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.

The Four: combined resource for marriage equality elections in 2012

This is a great website  with resources for all four states facing marriage equality elections.

And the Supreme Court says....

....nothing.  Some rumors suggest that they will not make a decision either way till after the election.  Others say we may hear next week.  In any case, we continue to wait.

More details at the Prop8 Trial Tracker.

Vote for Barack. He's got our backs, now we get his. (video Sunday)

From a legal point of view

The estimable ScotusBlog is continuing its online symposium on same sex marriage, with legal scholars both pro and con weighing in.  Steven Sanders points out that "mini DOMAs" (the state Constitutional amendments like Prop8) are an interference in the democratic process and inevitably will demand federal court action.

For what amounts to a question of family law affecting a small minority of the population, this is not how the political process is supposed to work.  Respected conservative Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has condemned mini-DOMAs as a “tragedy” that offend the “American constitutional tradition” and “risk trivializing” constitutions by burdening them with “essentially statutory provisions.”  As Wilkinson wrote presciently in 2006:

[I]t is legislative bodies that broker compromises among opposing beliefs and zealous factions, and it is legislatures that adapt to changing public preferences and circumstances. It is impossible to predict what views electoral majorities may entertain five, ten, twenty, or fifty years hence on same-sex relations. It is the job of legislatures, not constitutions, to reflect evolving standards and to register change from whatever direction it may arrive.

Mini-DOMAs also offend due process and federalism, I have argued, by purporting to nullify the valid same-sex marriages of couples who migrate from states where such marriages are legal.

It's an excellent article about the problem of amendments, in an era where views are changing quickly.

Waiting on the Supremes

The big day everyone is looking at is Monday, 24 Sept, when the Supreme Court may decide if they  will hear the Prop8 case (they'll tell us on the 25th).  Basically, if 4 justices decide that there is a substantive question, they can decide to hear the case.  That's risky, given the make up of the court, because most court watchers consider it unlikely that they would find a sweeping ruling to approve marriage equality for LGBT people nation wide right now.

Better for us would be if they decline the case.  Because the 9th circuit ruling was very narrow, many court watchers think that the Supremes will consider there to be no substantive question.  If that happens, then the 9th's narrow ruling will apply, and marriage will come back to California (and CA only, given our unique circumstances of having approved marriage only to take it away).  That's probably the best possible outcome.  

From the Trial Tracker:

We’re just one week away from the Supreme Court of the United States meeting to consider hearing AFER’s case against Prop 8. 

If they decide to take our case next Monday, they’ll announce it in a list that’s released on Tuesday, September 25th. Then we’ll file briefs, have oral arguments, and likely get a decision about Prop 8′s constitutionality by next June. 

If we’re not on next Tuesday’s list, it means one of two things. Either they won’t hear our case, or they’re simply holding off on making a decision until later. 

If they’ve rejected the petition to hear our case, then they’ll announce that on the following Monday, October 1st. In that case, our previous victory will be the final, decisive word. In other words, Prop 8 will be unconstitutional forever, and marriages can start back up again in California.

 Don't forget there are several DOMA cases also pending.  This seems to be a clearer Constitutional question.  Fingers crossed!

Baptists against the MN amendment: video Sunday

In the states

The Box Turtle Bulletin has a great overview of the four states that are facing votes on equality this season. We have a good chance in WA, and maybe ME, but the others are going to be much closer. If you can help-- if you live there, or know people who live there, be an advocate for equality. Click on the images below to go to the campaigns for ME, MD, MN, or WA.

Game over: the NFL effect

Baltimore Ravens linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo is a supporter of marriage equality. Remarkably, an elected official, Maryland state delegate (and preacher) Emmett C. Burns Jr. wrote the owner of the Ravens a letter (PDF) demanding that Aynbadejo be silenced for daring to express an opinion to that effect. The NFL doesn't limit its employees' speech,  so nothing came of it.

Then, a colorful response to Delegate Burns came from punter Chris Kluwe of the MInnesota Vikings. Although ridden with profanity, it's quite funny and has created an internet storm of approval. Indeed, the only person coming out of this badly is the Delegate attempting to silence someone with whom he disagrees.

 Both Maryland and Minnesota have Prop-H8 style amendments on the ballot this election. I hope the players "coming out for equality" will have an effect in those states.

  Writes a columnist in the Sun-Times,

I don’t want to spend the whole column quoting Kluwe, but he asks Burns a question that should be put to all fearful haters who believe a few lines in their particular faith’s special book will excuse their loathsome bias forever: “Why do you hate freedom? Why do you hate the fact that other people want a chance to live their lives and be happy, even though they may believe in something different than you, or act different than you?” 

Now other NFL players are also speaking out. Which should remind the bigots-hiding-behind-Bibles that when you’ve lost pro athletes, you’ve lost. Freedom is a one-way street. Blacks don’t contemplate a return to slavery. Women don’t agonize whether getting the vote was a good or bad thing. Having fought their way out of the closet and tasted the joys of daily life, unafraid and unashamed, gay people are never going back. That’s just a fact. You can be among those who helped, or you can be a stumbling block, but the end result will be the same. Me, I went online and joined the Chris Kluwe Fan Club.

Zach Wahls at the DNC (video Sunday)

A young man to be proud of. "President Obama supports ALL families." YEAH.

