Religious freedom (1): protection under the law

As the march towards full equality for LGBT people continues, those opposed are now cloaking themselves in the mantle of victimhood. They are claiming that somehow protection of a minority's rights infringes on THEIR liberty. I have never understood how being told you can't discriminate can be perceived as discrimination, but as Susan Russell often puts it, this is a bit like claiming sympathy for being an orphan after you've murdered your parents.

Yesterday the Supreme Court passed down a ruling giving broad protections to religious organizations that essentially exempt them from civil laws. This should put to rest the lies they tell. It won't, but it should. From the Daily Beast:

In its first major religious-freedom case in decades, the Supreme Court on Wednesday sided with a Pennsylvania Lutheran school that fired a teacher after she took disability leave for narcolepsy, then returned mid-year demanding her job back. ….
The court based its decision in Hosanna-Tabor v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on a long history of reverence for the “ministerial exception”—the idea that it violates the First Amendment for the state to interfere in who religious groups hire and fire. The decision hinged on a broad definition of “minister,” arguing that because she was ordained, considered “called” by God to her position, and collected religious-tax breaks, the teacher is the type of person religious groups should be able to select—and get rid of—without state interference. …

If you’d only been listening to the religious right for the past three years, this decision—especially the fact that it was unanimous—would come as a shock. ...

In the theoconservative imagination, almost everything the government does to ensure equal rights, especially for LGBT Americans, is a threat to religious liberty. Non-discrimination statutes could force churches or Christian businesses to hire gay employees. Legalized gay marriage could lead to churches being forced to conduct gay weddings. The end of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell could force chaplains not to preach against homosexuality.

But the Supreme Court’s decision in the Hosanna-Tabor case illustrates how overheated this alarmism has been. ...

It would be nice if this decision made it clear that they are lying, but it won't.  We'll continue to explore this meme of "Christian victimhood" in my next few posts.

Why it matters: together for 64 years

From NY Magazine:  

After 64 Years Together, Louis Halsey and John Spofford Morgan Finally Got Hitched....being gay was a great equalizer then. And being married is a great equalizer now. “People say, ‘So if you’re married, where’s the certificate?’ ” Lou explains. “Now we have it.” The pair ignored domestic partnership when it came along (“A halfway step,” says John), and since they had already invested in the complicated legal work-arounds—trusts, powers of attorney—needed to protect one another, they didn’t see the point of claiming marriage rights in, say, Iowa. But when the law passed here in June, they knew they would take the step. “Just to see it in black and white,” says Lou. For John, “it was more like finishing something.” 

The small ceremony, with a minister and three witnesses, was held in their Village apartment on November 11, a date they chose because they have for years noticed the time 11:11 on the clock by the bed. They did not exchange rings and got no gifts, “except bourbon!” Lou says. “But he”—he waves at John—“started to cry.” 

“Did I?” John wonders.

From NY Magazine

 And just how, pray tell, is the marriage of these old men together for 64 years going to hurt ANYONE else?

Marriage in New Jersey?

New Jersey has civil unions, but the courts there have determined that civil unions are not treated equally to marriage.  Remarkably, the New Jersey Democrats in the legislature have made marriage equality a top legislative priority.  The challenge will be the Republican governor, who is (of course) opposed:

The support from [Senate President] Sweeney marks a significant new advantage for the legislation, according to advocates. He declined to vote on the measure in 2010 when it failed by a 20-14, and has since called his abstention the biggest regret of his political career. Then governor Jon Corzine had promised to sign the bill if it reached his desk. 

“This is about doing what’s right and ensuring full equal and civil rights for all New Jerseyans,” said Sweeney. “Two years ago, I made a mistake in abstaining on marriage equality — a mistake that means same-sex couples continue to be denied the very basic civil right to live their lives as they wish. But today isn’t about me correcting my mistake, it’s about correcting a mistake for thousands of loving couples across the state who want nothing more than to be treated equally as their neighbors.”

So, an interesting year in equality.  Maryland and Washington are also pushing legislatively for marriage, while Minnesota and North Carolina are threatening constitutional amendments against.

Pro-family means ALL families, Mr Santorum

Conor Friedersdorf takes on Rick Santorum (my emphases):

 I presume everyone reading this post is either married or is close to someone who is married, whether it's parents or close friends or a boss or teacher or colleague. Think of that married couple. That family. Imagine if they got a letter in the mail informing them that by order of the federal government, their marriage is no longer valid. I submit that a man who would send out letters like that to gay and lesbian married couples does not deserve to be labeled as the candidate with the most pro-family agenda. His desire to invalidate the unions of people who are already married, some of whom have kids -- to invalidate existing families by federal mandate -- makes him arguably the least pro-family candidate, despite his other pro-family positions. 

The more than a quarter of a million families with a gay married couple at their core are not disconnected from American society. They have extended families: brothers and sisters, nieces and nephews, friends who come over every Thanksgiving -- and for all these extended families, for everyone who has a gay person in their extended family, Rick Santorum isn't a pro-family candidate, because he is hostile to their family as it actually exists, and would invalidate it by decree if he could. Are we to regard targeted tax cuts as the more important stance?

Taxes

With DOMA challenges,and the IRS recognizing same sex couples (sort of) in community property states, there were a number of tax-related developments for gay couples in 2011, leading to a long term trend of recognizing our families.

More resources at the Same Sex Tax blog.

YOu might want to forward these links to your accountant.

Trailer: Love is in the Air (video Sunday)

Another lesbian themed movie that hopes to become a web series.

Washington Governor comes out for equality

From the Advocate:

Sounding ready for a fight, Gov. Christine Gregoire announced today that she will press for passage of marriage equality in Washington during an upcoming special session. 

"It is time," she said. "It's over time for us to ensure gay and lesbian couples have equal rights, and that means marriage in Washington State." 

Washington's domestic-partnership law already grants many of the benefits that marriage would; it was often called the "everything but marriage bill" when it was being considered in 2009 and then when some tried to repeal it via Referendum 71 at the ballot box. But Gregoire repeatedly emphasized that her push for marriage isn't just about rights.
"I don't think about the legal protections of a marriage license," she said. "Instead I think about love, I think about commitment." 

Marriage, she said, is "not a contract." Gregoire argued that same-sex couples want the right to stand in front of their friends and family and marry just like she had done with her husband. Research from the Third Way has shown that arguments about commitment are more persuasive with voters than those about rights and benefits — which voters don't relate to as easily.

way to go, Governor!  Way to go, Washington!

Text and video here.

Why it matters, vs the bigotry of Rick Santorum

From my friend the Rev. Susan Russell's blog.  I'm sure she won't mind me quoting in full, this one's a keeper. 

This week I had sad news from two long time friends. One was a clergy colleague who lost his wife of 55 years to a long illness on New Year's Eve. The other was an ECW friend who lost her partner of 23 years on Christmas Day. 

Both are now coping with their own grief and loss while planning services to celebrate the lives of their beloveds as they claim the resurrection promise that in death life is changed -- not ended -- and the sure and certain promise that God's love never ends. 

And one of them is also having to deal with frozen assets in bank accounts while trying to pay funeral expenses; "proving" her next-of-kin status in order to carry out the last wishes of her beloved; facing the financial challenge of no "standing" in terms of Social Security survivor's benefits. 

Meanwhile, in Iowa, the Republican presidential poster child for political homophobia Rick Santorum proclaims: "Ask me what motivates me, it's been the dignity of every human life." 

Unless it's a gay or lesbian life. In which case, he argues that gay relationships “destabilize” society, wouldn’t offer any legal protections to gay relationships and has pledged to annul all same-sex marriages if elected president. 

Seriously. 

I know, I know. Everybody says the "Santorum Surge" is going to be short lived and he won't be able to stand the scrutiny of a front-runner and he's not electable ...and, and, and. 

And yet as my friend prepares bury her partner of 23 years, the airwaves are full of Santorum's anti-gay messages that have nothing to do with human dignity and everything to do with homophobic bigotry masquerading as Christian Family Values. 

No wonder Jesus wept.

Susan is an out lesbian, an Episcopal priest, and relentless advocate for LGBT equality.  NExt time someone tells you that "Christians" oppose marriage, remember Susan and the church she serves.

