Whose religious freedom? News from Rhode Island

Despite a pro-equality governor, Rhode Island's legislature decided that marriage is not in the cards this year so they put forward a civil unions bill. Gay groups are calling for it to be vetoed. Why would they cut off their nose to spite their face, you ask? Aren't civil unions better than nothing?

Not necessarily. The Rhode Island bill comes with extreme "religious freedom" protections that go beyond constitutional guarantees. Basically, they legitimize civil discrimination outside of religious acts. Here's what the bill says:

15-3.1-5. Conscience and religious organizations protected. – (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, no religious or denominational organization, no organization operated for charitable or educational purpose which is supervised or controlled by or in connection with a religious organization, and no individual employed by any of the foregoing organizations, while acting in the scope of that employment, shall be required:

(1) To provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for a purpose related to the solemnization, certification, or celebration of any civil union; or

(2) To solemnize or certify any civil union; or

(3) To treat as valid any civil union; if such providing, solemnizing, certifying, or treating as valid would cause such organizations or individuals to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs.

(b) No organization or individual as described in subsection (a) above who fails or refuses to provide, solemnize, certify, or treat as valid, as described in subdivision (a)(1), (a)(2) or (a)(3) above, persons in a civil union, shall be subject to a fine, penalty, or other cause of action for such failure or refusal.

The PRop8TrialTracker comments

Perhaps some legislators looked at the careful negotiation and insertion of religious exemption language in New York State and demanded the same deal. The difference is that pastors deciding who to marry, and synagogues deciding whether to rent out their reception hall for a wedding, is not the same as this.

I’ll give you an example: if I were back home in suburban Buffalo and my partner had a medical emergency and I had to get him to a hospital, Kenmore Mercy hospital would be the closest ... If he were treated at Kenmore Mercy, then despite all my civil union paperwork, despite my partner’s wishes for me to make important medical decisions on his behalf, or be at the doctors’ side to tell them important information like what he’s allergic to or that he only has one functional kidney, they can treat me as a complete stranger and it’s legal.....

Let’s say I didn’t want to go to a Catholic hospital because of those very concerns. Then the next closest hospital would either be Millard Fillmore-Gates Circle or Millard Fillmore Suburban, both ... twice the distance. That’s the difference between life and death. And this bill’s language could mean that.

ThinkProgress says the same thing:

Were this bill passed in its current form, religiously affiliated schools, hospitals, and businesses could completely ignore any civil union and deny couples the rights those unions are meant to accord. The way this reads, a nurse at a Catholic hospital (as an “individual employed by any of the foregoing organizations”) could deny same-sex partners the right to see their ill loved ones.

Rather than protecting religious organizations’ religious beliefs, this language is unabashedly concerned with ensuring that religious organizations and individuals can continue to discriminate against same-sex communities without repercussions.

I wonder, would the Catholic hospital refuse to recognize as married a couple where the two spouses had been married previously and divorced? Somehow, I'm going to bet not. So why are they given the rights to do that here?

Should there still be DPs if there is marriage?

Not all gay people are thrilled about marriage equality. There is a distinct group that likes things the way they are. They are happy with domestic partnerships, and are worried that if marriage is legal, the status of DP will be eliminated. (In most states, DPs are not available to straight couples). They decry the idea that gay couples should be treated like straights, and required to marry if they want benefits like partner coverage. Instead, they think that DPs should be an option for everyone, straight or gay.

Writing in the NY Times, Katherine Franke says,

While many in our community have worked hard to secure the right of same-sex couples to marry, others of us have been working equally hard to develop alternatives to marriage. For us, domestic partnerships and civil unions aren’t a consolation prize made available to lesbian and gay couples because we are barred from legally marrying. Rather, they have offered us an opportunity to order our lives in ways that have given us greater freedom than can be found in the one-size-fits-all rules of marriage.

It’s not that we’re antimarriage; rather, we think marriage ought to be one choice in a menu of options by which relationships can be recognized and gain security. Like New York City’s mayor, Michael R. Bloomberg, who has been in a relationship for over 10 years without marrying, one can be an ardent supporter of marriage rights for same-sex couples while also recognizing that serious, committed relationships can be formed outside of marriage.

Here’s why I’m worried: Winning the right to marry is one thing; being forced to marry is quite another.

Now, in France (as I've discussed), there is a civil union option that is widely viewed as "marriage lite", called a PAC. For political reasons, it is offered to both straight and gay couples (marriage is restricted to the straight couples only). The rate of marriage has dropped as straights have availed themselves of this option, preferring something less permanent-seeming than Real Marriage. That's the option preferred by Franke, who is worried that she will lose DP benefits and be forced to marry.

