The election battle in Maryland

Just as they did in California, Maine, and North Carolina, the anti-equality folks are telling lies about the consequences of marriage equality. (Aside: apparently it's a Republican thing. Anyone else find it ironic that so-called Christians completely ignore the "false witness" commandment when it suits them?)
  The Baltimore Sun is disgusted.

The opponents are resorting to spurious arguments to convince voters that the law will somehow be unfair to those with objections to gay marriages because they don't want to face the real question of fairness at stake. Should the law treat people differently because of their sexual orientation? Or should everyone be treated equally? Maryland's gay marriage ordinance doesn't require anyone to violate their religious beliefs or personal conscience. As much as we hope the debate over this issue will persuade everyone in the state of the value of acceptance and tolerance, the law doesn't force anyone to change the way they think. All it does is to remove a major vestige of discrimination from state law, and that is something all Marylanders should be able to support.

In this hate-filled culture, I don't hold out much hope.

Undercover at an anti-gay conference

Gay journalist Carlos Maza went undercover as a delegate to the ITAF conference at anti-gay Skyline Church in San Diego, where he listened to Jennifer Roback Morse, Jim Garlow, and Robert Gagnon attack gay people with lies and demonization.  (This was the event that culminated in the "conversation about marriage" that included Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson, which you can read about here.)

Despite claims that the conference wouldn't be about "gayness", Maza found otherwise.  It wasn't marriage that was under attack.  It was LGBT people--like him.

Despite the promise to focus on "marriage, not gayness," ITAF had been a veritable crash course in demonizing LGBT people. 

That's because, for NOM, there really isn't much distance between being "anti-gay marriage" and being "anti-gay" - the latter motivates the former. "Raising the negative on homosexuality," as one NOM memo put it, is a central part of the organization's effort to defeat same-sex marriage. Even Morse recently confessed that NOM's decision to publically attack gay marriage instead of gay people is purely "strategic." 

ITAF showcased the kind of anti-gay animus that activists have for years accused NOM of harboring behind closed doors.

I can't imagine being a gay person enduring that.  But as well as the expected hate speech, Maza found surprising evidence for common ground.

Against all odds, I caught myself agreeing with a lot of what she was saying. Morse clearly wasn't speaking with the LGBT community in mind, but her comments aligned with my own feelings about gay dating, relationships, and intimacy. I shifted uncomfortably in my chair, coming to terms with the possibility that Morse - who had spent the last several years of her life fighting tooth and nail against the acceptance of same-sex relationships - might actually have some useful advice to offer to gay and lesbian couples.

I've argued before that there is common ground in pro-family politics on both sides of this divide--that gay couples actively seek the same commitment as straight, and that we all value healthy and stable families.  I said the same thing when David Blankenhorn shifted sides.   But the anti-gay forces won't admit any commonality.  The argument increasingly has nothing to do with marriage, and everything to do with attacking us simply as gay.  And until they stop dehumanizing us, common ground won't be possible.

Convention news.

First up, Orrin Hatch (R-UT) now disagrees with Mitt about a Federal Amendment banning marriage equality.  From the HuffPo

On Tuesday Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Mitt Romney’s most prominent Mormon supporter in the U.S. Senate, broke with the presidential candidate on amending the Constitution to ban gay marriage, saying that even though he doesn't agree with marriage equality, "I'm a believer that the states should make their own determination” and “have a right to do it.”... 

Romney said of Obama[,] "I would, unlike this president, defend the Defense of Marriage Act. I would also propose and promote once again an amendment to the Constitution to define marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman."

Second, the Advocate reviews state Republican platforms and finds pervasive anti-gay bias.  No kidding.

Finally, this ad is running in a Tampa paper.  Just in time for the convention.  look closely!

H/T JoeMyGod, who asks whether the LCR will be voting for a man who pledges to make same sex marriage illegal?

Brian Brown admits the truth

This has been making the rounds of facebook.  NOM leader Brian Brown said this during his  a discussion with gay advocate Dan Savage.  Apparently stated with no self-awareness.

Okay, Brian, now what?

Voices of Faith Speak out: Welcome all the children (video Sunday)

Click image for more
Voices of Faith

Catholics for Marriage Equality in Minnesota sing out for young people for dignity and inclusion. Here's what they sing,

"O, may our hearts and minds be opened,
fling the church doors open wide.
May there be room enough for everyone inside.
For in God there is a welcome,
in God we all belong;
may that welcome be our song."

Now THAT'S Catholic.