Hypocrisy alert from Catholic Bishops

Item 1:

The Hartford Archdiocese wants gays and lesbians to practice abstinence in the new year. 

On Tuesday, the archdiocese announced it was launching a local chapter of a national ministry called Courage "to support men and women who struggle with homosexual tendencies and to motivate them to live chaste and fruitful lives in accordance with Catholic Church teachings."... 

Item 2:

The pope has accepted the early resignation of a Los Angeles bishop who recently acknowledged being the father of two teenagers. 

Los Angeles Auxiliary Bishop Gabino Zavala, 60, resigned Wednesday ...
In a letter to the faithful, Los Angeles Archbishop Jose Gomez said Zavala had told him in December that he had two children who lived with their mother in a different state. Zavala subsequently submitted his resignation to the pope.

Do as I say, not as I do?

Why it matters: military families

Charlie Morgan is a married woman in active military service.  She has breast cancer.

Even with repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the pair face all sorts of limitations not imposed on opposite-sex military couples. Because of the Defense of Marriage Act, for example, Karen Morgan is denied health coverage worth well in excess of $10,000 a year. She also cannot get a base pass that would let her escort their 4 1/2-year-old daughter to medical appointments on base or shop at the commissary. 

These serial injustices are especially concerning now that Charlie Morgan’s cancer has returned. She worries about how her family will manage if she dies, since the law denies same-sex spouses death and survivor benefits. In the fall, she became a named plaintiff in a federal lawsuit challenging the Defense of Marriage Act’s denial of equal protection. 

“I have a question I’d like to ask John Boehner,” Charlie Morgan said, taking note of the House speaker’s decision to spend taxpayer money for lawyers to defend the act. “I’ve proved I’m willing to put my life on the line for my country. When will he allow the military to protect my family?

We're waiting, Speaker Boehner, and candidate Santorum.  Just how does  hurting Charlie's family "protect" marriage?

Rick Santorum wants to invalidate my marriage

From Think Progress, the latest from theocratic Roman Catholic Rick Santorum. As part of supporting an anti-marriage equality amendment for the Constitution, this man would annul all our marriages, because he doesn't consider them anything more than friendships. I can't think of anything else to say that expresses my horror at this disgusting proposal and the smug ass who suggests it.

Q: What would you do with same-sex couples who got married? Would you make them get divorced?

SANTORUM: Well, their marriage would be invalid. I think if the constitution says “marriage is this,” then people whose marriage is not consistent with the constitution… I’d love to think there’s another way of doing it.

He went on to claim that “same-sex couples can contract for everything” except government benefits and compared the loving marriages of many gay and lesbian couples to having a friend or an aunt.

Even Mitt Romney would grandfather in existing same sex marriages.  

Of course, Santorum has no chance to be president, but like all the Republicans, he's playing a hate-filled card here to appeal to the handful of social conservatives who participate in the Iowa Republican caucuses.   And they love this stuff. Because they consider us less than human, and our relationships less than human.  And it is deeply, deeply hurtful as well as frightening to realize that some of the people next to me in the train or in the market agree with him.

Listen, Rick Santorum: maybe this will make it clear to you.

  

update: Let's not forget something else.  Santorum is not only opposed to marriage equality.  He opposes legalization of sexual expression between adults and he opposes legal contraception.  Thus proving the old expression that heterosexism is just one room in the house that sexism built.

Winning the battle for morality

Linda Hirshman  writes in Salon that 2011 saw gay rights victories due to a surprise weapon:  morality.

How did they do it? They did it – and this is the lesson that the gay revolution holds for any progressive movement – not by asking for “tolerance.” They didn’t ask people to accept gay marriage by holding their moral noses. Rather, they set out to change change people’s minds about what is moral. 

Moral relationships are not about what sexual positions or organs are involved, the movement argued, no matter what the Bible said (or didn’t say) and no matter what Queen Victoria thought. Against the impermeable wall of religious sexual morality, the gay marriage movement fired the armament of other measures of morality. Sexual relationships are about relationships. What is the content of a moral relationship with another human being? 

The gay marriage movement told the stories of its courtships, invoking the ancient Platonic idea of love as the recognition of the goodness in the other person…. 

