Equality is Equality

Chris Geidner quotes Andrew Sullivan from a 2000 piece in The New Republic called "Separate but Equal?" (I can't find an online link to the original):

Legalizing gay marriage . . . is not a radical reformulation of an unchanging institution. It is the long-overdue correction of a moral anomaly that dehumanizes and excludes a significant portion of the human race....

There is in fact no argument for a domestic-partnership compromise except that the maintenance of stigma is an important social value–that if homosexuals are finally allowed on the marriage bus, they should still be required to sit in the back. This “solution” smacks of the equally incoherent half-measure of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” another unwieldy contraption that was designed to overcome discrimination but instead has ruthlessly reinforced it. Equality is equality. Marriage is marriage. There is no ultimate moral or political answer to this question but to grant both. And to keep marshaling the moral, religious, civic, and human reasons why it is an eminently important and noble thing to do.

The acceleration of gay rights

This graph charts the change in overall view of gay rights in the US. As Andrew Sullivan notes, something happened around 1990 that accelerated the approval of gay relationships. He takes a fair bit of credit for it, for which theory YMMV. But I think he does have a point that the changes from being an outcast defiant counter-culture, to demanding to be part of the dominant culture, has something to do with it. Frankly, we started coming out, and most of us are pretty average folks. We are sons and daughters, fathers and mothers, friends and relatives. And we aren't scary at all.

When combined with other data we've reviewed on states views on a variety of issues as well as on the rate of change on the marriage issue state by state, we can see that in some states, it's approaching a non-issue. But still, over 50% in the "always wrong" category does not bode well for change at a national level anytime soon.

Why the Episcopal church's national convention matters to the rest of us

From the Huffington Post:

It doesn't matter if you attend religious services weekly or if you have fallen away, if you're atheist or agnostic, if you think religion is the opiate of the people or the road to peace - established religion in America is an important force.

So when the bishops of the Episcopal Church voted this week to affirm gay clergy, it was an important move..... to all of us who support gay and lesbian rights, for a couple reasons.

First, the Episcopal Church is seen as the canary in the coal mine by other mainline Protestant Churches. They are waiting to see if accepting gays and lesbians as full members of the church will lead to a breaking away from the international church, or whether different views will be able to co-exist happily.

If the Anglican fellowship survives with an inclusive Episcopal Church, it might lead other denominations - Lutherans, Presbyterians - to follow the example of the United Church of Christ and become fully inclusive of gays and lesbians as well.

And once all Mainline Protestant churches start approving of gay marriage, it will be very difficult for politicians and anti-marriage advocates to make a religious argument against gay marriage, since it will be even more clear that not all denominations agree on this issues.

Secondly, however, the entire issue points out something that those of us who are American gays and lesbians often forget: the rights (or lack thereof) of gays and lesbians internationally has an effect on us here at home.....

More rights here can mean more rights abroad. And more rights abroad, means more rights and respect here.

And what did the Episcopalians do? They voted to reiterate their support that GLBT people can be bishops, and yesterday, voted to allow same-sex blessings in their church.

The NY Times describes it,

The bishops of the Episcopal Church agreed Wednesday to a compromise measure that stops short of developing an official rite for same-sex unions, but gives latitude to bishops who wish to go ahead and bless such unions, particularly in states that have legalized such marriages.....[T]he vote was a momentous step for a church that has been mired in intrafactional warfare over homosexuality for more than a decade. ....many Episcopalians at the convention here believe they will have support and will not be ostracized. They are drawing on the testimony of Anglican guests from Africa, Asia and Latin America, who they have brought to the convention here as proof that they have international allies.

How's that canary singing?

2010, or 2012?

A new coalition called Prepare to Prevail has released a statement recommending that any effort to repeal prop8 wait till 2012. Their statement argues

Unlike Proposition 8 in 2008, any upcoming electoral campaign for marriage equality would be one of choice, not one of necessity in fending off an attack from religious-right foes. Timing is ours to determine. Going back to the ballot to remove the voter-imposed ban on same-sex marriage from the state constitution in 2010 would be rushed and risky. We should proceed with a costly, demanding, and high-stakes electoral campaign of this sort only when we are confident we can win. We should choose to Prepare to Prevail.