Remember to VOTE NO on the amendment in MN!

True conservatives

From Prop8TrialTracker:

The Indepdendent reports today that Michael Ashcroft, a former deputy chairman of the UK’s Conservative Party, has told Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron that he should stand up to those on the far right of his party who oppose marriage equality, arguing that to do otherwise would be even more politically damaging...

.... The poll found that 41 percent of respondents favored equal marriage rights, with 27 percent having no opinion. Thirty-one percent opposed marriage equality, but only 12 percent of that group said their vote would be affected by the issue.
....
That point stands in rather stark contradiction to American conservatives, who this week voted for a Republican party platform that is strongly anti-marriage equality and calls for a constitutional amendment banning marriages for gays and lesbians. In addition, the platform committee overwhelmingly (and, according to the Washington Post, noisily) voted down language that would have supported civil unions. Lord Ashcroft’s statements about “joiners and considerers” shows that on gay issues, the Republican party is becoming increasingly a small-tent operation, while in the UK, marriage equality has effectively ceased to be a partisan issue.

It has been pointed out many times that marriage equality is a deeply conservative belief.  The UK conservatives get that.  And it's yet more evidence that there are no conservatives left in the Republican party.  Andrew Sullivan writes passionately that the Republicans aren't conservative at all, but instead a religious populist association.  And just as I find Obama too conservative, Andrew finds him a true conservative.

That's why I have long been baffled as to why people said my preference over Obama was some kind of shift to the ideological left. Nope. Against a radical right, reckless, populist insurgency, Obama is the conservative option, dealing with emergent problems with pragmatic calm and modest innovation. He seeks as a good Oakeshottian would to reform the country's policies in order to regain the country's past virtues. What could possibly be more conservative than that? Or less conservative than the radical fusion of neoconservatism, theoconservatism and opportunism that is the alternative? 

For thinking conservatives of a classic variety, Obama is the best president since Clinton and the first Bush. We need him for the next four years if we are to avoid the catastrophes that always follow revolutionary ideology. Like another Iraq; or another Katrina; or another Lehman.

Christians cannot claim persecution

Religious persecution is when you're prevented from exercising your beliefs - not when you're prevented from imposing your beliefs."   The Rev. Susan Russell.

From the HuffPo;

[I]t is reprehensible how many American Christians have recently claimed that they too are being "persecuted." Not for proclaiming a faith in Jesus Christ, but for supporting causes and issues that Jesus never said a word on. Specifically, some Christians are claiming that their religious freedom is being infringed, and they're facing persecution, because they aren't able to vocally support oppression toward homosexuals without facing opposition.

Not opposition from the government -- no one is threatening to remove the tax exemption of every church who urges it's congregation to vote against gay marriage -- but opposition from "the world." ....

These are the same Christians who, led by Mike Huckabee, flocked in droves to Chick-fil-A a couple weeks ago ....The words that inspired thousands of Christians to get out and do something weren't words about Christ at all, they were words meant to oppress a group of people long discriminated against by Christians. But the ones claiming persecution the loudest weren't the LGBT people Cathy had spoken against, but the Christians who were doing the oppression.

.... Until Christians endure the same threats, mocking and ostracization that their LGBT brothers and sisters face every day, they can't claim they're being persecuted. Especially since those threats, the mocking and the ostracizing that LGBT people face almost always comes from Christians themselves.

John Aravosis on hate speech

John points out the ludicrous argument that FRC claims that the SPLC is to blame for the shooting because the SPLC exposed FRC's hate speech. That is, it isn't their own hate speech that is the problem, but someone pointing out that it's hateful. From America Blog, FRC's own speech brought this upon them:

The Family Research Council, and more generally the anti-gay right, can't have it both ways. Either words can incite violence or they can't. Falsely labeling someone a bad person can either provoke violence, or it can't. The FRC would have us believe that our admonitions incite violence but theirs couldn't.

But if words can incite violence, then it's fair to examine all the words of all the parties to the dispute, not just the words of one side.

And if you examine what the Family Research Council, and really the entire religious right, has said - lied - about gay and trans people for the past two decades, not only is what the they've said far worse than what any of their critics have said in response, but their language is so hateful, so damning, so incendiary on its face (and false, which only makes it all the more incendiary), that I believe it's difficult not to consider the possibility that the religious right might share some of the blame for recklessly inciting the violence that finally, and sadly, unfolded this past week.

Why it matters: DP couple STILL faces discrimination

From The Las Vegas Review Journal:

 On the wall of their Henderson home, Brittney Leon and Terri-Ann Simonelli proudly display their certificate of domestic partnership. 

