Western Republicans come out in support of marriage equality

From the New York Times:

Evoking Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, a group of Western-state Republicans plans to enter the battle in favor of same-sex marriage on Tuesday, urging a federal appeals court to declare gay marriage bans in Utah and Oklahoma unconstitutional.

The most prominent of the approximately 20 signers of the brief are former Senator Alan K. Simpson of Wyoming, a longtime supporter of gay rights, and former Senator Nancy L. Kassebaum of Kansas, who said last year that she had reconsidered her former opposition to same-sex marriage. The document says that “marriage is strengthened” and “the social stability of the family unit are promoted” by allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry.

The document is a friend-of-the-court brief, being filed to the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, in Denver. That court is hearing appeals from Utah and Oklahoma to reinstate their restrictive marriage laws.

The brief was the latest sign of widening cracks in Republican opposition to same-sex marriage, even deep in the country’s conservative heartland.

Analysis: regardless of SCOTUS, there's a long way to go

Thoughtful analysis of what comes next (hint:  a lot more work, both on the ground, at the ballot, and in court)

Close observers of state legislatures say that action in Democrat-dominated states may soon run its course and that about half the states are likely to remain entrenched against gay marriage because of their conservative cast. 

..."There may be a slim national majority for same-sex marriage, but there isn't a majority in a large number of states," said Jack Tweedie, director of the children and families program at the National Conference of State Legislatures. Tweedie noted that a majority of states have reinforced their opposition to gay marriage with constitutional amendments in the past decade. About 30 states now have such bans on the books.

Gay rights advocates say if the court strikes down the law denying federal benefits in the case of United States v. Windsor, state action on same-sex marriage might accelerate, especially in states that already allow civil unions for gays and lesbians. Still, lawyer David Codell, who specializes in gay legal rights and is a director at UCLA's Williams Institute, predicted some states would never go that route on their own. 

"It seems likely that at some point a constitutional ruling from the court will be necessary for full equality nationwide," he said. "The issue remains tougher than people think."

A New Day (video Sunday)

Free States

From the LA Times:

A confederacy of gay-friendly states is taking shape. It will create a major divide in the United States, a divide that could last a long time, given that the red states -- places such as Alabama and Utah and South Carolina -- are about as likely to give up on "traditional marriage" as they are likely to turn all their churches into medical marijuana dispensaries.  

The turn toward approval of same-sex marriage in several regions of the country is so sudden and so unexpected that Americans have not really begun to ponder what the ramifications of this new national divide may be. Canada legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in 2005 and, thus far, straight marriages among Canadians have not been sundered and God has not brought down his wrath on the land of maple leaves and Mounties. But in the United States, a national law is not in the cards. 

On this issue, states will continue to decide for themselves and take separate paths. So the question is, can a house divided against itself stand? Can a nation endure that is half slave to tradition and half free to marry?

In an answer to a comment on a previous post, I looked up some figures. Right now marriage is legal in 9 states, plus several additional jurisdictions including Washington DC and two Indian nations.  CA would be the 10th state.  Given its large population, this would mean over 27% of Americans would live in states  or jurisdictions with marriage equality.  The HRC has a helpful graphic.

Knights of Columbus exposed

The Catholic pro-equality coalition, Equally Blessed, has a report showing that the Knights of Columbus has become largely a conservative (and anti-gay) political group rather than the charitable organization that most Catholics think it is, one that benignly serves pancake breakfasts on a Sunday morning after Mass.

According to the report, which is based primarily on the Knights’ filings with the Internal Revenue Service, the organization donated $6.25 million to anti-marriage equality efforts between 2005-2012, with most of the money directed toward ballot measures aimed at banning marriage equality in 12 states.

...Since 2009, the Knights has assessed each of its 1.8 million members a $2 annual fee to support its Culture of Life initiative, which includes its campaign against marriage equality, the report notes. Many Catholics who support the Knights’ charitable initiatives in their parish or diocese are largely unaware of the organization’s involvement in “culture war” issues both inside and outside the church. 