Meanwhile, LoveHonorCherish disagrees:

Recently, a letter was circulated in the activist community entitled “Prepare to Prevail: Why We Must Wait in Order to Win.” This letter, which was signed by about 30 organizations, some small and some large, argued that 2010 is too soon to seek the repeal of Prop 8. It gave eight reasons. Here are the reasons, and the response to each...

They go on to refute each argument.

I can see reason to both sides of this argument, but just as with the Boies/Olson anti-DOMA case, it seems too often that the GLBT groups form circular firing squads and snipe at each other, rather than our common enemies. Come on, people. Let's formulate a reasonable message and remember that the Bad Guys are already unified, AND raising money to continue to attack us and our families.

Obama watch

Steve Hildebrand was Obama's deputy campaign director. He was recently interviewed by gay journalist Rex Wockner. A few choice quotes:

[Obama] reassured me that he will not disappoint the gay community during his time as president, that the promises he made during the campaign are promises he will fulfill, and he was very forthright about his commitment to equality. And, people will accuse me -- probably rightfully so -- that I'm a Kool-Aid drinker, that I believe in this guy, but I've been around a lot of very important politicians in my lifetime and I think this guy is different and I do trust him to do what is right. I also believe that he knows how to get things done, and that he will make a significant difference in a positive way in the lives of gay and lesbian Americans.

On how to make a difference:

I don't think our voices are as powerful as they should be. I think too many people in the gay community do not push their elected officials as hard as they should. If you had 20 gay people together in a room and asked how many of them actually have reached out and either called, e-mailed or sent a letter to their member of Congress over the last two months, I would say the vast, vast majority of them will have done nothing. My suggestion is that people need to become strong activists, that we need to multiply by hundreds the number of activists we have in the gay community. We need more voices, we need louder voices, and we need to tell politicians at every level we're not willing to take their excuses anymore......if people want things done, they should demand action from Congress, they should demand action from the president, they should demand action from their school boards, from their city council members, their mayors, their legislators, their governors, everybody. They should demand action within their churches.

Read the whole thing!

Meanwhile, President Obama sat down with the Catholic Press over the fourth of July. Let's listen in to what he said (from US News):

For the gay and lesbian community in this country, I think it's clear that they feel victimized in fairly powerful ways and they're often hurt by not just certain teachings of the Catholic Church, but the Christian faith generally. And as a Christian, I'm constantly wrestling with my faith and my solicitude and regard and concern for gays and lesbians.

The US News reporter thinks this will "effortlessly" appeal to social liberals because he's "struggling" to reconcile faith and equality. I don't think so. Uh, Mr President? Lots of Christians support gay rights from a place of faith. We've talked about that here, here, here and here. There are even (Gasp!) gay Christians. So you don't have to place your faith in opposition to our rights. They go hand in hand.

Uh-oh. Another mob vote attacking marriage coming up!

The Huffington Post reports,

In Maine, the Stand for Marriage Maine coalition said it took only four weeks to gather more than the 55,087 signatures necessary to put gay marriage to a vote.

The Maine law to legalize gay marriage had been scheduled to go into effect Sept. 12. It will be put on hold after the signatures are submitted and certified by the secretary of state's office. Voters will then decide in November whether the law should stand.

Prepare yourselves, for the hatred, the bigotry, the lies and the ire. They have hate on their side. We have only love.

Go give Equality Maine some love. They're going to need it.


Update: Irony alert. Apparently the opponents of gay marriage in Maine are painting themselves as a poor harassed minority and are hiding their HQ from marauding bands of queers.

But by complaining loudly and often that they've been called names and heard things go bump in the night since they launched their campaign, might Stand for Marriage Maine's organizers also be portraying themselves as an oppressed "minority" (Mutty's word, not mine) in the hope that they will be perceived as the victims this time around?....

Maybe not, but Stand for Marriage Maine's secretive ways contrast sharply with the see-through strategy of the Maine Freedom to Marry coalition.....

Those who are trying to overturn Maine's same-sex marriage law are learning – many for the first time – how frightening it can be when someone gets in your face or dials your home phone out of the blue and calls you a nasty name.

