Inaugural speech historic in support of LGBT rights (video Sunday)

Reactions to the Inaugural Speech

Frank Bruni in the NY Times:

Seneca Falls, Selma, Stonewall. The alliteration of that litany made it seem obvious and inevitable, a bit of poetry just there for the taking. Just waiting to happen.

But it has waited a long time. And President Obama’s use of it in his speech on Monday — his grouping of those three places and moments in one grand and musical sentence — was bold and beautiful and something to hear. It spoke volumes about the progress that gay Americans have made over the four years between his first inauguration and this one, his second. It also spoke volumes about the progress that continues to elude us….

Despite our strides, gay and lesbian couples even now can marry only in nine states and the District of Columbia. The federal government doesn’t recognize those weddings, meaning that in terms of taxes, military benefits and matters of immigration, it treats gays and lesbians differently than it treats other Americans. It relegates us to an inferior class.

The Supreme Court could soon change, or validate, that. There are relevant cases before it. For his part Obama could show less deference to states’ rights, be more insistent about what’s just and necessary coast-to-coast, and push for federal protections against employment discrimination when it comes to L.G.B.T. Americans. His actions over the next four years could fall wholly in line with Monday’s trailblazing words. My hope is real, and grateful, and patient.

History is made: President's inaugural speech supports LGBT rights

From the HuffPo:

President Obama made history today when he mentioned both the Stonewall uprising and gay and lesbian people being treated "like anyone else under the law" during his second inauguration speech. 

"We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths -- that all of us are created equal -- is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall..." he said. 

He continued:

"It is now our generation’s task to carry on what those pioneers began. For our journey is not complete until our wives, our mothers, and daughters can earn a living equal to their efforts. Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law -- for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well."

This the first time that a president has addressed gay rights during an inauguration speech.

Know Hope.

Why straight people support marriage equality

From Frank Bruni at the NY Times:

But what I found most revealing and instructive was this: among voters who saw the desire by gays and lesbians to be legally wedded as a bid primarily for the rights and protections that heterosexual couples have, same-sex marriage was a loser. Only 26 percent of them voted for its legalization, while 74 percent voted against. 

But among voters who believed that gays and lesbians were chiefly interested in being able to pledge the fullest and most public commitment possible to their partners, same-sex marriage was a huge, huge winner. Eighty-five percent of those voters supported it, while only 15 percent opposed it. 

That’s a fascinating microcosm of, and window into, broader political dynamics. When an initiative in this country is framed or understood largely as an attempt by a given constituency to get more, the opposition to it is frequently bolstered, the resistance strengthened. Even if the constituency is trying to right a wrong or rectify a disadvantage. 

“Give me” can be a risky approach. “Let me” is often a better one, and when voters hear gays and lesbians asking to participate in a hallowed institution for the most personal and heartfelt of reasons, voters may have a more positive reaction. At least that’s the suggestion of the research and the interviews that Third Way has done.

 ....

[Opposition is also from] the most frequent churchgoers. The Third Way report notes that “religiosity correlated to marriage opposition in Washington. While marriage lost among regular churchgoers (those who attend once a week or more), the referendum garnered 53 percent support among those who attend church once or twice a month.”

And that is one of the reasons the biggest growing religious identification in the US is "none".

How we finally won

Excellent article from Chris Geidner on how changes in strategy allowed our side to win this year.

Among the key changes were a shift away from talk of "rights" to a focus on committed relationships; a decision to address "values" directly as being learned at home; and an attempt to give voters "permission" to change their minds, according to elements of the research shared with BuzzFeed....

The six key findings highlighted in the November 2011 document were:

• Commitment trumps rights, a point made in prior research by Freedom to Marry as well: “Leading with commitment will show the middle that gay people want to join the institution of marriage, not change it.”
• Kids move voters: “In our past qualitative research, we found that underlying these concerns about children are deeply emotional fears about loss of parental control. These fears were also evident in the poll data.”
• The home is our turf; schools are their turf: “When compared directly to other possible responses to attacks around children, parents teaching core values ranks highest in persuasiveness.”
• On kids — turn down the heat: “One effective way to do that is to remind those in the middle of something they already believe to be true — that 'kids will be kids,' and in reality, they are much more interested in other things than they are in whether gay couples are allowed to marry.”
• Give people permission to change their minds about why gay couple[s] marry: “Using a messenger who could describe changing his own opinion on why gay couples want to marry modeled this positive evolution on the very issue that is most crucial to gaining support.”
• Religion is a hurdle, not a wall: “[E]ven among those groups in the middle who were more concerned about religion, overwhelming majorities said ‘It is not for me to judge.’ … [I]t is crucial to include reaffirmation of religious liberty protections as a significant part of supporters’ message framework.”

Read the whole thing.

The moment of Victory (video Sunday)

What did SCOTUS hear?

Did the election make a difference to the SCOTUS? The opponents of marriage equality are arguing that the fact that 3 states approved marriage equality at the ballot box shows that gays are not "politically powerless" and therefore don't deserve protection. (NB: MN only decided not to forbid it in the COnstitution; same sex marriage is illegal there already). The fact that 30-odd states have found otherwise would argue against that interpretation. This article in the Washington Post considers how the Court will wade in.

Supporters of same-sex marriage say the votes — along with polls showing acceptance of gay marriage high among younger Americans — point to inevitable momentum, but not so much that the court should leave the question of equal rights to the political process. “At the end of the day, it’s the reason we have the judiciary — to protect the rights of the minority,” Griffin said.

In any event, there is basically no chance they will find that there is a federal right to marry. The hope is that they don't overturn the Prop8 case, and just let it apply to CA, perhaps by denying cert (that is, refusing to hear it).

But the court is almost obligated to take one or more of the DOMA cases. As the state of play now stands, it would be unconstitutional to withhold federal recognition — there are more than 1,100 references to marriage in federal laws, codes and regulations — to same-sex couples married in the Northeast states covered by the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 1st and 2nd circuits. But the decisions don’t apply to those married in Iowa, the District of Columbia or those states that Tuesday approved gay marriage. 

About 15 percent of Americans now live in states that allow gay marriage, and the number would double if the right were reinstated in California.

The Post article also says that the Supreme Court's conference on whether or not to hear the Prop8 or DOMA cases has been postponed to Nov. 30. I haven't seen confirmation of that.

Update:  AFER confirms that the conference is indeed rescheduled to Nov 30th.  We may hear something about it on 3rd Dec.

The day after

I wonder if we will look back in a few years on 2012 as the inflection point, when the endgame began. I've often said that I'm tired of being "the gay blogger", "the gay scientist", or really, "the gay anything". My sexuality should be irrelevant as an adjective to my identity.

And perhaps that will happen, now that we have finally won. And not just won one squeaker of an election: no, we one four, solidly. Voters in 3 states (MD, ME, and WA) approved marriage equality. Two of these were referenda that approved previous legislative votes. In ME, it overturned the results of previous referendum. In MN, voters rejected an anti-equality marriage amendment to the state Constitution. Same Sex Marriage is already illegal in MN, but it's easier to repeal a law than an amendment.

Interestingly, in the past, there has been a substantial "Bradley Effect" in polls on marriage equality, where the support is over stated.  This is thought to represent the unwillingness of people to admit to pollsters that they are biased against LGBT people.  But the polls here were pretty accurate.  I guess people are telling the truth, now, and the ones opposed aren't embarrassed by their opposition.

What's striking about the battle is that this was waged heavily by the Roman Catholic church. There were long letters from the Bishops, full of anti-gay hyperbole,  and millions of dollars were funneled through the Knights of Columbus and the National Organization for (straight-only) Marriage, which really no longer pretends to be anything other than a Roman Catholic front group. But Catholics pushed back. In MN, and WA, groups of Catholics For Equality fought vigorously and not despite their faith, but because of it.

The Bishops also were fervant Obama opponents, but exit polls suggest our returning President won over 50% of the RC vote. Those of us who are religion-watchers will be eating the popcorn as we watch the see-saw between the out-of-touch Roman Catholic hierarchy and the Roman Catholics in the pews. But I digress.

In a few weeks, the Supreme Court will decide whether to hear cases on Prop8 or DOMA. The court-watchers think they will hear DOMA, but will punt the Prop8 case, which means that the Ninth Circuit decision will hold, and marriage equality will return to CA.

And when it does, California will join TEN other states and jurisdiction in the US where marriage is legal.  TEN!

And the marriage bans in the other states will, in time, go the way of JimCrow, or anti-miscegenation laws.

And it finally will not matter that I am a lesbian American, just an American.

MARRIAGE EQUALITY PASSES

For the first time, by popular ballot, equality passes in MD and ME. (Still waiting on WA). Take that, Brian Brown. Who are you going to blame now?

Family values (video)

Vote for love!

Why it matters: Civil Unions are not the same (Video sunday)

Why i changed my mind: Video Sunday

David Blankenhorn was one of the most prominent Prop8 supporters in 2008.  He was a star witness at the Prop8 Trial.  And he changed his mind about marriage equality.  Take heed, voters in MD, ME, MN, and WA.

Friends don't vote Republican

From playwright Doug Wright:

"I wish my moderate Republican friends would simply be honest. They all say they're voting for Romney because of his economic policies (tenuous and ill-formed as they are), and that they disagree with him on gay rights. Fine. Then look me in the eye, speak with a level clear voice, and say," My taxes and take-home pay mean more than your fundamental civil rights, the sanctity of your marriage, your right to visit an ailing spouse in the hospital, your dignity as a citizen of this country, your healthcare, your right to inherit, the mental welfare and emotional well-being of your youth, and your very personhood." It's like voting for George Wallace during the Civil Rights movements, and apologizing for his racism. You're still complicit. You're still perpetuating anti-gay legislation and cultural homophobia. You don't get to walk away clean, because you say you "disagree" with your candidate on these issues."

Exposing the lies of the anti-equality side

Right on schedule, the fear-mongering ads are being run in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington.

You know the ones, about how horrible homos will sue anyone who disagrees with them, ruin hardworking people's businesses,  or force churches to marry goats.  Or something.

This article from Portland, ME the exposes the strategy.  Go!  Read!  Share!

Frank Schubert likes to tell stories.

Really, really short stories. 

Stories so short they can scare the bejesus out of you before you even know what they're actually about. 

Schubert, you'll recall, is the California schemer who choreographed the repeal of Maine's same-sex marriage statute in 2009. Now he's back, leading the National Organization for Marriage's offensive against same-sex marriage in referendum campaigns in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington. 

Schubert's strategy of choice? Take a complicated story and, in 30 seconds or less, reduce it to televised graffiti.... 

Now I'll be the first to admit there are plenty of things to lie awake worrying about between now and Nov. 6. But an ongoing employer-employee spat that happened in another country? 

Hey, like all the others crafted to inflame rather than inform, that's Frank Schubert's kind of story. 

So short on facts it's scary.

Romney and ENDA

The big discussion in the blogosphere has been the SEcret Meeting between Mitt Romney and the Log Cabin Republicans, in which apparently Mitt promised the LCR that he would support ENDA (the non-discrimination act, that would prevent gay people from being fired for the sole reason that they are gay), if the LCR endorsed him.

 Predictably, this has gotten out.

 No one on "our" side believes Mitt, who flipflops faster than a dying trout, while the fundies are outraged, outraged! That Mitt is actually saying anything remotely (and it is remote!) supportive of Teh Gayz. Mitt is...saying nothing.

 Popcorn?

Barney Frank on Mitt Gets Worse (video Sunday)

Why the states matter

The four states voting on marriage equality in the next election are critical. The money from those opposed to equality is pouring in, with the same cries as the last few times. "Religious freedom!" (by which they mean, their "right" to impose their religion on YOU.) "Think of the Children!" (by which they mean, DON'T think of the children if their parents are gay, or if they are gay).

These usual memes are seasoned by increasingly strident anti-gay rhetoric that demonizes and dehumanizes LGBT people.

 I am no longer able to see this as a legitimate disagreement. This is the cynical politics of hatred and division. It is also a direct attack on me and my family, a direct effort to deny us any rights or protections, and a direct effort to harm our children.

If you live in, or know anyone who lives in MD, ME, or WA, ask them to vote YES. If they are in MN, ask them to vote NO.

 Meanwhile, Jeffrey Toobin explains why these votes are SO important. 

There is one unavoidable fact about American voters and same-sex marriage: every time the people have had chance to speak on the subject, they have voted it down. ... This may change in November, when voters in Maine (for a second time), Maryland, Minnesota and Washington State have their say….. 

As a technical legal matter, the results of these referenda are irrelevant to legal questions about gay marriage that are now before various courts. The Supreme Court will soon reveal whether it will hear one or two major cases about same-sex marriage this year. ... The Constitution either does or does not guarantee the rights of gay people to marry—and the opinions of voters has nothing to do with resolving that question. The whole point of judicial review is to protect minority groups from having their rights violated by the whims of the majority. In theory, the work of the courts and the will of the voters operate on entirely separate tracks.

The real world, however, works very differently. The courts, especially the Justices of the Supreme Court, are acutely aware of how their rulings reflect (or conflict with) public opinion…. It was not until 1967, in Loving v. Virginia, that the Justices got around to declaring that states could no longer ban interracial marriage. Many (but not all) such laws were ignored or obsolete by that point. This is not to diminish the significance of Loving. The case was and remains a key practical and symbolic statement about race and the constitution. But by 1967, the hard work of changing the country on this issue had already been done by the civil-rights movement. The Court was a lagging indicator of where the country already was. 

And so while both cases [DOMA and Prop8], as I wrote recently, are potential landmarks, neither may turn out to be as important as four ballot initiatives. The votes will give us the best picture of where the country is on same-sex marriage. ... given the Court’s history, even the more liberal justices may be reluctant to impose same-sex marriage on the country if the people—the voters—repeatedly say that they do not want it. The polls predict close races in all four states. The results will echo well beyond their borders.

And just to bring it home:

The Four: combined resource for marriage equality elections in 2012

This is a great website  with resources for all four states facing marriage equality elections.

Vote for Barack. He's got our backs, now we get his. (video Sunday)

In the states

The Box Turtle Bulletin has a great overview of the four states that are facing votes on equality this season. We have a good chance in WA, and maybe ME, but the others are going to be much closer. If you can help-- if you live there, or know people who live there, be an advocate for equality. Click on the images below to go to the campaigns for ME, MD, MN, or WA.