Text of opening statement (Olson)

here.

Follow live blogging here
Twitter feed here
hashtag #prop8

PROP 8 TRIAL BEGINS TODAY (updated)

What it's about: A challenge to Prop 8 under Federal constitutional guarantees of equal protection is underway (Perry V. Schwarzeneggar). This case will be heard by Judge Vaughn Walker of the US District (Federal) Court and the trial begins today. Live twitter feed here.

Why it's different than the previous case: Previous challenge to Prop8 was based solely on California Constitutional issues about the legality of amending the state constitution. It did NOT involve federal issues and was heard by the state Supreme Court. The California court ruled, with some regret, that California's misguided constitution allows any minority's rights to be abolished by popular vote. Federal constitutional issues were not addressed.

Why it's risky: This case will certainly be appealed up to the US Supreme Court, which is still very conservative. A setback from the Supreme Court could set back marriage rights for a generation or more. A win would be amazing!

Crucial Questions:

• Are GLBT people a protected class? (think protections of race, or of religious practice)
• Were the proponents of Prop8 motivated by legitimate concerns, or by animus against GLBT people?

Previous posts on this topic from this blog

MOre background from The SF Chronicle ,and What's at stake, from the American Prospect

More info from these sites:
The Court's webpage on this trial
LGBTPOV
Law Dork
American Foundation for Equal Rights

There's a delayed broadcast of proceedings on this YouTube video

Update: Supreme court blocks Youtube broadcast, at least for now.

UpdateFrom the defense counsel: "Marriage is socially approved sexual intercourse."

Oh, so THAT'S all it's about!

Their argument is going to be based on procreation, and on the reduced marriage rates in the Netherlands. (Caused by gay marriage!) I'm so frustrated at these people ....!

Prop 8 trial will have delayed internet video

From The SF Chronicle:

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco ordered the video coverage, the first for a federal trial in California, over the objections of Proposition 8's sponsors. Their lawyer argued that allowing the proceedings to be viewed outside the courthouse would violate their right to a fair trial by intimidating their witnesses.....

Lawyers for the couples supported video coverage. "What happens in the courtroom is public property," attorney Theodore Boutrous told Walker.....

The videotape will be posted on a YouTube site as soon as possible...

Prop8 defendant wants out

From the AP:

SAN FRANCISCO – An outspoken gay marriage opponent serving as an official litigant defending the state's ban on same-sex weddings on Friday asked a judge to remove him from the lawsuit because he feared the trial would generate publicity that could endanger him and his family.

This is their new thing, claiming that bands of tastefully dressed homos are going to assault them in public. Please. There's no evidence for that, at all. The only people arrested at the protests *I'VE* been to have been the other side. But there's more:

Hak-Shing William Tam was one of five people who formally intervened to defend the state from a federal lawsuit filed against California. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown have declined to mount a defense on behalf of the state......

"In the past I have received threats on my life, had my property vandalized and am recognized on the streets due to my association with Proposition 8," Tam said in a court filing. "Now that the subject lawsuit is going to trial, I fear I will get more publicity, be more recognizable and that the risk of harm to me and my family will increase."

In the months leading up the trial, lawyers for two unmarried same-sex couples on whose behalf the case was brought complained that Proposition 8's sponsors were withholding evidence to which the plaintiffs were entitled by citing a letter they had uncovered written by Tam to members of his church during the campaign.

In the letter, Tam outlined what he described as the disastrous consequences for allowing gays to marry in California.
"One by one, other states would fall into Satan's hands," he wrote. "Every child, when growing up, would fantasize marrying someone of the same sex. More children would become homosexuals."

The contents could come up in the trial because one of the issues is whether the measure's backers were motivated by anti-gay bias.

Interesting. First, I'd like to know the formal evidence for these attacks he claims he has been subject to. Of course it's interesting that he was okay with this, until the judge decided to allow a delayed Youtube video. It's not like his name is hidden or anything. Second, that letter certainly suggests a mind somewhat ....unhinged, on the subject of GLBT people. I wonder if letting him out takes that letter out of play. Might be a liability.

Tam has a right to believe as he will. He also needs to realize that his actions contributed to enormous harm to others: far more harm than a few mean words. Perhaps the judge could let him wear a hood. I understand such things have a history with those who deny civil rights to their compatriots.

