What's happening in New Mexico?

Back in the heyday of Bush-Rove, who cynically ran for office on a wave of anti-gay sentiment, there was a flurry of anti-equal-marriage amendments to state Constitutions. These now must be laboriously undone. New Mexico somehow managed to escape either amendment or initiative, and its laws and constitution say nothing either way on same sex couples.

Now,three counties in NM will provide licenses to same sex couples. From the StarTribune:

An Albuquerque judge on Monday ordered the clerk of New Mexico's most populous county to join two other counties in the state in issuing marriage licenses for gay and lesbian couples.

State District Judge Alan Malott ruled that New Mexico's constitution prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.... [A] judge in a separate case ordered the Santa Fe County clerk to issue same-sex licenses. The clerk of Dona Ana County in southern New Mexico decided on his own early last week to recognize same-sex marriage.

Predictably, Republican legislators are trying to stop it, but it's not clear how, since there is no law against it. They could try a Prop8-style effort. Remember, in CA, the state supreme court found that marriage was legal, and 18,000 couples married in the 6 months between that decision and the passage of the H8 amendment (which has now fallen). We'll see. Meanwhile, one more quote from the paper.

Christine Butler of Albuquerque, who opposes gay marriage and attended the hearing, said the judge's ruling violates her rights.

"I don't want to bring my children or go to places and see same-sex couples showing a lot of affection. ... That's against God's law," said Butler.

Bless her heart. Honey, we don't have to be married to go places and show affection. Your children are just going to have to learn that there's a whole rainbow of people out there, whether you approve of us or not. And those of us with faith are quite sure that God is smiling upon us.

Celebration from the SF gay men's chorus (video Sunday)

"Overturning the will of the people": we've been down this road before

Once upon a time, there was a decision in California that extended protections and rights to an unpopular minority.

The response was a ballot initiative to reverse the decision, and to amend the state constitution so that the protections and rights were rolled back. This passed convincingly at the ballot box.

There was a legal challenge. The state refused to defend the amendment, to the ire of its supporters.  The courts stepped in, and ultimately found that that the amendment was unconstitutional. Despite the support of the majority of voters, it was declared invalid.

Proposition 8? No.

I'm talking Proposition 14, which was passed in 1964 with a whopping 65% majority, and ultimately declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in 1967.

The story: in 1963, the California legislature passed the Rumford Fair Housing Act that stated property owners could not refuse to rent or sell property to anyone because of ethnicity. It also included religion, sex, marital and family status, and physical handicap. This was considered an important landmark for civil rights.

In 1964, Proposition 14 (sponsored by real estate and Republican groups) stated that property owners could indeed discriminate. As I said, it passed convincingly.

When it was challenged in court, the state declined to defend Proposition 14, because  Gov Pat Brown (Jerry Brown's father) considered it unconstitutional.  The California Supreme Court found that Prop 14 violated equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment.

The Supreme Court of the US agreed. In Reitman v. Mulkey (1967), SCOTUS invalidated Prop 14 by a 5-4 decision.  From the decision, they pointed out the real consequences of Prop 14:

The right to discriminate, including the right to discriminate on racial grounds, was now embodied in the State's basic charter, immune from legislative, executive, or judicial regulation at any level of the state government. Those practicing racial discriminations need no longer rely solely on their personal choice. They could now invoke express constitutional authority, free from censure or interference of any kind from official sources. All individuals, partnerships, corporations and other legal entities, as well as their agents and representatives, could now discriminate

As Wikipedia tells us, "Reitman established a significant precedent because it held that state assistance or encouragement of private discrimination violated the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment. As of 2013, this precedent remains good law."

You might want to pass this along to the bloviating anti-equality die-hards, who continue to advocate for the right to do just that.

It's over

The California Supreme Court has denied the petition by Prop8 proponents seeking to stop marriages in the state.

ProtectMarriage had argued that the federal order in the case only applied narrowly to the two couples, that all other counties in California were obligated to enforce Prop 8, and other issues that would have led to enforcing Prop 8 across California, except for two counties. The state had argued that the petition was an attempt to make changes to a federal court’s order in California state courts, a move that is not permitted by the federal Constitution.

