Gay Married Californian

Thanking God for Marriage Equality

2012-02-01T09:37:00.000-08:00

Our LGBT community too often forgets that the people who claim "Christians" oppose equality are ignoring the fact that many many CHristians are passionate supporters of equality. Here's one, The REv Tim Phillips, From SEattle First Baptist Church:

The coming vote in the Washington state legislature is likely to unleash another round of 'holy wars' on lesbian and gay families by those who presume to speak on behalf of God, the Bible, and all "real" Christians. To disagree with those holy warriors means not only to open your politics for debate but to open your Christian faith to attack. It is no wonder that so many progressive followers of Jesus would simply rather not be identified as "Christian" at all.

But there are reasons, as a Christian, to be thankful for this moment in history.

First, because this debate always gets us back to the basics -- what kind of God do we trust and what kind of Jesus do we serve? .... So let's just say that the God we trust and the Jesus we serve seem to move in the direction of the un-conditional. That is pretty basic.

...if we have to talk about conditions, let's talk about the conditions under which any intimate relationship between two adults could thrive -- integrity, mutuality, responsibility, maturity, and a certain amount of support. I think it is safe to say that Christians on all sides of the debate would agree that these are the kinds of values that are commended by Scripture....

The point is: the legal marriage contract creates the conditions under which the expectations of these values come into play for two adults who choose to enter into it. The contract does not guarantee those values but it does create the social -- and I would say 'spiritual' -- expectation of those values and to affirm those in as many settings as a possible is, to my way of thinking, not to diminish the expectations of marriage but to expand them.

The march of equality continues: MD and WA update

2012-01-31T07:57:00.000-08:00

A bill for marriage in Maryland is set for a Senate Hearing:

The marriage equality bill will receive a hearing Tuesday afternoon in the Senate Judicial Proceedings committee, with speakers including Governor Martin O’Malley, who is pushing for the legislation this session....

Even if the bill passes both houses of the Democratic-controlled legislature during the 90-day session, there is a strong possibility the measure could be challenged in a referendum this November.

And in Washington, much the same:

Washington state senator Ed Murray, lead sponsor of a bill to legalize marriage rights for same-sex couples in the state, believes that the senate is poised for a Wednesday floor vote on the matter, the openly gay legislator told the Seattle Times. Gov. Chris Gregoire has pledged to sign the legislation into law....

NOM, meanwhile, has also pledged to back a referendum on marriage in the November elections.

Would you want to live in a gay-free world?

2012-01-30T05:30:00.000-08:00

You know that increasingly the right wing tries to make us gay people "the other" and foreign. You'd think they want us to disappear. But be careful what you wish for, wingers. From the HuffPo

But imagine, for a moment, that there were no LGBT people on the planet. Just what would this world look like?

Imagine the world without the Sistine Chapel ceiling, painted by Michelangelo, a gay man. Imagine the world without that famous Mona Lisa smile, or the iconic painting of Jesus and his disciples at the Last Supper, both by Leonardo da Vinci, another man who was probably gay. Imagine the world without the music of The Nutcracker or Swan Lake, by Tchaikovsky, also gay. More recently, imagine the world without the music of Johnny Mathis, Joan Armatrading, Elton John, Melissa Etheridge, George Michael, or the Indigo Girls, among countless others.

Imagine the world without the plays of Edward Albee, Tennessee Williams, Paula Vogel, or Stephen Sondheim. Imagine how literature would look without the writings of Virginia Woolf, Truman Capote,Alice Walker, or Augusten Burroughs. Imagine sports without such legends as Martina Navratilova, Greg Louganis, Johnny Weir, or Billie Jean King. Imagine the world without the comedic brilliance of Lily Tomlin, or Andy Warhol's groundbreaking Campbell's Soup Cans painting, or Roland Emmerich's smash hit movie Independence Day. Imagine Glee without Jane Lynch and Chris Colfer. Oh, wait -- you're right! There wouldn't even be a Glee without gay creator Ryan Murphy.

Love Free or Die (video Sunday)

2012-01-29T04:00:00.000-08:00

"WE don't put civil rights to a vote." Mayor Cory Booker of Newark NJ

2012-01-27T13:07:00.000-08:00

Great response on the proposal to vote on equality in NJ.

incidentally NJ Gov Christie thinks that if black civil rights had been put on the ballot, that would have worked just fine. "Segregation now, segregation forever...."?More here:

As James Madison put it in Federalist Paper 51: “It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. If a majority can be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.”

When religious freedom conflicts with civil law

2012-01-26T06:00:00.000-08:00

I bet you think I"m going to talk about same sex marriage here. I'm not, much. I'm going to give you some examples where devout religious belief conflicts with the standards of public life, and have you consider how these conflicts are treated. The analogy to same sex marriage is obvious.

In New York, ultra-orthodox Jews believe in strict separation of the sexes. Women are expected to dress very conservatively . A firestorm erupted last fall when it turned out that a bus company with a franchise on a public route was enforcing a segregated bus, and sending women to sit in the back. Since the bus company was functioning as a contractor to the city, it is not allowed to discriminate.

So, does the desire of the ultra-orthodox to be separated from women require that women not of their faith must sit in the back of the bus, wear long skirts, or step aside in front of men, in a public space?

A letter to the ultra-orthodox community in Crown Heights New York asks landlords to rent only to fellow Jews and not to "yuppies" or "goyim" who do not cover themselves properly. Yet housing law clearly dictates one may not discriminate in renting on the basis of race or religion.

So, does the desire not to be exposed to people of another faith and belief justify ignoring non-discrimination laws?

In Roman Catholic doctrine, marriage is viewed as indissoluble, and remarriage after civil divorce is not allowed. As it says on the website of the Catholic Archdiocese of Atlanta, unless there is an annulment, "no person is free to enter into another marriage without the appearance or occasion of serious sin."Indeed, should a divorced person remarry without an annulment, they are in an "adulterous union" and grave moral sin, and should not expect to participate in the sacraments of the church. (my emphases)

One final situation is that of those who have repented of their illicit union, but remain together for a serious reason, such as for the sake of their children. Catholic pastoral practice allows that IF their pastor judges that scandal can be avoided (meaning most people are unaware of their remarriage and consider them a married couple), then they may live together as "brother and sister" (without any sexual relations), and be admitted to the sacraments. If scandal can not be avoided, then they must either separate or refrain from the sacraments.

So, do you think that the Roman Catholic hospitals and charities check the marital status of their employees?

Do they provide insurance for the spouses of employees who are civilly divorced and remarried?

Those marriages are considered invalid by Catholic doctrine--just like marriages between same sex couples.

And why aren't they advocating to prevent civil divorce? Could it be (gasp) because so many straight Catholics are divorced, and have managed to obtain an annulment?

What do we owe religious tolerance and freedom in the public square?

The Lies they Tell

2012-01-25T06:00:00.000-08:00

From THe HuffPo:

Scott Moody of Cornerstone Policy Research, a religious-right organization, wants to regulate marriage in New Hampshire in order to prevent same-sex couples from marrying.
Moody claims same-sex marriage "devalues" marriage, a claim that has never been precisely explained .....

Moody also claims that New Hampshire is the easiest state in which to finalize a divorce, and he tries to tie that to the population's supposed lack of value and faith in the institution of marriage. Why doesn't he talk about actual divorce rates? Perhaps because he's talking nonsense....

Of states with marriage equality, five of the six are in New England, yet as a region, New England has the lowest divorce rates in the country. The deep South, with the most anti-gay sentiments in the country, has the highest rates. States that don't "devalue" marriage have divorce rates 33-percent higher than those that do -- the complete opposite of what Mr. Moody's theory would imply.

Moody says the main reason for marriage is to procreate, and that allowing gay marriage somehow reduces procreation, though how is unclear. Apparently this leads to a demographic "winter" with declining population. Denying gay people the right to marry will not magically turn them into heterosexuals anxious to breed like rabbits!....

Moody is manipulating facts. Birth rates have been steadily declining for well over a century. ...If you want to find a scapegoat for fewer births, blame capitalism and the prosperity it creates, not gay couples....

Mr. Moody draws conclusions based on the religious viewpoint of his organization and attempts to cloak theology in the guise of economics and statistical facts. Sadly for him, statistics don't support his assertions.

Marriage coming to Washington State? Maryland?

2012-01-24T03:00:00.000-08:00

The Governor of Washington has agreed to sign a marriage bill if it comes to her. Yesterday it was announced that there are enough votes in the state Senate, along with enough votes in the House. It is a good bet that the State of Washington will legalize same sex marriage. Yeah, Washington!

Meanwhile, the Governor of Maryland is introducing a marriage equality measure today.

The Baltimore Sun reports that O’Malley’s staff worked throughout the day to fine-tune the religious protections language in the bill, which the governor said in a briefing would make the bill “a little clearer” and, he hopes, ensure that it enjoys “additional support” in comparison with a similar bill that failed last year.

Let's not forget, though, that anti-equality amendments are on the ballot in MN and NC.

The truth about Ocean Grove Camp

2012-01-23T11:46:00.000-08:00

Remember the favorite rightwing talking point, of a Methodist church "forced" to host gay weddings? From the New Civil Rights Movement: (my emphases)

...Judge Solomon Metzger affirmed the findings of a 2008 New Jersey State Division of Civil Rights investigation, ruling the couple was illegally discriminated against. Judge Metzger’s written decision makes a blatant lie out of a favorite Republican anti-gay marriage talking point: that a New Jersey Methodist group, The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, will be forced to allow same-sex unions on their private property despite their religious objections. It turns out, the Association was not so much victim of a “War on Christianity” as it was caught in it’s own scam to cheat on their taxes. ...

....Under New Jersey law, the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association could have kept their camp completely private. They also had the option of opening the camp for public use but protecting it under a state provision that allows religious organizations to exempt themselves from hosting people or events that are at odds with their religious faith. (That’s right, never mentioned by the Republicans who tell this story, there already exists in New Jersey law a “carve out” that would have allowed the camp to legally discriminate against Paster and Bernstein.) But the Camp Meeting Association chose neither of those options.

The Methodists decided protecting their anti-gay “values” and keeping same-sex couples from using their camp was not their priority. Instead, they applied for the “Green Acres” real estate subsidy New Jersey offers for conservation or recreational property, knowing that one of the requirements for the tax break was that the camp would be “open for public use on an equal basis.” When they refused to allow Paster and Bernstein to use the camp pavilion in the same way they allowed dozens of other heterosexual couples to do in the past, the Association breached that contract. It is that simple. So says Judge Metzger.....

The Camp lost its property subsidy. That was its only punishment. Contrary to Republican lore, the Camp was forced to host exactly zero same-sex unions. Once it lost the “Green Acres” tax exemption it lied to obtain, Ocean Grove Camp decided to sign up for that “religious exemption” after all, and they are now free to legally act out their “values,” keeping the Christian trees safe from gay influence.

....Facts have never gotten in the way of a good Republican “victimhood” tale, but with Judge Metzler’s decision, those who claim The Ocean Grove Camp Association is a victim the “War on Christianity” have lost their moral high ground.

The Gay Rights Movement (video Sunday)

2012-01-22T05:30:00.000-08:00

This is great, except for the relative absence of women and people of color.

Who is the bully?

2012-01-20T10:10:00.000-08:00

I'm getting tired of the religious opponents of equality claiming that THEY are being bullied.

Last time I checked, I wasn't trying to deny the civil rights. I wasn't denigrating their families, telling lies about them, and demonizing them. I'm not suing to get married in their churches (something they lie about regularly). I am perfectly happy to let them believe what they want and live as they choose. I only want them to return the favor.

It's ironic, isn't it ? that they feel free to say the most insulting, vicious things about us, and when we complain, they bleat about persecution. But no one is assaulting them for being Christian though they claim they are at risk. By contrast, hate crimes against gay people in California went up by 17% after Prop H8 passed. And we're not talking about stealing a yard sign before an election. (More here).

Disagreeing is not bullying. Religions who force their faith in the public square don't get a bye from being challenged.

Recently, Kate Kendell took on Elizabeth Santorum, who claims persecution because the mean ol' gay people don't like their relationships being compared to bestiality, incest, and polygamy.

Your husband believes that LGBT people cannot be trusted to serve in the military, raise children, form stable relationships or be fully respected under the law. According to you, Rick may love us, but honey, his love is killing us, and we want nothing to do with this abusive relationship. Our community has endured expulsion from family, mass firings, daily epithets, assaults, harassment, humiliation, death, and suicides. We know that if your husband becomes president of our country our long suffering will only deepen and magnify.

So yes, we are calling him what he is: a sanctimonious bigot who believes that we are dangerous, sick, and evil. We are telling the truth about his vision and his beliefs about us. That is NOT bullying, it's about saving our own lives. Your husband would erase the landmark and life-saving changes we have seen over the past few years, and revisit the hell of a government that does not see us as fully human. Given what so many of my brothers and sisters live through daily, you calling us bullies is contemptible.

In Mississippi, about 46% of Republicans think inter-racial marriage should be illegal. I find that an abhorrent statistic in 2012. Nationally, something under 20% of people think interracial marriage is wrong. I would such an opinion bigoted:

•obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one's own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions
• expressing or characterized by prejudice and intolerance :

I have pointed out before that it took until the 90s for a plurality of people to approve of inter-racial marriage, which was made legal in 1967, when a scant 20% approved!

By contrast, over half of Americans now believe that gays should have the rights of civil marriage. An additional 25% or so think we should have civil unions. But the conservative Mormons and the Roman Catholic hierarchy think that they have the right to force their religious views on the rest of the country dissallowing marriage AND civil unions between same sex couples.

And they claim persecution when we challenge them. Why are we letting them get away with this?

Mayors for Marriage

2012-01-19T07:47:00.000-08:00

From the LA Times:

San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders is set to appear at a Friday news conference in Washington with other mayors to announce the Mayors for Freedom to Marry campaign to win support for same-sex marriage nationwide.

Sanders will be joined by L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and the mayors of Boston, Chicago and Houston. Campaign organizers said that 70 Republican, Democratic and independent mayors support the effort

Mayor Sanders, a Republican, "came out" for marriage in the run up to Prop8, to the consternation of his supporters. His daughter is a lesbian, and he realized that he could not in good conscience support efforts to keep her from marrying. He's been a great ally on this issue, one of the old-fashioned Republicans that way. I don't necessarily agree with the rest of his politics, but admire him for this.

Are Conservatives coming around about equal protection?

2012-01-18T12:45:00.000-08:00

As you may have noticed, it's a trend of the conservatives particularly on the Supreme Court to trumpet their fidelity to the "original intent" of the writers of the Constitution. This allowed the gob-smacking conclusion that women weren't covered by the Equal Protection of the 14th Amendment--because they weren't equal, back then.

But apparently, they are coming around to realize the Equal Protection applies to everyone, after all. And this is relevant, because the main challenge against DOMA right now is on equal protection grounds.... and the main challenge to Prop8 is also on those grounds.

From Slate:

[A] significant reassessment of the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause ... is transforming the debate over the Constitution. This debate, which is happening in conservative legal and academic circles, could have a dramatic impact on the outcome of critical cases—including Perry v. Brown, the challenge to California’s Proposition 8 and the denial of marriage equality to gay men and lesbians. ...

What conservatives such as Olson and Calabresi have slowly been recognizing is that it is inappropriate to look to the intentions of the Framers of the 14th Amendment to trump the actual text they wrote, the cardinal sin in constitutional interpretation if ever there were one. It is the text that guides and binds judges, and the text of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment broadly supports protection of fundamental rights and equality under the law for all persons, not just former slaves. In ratifying the 14th Amendment, the American people redeemed the Constitution from the sin of slavery by adding to our foundational charter a universal guarantee of equality, covering every person in the United States. As Calabresi emphasizes, under the original meaning of that text, all systems of caste and subordination violate the 14th Amendment.

... Calabresi’s (and Ginsburg’s) central argument is that the 14th Amendment prohibits states from enacting legislation treating any persons as a subordinate caste. That’s precisely the argument Ted Olson has advanced and the district court accepted in Perry: States violate the Equal Protection Clause when they treat gay men and lesbians as second-class persons, unworthy of having their loving relationships recognized by the law. Calabresi’s account, unwittingly perhaps, make a powerful case for marriage equality as a matter of fundamental constitutional principle.

Second, the emerging consensus and embrace of originalism by Justice Ginsburg reflects just how rapidly the debate over constitutional interpretation is shifting. Her willingness to acknowledge that fidelity to constitutional text leads to greater equality is a signal that originalism isn’t the sole province of conservatives anymore. The inevitable result: One by one, the shibboleths of the right about the “original” meaning of the Constitution are being discredited, while progressives increasingly embrace the Constitution’s text and history. This methodological meeting of the minds is what allows liberal/conservative partnerships possible, such as the pairing of Ted Olson with the far more liberal David Boies on the Perry litigation team.

RC BIshops try to give secular reasons for opposing marriage equality

2012-01-17T08:15:00.000-08:00

There is a real chance that marriage equality will be passed legislatively in Washington state and signed by a supportive governor.

So of course, the Roman Catholic bishops are desperately trying to stop it. Of course, they are hindered by the fact that most of their flock support recognition of gay relationships.

Meanwhile, as reported in Pam's House Blend, the bishops are making their argument thusly:

…the definition of marriage is related to bringing children into the world and the continuation of the human race. The legislation to redefine marriage, therefore, is not in the public interest.

Yes, because if gay people marry, straight people will throw up their hands in disgust, and stop having children. The argument is ridiculous on the face.

Moreover, the bishops ignore that the lack of marriage hurts the children of gay parents. The PHB columnist goes on to note that 41% of births in this country are to unmarried women. So the way to promote marriage and families is….to deny marriage?

WRites one columnist in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer

The best advice, which Catholic bishops in Washington and elsewhere should heed, came recently from Nicholas Cafardi, formerly legal counsel to the Diocese of Pittsburgh and formerly a board member of the bishops' National Review Board for the Protection of Children and Youth:

"We need to give it up. This is not defeatism. This is simply following Jesus in the Gospels, who besides telling us not to act on our fears, also told us to render to Caesar what it Caesar's and to God what is God's. Civil marriage is Caesar's."

Are Gay Parents the Best Parents?

2012-01-16T23:01:00.001-08:00

From Live Science:

while research indicates that kids of gay parents show few differences in achievement, mental health, social functioning and other measures, these kids may have the advantage of open-mindedness, tolerance and role models for equitable relationships, according to some research. Not only that, but gays and lesbians are likely to provide homes for difficult-to-place children in the foster system, studies show. (Of course, this isn't to say that heterosexual parents can't bring these same qualities to the parenting table.) [5 Myths About Gay People Debunked]...

research suggests that gay and lesbian parents are actually a powerful resource for kids in need of adoption...

The bottom line, Stacey said, is that people who say children need both a father and a mother in the home are misrepresenting the research, most of which compares children of single parents to children of married couples. Two good parents are better than one good parent, Stacey said, but one good parent is better than two bad parents. And gender seems to make no difference. While you do find broad differences between how men and women parent on average, she said, there is much more diversity within the genders than between them....

If same-sex marriage does disadvantage kids in any way, it has nothing to do with their parent's gender and everything to do with society's reaction toward the families, said Indiana University sociologist Brian Powell, the author of "Counted Out: Same-Sex Relations and Americans' Definitions of Family" (Russell Sage Foundation, 2010).

Bye June: Shades of Purple (video Sunday)

2012-01-15T05:00:00.000-08:00

Stay swans, everyone.

Religious freedom (3): the myth of persecution

2012-01-14T08:23:00.000-08:00

The right wing likes to claim that we are a Christian country and they are right. Christian language and Christian symbols are part of our everyday life. We even have state holidays on Christian feast days, But at the same time, we have an explicit protection of religious freedom that is intended to give those of faith broad latitude to practise their religion peacefully, and not to impose it on anyone else. We protect minority religions. And never forget, the biggest growing group in American faith is the "nones".

What they are NOT allowed to do is inflict their religion on anyone else.

But the GOP, and particularly Newt Gingrich, have decided that Christians are more persecuted than gay Americans. (That's Newt's big thing, now that the campaign has moved to South Carolina.)

Because, of course, Christians can't mention their religion at work, or in the military…. they need to keep it in the closet. They can't marry…. they are scorned on the street, subject to violence….

Yeah, right.

Okay, so it's time for Christians who know this is nonsense to stand up to this. I'm calling on all of you who claim "Christian" to write your paper, speak up to your neighbor, and encourage your church leadership to speak up to say,

Enough of this nonsense! You do not speak for me, Newt Gingrich, or Archbishop Timothy Dolan!

BECAUSE we are Christians, we support the full civil rights of LGBT people!
Because if you let them keep telling the lies, without challenging them, they will get away with it.

So, come on, whether you are a Bishop or a pew-sitter, speak out. Talk to the news, talk to your neighbors. Push back! Claim the title of Christian and push back!

Religious Freedom (2): The mendacity of Cardinal Dolan

2012-01-13T08:12:00.000-08:00

USA today

People who tell lies get away with it because those who know better do not challenge them. We need to call them out wherever possible.

This lie come to us from Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York, an avuncular engaging and highly intelligent man who will soon be elevated to Cardinal.

He is a passionate opponent of rights for gay people. Speaking about the recent passage of equality in New York, Abp Dolan tells lies:

But "no sooner was the ink dry,"[Dolan] said, than priests throughout the state started coming to him with stories of couples threatening to sue if they didn't agree to rent out their parishes for same-sex weddings.

This is prima facie a lie. It's not possible. Why? Because the NY equality law explicitly states:

…[A] religious entity … shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage. Any such refusal to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges shall not create any civil claim or cause of action or result in any state or local government action to penalize, withhold benefits or discriminate against any such religious corporation, benevolent order or not-for-profit corporation.

Abp Dolan knows perfectly well that he has full freedom to refuse to marry anyone for any reason. After all, his church considers civil marriages between divorced people to be invalid and refuses to perform them. Yet you don't seem him advocating to prevent such civil marriages, or claiming that the divorced are suing to get into his churches.

While the US Conference of Catholic Bishops attempts to enforce Roman Catholic dogma on civil law, it's important to pushback against their efforts to claim victimhood. Religious liberty is not being infringed. Indeed, it's being protected. What's being curtailed is his privilege of claiming that the Roman Catholics speak for all.

They do not. Many many faithful Christians disagree with Abp Dolan, including a majority of his own laity who support marriage equality!

Archbishop (soon Cardinal) Dolan has used offensive comparisons to describe gay people, and written threatening letters to President Obama demanding that gay people should not have the civil right to marry. But the only religious freedom being crushed is the the religious freedom of LGBT people who worship in supportive religious denominations that support marriage equality.

Abp Dolan is free to oppose marriage equality. But if he uses lies and degrading language, we need to keep calling him out on it. Politely, but firmly.

Update: he's none too nice to child abuse victims either. Read the shocked comments to this post on Abp Dolan's blog.

Religious freedom (1): protection under the law

2012-01-12T07:49:00.000-08:00

As the march towards full equality for LGBT people continues, those opposed are now cloaking themselves in the mantle of victimhood. They are claiming that somehow protection of a minority's rights infringes on THEIR liberty. I have never understood how being told you can't discriminate can be perceived as discrimination, but as Susan Russell often puts it, this is a bit like claiming sympathy for being an orphan after you've murdered your parents.

Yesterday the Supreme Court passed down a ruling giving broad protections to religious organizations that essentially exempt them from civil laws. This should put to rest the lies they tell. It won't, but it should. From the Daily Beast:

In its first major religious-freedom case in decades, the Supreme Court on Wednesday sided with a Pennsylvania Lutheran school that fired a teacher after she took disability leave for narcolepsy, then returned mid-year demanding her job back. ….
The court based its decision in Hosanna-Tabor v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on a long history of reverence for the “ministerial exception”—the idea that it violates the First Amendment for the state to interfere in who religious groups hire and fire. The decision hinged on a broad definition of “minister,” arguing that because she was ordained, considered “called” by God to her position, and collected religious-tax breaks, the teacher is the type of person religious groups should be able to select—and get rid of—without state interference. …

If you’d only been listening to the religious right for the past three years, this decision—especially the fact that it was unanimous—would come as a shock. ...

In the theoconservative imagination, almost everything the government does to ensure equal rights, especially for LGBT Americans, is a threat to religious liberty. Non-discrimination statutes could force churches or Christian businesses to hire gay employees. Legalized gay marriage could lead to churches being forced to conduct gay weddings. The end of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell could force chaplains not to preach against homosexuality.

But the Supreme Court’s decision in the Hosanna-Tabor case illustrates how overheated this alarmism has been. ...

It would be nice if this decision made it clear that they are lying, but it won't. We'll continue to explore this meme of "Christian victimhood" in my next few posts.

Why it matters: together for 64 years

2012-01-12T07:30:00.000-08:00

From NY Magazine:

After 64 Years Together, Louis Halsey and John Spofford Morgan Finally Got Hitched....being gay was a great equalizer then. And being married is a great equalizer now. “People say, ‘So if you’re married, where’s the certificate?’ ” Lou explains. “Now we have it.” The pair ignored domestic partnership when it came along (“A halfway step,” says John), and since they had already invested in the complicated legal work-arounds—trusts, powers of attorney—needed to protect one another, they didn’t see the point of claiming marriage rights in, say, Iowa. But when the law passed here in June, they knew they would take the step. “Just to see it in black and white,” says Lou. For John, “it was more like finishing something.”

The small ceremony, with a minister and three witnesses, was held in their Village apartment on November 11, a date they chose because they have for years noticed the time 11:11 on the clock by the bed. They did not exchange rings and got no gifts, “except bourbon!” Lou says. “But he”—he waves at John—“started to cry.”

“Did I?” John wonders.

From NY Magazine

And just how, pray tell, is the marriage of these old men together for 64 years going to hurt ANYONE else?

Marriage in New Jersey?

2012-01-11T07:23:00.000-08:00

New Jersey has civil unions, but the courts there have determined that civil unions are not treated equally to marriage. Remarkably, the New Jersey Democrats in the legislature have made marriage equality a top legislative priority. The challenge will be the Republican governor, who is (of course) opposed:

The support from [Senate President] Sweeney marks a significant new advantage for the legislation, according to advocates. He declined to vote on the measure in 2010 when it failed by a 20-14, and has since called his abstention the biggest regret of his political career. Then governor Jon Corzine had promised to sign the bill if it reached his desk.

“This is about doing what’s right and ensuring full equal and civil rights for all New Jerseyans,” said Sweeney. “Two years ago, I made a mistake in abstaining on marriage equality — a mistake that means same-sex couples continue to be denied the very basic civil right to live their lives as they wish. But today isn’t about me correcting my mistake, it’s about correcting a mistake for thousands of loving couples across the state who want nothing more than to be treated equally as their neighbors.”

So, an interesting year in equality. Maryland and Washington are also pushing legislatively for marriage, while Minnesota and North Carolina are threatening constitutional amendments against.

Pro-family means ALL families, Mr Santorum

2012-01-10T05:00:00.000-08:00

Conor Friedersdorf takes on Rick Santorum (my emphases):

I presume everyone reading this post is either married or is close to someone who is married, whether it's parents or close friends or a boss or teacher or colleague. Think of that married couple. That family. Imagine if they got a letter in the mail informing them that by order of the federal government, their marriage is no longer valid. I submit that a man who would send out letters like that to gay and lesbian married couples does not deserve to be labeled as the candidate with the most pro-family agenda. His desire to invalidate the unions of people who are already married, some of whom have kids -- to invalidate existing families by federal mandate -- makes him arguably the least pro-family candidate, despite his other pro-family positions.

The more than a quarter of a million families with a gay married couple at their core are not disconnected from American society. They have extended families: brothers and sisters, nieces and nephews, friends who come over every Thanksgiving -- and for all these extended families, for everyone who has a gay person in their extended family, Rick Santorum isn't a pro-family candidate, because he is hostile to their family as it actually exists, and would invalidate it by decree if he could. Are we to regard targeted tax cuts as the more important stance?

Taxes

2012-01-09T05:00:00.000-08:00

With DOMA challenges,and the IRS recognizing same sex couples (sort of) in community property states, there were a number of tax-related developments for gay couples in 2011, leading to a long term trend of recognizing our families.

More resources at the Same Sex Tax blog.

YOu might want to forward these links to your accountant.

Trailer: Love is in the Air (video Sunday)

2012-01-08T07:00:00.000-08:00

Another lesbian themed movie that hopes to become a web series.

Washington Governor comes out for equality

2012-01-06T05:00:00.000-08:00

From the Advocate:

Sounding ready for a fight, Gov. Christine Gregoire announced today that she will press for passage of marriage equality in Washington during an upcoming special session.

"It is time," she said. "It's over time for us to ensure gay and lesbian couples have equal rights, and that means marriage in Washington State."

Washington's domestic-partnership law already grants many of the benefits that marriage would; it was often called the "everything but marriage bill" when it was being considered in 2009 and then when some tried to repeal it via Referendum 71 at the ballot box. But Gregoire repeatedly emphasized that her push for marriage isn't just about rights.
"I don't think about the legal protections of a marriage license," she said. "Instead I think about love, I think about commitment."

Marriage, she said, is "not a contract." Gregoire argued that same-sex couples want the right to stand in front of their friends and family and marry just like she had done with her husband. Research from the Third Way has shown that arguments about commitment are more persuasive with voters than those about rights and benefits — which voters don't relate to as easily.

way to go, Governor! Way to go, Washington!

Text and video here.

Why it matters, vs the bigotry of Rick Santorum

2012-01-05T05:00:00.001-08:00

From my friend the Rev. Susan Russell's blog. I'm sure she won't mind me quoting in full, this one's a keeper.

This week I had sad news from two long time friends. One was a clergy colleague who lost his wife of 55 years to a long illness on New Year's Eve. The other was an ECW friend who lost her partner of 23 years on Christmas Day.

Both are now coping with their own grief and loss while planning services to celebrate the lives of their beloveds as they claim the resurrection promise that in death life is changed -- not ended -- and the sure and certain promise that God's love never ends.

And one of them is also having to deal with frozen assets in bank accounts while trying to pay funeral expenses; "proving" her next-of-kin status in order to carry out the last wishes of her beloved; facing the financial challenge of no "standing" in terms of Social Security survivor's benefits.

Meanwhile, in Iowa, the Republican presidential poster child for political homophobia Rick Santorum proclaims: "Ask me what motivates me, it's been the dignity of every human life."

Unless it's a gay or lesbian life. In which case, he argues that gay relationships “destabilize” society, wouldn’t offer any legal protections to gay relationships and has pledged to annul all same-sex marriages if elected president.

Seriously.

I know, I know. Everybody says the "Santorum Surge" is going to be short lived and he won't be able to stand the scrutiny of a front-runner and he's not electable ...and, and, and.

And yet as my friend prepares bury her partner of 23 years, the airwaves are full of Santorum's anti-gay messages that have nothing to do with human dignity and everything to do with homophobic bigotry masquerading as Christian Family Values.

No wonder Jesus wept.

Susan is an out lesbian, an Episcopal priest, and relentless advocate for LGBT equality. NExt time someone tells you that "Christians" oppose marriage, remember Susan and the church she serves.

Hypocrisy alert from Catholic Bishops

2012-01-04T10:30:00.000-08:00

Item 1:

The Hartford Archdiocese wants gays and lesbians to practice abstinence in the new year.

On Tuesday, the archdiocese announced it was launching a local chapter of a national ministry called Courage "to support men and women who struggle with homosexual tendencies and to motivate them to live chaste and fruitful lives in accordance with Catholic Church teachings."...

Item 2:

The pope has accepted the early resignation of a Los Angeles bishop who recently acknowledged being the father of two teenagers.

Los Angeles Auxiliary Bishop Gabino Zavala, 60, resigned Wednesday ...
In a letter to the faithful, Los Angeles Archbishop Jose Gomez said Zavala had told him in December that he had two children who lived with their mother in a different state. Zavala subsequently submitted his resignation to the pope.

Do as I say, not as I do?

Why it matters: military families

2012-01-04T07:30:00.000-08:00

Charlie Morgan is a married woman in active military service. She has breast cancer.

Even with repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the pair face all sorts of limitations not imposed on opposite-sex military couples. Because of the Defense of Marriage Act, for example, Karen Morgan is denied health coverage worth well in excess of $10,000 a year. She also cannot get a base pass that would let her escort their 4 1/2-year-old daughter to medical appointments on base or shop at the commissary.

These serial injustices are especially concerning now that Charlie Morgan’s cancer has returned. She worries about how her family will manage if she dies, since the law denies same-sex spouses death and survivor benefits. In the fall, she became a named plaintiff in a federal lawsuit challenging the Defense of Marriage Act’s denial of equal protection.

“I have a question I’d like to ask John Boehner,” Charlie Morgan said, taking note of the House speaker’s decision to spend taxpayer money for lawyers to defend the act. “I’ve proved I’m willing to put my life on the line for my country. When will he allow the military to protect my family?

We're waiting, Speaker Boehner, and candidate Santorum. Just how does hurting Charlie's family "protect" marriage?

Rick Santorum wants to invalidate my marriage

2012-01-03T08:00:00.000-08:00

From Think Progress, the latest from theocratic Roman Catholic Rick Santorum. As part of supporting an anti-marriage equality amendment for the Constitution, this man would annul all our marriages, because he doesn't consider them anything more than friendships. I can't think of anything else to say that expresses my horror at this disgusting proposal and the smug ass who suggests it.

Q: What would you do with same-sex couples who got married? Would you make them get divorced?

SANTORUM: Well, their marriage would be invalid. I think if the constitution says “marriage is this,” then people whose marriage is not consistent with the constitution… I’d love to think there’s another way of doing it.

He went on to claim that “same-sex couples can contract for everything” except government benefits and compared the loving marriages of many gay and lesbian couples to having a friend or an aunt.

Even Mitt Romney would grandfather in existing same sex marriages.

Of course, Santorum has no chance to be president, but like all the Republicans, he's playing a hate-filled card here to appeal to the handful of social conservatives who participate in the Iowa Republican caucuses. And they love this stuff. Because they consider us less than human, and our relationships less than human. And it is deeply, deeply hurtful as well as frightening to realize that some of the people next to me in the train or in the market agree with him.

Listen, Rick Santorum: maybe this will make it clear to you.

update: Let's not forget something else. Santorum is not only opposed to marriage equality. He opposes legalization of sexual expression between adults and he opposes legal contraception. Thus proving the old expression that heterosexism is just one room in the house that sexism built.

Winning the battle for morality

2012-01-02T05:30:00.000-08:00

Linda Hirshman writes in Salon that 2011 saw gay rights victories due to a surprise weapon: morality.

How did they do it? They did it – and this is the lesson that the gay revolution holds for any progressive movement – not by asking for “tolerance.” They didn’t ask people to accept gay marriage by holding their moral noses. Rather, they set out to change change people’s minds about what is moral.

Moral relationships are not about what sexual positions or organs are involved, the movement argued, no matter what the Bible said (or didn’t say) and no matter what Queen Victoria thought. Against the impermeable wall of religious sexual morality, the gay marriage movement fired the armament of other measures of morality. Sexual relationships are about relationships. What is the content of a moral relationship with another human being?

The gay marriage movement told the stories of its courtships, invoking the ancient Platonic idea of love as the recognition of the goodness in the other person….

It was an uphill battle. For too long in America the subject of morality has been collapsed into sexual morality. For most of Western history, morality had richer content. Morality meant proper conduct regarding wealth, just as one example….

But as inequality rose, moral debates about economic justice fell until only sex was left as a subject for moral conversation. Worse, in response to the sexual revolution of the ’60s, moral sex was defined by a snapshot of the 19th century Protestant, monogamous, heterosexual, reproductive family. Same-sex sex was the definition of the immoral. Except for those uppity women wanting to abort their “babies,” it dominated the field. With the arrival of religious activists into U.S. politics in the ’70s, this religiously defined sexual morality was promoted as a proper subject for politics.

Gay activists reversed this trend. Asserting their claim to marriage, gay activists told the predominantly straight world that there are more ways to think about morality than the Evangelical Christian morality of Victorian sexuality. And they were persuasive. When conservative lawyer Ted Olson, former solicitor general under President Bush, explained why he sued to establish gay marriage as a constitutional right, he invoked the essentials of the activists’ argument: “We believe that a conservative value is stable relationships and stable community and loving individuals coming together and forming a basis that is a building block of our society, which includes marriage.”

In this, as in so many things, the gay community were early adopters of the only strategy that beats the resurgent religious right: fight morality with morality. Once the category of morality was opened, every kind of debate became possible — and so did victory. It arrived in 2011.

Well, I'm not so sure about victory. But the gay rights movement is at its heart, deeply conservative. It is very conservative to want to serve your country, get married, and contribute fairly to society. Those aren't revolutionary, in fact completely the opposite.

Sure, there are gay folk who don't want that, who reject marriage as heterosexual patriarchy, and so on. Lots of straights don't want it either.

But increasingly, gay people want to be just regular neighbors, living their lives as part of what I like to call the "tapestry of community": just regular folks, not limited to a gayborhood or gay culture. And supporting that is a deeply conservative argument.

Which just goes to show that there aren't a lot of conservatives left in the political world.

2011 Marriage Equality Year in Review (video Sunday)

2012-01-01T04:00:00.000-08:00

Voices of Faith Speak Out: The Real Assault on Marriage

2011-12-30T10:50:00.000-08:00

A conversation with Rev Dr Nancy E. Petty, Senior Pastor of Pullen Memorial Baptist Church in Raleigh, North Carolina.

“One of the actual threats to marriage in our society today...comes from people misusing the Bible to define marriage. If you look at the Old and New Testaments, you will not get one picture only of what constitutes marriage. In fact, often in the Bible, men had numerous wives, and women were bought and sold as property. The claim that the Bible defines marriage for today is false....

“The real assault on marriage is to be found in right-wingers’ support of inequality within marriage, with a man given more power than a woman. If you look at what Jesus said about relationships, he calls us into relationships that are loving, just, compassionate and equal. Where [anti-marriage activist] Crouse says that love is not the most important thing in a marriage, her argument is morally, spiritually and ethically bankrupt. The real assault on marriage is Crouse’s use of hateful language spoken in a total void of what love means. For obvious reasons, it does not work well, generally, for a homosexual person to marry a heterosexual one. Where one social group, feeling itself superior, is beating another group down in order to get ahead, that is not talking about what is of value in loving commitments, and it certainly is not an authentically Christian way of being. The foundational Christian message is to love one another.”

The Chicago Catholics and Religious Freedom

2011-12-28T14:00:00.000-08:00

Enough with this religious freedom argument already! As I've told you before, it is specious as well as illogical.

FACT: you are all free to practice your religion any way you choose.

Regardless of the hyperbole, no one is, or will, ever step foot into any church and force them to marry anyone they don't want to. After all, the Roman Catholics are free to deny marriage to anyone divorced, even though marriage following divorce is civilly legal. No divorcé is suing the church for marriage, are they?

Actually, what they are doing is buying "annulments", kinda like indulgences, which is why serial adulterer and thrice-married Newt Gingrich is now a Roman Catholic. Note to cardinals, do you really think Newt is the best examplar of the meaning of marriage?

What you are NOT free to do is:

force anyone else to practice your religion.
For example, lots of faith groups disagree with the Roman Catholics about who can marry. The Episcopalians allow divorced people to remarry in the church, and in many jurisdictions where it's legal, they allow LGBT people to marry, neither of which are allowed under of Roman Catholic doctrine. Same for the MCC, the UCC, the Lutherans, reform Jews, etc etc etc. These faith groups should be free to practice THEIR faith, not be forced to be unwilling Roman Catholics.

get the government to pay for it.
Yes, we know that Catholic Charities in IL is shutting down, rather than let gay people adopt children-- but they do not have a constitutional right to federal funding. Catholic charities are more than free to keep providing discriminatory adoption services, if they choose to pay for it. They just aren't perfectly free to keep using my gay taxpayer's dollars to fund discrimination against other gay people.

And let's be very clear; this is a choice. As the NY Times points out,

Taking a completely different tack was the agency affiliated with the conservative Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod, which like the Catholic Church does not sanction same-sex relationships. Gene Svebakken, president and chief executive of the agency, Lutheran Child and Family Services of Illinois, visited all seven pastoral conferences in his state and explained that the best option was to compromise and continue caring for the children.

That is, you can keep taking public money and compromise. You can not take public money, and do as you please. Or you can shut down and scream "martyr!"

Here's the basic fact: claiming that you are being discriminated against, if you are not allowed to discriminate against others, is like killing your father and claiming sympathy for being an orphan.

Update: Jay Bookman, writing in the Atlanta Journal Constitution:

...the church is not being persecuted. It is not persecution to be held to the standards that are applied to every other contractor that does business with the state. To the contrary, the church is demanding “special rights” to violate the law and to use taxpayers’ money to do so.

Gay in Michigan? The Governor wants you to leave

2011-12-28T10:20:00.000-08:00

The right-wing Michigan Governor has outlawed health benefits for unmarried partners of government employees. From the Advocate:

A bill to end health insurance coverage for domestic partners of government workers in Michigan was signed into law today by GOP governor Rick Snyder....

“Governor Snyder’s support for this bill is appalling," Emily Dievendorf, director of policy for Equality Michigan, said in a statement. "Today, the governor told unmarried public employees that they can no longer care for their partners or children. He has put hardworking gay and lesbian couples and their children into harm’s way by eliminating important health care coverage. He has spent the last two years talking about creating a welcoming state with a attractive business climate, and this bill flies in the face of those goals."

This will particularly hit academic institutions, as I've described before. Academics don't like working in places where there is institutionalized bigotry. Good time to be picking up talented faculty from U-Michigan. And since more and more companies support benefits (indeed, quite a large number of major firms are actively opposed to DOMA ), this will also hit the business climate.

So Michigan may be purer, but it will surely also be poorer.

The repeal of DADT: the lies they told

2011-12-27T09:29:00.000-08:00

By now, you've seen this image, I'm sure, of the US Navy petty officer claiming the traditional right of the "first kiss" after the ship comes home. It's a long tradition, with a twist: this time it's two young women. And no one really cares that they are a same-sex couple serving openly. Far more important, as any servicemember will tell you, is that the sailor is home from the sea.

There has been little real response to DADT repeal. Indeed, the biggest thing to notice is how little it's been noticed. A Marine officer goes to the Marine Ball with a boyfriend. A decorated airman can finish his career honorably. Even the Marine commandant who was originally opposed to repeal, is pleased at its results. And I'm not particularly surprised. Living in San Diego, I know quite a few military, largely Navy but a few Marines, and they are above all professionals. Of COURSE they've done what they should--it's what a professional force does.

And, frankly, sexuality is a non-issue to them, across the board-- from BP's cousin, an aviation technician from a carrier who danced at our wedding in his dress blues, to the young sailor my stepdaughter dated briefly, who had no issue with her gay parents or his gay colleagues (and yes, even before DADT repeal, he knew who they were), to the retired Navy Captain in his 80s who always greets us with a big hug, and asks how the battle for marriage equality is going.

Writing in the HuffPo, Nathaniel Frank challenges those who made dire predictions about DADT destroying the American military to admit they were wrong (emphasis mine):

During the years I spent researching and writing about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," I frequently pointed out that when other countries lifted their bans, nothing bad happened. But people weren't convinced that the same would hold true here. As my colleague Aaron Belkin has theorized, in the U.S., fear and anxiety about change had swelled into full-blown paranoia. And this sentiment was being exploited and inflamed by political opportunists. There is even firsthand evidence that military and cultural leaders exaggerated the threat to unit cohesion throughout the debate over "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," in an effort to give credibility to what was, at bottom, simple prejudice.

....Throughout our history, opponents of equal treatment have insisted that it would wreak havoc on society, indeed that it would cause such grave disruptions that equality was an unacceptable threat to civilization. This "disruption" theory was wielded against African Americans, immigrants, women, gays and lesbians, and transgender people, to name a few. It is perhaps the sharpest tool in the arsenal of people who refuse to rise above passions and prejudice, but who know that they can't win their argument using religious and moral dogma alone. So they deploy arguments that sound secular and pragmatic -- equality will somehow harm kids, undermine the family, destroy civilization -- to mask what really amounts to feelings of discomfort, resentment or simple opposition to sharing first-class citizenship.

The "disruption" theory was exactly what was applied -- and finally defeated -- in the effort to keep gay people from serving openly in uniform....

We hear that letting gay couples marry will disrupt the social fabric of American life, undermine marriage, kill a "culture of life," dry up the Western population, and threaten our civilization. If this is what was said about gay people serving openly (which it was), and if none of it happened, then the lesson is monumental: a culture of anxiety has become a politics of paranoia, which has pulled the wool over our collective eyes in service to maintaining an unjust status quo. Will we let it happen again and again and again? Will anyone be held accountable for steering us so terribly wrong?

And the other thing I'd like the naysayers to do is apologize to our military. To assume dire consequences is to insult their professionalism. Somehow, though, I think we'll be waiting a long time for that.

A reprise: coming out for Christmas (video)

2011-12-26T08:00:00.000-08:00

From the London Gay Men's Chorus

Love makes a family (video Sunday)

2011-12-25T05:00:00.000-08:00

Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays from our home to yours.

The video is from MoveOn.

Voices of Faith: An open letter to homophobic Christian parents at Christmas

2011-12-24T04:30:00.000-08:00

I'm lucky that my parents immediately welcomed my partner (now wife) into our family life. But lots of people aren't so lucky. Here's a letter by an MCC minister:

To be Christian means to seek to be like Jesus, to follow His teachings and example, right? That's what makes your rejection of your LGBT children and their partners so richly ironic. The good news is that the upcoming holiday season provides you with a perfect opportunity to take a step toward turning things around....

Of course, my mother wanted me to come “home” for Christmas – me and my children. But my partner was not welcomed. ...I desperately searched for some kind of compromise. ...She was so genuinely convinced that she was obliged to "take a stand" about my life and my relationship -- that she would not meet me any fraction of the way. I had to choose. And the "wrong" choice would break her heart.

But here's another great irony in all of this, my partner -- the very same person that my mother refused to allow to sit and break bread at her table on Christmas Day -- insisted that I go to my Mom's house for Christmas.....She said she didn't want my mother to have a heavy heart on Christmas Day because of my absence.

"If Jesus were the head of our family, sitting there at the head of the table Christmas Day, how would He have handled this?" Based on everything I've read about Him, every encounter He had with His society's "undesirables," every word that I've read that He said and what He oh-so-conspicuously did not say -- not one word about homosexuality -- I believe that when my partner dropped me and my kids off in front of my mother's house, He would have said to my partner, "Come on in. Have some dinner."

That's what I wish my mother had been willing to do. It will never happen now because my mother has passed away. I’ve gone from spending Christmas with my mother and without my partner to spending it with my partner and without my mother. The opportunity for me to spend Christmas -- or any time -- with the two most important women in my life in one room is gone.

If you are reading this, it’s not too late for you to give your son or daughter that gift. You don't have to understand his or her intimate relationship. You don't have to approve. Just hear this: Jesus clearly never saw spending time in the company of “sinners” and “undesirables” as condoning their behavior. Even He did not see Himself as too “holy” to hang out with them. So you, too, can be kind to your gay children and their partners without “condoning” anything you believe to be wrong. You can just love your child, and be open to the possibility of growing to love someone else who loves your child. It is not too late for you to give him or her that precious gift. Christmas is coming. Invite your child -- and his or her partner -- to come on in and have some dinner. Do that, because, -- in your heart -- you must know that Jesus would. Just be like Jesus. He is, after all, the One whose birth we will celebrate.

Christmas flash mob with unexpected ending (video)

2011-12-23T09:30:00.000-08:00

A good flash mob, but goes a bit different around 3.30. It's significant that this comes from Canada, a civilized country on our northern border.

Homo for the Holidays: a religion survival guide

2011-12-22T10:00:00.000-08:00

Do you dread your relatives? Is Aunt Patsy likely to harangue you about "hating the sin"? Is your embarrassing brother in law going to glare at you? Are you a straight ally looking to deflect conflict? In this Survival Guide, the Rev Jay Johnson gives you some talking points.

Here's the most important thing: religion is supposed to draw us together, create community, and deepen our love for one another. You love your uncle, and you love your lesbian daughter. Religion should never force you to choose between them. That's the good news of religion this holiday season: God loves LGBT people just as much as your beloved uncle. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Why it matters: marriage is good for your health

2011-12-21T11:09:00.000-08:00

From the Boston Globe:

It turns out that legal marriage for gay couples reduces reliance on health care and decreases medical expenses, according to a new study being published in the American Journal of Public Health.

Researchers analyzed health data from a group of gay men in Massachusetts for the twelve months before and the twelve months following the legalization of civil marriage for same-sex couples in mid-2003.

The results?

The number of visits to health care facilities dropped significantly. Accompanying costs went down as well.

How can this be? Because when you are an equal citizen, and have equal rights, a very significant source of stress and ill health in your life is eliminated.

Marriage is good for people. Shouldn't we encourage stable relationships and mutual respect?

Why DOMA discourages marriage

2011-12-20T14:28:00.000-08:00

From New York:

After the euphoria of attaining same-sex marriage in New York, gay and lesbian couples—and the companies that employ them—are now confronting mundane but maddening red tape because the federal government doesn’t recognize their unions.

Wrestling with complications from income tax returns to health insurance plans to estate tax planning, businesses have sought outside help from consultants and training courses to learn how to comply with contradictory state and federal laws for their gay and lesbian employees who marry.

DOMA is punitive and unfair. There are now multiple cases in different federal districts challenging Clause 3, the part that forbids federal recognition of legally married lesbian and gay couples. Of course, the dysfunctional Congress won't do anything about repeal, because of the hyper-partisan anti-gay Republicans. Some day.... maybe...

