Attention LiTW readers: this post was actually written by the always stellarJamee Greer, but for some reason, there was a bug in the piece that prevented him from posting it. I found the error, and put it up for him...
There's plenty of discussion among LGBT circles right now about whether or not the Obama Administration is doing a good job of moving civil rights policy forward, or if they're willfully stalling or even dismissing the community. It appears that many in the LGBT blogosphere are joining in on a boycott organized by the founders of AmericaBlog in an attempt to push resolution on a list of about thirty grievances directed at the Administration.
Joe and I are launching today a donor boycott of the DNC. The boycott is cosponsored by Daily Kos, Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake, Dan Savage, Michelangelo Signorile, David Mixner, Andy Towle and Michael Goff of Towle Road, Paul Sousa (Founder of Equal Rep in Boston), Pam Spaulding, Robin Tyler (ED of the Equality Campaign, Inc.), Bil Browning for the Bilerico Project, and soon others.
It's really more of a "pause," than a boycott. Boycotts sounds so final, and angry. Whereas this campaign is temporary, and is only meant to help some friends - President Obama and the Democratic party - who have lost their way. We are hopeful that via this campaign, our friends will keep their promises.
This is ill-informed to the point of recklessness, and all equality advocates should be offended that John Aravosis would use his influence, such as it is, to attack the most pro-equality environment we've ever seen in this country.
Was the DNC right in failing to provide much-needed financial support for the No on 1 campaign in Maine? No. Should people sit down and find out what happened and why and publicly demand accountability? Yes. Is President Obama right in maintaining his campaign position opposing marriage equality? No. Should the LGBT community continue to push the president to fulfill his campaign promises that would advance LGBT equality? Of course.
Equality is black and white. We are either treated with the same respect and opportunity to uphold the same level of dignity as every other citizen, or we are not. The path to equality isn't as clear, but I don't accept that equal rights can be produced by the grey middle. I fight the middle, I resist it out of instinct because it can so often be two steps forward and another back.
In just the last month we saw fully inclusive federal hate crimes legislation signed by the president, the repeal of housing discrimination against gay and lesbians utilizing HUD services, the repeal of the HIV travel ban, the announcement that gays and lesbians will be counted in the 2010 Census, the first Senate hearing on a fully inclusive ENDA and the strong promise by DOJ officials that they'll make ENDA one of their top legislative priorities. There were extraordinary provisions included in the House health care reform bill that impacted the LGBT community and people living with HIV/AIDS. I'm forgetting some others, I'm sure of it.
I agree, mistakes have been made by the Administration, by the Democratic National Committee, and Organizing for America on LGBT issues. But that list of what's been done right, and the growing national momentum on equality, means so much to someone living in a state where a gay man can be denied the right to visit his partner if they are dying in the hospital, a trans community facing the daily threat of being fired for blurring the lines of gender, and a lesbian who spent years and thousands of dollars in the courts for something as simple as joint custody of a child she helped raise since birth. And I, for one, and possibly others, am extraordinarily grateful for what is happening in America today.
At this time I just can't see why I should support this boycott.
There's plenty of discussion among LGBT circles right now about whether or not the Obama Administration is doing a good job of moving civil rights policy forward, or if they're willfully stalling or even dismissing the community. It appears that many in the LGBT blogosphere are joining in on a boycott organized by the founders of AmericaBlog in an attempt to push resolution on a list of about thirty grievances directed at the Administration.
Joe and I are launching today a donor boycott of the DNC. The boycott is cosponsored by Daily Kos, Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake, Dan Savage, Michelangelo Signorile, David Mixner, Andy Towle and Michael Goff of Towle Road, Paul Sousa (Founder of Equal Rep in Boston), Pam Spaulding, Robin Tyler (ED of the Equality Campaign, Inc.), Bil Browning for the Bilerico Project, and soon others
There's plenty of discussion among LGBT circles right now about whether or not the Obama Administration is doing a good job of moving civil rights policy forward, or if they're willfully stalling or even dismissing the community. It appears that many in the LGBT blogosphere are joining in on a boycott organized by the founders of AmericaBlog in an attempt to push resolution on a list of about thirty grievances directed at the Administration.
