Uh-oh: bad news from the 9th circuit.

I don't talk much about the repeal of DADT here as our primary interest is in marriage equality.  But it's impossible to ignore what happened yesterday--and impossible not to be concerned.

As you know, DADT was officially repealed effective Sept 20th.  But in parallel to the legislative process that led to the repeal, there was also a case brought in federal court by the Log Cabin Republicans.  The Federal Judge, Virginia Phillips, declared DADT unconstitutional.

This is important, because this finding would prevent DADT being reinstated...as the Republican presidential candidates have all vowed to do.

The Obama Administration Department of Justice appealed (so much for our fierce advocate) and asked a panel of the 9th circuit Court of Appeals  to declare the Judge's finding "moot", since DADT was repealed.  But they also asked that the original finding be "vacated" or erased.

Shockingly, they succeeded on both these arguments, by a unanimous decision of 3 of the judges in the 9th circuit.


Scotusblog tells us:

Accusing a federal trial judge of misusing her authority when she struck down the military’s ban on gays and lesbians in the service, a federal appeals court judge on Thursday lectured the rest of the judiciary against creating new rights for homosexuals out of the Supreme Court’s famous ruling eight years ago in Lawrence v. Texas.   Circuit Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain did so as the Ninth Circuit Court threw out that lower court judge’s ruling interpreting Lawrence broadly. ...

Seldom does a higher court use such sweeping language toward a lower court judge’s ruling, while wiping it off the books.  Simple erasure of the ruling, apparently, was not enough — a sentiment that is perhaps further illuminated by the displeasure openly displayed by Judge O’Scannlain in his concurring opinion....

Judge O’Scannlain, however, wrote explicitly that “Lawrence did not establish any fundamental right.”  It did not give lower courts any basis, the judge added, for creating any new fundamental rights for gays.  He lambasted  Judge Phillips for the legal rationale she had used for nullifying the military gay ban, contending that she had not followed the formula that the Supreme Court itself had laid down for judging claims of violations of so-called “substantive due process” guarantees....

It is not a common practice for federal judges, when a case has come to a formal end without a final ruling on the merits, to say how they would have voted.  That Judge O’Scannlain did so suggested how affronted he was by Judge Phillips’ ruling.

Why is this bad?  Well, it's the 9th circuit.  That's who's hearing the Prop8 appeal.  Different judges, sure, but this shows that there is no sure thing in the Prop8 case.  Imagine the effect if Judge Vaughn Walker's carefully done case was vacated, erased, and eliminated as a source of precedent or reference.

It could happen.  It could happen at ANY POINT.  And that's why it's a real problem that all the eggs are in the court's basket, and there will be no attempt to reverse Prop8 where it needs to be reversed, AT THE BALLOT BOX.

Stage collapse in Indiana: Why it Matters

Remember that horrific stage collapse at the Indiana state fair this summer? It killed 7 people and injured many more. One of the people killed was Christina Santiago, from Chicago. The Chicago Trib tells us,

Alisha Brennon and Christina Santiago made their relationship official this past summer, soon after Illinois' civil union law began recognizing same-sex couples.

Now, following Santiago's death, the legal benefits of that union will be put to the test across the state line in Indiana....

Although the Chicago couple entered into a civil union in Illinois, the courts in Indiana will determine whether Brennon has a legal right to seek compensation in her spouse's death, experts said.

The lawsuit highlights a new wrinkle caused by the patchwork of laws on the rights of gay and lesbian couples to marry or form civil unions.

"It's egregious that in Illinois, and other states, your union is recognized and you are treated with some measure of equality. And you travel across the border and become a nonperson," said Brennon's attorney, Kenneth J. Allen, who filed the lawsuit in Marion County, Ind....

Six states allow same-sex marriage. Five states, including Illinois, have civil union laws that give gay couples the same legal rights and benefits as heterosexual couples.

In Indiana, same-sex partnerships are not recognized, and only surviving spouses or family members are allowed to file wrongful-death suits, experts said.

So, they did everything right, but thanks to the bigots of Indiana, they may be reduced to legal strangers. Indiana currently denies legal benefits to same sex couples, and is moving to pass an anti-equality amendment to the state Constitution. And I'm sure that they will feel really good about enshrining that hatred and intolerance. After all, who do these uppity lesbians think they are?

Dems take on DOMA defense

As you may be aware, because the Obama DoJ is not defending DOMA in court, Congress has the right to do so.  Thus,the Republican House (over the protest of the Democrats) hired and expensive lawyer who is fighting all the DOMA cases in the country (there are six cases;  see my previous posts for more DOMA info).

And the briefs that the lawyer, Paul Clement, has filed are full of the same, tired bullshit.  You know, the discredited lies of fringe "experts".  The distortions of real academic work (leading to the scientists involved to protest that their work is being misused).

Now, the Democrats in the House are demanding answers about this, which is being done in OUR name as taxpayers (and costing us a heckuva lot of money).  From the Advocate:

A contingent from Congress, including all four of the gay members, wrote to Boehner demanding a chance to confront the lawyer with what they say is "discredited" and "biased" research on homosexuality that was used in a legal brief representing Congress in court.....

 Now several Democrats — Tammy Baldwin, David Cicilline, John Conyers, Barney Frank, Jerrold Nadler, and Jared Polis — say Clement doesn't represent them or even the scientists he cites in his legal arguments.

"It is incumbent upon all lawyers — especially those paid for by taxpayers and responsible for representing a branch of our government — to undertake representation in an objective manner that is factually and legally supportable," they wrote to Boehner. "Unfortunately, the outside counsel that you have retained have filed pleadings containing arguments and assertions that are troubling and appear to fall short of this standard."

Britain to recognize full marriage equality

Alex Massie writes:

If ever you needed reminding that Britain and the United States are divided by a common language, consider the fact that a Conservative-led government in London now endorses gay marriage. As contenders for the Republican Party's presidential nomination insist that same-sex marriages must destroy marriage, their conservative counterparts in Britain argue that politics and morality alike require the government to commit to legalizing gay marriages...

So this development satisfies liberal aspirations while also, happily, demonstrating the value of timeless Tory principles. Society changes, and the proper sort of Tory, however much the past attracts him, appreciates that conservatives must also change if they're to protect the values they hold most dear and remain relevant in a much-changed world....

It used to be said that the Church of England was the Tory party at prayer. Doubtless it remains the case that religious Britons are, all other matters being equal, more likely to vote Conservative. But as far as civil marriage is concerned, there is no need to pander to the objections of a faithful minority. Indeed, Britain is a largely secular society these days and, at least as far as same-sex relationships are concerned, a much more civilized place than was the case in years gone by.....

Moreover, civil partnerships—a step forward as they may once have been—still fall short of full equality. Eliminating this discrepancy—it seems likely that Cameron's commission will recommend scrapping civil partnerships—removes the stigma, however minor it may have seemed to some, of second-class status.

The churches may disagree. But there's no reason to grant them a veto over the civil definition of marriage. It is unlikely churches will be compelled to recognize gay marriages any more than a Roman Catholic priest must be cheerfully expected to officiate at a Protestant marriage ceremony. Though often conflated, the civil and religious stamps of approval are different, and the latter need not be expected for every brand of civil marriage....

More than anything else, however, it recognizes that society has changed and, correspondingly, so must sensible conservatives. By doing so, they may make a virtue out of necessity and inevitability while reaffirming the essential importance of marriage. Low politics and high principle meet in a convenient but passionate marriage of their own. Eventually, perhaps, even the Republican Party in the United States will appreciate this.

NOM no longer about marriage, but about anti-gay hate

The National Organization for (straight) Marriage is an implacable foe of marriage equality. Up till now it has largely operated as a shadowy money-laundering machine for conservative Roman Catholic and Mormon donors.

 It is well known for its legal efforts to avoid compliance with campaign finance laws in many states--reasoning that opposition to marriage equality is deserving of special protections.

 But it's no longer about marriage equality. NOM is now attacking and demonizing gay people for being gay. The gloves are off.  Equality Matters actually reads NOM's website, and points us to many recent posts there that expose NOM's new strategy.  NOM now says Homosexuality Is “Immorality,” “Evil,” “Darkness Parading Around As Light”. There are many other examples  (also here). As Equality Matters notes,

NOM continues to claim that its “battle is not with an orientation” and that it works with “the love of God and our neighbor in our hearts.” Is this what NOM’s “love” looks like?

Well, I always knew they were hypocrites. As the numbers edge slowly into support for marriage equality nation wide, our foes will become more strident, more vicious, more angry, and more hate-filled. And that's what they are doing.

It therefore becomes even more important for us as a community to challenge the hate groups (NOM, FRC, FotF, ADF, etc etc) every time they lie.  too often their lies are reported by the media as facts. We need to take them on every time, so that it becomes clear that indeed, these people are no different from geocentrists or flat earthers, living a realm of fiction.

