What happens if SCOTUS punts?

From the LA Times:

The justices could decide that the sponsors of the ballot measure outlawing same-sex marriage had no legal right, or standing, to defend it in federal court. That would end the case in Washington, but it is not clear what it would mean for California. 

If state officials declared Proposition 8 dead, relying on U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker's 2010 ruling against the measure, same-sex weddings could commence within weeks or months. Or there could be another legal fight over the reach of Walker's ruling.
That technicality has prompted fierce arguments among prominent law professors over legal procedure.

Depending on what the Supreme Court decides, a ruling on standing could provoke a fight over whether the San Francisco judge's decision applies statewide or only to the two couples who sued or the counties where they live, Los Angeles and Alameda.

So,  Gov. Brown could view Judge Walker's ruling as a statewide mandate....

Such a step conceivably could lead to same-sex weddings before a court even had time to rule on the breadth of Walker's ruling. The judiciary would still have the final say, though, and could stop the nuptials once a challenge was filed.

It appears that both sides may have dropped the ball to prevent this.

During the 9th Circuit's hearing on the case, Judge Stephen Reinhardt grilled the Proposition 8 challengers on why they had not named more defendants to ensure a statewide impact....

They didn't think it was necessary.  But meanwhile

ProtectMarriage, the sponsors of Proposition 8, insist that Walker's ruling affected only the two gay couples who sued. But the group did not appeal the scope of his injunction at the time.

So then what?
If the Supreme Court determines that ProtectMarriage has no standing, the group would have to find a surrogate, possibly a county clerk opposed to gay marriage, to make its arguments in court. And that clerk would then also have to show standing. 

"One would hope our opponents would say it is time to stop this fight and move on to something else," Boutrous said.

That's naive.  Our opponents have made an industry out of this and are making serious money opposing equality. I am not sanguine that anyone will be marrying in California any time soon.

Employment discrimination

What if you get married and your boss fires you as a result? What if you can't find a new job because you're LGBT? It happens. It's legal. It's why we need employment nondiscrimination (ENDA).

Freedom to Work sent nearly identical resumés to Exxon Mobil.  Guess what? The gay one didn't get the job. 

On gay parents, false "studies", and Congress

Recently, Republicans in Congress have been taking on the National Science Foundation, specifically grants by NSF to social scientists.  Because many of the findings of such studies are unpopular on the right, they are trying to insinuate themselves into peer review to block NSF funding of things they (Congress) considers "unimportant". In March, Congress voted to eliminate National Science Foundation funds for political science research, except for grants certified by the NSF director as “promoting national security or the economic interests of the United States.”  Here's an excellent article on the problem.

This seems something arcane and uninteresting until you realize that on the flip side of this, conservative organizations basically "buy" research that they like.  And they try to prevent inconvenient facts from getting in the way. 

Such as the discredited "Renerus study" in which a social scientist in TX purported to do a study showing that children of gay parents don't do well. This got published, and then it got audited, and his professional organization and the journal itself agree, it doesn't say that at all.  Regnerus defines children of gay parents as children who grew up in a broken home where one parent MIGHT have had a same sex relationship at one point.

An interview with the auditor of the article was just published by SPLC.


First, he discusses some of the flaws of the study:

Regnerus’ data are from a large number of people recruited through convenience by a marketing firm — they are not a random, representative sample of the American population. Science requires random samples of the population, and that is not how this marketing firm collected their data....

Regnerus admits that just two of his respondents were actually raised by a same-sex couple, though I doubt that he can even know that, given his limited data. Since only two respondents were actually raised in gay or lesbian households, this study has absolutely nothing to say about gay parenting outcomes. Indeed, because it is a non-random sample, this study has nothing to say about anything....

He also explains that it was funded by a far-right, anti-gay group.  As federal funding dries up, these sources of funding are able to buy the scholarship they want.

