World's first married lesbian couple

From the AFP:

Dutch pair Helene Faasen and Anne-Marie Thus walked down the aisle into the history books 10 years ago as the world's first legally wed lesbian couple, a distinction they now employ in activism.

"We married for love, not politics. But of course we were aware it was an historic moment," 41-year-old Thus, a notary assistant and gay rights campaigner, told AFP ahead of the anniversary Friday of the world's first gay wedding.

By tying the knot in front of the world's press, "we wanted to make other people think about how horrible it is to be denied something that is a natural right for others," added her wife, 44-year-old notary Helene Faasen....

The Netherlands was the first country to legalise same-sex marriage, in 2001....
Since then, nearly 15,000 gay and lesbian couples have wed in the Netherlands -- about two percent of the total number of marriages registered between 2001 and 2010, based on figures from the Central Statistics Bureau.
...

"Like many other people, we have a family, work, a house, a dog and two rabbits," said Thus, who met "the love of my life" on a blind date in 1998....

The couple is fiercely protective of their privacy, insisting on being interviewed at Faasen's Amsterdam office rather than at home, but say they lift the veil for special occasions in the name of advocacy.

"We like to show how very dull and normal we are," said Faasen, winking at her partner.

"It is not the Sodom and Gomorrah many people apparently expect to result from the legalisation of gay marriage".

Ten years after the couple's milestone wedding, gay marriage is still illegal in many countries. Gay sex is banned and punishable in some states, and carries the death penalty in Iran.

...
"We were lucky that others had taken up the fight and made it possible for us to get married," said Thus.

"If other people need us now, especially in countries where it is not yet legal, we want to be there for them."

Breaking: back to status quo for the binational couples.

Well, that didn't take long. According to Metroweekly,

The "hold" on same-sex married bi-national couples' green card applications -- celebrated by immigration and LGBT advocates -- is over, according to the spokesman for the agency that processes those requests.

"The guidance we were awaiting ... was received last night, so the hold is over, so we're back to adjudicating cases as we always have," U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services press secretary Christopher S. Bentley told Metro Weekly this morning.

The agency will continue to "enforce the law," he says, which means that the Defense of Marriage Act -- which prohibits the government from recognizing same-sex marriages -- prevents those green card applications from being approved.

As Andrew Sullivan writes,

The US recognizes the marital and familial bond as the most sacred factor in deciding immigration questions. Why? Because it is understood that the right to marry whomever one chooses is an elemental human right, and that a government that insists on breaking up such marriages, or forcing those in them to leave their own country, is violating basic human rights.

Which means to say that the US government regards gay Americans as sub-human in their needs and wants and rights. Their loves and relationships mean nothing under the law every time they encounter federal authoritah. ...I am lucky to be able to apply for a Green Card on my own merits.... But most people are not so lucky. They just fall in love. Only to have their own government rip their marriage apart, or force the American into exile.

If this isn't wrong, what is?

Update More from the NY Times

No more excuses

Op/Ed from the Sacramento Bee (H/T JCF)

I never thought I'd become a full-fledged supporter of same-sex marriage, especially growing up in a socially conservative Catholic family of Mexican descent.

From an early age, I had homophobia drilled into my head at church, at school and at home. ...

The most stubborn forms of discrimination are those taught to us by people we love.... As we get older, we become sophisticated in obscuring our biases with lyrical justifications or purposeful ignorance. You know what I mean?...

"There are those who sincerely believe that homosexuality is inconsistent with their religion – and the First Amendment guarantees their freedom of belief," wrote David Boies, one of the lead attorneys seeking to make gay marriage legal. "However, the same First Amendment, as well as the Due Process and equal Protection clauses, preclude the enshrinement of their religious-based disapproval in state law."

..."But a slogan is not a substitute for constitutional analysis," Boies wrote in the Wall Street Journal. "Law is about justice, not bumper stickers."

The old arguments simply don't hold up anymore.

So on Tuesday, when state Attorney General Kamala Harris asked a federal appeals court to allow gay couples to marry while Prop. 8 is sorted out, it was like another blow against intolerance.
...

It's past time for the law to outlast the lies.

...Or maybe not so good news

Some cold water on our faces regarding the break for binational couples. Metroweekly tells us the "abeyance" that might have protected them indefinitely may last no longer than a week.

Despite statements from leading organizations – most prominently, Immigration Equality – suggesting that the cases would be held in abeyance until DOMA's constitutionality is settled, a DHS official told Metro Weekly on Monday night that the abeyance could last for as little as a week....

"The DHS official tells Metro Weekly today, however, "Suspending all cases implicating DOMA until there is final judicial resolution on DOMA's constitutionality would run contrary to our obligation and to the AG's letter and therefore DHS cannot and will not do that."

Great news for bi-national couples.

The dominoes are falling.

From Metroweekly

Following up on reports from this weekend, Metro Weekly just received confirmation from Christopher Bentley, the spokesman for the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, that cases of foreign partners who are married to a same-sex partner and would otherwise be eligible for a green card are on hold in light of questions about the continued validity of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Bentley writes, "USCIS has issued guidance to the field asking that related cases be held in abeyance while awaiting final guidance related to distinct legal issues."