At the same time, those who are defending the law are learning – many for the first time – that the more the social pendulum swings their way here in Maine and beyond, the less they need to live in fear.

Update 2: Americablog reports that the usual suspects (The Catholic Church, the Knights of Columbus, NOM, and Focus on the Family have contributed quite a lot. Our side is lagging behind. HRC, other national orgs, where are you?

The first campaign finance report in the Maine marriage campaign came out today. The Diocese of Portland, which has been shutting down parishes for lack of money, contributed $100,000. The Knights of Columbus chipped in $50,000. And the National Organization for Marriage donated $160,000 (and we really don't know who gave NOM that money, but we suspect some bigots based in Salt Lake City.) In a separate report, Focus on the Family Maine Marriage Committee reported raising $42,000 for the campaign to take marriage rights away.

This is only the tip of the iceberg.

Our side will report raising around $138,000.

Domestic Partner Benefits and Obligations Act (H.R. 2517)

A couple weeks ago during the last DOMA kerfuffle in DC, a great production was made about giving gay Federal Employees some family benefits. Only it turns out they weren't much--no health care, no retirement, ostensibly because of DOMA.

THe President pointed at a bill in Congress that would allow the Fed to recognize gay families to some extent: Domestic Partner Benefits and Obligations Act (H.R. 2517) or DPBO, sponsored by Tammy Baldwin in the House. HRC gives us the background:

DPBO would bring employment practices in the federal government in line with those of America’s largest and most successful corporations. Fifty-seven percent of Fortune 500 companies provide domestic partner benefits to their employees. In addition, 19 states and over 200 local governments offer their public employees domestic partnership benefits. A May 2000 poll conducted by the Associated Press found that a majority of Americans favor the extension of health insurance coverage to same-sex partners. In addition, this legislation has been endorsed by the American Federation of Government Employees, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Harvard University, National Treasury Employees Union and United Church of Christ.

How the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act Would Work-- Who’s eligible?
Same- or opposite-sex couples who:
Include a federal government employee, excluding members of the armed forces, and his/her domestic partner;
Live together in a committed, intimate relationship; and
Are responsible for each other’s welfare and financial obligations.....

Domestic partner is deemed a spouse for purposes of receiving benefits.

You can almost predict the opposition to this, and Chris Geidner at Lawdork is on it:

GOP Rep. Jason Chaffetz (UT) repeatedly expressed repeated concerns about discrimination . . . against heterosexuals. Among his comments, per Eleveld, is one that “heterosexual couples who are not married would not have the same benefits as same-sex couples under this bill.” Baldwin, per Eleveld, responded: “Should heterosexuals desire those benefits, they would have the opportunity to marry.”

Geidner goes on to consider other issues that put this bill in conflict with DOMA and others.

As much as Baldwin might be able to dismiss that concern as to Utah and Wisconsin citizens, and as poorly as Chaffetz appeared to ask the question, there is a related question there that is very real and that the language of the bill does not resolve. The bill speaks only in terms of “domestic partners” with that almost quaint in some areas of the country “affidavit” requirement where same-sex couples, basically, attest that they are married in all but name.

The reality today, though, is that there are an ever-growing number of states in which there are same-sex couples married in name as well as in theory. That means that, for example, a married federal employee in Massachusetts married to a partner of the same sex, following the hypothetical passage of this bill, would be married under Massachusetts law, in a domestic partnership under federal employment regulations and single under federal tax and other laws.

If that doesn’t illustrate the long-term unsustainability of this mismatch of laws, I don’t know what does.

Expect to see a battle regardless.

Every heart matters

Fort Worth's Stonewall?

On the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall riots, the Fort Worth police and the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission decided to raid a new gay bar in Fort Worth.

Now, a slight young man is in the hospital with severe head trauma, several other people were seriously injured and witnesses are decrying police brutality. Hard to believe that this is 2009. As reported in the NY Times last week,

Fort Worth’s police chief, Jeffrey W. Halstead, initially stood behind his officers, saying Monday that patrons had provoked the scuffle by making sexual gestures toward officers.