...According to the report, the Knights has accrued significant influence within the Roman Catholic Church thanks to large contributions to the Vatican and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. It uses that influence, the report states, to advance a conservative political and theological agenda, sometimes at the expense of other U. S. Catholics.

If we left marriage to the Fed, there would be no married LGBT couples

Lots of people are complaining that Obama did not make a sweeping statement that the Fed should define marriage, rather than leave it to the states.  But what he did was very canny. From EJ Graff: 

Here's the truth: If we had national marriage laws, I would not be married right now.

The U.S. has only recently been able to break through and try out same-sex marriage, which is leading people to realize, albeit slowly, that it's no threat to anyone. But that's only been possible because our federalist marriage system allows each state to make its own decision. And because we have a federalist system, LGBT advocacy groups are able to challenge the one national marriage law that the U.S. has passed: the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
....
But getting people there requires time. Some parts of the country have been more willing than others to extend that gender-neutral, equal marriage philosophy to marriage's entrance requirements. And what all the DOMA lawsuits are saying to the federal courts is this: let the states decide. The federal government has no power to write marriage's rules, or to pick and choose which marriages it likes and which it doesn't. The federal government's only power is to apply its own decisions—on such things as pensions, health insurance, immigration, Social Security—to whatever marriages the states make.... 

More tactically, it would be terrible for Obama to talk about imposing same-sex marriage on states. The backlash would be horrifying—not just against same-sex marriage but against the imperiousness of the overeducated coastal elites. I get a little impatient with liberal straight folks who think that Doing The Right Thing is enough. I know I'm overcautious--I come from a different time--but there are still a lot of people who think it's disgusting to be queer, or even if they don't, just aren't there yet on opening marriage's doors. Those minds are more likely to open one at a time than if they feel their being dictated to by overeducated know-it-alls with no common sense. ... 

Law and culture change in tandem. The president's statement helps change the culture. ....The administration's actions are helping to change the law. If he gets re-elected, I believe we will see DOMA repealed before 2016, even with a Republican House.

More evidence that Republicans are retreating.

Even though the Republican presidential nominees have mostly signed onto NOM's hate-pledge, and trumpet their anti-equality credentials to the social conservatives of the tea party, other Republicans are wishing the issue would just go away.  From Politico:

What was once a front-and-center issue for rank-and-file Republicans -- the subject of many hotly worded House and Senate floor speeches -- is virtually a dead issue, as Republicans in Congress don't care to have gay marriage litigated in the Capitol. 

Even more than that, Republican leadership has evolved, too. It has quietly worked behind the scenes to kill amendments that reaffirm opposition to same-sex unions, several sources told POLITICO. 

It's not like the GOP has become a bastion of progressiveness on gay rights, but there has been an evolution in the political approach -- and an acknowledgment of a cultural shift in the country. Same-sex relationships are more prominent and accepted. There are more gay public figures -- including politicians -- and it's likely that many Washington Republicans have gay friends and coworkers. Just as important -- there's also a libertarian streak of acceptance on people's sexuality coursing through the House Republican Conference..... 

"Republicans see an issue that was a good wedge issue no longer is and will be a losing issue in the future," Nadler told POLITICO. "They can't just walk away from it; their base will get mad at them. They're slowly walking away from it because it's an increasingly losing issue."

The hand of the grave: constitutional amendments

From Slate:

[M]ost states can't do what New York did. Their legislatures can't legalize gay marriage, because their voters have passed ballot measures that prohibit it under their state constitutions. The ballot measures were enacted years ago, when gay marriage was unpopular. Now many of the old voters who opposed same-sex marriage are being replaced by young voters who support it. But the old electorate, through its constitutional amendments, has handcuffed the new electorate. The living are being ruled by the dead....

[I]n California, Virginia, or the other 27 states where constitutional amendments forbid gay marriage... legislators are bound not by today's constituents but by yesterday's voters. Many of those voters aren't even around anymore. The strongest support for banning gay marriage, nationally and in nearly every state that has faced a referendum, has come from old people. In Arizona, California, Oregon, and Wisconsin, voters below the age of 30 opposed ballot measures to ban gay marriage but were outvoted by their elders. In Michigan, Ohio, and Virginia, young voters split almost evenly. Today, you can see the same pattern in Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, and other state and national polls. Gay marriage is becoming a majority position in part because people are changing their minds, and in part because a generation that's OK with homosexuality is replacing a generation that wasn't.

The question now is whether the new majority will get its way. To undo the constitutional amendments of the past decade, supporters of gay marriage will have to pass ballot measures in those states. In Nevada, they'll have to do it twice. Passing ballot measures is hard. People tend to vote against them out of suspicion and fear, particularly when you're messing with the constitution.

From a conservative standpoint, that's how the system should work. The point of amending state constitutions while the polls were still against gay marriage was to protect the culture of the traditional family from the onslaught of normalized homosexuality.

But if the culture of the traditional family as enshrined in these constitutions is wrong—if marriage is moral and healthy regardless of sexual orientation—then the walls erected by those ballot measures are a prison inflicted by the old on the young. And that legacy, unlike marriage, is a bond that death alone can't break.

Independence Day: not all of us are equal

In the patriotic fervor of independence day, let's remember that DADT is still the law (and thus LGBT people STILL cannot serve openly in the military).

Let's remember that it's still legal to fire someone for being gay, as there is no Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).

Let us remember that in many states, even the minimal recognition of hospital visitation rights are opposed by politicians (e.g., Gov. Walker of WI) and religious groups (e.g., Rhode Island Catholic Bishops).

And let's remember that in only 6 jurisdictions are gay people given the freedom to marry, and their marriages are ignored in most other states and forbidden federal recognition.

Land of the Free, and Home of the Brave, apparently only applies if you are straight.  Some of us are still waiting for the promise to be fulfilled.

Republican Roundup: presidential candidates burnish their bias

As well as denying evolution and climate change, the Republican presidential candidates will also be attacking equality. Just this week:

Rick Santorum proposes a federal constitutional amendment for DOMA. An implacable foe of equality, his previous statements sum up his bias, though he's trying to tone it down now:

People can live the life they want to live. They can do whatever they want to do in the privacy of their home with respect to that activity. Now you're talking about changing the laws of the country. and it could have a profound impact on society, on faith, on education. Once people realize that, they say, you know what, we respect people's life to live the life they want to lead but don't change how with that definition.

Mitt Romney says he supports ENDA, but blames the gays for wanting equality.

Romney has said that he had supported "gay rights," but Morgan questioned that because of his opposition to marriage equality.

Of that, Romney responded, "The gay community changed their perspective of what they wanted," adding that he said he wouldn't support same-sex marriage.

Those pesky homosexuals. They dare to want it all!

Rick Perry isn't running....yet.... but he's wasting no time in burnishing his credentials of hatred.

Texas governor Rick Perry plans to fill a football stadium with Christians to pray for solutions to the country's problems. And he’s partnering with one of the nation’s most notoriously antigay groups to launch the big event.

The American Family Association will pick up much of the bill for the rally...

Republican presidential hopefuls nearly all oppose marriage equality

And several oppose all forms of recognition.

The country shows a narrow majority in favor of marriage equality. At worst, we're evenly split.

But apparently if you are a Republican, you have to be anti-gay.

Feeding the base, it's called.

Data here.

It seems appropriate to point this out on April Fool's Day.

Update EqualityMatters reports that this is viewed as a problem by some Republicans, as this kind of social issue is going to drive away the independent voters they rely on to win elections. GOOD.

House Speak Boehner launches DOMA defense

From AP:

House Speaker John Boehner said Friday he is launching a legal defense by the House of the federal law against gay marriage, which President Barack Obama's administration has concluded is unconstitutional.

