Five LGBT religious advances in 2012

Click image for more
Voices of Faith

The end of the year surveys have begun.  GLAAD followed up its report on the missing voices of pro-equality religious folks with a look at progress in 2012.

These include victories in four states, in which progressive religious voices played an important role, and notably many Roman Catholics helped make it happen.  Pro-gay Mormons also spoke out, and students at conservative Christian colleges did too.  And, the Episcopal Church continued its trajectory, not only passing a rite for same sex blessings, but also explicitly welcoming transgendered clergy.

GLAAD goes on to identify 10 important pro-LGBT faith voices from 2012.

A New Day (video Sunday)

Quote of the Day: pioneers

From Andrew Sullivan:

We are pioneers; and we need to discuss more clearly how to keep our marriages secure and safe and durable. That isn't political work; it's personal and social work. We're at the dawn of this new era, which is why the success of actual, durable marriages - in providing mutual security, fidelity and responsibility for life - is so important. Maybe we gays can lead the way in resuscitating this vital social institution for the 21st Century. 

Maybe we already have.

Merry Christmas, stay warm because...

...it's cold outside!

Jon STewart and Gene Robinson talk about "gay marriage" (video Sunday)

Out gay Bishop Gene Robinson on the Jon Stewart show (2 parts)

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Why straight people support marriage equality

From Frank Bruni at the NY Times:

But what I found most revealing and instructive was this: among voters who saw the desire by gays and lesbians to be legally wedded as a bid primarily for the rights and protections that heterosexual couples have, same-sex marriage was a loser. Only 26 percent of them voted for its legalization, while 74 percent voted against. 

But among voters who believed that gays and lesbians were chiefly interested in being able to pledge the fullest and most public commitment possible to their partners, same-sex marriage was a huge, huge winner. Eighty-five percent of those voters supported it, while only 15 percent opposed it. 

That’s a fascinating microcosm of, and window into, broader political dynamics. When an initiative in this country is framed or understood largely as an attempt by a given constituency to get more, the opposition to it is frequently bolstered, the resistance strengthened. Even if the constituency is trying to right a wrong or rectify a disadvantage. 

“Give me” can be a risky approach. “Let me” is often a better one, and when voters hear gays and lesbians asking to participate in a hallowed institution for the most personal and heartfelt of reasons, voters may have a more positive reaction. At least that’s the suggestion of the research and the interviews that Third Way has done.

 ....

[Opposition is also from] the most frequent churchgoers. The Third Way report notes that “religiosity correlated to marriage opposition in Washington. While marriage lost among regular churchgoers (those who attend once a week or more), the referendum garnered 53 percent support among those who attend church once or twice a month.”

And that is one of the reasons the biggest growing religious identification in the US is "none".

Quote of the day: what is a wedding for?

From the blogger Fontfolly:

...the real purpose of a wedding is to allow your extended community of friends and family in on it. I don’t just mean the celebration. I believe that what makes marriage sacred is not that two people have made a pledge before some deity, it is because a group of people have committed to support two people in their love. When I attend someone’s wedding, I’m entering into a covenant with them and the other attendees, affirming a particular loving relationship, but also affirming the power of love itself. It’s a commitment to the extended ties that bind all of us together in circles of mutual affection and respect.

Why equality is inevitable

From The Prospect:

If SCOTUS does knock down DOMA Section 3, that will put an enormous amount of pressure on the purple and pale-red states. Same-sex couples in Kansas will go to Iowa to get married. When they come home, they will be half-married—married in the eyes of the federal government and their families, but not married in the eyes of Kansas. I can tell you from personal experience that when colleagues, neighbors, friends, and family members hear about the small indignities and injustices of being only half-married, when they realize how ordinary you and your spouse are, they get outraged that you’re being denied full marriage recognition. Businesses will get annoyed that they have to track this dual-marriage status for their employees, and will start to pressure their legislators to change. Lawsuits will bubble up as people sue Kansas (and Colorado, and Ohio, and Oklahoma) to have their “foreign” (i.e., out-of-state) marriages recognized at home. 

But here’s what’s more important: The Supreme Court is not the final arbiter of all things good and just (thank God!). Or even of all things political. If Kennedy loses his nerve, Congress can and will repeal DOMA—if not this term, then the next time the House, Senate, and presidency are all held by Democrats. And even if the Supreme Court issues a mean ruling on Perry—saying there's no fundamental right to marry and that California voters had every right to pass an amendment yanking equal marriage rights away—the Court will take it back in 15 years, when only ten Southern states are left banning recognition of same-sex marriages. The Court only took 17 years to overturn its ruling upholding sodomy laws in Bowers (which was a knife in the heart at the time, and pretty quickly became an international embarrassment). This one will come just as quickly, or even more so.

The Standing Issue on the Prop8 case

As well as hearing arguments on the Constitutionality of Prop8, the Supreme Court has asked to be briefed on the issue of "standing":  that is, whether the proponents of Prop8 have the right to appeal the decision, given the State's unwillingness to do so.

Some people think this may offer the court an "out" to avoid finding one way or the other on marriage. If the Prop8 supporters lack standing (since they can't demonstrate any actual harm to them caused by Prop8), the whole thing becomes rather messy, but remains limited to California.

From Linda Greenhouse at the NY TImes:

Standing has been an issue in the Proposition 8 case ever since the state of California decided not to appeal Federal District Judge Vaughn Walker’s 2010 ruling that the proposition was unconstitutional. The appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was carried on by a group of people who had worked to get the proposition adopted. The Ninth Circuit questioned whether this group had the requisite Article III standing, and asked the California Supreme Court to tell it whether under California law, a ballot measure’s proponents are regarded as properly standing in the state’s shoes if the state decides not to defend the measure. When the state court answered yes, the Ninth Circuit took the answer as sufficient and proceeded to decide the appeal, finding Proposition 8 unconstitutional. 

Whether standing under state law translates into standing for the purposes of Article III is a question that the United States Supreme Court has poked at but never resolved. Whether this is the right case in which to do so remains to be seen, but it was not particularly surprising for the court to raise the issue. In fact, in an era of direct democracy run amok, with voters being presented with extreme propositions that no rational state government would wish to embrace, a Supreme Court decision on who can carry the ball into federal court is probably overdue.

This was part of the appellate litigation for Prop8, so the existing attorneys have already briefed on this. 

Lyle Denniston at ScotusBlog tells us the court has identified an outside lawyer to argue the standing issue for the DOMA case.  The issue there is a little different than for Prop8, and I believe that it hasn't been part of the case previously, hence the outside lawyer.

David Cameron on Marriage Equality and Religious Freedom (video Sunday)

David Cameron, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, has made it official:  his government will pursue policies that make full-on marriage, not just civil partnerships, available to LGBT couples, AND will allow them to marry in Church that wants to do so.  Churches, of course, are free to refuse.  (The government gets to do this because there is a state-established Church in the countries of the UK).