Joe and I are launching today a donor boycott of the DNC. The boycott is cosponsored by Daily Kos, Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake, Dan Savage, Michelangelo Signorile, David Mixner, Andy Towle and Michael Goff of Towle Road, Paul Sousa (Founder of Equal Rep in Boston), Pam Spaulding, Robin Tyler (ED of the Equality Campaign, Inc.),
On Sunday, over a 100,000 supporters of civil rights for gays and lesbians marched in the National Equality rally in Washington, DC, demanding equal protection under the law and access to institutions from which they're excluded. A smaller rally was held in Missoula on the same day - although you wouldn't know it if you read the Missoulian.
Among other issues, civil rights' supporters demanded an to the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy that disallows gays to serve openly in the US military; the overturning of the Clinton-era Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits the federal government from extending federal benefits to the same-sex spouses of federal employees; the inclusion of sexual orientation in the federal definition of hate crime; and an end to many states' - including Montana's -- legal discrimination against gays seeking housing or employment. In many instances, gay partners have no spousal rights over medical decisions, children, or financial matters.
As Pete Shea recently wrote, this institutionally accepted discrimination against gays and lesbians has real and dramatic consequences to human lives:
Even though approximately 10 percent of our population may identify themselves as LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender), they are invisible in our society in many ways. Many remain "in the closet" for life in an effort to hide. In our military, we can't ask and we can't tell. Where this invisibility is most damaging is in our own homes, where our children are coming to terms with their own sexual identities - alone and terrified. All too often they can't tell their parents and family because the reality of rejection is still too common.
Schools are places of bullying and terrorism, not just for teens who identify publicly as LGBT, but also for those whom others perceive to be gay because of some physical or personality trait. Homosexuality is still a topic that we dare not discuss openly, so we hide the topic and we hide those who are "it." Is it surprising that the suicide rate for gay teens is three or four times greater than for teens who don't have to struggle with sexual identity issues?
It's simple, isn't it? Gays simply want the right to pursue life, to choose the way in which they form their bonds of love and friendship, and to do so without facing government-approved institutional discrimination from employers, teachers, landlords, and bureaucrats. And by standing by, those of us who are straight are essentially approving of the state's involvement, not just in the affairs of gays, but in our lives, because in where we allow our government to discriminate against one group lies the potential for discrimination against others, perhaps even ourselves, and for equally arbitrary reasons.
The Montana Supreme Court Tuesday upheld parental rights for a Missoula woman who'd been part of a same-sex couple that cared for two adopted children, saying she's entitled to joint custody of the kids.
Supporters of the 6-1 decision hailed it as a victory for all parents, regardless of their marital status or sexual orientation.
"This is a victory for families in all shapes, sizes and colors," said Betsy Griffing, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Montana.
Justice James Nelson also issued a special concurrence, in which he wrote a blistering denunciation of discrimination against homosexuals.
"Naming it for the evil it is, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is an expression of bigotry," he wrote. "Lesbian and gay Montanans must not be forced to fight to marry, to raise their children and to live with the same dignity that is accorded heterosexuals."
I've uploaded the decision (pdf) to LiTW for your reading pleasure.
Kudos to Justice Nelson, who confronted head-on the elephant in the room: bigotry. There's more of this kind of stuff from Nelson in another Dennison report:
"I remain absolutely convinced that homosexuals are entitled to enjoy precisely the same civil and natural rights as heterosexuals, as a matter of constitutional law," he wrote....
Nelson said the case shows that until the courts recognize homosexuals as "equal participants with heterosexuals in our society with exactly the same civil and natural rights, lesbian and gay citizens will continue to suffer homophobic discrimination."