"The constitutionality of this law should be determined by the courts -- not by the president unilaterally," the Ohio Republican said in a statement. "This action by the House will ensure the matter is addressed in a manner consistent with our Constitution."....

Boehner said he would convene a group of bipartisan congressional leaders that has the authority to instruct the House counsel to represent the chamber in court. The panel would include Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va.; Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif.; Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi D-Calif., and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md.

Boehner said he was convening the panel "for the purpose of initiating action by the House to defend this law." But there was no immediate indication of specifically what action it would direct or when the group would meet.

Democrats on the panel were unlikely to support any defense of the law. Pelosi has lauded Obama's decision to stop defending it as a "victory for civil rights, fairness and equality."

On Friday, she criticized the move as a costly burden on House staff.

A trap for REpublicans?

From Salon:

[T]he Republicans who run Congress may now be tempted to follow the administration's subtle suggestion in its Wednesday announcement that Congress should act to defend DOMA in court itself if it disagrees with this move.

That would be a mistake....

The defenders of California’s Proposition 8, who rushed in when that state's governor and attorney general refused the job, learned this lesson in a federal case last year, when their arguments and witnesses were utterly dismantled by the all-star legal team of David Boies and Ted Olson....

True, political discourse in America, particularly when it comes to the rights of gays and lesbians, has not always been characterized by the application of perfect logic to empirical data from qualified experts. If House Speaker John Boehner and his fellow Republicans elect to wage a fight for DOMA, they will undoubtedly phrase their announcement in the culture war language that plays so well with their party base.

But then, the Republicans and their lawyers will have to step into federal court and prove -- subject to cross-examination -- how the republic would be damaged if same sex spouses can get, say, federal railroad retirement benefits. As Boies said after dismantling that disqualified expert in the Proposition 8 trial, "the witness stand is a very lonely place."

Moreover, the gay marriage opponents during that Proposition 8 trial didn’t just look dumb -- they looked mean. Homophobic campaign ads looked very different when they were played in a building devoted to equal justice than they did when they appeared on niche cable channels. The congressional record from the original DOMA debate in 1996 is filled with assertions about immorality and sinfulness that were acceptable in polite company back then (perhaps), but that will sound very different today.

As Republican House members contemplate stepping in to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, they might want to consider all of these negatives. Oh, and that poll showing how many Republicans oppose gay marriage? In the 2010 election, the issue polled at dead last among voters' concerns.

It's going to be a long 4 years

Nan Hunter, writing at the blog Hunter of Justice looks at the map of the US from the point of view of LGBT rights. The states that have any recognition for LGBT people , such as antidiscrimination laws, and/or partnership/marriage protections, are left white. (However, many of the white states are explicitly anti-marriage so it's a pretty low bar.) The remaining states are blue (for Democratic legislature and governor), red (for Republican) and purple (for mixed). Unsurprisingly, the white states are largely blue or purple.

However, in important swing states where at least an employment law should be an achievable goal - Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania - there is a solid red wall. The same wall extends to large states that should be targets for job protection laws in five years: Florida, Georgia, Texas, and Virginia.

Montana is an exception to the pattern, in that it is a totally blue, non-southern state that does not have either an anti-discrimination law covering lgbt people or a mechanism for recognition of gay relationships. …

For the most part, though, the maps illustrate that at least for the next few years, advances in lgbt rights are likely to continue...in the states that already have the best laws. And there is likely to be virtually no forward movement in the rest of the nation. On this set of issues, the red/blue split in legal and political geography is going to get much sharper.

What I find striking is that even by the low standards of ANY pro-LGBT legislation, so much of this country is unfriendly. I am so fortunate to live in a state where I can be out, let alone be married. How brave, how lonely, how threatened must the LGBT in the red states feel.

Step by step, new federal rules protect LGBT people

Two things of note last week. First, from ABC news:

Patients at nearly every hospital in the country will now be allowed to decide who has visitation rights and who can make medical decisions on their behalf -- regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity or family makeup -- under new federal regulations that took effect Tuesday.

