Wedding Anniversary

Today is our third wedding anniversary, a joyful day! I am blessed every day I wake up with my dear wife and so thrilled as we make our lives together.

Meanwhile, I see that straight people are still marrying and begetting children, Christians are still free to practice their faith, and the planet has still not exploded.

Hmmm, what's up with that?

Marriage Equality in Portugal

The New York Times has an interesting article on equality in Portugal.

With minimal international attention, Portugal — tiny, overwhelmingly Roman Catholic Portugal — legalized same-sex marriage last year. Although the country is hardly seen as a Scandinavian-style bastion of social progressivism, it’s one of just 10 countries where such marriages can be performed nationwide, and in this regard it finds itself ahead of a majority of wealthier, more populous European countries, like France, Germany, Italy and Britain. ...

It was only a little more than a decade ago that a country first legalized same-sex marriage, and that happened in precisely the kind of forward-thinking, bohemian place you’d expect: the Netherlands. About two years later, Belgium followed suit.

Then things got really interesting. The eight countries that later joined the club were a mix of largely foreseeable and less predictable additions. In the first category I’d put Canada, Norway, Sweden and Iceland. In the second: South Africa, Spain, Portugal and Argentina.

Why those four countries? People who have studied the issue note that that they have something interesting and relevant in common: each spent a significant period of the late 20th century governed by a dictatorship or brutally discriminatory government, and each emerged from that determined to exhibit a modernity and concern for human rights that put the past to rest.

“They’re countries where the commitment to democracy and equal protection under the law was denied, flouted and oppressed, and the societies have struggled to restore that,” said Evan Wolfson, the president of Freedom to Marry, a New York-based advocacy group, in a recent interview.

Cartoon

Maryland Gov. O'Malley on equality (video Sunday)

House DOMA defense cost triples, to $1.5million

From SFGate:

House Republicans, if you recall, decided that since the Justice Department and President Obama refused earlier this year to defend DOMA (calling the statute unconstitutional), Republicans would hire outside counsel to do so. The proliferation of court cases ensured this outsourced defense would get expensive. DOMA is expected to arrive at the Supreme Court within a couple of years. With same-sex marriage now legal in six states and the District of Columbia, DOMA conflicts are blossoming in areas of tax law, immigration law, Social Security and the like....

[House minority leader Nancy] Pelosi today issued this statement on the GOP contract: “It is absolutely unconscionable that Speaker Boehner is tripling the cost for his legal boondoggle to defend the indefensible Defense of Marriage Act. At a time when Americans are hurting and job creation should be the top priority, it just shows how out of touch House Republicans have become that they would spend up to $1.5 million dollars to defend discrimination in our country.”

Town Clerks and Religious Freedom

You remember the town clerk in New York who refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples because it offends her religion? She compares it to issuing a license to steal.

So if this is a religious freedom issue, let's make it very clear.

If Ms Belforti's religion disapproved of interfaith marriages, would she issue a Jew and aChristian a license?

If Ms Belforti's religion disapproved of remarriage following divorce (which, if she's Roman Catholic, it does), would she issue a divorcé a license?

If Ms Belforti's religion disapproved of inter-racial marriages, would she issue a black and a white a license?

If Ms Belforti's religion disapproved of Roman Catholic marriages, would she issue a Catholic a license?

What if a gay Episcopalian couple wanted to marry? THEIR religion allows it....sort of....

Ms Belforti, what is the limit on "religious freedom"?

Support for equality in California growing among republicans

From the Capitol Hill Weekly, which focuses on California Politics:

Public opinion on same-sex marriage in California has flipped faster than many people thought it would. According to data from the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), the change was largely driven by Republicans and independent voters.

The opinions of people over 35 have barely budged on the issue, but support for same-sex marriage has surged among younger voters. Young voters, however, traditionally show a poor turnout – unlike older voters, who often vote in proportionally higher numbers.

Isn't it sad, then, that we aren't trying to reverse Prop8 at the ballot box, and are relying on the far riskier courts in a time of excessive polarization and a hideously conservative SCOTUS.

I graphed the numbers which makes it more obvious.

