DP's may stand in WI, but only because they are clearly "lesser"

Because we don't deserve EQUAL rights, oh no.

From the Advocate:

Wisconsin’s domestic-partnership registry does not violate the state constitution’s ban on same-sex marriage, a judge ruled Monday.

The decision is being touted as a victory for gay rights, although Dane County circuit judge Daniel Moeser’s ruling cites the fact that domestic partnerships, established in Wisconsin in 2009, convey far fewer rights and responsibilities than marriage.

“The state does not recognize domestic partnership in a way that even remotely resembles how the state recognizes marriage,” Moeser wrote. “Moreover, domestic partners have far fewer legal rights, duties, and liabilities in comparison to the legal rights, duties, and liabilities of spouses.”

The haters vow to fight because even a few rights for fags are too many.

And be assured, it is hatred. There's no other reason to attack total strangers.

DOMA defense update

Chris Geidner fills us in on the recent motion filed in the first DOMA case to be defended by the Congressional Republican caucus.

Background: the Obama Administration has decided that the Dept of Justice cannot defend DOMA, the defense of marriage act that renders my legal marriage federally invisible, because they believe it is unconstitutional. However, the law remains on the books and is still in force. Congressional Republicans have decided to spend your dollars on a private attorney to defend the indefensibly hate-filled DOMA. (Meanwhile, a repeal bill entitled the Respect for Marriage Act is moving slowly through Congress).

This particular DOMA case is of a legally married California woman, Karen Golinski, who has sought health insurance benefits for her wife from her employer, ironically the 9th Circuit Federal Court. The Court has actually supported Golinski but the Administration's Office of Personnel Management has refused to comply based on DOMA.

Now the case is a lawsuit, and Paul Clement, the attorney hired by the Republicans, will vigorously defend DOMA and attack same sex couples.

Treating us as second class, according to Clement, is justifiable because (1) gay marriage is new, (2) the whole procreation thing (he goes into Gallagher territory) and (3)

Finally, it bears emphasizing that DOMA’s effect is limited. DOMA only defines marriage for purposes of benefits—and burdens—, created by other federal laws. … Congress "did not penalize" same sex couples; it "decided not to offer them a special inducement."

I also find it interesting that he throws in a line about "political power" of gay rights supporters. You may recall that in the Prop8 trial, the relative powerlessness of LGBT people was contested.

Here's the ultimate test of power: do we have enough power to protect ourselves politically without the courts? do we have enough power to ensure our EQUAL TREATMENT under the law? DOMA and Prop8 prove that we so not.

There is no justification for DOMA and the deliberate harming of legally married same sex couples. None, except religiously-inspired bigotry, ignorance, hate and fear.

All of which will no doubt be given a glossy paint job by Attorney Paul Clement.

Why it Matters: Video Sunday

More from Archbishop Dolan

I've written elsewhere about the contrast between the Roman Catholic Archbishop of New York, the vehemently anti-gay Timothy Dolan, and the Episcopal Bishop of Long Island, the pro-marriage Larry Provenzano. As the battle over equality in New York continues, Abp Dolan speaks out some more, about Catholic efforts to carve out exemptions that let them use taxpayers' money to discrminate against those same tax payers.

He also makes it clear that he's not just against marriage. He's against any recognition of us and our relationships.

On Friday, Dolan described marriage equality advocates and their allies as “well-financed, well-oiled,” and he acknowledged that polls showing majority support cause the church “some concern.” Still, he said he believed the majority of "hardworking people" opposed the bill and that "there’s a good chance that this is not gonna pass this year.”

Although civil unions are not an option on the table for New York, Dolan also expressed opposition to them, saying, "Civil unions we worry about because we simply think it's a step toward the dumbing down of marriage.”

Dicker asked the archbishop about broader trends for Catholicism, prompting Dolan to mention Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

“What a great guy,” the archbishop said, adding that Admiral Mullen had told him that 41% of the people in the armed services are Catholic.

Reminded by Dicker that the armed services under Mullen are moving toward more acceptance of gays and lesbian through the repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, Dolan said, “I’m afraid they are too."

The institutional Catholic church is an implacable foe, even as individual Catholics remain strong supporters. So it's time, Catholics, to stop letting the Bishops use your money to attack us.

HIstoric UN resolution on gay rights

From the AP:

The United Nations endorsed the rights of gay, lesbian and transgender people for the first time ever Friday, passing a resolution hailed as historic by the U.S. and other backers and decried by African and Islamic countries.

The declaration was cautiously worded, expressing "grave concern" about abuses suffered by people because of their sexual orientation, and commissioning a global report on discrimination of gays. But activists called it a remarkable shift on an issue that has divided the global body for decades, and credited the Obama administration's push for gay rights at home and abroad with helping win support for the resolution.....

Backers included the United States, the European Union, Brazil and other Latin American countries. Those against included Russia, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and Pakistan. China, Burkina Faso and Zambia abstained, Kyrgyzstan didn't vote and Libya was earlier suspended from the rights body.

