The End, for now

Like a number of other gay bloggers, in the aftermath of the Supreme Court decision, I think this is a natural time to bring this particular blog to a close.  

I started this blog in the wake of Prop 8, first as a way to tell the stories of those of us who had married, and then to chronicle our battles.

First the California Supreme Court.
Then the case from AFER, Perry.
Judge Walker and the federal district court, the 9th circuit, and SCOTUS.

And looking beyond California to other states.  The court battles and legislative fights, until the logjam broke and we started winning elections. Then the Windsor case and the flood of other cases in different states.  And other countries.

I followed the steady rise in support in the polls, until today almost 60% of Americans support marriage equality.  I presented graphs and statistics.

I discussed politics and policy, identifying hypocrites and bad science.

And I made a particular point of highlighting support from people of faith, in a series called Voice of Faith.  Because despite what the media narrative is, "Christian" does not equal anti-gay.  Heck, the Episcopal Church  just voted to change its canons and formally eliminate differences between same sex and opposite sex marriage liturgies!  But I didn't hesitate to highlight the malign effects of religion as well.

Finally, of course, I have been running Videos on Sunday and other days.

The blog will stay here as a resource.

Up at the top of the page, there are tabs for permanent pages including pages about genetics and orientation, and in particular, the Prop8 timeline and theological resources to fight those religious bullies.

There's a slew of other labels  on the right sidebar that you can use to find other posts.

 I may be back, because we haven't finished yet.  We won this particular battle, but there is a long way to go, until being gay finally becomes just a fact, like being left-handed or having red hair.  And there's a lot of anger from the opposition, which is casting our rights as an assault on religious freedom.

So you may hear from me yet.  But till then, please explore what's here and celebrate the journey.

Freedom to Marry: Celebrating Victory (video)

Yes. How we got here. Thank you.

#LoveWins from Freedom to Marry (video Sunday)

Nobody's memories (video Sunday)

From PFLAG Canada:

#Howwefamily (Video Sunday)

Directed by Dustin Lance Black, of Milk fame, this is a Tylenol project.

A surprise proposal (video )

Voices of Faith: Episcopal Church makes marriage official

Click image for more
Voices of Faith

Meeting in its triennial General Convention last week, the US Episcopal Church voted on two resolutions. One made the marriage liturgy equally accessible to straight and gay couples, and the other modified the canons in agreement (essentially the church rules). Previously, a special trial liturgy was used for gay couples on a case by case basis, but now they are equal.

Out gay bishop Gene Robinson reflects on how the Episcopalians got there. 

While the resolutions passed overwhelmingly, there's a small handful of dioceses whose bishops disagree, and they are able to refuse permission to marry LGBT people.  However, they must provide some access to marriage.  Whether this is a phone number to a neighboring diocese, or the ability to import a priest, or ecumenical strategies with the Lutherans (the ELCA and The Episcopal Church are in communion with each other), remains to be seen.

Still, it's great news as the Episcopalians join other churches including Lutheran and Presbyterian in allowing same sex marriages.  Or as we can now call it, marriage!

A brief history of how we got here

This excellent article in the Atlantic tells the whole story, starting with a man named Baker....

When Wolfson was a law student at Harvard in 1983, his adviser tried to discourage him from writing his thesis on gay marriage, on the grounds that it was too far-fetched. Sullivan’s 1989 New Republic essay, “Here Comes the Groom,” got a similar reception. “It was difficult just to get past the laugh factor at the beginning,” Sullivan recalled. “I remember going on Crossfire in the early days and having Gary Bauer laugh in my face—‘It’s the most bizarre and silly idea to come down the pike in a long time! It’s ludicrous!’”

and then, how the message changed after the cluster of the Prop8 campaign, as the participating groups started to strategize together

There was stiff resistance within the movement to the new approach. Some thought it made no sense or wasn’t aggressive enough; some resented the strictly vetted, disciplined, sanitized faces the movement was putting forth. But in 2012, after 31 straight losses for gay marriage at the ballot box, Freedom to Marry spearheaded a centralized, politically savvy, message-tested campaign in four states—Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington. On Election Day, the gay-marriage side won in all four states.

Religious freedom and civil marriage

Several states are resisting implementation of the Court's decision on same sex marriages, by throwing up the "religious freedom" meme.

The most extreme example is this, in which a lawyer under Alabama Justice Roy Moore claims

Public officials are ministers of God assigned the duty of punishing the wicked and protecting the righteous.

Well, that's patently not true.  Alabama is NOT a theocracy and neither are these United States, and the oath to uphold the Constitution that they all took is not predicated on "when it agrees with my religious views."

In Michigan, efforts to protect "religious freedom" are renewed, including a demand that marriages only exist in religious settings.

Conservatives in the House have introduced legislation that would only allow religious clergy to perform marriage ceremonies and remove that responsibility from local clerks and judges. Other couples who don't want to use clergy for their nuptials could provide an affidavit of marriage to county clerks. The legislation also would allow marriage certificates to be shielded from public record laws.

"If this legislation becomes law it will protect our public officials from having to perform same-sex marriages and put the marriage licensing business back in the position of being in the realm of the churches and religious leaders," said state Rep. Todd Courser, R-Lapeer, in a statement explaining the bill he sponsored.

But that is putting religion front and center in a CIVIL contract.  That is WRONG.

In Texas, the Attorney General has suggested that clerks are free to refuse licenses on religious grounds.  The Dallas Morning News correctly states,

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday that same-sex couples have equal rights to marry. Top Texas leaders must stop standing in the way by encouraging government employees to invoke a personal religious exception when asked to provide marriage-related services, such as issuing licenses or officiating at civil ceremonies.

Denton County Clerk Juli Luke struck the right tone regarding Friday’s ruling by stating, “Personally, same-sex marriage is in contradiction to my faith and belief. … However, first and foremost, I took an oath on my family Bible to uphold the law, and as an elected public official, my personal belief cannot prevent me from issuing the licenses as required.”

Exactly.

State employees do not have discretion to selectively embrace the constitutional protections they agree with while rejecting those they object to, even on religious grounds. Constitutionally, governments — including their employees — must present themselves as religiously neutral. 

Look, this is not a religious issue.  Civil marriages are civil contracts.  I haven't noticed Roman Catholic clerks refusing licenses to previously divorced people, although such marriages are disallowed by their faith.  Nor devoutly orthodox Jews refusing licenses to interfaith couples.  This is only about bias against LGBT people.  And it needs to stop.

Rachel Held Evans nails it (Voices of Faith)

Click image for more
Voices of Faith

Noted Evangelical Blogger, Rachel Held Evans, summarizes things nicely on her facebook page (Click to read the whole thing)

...Nothing about yesterday’s decision forces people with religious convictions against same-sex marriage to perform those marriages. That freedom is preserved, just as it remains totally legal for a church today to refuse to marry an interracial couple. Yesterday's ruling simply allows for those who do not share that same religious conviction to enjoy the same civil liberties that the rest of us enjoy. Furthermore, is it not a more serious violation of religious liberty to tell a same-sex couple whose religion allows for, and in fact celebrates, marriage that they cannot practice that religious conviction because some of their fellow citizens do not agree with their particular expression of it? Civil rights aren’t up to a vote. They aren’t up to public opinion. Civil rights are part of what it means to be an American citizen. ....