I admit, I'm confused. Why would you "settle" for something less than marriage? Franke again:

As strangers to marriage for so long, we’ve created loving and committed forms of family, care and attachment that far exceed, and often improve on, the narrow legal definition of marriage. Many of us are not ready to abandon those nonmarital ways of loving once we can legally marry.

Of course, lots of same-sex couples will want to marry as soon as they are allowed to, and we will congratulate them when they do even if we ourselves choose not to. But we shouldn’t be forced to marry to keep the benefits we now have, to earn and keep the respect of our friends and family, and to be seen as good citizens.

I wonder how much of this is related to LGBT folks of a Certain Age, particularly women who have ordered their lives in a way that goes against the patriarchal history of marriage. They've rejected that meaning of marriage because of that baggage. And maybe it's because of my age (although I'm not that young), but I just don't get it.

I want to be married. To me, the DP is a second rate option. And thus, I have no issue with certain legal benefits accruing to those willing to make that commitment, as long as all people straight or gay have the opportunity to do so. I don't want to live in the ghetto of "not willing to take that step".

To me,why WOULDN'T you marry, if it is legal? I leapt at the opportunity to participate in the process with my beloved, and every morning I wake up so grateful that I could. I wonder if it's a generational thing, or reflecting that fact that I have always been "assimilated" and not really connected to a "gay identity" or "lesbian identity" until the marriage issue came up.

Interestingly, Linda Hirsch thinks that marriage equality for LGBT people will mean more equal straight marriages too. Thus, that whole patriarchal notion is taking a hit.

Same-sex marriage represents the possibility that marriage can be an equal deal after all—or at least one where inequality is not locked in at birth. The conservatives are right: Same-sex marriage will change opposite-sex marriage. And it's a good thing, too.

….At each point along the road to women's equality, conservatives defended heterosexual marriage inequality on the grounds that women were naturally suited only for certain kinds of lives….

… W. Bradford Wilcox, a sociologist at the University of Virginia and resident scholar at the Institute for American Values, argued that "women are not happier in marriages marked by egalitarian practices and beliefs." ….More church attendance, higher male earnings, and lower female expectations are instead the key to family happiness, Wilcox concludes.
...
Turnabout is fair play. As the arguments for heterosexual marriage inequality were used to fight same-sex marriage, so the success of same-sex marriage is a living refutation of the argument that marriage requires congenital natural inequality with women on the bottom. Even the campaign for same-sex marriage, consisting of a torrent of moving stories about the happy same-sex couples who want to get married, is a feminist windfall. Maybe marital equality and happiness aren't so incompatible after all.

So opening marriage to committed couples without the baggage of fixed gender roles will be good for everyone. And the baggage with which some people view marriage will be ameliorated.

Is there a state interest in supporting marriage over DPs, assuming that each is equally available? Should DPs continue to be available if (when) marriage is open to all couples?

"We're not all like that": Dan Savage on liberal Christians

Dan Savage on the NALTs...(Not All Like That). "We need liberal progressive Christians to be as loud as Tony Perkins....Get into CNN's face for pretending that all Christians are anti-gay bigots."



"Stop whispering in my ear and start screaming in Tony Perkins' face."

Discuss.

Erased from the obituary: why it matters

From the Advocate:

An Arkansas newspaper that omitted the name of a gay man’s surviving partner from his obituary has apologized and agreed to reprint the obit — with the partner’s name — after receiving pressure from groups including the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.

When John Christopher Millican died June 11, his partner of 10 years, Terrance James, filled out paperwork to have his obituary run in the local paper, The Batesville Daily Guard. When the obit was published, however, it did not include James’s name, but it did list Millican’s deceased parents and surviving siblings, with whom he had little contact, according to the Center for Artistic Revolution, an Arkansas gay rights group.

James complained, but an editor for the Daily Guard told him the paper has a policy against printing names of unmarried partners and cited the fact that Arkansas does not recognize same-sex unions. She told him, however, that the paper would run a paid obituary for $85 that would include any information he wanted.

You might say that since the paper applies this policy regardless, it shouldn't be forced to change. But the PROBLEM is that gay people aren't ALLOWED to marry. They aren't unmarried by choice, unlike unmarried cohabiting straights. So they AREN'T being treated equally.

You can't criticize us for not being married if you won't allow us to marry.

Although the paper had, under pressure, agreed to re-run the obit, the latest news says they reneged and moreover, used the opportunity to attack th grieving widower:

An Arkansas newspaper that omitted the name of a gay man’s surviving partner from his obituary has apparently gone back on its promise to reprint the obit with the partner’s name included, and it has published an editorial that gay rights groups characterize as defaming the partner, Terrance James.
....

