More commentary on DOMA defense and the law

Dale Carpenter looks at evolution of the legal profession on gay rights

[King & Spalding's] its reversal suggests the extent to which gay men and lesbians have persuaded much of the legal profession to accept the basic proposition that sexual orientation is irrelevant to a person’s worth and that the law should reflect this judgment. The decision cannot be dismissed simply as a matter of political correctness or bullying by gays.

Gay-rights supporters have transformed the law and the legal profession, opening the doors of law firms, law schools and courts to people who were once casually and cruelly shut out because of their sexual orientation.

But there's no lack of a defense.

[T]he House will have excellent counsel on its side: a former solicitor general who resigned from King & Spalding to protest its decision. The world of legal professionals is still a diverse one where basic values collide every day. Respectable constitutional arguments for the Defense of Marriage Act will surely be made — but grounded in ideas, one hopes, not contempt.

It's hard to see what those ideas will be. Kay Kendall:

In order to justify the defense of a law, it must be possible to identify some principle that deserves to be vindicated, and here, there simply is none.

DOMA was passed in order to express moral disapproval of LGBT people. It does not embody conflicting principles that need a full-throated defense on both sides to produce a just and fair result. The sole purpose of DOMA is to discriminate against same-sex couples. It perpetuates harm against an underrepresented community and singles out certain families for unequal treatment from their government. No self-respecting lawyer or law firm should be willing to tarnish their reputation by defending such an appalling law. King and Spalding's decision to withdraw was a turning point in this struggle because it symbolized a shift in power between those who understand that simple truth and those who do not.

Of course there was pressure brought on King and Spalding. Economic pressures are brought all the time -- the anti-equality guys played that card quite aggressively during the Prop8 campaign, where they made many threats. But not least of that pressure was brought from its own staff and associates, appalled that the firm was basically attacking its own, dismayed that the government contract illegally presumed to gag them:

“Partners and employees who do not perform services pursuant to this Agreement will not engage in lobbying or advocacy for or against any legislation ... that would alter or amend in any way the Defense of Marriage Act and is pending before either the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate or any committee of either body during the term of the Agreement.”

There's no doubt that DOMA will receive a robust defense from the right wing. What's doubtful is that any rational legal basis for discrimination will be advanced sufficient to persuade a reasonable jurist.

Will New York be next?

Looks like Gov Cuomo is going to push to see it happen. From the NYTImes:

Gay rights groups, which suffered the stinging defeat of a same-sex marriage bill in New York State in 2009, will publicly mount a new campaign for the legislation starting this week, relying on the popular Democratic governor, Andrew M. Cuomo, to overcome Republican resistance and their own history of poor coordination....

Mr. Cuomo, who has vowed a personal push to win passage of same-sex marriage this year, has instructed his staff members to oversee the campaign to ensure it runs smoothly.

Texas regressing (again), this time attacking the trans community

Another attack on our transgender brothers and sisters. Due to the whims and stupidity of different states, their legal gender can change simply by crossing state lines.  In Texas, they are now going to rescind the rights of transgendered people by refusing to acknowledge documentation of gender reassignment surgery.

Two years after Texas became one of the last states to allow transgendered people to use proof of their sex change to get a marriage license, Republican lawmakers are trying to roll back the clock.

Advocates for the transgendered say a proposal to bar transgendered people from getting married smacks of discrimination and would put their legally-granted marriages in danger of being nullified if challenged in court.

This is so needless. How many people really does this affect? What's the point of this? Why are these lawmakers going after them? It's sheer spite.

It comes on top of the vicious and unprovoked beating of a transwoman in Baltimore. A recent report documents the rampant discrimination faced by the trans community. Straight or gay, we all need to stand together with our trans friends and colleagues and say, no more!

Prop8 follies: Overturn the decision because the Judge is gay?

AP reports:

Proponents of California's same-sex marriage ban filed a motion Monday seeking to vacate the historic ruling that overturned Proposition 8 because the federal judge who wrote it is in a long-term relationship with another man.....

"Only if Chief Judge Walker had unequivocally disavowed any interest in marrying his partner could the parties and the public be confident that he did not have a direct personal interest in the outcome of the case," attorneys for the coalition of religious and conservative groups that put Proposition 8 on the November 2008 ballot wrote. ...

Walker has said that he did not consider his sexual orientation to be any more a reason for recusal than another judge's race or gender normally would be. A spokeswoman said Monday that the judge wouldn't comment on the motion.
...