A great overview from CBS (Video )

If this doesn't embed, the link is here.

I just wish they had pointed out that although the opponents claim religion as the basis for their opposition, the majority of mainline Protestant denominations, and the Roman Catholic laity are vigorous supporters of marriage.  Opposition is NOT a "Christian" thing.

The National Anthem at SCOTUS on Decision Day (Video Sunday)

5-4 for equality. We win!

From the Opinion:

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embod- ies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people be- come something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be con- demned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civiliza- tion’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.


It is so ordered.

Waiting....

Will tomorrow be the day?  The 26th has an auspicious history, and the Court has already announced that it will be releasing opinion(s) on Friday (usually only Mondays and Thursdays)

It was on June 26, 2003 that a divided Court said in Lawrence v. Texas that a Texas law making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in intimate sexual conduct was unconstitutional.

And on June 26, 2013, a divided Court in United States v. Windsor said that the Defense of Marriage Act (or DOMA) was unconstitutional as a “deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment.”

Gay rights are human rights

Okay, it's a campaign video.... but it still made me tear up.

The March to Equality

Is it hot in here or is it just me?

Another advertising video.

Waiting for Obergefell

Obergefell v. Hodges is the case that will be in the history books, and the decision is expected within the next two weeks, and Jim Obergefell is waiting in line.

Arthur died from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS, or Lou Gehrig's disease) just three months after the two men married in Maryland in July 2013. They filed suit to try to force their home state of Ohio, where gay marriage is not legal, to recognize their out-of-state union by putting Obergefell's name on the eventual death certificate.

Though Obergefell, wearing a suit and tie in Washington, D.C.'s oppressive June humidity, was first in line – and empty-handed so that he could go straight for the front-row seats without stopping at a locker – his case was not one of the decisions released on Monday.

So, taking time off from his real-estate job back home, Obergefell will be back on Thursday. And again next Monday, and again and again every day the justices expect to issue decisions between now and when the court recesses June 30.

This is what we've been waiting for.  This is the end of the arc that I started with this blog back in 2009, with a challenge to Prop8 in the California Courts. 

It all comes down to this.

Religious liberty and marriage

From one of the amici briefs to the Supreme Court: my emphases

Significant religious liberty issues will  indeed  follow in the wake of same-sex civil marriage. But it  is not an appropriate response to prohibit same-sex  civil marriage in order to  eliminate every risk of  possible  impositions  on religious liberty.  No one can  have a right to deprive others of  their important  liberty as a prophylactic means of protecting his own.  Just as one’s right to extend an arm ends where  another’s nose begins, so each claim to liberty in our  system must be  defined in a way that is consistent  with the equal and sometimes conflicting liberty of  others. Religious liberty, properly interpreted and  enforced, can protect the right of religious organizations and religious believers to live their own lives  in accord ance with their faith. But it cannot give them  any right or power to deprive others of the corresponding right to live the most intimate portions of  their lives according to their own deepest values

It  goes on to argue for robust religious freedom exemptions.

Church and society should endorse same-sex marriage (Voices of Faith)

Click image for more
Voices of Faith

From Lancaster Online:

I write as a 97-year-old retired Mennonite Christian pastor. ....

My wife and I believe the church must rise up and reclaim a godly and wholesome sexuality. A sexuality:

— That includes public vows of faithful love and is blessed within the church (not left to fend for itself outside the church).
— That calls everyone to commit our bodies and to respect the bodies of others (whether homosexual or heterosexual) as temples of the Holy Spirit.
— That is committed to a lifelong monogamous relationship.

We believe gay people should have the opportunity to create a Christian household within the blessing of a lifelong committed relationship. We want them to belong to a church and live a life with faith.

Last year, when the laws of Pennsylvania changed, I was happy to be invited to marry my son and his partner in a small private ceremony in their backyard. What a joy-filled day! I feel that my act of love in officiating this marriage was in line with those in the early church who learned to welcome outsiders into the family of God.

My prayer is that our church leaders will warmly invite into congregational fellowship and the joys of marriage those believers and nonbelievers who have suffered exclusion from our church. And I pray that the laws of our country will assign societal benefits of marriage to them as well.

Let us pray the Spirit of Christ will teach us all how to love and welcome the outcasts, as Jesus did.

Chester L. Wenger was a long-time Mennonite Church pastor and leader, who served as a missionary in Ethiopia for 17 years. The Lancaster Mennonite Conference terminated his credentials in 2014, after he officiated at the wedding of his gay son.

Mexico!

ABC News:

Mexico's supreme court has ruled it is unconstitutional for Mexican states to bar same-sex marriages.

But the court's ruling is considered a "jurisprudential thesis" and does not invalidate any state laws, meaning gay couples denied the right to wed would have to turn to the courts individually. Given the ruling, judges and courts would have to approve same-sex marriages....

Gay marriage is legal in some parts of Mexico, including Mexico City and the northern state of Coahuila.

The Court wrote,

"As the purpose of matrimony is not procreation, there is no justified reason that the matrimonial union be heterosexual, nor that it be stated as between only a man and only a woman. Such a statement turns out to be discriminatory in its mere expression."
Read more at http://www.bilerico.com/2015/06/mexico.php#TFdTOuxgibw1QPQT.99

The Sign for Love (video Sunday)

This sweet ad has the anti-equality gang in an uproar.

Opting out of Equality

From the New Yorker  (go read the whole thing)

In hindsight, no one doubts that allowing business owners to discriminate against black people during the Civil Rights era would have denied them full equality and hampered desegregation. (Arguably, the continued tolerance of discrimination by private clubs also undermines desegregation, though club membership is less essential to daily life than shopping.) Similarly, allowing private discrimination against gay couples is not an exemption from a new rule of full equality; it is a compromise that allows inequality to persist. Proposals to let magistrates withhold marriage licenses have the same problems, with the added insult that the discrimination is effectively coming from the state. If officials can decide not to implement laws they dislike, then equality under the law—for gay couples, at least —is just a slogan.

Yet another survey released

Must be survey season. PRRI (the Public Religion Research Institute) has come out with their survey.

Fifty-five percent of the public favors allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry legally, while 37% are opposed. Strong generational, religious, and partisan divisions persist on the issue.

and

Nearly seven in ten (69%) Americans favor laws that would protect LGBT individuals against discrimination in jobs, public accommodations, and housing, compared to 25% who oppose such policies.

 Meanwhile, the mini-RFRAs aren't too popular,

Six in ten (60%) Americans oppose allowing a small business owner to refuse products or services to gay and lesbian people, even if doing so violates their religious beliefs, while 34% support such a policy.

While majorities of most religious groups oppose these so-called “religious freedom” laws, white evangelical Protestants (51%) are the only religious group with majority support. Forty-two percent of white evangelical Protestants oppose allowing small businesses to refuse products or services to gay and lesbian people on religious grounds. By contrast, 59% of white mainline Protestants, 63% of non-white Protestants, and 64% of Catholics oppose allowing small business owners to refuse service to gay and lesbian people on religious grounds, as do nearly three-quarters (73%) of religiously unaffiliated Americans.

 The director states the obvious,

“As national opinion has shifted toward support for LGBT rights, including among religious Americans, white evangelical Protestants are increasingly becoming an island of opposition amidst a sea of acceptance,” said Dr. Robert P. Jones, CEO of Public Religion Research Institute. “Today, white evangelical support remains below the level of support from a decade ago in the general public, and they are also less likely than other religious groups to acknowledge that LGBT Americans face discrimination.”

#takepride (video)

From Target, of all retailers.  You know, it's not just the edgy techy companies any more.  We've gone mainstream. 

New Pew Poll; Marriage equality "inevitable"

There's a new poll from Pew on marriage equality and it finds over 70% believe legal same sex marriage is "inevitable". The numbers are the same for Republicans who generally oppose, as for Democrats who generally favor.  Overall, 57% favor equality.  This is similar to other polls.

As support for same-sex marriage has increased, other attitudes about homosexuality have changed as well. Majorities now say homosexuality should be accepted by society (63%) and that the sexual orientation of a gay or lesbian person cannot be changed (60%). Nearly half (47%) say that people are born gay or lesbian. These opinions represent a shift over the past decade, even if in some cases the short-term changes have been modest.

In addition, a 54% majority says there is no conflict between their own religious beliefs and homosexuality, up from 48% in 2013. However, the view that homosexuality and one’s personal religious beliefs are in conflict remains a powerful factor in opposition to same-sex marriage.

An overwhelming majority of the public (88%) reports personally knowing someone who is gay or lesbian. That is little changed since 2013, but much higher than in the early 1990s.

Not surprisingly, the more likely you are to have gay friends, the higher your level of support.

And can we just stop with the falsehood that religion is opposed to equality?  It's a SUBSET of religion that is opposed.

Marriage Equality: Bring your Family with you (video Sunday)

GUAM!

The territory of Guam now has marriage equality.

Guam on Friday became the first US territory to recognise gay marriage, after a federal judge struck down the prohibition.

US district court chief judge Frances M Tydingco-Gatewood issued the decision after a hearing on Friday morning local time. It was scheduled to go into effect at 8am on Tuesday, when gay couples will be able begin applying for marriage licenses, the Pacific Daily News reported.

IRELAND YEAH (video Sunday)

How Ireland's "YES" campaign did it

From the Irish Times:

They learnt from previous referenda in Ireland and from previous losses for marriage equality propositions in the United State. They orientated Yes Equality to focus on the “million in the middle”. They also mobilised the gay and lesbian community and their families and friends to intense activity.

Early decisions about tone were key to Yes Equality’s success. In late March we settled on the theme of “I’m Voting Yes, Ask Me Why” an open conversational approach designed to persuade and reassure voters.

A vindication of Harvey Milk, then.  Come out, come out!  And also they needed campaign discipline:

The key task for the Yes campaign was to avoid being provoked into public displays of anger. Instead Yes Equality sought to create a space where the public could see and hear the anguish caused by discrimination and the repression of sexual orientation.

In the atmosphere created by this tone, extraordinary things began to happen. The campaign became one of storytelling. Gay men and lesbian women told of their lives and parents spoke out publicly in support of their gay and lesbian children.

Maintaining this calm and respectful tone required rigid campaign discipline in the face of increasingly nasty messaging from the No side.

They were hugely coordinated and talked daily to keep everyone on message-- and keep disciplined.  And of course, in Catholic Ireland, the bishops were major players.

The only real surprise was the timing and extent of the Catholic church’s intervention. The bishops came in earlier and more stridently than we had originally anticipated. ....

We toyed with the idea of a head-on confrontation with the hierarchy for its failure to distinguish between civil and religious marriage. That would certainly have mobilised our base. We opted instead however to express disappointment at the tenor of the bishop’s interventions while spotlighting statements from dozens of high profile priests about why they were voting Yes. 

And let us not forget the power of the #hometovote movement and the mobilisation of young Irish.

Yes Equality’s focus for the last week was on a massive Get Out the Vote Operation implemented on a scale never previously seen in an Irish referendum. It all paid off.

 There are many lessons here. Just as the No on Prop 8 campaign became a lesson in what DOESN"T work, this one is a lesson in what does.  Progressives on both sides of the Atlantic should take note.

Surprise! (video Sunday)

IRELAND VOTES YES!

The first country to legalize same sex marriages through popular vote. Results are not complete yet but it looks like a landslide!

From RTE

Oh Ireland I hope you did it!

And all those lovely young folk who came #hometovote

Holding our breath for Ireland

The Republic of Ireland will vote on Friday whether to allow marriage equality.  

Although it is polling fantastically well, the numbers have started to slip.

Paradoxically, the high poll numbers are making Yes campaigners even more nervous. Irish voters have a history of abandoning proposed constitutional changes in the final days of the campaign. And the shadow of California’s Proposition 8 — when voters rejected marriage equality in the state in 2008 after a win seemed likely — looms large.

“Look at how Prop 8 happened — Prop 8 was a slam dunk [for LGBT rights supporters] until the result came in and it turned out it wasn’t,” said Brian Sheehan, co-director of Yes Equality, the campaign group created to get out the Yes vote. The fact that pollsters comprehensively failed to predict the outcome of last week’s general election in the United Kingdom hasn’t boosted their confidence either.

Particularly concerning is that our own marriage equality opponents including the masterminds who won Prop 8 are pouring money into this campaign. 

Supporters of a yes vote have accused opponents of a lack of transparency over finances and of accepting funding from rightwing Christian groups in the US.

And while the Roman Catholic bishops are predictably opposed to equality, not all their priests agree:

In at least a few cases, though, Irish Catholics may vote “yes” not in spite of their priests, but alongside them. Standún, O’Donovan and Dolan are among a group of priests who have bucked Church leadership to voice support for the amendment. Speaking to BuzzFeed, The Rev. Tony Flannery, founder of the reform-minded Irish Association of Catholic Priests, estimated that 25 percent of the country’s clergy would vote”yes.”

Let's do this Ireland.  Vote yes!

Survey results faked

There was a  survey last year that supposedly showed that talking to a gay person changed minds about marriage.

It was published in Science, which is the top scientific journal to which all scientists aspire.

Trouble is, it was all made up. 

LaCour couldn’t come up with the raw data of his survey results. He claimed that he accidentally deleted the file, but a representative from Qualtrics — the online survey software program he used — told UCLA that there was no evidence of such a deletion. 

Then, yesterday, Vavreck asked LaCour for the contact information of the survey respondents. He didn’t have it, and apparently confessed that he hadn’t used any of the study’s grant money to conduct any of the surveys.

I hope that the UCLA graduate student responsible is dismissed from his PhD program.  This is an utter failure of academic ethics.

Gallup: support for marriage quality reaches all time high

A new poll from Gallup:

 

Sixty percent of Americans now support same-sex marriage, as the Supreme Court prepares to rule on its constitutionality next month. This is up from 55% last year and is the highest Gallup has found on the question since it was first asked in 1996....

 Are you listening, Chief Justice Roberts?

Supercut: Pop Culture's journey to Equality (Video Sunday)

When did you decide to be gay? (Video Sunday)

Regnerus Takedown

Regnerus takedown: the infamous study by sociologist Mark Regnerus  compared children of broken homes with children in intact homes and said differences in outcome reflected the parents' orientation and not the divorce.  Nowm scholars take his data and re-analyze it. And guess what? It doesn't say what he said it did.(My emphasis)

Many people who he categorized as having been raised by a gay or lesbian parent had spent very little time with that parent or with his or her same-sex partner. Even Regnerus admitted that his data included only two people who said they had been raised for their entire childhoods by a same-sex couple. -

And some of the data were...questionable.

By eliminating suspect data — for example, a 25-year-old respondent who claimed to be 7’8” tall, 88 pounds, married 8 times and with 8 children, and another who reported having been arrested at age 1 — and correcting what they view as Regnerus’ methodological errors, Cheng and Powell found that Regnerus’ conclusions were so “fragile” that his data could just as easily show that children raised by gay and lesbian parents don’t face negative adult outcomes. 

I guess some respondents were just messin' with him.

Cheng and Powell determined that of the 236 respondents whom Regnerus had identified as having been raised by a lesbian mother or gay father, one-tenth had never even lived with the parent in question and an additional one-sixth hadn’t lived with that parent for more than one year. Still more had provided inconsistent or unreliable responses to survey questions, throwing their reliability into doubt. That means, Powell says, that over one-third of the 236 people whom Regnerus classified as having been raised by a lesbian mother or gay father “should absolutely not have ever been considered by Regnerus in this study.”

Reanalyzing Regnerus’ data after eliminating respondents who offered dubious biographical information and recategorizing people who clearly were not raised by gay parents, Cheng and Powell found only three statistically significant differences between the respondents raised by a lesbian mother and those who reported having been raised in “intact biological family” households. Only one of those differences could be considered a negative adult outcome — those respondents were more likely to have had an affair while married or cohabitating. Even that is hardly a smoking gun, says Powell: “If you study 40 different variables or outcomes…just by the law of chance, a few of them should be statistically significant.”

Cheng said that in taking on “one of the most controversial articles published in the history of social science research,” they tried to stay away from the debate about Regnerus’ ideology or the source of his funding. “What we can do is analyze the data,” he said.

Jon Stewart: Rights Courts (video Sunday)

NOtorious RBG nails it

Everyone's favorite SUpreme COurt justice makes the point:

[Same-sex couples] wouldn’t be asking for this relief if the law of marriage was what it was a millennium ago. I mean, it wasn’t possible. Same-sex unions would not have opted into the pattern of marriage, which was a relationship, a dominant and a subordinate relationship. Yes, it was marriage between a man and a woman, but the man decided where the couple would be domiciled; it was her obligation to follow him.

There was a change in the institution of marriage to make it egalitarian when it wasn’t egalitarian. And same-sex unions wouldn’t — wouldn’t fit into what marriage was once.

Justice Ginsburg’s point was that, until surprisingly recently, the legal institution of marriage was defined in terms of gender roles.....So American marriage law, and the English law that it was derived from, presumed that the wife was both financially and sexual subservient to the husband. In a world where marriage is defined as a union between a dominant man and a submissive woman, each fulfilling unique gender roles, the case for marriage discrimination is clear. How can both the dominant male role and the submissive female role be carried out in a marital union if the union does not include one man and one woman? This, according to Justice Ginsburg, is why marriage was understood to exclude same-sex couples for so many centuries.

But marriage is no longer bound to antiquated gender roles. And when those gender roles are removed, the case for marriage discrimination breaks down.

Now, we wait.

It's not Gay Marriage vs Church any more (voices of faith)

Click image for more
Voices of Faith

I guess the media is finally coming around to understand that "Christian" is not a synonym for "anti-marriage equality".

Not when clear majorities of Americans generally, and of most Christian faith groups, support marriage equality.

William Eskridge writes in the NY Times:

My point is not that the Bible must be read in a gay-friendly way; it is simply that the Bible is open to honest interpretations that refuse to condemn or that even embrace such families. I am doubtful that Scripture speaks with one voice about how to define civil marriage.

....Assume that the Supreme Court interprets the 14th Amendment to mean that states can’t exclude gay couples from civil marriage. What will the faith traditions, which are adamantly opposed to same-sex marriage, do? The tolerant path I’ve suggested won’t unfold immediately, and different denominations will respond in different ways.

Some congregations will double down, not only reaffirming their understanding of traditional marriage but denouncing gay people even more fervently. The First Amendment gives them the right to react this way.

But if all 50 states issue marriage licenses on an equal basis, more same-sex couples will choose to wed. Some religious communities will take this as an opportunity to reconsider their views of those committed unions, and quietly welcome these families into their houses of worship.

With greater tolerance and acceptance of gay married couples, more religions will, slowly, modify doctrinal discourse to match social discourse — exactly the way they did for their previous disapproval of marriages between two people of different races. ...

And most importantly,

Today, some progressives harbor inaccurate stereotypes about religious people as anti-gay and intolerant. The Episcopalians, Unitarians, Presbyterians and many other faiths are falsifying those stereotypes. Just as American religion is changing, so, too, are the ranks of those who are pushing for equality.

As one Prop8 proponent conceded, we will be more American on the day all of us can marry equally. 

It's Time (video Sunday)

Nuns walk out

In Marin County CA, nuns who teach in a Catholic high school walked out, because they were offended that students were handing out flyers about GLSEN's Day of Silence. For those who don't know, this is a nationwide day of protest against bullying, where students who support LGBT rights simply say.... nothing. The nuns, however, feel that it is offensive and anti-Catholic. That is, that standing up in silence somehow is offensive to the nuns.

When some Marin Catholic High students began handing out Day of Silence-related stickers and flyers on campus Friday morning, the five nuns felt “felt compromised, offended and uncomfortable,” Sister Clare Marie, one of the teachers, later wrote in a lengthy e-mail to her students.

She said the sisters “do not support bigotry or any kind of prejudice,” but that they were compelled to act out against an event promoted by a group that “believes actively in promoting homosexuality in all classrooms, K-12.”

Her e-mail also accused the group’s members of speaking out “against Christians who do not share their views” and handing out materials that “say that any church which teaches homosexuality is sinful is an 'oppressor’ and should be opposed.”
....

 Okay, first of all, this is not about recruiting kids to be gay.  They are, or they aren't.  It's standing up to bullying, like the anti-gay flannel shirt bullies in the school in Pennsylvania.

The next day, a group of students walked the halls at McGuffey High raising awareness of what they unimaginatively dubbed “Anti Gay Day.” Some had “anti-gay” scrawled on their hands and a Christian cross etched on their flesh with a black marker to show how committed they were to being Jesus’ truest disciples.

Others let their freaky flannel fly on social media, where they “tagged” known and suspected LGBT students at their school with homophobic insults and Bible verses. A few GSA-affiliated students found pithy, but hateful, flyers saying “ANTI-GAY” stuck to their lockers....

.... What had a lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender person ever done to them except get out of the way whenever these boys strutted en masse down the hall?

 But more than that, the sisters personify something identified by Irish equality campaigner and drag queen, Panti Bliss:

So now ... gay people find ourselves in a ludicrous situation where not only are we not allowed to say publicly what we feel oppressed by, we are not even allowed to think it because our definition has been disallowed by our betters.

.... And a jumped-up queer like me should know that the word “homophobia” is no longer available to gay people. Which is a spectacular and neat Orwellian trick because now it turns out that gay people are not the victims of homophobia – homophobes are.

Same sex marriage actually a win for traditionalists

Conor Friedersdorf in the Atlantic:

Gay marriage has been successful in the courts precisely because, given both the actual behavior of married Americans and the prevailing legal logic of many decades, it was impossible to maintain the fiction that civil marriage remained an inherently procreative institution, even if sacramental marriage in some faiths remains so. It took the arrival of gay marriage to wake some traditionalists up to the fact that that religious and secular notions of what marriage is had long since parted ways. But the logic of same-sex marriage requires no leaps beyond what heterosexuals had already made. It fits within the Enlightenment model of civil marriage as a contract. For traditionalists, its logic is such that nothing new is lost....

Why? Because if civil unions/domestic partnerships had been the norm, straights would have wanted access to them too, precisely because they weren't marriage. That's what happened in France, for example.

Instead, a culturally influential minority is now included in marriage, so it remains the default way that couples join; religious people are as free as ever to marry in a fully traditional sense; and secular straights retain more traditional aspects and attitudes than they would if they'd switched over to a new paradigm of coupledom.

RBG on equality (video Sunday)

The upcoming SCOTUS decision

From Scotusblog:

Three lessons emerge from this brief history of same-sex marriage litigation in the United States. First, the evolution of constitutional law has more to do with changing social and political mores than with traditional sources of constitutional law such as text, original understanding, and precedent. Same-sex marriage has advanced from an absurd constitutional argument to a compelling one – at least in the mind of five Justices – because public attitudes regarding sexual orientation have been transformed over the last half-century.

To a greater extent than most people probably are aware, other landmark Court rulings on issues of social reform were similarly inconceivable only a decade or two before they happened. ... 

Second, Court decisions on issues of social reform that advance far beyond public opinion often generate potent political backlashes. Brown, Roe v. Wade, and Furman v. Georgia all had such an effect. ... 

Third, the factors that predict political backlash – which include public opinion on the underlying issue, the relative intensity of preference on the two sides of the issue, and the ease with which a particular Court ruling can be circumvented or defied – suggest that a Supreme Court ruling in favor of a constitutional right to same-sex marriage in 2015 will produce only minimal political backlash.

Polls show that fifty-five to sixty percent of Americans support same-sex marriage today—perhaps triple the percentage of twenty-five years ago. Moreover, as recently as ten years ago, opponents of same-sex marriage had much more intense feelings on the issue than did supporters. According to polls taken then, only six percent of same-sex-marriage supporters said they would be unwilling to support a political candidate with whom they disagreed on the issue, while thirty-four percent of opponents said they were willing to make same-sex marriage a voting issue. Among evangelical Christians, that number rose to fifty-five percent. That large disparity in intensity of preference between the two sides of the same-sex marriage issue no longer exists today.

Poll: Americans reject RFRA laws

From the HRC

According to MSNBC, the NBC News poll “found that 63% of Americans say business owners should be required to provide products or services to individuals who are gay or lesbian, while 37% say the business owner should be allowed to refuse if homosexuality is against their religious beliefs… Across all ages and races, Americans say a business must serve gays and lesbians no matter the owner’s religious beliefs.”

This is the second poll released this week showing strong support for LGBT Americans to be protected against discrimination. Earlier this week, a poll released by Reuters/Ipsos showed similarly showed, that voters are rejecting so-called Indiana-style “Religious Freedom Restoration Act" (RFRA) bills that allow businesses to discriminate against LGBT citizens.

So, why is one of the major parties so out of line with what Americans want, and why aren't they being called on that?

Speaking of polls, did anyone notice NOM's amicus brief to the Supreme Court? It was all about trying to argue that all the polls supporting marriage equality are somehow wrong.  But, NOM, even if you were right (and you're not) it doesn't matter.  Perhaps you missed the part about the SCOTUS not caring about public opinion, but about law....

All families deserve respect (video Sunday)

From Alabama.  Really!

Faith for marriage in Ireland: Video Sunday

The Republic of Ireland is voting on marriage equality in may. here's a statement from people of faith supporting equality.

Indiana steps in it

So, Govenor Mike Pence signed a "religious freedom" act, in a room where he was surrounded by religious in habits and notorious anti-gay campaigners.  And now he's having to defend this mess against a righteous backlash.

Indiana's law goes farther than any other law for several reasons.  First, most such acts reflect acts of government that impinge on an individuals exercise of religion.  And they do not superseded existing anti-discrimination protections.

Indiana's law applies not just to individuals, but to for-profit companies, and not just to government interactions, but to interactions between citizens.  It is broad and sweeping.

Ed Kilgore writes,

So Indiana is trying to create a genuinely plenary zone of sanctioned discrimination, including every kind of entity and protecting discriminators from legal action from any direction. The first point carries it beyond SCOTUS interpretation of the federal RFRA in the Hobby Lobby case as covering "closely held" corporations, but not all for-profits. And the second means Indiana isn't just protecting religious folk against the all-powerful government, but against the very targets of their discrimination.

He adds,

If Pence was more adept as a communicator, he might have tried the "grand bargain" defense: "religious liberty" protections are in effect a surrender by cultural conservatives who will stop trying to ban things they don't like in exchange for an assurance they can quietly live their lives according to their faith. But Indiana's example is actually blowing up that argument as well. The more they talk about it, advocates of broad-based "religious liberty" laws sound like those conservatives back in the day who offered to accept the Civil Rights Act of 1964 if the public accommodations section was removed.

In 1964, a South Carolina Barbeque owner named Maurice Bessinger argued that his religious beliefs meant that he did not have to serve blacks in his restaurants (and he also felt slavery was religiously justified.  The federal court found that religious beliefs did not justify discriminatory behavior in public accommodation.  Why is this different?

Oh, yeah.  Teh Gayz.

The Phantom Roadmap to LGBT discrimination (video Sunday)

Presbyterians threatened by equality opponents (Voices of Faith)

Click image for more
Voices of Faith

While we are seeing "license to discriminate" laws around the south and midwest, purporting that religious freedom demands the right to discriminate against LGBT people, i want to remind you about our allies. For example the Presbyterian Church, one of the biggest mainline protestant denominations, recently came out for marriage equality and as our allies, they are now sharing the risk.

From Missouri:

Someone upset by the recent decision by Presbyterian Church (USA) to allow pastors to perform same-sex marriages has sent threatening letters to at least four churches in Missouri. 

The anonymous letters cite Scripture and prophesied that the churches would burn and that pastors would be fired because of the recent amendment to the constitution of Presbyterian Church (USA). 

“I was grieved and fearful for our pastors and churches,” said Anita Hendrix, leader of the Giddings-Lovejoy Presbytery, the denomination’s governing body that has jurisdiction over churches in the region....

Speaking about the letters, Hendrix said: “I just ask for people to pray for our churches and pray for the person who sent these letters that God might work in his or her life.”

Jon Stewart on marriage: Video Sunday

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook,Daily Show Video Archive

Resources to counter anti-gay "Christians"

If you look at the tabs at the top of this blog, there's one that says "Re: Theology".  It's a permanent page on this site with links to helpful resources to counter those who claim that Christianity has to be anti-gay.

The text of this blog post recapitulates that current page, as it stands today.  If you have additional resources, put them in the comments.  I will update the Theology page accordingly.

Here is a direct link to the theology page for future reference:
http://gaymarriedcalifornian.blogspot.com/p/resources-theology.html

---

Tired of getting hammered by anti-gay "Christians"?  First, remember, the majority of Christians are actually pro-equality (despite what the Evangelical right or Roman Catholic bishops claim). And the Bible doesn't address our modern understanding of homosexuality.  (It's not so great on astronomy or medicine either!)  Here are some tools to fight back.

Theological resources for fighting the anti-gay Christians
1) From the Episcopal Church, "Doing the Theology":

• Claiming the Blessing
• To Set our Hopes on Christ
• Same sex relationships in the life of the church
• Holiness in relationships
• Marriage and Blessings, an informative series  from St. Paul's Memorial Episcopal Church in Charlottesville, Virginia

2) Dealing with the Bible arguments:

• What the Bible says, and doesn't say, about same sex relationships (From Soulforce)
• Clobbering the "Biblical" Gay Bashing
• What the Bible REALLY says about marriage
• The Rev. Peter Gomes: Re-read your bible
• From Bishop Gene Robinson: What the Bible says: reading the texts of terror
• Part 1
• Part 2 (Leviticus)
• Part 3 (Sodom and Gomorrah)
• Part 4 (New Testament, Romans)
• Part 5 (Corinthians, Timothy)

3) The book, Reasonable and Holy: engaging same sexuality, by the Rev. Tobias Haller, BSG

4) The workbook, Reconciling Journey: a devotional workbook for gay Christians

5)  Journey towards acceptance: theologians and same sex love (PDF) by  Savitri Hensman is an overview of theological discussion and debate from the last 60 years.

6) God Believes in Love: Straight talk about gay marriage , book by Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson

Testimony from gay Christians.
1) Books

• From Mel White, the autobiography "Stranger at the Gate: To Be Gay & Christian in America"
• From Bishop Gene Robinson: In the Eye of the Storm:  Swept to the Center by God

2) Films

• For the Bible tells me so
• Through my eyes
• A fish out of water
• Love Free or Die 

More
Lots more resources on this Daily Kos diary from 2008
Also see the series of posts here on Voices of Faith Speak Out

European Parliament: same sex marriage a civil and human right

Big news from Strasbourg:

The European Parliament on Thursday called on EU member states to recognise civil unions and same-sex marriage as a civil and human right and urged governments and EU institutions to contribute to further discussion in this area....  [The European Parliament] acknowledged "the legalisation of marriage and civil unions between same-sex couples in a growing number of countries around the world, currently 17" and encouraged "the EU institutions and member states to further contribute towards reflection on the recognition of marriage or civil unions between people of the same sex as a political and social issue and a matter of civil and human rights". 

My emphasis.

Own the discrimination

In Oklahoma, the extremist legislature is working to pass a bill that would allow any discrimination as long as it's religious in  motivation.  Basically, if you claim religion, you get to be exempt from laws.  An amendment to the legislation has been proposed that would require you to post explicitly what minority groups you choose to discriminate against.

Dislike Jews?  How about blacks?  Women a problem?  What about gays and lesbians?  And of course, the group everyone opposes, the transgendered.

I say, yes.  Make them post a sign.  Make them own their bigotry:  No fags allowed. Let them be proud of it. 

More:

The amendment to HB1371....would require religious businesses to come out of the closet.

“Any person not wanting to participate in any of the activities set forth in subsection A of this section based on sexual orientation, gender identity or race of either party to the marriage shall post notice of such refusal in a manner clearly visible to the public in all places of business, including websites,” the amendment states.

“The notice may refer to the person’s religious beliefs, but shall state specifically which couples the business does not serve by referring to a refusal based upon sexual orientation, gender identity or race.”
....
Ryan Kiesel, director of ACLU of Oklahoma, also praised the amendment, saying that it “very pointedly exposes the absurdity of creating a new era of legalized segregation.”

It's not the finish line

Frank Bruni writes how, even as marriage advances, it still is a statement to be out.  THere's still an "ick" to overcome.

One especially interesting discovery in the Glaad poll was how much unease lingered even in respondents who formally approved of gay marriage or of civil unions with full benefits. Twenty percent of these people said they’d nonetheless feel uncomfortable attending a same-sex wedding.

for example,

About 30 percent of the respondents who didn’t identify themselves as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender said that it would unsettle them to learn that their physician or child’s teacher did.

Close to 45 percent said that they would be uneasy about bringing a child to a same-sex wedding. Thirty-six percent feel uncomfortable when they see a same-sex couple hold hands.

He concludes,

I never lose sight of how far this country has come. My relief usually eclipses my rancor. But to celebrate or to slide into complacency is grossly premature, and it’s wrong, because I have every right to walk the streets of my neighborhood fearlessly, no matter whose fingers are interlaced with my own. Our clutch isn’t a taunt or provocation. It’s just an expression of tenderness — of basic humanity. In a world altered and advanced enough, it would be an innocuous, unnoticed part of the scenery.

Love has no labels (video Sunday)

Amici briefs

The Supreme Court will hear arguments on marriage equality on April 28th. Friends of the court (amici) are filing briefs to support one or the other side.

Our side has  379 major companies, ranging from Alcoa to Apple Computer to American Airlines-- and that's just a few of the A's.

Exactly 379 corporations and employer organizations urged the Supreme Court to strike down state bans on gay marriage, according to a friend-of-the-court brief obtained by The Huffington Post. The document was expected to be filed late Thursday morning.

“Employers are better served by a uniform marriage rule that gives equal dignity to employee relationships,” reads the brief, filed by global law firm Morgan Lewis. “Allowing same-sex couples to marry improves employee morale and productivity, reduces uncertainty, and removes the wasteful administrative burdens imposed by the current disparity of state law treatment.”

And over 300 national Republicans.

More than 300 veteran Republican lawmakers, operatives and consultants have filed a friend of the court brief at the Supreme Court in support of same-sex marriage late Thursday.

The amicus brief, organized by former Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, was filed for the four same-sex marriage cases the Court will hear on April 28 that could legalize the unions nationwide. In 2013, Mehlman marshaled a similar effort for the case that overturned California’s Proposition 8, which had banned same-sex marriage in the state.....

The brief makes a conservative case for the court to strike down same-sex marriage bans in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee, arguing they are “inconsistent with amici’s understanding of the properly limited role of government.”

“Although amici hold a broad spectrum of socially and politically conservative, moderate, and libertarian views, amici share the view that laws that bar same-sex couples from the institution of civil marriage, with all its attendant profoundly important rights and responsibilities, are inconsistent with the United States Constitution’s dual promises of equal protection and due process,” the brief states.

Views of marriage by state

From the Public Religion Research Institute

Alabama fights

There's a phenomenon called "last place aversion" which basically says that people need someone to look down upon, and the closer they are to the bottom themselves, the more desperately they need to do so.

This explains a lot of the festering racism in this country, and I think also explains a lot of animosity against LGBT people.

THOSE people.  The ones not like us. Someone to look down upon.

What else to say about the "Christians" in Alabama who are resisting federal court orders regarding marriage equality?  Now the Alabama Supreme Court  has stepped in with lots of scare-quotes about marriage, and essentially said the federal court has no jurisdiction.

Because there is no ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court on whether bans on same-sex couples’ marriages are constitutional, the Alabama Supreme Court stated that it is free to reach its own conclusion about the constitutionality of Alabama’s bans.

What is it about the South?  Last place aversion, indeed.

Kill the Gays in CA

A California attorney has filed papers for an initiative that calls for the execution of LGBT people.  Of course, it would take over 300,000 signatures to put it on the ballot, so it's not actually going to be voted on.  But even in a relatively liberal state, this is the degree of animus against LGBT people.

A clear majority of Americans now are okay with LGBT people marrying, and with LGBT people generally.  But efforts to protect LGBT people from discrimination are lagging behind.  Just yesterday, we saw Charlotte, NC narrowly defeat a non-discrimination rule.

Why is it okay to discriminate against LGBT?  We would not for a minute accept someone who advocated against serving black folks, or Jews, or women.  But somehow it's okay to advocate to refuse service to LGBT.  And I'll bet you that they would also like to refuse service for practicing Muslims too.  God help a woman in a headscarf who asks a bakery for a cake for Eid, eh?

Why is it that only about 20% of Americans are Evangelical Christians of a certain political ilk, yet they manage to punch so far above their weight that they dominate the media description of "Christian"?

Meanwhile, it's best to remember that even in liberal CA, there are people who actively hate us and want us dead.

Anderson Cooper on "The Gay Agenda" (Video Sunday)

How same sex marriage will change straight marriages

An ally writes, after a pro-equality rally in a non-marriage state,

As someone who was born straight, marriage was always just laid out in front of me, ripe for the taking whenever I wanted, and even (theoretically only, honey!) as many times as I wanted to. It was never something I had to fight for, to dream about, to yearn for. The people in that room Saturday night treat marriage like a priceless treasure. That doesn't mean they don't have bad days or months or years, or don't fight over who is doing bedtime, but it is one hell of a good reminder for every marriage.

So you LGBT advocates can stop saying that same-sex marriage won't affect my marriage, because it will. In fact, it has already made my own marriage better.

Thanks, you guys.

You're welcome.  

Marriage opportunity: fighting the marriage gap

Writing in the Washington Monthly, Jonathan Rauch, David Blankenhorn (former equality opponent) and others argue that the marriage crisis in the US is not due to same sex marriages but due to the class limits.  Marriage is doing fine in better-off demographics, but is not doing well in poorer communities. And yet, marriage is an agent of stability and well-being, and kids really DO do better with stable, two parent families. (Sexuality is not the issue).

They argue,

Many advocates of strengthening the family, for many years, have praised the two-parent married family as a touchstone of America’s economic and moral vitality. So it is, but where marriage advocates may often have gone wrong in the past was to imply that those who could not or did not conform to the standard template—gays, single mothers, and others—were opponents rather than potential recruits. In fact, what the same-sex marriage movement shows is that gay and lesbian Americans did not want to undermine marriage: they wanted to join it.

Increasingly, it is becoming clear that the same is true of many single mothers and fathers: they are not rejecting family values so much as feeling rejected by them, or at least unable to sustain them. No doubt, there are people out there who purposefully reject social norms like marriage and parental responsibility. But they are not the typical case or the case to which public policy should primarily address itself. The constructive focus is on the many more who would like to practice family values, if only they had the social, cultural, and economic capital to do so.

This is why we stress marriage opportunity. Changing minds and hearts has much value, but as a social-policy goal, removing impediments to success is more achievable and less polarizing. More important, improving opportunity has been, arguably, the great unifying American idea since before the days of the Declaration of Independence. Speaking of marriage opportunity is as natural in American public conversation as speaking of social opportunity and economic opportunity. It is a goal Americans can broadly agree on.

 and gay couples are a big part of this.

Establishing marriage opportunity for gays and lesbians is an important dimension of expanding marriage opportunity in America—not only for gay and lesbian couples, but, as we’ve tried to suggest, also for the nation as a whole. Supporting gay couples who seek to form lasting unions, gay parents who seek to raise successful children, and gay young people who aspire to a future in marriage—this is part and parcel of reestablishing a culture of marriage. And it brings society that much closer to ending forever the conflict between gay rights and family values: that is, to being a society in which all Americans, regardless of sexual orientation or social class, can aspire to a rich family life and a lasting marriage in a supportive community. 

A reminder: no arguments are new

Although we've covered this ground before, it's worth remembering that the arguments made against same sex marriage equality are very like those made against inter-racial marriage.

I mean, doesn't this sound familiar?

First, there's the "slippery slope" idea, which says that if we allow gay marriage, we have to allow all kinds of stuff. ..... But the argument was made by R. D. McIlwaine III, then Virginia's assistant attorney general, in Loving v. the State of Virginia, the 1967 Supreme Court case that overturned miscegenation laws:

It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems then those of the intermarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent.

Then there's the "think of the children" line, which says that kids raised by two parents of the opposite sex are better off than those who aren't. ..... McIlwaine made that case too:

Now if the state has an interest in marriage, if it has an interest in maximizing the number of stable marriages and in protecting the progeny of interracial marriages from these problems, then clearly. there is scientific evidence available that is so. It is not infrequent that the children of intermarried parents are referred to not merely as the children of intermarried parents but as the 'victims' of intermarried parents and as the 'martyrs' of intermarried parents.

And of course, other arguments are also familiar from the anti-miscegenation laws.

1) First, judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government. 

2) Second, they began to define and label all interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage. 

3) Third, they insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will, and 

4) Fourth, they declared, over and over again, that interracial marriage was somehow "unnatural." 

On this fourth point--the supposed "unnaturality" of interracial marriage--judges formed a virtual chorus. .... 

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." ....During the late 19th century, this judicial consensus laid the basis for an ominous expansion in the number, range, and severity of miscegenation laws. In Southern states, lawmakers enacted new and tougher laws forbidding interracial marriages. Seven states put miscegenation provisions in their state constitutions as well as in their regular law codes, and most raised criminal penalties to felony level.

The arc of history is indeed long. 

Coming Home in China (video Sunday)

Powerful short film on coming home as gay in China. As you may know, we just celebrated Chinese New year and in China, a significant part of the holiday is going home to be with family.

One couple marries in Texas

And the AG immediately attempts to void their marriage. My God they hate us. 

 Ken Paxton, the newly elected Republican Attorney General for the State of Texas, has just filed a motion with the State Supreme Court to officially declare a same-sex marriage performed at the direction of a county judge null and void. Suzanne Bryant and Sarah Goodfriend married in front of the Travis County courthouse Thursday morning, after one county judge struck down the Texas same-sex marriage ban, and after another county judge ordered a county clerk to issue the license.

Goodfriend is battling ovarian cancer, leading the judge to grant the order.

No sooner had the couple, together over 30 years, been legally married, than AG Paxton announced the marriage was "void." Later, he announced he was "seeking to void the marriage license issued due to the erroneous judicial order."

New poll: 63% approve of marriage equality

From CNN:

63% of Americans say that gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry and have their marriages recognized by the law as valid. That's up from 49% in August 2010. Over that time, the share who see marriage as a constitutional right has climbed 15 points among Republicans to 42% and 19 points among Democrats to 75%.

What a difference a decade makes!

Unexpected results in a new poll

From the WaPo, on the results of new polls:

The polls, in fact, show that about half of likely GOP caucus and primary voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina said they find opposition to gay marriage either "mostly" or "totally" unacceptable in a candidate. Fifty-two percent of likely Republican primary voters in New Hampshire and South Carolina said opposing gay marriage is either mostly or totally unacceptable, while 47 percent of likely Iowa caucus voters agree.

Possibly because the likely GOP voters in IA, NH, and SC can include non-Republicans?  Still, it's amusing to think that the GOP candidates will have to figure out how to thread this needle.

You also have to wonder just how much of a deal-breaker gay marriage support is. The poll asked about opposition to gay marriage -- not support -- so it's a little harder to suss out just how many people would vote against a candidate who supports gay marriage. We're guessing it's still more of a voting issue for those who oppose gay marriage than those who support it -- at least on the GOP side. (For what it's worth, though, between 25 and 31 percent of likely GOP voters in each state say opposing gay marriage is "totally unacceptable" -- a number that is on-par with all of these other issues.)

Valentine's Day (Video Sunday)

What's going on in Alabama?

There's chaos in Alabama .  A Federal District Court Judge found their marriage ban unconstitutional.  Both the 11th circuit court of appeals, and the Supreme Court, refused to provide a stay.  However, there is some ambiguity how this decision, addressed to help a particular pair of couples, is now a proxy for the entire state.

Virulently anti-gay religious conservative Roy Moore (Chief of the state supreme court) demands that the probate judges who provide marriage licenses refuse those Godless homos. But a thoughtful piece in the NY Times blames this particular conflict on an unwillingness of the 11th circuit to do its job.

First, a review of what's happened elsewhere:

In some states, like Pennsylvania, the governor decided not to appeal, and gay marriage became legal more or less by default. In other states, like Wisconsin, an appeals court (in this case, the Seventh Circuit) stopped a district-court order from going into effect and then issued its own decision making gay marriage legal. This is a more orderly process. In fact, the Seventh Circuit stayed its own order pending Supreme Court review; only after the Supreme Court turned down an appeal in Wisconsin did marriage licenses start getting issued there in October. That meant there was no question about their legal validity. The same was true in states where gay marriage arrived via legislation, voter referendum, a federal appeals court or a state supreme court ruling based on the state constitution. In all those scenarios, no question lingers about what the law is or who is in charge.

Okay, when federal courts at the upper levels rule, that becomes binding.  So why is this different? In Alabama, the federal district court judge Granade

...struck down the state’s ban on gay marriage on Jan. 23 with a 14-day stay, to allow the state time to appeal. The 11th Circuit refused to step in and stop her order from going into effect.

“Maybe the 11th Circuit said, We might as well let marriage go through because we all know that’s how this will come out in the end,” Wasserman said. After all, the Supreme Court let many other judges legalize gay marriage without intervening, and then in January agreed to hear an appeal from the sole federal appeals court that has upheld gay marriage bans. The 11th Circuit could be forgiven for assuming that most of the justices aren’t with Roy Moore on the merits here.

The problem is that this kind of anticipatory thinking practically invites the kind of chaos we’ve seen this week. Because this time, unlike in Utah, the Supreme Court refused to stay the district court’s order too. .... The court is creating, or allowing lower courts to create, facts on the ground that favor one side in the gay-marriage case it has agreed to hear. There’s no constitutional rule that requires the Supreme Court to go along with the rising number of states that have legalized same-sex marriage. But the momentum starts to seem inexorable. And to the extent the Supreme Court is encouraging this, it’s not really a good thing, because courts aren’t supposed to tip their hands in advance of ruling. The definition of justice, after all, includes giving the parties a fair and open-minded hearing.

....

Wasserman couldn’t think of a precise historical parallel to the weird stand-off in Alabama, and neither can I. But it’s not fair to say that Roy Moore is acting like George Wallace. When Alabama’s segregationist governor blocked the entrance of the University of Alabama in 1963, in defiance of court-ordered integration, he was standing in the way of the Supreme Court and its desegregation ruling in Brown v. Board of Education nine years earlier — as well as a federal injunction ordering the university to admit two black students. In that case, the Supreme Court absolutely had the power to tell Alabama what to do, because it is the Supreme Court. But Judge Granade is not. And so far, at least, her order doesn’t even clearly apply to all of Alabama’s (understandably confused) probate judges. If that changes — a hearing has been set to sort this out — then they’ll know for sure it’s time to start signing marriage licenses.

In the meantime, you might even argue that Moore has done the country a favor, by making us think about the various methods for changing the law, and which are better — or at least more orderly — than others.

Only about 30% of the counties in AL are providing licenses.  Suits are now being brought in  to enforce this decision.  Argument in the Supreme Court on marriage equality nationwide are scheduled for April with a decision expected in June.

Meanwhile, the KKK has come out in support of Roy Moore.  Nice bedfellows.