You know, I was yelled at, spat at, and my car was vandalized during the run up to Prop8. All I did was display a sign that said "No on Prop 8". If that's evidence of backlash, it goes both ways.

And meanwhile, Mean Maggie Gallagher and NOM are saying,

We do not expect to win at the trial level, but with God’s help, at least five members of the current Supreme Court will have the courage to defend our Constitution from this grave attack.

Don't believe a word of it, and don't let down your guard.

Update More from LGBTPOV:

[Tam] doesn’t “like the burden of complying with discovery requests. I do not like people questioning me on my private personal beliefs.” He doesn’t want to be questioned? But he publicly stated those opinions as the reason why people should vote in favor of Prop 8.

Whole filing here.

Marriage in Malawi "indecent"?

From the BBC:

Two gay men arrested in Malawi after getting engaged have pleaded not guilty to charges of gross public indecency.

Tiwonge Chimbalanga and Steven Monjeza appeared at a packed court in Malawi's biggest city Blantyre, where they will ask for bail....

The pair held a traditional engagement ceremony over the weekend - believed to be the first gay couple in Malawi to start the process of getting married.

Homosexual acts carry a maximum prison sentence of 14 years in Malawi.

So they have been beaten and abused in prison. Now, the Times reports:

Since they became the first openly gay couple in Malawi to be engaged, Tiwonge Chimbalanga and Steven Monjeza have been arrested, put in prison and charged with offences that could lead to a 14-year jail sentence.

Between true love and gay martyrdom, however, is the brutal reality of life in a Malawi prison. Yesterday, in their first interview since being jailed, the pair claimed that they had been beaten in prison, and demanded to go to court to prove their innocence.

and the Advocate adds

The Guardian reports that Tiwonge Chimbalanga and Steven Monjeza could face 14 years in prison if the government concludes they consummated their relationship — gay acts are illegal in Malawi.

Simply BEING GAY is an imprisonable offence in parts of Africa. The marriage equality sticker on my computer is enough to get me a jail sentence in Uganda. We owe our GLBT brothers and sisters there every support just to live free lives.

Breaking: New Jersey Senate votes against equality

From Blue Jersey, a statement from Garden State Equality

With today's vote in the state Senate, the New Jersey legislature defaulted on its constitutional obligation to provide same-sex couples in New Jersey equal protection....

In 2006, the New Jersey Supreme Court told the legislature it could enact marriage or another structure that provides the equal protection of marriage. But the civil union law failed to do that. Too often, civil union couples too often cannot visit loved ones in hospitals, make medical decisions for their partners or receive equal health benefits from employers. Hospitals and employers have treated civil union couples differently because they've been labeled differently. Children have been treated differently at school because their families are labeled differently.

In recent months, including today and at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in December, New Jersey legislators publicly recognized these failures. They publicly acknowledged that the civil union law has not provided equal protection. That's important. New Jersey legislators themselves said it. Our opponents in the legislature said it.
....
In 2006, New Jersey enacted an experiment called civil union. In 2010, New Jersey has a mountain of proof that the experiment has failed.

Now let's talk about what happened politically.

Things didn't go our way in the legislature because of one factor: Governor Corzine lost reelection.

After his win in November, Governor-elect Christie persuaded a number of legislators to reverse their support of the bill. Before the election, nearly every neutral observer in New Jersey thought marriage equality was certain to become law in lame duck. It became the zeitgeist in Trenton, with good reason. In contrast to today's outcome, before the election we had votes to spare in the Senate, including from a number of Republicans.

But the election changed everything and our national opponents changed nothing. They didn't do much or spend much in New Jersey. As you saw from our thousands of members at the State House these past few weeks who symbolized the massiveness of our campaign, we overwhelmed our opponents on every front - but one. Our opponents had the Governor-elect on their side, and that's all they needed to have. It's ironic given that marriage equality wasn't even an issue in the election, and that the candidates who favored marriage equality together won a majority....

No political party should write off any constituency. And no party should take any constituency for granted either. Our fundamental right to equality should never have been left to sudden death overtime by the party to which the LGBT community and our allies have been unstintingly loyal and have given so much. ... Marriage equality stopped being just a gay issue long ago.

