No More Smear The Queer

by: dgsma

Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 10:47:28 AM MST

This fighting and drama is all a distraction from the real issue, which is, as you probably guessed- money.  The only problem with the divorced parents and child analogy is this: the child is really a changeling, a cuckoo. It is not their child, not really their responsibility at all. But the masquerade has been conducted so well that, even when faced by the truth, the parents refuse to accept it.

full text:
http://dgsma.wordpress.com/201...

The WaPo feels the need to find an opposing view to compassion

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 10:53:10 AM MST

Well, unless you're the Washington Post, which ran an op-ed by anti-gay activist, Tony Perkins, that, like a recent Vox Populi post, essentially blamed the teens themselves for their own deaths, based on host of bogus evidence.

Here's the WaPo in a Twitter exchange with GLAAD's Richard Ferraro explaining why it ran Perkin's piece:

Hi @glaad, we're working to cover both sides. Earlier, we hosted Dan Savage of It Gets Better in a live chat.

Media Matters' Julie Millican recalled a John Stigliz quote around the 2004 election, which explains in part why Perkins' op-ed ran, despite its intellectual dishonesty and plain ickiness:

Most of the media not controlled by the right wing tried to play the role of honest broker, giving equal weight to each interpretation. If one side said the sky was blue and the other said it was orange, journalists would work hard, for the sake of appearing balanced, to find some academic, even a color blind one, willing to say that the sky was indeed orange.

We've been here before, haven't we?

Cyber bullying and suicide

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 08:01:37 AM MST

Pam Spaulding explains:

While they may find acceptance by loving parents and be encouraged by a culture increasingly embracing their identity, these young people find that "being themselves" is not always well-received by an important slice of their world -- school administrators, children who bully, and even teachers who subscribe to the "toughen up" philosophy. This world has not caught up, even as anti-bullying policies are being passed across the country.

Enter, as an extreme example, Vox Populi:

Despite literal decades of preaching about the morality of homosexuality, despite the pansexual propaganda of the public and private schools, the knowledge that what he was doing was shameful and wrong still managed to penetrate Mr. Clementi's mind. A normal man being forced to confront his immorality in such a public way might have reacted with anger, irritation, embarrassment, or amusement, but only one who is both psychologically disturbed and appalled by his own actions will destroy himself over it.

Shorter version: "You fags are so nasty, you should kill yourselves." Conservative blogger Donald Douglas: "These are the most offensive comments I've read."

Or consider the homophobic opponents to the proposed Helena sex-ed curriculum, who fight tooth and nail to deny gay teens any place in school lessons. To them, Pogie responds:

On Tuesday night, at the Board meeting, I heard a lot of talk from opponents of the health curriculum about "agendas." They were concerned about socialist, fascist, United Nations agendas in the document, but more than anything they worried about the imaginary menace of the "gay agenda."

As I testified to the Board, I do have an agenda as a teacher: to ensure that my students have the opportunity to be healthy, become educated, and learn to think for themselves. They deserve to feel safe in school and know that their sexual orientation doesn't diminish their humanity.

Douglas also found excellent commentary from Daniel Gelb on how the Internet magnifies the effects of bullying:

The victim of cyberbullying cannot escape the Internet such a major part of modern life, and the technology affords the bully more tools for harassment (email, instant and text messaging, social networks and mobile media, etc.). Worse, bullies can exploit social networking platforms to gang up on victims. Abusing on these forums can lead to extreme emotional stress and mental anguish, even culminating in the victim committing suicide. The law must evolve to address how our society communicates, promoting proper conduct, and deterring future bullying with a legal means to punish those who cause harm.

It's a strange, new world, people. Maybe it's time to resurface talk about a privacy amendment to the Constitution, which would not only protect teens like Clementi, but consumers from spyware, and citizens from warrantless government intrusion. In the meantime, expect a patchwork of local, state, and federal laws and school district policies that try to walk the fine line between protecting people and the constitutional right to free speech, no matter how loathsome or appalling it is. Still, there's no constitutional protection from others' free-speech rights, and it behooves us all to respond appropriately when we hear something hateful or destructive, whether among friends or co-workers, or from the mouths of public officials.

Meanwhile, there's the "It Gets Better" project (h/t Pogie). It's pretty d*mn cool, and I'd recommend it for all you youngsters out there battling with your own sexual identity and harassment at school - only if you're reading this blog, you're probably already well on your way to peace, love, and understanding...

Senate GOP filibusters DADT repeal

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 12:27:18 PM MST

The Senate on Tuesday voted against taking up a major military bill that would allow the repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, disappointing advocates of allowing gay Americans to serve openly in the armed forces...

According to the Times report, Republicans said they opposed the bill failed because  "procedural reasons." Democrats attached DADT repeal to the military reauthorization bill...along with  the DREAM Act.

Of course, John McCain's been stumping in recent days specifically against DADT. And it's election season, and some Republicans are using gays to whip up the base.

Still, it's a stupid policy. The WSJ:

In the meantime, it's worth noting that there are an estimated 48,000 homosexuals on active duty or the reserves, many of them in critical occupations, many with distinguished service records. If they pose any risk at all to America's security, it is, paradoxically, because DADT institutionalizes dishonesty, puts them at risk of blackmail, and forces fellow warfighters who may know about their orientation to make an invidious choice between comradeship and the law. That's no way to run a military.

And it's worth remembering that this bill failed with 56 votes, thanks to the filibuster and Republican political gamesmanship.

And it's worth noting that both Sens. Jon Tester and Max Baucus voted to end the filibuster, for the DREAM Act and against DADT.

A hollow view that can't come to pass

by: Jay Stevens

Sun Sep 19, 2010 at 10:03:27 AM MST

Here's Senator John Brueggeman (R-Polson):

"I looked at that and said, 'You've got to be kidding me....Should it get taken out? Absolutely. Does anybody think we should be arresting homosexual people? If you take that stand, you really probably shouldn't be in the Republican Party."

And on the constitutionality of the plank:

"To me, that statement legally is hollow," said constitutional specialist Jack Tuholske. "The principle under Gryczan and under Lawrence, that's the fundamental law of the land and the Legislature can't override the Constitution. It might express their view, but as far as a legal reality, it's a hollow view and can't come to pass."

Got it? Constitutionally indefensible, the GOP's plank is essentially a big f*ck you to Montana's gays and lesbians...

Sex sells! (Helena school board edition.)

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 17:56:54 PM MST

It removes an earlier plan to teach kids in first grade that people of the same gender can love each other, and strikes plans to teach second-graders it is hurtful to make fun of gay people by calling them names. Instead, the proposal stress current policy against bullying of all kinds - such as harassment for sexual orientation and many other reasons....

Also gone from the plan is an earlier proposal to teach, starting in grade five, different types of acts included in sexual intercourse.

It also makes sure that starting in fifth grade educators are clear that abstinence from sex is a "healthy choice" and "the only 100 percent effective way" to avoid pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. Other sections on general sex education remain.

They'll still be teaching nutrition. According to the Matt Gouras report, "sex education advocates still gave the revised proposal a warm review." Here's a copy of the revised curriculum (pdf), complete with edits. So much for the process being done in secret, eh?

Both Pogie and Jamee Greer were tweeting the event. Pogie: "Twice sections have been removed because 'they have been misrepresented.' How is that an argument to remove it?" Just goes to show, if you don't like something about a policy, make sh*t up about it. Works like a charm, apparently.

Jamee Greer: "Board thanks community members who have gotten invovled, and heartened by the passion behind this.  They want to see the community involved in everything at the same level, including drop out rates and attendence." Again, sex sells. How do you gin up outrage about policies on dropout rates or attendance? And, yes, I realize the board was being facetious.  

Ravndal not reinstated as Big Sky Tea Party president

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Sep 14, 2010 at 17:23:54 PM MST

Is the Tea Party anti-gay? Not officially...

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Sep 10, 2010 at 07:30:10 AM MST

We continually make it known that we will not tolerate bigoted dialogue, behavior or messages at our functions, our meetings or within our ranks. If a person demonstrates bigotry relative to sex, ethnicity, etc., they are not welcome in our organization. The Tea Party movement is about standing up for individual freedom for everyone.

I return to it because D Gregory Smith asks the provocative question, "is the Tea Party officially more gay-inclusive than the Republican Party?" After all, in the GOP plank, there's this language: "We support the clear will of the people of Montana expressed by legislation to keep homosexual acts illegal."

The short (and simplistic?) answer is, yes it is. As this March 2010 NYTimes notes, the Tea Party movement has studiously avoided "divisive social issues," including gay marriage. The Tea Party manifesto, the "The Contract From the People," advocates only budgetary, economic, and taxation issues. The mission of Ravndal's group - The Big Sky Tea Party Association - doesn't mention any social issues:

The Big Sky TEA Party Association is dedicated to Honoring, Defending, andEducating the public on the Constitutional Principles of our Founding Fathers, which are Limited Government, Personal Responsibility, Free Markets, andFiscal Accountability in our Government.

The more complicated answer is, well, not so much. A poll of Washington Tea partiers found that the members were divided on gay rights - but that Tea Partiers were twice as likely as the general public to say that "gays and lesbians have too much political power." An Ohio Tea Party group sent out a survey that made obvious its opposition to gay rights - as well as abortion, climate change legislation, the income tax, and the existence of the Federal Reserve. Some of the Tea Party's well-known advocates oppose civil rights for gays, and some of its funding allies are anti-gay organizations.

In short, while the Tea Party limits its activities to fiscal issues, it is a-swarm with folks holding anti-gay views. And no doubt many of its members assume the mission of the Tea Party perfectly aligns with their own opinions.

Hopefully, cooler heads will prevail in Montana's Tea Party movement, and they will uphold Jim Walker's statement supporting individual liberty for all. That would be something...

Tim Ravndal press release denial: "unmanly and inappropriate"

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Sep 10, 2010 at 05:55:15 AM MST

Anyway, this is what Ravndal says about his violent anti-gay comment on FB (from the Adams post):

Beginning with the face book thread, there is a time lapse between postings. There is a period of time when Tim left face book after he made the request for a manual in writing to understand what was being talked about. Asking for a display manual based at this point in the thread is hardly implicative of condoning torture or murder.

The FB thread in question:

Tim Ravndal: "Marriage is between a man and a woman period! By giving rights to those otherwise would be a violation of the constitution and my own rights"

Kieth Baker: "How dare you exercise your First Amendment Rights?"

Dennis Scranton: "I think fruits are decorative. Hang up where they can be seen and appreciated. Call Wyoming for display instructions."

Tim Ravndal: "@Kieth, OOPS I forgot this aint(sic) America no more! @ Dennis, Where can I get that Wyoming printed instruction manual?"

Dennis Scranton: Should be able to get info Gazette archives. Maybe even an illustration. Go back a bit over ten years."

From John Adams' original post on the affair, Ravndal claims that he "wasn't even thinking about the tragedy that happened in Wyoming" when he wrote the comment, and doesn't condone violence.

Travis Kavulla:

Having read the Facebook exchange which led to the ouster the "leader" of "Montana's Tea Party"...I'm not sure how Tim Ravndal's comments reported first in the Tribune could be "taken out of context," as he and others are claiming....Anyone who does not see the Facebook back-and-forth as an allusion to the Matthew Shephard murder is guilty of fibbing or idiocy.

I was not going to comment on this, other than to say the Tea Party organization did exactly the right thing in removing Mr Ravndal. Anyone who thinks the murder of Matthew Shephard is comedic fare or anything other than a profound tragedy needs to square up with his or her conscience, and remove himself or herself from public life.

Now it appears the group which removed Mr Ravndal may reconsider its decision. They will very much diminish their credibility if they do this.

It is unmanly and inappropriate-and it does his cause absolutely no justice-for Mr Ravndal to put a spin on this in a mealy-mouthed and non sequitur press release which more befits the CYA lingo one would expect from a long-time politician.

Well said.

Bigotry and the Big Sky Tea Party

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Sep 08, 2010 at 10:32:03 AM MST

Anyway, I'm continually amazed at the harshness of the rhetoric from Tea Party members. Montana Tea Partiers, after all, are making national news with their "out of context" comments on Facebook, especially against gays. I guess the idea that gays threaten "the family" (while ironically looking to create their own, legally) is just the first step towards toppling Western civilization, or something.

Which is an idea that, you know, a third-grader might shun as too childish. So...why have Tea Partiers gone mainstream? Like Matt Taibbi, you have to blame the right-wing news corporations, led by Fox News:

There's nothing in the world more tired than a progressive blogger like me flipping out over the latest idiocies emanating from the Fox News crowd. But this summer's media hate-fest is different than anything we've seen before. What we're watching is a calculated campaign to demonize blacks, Mexicans, and gays and convince a plurality of economically-depressed white voters that they are under imminent legal and perhaps even physical attack by a conspiracy of leftist nonwhites. They're telling these people that their government is illegitimate and criminal and unironically urging secession and revolution.

The Fox/Rush/Savage crowd in the last 18 months has taken the anti-Muslim fervor that launched a phony war in Iraq, carried George Bush to re-election, and pushed through the Patriot Act, and re-directed that anger at a domestic nonwhite enemy. In doing so they've achieved a perfect storm of political cross-purposes: they've almost completely succeeded in distracting the public from the real causes of their economic misfortune (i.e. Wall Street corruption), they've re-energized a Republican party that was devastated by eight years of Bush-era corruption and incompetence, and, as usual, they've made Rupert Murdoch a shitload of money.

Taibbi urges action from us to go after Fox News advertisers. Personally, I've always thought that the traditional media gave Fox News and the Tea Party free reign - which they shouldn't. That is, I was pleased to see the traditional media take on Ravndal, wrest a poor apology from him, and make his organization realize that certain levels of rhetoric isn't acceptable in our community. And it was even more surprising to see the party react to Ravndal's unacceptable comments. Here's what Tea Party board chair Jim Walker said about Ravndal's dismissal:

We continually make it known that we will not tolerate bigoted dialogue, behavior or messages at our functions, our meetings or within our ranks. If a person demonstrates bigotry relative to sex, ethnicity, etc., they are not welcome in our organization. The Tea Party movement is about standing up for individual freedom for everyone.

Great, right? That statement was...decent.

No wonder Tea Party members are up in arms. Looks like Ravndal's dismissal is causing waves. Could we see a purge of the party's board and a reinstatement of Ravndal? They'll have to "correct" Walker's statements, though.

In short, the furor over Ravndal in the Tea Party ranks will reveal what the Montana Tea Party is all about. And I'm guessing Jim Walker won't win this fight.

Big Sky Tea Party ejects Ravndal, irks Allen-Gailushas

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 18:31:03 PM MST

Kristi Allen-Gailushas, secretary of the Big Sky Tea Party Association and Republican nominee for a Helena-area legislative seat, is quitting the group following its removal of president Tim Ravndal for anti-gay comments made on his Facebook page.

"They didn't even listen to Tim and what he had to say," she said. "They were just worried about the [Montana] Human Rights Network and the ACLU and what they were going to say."

Which explains Allen-Gailushas' earlier declaration of war on teh gay.

The Tea Party expelled Ravndal over his violent, homophobic comments? Wow. Kudos to the leadership for booting a loose cannon. Weird. I mean...it's not like the party is full of 'em or anything...

And it's amusing watching Allen-Gailushas try to explain that Ravndal's comments were "taken out of context." Er...? Based on the statement made to John Adams by Ravndal, I'm thinking the dude is kind of a prick and probably meant what he wrote, only backtracking after it hit the national press.

I'll be curious to see if the Tea Party cracks down on any of its members' anti-gay activities after this. I'm guessing...no.  

It's war!

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 08:18:43 AM MST

So it's with deliberation, after reading the Facebook comments by Jason Priest and Tim Ravndal, and dealing with the Bitterroot's  bathroom-obsessed vanguard, that I lump the recent proponents of paleo-conservative homophobia into an ilk. And following the lead of her ilk, Kristi Allen-Gailushas has declared war on the gay community:

Fantastic. I guess all of what came before - the "joke" about hanging gays from barbed wire (like Mathew Shepard), the policy that tries, in essence, to exterminate gays - all of that was just a hobby.

I'm not sure why Allen-Gailushas and her ilk are so obsessed with gays. I'm not sure why they're so adamant on telling us who gets to believe what, and from where they think they derive the power to do so, but this isn't just a weird little blip on the state's political radar. These people are legislative candidates, and they stand a good chance of controlling the state legislature this year. The threat is real.

A wolf in civil clothing

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 09:07:46 AM MST

Traditional family values are under assault from many sides, a crowd at Havre's Town Square was warned Friday night.

But if people who support traditional values fight vigorously but with civility, they will succeed, said Jeff Laszloffy, the president of the Montana Family Foundation, a group that works closely with national lobbyist Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family....

Laszloffy was especially concerned about the "homosexual agenda," which he said has been embraced by the Montana chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU recently filed suit to guarantee same-sex couples the same rights as heterosexual couples, short of marriage. An amendment  to the Montana constitution, passed by voters in 2004, prohibits gay marriage.

But if the courts rule in favor of the ACLU in this case, the next step will be a lawsuit demanding same-sex marriages, Laszloffy warned.

Despite his strong disagreements with the ACLU on gay rights and other issues, he said it was important that civil dialogue take place. He said he and the president of the Montana ACLU frequently have dinner together, seeking to find common ground.

"Do you know what we agree with the ACLU on?" he said. "Absolutely nothing. But we continue to talk."
He recalled that during the 2004 campaign, he and the ACLU held debates around the state. The last one was held in the liberal bastion of Missoula at University of Montana Law School and was sponsored by the ACLU.

"I didn"t feel a lot of love in that room," he said, laughing.

He said that at the end of the debate, a lesbian came up to him and said "I don't agree with a single thing you said, but thank you for not hating us."

"We must not hate them," he said.

Anybody remember this article by Ta-Nehisi Coates?

...Throughout much of America, gays are effectively banned from marrying, not simply certain types of people, but any another compatible partner period. Unlike heterosexual blacks in 1960, the ban gays suffer under is unconditional and total and effectively offers one word for an entire sector of Americans--Die. For evading that ban means virtual--if not literal-suicide....

...{S}ystemic homophobia is, itself, a problem--but among its most heinous features is its utter disrespect for the families formed by gays and lesbians.

And opposition to Helena's sex-ed curriculum is, in large part, because students are told gay relationships exist.

Laszloffy's call for "civility" is a bit disingenuous given he supports a policy that would essentially exterminate the people he claims he's not hating. If he really wanted to be civil, he could step aside and let Americans determine the composition and quality of their own personal lives.

NotMyBathroom tossed from court

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 19:24:18 PM MST

NotMyBathroom.com has lost a lawsuit alleging Missoula city and county officials tried to thwart its petition to strike down the city's anti-discrimination ordinance

"Because the Petitioners reference neither the statute alleged to have been violated nor the facts which support their application ... the Petitioners' application for alternative writ of mandate is DENIED," reads the order from Missoula District Judge Douglas Harkin.

I'm no lawyer, but didn't Judge Harkin just call Tei Nash a dumb*ss?

Douthat's nanny state

by: Jay Stevens

Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 09:00:23 AM MST

So what are gay marriage's opponents really defending, if not some universal, biologically inevitable institution? It's a particular vision of marriage, rooted in a particular tradition, that establishes a particular sexual ideal.

This ideal holds up the commitment to lifelong fidelity and support by two sexually different human beings - a commitment that involves the mutual surrender, arguably, of their reproductive self-interest - as a uniquely admirable kind of relationship. It holds up the domestic life that can be created only by such unions, in which children grow up in intimate contact with both of their biological parents, as a uniquely admirable approach to child-rearing. And recognizing the difficulty of achieving these goals, it surrounds wedlock with a distinctive set of rituals, sanctions and taboos.

The point of this ideal is not that other relationships have no value, or that only nuclear families can rear children successfully. Rather, it's that lifelong heterosexual monogamy at its best can offer something distinctive and remarkable - a microcosm of civilization, and an organic connection between human generations - that makes it worthy of distinctive recognition and support.

I'm not going to quibble here -- he's essentially saying gays are icky, and forming lifelong sexual relationships around breeding is the way we've always done it -- which is all fine and good, and he's free to feel that way if he wants. No one's forcing him to marry a man and raise an adopted child. But where it gets weird is that Douthat is arguing that the state to enforce his view of marriage, that it must use its authority to prevent gays from starting families.

Why? What danger does gay marriage represent that the state must coerce same-sex couples away from lifelong commitments? What could be so important?

Why, the fate of Western civilization, of course. According to Douthat, monogamous, life-long commitments are directly tied to the fate of "Western civilization." It's not only gay marriage that threatens this "unique and indispensible estate," but "serial monogamy" (not to mention philandering spouses, aged singles, and childless couples, apparently). (But then gay marriage has grown out of Western traditions of tolerance and individualistic expression, has it not? Maybe it's gay marriage that's the inheritor of Western civilization, and its banning the sign of sharp turn towards...oh, I dunno...religious fundamentalism?)

But what the cost of allowing other kinds of relationships exist isn't exactly clear. The danger is...other kinds of relationships will exist!

Here's the question, though: should we use the power and authority of the state to uphold tradition? Do we ban ballpark visitors who don't stand after the top of the seventh? Do we jail those that introduce themselves with their left hands? Should those men that don't pay for dinner at the first date be prevented from dating forevermore?

One of the favorite epithets hurled against liberals for favoring infrastructure improvements that ensure, say, public education or affordable healthcare, is that they are creating a "nanny state." Whatever. It's a fun pejorative to underscore conservatives' self-perceived manliness, but, really, isn't the kind of government that conservatives seem to favor - government that forces certain types of behavior, speech, and thought - isn't that far, far closer to their bugaboo nanny state than anything liberals have ever come up with?

Update: Glenn Greenwald points out a couple major fallacies with Douthat's argument that I thought about, but wasn't smart enough to include in the post.

First, because the law allows an act doesn't mean it will become accepted; nor does using the law to uphold "Principle X" mean Principle X will prevail.

Second, the court case surrounding Proposition 8 "did not decree that there are no legitimate moral, theological or spiritual grounds for viewing heterosexual marriage as superior." That is, you can both approve of the ruling and still think heterosexual marriage is teh awesome.

Greenwald:

They just can't misuse secular law to institutionalize those views or coerce others who don't accept them into having their legal rights restricted based on them.  But if they're as right as they claim they are, they shouldn't need to coerce others into acceptance through legal discrimination.  Their arguments should prevail on their own.  The fact that they believe they will lose the debate without that legal coercion speaks volumes about how confident they actually are in the rightness and persuasiveness of their views.

In support of momentous acts of self-determination

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 20:20:04 PM MST

Among his most notable determinations of fact, Walker finds: states have long discriminated in matters of who can marry; marital status affects immigration, citizenship, tax policy, property and inheritance rules, and benefits programs; that individuals do not choose their own sexual orientation; California law encourages gay couples to become parents; domestic partnership is a second-class legal status; permitting same-sex couples to marry does not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, or otherwise screw around. He found that it benefits the children of gay parents to have them be married and that the gender of a child's parent is not a factor in a child's adjustment. He found that Prop 8 puts the force of law behind a social stigma and that the entirety of the Prop 8 campaign relied on instilling fears that children exposed to the concept of same-sex marriage may become gay....He found that stereotypes targeting gays and lesbians have resulted in terrible disadvantages for them and that the Prop 8 campaign traded on those stereotypes.

And then Walker turned to his conclusions of law, finding that under both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses:

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

Simply put, because the state is involved in marriage and confers advantages on married couples, it cannot discriminate against same-sex couples because there's no compelling interest for the state to do so. And if the SCOTUS upholds Walker's ruling, Montana's constitutional same-sex ban will be deemed unconstitutional.

If you've been following the litigation surrounding gay marriage, you'll recognize that proving state interest in the banning of gay marriage has been one of the Herculean tasks of anti-gay courts. No court upholding a gay marriage ban effectively showed why the state should have any interest in banning gays from marrying. Gays marrying has no effect on heterosexual marriages (see Massachusetts' divorce rate since its legalization of gay marriage). Gays marrying has little effect on procreation - and procreation isn't and shouldn't be the primary purpose of marriage, unless you want the state to compel married couples to bear children or forbid elderly couples from marrying.

In short, the generally accepted view of marriage across the country is something that resembles this:

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....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.

That's from the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage in that state.

But then the conservative argument isn't over the right to marry, it's over the right for communities to determine their collective morality. From James Taranto's analysis at the WSJ, opining that - because of past decisions - the SCOTUS is likely to uphold Walker's ruling:

In Perry, however, the defendants are unlikely to be able to counter the plaintiffs' claims by arguing that forcing states to recognize same-sex marriage violates anyone's individual rights. Their appeals are to tradition, morality and the collective right of the people to self-government--worthy arguments, we would say, but ones Justice Kennedy has already rejected in Romer and Lawrence.

A bit misleading, of course. No one's suggesting that communities have no "collective right...to self-government"; rather, a community's laws should not infringe on the individual's ability to prosper and live without serving any compelling state interest. Basically, Taranto's sarcastic jab at individual rights smacks of Rand Paul's opposition to desegregation based on property rights. A weird priority of abstract thought or property over actual people. Just as segregation was a dehumanizing, immoral, and illogical state-based policy, so are gay-marriage bans. Ta-Nehisi Coates summed up the harm the ban does in a comparison with the earlier ban on interracial marriage:

Much worse, the comparison {to the ban on} interracial marriage actually understates the evil of reserving marriage rights for certain classes of people. Banning interracial marriage meant that most black people could not marry outside of their race. This was morally indefensible, but very different than a total exclusion of gays from the institution of marriage. Throughout much of America, gays are effectively banned from marrying, not simply certain types of people, but any another compatible partner period. Unlike heterosexual blacks in 1960, the ban gays suffer under is unconditional and total and effectively offers one word for an entire sector of Americans--Die. For evading that ban means virtual--if not literal--suicide....

...{S}ystemic homophobia is, itself, a problem--but among its most heinous features is its utter disrespect for the families formed by gays and lesbians.

Because there's no compelling, reasonable interest - save the preservation of an arbitrary and outdated moral value - to oppose gay marriage and the ability of gays to form bonds of "mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity and family," it seems more than simply heartless or illogical to deny those that happen to be gay the right to self-identity and, ultimately, simple existence. Of course, many of the conservatives that decry the judiciary upholding individual rights over community mores in the case of gay marriage think that community morality has no place in, say, mine safety, something that has actual and obvious reasons for state interest.

Whatever. There are obviously central belief systems at work here for which these issues are just trappings. For now let's just celebrate a victory in California, not just for gay rights, but for the right of personal independence and self expression.

Montanans sue for domestic partner rights

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Jul 23, 2010 at 10:36:37 AM MST

Seven committed same-sex couples today filed a lawsuit against the state of Montana for failing to provide legal protections to same-sex couples and their families in violation of the Montana Constitution's rights of privacy, dignity and the pursuit of life's basic necessities and its guarantees of equal protection and due process. The goal of this lawsuit is ensure that same-sex couples are able to protect their families with the same kind of legal protections that opposite-sex couples are offered through marriage.

Because there is a constitutional amendment in Montana barring marriage for same-sex couples, the couples in the lawsuit are seeking the protection of state-recognized domestic partnerships, similar to those in place in several other states.

It's right there in the preamble. "We the people of Montana," it begins, "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 you haven't read Montana's constitution yet, do so. It's elegant and striking.

Like section 3, on "Inalienable Rights." "All persons are born free," states the constitution, "and have certain inalienable rights. They include the right to a clean and healthful environment and the rights of pursuing life's basic necessities, enjoying and defending their lives and liberties, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and seeking their safety, health and happiness in all lawful ways."

Or section 4, on "Individual Dignity," which states simply, "No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws."

Seems like a slam dunk, doesn't it? And, as Dan Savage notes, this isn't a lawsuit for gay marriage, but for domestic partnership rights:

And there won't be any protest from defenders of marriage because these same-sex couples aren't seeking the right to wed. All they're demanding is that the state of Montana recognize domestic partnerships. So, again, we can expect no protests from the defenders of marriage... right? And if defenders of marriage should protest or attempt to block domestic partnerships for same-sex couples-like they did in Hawaii-all the folks who are constantly urging gays and lesbians to be reasonable and settle for civil unions or domestic partnerships will loudly condemn the defenders of marriage for being unreasonable... right?

We know Savage is being facetious, because Montana conservatives are sure to do some ALCU- and gay-bashing over this lawsuit. You saw what happened when Missoula passed its anti-discrimination ordinance, you see what's going on in Helena over the specter of telling kids that gay parents exist. Heck, right in the GOP platform is a call to outlaw gays.

Still, it's possible the ACLU and the seven couples who initiated the suit will win. And that will be good.

On a personal note, kudos to Missoula's Casey Charles for being one of the litigants. He was a colleague and friend at the university, and I'm not at all surprised at his courage and tenacity here.

DOMA and the Tenth Amendment

by: Jay Stevens

Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 11:33:32 AM MST

Tauro drew on history in his ruling, writing that the states have set their own marriage since before the American Revolution and that marriage laws were considered "such an essential element of state power" that the subject was even broached at the time of the framing of the Constitution. Tauro noted that laws barring interracial marriage were once at least as contentious as the current battle over gay marriage.

"But even as the debate concerning interracial marriage waxed and waned throughout history, the federal government consistently yielded to marital status determinations established by the states," Tauro wrote. "That says something. And this court is convinced that the federal government's long history of acquiescence in this arena indicates that, indeed, the federal government traditionally regarded marital status determinations as the exclusive province of state government."

It's an interesting decision for a number of reasons.

For starters, the judge evoked the Tenth Amendment - a favorite of the right wing because they see it as a tool to fight federal power over, say, segregation or the health care bill, not for the legalization of gays. Naturally, the decision is creating consternation among some conservative groups.

Still, while it's fun seeing conservatives skewed on their own petard, the decision, if upheld, may rebound against liberals:

Perhaps more importantly, his Tenth Amendment arguments prove entirely too much. As much as liberals might applaud the result, they should be aware that the logic of his arguments, taken seriously, would undermine the constitutionality of wide swaths of federal regulatory programs and seriously constrict federal regulatory power.

That's assuming, of course, that an inherent characteristic of liberals is a proclivity towards federal regulatory power - which is untrue. Sure, liberals like federal power upholding the rights of individuals, but not so much when it intrudes into our everyday private lives in the form of domestic spying or conservative religious moral codes. And it seems to me that the judge in deciding this case limited the interpretation of the Tenth Amendment to marriage, operating under legal precedence and tradition.

Jack Balkin seems to think this decision won't survive the appeals process, and he's probably right. But who knows? Our pro-corporate SCOTUS might like to get its hands on this, expand the scope of the decision, and use it to dismantle Social Security and Medicare and free corporate America from any financial obligation to the nation's human health, environment, education, or infrastructure...

Take the hate out of the GOP

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 10:54:17 AM MST

Really? Is this the will of the many reasonable Republicans in this state? Is this the will of Republicans who are gay (and, according to this platform plank, filled with self-loathing and irrational self-prejudice), of Republicans with LGBT family members and friends (who, according to this plank, really loathe and detest us and are really only being nice to us so they can take away our peaceful right to co-exist?), of Republicans who actually know better? Or is this the will of a cabal of unenlightened leaders who are looking to de-humanize a segment of the population?

I suspect the latter. I know many reasonable Montana Republicans- hell, I'm related to quite a few. I know that this is not their "clear will". I know it's not the will of my parents, my extended family, my friends and colleagues. Where did this come from? What is this "clear will" they're talking about? Whatever it is, it's wrong.

It's easy sometimes to brush off a whole chunk of the ideological spectrum when you read 18 words in a state party platform, but oftentimes these things are conjured up by a handful of folks with a particular ax to grind.

The question is, will Republicans and conservatives who oppose the criminalization of gay stand up and let the party know that this plank is unacceptable?

Greg has the links where you can express your opposition:

Do it here:

Montana Republican Party
PO Box 935
Helena, MT 59624
(406) 442-6469

Or, write on their Facebook Wall- suggested post: "take the ignorance and hate out of your platform!"

Coming soon to a bedroom near you: the Montana Republican party

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 09:12:00 AM MST

Homosexual Acts

We support the clear will of the people of Montana expressed by legislation to keep homosexual acts illegal.

Igor Volsky:

But the Montana Supreme Court struck down the State's sodomy law in 1997 and ruled that the law violates the State constitutional right to privacy....

In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court found in Lawrence v. Texas that Texas' "Homosexual Conduct" law - a measure outlawing oral and anal sex - unconstitutional. The Court ruled that the Texas statute "making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due Process Clause." (pdf) "The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to choose to enter upon relationships in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons," the Court ruled in a 6-3 ruling.

Apparently, Montana Republicans want to strip the state's gays and lesbians of both their dignity and freedom. So much for the Constitution, and so much for liberty.

You know, when it's relatively harmless crazy stuff - like the obsession with the United Nations - it's fun and games. But this? Criminalizing private, intimate acts between consenting adults? Criminalizing sexual acts not pre-approved of by right-wing conservatives? You know where this is heading. Count me out.

Update: Just saw that jhwygirl wrote about this last night. What she said.