Voices of Faith: The Christian case for marriage equality

Although the Right Wing likes to claim that "Christians" oppose marriage equality, that's actually not true.  Increasingly, many Christians (those not of the loud Evangelical variety) are strong supporters of civil marriage, and in many cases, religious marriage too.

Click image for more
Voices of Faith

This recent Op-Ed from the LA Times makes the case:

According to the Pew Forum, a majority of mainline Protestants and Roman Catholics now favor legalizing same-sex marriage. So when our more conservative Christian kin claim that gay marriage is against God and against the Bible, we beg to differ. And since Christians are a "people of the Word," we look to the Bible to justify our thinking. That's essential to Christianity, although all too often we get it wrong, at least at first. 

....Most New Testament Greek scholars now point out that there are only three passages that deal with homosexuality in the New Testament — Romans 1:23-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10 — and those passages don't deal with homosexuality as we define it today but rather with temple prostitution and other abuses. .....

Literalism, says LGBT activist and Episcopal priest Susan Russell, leads to using Bible passages as weapons. "Instead of taking the Bible literally," she says, "we should take it seriously, with deep faithfulness to the Old and New Testaments' core values of compassion, justice and peace." 

An ever-growing number of Christian clergy and lay people now believe that rejecting gay civil rights because of a literal adherence to certain verses directly contradicts these themes. They point out how these views are hurting all of the church, especially its most vulnerable members: young gay people who are convinced that their very essence is sinful. Furthermore, they can no longer support unjust laws that penalize committed same-sex couples and their families. 

That's why there were battles in MN between equality-minded Roman Catholics and their hierarchy.  We live in an era where the Episcopal Church now has a rite for blessing  same sex couples (many think full marriage is on the way church wide, although it is already happening in some Dioceses), the UCC, the Lutherans, Quakers, and others are also on this road.

CHRISTIANS do not oppose marriage equality.  And those who claim otherwise, are lying.

Regional variation in marriage support

From The Pew Forum: 

The South is where the country as a whole was 10 years ago.  And way behind New England.

Why we should wait

Jonathan Rauch argues for a minimalist finding, in a letter to SCOTUS:

Gay Americans are in sight of winning marriage not merely as a gift of five referees but in public competition against the all the arguments and money our opponents can throw at us. A Supreme Court intervention now would deprive us of that victory. Our right to marry would never enjoy the deep legitimacy that only a popular mandate can bring.... 

In the California marriage case, you certainly don’t lack for options. You could give gay-marriage opponents a home run, foreclosing gay couples’ constitutional claim for decades to come—a tragic setback, from a gay point of view. You could give gay-marriage supporters a home run, as a California district court did. You could uphold the narrower opinion of the Ninth Circuit federal appeals court, which overturned California’s ban on gay marriage but would have no practical effect in other states. 

Or you could do something you hinted at in your decision to take the case, when you asked to be briefed on whether the parties have standing to sue. That is, you could rule that the case was improperly brought and isn’t ripe for any kind of ruling. Though the precise legal consequences would depend on how you wrote the fine print, the basic effect would be to defer the constitutional battle over gay marriage until a later day. 

That day will come. We can even guess when. In 1948, California’s supreme court overturned the state’s ban on interracial marriage. It took the U.S. Supreme Court 19 years to affirm and nationalize that ruling, and by then the decision wasn’t controversial. In 1993, Congress banned openly gay people from serving in the U.S. armed forces. It took the courts and Congress 17 years to repeal that ban, and by then the decision wasn’t controversial. You see the pattern. Massachusetts enacted gay marriage in 2004. If the past is prologue, by the early 2020s the country will have reached a consensus on same-sex marriage.

 I think there is no chance the court will find broadly. I have hopes for a narrow overturn of Prop8, but I have a bad feeling that it won't happen.

 I think that they will uphold Prop8 and knockout DOMA's clause 3, based on the same arguments:  the states' rights to determine marriage.

That's my bet.

Why the Supreme Court is unlikely to vote for equality

I am not happy the SCOTUS took the Prop8 case.  I fear that they will find that states are perfectly entitled to forbid equality (thus upholding Prop8) and we will be sentenced to a long, hard slog through the ballot box, even if they over turn Clause 3 of DOMA.  Here's why I think so:

From the NY Times:

In private correspondence in 1957, Justice Felix Frankfurter said the court was doing all it could to avoid hearing cases that would require giving the nation an answer about whether bans on interracial marriage — anti-miscegenation laws, in the parlance of the day — were constitutional. 

“We twice shunted it away,” Justice Frankfurter wrote to Judge Learned Hand, “and I pray we will be able to do it again without being too brazenly evasive.” 

Judge Hand responded that “I don’t see how you lads can duck it.” 

But Justice Frankfurter was unpersuaded. 

“I shall work, within the limits of judicial decency,” he wrote, “to put off decision on miscegenation as long as I can.” 

The Supreme Court did not strike down laws banning interracial marriage until 1967, inLoving v. Virginia, when 16 states still had them on the books. That was almost two decades after the California Supreme Court in 1948 struck down a law making illegal “all marriages of white persons with Negroes” in Perez v. Sharp. 

It has been just four years since the California Supreme Court, citing Perez, struck down two state laws limiting marriage to a man and a woman. 

“We are in the midst of a major social change,” Justice Carol A. Corrigan wrote in dissent. She said she supported allowing “our gay and lesbian neighbors” to marry. But she said change must come from the political process, not the courts. 

“Societies seldom make such changes smoothly,” Justice Corrigan wrote. “For some the process is frustratingly slow. For others it is jarringly fast.”

Why we'll win eventually

From the Pew Forum:

They have a great selection of interactive slides.  Also, here's the problem--and the promise:

A very long engagement: about Edie Windsor (Video Sunday)

Edie Windsor is the plaintiff in Windsor v. United States, which is the DOMA case that the Supreme Court has decided to hear.

This is her story.

More legal analysis

Two from Soctusblog, well worth reading.

Lyle Denniston considers the standing issue

But besides accepting for review the questions raised in those two petitions, going to some of the fundamental constitutional disputes over marriage laws, the Court — somewhat at the prompting of some of the parties — added questions to each case about its authority to rule. The added questions themselves are constitutional in nature: they arise under Article III, and its grant of power to the federal courts. But that is a power to decide only a “live” case or controversy, and that means there have to be two sides with the legal right to be in court before Article III can be satisfied.

Kenji Yoshino on how the Prop8 case could be "incremental"

DOMA represents an intrusion of federal law into the traditional state domain of family law. As the lower courts have pointed out through various formulations, invalidating DOMA would represent a triumph for state sovereignty as well as for gay rights. Justices on the right tend to favor state power (relative to federal power); Justices on the left tend to favor gay rights. The Justice in the middle—Justice Kennedy—has historically favored both. 

The second premise is that the Court will wish to proceed incrementally—that it will not, in one Term, strike down DOMA and flip the forty-one states that do not currently recognize same-sex marriage. Here, too, I agree. In 1967, when the Court decided Loving v. Virginia, it only had to invalidate the laws of sixteen states. In general, the Court does not like to get too far in front of national consensus. 