Read the emphasis: they KNOW and ADMIT that separate is not equal. Testimony from many "unioned" couples show that they are still not given equal rights to which they are by theory entitled. A state commission found, unequivocally,

the civil union law "invites and encourages" harm to same-sex couples and their children. The commission cites "overwhelming evidence" the civil union law will never provide equality with the passage of time

But separate and unequal is what they want us to be.

They are bound back to court. The courts in New Jersey told the legislature to fix the problem. Today, the legislature REFUSED to do it.

Frank Schubert and his sister

Remember Frank Schubert, the whiz behind the pro Prop8 and Question 1 campaigns? You know, the consultant for hate who said,

"However, I represent those who read the Bible and believe in God." Some people found that incredibly offensive. At one point, some people were hissing.

yeah, that one.

his sister is a lesbian in a partnered relationship, running for judge. Reported in the Bay Area Reporter:

The lesbian sister of Proposition 8 mastermind Frank Schubert has announced her candidacy for Sacramento County Superior Court judge.

At her campaign Web site, Anne Marie Schubert, a deputy district attorney for Sacramento County, promotes herself as a law and order and victim's rights candidate with several endorsements from local law enforcement organizations......

Frank Schubert told the Bay Area Reporter the two women are in a registered domestic partnership.

"She and Julie are in a domestic partnership, and they have two wonderful children," Frank Schubert said.

Asked if he considered the children and Greenberg to be a part of his family, Frank Schubert replied, "Of course I consider them and their children to be part of my family, and I love them very much."....

He also endorses her campaighn.

So, let's get this straight, so to speak. This awful person attacks the rights of people LIKE HIS SISTER to have a marriage and says he loves her very much. Some brotherly love. No comment from the would-be judge, either. OF course she's a Republican.GIve that woman the Mary Cheney award for cognitive dissonance. You cannot make this stuff up.

Imagine what Christmas is like around THEIR family.

As one blogger suggests,

It also forces one other question: can you be as anti-gay marriage as Frank Schubert is, and still believe that LGBT people, like his sister Anne Marie, can be great mothers, judges, and members of society? Because it sure seems like, in this case, Schubert is talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Marriage in NJ at risk

The momentum to legalize same sex marriages in New Jersey was set back by the election of an anti-gay republican governor in November. Now, there is almost no time left to pass a bill and have outgoing Gov Corzine sign it.

Time may be running out, but a bill that would legalize gay marriage in New Jersey isn't technically dead.

Advocates of gay marriage are pushing lawmakers to adopt the law before Jan. 19, when Republican Chris Christie becomes governor. He says he'd veto it. The current governor, Democrat Jon Corzine, says he'd sign it if lawmakers can get it to his desk in time.

Earlier this month, the state Senate canceled a vote on the issue when it became clear there was not enough support to pass it.
The issue was handed over to the state Assembly, which has not scheduled a hearing on it....

Supporters of gay marriage have a January 11th deadline -- the last day of this lame duck session of the Legislature. And a week later, Republican Chris Christie takes office.

Meanwhile the state assembly is blaming the state senate and vice versa.

Meanwhile, a group of faith leaders in New Jersey have written a letter demanding equality. From Blue Jersey:

During the historic 7 hours of testimony on marriage equality in December, most if not all of the testimony against reforming our laws on marriage were religious arguments. They said, in essence:

I believe this, so therefore, your rights should be limited, because my belief tradition tells me they should.

News coverage focused on those people (even though plenty clergy in favor showed up), who while they feel strongly, were trying to apply private beliefs to public civic questions, claiming equality would endanger their religious freedom. In fact the reverse is true; clergy who are accepting and ready to perform marriage for same-sex couples cannot do that now. And opponents are only a slice of where New Jersey's faith community is on marriage equality. A letter - with a far broader representation New Jersey's religious leaders - in strong support of marriage equality, and signed by 120 clergy from 19 faiths, was sent today to Senate President Dick Codey and Speaker Joe Roberts. The letter asks that both leaders put the marriage equality bill to a vote before their full respective houses in this legislative session, without precondition.

Click here for the text of the letter, and if you are in NJ, make some calls!

Uganda Gay Death Bill : more on the American Connection

From the NY Times:

Last March, three American evangelical Christians, whose teachings about “curing” homosexuals have been widely discredited in the United States, arrived ... in Uganda’s capital to give a series of talks.

The theme of the event, according to Stephen Langa, its Ugandan organizer, was “the gay agenda — that whole hidden and dark agenda” — and the threat homosexuals posed to Bible-based values and the traditional African family.

