Obama Administration files brief against Prop8

As we all hoped, the Obama Administration/DoJ has filed an amicus brief calling DOMA unconstitutional.  They do this in the context that separate is not equal, and say that offering the benefits of marriage (civil unions) without the name is not right.  If the Court went with this, it would affect not just CA but also 7 other states.

Fron the estimable Scotusblog:

In essence, the position of the federal government would simultaneously give some support to marriage equality while showing some respect for the rights of states to regulate that institution. What the brief endorsed is what has been called the “eight-state solution” — that is, if a state already recognizes for same-sex couples all the privileges and benefits that married couples have (as in the eight states that do so through “civil unions”) those states must go the final step and allow those couples to get married. The argument is that it violates the Constitution’s guarantee of legal equality when both same-sex and opposite-sex couples are entitled to the same marital benefits, but only the opposite-sex couples can get married. 

And

The brief recommended that the Court, for the first time, apply a tough constitutional standard that courts are to use in judging laws that treat gays and lesbians less favorably. That standard goes by the technical name “heightened scrutiny.” It means that such a law must serve an important government interest, and be effective in doing so. 

Applying that test to California and the other states that now withhold marriage itself from only one group of couples when all couples who share a committed relationship are entitled to the other benefits of marriage, the administration argued that this amounts to a form of discrimination based on sexual orientation and thus cannot stand.

The brief is here.  And just so you can enjoy it, this is the concluding paragraph.  (I've stripped the citations):

California’s extension of all of the substantive rights  and responsibilities of marriage to gay and lesbian domestic partners particularly undermines the justifications for Proposition 8. It indicates that Proposition 8’s  withholding of the designation of marriage is not based  on an interest in promoting responsible procreation and  child-rearing—petitioners’ central claimed justification  for the initiative—but instead on impermissible prejudice. As the court of appeals observed,  that is not necessarily to say “that Proposition 8 is the  result of ill will on the part of the voters of California.”  ‘‘Prejudice, we are beginning to understand, rises not  from malice or hostile animus alone. It may result as  well from insensitivity caused by simple want of careful,  rational reflection or from some instinctive mechanism  to guard against people who appear to be different in  some respects from ourselves.”   Prejudice may not, however, be the basis  for differential treatment under the law.

Who's next?

From the New Civil Rights Movement:  what states are next?

Advocates now believe marriage could be extended to same-sex couples in Oregon, Rhode Island, Delaware, Minnesota, Colorado, Hawaii and New Jersey, after this month’s wins in Washington, Maine,Maryland, and Minnesota, (where voters refused to ban same-sex marriage in their constitution) according to a report in Politico, which notes that “activists are aiming to quickly use the momentum from this year’s election to boost marriage legalization efforts in at least seven new states and force Congress and the president to make major changes in discrimination laws.”

New Poll in CA: marriage support 61%

ThinkProgress points us to a new Field poll :

Long list of big companies come out against Prop8

As the amici briefs regarding the Prop8 case come in, here's another worth noting:

The justices will hear arguments March 26 on California’s Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot initiative that halted gay marriage in the state after it was allowed for five months.
The corporate group, which also includes Facebook Inc. (FB) and Intel Corp., (INTC) will argue in its brief that gay-marriage bans in 41 states harm workplace morale and undermine recruiting. 

“No matter how welcoming the corporate culture, it cannot overcome the societal stigma institutionalized by Proposition 8 and similar laws,” the companies will argue.
...

The publicly traded companies backing gay marriage include Abercrombie & Fitch Co. (ANF),Alcoa Inc. (AA), American International Group Inc. (AIG), Becton Dickinson & Co., EBay Inc. (EBAY), Marsh & McLennan Cos. (MMC), NCR Corp. (NCR), Nike Inc. (NKE), Oracle Corp. (ORCL), Office Depot Inc. (ODP), Panasonic Corp. (6752), Qualcomm Inc. (QCOM), Sun Life Financial Inc., Xerox Corp. (XRX), Zynga Inc. (ZNGA), Barnes & Noble Inc. and Caesars Entertainment Corp. 