As Prop8 Trial Tracker comments,

Checking in with some top legal minds who are colleagues and friends, there seems to be universal consensus that this was a mistake will piss off the 9th Circuit and probably judges everywhere. The reason why is simple: judges don’t like having their impartiality, or the impartiality of their colleagues, questioned. It’s a very slippery slope: married men who have marital troubles making ruling on divorce proceedings, women ruling on domestic abuse or abortion cases, African-Americans ruling on discrimination. Really, the slippery slope includes pretty much everyone. If there are accusations of bias, let’s see hard evidence. Otherwise, Andy Pugno dug an even deeper hole.

Remember, what Prop8 proponents are REALLY saying is that only straight white Christian men can be objective. Even thought EVERYONE has a religion, a race, an orientation....

Law firm pulls out of DOMA defense (updated)

King and Spalding, the supposedly LGBT-friendly law firm that was hired to defend DOMA, has pulled out of the case. Attorney Paul Clement has quit and will still defend DOMA but with another firm. The Huff Po tells us,

"Today the firm filed a motion to withdraw from its engagement to represent the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the House of Representatives on the constitutional issues regarding Section III of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act," King & Spalding chairman Robert D. Hays, Jr. said in a statement. "Last week we worked diligently through the process required for withdrawal."

“In reviewing this assignment further, I determined that the process used for vetting this engagement was inadequate," he continued. "Ultimately I am responsible for any mistakes that occurred and apologize for the challenges this may have created."

Shortly after the firm announced that it would no longer take the case Paul Clement, former solicitor general under President George W. Bush and the partner charged with leading the firm's defense, submitted his letter of resignation to Hays...

It could be that the agreement that muzzled everyone else in the firm on the subject of DOMA was too much. Also, for a firm that clearly prided itself on diversity, it was pointed out that attacking a community they purport to support was not going to go down well in the future.

In any case, DOMA will still have its defense, from an ace attorney who apparently can't wait to attack the rights of his fellow citizens. On your dime.

Update: Metroweekly points out the facts.

Here, the facts remain that Clement signed the initial contract on behalf of King & Spalding, questions were raised about the content of that contract, the ethics committee chairman moved to withdraw the firm from representation and Clement left the firm.

And over at the HuffPo, reports of conflict within the firm itself over its contract. Remember, this is a gay-friendly company with lots of gay employees.

A source at the firm described the “mayhem” that ensued after employees learned King & Spalding agreed to defend DOMA.

“Management was divided, people were threatening to quit,” the source said. In addition, it was unclear if members of the firm’s Diversity Committee had been consulted ahead of time about taking on the case.....

Particularly troublesome for companies, according to the source, was that many of them have contracts with King & Spalding that provide protections against non-discrimination for sexual orientation. The contract with the House General Counsel, however, did not include sexual orientation or gender identity protections.

While it's a convenient political cover to claim the big mean gays threatened the firm, waving their feather boas, there are reasonable interpretations that they didn't like the ethics of the muzzle clause,that their employees weren't happy with a firm that was advocating to make them 2nd class, and that the potential loss of business from the LGBT community and friends wasn't worth it.

10 years of marriages in the Netherlands (video Sunday)

Iowa Republicans want to impeach the rest of their court

From Reuters:

Five Republican state legislators co-sponsored resolutions on Thursday to impeach four of the justices on the Iowa state supreme court but the measures are likely to stall this year, lawmakers said.
Iowa voters tossed three justices off the bench last November who joined the court's ruling that legalized same-sex marriage. But four other justices who were part of that unanimous ruling remain on the court.

Representative Tom Shaw said the articles of impeachment he helped draft accuse the four remaining justices of overstepping their authority....

House Democratic Leader Kevin McCarthy issued a statement on Thursday night calling on the Republican leaders in the House to "publicly condemn" the efforts of the five.
McCarthy said impeaching the justices is an "outrageous, extremist proposal."

Republicans: the party of ignorant hate and bigotry. really.

Congress to defend DOMA with your tax dollars

Okay, so the country is divided pretty equally on marriage equality, with a narrow majority favoring equality. If you throw civil unions into the mix, there is a strong majority in favor of some form of recognition of committed gay couples. The anti-equality folks are slipping further the fringe, equating gays with incest and pedophila.

As we've discussed many times, DOMA prevents the federal government from recognizing legal marriages between same sex partners from Equality States. So, for example, the federal government treats me and my wife as single despite our valid marriage license.

Not surprisingly, there are a number of cases in various circuits of the federal court system challenging this on equal protection grounds (again, we've covered them extensively here at GMC). With the decision of the Obama administration not to defend DOMA, Congress has stepped in. Speaker Boehner has allotted $500,000 to a politically powerful law firm, King and Spalding, to defend these DOMA cases.