For three days, according to participants and audio recordings, thousands of Ugandans, including police officers, teachers and national politicians, listened raptly to the Americans, who were presented as experts on homosexuality. The visitors discussed how to make gay people straight, how gay men often sodomized teenage boys and how “the gay movement is an evil institution” whose goal is “to defeat the marriage-based society and replace it with a culture of sexual promiscuity.”

Now the three Americans are finding themselves on the defensive, saying they had no intention of helping stoke the kind of anger that could lead to what came next: a bill to impose a death sentence for homosexual behavior. ...

And now they are shocked, shocked, that the Ugandans are proposing death. Oh no! We didn't mean that! Some of our best friends are gay! (yes, they really say that).

Human rights advocates in Uganda say the visit by the three Americans helped set in motion what could be a very dangerous cycle. Gay Ugandans already describe a world of beatings, blackmail, death threats like “Die Sodomite!” scrawled on their homes, constant harassment and even so-called correctional rape.

“Now we really have to go undercover,” said Stosh Mugisha, a gay rights activist who said she was pinned down in a guava orchard and raped by a farmhand who wanted to cure her of her attraction to girls. ...

“What these people have done is set the fire they can’t quench,” said the Rev. Kapya Kaoma, a Zambian who went undercover for six months to chronicle the relationship between the African anti-homosexual movement and American evangelicals.

We've talked about Rev. Kaoma before, and the revelations linking this horrible bill to American evangelicals in government, especially the murky C-street cult, in some detail here.

In iraq, religious leaders are silent, or even endorse brutal, sickening torture and murder of gay people. Now in Uganda, there's a positive blood-lust, driven by American fundamentalists who call GLBT people "evil", "hidden", "dark". They didn't say a thing about this bill as long as it wasn't officially noticed, which means they see nothing wrong with murdering people for the crime of whom they love. You know perfectly well these sexual obsessives would like to see GLBT people imprisoned and executed in this country too.

Is it different really from a Vatican that calls GLBT people "objectively disordered" and our relationships a "intrinsic moral evil"? Remember the Vatican would not sign on to a UN resolution against criminalization of homosexuality, ostensibly because to do so would support gay marriage. I call it their "better dead than wed" policy. And of course they oppose condom usage as a means to fight HIV, arguing that condoms increase the disease.

This language is the same used to de-humanize despise minorities throughout history: whether used against gays by straights, Tutsis by Hutus, or against Jews by Nazis. And they claim they are doing it in the name of religion.

Let us remember that many faith groups oppose this abuse. Why is it their rights and voices are ignored?

For shame.

Update: Scott Lively in this video describes this law as a "nuclear bomb" against gays. Suuuuure he's surprised by it. As noted by Andrew Sullivan,

here's a video of Lively's talk in Uganda that reveals what he says when he doesn't think he's being watched by Americans. He likens gays to mass killers, as the kind of people who would create a holocaust, as terrible dangers to civilization. This is the core of the Christianist message and the Christianist message is now the core of the GOP. At some point, you have to take these people's words seriously.

Public access and the Federal Case against Prop 8

So, you remember, the Prop8 federal case, Perry v. Schwarzeneggar, right? Part of this case turns on whether the Bad Guys were motivated by animus against GLBT people. The judge ruled they had to release their emails.

Then a group of 3 judges ruled they didn't have to.

Now it appears that THAT decision will be reviewed en banc, by a larger group of the Ninth District Appeals Court.

Then there's the matter of whether it will be televised. First it was yes, but now the bad guys are suing to keep it quiet. Seems their witnesses are unwilling to be public.

In a letter to Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, lawyers defending Proposition 8 argued that allowing cameras in the federal court trial would violate federal rules and expose their side to threats, intimidation and harassment from gay marriage advocates.

The letter warns the judge that some witnesses for the Proposition 8 defense "have indicated they will not be willing to testify at all if the trial is broadcast or webcast beyond the courthouse."

Hmmmm.....something to be ashamed of? Or just afraid of marauding bands of tasteful homosexuals?

Honestly these people are their own parody.

More on this from LGBTPOV blog, including the response from the plaintiffs (=the good guys), who support full transparency and thus support televising the proceedings:

More than 13 million Californians cast a vote for or against Prop. 8. And there are hundreds of thousands of gay and lesbian Californians who have a direct stake in the outcome of this case. Ultimately, however, the issues in this case are of such transcendent importance that every Californian should be afforded an opportunity to view the proceedings to the greatest extent practicable. .....The “ability to see and to hear a proceeding as i[t] unfolds is a vital component of the First Amendment right of access.” ABC, Inc. v. Stewart, 360 F.3d 90, 99 (2d Cir. 2004).

Proponents’ concerns about “the possibility of compromised safety, witness intimidation, and/or harassment of trial participants” (Doc # 324 at 6) are utterly unsubstantiated and groundless speculation. Indeed, Proponents willingly thrust themselves into the public eye by sponsoring Prop. 8 and orchestrating an expensive, sophisticated, and highly public multimedia campaign to amend the California Constitution. They certainly did not exhibit a similar fear of public attention when attempting to garner votes for Prop. 8 from millions of California voters, when touting their successful campaign strategy in post-election magazine articles and public appearances.....

As I've said before, Mother's advice was sound: if you are afraid to be known for what you did, that's a good measure that maybe YA SHOULDN'T HAVE DONE IT.

Update: The Judge is seeking public comment about televising the trial. Speak out for open access!

The Courage Campaign has a website: http://www.couragecampaign.org/TeleviseTheTrial

SIGNATURE DEADLINE: FRIDAY 9 a.m.:

Courageous conversations, Part I (Video Sunday)

Guide to having a Courageous Conversation here

Marriage in New Hampshire

Congratulations to Brothers and Sisters in New Hampshire, who can now marry!

From the NY TImes.

Jeffry Burr and Neil Blair are just hours from their wedding, but there are no typical prenuptial jitters. After all, this is the third time they've exchanged vows.

They first committed to each other before scores of relatives and friends on June 24, 2006, in an emotional ceremony that didn't even count under New Hampshire law. Then, at 12:01 a.m. on Jan. 1, 2008, the first moment they were legally able to do so, they became civilly committed in a more subdued ceremony.

This time, the two will finally be legally married Friday, when New Hampshire becomes the fifth state to allow gay couples to wed.....

The ceremony is more about pronouncing their civil equality than restating their commitment to each other, they say.

"It's a right that's been afforded to us, and it's our responsibility to take advantage of it," Blair said.
...

The retired Rev. Eleanor McLaughlin and her partner of 19 years, Elizabeth Hess, of Randolph, climbed a mountain and exchanged rings the summer of 1991 but didn't enter a civil union. They waited for marriage. Both devout Episcopalians, they designed their ceremony Saturday to reflect the state's role in civil marriage and their church's role in blessing the union.....

Winter's starkness is their wedding theme.

"We want people to recognize we had to wait a long, long time," Hess said.
....

Burr and Blair said New Hampshire's marriage law, while important, does not grant them full equality.

"We're halfway there," Blair said. "We got the state rights. We had civil unions. Now we have marriage. But until we get full equal rights under the federal law, we'll never be there. We'll never be truly equal."

Congratulations, New Hampshire-ites. May your love and commitment be a beacon for our GLBT family in other states!

The good, the bad, and the ugly: Top Ten 2009 landmarks for GLBT couples

GREAT post from Pams House Blend on landmarks, for good or ill, in 2009 in the struggle for equality for GLBT couples. Read the whole thing for explanations, but here's the list:

10. Obama Extends Some Health Care, Other Benefits to Domestic Partners of Federal Employees

9. Congress Amends the Hate Crimes Act to Include Sexual Orientation as Protected Class

8. Colorado and Nevada Pass Limited Domestic Partnership Laws

7. New York Senate Rejects Gay Marriage

6. D.C. Council Votes to Legalize Gay Marriages and Recognize Ones From Other States

5. California Supreme Court Upholds Proposition 8

4. Washington Passes Everything-But-Marriage Law, Citizens Affirm Through Referendum 71

3. Wisconsin Passes Domestic Partnership Law Despite Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage

2. Maine Passes Same Sex Marriage Law, Voters Overturn It

1. Iowa, New Hampshire, and Vermont Legalize Gay Marriage

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times

We have made some great strides as a community this last year, and had some heart-breaking disappointments.