He notes, however, "USCIS has not implemented any change in policy and intends to follow the President's directive to continue enforcing the law."

The legal distinction means that although DOMA is still being enforced, the USCIS is using its discretion to hold off on denying green card applications where applicable.

Being the poster child

This essay really resonated with me:

Yes, I'm a bona fide California Married Gay, one half of one of that bandied-about statistic of 18,000 couples married in the state between May and November 2008. And from the beginning, our marriage was not like straight marriages. I'm not sure it ever will be or that it should be. But I am sure that when my straight friends announce they're getting married, people don't fall all over themselves to point out to them how difficult it is to get divorced. Yes, that happened. Repeatedly. That's how my marriage started, not with well-wishes, but with forecasts of trouble that had nothing to do with the reality of my relationship.

...But in a bunch of ways that I couldn't anticipate, we weren't actually equal.

Most obvious is the stuff like income taxes (we have to file jointly in California but can't file jointly federally) and various administrative headaches. But after two and a half years, more important to me is the way that we act out equality every day — how people signal to us that our marriage isn't like theirs in what they say and do.

...

Even more unsettling and depressing is that sometimes it is safer for us not to correct people....however much I believe in what Harvey Milk has to say about the power of doing it, sometimes I just don't have the energy to be a game-changer when I'm at a car rental counter after a red-eye flight...

Sometimes people who are genuinely loving and genuinely mean well — the straight folks on the party bus — put huge pressure on our relationship and our marriage. We are one of the only married queer couples most of our friends know, and they've unwittingly turned us into their Poster Couple. This one's really hard for me, because I don't want to be rude or unkind or ungrateful for their love and support. But JESUS it is a DOWNER when you're out somewhere and you have to start talking about whether or not your marriage is in legal jeopardy because your friend is SUUUUUUUUPER interested in this but hasn't bothered to follow it in the news at all....

I guess what I've learned from the marriage misadventure is something I probably should already have known: that equality doesn't automatically come with changes in the law.

The one that slays me is the generally supportive person who says brightly, "Oh, are you still married? I thought that prop8 eliminated that!" Like the clueless person cited in the essay, who doesn't follow the news. It's a kick in the stomach, frankly, that they would say it in the way they do. As though marriage is just a piece of paper, a here today, gone tomorrow sort of thing, as though it wouldn't be an utter agony and the most painful thing in the world to have the government try to rend your relationship apart.

I've had clued-in straight people ask me what year we got married. Uh, 2008? During the 6 months it was legal? They blink for a minute, and say, "oh, yeah, that's right!" (I think many of them don't really think Prop8 is still in force). And I continue to marvel that the Prop8 news that is so much in the forefront of my awareness, is barely even background to straight friends.

Hence this blog.


(H/T Andrew Sullivan)

The Lies NOM tells (Video Sunday)

DOMA repeal a wedge issue--on the other side?

From TPM:

In the wake of President Obama's decision to drop support for portions of the Defense of Marriage Act, gay rights advocates have been unabashed in claiming that beyond the merits of their underlying argument they now have the political advantage as well. Not only does public opinion polling suggest they're right, but the reaction of gay rights opponents does, too.

On Wednesday, House and Senate Democrats held separate press conferences announcing the introduction of legislation to repeal DOMA. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), one of the sponsors of the House bill, was asked whether Democrats were politicizing gay rights as a wedge issue against the GOP, as Majority Leader Eric Cantor alleged last month.

"What do I say to the idea that this is a wedge issue? I say 'Hallelujah,'" Frank told reporters. "The fact that we've now evolved to the point where the Republicans are complaining about the fact that we introduced this bill because it causes them political problems is a great sign of progress. It used to be the other way around.".

We can but hope. I think it will be telling whether any REpublicans sign on. The teapartiers (who claim to support liberty and freedom of government intrusion) have, predictably, revealed themselves to be the same anti-gay extremists. You didn't REALLY think they were different, did you?

Movement for bi-national LGBT couples?

We've talked before about how bi-national LGBT couples can get caught in a terrible bind because of their immigration status. This is particularly striking for married couples, who (because of DOMA) cannot reside together.

Some slow progress is being made. From the Gay City News:

In what appears to be the first such action of its type, an Immigration Judge in Manhattan has adjourned deportation proceedings for the Argentine lesbian spouse of an American citizen to allow the couple to proceed with their application to have their marriage recognized for purposes of federal immigration law.

Monica Alcota, 35, who came to the US a decade ago, married her partner of nearly three years, 25-year-old Cristina Ojeda, last August in Connecticut.

The couple’s attorneys, Lavi Soloway and Noemi Masliah, argue that their clients’ marital status should qualify Alcota for permanent residency, as would be the case with any different-sex couple....

In a March 22 hearing in the US courthouse at 26 Federal Plaza in Lower Manhattan, Immigration Judge Terry A. Bain gave the couple the go-ahead to press their claim with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) –– a unit of the Department of Homeland Security –– through what is known as Form I-130, a petition to have Alcota recognized as “the spouse of USC.”....

Ojeda said Bain’s action “acknowledged our marriage,” and she added that when DOJ changed its posture on DOMA, she felt that President Barack Obama had “definitely” moved into the couple’s corner in their fight.

