on Feb. 24 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit announcing that it "will cease its defense" of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act in the two cases on appeal before the appellate court...

The third DOMA Sec. 3 challenge, Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management, is pending before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. A...the judge in that case has asked the government to "explain how the government plans to pursue its defense of the case following [the Feb. 23] announcement that President Obama and Attorney General Holder have concluded that DOMA is unconstitutional and inappropriate to defend."...

Additionally, attorney Lavi Soloway announced that he will be filing requests in New York, New Jersey and California on behalf of three married, same-sex binational couples -- two gay male couples and one lesbian couples -- where one spouse is facing deportation. According to Soloway, "Each will brandish a pending green card petition filed by the American spouse on behalf of the foreign spouse." Soloway writes that he "will argue that deportation proceedings should be halted because the only thing standing between each couple and a green card is [Section 3 of] the Defense Of Marriage Act, which the President and the Attorney General announced this week will no longer be defended in court."

Meanwhile, the NY Times points out that the response from many quarters has been silence. Yes, Maggie Gallagher, NOM, and the Roman Catholic Bishops are irate. But other bellwethers of the Republicans have said....nothing.

A trap for REpublicans?

From Salon:

[T]he Republicans who run Congress may now be tempted to follow the administration's subtle suggestion in its Wednesday announcement that Congress should act to defend DOMA in court itself if it disagrees with this move.

That would be a mistake....

The defenders of California’s Proposition 8, who rushed in when that state's governor and attorney general refused the job, learned this lesson in a federal case last year, when their arguments and witnesses were utterly dismantled by the all-star legal team of David Boies and Ted Olson....

True, political discourse in America, particularly when it comes to the rights of gays and lesbians, has not always been characterized by the application of perfect logic to empirical data from qualified experts. If House Speaker John Boehner and his fellow Republicans elect to wage a fight for DOMA, they will undoubtedly phrase their announcement in the culture war language that plays so well with their party base.

But then, the Republicans and their lawyers will have to step into federal court and prove -- subject to cross-examination -- how the republic would be damaged if same sex spouses can get, say, federal railroad retirement benefits. As Boies said after dismantling that disqualified expert in the Proposition 8 trial, "the witness stand is a very lonely place."

Moreover, the gay marriage opponents during that Proposition 8 trial didn’t just look dumb -- they looked mean. Homophobic campaign ads looked very different when they were played in a building devoted to equal justice than they did when they appeared on niche cable channels. The congressional record from the original DOMA debate in 1996 is filled with assertions about immorality and sinfulness that were acceptable in polite company back then (perhaps), but that will sound very different today.

As Republican House members contemplate stepping in to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, they might want to consider all of these negatives. Oh, and that poll showing how many Republicans oppose gay marriage? In the 2010 election, the issue polled at dead last among voters' concerns.

DOMA decision commentary

NY TImes:

Citing an executive-branch duty to defend acts of Congress when plausible arguments exist that they are constitutional, the Obama administration had previously argued that legal challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act should be dismissed.

But those lawsuits were filed in circuits that had precedents saying that when gay people say a law infringes on their rights, judges should use a test called “rational basis” to evaluate that claim. Under that standard, the law is presumed to be constitutional, and challengers must prove that there is no conceivable rational government basis for enacting it, a hard standard for challengers to meet.

But the new lawsuits were filed in districts covered by the appeals court in New York. That court has no precedent establishing which legal test judges should use when evaluating claims that a federal law violates gay people’s rights.

That vacuum meant that the administration’s legal team had to perform its own analysis of whether gay people were entitled to the protection of a test known as “heightened scrutiny.” Under that test, it is much easier to challenge laws that unequally affect a group, because the test presumes that such laws are unconstitutional, and they may be upheld only if the lawmakers’ purpose in enacting them served a compelling governmental interest.