Inclusion at the DNC

First, a video compilation of the events of the DNC from an LGBT perspective:




Next, a picture that to me sums it up.  Taken at the convention, Newlywed Barney Frank, retiring Congressman from Massachusetts, kisses his husband.  Unremarkable at the DNC, unthinkable at the RNC.  Wonderful.

by Joe Raedle (Getty), via Andrew Sullivan

Slippery slopes and other fallacies

Well, now they've done it. In Brazil, a judge has legitimized a three-way relationship, and now the fundies are all shrieking "see, we knew it!  next, people will marry their dogs!"

This is all part of the "slippery slope" logical fallacy, which states that "once X happens, how will you stop Y?"  And the answer is, the same way you stop Y now.  X has nothing to do with Y.

Legalizing marriage between two unmarried adults in no way changes bars to polygamy.  Sorry, uh-uh, just doesn't do it.  Just as marriage between a man and a woman does not promote marriage between a man and many women, or between a brother and sister (all of which are man-woman marriages.)
I also found this article comparing (again) the movement against inter-racial marriage to same-sex marriage.  And, yes, the slippery slop argument was used there too:

It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems then those of the intermarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent.

Same argument.

Still false!

BTW, I am a firm believer that marriage is between two people.

Prop8 "hostility"

As you may recall, the federal case against Prop8 is now headed to the Supreme Court.  This, after the district court judge found Prop8 broadly unconstitutional, and the 9th circuit found it narrowly unconstitutional (and denied further en banc consideration).

The case was originally called Perry v. Schwarzeneggar, and then after Jerry Brown became governor, Perry v. Brown.  It is now called Hollingsworth v Perry, because the leader of the Prop8 proponents who have brought the appeal is named Hollingsworth.

The briefs from the plaintiffs and defendants have been filed.  I'm sure there will be some more amicus briefs from other interested parties too.  The question is, whether the Supreme Court will find a sufficiently substantive federal question to hear the case (the decision to hear the case is called "granting certiori" and requires that at least 4 justices vote in favor).  It is very possible that the Supreme Court will find that there isn't a big enough question for them, and will deny cert.  This would let the narrow 9th circuit decision stand, and would return marriage to CA, without affecting the question anywhere else.

Originally, when the American Foundation for Equal Rights brought this case with the "dream team" of Ted Olson and David Boies, their hope was to ride the case up to the Supreme Court and establish a federal right to marriage equality.  The narrow decision by the 9th circuit pulled the rug out from under any sweeping decision.  Ultimately, of course, AFER is representing the interests of two couples.  And so, Olson's brief argues that SCOTUS should deny cert and provide relief to the plaintiffs who wanted to get married in the first place.

The opposition has now filed its brief, arguing that SCOTUS really needs to deal with this--and accusing "the extremes" of both sides of "hostility".

You know, I never called for Mormons or Catholics to be denied the right to civil marriage.  I never accused them of destroying children and families.  Yet those kinds of statements weren't expressed by the extremes but were the mainstay of the pro-Prop8 campaign, despite their efforts at revisionist history.  The fear-mongering hate ads on TV and radio made me physically sick.  I had to endure them in the months leading up to, and the month following my wedding to my beloved.

 But despite their efforts to paint themselves as victims, there really were few acts of "hostility" in the Prop8 aftermath. Sure, there were some economic boycotts (which the anti-equality folks  do all the time;  think NOM and Starbucks, for example).  There was one case of a pro-Prop8 supporter being told by the theatre he worked for that the many gay people there could no longer work with him.  But be real.  My relationship with people who voted "yes" changed too.  If you choose to hurt people (people you know,which makes it personal), of course your relationship with them is going to change.  After the hostility of the campaign, this was predictable.  And we haven't healed in California yet.

Oh, and those claims of violence against proponents?  Talk is cheap.   But at the time, there were no police reports filed.  In fact, I participated in the biggest march protesting Prop8 (in San Diego) which was entirely peaceful.  The only arrest there, was of a Prop8 supporter.  "Hostility on both sides"?  Not so much.

At some level I think we should just go back to the ballot box.  Take away their offensive meme of "the people decided!" by letting the people decide again.  Of course, then they complain about do-overs.

(I've said before-- if we had let "the people" vote on the civil rights of African Americans in the south, there would still be segregated water fountains down there.)

I can't believe this is STILL going on.  I can't believe that the gay-haters continue to use their "Christian" faith as a twisted justification for their abuse.  I can't believe my friends J and C can't get married.

On the other hand,  I can't  believe I've had the amazing experience of being married for FOUR WHOLE YEARS to the love of my life. They tried, but they can't take that away from us (you may not recall that in the early days after Prop8, there were calls to annul the 18000 marriages that happened prior to passage). 

Yes, just who is being hostile?

Come on, get this end game over with.  Let's deny cert and move on.

New resource for equality

An anonymous commenter left us a link to a site with a comprehensive summary of where we are in the different states.  Click on the image to go to the Marriage Equality Current Status page from Marriage Equality USA.

Marriage equality coming in France

From the WSJ:

The French government will introduce legislation in October authorizing gay marriage, a move that would bring France in line with a host of European countries and fulfill an election promise of President François Hollande.

Vive la France!

Meanwhile, here in the US justice continues to lag. Even though polls are consistently showing a narrow majority favors marriage equality.

Edie takes on DOMA (video Sunday): why it matters

Edie Windsor is suing the government because when her wife died, she was hit with a massive tax bill that would not have applied if she had been marriage to a man.  She's inspiring!