There is no way of knowing how long the DOMA litigation will go on, but it certainly will still be alive in December. It is also likely Ojeda’s I-130 application on Alcota’s behalf will still be working its way through USCIS –– or potentially through appeal of an adverse decision. In that event, Alcota’s next appearance before Judge Bain could amount to nothing more than a perfunctory status update and a further adjournment.

Of course, every day the couple can stay together is precious in their lives.

Now, let's note what this isn't. This isn't a recognition of their marriage, a green card, or a legal residency. It is simply a right to file a claim with the USCIS that they are married. That claim can still be denied.

But it's a step.

(H/T JCF)

New poll shows increasing support from Catholics

The Public Religion Research Institutedid a poll about the Catholic view on LGBT rights. (PDF). Here are some of the key findings.

• 74% of Catholics believe that gay relationships should be "accepted by society."
• Catholics favor legal recognition for same sex couples more than any other religious tradition. They approve of marriage (43%) or civil unions (31%). But when the distinction between civil marriage and religious matrimony is made explicit, 71% of Catholics favor marriage rights.
• Catholics also favor other LGBT rights issues, and give their church poor grades in its handling LGBT issues. They understand that sexuality is not "curable" (69%), And 56% agree that sexual relationships between gay people are not sinful.
• A large number of Americans are ex-Catholics (including yours truly), and many of these report leaving in part because of Catholic teachings about homosexuality.

So while the Vatican fulminates against recognition of the gays, let's remember the disconnect between the institutional church and the people in the pews. There's a strong tradition of social justice in the Roman Catholic church in this country, which has been oppressed by the bishops in their railing about abortion and the gays. We should continue to reach out and witness to Roman Catholic believers, because while their church may be in opposition, they emphatically are not.

From NPR:

"Most American Catholics believe that one can be a good Catholic and disagree with the Vatican and the bishops on issues of personal conscience," said [Dr. Michelle Dillon, professor of sociology and chair of the Sociology Department at the University of New Hampshire]. "Gay-marriage has clearly become another issue, along with artificial contraception and divorce and remarriage, which Catholics believe is not core to what it means to be Catholic."

Vatican opposes UN statement: better dead than wed.

Predictably, the Vatican is outraged at the new UN statement. We've been here before. The Vatican believes that a resolution that specifically criticizes violence against gays, somehow impinges on THEIR rights. The only right it impinges on is their ability to advocate for imprisonment and violence.

We've seen it before. I call it the "Better Dead than Wed" policy.

My next post will show you how out of step the Vatican is with American Catholics.

BREAKING: 9th circuit will not lift stay

As you may recall, Judge Walker's decision finding Prop8 unconstitutional did not change anything in CA. Pending appeal, a stay was filed, so that LGBT couples cannot marry. The court was asked to lift the stay, and today refused.

So, people who are not at all injured by same sex marriage (the supporters of Prop8) are more important than loving LGBT couples who are materially and significantly injured by PropH8.

Because protecting their bigotry matters more than our relationships.

UN statement on LGBT Rights supported by Obama Administration

Poliglot tells us that the White House and State Department have released statements about international LGBT rights.
From the White House Statement:

President Obama believes that advancing the human rights of minorities and the marginalized is a fundamental American value...

Over the past months our diplomats have been engaged in frank, and at times difficult, conversations about the human rights of LGBT persons with governments from around world. This morning, at the United Nations Human Rights Council, some 85 countries joined the United States in reaffirming our joint commitment to end acts of violence and human rights abuses on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. The President is proud of the work we have done to build international consensus on this critical issue and is committed to continuing our determined efforts to advance the human rights of all people, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity

.

From the Secretary of State:

Today, 85 countries from every region of the world joined together in a historic moment to state clearly that human rights apply to everyone, no matter who they are or whom they love.

The United States, along with Colombia and Slovenia, took a leading role on this statement along with over 30 cosponsors. Countries around the world participated including many that had never supported such efforts. And we hope that even more countries will step up, sign on to the statement and signal their support for universal human rights.

This statement is an example of America’s commitment to human rights through dialogue, open discussion and frank conversation with countries we don’t always agree with on every issue. In Geneva, our conversations about the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals with countries where sexual orientation is not only stigmatized, but criminalized, are helping to advance a broader and deeper global dialogue about these issues.

As I said last June, gay rights are human rights and human rights are gay rights. We will continue to promote human rights around the world for all people who are marginalized and discriminated against because of sexual orientation or gender identity. And we will not rest until every man, woman and child is able to live up to his or her potential free from persecution or discrimination of any kind.]

Hey Uganda, are you listening?

Golinski DOMA challenge: setback, or new chance?

Karen Golinski, an employee of the 9th Circuit Federal COurt, has been trying to get spousal benefits for her legal wife. The latest is a setback. The SFGate tells us,

A...Karen Golinski, won a ruling in 2009 from another judge, Alex Kozinski of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where Golinski has worked for nearly two decades.

Kozinski, acting as administrator of the court's benefits system, said its coverage extends to all employees' legally married spouses, including Amy Cunninghis, whom Golinski wed in 2008 before California voters banned same-sex marriage.

