Anti Equality Groups Broke?

From Reuters:

Foes of same-sex marriage are laboring to pay the tab for an epic legal case now before the U.S. Supreme Court, as the movement suffers from fundraising shortfalls that could sap its strength in future battles. 

ProtectMarriage.com, the advocacy group defending a California gay marriage ban now under review by the high court, showed a $2 million deficit in its legal fund at the end of 2011 - the third year in a row that expenses exceeded donations, federal tax records show.
....
The fund-raising fall-off is a result of donor fatigue, the dramatic rise in public support for gay marriage and the softening of some major gay marriage opponents, including the Mormon Church, people involved with the campaigns say. Both individuals and institutions opposed to gay marriage say many are fearful of being associated with the cause.
"On the New York cocktail party circuit, the intensity of anger over the marriage issue has made being pro-life easy," said Sean Fieler, who runs the New York City hedge fund Equinox Partners. Fieler has donated over $1 million to gay marriage opponents such as the National Organization for Marriage.

All together now:  AWWW.

Another form of marriage activism

As you may recall, David Blankenhorn was one of the two (count ‘em) pro-Prop8 witnesses that testified in the Prop 8 federal case two years ago. (Yes, children, it’s been a long road to get it to the Supreme Court….and LGBT people still can’t marry in California. But I digress.)

 Last summer, Blankenhorn changed his mind about marriage equality, because he had become dismayed at the bile and bigotry expressed by that side. So, he made a plea for marriage.

 The New York Times tells us that Blankenhorn is now working on a pro-marriage coalition that is more interested in the institution than the gender of the participants.

On Thursday, Mr. Blankenhorn’s research group, the Institute for American Values in New York, plans to issue “A Call for a New Conversation on Marriage,” a tract renouncing the culture war that he was once part of, in favor of a different pro-marriage agenda.  

The proposed conversation will try to bring together gay men and lesbians who want to strengthen marriage with heterosexuals who want to do the same. 

 .... “New Conversation” is the capstone of a six-month period of rebuilding and rebranding for Mr. Blankenhorn. After his Op-Ed article appeared, five of his institute’s board members… resigned almost immediately. The institute lost about half a million dollars in donations…. “We’re in a real steep hole,” [BLankenhorn said]. “I laid two people off and am losing one by attrition.” ... 

The “new conversation” may discomfit many conservatives by including gay men and lesbians. And this conversation may not suit many liberals who are wary of stigmatizing unwed parents or treating marriage as some sort of desirable norm. …  

The debate, [William Galston, from the Brookings Institute] said, should not be about gay versus straight but about why so few poor people are choosing the benefits of marriage.

[Journalist Jonathan] Rauch, who has long been criticized by fellow gay writers for being too conservative, said that it is time to raise different questions: “What does, so to speak, the sexual-orientation-blind, pro-family agenda look like?” he asked. “The family values agenda for the postgay world?” 

Uber anti-gay activist Maggie Gallagher is making snide remarks.

Ms. Gallagher cautioned... that there may be more conservatives willing to accept gay allies than liberals willing to publicly support marriage.

Because of course she wants to paint liberals as anti-marriage. She wants to paint us as destroying marriage.  Well, I'm sorry Maggie, but my wife and I are about as boringly pro-marriage as you can get.


 And, already there's some pushback, in an article entitled "Does Championing Marriage Exclude Single Parents?"

A focus on marriage (and wealth) can put the onus for supporting a family squarely back on the parents, even when there are some things — like paid sick leave, preventive health care, maternity and paternity leaves, affordable birth control and day care — that “takes a village” to provide, except for the wealthiest among us. Any new conversation sounds promising, particularly when it’s offered up as part of what appears to be a centrist coalition in extremely divisive political times. But what we need most is to find a way to talk about strengthening families without excluding families. Strengthening marriages may be one way to create a better structure for raising children — but marriage is far from the only structure we need.

You know, I think it's possible to support the ideal of marriage as a liberal, without denigrating single parents.  Or gay ones.  Let's work on supporting families, eh? And it takes all of us.  maybe start with family leave---- and sick leave---- what else supports healthy families?

Should Obama file a brief in Prop8 case?

NY Times Op/Ed

Now that Mr. Obama has declared that he believes denying gay people the right to wed is not only unfair and morally wrong but also legally unsupportable, the urgent question is how he will translate his words into action... 

The outcome of the Proposition 8 case is likely to affect the lives of gay, lesbian and bisexual Americans for years to come, even if the final disposition is not sweeping enough to wipe out all state laws currently banning same-sex marriage. A strong filing by the Justice Department, forthrightly declaring that denying the freedom to marry violates the Constitution, would put the full weight of the federal government on the side of justice and could influence the shape of the ruling. 

For the administration to be missing in action in this showdown risks conveying a message to the justices that it lacks confidence in the constitutional claims for ending gay people’s exclusion from marriage or that it believes Americans are not ready for a high court ruling making marriage equality the law of the land — impressions strikingly contradicted by legal precedent, the lessons of history and by the president’s own very powerful words.

Inaugural speech historic in support of LGBT rights (video Sunday)

BLAG lacks standing?

One of the arguments SCOTUS requests regarding the DOMA case is whether or not BLAG (the Republican Congressional committee that is funding the campaign to defend DOMA) has standing to do so (and spend $3million of your tax dollars while they are at it). The Court asked a disinterested party, a Harvard law professor, to study the law and provide a legal opinion.

  TOday, she said, No.

In the filing, the professor, Vicki Jackson, argued:

The United States' agreement with the courts below (and with Windsor) deprives this Court of jurisdiction, because the United States suffers no injury sufficient to invoke Article III jurisdiction.

In discussing why the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group — the 3-2 Republican majority of which voted to take up the defense of DOMA after the administration's 2011 decision to stop defending the law — does not have the authority, or standing, to be there, Jackson argued:

It is the Executive Branch, not Congress, that is obligated to "take Care" that laws are enforced. Moreover, any injury that might arise from nondefense of a law would be to the whole Congress, which one House cannot alone assert.

But note this:

The Supreme Court appointed Jackson to argue these positions because, presumably, the justices decided they wanted a view outside of the views presented before lower courts on these questions. By the terms of that appointment, then, it was expected that Jackson would be arguing these views.

This is their "out" on the DOMA case.  Of course, then they leave DOMA in a mess, because it would be applicable in some circuits and not others.  (At least, Clause 3, which is the only clause under challenge, and is the clause regarding federal recognition of marriage.)

Prop 8 case: what if they don't find standing?

One of the arguments the Supreme Court will hear in the Prop8 case is whether or not the proponents of Prop8, who appealed their case to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, had legal "standing" to do so, since the State of California declined. Scotusblog discusses the possible outcomes.

If the Court were to hold that the petitioners in Hollingsworth v. Perry — the Proposition 8 initiative sponsors — do not have Article III standing to appeal, what then? What would become of the judgments below, and of Proposition 8 more broadly?

The Supreme Court presumably would reverse and vacate the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, since the Proposition 8 proponents were also the only parties to appeal to that court from the district court judgment. If that were to happen, the Ninth Circuit’s opinion would no longer have precedential effect that would govern future cases challenging California’s (or any other state’s) refusal to recognize same-sex marriages. ....

But what about Judge Walker’s judgment and injunction in the district court in Perry? What would become of that?

Most likely, nothing — it would stand. In the district court, the named defendant state and local officials did appear, and there was complete Article III adversity between them and the plaintiffs. Judge Walker’s injunction was entered against the named defendants, and it altered the legal relationship between them and the plaintiffs. Therefore it should remain intact.....

...it would mean that the two couples who sued in Perry — Kris Perry and Sandy Stier, and Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo — would receive marriage licenses from the defendant Clerks of Alameda and Los Angeles Counties, respectively.