It might seem to follow from these two premises that the Court will split the baby between the cases. But the error lies in thinking that the Perry Court must require marriage in all fifty states or none. In fact, the Court can more narrowly invalidate Prop 8 in at least three ways.

Reading the Tea Leaves on Prop 8

Now that the Supremes have startled everyone by deciding to hear the Prop8 case, everyone is trying to parse the possible outcomes.  From the HuffPo:

Yet don't count on a game-changing decision too quickly. It's more likely that Olson and Boies' blockbuster will end with a whimper..... 

There might even be some surprising reluctance from the left wing of the Court. ....
Gay marriage is similar [to abortion]. There's a risk of backlash from a bold opinion and, if the Court stays its hand, the political process is clearly trending towards allowing gay and lesbian Americans to marry. ......

If the Supreme Court takes either tack -- turning back the challenge for procedural reasons or limiting its ruling to California -- it will still be a victory for gay rights, even if it is less than Olson and Boies were originally hoping for. If the justices say Proposition 8's backers weren't appropriate parties, the case would be returned to the lower courts to start over. California's attorney general and governor, however, are certain to refuse to defend the law, which would result in a default judgment in favor of Olson and Boies. Gay marriage would then be legal in California.

BREAKING: SCOTUS will hear both Prop8 and DOMA cases

Today the court granted cert to the Prop8 case, and to one of the DOMA cases (Windsor). Included in their questions is a request for arguments about whether the defenders of the status quo have standing to argue the cases.

I do not like this.  The cleanest result for us would be to deny cert for Prop8 and restore marriage equality to CA.  If they find against us, it is broadly possible they could find NO right to marriage in the US,  and that would be as bad as Bowers v. Hardwick.

The waiting, for those of us fighting Prop8, now continues.

From the Live blog at Scotusblog:

Prop. 8 is granted on the petition question -- whether 14th Am. bars Calif. from defining marriage in traditional way. Plus an added question: Whether the backers of Prop.. 8 have standing in the case under Art. III.  

In Windsor, the government petition (12-307) is the one granted. In addition to the petition question -- whether Sec. 3 of DOMA violates equal protection under 5th Amendment, there are two other questions: does the fact that government agreed with the 2d CA decision deprive the Court of jurisdiction to hear and decide the case, and whether BLAG (House GOP leaders) has Art. III standing in this case.  

Trying to sort this all out, it is clear that the Court has agreed to consider the merits case in Prop. 8, because that is what the petition presented as its question, but that it is also going to address whether the proponents had a right to pursue their case. If the Court were to find that the proponents did not have Art. III standing, that is the end of the matter: there would be no review on the merits of Proposition 8, or of the 9th CA decision striking it down. 

Trying to sort out DOMA: The case has agreed to consider the merits issue of the constitutionality of DOMA Section 3, it has also given itself the option of not deciding that issue. If it finds that neither the Executive Branch could bring its appeal, and that BLAG lacked Art. III standing, then presumably both of those petitions would be denied. At that point, then, the Court might have to consider whether it wants to hear another DOMA case. But that probably would not be done in time for this term's close. 

There is a good deal of complexity in the marriage orders, but the bottom line is this: the Court has offered to rule on Prop. 8 and on DOMA Section 3, but it also has given itself a way not to decide either case. That probably depends upon how eager the Justices are to get to the merits; if they are having trouble getting to 5 on the merits, they may just opt out through one of the procedural devices they have offered up as potentials.   

Olson and Boies are on the other side of the Prop. 8 case. I assume their brief and oral argument will go heavily against standing for the Prop. 8 backers, but also will urge the SCt to affirm the 9th CA on the merits. Since the 9th CA decision is very different from Judge Walker's decision, I doubt that they will be asking the Court to rule as Judge Walker did. 

The key point, though, is that if they succeed in challenging the backers on the standing issue, the case is over: Prop. 8 is gone under the 9th CA decision, because there is no one to defend it. If there is no standing in Prop. 8, presumably that might lead to a ruling that the 9th CA decision has to be vacated. But then Judge Walker's decision would be the law of the case, because that was fully litigated with parties who clearly had standing. Prop. 8 backers would lose in an even bigger way.

Why it matters: Another weepy from Washington

From one of the soon-to-be-wed in Washington (go read his whole blog!)

For whatever reason, that was when I started crying for us. All of my tearing up, getting misty-eyed, and full-fledged crying earlier in the day had been for other people. This was the one where it finally hit me in the gut: the most wonderful man in the world has not only been living with me and putting up with me for nearly 15 years, and finally we’re going to be married. Not civilly united, or domestically partnered, or any of those other names, but married. 

Beautiful!

Living up to the founding ideals of our country

Marriage licenses are available now in Washington and Maryland.  Gay journalist and commentator Dan Savage, in Seattle, is himself applying for a license  registering his marriage ,which took place in Canada. The Stranger offers a heartwarming and inspiring set of pictures and profiles of the license-seekers and the history of the marriage equality movement in Washington State.

Just before 12:01 a.m. last night, as King County Executive Dow Constantine was preparing to personally issue some of Washington State's first same-sex marriage licenses, he took a few moments to recall how long gay couples have been coming into the King County Recorder's office and asking for them. .....

Constantine put it this way: "What we are doing today is living up to the founding ideals of this country."

Will Friday be the day?

The estimable Scotusblog (@scotusblog) tweets today,

#scotus is almost sure to act on same-sex marriage (#ssm) late this Friday afternoon so it can hear arguments this March.

The Supreme Court on Marriage: a history (video Sunday)

The Supreme Court decides....

Not to decide.  At least, not today.  They may tell us on Monday.  Or Tuesday,  Possibly next Friday.  Or maybe the Monday after that.

Here's a detailed overview on what the cases are and what we might expect.

From an op/ed at ScotusBlog:

I have never before seen cases that I believed would be discussed two hundred years from now.  Bush v. Gore and Obamacare were relative pipsqueaks.  The government’s assertion of the power to prohibit a loving couple to marry, or to refuse to recognize such a marriage, is profound.  So is the opposite claim that five Justices can read the federal Constitution to strip the people of the power to enact the laws governing such a foundational social institution.
...
The striking feature of these cases – not present in any others I have ever seen – is that that they would have been decided by the Justices’ predecessors one way and would be decided by the Justices’ successors another way.
….
Our country and societies around the world will read the Justices’ decision(s) not principally as a legal document but instead as a statement by a wise body about whether same-sex marriages are morally right or wrong.  The issues are that profound and fraught; they in a sense seem to transcend “law.”  Given the inevitability of same-sex marriage, if the Court rules against those claiming a right to have such unions recognized, it will later be judged to be “on the wrong side of history.” 

But the verdict of history cannot decide the legal questions presented by these cases.  The cases arrive today, in this moment, before our cultural transition has completed.  In a sense, it is a shame that there is such pressure to hear the cases now; the judgment for the rest of the nation’s history would certainly favor these claims.  But if they do decide to grant review, the Justices cannot merely choose to embrace the past or the future.  They will have to make a judgment now

Free States

From the LA Times:

A confederacy of gay-friendly states is taking shape. It will create a major divide in the United States, a divide that could last a long time, given that the red states -- places such as Alabama and Utah and South Carolina -- are about as likely to give up on "traditional marriage" as they are likely to turn all their churches into medical marijuana dispensaries.  