But the Obama administration's Office of Personnel Management refused to comply, saying it was bound by the Defense of Marriage Act, the 1996 law denying federal benefits to same-sex couples....

Golinski sued the government to enforce Kozinski's order, but U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White of San Francisco ruled against her Wednesday. White said Kozinski was not acting as a judge and had no power to overrule the government's personnel office, which oversees health care for federal employees.

White, an appointee of President George W. Bush, said the Defense of Marriage Act includes a requirement to "unfairly restrict benefits." But he said he was ruling only on a question of judicial authority and not on the constitutionality of the law.

He gave Golinski until April 15 to recast her suit in a way that might overcome the procedural obstacles. Her lawyer, Jenny Pizer of the gay rights group Lambda Legal, said she would refile the case as a challenge to the 1996 law.

"This may, in the long run, enable Karen and Amy to have equal treatment sooner and hold onto it when they get it," Pizer said.

New Poll: ABC/WaPo

By now you may have heard about the recent ABC/Washington Post poll, which joined a series of other polls in showing that marriage equality now polls at more than 50% approval (53% in this one).

More than half the country now agrees that same sex marriage should be legal.

It's pretty amazing, isn't it. On the issue of inter-racial marriage, which was legalized in 1967 by Loving v. Virginia, , it took until the 1990s!!!! for half of America to think it was okay for blacks and whites to marry. 25 years after it became legal. Same sex marriage is illegal in more than 30 states.

But the rate of change is amazing. I graphed the individual data for you. Look at the Catholics and MainLine protestants -- support is really growing there. Even the Evangelicals are showing progress.

Here are the data for approval of same sex marriage:



As Steve Benen wrote,

But even the most radically anti-gay conservative has to realize that equality is inevitable. As the arc of history continues to bend toward justice, most of the country now believes two consenting adults should be legally permitted to get married if they want to. It's exceptionally unlikely that trend will ever reverse -- civil-rights trajectories simply never move that way. Society becomes less prejudiced, less hateful, and less bigoted over time.

Oh, and the picture? If you Google images for "arc of history bends toward justice" this is at the top. And the reason that cracks me up, is that's me! with my rainbow sparkly "Arc of History" sign that has been my trusty companion at marriage equality marches since 2008. I look forward to being able to put it away for good. Meanwhile--keep an eye out for me. :-)

Repealing DOMA (video sunday)

Both House and Senate repeal bills have been introduced. They won't pass, but it's a start.

Voices of Faith Speak Out: Don't be wedded to every tradition

From The Rev. Douglas Long, of the United Church of Christ:

In truth the real shame is our ignorance. That we codify inequality is troubling enough but, as a Christian minister, there is a Biblical claim often made by my fundamentalist friends that must not go unchallenged. They claim the Bible teaches their view of "traditional marriage."

It does not.

As one who regularly officiates at weddings, I can assure you that one must choose carefully when citing scripture in this arena.....

The truth of the matter is that the Bible is not a good source supporting monogamous and mutual marriage that our society and culture has evolved to embrace.

More systematically than considering a favorite passage here and there, Vaughn Roste, the son of two Canadian Lutheran pastors with a seminary degree of his own, has undertaken a comprehensive study of passages in the Bible, researching more than 800 Biblical references that deal with marriage. He distilled from that study what he refers to as "The 12 Biblical Principles of Marriage." In summary, in the Bible:

• Marriage consists of one man and one or more women.
• Nothing prevents a man from taking on concubines in addition to the wife or wives he may already have.
• The concept of a woman giving her consent to being married is foreign to the biblical mindset.
• If a woman cannot be proven to be a virgin at the time of marriage, she shall be stoned

For those who claim these are all Old Testament laws and that the New Testament supersedes them, consider in the New Testament that:

• Women are allowed to marry the man of their father's choosing ... because women are the property of their father until married and their husband afterwards.
• Interfaith marriages are prohibited.
• If a man dies childless, his brother must marry the widow
• Divorce is forbidden, and finally ...
• It's better, according to St. Paul, to not get married at all.

The point is this, anyone can pick and choose a verse or phrase from the Bible which, taken alone and literally, will appear to support their argument. While people of the Judaic-Christian tradition may disagree on the propriety of same-gender marriage, can we at least agree to not misuse the Bible in the process?

Those of us who consider ourselves progressive Christians value the Bible too. It is a huge part of the spiritual witness leading us to understand that all people are God's people, that every child is holy and that every person is part of the sacred family. We believe that God's love embraces all, and that to exclude any person would be contrary to the message of Jesus - and we joyfully welcome committed same-gender couples among us just as fully as we do committed couples composed of men and women.

Gay teen suicides are an act of radical activism. Really.

Baylor College is a evangelical university in Waco, TX. The students there would like a collegiate version of a gay-straight alliance. The university will not allow it. (As a private university, they have substantial leeway on issues of speech). From Change.org:

Need proof for why students on campus ought to have an outlet like the Sexual Identity Forum to discuss issues in a safe space free from rabid rhetoric or language that denies LGBT any sense of dignity? Take a look at an email Professor Francis Beckwith sent students about the Sexual Identity Forum, where he compares the idea of recognizing an LGBT group on campus with recognizing the work of Klansmen or Skinheads.