So it's over.

And while our opponents are seething that the "will of the people" has been denied, may I remind them (yet again) that we do not have a direct democracy, we have a republic and with that, a balance of powers in which the Courts work to protect the rights of the minority.

So, even though in the Civil Rights era, a majority of voters in the south surely would have voted to keep Jim Crow laws intact, they fell.  And even though a majority of Americans disapproved of marriage between the races, those laws also fell.

A majority does not get to take away rights from a minority based solely on numbers.

Tale of Two Dads (Video Sunday)

Why it matters: legal spouses still denied federal benefits

From Think Progress

The Social Security Administration announced on Friday that it will begin offering partner benefits to same-sex couples, but in a limited capacity, adding that it has additional “policy and processing instructions” to develop over the coming months. As BuzzFeed reports, however, the benefits will not be applied as consistently as some other federal benefits have been made available to same-sex couples since the Supreme Court overturned the Defense of Marriage Act. 

For now at least, only married same-sex couples who live in a state that recognizes their marriages will be eligible to receive the Social Security spousal benefit. This is inconsistent with other benefits, such asrecognition for immigration purposes, which rely entirely on “place of celebration.” In other words, a same-sex couple could marry in Minnesota and move next door to North Dakota, and one spouse could still sponsor the other for a green card, but that spouse couldn’t receive spousal Social Security benefits because they’re in a state without marriage equality.

The solution is that for all Federal Benefits to depend on whether the marriage was legally performed in the state where it was celebrated, and not tie to to the domicile of the couple.  Either that or all gay people will have to  leave the States of Hate.

Reparative therapy...for homophobes! (Video Sunday)

Gays Beware with Jesse Tyler Ferguson and George Takei from Jesse Tyler Ferguson

Pentagon to give soldiers "wedding leave"?

From the AP:

Same-sex spouses of military members could get health care, housing and other benefits by the end of August under a proposal being considered by the Pentagon. But earlier plans to provide benefits to gay partners who are not married may be reversed. 

A draft Defense Department memo obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press says the department instead may provide up to 10 days of leave to military personnel in same-sex relationships so they can travel to states where they can marry legally.

I have no problem with this.  if marriage is the gold standard, then by all means, give soliders/sailors/airmen  an opportunity to go get married, so that their families can be eligible for benefits.

Good on the Pentagon.

The Riddle (video Sunday)

New Poll shows Americans understand religious liberty just fine, thank you

The Human Rights Campaign and the organization, Third Way, released a national poll that asks about attitudes towards gay couples with regard to religious freedom. And, not surprisingly, Americans "get" that religious freedom is an issue for the churches, mosques, and synagogues, and not an excuse to discriminate against people in the civil sphere.

From the Press Release: 

Thirty percent of the country now lives in a state where gay couples can marry, and Americans’ views are warming faster than ever. But the shrinking group of politicians who still oppose allowing gay couples to marry often argues that doing so would infringe on the religious liberty of marriage opponents. 

...The results of our national poll are clear:

• Americans know that our laws and Constitution already robustly protect religious liberty, and they do not think marriage or non-discrimination laws threaten religious beliefs or practices.
• Voters oppose new proposals which would allow government employees, businesses, or individuals who oppose marriage on religious grounds to deny services to gay people or couples.
• When it comes to religious exemptions, voters are clear that they should be limited to places like churches and synagogues and people like pastors, priests, and rabbis.-  

So, once again to the Roman Catholic Bishops and the Baptist Blowhards:  you do not get to discriminate against us in the civil sphere.  In secular business, members of your faith do not get to deny LGBT people services that they freely offer anyone else., just because they are gay.

If you have a question about that, just substitute the word "Jew" for "gay" in sentences like "I shouldn't have to sell gays a cake, because they are against my faith."   Yeah,doesn't work, does it?

On the other hand, how about this, "My church refuses to marry a Jewish couple."  That's fine.  no problem.  You have every right to say that.  But Why wouldyou think a Jewish couple want to be married in your church in the first place?

Can you spot the difference? 

Marriages Begin in MN and RI

Same sex couples are now able to marry in Minnesota and Rhode Island.  Congratulations, everyone!