Courage Campaign: fight for the Fair Education Act (Video Sunday)

Young evangelicals increasingly support marriage equality

From the HuffPo: (my emphases)

We should not be surprised that a new poll indicates that almost half (44 percent) of young evangelical Christians between the ages of 18 to 29 favor same-sex marriage. ... 

Doing our theological and ethical thinking with a Bible in one hand and a newspaper in the other leaves us with decisions we need to make. Either gay and lesbian individuals are persons who have chosen to intentionally rebel against God by deciding to romantically love another of the same gender in defiance of God's will or else they are another group within the rich diversity of humanity that God intends to liberate, treat justly and fairly, reconcile, and include. ... 

More than 40 years ago, the Anglican theologian Norman Pittenger addressed these questions in his book entitled "Time for Consent." He argued on the basis of the biblical revelation in Christ that sexual behavior must be judged by its character alone. Is it characterized by commitment and trust, tenderness, respect for the other and the desire for ongoing and responsible communion with the other? Or, conversely, is it characterized by selfish sexual expression, cruelty, impersonal sex, obsession with sex and an unwillingness to take responsibility for the consequences? He argued that both gay and straight people desire and need deep and lasting relationships and that appropriate sexual expression should not be denied to either group. He argued that there should not be a double standard of morality, introducing the concept of moral equality -- not judging two different groups by different standards of morality. 

The Bible is deeply sensitive to double standards. Some of Jesus' harshest criticisms are reserved for those who lay heavy burdens on the backs of others that they themselves are unwilling to carry (Matt. 23:4). The attempts to use a few verses in the Bible to justify a double standard for straight and gay people will not withstand a careful and thoughtful reading of the Bible. 

I believe young, thoughtful evangelicals are discovering this not as a result of the culture blinding them but as a result of the Bible opening their eyes to the dishonesty and hypocrisy of straight Christians who claim for themselves the blessings and comforts of marriage while denying it to others.

From the mouths of babes: what is "gay" marriage?

From the student paper at SMU, a young writer gets it spot-on (my emphases)

The truth of the matter is that what we have here-to-fore referred to as "same-sex" marriage is no different than any marriage between opposite-sex couples. In both cases, two people come together in love and unity to declare, before God, their unending love for one another. It makes no difference whether it is a man and a woman, two men, or two women. Ultimately, holy matrimony derives its sanctity from the love that both partners share for one another, and not from the genitalia with which they were bestowed.

...by referring to marriages between same-sex couples as either "same-sex" marriages or "gay" marriages, we are subconsciously reinforcing the idea that marriages between gay couples are any different than marriages between straight couples.

Gay men and women across the country are not fighting for "same-sex marriage;" they are fighting for "marriage."

They are not petitioning for something that looks like marriage; they are petitioning for exactly the same "marriage" that we have come to know.

Gay men and women don't require civil unions that are "separate, but equal," to marriage; they require full access to the same civil liberties that every heterosexual person in American is afforded, including, but not limited to, MARRIAGE.

The next time you want to say "gay marriage" or "same-sex marriage," try just using the word "marriage" instead. It's shorter, to the point, and it's nothing less than what gay men and women deserve.

Tony Jones: Two marriages

I was pointed towards this blog about "two marriages":

Actually, there are two marriages in America.

On the one hand, there’s legal marriage. It’s sanctioned by the state, .... and it is officially incentivized by our government. And legal marriage has nothing to do with sexual intimacy.

On the other hand, there’s sacramental marriage, which is defined by communities of faith. This marriage accrues neither governmental benefits nor tax incentives. However, sexual intimacy is of gre at interest to this marriage, since the sacred texts of all religions have lots to say about sex. Sacramental marriage is about what God wants — and that is, of course, a matter of interpretation and debate among Christians. ....

Courtney and I got married, as I wrote above, on July 13. We were married in the sacramental way, but we did not ask for the imprimatur of the State of Minnesota on our marriage by means of buying a license ....

Why not? Well, that’s what I’ll be attempting to show at length in a series of blog posts this week. But, in short, here’s why:

• The sacred ceremony of marriage is far more important to us than the legal contract of marriage. 
• We don’t really care if the government considers us married. We’re far more interested in our marriage being solemnized by our family, friends, and community of faith. 
• We don’t think that we should enjoy the 515 benefits of legal marriage when so many of our friends cannot. 
• I do not think that clergy should act as agents of the government (as I’ve written before), and I did not want to ask my friend, Doug, to do so.

I look forward to reading more from Tony on this subject.

BREAKING: Judge Ware rules that Prop8 tapes should be released.

Ostensibly terrified by violence, the PropH8 supporters managed to keep the recordings of the Prop8 trial under wraps. Never mind that everyone knew who their witnesses were, and that they are no strangers to YouTube. The difference is that they aren't generally cross-examined under oath--the PropH8 side didn't want their poor performance seen. Following a hearing that argued that the tapes should be part of the record, the District Court agrees.Ruling:

Upon review of the papers and after a hearing...the Court concludes that no compelling reasons exist for the continued sealing of the digital recording. Accordingly the Court GRANTS plaintiff's motion to unseal and ORDERS the clerk of the Court to place the digital recording in the publicly available record of this case.

Expect an immediate appeal by the PropH8 side.

Trevor project flashmob: Talk to me (video Sunday)

The Trevor Project is a suicide prevention hotline for at-risk youth.

"Tolerating immorality" and confusing the children

Rob Tisinai ruminates at Box Turtle Bulletin about how children "get it". Some people have two moms,and some have a mom and a dad, and some have two dads. THat's just how the world works. Kids only have a problem with that if their parents do.

Then he tells us of a blog by a fundamentalist Catholic woman who is offended that same sex couple exist. (I am not linking to the woman's blog directly because (a) I don't drive traffic to anti-gay sites and (b) I don't think people should descend to her level and post hateful messages at her blog--which she's gleefully happy to publish and highlight.) Seems the fundy woman took her kids to the public pool and was shocked, SHOCKED that there are homos there:

At the pool this summer there were homosexual couples with children and, while I was polite as my own young daughters doted on the baby with two “mommies”, I also held my breath in anticipation of awkward questions – questions I’m not ready to answer....

When there were two men relaxing at the side of the pool unnaturally close to each other, effeminately rubbing elbows and exchanging doe-eyes, I was again anxiously watching my children hoping they wouldn’t ask questions.

Rubbing elbows is effeminate? who knew? The way she talks you'd think the two were lip-locked. She goes on,

I can’t even go to normal places without having to sit silently and tolerate immorality. We all know what would happen if I asked two men or two women to stop displaying, right in front of me and my children, that they live in sodomy…

Okay, so how are they "displaying"?

• There were a couple of women with a baby. 
•  Two men let their elbows touch while relaxing.

Whoa, call out the porn police. Not.

The issue isn't their "displaying". I mean, look at any pair of hormonally driven straight teens, who are slobbering over each other at the pool. Does she have an issue about that? There's no claim here that the gay couples were grinding their pelvises together or shoving their tonguesdown each others' throats, like more than a few straight teens. No, the problem isn't any overt sexual display.

It's the very fact of their existence. This fundy woman does not want to acknowledge that she shares the world with gay people. She's no different than someone who doesn't want Jews buying houses in their neighborhood, or doesn't want her kids to play with black children. She certainly has the freedom not to attend a public venue, if she doesn't like the people there. But she has no right to erase us or render us invisible.  So much of this fight isn't about marriage.  It's about our right to exist openly.

 And meanwhile, feel for her kids--growing up with a whacko fundy mom.  (Sometimes I think the fundy Catholics are the whackiest fundies of all.)

How do they do it? The roadmap of the anti-equality forces

Writing over at Pam's House Blend, Alvin McEwan lays out the roadmap used by the anti-equality forces over, and over, and over again.  A must-read.

The North Carolina Legislature has passed a bill to allow its citizens to vote on a state constitutional amendment against gay marriage.

The majority of folks in NC are against this amendment but that is considered a minor detail by the organizations and people pushing it. ...

The untold narrative usually goes like this:

People in the targeted states are so generally worried about more pressing issues that they allow their legislatures to be the first salvo in what can be called an invasion, i.e. laying the groundwork by passing a bill, thereby forcing constituents to vote on the matter.

Then an organization – usually the National Organization for Marriage – is the second part of the invasion via its virtually unlimited funds supplied by secret donors (which the group has fought tooth and nail not to reveal), that pays for the inundation of robocalls, mailers, and commercials spinning a multitude of lies about gays harming children or gays persecuting Christians, or gays causing all sorts of mayhem in general if the amendment is not passed.

At the same time, the organization stroke the egos of area pastors and public leaders....

The organization – again usually NOM – wins the vote and while it brays about how “the community stood up to protect marriage,” the community in actuality deals with strife, hard feelings, broken families, and generally not understanding why their votes to “protect marriage” hasn’t put food on their tables, more money in their paychecks, or made their lives better.

All of this is documented from all the past battles: Prop8 (CA), Question 1 (ME), etc etc. Now we have Amendment 1 (NC), as well as the vote in Minnesota. The lies begin. The hate. The families and friends divided. We still haven't recovered in California. The damage was huge. That's what MN and NC face next. Sadly, that will be true regardless of the outcome--becuase the damage is done not just by the vote, but by the campaign.

Bad news from North Carolina

Political machinations have put a marriage amendment on the ballot in North Carolina in May 2012. Pam's House Blend has followed much of the story for us (Pam lives in NC). Pam writes,

For the first time in a long time – I just bawled driving home; I’m not one to cry easily, either. The North Carolina General Assembly has declared that I’m subhuman – but they’ll gladly take my lesbian tax dollars, thank you very much.

. I know exactly how she feels.

The scheming in this whole thing has been disgusting. The date of the election was chosen to match the Republican primary, thus facilitating the turnout of the most rabid right-wingers and depress the turnout of those in favor of equality.

Public Comment was not allowed from the house nor from the Senate

The Religious right-wing helped draft the text.

Open letters have exposed the medical and scientific lies used by the advocates, and have pointed out that this bill would potentially eliminate any protections that gay couples have:

The bar on “domestic legal unions” would clearly ban relationship rights beyond same-sex marriage: at the very least, it would also bar recognition of civil unions, as well as the domestic partnerships now offered to public employees in some municipalities. The vagueness of this language and the absence of its use in prior law, however, mean that courts might interpret it far more broadly to upend completely the very minimal legal rights, obligations, and protections now available to unmarried couples, whether same-sex or opposite-sex.

And the Charlotte Observer tells us that business leaders also react with dismay, knowing that high-tech entrepreneurs and desirable employees don't want to locate in a state of hate.

More than 75 business leaders signed the letter, which says, in part, "We write to oppose this extreme amendment because of the significant harm it will cause our state's pro-business environment, its major employers, and efforts to spur job-creation in North Carolina."

Progressive Faith Leaders have also come out against this bill.

This amendment is a cynical ploy from right wing Christianists and known hate groups to damage LGBT people as much as they can. We'll need to hear from everyone and work to Get Out the Vote to defeat bias and bigotry, fear and ignorance.

It becomes very hard at times not to return hate for hate to these awful, awful Christianists. If I weren't married to a woman of devout Christian faith, I'd have an even harder time of it.

Does Bachmann's school district condone bullying?

There have been a number of suicides in the school district in Michelle Bachmann's MN Congressional district. The NY Times tells us

After years of harsh conflict between advocates for gay students and Christian conservatives, the issue was already highly charged here. Then in July, six students brought a lawsuit contending that school officials have failed to stop relentless antigay bullying and that a district policy requiring teachers to remain “neutral” on issues of sexual orientation has fostered oppressive silence and a corrosive stigma.

Also this summer, parents and students here learned that the federal Department of Justice was deep into a civil rights investigation into complaints about unchecked harassment of gay students in the district. The inquiry is still under way.

Through it all, conservative Christian groups have demanded that the schools avoid any descriptions of homosexuality or same-sex marriage as normal, warning against any surrender to what they say is the “homosexual agenda” of recruiting youngsters to an “unhealthy and abnormal lifestyle.”

Adding an extra incendiary element, the school district has suffered eight student suicides in the last two years, leading state officials to declare a “suicide contagion.”

So, kids are dying. Gay children (or those perceived as gay) are relentlessly bullied, to the extent it is a CIVIL RIGHTS issue-- they are deprived of education.

Gay children, and some parents and supporters, say these efforts are undercut by what they call the district’s “gag order” on discussion of sexual diversity — a policy, adopted in 2009 amid searing public debate, that “teaching about sexual orientation is not part of the district-adopted curriculum” and that staff “shall remain neutral on matters regarding sexual orientation.”

And the response of so called "Christians"? Read on:

But conservative parents have organized to lobby against change. “Saying that you should accept two moms as a normal family — that would be advocacy,” said Tom Prichard, president of the Minnesota Family Council. “There should be no tolerance of bullying, but these groups are using the issue to try to press a social agenda.”

Read that again. "Saying you should accept two moms as a normal family...." Thus, the fact that two mom-families exist, and are normal, is denied. The very fact of our being as families is attacked.

A group of district parents who are closely allied with the family council declined to be interviewed. Their Web site says that depression among gay teenagers is often the fault of gay rights advocates who create hopelessness: “When a child has been deliberately misinformed about the causes of homosexuality and told that homosexual acts are normal and natural, all hope for recovery is taken away.”

Make no mistake, these people are attacking our children, and then blaming us for their deaths. But they want them dead. Good Christians all?