But would the injunction have any further effect, on other same-sex couples in California?

It shouldn’t — not of its own force, anyway.

WOuldn't that be amazing....all this and it wouldn't affect the rights of any other couples in CA besides the two couples who brought the case.

If this happens, there will be another ballot measure. Because ultimately that's the most reliable way to overturn this bigoted, hate-filled amendment.

Reactions to the Inaugural Speech

Frank Bruni in the NY Times:

Seneca Falls, Selma, Stonewall. The alliteration of that litany made it seem obvious and inevitable, a bit of poetry just there for the taking. Just waiting to happen.

But it has waited a long time. And President Obama’s use of it in his speech on Monday — his grouping of those three places and moments in one grand and musical sentence — was bold and beautiful and something to hear. It spoke volumes about the progress that gay Americans have made over the four years between his first inauguration and this one, his second. It also spoke volumes about the progress that continues to elude us….

Despite our strides, gay and lesbian couples even now can marry only in nine states and the District of Columbia. The federal government doesn’t recognize those weddings, meaning that in terms of taxes, military benefits and matters of immigration, it treats gays and lesbians differently than it treats other Americans. It relegates us to an inferior class.

The Supreme Court could soon change, or validate, that. There are relevant cases before it. For his part Obama could show less deference to states’ rights, be more insistent about what’s just and necessary coast-to-coast, and push for federal protections against employment discrimination when it comes to L.G.B.T. Americans. His actions over the next four years could fall wholly in line with Monday’s trailblazing words. My hope is real, and grateful, and patient.

History is made: President's inaugural speech supports LGBT rights

From the HuffPo:

President Obama made history today when he mentioned both the Stonewall uprising and gay and lesbian people being treated "like anyone else under the law" during his second inauguration speech. 

"We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths -- that all of us are created equal -- is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall..." he said. 

He continued:

"It is now our generation’s task to carry on what those pioneers began. For our journey is not complete until our wives, our mothers, and daughters can earn a living equal to their efforts. Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law -- for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well."

This the first time that a president has addressed gay rights during an inauguration speech.

Know Hope.

Is Rhode Island next? ( Video Sunday)

Voices of Faith: British Evangelical Pastor now supports equality

Click image for more
Voices of Faith

Over in the UK, the argument over marriage equality is quite hot. Over 1000 Roman Catholic priests have protested against the Government's plan to allow marriage equality. So it was a surprise this week when a well-known Evangelical minister, the Rev. Steve Chalke, explained that he now supports recognition of gay couples, within the church  (my emphases):

...I'm worried that the noise of the arguments around gay marriage will cloud and confuse the real question for the Church, which is about the nature of inclusion. I am convinced that it is only as the Christian community grapples with this that we will find wise answers, not only regarding gay marriage, but also to related questions around the Church's wider attitude to gay people. ... 

Some will think that I have strayed from scripture - that I am no longer an evangelical. I have formed my view, however, not out of any disregard for the Bible's authority, but by way of grappling with it and, through prayerful reflection, seeking to take it seriously. ...

One tragic outworking of the Church's historical rejection of faithful gay relationships is our failure to provide homosexual people with any model of how to cope with their sexuality, except for those who have the gift of, or capacity for, celibacy. In this way we have left people vulnerable and isolated. When we refuse to make room for gay people to live in loving, stable relationships, we consign them to lives of loneness, secrecy and fear. It's one thing to be critical of a promiscuous lifestyle - but shouldn't the Church consider nurturing positive models for permanent and monogamous homosexual relationships? 

....

In fact, a growing number of evangelical scholars argue that what the New Testament writers refer to as homosexual practice could not have been the stable same-sex unions of the sort that exist today, of which they knew nothing, but promiscuity associated with wild occultic orgies....

Here is my question. Shouldn't we take the same principle that we readily apply to the role of women, slavery, and numerous other issues, and apply it our understanding of permanent, faithful, homosexual relationships? Wouldn't it be inconsistent not to?...

A Pastoral Plea
Why am I so passionate about this issue? Because people's lives are at stake. Numerous studies show that suicide rates among gay people, especially young people, are comparatively high. Church leaders sometimes use this data to argue that homosexuality is unhealthy when tragically it's anti-gay stigma, propped up by Church attitudes, which, all too often, drives these statistics. 

I believe that when we treat homosexual people as pariahs and push them outside our communities and churches; when we blame them for what they are; when we deny them our blessing on their commitment to lifelong, faithful relationships, we make them doubt whether they are children of God, made in his image. ...

Rather than condemn and exclude, can we dare to create an environment for homosexual people where issues of self-esteem and wellbeing can be talked about; where the virtues of loyalty, respect, interdependence and faithfulness can be nurtured, and where exclusive and permanent same-sex relationships can be supported? 

Tolerance is not the same as Christ-like love. Christ-like love calls us to go beyond tolerance to want for the other the same respect, freedom, and equality one wants for oneself. We should find ways to formally support and encourage those who are in, or wish to enter into, faithful same-sex partnerships, as well as in their wider role as members of Christ's body. 

I end where I started; in the coming months there will be huge and often heated debate around gay marriage. I am committed to listening and trying to understand the intricacies of the arguments on both sides. But, whatever the outcome and whichever side of the debate we find ourselves on, my hope is that as Christians we face what I think is the central issue - what does real, Christ-like, inclusion look like?

Predictably, there is an outraged backlash, but Chalke may be in the vanguard of a new movement in Evangelical circles, joining people like Brian McLaren and Jay Bakker, who recognize that gay couples should be called to the same standards of fidelity and commitment of straight couples.

 One hopes that the dam is breaking...

Congress spends YOUR money to defend DOMA, ctd

You know how the Republicans are all for smaller government, and less government spending?  But that's not if government spending can marginalize the gays.  THAT, and they're all in favor.

From the HuffPo:

House Republican leaders have signed on to spend up to $3 million to keep defending the Defense of Marriage Act in court, according to a copy of their newly revised legal contract obtained by The Huffington Post.  

House Republican leaders took over the legal defense of DOMA in the spring of 2011, when Attorney General Eric Holder announced the Obama administration would no longer defend it on the grounds that they found it unconstitutional. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and other GOP leaders hired attorneys at the law firm Bancroft LLC to represent the House in court cases involving the federal ban on gay marriage -- all with taxpayer dollars....

House Democratic leaders, meanwhile, sent a letter to Boehner later Tuesday voicing their opposition to sinking more money into DOMA's defense -- particularly given Republicans' calls for fiscal responsibility. 

"We wish to strongly reaffirm our objections to the repeated actions by the Republican leadership to secretly and dramatically increase the contract between the House and outside counsel in arguing to uphold the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in more than a dozen cases," reads the letter from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.). 

"It is the height of hypocrisy for House Republicans to waste public funds in one breath then claim the mantle of fiscal responsibility in the next," the letter continues. "With Republicans willing to take our economy and our country to the brink of default in the name of deficit reduction, there is simply no excuse for any Member of Congress to commit taxpayer dollars to an unnecessary -- and futile -- legal battle."

NPR's Snap Judgment (video Sunday -- you may want a hanky)

Noah St John has two moms:

Voices of Faith: Washington National Cathedral to celebrate same sex marriages

Click image for more
Voices of Faith

From the HuffPo:

The Washington National Cathedral, where the nation gathers to mourn tragedies and celebrate new presidents, will soon begin hosting same-sex marriages. 

Cathedral officials tell The Associated Press the church will be among the first Episcopal congregations to implement a new rite of marriage for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender members. The church will announce its new policy Wednesday. 

As the nation's most prominent church, the decision carries huge symbolism. The 106-year-old cathedral has long been a spiritual center for the nation, hosting presidential inaugural services and funerals for Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his last sermon there in 1968. The cathedral draws hundreds of thousands of visitors each year..... 