The turn toward approval of same-sex marriage in several regions of the country is so sudden and so unexpected that Americans have not really begun to ponder what the ramifications of this new national divide may be. Canada legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in 2005 and, thus far, straight marriages among Canadians have not been sundered and God has not brought down his wrath on the land of maple leaves and Mounties. But in the United States, a national law is not in the cards. 

On this issue, states will continue to decide for themselves and take separate paths. So the question is, can a house divided against itself stand? Can a nation endure that is half slave to tradition and half free to marry?

In an answer to a comment on a previous post, I looked up some figures. Right now marriage is legal in 9 states, plus several additional jurisdictions including Washington DC and two Indian nations.  CA would be the 10th state.  Given its large population, this would mean over 27% of Americans would live in states  or jurisdictions with marriage equality.  The HRC has a helpful graphic.

Public Values: being gay vs having an affair

Should someone be disqualified from holding a job because they are gay? What if they had an extra-marital affair? YouGov asked the question and broke down the results for us based on political identity, and I graphed the data.

Each of the jobs is indicated below.  The numbers were calculated by taking the percent of respondents who think the person should keep their job, and subtracting the percentage who thinks they should quit.  If the number is positive, it means more people think the person should stay then go.  If the number is negative, more people think the person should quit.  The height of the bar indicates the magnitude of the difference;  thus if the number who say "stay" equals the number who say "quit", there will be no bar at all (because the difference = 0).

So, for example, a majority of respondents of all political beliefs thinks that a minister who has an affair should quit.  By contrast, a majority of conservatives think minister should quit if he's gay, while a majority of liberals and moderates think he should not.

Blue means liberal, Green means moderate, and Red means conservative.

Four possible outcomes from the Supreme Court

On Friday, the court will conference on whether to hear any of the cases before it (Prop8, several DOMA cases, and a case from AZ on partner benefits). From Chris Geidner, a consideration of the possible outcomes. I'm hoping for version 4.

• The court takes multiple DOMA cases and the Proposition 8 case. This outcome would be the “all in” option, and it would make clear that at least four justices want the court to resolve the legal questions surrounding these issues, from what level of scrutiny that laws classifying people based on sexual orientation should be given (see more about this here) to whether gay couples have a constitutional right to marry..... 

• The court takes one DOMA case, while holding the other DOMA cases pending that decision, and takes the Proposition 8 case as well. This is not very different from the first possibility, although the choice of one DOMA case over another could be seen as narrowing the type of argument about the law that the court would like to hear. ... 

• The court takes a DOMA case (or multiple DOMA cases) and holds the rest of the cases, including Proposition 8, pending the outcome of the DOMA case. This prospect, advanced as a possibility by Georgetown law professor Nan Hunter, could be taken by a cautious court, wanting first to resolve some general questions — including the level of scrutiny to be applied to sexual orientation classifications — before acting on the other, more direct, question about whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry that is raised in the Proposition 8 challenge. .... 

• The court takes a DOMA case (or multiple DOMA cases), but denies certiorari in the Proposition 8 case. This option, once considered by advocates to be the most likely possibility, would lead to same-sex couples being able to marry in California within days. The Ninth Circuit’s ruling in the case did not broadly resolve the marriage question, instead holding that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional because it took back rights formerly held by Californians. As there are other cases in the legal pipeline about same-sex couples marriage rights that could make their way to the Supreme Court, the court could decide to let the narrow Ninth Circuit decision stand.

Christian Right cheers Uganda "Kill the Gays" Bill

The Ugandan bill that would kill people for being gay has been revived.  The Box Turtle Bulletin shows us that even arguing against the bill means you can be imprisoned.  Or failing to turn in your son for being gay.  It penalizes not just action, but thought.

Joe My God shows us that the "Christian" Right in this country are celebrating the planned murders of gay Ugandans here and here.

Because who would Jesus kill?

File this under disgusting.

Marry your girlfriends (video Sunday)

CollegeHumor's Favorite Funny Videos

WHo's next for marriage?

What states are candidates for equality in the next round of battles?

How we finally won

Excellent article from Chris Geidner on how changes in strategy allowed our side to win this year.

Among the key changes were a shift away from talk of "rights" to a focus on committed relationships; a decision to address "values" directly as being learned at home; and an attempt to give voters "permission" to change their minds, according to elements of the research shared with BuzzFeed....

The six key findings highlighted in the November 2011 document were:

• Commitment trumps rights, a point made in prior research by Freedom to Marry as well: “Leading with commitment will show the middle that gay people want to join the institution of marriage, not change it.”
• Kids move voters: “In our past qualitative research, we found that underlying these concerns about children are deeply emotional fears about loss of parental control. These fears were also evident in the poll data.”
• The home is our turf; schools are their turf: “When compared directly to other possible responses to attacks around children, parents teaching core values ranks highest in persuasiveness.”
• On kids — turn down the heat: “One effective way to do that is to remind those in the middle of something they already believe to be true — that 'kids will be kids,' and in reality, they are much more interested in other things than they are in whether gay couples are allowed to marry.”
• Give people permission to change their minds about why gay couple[s] marry: “Using a messenger who could describe changing his own opinion on why gay couples want to marry modeled this positive evolution on the very issue that is most crucial to gaining support.”
• Religion is a hurdle, not a wall: “[E]ven among those groups in the middle who were more concerned about religion, overwhelming majorities said ‘It is not for me to judge.’ … [I]t is crucial to include reaffirmation of religious liberty protections as a significant part of supporters’ message framework.”

Read the whole thing.

The moment of Victory (video Sunday)

Ten questions to consider before you marry

As marriage becomes more and more possible for LGBT people, it behooves us to really consider what it MEANS to be married.   This post from the HuffPo is a superb reflection on the things YOU need to consider before you jump into marriage. From addressing the Money Issue, to contemplating children, the boundaries you'll have, extended family, God and dreams....all of these are HUGE questions that you need to consider.  Because you should enter into marriage with the expectation that it is FOREVER.

And if you are straight, the questions are JUST as relevant.  Well, they would be.....marriage is marriage. Go, check it out!

1. Are you prepared for mutual financial responsibility? ...
2. How will you resolve conflict? ...
3. What is your growing vision of your family? ...
4. How will you parent?...
5. What are your priorities regarding extended family? ...
6. What is the state of your intimacy, and how will you protect it? ...
7. What is your spiritual plan for your family? ...
8. How will you mutually nurture your careers and avocations? ...
9. What is your mutual loyalty agreement? ...
10. What are the terms for the end of your relationship? ... 

... It is not the warmest and fuzziest article you have read on the subject of same-sex marriage, but I feel like it may be one of the most important as you work toward your ultimate happiness, which is what I dearly and fondly wish for you. Fight for your rights, demand the choice to marry the love of you life, and when that happens, make it right. Opposite-sex married couples are only at the 50-percent success mark. Let's do it better.