Mark Ambinder:

The announcement today does not overturn the law. That would take an act of Congress or a final finding by the judicial branch, probably the Supreme Court. But it changes the vector of the legal cases considerably. Privately, the administration believes that five justices of the Court, including Anthony Kennedy, the swing vote, would find parts or most of DOMA invalid if the federal government withdrew its arguments in defense of it.

Jack Balkin

Under these conditions, it becomes much more likely that DOMA will be struck down by at least one federal Court of Appeals-- possibly the Second Circuit, where the latest cases are being brought--and therefore even more likely that DOMA will be struck down when it finally gets to the Supreme Court. All of my previous predictions as to how constitutional challenges to DOMA will go forward must be revised.

Why is that? Why does a change in the official position of the Administration matter to federal judges? The answer is that when the President and the Justice Department change their minds publicly and take a new constitutional position, it gives federal courts cover ...

The Administration's decision to switch sides does not by itself guarantee what the lower federal courts or the Supreme Court will do. But it adds to the weight of social forces moving toward the recognition of equal rights for gays and lesbians....

Nothing is certain. But this announcement is very, very important as a symbolic matter. ...

When big constitutional changes come, it is usually the result of a series of events that cumulatively change America's constitutional culture. This is one of those events, and it is quite an important one.

Legal reasoning behind DoJ decision

Detailed legal argument in the letter from AG Holder to Speaker Boehner here.

In reviewing a legislative classification under heightened scrutiny, the government must establish that the classification is “substantially related to an important government objective.” Clark v. Jeter, 486 U.S. 456, 461 (1988). Under heightened scrutiny, “a tenable justification must describe actual state purposes, not rationalizations for actions in fact differently grounded.” United States v. Virginia , 518 U.S. 515, 535-36 (1996). “The justification must be genuine, not hypothesized or invented post hoc in response to litigation.” Id. at 533.

In other words, under heightened scrutiny, the United States cannot defend Section 3 by advancing hypothetical rationales, independent of the legislative record, as it has done in circuits where precedent mandates application of rational basis review. Instead, the United States can defend Section 3 only by invoking Congress’ actual justifications for the law.

Moreover, the legislative record underlying DOMA’s passage contains discussion and debate that undermines any defense under heightened scrutiny. The record contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships – precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against. See Cleburne, 473 U.S. at 448 (“mere negative attitudes, or fear” are not permissible bases for discriminatory treatment); see also Romer, 517 U.S. at 635 (rejecting rationale that law was supported by “the liberties of landlords or employers who have personal or religious objections to homosexuality”); Palmore v. Sidotti, 466 U.S. 429, 433 (1984) (“Private biases may be outside the reach of the law, but the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give them effect.”).

Application to Second Circuit Cases

After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in Windsor and Pedersen, now pending in the Southern District of New York and the District of Connecticut. I concur in this determination.

Notwithstanding this determination, the President has informed me that Section 3 will continue to be enforced by the Executive Branch. To that end, the President has instructed Executive agencies to continue to comply with Section 3 of DOMA, consistent with the Executive’s obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, unless and until Congress repeals Section 3 or the judicial branch renders a definitive verdict against the law’s constitutionality. This course of action respects the actions of the prior Congress that enacted DOMA, and it recognizes the judiciary as the final arbiter of the constitutional claims raised.

As you know, the Department has a longstanding practice of defending the constitutionality of duly-enacted statutes if reasonable arguments can be made in their defense, a practice that accords the respect appropriately due to a coequal branch of government. However, the Department in the past has declined to defend statutes despite the availability of professionally responsible arguments, in part because the Department does not consider every plausible argument to be a “reasonable” one. “[D]ifferent cases can raise very different issues with respect to statutes of doubtful constitutional validity,” and thus there are “a variety of factors that bear on whether the Department will defend the constitutionality of a statute.” Letter to Hon. Orrin G. Hatch from Assistant Attorney General Andrew Fois at 7 (Mar. 22, 1996). This is the rare case where the proper course is to forgo the defense of this statute. Moreover, the Department has declined to defend a statute “in cases in which it is manifest that the President has concluded that the statute is unconstitutional,” as is the case here. Seth P. Waxman, Defending Congress, 79 N.C. L.Rev. 1073, 1083 (2001).

In light of the foregoing, I will instruct the Department’s lawyers to immediately inform the district courts in Windsor and Pedersen of the Executive Branch’s view that heightened scrutiny is the appropriate standard of review and that, consistent with that standard, Section 3 of DOMA may not be constitutionally applied to same-sex couples whose marriages are legally recognized under state law. If asked by the district courts in the Second Circuit for the position of the United States in the event those courts determine that the applicable standard is rational basis, the Department will state that, consistent with the position it has taken in prior cases, a reasonable argument for Section 3’s constitutionality may be proffered under that permissive standard. Our attorneys will also notify the courts of our interest in providing Congress a full and fair opportunity to participate in the litigation in those cases. We will remain parties to the case and continue to represent the interests of the United States throughout the litigation.

Breaking: Sen Feinstein to introduce repeal of DOMA

Chances probably nill, given the REpublican House and its interest in the culture wars,but it's a start. The press release:

“As a Member of the Judiciary Committee, it is my intention to introduce legislation that will once and for all repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.

My own belief is that when two people love each other and enter the contract of marriage, the Federal government should honor that.

I opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. It was the wrong law then; it is the wrong law now; and it should be repealed.”

Breaking: DOJ won't defend sec. 3 of DOMA

I have been following several federal cases that challenge section 3 of DOMA, which forbids the Federal Government from recognizing legal same sex marriages. (The other section says that STATES don't have to recognize them).

Numerous challenges have been brought that point out that the Federal Government is treating legally married citizens differently according to their gender. The furthest along is in Massachusetts, where a Federal Judge found for the married couples, and appeals were being files to take it to the Circuit court of appeal, and from there possibly to the Supreme Court. There are other cases pending too.

Now, the Dept of Justice announces they will not defend section 3 in two cases in the 2nd District court. (Despite claims otherwise, they are not required to defend if they don't want to). Other cases, confusingly, will continue to move forward; it appears this is specific to the 2nd district because there isn't already precedent there.

In the two years since this Administration took office, the Department of Justice has defended Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act on several occasions in federal court. Each of those cases evaluating Section 3 was considered in jurisdictions in which binding circuit court precedents hold that laws singling out people based on sexual orientation, as DOMA does, are constitutional if there is a rational basis for their enactment. While the President opposes DOMA and believes it should be repealed, the Department has defended it in court because we were able to advance reasonable arguments under that rational basis standard.

Section 3 of DOMA has now been challenged in the Second Circuit, however, which has no established or binding standard for how laws concerning sexual orientation should be treated. In these cases, the Administration faces for the first time the question of whether laws regarding sexual orientation are subject to the more permissive standard of review or whether a more rigorous standard, under which laws targeting minority groups with a history of discrimination are viewed with suspicion by the courts, should apply.

After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President’s determination.

Consequently, the Department will not defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA as applied to same-sex married couples in the two cases filed in the Second Circuit. We will, however, remain parties to the cases and continue to represent the interests of the United States throughout the litigation. I have informed Members of Congress of this decision, so Members who wish to defend the statute may pursue that option. The Department will also work closely with the courts to ensure that Congress has a full and fair opportunity to participate in pending litigation.

Furthermore, pursuant to the President ’ s instructions, and upon further notification to Congress, I will instruct Department attorneys to advise courts in other pending DOMA litigation of the President's and my conclusions that a heightened standard should apply, that Section 3 is unconstitutional under that standard and that the Department will cease defense of Section 3.

The Department has a longstanding practice of defending the constitutionality of duly-enacted statutes if reasonable arguments can be made in their defense. At the same time, the Department in the past has declined to defend statutes despite the availability of professionally responsible arguments, in part because – as here – the Department does not consider every such argument to be a “reasonable” one. Moreover, the Department has declined to defend a statute in cases, like this one, where the President has concluded that the statute is unconstitutional.

Much of the legal landscape has changed in the 15 years since Congress passed DOMA. The Supreme Court has ruled that laws criminalizing homosexual conduct are unconstitutional. Congress has repealed the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. Several lower courts have ruled DOMA itself to be unconstitutional. Section 3 of DOMA will continue to remain in effect unless Congress repeals it or there is a final judicial finding that strikes it down, and the President has informed me that the Executive Branch will continue to enforce the law. But while both the wisdom and the legality of Section 3 of DOMA will continue to be the subject of both extensive litigation and public debate, this Administration will no longer assert its constitutionality in court.

Put on your helmets as wingnut heads are going to explode.

Hearings in New Hampshire

We've talked previously about the efforts to repeal marriage in New Hampshire. And the fact that more than 60% of New Hampshire voters want to keep equality in the Granite State.

The graph at right shows you how many people want to repeal marriage equality (red), and how many oppose repeal (blue).

Last week, there was a hearing. Equality supporters vastly outnumbered those against justice. Word on the street is that there's a good chance that the repeal bills will be "retained", which means, not considered further in this session.

The Governor has also promised to veto any repeal. However, with Republican supermajorities, an override could be successful. (The idea that the Tea Party is only interested in the economy is laughable--they have a strong streak of the fundy Christians, make no mistake). The most important thing, then, is to stave this off as long as possible. People have been getting married in New Hampshire for a while now, and the sun still rises. There are more important things to worry about. Let's make it stay that way.

Iowa Grandma in favor of marriage equality (Video Sunday)

Don't mess with Grandma!

Blog update

There are a lot of posts on this blog. To highlight specific information, I've created a couple more permanent pages, derived from resources and posts on specific topics including children and religious arguments against marriage equality. These may be helpful in framing talking points. Let me know if there are other "shortcuts" you want to particular topics. And remember, the list of labels is on the left sidebar, that's a great way to find posts of interest.

Quote of the Day

Quote of the Day: Mike Gronstal, Iowa State Senate Majority Leader, in an interview

I’m not going to put to a vote of the people anybody’s constitutional rights. Because if I can do that to gay people, I can do it to Catholics, I can do it to Methodists, I can do it to Baptists, I can do it to blacks, I can do it to Hispanics. If I can put to a vote of the people, people’s constitutional rights, then you may be popular today – old white guys like us might be popular today and our rights will be fine – but someday the baby boom will be gone and there won’t be enough old white guys left to protect us from the tyranny of the majority.

New Poll on marriage in California

Public Policy Polling has released a new poll on marriage in California.

When PPP last asked the question in September 2010, a 46% plurality was in support, but an almost equal 44% opposed these rights.

Democrats have remained remarkably stable, with two-thirds in support and a quarter opposed both then and now. The change has come among Republicans and independents. GOP voters have moved from 76-15 opposed to only 64-29, so their support for legal same-sex marriage rights has doubled in four months. Unaffiliated voters were, much like the electorate at large, only tepidly in support previously, at 47- 41, but have now moved to 51-35 in favor of gay marriage.

Both women and men have moved toward legalizing same-sex marriage by nine points on the margin. Women were already in support, 49-39, but now stand at 56-37. Men were against by a 43-50 margin last fall, but have moved barely in support, 45-43.

Updated: Important Prop8 appeal activity today

The Supreme Court of California will make an important ruling today on the Federal court case challenging Prop8.

Why is the STATE court involved in a FEDERAL case? because the 9th District Court of Appeals has two questions before it: one, how to address the finding of Judge Vaughn Walker that Prop8 is unconstitutional to LGBT citizens, and second, whether anyone has STANDING to appeal Judge Walker's decision.

Technically, because Prop8 was voted into law, the responsibility for defending it in court rests with the state of California. But neither the governor nor attorney general wants to defend it, because they agree it is unconstitutional. So the Prop8 proponents stepped it.

The Federal court is deferring to the State court to explain whether, under state law, the proponents have the right to appeal.

From the LA TImes:

Depending on the [state] court’s ruling, the 9th Circuit could either dismiss the Proposition 8 appeal on procedural grounds -- limiting the case’s effect to California -- or rule on federal constitutional questions that would affect same-sex marriage throughout the country.

UpdateA lot of fuss about very little. What they decided was.... they will take up the question. (They could have decided to ignore it). Wow. The notoriously slow SCoCal will now deliberate further, and probably won't even hold a hearing until fall 2011.

The delay here, while frustrating, means that repealing prop8 AT THE BALLOT BOX in 2012 is a much surer way to get marriage back in CA than waiting for the appeals process to work itself out.

Economic benefits of equality in Little Rhody

The Prop8trialtracker points us to a report (PDF) from the Williams Institute showing that Rhode Island could benefit from marriage equality.

a new research study released by the Williams Institute shows that allowing same-sex couples to marry in Rhode Island would boost the state budget by more than $1 million over three years…..

In calculating the net benefit to the State, the study predicts that half of Rhode Island’s 2,097 same-sex couples, or 1,048 couples, will be married within three years after the legislation is passed. This estimate includes about 440 couples who may have already married in the neighboring states of Massachusetts and Connecticut, which allow same-sex couples to wed.

Most of the new revenue to the state is gained through increased income taxes paid by married same-sex couples.

Why it matters: a little respect

Marine Veteran John Fliszar wanted his ashes interred at the US Naval Academy. What happened? The Naval Academy treated a spouse like a spouse.

[Mark] Ketterson contacted the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis and told them that Fliszar, Class of ’71, had wanted to have his ashes interred at the USNA’s Columbarium, a serene white marble waterside crypt next to the school’s cemetery.

The memorial coordinator asked about his relationship to the deceased. Ketterson said that John Fliszar was his husband.

“They were always polite, but there was this moment of hesitation,” Ketterson recalled. “They said they’re going to need something in writing from a blood relative. They asked, ‘Are you listed on the death certificate?’ ‘Do you have a marriage license?’ ”

He was and they did, the couple having been married in Des Moines when gay marriage became legal in Iowa two years ago.

Ketterson sent a copy of the marriage license. That changed everything.

“I was respected,” he said. “From that moment on, I was next of kin. They were amazing.”

...

The USNA says Fliszar’s interment followed standard operating procedure.

“His next of kin was treated with the same dignity and respect afforded to the next of kin of all USNA grads who desire interment at the Columbarium,” said Jennifer Erickson, a spokesperson for the academy. “We didn’t do anything differently.”

Shipmate magazine, the publication of the USNA’s alumni association, ran Fliszar’s obituary. It noted his two Purple Hearts for “having been shot down from the sky twice in military missions.” It noted “for the rest of his life he would joke about his ‘government issued ankle.’ ” It noted “his burly but warmly gentle manner.” It noted he was “survived by his husband, Mark Thomas Ketterson.”

“The word ‘husband’ in the obituary has created a bit of a stir,” said Ketterson, a Chicago social worker. “I’ve heard from a number of officers. It’s been amazing. This has not been absolutely confirmed, but I think I’m the first legal same-sex spouse who planned a memorial.”

...
A marriage certificate was the key that let the USNA know how to treat Ketterson in relation to his husband’s service. Gays in the military and gay marriage are thought of as separate issues, but without legal gay marriage, or at least civil unions, how can the military know who gets the folded flag?
...

“I am a patriotic American, but I know this is not a perfect world,” [KEtterson] said. “The point is, when the chips are down, when the issue was patriotism and honor for a veteran, they were wonderful. Whatever their private feelings, they made me proud to be an American. We really do get it right sometimes.”

(H/T JCF)

Positive imagery (video Sunday)

Okay, we love GLEE when we remember to watch it. It is the most affirming TV show for gay kids. Love this number!

Marriage repeal not popular in NH

New Hampshire survey shows citizens don't want to repeal marriage. A PDF here)

There is strong opposition to a bill that would repeal same-sex marriage in New Hampshire – only 29% of New Hampshire adults support the repeal of the 2009 law that legalized same-sex marriage in New Hampshire ….“Strong opponents of repealing same-sex marriage outnumber strong proponents by a factor of 2 to 1,” said Andrew Smith, Director of the UNH Survey Center. “Politically, this is represents powerful resistance to changing the current law.”

As Joe Sudbay notes, We'll see who NH legislators listen to: their constituents or the homophobes.

But the "true believers" aren't interested in their constituents. It's why the Republicans in Congress are bringing up bills about the Healthcare plan and abortion, and cutting the budget, rather than doing anything about jobs. Yet employment is the primary issue for the constituents. The overwhelming majority of Americans just want Congress to do stuff that's useful, and to work together for the common good, to rein in Wall Street and the banks, and invest in our future. Instead, we get the tea party. Our representative democracy seems seriously, seriously broken.

Legalizing Discrimination in Utah

From the Salt Lake City Trib, a discussion of a representative who things religious liberty is a valid reason for discrimination. We no longer link to the SLC Trib.

Legalizing Discrimination in Iowa

From the Des Moines Register:

It would be legal for an Iowa business owner who cites religious beliefs to refuse to provide jobs, housing, goods or services to people involved in a marriage that violates his or her religious convictions, according to a bill an Iowa House subcommittee will consider on Wednesday.

House Study Bill 50, called the Religious Conscience Protection Act, would allow a person, business or organization such as a charity or fraternal group to deny services without fear of facing a civil claim or lawsuit if they think doing so would validate or recognize same-sex relationships.

The same-sex exclusion is by itself constitutionally troubling, several legal scholars and civil rights activists said.

However, the bill is so broad that it would legalize a wide spectrum of other discriminatory acts, they said. They raised questions about whether services could be denied if, say, a Christian were married to a Jew or if a woman who is 60 married a man who is half her age and the couple could not procreate.

So far this bill is not moving, which is something, I suppose. Tomorrow: a similar bill in Utah that could ban Mormons. Really......

Updated: Maggie Gallagher working for marriage equality in Maryland?

So, the Maryland Senate is discussing a bill for marriage equality. Apparently, the strident opposition of NOM and its high priestess Maggie Gallagher may have backfired:

The Senate Judicial Proceedings committee heard 7 hours of testimony last night on whether or not to legalize gay marriage, including from NOM’s Maggie Gallagher. Now one Senator, who was previously a foe, has said her testimony convinced him to support marriage equality.

Senator James Brochin (D) was one of the few Democrat Senators who was opposed to gay marriage. But after listening to testimony from Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization For Marriage (NOM), he’s said that her “demonization” of gay families has convinced him that he should side with marriage equality.

If you look at the polls, nationally, support for marriage equality is about 50-50. And of those who don't support marriage, a substantial fraction support some sort of civil unions. The hard-core demonization of LGBT people by Maggie and her friends turns off those in the reachable middle. THey may not be fully comfortable with marriage per se, but they don't see themselves as bigoted. And the more hysterical Maggie becomes, the more those people will recoil with revulsion from being grouped with her.

Update Here is Senator Brochin's statement:

“What I witnessed from the opponents of the bill was appalling.” Brochin said. “Witness after witness demonized homosexuals, vilified the gay community, and described gays and lesbians as pedophiles. I believe that sexual orientation is not a choice, but rather people are born one way or another The proponents of the bill were straightforward in wanting to be simply treated as everyone else, and wanted to stop being treated as second-class citizens.

Brochin added, “For me, the transition to supporting marriage has not been an easy one, but the uncertainty, fear, and second-class status that gays and lesbians have to put up with is far worse and clearly must come to an end.”

NOM: take the rainbow back from the gays

Words fail. From People for the American way:

The leader of a National Organization for Marriage (NOM) affiliate has demanded that opponents of marriage equality reclaim the rainbow from “the gay lobby.” Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, the founder and head of the Ruth Institute, which describes itself as “a project of the National Organization for Marriage,” told the right-wing American Family News Network’s OneNewsNow that the rainbow should be the symbol of Prop 8 supporters and Religious Right activists because "the rainbow is a sign of God's covenant with man." According to Morse, who was also a speaker on NOM’s “Summer for Marriage” bus tour, the rainbow has been wrongly appropriated by the LGBT community. ....

The main campaign of the Ruth Institute is “Gay Marriage Affects Everyone,” a seminar led by Morse on the dangers of same-sex marriage. Among the ways “gay marriage affects everyone,” writes Morse, include the notions that “same sex marriage will marginalize men from the family” and “increase the power of the state over civil society.”

Evolving marriage

An article summarizing the testimony by Nancy Cott, one of the PRop8 trial's expert witnesses:

Marriage has evolved into a civil institution through which the state formally recognizes and ennobles individuals’ choices to enter into long-term, committed, intimate relationships and to build households based on mutual support. With the free choice of the two parties and their continuing consent as foundations, marriage laws treat both spouses in a gender-neutral fashion, without regard to gender-role stereotypes.

At least, most of the time. Except in Massachusetts, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C., men may only marry women, and women may only marry men. This requirement is an exception to the gender-neutral approach of contemporary marriage law and to the long-term trend toward legal equality in spouses’ marital roles.

Those who would maintain this exception argue that the extension of marital rights to same-sex couples would render marriage meaningless. They say that the sexual union of a man and a woman, capable of producing children, is essential to marriage and is its centerpiece.

The history of marriage laws tells a more complex story. The ability of married partners to procreate has never been required to make a marriage legal or valid, nor have unwillingness or inability to have children been grounds for divorce.

And marriage, as I have argued, has not been one unchanging institution over time. Features of marriage that once seemed essential and indispensable proved otherwise. The ending of coverture, the elimination of racial barriers to choice of partner, the expansion of grounds for divorce—though fiercely resisted by many when first introduced—have strengthened marriage rather than undermining it. The adaptability of marriage has preserved it.

Marriage persists as simultaneously a public institution closely tied to the public good and a private relationship that serves and protects the two people who enter into it. That it remains a vital and relevant institution testifies to the law’s ability to recognize the need for change, rather than adhere rigidly to values or practices of earlier times.

Enabling couples of the same sex to gain equal marriage rights would be consistent with the historical trend toward broadening access. It would make clearer that the right to marry represents a profound exercise of the individual liberty central to the American polity.

Prop8 appeal: next step this week?

From the SF Gate:

Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakayue says the California Supreme Court will decide soon, maybe next week, on whether to enter the Proposition 8 gay marriage fray.

The 9th U.S. Court of Appeals said last month that it cannot decide if the gay marriage ban is constitutional until the state high court weighs in on whether proposition sponsors have authority to defend the measure.

A three-judge panel asked the California Supreme Court to decide if ballot proposition backers can step in to defend voter-approved initiatives in court when state officials refuse to do so. The panel suggested it would have to dismiss the case if there's no state high court input.

Zach Walls: testimony in Iowa (video Sunday)

Gays disproportionately affected by hate crimes

From The Southern Poverty Law Center, which recently declared some of the most prominant anti-gay groups as hate groups, a review of hate crime data.

Although the rash of student suicides drew major media attention for a few days, the reality, gay rights advocates say, is that the LGBT world has been plagued by hate violence for years.

But that’s not the way a hard core of the anti-gay religious right sees it.....anti-gay leaders instead blamed those who sought to protect students from bullying.... Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel said those activists want “to use the tragedies to increase pressure on the real victims: Christians.”

....[B]ullying is only the beginning of the violence experienced by gays in American society. The reality is that homosexuals or perceived homosexuals are by far the group most targeted in America for violent hate crimes, according to an Intelligence Report analysis of 14 years of federal hate crime data. The bottom line: Gay people are more than twice as likely to be attacked in a violent hate crime as Jews or blacks; more than four times as likely as Muslims; and 14 times as likely as Latinos.