Pentagon to allow chaplains to perform marriages

Segregation in this country started to die when the military was integrated. Gotta hand it to the Pentagon, they can make things happen when they have to. I think the repeal of DADT will accelerate the repeal of DOMA. And now, the pentagon will allow military chaplains who choose to do so to marry same sex couples, in accordance with local laws.

From Stars and Stripes:

Starting immediately, chaplains can perform same-sex marriage and union ceremonies on U.S. military installations in locations where it doesn’t violate state or local laws, the Pentagon announced Friday.

The policy reversal follows on the heels of the repeal of the “don’t ask-don’t tell” law, Clifford Stanley, undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, wrote in a memo to the military department secretaries and service chiefs.

“A military chaplain may participate in or officiate any private ceremony, whether on or off a military installation, provided that the ceremony is not prohibited by applicable state and local law,” he wrote…..

Although it’s a core duty of military chaplains is to provide religious support — and in certain cases perform religious services — for troops with different beliefs from their own, chaplains won’t have to perform gay marriages if they don’t want to, Stanley wrote.

“[A] chaplain is not required to participate in or officiate a private ceremony if doing so would be in variance with the tenets of his or her religion or personal beliefs,” he wrote.

Fundy heads are exploding, predictably.

131,729 married gay couples

From the AP:

Increasingly visible, the number of gay Americans telling the U.S. census they're living with same-sex partners nearly doubled in the past decade, to about 650,000 couples. And more than 130,000 recorded partners as husband or wife....

That 2010 tally of married gay couples is higher than the actual number of legal marriages, civil unions and domestic partnerships in the U.S. Even after New York legalized gay marriage in June, a Census Bureau consultant, Gary Gates of UCLA, put the actual number of legally recognized gay partnerships at 100,000.

"There's no dispute the same-sex population increases from 2000 and 2010," said Martin O'Connell, chief of the fertility and family statistics branch at the Census Bureau. In cases of couples who reported they were living in a marriage relationship, "they basically responded that way because that is truly how they felt they were living."

Video Sunday: Jay Bakker on equality

Jay Bakker is Jim and Tammy Faye's son. He gets it. He's a modern, inclusive Evangelical Christian. They do exist and they are the future. But look at the reaction of the congregation. Thanks to my friend Counterlight. You can read more about Bakker at Counterlight's blog; make sure you watch the interview with Don Lemon too.

Uh-oh: bad news from the 9th circuit.

I don't talk much about the repeal of DADT here as our primary interest is in marriage equality.  But it's impossible to ignore what happened yesterday--and impossible not to be concerned.

As you know, DADT was officially repealed effective Sept 20th.  But in parallel to the legislative process that led to the repeal, there was also a case brought in federal court by the Log Cabin Republicans.  The Federal Judge, Virginia Phillips, declared DADT unconstitutional.

This is important, because this finding would prevent DADT being reinstated...as the Republican presidential candidates have all vowed to do.

The Obama Administration Department of Justice appealed (so much for our fierce advocate) and asked a panel of the 9th circuit Court of Appeals  to declare the Judge's finding "moot", since DADT was repealed.  But they also asked that the original finding be "vacated" or erased.

Shockingly, they succeeded on both these arguments, by a unanimous decision of 3 of the judges in the 9th circuit.


Scotusblog tells us:

Accusing a federal trial judge of misusing her authority when she struck down the military’s ban on gays and lesbians in the service, a federal appeals court judge on Thursday lectured the rest of the judiciary against creating new rights for homosexuals out of the Supreme Court’s famous ruling eight years ago in Lawrence v. Texas.   Circuit Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain did so as the Ninth Circuit Court threw out that lower court judge’s ruling interpreting Lawrence broadly. ...

Seldom does a higher court use such sweeping language toward a lower court judge’s ruling, while wiping it off the books.  Simple erasure of the ruling, apparently, was not enough — a sentiment that is perhaps further illuminated by the displeasure openly displayed by Judge O’Scannlain in his concurring opinion....

Judge O’Scannlain, however, wrote explicitly that “Lawrence did not establish any fundamental right.”  It did not give lower courts any basis, the judge added, for creating any new fundamental rights for gays.  He lambasted  Judge Phillips for the legal rationale she had used for nullifying the military gay ban, contending that she had not followed the formula that the Supreme Court itself had laid down for judging claims of violations of so-called “substantive due process” guarantees....

It is not a common practice for federal judges, when a case has come to a formal end without a final ruling on the merits, to say how they would have voted.  That Judge O’Scannlain did so suggested how affronted he was by Judge Phillips’ ruling.

Why is this bad?  Well, it's the 9th circuit.  That's who's hearing the Prop8 appeal.  Different judges, sure, but this shows that there is no sure thing in the Prop8 case.  Imagine the effect if Judge Vaughn Walker's carefully done case was vacated, erased, and eliminated as a source of precedent or reference.

It could happen.  It could happen at ANY POINT.  And that's why it's a real problem that all the eggs are in the court's basket, and there will be no attempt to reverse Prop8 where it needs to be reversed, AT THE BALLOT BOX.

Stage collapse in Indiana: Why it Matters

Remember that horrific stage collapse at the Indiana state fair this summer? It killed 7 people and injured many more. One of the people killed was Christina Santiago, from Chicago. The Chicago Trib tells us,

Alisha Brennon and Christina Santiago made their relationship official this past summer, soon after Illinois' civil union law began recognizing same-sex couples.

Now, following Santiago's death, the legal benefits of that union will be put to the test across the state line in Indiana....

Although the Chicago couple entered into a civil union in Illinois, the courts in Indiana will determine whether Brennon has a legal right to seek compensation in her spouse's death, experts said.

The lawsuit highlights a new wrinkle caused by the patchwork of laws on the rights of gay and lesbian couples to marry or form civil unions.

"It's egregious that in Illinois, and other states, your union is recognized and you are treated with some measure of equality. And you travel across the border and become a nonperson," said Brennon's attorney, Kenneth J. Allen, who filed the lawsuit in Marion County, Ind....

Six states allow same-sex marriage. Five states, including Illinois, have civil union laws that give gay couples the same legal rights and benefits as heterosexual couples.

In Indiana, same-sex partnerships are not recognized, and only surviving spouses or family members are allowed to file wrongful-death suits, experts said.

So, they did everything right, but thanks to the bigots of Indiana, they may be reduced to legal strangers. Indiana currently denies legal benefits to same sex couples, and is moving to pass an anti-equality amendment to the state Constitution. And I'm sure that they will feel really good about enshrining that hatred and intolerance. After all, who do these uppity lesbians think they are?

Dems take on DOMA defense

As you may be aware, because the Obama DoJ is not defending DOMA in court, Congress has the right to do so.  Thus,the Republican House (over the protest of the Democrats) hired and expensive lawyer who is fighting all the DOMA cases in the country (there are six cases;  see my previous posts for more DOMA info).

And the briefs that the lawyer, Paul Clement, has filed are full of the same, tired bullshit.  You know, the discredited lies of fringe "experts".  The distortions of real academic work (leading to the scientists involved to protest that their work is being misused).

Now, the Democrats in the House are demanding answers about this, which is being done in OUR name as taxpayers (and costing us a heckuva lot of money).  From the Advocate:

A contingent from Congress, including all four of the gay members, wrote to Boehner demanding a chance to confront the lawyer with what they say is "discredited" and "biased" research on homosexuality that was used in a legal brief representing Congress in court.....

 Now several Democrats — Tammy Baldwin, David Cicilline, John Conyers, Barney Frank, Jerrold Nadler, and Jared Polis — say Clement doesn't represent them or even the scientists he cites in his legal arguments.

"It is incumbent upon all lawyers — especially those paid for by taxpayers and responsible for representing a branch of our government — to undertake representation in an objective manner that is factually and legally supportable," they wrote to Boehner. "Unfortunately, the outside counsel that you have retained have filed pleadings containing arguments and assertions that are troubling and appear to fall short of this standard."

Britain to recognize full marriage equality

Alex Massie writes:

If ever you needed reminding that Britain and the United States are divided by a common language, consider the fact that a Conservative-led government in London now endorses gay marriage. As contenders for the Republican Party's presidential nomination insist that same-sex marriages must destroy marriage, their conservative counterparts in Britain argue that politics and morality alike require the government to commit to legalizing gay marriages...

So this development satisfies liberal aspirations while also, happily, demonstrating the value of timeless Tory principles. Society changes, and the proper sort of Tory, however much the past attracts him, appreciates that conservatives must also change if they're to protect the values they hold most dear and remain relevant in a much-changed world....

It used to be said that the Church of England was the Tory party at prayer. Doubtless it remains the case that religious Britons are, all other matters being equal, more likely to vote Conservative. But as far as civil marriage is concerned, there is no need to pander to the objections of a faithful minority. Indeed, Britain is a largely secular society these days and, at least as far as same-sex relationships are concerned, a much more civilized place than was the case in years gone by.....

Moreover, civil partnerships—a step forward as they may once have been—still fall short of full equality. Eliminating this discrepancy—it seems likely that Cameron's commission will recommend scrapping civil partnerships—removes the stigma, however minor it may have seemed to some, of second-class status.

The churches may disagree. But there's no reason to grant them a veto over the civil definition of marriage. It is unlikely churches will be compelled to recognize gay marriages any more than a Roman Catholic priest must be cheerfully expected to officiate at a Protestant marriage ceremony. Though often conflated, the civil and religious stamps of approval are different, and the latter need not be expected for every brand of civil marriage....

More than anything else, however, it recognizes that society has changed and, correspondingly, so must sensible conservatives. By doing so, they may make a virtue out of necessity and inevitability while reaffirming the essential importance of marriage. Low politics and high principle meet in a convenient but passionate marriage of their own. Eventually, perhaps, even the Republican Party in the United States will appreciate this.

NOM no longer about marriage, but about anti-gay hate

The National Organization for (straight) Marriage is an implacable foe of marriage equality. Up till now it has largely operated as a shadowy money-laundering machine for conservative Roman Catholic and Mormon donors.

 It is well known for its legal efforts to avoid compliance with campaign finance laws in many states--reasoning that opposition to marriage equality is deserving of special protections.

 But it's no longer about marriage equality. NOM is now attacking and demonizing gay people for being gay. The gloves are off.  Equality Matters actually reads NOM's website, and points us to many recent posts there that expose NOM's new strategy.  NOM now says Homosexuality Is “Immorality,” “Evil,” “Darkness Parading Around As Light”. There are many other examples  (also here). As Equality Matters notes,

NOM continues to claim that its “battle is not with an orientation” and that it works with “the love of God and our neighbor in our hearts.” Is this what NOM’s “love” looks like?

Well, I always knew they were hypocrites. As the numbers edge slowly into support for marriage equality nation wide, our foes will become more strident, more vicious, more angry, and more hate-filled. And that's what they are doing.

It therefore becomes even more important for us as a community to challenge the hate groups (NOM, FRC, FotF, ADF, etc etc) every time they lie.  too often their lies are reported by the media as facts. We need to take them on every time, so that it becomes clear that indeed, these people are no different from geocentrists or flat earthers, living a realm of fiction.

Courage Campaign: fight for the Fair Education Act (Video Sunday)

Young evangelicals increasingly support marriage equality

From the HuffPo: (my emphases)

We should not be surprised that a new poll indicates that almost half (44 percent) of young evangelical Christians between the ages of 18 to 29 favor same-sex marriage. ... 

Doing our theological and ethical thinking with a Bible in one hand and a newspaper in the other leaves us with decisions we need to make. Either gay and lesbian individuals are persons who have chosen to intentionally rebel against God by deciding to romantically love another of the same gender in defiance of God's will or else they are another group within the rich diversity of humanity that God intends to liberate, treat justly and fairly, reconcile, and include. ... 

More than 40 years ago, the Anglican theologian Norman Pittenger addressed these questions in his book entitled "Time for Consent." He argued on the basis of the biblical revelation in Christ that sexual behavior must be judged by its character alone. Is it characterized by commitment and trust, tenderness, respect for the other and the desire for ongoing and responsible communion with the other? Or, conversely, is it characterized by selfish sexual expression, cruelty, impersonal sex, obsession with sex and an unwillingness to take responsibility for the consequences? He argued that both gay and straight people desire and need deep and lasting relationships and that appropriate sexual expression should not be denied to either group. He argued that there should not be a double standard of morality, introducing the concept of moral equality -- not judging two different groups by different standards of morality. 

The Bible is deeply sensitive to double standards. Some of Jesus' harshest criticisms are reserved for those who lay heavy burdens on the backs of others that they themselves are unwilling to carry (Matt. 23:4). The attempts to use a few verses in the Bible to justify a double standard for straight and gay people will not withstand a careful and thoughtful reading of the Bible. 

I believe young, thoughtful evangelicals are discovering this not as a result of the culture blinding them but as a result of the Bible opening their eyes to the dishonesty and hypocrisy of straight Christians who claim for themselves the blessings and comforts of marriage while denying it to others.

From the mouths of babes: what is "gay" marriage?

From the student paper at SMU, a young writer gets it spot-on (my emphases)

The truth of the matter is that what we have here-to-fore referred to as "same-sex" marriage is no different than any marriage between opposite-sex couples. In both cases, two people come together in love and unity to declare, before God, their unending love for one another. It makes no difference whether it is a man and a woman, two men, or two women. Ultimately, holy matrimony derives its sanctity from the love that both partners share for one another, and not from the genitalia with which they were bestowed.

...by referring to marriages between same-sex couples as either "same-sex" marriages or "gay" marriages, we are subconsciously reinforcing the idea that marriages between gay couples are any different than marriages between straight couples.

Gay men and women across the country are not fighting for "same-sex marriage;" they are fighting for "marriage."

They are not petitioning for something that looks like marriage; they are petitioning for exactly the same "marriage" that we have come to know.

Gay men and women don't require civil unions that are "separate, but equal," to marriage; they require full access to the same civil liberties that every heterosexual person in American is afforded, including, but not limited to, MARRIAGE.

The next time you want to say "gay marriage" or "same-sex marriage," try just using the word "marriage" instead. It's shorter, to the point, and it's nothing less than what gay men and women deserve.

Tony Jones: Two marriages

I was pointed towards this blog about "two marriages":

Actually, there are two marriages in America.

On the one hand, there’s legal marriage. It’s sanctioned by the state, .... and it is officially incentivized by our government. And legal marriage has nothing to do with sexual intimacy.

On the other hand, there’s sacramental marriage, which is defined by communities of faith. This marriage accrues neither governmental benefits nor tax incentives. However, sexual intimacy is of gre at interest to this marriage, since the sacred texts of all religions have lots to say about sex. Sacramental marriage is about what God wants — and that is, of course, a matter of interpretation and debate among Christians. ....

Courtney and I got married, as I wrote above, on July 13. We were married in the sacramental way, but we did not ask for the imprimatur of the State of Minnesota on our marriage by means of buying a license ....

Why not? Well, that’s what I’ll be attempting to show at length in a series of blog posts this week. But, in short, here’s why:

• The sacred ceremony of marriage is far more important to us than the legal contract of marriage. 
• We don’t really care if the government considers us married. We’re far more interested in our marriage being solemnized by our family, friends, and community of faith. 
• We don’t think that we should enjoy the 515 benefits of legal marriage when so many of our friends cannot. 
• I do not think that clergy should act as agents of the government (as I’ve written before), and I did not want to ask my friend, Doug, to do so.

I look forward to reading more from Tony on this subject.

BREAKING: Judge Ware rules that Prop8 tapes should be released.

Ostensibly terrified by violence, the PropH8 supporters managed to keep the recordings of the Prop8 trial under wraps. Never mind that everyone knew who their witnesses were, and that they are no strangers to YouTube. The difference is that they aren't generally cross-examined under oath--the PropH8 side didn't want their poor performance seen. Following a hearing that argued that the tapes should be part of the record, the District Court agrees.Ruling:

Upon review of the papers and after a hearing...the Court concludes that no compelling reasons exist for the continued sealing of the digital recording. Accordingly the Court GRANTS plaintiff's motion to unseal and ORDERS the clerk of the Court to place the digital recording in the publicly available record of this case.

Expect an immediate appeal by the PropH8 side.