The Daily Guard’s Friday editorial... lambastes James and attacks his motives. ....

A post Friday on GLAAD’s blog reads, “Now the paper has not only backtracked on the promises their spokesman and attorney made to us just yesterday, they’ve dug in their heels even deeper. And rather than printing a respectful obituary as promised, the paper is using its pages to insult Terrance, insinuating that he’s a liar with an ‘AGENDA’ (their scare-bolding and capitalization) in an announcement.”

.... Find more information here.

Why it matters: church denies funeral

This is not the first time the Roman Catholic Diocese of San Diego has reneged on a funeral for a gay man.

Our Lady of the Rosary Church in Little Italy has canceled a funeral mass scheduled this Thursday morning for openly gay businessman John Sanfilippo, owner of the SRO Lounge, a popular gay cocktail bar.....“The Sanfilippo family and Brian are, of course, devastated and are trying to get the mass in another church,” Murray Ramirez said.

When the parish priests found out about the gay relationship of Sanfilippo and Galvin, the priests said they were uncomfortable with Sanfilippo and Galvin’s relationship, according to Murray Ramirez, adding the church notified the family on Sunday that the Thursday funeral mass was canceled.

So, let's get this straight. First they said they would, then they said they wouldn't. They really hate us so much they won't even bury us.

Update they relented and decided to have the funeral at a different Catholic church.

Evolve Already (video Sunday)

Barack Obama says he's "evolving" on marriage equality.

Well, those of us with real lives and real families can't live in the time frame of "evolution".

Evolve Already Mr President.

Equality in NY!!!!

from the Prop8trialtracker:

Just now, the New York State Senate voted to legalize same-sex marriage! The vote was 33-29. Since the Assembly passed the bill, it will go to Gov. Cuomo’s desk, where he will enthusiastically sign it (and kudos for his hard work on this). The measure cannot be repealed at the ballot.

And the EMpire State Building shows its colors....

"Children deserve a mother and a father"

I'm getting so tired of that meme, which is a standard now in the anti-equality arsenal. We saw it again in Abp Timothy Dolan's attack on equality legislation in New York. But doesn't make any sense. Amy Davidson, in the New Yorker, lays out why (spaces added for ease of reading):

That is, speaking very charitably, a non-sequitur. There are all sorts of reasons children are raised in families that don’t include “a mom and a dad”; Dolan must know that. Same-sex marriage isn’t one of them. 

Maybe Dolan believes that divorce, in any circumstance, violates a child’s rights; how about children adopted by gay parents—does he believe that their rights would be protected by lingering in foster care, bounced from non-home to non-home? 

Would he prefer that those born to gay or lesbian parents had never existed? If so, that is a pretty tangled position for a Catholic (or even for a writer of North Korean communiqués). 

Does he think that children should be taken away from gay parents (or single widowed parents, for that matter) who have loved them all their lives to be given to any heterosexual, or even just heterogeneous, couple? 

And even if he agrees with all of that, what on earth does it have to do with same-sex marriage? Allowing two people who love each other to marry will not stop people who don’t love each other from separating, or from getting married in the first place. Neither marriage nor love is a scarce resource. And yet Dolan talks as though there were thieves in his house.

If one’s only interest in all this is the rights of children, then gay marriage is really an imperative. (There are other factors, too, of course, that don’t depend on children: respect, fairness, kindness.) Marriage can protect children—legally, financially, socially—and same-sex marriage will give more parents more ways to protect more children. Making that possible is surely the right thing to do.

At the wire in New York. Whose religious liberty?

The marriage equality bill in New York right now is stuck in GOP conference while they debate bringing it to the floor. The GOP is the majority party. The bill needs 32 votes, and some of them will have to come from the Republicans.

NOM, the Catholic Church and other opponents of equality are trying to prevent the bill from even being voted on. The Republican caucus is in a bad place, though, because polls show New Yorkers favor equality, and the equality advocates have made it clear that the Republicans will pay electorally if they refuse the vote.

As Paul Schindler writes

,I have to reflect on an emotion I’ve experienced separate from anxiety and anticipation. Namely, irritation….the larger measure of my frustration comes from the unpalatable experience of sitting and waiting day in and day out while a nearly opaque political dance unfolds that is, in fact, a referendum on my dignity as a citizen. The fact that my equality –– which according to core American values is God-given or, in more secular terms, mine by right of birth, should be in the hands of elected officials who show such cavalier disregard for basic notions of fair play and equal treatment is a truth I will never be able to accommodate myself to.

The big fear that the opponents play on is "religious liberty". They want the right to use YOUR dollars to discriminate against YOU. The idea that a pair of flouncing gay men in feather boas will waltz into a Catholic church and demand to be married! Oh, the horror! But the whole concept is ludicrous, a red herring.

