Tuesday, August 30, 2011

A graphical timeline of marriage equality in CA

There was yet another hearing today on the never ending subject of Prop8 (read more about it). Since it's hard to keep track of what's gone on, I thought I'd give you a cartoon version of the saga. Click for a larger view.

Monday, August 29, 2011

The Prop8 trial: Murderous gays attack Christians!

That's what's going to happen if the video of the Prop8 trial Perry v Brown* is released to the public. Because marauding bands of angry homos will attack anyone Christian if they learn what happened in the case.

Really. The anti-gay group Focus on the Family says so.

You remember that in the Prop8 case, only two witnesses testified for the Prop8 supporters, one of whom basically agreed with OUR side. In fact, the judge was visibly annoyed that they didn't actually mount a defense, but just made unsupported statements.

Still, it was the claim that anti-Chrisitan violence would erupt if the proceedings were broadcast that led to the US Supreme Court preventing said broadcast, last year.

Now, the victorious plaintiffs in the Prop8 case want the tapes released. The Prop8 defendants do not.

Because the case wasn't held in a vacuum. The trial was public, if you could make it to the federal court building in San Francisco. The transcripts are public. The Courage Campaign and its supporters staged the trial from the transcripts, and put the tapes on YouTube. And a staged reading of a play called "8" by Dustin Lance Black , based on the testimony, will be performed in New York. I don't know any gay person who doesn't already know exactly what was said in the trial last year and who said it.

So it's completely illogical to claim that releasing the tapes will exacerbate anything or expose anyone---except for exposing the poor defense for Prop8, the evisceration of their evidence, and the obvious animus that motivated them. As Chad Griffin of AFER says,
There is a difference between fact and fiction and we all need to focus on that difference as we all enter into Monday’s hearing. Throughout the trial and since, the anti-marriage proponents of Proposition 8 have consistently argued that the two witnesses and those that did not come to trial feared intimidation. …

These are witnesses who are incredibly outspoken public figures: they teach college classes, they get paid to speak, they have done debates around the world on these issues, they have sought incredible publicity as they have published their books, their articles, their newsletters, and have done a whole host of media appearances, television, print, radio….

What’s clear is that these are individuals who have sought their entire careers, publicity. The one difference in this trial was that the witnesses were going to be under oath and penalty of perjury and they were to be cross-examined. And that was what was unique in this trial…. So it’s very clear why the anti-marriage proponents of Prop 8 don’t want these tapes released.”
And of course, it's deeply offensive to keep screaming about violence when there's very little evidence of any, and certainly no more actions against them than against us. Moreover, as we know, the Revenge of the Gays has more to do with flashmobs and glitter than violence.

And last, but not least, many gays are actually CHRISTIANS, albeit of a more sensible sort than those from Focus on the Family, which makes their bleating "Christian victim" card particularly mendacious. One of the biggest groups marching in San Diego's gay pride parade is the Episcopal Cathedral. Eat that, phony FOTF "Christians."

The irony? The Judge** in today's hearing wanted to tape it, but the Prop8 supporters said "no".

More coverage by Karen Ocamb and also the great folks from the Courage Campaign's Prop8 Trial tracker

Also great background from AFER on What Are the Prop8 Proponents trying to Hide? (PDF)


*Because Schwarzeneggar is no longer governor of CA, the case is renamed.
**Judge Walker retired; the case is now under Judge Ware.

Sunday, August 28, 2011

So you must love each other! (video Sunday)

An oldy but a goody.  So, this little kid figures it out.  So you love each other.  Cool.  I'll go play ping pong now!

Friday, August 26, 2011

Why it matters: Houston judge says husband can't be with kids

This one's a doozy.
A Houston judge entered an order on June 24 which prohibits a father from leaving his children alone with any man they aren’t related to “by blood or adoption.” Because there was no allegation of abuse in the case, family law practitioners say the order is an unheard of infringement on the rights of parents and a judicial condemnation of the fact that the man, William Flowers, is not only gay but married to his partner, Jim Evans.

