The March to Equality

"I don't approve of your lifestyle"

After the march that nobody attended (NOM's poorly attended anti-gay marriage march in Washington last week), there was the usual effort by NOM and its friends (I'm looking at you, Abp Salvatore Cordileone) to pretend that they aren't against LGBT people, but just trying to defend the specialness of marriage from Teh Gayz.

It's not personal. They just "don't approve of our lifestyle".

But we know what that really means, and this article, 5 things you REALLY mean when you say I don't approve of your homosexual lifestyle nails it.

First,

You assent that nothing else about me is part of my "lifestyle"; not the job I do, not the worship I attend, not the food I eat, not the gardening I enjoy, not the children I am raising, and most certainly not the palpable and inescapable love I have for God and my neighbor. Next time, just be honest and say "I am grossed out by thinking about your sex life."

That's the biggest one, because it all comes down to an obsession with sex (particular sex between men, because we know that most straight men are turned on by the thought of women having sex.)

Second,

You have decided to ignore all social sciences that inform us that human sexuality is on a spectrum and that some people are in fact built (Created) to be attracted to, fall in love with and desire to make a life with people of the same gender. ....Next time, just be honest and say "I don't believe in science."

Because it's perfectly natural to be gay, a normal human variation like having red hair or being left handed, and yes, lots of animals are gay too.

Third

what you are really saying is DO approve of forcing me to live either a dark and dangerous lie or to be completely alone, forever.....Next time, just be honest and say "I don't  approve of you being whole and loved."

#3 particularly applies to the Catholic bishops who are happy to inflict loneliness on complete strangers, whether or not they are Catholic, by demanding that they live celibate and alone.  Funny how it's so easy to lay that cross on someone else.

Fourth

...you approve of me being persistently a second class, slightly fearful citizen living on the same street, shopping in the same community, worshipping at the same church and subject to the stricter laws than you. ... Next time, just be honest and say “I don’t approve of equal rights for all.”

Because really, what effect does my having the right to marry have on anyone else, except my spouse?  Does it hurt any other person that I have full rights of citizenship?

Fifth, for all the believers out there

what you are really saying is you don't trust God to generously create and extravagantly love an amazing array of differently configured children. What you are saying is that God's love is limited to people like you. And sweetie, we can call it blasphemy or we can call it heresy, hell I am happy to call it willful ignorance, but in truth it is just plain old, small-minded, narcissistic religiosity that denies the radical grace and is terrified of the incomprehensibility of God.....Next time, just be honest and say “I don’t believe in your sacred worth."

Abp Cordileone's God is a very small God, don't you think?

The Constitution and equality

Lyle Denniston considers the unusual situation that brought equality to New Jersey and cautions,

The political reality at the moment – and one must stress that the reality might well change – is that full marriage equality will not come into being until the national Constitution recognizes it – either by court interpretation, or by formal amendment. In the near term, it is hard to predict that the end of this reality is in sight. 

That kind of approach can only work in states where politics or court rulings have already established some foundation of equality for gay and lesbian couples, and the number of states that have done that is not a lengthy list. So, in the states where that foundation does not yet exist, marriage equality will only come about through either a bold new court declaration, a change of heart in the state legislature, or a new wave of popular support that can carry the day in a voter referendum. 

There is, of course, one other way: the U.S. Supreme Court could be asked, in the quite-near future, to rule that same-sex couples do have a constitutional right to marriage equality. The Justices may be presented with that fundamental question sooner than some have expected. When that test does arise, as it will, what has been happening in the states may well help to shape the Justices’ reaction, but there is no guarantee of the outcome.

It's not about sex (update)

Apparently, many of our opponents think that we stop being gay if we are not actively having sex.  And they also think we are all about sex.  So something as gentle as holding hands is "flaunting it".

Writing in the HuffPo, Marissa Higgins takes them down,

Being gay isn't just about what happens in the bedroom. It isn't just about sexual positions. It isn't just about consummating passion or fulfilling a fantasy. It's about love. It's about understanding. It's about emotional connections. It's about all the good -- and bad -- parts of a relationship that all couples experience. 