I am lucky that my wife and I very communicative with each other.  We're hyper verbal, and we generally don't go silent.  And probably it makes it much easier that we have similar habits with money.

When our marriage was blessed in the Episcopal church, the priest who preached said, "you should always be asking, 'no, what do YOU want?' and MEAN it." He was right. As long as it's a gift freely given, and not a martyrdom, that generosity has stood us well.  The "us" is so much bigger than "you" and "me".  Marriage is a daily gift to me.  I hope for you, too.

What did SCOTUS hear?

Did the election make a difference to the SCOTUS? The opponents of marriage equality are arguing that the fact that 3 states approved marriage equality at the ballot box shows that gays are not "politically powerless" and therefore don't deserve protection. (NB: MN only decided not to forbid it in the COnstitution; same sex marriage is illegal there already). The fact that 30-odd states have found otherwise would argue against that interpretation. This article in the Washington Post considers how the Court will wade in.

Supporters of same-sex marriage say the votes — along with polls showing acceptance of gay marriage high among younger Americans — point to inevitable momentum, but not so much that the court should leave the question of equal rights to the political process. “At the end of the day, it’s the reason we have the judiciary — to protect the rights of the minority,” Griffin said.

In any event, there is basically no chance they will find that there is a federal right to marry. The hope is that they don't overturn the Prop8 case, and just let it apply to CA, perhaps by denying cert (that is, refusing to hear it).

But the court is almost obligated to take one or more of the DOMA cases. As the state of play now stands, it would be unconstitutional to withhold federal recognition — there are more than 1,100 references to marriage in federal laws, codes and regulations — to same-sex couples married in the Northeast states covered by the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 1st and 2nd circuits. But the decisions don’t apply to those married in Iowa, the District of Columbia or those states that Tuesday approved gay marriage. 

About 15 percent of Americans now live in states that allow gay marriage, and the number would double if the right were reinstated in California.

The Post article also says that the Supreme Court's conference on whether or not to hear the Prop8 or DOMA cases has been postponed to Nov. 30. I haven't seen confirmation of that.

Update:  AFER confirms that the conference is indeed rescheduled to Nov 30th.  We may hear something about it on 3rd Dec.

Dan Savage: Get over it (video Sunday)

The day after

I wonder if we will look back in a few years on 2012 as the inflection point, when the endgame began. I've often said that I'm tired of being "the gay blogger", "the gay scientist", or really, "the gay anything". My sexuality should be irrelevant as an adjective to my identity.

And perhaps that will happen, now that we have finally won. And not just won one squeaker of an election: no, we one four, solidly. Voters in 3 states (MD, ME, and WA) approved marriage equality. Two of these were referenda that approved previous legislative votes. In ME, it overturned the results of previous referendum. In MN, voters rejected an anti-equality marriage amendment to the state Constitution. Same Sex Marriage is already illegal in MN, but it's easier to repeal a law than an amendment.

Interestingly, in the past, there has been a substantial "Bradley Effect" in polls on marriage equality, where the support is over stated.  This is thought to represent the unwillingness of people to admit to pollsters that they are biased against LGBT people.  But the polls here were pretty accurate.  I guess people are telling the truth, now, and the ones opposed aren't embarrassed by their opposition.

What's striking about the battle is that this was waged heavily by the Roman Catholic church. There were long letters from the Bishops, full of anti-gay hyperbole,  and millions of dollars were funneled through the Knights of Columbus and the National Organization for (straight-only) Marriage, which really no longer pretends to be anything other than a Roman Catholic front group. But Catholics pushed back. In MN, and WA, groups of Catholics For Equality fought vigorously and not despite their faith, but because of it.

The Bishops also were fervant Obama opponents, but exit polls suggest our returning President won over 50% of the RC vote. Those of us who are religion-watchers will be eating the popcorn as we watch the see-saw between the out-of-touch Roman Catholic hierarchy and the Roman Catholics in the pews. But I digress.

In a few weeks, the Supreme Court will decide whether to hear cases on Prop8 or DOMA. The court-watchers think they will hear DOMA, but will punt the Prop8 case, which means that the Ninth Circuit decision will hold, and marriage equality will return to CA.

And when it does, California will join TEN other states and jurisdiction in the US where marriage is legal.  TEN!

And the marriage bans in the other states will, in time, go the way of JimCrow, or anti-miscegenation laws.

And it finally will not matter that I am a lesbian American, just an American.

MARRIAGE EQUALITY PASSES

For the first time, by popular ballot, equality passes in MD and ME. (Still waiting on WA). Take that, Brian Brown. Who are you going to blame now?

Vote!

Family values (video)

Vote for love!

Why it matters: Civil Unions are not the same (Video sunday)

We've heard this before, but watch it anyway (video Sunday)

Why it matters: Gay Divorce

It's bad enough we don't have marriage protections.  But if a legal same-sex marriage breaks up, the consequences through divorce are just as bad--if not worse.

To give you an example of the Gay Divorce Tax , consider what happens when splitting a retirement account.  Eric and John are both 50 years old and are breaking up. As part of the divorce, they need to split a $500,000 401k that is in Eric’s name.  If they were straight, they could do QDRO (Qualified Domestic Relations Order) and relatively easily split the 401k in half. Both would end up with $250,000 each in a retirement account.  But the QDRO wouldn’t be available for Eric and John.  To pass the money from Eric to John, first they are subject to the Gay Divorce Tax.  

Eric would have to take a taxable withdrawal from his 401k.  The $250,000 would be subject to income taxes and penalties that  could be 33% or more. It could include a 10% premature distribution penalty, state income taxes of 9.3% in California, and it may be subject to gift taxes as well. If the divorcing couple proceeded this way, Eric could be hit with tax bill of $75,000 or more before even dealing with gift tax issues.  Also, keep in mind that the leftover money that John does receive will no longer be in a tax-deferred retirement account such as an IRA or 401k, and there  aren’t  options to quickly get large amounts back into tax deferred accounts. 

The Gay Divorce Tax is just one reason same-sex couples need to talk about divorce.

Supreme Court announces conference for Prop8/DOMA

This does not mean they will hear either case.  It means simply we now know the date when they will discuss WHETHER to hear these cases.

From AFER:

The U.S. Supreme Court has announced that it will consider whether to grant review in AFER’s federal constitutional challenge to California’s Proposition 8.
The Justices will meet to discuss our case, along with several challenges to the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), at their private Conference scheduled for Tuesday, November 20.

The Court is expected to either:

• Grant review of our Prop. 8 challenge, at which point AFER’s legal team, led by distinguished attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies, will submit written briefs and present oral arguments by April 2013. A final decision on Prop. 8 and marriage equality is expected by June 2013.
• Deny review, making permanent the landmark federal appeals court ruling that found Prop. 8 UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Marriage equality will be restored in California.

The Court is expected to release an Order List with its decisions on cases it has granted or denied review from its November 20 Conference by Monday, November 26. Though I am hopeful that we will hear something from the Justices by that day, the Court does not have an obligation to set a timeline for making a decision on granting or denying review.

Why i changed my mind: Video Sunday

David Blankenhorn was one of the most prominent Prop8 supporters in 2008.  He was a star witness at the Prop8 Trial.  And he changed his mind about marriage equality.  Take heed, voters in MD, ME, MN, and WA.

Friends don't vote Republican

From playwright Doug Wright:

"I wish my moderate Republican friends would simply be honest. They all say they're voting for Romney because of his economic policies (tenuous and ill-formed as they are), and that they disagree with him on gay rights. Fine. Then look me in the eye, speak with a level clear voice, and say," My taxes and take-home pay mean more than your fundamental civil rights, the sanctity of your marriage, your right to visit an ailing spouse in the hospital, your dignity as a citizen of this country, your healthcare, your right to inherit, the mental welfare and emotional well-being of your youth, and your very personhood." It's like voting for George Wallace during the Civil Rights movements, and apologizing for his racism. You're still complicit. You're still perpetuating anti-gay legislation and cultural homophobia. You don't get to walk away clean, because you say you "disagree" with your candidate on these issues."

Exposing the lies of the anti-equality side

Right on schedule, the fear-mongering ads are being run in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington.

You know the ones, about how horrible homos will sue anyone who disagrees with them, ruin hardworking people's businesses,  or force churches to marry goats.  Or something.

This article from Portland, ME the exposes the strategy.  Go!  Read!  Share!

Frank Schubert likes to tell stories.

Really, really short stories. 

Stories so short they can scare the bejesus out of you before you even know what they're actually about. 

Schubert, you'll recall, is the California schemer who choreographed the repeal of Maine's same-sex marriage statute in 2009. Now he's back, leading the National Organization for Marriage's offensive against same-sex marriage in referendum campaigns in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington. 

Schubert's strategy of choice? Take a complicated story and, in 30 seconds or less, reduce it to televised graffiti.... 

Now I'll be the first to admit there are plenty of things to lie awake worrying about between now and Nov. 6. But an ongoing employer-employee spat that happened in another country? 

Hey, like all the others crafted to inflame rather than inform, that's Frank Schubert's kind of story. 

So short on facts it's scary.

Romney and ENDA

The big discussion in the blogosphere has been the SEcret Meeting between Mitt Romney and the Log Cabin Republicans, in which apparently Mitt promised the LCR that he would support ENDA (the non-discrimination act, that would prevent gay people from being fired for the sole reason that they are gay), if the LCR endorsed him.

 Predictably, this has gotten out.

 No one on "our" side believes Mitt, who flipflops faster than a dying trout, while the fundies are outraged, outraged! That Mitt is actually saying anything remotely (and it is remote!) supportive of Teh Gayz. Mitt is...saying nothing.

 Popcorn?

Marriage Equality: the View from Maine (video Sunday)

Maine is one of the four states voting this season on marriage equality. Do all Mainers have equal rights to marry the one they love?

Knights of Columbus exposed

The Catholic pro-equality coalition, Equally Blessed, has a report showing that the Knights of Columbus has become largely a conservative (and anti-gay) political group rather than the charitable organization that most Catholics think it is, one that benignly serves pancake breakfasts on a Sunday morning after Mass.

According to the report, which is based primarily on the Knights’ filings with the Internal Revenue Service, the organization donated $6.25 million to anti-marriage equality efforts between 2005-2012, with most of the money directed toward ballot measures aimed at banning marriage equality in 12 states.

...Since 2009, the Knights has assessed each of its 1.8 million members a $2 annual fee to support its Culture of Life initiative, which includes its campaign against marriage equality, the report notes. Many Catholics who support the Knights’ charitable initiatives in their parish or diocese are largely unaware of the organization’s involvement in “culture war” issues both inside and outside the church. 

...According to the report, the Knights has accrued significant influence within the Roman Catholic Church thanks to large contributions to the Vatican and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. It uses that influence, the report states, to advance a conservative political and theological agenda, sometimes at the expense of other U. S. Catholics.

NEWS: DOMA found unconstitutional by 2nd circuit

...that would be the second appeals court that has found DOMA unconstitutional.  (The first being the first circuit).  Even sweeter, it came from an extremely conservative judge.  Best of all, it finds heightened scrutiny applies:

In this case, all four factors justify heightened scrutiny: A) homosexuals as a group have historically endured persecution and discrimination; B) homosexuality has no relation to aptitude or ability to contribute to society; C) homosexuals are a discernible group with non-obvious distinguishing characteristics, especially in the subset of those who enter same-sex marriages; and D) the class remains a politically weakened minority.

And does a nice knock-down to the defenders of DOMA, the Congressionally-funded BLAG:

BLAG argues that, unlike protected classes, homosexuals have not "suffered discrimination for longer than history has been recorded." But whether such discrimination existed in Babylon is neither here nor there. BLAG concedes that homosexuals have endured discrimination in this country since at least the 1920s. Ninety years of discrimination is entirely sufficient to document a "history of discrimination."

This is the Edie Windsor case, who was legally married but wiped out financially because of estate taxes of her wife.  Unusually, it's already been sent to the Supreme Court, as part of a cluster of DOMA cases.

What? Marriage equality opponents are lying?

No, really?  They wouldn't do that, would they?

From the Bangor Daily News (ME):

Opponents of same-sex marriage in Maine are mischaracterizing the reasons that Catholic Charities of Boston stopped brokering adoptions in 2006, according to Peter Meade, the organization’s former board chairman, who spoke with reporters in Maine on Wednesday. 

[S]upporters of a group called Protect Marriage Maine have alleged that among the consequences of granting same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, Catholic Charities was forced to stop performing adoptions after Vatican officials learned that at least 13 children had been placed with same-sex couples. 

....Meade said the situation that unfolded in Boston was driven by 1989 anti-discrimination laws that were on the books for more than a decade before same-sex marriage was legalized in the Bay State in 2004.
....
Catholic Charities of Boston formerly held a state-issued contract funded by taxpayer dollars to provide adoption services, and placed 13 children with same-sex couples between 1989 and 2006. The work was done in accordance with a Massachusetts anti-discrimination law that requires taxpayer-funded services to be provided equitably and without regard to sexual orientation, among other things. 

Meade said that the Vatican demanded in 2006 that Catholic Charities end its adoption service, despite a unanimous vote by the charity’s local board to continue adoptions. 

“Frankly, the only criteria for us was what was in the best interest of the child and we thought the Vatican was changing that,” said Meade. “People are suggesting in the campaign that it had something to do with the [same-sex marriage law] that allowed for marriage equality. That’s not correct.”

Video series on marriage, answers all the usual arguments

Excellent series on marriage equality by supporter, philosopher, and moralist Jon Corvino.  In each one, he takes down one of the arguments:  is marriage about procreation? The polygamy canard.  The REgnerus study. Go check 'em out!

Here's the first:  on the definition of marriage.

