DOMA repeal a wedge issue--on the other side?

From TPM:

In the wake of President Obama's decision to drop support for portions of the Defense of Marriage Act, gay rights advocates have been unabashed in claiming that beyond the merits of their underlying argument they now have the political advantage as well. Not only does public opinion polling suggest they're right, but the reaction of gay rights opponents does, too.

On Wednesday, House and Senate Democrats held separate press conferences announcing the introduction of legislation to repeal DOMA. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), one of the sponsors of the House bill, was asked whether Democrats were politicizing gay rights as a wedge issue against the GOP, as Majority Leader Eric Cantor alleged last month.

"What do I say to the idea that this is a wedge issue? I say 'Hallelujah,'" Frank told reporters. "The fact that we've now evolved to the point where the Republicans are complaining about the fact that we introduced this bill because it causes them political problems is a great sign of progress. It used to be the other way around.".

We can but hope. I think it will be telling whether any REpublicans sign on. The teapartiers (who claim to support liberty and freedom of government intrusion) have, predictably, revealed themselves to be the same anti-gay extremists. You didn't REALLY think they were different, did you?

Movement for bi-national LGBT couples?

We've talked before about how bi-national LGBT couples can get caught in a terrible bind because of their immigration status. This is particularly striking for married couples, who (because of DOMA) cannot reside together.

Some slow progress is being made. From the Gay City News:

In what appears to be the first such action of its type, an Immigration Judge in Manhattan has adjourned deportation proceedings for the Argentine lesbian spouse of an American citizen to allow the couple to proceed with their application to have their marriage recognized for purposes of federal immigration law.

Monica Alcota, 35, who came to the US a decade ago, married her partner of nearly three years, 25-year-old Cristina Ojeda, last August in Connecticut.

The couple’s attorneys, Lavi Soloway and Noemi Masliah, argue that their clients’ marital status should qualify Alcota for permanent residency, as would be the case with any different-sex couple....

In a March 22 hearing in the US courthouse at 26 Federal Plaza in Lower Manhattan, Immigration Judge Terry A. Bain gave the couple the go-ahead to press their claim with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) –– a unit of the Department of Homeland Security –– through what is known as Form I-130, a petition to have Alcota recognized as “the spouse of USC.”....

Ojeda said Bain’s action “acknowledged our marriage,” and she added that when DOJ changed its posture on DOMA, she felt that President Barack Obama had “definitely” moved into the couple’s corner in their fight.

There is no way of knowing how long the DOMA litigation will go on, but it certainly will still be alive in December. It is also likely Ojeda’s I-130 application on Alcota’s behalf will still be working its way through USCIS –– or potentially through appeal of an adverse decision. In that event, Alcota’s next appearance before Judge Bain could amount to nothing more than a perfunctory status update and a further adjournment.

Of course, every day the couple can stay together is precious in their lives.

Now, let's note what this isn't. This isn't a recognition of their marriage, a green card, or a legal residency. It is simply a right to file a claim with the USCIS that they are married. That claim can still be denied.

But it's a step.

(H/T JCF)

New poll shows increasing support from Catholics

The Public Religion Research Institutedid a poll about the Catholic view on LGBT rights. (PDF). Here are some of the key findings.

• 74% of Catholics believe that gay relationships should be "accepted by society."
• Catholics favor legal recognition for same sex couples more than any other religious tradition. They approve of marriage (43%) or civil unions (31%). But when the distinction between civil marriage and religious matrimony is made explicit, 71% of Catholics favor marriage rights.
• Catholics also favor other LGBT rights issues, and give their church poor grades in its handling LGBT issues. They understand that sexuality is not "curable" (69%), And 56% agree that sexual relationships between gay people are not sinful.
• A large number of Americans are ex-Catholics (including yours truly), and many of these report leaving in part because of Catholic teachings about homosexuality.

So while the Vatican fulminates against recognition of the gays, let's remember the disconnect between the institutional church and the people in the pews. There's a strong tradition of social justice in the Roman Catholic church in this country, which has been oppressed by the bishops in their railing about abortion and the gays. We should continue to reach out and witness to Roman Catholic believers, because while their church may be in opposition, they emphatically are not.