Now, while that's a lot of money, in the grander scheme of things, it's not really much at all. The Prop8 trial so far has cost more than $1.5million in attorney fees to Ted Olson's firm. And that's just for ONE case.  Poliglot uncovers evidence that the $500,000 from the government is no cap at all. That is, you the taxpayer may be on the hook for millions and millions of dollars to defend the following multiple cases:

In addition to the Windsor v. United States case in which King & Spalding attorney Paul Clement already has filed a motion on behalf of the BLAG seeking to intervene in the case, two appeals in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Massachusetts v. United States), a case at the trial court level in Connecticut (Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management) and federal court employee Karen Golinski's attempt in a federal court in California to get health benefits for her wife (Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management) are ongoing, there also are six other cases listed by the Department of Justice in a Feb. 25 memorandum sent by Assistant Attorney General Robert Weich to Boehner as being impacted by the DOJ DOMA decision.

And in the final irony, the law firm King and Spalding boasts of its gay-friendly diversity policies.

But wait--there's more.

The government contract to K&S specifically forbids attorneys at the firm from advocating for DOMA repeal, even if they are not involved in the litigation. Yes, apparently, they are trying to muzzle the personal activities of individuals not involved in the case.

Metroweekly tells us that this muzzle may be illegal in some states.

Jon Davidson, the legal director at Lambda Legal, told Metro Weekly that in some states the provision might be illegal. Davidson specifically pointed to California, where King & Spalding has two offices, in which Labor Code Section 1101 states that "[n]o employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy ... [f]orbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics ...."

Talking about the statute, which would be applicable in King & Spalding's San Francisco and Silicon Valley offices, Davidson said, "It's not just illegal, it's criminal. It also gives rise to civil liability."
...

Neither of the two partners named on King & Spalding's "LGBT Lawyers" page on its website – Diversity Committee chair Samuel M. Matchett or Sam Griffin – responded to multiple requests seeking comment about the impact of the DOMA representation on LGBT recruitment at the firm.

Disgusting as it is, there is a certain irony to this.

The firm chosen to defend DOMA prides itself on LGBT diversity. I'm sure they are bright and accomplished. So that suggests that LGBT unfriendly firms with the appropriate qualifications maybe aren't so sharp (we saw that in some of the Prop8 case work). The sad thing, though, is that the firm in question is willing to sell its principles for money.

What a perfect Republican firm THAT is.

New CNN poll: more Americans approve of equality

This is a nice poll because it breaks down the demographic under a number of different metrics. So I extracted the data and graphed them for you. The things I do for you people!

Women are more supportive than men.

THe more educated and better off are more supportive.


Those who identify as Republican, Conservative, or TeaParty are dramatically opposed, while liberals, independents, and Democrats are most in favor.




The west is more in favor, and the south less, but this is not nearly as dramatic as the political affiliation.

Meta-analysis of marriage polls

Nate Silver, the master analyst of polling meta-data, analyzes this trendline and comments on the new CNN poll.

This is the fourth credible poll in the past eight months to show an outright majority of Americans in favor of gay marriage. That represents quite a lot of progress for supporters of same-sex marriage. ....

The change — about a 4 percentage-point shift in favor of gay marriage in each of the last two years — is about double the longer-term rate of progress for supporters of gay marriage, which has been between 1 and 2 percentage points per year....

[o]ponents of gay marriage almost certainly no longer constitute a majority; just one of the last nine polls has shown opposition to gay marriage above 50 percent....

If support for gay marriage were to continue accelerating as fast as it has in the past two years, supporters would outnumber opponents roughly 56-40 in the general population by November 2012.

Tomorrow: a breakdown of the demographics in the new CNN poll.

Why it matters: military families

Although the military is working on repeal of the infamous Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT), let us not forget that it is not repealed yet. There are still servicemembers being threatened with separation over their orientation. The Republicans in Congress are still finding time for needless hearings, trying to derail repeal. And in a day to express support for military families at the White House, gay family members were explicitly excluded.

Over at Pam's House Blend, writer Keori explains in vivid terms what a gay military family suffers, thanks to DADT and DOMA, and why marriage--legal marriage, and recognition thereof--matters.

