Mayors for Marriage

From the LA Times:

San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders is set to appear at a Friday news conference in Washington with other mayors to announce the Mayors for Freedom to Marry campaign to win support for same-sex marriage nationwide. 

Sanders will be joined by L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and the mayors of Boston, Chicago and Houston. Campaign organizers said that 70 Republican, Democratic and independent mayors support the effort

Mayor Sanders, a Republican, "came out" for marriage in the run up to Prop8, to the consternation of his supporters.  His daughter is a lesbian, and he realized that he could not in good conscience support efforts to keep her from marrying.  He's been a great ally on this issue, one of the old-fashioned Republicans that way.  I don't necessarily agree with the rest of his politics, but admire him for this.

Are Conservatives coming around about equal protection?

As you may have noticed, it's a trend of the conservatives particularly on the Supreme Court to trumpet their fidelity to the "original intent" of the writers of the Constitution. This allowed the gob-smacking conclusion that women weren't covered by the Equal Protection of the 14th Amendment--because they weren't equal, back then.

But apparently, they are coming around to realize the Equal Protection applies to everyone, after all.  And this is relevant, because the main challenge against DOMA right now is on equal protection grounds.... and the main challenge to Prop8 is also on those grounds.

From Slate:

[A] significant reassessment of the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause ... is transforming the debate over the Constitution. This debate, which is happening in conservative legal and academic circles, could have a dramatic impact on the outcome of critical cases—including Perry v. Brown, the challenge to California’s Proposition 8 and the denial of marriage equality to gay men and lesbians. ... 

What conservatives such as Olson and Calabresi have slowly been recognizing is that it is inappropriate to look to the intentions of the Framers of the 14th Amendment to trump the actual text they wrote, the cardinal sin in constitutional interpretation if ever there were one. It is the text that guides and binds judges, and the text of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment broadly supports protection of fundamental rights and equality under the law for all persons, not just former slaves. In ratifying the 14th Amendment, the American people redeemed the Constitution from the sin of slavery by adding to our foundational charter a universal guarantee of equality, covering every person in the United States. As Calabresi emphasizes, under the original meaning of that text, all systems of caste and subordination violate the 14th Amendment. 

... Calabresi’s (and Ginsburg’s) central argument is that the 14th Amendment prohibits states from enacting legislation treating any persons as a subordinate caste. That’s precisely the argument Ted Olson has advanced and the district court accepted in Perry: States violate the Equal Protection Clause when they treat gay men and lesbians as second-class persons, unworthy of having their loving relationships recognized by the law. Calabresi’s account, unwittingly perhaps, make a powerful case for marriage equality as a matter of fundamental constitutional principle. 

Second, the emerging consensus and embrace of originalism by Justice Ginsburg reflects just how rapidly the debate over constitutional interpretation is shifting. Her willingness to acknowledge that fidelity to constitutional text leads to greater equality is a signal that originalism isn’t the sole province of conservatives anymore. The inevitable result: One by one, the shibboleths of the right about the “original” meaning of the Constitution are being discredited, while progressives increasingly embrace the Constitution’s text and history. This methodological meeting of the minds is what allows liberal/conservative partnerships possible, such as the pairing of Ted Olson with the far more liberal David Boies on the Perry litigation team.

RC BIshops try to give secular reasons for opposing marriage equality

 There is a real chance that marriage equality will be passed legislatively in Washington state and signed by a supportive governor.

 So of course, the Roman Catholic bishops are desperately trying to stop it. Of course, they are hindered by the fact that most of their flock support recognition of gay relationships.

 Meanwhile, as reported in Pam's House Blend, the bishops are making their argument thusly:

 …the definition of marriage is related to bringing children into the world and the continuation of the human race. The legislation to redefine marriage, therefore, is not in the public interest. 

 Yes, because if gay people marry, straight people will throw up their hands in disgust, and stop having children. The argument is ridiculous on the face.

 Moreover, the bishops ignore that the lack of marriage hurts the children of gay parents. The PHB columnist goes on to note that 41% of births in this country are to unmarried women. So the way to promote marriage and families is….to deny marriage?

  WRites one columnist in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer

 The best advice, which Catholic bishops in Washington and elsewhere should heed, came recently from Nicholas Cafardi, formerly legal counsel to the Diocese of Pittsburgh and formerly a board member of the bishops' National Review Board for the Protection of Children and Youth: 

"We need to give it up. This is not defeatism. This is simply following Jesus in the Gospels, who besides telling us not to act on our fears, also told us to render to Caesar what it Caesar's and to God what is God's. Civil marriage is Caesar's."

Are Gay Parents the Best Parents?