From NPR:

"Most American Catholics believe that one can be a good Catholic and disagree with the Vatican and the bishops on issues of personal conscience," said [Dr. Michelle Dillon, professor of sociology and chair of the Sociology Department at the University of New Hampshire]. "Gay-marriage has clearly become another issue, along with artificial contraception and divorce and remarriage, which Catholics believe is not core to what it means to be Catholic."

Vatican opposes UN statement: better dead than wed.

Predictably, the Vatican is outraged at the new UN statement. We've been here before. The Vatican believes that a resolution that specifically criticizes violence against gays, somehow impinges on THEIR rights. The only right it impinges on is their ability to advocate for imprisonment and violence.

We've seen it before. I call it the "Better Dead than Wed" policy.

My next post will show you how out of step the Vatican is with American Catholics.

BREAKING: 9th circuit will not lift stay

As you may recall, Judge Walker's decision finding Prop8 unconstitutional did not change anything in CA. Pending appeal, a stay was filed, so that LGBT couples cannot marry. The court was asked to lift the stay, and today refused.

So, people who are not at all injured by same sex marriage (the supporters of Prop8) are more important than loving LGBT couples who are materially and significantly injured by PropH8.

Because protecting their bigotry matters more than our relationships.

UN statement on LGBT Rights supported by Obama Administration

Poliglot tells us that the White House and State Department have released statements about international LGBT rights.
From the White House Statement:

President Obama believes that advancing the human rights of minorities and the marginalized is a fundamental American value...

Over the past months our diplomats have been engaged in frank, and at times difficult, conversations about the human rights of LGBT persons with governments from around world. This morning, at the United Nations Human Rights Council, some 85 countries joined the United States in reaffirming our joint commitment to end acts of violence and human rights abuses on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. The President is proud of the work we have done to build international consensus on this critical issue and is committed to continuing our determined efforts to advance the human rights of all people, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity

.

From the Secretary of State:

Today, 85 countries from every region of the world joined together in a historic moment to state clearly that human rights apply to everyone, no matter who they are or whom they love.

The United States, along with Colombia and Slovenia, took a leading role on this statement along with over 30 cosponsors. Countries around the world participated including many that had never supported such efforts. And we hope that even more countries will step up, sign on to the statement and signal their support for universal human rights.

This statement is an example of America’s commitment to human rights through dialogue, open discussion and frank conversation with countries we don’t always agree with on every issue. In Geneva, our conversations about the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals with countries where sexual orientation is not only stigmatized, but criminalized, are helping to advance a broader and deeper global dialogue about these issues.

As I said last June, gay rights are human rights and human rights are gay rights. We will continue to promote human rights around the world for all people who are marginalized and discriminated against because of sexual orientation or gender identity. And we will not rest until every man, woman and child is able to live up to his or her potential free from persecution or discrimination of any kind.]

Hey Uganda, are you listening?

Golinski DOMA challenge: setback, or new chance?

Karen Golinski, an employee of the 9th Circuit Federal COurt, has been trying to get spousal benefits for her legal wife. The latest is a setback. The SFGate tells us,

A...Karen Golinski, won a ruling in 2009 from another judge, Alex Kozinski of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where Golinski has worked for nearly two decades.

Kozinski, acting as administrator of the court's benefits system, said its coverage extends to all employees' legally married spouses, including Amy Cunninghis, whom Golinski wed in 2008 before California voters banned same-sex marriage.

But the Obama administration's Office of Personnel Management refused to comply, saying it was bound by the Defense of Marriage Act, the 1996 law denying federal benefits to same-sex couples....

Golinski sued the government to enforce Kozinski's order, but U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White of San Francisco ruled against her Wednesday. White said Kozinski was not acting as a judge and had no power to overrule the government's personnel office, which oversees health care for federal employees.

White, an appointee of President George W. Bush, said the Defense of Marriage Act includes a requirement to "unfairly restrict benefits." But he said he was ruling only on a question of judicial authority and not on the constitutionality of the law.

He gave Golinski until April 15 to recast her suit in a way that might overcome the procedural obstacles. Her lawyer, Jenny Pizer of the gay rights group Lambda Legal, said she would refile the case as a challenge to the 1996 law.

"This may, in the long run, enable Karen and Amy to have equal treatment sooner and hold onto it when they get it," Pizer said.

New Poll: ABC/WaPo

By now you may have heard about the recent ABC/Washington Post poll, which joined a series of other polls in showing that marriage equality now polls at more than 50% approval (53% in this one).

More than half the country now agrees that same sex marriage should be legal.

It's pretty amazing, isn't it. On the issue of inter-racial marriage, which was legalized in 1967 by Loving v. Virginia, , it took until the 1990s!!!! for half of America to think it was okay for blacks and whites to marry. 25 years after it became legal. Same sex marriage is illegal in more than 30 states.

But the rate of change is amazing. I graphed the individual data for you. Look at the Catholics and MainLine protestants -- support is really growing there. Even the Evangelicals are showing progress.

Here are the data for approval of same sex marriage:



As Steve Benen wrote,

But even the most radically anti-gay conservative has to realize that equality is inevitable. As the arc of history continues to bend toward justice, most of the country now believes two consenting adults should be legally permitted to get married if they want to. It's exceptionally unlikely that trend will ever reverse -- civil-rights trajectories simply never move that way. Society becomes less prejudiced, less hateful, and less bigoted over time.

Oh, and the picture? If you Google images for "arc of history bends toward justice" this is at the top. And the reason that cracks me up, is that's me! with my rainbow sparkly "Arc of History" sign that has been my trusty companion at marriage equality marches since 2008. I look forward to being able to put it away for good. Meanwhile--keep an eye out for me. :-)

Repealing DOMA (video sunday)

Both House and Senate repeal bills have been introduced. They won't pass, but it's a start.

Voices of Faith Speak Out: Don't be wedded to every tradition

From The Rev. Douglas Long, of the United Church of Christ:

In truth the real shame is our ignorance. That we codify inequality is troubling enough but, as a Christian minister, there is a Biblical claim often made by my fundamentalist friends that must not go unchallenged. They claim the Bible teaches their view of "traditional marriage."

It does not.

As one who regularly officiates at weddings, I can assure you that one must choose carefully when citing scripture in this arena.....

The truth of the matter is that the Bible is not a good source supporting monogamous and mutual marriage that our society and culture has evolved to embrace.

More systematically than considering a favorite passage here and there, Vaughn Roste, the son of two Canadian Lutheran pastors with a seminary degree of his own, has undertaken a comprehensive study of passages in the Bible, researching more than 800 Biblical references that deal with marriage. He distilled from that study what he refers to as "The 12 Biblical Principles of Marriage." In summary, in the Bible:

• Marriage consists of one man and one or more women.
• Nothing prevents a man from taking on concubines in addition to the wife or wives he may already have.
• The concept of a woman giving her consent to being married is foreign to the biblical mindset.
• If a woman cannot be proven to be a virgin at the time of marriage, she shall be stoned

For those who claim these are all Old Testament laws and that the New Testament supersedes them, consider in the New Testament that:

• Women are allowed to marry the man of their father's choosing ... because women are the property of their father until married and their husband afterwards.
• Interfaith marriages are prohibited.
• If a man dies childless, his brother must marry the widow
• Divorce is forbidden, and finally ...
• It's better, according to St. Paul, to not get married at all.

The point is this, anyone can pick and choose a verse or phrase from the Bible which, taken alone and literally, will appear to support their argument. While people of the Judaic-Christian tradition may disagree on the propriety of same-gender marriage, can we at least agree to not misuse the Bible in the process?

Those of us who consider ourselves progressive Christians value the Bible too. It is a huge part of the spiritual witness leading us to understand that all people are God's people, that every child is holy and that every person is part of the sacred family. We believe that God's love embraces all, and that to exclude any person would be contrary to the message of Jesus - and we joyfully welcome committed same-gender couples among us just as fully as we do committed couples composed of men and women.

Gay teen suicides are an act of radical activism. Really.

Baylor College is a evangelical university in Waco, TX. The students there would like a collegiate version of a gay-straight alliance. The university will not allow it. (As a private university, they have substantial leeway on issues of speech). From Change.org:

Need proof for why students on campus ought to have an outlet like the Sexual Identity Forum to discuss issues in a safe space free from rabid rhetoric or language that denies LGBT any sense of dignity? Take a look at an email Professor Francis Beckwith sent students about the Sexual Identity Forum, where he compares the idea of recognizing an LGBT group on campus with recognizing the work of Klansmen or Skinheads.

"The freedoms of speech and assembly to which you appeal are legal rights in relation to the government. Baylor is not the government. So, its policy on the proper use of our sexual powers is no more impeding your right to speech or assembly as it is impeding the rights of Klansmen and Skinheads to speak and assemble on campus," said Professor Beckwith.

Don't you just love how a group like the Sexual Identity Forum -- which really wants to just create a safe space for students of all walks of life to talk about things like bullying, suicide, and harassment -- all of a sudden magically becomes this political group capable of overturning Baylor's religious history? Prof. Beckwith continues in the note, suggesting that terms like "LGBT suicide" and "bullying" are actually political terms meant to push a radical gay rights agenda.

"Although you describe your forum as 'respectful,' the terms you employ for discussion are not respectful. They reveal a deep hostility to those who believe that homosexual conduct is disordered: 'hate crimes,' 'homophobia,' and 'LGBT suicide.' Each of these terms has been employed numerous times in the public square to intimidate and marginalize many of my brothers and sisters in Christ who as a matter of conscience cannot cooperate with the approval of homosexual conduct, since they believe such conduct is deleterious to the good of the human person," Prof. Beckwith adds.

Wow. Just wow. So it's not the bullying by people who hate gays, or the physical violence that some do in the Lord's name against LGBT people that deserves condemnation, according to Prof. Beckwith. Its gay rights activists who, in simply talking about hate crimes or suicide, marginalize Christians.

Prof Beckwith's entire email is a piece of work. He's a devout Catholic, by the way. Love how he co-opts the term "Christian", once again suggesting that all Christians are monolithic on this subject. But along with Change.org, I'm really amazed that LGBT suicide is a act of homosexual radicalism. I'm still shaking my head over that one.

Defending DOMA

Now that the DoJ has decided that they will not defend clause 3 of DOMA (which forbids federal recognition of legal marriages), Speaker Boehner and the House Republicans have decided to mount their own defense with YOUR tax dollars.

The HRC did a poll to ask whether people wanted them to do this. The answer is, NO.


Moreover, the people they polled did not particularly care of same sex couples received federal benefits.

Remember about 50% of Americans support marriage equality, so these polls are not surprising.

So why is the Speaker going to defend the indefensible?

Meanwhile, efforts to repeal DOMA in Congress are underway.

Not mine, yours (Cartoon)

The costs of DOMA

As the DOMA wars heat up, it's worth focusing on the costs of DOMA. LGBT elders are severely disadvantaged when their marriages are not recognized. From social security to Medicare to pensions and IRAs, simply being gay, even if legally married, is enough to deprive you of help that a straight couple would have.
From Reuters

Many employment benefits are geared to employee earnings history. But married couples often can take advantage of policies that allow lesser-earning spouses to tap the benefits of the higher-earning partner. That option often isn’t available to LGBT couples – including those who reside in one of the five states (and District of Columbia) that currently have legalized marriage for same sex couples. That’s because the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) of 1996 defines the word “spouse” as applying only to different-sex married couples for any purpose involving interpretation of federal law.

My Dad recently died and fortunately my mom will be taken care of. But a gay couple in the same community, even if legally married, will have none of the spousal benefits that my Mom will have.

This is the kind of story that makes it clear that opposition to equality is doing real damage to real people. And for what reason? How does depriving someone spousal benefits "protect marriage"?

THe hyposcrisy of opposition to same sex marriage

(reposted from last week)
WE saw George W Bush and his schemers use The Gays as a boogey man to energize the right, to our cost. It's a pretty deliberate scheme, and it still goes one...but what it leads to is a fundamental hypocrisy. From the LA TImes

Social conservatives say they're trying to address the problems of family breakdown, crime and welfare costs, but there's a huge disconnect between the problems they identify and the policy solutions they propose. It's almost like the man who looked for his keys on the thoroughfare, even though he lost them in the alley, because the light was better....

As a 2009 Heritage Foundation report stated, children born to single mothers "score lower on tests, have increased chances for committing a crime, have higher chances of living in poverty, experience more emotional and behavioral problems, are more likely to abuse drugs or alcohol and have higher chances of becoming pregnant as teens." And social problems like that do tend to lead to higher government spending.

But those problems have nothing to do with abortion or gay marriage, the issues that social conservatives talk most about.

Abortion may be a moral crime, but it isn't the cause of high government spending or intergenerational poverty. And one thing gay couples are not doing is filling the world with fatherless children. Indeed, it's hard to imagine that allowing more people to make the emotional and financial commitments of marriage could cause family breakdown or welfare spending.

A coming out story (video Sunday)

Voices of Faith Speak Out: Enough God to go around?

Commentary from the Guardian (UK). Backstory: the Church of England, cousin to the American Episcopalians, is having a hard time dealing with same sex partnerships, which are called "civil partnerships" in the UK. It wants to prevent other faith groups from celebrating them.

[T]he religious liberty defence has a patronising and hollow ring to it when Quakers and Reform Jews are asking precisely for the liberty to register and bless civil partnerships in their own places of worship. They do not need Anglican or Roman Catholic bishops to "save them from themselves" – especially since both our churches have a shameful history of persecuting these very same faith groups.

So why does the liberty to introduce God into civil partnership ceremonies devalue marriage? It would appear that there just isn't enough of God to go around. One cannot, apparently, honour and bless one pattern of living a faithful and committed life, without somehow devaluing another. It is the theological equivalent of printing too much money.

Western Christianity has been here before. ...When the religious life in the Church of England, pulverised at the Reformation, came back into its corporate life in the middle of the 19th century, many Victorian Anglicans saw it precisely in the same way: as a rival to marriage because it offered another sanctified, or blessed, way of Christian living. It introduced an element of "competition" into a spiritual monopoly.

The revival of the religious life in Anglicanism, and the honoured place it now has, goes to show how we can as a church change our mind and rectify our mistakes. It also goes to show that there really is enough of God to go around; that different ways of faithful living do not compete with each other but add to the enrichment of the whole. Gay and lesbian people of faith actually want God's blessing at an important time of public commitment. So much for aggressive secularism.

Stability, love, faithfulness, commitment: these are the things in human relating that matter and the things the Church of England should be doing its best not to disparage or demonise but to foster and celebrate – in short, to bless. There really is enough of God to go around.

Overview: the six DOMA cases

From Equality Matters. Check their site for detailed information about the progress of each case.

The nature of violence

The talented blogger Rob Tisinai points out the bigotry of NOM . Brian Brown, NOMs director, writes,

Even I, who’ve heard pretty much everything at this point, was a little shocked to hear one gay marriage supporter say:

“It would be less harmful to me if you would just beat me up in a dark alley. It would be less hurtful to me if you would just spray paint the word f—-t on my garage door. Nothing you could do to me physically would be more hurtful to me than the action you are proposing to take with this resolution.”

If you and I disagree with him about marriage, we are hurting him as much as–more than–if we insulted and beat him?

Does Brian Brown REALLY not get it? As Tisinai writes,

So let me ask Brian: Which would hurt you more — getting beaten up in an alley or having your marriage declared invalid? Having a nasty word spray-painted on your garage door, or never being allowed to marry the one you love?...

See, Brian, the words that so shocked you feel less like emotion-driven unreasonableness and more like a plain and sensible statement of fact.

But you know what really struck me, Brian? You listened to this man’s words — his perfectly reasonable words — and heard in them an accusation of hatred and bigotry. But the man said no such thing. You did. You made that connection all by yourself.

So perhaps now you understand why some of us view you this way.

If that's where Brian is, that he doesn't understand how vile and vicious it is to deny someone the love of their life, how beyond brutality, then he doesn't understand anything. It is further proof that he is unable to see us as fully human, in any way the same as he. Or perhaps he's just too fond of his lucrative business.

Roman Catholics prepare new onslaught in California.

LGBT POV reports there was a private summit of California Catholic leaders about a new plan to "defend and promote marriage" in 2011.

The Catholic leaders are
"“concerned about efforts to redefine marriage to accommodate same-sex couples, but understand this is just a symptom of a much larger problem that is touching nearly every family. The fundamental understanding of love, human sexuality, marriage and family is insidiously being corrupted by popular culture, teachers, and indoctrination programs in schools every day. Marriage is breaking down with huge social consequence for the 41% of children who are born to unmarried mothers today and many other victims of divorce.”

And of course, it is all the fault of The Gay. Because LGBT people marry, women have out of wedlock children and divorce is rampant.

I really, really wish someone could explain link this to me. How does my marriage cause unwed childbearing?