One thing that’s disturbing to me about the Regnerus study is that Regnerus received a large amount of money from these foundations and this creates a very different scholarly and intellectual atmosphere. It creates a playing field that’s not level. Someone like Regnerus is now able to go out and buy his own data, if we’re to accept data of this quality.

Even if we were to say it’s high-quality data, he is able to get a million dollars’ worth of influence — he was able to generate that kind of funding from these conservative foundations in a way that other intellectuals are not able to do. All of the traditional sources of social scientific funding have dried up over the last 20 years and there’s nowhere to go to get money, but these guys have it. There are talks in Congress about cutting the entire social science budget at the National Science Foundation. That is chilling, because then we’ll be completely reliant on people like Mark Regnerus and Brad Wilcox [of the University of Virginia] and Christian Smith [of Notre Dame University] and people like that for our information about potentially crucial or controversial issues....

The bottom line:

When we talk about Regnerus, I completely dismiss the study. It’s over. He has been disgraced. All of the prominent people in the field know what he did and why he did it. And most of them know that he knew better. Some of them think that he’s also stupid and an ideologue. I know better. I know that he’s a smart guy and that he did this on purpose, and that it was bad, and that it was substandard.

The harm that Regnerus did (his study was cited many times in the Supreme Court arguments) can only be offset by real, impartial scholarship. And that is why you should care deeply about Congressional efforts to reduce social science funding at the National Science Foundation. Because it's not just some random academic who is affected.  This is personal.

Mocking the opposition

Sometimes the best defense is a sense of humor.  From the Independent (newspaper) in the UK, in the aftermath of the House of Commons approving marriage equality:

According to opponents of the new law, once gays can get married, that cheapens the marriages of everyone who isn’t gay. This shows how powerful a gay wedding is, because no other marriages have been able to ruin everyone else’s like this. No one suggested that marriage was cheapened because Fred and Rose West were married, because, while their marriage was unconventional in certain respects, at least it was a union between man and woman, and that’s the main thing..... 

This is the latest of a long line of things we can no longer enjoy because gays are allowed to do them as well. Since homosexuality was legalised in 1967, hardly anyone has bothered to have heterosexual sex, as it’s been cheapened. And these days why should a married couple bother buying toothpaste, or food, when lesbians can legally buy them as well?...

John Stanley, MP for Tonbridge, said gay marriage will be “unhelpful to young people being attracted to others of the same sex before arriving at being heterosexual”. Because it’s been such a help, over the years, to young people attracted to others of the same sex, to know they can’t marry the person they’re attracted to. Many people, in an even more dedicated effort to help, have called these young people perverts and spat at them and insisted they’ll go to hell, so that they can arrive at being heterosexual, enjoying a proper wedding with someone of the opposite sex who they’re not really attracted to, which always ensures a long, healthy and uncheapened marriage....

The Decline and Fall of Civil Unions

It used to be that progressive states offered their LGBT citizens civil unions, while the conservatives offered nothing. But now, people who favor civil unions are far more likely to identify as conservatives. The moderates and liberals overwhelmingly prefer marriage equality. 

The civil union option has moved from being a middle way dominated by political moderates a decade ago to one that is, today, most attractive to political conservatives. And looking ahead, there is evidence that the civil union option may have a limited future, at least if younger Americans are any indication. When given a three-way choice, civil unions are the least popular option among Millennials (Americans born after 1980). Only slightly more than 1-in-10 (13%) Millennials prefer civil unions, while 67% say they support allowing gay and lesbian people to marry, and 15% oppose any legal recognition of a gay couple’s relationship.

You have purpose (video Sunday)

Be careful out there!

Michelangelo Signorile:

We've seen reports of violent attack afterviolent attack in New York against gays in recent weeks, and now, this past weekend, we've experienced the brutal killing of 32-year-old Mark Carson in an alleged anti-gay shooting in Greenwich Village..... 

After decades of struggle, we're finally beating them back in the courts, in legislatures and even at the ballot box. And perhaps the frustration and anger by those who oppose us is now further empowering the thugs who take their hate and rage to the streets. 

It shouldn't come as a surprise then that in New York City, in a state that passed marriage equality in 2011, hate crimes against LGBT people so far in 2013 are almost double what were at this point in 2012. And 2012 itself was a notable year nationally, with outbreak of anti-LGBT violence in some of the country's most gay-friendly cities... 

We sometimes forget that getting laws passed and getting court rulings declared is, comparatively, the easy part -- as monumentally difficult as that has been and continues to be. One reason we in fact get the laws passed, in addition to protecting ourselves, is to change attitudes for future generations. But that part doesn't happen overnight and surely not without a backlash, which can sometimes be violent, as it has been in just about every other movement for equality. The hate is still out there and the haters are getting more desperate. Our worst enemies right now are complacency and the seductive message that we've "arrived."

The Church got it wrong (Voices of Faith)

Click image for more
Voices of Faith

Brian McClaren is a prominent theologian and advocate of the "Emergent Church". A member of an evangelical tradition, he is one of several Evangelicals who has "come out" for equality (another is Rob Bell). And he explains why:

It's much easier to hold the line on the conservative position when nearly all gay people around you are closeted and pretending to be other than they are. Eventually for some, the pain of pretending will become greater than the pain of going public. Whenever a new son or daughter comes out of the closet, their friends and family will face a tough choice: will they "break ranks" with their family member or friend, or will they stay loyal to their family member or friend - which will require them to have others break ranks with them?

.... Over time, I could not square their stories and experiences with the theology I had inherited. So I re-opened the issue, read a lot of books, re-studied the Scriptures, and eventually came to believe that just as the Western church had been wrong on slavery, wrong on colonialism, wrong on environmental plunder, wrong on subordinating women, wrong on segregation and apartheid (all of which it justified biblically) ... we had been wrong on this issue. In this process, I did not reject the Bible. .... I was able to distinguish "what the Bible says" from "what this school of interpretation says the Bible says," and that helped me in many ways.

So - many years before I learned I had members of my own close family who were gay - my view changed. As you can imagine, when this issue suddenly became a live issue in my own family, I was relieved that I was already in a place where I would not harm them as (I'm ashamed to say this) I had harmed some gay people (other people's sons and daughters) earlier in my ministry.

Why we need the courts: equality comes to a halt.

Although marriage equality has lept ahead of late, we're about to come to a screeching halt.

Recent victories have given same-sex marriage advocates hope that the tide has turned in their long-running fight for marriage equality, given the number of states approving same-sex marriage has doubled since Election Day 2012. 

But 36 states still ban such unions, and there’s little sign of change in those states anytime soon. 

While national public opinion polls show Americans warming to same-sex marriage, voters in many states remain staunchly opposed. And even where the politics and sentiment have changed, bans enshrined in many state constitutions could prove especially difficult to overturn — exactly the reason opponents pushed for constitutional measures in the first place.

 Those anti-equality amendments in state constitutions are going to be hard to change one by one....and some of them are not going to change at all.  From the Guardian:

Republicans have at least partial control of all the legislatures near the border and in the deep south. ... Republican control is a big deal because though the rest of the country has moved, Republicans, especially southern Republicans, have not. Only 26% of Republicans support gay marriage. The percentage of Americans in favor of same-sex marriage rose by 15pt over the past decade; the percentage of Republicans favoring gay marriage only rose by 3pt over the same period. That's a growth rate of only 0.3pt a year. 

...With the exception of Virginia, it's pretty clear that southern Republican support for gay marriage is lower than among Republicans nationally. As such, it's difficult to see how support among southern Republicans will hit 50% anytime before 2040. It's hard to imagine more than the stray Republican voting for same-sex marriage. Polarization is at all-time high, and politicians are more afraid about losing primaries than general elections. Republicans have no need to vote for same-sex marriage. 

Thus, unless the federal government jumps in, most, if not all southern states won't legalize same-sex marriage for the foreseeable future. Most of their citizens don't want it, and by the time they do, most Republicans still won't. Considering you'll need a majority or supermajority of state legislators to get the bans reversed, and that Republicans have a strong hold over these chambers, same-sex marriage in the south doesn't have much of a chance anytime soon.

The same thing happened with anti-miscegenation laws.  They essentially only remained in the south, until the Supreme Court's Loving v. Virginia decision finally eliminated them.  (And, tellingly, Republicans in the south still oppose inter-racial marriage).

Despite the pace of change, most court watchers think that SCOTUS will not make any sweeping decisions about marriage.  The best we can hope for is that Prop8 falls in California, but even that is uncertain-- and depending on the nature  and scope of the decision, it may only apply to the two couples who brought the case.

But it is clear that until SCOTUS DOES make such a decision, marriage equality will not be the law of the land, because of the frankly retrograde south.

Paying the price for equality

Have we won? Some commentators argue that it's all over bar the shouting, that the breathtaking steps towards marriage equality in the last 6 months prove that equality is now guaranteedas this article suggests:

But full legal equality is inevitable, as polls show overwhelming majorities of young people do not hold the same prejudices against homosexuals as their parents' and grandparents' generations. ….

Still the author admits

That gays won the culture war may seem paradoxical in light of the fact that, in most states, they still cannot get married or obtain civil unions (something which the Supreme Court is unlikely to change in its pending decision). The victory might also come as cold comfort to gays living in the 29 states where they can be fired due to their sexual orientation. 

Paradoxical?  You bet. The constitutional amendments against marriage equality will be difficult and in some places nearly impossible to overturn. And, we have hardly won if we can be fired for mentioning we have a same-sex partner. We have made progress, but not nearly as much as the media thinks.

 For one thing, there's the backlash, with a steep increase in anti-gay violence culminating a few days ago in a murder in NYC, of a young man, simply for being gay.

From the HuffPo:

Carson's murder highlights the shortcomings of a rights-based, marriage-based approach to LGBT equality, and cries out for deeper, and more difficult, forms of engagement.

With states falling like dominos into the marriage-equality camp, many have expressed shock that homophobic hatred and violence is "still" possible. But why is this shocking? The advent of civil rights for African Americans did not end racial violence, still widespread nearly 50 years after the Civil Rights Act. Feminism has not ended violence against women. Indeed, from Seneca Falls to Selma to Stonewall, to echo President Obama's historic turn of phrase, legal inequality is only the tip of the iceberg. Submerged beneath it are deep-seated patterns of injustice, privilege, prejudice and fear.…

In social struggles, legal equality is not the beginning of the end, but the end of the beginning. Yes, the state's imprimatur upon animus is now being, gradually, removed. But the animus itself remains. Carson's murder; the other acts of violence against LGBT people in New York… are not vestiges of bygone days we thought we'd left behind. Rather, they are a reminder that most of the work still lies ahead.

That's for sure. It's all too easy to fall into the lull that it's all okay.   But anti-gay attitudes are not vestigial.  They are mainstream.  In Virginia, the GOP has just nominated for Lieutenant Governor a man who defines hate speech against gay people with his lies and insults.

So, as the backlash escalates and the rhetoric becomes more poisonous, we must be more careful. Every gay person knows how to guard their contact with each other, to be wary all the time, as described here:

It's a practice well-learned, the art of coming together and slipping apart -- every corner starts not with a footstep but with a glance forward, every kiss begins and ends with darting eyes above a smile. Sometimes people smile -- women with strollers whose babies reach out and gurgle, old couples who nod slowly in silent recognition and acceptance.

Sometimes it's the long, long stare that goes right through my body…..

Oh, the stare.  Yes, we've all felt the stare:  the disdain, sometimes disgust, as they rake you with their eyes. They don't look away.  They want you to be uncomfortable, to pierce you through.   The writer goes on to describe an encounter in a restaurant, where a woman yanks her daughter to another table lest she (the daughter) be contaminated by the proximity of lesbians. You've got to be taught, you see, to hate the gays. The author goes on to lament,

When I hold my wife's hand I only want to feel her skin in my palm and our rings clink together. I only want to feel safe. 

But we are not safe.  All of us know that feeling--the constant awareness of where we are.  Is it safe to touch our fingertips?  To hold hands?  To exchange a glance?  If we get the stare--will violence follow?

And it's not just the threats of physical violence. There is a mental effect too, of having this constantly in the news, of enduring the lies, the bile, and the hatred of those opposed to equality. I've been worn down by this, by the degrading feeling of being talked about with such language. And a recent study suggests that I'm not alone in feeling this:

As the country awaits two important Supreme Court decisions involving state laws on same-sex marriage, a small but consistent body of research suggests that laws that ban gay marriage — or approve it — can affect the mental health of gay, lesbian and bisexual Americans. When several states passed laws to prohibit same-sex marriage, for example, the mental health of gay residents seemed to suffer, while stress-related disorders dropped in at least one state after gay marriage was legalized….

"They reported multiple stressors during that period," Hatzenbuehler [, the lead investigator,] says. "They reported seeing negative media portrayals, anti-gay graffiti. They talked about experiencing a loss of safety and really feeling like these amendments and these policies were really treating them as second-class citizens." ...

Hatzenbuehler says his larger point is really that policymakers, judicial leaders and ordinary citizens need to remember that social policies are also health policies.

What the equality opponents constantly ignore is that they are not talking about anonymous "they". They are talking about me, my family, my loved ones. They are talking about someone's brother, father, friend, or co-worker. As they tell lies about the gays and our relationships, as they beat (and shoot) our brothers, they are attacking all of us.

And here we sit, waiting for the Supreme Court to dissect us again with their pointed legal niceties, for them to decide if we are we, the people, full American citizens with equal rights--or whether once again we will be pushed aside as something other than fully human.

And it is taking a toll.

Think of the children!

The people opposed to marriage equality are constantly harping that "every child deserves a mother anda father" as though the act of giving us a marriage license empowers us to steal children. Obviously, every child deserves loving parents who have the protection of law. What the antis constantly ignore is that we are already raising children, and they are often our own. And we are raising them in unexpected places.

From the LA TImes:

Among couples of the same sex in the Salt Lake City area, more than 1 in 4 are rearing children...

For instance, "a big chunk of them are people who had children young, with opposite-sex partners, before they came out," [Gary] Gates[of the Williams Institute] said. After coming out, they raised those children with a partner of the same sex, he explained.

That may be one reason that in some more conservative places not known for celebrating gays and lesbians, a striking percentage of same-sex couples are rearing children, Gates said. Among states, Mississippi has the highest percentage of gay or lesbian couples raising children — 26% — his analysis of census data found.

…. Even if they weren't married before, gay and lesbian people often choose to have children in seemingly surprising places because they have strong ties to their families, researchers say.

But, never a group to let an opportunity for lies and snark to go by, NOM speaks out.

Reacting to the new study, the National Organization for Marriage said …. "The United States should not redefine marriage to accommodate the demands of this minuscule group of people," Frank Schubert, the group's political director, wrote in an email to The Times.

Revolution Rainbow Communion (Voices of Faith)

Click image for more
Voices of Faith

The Rev. Jay Bakker moved his Revolution church to Minneapolis just in time for the marriage equality vote, and in its honor, used a rainbow loaf for communion.

"[T]he rainbow communion bread became a really beautiful thing," explains Bakker. "It was special to honor Chirst as well as to honor those LGBT people who didn't make it this far and hope for a better future. It became a real source of redemption."....

Bakker reports that the rainbow communion has gotten people questioning his orthodoxy. He responds that "I don't think Jesus is insecure about sharing communion with others, including gay folks who suffered. So many lives have beeen lost because of what Christians say and preach. Heterosexisim and homophobia are deadly."

Corvino on the analogy between racism and heterosexism (video Sunday)

John Corvino continues his series of YouTube videos on the politics of homosexuality.

