Support for marriage equality continues to build

A new poll suggests that support for equality in CA is at its highest ever.  Of course, one must be leery of polls because of the "Bradley effect", in which people basically lie about having rather, er, bigoted positions.  That's why Prop8 passed despite a majority in the polls favoring equality.  Still.... (from the Sacramento Bee)

DOMA case to be appealed

The recent DOMA case  was resoundingly decided in the favor of the plaintiff, Karen Golinski, a Californian who sought health benefits for her legal spouse. As the WaPo remarks,

[Judge] White ... looked at DOMA’s legislative history, noting its “expressed animus against gay men and lesbians,” and found no important governmental objective. Congress listed four governmental interests supposedly protected by DOMA and White demolished them point by point.
●“Responsible procreation and child-rearing.” White cited more than 30 years of research that have “overwhelmingly demonstrated that children raised by same-sex parents are as likely to be as emotionally healthy and educationally and socially successful as those raised by opposite-sex parents.”
●“Nuturing the institution of traditional, opposite-sex marriage.” White said “DOMA does nothing to encourage same-sex married individuals to marry members of the opposite sex . . . . Nor does the denial of benefits to same-sex couples do anything to encourage opposite-sex couples to get married.”
●“Defending traditional notions of morality.” White was succinct: “Basing legislation on moral disapproval of same-sex couples does not pass any level of scrutiny.”
●“Preserving scarce government resources.” There is “no evidence,” White wrote, “to demonstrate that the provision of federal benefits to same-sex married couples would adversely affect the government fisc. In addition, the preservation of government resources cannot, as a matter of law, justify barring some arbitrarily chosen group from a government program.”

So,  predictably, the "Bipartisan" (not) legislative group BLAG--really, the Congressional Republicans-- will be spending your taxdollars to appeal this ruling.  It will be interesting to see how they will try to argue with Judge White's findings.

And still my marriage, like Karen Golinski's, remains unrecognized.

Voices of Faith: Taking on bigotry

From Susan Russell at the HuffPo: 

 There is a critical difference between feeling discriminated against because you're disagreed with and being discriminated against because of who you are.  

 And there is a critical difference between people who feel that their marriage is being threatened if the lesbian couple next door can get married and the lesbian couple next door whose marriage is being threatened by ballot initiatives taking away their fundamental right to marriage, by a governor vetoing marriage equality passed by their elected representatives, and by a "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA) that denies them 1,138 federally protected rights that their next door neighbors claimed the moment they said "I do." .... 

 As a priest and pastor I am very clear that the First Amendment protects my right to decide for myself whom God blesses or doesn't bless. I am equally clear that it does not protect my right to decide for myself whom the Constitution protects or doesn't protect. And so if we're going to be that nation "with liberty and justice for all" to which we teach our kids to pledge allegiance, we need to get religion-based bias out of the civil marriage debate once and for all. And then we need to work together to become the nation we were conceived in liberty to be -- by overcoming bigotry and by choosing equality.  

 And to overcome it, we have to name it. The defense rests.

The real threat to marriage isn't the gays: it's the economy

Frank Bruni writes in the NY Times:

In the intensifying debate over same-sex marriage, what I sometimes find hardest to understand is why so many opponents don’t see gay people’s longing to be wedded as the fundamentally conservative, lavishly complimentary desire it is. It says marriage is worth aspiring to and fighting for. Flatters it. Gives it reinvigorated cachet, extra currency, a sorely needed infusion of fresh energy.

….more than half of births to American women under 30 happen outside marriage. I doubt that a significant fraction of those babies’ parents are gay men or lesbians forbidden to wed. No doubt the huge majority are straight people who haven’t bothered to.

And those people are disproportionately at the lower end of the economic ladder, in red states, and otherwise "socially conservative". Marriage has, at some level, become a "luxury commodity" (see more about the trend in this NY Times story)

 As it turns out, some of the most socially traditionally views are people like me: blue state liberals, with an education, who believe that one should get an education before getting married, and get married before having children. I find the idea of bearing children out of wedlock (or for LGBT couples who can't wed, outside of a firm and committed relationship) to be deeply concerning. But rural and poor folks, not so much.

Indeed, the real threat to marriage isn't the dully conventional gay folks like me who value marriage and its meaning. It's not gay people who have separated straight procreation from marriage. it's the increasing distancing of marriage as a goal from the lives of poorer women, in which a child can belong to them in a way a husband does not.