It was an uphill battle. For too long in America the subject of morality has been collapsed into sexual morality. For most of Western history, morality had richer content. Morality meant proper conduct regarding wealth, just as one example…. 

But as inequality rose, moral debates about economic justice fell until only sex was left as a subject for moral conversation. Worse, in response to the sexual revolution of the ’60s, moral sex was defined by a snapshot of the 19th century Protestant, monogamous, heterosexual, reproductive family. Same-sex sex was the definition of the immoral. Except for those uppity women wanting to abort their “babies,” it dominated the field. With the arrival of religious activists into U.S. politics in the ’70s, this religiously defined sexual morality was promoted as a proper subject for politics. 

Gay activists reversed this trend. Asserting their claim to marriage, gay activists told the predominantly straight world that there are more ways to think about morality than the Evangelical Christian morality of Victorian sexuality. And they were persuasive. When conservative lawyer Ted Olson, former solicitor general under President Bush, explained why he sued to establish gay marriage as a constitutional right,  he invoked the essentials of the activists’ argument: “We believe that a conservative value is stable relationships and stable community and loving individuals coming together and forming a basis that is a building block of our society, which includes marriage.” 

In this, as in so many things, the gay community were early adopters of the only strategy that beats the resurgent religious right: fight morality with morality. Once the category of morality was opened, every kind of debate became possible — and so did victory. It arrived in 2011.

Well, I'm not so sure about victory. But the gay rights movement is at its heart, deeply conservative.  It is very conservative to want to serve your country, get married, and contribute fairly to society.  Those aren't revolutionary, in fact completely the opposite.

Sure, there are gay folk who don't want that, who reject marriage as heterosexual patriarchy, and so on. Lots of straights don't want it either.

But increasingly, gay people want to be just regular neighbors, living their lives as part of what I like to call the "tapestry of community": just regular folks, not limited to a gayborhood or gay culture.  And supporting that is a deeply conservative argument.

Which just goes to show that there aren't a lot of conservatives left in the political world.

2011 Marriage Equality Year in Review (video Sunday)

Voices of Faith Speak Out: The Real Assault on Marriage

A conversation with Rev Dr Nancy E. Petty, Senior Pastor of Pullen Memorial Baptist Church in Raleigh, North Carolina.

“One of the actual threats to marriage in our society today...comes from people misusing the Bible to define marriage. If you look at the Old and New Testaments, you will not get one picture only of what constitutes marriage. In fact, often in the Bible, men had numerous wives, and women were bought and sold as property. The claim that the Bible defines marriage for today is false....

“The real assault on marriage is to be found in right-wingers’ support of inequality within marriage, with a man given more power than a woman. If you look at what Jesus said about relationships, he calls us into relationships that are loving, just, compassionate and equal. Where [anti-marriage activist] Crouse says that love is not the most important thing in a marriage, her argument is morally, spiritually and ethically bankrupt. The real assault on marriage is Crouse’s use of hateful language spoken in a total void of what love means. For obvious reasons, it does not work well, generally, for a homosexual person to marry a heterosexual one. Where one social group, feeling itself superior, is beating another group down in order to get ahead, that is not talking about what is of value in loving commitments, and it certainly is not an authentically Christian way of being. The foundational Christian message is to love one another.”

The Chicago Catholics and Religious Freedom

Enough with this religious freedom argument already!  As I've told you before, it is specious as well as illogical.

FACT:  you are all free to practice your religion any way you choose.   


Regardless of the hyperbole, no one is, or will, ever step foot into any church and force them to marry anyone they don't want to.  After all, the Roman Catholics are free to deny marriage to anyone divorced, even though marriage following divorce is civilly legal.  No divorcé is suing the church for marriage, are they?

• Actually, what they are doing is buying "annulments", kinda like indulgences, which is why serial adulterer and thrice-married Newt Gingrich is now a Roman Catholic.  Note to cardinals, do you really think Newt is the best examplar of the meaning of marriage?

What you are NOT free to do is:

• force anyone else to practice your religion.
  For example, lots of faith groups disagree with the Roman Catholics about who can marry. The Episcopalians allow divorced people to remarry in the church, and in many jurisdictions where it's legal, they allow LGBT people to marry, neither of which are allowed under of Roman Catholic doctrine. Same for the MCC, the UCC, the Lutherans, reform Jews, etc etc etc. These faith groups should be free to practice THEIR faith, not be forced to be unwilling Roman Catholics. 