A larger group of companies -- more than 200, including Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) -- is also poised to side with gay- rights advocates in a second Supreme Court case, involving a federal law that defines marriage as a heterosexual union. Under that law, known as the Defense of Marriage Act, legally married gay couples can’t claim the federal tax breaks and other benefits available to opposite-sex spouses. 

The companies in that case are part of a collection of more than 250 employers, including cities, counties and law firms.

So if the pro-gay rights lobby includes businesses and prominent REpublicans, just who is the anti-gay rights lobby?

Prominent Republicans to file amicus brief AGAINST Prop8!

From the NY Times:

Dozens of prominent Republicans — including top advisers to former President George W. Bush, four former governors and two members of Congress — have signed a legal brief arguing that gay people have a constitutional right to marry, a position that amounts to a direct challenge to Speaker John A. Boehner and reflects the civil war in the party since the November election.

The document will be submitted this week to the Supreme Court in support of a suit seeking to strike down Proposition 8, a California ballot initiative barring same-sex marriage, and all similar bans. The court will hear back-to-back arguments next month in that case and another pivotal gay rights case that challenges the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act....

Legal analysts said the brief had the potential to sway conservative justices as much for the prominent names attached to it as for its legal arguments. The list of signers includes a string of Republican officials and influential thinkers — 75 as of Monday evening — who are not ordinarily associated with gay rights advocacy, including some who are speaking out for the first time and others who have changed their previous positions.... 

In making an expansive argument that same-sex marriage bans are discriminatory, the brief’s signatories are at odds with the House Republican leadership, which has authorized the expenditure of tax dollars to defend the 1996 marriage law. The law defines marriage in the eyes of the federal government as the union of a man and a woman.
...
Tom Goldstein, publisher of Scotusblog, a Web site that analyzes Supreme Court cases, said the amicus filing “has the potential to break through and make a real difference.”

He added: “The person who is going to decide this case, if it’s going to be close, is going to be a conservative justice who respects traditional marriage but nonetheless is sympathetic to the claims that this is just another form of hatred. If you’re trying to persuade someone like that, you can’t persuade them from the perspective of gay rights advocacy.”

The real threat to marriage

We 've talked before about David Blankenhorn, former Prop 8 supporter and witness, who has now changed his mind and come out for equality.  Part of his change of heart, he says, was driven by the awful rhetoric of the other anti-equality people who continue to degenerate into vile anti-gay slurs.

Of course, he's now an apostate to them, and funding for his organization (a pro-marriage group) has fallen precipitously, because he now is pro-marriage for everyone.  And he recognizes the real threat to marriage stability has nothing to do with gay couples.

Is there common ground between Blankenhorn and liberals?  Jonathan Rauch says yes, in a conversation with Blankenhorn that identifies the real danger to marriage:  rising inequality.  Marriage is massively falling off in the lower-middle  and working-class groups.

Family instability among the less-educated and rising inequality are two sides of the same coin, each perniciously feeding the other. Yes, it's tough to do anything about. But yes, I have hope, because we've arrived at a moment when, as a society, we can finally take off the culture-war blinders and see the real problem, which is the sine qua non for doing anything about it. 

For many years, liberals were loath to talk about marriage and family values because both were code for "beat up on homosexuals." At the same time, conservatives were loath to talk about inequality and class because both were code for "beat up on free markets." But the era of gay marriage raises the prospect of a pro-marriage agenda which liberals can embrace as not even slightly anti-gay. And the country's rapid division into marital and educational haves and have-nots makes inequality a problem that family-values conservatives can't ignore. 

So the left is getting interested in family values and the right is getting interested in inequality, and that's not because they want to but because they have to. You can't address either without also addressing the other. Gay marriage is simply not where the action is if you care about inequality and kids. 

I've never seen an opening like this. That's why I'm hopeful. That's why I want your think tank to survive the efforts by culture-war conservatives to defund it. (Everyone: go here to learn more, and please consider adding your support.) That's why I'm on your board. Lots of folks will continue the old conversation, but we can start the new one.

Video Sunday: My Two Moms

Denver Nuggets basketball player Kenneth Faried and his mothers Waudda and Carol come out in support of equality for all LGBT families.

Jon Hunstman (Mormon, Republican) comes out for marriage equality

Logjam continues to break up, don't you think?  Another conservative voice for equality: 

But it’s difficult to get people even to consider your reform ideas if they think, with good reason, you don’t like or respect them. Building a winning coalition to tackle the looming fiscal and trust deficits will be impossible if we continue to alienate broad segments of the population.... And, consistent with the Republican Party’s origins, we must demand equality under the law for all Americans. 

...Today we have an opportunity to do more: conservatives should start to lead again and push their states to join the nine others that allow all their citizens to marry. I’ve been married for 29 years. My marriage has been the greatest joy of my life. There is nothing conservative about denying other Americans the ability to forge that same relationship with the person they love. 

All Americans should be treated equally by the law, whether they marry in a church, another religious institution, or a town hall. This does not mean that any religious group would be forced by the state to recognize relationships that run counter to their conscience. Civil equality is compatible with, and indeed promotes, freedom of conscience. 

Marriage is not an issue that people rationalize through the abstract lens of the law; rather it is something understood emotionally through one’s own experience with family, neighbors, and friends. The party of Lincoln should stand with our best tradition of equality and support full civil marriage for all Americans. 

I have to believe that this rumbling of support will get noticed by the Nine.  They aren't immune to politics, and they can see which way this is going.

The Brief Against Prop8

The Dream Team of Ted Olson and David Boies have filed their brief in the Supreme Court against Prop8 and it's a doozy. (Expect amicus briefs to arrive over the next week. Arguments on March 26th). Here's a slice (my emphases)

Proponents accuse Plaintiffs (repeatedly) of “redefining marriage.” But it is Proponents who have imagined (not from any of this Court’s decisions) a cramped definition of marriage as a utilitarian incentive devised by and put into service by the State—society’s way of channeling heterosexual potential parents into “responsible procreation.” In their 65-page brief about marriage in California, Proponents do not even mention the word “love.” They seem to have no understanding of the privacy, liberty, and associational values that underlie this Court’s recognition of marriage as a fundamental, personal right. Ignoring over a century of this Court’s declarations regarding the emotional bonding, societal commitment, and cultural status expressed by the institution of marriage, Proponents actually go so far as to argue that, without the potential for procreation, marriage might not “even..exist[ ] at all” and “there would be no need of any institution concerned with sex.” (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, under Proponents’ peculiar, litigation-inspired concept of marriage, same-sex couples have no need to be married and no cause to complain that they are excluded from the “most important relation in life.” Indeed, Proponents’ state-centric construct of marriage means that the State could constitutionally deny any infertile couple the right to marry, and could prohibit marriage altogether if it chose to pursue a society less committed to “responsible” procreation.

and

The only substantive question in this case is whether the State is entitled to exclude gay men and lesbians from the institution of marriage and deprive their relationships—their love—of the respect, and dignity and social acceptance, that heterosexual marriages enjoy. Proponents have not once set forth any justification for discriminating against gay men and lesbians by depriving them of this fundamental civil right. They have never identified a single harm that they, or anyone else, would suffer as a result of allowing gay men and lesbians to marry. Indeed, the only harms demonstrated in this record are the debilitating consequences Proposition 8 inflicts upon tens of thousands of California families, and the pain and indignity that discriminatory law causes the nearly 40,000 California children currently being raised by same-sex couples.

The unmistakable purpose and effect of Proposition 8 is to stigmatize gay men and lesbians—and them alone—and enshrine in California’s Constitution that they are “unequal to everyone else,” that their committed relationships are ineligible for the designation “marriage,” and that they are unworthy of that “most important relation in life.” Neither tradition, nor fear of change, nor an “interest in democratic self-governance,” can absolve society, or this Court, of the obligation to identify and rectify discrimination in all its forms. If a history of discrimination were sufficient to justify its perpetual existence, as Proponents argue, our public schools, drinking fountains, and swimming pools would still be segregated by race, our government workplaces and military institutions would still be largely off-limits to one sex—and to gays and lesbians, and marriage would still be unattainable for interracial couples. Yet the Fourteenth Amendment could not tolerate those discriminatory practices, and it similarly does not tolerate the permanent exclusion of gay men and lesbians from the most important relation in life. “In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law.” Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 559 (1896) (Harlan, J., dissenting).