Down to the wire for marriage in NY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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...

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

From Prop8 trial tracker, some quotes from the opinion:

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

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

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

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

(Another) Federal Court finds against DOMA

No, not that one! Another case, not Prop8, in which a US Bankruptcy Court rules DOMA unconstitutional. Here's a case from CA where a married gay couple wanted to file bankruptcy, and went to court because they were not afforded the same treatment as a straight couple would be. The US Trustee opposed them. As the brief for the decision says,

As the Debtors state, “[T]he only issue in this Bankruptcy Case is whether some legally married couples are entitled to fewer rights than other legally married couples, based solely on a factor (the gender and/or sexual orientation of the parties in the union) that finds no support in the Bankruptcy Code or Rules and should be a constitutional irrelevancy.” Debtors’ Opp. 5:24–28. In this court’s judgment, no legally married couple should be entitled to fewer bankruptcy rights than any other legally married couple

The brief cites Att. Gen. Holder's letter that DOMA is unconstitutional. It cites the evidence from Perry v. Schwarzeneggar (the Prop8 federal case). It summarizes the arguments against equality clearly, finding the following reasons insufficient:

• Defending or nurturing the institution of traditional heterosexual marriage(the Debtors are already married to each other, and allowing them to proceed jointly in this bankruptcy case cannot have the slightest cognizable effect on anyone else’s marriage);
• Defending traditional notions of morality (the Debtors’ joint bankruptcy filing is in no sense discernible to the court to be a validly challengeable affront to morality, traditional or otherwise, under the Fifth Amendment); or
• Preserving scarce resources (no governmental resources are implicated by the Debtors’ bankruptcy case different from the resources brought to bear routinely in thousands upon thousands of joint bankruptcy cases filed over the years).

Accordingly, the Judge finds,

The Debtors have demonstrated that DOMA violates their equal protection rights afforded under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, either under heightened scrutiny or under rational basis review. Debtors also have demonstrated that there is no valid governmental basis for DOMA. In the end, the court finds that DOMA violates the equal protection rights of the Debtors as recognized under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.No one expressed the Debtors’ view as pertinent to this simple bankruptcy case more eloquently and profoundly than Justice William O. Douglas in the concluding paragraph of his opinion for the majority in Griswold v. Connecticut
, 381 U.S. 479, 486(1965):

We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not in political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects.Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.

Upon consideration of the pleadings and all other materials filed in this case, andfor good cause shown, the court finds that the Debtors satisfy every legal requirement to pursue their joint petition as filed pursuant to § 302(a). For the reasons stated herein and in the Debtors’ Opposition to the Motion and Debtors’ supporting authorities, the Motion to Dismiss Debtors’ chapter 13 case based on § 1307(c) is denied.

Hearing Today

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's hope.

Loving v. Virginia: video Sunday

It's the 44th anniversary of the landmark Loving v Virgina decision by the Supreme Court that overturned anti-miscegenation laws.

Voices of Faith Speak Out: Affirming Baptists

The Rev. Deborah Kohler, about Woodside Church in Flint MI

Woodside Church's main web page now prominently states "We are an Open and Affirming congregation welcoming into the full life and ministry of our church all persons, including those of every race, culture, age, gender, sexual orientation, ability and economic status. At Woodside Church, our diversity strengthens our faith. Our actions are a reflection of our Christian faith."

A lot of people said "we already accept everybody, why do we have to take an official stance?" I would say that was the biggest element of resistance. And the education that we needed to do that any church that considers themselves welcoming, unless you have an official stance and a rainbow out front, people who have been excluded have no way of knowing that they're really included....

We decided that part of the justice ministry is to stay in the system and keep standing up for what's right, so yes we did want to be Baptists....

And so technically, the UCC and ABC-USA denominations are not hierarchical, although I would say in manifestation the American Baptists act like they're authoritarian. We just stood up to them and said, "You can tell us you're kicking us out, but you can't kick us out. We're Baptists as long as we say we're Baptists and we can affiliate with whoever we as a congregation choose to affiliate. You all have something called Four Freedoms, and one of those Freedoms is the freedom of each individual and each congregation to interpret the Scriptures according to their faith-conscience. You can't tell us -- you have no authority over us." But ultimately they do.

So we found ministries in the ABC-USA that we can endorse. ...

So we continue to be a presence at the national denominational meetings. There are other Welcoming and Affirming Baptists, and we're in coalition with them. We actually joined an association called AWAB, The Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists. That's in addition to the UCC Coalition for LGBT Concerns.

H/T Pam's House Blend

Obama Administration moves on Medicare

From the Washington Blade:

The Obama administration is set on Friday to issue policy guidance to states expanding their ability to offer same-sex couples the same protections afforded to straight couples when they receive long-term care under Medicaid, the Washington Blade has learned exclusively.