"The freedoms of speech and assembly to which you appeal are legal rights in relation to the government. Baylor is not the government. So, its policy on the proper use of our sexual powers is no more impeding your right to speech or assembly as it is impeding the rights of Klansmen and Skinheads to speak and assemble on campus," said Professor Beckwith.

Don't you just love how a group like the Sexual Identity Forum -- which really wants to just create a safe space for students of all walks of life to talk about things like bullying, suicide, and harassment -- all of a sudden magically becomes this political group capable of overturning Baylor's religious history? Prof. Beckwith continues in the note, suggesting that terms like "LGBT suicide" and "bullying" are actually political terms meant to push a radical gay rights agenda.

"Although you describe your forum as 'respectful,' the terms you employ for discussion are not respectful. They reveal a deep hostility to those who believe that homosexual conduct is disordered: 'hate crimes,' 'homophobia,' and 'LGBT suicide.' Each of these terms has been employed numerous times in the public square to intimidate and marginalize many of my brothers and sisters in Christ who as a matter of conscience cannot cooperate with the approval of homosexual conduct, since they believe such conduct is deleterious to the good of the human person," Prof. Beckwith adds.

Wow. Just wow. So it's not the bullying by people who hate gays, or the physical violence that some do in the Lord's name against LGBT people that deserves condemnation, according to Prof. Beckwith. Its gay rights activists who, in simply talking about hate crimes or suicide, marginalize Christians.

Prof Beckwith's entire email is a piece of work. He's a devout Catholic, by the way. Love how he co-opts the term "Christian", once again suggesting that all Christians are monolithic on this subject. But along with Change.org, I'm really amazed that LGBT suicide is a act of homosexual radicalism. I'm still shaking my head over that one.

Defending DOMA

Now that the DoJ has decided that they will not defend clause 3 of DOMA (which forbids federal recognition of legal marriages), Speaker Boehner and the House Republicans have decided to mount their own defense with YOUR tax dollars.

The HRC did a poll to ask whether people wanted them to do this. The answer is, NO.


Moreover, the people they polled did not particularly care of same sex couples received federal benefits.

Remember about 50% of Americans support marriage equality, so these polls are not surprising.

So why is the Speaker going to defend the indefensible?

Meanwhile, efforts to repeal DOMA in Congress are underway.

Not mine, yours (Cartoon)

The costs of DOMA

As the DOMA wars heat up, it's worth focusing on the costs of DOMA. LGBT elders are severely disadvantaged when their marriages are not recognized. From social security to Medicare to pensions and IRAs, simply being gay, even if legally married, is enough to deprive you of help that a straight couple would have.
From Reuters

Many employment benefits are geared to employee earnings history. But married couples often can take advantage of policies that allow lesser-earning spouses to tap the benefits of the higher-earning partner. That option often isn’t available to LGBT couples – including those who reside in one of the five states (and District of Columbia) that currently have legalized marriage for same sex couples. That’s because the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) of 1996 defines the word “spouse” as applying only to different-sex married couples for any purpose involving interpretation of federal law.

My Dad recently died and fortunately my mom will be taken care of. But a gay couple in the same community, even if legally married, will have none of the spousal benefits that my Mom will have.

This is the kind of story that makes it clear that opposition to equality is doing real damage to real people. And for what reason? How does depriving someone spousal benefits "protect marriage"?

THe hyposcrisy of opposition to same sex marriage

(reposted from last week)
WE saw George W Bush and his schemers use The Gays as a boogey man to energize the right, to our cost. It's a pretty deliberate scheme, and it still goes one...but what it leads to is a fundamental hypocrisy. From the LA TImes

Social conservatives say they're trying to address the problems of family breakdown, crime and welfare costs, but there's a huge disconnect between the problems they identify and the policy solutions they propose. It's almost like the man who looked for his keys on the thoroughfare, even though he lost them in the alley, because the light was better....

As a 2009 Heritage Foundation report stated, children born to single mothers "score lower on tests, have increased chances for committing a crime, have higher chances of living in poverty, experience more emotional and behavioral problems, are more likely to abuse drugs or alcohol and have higher chances of becoming pregnant as teens." And social problems like that do tend to lead to higher government spending.

But those problems have nothing to do with abortion or gay marriage, the issues that social conservatives talk most about.

Abortion may be a moral crime, but it isn't the cause of high government spending or intergenerational poverty. And one thing gay couples are not doing is filling the world with fatherless children. Indeed, it's hard to imagine that allowing more people to make the emotional and financial commitments of marriage could cause family breakdown or welfare spending.

A coming out story (video Sunday)

Voices of Faith Speak Out: Enough God to go around?

Commentary from the Guardian (UK). Backstory: the Church of England, cousin to the American Episcopalians, is having a hard time dealing with same sex partnerships, which are called "civil partnerships" in the UK. It wants to prevent other faith groups from celebrating them.

[T]he religious liberty defence has a patronising and hollow ring to it when Quakers and Reform Jews are asking precisely for the liberty to register and bless civil partnerships in their own places of worship. They do not need Anglican or Roman Catholic bishops to "save them from themselves" – especially since both our churches have a shameful history of persecuting these very same faith groups.