The right to remain married: the problem with state "mini-DOMAs"

The excellent online symposium on marriage equality at Scotusblog continues, with this excellent reflection from Steven Sanders(U Michigan) about the consequences of individual state laws forbidding same sex marriage, which he calls "mini DOMAs". My legal marriage disappears and reappears as I cross the country, like a flickering Romulan cloaking device! Worth reading the whole thing, but here is a highlight:

States recognize each other’s marriages as a voluntary matter of comity, because the law generally values stability in legal relationships and protection of justified expectations. Mini-DOMAs carve out an immense categorical exception to this rule for gays and lesbians.

As a result, property rights are potentially altered, spouses disinherited, offspring put at risk, and financial, medical, and personal plans thrown into turmoil. Should the couple choose to exit the relationship someday, they may not have access to legal divorce. And these are just the practical consequences, to say nothing of the affronts to dignity and equality. .....

This is, objectively, madness.

....First, a state that voids an existing marriage through a mini-DOMA defies any notion of procedural due process. (A state cannot terminate your parental rights over your child without a hearing and evidence, but mini-DOMA states think they can terminate your marriage with neither.) ....

Today’s state of affairs for same-sex marriages is oddly similar to what the Court confronted almost seventy years ago with divorce. In Williams v. North Carolina, it held that once a divorce is effective in one state, it must get full faith and credit in every other state. In doing so, the Court overturned an older decision that involved a man who had been validly divorced in one state but was still legally married in another – essentially the same absurd situation same-sex couples face today. T...

...[A]s we debate strategy and consequences, we should also remember that, as Justice Jackson once observed, “If there is one thing that people are entitled to expect from their lawmakers, it is rules of law that will enable individuals to tell whether they are married and, if so, to whom.”

Remember

The 9/11 terrorists did not limit who they killed. They attacked everyone. They didn't pick out the straight people or the women or the Christians. They attacked us all. The heros who responded weren't just one type of American either. And since this is an LGBT blog, in our mourning today, let's remember particularly our rainbow family members who perished. We know about Fr Mychal Judge, the gay priest who served with the NYFD and Mark Bingham, the gay businessman and rugby player who helped bring down United 93 before it could get to Washington. But what about David Charlebois, the copilot of AA-77 that hit the Pentagon. Or John Keohane, killed by debris in New York, whose partner of over 17 years committed suicide 6 months later--an uncounted victim. Of the 3000 vicitims, we would expect that more than 100 were likely gay or lesbian.

Remember, 10 years ago was before Lawrence v. Texas, the landmark Supreme Court Case of 2003 that decriminalized homosexuality. It was well before anyone thought they could marry their same sex partner. Many of the victims probably hid their sexuality. Their survivors may have felt they had to mourn in isolation. But they too were victims, and Americans.

Some sites of remembrance: Gay victims, and Tampa Bay Coalition and Gaylife. Also a reprise from The Advocate.

Art Speigelman's cover, from Counterlight's blog

From outside the recent Prop8 hearing (Video)

Outside the courthouse, people made their opinions known.

Hate crimes: why it matters

There was an horrific crime in MIssissippi this summer. A group of drunk, white teenagers robbed a black man, beat him, and then ran him over while shouting racist slurs.

The victim, James Anderson, was also gay. Which does not appear to have played a part in this particular hate crime.

So why am I mentioning it? Mr Anderson's family has filed a wrongful death suit against the accused teenagers. But, as the NY Times tells us,

James Bradfield, Mr. Anderson’s partner of 17 years, is not a plaintiff. Under Mississippi law, same-sex partners have no claim in civil actions like this, Mr. Dees said.

Got that? Together 17 years, and thanks to a Mississippi hate law, legally invisible.

That's why it matters.

Majority of Catholics, white protestants support marriage equality

I would be remiss if I did not bring to your attention this recent poll. I didn't before because, well, we already knew this. This is not the first poll to show that majorities of Roman Catholic and white mainline protestants support marriage equality.

  From the summary, some highlights:

There is at least a 20-point generation gap between Millennials (age 18 to 29) and seniors (age 65 and older) on every public policy measure in the survey concerning rights for gay and lesbian people. ... 

Many polling organizations have recorded double-digit increases in support for same-sex marriage since 2006. In 2011, for the first time, multiple surveys from different organizations (including Gallup, ABC/Washington Post, CNN and Public Religion Research Institute) found a majority of the public favored same-sex marriage. ... 

Among Americans who say their views have shifted over the last five years, more than twice as many say their current opinion about the legality of same-sex marriage has become more supportive than more opposed (19% and 9% respectively). ... 

Despite the conventional wisdom that religious groups generally oppose rights for gay and lesbian Americans, there are major religious groups on both sides of the debate over same-sex marriage. Majorities of non-Christian religiously affiliated Americans (67%), Catholics (52%), and white mainline Protestants (51%) favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry.... 

Slightly more Catholics believe the Catholic Church’s position on the issue of homosexuality is too conservative than believe it is about right. Forty-six percent of Catholics think the Catholic Church’s position on the issue of homosexuality is too conservative, 43% think it is about right, and only 6% think it is too liberal. Even among Catholics who attend church at least weekly, nearly 4-in-10 (37%) say that the Catholic Church is too conservative on the issue of homosexuality. ... 

Nearly seven-in-ten (69%) Millennials agree that religious groups are alienating young people by being too judgmental about gay and lesbian issues. ... 

More than 6-in-10 Americans believe that negative messages from America’s places of worship contribute either a lot (23%) or a little (40%) to higher rates of suicide among gay and lesbian youth. ... 

Among religious groups, 73% of non-Christian affiliated, 64% of Catholics, 60% of black Protestants, 59% of white mainline Protestants, and 51% of white evangelical Protestants say places of worship contribute either a lot or a little to higher rates of suicide among gay and lesbian youth.

So, the next time you hear that "Christians oppose "gay" marriage" remember that this is not true.  SOME Christians oppose marriage equality.  But they do NOT represent the majority of Christians.  And the implacable opposition from the Roman Catholic Bishops doesn't represent Roman Catholics.

Good News from AZ

In Arizona, in 2009 they passed a bill that redefined "dependents" of state employees as "spouses", with the intent that same-sex partners of state employees would no longer be eligible for health benefits.  Several plaintiffs took the state to  court (federal court).  When the district court found for the plaintiffs, Arizona appealed, and the case went to the 9th circuit, who have now released a ruling that keeps the law from going into effect, at least for now.

While the district court noted that Section O was not dis- criminatory on its face, because it affected both same-sex and different-sex couples, the court held that Section O had a dis- criminatory effect. This is because, under Arizona law, different-sex couples could retain their health coverage by marrying, but same-sex couples could not. Id. at 802-03. Therefore, the district court granted plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction on equal protection grounds.

The decision carefully reviews all the arguments that were made supporting rational state interest in this law. Interestingly, despite claiming that it was a cost-cutting measure, the state did not provide any figures to back that up, while the plaintiffs showed that the expense was marginal.

There are some additional excellent quotes from the ruling:

The state is correct in asserting that state employ- ees and their families are not constitutionally entitled to health benefits. But when a state chooses to provide such benefits, it may not do so in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner that adversely affects particular groups that may be unpopular. ....

The state has also argued that the statute promotes mar- riage by eliminating benefits for domestic partners, but the plaintiffs negated that as a justification. The district court properly concluded that the denial of benefits to same-sex domestic partners cannot promote marriage, since such part- ners are ineligible to marry. Collins, 727 F. Supp. 2d at 807....

In sum, the district court correctly recognized that bar- ring the state of Arizona from discriminating against same-sex couples in its distribution of employee health benefits does not constitute the recognition of a new constitutional right to such benefits. Rather, it is consistent with long standing equal protection jurisprudence holding that “some objectives, such as ‘a bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group,’ are not legitimate state interests.”.....

This week's prop 8 trial hearing

Are you tired of this yet? Imagine how I feel.

Last week there was a hearing in federal court about the video tapes from the Prop 8 trial: since everyone knows what is in them, should they be made public?

This week, there is another hearing. Although it is about the Federal Case, it's in the CA State Supreme Court. Over at Daily Kos, jpmasser explains,

[T]he California Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on whether the defendant-intervenors in the case have standing to appeal in the eyes of the California Constitution. (No California official would defend the constitutionality of Proposition 8, so Judge Walker allowed the proponents of the initiative to argue the case, becoming the awkardly typed 'defendant-intervenors').

Got that? So the Prop8 supporters were responsible for defending the constitutionality of Prop8, and were soundly trounced. But now they want to appeal the case. And,since the California officials refuse to appeal, the Proponents want to step in. Problem is, they themselves have suffered no injury from Prop8 or its potential repeal. So our side has said, they have no right to appeal a decision that basically doesn't affect them.

The ins and outs of this are beyond complicated. Basically the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which held oral arguments back in December of 2010 on Perry v. Schwarzenegger, decided that they could not decide whether the defendant-intervenors had standing to appeal in Federal Court unless and until California decided whether they had standing with respect to California law. So they asked the California Supreme Court (CSC) to decide vis a vis California law. Once the CSC rules (and it must, within 90 days of the hearing), the case will go back to the Ninth Circuit.

The Ninth Circuit will then rule on whether the defendant-intervenors have standing with respect to Federal Court, presumably relying heavily on the CSC's opinion. If the Ninth Circuit rules that the defendant-intervenors have standing, they will also rule on the constitutionality of Proposition 8. However it goes, expect the Ninth's decisions to be appealed, and for a final resolution of the matter to take a long time.

So, then what? if the CSC decides no, it could all be over. If they decide yes, the proponents have standing in CA law, the 9th could still find that they don't have standing in federal law. Case over, and marriage is legal in CA. If that happens, expect the proponents to appeal THAT decision up the food chain.

If the 9th finds that they have standing then it can hear the appeal on its merits. Regardless of that outcome, it will get appealed up to the full 9ths (en banc) and then the SCOTUS.

Regardless of how it comes down, it is very unlikely that any decision from any court will apply to same sex marriage outside of CA. (Well, maybe the 9th, but they are frequently reversed.) Remember, things here are unique: we had marriage, and then we didn't--unlike states where there never was a right. Therefore, Prop8 uniquely punished LGBT people by taking a right away from us. There's a lot of push to keep this as narrow as possible for political and legal reasons.

More from the LA Times.

Update:  The court will release its decision within 90 days.  From all reports, the judges appeared to give great weight to the idea that the governor and Attorney General should not be allowed to "nullify" a vote of the people.  If they decide that Prop8 proponents have standing in state law, it is still possible that the 9th circuit will deny them standing in federal law, which has a higher bar (they would actually have to show some evidence that they are hurt by the decision).

Don't let another Prop8 happen: video Sunday

California SB48 ensures that history classes in the state can't ignore the contributions of LGBT people. For example, this case where a student was not allowed to present a paper on Harvey Milk, simply because Harvey Milk was gay.

The H8ers have started a campaign to repeal SB48--just like they repealed marriage equality with Prop8.

Tony Perkins of the hate group Family Research Council has a video out claiming SB48 is meant to indoctrinate children about gay sex (not so at all), and attack Christians.

This video dissects the lies of Perkins. It is a MUST SEE as we gear up for another anti-gay campaign of bigotry and bile from the H8ers.

What's wrong with giving students a list of churches?

From the Advocate:

The University of North Carolina, Wilmington, wants LGBT students to know there are churches that don’t take the “turn or burn” approach to homosexuality espoused by one area congregation — but its distribution of the information has ired some conservatives.

Late last month the school’s LGBTQIA Resource Office put out a guide to gay-friendly local businesses and other institutions, including churches. It listed Metropolitan Community Church (St. Jude’s, pictured), Unitarian Universalist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, and Episcopal congregations. The head of the sociology department has suggested professors share the information with students, FoxNews.com reports.

Mike Adams, a UNC Wilmington criminology professor and online commentator who frequently writes in opposition to gay rights, criticized the list ....

Speaking to Fox News, Adams admitted the list of gay-friendly churches probably did not violate the constitutional requirement of separation of church and state, noting that it would be a more serious problem if a professor used classroom time to advise students on where to attend church. But the university should cease distributing the information anyway, he said. Travis Barham, an attorney with the conservative Alliance Defense Fund, also questioned the appropriateness of the list.

One of the memes of those opposed to equality is that "Christian" means "anti-gay". I suspect the real issue here is that they don't want people to know that there are gay-friendly Christians, and that the hard-right doesn't own "Christian". It's yet another example of why it is SO important for gay-friendly denominations and congregations to "come out" and be vocal.

And is "ired" really a transitive verb?

"Faith-based" federal money attacked marriage equality in Iowa

This is a sterling example of why there needs to be a bright line between the government, church, and politics.

From the AP via dealsomaha.com (H/T GoodAsYou)

Federal grant money awarded to a social conservative group to provide marriage counseling also helped pay some of its operational expenses while it was leading an anti-gay marriage campaign, according to grant documents obtained by the Associated Press under the Freedom of Information Act.

The $2.2 million received by the Iowa Family Policy Center between 2006 and 2010 helped hundreds of Iowans receive education and counseling, according to the documents. But it also paid for part of the salaries of five employees, rent, telephone, Internet and other expenses while the group was fighting legalized gay marriage in Iowa.

A University of Iowa researcher who was a consultant on the grant also told AP the group declined to provide same-sex couples education and counseling with the money.