Ah, yes. The old "gay panic" defense. Because of course a bunch of gay guys in a bar are stupid enough to assault a policeman. Or somehow going to make a big strong policeman feel sexually threatened.

But as the week went on, Chief Halstead backed away from that stance. By Thursday, he had ordered an inquiry, suspended operations with the state beverage commission and promised to give police officers “multicultural training.” He declined a request for an interview.

Witnesses claim that no one was drunk, the kid with the head injury had a bottle of water, and despite requests for breathalyzer tests, the cops refused.

A columnist at The Dallas Morning News:

First, witnesses say the officers showed up ready to make arrests, their fists full of plastic zip-cuffs.

"They were hyped up. They were loaded for bear," said Todd Camp, a veteran journalist who was there celebrating his birthday with friends. "They were just randomly grabbing people, telling them they were drunk."

Camp told me he has been in bars during TABC/police "checks" before, "and it was never anything like this." Usually, he said, officers discreetly walk through, looking for anybody who has had too much. This was different.

"They were shoving patrons," Camp said, "asking, 'How much have you had to drink?' "

Maybe you can call that a difference in perception, a disagreement over the degree of aggressiveness on both sides.

But there are flat contradictions about how Chad Gibson was injured. The Dallas Voice reported Monday that Gibson is hospitalized with bleeding around his brain.

"He was taken down hard," said Camp, with "four or five" officers wrestling him to the floor inside the club.

Cellphone photos shot by patrons and posted to blogs show a person being held facedown by officers in a short hallway inside the club, then show a dent in the wall where his head was apparently banged.

But a Fort Worth police spokesman told me Gibson was injured outside , when he fell and struck his head because he was so drunk.

"He was the one that groped the TABC agent," said Sgt. Pedro Criado. "He was injured by falling and hitting his head.".....

What Camp says, and what other people who claim to have been there say in comments posted to news stories, is that they were scared.

"I hate to say I was afraid of my own police department, but I was," Camp said.

His description of frightened, distraught patrons just does not seem to square with police accounts of being subjected to a drunken, groin-grabbing gantlet during a routine "bar inspection."

Massachusetts sues over DOMA

Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country. So it appears that letting its gay citizens participate in the formal commitment of marriage has not caused a massive destruction of the institution.

The Attorney General of the Bay State has become annoyed that the Federal Government treats legally married Massachusetts citizens unequally, and is challenging DOMA on those grounds.

"Our familes, our communities, and even our economy have seen the many important benefits that have come from recognizing equal marriage rights and, frankly, no downside," Attorney General Martha Coakley said this afternoon at a news conference announcing the lawsuit. "However, we have also seen how many of our married residents and their families are being hurt by a discriminatory, unprecedented, and, we believe, unconstitutional law."

The suit filed in US District Court in Boston claims that the Congress, in enacting the DOMA, "overstepped its authority, undermined states' efforts to recognize marriages between same-sex couples, and codified an animus towards gay and lesbian people."

At a news conference, Coakley said:

"They are entitled to equal treatment under the laws regardless of whether they are gay or straight."

Way to go, Massachusetts.

For shame, California! For shame!

Update: The Volokh Conspiracy points out this is a very different case from Olson and Boies:

The lawsuit is different from other pending challenges to Section 3, see here and here, because it's brought by a state, not gay couples, and because the core issue is federalism, not individual rights.

, although it sees some danger in this by potentially accelerating a federal, rather than state definition of marriage.

Is anybody there?

Hello....(tap tap tap).....is this thing on? Can you hear me?

Is anybody out there?

Okay, folks, I've been running this blog a couple of months now, with 1-2 posts each day, and we barely have 10 unique visitors a day. I know that some people follow it through the readers, and they don't show up on the counter. So.....

Can you do me a favor? Please "click through" from your reader today, so my counter catches you, and/or leave a comment to this post to tell me if you think it's worth it.

Thanks!

Another victim of DADT

I don't understand the argument about DADT (Don't Ask Don't Tell). THe conservatives go on about the dangers of gays in the military. Well, numerous civilized countries have openly gay service people and they see no degradation in their military function. I think the UK is a fine example.

