Two more suits against DOMA

As you may (or may not) recall, two cases from Massachusetts went to federal court earlier this year challenging DOMA, on the grounds that legally married Massachusetts couples were deprived of federal benefits solely on the basis of their sexual orientation. Federal Judge Joseph Tauro found that Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional. The Department of Justice is appealing.

There are now two new DOMA cases, from other states in the Northeast where marriage equality exists, and where legally married couples are treated unequally simply because they are same sex. From the NY Times:

Joanne Pedersen tried to add her spouse to her federal health insurance on Monday. She was rejected. Again.

The problem is that while Ms. Pedersen is legally married to Ann Meitzen under Connecticut law, federal law does not recognize same-sex unions. So a health insurance matter that is all but automatic for most married people is not allowed for them under federal law…..
…..
Taken together, said Mary Bonauto, the director of the Civil Rights Project for the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, the cases show same-sex couples “are falling through the safety net other people count on.” ….

“If we were heterosexual, we wouldn’t be talking today, because we would have the benefits,” Ms. Pedersen said. “I would just like the federal government to recognize our marriage as just as real as everybody else’s.”

And from Metroweekly:

The Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) plans to file a lawsuit in Connecticut challenging DOMA’s Section 3, which defines "marriage" and "spouse" in federal law as being limited only to opposite-sex couples. The plaintiffs are to include couples from several New England states with marriage equality, including Connecticut, New Hampshire and Vermont.

Meanwhile, in New York City, the American Civil Liberties Union and the law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP plan to file a lawsuit on behalf of Edith Windsor, the widow of Thea Spyer. Windsor was forced to pay a $350,000 estate bill because of the federal government’s refusal to recognize Windsor's marriage to Spyer…..

"I have an 81-year-old client, and $350,000 is a hell of a lot of money -- a huge amount of money that she paid in violation of the Constitution," [Attorney Roberta] Kaplan said. "My client had to pay the government, and she wants her money back…."

….[Kaplan] said, "What I do think is true is that in this case the Department of Justice is going to have a very hard time coming up with a reason to give a judge in the Southern District of New York why Edie and Thea should be treated differently than if they were Edie and Theo."

Edie and Thea were the subject of a film.

Another bullying victim commits suicide

From Pennsylvania.

Students at Midd-West High School cried out against bullying Friday as they mourned the loss of a classmate who in the early morning hours walked about 13 miles from his home to Routes 11-15, where he ran in front of a southbound tractor-trailer after leaving a suicide note at his home.

Freshman Brandon Bitner, 14, of Mount Pleasant Mills, ran in front of the truck at 3 a.m. near Liverpool, according to state police at Newport.....

There seems to be little doubt in the students’ minds why Bitner did what he did.

“It was because of bullying,” friend Takara Jo Folk wrote in a letter to The Daily Item.

“It was not about race, or gender, but they bullied him for his sexual preferences and the way he dressed. Which,” she said, “they wrongly accused him of.”

Bullying a gay kid for being gay attacks their very being. And the Conservative groups that protest anti-bullying legislation want the ability to continue to attack. Gabriel Arana writes at The American Prospect ,

One Minnesota city changed its policy to require that teachers be "neutral" when it comes to discussing sexual orientation (so a teacher can tell kids not to call the gay kid "gay," but she can't tell the class that there's nothing wrong with being gay).

He also distinguishes "bullying" from "harassment". He follows up on Americablog,

Conservative Christians like to pretend that there's a big difference between picking on a gay kid -- i.e., "bullying" -- and disapproving of homosexuality, but in reality one stems from the other. In practice, it's tough to indoctrinate someone into thinking being gay is wrong, immoral, disgusting, and then ask him or her to treat a gay person with respect; it's a natural human instinct to recoil from things that you perceive to be bad or harmful, and no matter how many times you pledge to "love the sinner but not the sin," when it comes down to it, even adults can't carry that out, much less children.

Meanwhile another child is dead.

DOMA leads to deportation

Legally married same sex spouses are treated differently under law. That was the basis of the cases in Massachusetts, which we have discussed previously. The Department of Justice is appealing the decision finding such different treatment unconstitutional.

If you have the misfortune to be of different nationalities, you can be deported or forced to live in exile. As Glenn Greenwald, a victim of this situation, notes, such treatment is inhumane.

Most people don't have careers that enable them to live outside of the U.S., and even for those who do, many are married to foreign nationals from countries which also do not provide immigration rights to same-sex couples. For the thousands of same-sex couples in that situation, the choices are grim indeed: they can choose (1) to live illegally in one country or the other, or (2) separate and live thousands of miles away -- for the indefinite future -- from the person with whom they want to share their lives. As the HRW Report put it: "thousands of U.S. citizens and their foreign same-sex partners face enormous hardships, separation and even exile because discriminatory U.S. immigration policies deprive these couples of the basic right to be together."

(Greenwald's partner is a Brazilian national and he spends much of his time in Brazil).

John Aravosis reminds us that enforcement of this viciousness is not required and in fact, the President has previously, by executive order, blocked similar deportation:

Mind you, the President decided to ignore a federal law requiring him to kick out the not-yet-American-citizen spouses of deceased Americans. They get to stay. But gay spouses? No such empathy from the Obama administration and the apologists. Suddenly it's all "we simply MUST obey the rule of law."

America: land of the brave, home of the free AS LONG AS they are straight.

DADT: It's almost over, and not in a good way

From the Advocate:

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates ....making an unusual break from his consistent calls for Congress to wait on repeal until the Pentagon delivers its study in December, voiced his support for Congressional action ....

In the meantime, the new head of the Marine Corps said he thought repeal would be risky while U.S. troops were engaged in two wars overseas.

And, craven to their core, the Dems in Congress will yet again toss the LGBT community overboard. The Wall Street Journal reports,

The drive in Congress to repeal the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy appears all but lost for the foreseeable future, with action unlikely this year and even less likely once Republicans take charge of the House in January.....Advocates on both sides believed the issue had a chance of coming up in this month's post-election session of Congress. Now that looks unlikely.

Sens. Carl Levin of Michigan and John McCain of Arizona, the top Democrat and Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, are in talks on stripping the proposed repeal and other controversial provisions from a broader defense bill, leaving the repeal with no legislative vehicle to carry it.

Just to top it off John Aravosis reports that one of the candidates for a new Sec'y Defense is Ike Skelton, a Democratic supporter, indeed one of the architects, of DADT.

Close your eyes while the bus rolls on over....if this is fierce advocating, I'd hate to see craven capitulation.

Republican women on marriage equality (video Sunday)

What's with all the politicians' wives and daughters "coming out" in support when the bully pulpit is gone, and it no longer helps?

Well, I think that we ought to definitely look at it and debate it. I think there are a lot of people who have trouble coming to terms with that because they see marriage as traditionally between a man and a woman. But I also know that when couples are committed to each other and love each other that they ought to have the same sort of rights that everyone has.

As Jonathan Capehart writes, Where were you when we needed you?

And Megan McCain:

Voices of Faith Speak Out: redeeming Christianity

Presbyterian John Vest writes

The good news of Jesus Christ is about God’s radical love and acceptance.  Jesus was about inclusion, not exclusion.  Jesus spent the majority of his time with people that the rest of his culture rejected.  And Jesus was not afraid to reinterpret his religious traditions in light of the new things God was doing around him and through him.  Christians today must do the same by thoughtfully and faithfully adapting the religion they have inherited to speak truth and love to a world the writers of the Bible could never have imagined.

It may take us a long time to redeem Christianity in the eyes of those we have hurt the most.  But I refuse to give up trying, and I hope and pray that you will not give up on us.  There are churches that will love and accept you as God does.  There are churches that will support you as you grow into yourself and discover the person God created you to be.  There are churches that will stand up to bullying and name it and the factors that contribute to it as the real sin in this situation, not the sexuality you have been given as a gift of God.

My heart breaks with each new story of bullying that surfaces.  Something must be done to change the world we live in so that such things do not happen.  Christian churches have a role to play in this—we have contributed to the problem and we must be part of the solution.  I promise you that I will not be silent about this issue.  I promise you that you are not alone.

Why we're upset

In comments to a previous post, long-time e-friend JCF complains at the "gay cynicism" that sees the glass half empty. The Beltway insiders feel the same way. Last week, President Obama met with a few prominent bloggers. When questioned by Joe Sudbay (AmericaBlog) about LGBT issues, Mr Obama was somewhat aggrieved (my emphasis)

Let me go to the larger issue, though, Joe, about disillusionment and disappointment. I guess my attitude is that we have been as vocal, as supportive of the LGBT community as any President in history.

That's a pretty low bar, sir. I got robo-called by the Pro-Prop8 forces using your voice to oppose my right to marry. Your opposition was ... barely noticeable. Yes, you have done some good things--like your "it gets better" video. And you signed the Matthew Shepherd act on hate crimes. But on substantive change, you've been MIA. And your whole thing with Rick Warren and other gay bashers was a real slap in the face.

I’ve appointed more openly gay people to more positions in this government than any President in history.

Again, a pretty low bar. Appointing LGBT people to mid-range administrative jobs was ground-breaking in the Clinton administration. It would be shocking if you hadn't. And there are no high-ranking (cabinet level) LGBT people, and your advisors, like Valerie Jarrett, use terms like "gay lifestyle", which suggests that the inner circle is basically clueless.

We have moved forward on a whole range of issues that were directly under my control, including, for example, hospital visitation.

Yes, but nearly all of these have been rather tepid executive orders. For example, granting benefits to partners of gay federal employees sounded great on the news, but it turns out that didn't include health care or pensions, and in fact, it isn't clear that employees who are actually MARRIED to their partner (say, in Massachusetts) are even eligible. And you say that you support robust civil unions (not marriage) but there's been no progress there either.

On “don’t ask, don’t tell,” I have been as systematic and methodical in trying to move that agenda forward as I could be given my legal constraints, given that Congress had explicitly passed a law designed to tie my hands on the issue.

Actually, sir, no you haven't. You promised it would be repealed, in your state of the union address, but after that, you put no effort into it. First, let's think legislatively. The Defense Authorization Bill doesn't repeal DADT, it kicks the can down the road pending a Pentagon report. And even then, despite strong support in the polls and from the chair of the Joint Chiefs, the Republicans successfully filibustered, and you didn't expend any political capital in twisting arms to get support (or to prevent Harry Reid's political fiddling). In the executive branch, the new Marine Commandant is almost insubordinate in his opposition. The Pentagon is using very questionable means to "examine" the issue. Judicially, you continue to appeal this, even though there is considerable evidence that this support is NOT mandated in any way. Harry Truman racially integrated the military with an executive order. He didn't defend Jim Crow in court.

And so, I’ll be honest with you, I don’t think that the disillusionment is justified.

Mr President, there has been NO substantive change at the federal level, despite your promises. It's you who made those promises, sir.

Let's think of what's going on in Washington.
DADT (see above). Status: still in force, Obama administration appealing a Federal District Court decision that found it unconstitutional.

DPBO (Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act). Would give actual benefits to legal domestic partners of federal employees. Status: dead in the halls of Congress. Also, no clear whether married couples even eligible, because of

DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act). Still in force, Obama administration appealing a Federal District Court decision that found section 3 unconstitutional. This section forbids federal recognition of legal same sex couples and enshrines in federal law an official second-class status to LGBT people. Basically, it means my marriage legally evaporates when I leave this state.

ENDA: Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Stalled, because of right wing fears of transgendered people using restrooms. Thus, it remains legal to fire LGBT people simply for being (or appearing) LGBT.

UAFA: Uniting American Families Act. Immigration reform that would allow Americans to sponsor their legal gay partners who are citizens of other countries. not moving, because of rabid opposition from anti-gay forces including the Roman Catholic church, so that such couples will continue to be either separated or forced to live in exile.

Even in the "big ticket" bills that are not about "Teh Gay", we've been thrown under the bus. Coverage for same sex partners in the health care bill? Thrown out during the "sausage making" phase. WIth health care, with immigration, we are dispensible. For the greater good. Hold the door open for everyone else. then go sit ouside.

You're aggrieved Mr President? So are we. Movement on one thing, just one, would have made a difference. When you said there would be change, for once, we thought we would actually be part of the Big Fat American Family sitting at the table with everyone else. YOU are the one who made the promises. And now you have the audacity to scold us for believing you?

That doesn't mean I won't vote, or that I won't vote Democrat. But I will continue to hold you and your administration accountable for the promises that YOU made.

Highlights and lowlights from the election

NOM succeeds in its efforts to "punish" judges for unpopular decision in Iowa, and hopes to rescind marriage in New Hampshire based on its luck in the state legislature.

On the other hand, at least lead Prop8 mastermind Andy Pugno LOST his bid for California legislature and NOM-backed candidates lost more than they won.

As predicted, Teh Gay are blamed for the losses in DC. Don't expect any movement on LGBT issues.

In California, Jerry Brown, a marriage equality supporter, won the Governorship. The Attorney General race is too close to call. The Democrat is pro-equality. The REpublican is not.

VOTE!

GET OUT AND VOTE tomorrow. Vote like your life depends upon it, because it does. Even if you've found the Administration up to this point disappointing, vote. IF you are outraged at corporate ownership of our system, vote. If you are pissed off at craven Democrats in Congress, vote. Because the tea party radicals and Republican nay-sayers have no interest in governing, only in campaigning, and it will assuredly be worse if they get in. The other side will NOT listen to us at all, will vilify us at every turn. We have to vote in the Democrats, and then hold their feet to the fire!

Video Sunday: Teacher fired for being gay

So in Oregon, little Tommy or Jimmy asked Mr Stambaugh why he wasn't married. Mr Stambaugh answered truthfully: because he's not allowed to marry a man.

Mr Stambaugh may no longer have a job.

He did not engage in public displays of affection, wear a speedo to work, or behave in any inappropriate way. He simply said who he is.

See, the problem They have with us is that we exist. Their goal is not just to limit marriage. It's to make us invisible.

Voices of Faith Speak Out: it starts with us

Excerpts from a sermon by the Rev Michael Hopkins, Episcopal Priest.

So who in their right mind let the Samaritan lepers into the Church? Jesus did. And too many of his followers have been trying to keep them out ever since. And this exclusion is death dealing to our young people. .....

You know the world doesn’t have to be like that. God doesn’t want it to be like that. The Church should not want it to be like that either, or it should just close up shop because it isn’t good for a whole helluva lot, making straight white “normal” people feel better about themselves while at best ignoring the rest of us and at worst seeking to do us harm in the name of an angry God.

The antidote starts here, as always, with our own thanks, which has the power to heal and to save. Let us receive this power of acceptance and go forth into the world as Samaritan lepers, all of us, full of good news.

And let us be clear to our brothers and sisters, “You must stop your words that take away people’s worth. They are death dealing. Young people listen to them and kill themselves. Stop, just stop it, in the name of Jesus Christ, stop it.”

Iowa: vote YES!

In Iowa's 2009 marriage equality decision, the state Supreme Court unanimously decided that there was no "constitutionally adequate" justification to limit marriage to opposite sex couples.

This record, our independent research, and the appropriate equal protection analysis do not suggest the existence of a justification for such a legislative classification that substantially furthers any governmental objective.

By all accounts, Iowa has been relatively unaffected by gay citizens getting married. There has been no onslaught of divorce, or sex in the streets. And there is really no question about overturning the decision.

But our "friends" at NOM are in the mood for retaliation, and are running another one of this season's bus tours trying to incite voters to reject three of the Supreme Court justices, who in Iowa are subject to retention elections every few years. It won't change anything--except perhaps put fear into the hearts of elected officials.

As with their previous NOMbus tours, the NOM forces have a glitzy bus but not much else. Equality supporters have been turning out, usually in greater numbers, to witness to LOVE, not division.

The Courage Campaign NOM bus trackers regularly post photos and videos, including interviews with NOM supporters who variously compare LGBT people to goats, claim that gays are a “disease-carrying nasty threat to society," and obsess about "sodomy marriage". Oh, and Brian Brown, NOM leader, defines the ONE difference between men and womenthus: “A mother can nurture and take care of a baby. A man can’t do that.” (That will be a surprised to a lot of fathers I know!)

The Judges are trying to stay above the fray and not engaging the NOMmers in campaigning.

If you are an Iowa voter, PLEASE vote YES YES YES to retain the judges and tell NOM to keep its hate out of state. (For more about NOM's hate campaigns, please see NOM exposed.)

For ammo on repudiating the "activist judges" claim, please see my previous post here.

Blame the gays

Did you know that if the Democrats do badly, it's all the fault of Teh Gay?
From AP:

"But change takes time; sometimes it takes a lot of time. A lot of folks just don't understand that," said Garcia. "I am older and more seasoned, but most people are very disturbed with the administration ... and they're the hard ones to get out to vote.
"The message is huge: Don't take us for granted."
...

Robin McGehee, co-founder and director of the national gay-rights organization GetEQUAL calls the mood among gay voters a "disappointment canyon" but said they have no choice but to go to the polls....

The GLBT community has a groundswell that will not support Democratic machine politics, which exerts no political capital for us. We have been supporting individuals, and of course we will vote. But I suspect that the "enthusiasm gap" will be cited for poor performance. You wanna bet that Obama and the White House will blame us?

By the numbers: same sex marriage vs. inter-racial marriage

"Activist judges do not have the right to redefine marriage if the majority of voters disagree." That's what the marriage equality opponents tell us all the time, to justify the "right of the people" to let their opinion determine the rights of a minority group.

So let's consider what the People thought in 1968. In that year, Americans told Gallup that they disapproved of inter-racial marriage by a margin of 73%-20%. Overwhelmingly, Americans did not think people should marry across racial lines.
That's a year after the Supreme Court, in the landmark case Loving v. Virginia, legalized inter-racial marriage. Despite the fact that nearly 3/4 of Americans disapproved. How dare they! Over the voices of the mob majority, how dare they?

It wasn't until 1991, twenty three years after the decision, that a plurality of Americans approved of racially mixed marriages. The number approving has flattened out in recent polls at around 75% now. I suspect it will stay there for some time, until a particular generation dies out.

Now, let's think about marriage equality for GLBT people. When the question was asked in 1996, it was 65% opposed, 27% in favor. Pretty close to where we started with inter-racial marriage, back in the 1960s. So, I wondered: how does the trend compare? The answer is, remarkably well.


These graphs look almost perfectly superimposed. By this prediction, marriage equality will have a plurality of support by about 2019, and an overwhelming majority by 2028. Good news for our kids, eh?

But here's the thing. All these data points for inter-racial marriage come from a time when inter-racial marriage was already legal in all 50 states . We didn't wait for majority approval to remedy the injustice. In contrast, I'm sure I needn't remind you that same sex marriage is not legal yet, except in a few pockets in the country.

Further, by the time public opinion was at the point regarding inter-racial marriage as it is now for same sex marriage, inter-racial marriage had been legal for 14 years.

So please, just what in hell are we waiting for?

And next time you have to deal with the "activist judges" line, remember these data.

Method I took the data from the Gallup polls on inter-racial marriage, and the Pew polls on same-sex marriage. For this analysis, I assigned the starting year to the absolute value "0" (1968 for inter-racial data, 1996 for same-sex marriage data). Each data point was then plotted based on how many years had elapsed since year "0". The density of points for same sex marriage relative to the inter-racial marriage reflects the difference in frequency of polling the questions.

Prop8 Federal Case: Appeals arguments on Dec 6

From the Tracker:

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ... announced they will be hearing oral arguments for the appeal of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, and of Judge Walker’s historic ruling finding Prop 8 unconstitutional, on Monday December 6th at 10am.

This is the opportunity for friends and foes to file amicus briefs as well. From here, regardless of outcome, expect an appeal possibly to the full 9th Circuit (not just 3 judges), and eventually, to the Supremes. More on my previous post.

Tomorrow will be better (Hillary Clinton video Sunday)

Good for you, Madame Secretary.

Voices of Faith Speak Out: ecumenical statement against bullying

There's a statement signed by diverse groups including The Episcopal Church, The United Church of Christ, the Unitarian Universalists, the Baptist Alliance, the Presbyterians, the Metropolitan Community Church and many others: Clergy against bullying call for action and time of healing in wake of gay teen suicides and anti-gay violence

We, as leaders of faith, write today to say we must hold ourselves accountable, and we must hold our colleagues in the ministry, accountable for the times, whether by our silence or our proclamations, our inaction or our action, we have fueled the kinds of beliefs that make it possible for people to justify violence in the name of faith. Condemning and judging people because of their sexual orientation or gender identity can have deadly consequences, both for the victims of hate crimes and those who commit them.

There is no excuse for inspiring or condoning violence against any of our human family. We may not all agree on what the Bible says or doesn't say about sexuality, including homosexuality, but this we do agree on: The Bible says, "God is love, and those who abide in love abide in God and God in them." Abiding in love – together – is the rule we must all preach, teach, and seek to live by.....

To that end, we pledge to urge our churches, our individual parishes or offices, our schools and religious establishments to create safe space for each and every child of God, without regard to sexual orientation or gender identity. And we ask you to join us in that pledge.

Today, we personally pledge to be LGBT and straight people of faith standing together for the shared values of decency and civility, compassion and care in all interactions. We ask you, our colleagues, to join us in this pledge.

We want our children and the children of the communities we serve to grow up knowing that God loves all of us and that without exception, bullying and harassment, making fun of someone for perceived differences, and taunting and harming others is wrong. The Golden Rule is still the rule we want to live by.

We pray today that you will join us in being the faces of a faith that preaches and demonstrates God's universal acceptance and offers to one and all safe space to live, to learn, and to love and be loved.

Obama: It Gets Better (video)

Okay. Thank you Mr President.

Quote of the Day: Barney Frank

"I do not think that any self-respecting radical in history would have considered advocating people’s rights to get married, join the Army, and earn a living as a terribly inspiring revolutionary platform."

---Congressman Barney Frank, on being accused of having a "radical gay agenda," in The New Yorker


H/T Cheers n Jeers, Daily Kos

Voices of faith speak out: Announcing a new GMC series

On Saturday, I will start a new series at Gay Married Californian that specifically highlights voices of faith speaking out against bullying and in support of LGBT youth. My goal is to show that the anti-gay bigotry of the Christianist right does NOT define Christianity's response to LGBT people. I am starting with Christian denominations, because in the peculiar marriage of religion and politics in the US, Christianity is the Big Kahuna. However, I will be happy to highlight positive statements from non-Christian faith groups as well. Coming up in the next few weeks, I will have examples from Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, and Baptists, to name a few.

Why am I doing this? Because I know there are straight, religious allies who walk the walk with us. Too often their voices are drowned out by the strident shouts of the haters--I'm hoping to amp them up. LGBT adults and youth of faith, who have been deeply injured by churches need to know that the haters don't speak for everyone or all faith groups. There are many churches that offer radical welcome.

And as a practical matter, whether we are individuals of faith or not, the LGBT community needs to build alliances with religious allies to defeat the opposition. Religion isn't our enemy.

This came to me this weekend, appropriately enough at church. (For those who don't know my other writing , I'm a non-believer married to an Episcopalian.) We celebrated our second wedding anniversary last week, and many people congratulated us. And it occurred to me (not for the first time) that too many LGBT people are unaware of the explicit support of many communities of faith. I mean, we attend a church that not only welcomes us as a married lesbian couple, but as a mixed marriage of atheist and Christian! Whoa. Pretty radical stuff. Time to get those voices of welcome out there, don't you think?

In any event, I'm going to try to educate everyone and hope to build bridges. If you run across relevant statements or citations that can be identified with particular faith groups, send 'em along and if they are appropriate, I'll queue them up.