What's with all these court cases?

If you are getting confused about the DOMA and Prop8 legal cases,you are not alone. Here's a great summary covering the various state and federal legal challenges around marriage equality.

These cases fall into two broad categories: challenges in federal courts to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) of 1996, and challenges in state courts to state marriage laws. Here is an overview of both categories.

There are 8 DOMA cases in federal courts now. This site also gives a great overview of what has happened in individual states regarding marriage equality.

DOMA case moves forward

The San Jose Mercury News reports that the Golinski case will be heard in December.

This is the one where an employee of the 9th circuit tried to put her wife on her benefits, but was denied because of DOMA, even though the 9th circuit judges agreed with her. It is one of several cases on DOMA moving through the federal courts in different districts.

DOMA treats legally married couples, like me, differently depending on their gender. It is under assault not just in the judicial system, but also there is now movement legislatively towards repeal. That won't go anywhere, as the Republicans make anti-gay policies a plank in their platform, but it's a start.

Many legal observers think that DOMA is much more vulnerable at the Supreme Court level than Prop8. It's probably a better case to move up there. Golinski's might be just the one.

It's Time

Watch this. It doesn't need words to make the point!

Updated: The Right to Love (video Sunday)

Trailer of a new film:


Here's an Advocate article on the project.

Happy Thanksgiving!

May all your turkeys be fabulous.

Voices of Faith: Baptist Pastor says marriage equality good for ALL marriages.

From the WInston Salem Journal. Remember, North Carolina has a hate-amendment on the ballot.

How much more foundational is the year-to-year faithfulness embedded in the marriage covenant? Don't we stand amazed when couples voice their mutual promise to love and to cherish, regardless of circumstances, until parted by death? Such risk-taking astonishes. But more to the point, does not faithful promise-keeping in one relationship strengthen this capacity in us all?

Yes, some promises are broken. Our hopes can be dashed. Covenants crack and crumble. Forgiveness must come alongside promise-making in order for futures to be possible. But even when agreements are broken, no one questions the essential value of faithful promises, both large and small. Promises made and promises kept are the glue that holds life together.

Same-sex couples within their covenants share the same hope that I have with my wife. They, too, make promises to love and cherish until parted by death. In no way do they threaten the rest of us who enjoy the legal rights of marriage. Rather, they strengthen our capacity for lasting commitment. Their courage, in the face of rejection, emboldens our courage. Their persistence, in the face of opposition, fortifies our stamina. And their yearning for covenants blessed and legalized is an invitation to join them in this struggle for fairness. They are for marriage, not against it. They help us all hold high the bar of covenant love.

Washington State to move on Equality

From The Seattle Times:

Two years ago, Washington voters backed a broad guarantee of legal rights for same-sex couples, endorsing the Legislature's passage of a domestic partnership law nicknamed "everything but marriage."

Now, gay-marriage backers say the time has come to take that final step. This week, they'll roll out a campaign to make Washington the seventh state to legalize marriage for lesbian and gay couples.

More info from Washington United for Marriage.

All Children Matter (video Sunday)

The long road to equality

From the NY Times, an op-ed:

Behind these numbers is a remarkable generational divide. Some 70 percent of Americans between 18 and 34 support marriage equality, up from 54 percent in 2010, according to Gallup. Support among people aged 35 to 54 is 53 percent, falling to 39 percent for those 55 and older. This widening gap between public opinion and discriminatory laws means anti-gay forces will have a harder and harder time selling their views.

A repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act and changes in state laws could lead to expanded rights for gay couples in more states. But revoking those state constitutional bans would take years, if not decades. Until then, rank discrimination under law will persist.

Update: Prop8 federal case: CA court says the opponents DO have standing to appeal

Amongst the many Prop8 ripples (see the graphic timeline for a refresher) is a request from the (Federal) 9th Circuit court of appeals to the California (state) Supreme Court, asking, "Yo! Should these proponents of Prop8 , who defended the case in the federal district court, be allowed to appeal Judge Walker's finding, given that the Governor and Attorney General of CA don't want to appeal?"

There is a lot in this: not every decision should be appealed and there is not a requirement to appeal.If you give people who have no "interest" in the case the right to appeal (meaning they can't demonstrate that THEY are harmed in any way by the decision), what sort of Pandora's box do you open?

And, just to complicate things further, the 9th circuit may say, "okay, California, that's STATE law, we'll still evaluate this under FEDERAL law." So it doesn't really matter either way.

But the California Court rules that yes, they do have standing.

Mapping discrimination

Freedom To Marry has a great interactive graphic about the individual states and their views of marriage.  Here's part of it:

 

Debunking anti-gay myths

I have discussed in several places the antipathy of the right towards science, and how they get away with dismissing scientific consensus if it doesn't conform to their views.

THe site LIveScience dismisses 5 prominent myths about LGBT people, pointing at data to show that these are false. THese myths are the misperception that homosexuality doesn't exist in animals, that gay people aren't capable of long-term relationships, claims that gays are pedophiles and vv, or bad parents, or that sexuality is purely a choice. Each of these is demonstrably false. But the right-wingers persist in believing them.

What's depressing is the comments, some of which dismiss the findings as "pro-gay propaganda" and one which strikingly calls for "incurable" gays to be locked up in camps.

They really hate us, don't they?

New study about marriages between same sex couples

The Williams Institute at UCLA, which is a terrific think tank on gay legal issues, has done a study (PDF) comparing gay and straight couples in terms of marriage and divorce, and civil uions.

 There's a good article in the HuffPo summarizing the findings, which include the fact that upto 20% of LGBT couples identified in the census are in some sort of legally recognized union. What else we learn:

 Firs,t marriage is much more attractive to same-sex couples than a legally equivalent registration as civil union or domestic partners. This finding is consistent with other studies that have shown that same-sex couples are more interested in the social symbolism and community acceptance that is bestowed by marriage, as opposed to the "dry" technical benefits of a domestic partnership or civil union. This should not surprise us -- increasingly, gay and lesbian folks seem to be not all that different than straight couples when it comes to love and romance. 

 This goes along with my recent post about commitment. As Californians, we could have been "DP'd" but getting a form notarized at Kinko's and mailing it to Sacramento isn't really marriage.  It's like registering a car.  (My view.)

Second, marriage is more appealing to women than to men. 

 Turns out,about  2/3 of married same sex couples are lesbians.  But we're sort of the forgotten community. The expressions of disgust from our opponents, the "ick" factor,  and their bizarre fascination with the mechanics of sex are pretty much exclusively directed at gay men.

  Third, the divorce rate is lower for same-sex couples than straight couples. ... I suspect that this can be attributed to the types of couples getting married in these early years of same-sex marriage, and not a testament to the stability of lesbian and gay relationships. There's no statistical data out yet on this particular dynamic, but in my experience as a lawyer working with same-sex couples, the partners getting married tend to be those who have already been together for some time. They already have weathered the stormy middle years of coupledom, and they are consciously committed to being a family. 

This also makes sense to me.  

So, as it turns out, gay couples who marry really aren't that different from committed opposite sex couples.  Marriage is,indeed, marriage.

What the DOMA repeal vote really means (video Sunday)

The Commitment of Marriage

USA Today has a story describing a new, bipartisan movement towards marriage equality that stresses commitment rather than benefits:

A group of high-profile Democrats and Republicans who back legalizing gay marriage are calling on advocates to shift the focus on the issue from an argument about equal rights to promoting the value of commitment.….

Advocates have long made the case that legalizing marriage for gays and lesbians is a matter of equality, but those who frame the issue that way might be reinforcing a belief among many Americans in the middle on the issue that gays and lesbians want to marry for different reasons than straight couples, according to polling ....

I think this is a smart move.

There is a small slice of the population in the middle that is the swing vote on equality. Prior to Prop8, they were pretty friendly, until the opposition ran their campaign telling lies about teaching children gay sex. The moveable middle panicked, and Prop8 passed. I don't think they really realized what harm they did, because they figured gay couples had domestic partnerships, not realizing that they aren't the same, are not recognized the same, and are treated as inferior.  (BP and I never got a DP,  because, well, it's not marriage!)

Right now, thanks to DOMA (the mis-named Defense of Marriage Act), BP and I do not obtain any of the numerous federal benefits of marriage. We actually accrue significant disadvantage, such as having to do taxes twice, because the state recognizes us but the fed does not. We aren't on each other's medical plans, because that would be treated as a directly taxable benefit that would cost more than it saves. We have to pay an attorney to set up trusts and so forth, since because of DOMA, we are legally strangers on the street when it comes to inheritance and so on.

So what DOES marriage net us,since doesn't net us any of the typical benefits?

Oh, wow. It's everything. 

Every morning I wake up and feel blessed that I am united in marriage with my beloved. That we have made the permanent, joyful commitment to one another, in joy and pain, in sickness and health, till death us do part. I may not yet get any of the legal benefits of marriage, but I wouldn't change for the world the FACT of being married, of looking at that ring on my finger and knowing what it represents. 

In her recent blogpost, Susan Russell describes values that make up a marriage:

values that transcend the gender and sexual orientation of the couple. Values like fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and love -- the values that we in the Episcopal Church have held up as the standards we hold for relationships blessed by our church.

Yup, that's what the values of marriage are. Legal benefits? Sure, we'd like them in all fairness, but they aren't anything next to the experience of standing before friends and family and publicly vowing to uphold those values. I wouldn't exchange for the world the experience of being married, which I blogged for you 3 years ago.

BP reminded me recently that it wasn't till the summer after Prop8 passed when the CA Supreme Court decided that our marriage would NOT be annulled. Can you imagine what that felt like?  The sword of Damocles had nothing on it!

So virtually on the blogs, and in real life, we advocate for marriage. And person by person, we explain all of this. For example, this last weekend we were at a birthday party for a friend, and met a charming older gentleman. "How do you know R.?" he asked, and we explained that we had met R and his partner at church. As we are wont to do, we exclaimed over the welcome we have felt in the Episcopal church, and as the conversation moved on we mentioned that we were married, and that our marriage had been blessed there.

Turns out the charming older gentleman was a retired Roman Catholic priest. He was friendly (as I suspect many priests really are--it's the Bishops who are the problem), and admitted to a certain fascination with us. You see, he's not from California, and had not met a legally married gay couple before. He quizzed us, gently, on our marriage and our blessing and we responded much as I have here. This clearly delighted the gentleman, and we enjoyed chatting (and dancing!) with him during the evening. And he will take his experience of us back to his unfriendly state, and be able to witness in turn as to what married gay couples are really like.

Making a Commitment.

Living those Values.

That's why we are married. That's the right every couple should have. And that's why I make that witness.

Michigan's bully protection law: the religious right plays victim

Why is Michigan protecting religious tormenters? You may have heard by now that Michigan passed an "anti-bullying law" that exempts anyone who bullies based on religious belief. That is, if a "Christian" kid harasses a gay kid, and says that his religions says gays are an abomination, it's protected speech.

Because, you know, the real question is Who Would Jesus Bully?

Amy Sullivan writes,

This year, Republicans only agreed to consider an anti-bullying measure that did not require school districts to report bullying incidents, did not include any provisions for enforcement or teacher training, and did not hold administrators accountable if they fail to act. …. But it was the addition of special protections for religiously-motivated bullying that led all 11 Democratic senators to vote against the legislation they had long championed.…

To understand what happened in Michigan, it’s important to know that social conservatives consider themselves the real victims. ....In other words, social conservatives believe that efforts to protect gays from assault, discrimination or bullying impinge on their religious freedom to express and act on their belief that homosexuality is an abomination. That’s stating it harshly, but it is the underlying belief.

This belief, however, relies on a warped understanding of religious liberty. Freedom of religious expression doesn’t give someone the right to kick the crap out of a gay kid or to verbally torment her. It doesn’t give someone the right to fire a gay employee instead of dealing with the potential discomfort of working with him.

It’s also a highly selective conception of religious liberty. The same religious conservatives who applaud the religious exemption in Michigan’s anti-bullying bill would be appalled if it protected a Muslim student in Dearborn who defended bullying a Christian classmate by saying he considered her an infidel.

Remember, the current battle over LGBT equality is with the religious right who bleat that they are the victims, that the big mean gays will storm their churches and destroy their religion, and therefore, they need unique protections from The Gay. This victim card is being widely played and needs to be recognized for what it is: the last resort of the true bullies, whose only goal is to hurt and inflict pain.

After all, you don't get to kill your parents and then claim mercy because you're an orphan.

"ex-gay" leader admits change is not possible

From The New Civil Rights Movement:

John Smid, one of the most important leaders within the so-​called “ex-​gay” or “reparative therapy” movement — known as “pray away the gay” — finally admitted after 30 years, that conversion therapy is a crock, and that it is, indeed, impossible to change one’s sexual orientation. Smid, appearing on Chris Matthews’ “Hardball,” said, “there’s an intrinsic homosexuality that, I haven’t seen many people who have seen an orientation change.” Smid says, “predominantly, I’m attracted to men.”

But, as the right wing continues to deny science (including evolution and climate change), and because they fundamentally misunderstand science (no single "gay gene"! There's no "tall" gene either) they continue to make excuses and claim that we choose to be who we are. They never quite answer WHY we would choose to be gay, if we weren't oriented this way.Let alone, HOW. I mean, I find the idea of sleeping with men repulsive. So does this mean that straight women also find sleeping with men repulsive? Somehow I don't think so. I'm not lesbian because of abuse or unstable family or anything else. I'm lesbian like I'm right-handed, or have curly hair: I just AM.

Over 70 companies file brief opposing DOMA

The Advocate tells us that 70 companies and organizations, including Google, Microsoft,and Starbucks, have filed an amicus brief in one of the DOMA cases now winding through federal court. The companies complain that DOMA hurts their recruiting, and causes unnecessary administrative burdens. Good to see!

Their brief points out that the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives is defending DOMA in court on the notion that it imposes "a uniform rule" on whose marriage is recognized. "The perspective of the American employer who must implement DOMA is very different," the companies state. "Employers are obliged to treat one employee spouse differently from another, when each is married, and each marriage is equally lawful."

The companies say DOMA "forces" them "to investigate the gender of the spouses of our lawfully married employees and then to single out those employees with a same-sex spouse." For example, HIPPA laws usually consider marriage a "qualifying event" that automatically enrolls a spouse in an employee's health insurance. Companies now spend time and money weeding out any gay employees who get married.

If companies don't want to discriminate, because it hurts their recruiting efforts or they're just opposed to it in principle, then DOMA causes a bunch of "workarounds" that come with wasteful administrative costs of their own.

Companies complain that when a same-sex couple legally marries, it requires them "to maintain two sets of books." That's because the couple is considered married under state law but not married under federal law. "The double entries ripple through human resources, payroll, and benefits administration," they write.

Charting our progress: support for marriage equality

We know that mainline Protestants and Roman Catholics have a majority in favor of marriage equality. Those unaffiliated with religion are even more supportive. But it's interesting to see the trendlines. Of course, the Roman Catholic hierarchy is an implacable foe, regardless of the view from the pew. Isn't it time for those supportive RC to stop living "don't ask don't tell" and stand upto their bishops? From the Pew Forum:

Video Sunday: Yep, it's bigotry

And no, your religion does not have the power to legitimize bigotry. Bigoted beliefs do not become excusable just because a church or a book endorses them. You don’t get a pass on bigotry by claiming that a god agrees with you. People came up with the very same justifications for all kinds of prejudice. It changes nothing. Like it or not, your religion will evolve. It might deny this, it might lag behind, but religions are dragged along with the moral climate of society at large. The Catholic Church doesn’t hold trials of alleged witches anymore. Mormon leaders decided that God changed his mind about allowing black people to be ordained. And some day, you will have to face the reality that your 2,000 years of moral theology are helpless next to a moment of moral reflection.

Report details how lack of marriage hurts kids of gay parents

From the AP:[

A report] Compiled by an alliance of advocacy and child-welfare groups, ... summarizes how laws and social stigma create distinctive challenges for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender families.

"There are myriad ways that our families are discounted by government at all levels, and children are hurt the most," said Jennifer Chrisler of the Family Equality Council, one of the three groups authoring the report. ....

Among the barriers and inequities they face, as detailed in the report:

—Many government safety net programs use definitions of family tied to marital status which may exclude same-sex partners.

—Because of lack of legal recognition for their unions, gay and lesbian parents can face heavier tax burdens, higher costs for health insurance, and diminished financial protections in the event of death or disability.

—When same-sex parents separate, one parent may lose custody or visitation rights, even in cases where he or she had been a child's primary caregiver.

...Many of the obstacles and inequities outlined in the new report would be addressed if same-sex marriage — now legal in six states and Washington, D.C. — were legalized nationwide and recognized by the federal government. However, the report includes numerous recommendations for less sweeping changes that would benefit children with gay parents

See the full report, All Children Matter

The "Respect for Marriage" Act which would repeal DOMA, will be discussed in the Senate Judiciary Committee today. This effort is welcome, but in the current climate, somewhat quixotic. From Wikipedia:

The 2011 bill was introduced by U.S. Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York on March 16, 2011, and a U.S. Senate version was introduced by Dianne Feinstein of California on the same day. President Obama announced his support for the bill on July 19, 2011.[3] In September 2011, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida became the 125th cosponsor of the bill in the U.S. House of Representatives and the first Republican member of the U.S. Congress to announce support for the bill.

From MSNBC:

A committee vote could happen Nov. 3rd, but is more likely a week later. All 10 committee Democrats support repeal of DOMA, but the bill's prospects are less certain in the full Senate. It faces virtually certain defeat in the Republican-controlled House.

Thank you, Kim Kardashian

From the Rev. Susan Russell, of All Saint's Episcopal Church, Pasadena CA, a thank you to Kim Kardashian. I hope Susan forgives me the lengthy quote, but this is just TOO GOOD not to share widely:

I am not sure you can appreciate just what a gift it is to have the extraordinarily well publicized news of the end of your hysterically hyped marriage come the very week our congressional leaders are set to begin debating the Respect for Marriage Act on Capitol Hill.

Seriously. As a marriage equality activist I cannot thank you enough for your gift of the stunning example of how the gender of the couple saying "I do" clearly has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with respect for the institution of marriage. It is a gift -- I promise you -- that will keep on giving.

As we continue to work for Family Values that value all families and a Protect Marriage Movement that protects all marriages we will have your example to add to Britney Spears' 55 hour marriage, Larry King's eight marriages and Newt Gingrich's three (just to name a few) as proof positive that marriage needs protection all right -- but not from gay and lesbian couples who want to pledge to live together until death do they part.

We will have another great example to contrast to those couples building lives, families and a future without the 1138 federally protected rights that you and Kris Humphries enjoyed for the 72 days you were married to each other. Rights like social security, inheritance, taxation, hospital visitation and immigration status. Just to name a few.

We will have another opportunity to talk about the values that make up a marriage -- values that transcend the gender and sexual orientation of the couple. Values like fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and love -- the values that we in the Episcopal Church have held up as the standards we hold for relationships blessed by our church.

And it will give me the chance to talk about the marriages I know about that actually embody all those traditional values which were so utterly lacking in your $10 million dollar nuptial debacle. Like Alec and Jamie. Gay men who have been together for 10 years. Married since 2008. New parents to a 5-year old son adopted out of the foster care system. A son they are raising in a stable, loving home, bringing him to Sunday School every Sunday ... .

So thank you again, Kim. As we work without ceasing to secure for Alec and Jamie and their family the rights you and Kris threw away after 72 days of marriage, I hope you will know how deeply grateful we are for the "on a silver platter" gift you gave us this week as we head into Senate Judiciary Hearings on the Respect for Marriage Act and look ahead to the repeal of DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act). Honestly, we just can't thank you enough.

SPLC report on anti-gay hate groups

You can read the report “The Anti-Gay Lobby: The Family Research Council, the American Family Association and the Demonization of LGBT People” here (PDF).