The rules, which apply to hospitals participating in the Medicare and Medicaid programs, were first proposed by President Obama in an April memorandum and later implemented by the Department of Health and Human Services after a period of public review

This isn't specifically about LGBT people, but is intended to prevent hospitals from discriminating against gay and lesbian couples in the wake of cases like this.

Second, from Poliglot

Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan unveiled new regulations being proposed by HUD that would prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in several of the federal agency's programs -- from government-backed mortgages to public housing.
...

Most notably, the rules would prohibit lenders from using sexual orientation or gender identity as a basis to determine a borrower's eligibility for Federal Housing Administration-insured mortgage financing.

Donovan noted that this rule would have a significant impact because the "FHA represents one-third of all mortgages in this country." HUD officials later clarified that this would mean that private lenders seeking to issue FHA-insured loans would be required to follow the new rules.

Additionally, Donovan said that the rules today proposed clarify that "the term 'family' includes LGBT families and couples" as covered individuals and families in all HUD programs….

Finally, Donovan said the proposed rule "prohibits inquiries regarding sexual orientation or gender identity" in all HUD-assisted housing, or housing whose financing is insured by HUD. …

[T]he rule made available today will be published in the Federal Register on Jan. 24, which will then put in motion a 60-day public comment period that will end on March 25. A spokesman for the department said that publication of the final rules will depend upon the volume of comments received and any necessary changes to them. He said that he expects the final rule to be published before the end of 2011.

You just KNOW what those comments will be….

Blame the gays

Did you know that if the Democrats do badly, it's all the fault of Teh Gay?
From AP:

"But change takes time; sometimes it takes a lot of time. A lot of folks just don't understand that," said Garcia. "I am older and more seasoned, but most people are very disturbed with the administration ... and they're the hard ones to get out to vote.
"The message is huge: Don't take us for granted."
...

Robin McGehee, co-founder and director of the national gay-rights organization GetEQUAL calls the mood among gay voters a "disappointment canyon" but said they have no choice but to go to the polls....

The GLBT community has a groundswell that will not support Democratic machine politics, which exerts no political capital for us. We have been supporting individuals, and of course we will vote. But I suspect that the "enthusiasm gap" will be cited for poor performance. You wanna bet that Obama and the White House will blame us?

The Don't Ask, Don't tell debacle

The sweeping decision from the federal court re. DADT led this week to the judge issuing a declaration that DADT should no longer be enforced. The Obama Administration has asked for a stay of that finding, pending their appeal of the judge's decision. While a very good case can be made that the constitutionality of laws should not be determined by a single federal judge, we also can't avoid the fact that the Fierce Advocate announced that DADT would be history by the end of the year, but did not expend political capital to help pass the watered-down repeal in the Senate, and has not taken steps to deal with those military personnel who are subverting the process. (They tried that with Harry Truman too, when he integrated the military, but with less success).

But even given the cautious justification for these actions, they show a remarkable tin ear for politics. From The American Prospect (my emphases)

Members of the administration have admitted that gay-rights issues have taken a back seat, and indeed, it seems reasonable enough to ask the gay community to be patient while Obama fixes the economy and health care. But here's the thing with civil rights: Whether you think there are more pressing things to do depends on whether you take civil rights seriously. Civil rights aren't perks that you deal with once you get all the practical stuff in order; they are the practical stuff -- they allow all Americans to participate fully in tackling collective problems.

The Justice Department's ardent defense of DOMA and "don't ask, don't tell" have only added insult to injury.

It is easier for a Federal Employee to buy pet insurance for their dog than get health insurance for their same sex spouse or partner. If I were a federal employee, my cat might have better benefits than my wife. That's some fierce advocating.

One step forward, one step back: the equality two-step

For a time there, after Massachusetts, after the polling made it clear that the young people are with us, we allowed ourselves to hope. We had come so far, since the early days, and the landmark of Stonewall. So far, from pathologies and medical abuse, to recognition that we are no different than a red-head or a lefty, just a normal human variant.

But the Enemy regrouped, and though we know time and history will not be on their side, their attacks continue.

There was the brief summer of weddings in California, where an estimated 18,000 couples-- 36,000 people!!!! said "I do" to their life partners in joy and hope.

Yet the Enemy succeeded in attacking that joy, crushing us with the disappointment of Prop H8, their self-satisfaction evident. Even with the triumphant presentation of the Federal case against Prop 8, and the laughably poor defense (even I could have defended it better), we win nothing--just more appeals and stalling. They managed to hide the trial from view, to keep their cowardly bigotry under wraps. No matter the outcome, their attacks will continue, the harm will escalate. After all, no one is getting married in California for the foreseeable furture, and DOMA still stands, making those marriages that DID occur meaningless, in federal terms. And the lawyers continue to grind the arguments, like something out of Bleak House.

For every step forward, we take casualties. Now they are attacking domestic partnerships and civil unions every chance they can -- in Washington State, Hawai'i, Wisconsin. It's not about marriage, the word, and it never was. It's about attacking and marginalizing gay people as permanent outcasts. The untouchable caste, American style.

The Catholics and the Mormons are gearing up to continue the fight, with new initiatives. We know who they are by their hate. Smaller, inclusive denominations are shouted down by the budgets and near-military organization of the Big Two. (Jesus, who hung out with sinners and outcasts, is no longer recognizable to them).

The conservative Evangelicals continue to tell hysterical lies. The only reason they get away with it is that they have brainwashed their children so they cannot think. (Look at this one too. Facts and reality literally do not matter to these people.)

The Republican Party platforms in Texas and Montana call for the criminalization of homosexuality. Uganda suddenly feels not so far away. Atascadero, site of gay torture, was not so very long ago. And they would send us back there if they could.

Like any bullies, they scream loudest when it is they doing the damage, claiming somehow that they are the victim when it is we who have been hurt. As someone said, they blame us for the injury when their foot hurts from kicking us. They lie and lie and lie again, and get away with it.

If you visit the web sites of these people, they are marked by bile, and anger, and visceral hatred. They say the most horrible things about those who disagree and propose the worst sort of retributions and violence.

And the air of hope and redemption that swept Barack Obama into Washington is replaced by cynicism. So there is a gay ambassador. Gay families were invited to the Easter Egg Roll at the White House. The same thing happened 20 years ago. And substantive meaningful change to support the gay family or lift up the gay youngster or enfranchise the gay community there is none of that. David Mixner writes

Wait your turn, we have been told. Better to get healthcare for the straights, than nothing. Better to have an unsupportive Democrat, than a hostile Republican. And then the cycle goes round again and it is not the right time. It never will be the right time. We will be behind the door, too small a community, too inconvenient, too embarrassing.

I still do not understand the source of their fear and hatred, except that it is a very primitive human need to have someone outside to loathe, to unite against. Or perhaps it is all wound up in their desperate fear and hatred of sex. A large part of it is inevitably tangled up with misogyny, and a need to protect the patriarchy. Women who demand equality, not subservience, who are breaking gender roles and expectations are sisters to the GLBT people who are also breaking gender roles and rules. Our fundamentalist culture shares more with the societies that bred Al Qaeda than the Enlightenment.

And, as the Enemy embraces its ignorance, hides from the sun of knowledge, and rejects its gay children, is is foolish to fear that violence may be close behind?

Do you believe this man? (Video Sunday)

The Administration has not actually been a fierce advocate for us. On the other hand, they want our lavendar dollars.

Quote of the day: where's the fight?

From Kerry Eldveld's excellent piece in the Advocate:

Where’s the fight, Mr. President? Our kids are committing suicide because our government continues to tell them their lives are less valuable than those of their peers. That they cannot grow up and participate in our society like every other American. That they cannot share in the institution by which our society measures and values love. That they are too embarrassing to fight for our country in full view of their countrymen. That freedom apparently does not mean freedom for everyone.

Where’s the fight, Mr. President?