So why does the liberty to introduce God into civil partnership ceremonies devalue marriage? It would appear that there just isn't enough of God to go around. One cannot, apparently, honour and bless one pattern of living a faithful and committed life, without somehow devaluing another. It is the theological equivalent of printing too much money.

Western Christianity has been here before. ...When the religious life in the Church of England, pulverised at the Reformation, came back into its corporate life in the middle of the 19th century, many Victorian Anglicans saw it precisely in the same way: as a rival to marriage because it offered another sanctified, or blessed, way of Christian living. It introduced an element of "competition" into a spiritual monopoly.

The revival of the religious life in Anglicanism, and the honoured place it now has, goes to show how we can as a church change our mind and rectify our mistakes. It also goes to show that there really is enough of God to go around; that different ways of faithful living do not compete with each other but add to the enrichment of the whole. Gay and lesbian people of faith actually want God's blessing at an important time of public commitment. So much for aggressive secularism.

Stability, love, faithfulness, commitment: these are the things in human relating that matter and the things the Church of England should be doing its best not to disparage or demonise but to foster and celebrate – in short, to bless. There really is enough of God to go around.

Overview: the six DOMA cases

From Equality Matters. Check their site for detailed information about the progress of each case.

The nature of violence

The talented blogger Rob Tisinai points out the bigotry of NOM . Brian Brown, NOMs director, writes,

Even I, who’ve heard pretty much everything at this point, was a little shocked to hear one gay marriage supporter say:

“It would be less harmful to me if you would just beat me up in a dark alley. It would be less hurtful to me if you would just spray paint the word f—-t on my garage door. Nothing you could do to me physically would be more hurtful to me than the action you are proposing to take with this resolution.”

If you and I disagree with him about marriage, we are hurting him as much as–more than–if we insulted and beat him?

Does Brian Brown REALLY not get it? As Tisinai writes,

So let me ask Brian: Which would hurt you more — getting beaten up in an alley or having your marriage declared invalid? Having a nasty word spray-painted on your garage door, or never being allowed to marry the one you love?...

See, Brian, the words that so shocked you feel less like emotion-driven unreasonableness and more like a plain and sensible statement of fact.

But you know what really struck me, Brian? You listened to this man’s words — his perfectly reasonable words — and heard in them an accusation of hatred and bigotry. But the man said no such thing. You did. You made that connection all by yourself.

So perhaps now you understand why some of us view you this way.

If that's where Brian is, that he doesn't understand how vile and vicious it is to deny someone the love of their life, how beyond brutality, then he doesn't understand anything. It is further proof that he is unable to see us as fully human, in any way the same as he. Or perhaps he's just too fond of his lucrative business.

Roman Catholics prepare new onslaught in California.

LGBT POV reports there was a private summit of California Catholic leaders about a new plan to "defend and promote marriage" in 2011.

The Catholic leaders are
"“concerned about efforts to redefine marriage to accommodate same-sex couples, but understand this is just a symptom of a much larger problem that is touching nearly every family. The fundamental understanding of love, human sexuality, marriage and family is insidiously being corrupted by popular culture, teachers, and indoctrination programs in schools every day. Marriage is breaking down with huge social consequence for the 41% of children who are born to unmarried mothers today and many other victims of divorce.”

And of course, it is all the fault of The Gay. Because LGBT people marry, women have out of wedlock children and divorce is rampant.

I really, really wish someone could explain link this to me. How does my marriage cause unwed childbearing?

Debunking conservative talking points on DOMA

Equality Matters gives us a useful resource for the inevitable lies about what Obama's DOMA decision really means. Please visit their page for the details including quotes and citations, but here are some highlights.

The Talking Point: Obama Is Refusing To Enforce The Law...The Facts: Obama And The DoJ Will Continue To Enforce DOMA, Despite Not Defending It In Court. ...

The Talking Point: Refusing To Defend DOMA Is Unconstitutional And Unprecedented...The Facts: Legal Precedent Exists For Refusing To Defend Unconstitutional Laws In Court. ...President George W. Bush Did The Same Thing When He Was President....As did President Bill Clinton....And President George H. W. Bush....Also, President Ronald Reagan...

The Talking Point: Obama Is Flip-Flopping In Order To Appease His Base...The Facts: Obama Has Been In Favor Of Repealing DOMA Since Before He Was Even Elected. ...

The Talking Point: Obama Wants To Force States To Recognize Out-Of-State Same-Sex Marriage...The Facts: Holder Only Dropped The Defense Of Section 3 Of DOMA. The suits currently challenging DOMA in the courts are specific to Section 3 of the law. Section 3 has to do with federal recognition of same-sex marriages already approved by the states....

The Talking Point: Obama Is Ignoring The Will Of The People... The Facts: Americans Are Evenly Divided On Marriage Equality. A poll released by the Associated Press in August of 2010 found that a narrow majority of Americans now supports federal recognition of married same-sex couples. 52% of respondents were in favor of marriage equality, with 46% opposed. ......

The Talking Point: Obama Is Wading Into Social Issues When He Should Be Focusing On The Economy....The Facts: Obama Was Legally Required To Take A Stand On The DOMA Lawsuits By March 11. ...

Does this sound familiar?

“Orientation has a genetic basis, but like other complex traits — height, weight — it is complex,” he said. “It’s not a single gene that leads to it. There’s a strong environmental component, too. It’s a very tricky problem.”

As with other traits that we are tempted to classify as either/or, orientation is probably better viewed as a spectrum encompassing the very strongly gay or straight, and a range of those who prefer one or the other, but have different degrees of comfort....

Orientation has sometimes been treated as pathological. Cesare Lombroso, the infamous 19th-century physician who identified various facial (and racial) features with criminal traits, also saw homosexual orientation as evidence of pathology, primitivism, savagery and criminality. And I was brought up with the story that a generation ago, in the bad old days (and in the old country), foolish unenlightened people tried to force homosexual children to convert and become straight. ...

The percentage of homosexuals in the population seems to be relatively constant, at 10 percent. And this goes back to studies of cave paintings… So though there has been prejudice against gay people, and though there may be some developmental risks, said Dr. Geschwind, “there clearly must be advantages as well. The reason why it maintains that way, nobody knows what it is.”

Dr. Francks said he was “quite happy with the sentiment of reassuring people that homosexuality is not some weird disability.” But, he added, “There’s no reason to go beyond that and say that gay people are even more talented.”

Now, just replace the word "homosexual" with "left-handed" and "orientation" with "handedness". The original article, on handedness, is here.We used to view left-handedness as a pathology and unnatural defect. Now, we recognize it is a normal human variant. Being gay, I argue, is no different.

You may also be interested in this article on the biological origins of homosexuality…including links to handedness.

Because later will be too late: video Sunday

Right now, a federal Judge has declared Prop8 illegal, but a stay keeps couples from marrying. Real couples, with real need. Here's why it matters.

House Speak Boehner launches DOMA defense

From AP:

House Speaker John Boehner said Friday he is launching a legal defense by the House of the federal law against gay marriage, which President Barack Obama's administration has concluded is unconstitutional.

"The constitutionality of this law should be determined by the courts -- not by the president unilaterally," the Ohio Republican said in a statement. "This action by the House will ensure the matter is addressed in a manner consistent with our Constitution."....

Boehner said he would convene a group of bipartisan congressional leaders that has the authority to instruct the House counsel to represent the chamber in court. The panel would include Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va.; Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif.; Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi D-Calif., and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md.

Boehner said he was convening the panel "for the purpose of initiating action by the House to defend this law." But there was no immediate indication of specifically what action it would direct or when the group would meet.

Democrats on the panel were unlikely to support any defense of the law. Pelosi has lauded Obama's decision to stop defending it as a "victory for civil rights, fairness and equality."

On Friday, she criticized the move as a costly burden on House staff.

Is same sex marriage inevitable? Albert Mohler thinks so.

Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, talks about marriage equality with Focus on the Family. The man is a lot of things but he isn't stupid. (From Right Wing Watch):

Daly: Do you think, as we look at those demographics and the polling data and all the other things, as the Christian community, is this something that is inevitable? I know this is a tough question here on Christian radio but I think it's time to start talking about what if.

Mohler: Well Jim I appreciate your candor in that because I think a lot of Christian conservatives are going to try to deny the obvious. I mean, when we're talking about same-sex marriage, we're talking about something that is already legal in one form or another in basically twelve states. So whether they call it marriage, as they do in a few states, or marriage lite as they have now in twelve states, the reality is that a good number of Americans are living where they're already facing not just the inevitably, but the reality, of same-sex marriage. I think it's clear that something like same-sex marriage - indeed, almost exactly what we would envision by that - is going to become normalized, legalized, and recognized in the culture. It's time for Christians to start thinking about how we're going to deal with that.

I think in the United States, Evangelical Christians in particular, have kind of grown accustomed to having our beliefs and moral convictions and ways of life supported by the state, by the larger culture and we're going to have to learn what it means to live faithfully as Christians when we do not have those supports. You know, it's one thing to live believing that you're in the majority position - everything comes pretty easy that way ...

Daly: A Christian nation.

Mohler: That's right. But when you live in a situation where we're clearly a minority holding to certain convictions that the larger culture either doesn't hold or doesn't hold tenaciously or as very important, we're going to find out just where we stand as Christians.

And along the lines of reality checking in, the lawyer for the American Family Association admits that DOMA is probably unconstitutional.

Pat Vaughn appeared on the Tuesday edition of the AFA Report ... "I think that marriage is defined by God as between a man and a woman. However, the Defense of Marriage Act is probably unconstitutional, particularly ... if you attempt to apply it so that to say that a marriage conducted in one state is not in effect in another. That clearly violates the Constitution."

Expect a renewed push for a Constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality.

No repeal in New Hampshire thisyear

From WMUR:

New Hampshire lawmakers won't be voting on bills to repeal the state's same-sex marriage law until next year.

The House Judiciary Committee voted unanimously Thursday to hold onto two bills that would repeal the law that has been in effect a little over a year.

Nearly 600 people had signed up to testify at a hearing on the issue last month, with most opposed to repeal. Many urged the committee to put the issue to rest this session, but the committee voted without debate to hold onto the bills. They will come up for a vote instead early in next year's session.

Democratic Gov. John Lynch, who signed the gay marriage law, said he will veto bills to repeal it.

Maryland Del. Sam Arora lied. How much will it cost?

Americablog tells us about a young progressive named Sam Arora who was elected to the Maryland house of Delegates. He made it clear to his constituents that he supports marriage equality and even put his name as co-sponsor of the bill now in the Maryland House.

Only now Sam Arora is getting cold feet. He is trying to deny that he supported equality and NOW says he won't support the bill for religious reasons. A bill he co-sponsored! That's some change of heart, Sam. What were/are you thinking?

Sam's constituents are calling him out on this, and his donors are asking for their money back.

Sam Arora lied to the people who elected him. What else did he lie about?

Seems a promising start to a career as a progressive politician may be over; Maryland progressives will remember this, if Sam does renege on his promises.

UPdate from Jonathan Capehart (WaPo):

The outrage directed at Arora is understandable. As is the sense of betrayal. He raised money from gays and lesbians based on his support for marriage equality. He secured the endorsements of Progressive Maryland and of Equality Maryland because of it. In fact, get a load of what he wrote as an addendum to his questionnaire for Equality Maryland.

I am a former law clerk to Attorney General Doug Gansler. I publicly supported his decision to recognize out-of-state marriage licenses for same-sex couples and immediately put out a release praising his findings. For me, it's simply a matter of equal rights under the law.

Gay Marylanders want the respect, dignity and responsibility that comes with marriage. And Arora was elected to his first term in the House of Delegates, in part, because of his promise to get it done. Politicians break promises all the time. But this is different. If Arora fails to vote for the marriage equality bill he campaigned for and co-sponsored when it comes to the floor next week not only would it be disgraceful, he would be a disgrace.

Del. Sam Arora misrepresented his opinions and lied o his constituents. His first term should be his last, and his life in politics should be over. Perhaps he can find a job with NOM.

Narrow victory in Wyoming

From Americablog, welcome news of a legislative victory in Wyoming:

The Senate bill (SJ5) that would have amended the Wyoming constitution to address marriage as only between a man and woman died last Friday when it failed to be presented for a final reading in the House. This was because after passing the first two readings the bill suddenly lost support as citizen voices peaked against it. The other bill, HB74, the Validity of Marriage bill, which would have changed the Wyoming statutes to not recognize any marriages, even if legal elsewhere, that were not between a man and woman failed Wednesday in the Senate as the two bodies were trying to agree to a concurrence and compromise written up by a conference committee of the Senate and House, the Senate failed to concur by a vote of 14-16.

...

The troubling part is that this is the farthest these bills have ever gotten, basically a few feet from the finish line and groups such as WyWatch, a Wyoming copy of Focus on the Family, have vowed to focus on knocking off a few seats to change the legislature to their favor.

Representative Cathy Connolly's three pieces of good legislation; a civil unions bill, a marriage equality bill, and a bill that addressed discrimination based upon sexual orientation and gender all failed to advance anywhere, sadly.

At this point while it is a victory for sure to have defeated two ugly pieces of legislation, it is a stalemate in the larger game. Eyes are on 2012 for the state races that will either hold the balance or tip it to someone's favor - who's is still up for grabs.

This is why, whatever state you are in, it is imperative that you participate and speak out and above all VOTE. Equality matters and only we-the-people can make it happen.

Attacks on equality continue in Republican Iowa

From the Des Moines Register, the right wing continues its attack on our system of government.

County recorders would be prohibited from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples and the Iowa Supreme Court would be unable to rule on the issue under a new bill sponsored by six conservative House Republicans.

..
Review of laws by the Supreme Court is one of the fundamental pieces of Iowa’s checks and balances system....

It would make the lower courts ruling final and it would also set up the likelihood that Iowa would have pockets of the state were the law was recognized and others were it was thrown out.
....
Massie said his ambition behind the bill is to advocate Judeo Christian ethics as law.

“The Republic is ruled by law. Now the question is from what source do those laws come,” Massie said.

Massie continued: “Everything I do in this building I look at as: I swore an oath to a supreme creator to uphold his law. I know that’s something more of a lecture but I want you to know where I come from. Is this guy just another religious Bible-thumping nut or do I have some reasoning for my thoughts? Historically, I think I have some reasoning for my thoughts.”
...
All the legislative measures restricting same-sex marriage rights face unlikely futures. The senate is narrowly controlled by Democrats and Majority Leader Michael Gronstal of Council Bluffs has vowed to block any such bill.

Should the stay be lifted?

From the LA TImes:

Although the federal courts expedited their handling of the lawsuit challenging Proposition 8, the issues are far from resolved. And now that the California Supreme Court has been asked to weigh in, the case could be delayed for another year or more.

Enough already. Gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to wed while the case works its way through the system....

Every day that the case drags on, gay and lesbian couples who would like to marry are being deprived of their civil rights. That's not our wording; the federal trial judge decided that issue, at least for now. The denial of constitutional rights, even temporarily, is a deplorable situation that must meet high legal standards to be allowed to continue. In our view, those conditions have not been met.
....
Right now, same-sex couples are being deprived of their constitutional right to marry, and every indication is that unless the stay is lifted, they'll have to keep waiting for more than a year. That is real harm, and there is no valid reason to allow it to continue.