Because of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act," our families go unrecognized, unprotected, and hidden from necessity. We face the same challenges as straight military couples - the PCS moves every three years, the deployments, reintegration, injuries and PTSD. We also face additional challenges such as acquiring gainful employment and healthcare in each new duty station, moving families at our own expense, and teaching our children to never, ever talk with their friends or teachers about Mommy and Mama, or Daddy and Papa. Sometimes, we are left behind altogether due to a PCS move to an overseas duty station. Our goodbyes are said behind closed doors, in secrecy and silence.

Our families live with little things, seemingly trivial parts of the closet all LGBT people are familiar with. ... When he receives an award or is promoted, no one is there to smile, take pictures, or pin on his new rank, like recognized spouses are. When she reenlists, there is no certificate of appreciation acknowledging our sacrifices as a spouse, and no handshake from her C.O.

It means bigger things, like no commissary benefits, which would cut down on the grocery bill in these tighter economic times. It means we must do whatever it takes to stay employed, because there is no access to Tricare coverage for health care, like a real spouse would have. It means denying our children the healthcare to which they would otherwise be entitled. It means always having a fake second bedroom set up in the house so that if someone from the unit comes over, we're "just roommates."

It means life-altering, heartrending things. It means our partners being sent away to overseas duty stations where we cannot follow. Unlike opposite-sex spouses, we cannot receive command sponsorship to live with our partners on base. They will not receive separation allowance as compensation for being taken away from their mates. It means living through year-long deployments to combat zones with no support, and no knowledge of what the unit is doing. It means sending care packages from PO boxes and signing cards with the name of another person to protect their secret. It means never saying, "I love you" on a Skype call, when they and we need to hear those words the most, and talking in code instead. If something happens to them, we will not know unless their parents call. If something happens to us, they will not be told, or be allowed to come home to be with us, as a spouse would. They will not even be allowed to acknowledge their pain lest it give them away to their chain of command.

It means that we do not exist. ...

I find that heartbreaking. The ultimate proof of Why It Matters.

DADT will be repealed. And then, at some point, the President and Congress will have to face (for example) a young husband of a brave serviceman killed in Afghanistan, and tell him that his sacrifice will not be recognized, because DOMA says that he doesn't exist.

Quote of the Day: Former Sen. Alan Simpson (R)

The video has been getting around but the transcript is pretty powerful too.

Former Sen Simpson has no patience with today's Republicans. REmember, this used to be the party that opposed intrusion into the private business of the people.

We have homophobes on our party. That’s disgusting to me. We’re all human beings. We’re all God’s children. Now if they’re going to get off on that stuff—Santorum has said some cruel things—cruel, cruel things—about homosexuals. Ask him about it; see if he attributes the cruelness of his remarks years ago. Foul. Now if that’s the kind of guys that are going to be on my ticket, you know, it makes you sort out hard what Reagan said, you know, 'Stick with your folks.' But I’m not sticking with people who are homophobic, anti-women, moral values—while you’re diddling your secretary while you’re giving a speech on moral values? Come on, get off of it." .

H/T JoeMyGod

Poll results

Here is a graph showing the visits to this blog in the last week (green is total pageloads, blue is unique visitors, and orange is returnees). We had a good week, blog-wise, with lots of visitors.

Alas, this was not really reflected in the numbers who participated in the poll. (Note the different scales on the Y axis in graphs one and two). Thus, it probably isn't a great sampling of who is reading the blog, with only 24 participants.



But I put together the results anyway.

Regarding the new blog design: about half of you like it and about half don't care. Only one person hates it.

How often do you visit? More than half of you read either daily or regularly, suggesting that it's the regulars who felt kindly enough to answer the poll.

About 2/3 come to the blog page, and the rest come through RSS feeds or readers. Curiously no one apparently reads on Facebook (it automatically posts to my facebook account). So perhaps I shouldn't bother to do that. Not surprisingly, people who read it via RSS feed were less likely to have an opinion on the new look than people coming to the blog itself. The person who hates the look is a feed reader, so it shouldn't bother them much.

Okay, that's what I have. I may put up other polls just for fun, but I'll make them very short.

If you have any thoughts about this one, let me know in the comments.

Methods: I used Google docs to set up the poll and spreadsheet, which I exported to iWork Numbers 09, my preferred data analysis program. Overall usage data come from Statcounter.

Conversion (video Sunday)

As I told you a couple of days ago, one of NOM's operatives has converted to the side of equality. (And boy, is he spilling the dirt on NOM!) What made a difference was meeting, and talking to, actual gay people. Here's Lawrence O'Donnell:

'nuf said.

From Shuck and Jive

Congress to hold hearings on DOMA

Because they have nothing more important to do? From The Washington Blade:

A subcommittee in the Republican-controlled U.S. House is set on April 15 to hear testimony in a hearing titled “Defending Marriage.”...