Under a 2009 state law, the document gives them all the rights of married couples.
Or so they thought. 

When Leon, 26, checked into Spring Valley Hospital on July 20 with complications in her pregnancy, she assumed that her partner Simonelli, 41, could make any necessary medical decisions if she suffered unforeseen problems. 

But that's not what happened, they said. An admissions officer told them the hospital policy required gay partners to secure power of attorney before making any medical decisions for each other..... 

A woman who identified herself as public relations representative at Spring Valley Hospital told a Review-Journal reporter in a phone interview that the hospital policy requires gay couples have power of attorney in order to make medical decisions for each other . 

When asked if she was aware of Nevada's domestic partnership law, she accused the reporter of bias and hung up the telephone. ....

I love that: accuse a reporter of bias for POINTING OUT THE LAW.

Despite laws that supposedly make this illegal, it keeps happening.  Not just in NV but in other states too, even in CA, legal domestic partners who are SUPPOSED to have "the same rights" are denied those rights.   The remedy is clear.  M-A-R-R-I-A-G-E.

Love is Love (video Sunday)

Why FRC is NOT the same as the pro-equality side

From Jeremy Hooper, at Good As You:

If we had an organization on our side that was saying the sort of things about evangelical Christians that FRC says about LGBT people, then that would be a different story. And I would add that I would be the first to condemn such a group! But the fact of that matter is that we don't.have.that.kind.of.group. Human Rights Campaign is not printing brochures that begin by comparing Christian marriages to man-on-horse (complete with horse photo). GLAAD is not launching websites referring to gender-different marriages as "fake" and saying those marriages "destroy lives." PFLAG is not inviting someone like Bryan Fischer to speak at its annual conference. FRC does all of that and more than I could ever put in words! 

Look, I HATE having this conversation. My instinct yesterday afternoon was to react with nothing but full-throated support for FRC and its staff and to articulate the concerns that many of us who work in politics feel. These heartfelt concerns should be completely detached from the debate, no matter the things I mentioned above. 

But when groups like NOM work overtime politicizing this, I'm not going to play pretend. If HRC were on the receiving end of yesterday's heinous act, the facts pertaining to HRC's decades of work would remain the exact same today as they were yesterday. Same goes with FRC. And while perspective is needed and nothing compares to the brutality that is gun violence, the facts surrounding the Family's Research Councils' nineteen year mission are rhetorically brutal. We LGBT people are undoubtedly less free an less equal because of them. That is their mission. That is not ours.

Jeremy is right.  THis is   a false equivalence and  isn't helpful. The pro-LGBT groups aren't  calling for conservative Christians to be imprisoned, have their relationships torn apart, their children kidnapped.  We're not saying that they engage in bestiality or abuse children.  We don't say that the state should prevent them from practicing their faith, and we don't say the state should make them live under the tenets of OUR faith (and despite what they say,  many of us DO go to church...).   As the saying goes, one of these things is not like the other....

The FRC shooting (2): on hate speech and calls to violence

Following up on yesterday's post:  The Family Research Council is complaining that the fact the Southern Poverty Law Center calls it out for "hate speech" is a "license to kill". The SPLC responds that this is "outrageous".

For more than 40 years, the SPLC has battled against political extremism and political violence. We have argued consistently that violence is no answer to problems in a democratic society, and we have strongly criticized all those who endorse such violence, whether on the political left or the political right.

But this afternoon, FRC President Tony Perkins attacked the SPLC, saying it had encouraged and enabled the attack by labeling the FRC a “hate group.” ....

Perkins’ accusation is outrageous. The SPLC has listed the FRC as a hate group since 2010 because it has knowingly spread false and denigrating propaganda about LGBT people — not, as some claim, because it opposes same-sex marriage. The FRC and its allies on the religious right are saying, in effect, that offering legitimate and fact-based criticism in a democratic society is tantamount to suggesting that the objects of criticism should be the targets of criminal violence.

The Washington Monthly reminds us that "criticism is not persecution".

This is a group that wants to use the coercive power of the state to....tell churches and other religious organizations whose relationships they may honor. It also engages regularly in slurs of anyone who doesn’t agree with its agenda as secularist Christ-haters.....

Those determined to frustrate the Christian Right’s desire for total secular political power are neither Romans nor Communists nor Nazis, and it is far past time for smug powerful men like Tony Perkins to climb down from that cross and stop pretending they bear any resemblance to the actual Christian Martyrs who suffered and died—and still suffer and die—for their faith.