A Changing Landscape
Remarkably, most Americans today seem to have a sense of the violence that the LGBT community is regularly subjected to, or in any event are increasingly rejecting extreme religious-right narratives about the alleged evils of homosexuality. An October poll by the nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute found that 65% of Americans believe “places of worship contribute to higher rates of suicide among gay and lesbian youth” (33% said “a lot” and 32% said “a little”). Seventy-two percent said places of worship “contribute to negative views of gay and lesbian people” (40% said “a lot” and 32% said “a little”).....

Digging In
It is in just such situations — when long-held societal notions about blacks, Latinos, Catholics, homosexuals or other minorities are shifting — that violent backlashes often set in. As groups like Focus on the Family have moderated their positions on homosexuality, a hard core of anti-gay groups, sensing they are being politically marginalized, seem to be growing angrier and more radical still....

A leading criminologist and sociologist of hate crimes, Jack Levin of Northeastern University, sees evidence of the growing radicalization of the fringe in other ways. He says perpetrators of anti-gay hate crimes appear to be getting older. No longer are they dominated by teens engaging in thrill-seeking with predatory gangs of their peers. More and more, he says, lone adults are committing what Levin calls “defensive hate crimes” — crimes carried out in reaction to sweeping social changes that they see as threats to their home, family, religion, culture or country.
...
[T}he hard core of the anti-gay religious right is digging in.

Please explain something to me.

The argument used by the anti-marriage equality side is that marriage is about procreation, and since gays can't procreate by hot man-on-woman sex, they can't marry. (Those straight couples who don't/won't/can't procreate apparently don't count.)

How does preventing gays from marrying have any effect on marital procreation?

Put in other words, how come if gays can marry, straight people apparently will stop having babies?

Thank you.

Iowa House passes marriage repeal

From One Iowa

The Iowa House today, by a vote of 62-37, passed an amendment (House Joint Resolution 6) that would deny any form of legal recognition for gay couples. The amendment seeks to prohibit not only the freedom to marry for gay couples, but also civil unions or domestic partnerships.

The bill now moves on to the Iowa Senate, where Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal has vowed to fight attempts to pass the amendment. If passed through both legislative bodies in two consecutive General Assemblies, the issue could be on the ballot as soon as 2013....

“This goes beyond politics,” said Iowa City resident Katie Imborek. “This is about our family and the ability for Paula and me to care for one another and our two children. At a time when so many Iowans are struggling just to make ends meet, I don’t understand why legislators would choose to take up this issue.”

Because they hate us. No other meaning for it: they hate us.

Marriage Repeal Bill Introduced in NH

From the Concord Monitor (my emphases)

A bill repealing the state's gay marriage law would use the same statute to prohibit both incest and same-sex marriage.

...

It [states], "The vast majority of children are conceived by acts of passion between men and women - sometimes unintentionally." Because of that, the bill states, the state has an interest in protecting the union of men and women to increase the likelihood that children will be born and raised by their natural parents.

Bates's bill lists the marriages that would be prohibited to all men and women. Besides same-sex partners, they include marriages to their children, aunts, uncles, nieces and nephews.

The bill states that any marriage recognized by New Hampshire before the adoption of the law would remain intact. But any same-sex marriage performed out of state after the law is passed - for example, a marriage performed in Massachusetts - would not be recognized as valid in New Hampshire.

...

Gay marriage became legal in New Hampshire in January 2010. Since then, nearly 1,000 same-sex couples have married.

House Majority Leader D.J. Bettencourt said recently that repealing gay marriage is not a priority for House leadership, and he will ask the House Judiciary Committee to retain Bates's bill until 2012. The final decision will be up to the committee, which is led by Amherst Republican Rep. Robert Rowe. A public hearing has not yet been scheduled.