As of [last] Friday, no witness list was posted on the committee website, nor was the intent the hearing immediately known. ...

Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), chair of the committee, has said President Obama could be impeached for his decision to drop his administration’s defense of the Defense of Marriage Act in court, and the upcoming hearing would likely represent his views.

In a March interview with Think Progress, Franks said he supports defunding the Justice Department if it doesn’t defend DOMA and added he would “absolutely” favor impeaching Obama and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder if support for doing so “could gain collective support.”...

Drew Hammill, a Pelosi spokesperson, similarly chided the Republican majority for holding the hearing.

“From attacks on women’s health care to this ideological ‘hearing,’ Republicans are showing that the only thing they are interested in doing is promoting the divisive social policy of their extreme right wing,” Hammill said. “Republicans should abandon these foolish ideological quests and work on the American people’s top priority: creating jobs.”

Whether Boehner supports the hearing wasn’t immediately known. A Boehner spokesperson didn’t respond on short notice to the Blade’s request to comment on the hearing.

Delaware Legislature passes Civil Unions: on to the Governor

From the Advocate:

Delaware took a significant step toward equality Thursday when the house of representatives voted to legalize civil unions for same-sex couples. The proposal passed the senate last week and Gov. Jack Markell intends to sign the bill. ...

According to HRC, five states currently have laws providing an expansive form of state-level relationship recognition for gay and lesbian couples without offering marriage. States offering such civil unions and domestic partnerships include California, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, and Washington. Earlier this year, Hawaii and Illinois adopted civil union laws that will take effect in June for Illinois and in January 2012 for Hawaii....

Congratulations, Delaware! But don't stop here. I'm with Evan Wolfson:

Evan Wolfson, founder and president of Freedom To Marry, said in a statement after the Delaware vote, “Civil union provides a welcome measure of protections to same-sex couples and their families, but is no substitute for the freedom to marry and the full measure of respect, clarity, and responsibilities that only marriage brings. A separate legal status designed to both give and withhold, civil union will afford more families in Delaware important legal protections while unfairly and unnecessarily denying them the dignity and respect they deserve and the full measure of security they need. States that have created civil union have found that it falls far short of marriage with all its tangible and intangible significance in our lives, and documented that civil union simply does not work to fully protect families or clarify
responsibilities for businesses and others. Many states – Connecticut, New Hampshire, and even Vermont, which first created
civil union – have since pushed past civil union to marriage itself, recognizing the inadequacy and unfairness of a separate and unequal status."

NOM defector tells all

So, Louis Marinelli, the NOM operative who has defected to our side, has more to say about NOM (the National Organization for Marriage). It's worth reading the whole thing, which concludes

I am sharing this with you because I want you to realize that NOM is a small group of devoutly religious Catholics supported by a couple of undisclosed sources. NOM is essentially made up of Brian Brown, its President, Maggie Gallagher, the CEO, a handful of other Board members (who are scattered across the country involved in other matters), a couple of advisors to Mr. Brown and a small and largely incompetent office staff.

Their social media management isn’t operated by NOM – they’re not big enough for that nor do they understand social media! As Jeremy Hooper detailed, Opus Fidelis manages NOM’s social media and websites.

That is all that is standing between you and the freedom to marry. There is no grassroots opposition. While they have proven to be quite successful over the past couple years, I think it’s time to put NOM’s size into perspective. Are you going to let a handful of fringe Catholics (with whom many Catholics disagree on marriage) stand between you and the freedom to marry?

Louis is also dishing the dirt on NOM's propaganda strategy, also dependent on right-wing Roman Catholic operatives. And let's not forget that this is a fringe group of Catholics, who actually are the religious group most supportive of marriage equality.

The Daily Beast comments on Louis's conversion here

Gay in the USA: Williams Institute report

The 10 year old Williams Institute, established at UCLA, addresses issues related to LGBT Americans with sober, fact-based research.

You know, the kind of thing that can stand up to cross-examination.

Their most recent report (PDF) is a snapshot of who is gay in the USA.