Supportive Catholics in the closet?

I've complained frequently about Roman Catholic "don't ask, don't tell" on the subject of marriage equality.

Roman Catholics are heavily supportive of marriage equality, while their bishops relentlessly campaign against it, underwriting hate campaigns in numerous states.

Now, several Bishops have turned on their flock, essentially excommunicating them if they are supporters of marriage equality.

Abp Cordileone (San Francisco):

Gays and lesbians who are in sexual relationships of any kind, he said, should not receive the sacrament of Holy Communion.

Abp Myers (Newark):

 Catholics who do not accept the teaching of the Church on marriage and family (especially those who teach or act in private or public life contrary to the Church's received tradition on marriage and family) by their own choice seriously harm their communion with Christ and His Church…..If they continue to be unable to assent to or live the church's teaching in these matters, they must in all honesty and humility refrain from receiving Holy Communion until they can do so with integrity; to continue to receive Holy Communion while so dissenting would be objectively dishonest. 

  Abp Nienstedt (Minnesota):

Catholics are bound in conscience to believe this teaching. Those who do not cannot consider themselves to be Catholic and ought not to participate in the sacramental life of the Church. 

This comes from a letter in 2010, (reported here at GMC at that time), in which Abp Nienstedt also told a woman that her eternal salvation depended on her rejecting her gay son.

 So, to my many Catholic friends participating in "don't ask don't tell", who support and love us and vote for marriage equality:

Now what?

Will you become "spiritual refugees" too?

Will you stand up for your beliefs, at such a cost? LIke this teacher? Will you try to reform The Church?  Or will you stay in the closet?

Will you stay, or will  you go?

Barney Frank on Mitt Gets Worse (video Sunday)

Happy Anniversary to my wife!

Four years ago today, my wife and I stood before friends and family and exchanged wedding vows. It was the summer of love, less than a month before the election that passed Prop8. Marriage continues to enrich our every moment together. I'm so grateful I am married. I want anyone who is ready to make that commitment, to have the right to do so. That's why I'm here.

Come out, come out!

Over and over again, studies show that the best way to advocate for LGBT rights is simply to be ourselves: to come out, so that people around us have a face and a person to think of, when they hear the word "gay". I found it very freeing to finally come out and be honest and authentic about who I am.

Of course, I'm fortunate to live in a big city in a liberal state, working for a very gay-positive employer, and I understand that coming out isn't safe for everyone. But it's safer than it ever has been.

If you haven't yet..... come out into the light!

Resources and information on National Coming Out Day at HRC.

Why it matters: "partner" vs "spouse"

This is a great description of why civil unions/domestic partnerships just aren't the same. Yes, the word matters. That's why Referendum 74 in WA matters and why Prop8 matters.

 "[T]here is a world of difference between calling someone your ‘partner’ and calling them your ‘husband’. ‘Partner’ is a word that should be preserved for people you play tennis with, or work alongside in business. It doesn’t come close to describing the love that I have for David, and he for me. In contrast, ‘husband’ does. A ‘husband’ is somebody that you cherish forever, that you would give up everything for, that you love in sickness and in health. Until the law recognises David Furnish is my husband, and not merely my partner, the law won’t describe the man I know and adore." - Elton John

FACT: more American Christians support marriage equality than oppose it

Really. And those data were back in 2011.  Moreover, there are lots of faith groups who are explicitly supportive.

While many conservative traditions (e.g., many strains of evangelicalism) maintain their opposition to homosexuality, other religious communities have become more open in their support for gay and transgender equality. Since 2008 the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the Presbyterian Church (USA) have both voted to allow the ordination of gay clergy, and earlier this year the Episcopal Church approved the creation of a rite that allows for the blessing of same-sex unions. 

These institutional shifts aren’t flukes; rather, they reflect the beliefs many religious voters hold deeply. More Christians in the United States support marriage equality than oppose it, as do a majority of Catholic voters, despite the hardline opposition of their church hierarchy. A recent survey found 56 percent of Catholics believe sexual relations between two adults of the same gender is not a sin, and nearly three-quarters favor either allowing gay and lesbian people to marry (43 percent) or to form a civil union (31 percent). What’s more, nearly three-quarters of Catholics (73 percent) favor laws that protect gay and lesbian people against discrimination in the workplace, while 63 percent favor allowing them to serve openly in the military. 

And faith groups aren’t just casually supporting the gay and transgender community. For many, fighting for gay and transgender equality is a matter of deep faith. Pro-marriage equality groups in Minnesota—which will vote on an anti-marriage equality amendment in November—are running ads that feature straight Catholic Republicans who support marriage equality. A group of Minnesota Catholics even assembled a chorus of more than 300 people to record aYouTube video in which they sing a pro-marriage equality song. In addition, a sweeping coalition of diverse faith leaders from across the state are working to support gay and transgender rights in passionate and often creative ways.

So why are we letting the minority voice control the conversation?

Cinderfella (video Sunday)

Report: Freedom to marry and religious freedom completely compatible

From The Center for American Progress: (my emphasis)

Americans from all faith backgrounds support the ability to practice one’s religion free from government interference. These twin freedoms—the freedom to worship and the freedom to marry—are both important American values, and they are wholly compatible with one another. ... 

This report presents that analysis across four main areas. First, we analyze the kinds of religious exemption provisions that exist in marriage equality bills and detail the number of states that have included those provisions. Second, we discuss the current and future impact of these provisions on state residents. Third, we explain how the inclusion of these religious exemptions has increasingly shaped the outcome of marriage equality debates across the country. Fourth, we look at current efforts to undermine existing laws in ways that would actually create new legal authority for people to discriminate against gay and transgender individuals. 

Lastly, we want to acknowledge that an increasing number of religious Americans and denominations have voiced their support for marriage equality. Religious opponents of marriage equality do not speak for all people of faith. Their claims should not go unchecked.

Here's the executive summary and here's the full report.

Fundamentalism at war with LGBT: Mel White

Click image for more
Voices of Faith

From Religion Dispatches, an interview with Mel White, of Soulforce, who has written a new book called Holy Terror: Lies the Christian Right Tells Us to Deny Gay Equality.  

The billionaires are putting their money into saving the fundamentalist right because the fundamentalist right is on their side. The fundamentalist right, though, is really intending to save the nation. They believe they’re going to save the nation by eliminating LGBT rights. They’re not phony—they are true believers. And when you don’t take a real believer seriously you cause trouble for yourself.

....When you think about how effective they’ve been politically, state by state, it’s been awesome. We have six states that will marry us and 34 states that won’t. With all the progress we’ve made in those six states we forget all the progress they’ve made. In terms of politics, these guys are really impressive. They have made advances politically, signing petitions, getting email addresses. 

....I learned from Falwell that fundamentalists that say saving the country is the end goal that any means are okay. One of the means is to lie and Jerry Falwell lied all the time and even when he was caught in his lies, it didn’t matter because he was doing it for the good of the country and to follow God’s will. So, lying becomes a just means. Even Karl Rove is taking advantage of fundamentalist simplicity.

Why the states matter

The four states voting on marriage equality in the next election are critical. The money from those opposed to equality is pouring in, with the same cries as the last few times. "Religious freedom!" (by which they mean, their "right" to impose their religion on YOU.) "Think of the Children!" (by which they mean, DON'T think of the children if their parents are gay, or if they are gay).

These usual memes are seasoned by increasingly strident anti-gay rhetoric that demonizes and dehumanizes LGBT people.

 I am no longer able to see this as a legitimate disagreement. This is the cynical politics of hatred and division. It is also a direct attack on me and my family, a direct effort to deny us any rights or protections, and a direct effort to harm our children.

If you live in, or know anyone who lives in MD, ME, or WA, ask them to vote YES. If they are in MN, ask them to vote NO.

 Meanwhile, Jeffrey Toobin explains why these votes are SO important. 

There is one unavoidable fact about American voters and same-sex marriage: every time the people have had chance to speak on the subject, they have voted it down. ... This may change in November, when voters in Maine (for a second time), Maryland, Minnesota and Washington State have their say….. 

As a technical legal matter, the results of these referenda are irrelevant to legal questions about gay marriage that are now before various courts. The Supreme Court will soon reveal whether it will hear one or two major cases about same-sex marriage this year. ... The Constitution either does or does not guarantee the rights of gay people to marry—and the opinions of voters has nothing to do with resolving that question. The whole point of judicial review is to protect minority groups from having their rights violated by the whims of the majority. In theory, the work of the courts and the will of the voters operate on entirely separate tracks.

The real world, however, works very differently. The courts, especially the Justices of the Supreme Court, are acutely aware of how their rulings reflect (or conflict with) public opinion…. It was not until 1967, in Loving v. Virginia, that the Justices got around to declaring that states could no longer ban interracial marriage. Many (but not all) such laws were ignored or obsolete by that point. This is not to diminish the significance of Loving. The case was and remains a key practical and symbolic statement about race and the constitution. But by 1967, the hard work of changing the country on this issue had already been done by the civil-rights movement. The Court was a lagging indicator of where the country already was. 

And so while both cases [DOMA and Prop8], as I wrote recently, are potential landmarks, neither may turn out to be as important as four ballot initiatives. The votes will give us the best picture of where the country is on same-sex marriage. ... given the Court’s history, even the more liberal justices may be reluctant to impose same-sex marriage on the country if the people—the voters—repeatedly say that they do not want it. The polls predict close races in all four states. The results will echo well beyond their borders.

And just to bring it home:

NJ Bishops: point-counterpoint on gay rights

Roman Catholic Archbishop John Myers of Newark has raised some eyebrows by writing that not only gay people, but friends and family who support gay marriage, should not receive Holy Communion, the centerpiece of the Roman Catholic mass.  In other words, he is excommunicating anyone who supports marriage.  (PDF here).

"It is my duty as your Archbishop to remind you that Catholics who do not accept the teaching of the Church on marriage and family (especially those who teach or act in private or public life contrary to the Church's received tradition on marriage and family) by their own choice seriously harm their communion with Christ and His Church…..If they continue to be unable to assent to or live the church's teaching in these matters, they must in all honesty and humility refrain from receiving Holy Communion until they can do so with integrity; to continue to receive Holy Communion while so dissenting would be objectively dishonest."

Episcopal Bishop Mark Beckwith draws a striking contrast in a rebuttal to Abp Myers.  He writes,

Click image for more
Voices of Faith

In our unstable economy and increasingly chaotic society, the stress on families is enormous. All religious institutions seek to support people and families through these challenges, and offer guidance as they do so. Myers and many other religious leaders harbor the conviction that families led by same-sex partners undermine the institution of marriage and the well-being of children. In 33 years of ordained life, I have seen just the opposite: blessing and supporting relationships that are marked by love, fidelity and commitment — whether they are headed by a man and a woman, two women or two men — provide a foundation of social stability that supports all families. Marginalizing people has never been a pathway to community stability. 

Several times in his pastoral letter, Myers invoked Scripture and tradition. In the Episcopal Church, our faith is based on the “three-legged stool” of Scripture, tradition and reason — which requires the support of all three legs to remain standing. When we celebrate Holy Communion in the Diocese of Newark, the full and wonderful diversity of humanity — male and female, gay and straight, Republican and Democrat, people of every hue and origin — are integrally involved; receiving communion, distributing communion and, in some cases, as priests, celebrating communion.

My hope and prayer is that we can move beyond arguments about unfounded threats to the flourishing of families and focus our attention on the real threats, such as the rising tide of unemployment and poverty, which has left more than 295,000 children in our state — including 42 percent of children in Newark — living below the federal poverty level.

Oh you mean, caring for the poor like Jesus said? (Something spectacularly absent from the RC Bishops' screeds.)

It has been said that the Episcopalians are the REAL post-Vatican II Catholics (well, most of them anyway!)  If you are a Roman Catholic who feels marginalized by Holy Mother Church, you might want to see what the Celtic line of Catholicism, aka The Episcopal Church,  is doing in your community.  You may be surprised at how much you feel at home.

(H/T The Episcopal Café)

The Bishop of Buckingham Speaks Out: Video Sunday

Click image for more
Voices of Faith

The Episopcal Church in the US is quite gay-friendly and many dioceses provide blessings and even marriages of same sex couples.  Not so much for its Anglican relative across the pond, the Church of England.  So a C of E bishop recording a pro-marriage equality video is a big deal.

Voices of Faith Speak Out: Seattle BIshop calls for marriage equality

Click image for more
Voices of Faith

SeattlePI points us to comments by the Rt Rev Greg Rickel, Episcopal Bishop of Olympia (western Washington state).

 Legalizing same-sex marriage is “a conservative proposal” consistent with basic Christian teaching and the Christian life, Episcopal Bishop Greg Rickel argues in a statement to be released on Thursday.

....

“Christianity has held, when considering relationships of all sorts — but especially in relation to two people in marriage — fidelity to be our value,” Bishop Rickel writes. “Fidelity is the value in most all our sacraments, and also in our life as Christians.”

“It seems to me we have held our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters in a Catch-22. We say they cannot live up to our value because they cannot be married, or even blessed in their union. While many of them have begged for this, it is still not possible.”

“If one would think about this carefully, it would be clear what they ask of us, the church and their government, is to put boundaries around their relationship, to hold them in the same regard and with the same respect, which would also mean that we expect the same from them, as any loving heterosexual couple.”
....

“They (gays and lesbians) are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for equal treatment. They are asking to be accountable, as a couple, in community. To me, this is a conservative proposal.”

“I am for it, and I hope we will finally make way for this to happen, not only in our society, but also in our church.”

Three states — Washington, Maryland and Maine — are voting on same-sex marriage this November.

A fourth state, Minnesota, will vote on a contrary measure — heavily supported by Catholic bishops — that would enshrine a definition of marriage as between a man and a woman into the state constitution.

In Washington, polls have shown support for Referendum 74 hovering at 50 percent of the vote.