Why it matters: TX judge forbids lesbian from living with her partner

From ThinkProgress:

Compton could lose custody of her children because she has the audacity to live with the woman she loves. 

According to Price, Judge John Roach, a Republican who presides over a state trial court in McKinney, Texas, placed a so-called “morality clause” in Compton’s divorce papers. This clause forbids Compton having a person that she is not related to “by blood or marriage” at her home past 9pm when her children are present. Since Texas will not allow Compton to marry her partner, this means that she effectively cannot live with her partner so long as she retains custody over her children. Invoking the “morality clause,” Judge Roach gave Price 30 days to move out of Compton’s home.

This is obscene.

Voices of Faith: What gay people can teach straights about marriage

Click image for more
Voices of Faith

From the Rev. Susan Brooks Thistlewaite, in an excellent article about marriage in a social and religious context:

One thing statistics show is that heterosexual marriage is on shaky ground. Current data indicate that nearly half of all (heterosexual) marriages end in divorce, though there are age, race, educational, and economic differences that are crucial. Overall, this is twice the divorce rate as in same-gender marriages or civil unions, as documented by the Williams Institute, a prestigious think tank located at UCLA, whose mission is to conduct research on sexual orientation and gender identity law and public policy. While this data is too new to be statistically significant, it is important to keep compiling it.
....
Long term, we may find that divorce rates for LGBT couples climb to rates similar to those for heterosexuals, and it is important not to romanticize LGBT marriages. But currently, mining this data, along with my personal experience and my theological insight into how values perform in the public square as interpretive lenses, I have formulated this thesis: LGBT people value the institution of marriage more than some heterosexuals because they have to struggle for legal marriage recognition. As Ada María Isasi-Díaz, noted mujerista theologian, used to say, “La vida es la lucha.” Life is struggle. We tend to value that for which we must struggle. LGBT people may value the institution of marriage more than some heterosexuals as they must struggle for legal and religious recognition of their marriages...

What will it take for heterosexuals to make stronger commitments to marriage as an institution, as well as to each other? It is not that different than LGBT marriages, in truth. From the individual to the societal level, trust and commitment are absolutely central for marriages to succeed over time. Trust and commitment take struggle; that is one thing I do know after 42 years of marriage.

Marriage in MN: Majority Leader knocks it out of the park

Latest Gallup poll

From Gallup

Equality in Minnesota? you betcha!

Today, the MN state senate voted 37-30 to approve a marriage equality bill. The governor will sign it in a day or two.

All but 1 Republican voted "nay". All but three DFL (=MN Democrat equivalent) voted "yay". This was a close to party line vote, which shows that the Republicans continue to ride the shrinking tent of demographics.

This happened because the voters turned the legislature over to the DFL in November. THe previous, Republican legislature had put a "Prop8" style amendment on the ballot thinking it would help them. It didn't. It failed, and exposed anti-gay attitudes as poisonous. Also, it put "boots on the ground" to develop the conversation around equality. Getting to know the issue is how we won at the ballot box in ME, WA, and MD in 2012. It's how we got the legislative victories in RI, DE, and now MN.

Every election matters. So does every conversation.

From the mouths of babes...(video Sunday)

or in this case, a 6th grader testifying in Rhode Island for equality.

Are we winning because the Mormons left the game?

Mother Jones reminds us that the Mormons were active against marriage from the get go, but have gone strangely silent of late, both in institutional and individual activism against equality. So we are winning more.

But there's one force, perhaps greater than any other, that shouldn't be underestimated: theMormon church's political surrender on gay marriage. 

It's remarkable what has happened in the marriage fight since the Mormons decided to abandon it. Consider that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was the single biggest funder and organizer of the 2008 campaign to pass California's Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in one of America's most liberal states. The church is estimated to have directed at least $20 million to that effort, along with significant organizing clout. Documents unearthed by activist Fred Karger showed that the Mormons had 77 people working full time at the church's Salt Lake City headquarters to get Prop. 8 passed... 

...But after the Mormon involvement in Prop. 8 was fully exposed, the backlash was severe—and apparently unexpected. .. 

...Last year in Maryland, the church even went so far as to squelch an effort by some Mormons to organize against a pro-marriage initiative on the state ballot. The loss of the church as an ally has been a huge blow to foes of gay marriage, especially given its ability to deploy a host of motivated volunteers....

If the Mormons continue to stay home with their checkbooks closed, then we may just win this thing. In contrast with the march-in-lockstep Mormons, while the Catholic Bishops are against us, most Catholics are on our side. It's only a narrow fringe of conservative Catholics that are the opponents (and who make up NOM and the Knights of Columbus).

Marriage Debate Bingo

From Minnesota Public Radio, here's a Bingo Card just in time for today's debate.

MARRIAGE DEBATE BINGO
"Activist judges"	Legislator who cares about the 2014 election proclaiming "I don't care about the 2014 election."	"Think of the children"	"I am not homophobic."	Person unable to see partner in hospital story.
Draws parallel to slavery.	"The people of Minnesota have voted."	"Indoctrination"	Lawmaker acknowledges he/she's gay.	Bill fails.
Rainbow tie.	Mention of any gay member of the military.	FREE	Citation of any poll.	Debate halted while legislator recognizes winner of a spelling bee in the gallery.
Any mention of marrying an animal	"Only love matters."	Mention of gay family member.	"The gay lobby."	"Erosion of the family unit."
Bill passes.	"The flavor of the month"	Legislator gets tongue-tied trying to say "L-G-B-T"	Any legislator changes his/her mind during debate.	"God"

Roman Catholic Bishops call upcoming Prop8 decision a "Roe v Wade" moment

One grows tired of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, who have their cottas in a twist over the impending SCOTUS decision on Prop8.  To refresh, the Court has been asked to determine whether removing the right to marry from lesbian and gay couples in CA is constitutional.

The USCCB has published an insert for Church bulletins claiming that overturning Prop8 would be the same as Roe v. Wade.  Amongst their complaints,

Every child has a basic, natural right to come from and be raised in the loving marital union of his or her own father and mother.

Now, this is the root of their objection and I would like someone to explain it for me, because it is a complete non sequitor.

How does recognizing marriage between gay couples have any effect on the "right" of children to be raised by a mum and a dad?

1) California has already given LGBT couples complete adoption and parenting rights, regardless of marriage.

2)  It is estimated that lesbian and gay couples in CA are raising over 37,000 children, either their own or adopted.

3) They will continue to raise their children regardless of whether marriage is legal.

4) Ergo, the only effect of denying marriage it to prevent those children, who exist now, at this very minute, from having the protections of married parents.

And Delaware makes 11!

Just in:  Marriage equality squeaks through the Delaware Senate.  On to the governor's desk (he'll sign it).

Religion beyond the right, and the boy scouts

From Frank Bruni in the NY Times:

Religion is inevitably part of the Scouts’ debate: more than 70 percent of local scout troops are chartered by religious groups.

Later this month, the organization’s National Council will vote on a recommendation that the ban on gay scouts be lifted but the prohibition against gay leaders be preserved. The Mormons have indicated that they can live with this. The National Catholic Committee on Scouting has been vague.

The Baptists have cried foul, as have evangelicals like Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council,...

 The Episcopal Church wants all aspects of the ban lifted, as does the National Jewish Committee on Scouting....

...the Scouts’ bylaws require equal treatment of every religion’s teachings; and ... certain denominations — the Episcopal Church and the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), for example — ordain gay and lesbian ministers. By the Scouts’ current rules, those very ministers, fit for the pulpit, aren’t deemed fit to lead a troop.

Isn’t that as much of an insult to their religions as the ban’s end would be to Perkins, Perry and their kind?

National Marriage Organization: a Satire (video Sunday)

Activist Rob Tisinai takes on NOM.

Bishop calls for Catholics to shun same sex weddings

In Rhode Island, which is now the 10th state to approve marriage equality, the Roman Catholic Bishop calls for his flock to shun gay couples.

At this moment of cultural change, it is important to affirm the teaching of the Church, based on God’s word, that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered,” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2357) and always sinful. And because “same-sex marriages” are clearly contrary to God’s plan for the human family, and therefore objectively sinful, Catholics should examine their consciences very carefully before deciding whether or not to endorse same-sex relationships or attend same-sex ceremonies, realizing that to do so might harm their relationship with God and cause significant scandal to others.

It's not the first time that the hierarchy has called on people to shun their gay loved ones.  There are numerous examples from Minnesota during their amendment battle last fall.  And of course, punishments against those who would dare support gay couples, like denying Confirmation or Communion. It smells of desperation, given that the Roman Catholic laity are strong supporters of equality. 

From Andrew Sullivan :

All they have is calling our orientation “intrinsically disordered” and our families “clearly contrary to God’s plan” in a way they would never use with respect to, say, civilly divorced Catholics or those using contraception.... Take the right to a stable home away, and you do not bring health, happiness and peace. You bring sickness, depression and pain. And the reason some in the hierarchy still do not see this is because they cannot yet see gay people as human beings, with dignity. And that is what is “intrinsically disordered” from a Christian point of view.

THe masks come off: desperation, and coming out

One of the major strategies of our opponents has been a veneer of reasonable-ness. It wasn't that they hate gays, oh no-- we don't hate anyone!  But think of the children! So in California, they argued that Prop8 was okay because there were robust civil unions (called domestic partnerships), nothing personal, 'mos.

 Of course it IS personal. Our opponents vigorously oppose civil unions if they think they can get away with it. We see the attorney general of Texas just this week going after municipalities that dare to provide any sort of partnership arrangement for gay couples, calling them unconstitutional. 

THe front group NOM is increasingly pulling off the mask.  They applaud the attacks by the Texas AG.  As the redoubtable activist Jeremy Hooper notes, the rhetoric from NOM is ratcheting up into an aggressive anti-gay tone.

 The organization is increasingly partisan, reaching out to groups that are further and further on the fringe right. NOM has been taking on causes unrelated to marriage, like the matter of Boy Scout inclusivity. NOM staffers like Jennifer Roback Morse engage inever-harsher rhetoric that admits its cause is against LGBT people and not just marriage. We see constant signs of the "drive of wedge" strategy that came to light his year. Brian Brown has even used his email letter to draw a connection between marriage equality and pedophilia. Again, this is all happening because moderates and independents who were once more likely to support the NOM view have increasingly joined the majority of us on the right side of history. Brian is taking the organization in this direction because, quite frankly, what other choice has he?

NOM supports the bile spewed by anti-gay obsessive Robert Gagnon, who considers homosexuality worse than bestiality or incest.

Interestingly, NOM's founder, Maggie Gallagher, has distanced herself from the organization she started.  In fact her disappearance corresponds with their more agressive, anti-gay language.  These days, she paints herself as a victim of religious intolerance. 

But this anti-gay rhetoric can't succeed.   14% of people who used to oppose equality now support it.
STudies show that the biggest thing that changes the hearts and minds is knowing someone gay.

If you listen to the arguments during the hearings on marriage  equality in Rhode Island, Delaware, or Illinois, what you hear is people saying, "I know gay couples.  And they aren't the drooling spawn of Satan that NOM claims.  They are decent citizens, good parents, and good neighbors. And I can't in good conscience deny them the same rights that I enjoy."

Which is why we have to come out, over and over again.  It's easy to vote against people you don't know, scary demons in the media.  It's a lot harder to vote against Uncle Jim, or niece Mary, or that nice young man in the office, or the lesbian couple you know at church.

And the more our opponents demonize us simply for being gay, the more the middle will react against them.

"First they ignore you, then they mock you, then they fight you, then you win."  Gandhi