Key findings from the research brief are as follows:

• An estimated 3.5% of adults in the United States identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual and an estimated 0.3% of adults are transgender.
• This implies that there are approximately 9 million LGBT Americans, a figure roughly equivalent to the population of New Jersey.
• Among adults who identify as LGB, bisexuals comprise a slight majority (1.8% compared to 1.7% who identify as lesbian or gay).
• Women are substantially more likely than men to identify as bisexual. Bisexuals comprise more than half of the lesbian and bisexual population among women in eight of the nine surveys considered in the brief. Conversely, gay men comprise substantially more than half of gay and bisexual men in seven of the nine surveys.
• Estimates of those who report any lifetime same-sex sexual behavior and any same-sex sexual attraction are substantially higher than estimates of those who identify as LGB. An estimated 19 million Americans (8.2%) report that they have engaged in same-sex sexual behavior and nearly 25.6 million Americans (11%) acknowledge at least some same-sex sexual attraction.

Being a scientist, I like data and facts.

It used to be that we thought 10% of Americans were gay. Now we know better. It's best for our side to have sober, careful and well researched information.

But there are still some problems with this. As the blog at Equality Matters noted,

There are a number of important qualifiers about the study that were not always apparent in the press coverage it received.

The report was merely an analysis of admittedly insufficient existing polling and survey information from 2004-2009. The reports author, Gary J. Gates of the Williams Institute, took an average. As such, it was really just an “educated guess” (my words) based on the available information (which included one survey indicating gays, lesbians, and bisexuals made up 5.6 percent of the population).

Moreover, it only included adults who were comfortable enough with their sexual identity and the circumstances under which the surveys were conducted to self identify.

The political blogger John Aravosis of AmericaBlog, in a post he called "8m US adults willing to tell a stranger they are gay (LGB)," says “there is no way you're going to get anywhere near 100% of gay people admitting they're gay, period. I wonder if you get more than 50%. Married gays, forget it. Dating a girl, forget it. Closeted, forget it. People afraid for their jobs, forget it. Work for the military, forget it. Older gays, less likely. Living in a scary state, or small town, more likely not to admit it.”

Finally, the survey did not include people who had had sexual contact with persons of the same sex or people who had same-sex attraction (but who in each case didn’t self identify as gay or bisexual). Interestingly, the inclusion of these groups would have substantially raised the averages.

Umm, this last complaint is plainly wrong, as the executive summary specifically says Estimates of those who report any lifetime same-sex sexual behavior and any same-sex sexual attraction are substantially higher than estimates of those who identify as LGB.

Remember, this wasn't a survey. It was a meta-analysis (a survey of surveys) and the primary data in the report, linked above, make fascinating reading.

We may still be undercounted. But the Williams Institute (which just merged with the Palm Center) is on the way to get there.

Happy Birthday, WIlliams Institute! Thanks for all you do.

"Gay" = "anti Christian", say the conservatives

Seems the conservatives had a conference about the EEEEVVVVVVIIIIILLL homos and the Gay Agenda.

The first step for Christian conservatives to win the war against the gay movement is to rebrand the terms, said a few panelists at this weekend’s The Awakening conference at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va.

“‘Gay’ is a left-wing socio-political construct designed to create grounds for fundamental rights [based on] whimsical capricious desires,” said Ryan Sorba, chairman of the Young Conservatives of California. “Gay identity does not exist.”

Sorba proposed alternatives to the word “gay,” which received approval by a unanimous show of hands by the 40-some audience members:

* “Same-sex attraction”
* “Same-sex intercourse”
* “Sodomy”
* “Unnatural vice”

Later in the discussion, it was suggested that gays should also be referred to as “anti-Christian.”

(H/T Leonardo)

Now this would be amusing, except that the LGBT community plays into the same thing. Over on the Prop8TrialTracker, the Admins have scolded the community for falling into the "Gay vs Religion" meme. Why is it that so many progressives are so intolerant of religion and religious believers?

And I ask that as a non-believer.

The conservative Christians have been way too successful in convincing the LGBT community that "Christian" is the enemy. And they've been way too successful in claiming the title "Christian" for themselves. THere are lots of Christians who are very gay supportive (and let's remember that the Roman Catholic laity are more supportive of equality than any other religious group! Much to the despair of their Bishops.) This stuff is absolute crap. In my hopeful moments, I think it's the dying of a world view, and at less hopeful moments, I think it really IS a culture war.

Rhode Island: no "reciprocal beneficiaries"

Please make sure to take the GMC reader poll--only 3 questions! (click here)

From Forbes:

A proposal to grant some marriage benefits to same-sex couples and others who can't legally marry, such as siblings, is winning little support in Rhode Island's debate over legalizing gay marriage.

No supporters showed up Tuesday to a House committee hearing on the measure, which would extend benefits and rights associated with insurance, health care decisions, inheritance and property ownership to so-called "reciprocal beneficiaries."

The legal relationships would be restricted to anyone older than 18 who cannot legally marry their partner. That includes same-sex couples and relatives, such as unmarried siblings who want the right to make medical decisions for each other.