The Family Research Council is not a religion. It is a professional political advocacy group with an anti-gay agenda.  It does not represent Christians.  Plenty of Christians support gay rights, and plenty of gay people are Christian.

Here are some examples of what FRC folks say, that got it that SPLC designation. Now, if you don't see a problem with the quotes, under each one I've changed it to describe a different minority group. I don't think we'd consider the sorts of comments that they make about gay people to be acceptable to the mainstream if targeted towards other people. Would we?

Gaining access to children has been a long-term goal of the homosexual movement.”
Gaining access to children has been a long-term goal of the Roman Catholics. 

“[Homosexuality] … embodies a deep-seated hatred against true religion.”
Jews embody a deep-seated hatred against true religion. 

“[T]he evidence indicates that disproportionate numbers of gay men seek adolescent males or boys as sexual partners.”
“[T]he evidence indicates that disproportionate numbers of black men seek adolescent males or boys as sexual partners.”

The FRC has the right to say what it wants.  But it does NOT have the right to do so without legitimate criticism.  And legitimate criticism is not a call to violence.

Finally, if you want to look at explicit calls to violence, perhaps NOM (the National Organization [against] Marriage [Equality]) should explain some of these events, duly noted by Rob Tisinai at Box Turtle Bulletin.  Here's some examples.

When Reverend Ariel Torres Ortega stood on your stage as your guest at your rally and proclaimed that gays are “worthy to death,” NOM was there. But you didn’t condemn it at the event, on your website, or on your blog..... 

When Fox News asked NOM founder Maggie Gallagher about a pageant contestant who said gays “shall surely be put to death and their blood shall be upon them,” Maggie was there, not to condemn the call for violence, but to praise “her courage in coming forward.”

As Rob says,

The shooting at FRC was deplorable. Violence has no place in this debate. We can look at this shooting, as well as the people who are killed every year just for being gay, and agree on that. You certainly say you agree. So please, live up your own press release: stop supporting the very thing you claim to condemn.

The FRC shooting

By now you know that a disturbed man shot a guard at the Family Research Council in Washington DC. (Thankfully, the guard will be fine). News suggests that the shooter was opposed to the FRC's anti-gay policies.

Brian Brown of the National Organization (against) Marriage (Equality) immediately complained that this is because FRC is called a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center because FRC opposes marriage equality. in fact, he suggested that the obviously shooter was carrying out a political agenda.

No, Brian. It is you with the political agenda. The FRC is called a hate group because it tells lies and demonizes LGBT people.

The FRC often makes false claims about the LGBT community based on discredited research and junk science. The intention is to denigrate LGBT people in its battles against same-sex marriage, hate crimes laws, anti-bullying programs and the repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

Thanks to the GLAD Accountability Project, you can see exactly what people like FRC spokesmen Tony Perkins and Peter Sprigg say about LGBT people.In fact, Sprigg thinks that gay behavior should be criminalized. And you can read more quotes from the FRC at the SPLC site.

Aside: you can also read posts here at my other blog (one, two, three) about the language of violence employed by so-called "Christians" against LGBT people.  And don't get me started on their claim that gay people are anti-Christian.  The right doesn't own the term "Christian" and there are plenty of gay Christians out there.

Meanwhile what about the shooter? He is no more representative of the gay community than the man who shot up the Sikh temple is representative of the Christian community, or the man who killed people at the Batman movie is representative of Neuroscience PhD students.

Although some conservative groups accuse the pro-gay blogosphere of "celebrating" this, the response was not that at all. In fact, 41 pro-gay groups immediately released a statement condemning the violence and sending their prayers and best wishes to the FRC and the victim for healing.

Funny, the conservatives ignore that, instead preferring to demonize the gay community further.

What is the conservative response to disturbed acts of anti-gay violence? In fact, 2011 saw a record high rate of murders motivated by anti gay bias. And what did this conservative pseudo-"Christian" groups have to say about that? what did they say about Bible-verse shouting street preacher  at Grand Rapids GayDay, who threatened to rape a woman attending?

::Crickets::

As Zack Ford writes at ThinkProgress,

Violence is not the answer to solving any conflict and nothing justifies the actions taken Wednesday by Floyd Corkins. But any attempt to use the shooting to justify reinforcing the inequality LGBT people experience everyday is intolerance at its most basic.