But what I really don't understand about the conservative mindset is that they seem to think that DADT keeps GLBT folks from serving. It doesn't. There are plenty of GLBT service people serving with honor and distinction. DADT just keeps them from being honest about who they are. And by treating them as though they should be ashamed, it puts them danger.

LIke Seaman August Provost, who was murdered and his body burned at Camp Pendleton CA. From HRC:

According to local media reports, the Navy and Marine Corps confirmed that a sailor's body was found on the base at about 3 a.m. Tuesday morning. A military spokesperson confirmed that there was evidence of foul play in the killing and that the case is a murder investigation. It is also understood a “person of interest” is in custody at Camp Pendleton but has not been charged with a crime. Local activists report the victim may have been targeted because of his sexual orientation.

Steve Benen at Washington Monthly picks it up, but suggests that orientation may not be the issue.

Here's what we know as of now.

First, Navy officials reported that Provost was discovered dead, shot while standing sentry at his post Tuesday night. He had not, however, been bound or gagged. Someone tried to light a fire at the guard shack, and investigators believe it was an attempt to "destroy evidence" of the shooting.

Second, investigators are still looking for evidence about Provost's suspected murder being a hate crime, and have taken at least one "person of interest" into custody. The victim's aunt believes the shooting may have been related to Provost's sexual orientation, race, or both.....

Third, Navy Capt. Matt Brown, a career Navy officer (not a political appointee), spoke to reporters about the crime the other day. Though he wouldn't go into too much detail, Brown suggested Provost's killing may have been more a matter of his location and timing, not his race and sexual orientation. "What I can tell you, unequivocally at this point, based on the preliminary information that we have, is that regardless of the person standing watch in that sentry station, this crime would have most likely been carried out in the same way," Brown said. "In other words, another sailor could have been on that post and would have been the victim of this crime."

So, will this end up being a murder of someone who happened to be gay, or a murder of someone because he was gay? The problem is that the GLBT community mistrusts the military, which has certainly had more than enough cases of gay-bashing and associated coverups. If Provost was killed in an anti-gay hate crime, no one expects the Navy to admit it. So regardless of what they say, expect outrage in the GLBT community.

And regardless, thanks to DADT, Provost's partner back in TX heard about his murder from a reporter. Because Provost could not tell the Navy who his family was, since that would be "telling".

It seems to me the issue is not with the GLBT service people. It's with the shelter the military gives to the haters. They will recruit gang members and felons now, but not a straight-A student who is gay. Time Magazine picks up the story:

The murder last week of an apparently gay sailor at California's Camp Pendleton has raised new questions over the readiness of the armed forces to accept openly homosexual personnel....Provost's murder comes almost 10 years to the day that Army Private First Class Barry Winchell was killed at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, after he was suspected of being gay. Gay activists argued at the time that an antigay climate at Fort Campbell played a role in Winchell's July 6, 1999, murder; the soldier convicted of his killing was sentenced to life in prison.

“When I was in the military, they gave me a medal for killing two men and a discharge for loving one.” — the tombstone epitaph of decorated Air Force Sgt. Leonard Matlovich.

Update a new website launching on this issue: Letthemserve.com

Cartoon from Slate

Catholic Bishops attack domestic partnerships in WA

Washington state recently passed a law with a generous domestic partnership benefits, like those in marriage. And as we've discussed, It's under attack.

Now, you may recall that in Prop8, the proponents argued that it wasn't the benefits that they were after, but the word "marriage". Yet, as we've seen, that's just another one of their lies.

THe word marriage is nowhere in the Washington law. But the Catholic bishops are going after it just the same. They argue that this is just a step to marriage. Therefore, in order to prevent gay marriage, they have to block ANY rights. They write,

While opposing all unjust discrimination against any individual, WSCC upholds marriage as a union between a man and a woman, which is the foundation of our civil society.

So discriminating against my family is "just" discrimination? No, it's JUST DISCRIMINATION.

Remember, the Vatican also opposed a UN resolution that decried criminalization of homosexuality, including imprisonment and execution. Because obviously, protesting if backward nations execute gays is just like gay marriage. I called it the Vatican Better Dead than Wed policy.