We won marriage in unexpected places (Iowa?) and lost it in others (Maine)

For a couple of looks back, and looks forward, check out these:

Kerry Eleveld is the savvy political correspondent to The Advocate. She has a year-end review about the View from Washington

The White House has made progress on some gay rights fronts this year to be sure, such as enactment of an LGBT-inclusive hate crimes law, Obama recommitting himself as president to end “don’t ask, don’t tell,” and pushing for Congress to pass a law that would provide benefits to same-sex partners of federal workers.

But by and large, the administration has shown a reticence bordering on negligence for using the power of the executive to honor the commitments of LGBT couples with real, full and equal treatment. ....

Obama campaigned on equality among other things. And while you can make the case that as president he is making pragmatic decisions about our security concerns abroad or about sacrificing the public option in health reform as a guard against letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, not allowing a federal agency to provide health benefits to a federal worker because of an ideology that willfully emphasizes DOMA over a law on federal employee benefits is essentially a form of reasoned discrimination.

Just maybe the inner circle of the White House will wake up one day and realize that their political calculations might not only cost their president the moral high ground on human dignity, but their ability to package Obama as a moderate, let alone a progressive. After all, there’s nothing moderate about erring on the side of inequality.

And, over at the Huffington Post, Lisa Linsky writes a longer view of the whole decade, in Out And About: LGBT Legal -- The Call of the New Decade

These examples of violence, discrimination and human rights violations underscore the view that the glass remains half empty for LGBT people worldwide...Fortunately, we have also seen progress in the past ten years and these advances must not be undervalued.

In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Texas sodomy law in Lawrence v. Texas, finding a constitutional due process right of sexual privacy for consenting adults regardless of sexual orientation. The Lawrence decision resulted in the crumbling of criminal sodomy laws throughout the country leading legal scholar Lawrence Tribe to describe it as the "Brown v. Board of Education of gay and lesbian America."

This was the decade that saw gay people raised as religious leaders....

LGBT people continued to emerge as political leaders during this decade.....

Which brings me to marriage equality. Despite continued resistance to same-sex relationships by many Christian conservatives and other opponents, we have witnessed marriage equality for LGBT people in jurisdictions all over the world.

In 2003, Massachusetts became the first state in the U.S. to recognize the constitutional right of same-sex couples to marry. Same-sex couples may now marry in Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire (as of January 1, 2010), Vermont and the District of Columbia. Marriage equality was won in California in 2008, when the state's supreme court recognized the constitutional right of marriage for LGBT people. The controversial voter referendum known as "Prop 8" subsequently eliminated this right, but 18,000 same-sex marriages already performed were upheld.

In May 2009, Maine's governor signed a freedom to marry law that permitted same-sex couples to marry in that state which was later overturned by a Prop 8-like voter referendum.....

We are making progress toward LGBT equality. But we have not yet evolved as a society to the point where we have implemented a compassionate, non-judgmental, "live and let live" mindset that will lead to full recognition of the civil rights of LGBT people and those in other marginalized groups.....

As this decade ticks to its close, I am left thinking about fear. Racism, heterosexism, misogyny and xenophobia are still fueling our lives and shaping our world, and the common denominator is fear. This fear, says Bishop Gene Robinson, has driven us to stop listening to one another. "Fear is a terrible thing...it is the opposite of faith", writes Robinson in his book, In the Eye of the Storm. Perhaps the call of the new decade will give us the strength to push beyond this fear, listen generously to those we perceive as "the other", and come together to create something extraordinary. Surely Coretta Scott King's wisdom applies to our time: hate is too great a burden to bear.

Andrew Sullivan also reviews progress with a long view. He gives the male conservatives in the GLBT community more credit than I think he should, but it is typically a provocative post. But the lead is heart-felt, and I think, correct:

This first decade of the 21st century has been an astonishing thing. I'm now legally married in both places I reside: in Massachusetts and Washington, D.C. Five states now recognize marriage equality and many countries. My home country offers all the rights of civil marriage to my husband. The cynical use of homophobia by the GOP worked for a while, but has since faded. Meanwhile, the dialogue has deepened and widened, and, as it has done so, attitudes have shifted more profoundly than at any previous point. Ted Olson is now one of the faces of gay equality. The next generation gets the fact that gays are human beings, have relationships as valid as straight ones, and have love as deep.

It can be hard to recognize it, but we have come an enormously long distance, even past the narrow defeats in Maine and California. We have overcome. And we shall again.