From the Star Tribune:

The streets outside Minneapolis City Hall were filled with newly-wedded gay and lesbian couples reveling in their new marital status Thursday morning while inside dozens more waited their turn in lines that lasted until dawn. 

Down the street at the Hotel Minneapolis, Cathy ten Broeke and Margaret Miles, the first couple legally wed in Minnesota, partied into the night, wearing the same slinky dresses they wore 12 years earlier at their commitment ceremony. This time, ten Broeke said with some satisfaction, was different because this “was the state of Minnesota committing to us and our family.” 

Mayor R.T. Rybak worked through the night and early morning hours, officiating the weddings of 42 gay and lesbian couples on the marble steps of the City Hall Rotunda where, at the bottom, the massive Father of Waters statue was surrounded by folding chairs, wedding guests and dozens of clicking cameras.

And from the Providence Journal: 

From Newport to Pawtucket, Rhode Islanders Thursday visited city halls at the first moments on the first day that marriage licenses are available for gay couples.

In Newport, Federico Santi and John Gacher came in promptly at 8 a.m. to the City Clerk's office to get their marriage license.

They had waited 41 years for this and within a few minutes the documents were signed and the couple were married. They were the first same-sex couple to marry in Newport under a new state law.

Congratulations, everyone!

"Christian" pastor has harsh words for gay-affirming clergy

He wants to punch them out, in fact.  He calls it, "going Old Testament on them."

But the righteous Reverend Susan Russell (Episcopal priest from All Saint's Church, Pasadena) takes down the so called "Christian Pastor" Matt Brown.

My biggest issue is with the Pastor Matt Browns of the world who don’t see the disconnect between “being the best neighbor possible” and denying the marriage of your gay or lesbian neighbor the same respect you expect for your own. Jesus said “love your neighbor as yourself” – and there was no asterisk that said *”unless your neighbor is a same-sex couple.” (Matthew 22:39)

My biggest issue is that a pastor advocating violence against those who disagree with him about marriage equality gives license to those he leads to “go and do likewise” and fuels the fires of gay bashing, hate crimes and puts LGBT youth at risk. Jesus said “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:44) – not “punch them out.”

And -- putting aside for a moment the 21st century reality that not all clergy are men -- my biggest issue is with the clergymen who have hijacked the Gospel in the service of their own homophobia. It is with those who have taken the Good News of God’s inclusive love proclaimed by the radical rabbi from Nazareth and turned it into a weapon of mass discrimination against LGBT children of God. And it is with those – like Pastor Matt – whose polemic preaching throws Jesus under the bus every time he gives those yearning for a spiritual community yet another reason not to try Christianity. 

Clergy who preside at the blessing of marriages of same-sex couples have not thrown Jesus out – they have pulled him out from under the bus the Pastor Matts of the world have thrown him.

In the interests of full disclosure,  I attend an Episcopal church where every priest is gay-affirming. And where they actually, you know, perform weddings of gay couples.

So take that, "Pastor" Matt.

ILove Marriage in Illinois: It's Just Time (video Sunday)

Have a hanky ready:

UPDATED-- DOMA decision repercussions in Ohio: Why it matters

Two weeks ago, John Arthur and Jim Obergefell flew from their Ohio home to Maryland to marry. They did it in a chartered plane with speciality medical equipment, because John is dying of ALS. Upon return to Ohio, they sued to have their marriage recognized, so that Jim could be listed as "husband" on John's death certificate.

And yesterday, a federal judge ruled in their favor.

Throughout Ohio’s history, Ohio law has been clear: a marriage solemnized outside of Ohio is valid in Ohio if it is valid where solemnized. Thus, for example,under Ohio law, out-of-state marriages between first cousins are recognized by Ohio,even though Ohio law does not authorize marriages between first cousins. Likewise,under Ohio law, out of state marriages of minors are recognized by Ohio, even thoughOhio law does not authorize marriages of minors. 

How then can Ohio, especially given the historical status of Ohio law, single outsame sex marriages as ones it will not recognize? The short answer is that Ohio cannot … at least not under the circumstances here. 