Under the new guidance, dated June 10, states have the option to allow healthy partners in a same-sex relationship to keep their homes while their partners are receiving support for long-term care under Medicaid, such as care in a nursing home.

Medicaid kicks in for a beneficiary to receive care after an individual depletes virtually all of their money. To pay for the beneficiary’s expenses under Medicaid, a state could impose a lein, or take possession, of a beneficiary’s home to pay for Medicaid expenses.

However, federal law prohibits imposing this lein if beneficiaries are married to someone of the opposite-sex who’s still living in their home. The new guidance, signed by Deputy Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Cindy Mann, clarifies that states can offer this protection to the healthy partner of a Medicaid recipient in a same-sex relationship.

So if you are lucky enough to live in a friendly state, you may be able to keep your house.

If in an unfriendly state, thanks to DOMA, not so much--regardless of your marital status.

It's a start, though.

FIghting the lies

Alvin McEwan has written a great guide to take down The Lies of NOM.

The truth of the matter is marriage is not "under attack." It has never been "under attack."

But what is under attack is truth, integrity, and basic fairness for the hundreds of thousands of same-sex couples and especially their children who seem to be nothing more than chess pieces in NOM's game of exploitation and manipulation, as evidenced by the following talking point:

NOM - "Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose, they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us."

Truth - Allowing gays and lesbians to marry does not "redefine marriage" for the entire country because they are not forcing heterosexuals to engage in gay marriage. It's 100% false. And the gay community don't have a right to live as they choose, per the currently unequal laws of this nation in terms of employment, housing, etc.

Check out the rest of his points.

Yes, the FRC is a hate group

Here's a video compilation of the Family Research Council spewing the hate that got them listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. It's as well to remember what they really think of us.

H/T AmericaBlog Gay

Iowa Republican comes out for marriage

The question I have is why the heck they never do this while they're in office. From The Des Moines Register,

Five years ago [Jeff] Angelo, who did not seek reelection in 2008, co-sponsored a bill that would have launched a process to amend Iowa’s constitution and prohibit same-sex marriage.

Angelo has since said his former position on the issue was wrong. He has said his views have evolved because of his friendships with Iowans who have same-sex couples in their families. Those families deserve the same protections of marriage as similarly committed opposite-sex couples, he has said.

Out in America (video Sunday)

A new PBS show, on Wednesday at 8pm.

Watch the full episode. See more PBS Specials.

Emmy award-winning director Andrew Goldberg and PBS, in association with Oregon Public Broadcasting, today announced a new national PBS special, OUT in America. The one-hour film will make its national premiere on Wednesday, June 8 at 8:00 pm ET/PT on PBS, in conjunction with National Gay & Lesbian Pride Month.

OUT in America is an uplifting collection of unique, transformative stories and inspiring personal narratives told through the lens of the country's most prominent LGBT figures and pioneers, as well as many average, yet extraordinary, citizens from Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender communities.

You can also watch on line.

Who can you marry?

As I've said before, the shameful way the transgender community is treated in marriage points out the absurdity of laws forbidding loving couples from marrying. From ThinkProgress:

A Texas judge has officially signed his order voiding a marriage between a deceased firefighter and his transgender widow, having ruled in the case that because she was born male, the marriage was a “same-sex marriage” and not valid. Transgender Texans can use their official change-of-sex documentation to apply for a marriage license, so it’s currently unclear who exactly they are allowed to marry.

We are everywhere, but we aren't THAT many

The latest Gallup poll suggests that Americans think that nearly 25% of the population is LGBT. That's more than Jews, or even Catholics. Those with lower levels of education think the rate is even higher.

Probably about 3-5% of the population identifies as gay, and probably 10-15% have had some homosexual experiences.

To some extent, this may explain the increasing hysteria of NOM and the anti-gay crowd. I wish they would just get over it and realize we are about as threatening as a redhead.

THen again, there have been attacks on gingers, too.

Civil Unions in Illinois

Today, Civil Unions become legal in Illinois. Unlike California, you have to get a license and stand before a judge (none of this notarize-a-download-at-Kinko's-and mail-it-in crap.) Lakeesha Harris and Janean Watkins here were the first to get theirs. I know, I know, scary, aren't they? (From ThinkProgress).

Still, time the "antis" tell you it's about Marriage, the word, remember this.

Opponents of the Illinois civil unions law that takes effect this week want a referendum that allows people to vote on the measure.

The Chicago Tribune reports on demonstrations held in downtown Chicago on Friday between supporters and opponents of the new law, which would give same-sex couples in civil unions the same rights as married couples in the state.

It's not a surprise that the opposition is ratcheting up its rhetoric to be generally anti-gay. It's not about marriage. It's about US, simply being who we are.

Meanwhile, Congratulations! Some equality is better than none. But we will not rest till full equality is obtained. Those civil unions should be marriages. And Lakeesha and Janean should have all the 1400+ rights of a married couple.