The Very Rev. Gary Hall, the cathedral's dean, said performing same-sex marriages is an opportunity to break down barriers and build a more inclusive community "that reflects the diversity of God's world." 

"I read the Bible as seriously as fundamentalists do," Hall told the AP. "And my reading of the Bible leads me to want to do this because I think it's being faithful to the kind of community that Jesus would have us be."
....
Gay weddings will be allowed immediately. But It will likely be six months to a year before the first marriages are performed due to the cathedral's busy schedule and its pre-marital counseling requirement. Generally, only couples affiliated with the cathedral will be eligible. Church leaders had not received any requests for weddings ahead of Wednesday's announcement. ....

Hall, the cathedral dean, said the church has a long history of taking stands on public issues. But he said he sees marriage as a human issue, not a political issue. 

"For us to be able to say we embrace same-sex marriage as a tool for faithful people to live their lives as Christian people," he said, "for us to be able to say that at a moment when so many other barriers toward full equality and full inclusion for gay and lesbian people are falling, I think it is an important symbolic moment."

Take-down of Chicago Cardinal George

With his cotta in a twist, Roman Catholic Cardinal George of Chicago has written a quite-offensive letter demanding his flock oppose marriage equality. Columnist Neil Steinberg has an outstanding response. 

[M]y concern is not about what Catholics do or don’t do in practicing their own religion....
What you’re doing is instructing Catholics to pressure legislators, and pressuring them yourself, joined by like-minded clerics, to craft laws that force non-Catholics to follow Catholic doctrine. That makes it everybody’s business. ...

In an attempt to justify an unjustifiable intrusion of religion into secular life, you write, in your letter, ... “The human species comes in two complementary sexes, male and female” — no argument here — “their sexual union is called marital.”

Really? By whom? Because people nowadays mate like ferrets, while fewer call it “marital.” What comes to us from nature is not marriage but sex. Some species do indeed mate for life, but that is the exception, not the rule. . ....

Because marriage — and here you’ll have to listen to an old married guy — isn’t just about sex. Yes, that’s part of it. But someone who gets married for the sex is like someone who flies on an airplane for the meal — there are easier, cheaper ways to go about it.

Sex is not the central defining element of marriage — that would be commitment a.k.a. staying together, often raising children, sometimes cleaning the house, paying bills, talking quietly at night, having a relationship recognized by society and law, a vessel solid enough to navigate the tempests and calms, storms and lassitudes of the years. Marriage is about love and responsibility. And here homosexuals are on an even playing field with straights. Yet here you are mum — as if, because you don’t see them, they’re not here.

But they are here, and you’re hurting them, or trying to. 

Read the whole thing!

Buckle your seatbelts, here we go again

The Supreme Court has announced the date for oral arguments in the gay marriage cases. From Scotusblog:

The Supreme Court on Monday released the schedule of oral arguments for the sitting that begins March 18, showing that the two cases on same-sex marriage will be heard — one on each day — on Tuesday, March 26, and Wednesday, March 27. The case on California’s “Proposition 8″ will come first, followed by the case on the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act; each case is scheduled for one hour of argument, although the fact that each is to be heard alone will allow the argument time to be expanded, and that appears likely.

Thank you to Straight Allies (video Sunday)

From Dan Savage, along with a Tumblr: THANKS to the awesome straight allies who really make our equality possible.

Progress in Illinois and Rhode Island

After the election, where the pro-equality side won not 1 but all 4 battles, we thought there would be some momentum.  But who thought it would be this fast?  It feels like a log jam is breaking up.

In Illinois, there may be a vote as soon as today by the legislature about marriage equality, which is endorsed not only by the "usual suspects", but by the chair of the Illinois GOP and President Barack Obama.

A profile of a lesbian couple and their family explains why it matters.

And in Rhode Island, there may be a vote by the end of the month.

More on both states at Salon.

Happy New year, indeed!