By treating lawful same sex marriages differently than it treats lawful opposite sexmarriages (e.g., marriages of first cousins and marriages of minors), Ohio law, as applied to these Plaintiffs, likely violates the United States Constitution which guarantees that”No State shall make or enforce any law which shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws. 

The end result here and now is that the local Ohio Registrar of death certificates is hereby ORDERED not to accept for recording a death certificate for John Arthur that does not record Mr. Arthur’s status at death as ‘married’ and James Obergefell as his ‘surviving spouse.'

Marriage matters, even unto death.  And the DOMA decision from SCOTUS is already reverberating.  John Aravosis writes,

I really think the court granted us nationwide gay marriage in all but name. Yes, the way they did it requires us to go state-by-state and strike down individual state-DOMA laws, but that was the genius of the court’s decision. They paid homage to the notion that the court shouldn’t upend the “democratic experiment” taking place in the states, while at the same time coming up with a decision that basically leaves the states no wiggle room to say “no” to marriage equality for gays once the state DOMAs are challenged. 

So yes, it will take longer for us to get marriage in 50 states – thus a nod to the notion that the court shouldn’t change everything nationwide immediately – but at the same time, they pretty much guaranteed that we’ll win. And this Ohio ruling is quite possibly the first evidence of that fact.

Meanwhile, those of you so inclined might put John Arthur and Jim Obergefell on your prayer list.

Update:  the Attorney General plans to appeal, even though the Court's ruling is specific to these two individuals and can have no possible bearing on any other Ohioan.  From Think Progress:

The day after a judge issued a temporary restraining order requiring Ohio to list Arthur’s husband as his “surviving spouse” on his death certificate, DeWine announced that he wouldappeal this decision and try to strip a dying man of his final wish.
There are marriage equality cases with sweeping national implications. This is not one of them. The judge’s order is limited exclusively to Arthur and Obergefell..... 

Yet, while Ohio has nothing to gain from simply complying with the judges’ order, Arthur and Obergefell have a tremendous amount to lose. Thanks to DeWine’s appeal, Arthur will spend his last days unsure whether he and his husband can someday lie together in his family burial plot. The two men’s final moments will be poisoned by uncertainty over their lawsuit.... 

There is a common refrain among marriage equality’s opponents that discrimination is necessary to remove some kind of “threat” equality poses to straight couples’ marriages. This case is a put up or shut up moment for these voices. ...Who does DeWine think he is serving by filing this appeal? 

Someday very soon, Obergefell will go home, lie in an empty bed, and confront for the first time the prospect of a life without his husband. In that moment of loss, he believes he will find some comfort if the State of Ohio acknowledges that he feels the same pain that he would have felt if he were married to a woman. That’s what DeWine wants to take away. And it will gain the people of Ohio nothing.

Update 2:  the AG will not appeal after all.

Sex in Virginia

Ken Cuccinelli is the attorney general of Virginia and Republican nominee for governor.  He is rabidly anti gay.

As one of his big issues, he's trying to criminalize sodomy and oral sex between consenting adults, under the guise of protecting children.  Now, the US Supreme Court said in Lawrence v. Texas that you can't criminalize sex acts between consenting adults, so this effort is clearly unconstitutional.  Thing is, all you have to do is say that such acts are illicit involving minors (who by law cannot give consent) and voila, you protect kids.

So it's clear that Cooch is aiming at LGBT people

Problem for him is, that is SO 2006.  

Ken Cuccinelli's election of strategy of running on his long-standing opposition to homosexuality might have worked in 2009, when Cuccinelli won the attorney general race in Virginia. But the country's shift on gay politics didn't miss the state, putting Cuccinelli at risk of losing key Republican donors and the governor's race. 

The timing of his embrace of anti-gay rhetoric couldn't be much worse. Cuccinelli is running in a close race with Democrat Terry McAuliffe. Several polls, including one from Quinnipiac University last week, show McAuliffe with a slight lead. But in another metric, fundraising, McAuliffe is far ahead — thanks, in part, to reticence from pas Republican donors to give to Cuccinelli. Bloomberg reports that Cuccinelli's adamant social conservative positions are a key factor in that antipathy....

Cuccinelli has raised 40 percent less than McAuliffe to date.

Because businessmen want to be able to recruit the best candidate, and not be limited to straight white men with conservative social views.  And women and gays and their friends and families are not attracted to live and work in the State of Hate.

And a majority of Virginians now approve of marriage equality.

San Diego county clerk embarrases everyone

We have all been expecting one of the 58 county clerks in CA to join the H8ers in their attempt to shut down marriages in CA.  But I'm sure everyone thought it would be one of the clerks in Red California--the largely conservative, rural inland areas.

How embarrassing that it turns out to be the clerk in San Diego.  While San Diego trends fiscally conservative, and there are pockets of social conservativism, most of the Republicans are practical business types.  San Diego has actually become quite gay friendly.  Our last mayor (a Republican) was a marriage supporter, and the Republican nominee to replace him is openly gay. 

You should have no doubt about where this originates:

Dronenburg’s lawyers, the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund, it should be noted, have on their board of directors one concerned citizen of note not mentioned in his Supreme Court petition: Maggie Gallagher, co-founder of NOM, the National Organization For Marriage, the group that was the top financial contributor responsible for getting Prop 8 on the ballot in 2008.

Meanwhile, the LA Times notes that the largely-Republican County supervisors are quite annoyed. 

 San Diego County's Board of Supervisors, a majority of whom are Republican, sought to distance themselves from Dronenburg's action, which was filed for him by Charles S. LiMandri, a Rancho Santa Fe attorney and leader of the bid to restrict marriage to a man and a woman.

"The county clerk has acted independently on this matter,'' board Supervisor Greg Cox said. "No one else from the county was consulted or had any part of this court action, including the Board of Supervisors. The county's position is and always has been that we, the county, will follow applicable law with regards to same-sex marriage." 

Supervisor David Roberts, who is gay, said that as soon as he heard what Dronenburg had done, he demanded a meeting to find out his motives. 

"I was livid, to say the least," Roberts said. "As the first LGBT supervisor, with a married partner, I felt this was a slap in the face. But he says that's not what this is about. We'll see." 

....
Gay rights groups reacted with rage and disdain to the latest filing. 

Ted Boutros, one of the lawyers who challenged Proposition 8 in federal court, said the petition was "just as meritless and desperate" as the one filed by ProtectMarriage. It cannot change the fact, he said, that "marriage equality has returned."

Importantly, the clerk continues to issue licenses and people continue to get married in the meantime.

"Foremost in my mind" (Video Sunday)

From the Devotion Project which profiles loving relationships. Here are New York City-based couple Gail Marquis and Audrey Smaltz.

Why will it take a year for UK weddings to begin?

Although the Queen has assented, weddings won't happen for a year.  Gay Star News tells us why:

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), who will be implementing the law, explained to Gay Star News why it will take so long. 

They said their priority was to extend marriage to same-sex couples as soon as possible, mentioning the first weddings could take place earlier than summer 2014. 

While the first same-sex marriages may be able to take place next summer, it will take longer for the law to allow civil partnerships to be converted. 

‘Work is already underway and there is a lot to be done across government to ensure that all couples who want to get married; or convert their civil partnership to a marriage; or remain in their existing marriages when they change their legal gender, can do so,’ a spokeswoman said. 

The changes the DCMS will be implementing include the court rules, IT systems, the processes for civil registrations, religious buildings registration, religious consents (when a marriage of a gay couple is conducted with religious rites but does not take place in a registered building - such as in a house-band, deathbed or a prison) as well as guidance for registrars, religious organizations and the public. 

The spokeswoman added: ‘Parliament will also need to scrutinize a number of statutory instruments setting out how the new arrangements will apply to other legislation; on the detail of certain processes; and to ensure that marriages of same sex couples in England and Wales are treated in Scotland and Northern Ireland as civil partnerships. 

‘This all takes time.’

Queen assents to equal marriage

The Houses of Parliament (Commons, and Lords) have approved the Equal Marriage Bill.  The Queen has given Royal Assent.  Marriages in England and Wales will begin in 2014. Scotland has considerable independence, and will be considering the issue shortly.  Northern Ireland said "no".  

Well done, UK!

Evolving: religion and gay rights

From the Barna Group via the WaPo: