The global divide on homosexuality

From Pew Research:

New poll in INequality states shows majority support

A new poll of registered voters in states that currently do not allow gays to marry shows some surprising findings (PDF). 

• A majority of registered voters supports marriage equality by 51-41%.
• 59% of voters in "central" states support marriage equality.
• 53% in Western states.
• And even the south is now evenly divided (46-46%).
• Even those opposed think it's inevitable. 
• And 78% think its impact will be either positive, or negligible.

The poll is from Freedom To Marry poll (carried out by Anzalone Liszt Grove)

Jonathan & Dwayne | A Story about love (video Sunday)

Meanwhile in the 9th Circuit

From ThinkProgress:

When the U.S. Supreme Court made history in June by striking down the Defense of Marriage Act, the substantive holding was immediately clear: the discriminatory federal law “demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, and whose relationship the State has sought to dignify.” What was not exactly clear was what, if any, sort of legal standards the justices set for future courts. A federal appeals court ruling issued Tuesday finds the justices set a new, heightened standard for justifying discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

This came in a case where the court found that a juror could not be dismissed from a jury siimply because he was gay.

But they went further and said that the actions of the Supreme Court meant that gay people should be subject to "heightened scrutiny".

Ari Ezra Waldman:

Many scholars believe that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation demands heightened scrutiny. We meet all the requirements: we have been burdened by discrimination for generations, our sexuality is irrelevant to our ability to serve as jurors, we have traditionally lacked the political power to realize our full rights in the political sphere, and we have a defining characteristic essential to our identity as a group. 

But the Ninth Circuit went a step further and argued that the Supreme Court'sWindsor decision suggests that heightened scrutiny is appropriate. Review inWindsor, the Ninth Circuit wrote, was not the traditional lowest form of review that had for years been applied to anti-gay discrimination. It was something more, something higher, something "intermediate." 

How could the Ninth Circuit justify this conclusion if Windsor never explicitly said it was using heightened scrutiny? 

The argument is simple: Look at what the Court actually did, not what it said. In Lawrence v. Texas, for example, the Supreme Court was similarly confounding, but by looking at the Court's decision, it was clear it was not using traditional rational basis. After all, the state had to do more justifying and the cases Lawrence relied on also used something more than rational basis. The same was true for Windsor. The state had to do a lot of work to justify DOMA, the precedent Windsor cited all used more than rational basis, and the Windsor Court did not go through a list of possible rational justifications for DOMA, all of which would normally be the case in a standard rational basis case. 

...
If the Ninth Circuit's opinion catches on, if sexual orientation discrimination gets heightened scrutiny post-Windsor, our battle is more than half over. It is hard to justify banning us from the institution of marriage under rational basis review; heightened scrutiny takes away all doubt. 

State update

Virginia:

Following a seismic political shift in Virginia, the new attorney general has concluded that the state's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, and on Thursday he joined a lawsuit challenging it. 

Attorney General Mark R. Herring says in a brief filed in federal court in Norfolk that marriage is a fundamental right and the ban is discriminatory. 

Virginia, widely considered a battleground state in the nationwide fight to grant same-sex couples the right to wed, is siding with the plaintiffs who are seeking to have the ban struck down, a spokesman for Attorney General Mark Herring said in an email to The Associated Press.

 Florida:
The "pro-marriage" group may actually be a shell group trying to defeat equality's chances.

The timing of Brito’s idea was so inopportune, and its execution has been so lackluster, that some wonder if this might be a stealth campaign, secretly launched by anti-LGBT forces, and engineered to fail on purpose. An alternate explanation might be that this tax-exempt campaign could have been created to funnel some of its supposed $6 million of donations into revenue at Brito’s political consulting business, MYami Marketing, Incorporated.

Indiana:
Despite opposition from groups and companies including Eli Lily, the Republican dominated committee wants to regress Indiana and discriminate against its gay residents. The lies they tell....

The Indiana House Elections and Apportionment Committee voted 9-3 along party lines Wednesday evening to advance House Joint Resolution 3, a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. It also passed a bill that expresses legislative intent in regards to how the amendment should be enforced. House Speaker Brian Bosma (R) assigned the amendment to this committee on Tuesday after it seemed like the Judiciary Committee might not approve it. The amendment now advances to the House floor.
....
The Indiana General Assembly previously approved the amendment in 2011. It must now be approved again during this legislative session before it can advance to voters for approval. 

Let it stand! (Video Sunday)

There have been rallies to support marriage in Utah.  This youngster, aged 12, testified movingly about his two moms.

UPDATED: Mapping our progress

A FB friend made a comment about entrenched attitudes in the south.  Is the old confederacy really still a problem?  Here are some maps.

First, let's start with maps defining racial issues.

This map (from the US Census) shows us the frequency of inter-racial couples.

Here's a look at states that banned inter-racial marriage.  This graphic (from the NY Times) addresses whether the states got rid of the ban before the Supreme Court ruled such bans unconstitutional in 1967 (Loving v. Virginia).  You can see that the states in the lower right had bans in place until the Supreme Court acted.

\

What about segregation?  Who was segregated prior to Brown v. Board of education?

This map comes from a project from Cal State Humboldt called the "Hate map". The investigators identified twitter posts using racist slurs, and geotagged them.  Then they colored them on whether they were more common than the average.  

Voter ID laws typically are disproportionately targeted at the poor, the young,and people of color.  HEre's a summary of such laws via the Washington POst.

Let's turn our attention to LGBT rights.  Start with decriminalization;  the landmark Lawrence v. Texas overturned the remaining sodomy laws that attempted to criminalize consensual sex involving lesbians and gays.

  Here's a map showing which states have non-discrimination laws that cover sexual orientation.  In these states, you can't deny service or accommodation to someone just because they are gay. Elsewhere, it is perfectly legal to fire someone simply for being gay.

Marriage equality is our big topic.  Here is the map or marriage in the states.  (Utah and Oklahoma are still litigating.)

And here's the hate-map of homophobic and anti-gay slurs on Twitter.

As for other correlations, here's a map of the Confederacy. 

A map of Evangelical Christians.

And a map of the 11 different Americas, defined by our distinct places of origin and culture.

Updated:  And here's a map showing positive correlation between conservative Evangelical Christians and the rate of divorce.  That means the more conservative Evangelicals there are, the higher the divorce rate for everyone.

So much for family values. 

Federal Court finds Oklahoma amendment unconstitutional

First Utah, now....Oklahoma? From the decision: (my emphases)

The Court recognizes that moral disapproval often stems from deeply held religious convictions….However, moral disapproval of homosexuals as a class, or same-sex marriage as a practice, is not a permissible justification for a law.

There is no rational link between excluding same-sex couples from marriage and the goals of encouraging “responsible procreation” among the “naturally procreative” and/or steering the “naturally procreative” toward marriage. Civil marriage in Oklahoma does not have any procreative prerequisites. 

If a same-sex couple is capable of having a child with or without a marriage relationship, and the articulated state goal is to reduce children born outside of a marital relationship, the challenged exclusion hinders rather than promotes that goal. 

Same-sex couples are being subjected to a “naturally procreative” requirement to which no other Oklahoma citizens are subjected, including the infertile,the elderly, and those who simply do not wish to ever procreate. Rationality review has a limit, and this well exceeds it 

Exclusion from marriage does not make it more likely that a same-sex couple desiring children, or already raising children together, will change course and marry an opposite-sex partner (thereby providing the“ideal” child-rearing environment). 

Excluding same-sex couples from marriage has done little to keep Oklahoma families together thus far, asOklahoma consistently has one of the highest divorce rates in the country. 

With respect to marriage licenses, the State has already opened the courthouse doors to opposite-sex couples without any moral, procreative, parenting, or fidelity requirements. Exclusion of just one class of citizens from receiving a marriage license based upon the perceived “threat” they pose to the marital institution is, at bottom, an arbitrary exclusion based upon the majority’s disapproval of the defined class. It is also insulting to same-sex couples, who are human beings capable of forming loving, committed, enduring relationships. “‘Preserving the traditional institution of marriage,’”which is the gist of Smith’s final asserted justification, “is just a kinder way of describing the State’s moral disapproval of same-sex couples.”

Equal protection is at the very heart of our legal system and central to our consent to be governed. It is not a scarce commodity to be meted out begrudgingly or in short portions. Therefore, the majority view in Oklahoma must give way to individual constitutional rights. The Bishop couple has been in a loving, committed relationships for many years. They own property together, wish to retire together, wish to make medical decisions for one another, and wish to be recognized as a married couple with all its attendant rights and responsibilities. Part A of the Oklahoma Constitutional Amendment excludes the Bishop couple, and all otherwise eligible same-sex couples, from this privilege without a legally sufficient justification.

Utah can't make up its mind

From the NY Times, a review of the shifting, incoherent arguments that Utah is trying to oppose marriage equality:

The state’s first argument, made before Judge Robert J. Shelby of the Federal District Court in Salt Lake City, was that “the traditional definition of marriage reinforces responsible procreation.” ... 

Judge Shelby agreed, saying the argument was true as far as it went. Encouraging marriage would make it more likely that the children of heterosexual couples would have parents who were married. 

But there was no reason, the judge went on, to think that allowing same-sex couples to marry would change that. To the contrary. By forbidding gay and lesbian couples from marrying, he wrote, “the state reinforces a norm that sexual activity may take place outside of marriage.”

Hmmm, not so effective.  So, they cited discredited studies to argue that children "do better" with opposite sex parents.  When the lawyers on the equality side pointed out that every national health care organization involved in the welfare of children disagrees,

Utah responded that it would not be swayed by “politically correct trade associations,” referring to, among others, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association. “We are not ruled by experts,” the state’s brief said.

Okay then.  

Still not giving up on children,

“By holding up and encouraging man-woman unions as the ‘preferred’ arrangement in which to raise children,” the state said, “the state can increase the likelihood that any given child will in fact be raised in such an arrangement.” 

Judge Shelby had rejected the argument as illogical and counterproductive. Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage, he wrote, “does not make it any more likely that children will be raised by opposite-sex couples.” But it certainly demeans and humiliates the thousands of children being raised by same-sex couples in the state, he said.

Now, another shift:

“The state does not contend that the individual parents in same-sex couples are somehow ‘inferior’ as parents to the individual parents who are involved in married, mother-father parenting,” the state said. 

But, drawing on Supreme Court decisions endorsing the value of diversity in deciding who may attend public universities, the state now said it was pursuing “gender diversity” in marriages. “Society has long recognized that diversity in education brings a host of benefits to students,” the brief said. “If that is true in education, why not in parenting?” 

Is it just me that finds this completely illogical?

The problem they all have is that no marriage equality statute has anything to do with raising children.

First of all, there is no requirement for fecundity in marriage.  We have already decoupled child bearing and marrying.

Second, lots of gay couples already have children.  And they aren't going to stop having children just because they are denied marriage.

Third, gay people aren't suddenly going to go steal children of unsuspecting straights just because they get a marriage license.

As we saw in the Prop8 case, there are really no good arguments that the opponents of equality can make that don't involve their own view of religion.

How marriage equality opposes unequal relationships

Interesting article from the Financial TImes argues that commitment to equal relationships (which is the basis of marriage equality) is actually providing a force against unequal or exploitative relationships-- read the whole thing!

Paedophilia had thrived largely unchallenged for millennia – indeed, for much of history girls married at about age 13. But with the equal relationship as new ideal, paedophilia has become indisputably taboo. ...

Another unequal relationship, prostitution, is in trouble too. ...

Even unequal marriages are under attack. Once upon a time, when a rich older man married a young woman, they might both have expected congratulations from friends. Now they can expect mockery.

The article also cites data saying that many more people disapprove of adultery now than did  40 years ago.  They argue that a "wink wink nudge nudge" in the days of unequal marriages tacitly approved of men seeking discrete sex outside marriage, but now, the legacy of the 60s is that equal partners deserve equal commitment.

This agrees with the writings by marriage scholar Stephanie Coontz that the real "redefinition" of marriage came when we de-genderized unequal relationships and made husbands and wives equal (see our discussions of her research here and here).

So, marriage equality is a force for GOOD.

joseph and the amazing marriage proposal (video Sunday)

Utah Marriages will be federally recognized

Even if Utah won't recognize them, the Fed will (considering that they were legally entered into at the time).  From Equality on Trial quoting Atty General Eric Holder:

In the meantime, I am confirming today that, for purposes of federal law, these marriages will be recognized as lawful and considered eligible for all relevant federal benefits on the same terms as other same-sex marriages. These families should not be asked to endure uncertainty regarding their status as the litigation unfolds,” Holder says. 

In the coming weeks, Holder pledges to coordinate with other branches of the federal government to ensure federal benefits are flowing to same-sex couples who wed in Utah.

Utah governor attempts to stuff marriages back in the bottle

From the NY Times:

The fortunes of 1,300 newlywed same-sex couples in Utah were thrown into turmoil on Wednesday after the governor’s office announced that it would not recognize their marriages while it presses its legal efforts to limit marriages to one man and one woman... 

Utah is now treading onto relatively untested legal ground. In 2004, the California Supreme Court voided 4,000 same-sex marriages that had been granted in San Francisco that year, saying that the unions were prohibited under state law. 

But four years later, the same court struck down those restrictions as unconstitutional. Thousands of gay Californians were then able to wed before state voters approved Proposition 8, which limited marriage to opposite-sex partners. The same-sex couples who had previously exchanged vows retained their rights....

The state’s decision also does not invalidate any same-sex marriages. Instead, said Mr. Miller, the chief of staff, it effectively suspends them in place, freezing benefit applications or other petitions for legal protections.

Naturally, the only ones who will benefit will be the lawyers:

The American Civil Liberties Union of Utah announced Thursday that it is planning litigation against the state of Utah for putting recognition of same-sex marriages on hold after theSupreme Court issued a temporary stay. 

The ACLU called for plaintiffs on Wednesday, and got "overwhelming interest" from couples who were married before the stay was granted.

"We have a great pool and we are working through that, and plan to bring litigation that will protect all marriages, whether the couples are named plaintiffs or not," the ACLU said in a statement.....= 

While Utah put recognition of same-sex marriages "on hold," its decision to do so did not invalidate marriage licenses already issued to gay couples. 

Reyes clarified this distinction to Fox 13 News Salt Lake City. 

"I want to be clear that we are not saying those marriages are invalid," he said. "However, as a state we cannot recognize those marriages."

Marriages stayed in Utah

THe SCOTUS has issued a stay, pending appeal to the 10th circuit.  

How Utah's AG allowed marriages to take place (video)

Why are same sex couples able to get married in Utah?  By comparison, when Judge Vaughn Walker in the 9th circuit found that Prop8 was unconstitutional, he immediately stayed his decision.  That's because the guys on the other side filed pre-emptively for a stay pending appeal.

Seems that Utah's AG's office is in a bit of a mess, and they....forgot to do that.

Rachel maddow:

Video Sunday : Straight, Mormon, Equaltiy supporter

As the new year begins...

The Forces of Hate are having a conniption that two men are marrying on a float in the Rose Parade.

Utah is planning to appeal to the Supreme Court, and is asking as a stay of marriages to protect gay people's dignity.  Aw, they like us... not.

Oh, and they are advertisting to find counsel who can handle the appeal.

Happy New year!

Here's to equality in 2014!