Here's a discussion with Dr. Kathryn Edin, one of the authors of Promises I Can Keep: Why Poor Women Put Motherhood Before Marriage. You'll note that marriage equality is no where in the discussion as a threat.

   There are three main ideas in the literature [about poor women and single motherhood]: One is that marriages aren’t happening because low-income men can no longer find stable jobs. The second one is that it is the welfare system breaking up the family by providing an alternative husband to the mom and discouraging marriage. And the third idea is that women are now doing so well that they don’t need men. By the end of the 1990s, it was pretty evident that none of them were plausible explanations for what was going on. 

[What we found is that] marriage is seen as sort of the ultimate thing you do in your 40s, once you’ve made it economically, [whereas] having children is a normal part of early adulthood. People were saying, “Well we want to marry, but first of all we’ve got to have that white picket fence.” They were interested in establishing their own economic independence so that when they went into a relationship they could claim equal power and they could have insurance if things went bad. That was very new. That was nowhere in the literature. And it makes sense in a situation where poor men do have more traditional sex-role expectations … [and] so many of them act in ways that are so deeply problematic, with the abuse and violence and infidelity.

She goes on to explain how divorce is viewed far more negativity than unwed motherhood in these communities.

Another interview with her in the Atlantic points out that the real threat to marriage is the economy.  

Among couples without college degrees, says Edin, marriage has become an “increasingly fragile” institution. In many low-income communities, she fears it is being supplanted as a social norm by single motherhood and revolving-door relationships. As a rule, fewer people marry during a recession, and this one has been no exception. … 

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

Childbearing is the opposite story. The stigma against out-of-wedlock children has by now largely dissolved in working-class communities—more than half of all new mothers without a college degree are unmarried. For both men and women in these communities, children are commonly seen as a highly desirable, relatively low-cost way to achieve meaning and bolster identity—especially when other opportunities are closed off. 

I do agree with the conservatives on one thing. The trends away from stable family units towards single motherhood are not ideal for children. However, it's not the fault of the gays. Studies show convincingly that  stable gay couples have excellent outcomes in raising their children, at least equal to stable straight couples.  

There's a common ground here, for us all to work for healthier families…. if only the other side were susceptible to facts as they are.

But they'd rather scapegoat the gays for the flaws of straight men (and women).  Kinda like Maggie Gallagher. 

(Cross posted at Friends of Jake)

Courage Campaign FlashMob (video Sunday)

At the California State Republican Convention late last year:

Voices of Faith Speak Out: A Catholic Case for same-sex Marriage

From the Washington Post:

As Catholics who are involved in lesbian and gay ministry and outreach, we are aware that many people, some of them Catholics, believe that Catholics cannot faithfully disobey the public policies of the church’s hierarchy. But this is not the case.....

The deeper one looks into the church’s core teachings, the more one realizes that the bishops are not representing the breadth of the Catholic tradition in their campaign against marriage equality. Nowhere is that more true than in the area of Catholic social justice teaching.

Catholic social teaching requires that all people be treated with dignity, regardless of their state in life or their beliefs. It upholds the importance of access to health-care benefits, the protection of children, dignity in end of life choices, and, most importantly, the promotion of stable family units. Marriage equality legislation would be an obvious boon to same-sex couples and their children in each of these areas, yet the bishops are spending millions of dollars opposing it.

In our work within the church, we have met countless people who do not necessarily challenge the church’s teaching on the nature of sacramental marriage, but support civil marriage for same-sex couples with a clear conscience.

Why the 9th made the right decision

William Eskridge, a law professor from Stanford argues that the narrow decision in the 9th circuit on Prop8 was the right thing.

.... In my view, the court got it right, as a matter of law and as a matter of constitutional politics. 

Start with the role of federal courts of appeals in our rule of law system: their role is a limited one, a point these pro-gay commentators have neglected. Such courts (1) are supposed to address the particular factual context presented by the parties, (2) must follow the binding precedent of their own circuit and of the Supreme Court, and (3) ought usually to choose narrow rather than broad grounds for decision. Judge Reinhardt’s Perry opinion is exemplary along all three dimensions.

