What's happening in New Mexico?

Back in the heyday of Bush-Rove, who cynically ran for office on a wave of anti-gay sentiment, there was a flurry of anti-equal-marriage amendments to state Constitutions. These now must be laboriously undone. New Mexico somehow managed to escape either amendment or initiative, and its laws and constitution say nothing either way on same sex couples.

Now,three counties in NM will provide licenses to same sex couples. From the StarTribune:

An Albuquerque judge on Monday ordered the clerk of New Mexico's most populous county to join two other counties in the state in issuing marriage licenses for gay and lesbian couples.

State District Judge Alan Malott ruled that New Mexico's constitution prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.... [A] judge in a separate case ordered the Santa Fe County clerk to issue same-sex licenses. The clerk of Dona Ana County in southern New Mexico decided on his own early last week to recognize same-sex marriage.

Predictably, Republican legislators are trying to stop it, but it's not clear how, since there is no law against it. They could try a Prop8-style effort. Remember, in CA, the state supreme court found that marriage was legal, and 18,000 couples married in the 6 months between that decision and the passage of the H8 amendment (which has now fallen). We'll see. Meanwhile, one more quote from the paper.

Christine Butler of Albuquerque, who opposes gay marriage and attended the hearing, said the judge's ruling violates her rights.

"I don't want to bring my children or go to places and see same-sex couples showing a lot of affection. ... That's against God's law," said Butler.

Bless her heart. Honey, we don't have to be married to go places and show affection. Your children are just going to have to learn that there's a whole rainbow of people out there, whether you approve of us or not. And those of us with faith are quite sure that God is smiling upon us.

Celebration from the SF gay men's chorus (video Sunday)

"Overturning the will of the people": we've been down this road before

Once upon a time, there was a decision in California that extended protections and rights to an unpopular minority.

The response was a ballot initiative to reverse the decision, and to amend the state constitution so that the protections and rights were rolled back. This passed convincingly at the ballot box.

There was a legal challenge. The state refused to defend the amendment, to the ire of its supporters.  The courts stepped in, and ultimately found that that the amendment was unconstitutional. Despite the support of the majority of voters, it was declared invalid.

Proposition 8? No.

I'm talking Proposition 14, which was passed in 1964 with a whopping 65% majority, and ultimately declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in 1967.

The story: in 1963, the California legislature passed the Rumford Fair Housing Act that stated property owners could not refuse to rent or sell property to anyone because of ethnicity. It also included religion, sex, marital and family status, and physical handicap. This was considered an important landmark for civil rights.

In 1964, Proposition 14 (sponsored by real estate and Republican groups) stated that property owners could indeed discriminate. As I said, it passed convincingly.

When it was challenged in court, the state declined to defend Proposition 14, because  Gov Pat Brown (Jerry Brown's father) considered it unconstitutional.  The California Supreme Court found that Prop 14 violated equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment.

The Supreme Court of the US agreed. In Reitman v. Mulkey (1967), SCOTUS invalidated Prop 14 by a 5-4 decision.  From the decision, they pointed out the real consequences of Prop 14:

The right to discriminate, including the right to discriminate on racial grounds, was now embodied in the State's basic charter, immune from legislative, executive, or judicial regulation at any level of the state government. Those practicing racial discriminations need no longer rely solely on their personal choice. They could now invoke express constitutional authority, free from censure or interference of any kind from official sources. All individuals, partnerships, corporations and other legal entities, as well as their agents and representatives, could now discriminate

As Wikipedia tells us, "Reitman established a significant precedent because it held that state assistance or encouragement of private discrimination violated the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment. As of 2013, this precedent remains good law."

You might want to pass this along to the bloviating anti-equality die-hards, who continue to advocate for the right to do just that.

It's over

The California Supreme Court has denied the petition by Prop8 proponents seeking to stop marriages in the state.

ProtectMarriage had argued that the federal order in the case only applied narrowly to the two couples, that all other counties in California were obligated to enforce Prop 8, and other issues that would have led to enforcing Prop 8 across California, except for two counties. The state had argued that the petition was an attempt to make changes to a federal court’s order in California state courts, a move that is not permitted by the federal Constitution.

So it's over.

And while our opponents are seething that the "will of the people" has been denied, may I remind them (yet again) that we do not have a direct democracy, we have a republic and with that, a balance of powers in which the Courts work to protect the rights of the minority.

So, even though in the Civil Rights era, a majority of voters in the south surely would have voted to keep Jim Crow laws intact, they fell.  And even though a majority of Americans disapproved of marriage between the races, those laws also fell.

A majority does not get to take away rights from a minority based solely on numbers.

Tale of Two Dads (Video Sunday)

Why it matters: legal spouses still denied federal benefits

From Think Progress

The Social Security Administration announced on Friday that it will begin offering partner benefits to same-sex couples, but in a limited capacity, adding that it has additional “policy and processing instructions” to develop over the coming months. As BuzzFeed reports, however, the benefits will not be applied as consistently as some other federal benefits have been made available to same-sex couples since the Supreme Court overturned the Defense of Marriage Act. 

For now at least, only married same-sex couples who live in a state that recognizes their marriages will be eligible to receive the Social Security spousal benefit. This is inconsistent with other benefits, such asrecognition for immigration purposes, which rely entirely on “place of celebration.” In other words, a same-sex couple could marry in Minnesota and move next door to North Dakota, and one spouse could still sponsor the other for a green card, but that spouse couldn’t receive spousal Social Security benefits because they’re in a state without marriage equality.

The solution is that for all Federal Benefits to depend on whether the marriage was legally performed in the state where it was celebrated, and not tie to to the domicile of the couple.  Either that or all gay people will have to  leave the States of Hate.

Reparative therapy...for homophobes! (Video Sunday)

Gays Beware with Jesse Tyler Ferguson and George Takei from Jesse Tyler Ferguson

Pentagon to give soldiers "wedding leave"?

From the AP:

Same-sex spouses of military members could get health care, housing and other benefits by the end of August under a proposal being considered by the Pentagon. But earlier plans to provide benefits to gay partners who are not married may be reversed. 

A draft Defense Department memo obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press says the department instead may provide up to 10 days of leave to military personnel in same-sex relationships so they can travel to states where they can marry legally.

I have no problem with this.  if marriage is the gold standard, then by all means, give soliders/sailors/airmen  an opportunity to go get married, so that their families can be eligible for benefits.

Good on the Pentagon.

The Riddle (video Sunday)

New Poll shows Americans understand religious liberty just fine, thank you

The Human Rights Campaign and the organization, Third Way, released a national poll that asks about attitudes towards gay couples with regard to religious freedom. And, not surprisingly, Americans "get" that religious freedom is an issue for the churches, mosques, and synagogues, and not an excuse to discriminate against people in the civil sphere.

From the Press Release: 

Thirty percent of the country now lives in a state where gay couples can marry, and Americans’ views are warming faster than ever. But the shrinking group of politicians who still oppose allowing gay couples to marry often argues that doing so would infringe on the religious liberty of marriage opponents. 

...The results of our national poll are clear:

• Americans know that our laws and Constitution already robustly protect religious liberty, and they do not think marriage or non-discrimination laws threaten religious beliefs or practices.
• Voters oppose new proposals which would allow government employees, businesses, or individuals who oppose marriage on religious grounds to deny services to gay people or couples.
• When it comes to religious exemptions, voters are clear that they should be limited to places like churches and synagogues and people like pastors, priests, and rabbis.-  

So, once again to the Roman Catholic Bishops and the Baptist Blowhards:  you do not get to discriminate against us in the civil sphere.  In secular business, members of your faith do not get to deny LGBT people services that they freely offer anyone else., just because they are gay.

If you have a question about that, just substitute the word "Jew" for "gay" in sentences like "I shouldn't have to sell gays a cake, because they are against my faith."   Yeah,doesn't work, does it?

On the other hand, how about this, "My church refuses to marry a Jewish couple."  That's fine.  no problem.  You have every right to say that.  But Why wouldyou think a Jewish couple want to be married in your church in the first place?

Can you spot the difference? 

Marriages Begin in MN and RI

Same sex couples are now able to marry in Minnesota and Rhode Island.  Congratulations, everyone!

From the Star Tribune:

The streets outside Minneapolis City Hall were filled with newly-wedded gay and lesbian couples reveling in their new marital status Thursday morning while inside dozens more waited their turn in lines that lasted until dawn. 

Down the street at the Hotel Minneapolis, Cathy ten Broeke and Margaret Miles, the first couple legally wed in Minnesota, partied into the night, wearing the same slinky dresses they wore 12 years earlier at their commitment ceremony. This time, ten Broeke said with some satisfaction, was different because this “was the state of Minnesota committing to us and our family.” 

Mayor R.T. Rybak worked through the night and early morning hours, officiating the weddings of 42 gay and lesbian couples on the marble steps of the City Hall Rotunda where, at the bottom, the massive Father of Waters statue was surrounded by folding chairs, wedding guests and dozens of clicking cameras.

And from the Providence Journal: 

From Newport to Pawtucket, Rhode Islanders Thursday visited city halls at the first moments on the first day that marriage licenses are available for gay couples.

In Newport, Federico Santi and John Gacher came in promptly at 8 a.m. to the City Clerk's office to get their marriage license.

They had waited 41 years for this and within a few minutes the documents were signed and the couple were married. They were the first same-sex couple to marry in Newport under a new state law.

Congratulations, everyone!