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)