Why it matters: Houston judge says husband can't be with kids

This one's a doozy.

A Houston judge entered an order on June 24 which prohibits a father from leaving his children alone with any man they aren’t related to “by blood or adoption.” Because there was no allegation of abuse in the case, family law practitioners say the order is an unheard of infringement on the rights of parents and a judicial condemnation of the fact that the man, William Flowers, is not only gay but married to his partner, Jim Evans.

.... So if, for example, William wants to visit his mother in the hospital (where she’s been for several weeks), he can’t leave his kids at home with his husband. As written, the injunction also prohibits male doctors, teachers and pastors from being alone with the children.

Attorneys who practice family law in Texas point out that in cases of abuse, it is common for courts to prevent children from being alone with specific people. But those same lawyers say that they’ve never heard of a case in which a step-parent or long-term partner is permanently enjoined from being alone with his or her step-children when abuse is not even alleged, let alone proven. No lawyer consulted for this story has ever heard of an order which prohibits children from being left alone with an entire gender.

That's Texas, home of your would-be next president.

Seriously, this is so wrong on so many levels. Apparently, the judge has no problem with William, but assumes that any man around the kids must be a pedophile? Of course he wouldn't treat William's WIFE that way, if William were straight. Can you imagine him saying, "you can't leave your kids alone with any woman"?

I'm just so tired of this crap from the bigots, the haters, and the ignorant.

Court throws out motion to disqualify Judge Walker (and vacate the Prop8 trial)

From Prop8 trial tracker, some quotes from the opinion:

In fact, the Court observes that Judge Walker, like all judges, had a duty to preserve the integrity of the judiciary. Among other things, this means that if, in an overabundance of caution, he were to have disclosed intimate, but irrelevant, details about his personal life that were not reasonably related to the question of disqualification, he could have set a pernicious precedent. Such a precedent would be detrimental to the integrity of the judiciary, because it would promote, incorrectly, disclosure by judges of highly personal information (e.g., information about a judge’s history of being sexually abused as a child), however irrelevant or time-consuming.

And, in response to the Prop8 supporters' contention that because Judge Walker is gay AND in a relationship, he MUST want to marry, this:

Finally, the presumption that “all people in same-sex relationships think alike” is an unreasonable presumption, and one which has no place in legal reasoning. The presumption that Judge Walker, by virtue of being in a same-sex relationship, had a desire to be married that rendered him incapable of making an impartial decision, is as warrantless as the presumption that a female judge is incapable of being impartial in a case in which women seek legal relief. On the contrary: it is reasonable to presume that a female judge or a judge in a same-sex relationship is capable of rising above any personal predisposition and deciding such a case on the merits. The Motion fails to cite any evidence that Judge Walker would be incapable of being impartial, but to presume that Judge Walker was incapable of being impartial, without concrete evidence to support that presumption, is inconsistent with what is required under a reasonableness standard.

I"m not a lawyer, but I think that's a slap...

Hearing Today

Today is the hearing in Federal Court on the Prop 8 case. This time, the supporters of Prop 8 are claiming that because Judge Vaughn Walker is gay, he couldn't hear the case because he might benefit from the outcome.

As I said before, that's like saying a woman judge can't hear a case about abortion (she might want one), or an African American judge can't hear a case about racial inequality in insurance (he might need some) or a devout Roman Catholic judge can't hear a case claiming damages for priestly molestation (it's his church that will pay).

It's exactly the same argument, and it's deeply offensive.

And what if a straight judge had a gay daughter? Would the same argument apply? Or what if he attended a church with a gay partnered bishop? What then?

And by the way, it was an open secret that Judge Walker is gay and in a relationship--the supporters didn't care, until they lost the case.

For updates, check out the Prop8 Trial Tracker.Writing at the Tracker, Attorney Shannon Minter puts it in context:

It is important to place this motion in historical context. The Prop 8 supporters’ argument is far from new: for as long as civil rights cases have been litigated in this country, opponents of equality have accused minority judges of bias — of somehow being less able than other judges to rule impartially on important constitutional issues that by definition affect not just minority groups, but everyone.

In a famous 1975 case, a law firm that had been sued for sex discrimination argued that Judge Constance Baker Motley should recuse herself, accusing her of “‘strongly identif[ying] with those who suffered discrimination in employment because of sex or race’” because she was a woman and had worked as a civil rights advocate prior to becoming a judge. Judge Motley correctly explained, “If background or sex or race of each judge were, by definition, sufficient for removal, no judge on this court could hear this case[.]” ....Similarly, in a 1984 case, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the argument that a Mormon judge in Utah should have recused himself from a case that challenged the religious power structure in Utah....

We hope and believe that after considering the long and shameful history of attempts to disqualify judges based on personal characteristics, Judge Ware will resoundingly reject this offensive and desperate tactic by the Prop 8 supporters.

Let's hope.

Can Justice be Gay?

Justice is blind. Can she also be gay?

I posted previously about the kerfuffle over rumors of gay candidates for SCOTUS, in What if a Supreme Court Justice be Gay? I also commented acidly on the expectation that only straight white Christian men can be objective. Somehow, it is assumed that a minority, a woman, or a gay person can't see the world apart from their membership in those groups. (Our friend Mike in TX has some examples of how being straight, male Christians can lead to its own judicial perversions.)

Now the American Family Association has updated its comments (H/T RightwingWatch; I will not link to hate sites):

Speculation continues to swirl about the sexual preference of likely Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan. She is apparently out to her friends and others in her academic and social circles, but not out to the public at large.

The White House has flatly stated that she is not gay, which could prove a tad embarrassing if the open secret of her lesbianism is confirmed at some point. ...It's time we got over the myth that what a public servant does in his private life is of no consequence. ....The stakes are too high. Social conservatives must rise up as one and say no lesbian is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. Will they?

I don't care if Kagan is gay or not. (If she were, I wish she were out, but that's another issue). I DO care that rightwingnuts are somehow pretending that orientation is a litmus test. It would be offensive for there to be a test for faith, or race, and it's just as offensive to invoke a test for sexuality. Being GLBT is not illegal.

Sadly, neither is being stupid.

UpdateAndrew Sullivan writes:

And yet we have been told by many that she is gay ... and no one will ask directly if this is true and no one in the administration will tell us definitively.

In a word, this is preposterous - a function of liberal cowardice and conservative discomfort. It should mean nothing either way. Since the issue of this tiny minority - and the right of the huge majority to determine its rights and equality - is a live issue for the court in the next generation, and since it would be bizarre to argue that a Justice's sexual orientation will not in some way affect his or her judgment of the issue, it is only logical that this question should be clarified.....

To put it another way: Is Obama actually going to use a Supreme Court nominee to advance the cause of the closet (as well as kill any court imposition of marriage equality)? And can we have a clear, factual statement as to the truth? In a free society in the 21st Century, it is not illegitimate to ask. And it is cowardly not to tell.

And From Slate:

Whether or not the strategy works politically, the White House's announcement that Kagan isn't gay should end the matter, unless and until someone come up with some real proof to the contrary. The unfounded insistence that Kagan is a lesbian isn't about lies or hypocrisy (shades of, oh, Larry Craig and John Edwards) or even journalistic ethics. It's about making things up. There's simply no evidence that Kagan's pretending to be anything she's not. The underlying lesson may be that the confirmation wars are so completely toxic that we have come to assume every nominee reflexively lies about everything, up to and including his or her sexuality.

The cost$ of being gay

The NY Times did a study to calculate how much it costs to be gay. Literally--given the disadvantages in tax benefits, pensions, etc.

It was much more complicated than we initially imagined, and that’s probably why we’ve never seen similar efforts. We looked at benefits that routinely go to married heterosexual couples but not to gay couples, like certain Social Security payments. We plotted out the cost of health insurance for couples whose employers don’t offer it to domestic partners. Even tax preparation can cost more, since gay couples have to file two sets of returns. Still, many couples may come out ahead in one area: they owe less in income taxes because they’re not hit with the so-called marriage penalty.....

Here is what we came up with. In our worst case, the couple’s lifetime cost of being gay was $467,562. But the number fell to $41,196 in the best case for a couple with significantly better health insurance, plus lower taxes and other costs.....

Nearly all the extra costs that gay couples face would be erased if the federal government legalized same-sex marriage.

Why MARRIAGE EQUALITY matters: lesson from Florida

In Florida, a woman collapsed and a hospital refused to let her partner or kids in to see her or have any say in her care despite a medical power of attorney. She died. The partner sued. Remarkably, the court's response is a "Tough @%$":

Lambda Legal reports,

While on a family cruise leaving from Miami, Lisa Pond, a healthy 39 year-old, suddenly collapsed. She was rushed to Miami's Jackson Memorial Hospital with her partner Janice and three children following close behind. There, the hospital refused to accept information from Janice about her partner's medical history. Janice was informed that she was in an antigay city and state, and she could expect to receive no information or acknowledgment as Lisa's partner or family.



A doctor finally spoke with Janice telling her that there was no chance of recovery. Other than one five minute visit that was arranged by a Catholic priest at Janice's request to perform last rites, and despite the doctor's acknowledgement that no medical reason existed to prevent visitation, neither Janice - who provided the hospital with a medical Power of Attorney document - nor their children were allowed to see Lisa until nearly eight hours after their arrival. Soon after Lisa's death, Janice tried to get her death certificate in order to get life insurance and Social Security benefits for their children. She was denied both by the State of Florida and the Dade County Medical Examiner.

Today's ruling comes after the Public Health Trust of the Miami Dade County, the governing body of Jackson Memorial Hospital, filed a motion to dismiss the case. The court ruled that the hospital has neither an obligation to allow their patients' visitors nor any obligation whatsoever to provide their patients' families, healthcare surrogates, or visitors with access to patients in their trauma unit. The court has given the Langbehn-Pond family until October 16 to review the ruling and consider all legal options.

So please, haters and bigots who oppose marriage equality and civil partnerships: explain to me why you think this is a just and proper response to a loving family ripped apart by an awful tragedy. Does this make you smile? Does it make you happy? It must, because this is exactly what you are praying for: that gay families have no rights whatsoever, that gay people die alone. What on earth justifies treating any loving family in this way? Do you really think this is what Jesus would have you do?

This family did everything right on legal grounds, and they were treated like scum by people who probably consider themselves "Christians" (at least it sounds like the family got some help from a Catholic priest, good for him). I hope there's a hot couch in hell for that hospital staff for their bigotry and needless emotional violence against that suffering family. And I hope that the justices of the District Court never sleep again without nightmares of their loved ones dying alone, while they rail and wail in a remote waiting room.

Meanwhile, this story should be held up from Maine to Washington as a major reason WHY IT MATTERS. Force the bad guys to defend the indefensible. I hope someone makes a Youtube about this--I'll post any competent viral video on my blogs and accounts if you do.

More commentary at PamsHouseBlend.

The surviving partner, Janice, comments on her blog.

Should we wait to repeal Prop8?

Writing in the Independent Gay Forum, Dale Carpenter argues that we are bound to lose in 2010. He predicts:

On November 2, 2010:
1) A repeal of Prop 8, in some form, will be on the California ballot.
(2) About $60 million will have been raised in the effort to repeal Prop 8.
(3) The repeal will fail.
(4) The margin of loss for SSM advocates in California will be greater than the margin of loss in November 2008, probably in the neighborhood of 46% "yes" (for repeal) and 54% "no" (against repeal).

His reasoning is very logical. But I don't agree with his conclusion.

Everything else being equal, the conditions were about as favorable for SSM supporters in California last November as they are likely to be for many years. They aren't likely to be as favorable in 2010. This is true for several reasons: First, 2008 was a presidential election year, when turnout is higher and when more mainstream, less ideologically committed, voters dominate...... Second, 2008 was a bad year for Republicans. 2010 will likely be a better year in general for Republicans since mid-term elections are usually good for the party out of power. Sorry to say it, but good years for Republicans are usually bad years for gay rights. Third, gay marriage was the status quo in 2008, however briefly, and meant that gay couples were actually marrying. It will not be the status quo in 2010. People have a status quo bias. Fourth, the ballot language on Prop 8 reflected the status quo by indicating that it would "eliminate rights," something Americans don't like to do. In 2010, nobody will lose existing rights if voters refuse to repeal Prop 8..... Fifth, supporters of SSM needed a "no" vote to prevail in 2008. In 2010, they will need a "yes" vote. There is a small built-in bias (maybe 1-2%) for "no" votes. Sixth, some voters will resent being asked to vote on something they just voted on......

The longer we wait for repeal, the more likely we'll win. This assumes that younger voters continue to support SSM, that older voters gradually get used to the idea, and that the oldest die-hard opponents succumb to certain actuarial realities over time. So, all else being equal, 2012 would more likely produce a victory for SSM than would 2010. And 2014 or 2016 would be even more likely.

But is he right, either as a matter of fact, or as a matter of justice?

The momentum right now for our side is looking towards 2010, which everyone acknowledges is risky for many of the reasons Carpenter enumerates, and a few extras like the economy, but has a few advantages: a highly motivated, mobilized force; no competing federal election issues (how many of our potential organizers were working the Obama campaign instead?), and a momentum from other gay marriage victories around the country. Not to mention the 18,000 club, people like me, who are married.

Still, it's a compelling idea to wait...to play it safe for the "sure thing". But we can't do that.

I find myself returning over and over to Martin Luther King's Letter from a Birmingham Jail:

Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."

King goes on to say,

I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season."

and

I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: "All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will.

Sadly true, I think. How many allies just didn't think Prop8 would pass?

We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity.

So in answer to the question in my title, NO. We should not wait. We should bring this up as frequently as we need to until justice is done.

Will we lose in 2010? Possibly. Maybe even probably. But the degradation to our community, which was for 6 brief months a full participant in our society, is a cost most of us are not willing to pay any more. Those who oppose our dignity and our full citizenship have spit on us before, and will spit on us again. And maybe what it will take to expose their ignorance, revulsion and hatred, maybe what it will take to cleanse all that from our society, is for us to drag them into the sun over and over again, exposing their lies, until the light sterilizes their hatred and heals them.

Cross posted at Daily Kos