The bill is one of several proposed alternatives to legislation allowing gay marriage. But supporters of gay marriage don't like the reciprocal beneficiary bill because it wouldn't extend full marriage rights.

Remembering Andrew Wilfahrt, soldier (video Sunday)

Corporal Andrew Wilfahrt was a gay soldier killed in combat last month in Kandahar Province, Afghanistan. This video comes from his family.

Please make sure to take the GMC reader poll--only 3 questions! (click here)

NOM operative comes out for marriage equality

Please make sure to take the GMC reader poll--only 3 questions! (click here)

The gay blogs are buzzing with the news that one of NOM's major activists (he even drove the bus on their bizarre bus tour last summer) has parted ways with NOM. Louis Marinelli has decided that he cannot oppose civil marriage, even if he disapproves of homosexuality. He finds that his conservative values insist that all citizens are treated equally.

More at Good as You, which broke the story.

New look, reader access: poll

Please answer this poll about the new design and how you access this blog. If you can't answer it from your reader, please click over to the blog to do so. (It's completely private and I cannot link it to you). Thanks!

Update: the poll is closed.

Judge Walker makes it official

From Reuters:

Former U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, who retired from the bench at the end of February, said it would not be appropriate for any judge's sexual orientation, ethnicity, national origin or gender to stop them from presiding over a case.

"That's a very slippery slope," Walker said.

The talk to a handful of reporters was Walker's first public comments to reporters about presiding over the lawsuit challenging to Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in California. Walker struck down the ban as unconstitutional, and the case is currently on appeal.

It was also the first time Walker publicly acknowledged his own sexual orientation. Walker said he has been in a relationship with the man for 10 years. "He is a physician," Walker said.

This isn't new, but anticipate another backlash. Because, of course, only straight white Christian men can be objective.

Why he changed his mind

Jeff Angelo, a former Republican State Senator in iowa wrote a great op-ed in the Des Moines Register.I've quoted nearly the whole thing because it's so good.

[T]here came a point when I could no longer ignore how much this attitude hurt the people I know. Because this issue is not about rhetoric; this issue is about people and their freedom to choose a spouse.

Our constitution exists to protect the rights of individuals, and does so by limiting the government's power to control the lives and properties of citizens. A constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, instead of limiting government control, would limit the ability of a select group of citizens to enter into civil marriage, therefore violating the very purpose of our constitution.

When we start allowing constitutional amendments that limit individual control, and give that control over to the government, we open ourselves up to more limitations on our individual freedom. It's easy to feel so passionately about an issue that you don't look at it objectively, but what happens when the individual freedom we're discussing is gun control or universal health care? We need to set aside the rhetoric and look at the slope on which we're starting to slide.

This debate centers on a devaluation of the lives of select group of people. At its worst we are being asked to believe that our gay friends and neighbors are involved in a nefarious agenda, the outcome of which is supposedly the unraveling of society itself. It's tempting to place the blame for all society's ills at one doorstep; indeed, that has been the plight of minorities throughout history. But a villain like that only exists in movies. In reality, the forces we face are all the same: getting a good job, supporting our families and making our communities better places to live.

The stability of marriage and the sanctity of personal liberty are the foundations of conservative values, and we should be glad those values are spreading and being embraced in so many different walks of life. They are universal and fundamental.

There is no reason to think heterosexual marriage is threatened by gays and lesbians getting married. There will be the same number of heterosexual marriages, divorces and children born. Churches can choose not to marry same-sex couples, and churches that do have the religious freedom to perform those ceremonies.

Whether or not you agree with gay marriage, we're all joined by our love of liberty. Free citizens are allowed to disagree and live their lives as they choose without fear of government reprisal as long as life and property are not threatened.

The tenor of this debate does not serve the people Iowa well, and is not in keeping with an Iowa culture known nationwide for displaying respect and generosity of spirit. Each day, Iowans worship with, work with, live with, and love people who are gay. Together we make a great state, facing the same problems and, hopefully, the same bright future.

Why being married 31 years shows no family values

PJ Myers takes on thrice-married Newt Gingrich:

It's a strange situation where the political party with more ex-wives than candidates, that houses and defends a disturbingly amoral network of fundamentalist operators is regarded as the protector of the sanctity of the family. They're anything but.

