If you are gay, you can just grow your own food

In case you were in any doubt that the Republican party line is relentlessly anti-gay, there's this story from Washington state.  First, the back story:  A florist is in trouble for refusing to sell flowers to gay men for their wedding.  It's not because marriage is legal in WA, it's because there's an anti-discrimination statute. So the Republicans want it to be legal to deny ANY service on "religious grounds".  Anything at all.

From Think Progress:

A bill introduced in Washington state last week would allow people to use their “sincerely held religious beliefs” to justify discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation. One activist started calling the bill’s sponsors to find out more about why they supported such a negative bill. His primary question was, “What are rural gays supposed to do if the only gas station or grocery store for miles won’t sell them gas and food?” 

A staffer at state Sen. Mike Hewitt’s (R) office had a unique reply:

Well, gay people can just grow their own food.

The staffer refused to identify himself, and when others called Hewitt’s office, no further comment was offered. The staffer later backpedaled a bit, claiming “patience was lost, mistakes were made, and that’s it,” but still had no comment on behalf of Hewitt. 

The question is a perfectly valid one. Conservatives often argue that if a florist, photographer, baker, or other business refuses service to a same-sex couples, there are plenty of others champing at the bit to support marriage equality. In urban areas, this may generally be true — but it’s not an argument that justifies discrimination. In rural areas, it may very well not be true. What if there is no local alternative? What if the only alternative is more expensive, of a lesser quality, or further away? The proposed bill doesn’t merely exempt those who provide services that might be related to weddings; it exempts all businesses. So it’s quite possible that a rural grocery store might be Christian-owned and attempt to refuse service to a same-sex family, and were this bill to become law, that would be perfectly legal. 

If a lawmaker’s staffer is willing to suggest that the alternative for same-sex families is to be self-sufficient and cut off from society, that should be a clear indication that this bill’s sole intent is animus.

Gay athlete comes out: why it matters

In the Sports Illustrated article where NBA player Jason Collins comes out, there is this paragraph:

I feel blessed that I recognized my own attractions. Though I resisted my impulses through high school, I knew that when I was ready I had someone to turn to: my uncle Mark in New York. I knew we could talk without judgment, and we did last summer. Uncle Mark is gay. He and his partner have been in a stable relationship forever. For a confused young boy, I can think of no better role model of love and compassion.

There you go.  A stable, partnered relationship that patterns adulthood tells gay kids (and gay men)  that yes, they have a future.  That being gay isn't something that has to be hidden, or dirty, or anonymous, or promiscuous.  That's why our opponents are so against marriage equality.  It never has been about marriage--it's about their desire to make us ashamed of who we are, and making us hopeless. 

That's why it matters. The lies they are telling about gay people melt away when they are faced with Uncle Mark and his partner.

A song from Darren Criss (video Sunday)

From the GLAAD media awards

Marriage in Rhode Island?

It passed the RI Senate, now back to a reconciliation in the House and then on to Gov. Lincoln Chafee's desk, probably next week.

Meanwhile, things are rolling in DE too.

And then there were 10....

In France: Oui pour l'egalité

THe vote is in, at 331-225 for marriage. Vive la France!

Expect the violence to continue. I bet the protests are highjacked by ultra-right nationalists and skinheads, who like nothing better than to gay bash.

In France, protests and death threats

In striking contrast to the "eh" of marriage in New Zealand, we now turn to France. The pro-equality bill is close to passing its final vote. But the anti-equality forces in France have taken to the streets. There are scenes of violent clashes between protesters and the police. And now there are death threats sent to Parliament:

The head of the French parliament has received a letter containing gunpowder, ordering him to put off tomorrow’s vote on marriage equality.... 

The one-page letter warns: ‘You wanted war, and you’ve got it.’ 

According to French magazine L’Express, and as reported by The Local, the politician was told ‘our methods are more radical and more swift than protests.’

A French Cardinal also warned of violence.   And of course there have been attacks on gays.