• get the government to pay for it.
  Yes, we know that Catholic Charities in IL is shutting down, rather than let gay people adopt children-- but they do not have a constitutional right to federal funding.  Catholic charities are more than free to keep providing discriminatory adoption services, if they choose to pay for it.  They just aren't perfectly free to keep using my gay taxpayer's dollars to fund discrimination against other gay people. 

And let's be very clear; this is a choice.  As the NY Times points out, 

Taking a completely different tack was the agency affiliated with the conservative Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod, which like the Catholic Church does not sanction same-sex relationships. Gene Svebakken, president and chief executive of the agency, Lutheran Child and Family Services of Illinois, visited all seven pastoral conferences in his state and explained that the best option was to compromise and continue caring for the children.

That is, you can keep taking public money and compromise.  You can not take public money, and do as you please.  Or you can shut down and scream "martyr!"

Here's the basic fact: claiming that you are being discriminated against, if you are not allowed to discriminate against others, is like killing your father and claiming sympathy for being an orphan.

Update:  Jay Bookman, writing in the Atlanta Journal Constitution:

...the church is not being persecuted. It is not persecution to be held to the standards that are applied to every other contractor that does business with the state. To the contrary, the church is demanding “special rights” to violate the law and to use taxpayers’ money to do so.  

Gay in Michigan? The Governor wants you to leave

The right-wing Michigan Governor has outlawed health benefits for unmarried partners of government employees. From the Advocate:

A bill to end health insurance coverage for domestic partners of government workers in Michigan was signed into law today by GOP governor Rick Snyder....

“Governor Snyder’s support for this bill is appalling," Emily Dievendorf, director of policy for Equality Michigan, said in a statement. "Today, the governor told unmarried public employees that they can no longer care for their partners or children. He has put hardworking gay and lesbian couples and their children into harm’s way by eliminating important health care coverage. He has spent the last two years talking about creating a welcoming state with a attractive business climate, and this bill flies in the face of those goals."

This will particularly hit academic institutions, as I've described before.  Academics don't like working in places where there is institutionalized bigotry.  Good time to be picking up talented faculty from U-Michigan.  And since more and more companies support benefits (indeed, quite a large number of major firms are actively opposed to DOMA ), this will also hit the business climate.

So Michigan may be purer, but it will surely also be poorer.

The repeal of DADT: the lies they told

By now, you've seen this image, I'm sure, of the US Navy petty officer claiming the traditional right of the "first kiss" after the ship comes home.  It's a long tradition, with a twist:  this time it's two young women.  And no one really cares that they are a same-sex couple serving openly.  Far more important, as any servicemember will tell you, is that the sailor is home from the sea.

There has been little real response to DADT repeal. Indeed, the biggest thing to notice is how little it's been noticed.  A Marine officer goes to the Marine Ball with a boyfriend.   A decorated airman can finish his career honorably.   Even the Marine commandant who was originally opposed to repeal, is pleased at its results.  And I'm not particularly surprised.   Living in San Diego, I  know quite a few military, largely Navy but a few Marines, and they are above all professionals.  Of COURSE they've done what they should--it's what a professional force does.

And, frankly, sexuality is a non-issue to them, across the board-- from BP's cousin, an aviation technician from a carrier who danced at our wedding in his dress blues, to the young sailor my stepdaughter dated briefly, who had no issue with her gay parents or his gay colleagues (and yes, even before DADT repeal, he knew who they were), to the retired Navy Captain in his 80s who always greets us with a big hug, and asks how the battle for marriage equality is going.

Writing in the HuffPo, Nathaniel Frank challenges those who made dire predictions about DADT destroying the American military to admit they were wrong (emphasis mine):

During the years I spent researching and writing about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," I frequently pointed out that when other countries lifted their bans, nothing bad happened. But people weren't convinced that the same would hold true here. As my colleague Aaron Belkin has theorized, in the U.S., fear and anxiety about change had swelled into full-blown paranoia. And this sentiment was being exploited and inflamed by political opportunists. There is even firsthand evidence that military and cultural leaders exaggerated the threat to unit cohesion throughout the debate over "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," in an effort to give credibility to what was, at bottom, simple prejudice. 

