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.

Voices of Faith: A shift in biblical paradigm

Click image for more
Voices of Faith

David Gushee is a prominent Evangelical who is now LGBT-affirming.  In an interview, he says

Christianity has a toxic fragment of tradition that needs to be abandoned like previous toxic fragments have been abandoned such as anti-Semitism. This toxic fragment of tradition is really hurting people, every day. It is hurting young people, children, kids coming out at the age of thirteen. It has to stop. A shift in biblical paradigm is not just mandatory, it’s doable. There are many people working for that shift and I hope to contribute to that.

I also want LGBT people to hear me say I’m sorry for the things that I wrote in the past. I didn’t get it. I hear from some people who have read some of the things I’ve said in the past on this. My writings on LGBT people were superficial and inadequate treatment. So I’m sorry, I want to stand in solidarity. I want the voices of those who are directly affected to be heard. As an ally, I hope to be heard by those who would dismiss those who are young, LGBT, or both. Hoping to provide some cover for more of those voices to be heard. I am dedicating myself to this cause — I’m all in on this.

Alabama!

The Supreme Court denied a stay in Alabama so that the decision stands, and marriages are to begin today.  Proudly anti-gay judge Roy Moore is calling on the state to defy the federal courts.  There's a history of that in Alabama, as Memeographs reminds us.

Colin Farrell on Irish equality (video Sunday)

"Gay rights aren't human rights"

From the New Civil Rights Movement:

U.S. Congressman Chris Smith earlier this week announced gay rights are not human rights. "I am a strong believer in traditional marriage and I do not construe homosexual rights as human rights," Smith said. He also suggested that the Obama administration’s "views on LGBT rights affected or hindered our support for Nigeria to defeat Boko Haram."

....

Heightening the impact of his anti-gay statement is that Rep. Smith is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations, and made his comments at a meeting of that subcommittee, which is a part of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Rep. Smith is from New Jersey.

Ted Olson schools Tony Perkins (video Sunday)