Is this the Catholic Hierarchy simply standing up for the Church's view on marriage? NO. Because if they were protecting their ideals of marriage, they would be political activists against civil divorce and remarriage, which are not supported by the Roman Catholic church. (You will note that no one is forcing any Catholic church to marry divorced people, which gives the lie to their "religious freedom" and "religious values" arguments against gay marriage. But I digress.)

So, let's be clear on what the Catholic Bishops want. Because it was clear what they wanted here in California. They want gays to have NO civil rights. They want gay families to have NO legal protections. We need to call them on it. And the people who REALLY need to call them on it are the Catholics in the pews, in whose name this is ostensibly being done.

As gay Catholic priest Fr Geoff Farrow writes,

At a certain point, Catholics in the pews need to ask how the hierarchy is spending funds, which they have donated for charitable endeavors. Beyond that, California citizens and Americans as a whole need to begin to ask why religious organizations, which enjoy non-profit tax exemptions, are permitted to operate like non-tax exempt PACs (Political Action Committees). ......Politics is the primary role of the laity not of the hierarchy. When the hierarchy usurps the role of the laity in this area, they invariably create more problems than they solve and they undermine the role of spiritual teachers which is their primary role.

Updated: link fixed.

Update2: The Seattle Times urges that people decline to sign the referndum:

WASHINGTON voters have every good reason to ignore signature gatherers who seek to block an expansion of rights for registered domestic partners. ..... The effort should fail.

The legislation, Senate Bill 5688, is fundamentally about gay and lesbian couples and their families living within the framework of the law, with all its practical realities and complexities.

These are adults in committed relationships, raising children, running businesses and owning property. They have real estate, pensions and sick leave, and child-custody issues that are part of the work-a-day world...... The legislation is no more radical than helping our neighbors and their families live their lives.

And that's what the Catholic Bishops want to stop.

Stonewall's unfinished legacy

From the Guardian newspaper:

Post-Stonewall improvements in the lives of many LGBT people have been profound, though neither swift nor easy. The American Psychiatric Association finally removed homosexuality from its handbook of mental disorders in 1973. The US supreme court finally invalidated all remaining laws that criminalised sexual acts between consenting same-sex adults in 2003. Millions of us have come out of the closet – in our workplace, to our families and in our neighbourhoods, proving that we are, indeed, everywhere. LGBT publications and organisations abound, including 4,000-plus Gay/Straight Alliances in the nation's schools.

Still, the trajectory of LGBT rights has not been one long, unbroken upward arc tending towards justice. A dozen years after Stonewall, the federal government wilfully ignored HIV/Aids for so long, as it thought it affected only men who had sex with men and other "undesirables". No federal law protects LGBT people in the areas of workplace discrimination, housing or hate crimes, while the (significant) handful of states that do have laws often omit transgender people and LGBT youth from their protections. Anti-gay bullying runs rampant in our schools, and a disproportionate percentage of homeless youth is LGBT. Over 16,000 service members have been ousted from the US armed forces under the "don't ask, don't tell" (DADT) policy – an average of two per day.

Last November, Proposition 8 in California overturned an earlier court decision granting marriage equality. Though five states now recognise same-sex marriage, the 1996 Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA) deprives legally married same-sex couples of the 1,381 privileges that federally recognised heterosexual couples enjoy, including rights regarding pensions, social security survivor benefits and immigration. It also bars us from filing a joint income tax return and levies a heavy "gay tax" on health insurance and inheritance. Small wonder a recent UCLA report on poverty in the LGBT community found that same-sex partners are more likely to be poor than our heterosexual counterparts.

You've come a long way, baby, but you aren't nearly done walking.

Diagramming the gay marriage debate

Click for larger view:




(H/T Joe.my.god

Surprise: Gays are Christians too!

George Barna, who runs a conservative Christian polling company, has released a study on the spiritual profile of GLBTs. Reported in USA Today

A significant majority of gays and lesbians — six in 10 — say faith is important in their lives, but heterosexuals generally state such commitments more often, according to a new survey by a Christian research firm.

"People who portray gay adults as godless, hedonistic, Christian bashers are not working with the facts," said George Barna, founder of the Barna Group, a Ventura, Calif.-based research company."A substantial majority of gays cite their faith as a central facet of their life, consider themselves to be Christian, and claim to have some type of meaningful personal commitment to Jesus Christ active in their life today."

Barna goes on

“It is interesting to see that most homosexuals, who have some history within the Christian Church, have rejected orthodox biblical teachings and principles – but, in many cases, to nearly the same degree that the heterosexual Christian population has rejected those same teachings and principles. Although there are clearly some substantial differences in the religious beliefs and practices of the straight and gay populations, there may be less of a spiritual gap between straights and gays than many Americans would assume.”

Ya think?

Perhaps, some of the opposition to marriage equality are finally realizing that there are gay people in their churches too.

From the Episcopal church's GLBT group, Integrity:

Do same-sex marriage bans promote HIV infection?

Interesting study suggests yes:

An Emory University study claims to have found a link between same-sex marriage bans and HIV rates.

By applying economic theories to calculate how social attitudes and policies affect HIV transmission, Hugo Mialon and Andrew Francis estimate that a constitutional ban on gay marriage raises a state's HIV rate by four cases per 100,000 people....

“Tolerance for homosexuals causes low-risk men to enter the pool of homosexual partners, as well as causes sexually active men to substitute away from underground, anonymous, and risky behaviors, both of which lower the HIV rate,” the study reads. “Social acceptance of gays may consequently induce gay men to interact in open and socially mediated venues associated with less risky sexual behaviors.”...

Mialon said, “Intolerance is deadly.”

But let's remember that that National Review disagrees:

One still sometimes hears people make the allegedly “conservative” case for same-sex marriage that it will reduce promiscuity and encourage commitment among homosexuals. This prospect seems improbable, and in any case these do not strike us as important governmental goals.

Sure. Because conservatives think better dead than wed.

Gay rights in the states: more statistics

Expanding from the marriage issue, FiveThirtyEight highlights a study examining a variety of GLBT issues in the states including marriage, civil unions, adoption, and non-discrimination. Discussion of the statistics and links in the thread here and on the original author's site here. Click on the image to open a bigger version of the graph in your browser or you can get aPDF version.

As noted in this and other posts at FiveThirtyEight, in the few states where support for marriage equality exceeds 50%, there is good correlation with it being legal (filled red circle). Curiously, however, although support for civil unions/domestic partnerships exceeds 50% in about half of states, many of those states do not allow it (compare the filled blue to open blue circles). And it's even more striking for other issues. Interestingly, well over 50% of people in nearly all of the states support non-discrimination policies for housing and jobs, hate crimes legislation, and access to health care benefits, although large numbers of states have no legal policies supporting those.

We have a long way to go before this country treats its gay citizens as, well, citizens.

Update: the study can now be found here. Upcoming in Gay Rights in the States: Public Opinion and Policy Responsiveness
Jeffrey R. Lax and Justin H. Phillips Columbia Univ. American Political Science Review, Vol. 103 (3), 2009

Taking Issue with Aravosis

John Aravosis at Americablog broke the story about the DOMA brief from DoJ and the comparisons in it to underage or blood marriages. He's been baying full-throated on this topic for some time.

But is he right? Lawdork's Chris Geidner says no.

That John repeats the contention, without suggesting that anyone — let alone several preeminent legal scholars, from Arthur Leonard to Nan Hunter to Laurence Tribe, who write extensively in support of LGBT equality — disagrees with his contention that Obama is “in his rights” to “oppose DOMA in court,” shows that John’s purpose is not to inform but to persuade and incite, facts be damned.

That John continues to write about “pedophilia” at all despite the fact that the 16-year-old whose marriage was invalidated in the case cited in the brief — Wilkins v. Zelichowski, 140 A.2d 65, 67-68 (N.J. 1958) — would today have reached the age of consent, if not the age at which a marriage would be found to be valid, in 32 states shows that John’s desire to advance the “pedophilia” story is without any merit. Moreover, as pointed out by PG in comments to the earlier post, this case was cited by none other than Lambda Legal in one of its own briefs — for the same purpose it was cited in the Smelt brief. The LGBT equality legal group wrote:

Conventional choice of law and comity principles are routinely applied in every state to address non-uniformity in many aspects of domestic relations laws, including disparities among states in the requirements for marriages or their dissolution. See, e.g., Wilkins v. Zelichowski, 26 N.J. 370, 377-78 (1958). These familiar legal tools, not the deprivation of the constitutional rights of a minority, offer the answer to any purported concern about uniformity with other states.