.... So if, for example, William wants to visit his mother in the hospital (where she’s been for several weeks), he can’t leave his kids at home with his husband. As written, the injunction also prohibits male doctors, teachers and pastors from being alone with the children.

Attorneys who practice family law in Texas point out that in cases of abuse, it is common for courts to prevent children from being alone with specific people. But those same lawyers say that they’ve never heard of a case in which a step-parent or long-term partner is permanently enjoined from being alone with his or her step-children when abuse is not even alleged, let alone proven. No lawyer consulted for this story has ever heard of an order which prohibits children from being left alone with an entire gender.
That's Texas, home of your would-be next president.

Seriously, this is so wrong on so many levels. Apparently, the judge has no problem with William, but assumes that any man around the kids must be a pedophile? Of course he wouldn't treat William's WIFE that way, if William were straight. Can you imagine him saying, "you can't leave your kids alone with any woman"?

I'm just so tired of this crap from the bigots, the haters, and the ignorant.

Thursday, August 25, 2011

Who are our opponents?

Great post from Chad Griffin,a founder of AFER (the folks who took on the Perry case)
Andy Pugno, ProtectMarriage’s top lawyer, served on the staff of California Senator Pete Knight (author of California’s original anti-equality ballot measure, Proposition 22). Just a few months ago, he sought to have Judge Vaughn Walker’s verdict in the Perry case set aside claiming that because Judge Walker was gay and in a relationship with a man during the trial, he was therefore incapable of impartiality. Interesting that Pugno made that claim after having lost in District Court, especially since he said during the trial that he would not make an issue of Judge Walker’s sexual orientation.

Pugno’s despicable tactics were given full-throated support from blogger Ed Whelan. Whelan, who famously compared Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan to a prostitute, argued that gay jurists should have to either recuse themselves from cases or disclose “intimate details of their personal lives.”

These people represent themselves as patriots, but rather than striving to form a more perfect union, they seek to tear our nation apart. They claim to be guided by principles that portend the courage of their convictions, but there is evidence that even those convictions are phony.
Griiffin and AFER are arguing that the tapes from the Prop8 case should be made public. People should SEE what the level of argument was from the opponents of marriage equality.
It’s time for the public to see the true lies and real identity of the Prop. 8 anti-marriage forces. Allowing everyone to see the videotapes of the Prop. 8 trial would be a good way to start.

Wednesday, August 24, 2011

Preventing gay youth suicide is immoral

Jim Burroway over at Box Turtle Bulletin has a strong stomach. He >reportson the latest fundraising letter from Tony Perkins, of the vile Family Research Council.

Seems Mr Perkins is livid that those terrible Democrats are recording videos for the It Gets Better Project, which encourages at-risk LGBT youth to hang in there, not to harm themselves, because they WILL find a better life.

Perkins writes,
Can you imagine George Washington, Ronald Reagan, or any other president telling school children that it’s okay to be immoral and that they’ll eventually feel better about it?

It’s disgusting. And it’s part of a concerted effort to persuade kids that homosexuality is okay and actually to recruit them into that “lifestyle.”
As Burroway writes,
Their solution to the youth suicide problem? More of the same name-calling from other kids and all of the adults around them — and even from the President and First Lady of the United States if he were to have his way.
Honestly, this makes it clear, doesn't it? Perkins and his ilk see no problem with gay youth suicide, or bullying of gay youth. He considers gays so disgusting that they'd rather see children dead by their own hands, rather than supported and loved as the people they are.

THe immorality here is not from the video project.

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Good news on immigration: why it matters

The Obama Administration has made the sensible decision that people who are in the country without documents but aren't criminals should be lower priority for deportation.

This is particularly heartening for same-sex "transnational" couples. If they were straight, the citizen partner could sponsor the non-citizen partner for a green card. But thanks to DOMA, they aren't given that right, and there are lots of heartbreaking cases of people being ripped apart.

But with this new implementation policy, that should change. From the NY TImes:
The administration’s announcement also had an immediate impact on a case in Denver, where an immigration judge on Friday postponed the deportation of Sujey Pando, a lesbian from Mexico legally married in Iowa to an American from Colorado, Violeta Pando. Although federal law does not recognize same-sex marriages, administration officials said they would consider same-sex spouses as “family” in their review of deportation cases.

The judge, Mimi Tsankov, cited the flux in laws and policies affecting same-sex cases in delaying a decision on Sujey Pando’s deportation at least until January, said Lavi Soloway, a lawyer for the couple.
Our families are just as real, and our love just as important. It's good news that this will finally make a difference.

But what we really need is the elimination of DOMA, and as cases wend their way through the court system, I hope that will happen.

Monday, August 22, 2011

Gay birds just as faithful as straight

From the BBC:
Same-sex pairs of monogamous birds are just as attached and faithful to each other as those paired with a member of the opposite sex.
The insight comes from a study of zebra finches - highly vocal, colourful birds that sing to their mates, a performance thought to strengthen the pair's bond.....
The findings indicate that, even in birds, the drive to find a mate is far more complicated than simply the need to reproduce.
"A pair-bond in socially monogamous species represents a cooperative partnership that may give advantages for survival," said Dr Elie. "Finding a social partner, whatever its sex, could be a priority."
There are many other examples of same-sex pairing in the avian world. In monogamous gulls and albatrosses, it gives females the chance to breed without a male partner. "Female partners copulate with a paired male then rear the young together," Dr Elie explained.
Homosexual behavior in animals is well documented in multiple species, not just birds. (More on the Orientation page) Next time someone says "it's not natural", remember that.

Thursday, August 18, 2011

Religious liberty, again

Writing at the Scotusblog Same Sex Marriage symposium, Thomas C. Berg, Professor of Law and Public Policy at the University of St. Thomas, argues that supporting marriage equality and "religious liberty" are opposing forces.
[O]nce the California Supreme Court ordered same-sex marriage, voters could understandably lack any confidence that religious-liberty concerns would ultimately be addressed and given weight. In that context, I believe, voters had a rational basis for rejecting same-sex marriage. ....

Although I think Proposition 8 was therefore rational, it would be fairer to all to recognize gay marriage and accommodate religious liberty. ...

I believe that legislative superiority in striking such balances is one reason why legislation recognizing same-sex marriage is preferable to constitutional decision-making – preferable especially to a single decision by the U.S. Supreme Court requiring equal marriage in all fifty states.

If courts declare gay-marriage rights, however – whether state courts or the U.S. Supreme Court – they must do a better job on religious liberty than they have so far. They should expressly acknowledge the broad range of potential conflicts. And if they are not going to order religious accommodations as constitutional mandates, they should expressly encourage state legislatures to consider them as wise policy.
I have a huge problem with this, because it completely ignores the religious liberty of those who support equality. Many, many denominations and faith communities are supportive. Prop 8 impinged, deeply, on their religious liberty--not just on the civil liberties of GLBT people.

It's way past time for the scholars and pundits to "get it" that religion is not of one mind, and that what Prop8 DID was force Episcopalians to live under ROman Catholic rules.

Moreover, since California already provides for the anti-discrimination policies that this writer dislikes, it's not clear at all that same sex marriage is to blame for the discomfort of individuals.

And, just replace "gay marriage" with "Jew". Would we allow an arch-conservative Evangelical to refuse to serve a Jewish person? What about a Muslim? Or a Mormon? Religion is certainly a choice (which orientation is not).

I do agree with him on one thing, though. I don't understand why anyone would sue a photographer or baker who didn't want to serve at your wedding. Would you really want to have someone doing your wedding who loathes everything about you? Just make it public, and let the market do the rest.

Wednesday, August 17, 2011

ScotusBlog: more from the same sex marriage symposium

The excellent site Scotusblog is running an on-line symposium about legal issues surrounding Same Sex Marriage. I strongly encourage you to check it out, and read the complete essays there. I've only excerpted small parts here. I'll be excerpting others as they are published. Emphases mine. Robert Levy, chairman of the Cato Institute, writes:
I’d like to comment briefly on three jurisprudential issues that are central to the debate over same-sex marriage: religious freedom, federalism, and judicial activism… 
the right to same-sex marriage is not a constraint on religious beliefs or practices. The First Amendment ensures that churches, synagogues, and mosques are free to choose which marriages they want to recognize. Some religious institutions will sanction same-sex marriages; some will not; a third group might call them domestic partnerships. No church would be compelled to implement a policy contrary to the beliefs of its congregants; and congregants would be free to join the church whose views they found congenial. The gay marriage controversy is not about private religious practices; it’s about government’s role in issuing marriage licenses. … 
federalism does not excuse compliance with the Equal Protection Clause. ….States may not discriminate, without justification, by recognizing heterosexual but not homosexual marriages. No justification has been shown. 
How about procreation? No. Infertile persons are permitted to marry even though they cannot procreate. Child rearing? No. Studies show that children do just as well when raised by same-sex parents. Promoting traditional marriage? No. Allowing gay marriages does not deter heterosexual marriages. Conserving government resources? No. The Congressional Budget Office found that recognizing same-sex marriages would save money. We’ll have fewer children in state institutions, lower divorce rates, and less promiscuity. … 
Federalism first and foremost “protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary power.” The object is personal freedom, including the freedom to engage in a marital relationship that visits no harm on innocent third parties. ….. 
Judicial engagement – as differentiated from judicial activism – is essential to safeguard rights that majoritarian rule has left unprotected. That’s the role that judges are supposed to fill. When Kris Perry’s rights are violated by Californians and the state’s political process hasn’t yielded an adequate remedy, the courts can and should intervene. 
Judges have a responsibility to invalidate all laws that do not conform to the Constitution. Our courts would be derelict if they endorsed unconstitutional acts merely because they were compatible with transitory expressions of public sentiment. Proposition 8, because it violates the Equal Protection Clause, cannot be allowed to stand regardless how large the majority that voted in favor.

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Scotusblog: Same Sex Marriage Symposium

The excellent site Scotusblog is running an on-line symposium about legal issues surrounding Same Sex Marriage. I strongly encourage you to check it out, and read the complete essays there. I've only excerpted small parts here. I'll be excerpting others as they are published. Emphases mine.

William Eskridge, Professor of Law at Yale, argues that the Supreme Court should move very slowly on the Prop8 case, with very narrow rulings. He suggests they be guided by the Romer decision that overturned Colorado's Amendment 2.

How ought the U.S. Supreme Court handle the appeal in Perry v. Schwarzenegger once the case is ripe for appeal? The Court ought to avoid any broad pronouncements on the merits of plaintiffs’ claim that denying marriage equality to lesbian and gay couples violates the Fourteenth Amendment....

In 1956, political scientist Robert Dahl warned that pluralistic democracy cannot easily handle issues that both intensely and evenly divide the polity. Indeed, such issues threaten the viability of our system, because they polarize contending groups and engender politics-exiting bitterness among group members who are defeated.....

... A narrower ruling on the merits would rest upon Romer v. Evans (1996), where the Court invalidated Colorado’s Amendment 2, an anti-gay state constitutional initiative, because it violated core equal protection precepts.

While there is legitimate debate about how broadly to read the Court’s opinion, Romer applies (at the very least) to cases whose facts are close to the Romer facts: (1) novel, ad hoc legal barriers erected by voter initiatives denying fundamental public rights to lesbians and gay men (2) cannot stand if tainted by a bare desire to lower the status of this minority (whether for reasons of anti-gay animus or religious morality) (3) rather than a rational connection to a neutral public interest.

Proposition 8 fits the facts of Romer snugly. No state but California has recognized lesbian and gay couples’ right to civil marriage as “fundamental,” and then revoked that fundamental right through a popular initiative. The supporters of Proposition 8 openly defended their rights take-back as a pure status denigration. Thus, their ballot materials explained that the rights take-back was needed in order to (1) restore the discriminating feature of traditional marriage, (2) discipline “activist” judges who recognized fundamental rights for a disapproved minority, and (3) assure that schoolchildren would not be taught that gay marriage was entitled to the same civil respect accorded traditional marriage.

Finally, the briefs filed by the Proposition 8 proponents have been strikingly unable to tie the exclusion of same-sex couples to any neutral state interest. Their main argument, that discrimination against gays protects marriage against decline, is open scapegoating, namely, blaming a minority for problems created by the majority. Marriage has been in decline in many respects, but not because of lesbian and gay unions, which are more likely reinvigorate than kill that institution. ...

.... Amendment 2 denied gay people some legal rights, while Proposition 8 is completely symbolic. In one respect, the latter is a more serious equal protection concern: the proponents of Proposition 8 spent millions of dollars simply to deny lesbian and gay couples the symbolic equality associated with full (civil) marriage recognition.... Carving out a class of citizens from a core civil or political status is unprecedented in our constitutional system; it is highly suspect, and perhaps a per se constitutional violation, under Romer.

.....the record in Perry is saturated with direct evidence of animus (anti-gay prejudice, stereotypes, and sectarian disapproval).

Like the Warren Court did in the different-race marriage cases, the Roberts Court should not be in a hurry to reach the constitutional merits of the same-sex marriage cases. If the Justices reach the merits, they should craft an opinion that decides the California appeal but goes no further. A Romer-based approach is the best the Court can do under those circumstances—and then watch as the state-by-state debate eventually runs out and a rough consensus emerges among younger Americans, who I believe will ultimately find same-sex marriage a constitutional no-brainer.

Monday, August 15, 2011

American Psychological Association comes out for equality

From USA today:
he world's largest organization of psychologists took its strongest stand to date supporting full marriage equity, a move that observers say will have a far-reaching impact on the national debate.

The policymaking body of the American Psychological Association (APA) unanimously approved the resolution 157-0 on the eve of the group's annual convention...

The group, with more than 154,000 members, has long supported full equal rights for gays, based on social science research on sexual orientation. Now the nation's psychologists — citing an increasing body of research about same-sex marriage, as well as increased discussion at the state and federal levels — took the support to a new level.

"Now as the country has really begun to have experience with gay marriage, our position is much clearer and more straightforward — that marriage equity is the policy that the country should be moving toward," says Clinton Anderson, director of APA's Office on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Concerns....

"I don't think it's very significant for the population at large, but I do think this move is significant for the ongoing public policy and legal battles in Washington and around the states," he says.
Clinical psychologist Mark Hatzenbuehler, a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Health & Society Scholar at Columbia University in New York City, whose new research is cited in the resolution, says the courts tend to look at these kinds of policy statements because "they're really looking to see what social science research says about the influence on gay marriage and marriage bans on a whole host of outcomes.

Sunday, August 14, 2011

It gets better: you are beautiful (video Sunday)





You are beautiful no matter what they say
Words can't bring you down
You are beautiful in every single way
Yes, words can't bring you down
Don't you bring me down today...

Friday, August 12, 2011

Where we stand on equality

From Forbes:
The nationwide campaign to legalize same-sex marriage is the civil rights battle of the 21st century. Opponents are going to lose. So like trial lawyers who settle cases on the courthouse steps, they should abandon this wasteful fight.

Same-sex marriage is here to stay. Six states and Washington D.C. allow it. Another 13 states (see map, above) permit “domestic partnerships” or “civil unions” to provide gay couples with varying degrees of rights.

Yet under the current system, marrying does not put same-sex couples on equal financial footing. Whether they are concerned about health insurance, taxes, property ownership or being parents together, planning for a gay couple poses special challenges. ...

It’s not just the politicians who are holding us back. A more profound problem is the people who elected them. They range from religious zealots to folks who understand the civil rights issues but have admitted to me privately that they “have trouble getting used to the idea” of same-sex relationships....
Yes, but that rump end is getting vicious and unlikely to give way soon. And for many gay couples, 10 years is too long.


Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Deportation of caregiving partner: WHY IT MATTERS

From The SF CHronicle
Citing the Defense of Marriage Act, the Obama administration denied immigration benefits to a married gay couple from San Francisco and ordered the expulsion of a man who is the primary caregiver to his AIDS-afflicted spouse. Citing the Defense of Marriage Act, the Obama administration denied immigration benefits to a married gay couple from San Francisco and ordered the expulsion of a man who is the primary caregiver to his AIDS-afflicted spouse.
I would really like Maggie Gallagher to explain how this "protects the sanctity of marriage". How this deportation is necessary to protect HER marriage. Because somehow, if these two men stay together, straight couples will stop having babies. Or something. Can she defend the indefensible? I'm sure she will. This is heartbreaking.

Tuesday, August 9, 2011

The REAL threat to marriage

While NOM and others fulminate against LGBT couples marrying, they might do better to look at the horrific effects that the recession has on marriage (not to mention conservative policies that disadvantage the poor and jobless).

From the Atlantic, last year but still current:
[J]oblessness corrodes marriages, and makes divorce much more likely down the road. According to W. Bradford Wilcox, the director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, the gender imbalance of the job losses in this recession is particularly noteworthy, and—when combined with the depth and duration of the jobs crisis—poses “a profound challenge to marriage,” especially in lower-income communities. It may sound harsh, but in general, he says, “if men can’t make a contribution financially, they don’t have much to offer.” Two-thirds of all divorces are legally initiated by women. Wilcox believes that over the next few years, we may see a long wave of divorces, washing no small number of discarded and dispirited men back into single adulthood.

Among couples without college degrees, says Edin, marriage has become an “increasingly fragile” institution. In many low-income communities, she fears it is being supplanted as a social norm by single motherhood and revolving-door relationships. As a rule, fewer people marry during a recession, and this one has been no exception. But “the timing of this recession coincides with a pretty significant cultural change,” Edin says: a fast-rising material threshold for marrying, but not for having children, in less affluent communities.

Edin explains that poor and working-class couples, after seeing the ravages of divorce on their parents or within their communities, have become more hesitant to marry; they believe deeply in marriage’s sanctity, and try to guard against the possibility that theirs will end in divorce. Studies have shown that even small changes in income have significant effects on marriage rates among the poor and the lower-middle class. “It’s simply not respectable to get married if you don’t have a job—some way of illustrating to your neighbors that you have at least some grasp on some piece of the American pie,” Edin says. Increasingly, people in these communities see marriage not as a way to build savings and stability, but as “a symbol that you’ve arrived.”

Childbearing is the opposite story. The stigma against out-of-wedlock children has by now largely dissolved in working-class communities—more than half of all new mothers without a college degree are unmarried. For both men and women in these communities, children are commonly seen as a highly desirable, relatively low-cost way to achieve meaning and bolster identity—especially when other opportunities are closed off. Christina Gibson-Davis, a public-policy professor at Duke University, recently found that among adults with no college degree, changes in income have no bearing at all on rates of childbirth.

“We already have low marriage rates in low-income communities,” Edin told me, “including white communities. And where it’s really hitting now is in working-class urban and rural communities, where you’re just seeing astonishing growth in the rates of nonmarital childbearing. And that would all be fine and good, except these parents don’t stay together. This may be one of the most devastating impacts of the recession.”
What was that about "every child deserves a mother and a father"?