How to explain gay rights to an idiot

2011-12-19T09:40:00.000-08:00

From Buzzfeed:

How to talk to your family this holiday about marriage equality (video Sunday)

2011-12-18T04:00:00.000-08:00

From EqualityMaine:

Voices of Faith Speak Out: Bishop Gene Robinson on Rick Perry's ad

2011-12-17T04:00:00.000-08:00

From the Washington Post, a blog from Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson (the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal church) taking on Rick Perry's now-notorious anti gay advert:

It is breathtaking (and not in a good way) when someone who aspires to be the Commander in Chief denigrates the soldiers he means to command....The blood of gay and lesbian soldiers flows as readily and as redly as that of other young Americans fighting in Afghanistan, yet Gov. Perry feels free to use them as political cannon fodder for his campaign. In an attempt to garner conservative Christian votes, he would stigmatize these brave young men and women who are, as we speak, risking their lives on our behalf. If this is patriotism, count me out!...

Christians - or at least many of us - value the separation of church and state and see no harm in drawing these careful lines of separation for the good of a diverse nation. We don’t need the enforcement of the state in making our case for a loving God. We offer numerous and ample opportunities for public prayer in our churches and religious gatherings. We don’t need them or want them in school. Besides, we learned long ago that allegiance to God can’t be a forced march.

Christians everywhere should be alarmed that a candidate for our nation’s highest office would play fast and loose with both the Constitution and our men and women in uniform. It would be simply pathetic that Gov. Perry would do so in an effort to entice conservative voters, if it weren’t such an abuse of religion and a violation of the Constitution...

Well said, Bishop.I also like this badge that has been making the rounds on Facebook:

Hearing today on DOMA

2011-12-16T08:10:00.000-08:00

Today, there will be oral arguments on one of the many DOMA cases working their way through the federal courts: the Golinski case, in which a legally married California woman, Karen Golinski, was denied health coverage for her spouse. (The kicker here is that she works for the federal courts). Frankly, I would much rather see this go to the Supremes than Prop8, right now--I don't trust the Supremes on Prop8, but the DOMA clause 3 issue is a slam dunk failure of equal protection big enough for Antonin Scalia to see. Legally married couples are treated differently by the federal government for no reason but their gender.

This case is a big deal,because the Department of Justice will actually be arguing against DOMA, which will be defended by the expensive lawyer bought by the Republicans in Congress (called BLAG). From The Advocate:

Tony West, assistant attorney general of the Justice Department’s civil division, told The Advocate that his Friday arguments in federal district court will center on why Section 3 of DOMA, which bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages, should be subject to heightened judicial scrutiny — in part given the long history of discrimination against gays and lesbians in the United States.

“This issue is really about whether the federal government, in distributing health insurance benefits, can pick and choose on the basis of sexual orientation when deciding whom to confer benefits,” West said. “Here is a married couple who, for all intents and purposes, is the same as anyone else, with one distinguishing characteristic, and that is sexual orientation.”

The Advocate also tells us about some of the specific questions the judge hearing the case has put forth for the attorneys:

Earlier this week, U.S. district judge Jeffrey S. White issued a two-page list of questions to attorneys on DOMA’s constitutionality and whether the law should be subjected to heightened scrutiny. Among them to be addressed Friday in court:

How does treating some state sanctioned marriages different from others promote consistency or maintain the status quo?
How does the withholding of federal benefits to children of families with same-sex parents encourage responsible parenting and child-rearing?
Is the [Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group] actually bipartisan? Does BLAG have the support – and funding for the increasing cost of defending DOMA – from a majority of Congress or just from the House of Representatives?
How does BLAG distinguish the line of authority treating classifications based on religious affiliation as a suspect class from classifications based on sexual orientation?

LGBT report card for presidential candidates

2011-12-14T05:00:00.000-08:00

Thanks to a commentator below, who points us at this excellent comparison from MarriageEquality.org

Mitt Romney meets a gay vet in New Hampshire...

2011-12-13T04:30:00.000-08:00

Mitt Romney who once claimed he would be "better than Teddy Kennedy" on gay rights, is now firmly in the anti-gay camp. He opposes open service, marriage equality, etc etc.So what happened when he went to a campaign stop in New Hampshire and met a vet? Seems the conversation turned to marriage:

As the Boston Globe reports,

With that, it started to become clear that a routine campaign conversation could become hostile. Though Romney had no reason to know it, Garon – a 63-year-old from Epsom, N.H. -- was sitting at the table with his husband.

Garon challenged Romney, saying, “If two men get married, apparently a veteran’s spouse would not be entitled to any burial benefits or medical benefits or anything that the serviceman has devoted his time and effort to his country, and you just don’t support equality in terms of same-sex marriage?”

Romney reiterated his support for the Defense of Marriage Act, and added, “And we apparently disagree.”

“It’s good to know how you feel,” Garon said. “That you do not believe that everyone is entitled to their constitutional rights.”

Yeah, because even old vets in flannel can be gay, Governor Romney.

First they came for the gays....

2011-12-12T08:29:00.000-08:00

The vicious homophobia that has developed in Africa is fanned by the efforts of anti-gay Evangelical activists from the United States. We saw that in Uganda. NOw, in Nigeria, they are proposing death for gay people.

Tsk, tsk, say the straights. How unfortunate.

But straights are also at risk. From the WaPo:

Under the proposed law, couples who marry could face up to 14 years each in prison. Witnesses or anyone who helps couples marry could be sentenced to 10 years behind bars. That’s an increase over the bill’s initial penalties, which lawmakers proposed during a debate Tuesday televised live from the National Assembly in Nigeria’s capital Abuja.

Other additions to the bill include making it illegal to register gay clubs or organizations, as well as criminalizing the “public show of same-sex amorous relationships directly or indirectly.” Those who violate those laws would face 10-year imprisonment as well.

So, if you are a gay-friendly straight person in Nigeria, you can go to prison.

And don't think for a minute there aren't people here who would like to do the same thing to LGBT people and their allies.

New Ads from Maine (video Sunday)

2011-12-11T06:30:00.000-08:00

You may recall that Maine's marriage equality law got Prop8'd, before anyone actually got married. The bad guys used the same exact tactics as Prop8 in CA and it worked.But Maine is trying to reverse this bias and bigotry. Here's one of the new ads they're running. What do you think?

Why it matters: Ed Watson dies without equality

2011-12-09T15:34:00.001-08:00

From the LA Times:

Derence Kernek and Ed Watson became prominent faces in the California gay community's campaign for the right to marry when they urged a federal appeals court earlier this year to halt the enforcement of Proposition 8 so they could wed before Watson succumbed to advancing illness.

On the eve of a Thursday hearing on challenges to a 2010 ruling that the voter initiative banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, Watson died at age 78 of complications from Alzheimer's disease, diabetes and hypertension.

Gay rights activists lamented Watson's death as a reminder of the harm inflicted on same-sex couples throughout the state because they are denied the right to marry.

So, I'm sure NOM founders Brian Brown and Maggie Gallagher are happy over this. After all, Ed and Derence have been devoted to each other for 40 years, but have been prevented from irrevocably damaging marriage, while Brian is off supporting marriage by supporting the campaign of serial adulterer Newt Gingrich. Hypocrisy, much?

Prop8 in court, yet again, today

2011-12-08T07:53:00.000-08:00

There are now four issues being litigated in the 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeal around Prop8. Two of these will have a hearing today:

Should the tapes of the trial be released? The supporters of Prop8 say "no", but that's hard to argue given that everyone knows who testified and what they said. What the supporters REALLY don't like is that their witnesses didn't bolster their case (and one actually supported marriage.) So far, all the lower courts have supported release.

Should the whole case be vacated because Judge Walker is gay? Everyone knew this going in, although he didn't make a big deal about it. But now the supporters of Prop8 say that because he might someday want to marry, he can't be fair. That's like saying a black judge can't hear a case on race, or a woman judge can't hear a case on abortion--because she might want one. The district court firmly said Judge Walker's sexuality is irrelevant.

Two additional points have already been argued. Additional briefs have been filed, but it's in the hands of the judges now. Those questions:

Do the supporters of prop8 have standing to appeal? The California court says they do, under California Law. Now the federal court can decide.

Is prop8 constitutional? This is the main show, the argument about the merits of the case rather than all the peripheral stuff. Judge Walker said it is not constitutional. The big question: was that decision correct?

Human rights for gay people: Thank you Mr President

2011-12-07T06:52:00.001-08:00

Yesterday, something amazing happened.

The Secretary of State gave a long, powerful speech supporting the rights of gay people around the world.

From the LA TImes:

In a speech to mark Human Rights Day, which is celebrated Saturday, Clinton declared that protecting the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people is "now one of the remaining human rights challenges of our time" and compared it to the battles for women's rights, racial equality and religious freedom.

(Video and transcript here). Along with this, the Obama Administration has released a memo detailing its efforts.

Now, as you know I'm an advocate for marriage equality.

But many of our issues here in the US are "luxury" issues. Gay people in many parts of the world don't have the luxury of marriage, or serving in the military. They are lacking even fundamental rights like life and liberty. Gay people in many places, particularly but not exclusively Africa, are at risk of violence, imprisonment, and even death simply for being who they are.

There are people here who advocate the same thing. They pop up in the comment threads of articles on line, they write hateful things on the pages of NOM's facebook, they buy NOM"s lies. But they aren't the majority. So they export their hate.

And now, the US is saying with the weight of officialdom, "Being gay is NOT a crime." Well done.

Update: Rick Perry, presidential wanna-be, complains: "Promoting special rights for gays in foreign countries is not in America’s interests and not worth a dime of taxpayers’ money."

Andrew Sullivan fires back: "Not getting murdered is NOT a special right."

Children deserve loving parents

2011-12-06T08:05:00.001-08:00

The main argument that the right wingers use these days to oppose marriage equality is "children deserve a mother and a father." This argument is specious and illogical and I am really tired of it. It makes no sense.

Do they think that gay people will stop raising children if they can't marry? Of course we won't. WE already have children and they aren't magically whisked away if we aren't married.

Do they think that gay people can't adopt or foster children if they can't marry? California's prop8 said nothing about children or adoption. No anti-marriage amendments touch this. Gay couples in California and many other states continue to provide loving homes for foster children and adopted children despite the bias against us. Banning marriages between gay people has nothing to do with adoption.

Do they think that gay people will stop having their own children if they can't marry? We already have biological children, from previous (straight) marriages, or by other means, such as surrogacy--all perfectly legal, and unaffected by marriage.

Do they think that gay people who want children and aren't allowed to marry, will turn straight? To which one answer is, would they want a gay man to marry their daughter for the sole sake of breeding?

Do they think that straight people will stop having children if gay people marry? Obviously the species is in no peril, since straights outnumber gays by 10:1 at least! And remember, nearly all gay kids had straight parents.

The fact is that by denying civil marriage to us, they willingly put our children at risk. Marriage between parents is good for kids. If they cared about children, they'd care about ALL children.

And the fact is that that civil marriage is not linked to childbearing, nor to adoption: they are completely separate issues.

Now, if you want to use that argument to try to forbid gay couples from adopting, that would be logical. Wrong, but logical. But as I've shown, it has no bearing on the question of whether two faithful and commited people who happen to be of the same sex, should be able to marry.

Roman Catholic Don't Ask, Don't Tell

2011-12-05T08:07:00.000-08:00

I'm getting seriously annoyed at the Roman Catholic Church. The Conference of Bishops recently met and rather than being concerned about social justice, they discussed how to wage the culture war: particularly, marriage equality.

East Bay Express

USA today

LGBTQnation

These are three of the most vocal bishops against us. Bishop Salvatore Cordileone, now Bishop of Oakland CA, was formerly in San Diego. He's extremely smart and widely considered the architect of Prop8. Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York puts forward an avuncular face, but he's lobbying the president and vigorously fighting a rearguard action in New York trying to challenge equality there. Archbishop John Nienstedt of Minneapolis is mobilizing troops in each parish to pass a Prop8-style anti-equality amendment. He has infamously suggested that parents can't support their gay children and be Catholic.

These men are intelligent, very powerful, and implacable foes of the LGBT community.

Their new meme is that marriage equality threatens religious liberty. To which the proper answer is, POPPYCOCK. There is no religious liberty if the Roman Catholic bishops impose their will on everyone else. The Episcopalians want to marry same sex couples: how is religious liberty protected if they are unable to do so?

The FACT is that the Roman Catholics are and will be free NOT to marry same sex couples, just as they are free NOT to marry previously divorced people, non-Catholics, or the unbaptized. But right now, most Episcopalians aren't able to perform legal marriages for their LGBT congregants. So say again, who's liberty is being infringed? Bilerico follows this up, highlighting the explicit lies being told by Abp Dolan in New York.

As you may know, there is some irony that Roman Catholics overall are the religious group most supportive of marriage equality. Thus, the laity is simply ignoring the bishops, much as they do on birth control (I mean, how many RC have more than two children, these days?)

But I'm getting very frustrated with their "Don't Ask Don't Tell". Because while they simply ignore the Bishops, they continue as good Catholics to support the Church, and essentially function as enablers of the Bishops' war against gay people. We have many dear, supportive RC friends who love us to death, but none of them are standing up and saying, "no more!" to the institutional Church as it continues its attacks. None of them are calling out the Church on its actions; none of them are withholding their donations.

Our friends tried to persuade my wife to stay Roman Catholic: "just don't tell Monsignor that you're gay," they advised, and seemed unaware of the cost of pretending to be "in Communion" with an institution that reviles you. My wife is now a joyful Episcopalian, free to be who she is. (I am an ex-Catholic myself, baptised and confirmed, and parochial school educated. My departure from the church led me to become a non-believer, but with my wife I have found a home with the tolerant and inclusive Episcopalians.)

But all those supportive Roman Catholics, who ignore the Church's teaching on LGBT people just as they ignore the Church on birth control? It's the Roman Catholic version of the NALTs (not all like that).

Many RC find it hurtful when their church is criticized. After all, they themselves have no problem with their LGBT friends. But I want to get across to my RC friends: The institution that is your church is attacking us. What are you doing--really DOING-- to stop them?

Updated: from the National Catholic Reporter, we learn that Catholics care far more about caring for the poor than for issues around gays marrying.

But the Bishops are putting their effort behind an anti-gay web site (I don't link to such sites; google it if you want to find it). And they (the Bishops) continue to tell lies and bear false witness.

Tell me, Bishops, What WOULD Jesus do?

The "We Do" campaign in North Carolina (video Sunday)

2011-12-04T19:41:00.000-08:00

In North Carolina, voters are considering an amendment to outlaw marriage between same sex couples. It's already not possible for same sex couples to marry, as this video shows. Gay folks are asking for a marriage license, pastors in tow, and being refused.

Why it matters: lesbian binational couple forced apart

2011-12-02T07:57:00.000-08:00

This is a great article from SheWired about the real human costs of being a binational same-sex couple.

As I sit here writing this, a few hours from now my wife will be waking up on her 44th birthday without me by her side. I know that she’s already struggling with this idea because at 4 a.m. UK time I received a text that read, “Laying here drowning in my tears, I miss you so much, I can’t stand being away from you. You are the only one who will make me whole. Need you!”

Quite honestly I didn’t know how to respond, as any words I have to offer won’t change the fact that I can’t give Inger what she needs for her birthday; me there with her.

The real costs of DOMA and Prop8 are ignored by the Roman Catholic and Mormon hierarchies who finance the prejudice against us. And increasingly, I find it to be hatred--unChristian, brutalizing, bigoted hatred. Why would a true Christian want our families to suffer? But they do not consider us families, and I believe they do not consider us human.

Taking liberties with Shakespeare,

Hath not a gay eyes? hath not a gay hands, organs,dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed withthe same food, hurt with the same weapons, subjectto the same diseases, healed by the same means,warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, asa hetero is? If you prick us, do we not bleed?if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poisonus, do we not die?

And too many of us ARE dying, apart and alone. And that's what they want.

DP benefits for federal employees redux?

2011-12-01T07:53:00.000-08:00

Federal employees have only limited benefits for their partners--some moving expenses, that kind of thing. Big ticket items like health coverage or pensions are not allowed. There's some effort to bring benefits to federal employees with domestic partners. The Advocate reports,

The bill would allow federal employees and their same-sex domestic partners to participate in federal retirement, life insurance, health, workers’ compensation, and family and medical leave benefits to the same extent as married employees and their spouses. They would also be subject to the same antinepotism rules and financial disclosure requirements that apply to married heterosexual workers.

The irony? Thanks to DOMA, those of us legally MARRIED as opposed to living in the second-class civil unions will not be eligible.

Both BP and I have employers who would cover both of us. However, as I've explained before, thanks to DOMA, the federal government does not consider us married. If BP were on my health plan, the costs would be reported as extra income to me, which would incur a fairly substantial tax liability. So we could get the coverage, but we would pay dearly for it. Fortunately we are both employed but it means that we have to navigate two very different policies and often can't use the same providers.

Yet another insult from my government confirming my second-class citizenship, and forcing me to live under Roman Catholic/Mormon rules.

What's with all these court cases?

2011-11-30T07:49:00.001-08:00

If you are getting confused about the DOMA and Prop8 legal cases,you are not alone. Here's a great summary covering the various state and federal legal challenges around marriage equality.

These cases fall into two broad categories: challenges in federal courts to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) of 1996, and challenges in state courts to state marriage laws. Here is an overview of both categories.

There are 8 DOMA cases in federal courts now. This site also gives a great overview of what has happened in individual states regarding marriage equality.

DOMA case moves forward

2011-11-29T08:44:00.001-08:00

The San Jose Mercury News reports that the Golinski case will be heard in December.

This is the one where an employee of the 9th circuit tried to put her wife on her benefits, but was denied because of DOMA, even though the 9th circuit judges agreed with her. It is one of several cases on DOMA moving through the federal courts in different districts.

DOMA treats legally married couples, like me, differently depending on their gender. It is under assault not just in the judicial system, but also there is now movement legislatively towards repeal. That won't go anywhere, as the Republicans make anti-gay policies a plank in their platform, but it's a start.

Many legal observers think that DOMA is much more vulnerable at the Supreme Court level than Prop8. It's probably a better case to move up there. Golinski's might be just the one.

It's Time

2011-11-28T15:30:00.001-08:00

Watch this. It doesn't need words to make the point!

Updated: The Right to Love (video Sunday)

2011-11-27T09:54:00.000-08:00

Trailer of a new film:

Here's an Advocate article on the project.

Happy Thanksgiving!

2011-11-24T04:30:00.000-08:00

May all your turkeys be fabulous.

Former Baptist Pastor says marriage equality good for ALL marriages.

2011-11-22T17:00:00.000-08:00

From the WInston Salem Journal. Remember, North Carolina has a hate-amendment on the ballot.

How much more foundational is the year-to-year faithfulness embedded in the marriage covenant? Don't we stand amazed when couples voice their mutual promise to love and to cherish, regardless of circumstances, until parted by death? Such risk-taking astonishes. But more to the point, does not faithful promise-keeping in one relationship strengthen this capacity in us all?

Yes, some promises are broken. Our hopes can be dashed. Covenants crack and crumble. Forgiveness must come alongside promise-making in order for futures to be possible. But even when agreements are broken, no one questions the essential value of faithful promises, both large and small. Promises made and promises kept are the glue that holds life together.

Same-sex couples within their covenants share the same hope that I have with my wife. They, too, make promises to love and cherish until parted by death. In no way do they threaten the rest of us who enjoy the legal rights of marriage. Rather, they strengthen our capacity for lasting commitment. Their courage, in the face of rejection, emboldens our courage. Their persistence, in the face of opposition, fortifies our stamina. And their yearning for covenants blessed and legalized is an invitation to join them in this struggle for fairness. They are for marriage, not against it. They help us all hold high the bar of covenant love.

Washington State to move on Equality

2011-11-21T09:50:00.001-08:00

From The Seattle Times:

Two years ago, Washington voters backed a broad guarantee of legal rights for same-sex couples, endorsing the Legislature's passage of a domestic partnership law nicknamed "everything but marriage."

Now, gay-marriage backers say the time has come to take that final step. This week, they'll roll out a campaign to make Washington the seventh state to legalize marriage for lesbian and gay couples.

More info from Washington United for Marriage.

All Children Matter (video Sunday)

2011-11-20T08:17:00.000-08:00

The long road to equality

2011-11-18T08:24:00.000-08:00

From the NY Times, an op-ed:

Behind these numbers is a remarkable generational divide. Some 70 percent of Americans between 18 and 34 support marriage equality, up from 54 percent in 2010, according to Gallup. Support among people aged 35 to 54 is 53 percent, falling to 39 percent for those 55 and older. This widening gap between public opinion and discriminatory laws means anti-gay forces will have a harder and harder time selling their views.

A repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act and changes in state laws could lead to expanded rights for gay couples in more states. But revoking those state constitutional bans would take years, if not decades. Until then, rank discrimination under law will persist.

Update: Prop8 federal case: CA court says the opponents DO have standing to appeal

2011-11-17T07:00:00.000-08:00

Amongst the many Prop8 ripples (see the graphic timeline for a refresher) is a request from the (Federal) 9th Circuit court of appeals to the California (state) Supreme Court, asking, "Yo! Should these proponents of Prop8 , who defended the case in the federal district court, be allowed to appeal Judge Walker's finding, given that the Governor and Attorney General of CA don't want to appeal?"

There is a lot in this: not every decision should be appealed and there is not a requirement to appeal.If you give people who have no "interest" in the case the right to appeal (meaning they can't demonstrate that THEY are harmed in any way by the decision), what sort of Pandora's box do you open?

And, just to complicate things further, the 9th circuit may say, "okay, California, that's STATE law, we'll still evaluate this under FEDERAL law." So it doesn't really matter either way.

But the California Court rules that yes, they do have standing.

Mapping discrimination

2011-11-16T08:17:00.000-08:00

Freedom To Marry has a great interactive graphic about the individual states and their views of marriage. Here's part of it:

Debunking anti-gay myths

2011-11-15T13:21:00.000-08:00

I have discussed in several places the antipathy of the right towards science, and how they get away with dismissing scientific consensus if it doesn't conform to their views.

THe site LIveScience dismisses 5 prominent myths about LGBT people, pointing at data to show that these are false. THese myths are the misperception that homosexuality doesn't exist in animals, that gay people aren't capable of long-term relationships, claims that gays are pedophiles and vv, or bad parents, or that sexuality is purely a choice. Each of these is demonstrably false. But the right-wingers persist in believing them.

What's depressing is the comments, some of which dismiss the findings as "pro-gay propaganda" and one which strikingly calls for "incurable" gays to be locked up in camps.

They really hate us, don't they?

New study about marriages between same sex couples

2011-11-14T05:30:00.000-08:00

The Williams Institute at UCLA, which is a terrific think tank on gay legal issues, has done a study (PDF) comparing gay and straight couples in terms of marriage and divorce, and civil uions.

There's a good article in the HuffPo summarizing the findings, which include the fact that upto 20% of LGBT couples identified in the census are in some sort of legally recognized union. What else we learn:

Firs,t marriage is much more attractive to same-sex couples than a legally equivalent registration as civil union or domestic partners. This finding is consistent with other studies that have shown that same-sex couples are more interested in the social symbolism and community acceptance that is bestowed by marriage, as opposed to the "dry" technical benefits of a domestic partnership or civil union. This should not surprise us -- increasingly, gay and lesbian folks seem to be not all that different than straight couples when it comes to love and romance.

This goes along with my recent post about commitment. As Californians, we could have been "DP'd" but getting a form notarized at Kinko's and mailing it to Sacramento isn't really marriage. It's like registering a car. (My view.)

Second, marriage is more appealing to women than to men.

Turns out,about 2/3 of married same sex couples are lesbians. But we're sort of the forgotten community. The expressions of disgust from our opponents, the "ick" factor, and their bizarre fascination with the mechanics of sex are pretty much exclusively directed at gay men.

Third, the divorce rate is lower for same-sex couples than straight couples. ... I suspect that this can be attributed to the types of couples getting married in these early years of same-sex marriage, and not a testament to the stability of lesbian and gay relationships. There's no statistical data out yet on this particular dynamic, but in my experience as a lawyer working with same-sex couples, the partners getting married tend to be those who have already been together for some time. They already have weathered the stormy middle years of coupledom, and they are consciously committed to being a family.

This also makes sense to me.

So, as it turns out, gay couples who marry really aren't that different from committed opposite sex couples. Marriage is,indeed, marriage.

What the DOMA repeal vote really means (video Sunday)

2011-11-13T06:30:00.000-08:00

The Commitment of Marriage

2011-11-11T08:28:00.000-08:00

USA Today has a story describing a new, bipartisan movement towards marriage equality that stresses commitment rather than benefits:

A group of high-profile Democrats and Republicans who back legalizing gay marriage are calling on advocates to shift the focus on the issue from an argument about equal rights to promoting the value of commitment.….

Advocates have long made the case that legalizing marriage for gays and lesbians is a matter of equality, but those who frame the issue that way might be reinforcing a belief among many Americans in the middle on the issue that gays and lesbians want to marry for different reasons than straight couples, according to polling ....

I think this is a smart move.

There is a small slice of the population in the middle that is the swing vote on equality. Prior to Prop8, they were pretty friendly, until the opposition ran their campaign telling lies about teaching children gay sex. The moveable middle panicked, and Prop8 passed. I don't think they really realized what harm they did, because they figured gay couples had domestic partnerships, not realizing that they aren't the same, are not recognized the same, and are treated as inferior. (BP and I never got a DP, because, well, it's not marriage!)