I think I understand, though — it doesn't matter what you do, all that matters is what you say. The Republicans support a version of marriage that rests on tradition, authority, and masculine dominance, and everything they do props up one leg of the tripod or the other. Public piety reinforces religious tradition; the insistence that there is one true form of marriage, between a man and a woman, which represents a legal and social commitment is part of the authoritarian impulse; and of course, if a man steps out of the matrimonial bounds, it's an expression of machismo and patriotism and entitlement.....

I've been married for 31 years, and my relationship with my wife is solid. Not because I've got her shackled with a prenup, a pile of legal documents, and a willingness to abuse her to keep her in her place, but because we're comfortable together, she with me and me with her, and there's no stresses that might tear us apart. With both of us in academic careers, there have been years where we've had to live apart, and those separations have been made with complete trust in one another — while we've both had times when we've "worked far too hard," and we've been "driven" by passions for our work, strangely enough it never seems to have the side effect of sending us shopping for a different mate.

So, just a suggestion: if you want a relationship that lasts, don't rely on god, lawyers, and social pressure to force it to work. Love and reciprocal trust are the only chains that last, and the only ones that make you feel happy while wearing them.

I think those are the "secular, atheist" values that Newt and his ilk find heretical and threatening. Those values allow me to sit smug and content in a happy home while watching authoritarians discard wives.

Citizen, Non citizen (Video Sunday)

After the depressing roller coaster of last week on immigration, this (H/T Dan Savage)

News from the States

Update from various states:

• First up, from Washington, the legislature will recognize out-of-state marriages and treat them the same as WA's fairly generous Domestic Partnerships. So if you visit Seattle and get sick, your same-sex spouse will have the rights to take care of you.


• In Delaware, a civil unions bill has moved out of committee to the State Senate.


• Not so good news from Indiana, where the State Senate overwhelmingly approved a ban not only of marriage but civil unions. This will have to go in front of the legislature again next year to continue towards Constitutional amendment.


• Also, from Colorado, although a civil unions bill passed the Senate, it was killed by the judiciary committee after the most hateful testimony from professional homophobes like Paul Cameron. The vote was party line, by people who should know better. The Denver Post tells us,

  [I]t was clear that the vote was painful for some Republicans, including Rep. Brian DelGrosso of Loveland, whose uncle is gay. He bowed his head when voting “no.”
  
  “It was tough,” DelGrosso said afterward....Another Republican who voted “no,” Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg, of Sterling, told [the bill's sponsor, Rep Mark ] Ferrandino afterward, “You’ll make a great dad.”
  
  Ferrandino’s partner, Greg Werstch, had testified about their efforts to adopt, testimony that moved Ferrandino to tears.

  Is it just me or does it make NO SENSE that these Republicans are clearly moved and supportive of the real lives of gay people, but continue to vote the homophobic line? Inexcusable.
  


• In Maryland, the marriage equality bill died without a final vote.

What's important to note, however, is the level of vitriol, lies, hate, and horror that those opposed are now dishing out. To the point where in at least a couple of cases, they have turned the stomachs of the politicians.

• In Colorado, State Sen Nancy Spence said

  he also was influenced by what she called the “disappointing” testimony and behavior of opponents when the bill was before a Senate committee.

  Some of the anti-gay testimony from the committee hearing includes these choice bits:
  

  "Every Coloradoan now has basically a $112 AIDS tax from gays in the United States...if we as a society allow it to be accepted, we will get more of it...when gays are partnered they are more apt to get sexually transmitted diseases."
  
  "They found Sodom and Gomorrah two years ago buried underneath the ash heap so that proves right there by archaeology that any society that allowed homosexuality, including the Jewish society, disintegrated completely."
  
  "If you vote otherwise, you are going to help end - not tomorrow, the sun will come up - but you will help to end this most successful civilization.

  This is what passes for testimony to justify denying basic rights to American citizens.
  


• This follows on a changed vote in Maryland in response to Maggie Gallagher's vile testimony.


• In Delaware, the opposition is starting to blanket the state with anti-gay robocalls.

We can expect the lies and hatred to continue to escalate, of course, because they are losing. They are fighting as hard as they can. We have to be vigilant and responsive and not let these hate groups dominate the press or the coverage. WE all have a responsibility to be involved!

Republican presidential hopefuls nearly all oppose marriage equality

And several oppose all forms of recognition.

The country shows a narrow majority in favor of marriage equality. At worst, we're evenly split.

But apparently if you are a Republican, you have to be anti-gay.

Feeding the base, it's called.

Data here.

It seems appropriate to point this out on April Fool's Day.

Update EqualityMatters reports that this is viewed as a problem by some Republicans, as this kind of social issue is going to drive away the independent voters they rely on to win elections. GOOD.