Remember, the leader of the anti-equality movement said [pro-equality French President]"Hollande wants blood and he will get it."

I find this shocking.

From New Zealand (video Sunday)

This fabulous testimony from a NZ representative to Parliament is priceless.

Thank you, sir!

Should pro-equality Catholics take Communion?

The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Detroit recently said that pro-marriage-equality Catholics should not present themselves for Communion.  Writing in the HuffPo, Charles Reid takes him on. 

....[O]n matters of divorce, contraception, and even in vitro fertilization, Catholics have reached a modus vivendi with the larger secular society. Catholics truly believe in the indissolubility of marriage. That, for Catholics, is what makes marriage sacred. And even while most Catholics practice contraception at some point in their lives, they also, most of them anyway, acknowledge that opposition to contraception is part of their Church's teaching. Same goes for in vitro fertilization. Most Catholics appreciate the moral dilemmas posed by this practice. But Catholics by and large do not try to outlaw these practices as a matter of secular law, nor do bishops try to use Communion as a means of enforcing this sort of political agenda.

If the Catholic Church and secular society can achieve co-existence on these points, why not on marriage equality? If a Catholic can believe that a secular divorce law is allowable, even though it is opposed to an essential property of marriage, how is that different from a Catholic who believes that secular law should adopt marriage equality, even if it does not conform to the Catholic understanding of marriage? 

What this line of questioning is really calling for is a searching re-examination by Catholic thinkers of Church/State and Church/Society relations. What does it mean for the Catholic Church to exist in a world that is authentically pluralistic?  

And now New Zealand

New Zealand's parliament has voted to legalize same sex marriage, becoming the 13th nation to do so.

There was a spontaneous celebration and a traditional Maori love song, Pokarekare Ana, from the gallery.

Well done, Kiwis!

The Constitutional Issue before SCOTUS

Op/Ed in the Wall Street Journal goes over the history of how the Court can review law.  Not as dry as you might think, when you consider the current cases (my emphasis)

What is made clear, over and over again, from leaders of the anti-gay marriage movement ranging from Speaker of the House John Boehner to the so-called National Organization for Marriage is that their positions are based on religious belief and a particular interpretation of the Christian Bible. Boehner had spoken of never changing his position on the matter because that is what his church tells him it should be. In the opening sentence of their mission statement the NOM states that they have: "a mission to protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain it [emphasis added]." Their leader, Brian Brown, talks about how his position is drawn from "Scripture" and "biblical views of marriage" . 

Of course any church is entitled to formulate and abide by its own rules for marriage, and if they don't want to countenance or recognize same-sex marriage, under the First Amendment they love to denigrate so much, that is their right. But then there is the institution of marriage (with provisions for its legal dissolution) that is found in the civil law that exists on the books of every one of the 50 states. This institution has absolutely nothing to do with religion any more than state motor vehicle laws do. In every state a couple can walk into the office of an civil official endowed by that state's law to perform a marriage ceremony and certify that it is licensable under the law, and get married. Unless, that is, in most states, they happen to be of the same sex.
....
And so, there are only two issues that should be considered here. Both are Constitutional. The first is whether, given the "no religious establishment" clause of the First Amendment, a definition of marriage that is clearly based on religious belief, according to its proponents, should, indeed can, be granted any recognition under the law at all (other than to protect its use for religious weddings by those who hold to that religious belief under the "free exercise" provision of the First). The second is, given the fact that each of the 50 states has a large body of civil law concerning marriage, whether or not the "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment applies.

We are talking about religious determination of civil law and practice here. ...  When the issue is before the Supreme Court it is the defense of the Constitution, of the 1st and 14th Amendments, that should be at the center of our side's arguments, and nothing else.

To This Day (Video Sunday)

Check out the "To This Day" project.

Evolving (cartoon)

From the Advocate:

More polls

Yet another poll finds increasing support for equality:

Published by the UCLA's Williams Institute, “Public Support for Marriage for Same-Sex Couples by State" examines each state's current stance on the legality of marriage equality, as well as the overall change in public opinion since 2004.

Over the past eight years, every U.S. state has increased in its support for same-sex marriage, with an average increase of 13.6 percent, and if the public opinion trends continue at the same pace, eight additional states will be above 50 percent support by the end of next year.

But lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights advocates shouldn't get overly optimistic by the report's findings, as Williams Institute researchers pointed to what was described as "a notable disparity" that exists across state boundaries, according to a press release.

A high school senior comes out (video Sunday)

Texas A & M and "religious freedom"

A & M is a very conservative school with its own military quasi-ROTC program. This week, the student senate passed a bill...well, read what happened:

Texas A&M student body president John Claybrook said he will veto legislation from the student senate aimed at letting students opt out of funding the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered Resource Center, or other university services, based on religious grounds.

News this week that some student senators had targeted the center thrust the traditionally conservative university into the national spotlight, and Claybrook said it was time to "stop the bleeding."

...

A veto by Claybrook means that the legislation passed 35-28 on Wednesday will not represent the official opinion of the student body at Texas A&M.

The center, opened in 2007, is a resource and referral center dedicated to providing a safe and affirming location on campus for all students and puts on annual campus-wide events such as Coming Out Week, GLBT Awareness Week, AIDS Awareness Week and others. University officials say approximately 1,200 Aggies utilize the center each semester.

For weeks, the student-led bill had been aimed at defunding the Texas A&M GLBT center, but approximately 24 hours before the final vote, the "GLBT Funding Opt Out Bill" became "The Religious Funding Exemption Bill." Its scope was broadened, and it did not specifically mention GLBT services.

“Even without the wording that specified particular groups that would be affected in the final version of this bill, the sentiment towards the bill has not changed and has caused great harm to our reputation as a student body and to the students feeling disenfranchised by this bill,” Claybrook said.

Opponents have argued that the bill was discriminatory, alienating and embarrassing for A&M. Proponents said the bill would ensure religious freedoms for all students. Others have called the efforts of the Aggie senators meaningless, as the measure would have faced many hurdles before implementation.

You know, if I were an LGBT Aggie, I would demand that my student funds be denied any religious group on campus.  What part of living in a plural society do these Christianists not understand? (Yes, I know....all of it.)

David Brooks gets it right: the loss of personal freedom.

The LGBT community has changed a lot, from cultural radicals focused on sexuality, to what I frankly consider to be a mature and mainstream group.  Perhaps the AIDS crisis focused the community's attention on the meaning of our relationships and family.  As Barney Frank noted a while ago, you can hardly call us revolutionaries any more;  I mean, how radical can it be when your goals are equal protections at work, equal opportunities to serve in the military, and equal rights to marry?

Columnist David Brooks comments on this today in the NY Times in the context of personal freedom.

Recently, the balance between freedom and restraint has been thrown out of whack. People no longer even have a language to explain why freedom should sometimes be limited. The results are as predicted. A decaying social fabric, especially among the less fortunate. Decline in marriage. More children raised in unsteady homes. Higher debt levels as people spend to satisfy their cravings. 

But last week saw a setback for the forces of maximum freedom. A representative of millions of gays and lesbians went to the Supreme Court and asked the court to help put limits on their own freedom of choice. They asked for marriage. 

Marriage is one of those institutions — along with religion and military service — that restricts freedom. Marriage is about making a commitment that binds you for decades to come. It narrows your options on how you will spend your time, money and attention. 

...Americans may no longer have a vocabulary to explain why freedom should sometimes be constricted, but they like it when they see people trying to do it. Once Americans acknowledged gay people exist, then, of course, they wanted them enmeshed in webs of obligation. 

...The proponents of same-sex marriage used the language of equality and rights in promoting their cause, because that is the language we have floating around. But, if it wins, same-sex marriage will be a victory for the good life, which is about living in a society that induces you to narrow your choices and embrace your obligations.