Marriage Equality in Mexico City?

From the LA Times:

Mexico City on Tuesday formally put on the books a law allowing same-sex couples to marry and adopt children, with Mayor Marcelo Ebrard rejecting demands he veto the controversial measure.

The law was published in the official government newspaper, and will go into effect in 45 days. It was passed by a comfortable margin by this sprawling capital's legislature last week.

The conservative National Action Party, which controls the federal government, and the Roman Catholic Church have both condemned the law as an affront to the traditional family. Both wanted to block it.

Marriage is good for you

We know that there are many studies about the positive effects of being married.

A focus on the most rigorous recent evidence reveals that marriage has positive effects on certain health-related outcomes. These studies find, for example, that marriage improves certain mental health outcomes, reduces the use of some high-cost health services (such as nursing home care), and increases the likelihood of having health insurance coverage. In addition, an emerging literature suggests that growing up with married parents is associated with better health as an adult.

.THe American Academy of Pediatrics says that marriage equality benefits children.

There is ample evidence to show that children raised by same-gender parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents. More than 25 years of research have documented that there is no relationship between parents' sexual orientation and any measure of a child's emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment. These data have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents. Conscientious and nurturing adults, whether they are men or women, heterosexual or homosexual, can be excellent parents. The rights, benefits, and protections of civil marriage can further strengthen these families.

. Indeed, as pointed out in that article, marriage equality is supported by The American Academy of Family Physicians' Congress of Delegates, The American Psychological Association (APA), The American Psychoanalytic Association, The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) , the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP) , the American Medical Association (AMA) House of Delegates , and the Assembly of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) all agree that same sex couples should have the same rights and responsibilities as straight couples.

Now, the American Medical Association says that restrictions on same sex marriage, as well as the corrosive Don't Ask Don't Tell policy in the US Military, are harmful:

The American Medical Association on Tuesday voted to oppose the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, and declared that gay marriage bans contribute to health disparities.....

Whether the AMA's lobbying power will hasten efforts to overturn the "don't ask, don't tell" law remains to be seen. President Barack Obama has said he is working with congressional leaders to end the policy, and the AMA's stance will likely help, although gay rights issues have been upstaged by Obama's health care overhaul battle.....

The health disparities policy is based on evidence showing that married couples are more likely to have health insurance, and that the uninsured have a high risk for "living sicker and dying younger," said Dr. Peter Carmel, an AMA board member.

Same-sex families lack other benefits afforded married couples, including tax breaks, spouse benefits under retirement plans and Social Security survivor benefits – all of which can put their health at risk, according to an AMA council report presented at the meeting.

Coming out for Christmas (video Sunday)

From the London Gay Men's Chorus

Have a merry Christmas

Where are the gay couples?

The Economist tells us where the gays are.

Those states where gay marriage is legal or where same-sex partnerships are recognised have a higher proportion of same-sex couples than the national average of 4.7. The District of Columbia is home to most gay households with over 14 for every 1,000.

(Click on the image for a larger view).

Athletes get it

Can the NFL Tackle Homophobia?

[A]s a direct result of the movement for marriage equality, there are green shoots for social justice becoming visible in the locker room.

Baltimore Ravens three-time Pro Bowl linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo came out for full marriage equality, writing in the Huffington Post:

Looking at the former restrictions on human rights in our country starting with slavery, women not being able to vote, blacks being counted as two thirds of a human, segregation, no gays in the military (to list a few) all have gone by the wayside. But now here in 2009 same sex marriages are prohibited. I think we will look back in 10, 20, 30 years and be amazed that gays and lesbians did not have the same rights as every one else. How did this ever happen in the land of the free and the home of the brave? Are we really free?

Scott Fujita, defensive captain of the New Orleans Saints, supports Ayanbadejo's stance. "I hope he's right in his prediction, and I hope even more that it doesn't take that long. People could look at this issue without blinders on...the blinders imposed by their church, their parents, their friends or, in our case, their coaches and locker rooms. Fujita continued, "I wish they would realize that it's not a religion issue. It's not a government issue. It's not even a gay/straight issue or a question of your manhood. It's a human issue. And until more people see that, we're stuck arguing with people who don't have an argument." Fujita ... also endorsed the October 11 National Equality March in Washington.