 She tells a sad, familiar story  (familar, that is, for any LGBT couple that has dared to show the slightest personal affection in public):

Last summer my wife and I went to a baseball game. We sat next to each other and held hands. A man in the row in front of us walked down the aisle to his seat with a tray of sodas and hot dogs. I watched him pass a family with children, the parents giving each other a peck on the lips as he approached, as well as a middle-aged couple with their arms around each other's shoulders and a teenage girl who had her head on her boyfriend's shoulder. He didn't have a visible reaction to them, other than apologizing for walking by. 

He turned toward us as he bent to put his soda in his cup holder. ... We made eye contact, and... I watched his eyes flicker to my hand in my wife's and remain there for several seconds without blinking. They traveled up and down our bodies, unapologetic and unblinking. His eyes returned to mine, and they were wide. There was a flash of color in his cheeks. His lips ticked. I blinked. He furrowed his brow and dropped his eyes. He turned and sat quickly. He fussed with his tray and napkins erratically. His female companion asked if he was all right, and he scowled. As he passed his companion a hot dog, he said, "I just don't know why they have to hold hands." She turned slowly over her shoulder and glared at us. 

The couples he walked by in his aisle were innocent. They showed gentle, sweet affection between them. Their behavior was not inappropriate for a Thursday-night baseball game. What was different about my wife and me? We were two women. We were not in a porn film he'd found online. We were not giggling and drunk at a bar. We were not topless on a poster board. We were a normal couple at a baseball game. But in his eyes we were sexualized.

Wow  Yes.  we have been there--the insolent raking with the eyes. Then the expression of disgust.

 She goes on to argue that this is particularly related to being two women. The onset of "lesbian chic", and the packaging of two women to appeal to straight men is part of this.   "Lesbian pornography" is aimed directly at straight men.  They cannot see two women together without thinking of sex.

I think there is also a very visceral response against two men, also because the immediate thought isn't "how sweet they are" but a thought of what they might do in bed.  Certain straight men are incredibly hung up on the mechanics of gay sex (taken down here by John Corvino).

But it is certainly true that the argument against marriage is heavily, heavily an argument about sex.  And it misses all the rest of it: love, relationship, commitment, fidelity.  I'm gay all the time, not just when I'm in bed with my beautiful wife.

Higgins finishes,

The immediate conflation of the gay community with sex is dangerous. It puts us on a primitive level beneath our heterosexual peers. It highlights the importance of our sex and negates the importance of us as people -- whole, complex people with personalities, opinions and feelings that go beyond our sexual urges and practices. The focus on the "sex" in "sexuality" threatens to make us caricatures of the people we really are.

I talked about this at length in an essay I wrote two years ago.  I commend it to your attention;  Talking about Sex

The Brief Against Prop8

The Dream Team of Ted Olson and David Boies have filed their brief in the Supreme Court against Prop8 and it's a doozy. (Expect amicus briefs to arrive over the next week. Arguments on March 26th). Here's a slice (my emphases)

Proponents accuse Plaintiffs (repeatedly) of “redefining marriage.” But it is Proponents who have imagined (not from any of this Court’s decisions) a cramped definition of marriage as a utilitarian incentive devised by and put into service by the State—society’s way of channeling heterosexual potential parents into “responsible procreation.” In their 65-page brief about marriage in California, Proponents do not even mention the word “love.” They seem to have no understanding of the privacy, liberty, and associational values that underlie this Court’s recognition of marriage as a fundamental, personal right. Ignoring over a century of this Court’s declarations regarding the emotional bonding, societal commitment, and cultural status expressed by the institution of marriage, Proponents actually go so far as to argue that, without the potential for procreation, marriage might not “even..exist[ ] at all” and “there would be no need of any institution concerned with sex.” (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, under Proponents’ peculiar, litigation-inspired concept of marriage, same-sex couples have no need to be married and no cause to complain that they are excluded from the “most important relation in life.” Indeed, Proponents’ state-centric construct of marriage means that the State could constitutionally deny any infertile couple the right to marry, and could prohibit marriage altogether if it chose to pursue a society less committed to “responsible” procreation.

and

The only substantive question in this case is whether the State is entitled to exclude gay men and lesbians from the institution of marriage and deprive their relationships—their love—of the respect, and dignity and social acceptance, that heterosexual marriages enjoy. Proponents have not once set forth any justification for discriminating against gay men and lesbians by depriving them of this fundamental civil right. They have never identified a single harm that they, or anyone else, would suffer as a result of allowing gay men and lesbians to marry. Indeed, the only harms demonstrated in this record are the debilitating consequences Proposition 8 inflicts upon tens of thousands of California families, and the pain and indignity that discriminatory law causes the nearly 40,000 California children currently being raised by same-sex couples.

The unmistakable purpose and effect of Proposition 8 is to stigmatize gay men and lesbians—and them alone—and enshrine in California’s Constitution that they are “unequal to everyone else,” that their committed relationships are ineligible for the designation “marriage,” and that they are unworthy of that “most important relation in life.” Neither tradition, nor fear of change, nor an “interest in democratic self-governance,” can absolve society, or this Court, of the obligation to identify and rectify discrimination in all its forms. If a history of discrimination were sufficient to justify its perpetual existence, as Proponents argue, our public schools, drinking fountains, and swimming pools would still be segregated by race, our government workplaces and military institutions would still be largely off-limits to one sex—and to gays and lesbians, and marriage would still be unattainable for interracial couples. Yet the Fourteenth Amendment could not tolerate those discriminatory practices, and it similarly does not tolerate the permanent exclusion of gay men and lesbians from the most important relation in life. “In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law.” Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 559 (1896) (Harlan, J., dissenting).

Read the whole thing! 
(H/T Rob Tisinai)

Voices of Faith: Washington National Cathedral to celebrate same sex marriages

Click image for more
Voices of Faith

From the HuffPo:

The Washington National Cathedral, where the nation gathers to mourn tragedies and celebrate new presidents, will soon begin hosting same-sex marriages. 

Cathedral officials tell The Associated Press the church will be among the first Episcopal congregations to implement a new rite of marriage for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender members. The church will announce its new policy Wednesday. 

As the nation's most prominent church, the decision carries huge symbolism. The 106-year-old cathedral has long been a spiritual center for the nation, hosting presidential inaugural services and funerals for Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his last sermon there in 1968. The cathedral draws hundreds of thousands of visitors each year..... 

The Very Rev. Gary Hall, the cathedral's dean, said performing same-sex marriages is an opportunity to break down barriers and build a more inclusive community "that reflects the diversity of God's world." 

"I read the Bible as seriously as fundamentalists do," Hall told the AP. "And my reading of the Bible leads me to want to do this because I think it's being faithful to the kind of community that Jesus would have us be."
....
Gay weddings will be allowed immediately. But It will likely be six months to a year before the first marriages are performed due to the cathedral's busy schedule and its pre-marital counseling requirement. Generally, only couples affiliated with the cathedral will be eligible. Church leaders had not received any requests for weddings ahead of Wednesday's announcement. ....

Hall, the cathedral dean, said the church has a long history of taking stands on public issues. But he said he sees marriage as a human issue, not a political issue. 

"For us to be able to say we embrace same-sex marriage as a tool for faithful people to live their lives as Christian people," he said, "for us to be able to say that at a moment when so many other barriers toward full equality and full inclusion for gay and lesbian people are falling, I think it is an important symbolic moment."

Why equality is inevitable

From The Prospect:

If SCOTUS does knock down DOMA Section 3, that will put an enormous amount of pressure on the purple and pale-red states. Same-sex couples in Kansas will go to Iowa to get married. When they come home, they will be half-married—married in the eyes of the federal government and their families, but not married in the eyes of Kansas. I can tell you from personal experience that when colleagues, neighbors, friends, and family members hear about the small indignities and injustices of being only half-married, when they realize how ordinary you and your spouse are, they get outraged that you’re being denied full marriage recognition. Businesses will get annoyed that they have to track this dual-marriage status for their employees, and will start to pressure their legislators to change. Lawsuits will bubble up as people sue Kansas (and Colorado, and Ohio, and Oklahoma) to have their “foreign” (i.e., out-of-state) marriages recognized at home. 

But here’s what’s more important: The Supreme Court is not the final arbiter of all things good and just (thank God!). Or even of all things political. If Kennedy loses his nerve, Congress can and will repeal DOMA—if not this term, then the next time the House, Senate, and presidency are all held by Democrats. And even if the Supreme Court issues a mean ruling on Perry—saying there's no fundamental right to marry and that California voters had every right to pass an amendment yanking equal marriage rights away—the Court will take it back in 15 years, when only ten Southern states are left banning recognition of same-sex marriages. The Court only took 17 years to overturn its ruling upholding sodomy laws in Bowers (which was a knife in the heart at the time, and pretty quickly became an international embarrassment). This one will come just as quickly, or even more so.

Voices of Faith: Episcopal church approves blessings, opposes DOMA

Click image for more
Voices of Faith

Meeting in its triennial General Convention, the Episcopal Church has voted by a large majority to approve a "provisional liturgy"to bless same sex couples in faithful, committed relationships.  Up to now, individual bishops could employ "wide pastoral latitude" in allowing blessings (approximately 30 did) but now there is a church wide process.

While the church is careful to say this is not marriage, its language and symbolism are clearly very close.  Activists hope that a revision of the marriage liturgy will eventually take place so that there is not a separate gay-specific rite;  however, that will involve considerable discussion.   Meanwhile, this is a significant step.

Not everyone is thrilled by this, of course, and 12 Bishops wrote a minority statement in opposition (there are nearly 300 members of the House of Bishops, and 100 Episcopal dioceses ) but individual Bishops as well as individual priests remain free to refuse to conduct this ceremony.  Sadly for LGBT people living in unfriendly dioceses, blessings will not be uniformly accessible.

By a large majority, General Convention also voted to call for the repeal of DOMA, and passed a resolution deploring the use of violent language from Christian clergy and lay people against LGBT folks.

The Episcopal Church has become one of the largest denominations that is generally gay-friendly.  There are two openly gay, partnered bishops,  and numerous out clergy. If you are religiously inclined,  you might want to check them out.   (Obligatory disclaimer, my wife is Epsicopalian).

Getting to know us can make the difference

During the Prop8 campaign, everyone complained about the horrendous ads.  Oh, not the ones from the other side, which were predictable, but the ones from ours.  No gay people in sight.  Our own side talking ABOUT us, not with us, and focused on "legality" and "unfairness".  Studies since then show over and over that focusing on legal issues is a turn off.  What makes a difference is the human connection.  

The LA Times has a story on this:

Wade Kach, left scrambling for a seat in a packed committee hearing last month, found a spot near the witness table. 

"I saw with so many of the gay couples, they were so devoted to one another. I saw so much love," said Kach, a member of the (MD) House of Delegates. "When this hearing was over, I was a changed person in regard to this issue." 

Putting a human face on same-sex marriage reflects a strategic change — one that can pack an emotional wallop and, as Kach's experience shows, win over the undecided or even opponents. 

The message "used to be one that focused on rights, parity in benefits," said Fred Sainz, vice president of communications and marketing for the Human Rights Campaign, a national gay rights group based inWashington, D.C. 

Since about 2008, Sainz said, same-sex marriage activists have begun "talking about love, honor and commitment."

Because it's about people.

Harvey Milk was right.  We have to come out.  Over and over again, we have to come out and tell our stories. Because we never know who is listening and what hearts can be changed.

Who is the bully?

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?

Britain to recognize full marriage equality

Alex Massie writes:

If ever you needed reminding that Britain and the United States are divided by a common language, consider the fact that a Conservative-led government in London now endorses gay marriage. As contenders for the Republican Party's presidential nomination insist that same-sex marriages must destroy marriage, their conservative counterparts in Britain argue that politics and morality alike require the government to commit to legalizing gay marriages...

So this development satisfies liberal aspirations while also, happily, demonstrating the value of timeless Tory principles. Society changes, and the proper sort of Tory, however much the past attracts him, appreciates that conservatives must also change if they're to protect the values they hold most dear and remain relevant in a much-changed world....

It used to be said that the Church of England was the Tory party at prayer. Doubtless it remains the case that religious Britons are, all other matters being equal, more likely to vote Conservative. But as far as civil marriage is concerned, there is no need to pander to the objections of a faithful minority. Indeed, Britain is a largely secular society these days and, at least as far as same-sex relationships are concerned, a much more civilized place than was the case in years gone by.....

Moreover, civil partnerships—a step forward as they may once have been—still fall short of full equality. Eliminating this discrepancy—it seems likely that Cameron's commission will recommend scrapping civil partnerships—removes the stigma, however minor it may have seemed to some, of second-class status.

The churches may disagree. But there's no reason to grant them a veto over the civil definition of marriage. It is unlikely churches will be compelled to recognize gay marriages any more than a Roman Catholic priest must be cheerfully expected to officiate at a Protestant marriage ceremony. Though often conflated, the civil and religious stamps of approval are different, and the latter need not be expected for every brand of civil marriage....

More than anything else, however, it recognizes that society has changed and, correspondingly, so must sensible conservatives. By doing so, they may make a virtue out of necessity and inevitability while reaffirming the essential importance of marriage. Low politics and high principle meet in a convenient but passionate marriage of their own. Eventually, perhaps, even the Republican Party in the United States will appreciate this.

Tony Jones: Two marriages

I was pointed towards this blog about "two marriages":

Actually, there are two marriages in America.

On the one hand, there’s legal marriage. It’s sanctioned by the state, .... and it is officially incentivized by our government. And legal marriage has nothing to do with sexual intimacy.

On the other hand, there’s sacramental marriage, which is defined by communities of faith. This marriage accrues neither governmental benefits nor tax incentives. However, sexual intimacy is of gre at interest to this marriage, since the sacred texts of all religions have lots to say about sex. Sacramental marriage is about what God wants — and that is, of course, a matter of interpretation and debate among Christians. ....

Courtney and I got married, as I wrote above, on July 13. We were married in the sacramental way, but we did not ask for the imprimatur of the State of Minnesota on our marriage by means of buying a license ....

Why not? Well, that’s what I’ll be attempting to show at length in a series of blog posts this week. But, in short, here’s why:

• The sacred ceremony of marriage is far more important to us than the legal contract of marriage. 
• We don’t really care if the government considers us married. We’re far more interested in our marriage being solemnized by our family, friends, and community of faith. 
• We don’t think that we should enjoy the 515 benefits of legal marriage when so many of our friends cannot. 
• I do not think that clergy should act as agents of the government (as I’ve written before), and I did not want to ask my friend, Doug, to do so.

I look forward to reading more from Tony on this subject.

Where we stand on equality

From Forbes:

The nationwide campaign to legalize same-sex marriage is the civil rights battle of the 21st century. Opponents are going to lose. So like trial lawyers who settle cases on the courthouse steps, they should abandon this wasteful fight.

Same-sex marriage is here to stay. Six states and Washington D.C. allow it. Another 13 states (see map, above) permit “domestic partnerships” or “civil unions” to provide gay couples with varying degrees of rights.

Yet under the current system, marrying does not put same-sex couples on equal financial footing. Whether they are concerned about health insurance, taxes, property ownership or being parents together, planning for a gay couple poses special challenges. ...

It’s not just the politicians who are holding us back. A more profound problem is the people who elected them. They range from religious zealots to folks who understand the civil rights issues but have admitted to me privately that they “have trouble getting used to the idea” of same-sex relationships....

Yes, but that rump end is getting vicious and unlikely to give way soon. And for many gay couples, 10 years is too long.

How will the death of DADT affect DOMA?

One of the real remaining issues with allowing open service in the military is, surprisingly, marriage.  The military traditionally takes care of the families of service people.  But the bigotry expressed by DOMA, the so called "defense of marriage act", prevents that.

Great article in the NY Times this weekend lays it out

[W]ith the final repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” in the coming months — and with the recent legalization of same-sex marriage in New York and the possibility of other states’ following suit — many advocates expect the number of gay and lesbian married couples in the military to rise significantly.

As those numbers grow, unequal treatment of same-sex married couples will become a source of resentment and poor morale, advocates for gay troops assert.

...Eileen Lainez, a spokeswoman for the Pentagon, said the department was studying whether smaller benefits, like free legal services, could be extended to same-sex spouses. But she said there would be “no change” in eligibility for major benefits like housing and health care when “don’t ask, don’t tell” goes away.

“The Defense of Marriage Act and the existing definition of ‘dependent’ in some laws prohibit extension of many military benefits to same-sex couples,” she said.

...One currently serving Army officer who married her same-sex partner in Massachusetts said the end of the ban would provide a huge emotional release, allowing her for the first time to talk to her fellow soldiers about her wife and two children.

But she also considers it unfair that her wife will be unable to receive health or dental care on her base, buy life insurance subsidized by the military or shop at the base commissary, grocery store and gas station, where goods are typically cheaper.

Their family, however, will be eligible for base housing because they have dependent children. But same-sex married couples without children will probably not get such housing, experts say.

“I want to be like everyone else,” the officer said. “I don’t think my family should be entitled to anything less than the people I’ve served with here and overseas.”

Imaging what it will mean to be told, as an out gay servicemember, that you can't give your spouse health insurance?

What will it mean in public perception, when the carefully folded flag from the coffin is given to a same-sex spouse?

The racial integration of the military helped drive integration nation-wide. Service members who complete their service go home, after all. (It may have been helped somewhat by the draft, which made sure that serving was widely and democratically experienced. Our professional military is quite distant from most of us now, a separate class.)

 DOMA is and remains a purely cruel and vicious law.  The families of gay servicemembers deserve the same treatment as the families of straight servicemembers. 

Update:more on the inequities here.

Same-sex partners can be listed as the person to be notified in case a service member is killed, injured, or missing, but current regulations prevent anyone other than immediate family — not same-sex spouses — from learning the details of the death. Same-sex spouses also will not be eligible for travel allowances to attend repatriation ceremonies if their military spouses are killed in action.

Can you imagine anything more insulting than not being told how your spouse died?

END DOMA NOW.

Equality update/FAQ

In the wake of New York's landmark decision, and based on conversations around the blogs, I thought I would give you an update on marriage equality battles.

Will married gay couples from NY be recognized elsewhere?

• No state will be required to recognize marriages performed in New York. Like my marriage in CA, or same sex marriages from MA, the marriages in NY will be legally invisible in over 30 states. This is thanks to section 2 of DOMA (the defense of marriage act) which states explicitly that no state has to recognize a gay couple.

But I thought that DOMA was overturned by the Department of Justice

• No. The DoJ is not defending DOMA in court, but it remains the law of the land and is still enforced. There are at least 6 DOMA cases pending in different circuits of the federal courts. These have all challenged section 3, which forbids the federal government from recognizing legally married gay couples, like me. DOMA was already found unconstitutional in the 1st circuit, but that's being appealed. Unless and until it gets to the Supreme Court (SCOTUS), however, individual decisions will only affect the states within that federal court circuit. 

• There is a bill that would repeal DOMA being put forward in Congress ("Respect for Marriage Act"), which led to a moving hearing on July 20. Despite that, it is unlikely to go very far because of Republican opposition.

How does this relate to the Prop8 case?

• The Prop8 case addresses the right to marry, NOT whether it will be recognized (as in the DOMA cases). Briefly: In California in 2008, the State Supreme Court found for marriage equality (and overturned Prop22, which had made a law forbidding it). However, 8 months later, Prop8 was approved by the voters, this time amending the state Constitution to forbid equal marriage. The State Court agreed that the voters had that right under the state Constitution, but determined that aside from the name "marriage," gay couples should have all the rights of marriage. It also determined that the 18,000 couples married in the "summer of love" were still legally married.

• A case was then brought in federal court arguing that Prop8 violated the US Constitution. Judge Vaughn Walker agreed. That case was appealed to the 9th circuit, where there are two issues to determine. The first issue is whether or not the appellants (the supporters of Prop8) have standing to appeal. Confusingly, this turns on an issue of state law regarding propositions, so the 9th circuit has asked the State Supreme Court to advise them. (The state court will hear the argument in the fall). The second issue, assuming they have standing, is whether the decision was sound. Ultimately, either or both of these issues will be appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS).

• Meanwhile, in a side-show typical of the whole case, the Prop8 supporters filed a different argument against Republican-appointed Judge Vaughn Walker, who in a delicious bit of irony, is gay. Their claim that this rendered him unable to judge impartially was dismissed by the court. Naturally, they are going to  appeal.

Is New York the first legislature to support marriage equality?

• No. New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, Maine, and California legislatures all passed equality. In Maine, it was overturned by voter referendum, and in California, then-Gov Schwarzeneggar declined to sign it.

What about the voters?

• If you had asked the electorate in Alabama in 1960 whether they supported civil rights, probably the schools would have remained segregated. Sadly, in no case where equality has been left to the voters, have they passed it. Upcoming  elections in 2012 will include Minnesota and North Carolina, and possibly Maine where they will try to repeal the referendum that overturned equality. Right now it looks unlikely that we will go to the ballot in CA next year.

Equality in NY!!!!

from the Prop8trialtracker:

Just now, the New York State Senate voted to legalize same-sex marriage! The vote was 33-29. Since the Assembly passed the bill, it will go to Gov. Cuomo’s desk, where he will enthusiastically sign it (and kudos for his hard work on this). The measure cannot be repealed at the ballot.

And the EMpire State Building shows its colors....

Down to the wire for marriage in NY

The New York State Assembly has passed marriage equality. Now, it's up to the Republican-controlled Senate, which hasn't even decided whether to bring the issue to the floor (which must be done by Friday). We need 32 votes. We have 31. One more GOP-er must vote in favor. If it passes the Senate, the Governor has sworn to sign it.

Roman Catholic Archbishop Timothy Dolan has written what some call a diatribe claiming that HIS view of religion supersede all others (see my Daily Kos diary for my comparison of Abp Dolan's drama, with the sensible words of pro-marriage equality Episcopal Bishop of Long Island.)

The fig-leaf is "religious freedom" but the question is whose? As pointed out in this NY Times Op/Ed,

Several senators also have religious concerns, intensified by powerful opposition to same-sex marriage from Roman Catholic Church leaders and some rigorously Orthodox rabbis. The proposed legislation provides for what are called “carve-outs”: Members of the clergy who object to such marriages would not be obligated to perform them or to allow their houses of worship to be used for them.

Why such language is deemed necessary is somewhat perplexing. Where is it now written that priests, ministers, rabbis or imams must preside over ceremonies that violate their consciences? Plenty of them won’t have anything to do with interfaith marriages; nobody seems to consider their refusal a human rights violation.

A different Times article points out that the Republicans are between a classic rock-and-a-hard-place.

If the measure does not pass now, Republicans could face political challenges on two fronts: an array of angry and well-financed gay-rights groups seeking to unseat Republican incumbents in the elections next year, and potential attacks or primary challenges against Mr. Alesi and Mr. McDonald from the right.

If you are in New York, please contact your Senator-- it is urgent that you do so (if you aren't in New York, please don't call. They don't care what people out-of-state think, they care what their constituents think.) These are the most likely swing votes:
Sen. Greg Ball (Putnam County) (518) 455-3111
Sen. Joe Griffo (Utica) (518) 455-3334
Sen. Mark Grisanti (Buffalo, Grand Island, Niagara Falls) (518) 455-3240
Sen. Andrew Lanza (Staten Island) (518) 455-3215
Sen. Jack Martins (Nassau County/Garden City) 518-455-3265

Marriage Repeal Bill Introduced in NH

From the Concord Monitor (my emphases)

A bill repealing the state's gay marriage law would use the same statute to prohibit both incest and same-sex marriage.

...

It [states], "The vast majority of children are conceived by acts of passion between men and women - sometimes unintentionally." Because of that, the bill states, the state has an interest in protecting the union of men and women to increase the likelihood that children will be born and raised by their natural parents.

Bates's bill lists the marriages that would be prohibited to all men and women. Besides same-sex partners, they include marriages to their children, aunts, uncles, nieces and nephews.

The bill states that any marriage recognized by New Hampshire before the adoption of the law would remain intact. But any same-sex marriage performed out of state after the law is passed - for example, a marriage performed in Massachusetts - would not be recognized as valid in New Hampshire.

...

Gay marriage became legal in New Hampshire in January 2010. Since then, nearly 1,000 same-sex couples have married.

House Majority Leader D.J. Bettencourt said recently that repealing gay marriage is not a priority for House leadership, and he will ask the House Judiciary Committee to retain Bates's bill until 2012. The final decision will be up to the committee, which is led by Amherst Republican Rep. Robert Rowe. A public hearing has not yet been scheduled.

Quote of the day: let's stop talking about homosexuality

From Dan Savage in last week's NY Times:

Social conservatives long to raise their children in a country where they don’t have to hear about homosexuality every time they turn on the news. I’d like raise my son in a country like that too. And guess what? In countries like Canada — where the fight over gay rights is essentially over, where there is gay marriage, open military service and employment protections — homosexuality hardly ever makes the front pages of newspapers. There’s nothing much to report.

Conservatives can’t get rid of us, but they can hear less from and about us. They just have to bend toward justice.

Roman Catholic Bishop calls for war against marriage equality

In Rhode Island, progress is being made towards marriage equality. Right on cue, Roman Catholic Bishop issues a clarion call to "defend marriage"last Sunday (emphases mine).

I submit that today, in the State of Rhode Island, we are faced with a challenge to our baptismal promises to renounce the modern day evil works of Satan and confess our belief in Christ and His holy Catholic Church. …

This challenge takes the form of an attempt to grant to same sex couples that recognition reserved for the oldest and the only institution God created in His own image: Man as male and female united in marriage. ... there can be no vocation to an immoral partnership that contradicts God’s own Word!

There are many reasons to oppose as equal to marriage the recognition of unions between people of the same sex… .

However, for the sake of brevity, permit me to confront the essence of this problem. Let’s be frank about it; namely, it stems from the desire of some to grant to homosexual relations the same validation given to relations between men and women. In short, many are seeking public approval of homosexuality. Yes, when all is said and done, that is the crux of the problem and it must be said that according to God’s revelation homosexual acts are deviant. …

There is much more that can be said about this issue but unless we confront it from God’s point of view, then we will continue to be confused about a matter that is being portrayed either as harmless to the rest of society or a matter of equal rights or an issue of privacy or an effort to eliminate discrimination—and it is none of these. ...

With regard to the duty of elected officials and jurists, they must be sensitive to the fact that civil laws are the principles that structure society, for good or for ill. The right to make laws does not mean that the laws so made are right!

Furthermore, to accord a recognition to same sex unions that equates immoral activity with the sanctity of marriage is to expose young people to erroneous ides about sexuality and marriage, and confuses young minds by sending the signal that an evil tolerated is an evil approved and legalized.

Remember the title Jesus gave Satan: “The father of lies.” Many lies will be told in this campaign to distort the first creation of God. To accord the same recognition we give to marriage to unions between people of the same sex is to distort God’s plan for a civilization based on obedience to His commandments and love for His law. Mark well that we will pay the price, as did Sodom and Gomorrah, whether that destruction comes from moral rot within our society or a weakening of our will as one nation under God in whom we claim to trust.

In this battle, there is no neutrality, no demilitarized zone. If our baptismal promises mean anything to us, then we know clearly which side we are on, for it is the side that God is on. And do not think for a moment that God forgets!

Holy war, anyone?

You'd think in the wake of the hyperbolic rhetoric around the Giffords attempted assassination, he might have toned it down a bit (he gave his sermon on Sunday 1/7). Still, we've been warned…and we'll know who they are by their words of violence.


(H/T Prop8 Trial Tracker)