That John continues to write about “incest” is, as I have stated since the brief was filed, overstating facts in order to enrage. One of the cases cited, Catalano v. Catalano, 170 A.2d 726, 728-29 (Conn. 1961), is a regularly cited case in Family Law casebooks and law review articles regarding out-of-state marriage recognition. For John, a lawyer, to repeatedly state that a lawyer citing a regularly cited case for a general proposition that “certain marriages performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with the public policy of the forum” equates to the lawyer comparing same-sex marriages to incest is dishonest. John knows that the brief is analogizing a state’s policy against recognizing one type of marriage to a state’s policy against recognizing another type of marriages. Though a slight distinction, John knows that, as a lawyer, such distinctions matter.

The final case cited, In re Mortenson’s Estate, 316 P.2d 1106 (Ariz. 1957), is one with which I was unfamiliar but have found that both it and Catalano were cited by a Columbia Law Review piece criticizing DOMA for “deep flaws in both aspects of the Act.” Scott Ruskay-Kidd, Note, “The Defense of Marriage Act and the Overextension of Congressional Authority,” 97 Colum. L. Rev. 1435 (1997). If opponents of DOMA have cited both of these cases since the year after its passage, then — as John knows — it would be bad-faith for a lawyer charged with defending the law to fail to raise arguments in its defense that previously have been raised even by opponents of the law. Was this third case cite necessary? Probably not, as the point was illustrasted by Catalano. But to demonize the author of the brief and everyone on up to the President as comparing same-sex relationships to incest for doing so, as John has done repeatedly, is exceptionally unfair and dramatically overstates the proposition advanced in the brief.

Now, Geidner is not a fan of the brief, which he calls "offensive". But he considers AmericaBlog's language to be inaccurate and needlessly inflammatory.

Look, it seems clear to me that the Obama White House is not going to move on GLBT issues easily. They are going to try to keep us quiet, and placate our community (which means divide it, sadly easy to do). As reported by Pam's House Blend, our pushback is important because they want to silence us. But, the nature of the pushback matters . I argue that we are dealing with subtle and smart people. We have to be smart back. Our voices will be silenced if we are over the top or inaccurate--we can't be crying "wolf". We have to be cold, calculated, and correct. Aravosis has a bully pulpit, but he needs to use it carefully. There's enough wrong with what they're doing that we shoudn't undercut ourselves with inaccurate accusations.

I have learned a lot from this episode. I continue to find Aravosis a provocative blogger who is very plugged in and has great information. But I now more actively seek corroborating detail and context from other bloggers, like Pams House Blend, conservative Andrew Sullivan, and Lawdork . There's a list of these and other "Pro-gay marriage" bloggers in the sidebar. There are also news and advocacy sites like The New Civil Rights Movement and The Advocate. These and others are listed in the sidebar under "Information and Advocacy".

Prompt trial on Federal Prop 8 case

Lawdork reports,

An order was issued today by Judge Walker in the Perry federal Proposition 8 challenge brought by attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies. The court granted the intervention of the Proposition 8 proponents and continued the Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction....

The judge’s decision makes a lot of sense on two very basic levels: (1) an injunction of Proposition 8 would mean that, immediately and during trial, same-sex marriages would be taking place in California, which would raise many difficulties both legal and practical and (2) the issues involved in granting a preliminary injunction in a case like this are not likely all that different than those to be decided in the full consideration of the case. As such, this is not an altogether surprising decision from Judge Walker.

From the SF Chronicle:

Former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, one of the lawyers representing the two couples, said Tuesday that he was not disappointed by Walker's decision. Judge Walker, Olson noted, made a point of indicating in Tuesday's proposed order that gay couples have sufficient evidence to show they have been harmed by Proposition 8.

"We are very happy. What we have wanted all along is for this case to move expeditiously to a final judgment that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional," he said.

More commentary from Pam's House Blend gives a full background to this case.