Friday, August 5, 2011

Catholics on the campaign against equality

Over and over again, polls tell us that Roman Catholic laity--that is, the people in the pews-- are amongst the most supportive groups when it comes to marriage equality.  But the Roman Catholic hierarchy, that is, the Bishops and up, are amongst the most intense opponents, funneling millions into the anti-marriage campaigns.

Why, in Minnesota, the Archbishop actually suggested that parents reject their children rather than the church.  Yeah, how's that workin' for ya?

And NOM, the most active, yet secretive opponent to equality, is run by conservative Catholics as a front group for Catholic money.

The laity have practiced a sort of don't-ask-don't-tell, managing to ignore this, but stories of denying funerals to parishioners who are gay don't sit well with anyone.

As this excellent piece in ReligionDispatches points out, it's as though being gay is a unique sin.
In their zeal to deny any form of legitimacy to same-sex relationships, the bishops have neglected more urgent pastoral duties. Catholic schools and parishes are closing by the dozen in dioceses across the country, yet somehow the hierarchy and its allies in the Knights of Columbus have found millions of dollars to spend in one state after another opposing marriage equality, or its weaker cousin, the civil union.
Many Catholics, though, still believe in their church as an agent of social justice.
...The Church’s teachings on social justice compelled us to act as advocates for fairness, justice, and individual dignity, that its teachings on politics instructed us to vote for the common good, and that in making moral decisions, we were to follow the promptings of our own well-formed consciences

There are times, it seems, when our hierarchy is so committed to cultivating political power, and deploying our Church’s resources in contemporary culture wars, that they expect us to forget all of this. We won’t..
And then, of course, there's the hypocrisy, such as expelling children of gay parents from Catholic schools.
The archbishop argued that parents must be able to cooperate with Catholic schools in the education of their children, and that those who do not embrace Church doctrine cannot do so.

This was not an argument he employed against Protestants, or non-Christians, or children whose parents had remarried after a divorce. It was employed exclusively against lesbian parents. Because in the theological universe that our bishops are constructing to support their personal biases, there is sin, and then there is gay sin, and gay sin is so much worse.
My wife used to be Roman Catholic--until the day she visited an unfamiliar church prior to Prop8, and a priest spat bile and hatred over homosexuals in a vile screeching sermon. Her many, many supportive RC friends urged her to stay with her regular congregation, to practice Don't Ask Don't Tell with the priest. But how can you have a healthy spiritual life if you can't be honest? My wife left the RC and became an Episcopalian, where she is welcomed as a total person and our marriage is , literally, blessed.

So while it's great that these individual Roman Catholics at REligion Dispatches are calling out the bishops, there's a problem. The Roman Catholic church is not a democracy. The institution is still actively harming gay people, and pouring money into anti-equality efforts. And while individual RC don't agree and don't support that, what are they doing--what can they do-- to stop the abuse?

Thursday, August 4, 2011

Anniversary of Prop8 Federal Decision

“Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.”

And what's changed?  NOTHING. Bachmann, Santorum, and Romney signed the Anti-Gay declaration that supports an anti-equality constitutional amendment and a commission to vigorously investigate and provide new protections for those opposed.

A more hopeful commentary: Rick Jacobs in the HuffPo.




More on the biology of orientation

So, the Republican clown car--er, the field of potential presidential candidates-- has quite a number of "gay deniers". As well as Michelle "my husband runs an ex-gay organization" Bachmann, there's Tim "it's a choice" Pawlenty.

Over at the Advocate, geneticst Dean Hamer takes this on. The whole thing is worth reading.
[T]he scientific community has long regarded sexual orientation – whether gay, straight, or somewhere in between – as a phenotype: an observable set of properties that varies among individuals and is deeply rooted in biology. For us, the role of genetics in sexual behavior is about as “disputable” as the role of evolution in biology. Come to think of it, pretty much the same folks are opposed to both ideas.

The empirical evidence for the role of genetics in sexual orientation has steadily mounted since I first entered the field in the early 1990s. Back then, the only quantitative data was derived from studies of unrepresentative and potentially biased samples of self-identified gay men and lesbian. But in the intervening 20 years, studies of twins – the mainstay of human population genetics – have been conducted on systematically ascertained populations in three different countries. These studies are notable because they have large sample sizes that are representative of the overall population, they’re conducted by independent university-based investigators using well-established statistical methods, and the results are published in the peer-reviewed literature.

Each of these studies has led to the same fundamental conclusion: genes play a major role in human sexual orientation. By contrast, shared environmental factors such as education, parenting style, or presumably even exposure to Lady Gaga, have little if anything to do with people's orientation. While there is a substantial amount of variation that cannot be ascribed to either heritable or shared environment, the differences might also be due to biological traits that are not inherited in a simple additive manner.....

Another criticism frequently brought up by politically motivated critics of the research is that there is still no single identified "gay gene." However, the same is true for height, skin color, handedness, frequency of heart disease and many other traits that have a large inherited component but no dominant gene. This doesn't mean that sexual orientation is a choice; it simply confirms that sexual orientation is complex, with many genes contributing to the phenotype...

There is good reason for their opposition to the scientific findings. Studies in college classrooms have shown that exposure of students to information about the causes of sexual orientation has a direct, positive influence on their opinions about LGBT civil rights. This fits with polling data showing that people who believe that gays are "born that way" are generally supportive of full equality, whereas more than two thirds of those who believe it is "a choice" are so opposed that they favor the re-criminalization of same-sex relations.

....t it is essential to acknowledge that lack of scientific knowledge can actually result in having our rights and freedoms taken away through the actions of misinformed voters, legislators and judges.

Tuesday, August 2, 2011

Lesbian heroes

Don't ever mess with lesbians.  Know what I mean?  Here are some fabulous sisters,from Talk about equality, who were heroic during the recent attack in Norway on Utøya:
Hege Dalen and her spouse, Toril Hansen were near Utöyan having dinner on the opposite shore across from the ill-fated campsite, when they began to hear gunfire and screaming on the island.

“We were eating. Then shooting and then the awful screaming. We saw how the young people ran in panic into the lake,” says Dale to HS in an interview.

The couple immediately took action and pushed the boat into Lake Tyrifjorden.

Dalen and Hansen drove the boat to the island, picked up from the water victims in shock in, the young and wounded, and transported them to the opposite shore to the mainland. Between runs they saw that the bullets had hit the right side of the boat.

Since there were so many and not all fit at once aboard, they returned to the island four times.

They were able to rescue 40 young people from the clutches of the killer.

“We did not sleep last night at all. Today, we have been together and talked about the events,” Dalen said.
So why haven't we heard about this? We've heard about other heroic campers rescuing children. Why won't the media tell us about these women?

A followup from Talk About Equality, on the many reasons we should tell this story:
In California, the legislature recently passed a law that would require the inclusion of LGBT history in their textbooks and curricula. The amount of pushback and hatred this new law has already received is astounding and could very well see it repealed soon – all because people are afraid that by hearing that someone gay did something great, children might make the choice to be gay ....This is the United States our kids are growing up in....

why has this story been ignored by the mainstream media? I don’t know. That’s why I posted the article. Is it because the couple is lesbian? Perhaps. Is it because the news cycle in the US is being taken-up by the imaginary “debt-ceiling” debate? Perhaps. The only thing we know for sure is that this is a story that needs to be told.
Share the word. 

Photo: Maija Tammi

Monday, August 1, 2011

Changing attitudes: our progress since DOMA

Outstanding graphic from The Third Way, showing how views of gay rights have changed since DOMA was passed in 1996. They ahve a full report discussing this.