....Throughout our history, opponents of equal treatment have insisted that it would wreak havoc on society, indeed that it would cause such grave disruptions that equality was an unacceptable threat to civilization. This "disruption" theory was wielded against African Americans, immigrants, women, gays and lesbians, and transgender people, to name a few. It is perhaps the sharpest tool in the arsenal of people who refuse to rise above passions and prejudice, but who know that they can't win their argument using religious and moral dogma alone. So they deploy arguments that sound secular and pragmatic -- equality will somehow harm kids, undermine the family, destroy civilization -- to mask what really amounts to feelings of discomfort, resentment or simple opposition to sharing first-class citizenship. 

The "disruption" theory was exactly what was applied -- and finally defeated -- in the effort to keep gay people from serving openly in uniform.... 

We hear that letting gay couples marry will disrupt the social fabric of American life, undermine marriage, kill a "culture of life," dry up the Western population, and threaten our civilization. If this is what was said about gay people serving openly (which it was), and if none of it happened, then the lesson is monumental: a culture of anxiety has become a politics of paranoia, which has pulled the wool over our collective eyes in service to maintaining an unjust status quo. Will we let it happen again and again and again? Will anyone be held accountable for steering us so terribly wrong?

And the other thing I'd like the naysayers to do is apologize to our military.  To assume dire consequences is to insult their professionalism.   Somehow, though, I think we'll be waiting a long time for that.

A reprise: coming out for Christmas (video)

From the London Gay Men's Chorus

Love makes a family (video Sunday)

Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays from our home to yours.

 The video is from MoveOn.

 

Voices of Faith: An open letter to homophobic Christian parents at Christmas

I'm lucky that my parents immediately welcomed my partner (now wife) into our family life. But lots of people aren't so lucky. Here's a letter by an MCC minister:

To be Christian means to seek to be like Jesus, to follow His teachings and example, right? That's what makes your rejection of your LGBT children and their partners so richly ironic. The good news is that the upcoming holiday season provides you with a perfect opportunity to take a step toward turning things around....

Of course, my mother wanted me to come “home” for Christmas – me and my children. But my partner was not welcomed. ...I desperately searched for some kind of compromise. ...She was so genuinely convinced that she was obliged to "take a stand" about my life and my relationship -- that she would not meet me any fraction of the way. I had to choose. And the "wrong" choice would break her heart.

But here's another great irony in all of this, my partner -- the very same person that my mother refused to allow to sit and break bread at her table on Christmas Day -- insisted that I go to my Mom's house for Christmas.....She said she didn't want my mother to have a heavy heart on Christmas Day because of my absence.

"If Jesus were the head of our family, sitting there at the head of the table Christmas Day, how would He have handled this?" Based on everything I've read about Him, every encounter He had with His society's "undesirables," every word that I've read that He said and what He oh-so-conspicuously did not say -- not one word about homosexuality -- I believe that when my partner dropped me and my kids off in front of my mother's house, He would have said to my partner, "Come on in. Have some dinner."

That's what I wish my mother had been willing to do. It will never happen now because my mother has passed away. I’ve gone from spending Christmas with my mother and without my partner to spending it with my partner and without my mother. The opportunity for me to spend Christmas -- or any time -- with the two most important women in my life in one room is gone.

If you are reading this, it’s not too late for you to give your son or daughter that gift. You don't have to understand his or her intimate relationship. You don't have to approve. Just hear this: Jesus clearly never saw spending time in the company of “sinners” and “undesirables” as condoning their behavior. Even He did not see Himself as too “holy” to hang out with them. So you, too, can be kind to your gay children and their partners without “condoning” anything you believe to be wrong. You can just love your child, and be open to the possibility of growing to love someone else who loves your child. It is not too late for you to give him or her that precious gift. Christmas is coming. Invite your child -- and his or her partner -- to come on in and have some dinner. Do that, because, -- in your heart -- you must know that Jesus would. Just be like Jesus. He is, after all, the One whose birth we will celebrate.