The FACT is that clergy of whatever denomination have total discretion in who they marry. It's why Roman Catholics who are divorced cannot sue Monsignor for a church wedding. It's why the orthodox Rabbi can decline to marry a mixed faith couple. It's why the Imam can refuse marriage to a couple not of his congregation.

THERE IS NO WAY a gay couple could FORCE a church to marry them. What this is, is simply a fear tactic, crude but surprisingly effective, to scare little old blue hairs into thinking that Teh Gayz are going to march into their church and have orgies in the aisle.

IT'S A LIE.

BUT if churches and religions are given such wide latitude to define Who's in and Who's Out, shouldn't they be happy to keep that wall of separation?

You see, the issue isn't being forced to marry the homos. The issue is trying to keep their hands in the cookie jar of Federal largesse while actively discriminating against fellow citizens. You don't get it both ways. (More details on this from jarred's blog here.)

And it's very lucrative for religious groups to receive money to do things like adoption, etc. But it insupportable that they should be given the RIGHT to discriminate in the civil sphere. Discriminate all you like within the walls of your church/temple/synagogue. But in the public square, all citizens are equal.

Susan Brooks Thistlewaite writes:

The 'pre-emptive' discrimination against gay families on the part of Catholic Charities shows why a "wall of separation" (Jefferson) between church and state was, and remains, such a good idea. Indeed, it would be a big mistake to "exempt" religious organizations that receive government funding and allow them to discriminate against some Americans because of their religious beliefs. Just stop giving taxpayer dollars to religious organizations for them to distribute. That will solve the problem. If we keep church and state separate, these issues do not arise….

Jesus said basically the same thing when he advised, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's..." It's good advice. Caesar's money, Caesar's rules.

So let's be clear. The only religious freedom being impinged in New York or anywhere, is the freedom of supportive congregations to legally marry gay members.

(Cross posted at Friends of Jake)

DP's may stand in WI, but only because they are clearly "lesser"

Because we don't deserve EQUAL rights, oh no.

From the Advocate:

Wisconsin’s domestic-partnership registry does not violate the state constitution’s ban on same-sex marriage, a judge ruled Monday.

The decision is being touted as a victory for gay rights, although Dane County circuit judge Daniel Moeser’s ruling cites the fact that domestic partnerships, established in Wisconsin in 2009, convey far fewer rights and responsibilities than marriage.

“The state does not recognize domestic partnership in a way that even remotely resembles how the state recognizes marriage,” Moeser wrote. “Moreover, domestic partners have far fewer legal rights, duties, and liabilities in comparison to the legal rights, duties, and liabilities of spouses.”

The haters vow to fight because even a few rights for fags are too many.

And be assured, it is hatred. There's no other reason to attack total strangers.

DOMA defense update

Chris Geidner fills us in on the recent motion filed in the first DOMA case to be defended by the Congressional Republican caucus.

Background: the Obama Administration has decided that the Dept of Justice cannot defend DOMA, the defense of marriage act that renders my legal marriage federally invisible, because they believe it is unconstitutional. However, the law remains on the books and is still in force. Congressional Republicans have decided to spend your dollars on a private attorney to defend the indefensibly hate-filled DOMA. (Meanwhile, a repeal bill entitled the Respect for Marriage Act is moving slowly through Congress).

This particular DOMA case is of a legally married California woman, Karen Golinski, who has sought health insurance benefits for her wife from her employer, ironically the 9th Circuit Federal Court. The Court has actually supported Golinski but the Administration's Office of Personnel Management has refused to comply based on DOMA.

Now the case is a lawsuit, and Paul Clement, the attorney hired by the Republicans, will vigorously defend DOMA and attack same sex couples.

Treating us as second class, according to Clement, is justifiable because (1) gay marriage is new, (2) the whole procreation thing (he goes into Gallagher territory) and (3)

Finally, it bears emphasizing that DOMA’s effect is limited. DOMA only defines marriage for purposes of benefits—and burdens—, created by other federal laws. … Congress "did not penalize" same sex couples; it "decided not to offer them a special inducement."

I also find it interesting that he throws in a line about "political power" of gay rights supporters. You may recall that in the Prop8 trial, the relative powerlessness of LGBT people was contested.

Here's the ultimate test of power: do we have enough power to protect ourselves politically without the courts? do we have enough power to ensure our EQUAL TREATMENT under the law? DOMA and Prop8 prove that we so not.

There is no justification for DOMA and the deliberate harming of legally married same sex couples. None, except religiously-inspired bigotry, ignorance, hate and fear.

All of which will no doubt be given a glossy paint job by Attorney Paul Clement.

Why it Matters: Video Sunday

More from Archbishop Dolan

I've written elsewhere about the contrast between the Roman Catholic Archbishop of New York, the vehemently anti-gay Timothy Dolan, and the Episcopal Bishop of Long Island, the pro-marriage Larry Provenzano. As the battle over equality in New York continues, Abp Dolan speaks out some more, about Catholic efforts to carve out exemptions that let them use taxpayers' money to discrminate against those same tax payers.

He also makes it clear that he's not just against marriage. He's against any recognition of us and our relationships.

On Friday, Dolan described marriage equality advocates and their allies as “well-financed, well-oiled,” and he acknowledged that polls showing majority support cause the church “some concern.” Still, he said he believed the majority of "hardworking people" opposed the bill and that "there’s a good chance that this is not gonna pass this year.”

Although civil unions are not an option on the table for New York, Dolan also expressed opposition to them, saying, "Civil unions we worry about because we simply think it's a step toward the dumbing down of marriage.”

Dicker asked the archbishop about broader trends for Catholicism, prompting Dolan to mention Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

“What a great guy,” the archbishop said, adding that Admiral Mullen had told him that 41% of the people in the armed services are Catholic.

Reminded by Dicker that the armed services under Mullen are moving toward more acceptance of gays and lesbian through the repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, Dolan said, “I’m afraid they are too."

The institutional Catholic church is an implacable foe, even as individual Catholics remain strong supporters. So it's time, Catholics, to stop letting the Bishops use your money to attack us.

HIstoric UN resolution on gay rights

From the AP:

The United Nations endorsed the rights of gay, lesbian and transgender people for the first time ever Friday, passing a resolution hailed as historic by the U.S. and other backers and decried by African and Islamic countries.

The declaration was cautiously worded, expressing "grave concern" about abuses suffered by people because of their sexual orientation, and commissioning a global report on discrimination of gays. But activists called it a remarkable shift on an issue that has divided the global body for decades, and credited the Obama administration's push for gay rights at home and abroad with helping win support for the resolution.....

Backers included the United States, the European Union, Brazil and other Latin American countries. Those against included Russia, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and Pakistan. China, Burkina Faso and Zambia abstained, Kyrgyzstan didn't vote and Libya was earlier suspended from the rights body.

Down to the wire for marriage in NY

The New York State Assembly has passed marriage equality. Now, it's up to the Republican-controlled Senate, which hasn't even decided whether to bring the issue to the floor (which must be done by Friday). We need 32 votes. We have 31. One more GOP-er must vote in favor. If it passes the Senate, the Governor has sworn to sign it.

Roman Catholic Archbishop Timothy Dolan has written what some call a diatribe claiming that HIS view of religion supersede all others (see my Daily Kos diary for my comparison of Abp Dolan's drama, with the sensible words of pro-marriage equality Episcopal Bishop of Long Island.)

The fig-leaf is "religious freedom" but the question is whose? As pointed out in this NY Times Op/Ed,

Several senators also have religious concerns, intensified by powerful opposition to same-sex marriage from Roman Catholic Church leaders and some rigorously Orthodox rabbis. The proposed legislation provides for what are called “carve-outs”: Members of the clergy who object to such marriages would not be obligated to perform them or to allow their houses of worship to be used for them.

Why such language is deemed necessary is somewhat perplexing. Where is it now written that priests, ministers, rabbis or imams must preside over ceremonies that violate their consciences? Plenty of them won’t have anything to do with interfaith marriages; nobody seems to consider their refusal a human rights violation.

A different Times article points out that the Republicans are between a classic rock-and-a-hard-place.

If the measure does not pass now, Republicans could face political challenges on two fronts: an array of angry and well-financed gay-rights groups seeking to unseat Republican incumbents in the elections next year, and potential attacks or primary challenges against Mr. Alesi and Mr. McDonald from the right.

If you are in New York, please contact your Senator-- it is urgent that you do so (if you aren't in New York, please don't call. They don't care what people out-of-state think, they care what their constituents think.) These are the most likely swing votes:
Sen. Greg Ball (Putnam County) (518) 455-3111
Sen. Joe Griffo (Utica) (518) 455-3334
Sen. Mark Grisanti (Buffalo, Grand Island, Niagara Falls) (518) 455-3240
Sen. Andrew Lanza (Staten Island) (518) 455-3215
Sen. Jack Martins (Nassau County/Garden City) 518-455-3265

Republican Roundup: presidential candidates burnish their bias

As well as denying evolution and climate change, the Republican presidential candidates will also be attacking equality. Just this week:

Rick Santorum proposes a federal constitutional amendment for DOMA. An implacable foe of equality, his previous statements sum up his bias, though he's trying to tone it down now:

People can live the life they want to live. They can do whatever they want to do in the privacy of their home with respect to that activity. Now you're talking about changing the laws of the country. and it could have a profound impact on society, on faith, on education. Once people realize that, they say, you know what, we respect people's life to live the life they want to lead but don't change how with that definition.

Mitt Romney says he supports ENDA, but blames the gays for wanting equality.

Romney has said that he had supported "gay rights," but Morgan questioned that because of his opposition to marriage equality.

Of that, Romney responded, "The gay community changed their perspective of what they wanted," adding that he said he wouldn't support same-sex marriage.

Those pesky homosexuals. They dare to want it all!

Rick Perry isn't running....yet.... but he's wasting no time in burnishing his credentials of hatred.

Texas governor Rick Perry plans to fill a football stadium with Christians to pray for solutions to the country's problems. And he’s partnering with one of the nation’s most notoriously antigay groups to launch the big event.

The American Family Association will pick up much of the bill for the rally...

Court throws out motion to disqualify Judge Walker (and vacate the Prop8 trial)

From Prop8 trial tracker, some quotes from the opinion:

In fact, the Court observes that Judge Walker, like all judges, had a duty to preserve the integrity of the judiciary. Among other things, this means that if, in an overabundance of caution, he were to have disclosed intimate, but irrelevant, details about his personal life that were not reasonably related to the question of disqualification, he could have set a pernicious precedent. Such a precedent would be detrimental to the integrity of the judiciary, because it would promote, incorrectly, disclosure by judges of highly personal information (e.g., information about a judge’s history of being sexually abused as a child), however irrelevant or time-consuming.

And, in response to the Prop8 supporters' contention that because Judge Walker is gay AND in a relationship, he MUST want to marry, this:

Finally, the presumption that “all people in same-sex relationships think alike” is an unreasonable presumption, and one which has no place in legal reasoning. The presumption that Judge Walker, by virtue of being in a same-sex relationship, had a desire to be married that rendered him incapable of making an impartial decision, is as warrantless as the presumption that a female judge is incapable of being impartial in a case in which women seek legal relief. On the contrary: it is reasonable to presume that a female judge or a judge in a same-sex relationship is capable of rising above any personal predisposition and deciding such a case on the merits. The Motion fails to cite any evidence that Judge Walker would be incapable of being impartial, but to presume that Judge Walker was incapable of being impartial, without concrete evidence to support that presumption, is inconsistent with what is required under a reasonableness standard.

I"m not a lawyer, but I think that's a slap...

(Another) Federal Court finds against DOMA

No, not that one! Another case, not Prop8, in which a US Bankruptcy Court rules DOMA unconstitutional. Here's a case from CA where a married gay couple wanted to file bankruptcy, and went to court because they were not afforded the same treatment as a straight couple would be. The US Trustee opposed them. As the brief for the decision says,

As the Debtors state, “[T]he only issue in this Bankruptcy Case is whether some legally married couples are entitled to fewer rights than other legally married couples, based solely on a factor (the gender and/or sexual orientation of the parties in the union) that finds no support in the Bankruptcy Code or Rules and should be a constitutional irrelevancy.” Debtors’ Opp. 5:24–28. In this court’s judgment, no legally married couple should be entitled to fewer bankruptcy rights than any other legally married couple

The brief cites Att. Gen. Holder's letter that DOMA is unconstitutional. It cites the evidence from Perry v. Schwarzeneggar (the Prop8 federal case). It summarizes the arguments against equality clearly, finding the following reasons insufficient:

• Defending or nurturing the institution of traditional heterosexual marriage(the Debtors are already married to each other, and allowing them to proceed jointly in this bankruptcy case cannot have the slightest cognizable effect on anyone else’s marriage);
• Defending traditional notions of morality (the Debtors’ joint bankruptcy filing is in no sense discernible to the court to be a validly challengeable affront to morality, traditional or otherwise, under the Fifth Amendment); or
• Preserving scarce resources (no governmental resources are implicated by the Debtors’ bankruptcy case different from the resources brought to bear routinely in thousands upon thousands of joint bankruptcy cases filed over the years).

Accordingly, the Judge finds,

The Debtors have demonstrated that DOMA violates their equal protection rights afforded under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, either under heightened scrutiny or under rational basis review. Debtors also have demonstrated that there is no valid governmental basis for DOMA. In the end, the court finds that DOMA violates the equal protection rights of the Debtors as recognized under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.No one expressed the Debtors’ view as pertinent to this simple bankruptcy case more eloquently and profoundly than Justice William O. Douglas in the concluding paragraph of his opinion for the majority in Griswold v. Connecticut
, 381 U.S. 479, 486(1965):

We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not in political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects.Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.

Upon consideration of the pleadings and all other materials filed in this case, andfor good cause shown, the court finds that the Debtors satisfy every legal requirement to pursue their joint petition as filed pursuant to § 302(a). For the reasons stated herein and in the Debtors’ Opposition to the Motion and Debtors’ supporting authorities, the Motion to Dismiss Debtors’ chapter 13 case based on § 1307(c) is denied.

Hearing Today

Today is the hearing in Federal Court on the Prop 8 case. This time, the supporters of Prop 8 are claiming that because Judge Vaughn Walker is gay, he couldn't hear the case because he might benefit from the outcome.

As I said before, that's like saying a woman judge can't hear a case about abortion (she might want one), or an African American judge can't hear a case about racial inequality in insurance (he might need some) or a devout Roman Catholic judge can't hear a case claiming damages for priestly molestation (it's his church that will pay).

It's exactly the same argument, and it's deeply offensive.

And what if a straight judge had a gay daughter? Would the same argument apply? Or what if he attended a church with a gay partnered bishop? What then?

And by the way, it was an open secret that Judge Walker is gay and in a relationship--the supporters didn't care, until they lost the case.

For updates, check out the Prop8 Trial Tracker.Writing at the Tracker, Attorney Shannon Minter puts it in context:

It is important to place this motion in historical context. The Prop 8 supporters’ argument is far from new: for as long as civil rights cases have been litigated in this country, opponents of equality have accused minority judges of bias — of somehow being less able than other judges to rule impartially on important constitutional issues that by definition affect not just minority groups, but everyone.

In a famous 1975 case, a law firm that had been sued for sex discrimination argued that Judge Constance Baker Motley should recuse herself, accusing her of “‘strongly identif[ying] with those who suffered discrimination in employment because of sex or race’” because she was a woman and had worked as a civil rights advocate prior to becoming a judge. Judge Motley correctly explained, “If background or sex or race of each judge were, by definition, sufficient for removal, no judge on this court could hear this case[.]” ....Similarly, in a 1984 case, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the argument that a Mormon judge in Utah should have recused himself from a case that challenged the religious power structure in Utah....

We hope and believe that after considering the long and shameful history of attempts to disqualify judges based on personal characteristics, Judge Ware will resoundingly reject this offensive and desperate tactic by the Prop 8 supporters.

Let's hope.

Loving v. Virginia: video Sunday

It's the 44th anniversary of the landmark Loving v Virgina decision by the Supreme Court that overturned anti-miscegenation laws.

Voices of Faith Speak Out: Affirming Baptists

The Rev. Deborah Kohler, about Woodside Church in Flint MI

Woodside Church's main web page now prominently states "We are an Open and Affirming congregation welcoming into the full life and ministry of our church all persons, including those of every race, culture, age, gender, sexual orientation, ability and economic status. At Woodside Church, our diversity strengthens our faith. Our actions are a reflection of our Christian faith."

A lot of people said "we already accept everybody, why do we have to take an official stance?" I would say that was the biggest element of resistance. And the education that we needed to do that any church that considers themselves welcoming, unless you have an official stance and a rainbow out front, people who have been excluded have no way of knowing that they're really included....

We decided that part of the justice ministry is to stay in the system and keep standing up for what's right, so yes we did want to be Baptists....

And so technically, the UCC and ABC-USA denominations are not hierarchical, although I would say in manifestation the American Baptists act like they're authoritarian. We just stood up to them and said, "You can tell us you're kicking us out, but you can't kick us out. We're Baptists as long as we say we're Baptists and we can affiliate with whoever we as a congregation choose to affiliate. You all have something called Four Freedoms, and one of those Freedoms is the freedom of each individual and each congregation to interpret the Scriptures according to their faith-conscience. You can't tell us -- you have no authority over us." But ultimately they do.

So we found ministries in the ABC-USA that we can endorse. ...

So we continue to be a presence at the national denominational meetings. There are other Welcoming and Affirming Baptists, and we're in coalition with them. We actually joined an association called AWAB, The Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists. That's in addition to the UCC Coalition for LGBT Concerns.

H/T Pam's House Blend

Obama Administration moves on Medicare

From the Washington Blade:

The Obama administration is set on Friday to issue policy guidance to states expanding their ability to offer same-sex couples the same protections afforded to straight couples when they receive long-term care under Medicaid, the Washington Blade has learned exclusively.

Under the new guidance, dated June 10, states have the option to allow healthy partners in a same-sex relationship to keep their homes while their partners are receiving support for long-term care under Medicaid, such as care in a nursing home.

Medicaid kicks in for a beneficiary to receive care after an individual depletes virtually all of their money. To pay for the beneficiary’s expenses under Medicaid, a state could impose a lein, or take possession, of a beneficiary’s home to pay for Medicaid expenses.

However, federal law prohibits imposing this lein if beneficiaries are married to someone of the opposite-sex who’s still living in their home. The new guidance, signed by Deputy Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Cindy Mann, clarifies that states can offer this protection to the healthy partner of a Medicaid recipient in a same-sex relationship.

So if you are lucky enough to live in a friendly state, you may be able to keep your house.

If in an unfriendly state, thanks to DOMA, not so much--regardless of your marital status.

It's a start, though.

FIghting the lies

Alvin McEwan has written a great guide to take down The Lies of NOM.

The truth of the matter is marriage is not "under attack." It has never been "under attack."

But what is under attack is truth, integrity, and basic fairness for the hundreds of thousands of same-sex couples and especially their children who seem to be nothing more than chess pieces in NOM's game of exploitation and manipulation, as evidenced by the following talking point:

NOM - "Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose, they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us."

Truth - Allowing gays and lesbians to marry does not "redefine marriage" for the entire country because they are not forcing heterosexuals to engage in gay marriage. It's 100% false. And the gay community don't have a right to live as they choose, per the currently unequal laws of this nation in terms of employment, housing, etc.

Check out the rest of his points.

Yes, the FRC is a hate group

Here's a video compilation of the Family Research Council spewing the hate that got them listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. It's as well to remember what they really think of us.

H/T AmericaBlog Gay

Iowa Republican comes out for marriage

The question I have is why the heck they never do this while they're in office. From The Des Moines Register,

Five years ago [Jeff] Angelo, who did not seek reelection in 2008, co-sponsored a bill that would have launched a process to amend Iowa’s constitution and prohibit same-sex marriage.

Angelo has since said his former position on the issue was wrong. He has said his views have evolved because of his friendships with Iowans who have same-sex couples in their families. Those families deserve the same protections of marriage as similarly committed opposite-sex couples, he has said.

Out in America (video Sunday)

A new PBS show, on Wednesday at 8pm.

Watch the full episode. See more PBS Specials.

Emmy award-winning director Andrew Goldberg and PBS, in association with Oregon Public Broadcasting, today announced a new national PBS special, OUT in America. The one-hour film will make its national premiere on Wednesday, June 8 at 8:00 pm ET/PT on PBS, in conjunction with National Gay & Lesbian Pride Month.

OUT in America is an uplifting collection of unique, transformative stories and inspiring personal narratives told through the lens of the country's most prominent LGBT figures and pioneers, as well as many average, yet extraordinary, citizens from Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender communities.

You can also watch on line.

Who can you marry?

As I've said before, the shameful way the transgender community is treated in marriage points out the absurdity of laws forbidding loving couples from marrying. From ThinkProgress:

A Texas judge has officially signed his order voiding a marriage between a deceased firefighter and his transgender widow, having ruled in the case that because she was born male, the marriage was a “same-sex marriage” and not valid. Transgender Texans can use their official change-of-sex documentation to apply for a marriage license, so it’s currently unclear who exactly they are allowed to marry.

We are everywhere, but we aren't THAT many

The latest Gallup poll suggests that Americans think that nearly 25% of the population is LGBT. That's more than Jews, or even Catholics. Those with lower levels of education think the rate is even higher.

Probably about 3-5% of the population identifies as gay, and probably 10-15% have had some homosexual experiences.

To some extent, this may explain the increasing hysteria of NOM and the anti-gay crowd. I wish they would just get over it and realize we are about as threatening as a redhead.

THen again, there have been attacks on gingers, too.

Civil Unions in Illinois

Today, Civil Unions become legal in Illinois. Unlike California, you have to get a license and stand before a judge (none of this notarize-a-download-at-Kinko's-and mail-it-in crap.) Lakeesha Harris and Janean Watkins here were the first to get theirs. I know, I know, scary, aren't they? (From ThinkProgress).

Still, time the "antis" tell you it's about Marriage, the word, remember this.

Opponents of the Illinois civil unions law that takes effect this week want a referendum that allows people to vote on the measure.

The Chicago Tribune reports on demonstrations held in downtown Chicago on Friday between supporters and opponents of the new law, which would give same-sex couples in civil unions the same rights as married couples in the state.

It's not a surprise that the opposition is ratcheting up its rhetoric to be generally anti-gay. It's not about marriage. It's about US, simply being who we are.

Meanwhile, Congratulations! Some equality is better than none. But we will not rest till full equality is obtained. Those civil unions should be marriages. And Lakeesha and Janean should have all the 1400+ rights of a married couple.