From Live Science:

while research indicates that kids of gay parents show few differences in achievement, mental health, social functioning and other measures, these kids may have the advantage of open-mindedness, tolerance and role models for equitable relationships, according to some research. Not only that, but gays and lesbians are likely to provide homes for difficult-to-place children in the foster system, studies show. (Of course, this isn't to say that heterosexual parents can't bring these same qualities to the parenting table.) [5 Myths About Gay People Debunked]...

research suggests that gay and lesbian parents are actually a powerful resource for kids in need of adoption...

The bottom line, Stacey said, is that people who say children need both a father and a mother in the home are misrepresenting the research, most of which compares children of single parents to children of married couples. Two good parents are better than one good parent, Stacey said, but one good parent is better than two bad parents. And gender seems to make no difference. While you do find broad differences between how men and women parent on average, she said, there is much more diversity within the genders than between them....

If same-sex marriage does disadvantage kids in any way, it has nothing to do with their parent's gender and everything to do with society's reaction toward the families, said Indiana University sociologist Brian Powell, the author of "Counted Out: Same-Sex Relations and Americans' Definitions of Family" (Russell Sage Foundation, 2010).

Bye June: Shades of Purple (video Sunday)

Stay swans, everyone.

Religious freedom (3): the myth of persecution

The right wing likes to claim that we are a Christian country and they are right.  Christian language and Christian symbols are part of our everyday life. We even have state holidays on Christian feast days,  But at the same time, we have an explicit protection of religious freedom that is intended to give those of faith broad latitude to practise their religion peacefully, and not to impose it on anyone else.  We protect minority religions.  And never forget, the biggest growing group in American faith is the "nones".  

What they are NOT allowed to do is inflict their religion on anyone else.

But the GOP, and particularly Newt Gingrich, have decided that Christians are more persecuted than gay Americans.  (That's Newt's big thing, now that the campaign has moved to South Carolina.)

Because, of course, Christians can't mention their religion at work, or in the military…. they need to keep it in the closet.  They can't marry…. they are scorned on the street, subject to violence….

Yeah, right.

Okay, so it's time for Christians who know this is nonsense to stand up to this.  I'm calling on all of you who claim "Christian" to write your paper, speak up to your neighbor, and encourage your church leadership to speak up to say,

Enough of this nonsense! You do not speak for me, Newt Gingrich, or Archbishop Timothy Dolan!

BECAUSE we are Christians, we support the full civil rights of LGBT people!
Because if you let them keep telling the lies, without challenging them, they will get away with it.

So, come on, whether you are a Bishop or a pew-sitter, speak out.  Talk to the news, talk to your neighbors.  Push back!  Claim the title of Christian and push back!

Religious Freedom (2): The mendacity of Cardinal Dolan

USA today

People who tell  lies get away with it because those who know better do not challenge them.  We need to call them out wherever possible.

This lie come to us from  Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York,  an avuncular engaging and highly intelligent man who will soon be elevated to Cardinal.

He is a passionate opponent of rights for gay people.    Speaking about the recent passage of equality in New York, Abp Dolan tells lies:

But "no sooner was the ink dry,"[Dolan] said, than priests throughout the state started coming to him with stories of couples threatening to sue if they didn't agree to rent out their parishes for same-sex weddings.

This is prima facie a lie.  It's not possible.  Why?  Because the NY equality law explicitly states:

…[A] religious entity  … shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage.  Any such refusal to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges shall not create any civil claim or cause of action or result in any state or local government action to penalize, withhold benefits or discriminate against any such religious corporation, benevolent order or not-for-profit corporation.

Abp Dolan knows perfectly well that he has full freedom to refuse to marry anyone for any reason.  After all, his church considers civil marriages between divorced people to be invalid and refuses to perform them.  Yet you don't seem him advocating to prevent such civil marriages, or claiming that the divorced are suing to get into his churches.

While the US Conference of Catholic Bishops attempts to enforce Roman Catholic dogma on civil law, it's important to pushback against their efforts to claim victimhood.  Religious liberty is not being infringed.  Indeed, it's being protected.  What's being curtailed is his  privilege of claiming that the Roman Catholics speak for all.

They do not.   Many many faithful Christians disagree with Abp Dolan, including a majority of his own laity who support marriage equality!


Archbishop (soon Cardinal) Dolan has used offensive comparisons to describe gay people, and written threatening letters to President Obama demanding that gay people should not have the civil right to marry.  But the only religious freedom being crushed is the the religious freedom of LGBT people who worship in supportive religious denominations that support marriage equality.

Abp Dolan is free to oppose marriage equality.  But if he uses lies and degrading language, we need to keep calling him out on it.  Politely, but firmly.

Update:  he's none too nice to child abuse victims either.  Read the shocked comments to this post on Abp Dolan's blog.

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)