"Regrettably, this sort of discrimination is both socially acceptable and politically popular," he wrote. "Sadly, this case represents yet another instance in which fellow Montanans, who happen to be lesbian or gay, are forced to battle for their fundamental rights to love who they want, to form intimate associations, to form family relationships, and to have and raise children - all elemental, natural rights that are accorded, presumptively and without thought or hesitation, to heterosexuals."
Personally, I think it's time to address the stain on Montana's constitution - Article XIII, section 7 - enacted in a fit of momentary delusion stoked by social conservatives, that singles out one particular group and, with malice, denies them access to a public institution that the rest of us enjoy.
Marriage also bestows enormous private and social advantages on those who choose to marry. Civil marriage is at once a deeply personal commitment to another human being and a highly public celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family. "It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects." Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965). Because it fulfils yearnings for security, safe haven, and connection that express our common humanity, civil marriage is an esteemed institution, and the decision whether and whom to marry is among life's momentous acts of self-definition.
And we know how legalizing gay marriage in Massachusetts wreaked havoc with that state's institution! That divorce rates shrunk to pre-WWII levels in Massachusetts means that divorce lawyers there are suffering profound economic losses...
Fighting for gay marriage has nothing to do with "gay rights" - but everything to do with human rights. Fighting for gay marriage does not threaten "traditional" marriage - but reaffirms it. Fighting for gay marriage is not part of some mysterious "homosexual agenda," it isn't about "special" rights for a small group, it's about protecting everybody's rights, straight or gay, married or single, by reaffirming that the state has no business regulating the intensely personal and private compact made by any two consenting adults, by reaffirming that the formation of relationships and families should be left unmolested by law, and that, at its core, marriage is about love.
To nobody's surprise, the California Supreme Court both upheld that state's Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage, and preserves the gay marriages that occurred before the ban was passed this November. The LA Times has a copy of the court's ruling (pdf). From that ruling:
...the principal issue before us concerns the scope of the right of the people, under the provisions of the California Constitution, to change or alter the state Constitution itself through the initiative process so as to incorporate such a limitation as an explicit section of the state Constitution.
The issue at hand wasn't the validity of a simple majority writing into the state's constitution its willingness to subvert the rights and freedoms of a minority to form families, but, instead, whether Proposition 8 "amended" the California state constitution or "revised" it. Doing so by ballot initiative is acceptable for the former under California law, but not for the latter.
Meanwhile, the court recognized the rights of same-sex couples to form long-term relationships and families, and acknowledged that Proposition 8 affected only a narrow spectrum of rights. Gays still enjoy protection from discrimination, for example, under California law.
In short, while this ruling is disappointing while still not unexpected, there's still a lot of room for hope. Dan Savage:
In 2000 California voters approved a law banning same-sex marriage. It was a ballot initiative, like Prop 8, but just a law, not a constitutional amendment. And it was that law, Prop 22, that the CA Supremes struck down in 2008, in their historic ruling legalizing same-sex marriage. And voters in 2000 approved Prop 22 in by a nearly 22-point margin. And eight years later the same voters would approved Prop 8 by four points. That's an 18-point shift in favor of marriage equality in just eight years. That's extraordinary progress. A loss is still a loss, and a loss sucks, but the trend is so strongly in our favor that we cannot lose hope. The anti-gay bigots know that they're losing this debate, and it's why they're so hot to amend state constitutions now, while they still can, while they can still count on the votes of the old, the bigoted, and the easily manipulated. But they are losing and they know it.
We're going to go back to the ballot box in California in 2010 or 2012 and voters are going to repeal Prop 8. Fundamental civil rights should not be subject to a popular vote, of course, and the CA Supremes had an opportunity to reaffirm that ideal. They chose not to, they buckled, and so we, unlike other minority groups, face the challenge of securing our rights at the ballot box. That seems daunting prospect until you recall 2000's Prop 22 and compare its margin of victory to that of 2008's Prop 8. Again, we witnessed an eighteen point shift in favor of gay marriage in California in just eight years. We can move another four points. We just have to stay in the fight and remind ourselves and each other that we are winning.
And that's not even considering that belief in same-sex rights is strongly correlative to age, and that any future vote will therefore be closer. And that's also not mentioning that this election's Proposition 8 was one of the biggest surprises of the election, and got a lot of attention because of it. And as same-sex marriage proponents are gearing up for their own initiative, which would abrogate Proposition 8, it'll get a lot of focus, and its campaign will be smarter.
And then there's this, in the wake of Massachusetts' five-year anniversary of legalizing gay marriage:
Lake Research Partners, who conducted the survey, asked 600 Massachusetts residents whether they would vote for or against a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Fully 62% of respondents said they would oppose such an amendment, up from 52% in a similar 2005 survey. Interestingly, the poll found that many residents supported marriage equality because it promoted traditional values like commitment and responsibility. This finding will surely come as a suprise to anti-gay marriage advocates who argue that it undermines the foundations of the family.
A lot of folks who are "protecting" marriage by opposing same-sex marriage apparently don't realize their efforts are actually undermining real families, many with children. That's the unspoken truth about the anti-gay movement in this country. You see it in anti-abortion rhetoric, too. It's not really about families and children. It's about using the state to enforce a particular and prejudiced moral code on all Americans.
On the issue of homosexual marriage the distinction is even greater. Some 39.3% of respondents in the 2008 GSS said that they "agreed" or "strongly agreed" that homosexuals should have the right to marry. That number soared to 53.4% among those 18-34, with one out of four in that age group strongly agreeing. As one looks at each age group, as age increases so too does opposition to marriage for homosexuals.
To be sure, not all Democrats are supportive of gay marriage or homosexuality. Some 48% of those who identified as "strong Democrats" said that homosexual sex was "always wrong" as did 50.7% of Democrats overall. Furthermore, while support for gay marriage is more common among Democrats, 38.1% of Democrats do not believe that homosexuals should have the right to get married.
Yet regardless of how narrow or wide the chasm is between the two parties is on the issue, the differences between the beliefs of young voters and the beliefs of the older segments of the electorate - particularly the modern day Republican electorate - are significant.
Apparently, gay marriage is the only social issue that sharply divides young voters from their more curmudgeonly elders. Is gay marriage the new wedge issue? Are we going to ride a progressive wave into the future because of gay rights?
That's probably not much consolation to gay couples who want to get married, now.
The Iowa Supreme Court today unanimously (!) ruled that gays have a right to marry.
The decision (pdf) was especially clear and reasonable. The court decided that gays have the right to marry under the state's "equal protection" clause - a constitutional guarantee that no group of people can be excluded from legal protections or institutions without cause.
The county defending the state's gay marriage prohibition needed to show that a societal good was being done by banning gays from marrying, and offered five reasons to that effect:
The objectives asserted by the County were (1) tradition, (2) promoting the optimal environment for children, (3) promoting procreation, (4) promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships, and (5) preservation of state resources.
Each time homosexual activists attempt to force their agenda on California, there have been raging, massive, incinerating fires sweeping across the California landscape.
Today, people are running for their lives as 800 California homes have burned down and the firestorm is spreading like a nuclear holocaust. Yet, the radical homosexual anarchists rampage upon the streets of this state demanding the destruction of marriage and family, and the establishment of their socialistic dark vision for society.
And, instead of fires raging in West Hollywood or the Castro or Polk Gulch, they're in places like Yorba Linda, one of the most right-wing parts of California, represented by the single most extreme right kook in the California congressional delegation, corrupt wingnut Gary Miller....
Was God's targeting off? The district has a PVI of R+10! Yorba Linda itself has a Republican voter registration edge of 59.6% Republican and 38.9% Democrat....
God's punishing gays...by burning up a deeply conservative district? That's not exactly much of a disincentive, is it?
When proposition 8 passed in California, it set off a massive series of protests that spanned the entire country, including a march here in Missoula led by our own Jamee Greer. The Mormorn church was also targeted for protest for its leading role in passing the state initiative.
The breadth and energy of the protest, I think, startled a lot of people -- including many of the protesters themselves. Dan Savage explains the surprise in reaction to an LA Timeseditorial that wonders why gays and their allies didn't take to the streets before the election:
Most gay people grow up desperately trying to pass, to blend in; most of us flee to cities where we can live our lives in relative peace and security. We don't go looking for fights. And most gay people walk around without realizing that they've internalized the dynamics of high school hells some of us barely survived: it's better to pass, to stay out of sight, to avoid making waves, lest you attract negative attention, lest you get bashed.
Makes sense, right? After all, can you think of a more neglected group this election? The issue of gay rights was deftly side-stepped by all the major presidential candidates, if it was addressed at all -- and there was nary a peep from the gay community. Shut up, keep your head down, maybe no one will notice, maybe they'll be nice after seeing how quiet you were. Obviously, when California -- innundated by conservative religious money, propaganda, and volunteers -- smacked down gays in the voting booth (by an ever-narrowing margin), the head-down tactic went by the wayside.
Whether gay community's subdued approach to their rights helped or hindered the passage of prop. 8 is moot; but what we do see reinforced here is the notion that many, if not most, of the gay community wants to be folded into popular convention and community mores. The quest for gay marriage isn't about overturning the social structure and "promoting the gay lifestyle," it's about gays wanting to fit in to the existing social structure. The habit of keeping your head down is a tacit acknowledgment to the high school bullies that their opinion matters.
Likewise, I don't see the bulk of the opposition to gay marriage having anything to do with religion or morality -- excluding the True Believers that make up a sliver (albeit a loud sliver) of the electorate -- but instead, again, with convention. Richard Thompson Ford:
Same-sex marriage would transform an institution that currently defines two distinctive sex roles-husband and wife-by replacing those different halves with one sex-neutral role-spouse. Sure, we could call two married men "husbands" and two married women "wives," but the specific role for each sex that now defines marriage would be lost. Widespread opposition to same-sex marriage might reflect a desire to hang on to these distinctive sex roles rather than vicious anti-gay bigotry.
As proof, Ford notes the overwhelming support that gay civil unions have among the electorate -- h*ll, even Governor Palin endorsed civil unions during her debate with VP-elect Biden. Voters begin to balk only when the "m"-word is brought up. And it's likely a reason why young voters don't give a rat's *ss about "protecting" the "sanctity" of marriage: they're already hip to amorphous gender roles. This generation is more likely to see stay-at-home dads and professional moms than that generation warming their rocking chairs at the old-folks homes, who overwhelmingly supported and voted for prop. 8.
It's this reason that a lot of anti-gay-marriage arguments don't make any sense to those of us who support gay marriage. They're really not about gays, or marriage. At first, the arguments tried to depict gays as too corrupt or dangerous for marriage. They can't fit into our civil society because they'd spread disease and immoral behavior (too much shagging). The evidence doesn't fit -- the advent of gay marriage in Massachusetts, for example, apparently didn't drag down that state's leading rank in low divorce rates. And the New York Supreme Court forever recorded its view in its ruling on its gay marriage ban that gays are too moral and stable for marriage: their unparalelled committment serves to discourage frisky, irresponsible straight couples from trying to match their gay betters. The idea that gays would someone ruin the institution of marriage is patently and obviously ridiculous.
Instead the real reaon folks are wary of gay marriage is that they're worried that the neutering of gender roles within a marriage might force them to consider acts that cross gender roles. In short, gay marriage might force dudes to do faggy things like take their daughters to the public library. And forget about ironing! Or baking a cassarole! Or knitting a sweater for Tommy!
How to combat this pervasive, subconscious relationship to gender roles is for others to decided. It might be we'll just have to wait out the old folks. Work on issues that are popular now -- workplace protection and civil unions -- wait a decade for marriage.
On a side note, the question of religion in gay marriage is interesting. I think most people use religion as a crutch in explaining their opposition to gay marriage. It's a helluva lot easier saying it's against your religion than to contemplate social mores, gender roles, and whether you should take your daughter to the library.
As for religious conservatives -- well, there's an age-old debate about social conventions and their usefulness that I won't go in to, other than to say most of those who are devout tend to argue there are true and eternal "godly" conventions that are in constant battle with "faddish" conventions of the day. But given that these "eternal" religious conventions change from generation to generation, what's more likely is that these folks simply are defending their slavish devotion arbitrary and antiquated mores with the rhetoric of eternity. I've always thought true belief would welcome fluidity in understanding and habit. After all, any mortal's conception of "God" is about as representative to reality as my kids' drawing of a ghost is to an actual ghost. But most conservative belief seems to be nothing more than "fossilized philosophy," as Simon Blackburn put it, "a philosophy with the questioning spirit suppressed."
There's an intersting First Amdendment case that went before the SCOTUS recently, involving a small church named "Summum" to place a monument to its "Seven Aphorisims" in a Pleasant Grove City, Utah, park where a monument to the "Ten Commandments" also rests.
The problem here is tricky. On one hand, the city that owns the park is claiming its right to display its current monument because it more closely represents the government's "speech," justifying its displaying one message, while rejecting another. (Justice Roberts: "You have a Statue of Liberty. Do we have to have a statue of despotism?") On the other hand, if the city clings too closely to the monument as an expression of its views, then the current monument likely violates the Establishment Clause, the separation of church and state.
The case is interesting in and of itself, but there's a subplot, too. During the cross-examination of the city's counsel, Justice Stevens asked if the government could "exclude the names of gay soldiers from the Vietnam Memorial"?
Mr. Joseffer had to be pressed to answer the question about excluding the names of gay soldiers. In the end, he said the First Amendment's free speech clause, at least, places no limits on whom the government chooses to honor.
Justice Scalia agreed. "It seems to me the government could disfavor homosexuality," he said, "just as it could disfavor abortion."
Scalia, of course, seems to make decisions based on how they might affect the Republican party's electoral choices. Bush v. Gore is the obvious case, in that it put the interests of George Bush above the voting rights of the Florida electorate, but it was also evident, say, in the recent SCOTUS decision allowing the Indiana voter ID law to stand even as it was acknowledged to right no known wrong, that was partisan in conception and effect, and that it violated the rights of some Indianans. (And let's not forget Scalia's feeble defense of the Bush administration detention and torture policies.)
So, while Pleasant City Grove's lawyer responded to Justice Stevens that the First Amendment is a vehicle that allows civic bodies to expand its speech and recognition of its citizenry's varied makeup, Scalia, from the same statement, saw in the First Amendment the right for polities to limit or even shrink speech and those that can participate in the public sphere.
Certainly that was the gist of his argument in Lawrence v. Texas. I'm guessing that's the argument that Scalia would use against gay marriage should the issue ever come up before the SCOTUS.
That's an awful narrow and limiting way to look at the world, isn't it?
What the h*ll's going on, you ask? It's a group of 700 Club Christians praying to God to restore the economy. Over a golden calf. Seriously.
So what does this have to do with gay marriage? Simple. Pat Robertson and the other televangelicals and mega-church leaders have risen to political prominence on the issues of abortion and gay marriage -- really, issues not at all central to the gospel. In short, they've used these issues to attack groups with little political or economic power -- gays and impoverished women -- while...well, I think the picture explains where the interests of many church leaders lie.
Now I don't mean this to be attack on my neighbors or friends who are conservative Christians. I do understand they feel that homosexuality is a sin, and against what God instructs. Personally, I feel they're misguided -- and no doubt they feel the same about me -- but I'm not going to deny them their beliefs. (Believe me, I'd consider disowning my son if he announced he was going to marry a Yankee fan.)
Too often it seems that those who brandish the issue are looking for a way to raise funds, stir up the electorate against their own economic and political best interests, and to use religion to advance their own political ambition. But the issue isn't about religion, it's about the state, and whether we use the power of government to define how citizens operate their personal lives.
I'm not in favor of gay marriage, I am in favor of marriage.
Or, more specifically, I favor marriage as defined thusly:
Marriage also bestows enormous private and social advantages on those who choose to marry. Civil marriage is at once a deeply personal commitment to another human being and a highly public celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family. "It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects." Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965). Because it fulfils yearnings for security, safe haven, and connection that express our common humanity, civil marriage is an esteemed institution, and the decision whether and whom to marry is among life's momentous acts of self-definition.
In short, I believe marriage is, and should be, a life-long partnership between two people, based on love.
Nowhere in this definition rests any reason why this partnership must be centered around hetereosexual procreation. Nowhere in this definition rests any reason why marriage's public utility requies general public approval of each couple marrying. Nowhere in this definition rests any reason why this partnership would be threatened if life-long same-sex partners were also to enjoy the benefits of marriage.
In fact, I have yet to hear a good and reasonable argument for enlisting the state to interfere in, and prohibit, a couple's "deeply personal committment."
Keith Olbermann had a special comment on the passage of California's proposition 8, which places a ban on gays marrying in the state's constitution:
"If you voted for this proposition, or you supported those who did, or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions. Because, truly, I do not understand.
"Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want: a chance to be a little less alone in the world."
The whole thing's worth a watch. But, really, what a disgrace. And a reminder that this particular black stain still exists on Montana's Constitution in Article XIII, section 7. Which is especially disgraceful, given the document's preamble:
We the people of Montana grateful to God for the quiet beauty of our state, the grandeur of our mountains, the vastness of our rolling plains, and desiring to improve the quality of life, equality of opportunity and to secure the blessings of liberty for this and future generations do ordain and establish this constitution.
If we're going to keep Article XIII, section 7, shouldn't we amend the preamble, too? You know, all that talk about "equality of opportunity" and the "blessings of liberty" might give people the wrong idea about the state.
Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.
I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.
Mildred Loving was "one half of the interracial couple" whose marriage and challenge to a Virginia ban on miscegenation helped strike down laws that prevented couples of different races to marry. (Hat tip JEFF.)
(How do you think this case would have gone in front of today's SCOTUS and Scalia's "originalism"? Given the court's stance on legal discrimination in the Indiana voter ID case...)
Marriage also bestows enormous private and social advantages on those who choose to marry. Civil marriage is at once a deeply personal commitment to another human being and a highly public celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family. "It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects." Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965). Because it fulfils yearnings for security, safe haven, and connection that express our common humanity, civil marriage is an esteemed institution, and the decision whether and whom to marry is among life's momentous acts of self-definition.
Justice Marshall wrote the majority opinion for the case that allowed gay marriages in Massachusetts.
The Michigan Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a 2004 ban against gay marriage also blocks governments and state universities from offering health insurance to the partners of gay workers.
The 5-2 decision affirms a state Court of Appeals ruling.
Up to 20 public universities, community colleges, school districts and local governments in Michigan have benefits policies covering at least 375 gay couples.
Polk County Judge Robert Hanson struck down Iowa's prohibition on same-sex marriage Thursday.
In his 63-page decision, Hanson wrote that the statute excluding same-sex couples from marriage "violates Plaintiff's due process and equal protection rights for the aforementioned reasons including, but not limited to, the absence of a rational relationship to the achievement of any legitimate governmental interest." Therefore, the law is "unconstitutional and invalid."
That's great news. Gay marriage bans are, in effect, laws targeting a specific minority in our communities and denying them rights and privileges enjoyed by the rest of the community. Creating separate legal codes for different groups, IMHO, is not a habit we should be getting into.
Now justices have know this aspect of gay marriage bans since the trend cropped up and the bans were challenged in courts. That's why decisions on the bans have come down to whether government and society have a vested and legitimate reason to prevent gays from going to the altar.