Right now, thanks to DOMA (the mis-named Defense of Marriage Act), BP and I do not obtain any of the numerous federal benefits of marriage. We actually accrue significant disadvantage, such as having to do taxes twice, because the state recognizes us but the fed does not. We aren't on each other's medical plans, because that would be treated as a directly taxable benefit that would cost more than it saves. We have to pay an attorney to set up trusts and so forth, since because of DOMA, we are legally strangers on the street when it comes to inheritance and so on.

So what DOES marriage net us,since doesn't net us any of the typical benefits?

Oh, wow. It's everything.

Every morning I wake up and feel blessed that I am united in marriage with my beloved. That we have made the permanent, joyful commitment to one another, in joy and pain, in sickness and health, till death us do part. I may not yet get any of the legal benefits of marriage, but I wouldn't change for the world the FACT of being married, of looking at that ring on my finger and knowing what it represents.

In her recent blogpost, Susan Russell describes values that make up a marriage:

values that transcend the gender and sexual orientation of the couple. Values like fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and love -- the values that we in the Episcopal Church have held up as the standards we hold for relationships blessed by our church.

Yup, that's what the values of marriage are. Legal benefits? Sure, we'd like them in all fairness, but they aren't anything next to the experience of standing before friends and family and publicly vowing to uphold those values. I wouldn't exchange for the world the experience of being married, which I blogged for you 3 years ago.

BP reminded me recently that it wasn't till the summer after Prop8 passed when the CA Supreme Court decided that our marriage would NOT be annulled. Can you imagine what that felt like? The sword of Damocles had nothing on it!

So virtually on the blogs, and in real life, we advocate for marriage. And person by person, we explain all of this. For example, this last weekend we were at a birthday party for a friend, and met a charming older gentleman. "How do you know R.?" he asked, and we explained that we had met R and his partner at church. As we are wont to do, we exclaimed over the welcome we have felt in the Episcopal church, and as the conversation moved on we mentioned that we were married, and that our marriage had been blessed there.

Turns out the charming older gentleman was a retired Roman Catholic priest. He was friendly (as I suspect many priests really are--it's the Bishops who are the problem), and admitted to a certain fascination with us. You see, he's not from California, and had not met a legally married gay couple before. He quizzed us, gently, on our marriage and our blessing and we responded much as I have here. This clearly delighted the gentleman, and we enjoyed chatting (and dancing!) with him during the evening. And he will take his experience of us back to his unfriendly state, and be able to witness in turn as to what married gay couples are really like.

Making a Commitment.

Living those Values.

That's why we are married. That's the right every couple should have. And that's why I make that witness.

Michigan's bully protection law: the religious right plays victim

2011-11-10T08:54:00.000-08:00

Why is Michigan protecting religious tormenters? You may have heard by now that Michigan passed an "anti-bullying law" that exempts anyone who bullies based on religious belief. That is, if a "Christian" kid harasses a gay kid, and says that his religions says gays are an abomination, it's protected speech.

Because, you know, the real question is Who Would Jesus Bully?

Amy Sullivan writes,

This year, Republicans only agreed to consider an anti-bullying measure that did not require school districts to report bullying incidents, did not include any provisions for enforcement or teacher training, and did not hold administrators accountable if they fail to act. …. But it was the addition of special protections for religiously-motivated bullying that led all 11 Democratic senators to vote against the legislation they had long championed.…

To understand what happened in Michigan, it’s important to know that social conservatives consider themselves the real victims. ....In other words, social conservatives believe that efforts to protect gays from assault, discrimination or bullying impinge on their religious freedom to express and act on their belief that homosexuality is an abomination. That’s stating it harshly, but it is the underlying belief.

This belief, however, relies on a warped understanding of religious liberty. Freedom of religious expression doesn’t give someone the right to kick the crap out of a gay kid or to verbally torment her. It doesn’t give someone the right to fire a gay employee instead of dealing with the potential discomfort of working with him.

It’s also a highly selective conception of religious liberty. The same religious conservatives who applaud the religious exemption in Michigan’s anti-bullying bill would be appalled if it protected a Muslim student in Dearborn who defended bullying a Christian classmate by saying he considered her an infidel.

Remember, the current battle over LGBT equality is with the religious right who bleat that they are the victims, that the big mean gays will storm their churches and destroy their religion, and therefore, they need unique protections from The Gay. This victim card is being widely played and needs to be recognized for what it is: the last resort of the true bullies, whose only goal is to hurt and inflict pain.

After all, you don't get to kill your parents and then claim mercy because you're an orphan.

"ex-gay" leader admits change is not possible

2011-11-09T09:51:00.000-08:00

From The New Civil Rights Movement:

John Smid, one of the most important leaders within the so-called “ex-gay” or “reparative therapy” movement — known as “pray away the gay” — finally admitted after 30 years, that conversion therapy is a crock, and that it is, indeed, impossible to change one’s sexual orientation. Smid, appearing on Chris Matthews’ “Hardball,” said, “there’s an intrinsic homosexuality that, I haven’t seen many people who have seen an orientation change.”Smid says, “predominantly, I’m attracted to men.”

But, as the right wing continues to deny science (including evolution and climate change), and because they fundamentally misunderstand science (no single "gay gene"! There's no "tall" gene either) they continue to make excuses and claim that we choose to be who we are.They never quite answer WHY we would choose to be gay, if we weren't oriented this way.Let alone, HOW. I mean, I find the idea of sleeping with men repulsive. So does this mean that straight women also find sleeping with men repulsive? Somehow I don't think so. I'm not lesbian because of abuse or unstable family or anything else. I'm lesbian like I'm right-handed, or have curly hair: I just AM.

Over 70 companies file brief opposing DOMA

2011-11-08T08:36:00.000-08:00

The Advocate tells us that 70 companies and organizations, including Google, Microsoft,and Starbucks, have filed an amicus brief in one of the DOMA cases now winding through federal court. The companies complain that DOMA hurts their recruiting, and causes unnecessary administrative burdens. Good to see!

Their brief points out that the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives is defending DOMA in court on the notion that it imposes "a uniform rule" on whose marriage is recognized. "The perspective of the American employer who must implement DOMA is very different," the companies state. "Employers are obliged to treat one employee spouse differently from another, when each is married, and each marriage is equally lawful."

The companies say DOMA "forces" them "to investigate the gender of the spouses of our lawfully married employees and then to single out those employees with a same-sex spouse." For example, HIPPA laws usually consider marriage a "qualifying event" that automatically enrolls a spouse in an employee's health insurance. Companies now spend time and money weeding out any gay employees who get married.

If companies don't want to discriminate, because it hurts their recruiting efforts or they're just opposed to it in principle, then DOMA causes a bunch of "workarounds" that come with wasteful administrative costs of their own.

Companies complain that when a same-sex couple legally marries, it requires them "to maintain two sets of books." That's because the couple is considered married under state law but not married under federal law. "The double entries ripple through human resources, payroll, and benefits administration," they write.

Charting our progress: support for marriage equality

2011-11-07T08:26:00.000-08:00

We know that mainline Protestants and Roman Catholics have a majority in favor of marriage equality. Those unaffiliated with religion are even more supportive. But it's interesting to see the trendlines. Of course, the Roman Catholic hierarchy is an implacable foe, regardless of the view from the pew. Isn't it time for those supportive RC to stop living "don't ask don't tell" and stand upto their bishops?From the Pew Forum:

Video Sunday: Yep, it's bigotry

2011-11-06T11:10:00.000-08:00

And no, your religion does not have the power to legitimize bigotry. Bigoted beliefs do not become excusable just because a church or a book endorses them. You don’t get a pass on bigotry by claiming that a god agrees with you. People came up with the very same justifications for all kinds of prejudice. It changes nothing. Like it or not, your religion will evolve. It might deny this, it might lag behind, but religions are dragged along with the moral climate of society at large. The Catholic Church doesn’t hold trials of alleged witches anymore. Mormon leaders decided that God changed his mind about allowing black people to be ordained. And some day, you will have to face the reality that your 2,000 years of moral theology are helpless next to a moment of moral reflection.

Report details how lack of marriage hurts kids of gay parents

2011-11-04T06:30:00.000-07:00

From the AP:[

A report] Compiled by an alliance of advocacy and child-welfare groups, ... summarizes how laws and social stigma create distinctive challenges for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender families.

"There are myriad ways that our families are discounted by government at all levels, and children are hurt the most," said Jennifer Chrisler of the Family Equality Council, one of the three groups authoring the report.....

Among the barriers and inequities they face, as detailed in the report:

—Many government safety net programs use definitions of family tied to marital status which may exclude same-sex partners.

—Because of lack of legal recognition for their unions, gay and lesbian parents can face heavier tax burdens, higher costs for health insurance, and diminished financial protections in the event of death or disability.

—When same-sex parents separate, one parent may lose custody or visitation rights, even in cases where he or she had been a child's primary caregiver.

...Many of the obstacles and inequities outlined in the new report would be addressed if same-sex marriage — now legal in six states and Washington, D.C. — were legalized nationwide and recognized by the federal government. However, the report includes numerous recommendations for less sweeping changes that would benefit children with gay parents

See the full report, All Children Matter

2011-11-03T06:00:00.000-07:00

The "Respect for Marriage" Act which would repeal DOMA, will be discussed in the Senate Judiciary Committee today. This effort is welcome, but in the current climate, somewhat quixotic. From Wikipedia:

The 2011 bill was introduced by U.S. Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York on March 16, 2011, and a U.S. Senate version was introduced by Dianne Feinstein of California on the same day. President Obama announced his support for the bill on July 19, 2011.[3] In September 2011, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida became the 125th cosponsor of the bill in the U.S. House of Representatives and the first Republican member of the U.S. Congress to announce support for the bill.

From MSNBC:

A committee vote could happen Nov. 3rd, but is more likely a week later. All 10 committee Democrats support repeal of DOMA, but the bill's prospects are less certain in the full Senate. It faces virtually certain defeat in the Republican-controlled House.

Thank you, Kim Kardashian

2011-11-01T21:58:00.000-07:00

From the Rev. Susan Russell, of All Saint's Episcopal Church, Pasadena CA, a thank you to Kim Kardashian. I hope Susan forgives me the lengthy quote, but this is just TOO GOOD not to share widely:

I am not sure you can appreciate just what a gift it is to have the extraordinarily well publicized news of the end of your hysterically hyped marriage come the very week our congressional leaders are set to begin debating the Respect for Marriage Act on Capitol Hill.

Seriously. As a marriage equality activist I cannot thank you enough for your gift of the stunning example of how the gender of the couple saying "I do" clearly has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with respect for the institution of marriage. It is a gift -- I promise you -- that will keep on giving.

As we continue to work for Family Values that value all families and a Protect Marriage Movement that protects all marriages we will have your example to add to Britney Spears' 55 hour marriage, Larry King's eight marriages and Newt Gingrich's three (just to name a few) as proof positive that marriage needs protection all right -- but not from gay and lesbian couples who want to pledge to live together until death do they part.

We will have another great example to contrast to those couples building lives, families and a future without the 1138 federally protected rights that you and Kris Humphries enjoyed for the 72 days you were married to each other. Rights like social security, inheritance, taxation, hospital visitation and immigration status. Just to name a few.

We will have another opportunity to talk about the values that make up a marriage -- values that transcend the gender and sexual orientation of the couple. Values like fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and love -- the values that we in the Episcopal Church have held up as the standards we hold for relationships blessed by our church.

And it will give me the chance to talk about the marriages I know about that actually embody all those traditional values which were so utterly lacking in your $10 million dollar nuptial debacle. Like Alec and Jamie. Gay men who have been together for 10 years. Married since 2008. New parents to a 5-year old son adopted out of the foster care system. A son they are raising in a stable, loving home, bringing him to Sunday School every Sunday ... .

So thank you again, Kim. As we work without ceasing to secure for Alec and Jamie and their family the rights you and Kris threw away after 72 days of marriage, I hope you will know how deeply grateful we are for the "on a silver platter" gift you gave us this week as we head into Senate Judiciary Hearings on the Respect for Marriage Act and look ahead to the repeal of DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act). Honestly, we just can't thank you enough.

SPLC report on anti-gay hate groups

2011-11-01T09:52:00.000-07:00

You can read the report “The Anti-Gay Lobby: The Family Research Council, the American Family Association and the Demonization of LGBT People” here (PDF).

Gov Andrew Cuomo calls for equality nationwide

2011-10-31T11:42:00.000-07:00

From the NYTimes:

Shifting his sights beyond New York in a way he has not done before, Mr. Cuomo demanded that the federal Defense of Marriage Act be repealed. His voice rising in intensity as he spoke, he also called for federal legislation that would bar discrimination against gay men and lesbians in housing and employment.

And in his most forceful terms to date, Mr. Cuomo called for his counterparts across the country to embrace what he framed as an issue of equal rights and to push for the legalization of same-sex marriage in their own statehouses.

“We need marriage equality in every state in this nation,” Mr. Cuomo said. “Otherwise, no state really has marriage equality, and we will not rest until it is a reality.”

Rick's Rant: Time to come out (video Sunday)

2011-10-30T14:54:00.000-07:00

Rick Mercer is a Canadian performer. He tells us that it's way past time to come out--before another kid sees no future and kills himself.

Image of the day

2011-10-29T09:00:00.000-07:00

Brazil's top court rules for marriage equality

2011-10-28T07:36:00.000-07:00

From the HuffPo:

Brazil's top appeals court has ruled that two women can legally be married....

It was in May that Brazil's Supreme Court ruled that gay civil unions could be recognized. But the top court stopped short of recognizing full marriages.

Since then, several couples have petitioned to have their civil unions recognized as full marriages. Some of those have been approved at lower courts, others blocked.

Tuesday's ruling by the Supreme Appeals Court overturned two lower court's ruling against the women..

Military families mount legal challenge to DOMA

2011-10-27T07:34:00.000-07:00

From the WaPo:

Gay and lesbian troops and veterans plan to file suit Thursday challenging the constitutionality of the federal ban on gay marriage and federal policy that defines a spouse as a person of the opposite sex....

The suit also challenges provisions of federal code regarding spouses that lawyers said bar gay couples from accessing a range of benefits provided by the Pentagon and Department of Veterans Affairs, including military identification cards, access to bases, recreational programs, spousal support groups and burial rights at national cemeteries.

Massachusetts Army National Guard Maj. Shannon McLaughlin, 41, and her wife, Casey, 34, are serving as lead plaintiffs in the suit, which also includes five other troops and two career Army and Navy veterans....

Pentagon spokeswoman Eileen Lainez said Wednesday that officials are “engaged in a careful and deliberate review” of whether some benefits could be extended to same-sex partners.

“Service members continue to have some benefits for which they may designate beneficiaries, regardless of sexual orientation,” Lainez said in an e-mail. But eligibility for other benefits is restricted by DOMA, she said.

At Veterans Affairs, spokesman Josh Taylor said department lawyers plan to review the case once it is filed.

Once DADT finally fell (and there wasn't much noise when it finally went), it made the repeal of DOMA inevitable. You cannot expect someone to risk their life for the country while refusing support to their families.

Attempt to repeal marriage in New Hampshire passes committee

2011-10-26T07:30:00.000-07:00

Although New Hampshire now has marriage equality, opponents are trying to pull a Prop8 and repeal it. From Standing up for New Hampshire Families:

With great disregard for what more than 60% of voters want, the House Judiciary Committee today approved a legislative proposal sponsored by Rep. David Bates (R-Windham) that repeals New Hampshire’s popular marriage law. Today’s vote didn’t pass with even the majority necessary to override the governor’s veto, meaning this effort to undermine New Hampshire families lacks momentum as Republicans and Democrats are united in bipartisan opposition.

Meanwhile, one of the leaders of the effort to repeal cheerfully admits that he wants to repeal civil unions and deny all protections to LGBT couples, but he'll settle for repealing marriage....for now:

While some people may want a complete restoration of marriage, and also having no civil unions or anything like mutual beneficiaries, the political reality is I don’t think that’s possible at this time. The bill isn’t perfect — no bill is — but I still think this is a step in the right direction.

At this time....he fully intends to attack our families further.

Clearly this is a fringe view -- a narrow majority of Americans favor marriage equality, and a much larger majority favor civil unions. But just as they have been able to elevate fringe views into Congress, they are working hard (and one must concede, doing so efficiently) to elevate fringe views into law in the states as well. We have to continue to shine a bright light on the hatred.

Let's be clear. The gloves are off. Because it's not just about the word marriage. It never was.

Denmark, which has civil unions, to legalize marriage

2011-10-25T14:17:00.000-07:00

Scandanavia is always ahead on issues of equality. From The Advocate:

[The Danish] government plans to introduce a bill after the New Year that would allow same-sex couples, who are currently entitled to the civil status of “registered partnerships,” to hold weddings in the Church of Denmark and be considered “married” under the law....

Civil unions between same-sex partners became legal in Denmark in 1989. Recent polls show that almost 70% of the population supports allowing same-sex couples to marry in the church.

Transparency, and hate: the names in Washington are released

2011-10-21T09:26:00.000-07:00

In the referendum on domestic partnerships in Washington state last year, there was a bitter signature gathering campaign. Our side was suspicious that bad guys were not fairly describing the petitions, and getting signatures under false pretenses. There was also concern about their validity. For these reasons, under state law, petitioner names are supposed to be public.

However, in the now-typical fashion, the anti-equality forces whined that they would be attacked by marauding gays if the names were released and asked to make an exception to the law to keep them hidden.This case has bounced up to the SCOTUS and back down again, and now the judge has issued a smackdown of the anti-equality forces in his ruling (H/T Pam's House Blend)

“Doe has failed to supply sufficient, competent evidence that the publically known donors–as active supporters of R-71–have experienced sufficient threats, harassment, or reprisals based on the disclosure of their information in connection to R-71 that would satisfy the reasonable probability standard that Doe must meet in this case.”

“Doe has only supplied evidence that hurts rather than helps its case.”

He details the descriptions, which include things like one man getting a mean email from his brother in law . Oh, the horror!

The FACT is that despite their desire to hide their bigotry, they can't. And the consequences have been mild. Some rude remarks. A business boycott. (Remember that the anti-gay forces ROUTINELY boycott pro-gay businesses. Goose, gander?) Yes, there have been some glitter bombs.

But remember the aftermath to Prop8 in California, hate crimes against LGBT people went up by nearly 17%. Crimes against whining religious rightists, not so much.

Let's be clear on what real hate looks like. Let's be clear on which side is doing the hurting. And let's be clear on which side is doing the hating.

Update In California, state law requires that the names of donors of >$100 be public. There was much fussing over the website that had the donor names on it (note that this includes donors on both sides). In a bid to keep Prop8 donors secret in retrospect has also been denied. Yes, the election was three years ago, but the Prop8 supporters consider that this is such a volatile issue that their donors are "at risk".

The judge read from a batch of declarations in which people claimed yard signs were stolen, that they received harassing phone calls, or, in one case, that people protested outside someone's business. "That's the extent of what happened," he said.

Get over yourselves, H8-ers! If "defending marriage" is so important to you, show the courage of your conviction.

SPLC debunks 10 common anti-gay myths

2011-10-20T07:15:00.000-07:00

Check it out here. I'll have more to say about the SPLC report when I have a chance to read it.

Voices of Faith Speak Out: being gay is a gift from God

2011-10-18T08:42:00.000-07:00

From Episcopal priest Ed Bacon:

I believe it is no longer enough for LGBT people to come out and let the world know who they were created to be, although that continues to be a courageous and transformational act. It is time for Christians to come out and let the world see the Church as it was created to be: a vehicle of love and justice, not a bastion of bigotry and homophobia.

It is time for people of faith to speak out against the religion-based bigotry that has for too long fueled the fires of homophobia that perpetuate violence against LGBT people and plant the seeds of self-loathing in LGBT youth.

And it is time to take to heart the words of Rabbi Abraham Heschel, who famously said, "Few are guilty, but all are responsible." I may not be guilty of the religion-based bigotry that has wounded countless members of God's beloved LGBT children, but I am responsible for offering a counter-narrative to the lies that have been told about the God I serve -- the God of love, justice and compassion.

My faith tradition teaches that the truth will set you free -- and the truth is: God loves.

The truth is: love trumps.

And the truth is: Being gay is a gift from God.

Blog hiatus and poll (link fixed)

2011-10-14T09:10:00.000-07:00

I'm taking a break for a little while. This blog gets about 20-50 pageviews a day, but individual posts get many fewer. I can't tell how many subscribe to the feed. Aside from a couple of stalwarts, there are few comments and no substantive discussion.

There are lots of gay news sites, bigger and more active. Am I having any impact? Do the 920 posts I've made, make any difference? So, I'm going to leave you with a poll to see what you think.

Loading...

Wedding Anniversary

2011-10-12T09:53:00.000-07:00

Today is our third wedding anniversary, a joyful day! I am blessed every day I wake up with my dear wife and so thrilled as we make our lives together.

Meanwhile, I see that straight people are still marrying and begetting children, Christians are still free to practice their faith, and the planet has still not exploded.

Hmmm, what's up with that?

Marriage Equality in Portugal

2011-10-11T07:00:00.000-07:00

The New York Times has an interesting article on equality in Portugal.

With minimal international attention, Portugal — tiny, overwhelmingly Roman Catholic Portugal — legalized same-sex marriage last year. Although the country is hardly seen as a Scandinavian-style bastion of social progressivism, it’s one of just 10 countries where such marriages can be performed nationwide, and in this regard it finds itself ahead of a majority of wealthier, more populous European countries, like France, Germany, Italy and Britain. ...

It was only a little more than a decade ago that a country first legalized same-sex marriage, and that happened in precisely the kind of forward-thinking, bohemian place you’d expect: the Netherlands. About two years later, Belgium followed suit.

Then things got really interesting. The eight countries that later joined the club were a mix of largely foreseeable and less predictable additions. In the first category I’d put Canada, Norway, Sweden and Iceland. In the second: South Africa, Spain, Portugal and Argentina.

Why those four countries? People who have studied the issue note that that they have something interesting and relevant in common: each spent a significant period of the late 20th century governed by a dictatorship or brutally discriminatory government, and each emerged from that determined to exhibit a modernity and concern for human rights that put the past to rest.

“They’re countries where the commitment to democracy and equal protection under the law was denied, flouted and oppressed, and the societies have struggled to restore that,” said Evan Wolfson, the president of Freedom to Marry, a New York-based advocacy group, in a recent interview.

Cartoon

2011-10-10T09:04:00.000-07:00

Maryland Gov. O'Malley on equality (video Sunday)

2011-10-09T10:14:00.000-07:00

House DOMA defense cost triples, to $1.5million

2011-10-07T10:10:00.000-07:00

From SFGate:

House Republicans, if you recall, decided that since the Justice Department and President Obama refused earlier this year to defend DOMA (calling the statute unconstitutional), Republicans would hire outside counsel to do so. The proliferation of court cases ensured this outsourced defense would get expensive. DOMA is expected to arrive at the Supreme Court within a couple of years. With same-sex marriage now legal in six states and the District of Columbia, DOMA conflicts are blossoming in areas of tax law, immigration law, Social Security and the like....

[House minority leader Nancy] Pelosi today issued this statement on the GOP contract: “It is absolutely unconscionable that Speaker Boehner is tripling the cost for his legal boondoggle to defend the indefensible Defense of Marriage Act. At a time when Americans are hurting and job creation should be the top priority, it just shows how out of touch House Republicans have become that they would spend up to $1.5 million dollars to defend discrimination in our country.”

Town Clerks and Religious Freedom

2011-10-06T09:00:00.000-07:00

You remember the town clerk in New York who refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples because it offends her religion? She compares it to issuing a license to steal.

So if this is a religious freedom issue, let's make it very clear.

If Ms Belforti's religion disapproved of interfaith marriages, would she issue a Jew and aChristian a license?

If Ms Belforti's religion disapproved of remarriage following divorce (which, if she's Roman Catholic, it does), would she issue a divorcé a license?

If Ms Belforti's religion disapproved of inter-racial marriages, would she issue a black and a white a license?

If Ms Belforti's religion disapproved of Roman Catholic marriages, would she issue a Catholic a license?

What if a gay Episcopalian couple wanted to marry? THEIR religion allows it....sort of....

Ms Belforti, what is the limit on "religious freedom"?

Support for equality in California growing among republicans

2011-10-05T09:51:00.000-07:00

From the Capitol Hill Weekly, which focuses on California Politics:

Public opinion on same-sex marriage in California has flipped faster than many people thought it would. According to data from the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), the change was largely driven by Republicans and independent voters.

The opinions of people over 35 have barely budged on the issue, but support for same-sex marriage has surged among younger voters. Young voters, however, traditionally show a poor turnout – unlike older voters, who often vote in proportionally higher numbers.

Isn't it sad, then, that we aren't trying to reverse Prop8 at the ballot box, and are relying on the far riskier courts in a time of excessive polarization and a hideously conservative SCOTUS.

I graphed the numbers which makes it more obvious.