I agree.  The euphoria that led everyone to reach for the big hit covers up the very real danger of a smack down from the SCOTUS if the decision is as broad as Vaughn Walker's.  Besides, as we see just this week, the momentum is underway.  As Prof Eskridge cautions,

Courts can help put an issue on the public law agenda, and they can channel discourse into productive directions. They can also help create conditions for falsification of stereotypes and prejudice-driven arguments, such as the canard that gay marriage will undermine “traditional” marriage. But courts cannot create a national consensus on as issue about which “We the People” are not at rest. And nationally, the people are not at rest.

News: Maryland Senate approves marriage equality

The governor will sign it.  As in Washington, this is likely headed for a referendum so no changes yet, but it has been quite a month.

Washington:  approves marriage

Maryland:  approves marriage 

DOMA:  found unconstitutional (again), this time in N. California

Prop8:  found unconstitutional (again), in 9th circuit court of appeals

Sadly none of these events will change anything in the short term as our opponents continue to fight fiercely to keep us down.

Also remember there will be ballot fights in Maine, Minnesota, and North Carolina, and very possibly MD and WA will join them.   

Voices of faith: A faith-based argument for equality

I am so happy to see faith leaders finding their voices. This piece from New Jersey is signed by an Episcopal Bishop, a Lutheran Bishop, and a Rabbi. (my emphasis)  Preach it!  

In making it clear that he will veto the marriage equality bill now making its way through the state Legislature, Gov. Chris Christie has ensured that the debate over the morality of gay and lesbian relationships will be with us for months to come..... 

Like the religious leaders who oppose marriage equality, we too form our consciences by studying scripture and the lessons that our ancient traditions have taught us. Like them, our opinions flow from our faith. Yet we arrive at different conclusions on the issue of marriage equality, and about the role that religion should play in our current debate. 

Thanks to the wisdom of the First Amendment, differing theological notions about the nature of marriage will continue to flourish across our diverse religious landscape. But a state has neither the right nor the competence to promote one of those theological understandings in opposition to others — particularly when doing so deprives some citizens of the rights enjoyed by others.

Breaking: Another court finds DOMA unconstitutional

In the case Golinski vs OPM, DOMA has been found unconstitutional in another district court.  In this case, legally married Californian Karen Golinski sought medical benefits for her spouse.  This will probably go on appeal to the 9th circuit.  Interestingly both Judge Tauro (in MA, in Gill) and Judge White (in Golinski) are Republican appointees.  More background here.

This isn't the first time.  DOMA (the defense of marriage act) was previously found unconstitutional in district court in the cases consolidated as Gill v OPM, and that is under appeal in the 1st circuit.   So (as with Prop8), despite opinions against it, we still endure it.

From  Poliglot, quoting the decision

The Court finds that neither Congress' claimed legislative justifications nor any of the proposed reasons proffered by BLAG constitute bases rationally related to any of the alleged governmental interests. Further, after concluding that neither the law nor the record can sustain any of the interests suggested, the Court, having tried on its own, cannot conceive of any additional interests that DOMA might further.

It's hard to get excited since it was over a year ago that Judge Tauro had similar findings.  There are at least 8 DOMA cases at various stages of litigation.  And still my marriage is not federally recognized.

Prop8: simply incoherent?

From the LA Times, Dale Carpenter: (Read the whole thing, it's quite good).

So what potentially dooms Proposition 8 as it nears the Supreme Court is not necessarily the distinct whiff of prejudice but a lingering impression of incoherence. Despite what some critics last week charged, to challenge the sufficiency of the reasons offered for Proposition 8 is not to indict traditional marriage itself as bigoted and irrational. There are many rational, indeed compelling, reasons to support marriage between one man and one woman. Among others, getting heterosexuals to take responsibility for the children they conceive is a powerful reason to encourage them to marry. But encouraging heterosexuals to take seriously their familial obligations is no reason by itself to deny same-sex couples the full social and legal incentive to settle down. And to confer parental rights, marital rights and marital obligations on same-sex couples without giving them "marriage," Proposition 8's proponents must more convincingly answer one question. Why?

Prop8 supporters will ask for 9th circuit review.

Instead of going directly to the Supreme Court, it appears that the Prop8 supporters will next try for an en banc hearing at the 9th circuit. From Metro Weekly:

If a majority of the court's judges support en banc consideration, then the chief judge of the circuit, Judge Alex Kozinski, and 10 randomly selected appellate judges from the circuit will hear the en banc appeal, which can involve briefing and oral arguments.

After that decision is reached, theoretically, a party dissatisfied with an en banc ruling of the Ninth Circuit can ask for the full Ninth Circuit to review the en banc panel's decision, but the court has not agreed to do so since adopting the "limited en banc" procedure.

After en banc consideration, the unsuccessful party could then petition the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. At that point, the parties submit written arguments explaining to the court why the justices should or should not hear the case. Then, if four of the nine justices agree to hear the case, another round of briefing occurs, with the parties and outside organizations and individuals arguing the merits of the case to the justices. Oral arguments are then set and held at the Supreme Court, and some time later a decision is handed down.

Why are they doing this? Probably because the very narrow opinion of the recent appeals court had a good chance of not being heard by the Supreme Court, which would have restored marriage to California. By doing this, they ensure that there is a further delay in the case, a further delay to the marriages, and another bite at the apple.

Also, I wonder if they (the pro-H8 side) are hoping for a broader finding than the recent opinion, one that would apply to other states, and would almost certainly be heard by SCOTUS and be struck down. They may be fishing for a bigger decision against them, in order to shut the door long-term. So even if they lose, they could still win.

There are a number of conservative, anti-gay judges in the 9th, so the outcome is not certain. Remember, a 9th circuit panel vacated the DADT case that the Log Cabin Republicans won. And one of the three judges on the recent appeal disagreed about Prop8.

It ain't over.

Quote o f the Day

In the UK, they are debating whether LGBT people should be eligible for civil marriage, instead of the special class of "civil partnerships". A rightist Christian group has launched a petition protesting the move.

In response to the launch of the petition, Ben Summerskill - chief executive of gay, lesbian and bisexual charity Stonewall - said: "Our strong advice to anyone who disagrees with same-sex marriage is not to get married to someone of the same sex."

Gee,Ya Think? (H/T Mad Priest)

Who really defends the Constitution?

Following upon on Chris Christie's veto of marriage equality in New Jersey, and the remarkable idea in contravention to the Constitution that a minority should have its rights voted on by the majority: Andrew Sullivan points out how the minority opposed to marriage equality keeps changing the rules, and can't even manage to be consistent in their "pro-Constitution" views. (My emphasis)

They moved the goalposts on us. When we actually began to win in state legislatures, such as California (twice!), or New Hampshire, or now Maryland and New Jersey and Washington State, that process became suddenly unacceptable - and undemocratic! - as well. Even on an issue many hold to be a core civil right, we were told the courts were irrelevant and now that the legislatures were irrelevant. This was particularly odd coming from conservatives who at one point in time were strong believers in restraints on majority tyranny. But this is what a legislative debate can do that no referendum can, and it's why the founders established a republic not a pure democracy:

...But the way in which a tiny 2- 3 percent minority seeking basic civil equality has been forced now to be subject to state referendums, even after winning legislative victories, strikes me as revealing. It's basically an attack on representative government, a resort to the forms of decision-making which maximize the potential for anonymous bigotry and minimize the importance of representative government, a core achievement of Anglo-American democracy, that can help enhance reason of the accountable against the sometimes raw prejudice of the majority.

Christie is a man whose candor I admire in many ways. But this was an act of cowardice and unfairness and a misguided disregard for representative democracy. How many other duly enacted laws must now be sent to the referendum process for final judgment. Why have a legislature at all? And this from the party that claims to defend the Constitution.

It's Because the Gays are Getting Married (video Sunday)

Lots of activity in the individual states.

Here's a great summary by AP about all the activity in the states this year over marriage equality.  In brief:

MN and NC citizens will vote on amendments to ban marriage between same sex couples, while

ME will try to get the voters to support marriage in a referendum.

MD , WA and NJ have legislative efforts to legalize marriage between same sex couples, while

NH has a legislative effort to repeal marriage equality

In the judicial sphere, we're still waiting for the next chapter of the Prop8 case. At least 8 DOMA cases are winding their way through the courts.

Same sex marriage is NOT a "new right"

From The Richmond TImes-Dispatch:

[J]udges who recognize the right of gay couples to marry are not creating a "new right." Rather, they are extending a right that is already recognized for all other adults. "Marriage" is legal for all adults, except those who are gay or lesbian. To recognize that being gay or lesbian is no impediment to marriage is no more creating a "new right" than to say that 18-year-old adult citizens of Mississippi should be able to marry today rather than wait three years. There may be compelling arguments, on policy grounds, to continue to prohibit gay marriage. Seven states, the District of Columbia, Canada, several European countries, and South Africa (among other governments) have rejected those arguments, if they exist. But one argument that does not stand up to scrutiny is that same-sex marriage is a "judge-created right."

What Prop8 Really Cost Us

GREAT blog from the HuffPo, by a gay dad about his family and their experience of Prop8.  Only difference with my family is that our kids were old enough to be angry.

Prop 8 passed that November. Elizabeth's second-grade class had been following the presidential election, so she knew about percentages and majorities. What she was unable to wrap her mind around was the fact that over half the voters in California thought we had no legal right to be a family. 

It was months before she told me about the nightmares she'd been having, dreams of people with yellow signs coming to our house with torches, trying set fire to our home. I wish I were making this up. Sadly, no. Thanks, National Organization for Marriage. To you I would say this: if, as your misleading campaign ads bleated for months, you main goal is to protect children, how could you possibly do this to mine? 

We got married that very warm, first possible evening in June, not to be part of history or to make some political statement, but because we're a family and want what's best for our kids. Luckily, California's Supreme Court subsequently held that our marriage, and the other 18,000 marriages performed during those five months, had been entered into in good faith and could not be evaporated by a vote. But what about the other families, the ones who weren't lucky enough to marry when they had the chance? 

Even with Tuesday's court ruling finding Prop 8 unconstitutional, with the inevitable stays and delays as the case likely works its way to the Supreme Court, for months and probably years we'll have California kids standing on playgrounds wondering why they can't have married parents like their friends.

Perhaps Ms Gallagher would like to explain that?

Voices of Faith Speak Out: a conservative proposal

I like what the (Episcopal) Bishop of Washington (state) said:

What [LGBT people] ask of us, the church and the 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.  They 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.

HAPPY VALENTINES DAY

To new couples and to old ones, to those married, waiting to marry, wanting to marry, or just starting to think about it, for all those who know that the best relationships are worth all the effort, that love does indeed conquer all,  and most especially to my beloved wife whose presence blesses me every day,

HAPPY VALENTINE'S DAY!

Dissecting the Dissent in Prop8 case

Dahlia Lithwick, writing in Slate describes the weakness of the arguments supporting Prop8, and the floppy dissenting opinion by Judge Smith

The evidence, the data, and the experts overwhelming agree that gay marriage does not harm children. And that leaves opponents of gay marriage to argue a tautology: Gay marriage is wrong because it’s wrong.....

That’s the best case that can be made against gay marriage. An appeals court dissent that rests on the premise that states needn’t act rationally, or offer evidence of rationality, or even be rational in creating classifications, so long as someone publishes a study and someone else believes it. That’s the best they’ve got, it seems.

That is not legal argument or empirical evidence. It is the death rattle of a movement that has no legal argument or empirical evidence. Nobody disputes the fact that Americans opposed to gay marriage believe passionately in their ideas and arguments. But that doesn’t necessarily mean those arguments should win in a court. The best thing that could have happened in the Prop 8 case just happened. The dissent has no clothes.

Video fr Washington debate:outstanding!

Time to retire the assumption that religious people oppose equality

From the HuffPo:

[A] new exploration of 2011 polling by Public Religion Research Institute offers decisive evidence that the old assumptions about battle lines between secular proponents and religious foes no longer hold. Majorities of five major religious groups and the religiously unaffiliated favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry, compared to three major religious groups who oppose same-sex marriage. On the side supporting same-sex marriage.... these religious groups make up approximately 45 percent of the general population.

On the other hand, large majorities of white evangelical Protestants (75 percent), Mormons (75 percent) and black Protestants (63 percent) continue to oppose same-sex marriage. .... Together, these groups comprise approximately 32 percent of the general population.

Within these opposition groups, however, a generational gap signals that with the passage of time, this intense resistance may ebb....

The quirks of specific constituencies and cultures may drive individual statewide legislative and ballot initiative battles this year. But the prominent testimonies of religious elected officials, alongside the perspectives from the people in the pews, certainly demand that the media retire the archaic assumption that religious people oppose same-sex marriage.

The Messed up Mind of Maggie Gallagher

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is a shady group that operates as a front for big money opposed to marriage equality. They have deep links to the conservative wing of the Roman Catholic church (e.g., here and here). Yes, the irony abounds given the majority of Catholics are supportive of marriage equality.

As we make steady progress towards equality, NOM becomes increasingly less about “marriage” and more about demonizing and dehumanizing gay people, telling lies and relying on hysteria and junk science (e.g., here.)

All this as an intro to Salon's illuminating profile about the founder of NOM, Maggie Gallagher.

It seems Maggie Gallagher’s obsession with marriage comes from the fact that she bore a child out of wedlock when at Yale, and the father refused to marry her. In a classic example of transference, she has become a primary culture warrior against gay equality. To her gay people marrying is THE cause of family failure: not divorce, not casual sex, not quickie marriages without counseling, not high rates of childbearing out of wedlock, not a crisis in poor communities. It’s the audacity of gay couples asserting a right to be together.

Barely half of the people in the US are married. Those with education are much more likely to be married . Indeed, those awful blue state liberals turn out to be the real social conservatives, with a high rate of marriage and low rates of unmarried parenting (e.g., here ). But the biggest threat to marriage is arguably the economy, as marriage rates collapse in the economically disadvantaged.

Nevermind all this. Maggie Gallagher blames “Teh Gay”. And regardless of facts or experience, she will continue to oppose our marriages because it's all our fault that there are children out of wedlock.

In her forthcoming book, she writes that “including same-sex unions in the legal category of ‘marriage’ will necessarily change the public meaning of marriage for the entire society in ways that must make it harder for marriage to perform its core civil functions over time.” How do we know? We just do.

And even if somehow the evidence showed, conclusively, that same-sex marriage were good for children? Gallagher would still be dissatisfied: “Nothing could make me call a same-sex couple a marriage, because that’s not what I believe a marriage is.” (Salon)

THe illogic of this is so noticeable, the author stresses it again.

She is asserting what to her is a timeless social fact: that institutions and norms are delicate, and that if you mess with them — say, by expanding the definition of marriage — bad things are likely to happen.

There is an obvious problem with this sort of argumentation: it is not really susceptible to evidence. Gallagher is unwilling to make any predictions of what doom will befall families after the legalization of same-sex marriage. She just has faith that marriage, the central institution of good child-rearing, will be weakened if same-sex couples are allowed its prestige and protections.(Salon)

Over at Andrew Sullivan’s blog, Patrick Appel comments about this unwillingness to be moved by evidence

Gallagher's declaration that her mind cannot be changed is the statement of a fundamentalist. There is no greater sin against open debate than to preemptively seal oneself off from evidence.

He goes on,

Before gay marriage was legal anywhere, arguments for or a gainst it were mostly based on first principles and theoretical conjectures. Now that there are real-world examples of same-sex marriages, evidence-based arguments for or against equality are possible. Opponents of equality retreat to first-principles arguments because the facts are increasingly stacked against them.

Political opinions are not science, but they can be informed by science. Gallagher's fact-resistant opinion has almost nothing to do with gays themselves. Her opposition is rooted in theology and was likely reinforced by personal longings for a nuclear family.

So, conservative Roman Catholic, carrying around a huge level of guilt for her own perceived failure, and transfers all of that onto gay couples. Apparently, outside of this issue, she can be a warm person, but it's as though she has this blind spot that she so casually dehumanizes us and our relationships. (Interestingly, her son does not agree with her--he's in theatre, and must have many gay friends who are being deeply injured by his mother's activism.) She really has an almost unnatural ability to view us as deeply "other" so that she hurts us and doesn't really care or notice that it's real people she's hurting!

At one point, breaking from my script of questions, I interrupted her to ask if, despite all of her fears about same-sex marriage, she didn’t find it heartwarming to see those pictures of joyous gay couples in Massachusetts or Iowa or California, crying and hugging as they celebrated their marriages. Before answering, she takes a long pause, the only long pause of our conversation. “Am I happy for them?” she finally says. “That’s a tough question. I like to see people happy. It’s better than seeing people sad. So yes, I am happy for them. But I am sad. But I am not sad because they are happy.” (Salon)

Maggie Gallagher opposes marriage of gay people because she thinks children should be raised by a man and a woman. And even though marriage is not required for procreation, even though procreation is not required in marriage, even though the fight for marriage equality says nothing about raising children, even though denying us marriage in California has, as the recent decision points out, absolutely no effect on child-rearing in a legal sense, even though all this:
Maggie Gallagher opposes letting two men marry because one man walked out on her.

Commenters, please dive in

Hi guys, looks like we have some new visitors, who are upset by us gays getting married, on a month-old post about the RC Bishops effort to derail marriage in Washington. Please feel free to dive in to the conversation and I hope they will manage to as well. I'm letting it go on for now because you never know who is lurking and might learn something or even have an epiphany! but if it gets out of hand I will close down the comments and delete any that are inappropriate.

What about the Prop8 tapes?

Last week, the 9th circuit court decided that the PRop8 trial video tapes should remain sequestered from the public, on the grounds that the judge had promised they would, and people should be able to trust the word of the judiciary.

I think that was the right decision. Yes, the tapes SHOULD be public, and while I believe that the initial decision to keep them under wraps was wrong, once that decision was made, I don't think the court had a choice but to enforce it.

What the decision made clear, however, was that the court didn't by the defendant's claims of being fearful or threatened as justification to keep the tapes secret. The finding was very narrow, on the value of the judicial promise.

Incidentally, while they remain under seal for now, they may well be released in 2020, 10 years after the trial.

Washington State House approves marriage equality; the governor will sign

Yay, Washington! 

 The state House of Representatives, after two hours of intense debate, voted 55-43 on Wednesday to make Washington the seventh state to legalize same-sex marriage.  

 The legislation passed the State Senate last week, and goes to Gov. Chris Gregoire who has promised to sign it into law. Opponents have vowed to collect 120,577 valid voter signatures required to force a referendum in this November’s general election.

Equal protection

Some things to remember:  the Constitution protects the rights of minorities.  That is why we cannot vote to outlaw inter-racial marriage, to segregate schools, to prevent Mormons from marrying, or to forbid Jews to own property.  And what the courts have said is that gay people have those same rights.

Americans overall are equally split on whether same sex couples should marry.  Ironically, a strong majority of Roman Catholics approve of marriage. (data here)

And just remember, in 1968, after laws against inter-racial marriage were overturned, over 70% of Americans DISAGREED.    Imagine the outcome if they had voted on it?

Why is it that Conservatives who so favor the Constitution, forget all about it when it comes to equal protection? It doesn't say, equal protection only for straight white Christian men.

Updated graphical timeline

Always available on its own page.

From the decision

It's 2-1.  THe opinion is narrow, applying specifically to the unusual situation in CA where a right was given and then taken away. This probably makes it a sturdier decision. From the opinion (my emphases)

….all parties agree that Proposition 8 had one effect only.  It stripped same sex couples of the ability they previously possessed to obtain from the State, or any other authorized party, an important right--the right to obtain and use the designation of 'marriage to describe their relationships.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Proposition 8 therefor could not have been enacted to advance California's interests in childbearing or  responsible procreation, for it had no effect on the rights of same sex couples to raise children oron the procreative practices of other couples.  Nor did Proposition 8 have any effect on religious freedom or on parents' rights ot control their education: it could not have been enacted to safeguard these liberties.

All that Proposition 8 accomplished was to take away from same sex couples the right to be granted marriage licenses and thus legally to use the designation of 'marriage' which symbolizes state legitimization and societal recognition of their committted relationships.  Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite sex couples  The Constitution simply does not allow for "laws of this sort" (Romer v. Evans.)

Prop8 ruled Unconstitutional

By 2-1. I won't be able to comment much till tonight, so meanwhile here's how to keep up.

• Prop8 Trial Tracker is always a good source.
• AFER sponsored the lawsuit .  They will have a press conference at 10.30 PST.  
• Follow #prop8 on twitter.
• Background from Chris Geidner.
• Three possible outcomes (From SFgate)

Regardless of the decision, it is very unlikely anything will change on the ground as the stay will probably remain until the next level of appeal--either to the en banc 9th, or to SCOTUS.   The more narrowly they write the decision (e.g., focusing specifically on the unusal situation in CA where a right was given and then taken away), the more likely some think that the Supreme Court will not hear it and that equality will come back to CA.

Remember, though, none of this will make a difference unless we repeal DOMA.

Prop8 appeals court decision due TOMORROW

At 10am Tuesday, the 9th circuit court will release its decision on the Prop8 case. Check out my graphical timeline for all the ups and downs in this saga.

One town's war on gay teens

Rolling Stone has a searing article about the rate of suicides in the Anoka-Hennepin School District in Minnesota (Michelle Bachman's district). It is a must read, as it shows how a culture grew up in which teachers were not allowed to make any positive references to gay people, and literally looked the other way as gay kids were bullied mercilessly. At the same time, the local right wingers explained the spate of gay suicides as having nothing to do with bullying, and entirely reflecting the "unhealthiness" of being gay.

 This is an utter failure of institutions that should put a child's welfare first. It's a shameful example of the bigotry, ignorance and hatred against which we must continue to fight--and a shameful example of how so-called "Christians" can be anything but.  Here's a selection (my emphases) but you should definitely read the whole thing 

 Yet while everyone in the district was buzzing about the neutrality policy, the board simply refused to discuss it, not even when students began appearing before them to detail their experiences with LGBT harassment. "The board stated quite clearly that they were standing behind that policy and were not willing to take another look," recalls board member Wenzel. Further insulating itself from reality, the district launched an investigation into the suicides and unsurprisingly, absolved itself of any responsibility. "Based on all the information we've been able to gather," read a statement from the superintendent's office, "none of the suicides were connected to incidents of bullying or harassment."  

 Just to be on the safe side, however, the district held PowerPoint presentations in a handful of schools to train teachers how to defend gay students from harassment while also remaining neutral on homosexuality. One slide instructed teachers that if they hear gay slurs – say, the word "fag" – the best response is a tepid "That language is unacceptable in this school." ("If a more authoritative response is needed," the slide added, the teacher could continue with the stilted, almost apologetic explanation, "In this school we are required to welcome all people and to make them feel safe.") But teachers were, of course, reminded to never show "personal support for GLBT people" in the classroom.

Equality in Argentina (video Sunday)

This is a great advertisement promoting equal treatment.

Wise words from the UK

From the Guardian Andrew Brown calls out the hyperbole of the Archbishop of York who claims civil marriage equality is "dictatorship":

In Britain the state and the church have long disagreed about the definition of marriage. As soon as civil divorce and remarriage between men and women was allowed, and I think the relevant date is 1915, the state had redefined marriage; and over the next century, the church shuffled slowly into line behind the state and behind society. 

The spectacle of "dictators" doing so is not convincing either. I can't think of a single dictatorship that has legalised gay marriage. There have, it is true, been dictatorships that were profoundly hostile to the family – Soviet Russia comes to mind. But they were not correspondingly in favour of gay marriage or even gay equality. They just wanted nothing to stand in the way of the power of the state. 

What the religious conservatives are facing here is not a "dictatorship" but a genuine change in popular morality. Equality has come to seem a sacred value, one which unites society in as much as we all submit to it. And the more grossly this value is defied economically and politically, the more people will treasure it elsewhere. 

If a majority of the population favours gay marriage, or can't see what all the fuss is about, and the government makes it legal it is not imposing, as a dictator might, its views on an unwilling people. It is not even directly imposing them on an unwilling church. No one is going to have to celebrate gay marriages in their churches if they do not want to.

Wise words just as accurate for our own religious conservatives to heed.

Voices of Faith: Thanking God for Marriage Equality

Our LGBT community too often forgets that the people who claim "Christians" oppose equality are ignoring the fact that many many CHristians are passionate supporters of equality. Here's one, The REv Tim Phillips, From SEattle First Baptist Church:

The coming vote in the Washington state legislature is likely to unleash another round of 'holy wars' on lesbian and gay families by those who presume to speak on behalf of God, the Bible, and all "real" Christians. To disagree with those holy warriors means not only to open your politics for debate but to open your Christian faith to attack. It is no wonder that so many progressive followers of Jesus would simply rather not be identified as "Christian" at all.

But there are reasons, as a Christian, to be thankful for this moment in history.

First, because this debate always gets us back to the basics -- what kind of God do we trust and what kind of Jesus do we serve? .... So let's just say that the God we trust and the Jesus we serve seem to move in the direction of the un-conditional. That is pretty basic.

...if we have to talk about conditions, let's talk about the conditions under which any intimate relationship between two adults could thrive -- integrity, mutuality, responsibility, maturity, and a certain amount of support. I think it is safe to say that Christians on all sides of the debate would agree that these are the kinds of values that are commended by Scripture....

The point is: the legal marriage contract creates the conditions under which the expectations of these values come into play for two adults who choose to enter into it. The contract does not guarantee those values but it does create the social -- and I would say 'spiritual' -- expectation of those values and to affirm those in as many settings as a possible is, to my way of thinking, not to diminish the expectations of marriage but to expand them.