Read the whole thing! 
(H/T Rob Tisinai)

What happens when Mississippi paper covers a lesbian wedding?

So two women had a wedding in a small Mississippi town. One is battling brain cancer.  The local paper, The Laurel Leader-Call,  put it on the front page, under the headline, "Historic Wedding".  And then the deluge.

The owner writes a sterling defense of real journalism.  (Someone send that man to Washington or New York, these are the kinds of ethics we need in media!)  Note my emphasis.

We were well aware that the majority of people in Jones County are not in favor of gay marriage. However, any decent newspaper with a backbone can not base decisions on whether to cover a story based on whether the story will make people angry. 

The job of a community newspaper is not pretending something didn't take place or ignoring it because it will upset people. No, our job is to inform readers what is going on in our town and let them make their own judgments. That is exactly what we did with the wedding story. Our reporter heard about the wedding, attended it, interviewed some of the participants and wrote a news story. If there had been protestors at the wedding, we would have covered that the exact same way … but there weren't any. We never said it was a good thing or a bad thing, we simply did our job by telling people what took place....

Many of the calls I received had the caller saying something to the effect of, I don't need my children to read this.  Ugh. We have stories about child molesters, murders and all kinds of vicious, barbaric acts of evil committed by heinous criminals on our front page and yet we never receive a call from anyone saying 'I don't need my children reading this.' Never. Ever. However, a story about two women exchanging marriage vows and we get swamped with people worried about their children. 

I had at least 20 or so readers express to me they think gay marriage is "an abomination against God." We never said it wasn't. We never said it was. 

We were simply reporting to the best of our ability. However, I can't help but be saddened by the hate-filled viciousness of many of the comments directed toward our staff …  

  And I bet everyone one of those complaints was from a proud "Christian".  Really, the terror it strikes into their hearts.... I simply can't understand it.

(via Yahoo News)

Update: the editor also chimes in.

But seriously, folks, the outrage against same-se relationships, veiled in christiantiy, still leaves me sad and confused. …

[M]ost of the vocal critics of same-sex relationships are more interested in showing just how pious they are, not in saving souls. If I'm wrong, then takes some advice: your sales pitch could use a little polish. The people you say you're trying to reach are seeing the love of Jesus shine through your spit and venom. ..

He doesn't let off "militant gays" either, but still... another voice of reason in the Deep South. Know hope.

Mexican Supreme Court : another win for equality

From Buzzfeed: Denying same-sex couples the right to marry is unconstitutionally discriminatory, Mexico's Supreme Court announced in a sweeping ruling made public Monday.

The ruling not only makes a strong statement about Mexican law's treatment of equal protection guarantees, it also relies heavily on civil rights rulings handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court. Although several justices of the American court take pride in not caring what foreign courts say, any who read the Mexican decision will find the court makes an impassioned case for the United States to follow its lead....

Despite its breadth, this ruling will have only a small immediate impact in Mexico.

Technicalities of the country's legal system mean that only the three couples who brought this case will be able to marry right away. Mexico City is still the only jurisdiction inside Mexico where marriage between same-sex couples is fully legal; several more lawsuits will have to be brought before that right is available nationwide.

Unlike in the United States, it takes more than one ruling from Mexico's Supreme Court to strike down a law—the court must rule the same way in five separate cases before a law falls. This ruling concerns three separate cases; it will take two more for any same-sex couple in Oaxaca to be able to wed easily, and then the process may have to be repeated in other states. But this precedent means this is a procedural issue, not a legal one.

For the lawyer who brought this suit, Alí Méndez Díaz, the verdict is still a big win.

"Without a doubt, we have made history … in Mexico. The next step is to extend this experience to other parts of the country," he said.

The story of the wedding photographer and the bridal magazine

Seems there is a photographer who wanted to advertise in a wedding magazine called Weddings Unveiled,  and she chose an image of a lesbian couple exchanging a kiss.  The magazine declined to run it. She writes

I sent this ad to you on Valentine’s Day. That afternoon, your editor called and said:

Is there possibly another photograph you’d like to use in your ad? We just don’t feel comfortable publishing an ad featuring a same-sex couple. These aren’t our personal beliefs, of course, but, you know... 

In the seconds that followed, a little part of my heart broke. 

and goes on,

A friend of mine asked me, “Aren’t there other publications who would be happy to advertise to the gay community?” And, you know, yes, I’m quite sure there are. But I chose Weddings Unveiled because I’m not trying to advertise to “the gay community.” I’m advertising to couples who are getting married. This couple didn’t get “gay married.” They didn’t have a “gay wedding.” They got married. They had a wedding. They share their lives, their joys and sorrows, and all the mundane daily things that we all share with our partners. They are just people. In love. Committed to one another.

I LOVE our straight allies!!!!!

The magazine has apologized.

From the Debate in Illinois (video Sunday)

Last week, the State Senate of Illinois voted for marriage equality. (On to their house next). Here are highlights from the debate:

On words and the A/P

There is a bit of a fuss going on (particularly at AmericaBlog) about the reluctance of the Associated Press to use the terms husband or wife for married gay couples.

AP says,

Generally AP uses couples or partners to describe people in civil unions or same-sex marriages.

But like children' programming, "one of these things is not like the other".  First off, a civil union is not a marriage.  That's kinda the point of all the electioneering and fighting, and to conflate them is to miss that point. You'd expect better from a news organization.

Second, a same sex marriage is really a marriage.  It is not gay-marriage, or (scary quotes) "marriage".    It's a legal contract between two adults that we call, simply and accurately,  marriage.  And what do we call a married man?  He's a husband.  Not a "husband".  He's a spouse, nota partner.   (Aside--the scare quotes are a tactic used by equality opponents.  Is AP a front for NOM?).

An apologist writes,

Gay people, married and unmarried, argue over what to call each other in relationships, and pretty much everyone has an opinion. I am in a domestic partnership in a state that only recently approved gay marriage, but I still prefer “boyfriend.” Many others have different preferences. Do two gay men become “husband and husband” by default just because they can get “legally married,” whatever we take that to mean?

Oh, so annoying on so many grounds.  First, it is irrelevant what the writer calls his boyfriend or partner. They aren't married.  Second, if they can get legally married, they are married.  They are not "married" (scary quotes).  And if two gay men marry, then yes, we call them husbands.  Now, I know straight couples who don't like those terms either.  But those are the general terms, and the default should be to use them.  Gay couples aren't trying for special treatment (oooh, let's ask the queers what they want to be called!)  The whole point is to treat our marriages the same as any other.  Apparently this is hard to grasp.

The apologist also says,

the fact is that legal gay marriage remains an elusive thing, even in U.S. states that allow it, because the Defense of Marriage Act prevents full equality.

Umm, #fail. I have a legal marriage (not a "gay marriage", but a marriage).  It is not elusive and it is perfectly legal.  DOMA simply says it is not recognized in some other states or federally.  It does NOT mean my marriage does not exist, and frankly I am quite offended that this .... writer would imply that.

It is true that many LGBT couples are not interested in marrying.  No one is holding a gun to their head sending them to get a license.  But if the writer is not interested in participating in this social contract, i don't care.  My wife and I, however, are legally married, and we are participating fully.

So when people describe her as my partner, I correct them, gently, to use the word wife.  This may offend NOM, but it is a simple fact.

Is AP made of journalists, or "journalists"?  The facts on the ground is that many gay couples are married, and we have husbands and wives.  AP's policy is to attempt to render my marriage non-existent or put an asterisk by it.  It is rude, it is inaccurate, and it is disrespectful.

A history of gay rights in the UK (Video Sunday)

In honor of the passage of a marriage equality bill through the House of Commons:

Taking down the marriage=procreation argument....biblically! (Voices of Faith)

As you know one of the primary arguments being made in front of the Supremes about marriage equality is that straight marriage is "special" because it can generate children (inadvertently, even!) and for that reason, we can't call gay relationships marriage.  (Even though we can call infertile or elderly couples "married".)  It's not as though there is a limited amount of marriage to go around, so this argument doesn't really defend straight marriage against Teh Gayz.

Click image for more
Voices of Faith

This week, the Rev. Tobias Haller, BSG, an Episcopal priest, published a piece on his blog taking down the Genesis version of this argument.  (If you haven't visited his blog before, you will find there articulate and intelligent support of marriage equality from a theological perspective.)

...But as is surely obvious, heritability and offspring ....represent possibilities which, even if not realized, do not in any way lessen the reality of the marriage itself.

The “reason” given for marriage in Genesis 2 is not procreation, but loneliness. The “reason” for marriage given in 1 Corinthians is not children, but as a remedy for fornication. And clearly these two things — companionship and conjunction — are matters for the couple, and between them; that is, they subsist in the marriage itself. ....

And if someone were to point me to Genesis 1 to claim that it shows that marriage is about procreation, given the command to be fruitful and multiply, I would have to ask why birds and fish do not “marry” — given that they receive an identical command.

... [M]arriage is about the couple and their bond and covenant. It is not a bond and covenant — or contract — to produce children, since that might well not happen, and the marriage is not void if no children are produced. It is a bond and covenant to remain faithful to the spouse, just as the marriage vows spell out in detail, with no reference to offspring: loving and cherishing, having and holding, honoring and comforting, and above all, forsaking all others in an exclusive life-long relationship. 

If you are interested in additional well-grounded theological arguments in favor of equality, I highly recommend Tobias's book, Reasonable and Holy.  

Religious freedom demands discrimination...NOT!

A couple of prominent gay writers have noticed a striking switch in the rhetoric of our friends at the National Organization for [straight-only] marriage (NOM). In the past, NOM has taken pains to make its only point of contention to be about marriage, and has not been anti-gay per se. Well the gloves are off.

  Jeremy Hooper notes that NOM is bringing its forces to bear to argue that the Boy Scouts should continue to discriminate, lest being gay be "normalized".

It is the single most anti-LGBT action in which I have ever seen NOM engage. This, an organization that has long denied it is anti-gay and instead insisted it is a "pro-marriage" policy shop, is coming right out an admitting it: NOM does not want homosexuality being seen as normal. NOM considers our values "alternative 'values'" With this action, NOM is aligning itself with the most radical groups on the oppositional side, fighting against the simple inclusivity of gay parents and children. 

In my eyes, this is a game changer. NOM can never live this one down. From here on out, we have no choice but to see NOM's fight as against the LGBT person. Here at a time when the organization is scrambling to find its messaging, NOM made this choice to step outside its focused cause and go hardcore against this, a fair-minded policy shift that HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MARRIAGE. NOM is wearing this undeniable animus like a merit badge, without concern or even realization for the fact that it just tied its own forward movement in knots.

Rob Tinsinai:

 Let’s be clear on why Brian’s all a-flutter. 

The Boy Scouts are not being required by law to stop discriminating. 

They are not instituting a national non-discrimination policy. 

They are not recommending that any local council stop discriminating. 

They are merely pondering whether to let local councils decide for themselves. 

And Brian Brown is freaking out. He’s drawing a battle line here and we should note it. I’ve searched for anything that would make Brian’s argument unique to the Boy Scouts, and I can’t find it. He’s made a case, right or wrong, that it’s a threat to religious liberty for private organizations to have no official policy on anti-gay discrimination. Brian’s reasoning — and correct me if I’m wrong — implies there is only way to protect religious freedom: make sure everybody out there implements and enforces a mandatory policy of discrimination against gay and lesbian people. 

This is Dark Ages stuff. In Brian Brown’s utopia, no one will dare sue for anti-gay discrimination because no one will dare reveal themselves as gay. No one will come out to their friends. No one will acknowledge their partner. Because every group, every charity, every employer will have a mandatory no-gay policy. 

Once you define "religious freedom" as Brian Brown's "right" not to see gay people, it's inevitable.  But it is profoundly anti-freedom.  And we should shine a bright light on it...and watch them scurry to the dark, where they belong.

NOM admits, it's not about marriage. It's about US.

From Jeremy Hooper at NOMexposed:

... I'm pretty shocked to see Mr. Fieler being so candid with the New York Times about why, exactly, he fights against gay people's marriages. I say surprised because the reasoning is not, as he tells it, just about marriage and religious freedom, like NOM claims. Instead, Fieler proudly owns his overall resistance to "the gay lifestyle™":

“The problem with gay marriage ...” Mr. Fieler said, “is it promotes a very harmful myth about the gay lifestyle. It suggests that gay relationships lend themselves to monogamy, stability, health and parenting in the same way heterosexual relationships do. That’s not true.”
[New York Times]

So here we have one of NOM's major (if not most major) funders using hostile phrases like "gay lifestyle" and suggesting that marriages like mine are inherently unstable, non-monogamous, and unhealthy. That, a view that is quite defamatory to many of us, goes *way* beyond just the marriage fight. This is the kind of rhetoric we're used to from nakedly anti-LGBT groups like the American Family Association. The whole point of comments like Sean's is to change America's view on gay people, not just our rights. It's the kind of dangerous phrasing that injects fear into the gay kids who see it and think they are intrinsically unfit for the future. 

Whether this is a sign of a more hostile NOM or is an uncharacteristic moment of candor remains to be seen. Either way, when the guy who has so fully helped to keep NOM's lights on admits that his view goes beyond my ring finger and instead goes right to my core, I'm choose to believe that he means it. And I'm going to use it.

Evolution of Gay (video Sunday)

Boy Scouts : where are the voices of faith?

Click image for more
Voices of Faith

From GLAAD, asking why the media isn't highlighting voices of faith who support the Boy Scouts potential change of policy to allow gays:

[M]edia coverage of the policy change has fallen into a familiar trap. Two of the most common voices appearing in opposition to the policy change have reinforced the false notion that religious people are opposed to removing the ban on gay scouts. Tony Perkins is one of the most common and egregious anti-gay voices. GLAAD has included him in our Commentator Accountability Project for the outlandish statements he has made against LGBT people. Another voice that has been appearing frequently is Albert Mohler, the president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Mohler has also made extreme anti-gay statements, and has also earned a spot on the Commentator Accountability Project. Mohler represents a large, mainstream Christian denomination in the United States. His words carry special weight, and can easily imply that Baptists all agree with him. He uses specific, religious language to help shape his message.

When these are the only religious voices that appear in the media conversation, one would be led to the conclusion that there is no religious support for changing the ban on gay scouts, but nothing could be further from the truth. Hundreds of religious groups have been advocating for a Boy Scout policy change, some for years. 

Unfortunately, pro-LGBT religious voices are not making it into the mainstream discussion. Instead, religious language is being offered exclusively to those who would oppose LGBT equality. Last spring, GLAAD issued “Missing Voices”, which demonstrated the lack of visibility for pro-LGBT religious people and organizations. The report found that 3 out of 4 religious voices speaking on LGBT equality came from denominations that have formal policy or culture opposed to LGBT people. 

This story has fallen into that same pattern. It’s time for the media to seek out sponsoring congregations, religious leaders, and entire denominations that have been encouraging the exact change that is being considered by the Boy Scouts. .... 

GLAAD calls on the media to include the multitude of faith voices that have been advocating for dropping the ban on gay scouts. Leaders within the United Church of Christ, Episcopal Church, Metropolitan Community Church, and others listed here are ready and willing to speak out. By doing so, the media can more fairly and accurately represent the fact that only the fringe of faith people are holding onto an antiquated anti-gay policy that keeps qualified leaders from the scouts, and punishes scouts for being gay.