Update:  Excellent commentary from Pam's House Blend :

The fact is that the political discourse in this country is at rock bottom — dehumanizing people so that it is easier for those who are filled with rage to act out violently. We see it with the numerous rage-filled hate crimes against LGBTs all the time, race-based preposterous acts claiming to be religious freedom, and comments from public figures like Joe the Plumber’s recent guidance on immigration reform to “Put A Damn Fence On The Border Going To Mexico And Start Shooting.”

First gay general appointed. Go Army!

From the LA Times

During a promotion ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery, a proud wife placed a star insignia on her spouse's uniformed shoulder — the official mark of an Army brigadier general. 

With that simple gesture, Brig. Gen. Tammy Smith became the country's first openly gay general. 

....On Friday, more than 70 people clustered inside an auditorium at Arlington's Women in Military Service for America Memorial. 

Smith, then a colonel, strode in with her commanding officer at the stroke of 4 p.m. The audience sang the national anthem and a young boy led the Pledge of Allegiance.
The announcer presented Smith’s father. Then came an introduction: “Col. Smith's partner, Miss Tracey Hepner.” 

The audience burst into applause.
....
Hepner and Smith could not be reached for comment. In an interview with Stars and Stripes, Smith said she understood the social significance of her promotion, even though she viewed that as secondary. 

“All of those facts are irrelevant,” Smith was quoted as saying. “I don’t think I need to be focused on that. What is relevant is upholding Army values and the responsibility this carries.”

Why it matters, from Washington State (video Sunday)

SCOTUS and the right to marry in CA

Last night, my friend C proposed to J. We're all delighted; they are a wonderful couple. C was nervous before hand. "I hope he says yes," said C, a lawyer. "Then all we have to do is pray that the Supreme Court denies cert."

Because, of course, C can't marry J unless Prop 8 falls. And Prop8 won't fall unless the Supreme Court lets it.

Prop8 has been found unconstitutional on broad grounds by US District Judge Vaughn Walker, whose opinion two years ago was that Prop8 proponents identified no compelling interest in taking marriage away from LGBT people, and that there was a broad right of same sex couples to marry. Then, the 9th Circuit court of appeals found that Prop8 was unconstitutional on narrow grounds that this unusual circumstance in California, where we had the right to marry for 6 months before it was taken away, fell afoul of precedent set in Romer v.Evans which took down a blatantly discriminatory Colorado proposition. The Prop8 proponents appealed to the 9th circuit en banc, but they declined to hear it.

There are three possibilities before us. The simplest is if the Supreme Court "denies certiori" which means that they decide not to hear the case. This would mean that the narrow decision of the 9th Circuit would stand, and marriage would return to California, and C and J could marry. That is the one C is hoping for, because then it will be over (bar the shouting--and you can count on there being a lot of shouting.) As Episcopalians, C and J can have their marriage blessed in church. And my wife and I can dance at their wedding.

However, if 4 Supreme Court justices want to hear the case, it will be argued before the court. And then anything goes. The hard right of Scalia, Thomas, and Alito (all three conservative Roman Catholics, even though Scalia never met a death penalty he didn't like) are just about guaranteed to vote against a right to marry. Kagan, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor are likely to vote for us. That leaves the swing vote in the hands of Anthony Kennedy and John Roberts.

Kennedy is very conservative, but quite libertarian. WE tend to think hopefully of him because of his majority opinions on LGBT rights in Lawrence v. Texas (that's the one that decriminalized being gay) and the aforementioned Romer v. Evans. If he goes with the four liberal justices, that's 5 to 4 and we win.

Roberts surprised everyone with his recent decision upholding the health care law, when he broke with the conservative bloc. This has led to a lot of discussion that he is very aware of his legacy as a Chief Justice. Additionally, as an attorney, Roberts worked behind the sides on the brief for "our side" in the Romer case. Would Roberts want to be on the losing side of history? Wouldn't a 6-3 decision be lovely?

BUT it could also go against us, if those two justices "break" the other way.

what would a win get us? That's also a variable. They could find very narrowly, along the lines of the 9th circuit decision, under circumstances that apply only to CA. Or they could find broadly that American LGBT people have a right to marry. The likelihood of this last is about as likely as pigs flying, given the 32 hate amendments and initiatives passed by other states.

So for the sake of C and J, I hope the Supremes deny cert.

More here in this New Yorker article. And a good summary also here at this UPI report.

It's about family (video Sunday)

Support for marriage surges among Democrats

Marriage Equality will be a plank of the Democratic party this year. Meanwhile, a poll show support is surging: