July 16, 2009
Did Sen. Graham endorse gay marriage?
Posted by: Andoni
I was shocked and delighted at the way Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) approached his questioning of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor during the Senate confirmation hearings today. He seemed to be laying the groundwork for Justice Sotomayor and the Supreme Court to rule DOMA unconstitutional.
Graham's two areas of concern in his questioning were whether the right to bear arms was a fundamental right and whether one state should be forced to recognize another state's same sex marriage. He indicated that these were two questions of potential major societal change that the Supreme Court will one day soon have to consider. Graham conceded that although he doesn't want activist judges, that indeed sometimes the Supreme Court needs to step in to secure certain rights because those rights make people uncomfortable and are so unpopular that they could never be achieved by the legislative process.
Graham then cited an example of where the Supremes imposed a major change on society -- Brown v Board of Education, the decision that desegregated the nation's schools. Graham confessed that if he himself had been a Senator from SC in 1954, he could not have voted to desegregate the schools because it made so many of his constituents uncomfortable and was so unpopular. It could not be done legislatively. He seemed to feel that this case of judicial activism and major social change was the right thing to do. He claimed that the case was well argued and that harm to that group was well documented.
Graham concluded his history, sociology and government lesson with this surprising statement praising Sotomayor:
"I think fundamentally, judge, you're able to embrace a right that you may not want for yourself to allow others to do things that are not comfortable to you, but for the group, they're necessary."
I have no idea if Graham only had the right to bear arms in mind when he encouraged Sotomayor to rule for rights that are necessary even if they make other people uncomfortable, but the two cases he told her (and us) were heading for the Supreme Court were gun rights and gay marriage rights.
To me it sure sounded as if he was arguing for Sotomayor to become part of a Supreme Court that would proclaim a fundamental right to bear arms as well as the right of gays to be married in every state of the union --- no matter how uncomfortable this made some people.
Who would have thought that Senator Lindsey Graham was a closeted freedom to marry supporter?
July 02, 2009
End 'special rights' for gays: allow them to marry
Posted by: Andoni
We are all familiar with the right wing mantra that gays are asking for "special rights" when in reality we are only asking for equality. Well, here's an example that turns the "special rights" argument on its head. In some situations, the very act of denying gays equal rights, actually creates "special rights" for gays, not vice versa.
Exhibit A is Martina Navratilova. She has been in two high profile long term same sex relationships. In both relationships she went through a "marriage" ceremony with her spouse, but these marriages were not recognized by the state. In the first marriage Martina escaped the usual division of assets that heterosexual couples must endure when they split because her marriage was not recognized by the state. It appears that the same thing is happening in Martina's second "divorce." The state of Florida will not recognize her New Hampshire union. As a result, Martina will most likely once again be able to walk away from this second marriage with all her assets.
It's possible some gays are happy with these special rights, because it indeed allows gay couples to dodge loss of assets in a divorce. However, if I were a straight person I would be quite unhappy with the special rights gays are getting in this area. I think I would come up with a bumper sticker that read:
Stop special rights for gays: allow them to marry.
June 15, 2009
Defending Obama's indefensible defense...
Posted by: Chris
... of the Defense of Marriage Act. OK not really. But at the risk of being labeled (once again) as an Obama apologist, I want to add a bit more context to the excellent analysis done by Andoni and others of the DOJ's brief defending DOMA.
Like most of you, I was profoundly disappointed by the filing, and my heart sank even further when I read some of the arguments used by the Obama Justice Department in favor of DOMA's constitutionality. The analogy to incest, in particular, was completely beyond the pale. Although (once again) it's not fair to say the brief directly compared same-sex relationships to incestuous relationships, it is ludicrous and insulting to suggest there is no meaningful legal distinction between laws that don't exclude gays from marrying and laws that permit an uncle to wed his niece.
It was also patently irrational to argue that DOMA doesn't discriminate against gay Americans because we, too, can enter into "traditional marriages." Its unfathomable that lawyers for a president who is the product of an interracial marriage would use an argument that was rejected some four decades ago in Loving v. Virginia. In that case, the Supreme Court rejected the state's argument that anti-miscegenation laws weren't racist because both whites and blacks were equally restricted to marrying within their own race.
Even so, once my blood pressure came under control, I cannot join those who see the DOMA brief as a "betrayal" by President Obama or even as a sign that his administration will be "throwing us under the bus" like the last Democrat occupant of the White House did. Here's why:
First and foremost, candidate Obama did not make any commitment that I'm aware of to refuse to defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. That would have been an extraordinary promise for any presidential candidate to make about any piece of duly adopted legislation, and yet I don't know of a single time the question was even put to Obama or his competitors, or where he was even asked the more general question of whether DOMA is unconstitutional.
There's obviously a big difference between believing a law is wrongheaded or unfair or even discriminatory, on the one hand, and believing it is unconstitutional, on the other. Since Hillary Clinton defended her husband's decision to sign DOMA into law, and only favored half-repeal, it's fair to conclude she agrees with the Obama DOJ that DOMA's deficiency is a matter of policy, not constitutionality. Ditto the Human Rights Campaign, since "the nation's largest gay rights group" chose only to score the candidates on whether they support DOMA's half-repeal -- thereby equating Clinton's views with Obama's.
If this question of DOMA's constitutionality is so crucial and fundamental, then why did everyone -- all of us -- fail to raise it during the eons-long presidential campaign? We thought about DOMA enough to make a big deal -- or not -- about half-repeal vs. full repeal, and others questioned Obama about the positions the DOJ might take in defending Don't Ask, Don't Tell in court. So why didn't we ask for a commitment about refusing to defend DOMA as well? And if we didn't, maybe we should take a deep breath before accusing Obama of treason for how his lawyers ultimately answered our unasked question -- in a lawsuit that most gay legal experts wish had never been brought and hopefully will get dismissed.
A spokesperson has explained the DOJ brief saying that, "As it generally does with existing statutes, the Justice Department is defending the law on the books in court." John Aravosis makes a good point by digging up examples of the DOJ under previous presidents declining to defend the constitutionality of certain statutes in court, but rather than proving the Obama administration is "lying," he accomplished the opposite. Four examples out of thousands hardly disproves the claim that "generally" the DOJ defends laws passed by Congress and signed by the president.
Let's also pause long enough to consider whether we want to advocate the politicization of the Justice Department. Let us recall from the debate over the Bush administration's "enhanced interrogation techniques" that the DOJ has an independent obligation to weigh questions of legality and constitutionality. Those decisions ought to be made on the basis of the law, not politics. It's not fair for us to switch sides on that argument when it suits our cause, however worthy.
Please, please don't take away from these observations any hesitation on my part about the constitutionality of DOMA. As someone whose entire life has been torn apart for years now because of this single federal law, I know its destructive force, and for years counted myself among those who see DOMA as a gross affront to the Constitution. Nonetheless, I think it's a bit too easy to condemn President Obama for failing to anticipate a complicated legal question that our own advocates either also failed to anticipate or decided was unworthy of raising during the presidential campaign.
Speaking of our own advocates, I will say it was refreshing to see Joe Solmonese at HRC actually speak out on the issue, even if he ultimately cops out by attempting to evade any institutional or personal responsibility for the mess we find ourselves in. Solmonese's impassioned letter to Obama calls on the president to "put your principles into action and send legislation repealing DOMA to Congress."
Is that the way Washington works, Joe? Are we really to believe that this consumate lobbyist -- who couldn't resist bragging about his own White House access in the same self-serving letter -- completely missed that "Schoolhouse Rock" episode on how a bill becomes a law?
Solmonese and his Beltway minions know damn well the president doesn't "send" legislation to Congress. Even on top administration priorities like the stimulus package and health care reform, the bills are drafted by legislators -- hence the name -- with public and private input from the White House throughout the process, including what importance the president puts on passage.
If pressure is to be brought to bear, and indeed it should, then it ought to focus first on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. So when the mayors of San Francisco and Los Angeles raised a public ruckus with the president over DOMA this weekend, HRC should passionately remind them that not one of the Democrats in Congress from these two gay meccas, including a certain Speaker of the House, has introduced, much less given priority to, a bill to repeal DOMA.
Why is it, then, that in the 13 years since passage of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act that HRC and its friends in Congress have failed to "put principles into action" and draft repeal legislation, identify House and Senate sponsors and co-sponsors, pressure for hearings or otherwise shepherd the bill through the legislative process?
I will answer my own question. Because anyone with even a passing familiarity with gay politics in our nation's capital knows that HRC long ago agreed with its cronies in the DNC and on the Hill not to even begin pressing for DOMA repeal until a whole laundry list of other (far less important and less controversial) legislation is adopted.
With all of this context in mind, I would humbly suggest that we take each of Andoni's five examples of direct action and aim them also (not instead) at your member of Congress, the Democratic leaders in both the House and the Senate, and our dear friends at the Human Rights Campaign. Has either Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid even committed publicly to repealing DOMA, or half-repealing it?
Let's demand that HRC publicly release draft language for repealing DOMA and point us to members of Congress we should lobby to take on leadership roles in sponsorship. (And how about federal civil unions legislation while they're at it!) With those pieces in place, pressure on the White House can be much more concrete, and all this righteous anger might move the ball forward toward relationship equality.
The DOMA f*ck up
Posted by: Andoni
ADDENDUM AT END: (THE NEW YORK TIMES AGREES)
As you can read here and here, the Obama Justice Department filed a brief defending DOMA. This was no ordinary brief. It was way over the top with arguments that could have just as well been made by Pat Roberson or Jerry Falwell. I'm still scratching my head over how this could have happened.
One of the authors of the brief was a Bush appointee who happens to be Mormon. It's pretty obvious in reading the brief that his personal religious views got in the way of prudent arguments. The Assistant Attorney General in charge of the office that filed the brief is Tony West, an Obama appointee, and by all accounts a progressive person. He is married to someone who was the ED of a major California pro gay non profit. (I don't want to drag names of uninvolved spouses or organizations into this, but a few googles will give this information if you are curious). The point being, I doubt the Assistant Attorney General -- the head of the office that filed the brief, is anti-gay.
So this is a major screw up that should never have happened. What do we do? So far, we've been complaining among ourselves. This is my advice to my friends and my email lists:
Complaining amongst ourselves about the horrendous brief that was filed by the Obama DOJ last Thursday afternoon defending DOMA does no good. We need to do something constructive, like TODAY -- when the government offices are open again in Washington after the weekend. I don't know how many people are reading this, but I bet if we all make a focused attempt to do the following, we will be heard:
1. Call or email the the White House (or do both) to register your strong complaint/disapproval/anger at the the Dept. of Justice's legal brief filed last Thursday defending the "Defense of Marriage Act" in US District Court, Central District of California, Southern Division (Smelt v United States). Make sure you reference DOMA, Dept of Justice, and filed in federal court in CA last Thursday so that when they tally the calls at the end of the day, our calls get lumped together. (Referencing Smelt v United States would be icing on the cake.) Emails to the White House can be made at: whitehouse.gov/contact/ and the comment phone line is: 202-456-1111. If you wish and have time, you can cite as an example some particular section of the brief that is particularly outrageous to you.
2. Ask/demand that the president fulfill his campaign promise to repeal DOMA by immediately introducing legislation to repeal DOMA
3. I would hope that all three (in concert if possible) of our representatives in Congress call or meet with the appropriate person in the White House to explain/protest how demeaning and over the top the DOJ brief was. They should stress that this was a completely avoidable fiasco if the White House had only consulted with them on this matter first. They should also point out that this is an example of why we need an LGBT senior staff liaison in the White House.
4. I would hope that every person who represents an LGBT organization would have that organization also contact the White House with the same above messages.
5. If you are a member of another email list, you would send the above suggestions to that list, so that the calls and emails snowball.
Taking action is preferable to complaining among ourselves. We've been run over here. If we don't make a loud noise and protest, the next time it will be even worse.
If we can't get enough people to take action over this -- to make our voices heard at the highest levels on this very justified complaint, I fear we don't have the energy, unity or passion to achieve equal rights in the near future.
ADDENDUM: The New York Times agrees with us. Here is their great editorial this morning. And I'm glad to report that Joe Solmonese, ED of the Human Rigths Campaign sent the president a strong letter that is well worth reading.Here's a key clip from the opening paragraph:
"I realized that although I and other LGBT leaders have introduced ourselves to you as policy makers, we clearly have not been heard, and seen, as what we also are: human beings whose lives, loves, and families are equal to yours. I know this because this brief would not have seen the light of day if someone in your administration who truly recognized our humanity and equality had weighed in with you."
June 12, 2009
Defending DOMA
Posted by: Andoni
ADDENDUM AT END
In case you haven't heard, the Obama Justice Department has decided to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in federal court. You can read the brief in Smelt v The United States of America here (at the bottom) along with some reactions here. A statement from some of the major LGBT organizations are here.
Reading the arguments the DOJ makes to defend DOMA really makes me angry and I wonder if this is what President Obama or the higher ups in the White House really think. It's the same arguments the Republicans and religious right have been making for years --- with even a few new ridiculous ones thrown in.
The only thing I can conclude is that we've been thrown overboard by the Obama administration or by presenting such ridiculous arguments, this is a really clever way to throw the case.
For instance they argue that restricting rights is a legitimate action of the federal government because it can save the federal government money. What federal court accepts the principle that you can deny rights because there's not enough money to administer them. By that reasoning we can close down polling places in poor neighborhoods or Democratic neighborhoods and say we don't have enough money to keep those places open. Lack of money should never be a reason to deny equal rights.
Or the argument that federal tax money can't be collected from people in states that do not recognize same sex marriage going to benefit sames sex married couples in states that do. This is bullshit. A citizen or state or any other entity cannot specify or prevent federal dollars from being sent to a specific place or for a specific designation. If citizens could specify how and where their federal tax dollars could be used, a lot of people would request that their money not be spent on war or the pentagon or tobacco.
The people in the Justice Department writing this brief made so many discredited and ridiculous arguments for DOMA, I hope these were really intended to help the court see the fallacy of DOMA to persuade the court to strike it down. Otherwise my only other conclusion is that the Obama White House has thrown us overboard.
ADDENDUM: Harvard constitutional law exprert, Prof. Lawrence Tribe, offers the Advocate another plausible reason for the DOJ filing this lawsuit. Of all the federal lawsuits challenging DOMA, this is the worst one and has the least probability of succeeding. It has a good chance of going to the Supreme Court and losing, thus cementing DOMA consitutionally in place for a long time. The DOJ has merely asked that this lawsuit be dismissed, then made a laundry list of every single argument ever made for DOMA, hoping that one would stick and the case would be thrown out. Tribe seems to think that the GLAD case (you know that group that has been so successful in the New England states) is the best challenge to DOMA out there, but that one (timing wise) is behind this one, so this one had better not reach the Supreme Court before the GLAD case. The GLAD case was crafted to appeal to five or more justices on bases that we are fairly certain they agree with. If GLAD wins, that will slice DOMA open and some of pieces holding it together will fall apart, making DOMA much more vulnerable for the next lawsuit. The idea is to put a hole in DOMA first, then go in for the kill later. Most experts think the Smelt challenge (above) doesn't have a chance of touching DOMA at the Supreme Court level, and would only serve to cement it in place for years (think Bowers) if they lose. That's why it has to be moved out of the way by having it dismissed.
So maybe the DOJ is doing its job (defending the United States laws) and helping the marriage equality cause both at the same time. I mean, if this case doesn't have a chance at the Supreme Court, knock it off now.
It still hurts to read all those debunked (and even pre-Lawrence) laundry list of arguments being used against us. But I guess if you are trying to get a case thrown out, you use everything you have, hoping that one will stick.
I would feel much better if Obama would simply let us in on what his plan and timeline are to achieve LGBT equality. Since June is Pride month, now would be a good time to tell.
So if any reporters are reading this, the question for Press Secretary Gibbs is, "Can you share with us what is the president's plan to achieve his campaign promise of gay and lesbian equality and what is the timeline for that plan?"
June 08, 2009
Marriage in jeopardy in N.Y. Senate switch
Posted by: Chris
Two New York City Democrats defected to the other side in a Senate leadership vote that appears to have swung control of the body over to Republicans. At stake in the switch is a vote on gay marriage legislation which both men are said to oppose:
One source of contention among Democrats recently has been Mr. Smith’s support for same-sex marriage. Senator Rubén Díaz Sr., a Democrat from the Bronx, has been outspoken in his insistence that legislation allowing gay couples to marry not be allowed to come to a vote. Some had speculated he might leave the Democratic Party if Mr. Smith were to allow a vote.
But Mr. Díaz did not join Mr. Espada and Mr. Monserrate in the leadership vote on Monday. It was not immediately clear whether the same-sex marriage legislation played any role in the leadership dispute.
It's ironic that Republicans are trumpeting the changeover as an opportunity to "bring real reform to the Senate" considering that the GOP had controlled the body for four decades until this January, and both the Democratic turncoats are under investigation: Pedro Espada Jr. (R-Bronx) is under scrutiny for his business dealings and Hiram Monserrate (D-Queens) is facing felony charges for assaulting his girlfriend.
(Photos of Espada and Monserrate via the New York Times)
June 04, 2009
Don't Ask Do Deal: HRC's betrayal
Posted by: Chris
I've been writing for years and years about the tragic willingness of those in "leadership" roles of the gay rights movement to cut deals that betray their supposed constituents. Joe Solmonese and David Smith of the Human Rights Campaign are archetypes of this pathetic trend -- grossly overpaid lobbyists who spend far more political capital lowering the expectations of gays on behalf of the Democratic Party than they do pressuring for equality in Washington.
Thanks to a report for the Daily Beast by Jason Bellini -- formerly with Logo -- we have yet another pathetic example of HRC's betrayal of the movement, agreeing not to press for repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell until next year:
Don't say I didn't warn you. HRC and the Democrats have been promising (with no plan to deliver) passage of a hate crime law and Employment Non-Discrimination Act for more than a decade, including before the 2006 election, and yet we are still expected to be satisfied by these same civil rights crumbs for the entire first year that Democrats are firmly in control of Washington.
In some ways, delay is somewhat more justifiable on DADT than other gay rights measures, given the implementation steps to be taken in the midst of two foreign wars. But make no mistake: if DADT waits until 2010, then relationship recognition -- whether repeal of DOMA or a federal civil unions law -- won't get touched until after the midterm elections, if then.
I hope that grassroots activists and gay folks nationwide play Bellini's report again and again, paying special attention to Smith's dissembling and Solmonese's smarmy status-whoring, along with the ridiculous excuse-making by Tammy Baldwin. Come on, Congresswoman -- there hasn't been enough "education" on gay rights issues? Polls show overwhelming public support for not just ENDA and hate crime laws, but repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell and for marriage or civil unions. Enough with the lame, self-serving excuses!
As for "the nation's largest gay rights group," we are definitely not getting what we pay for. Despite an astronomical budget, we get backroom deals and snail's pace progress. Then again, what do we expect from a civil rights group that recently bought a building with a 30-year mortgage? The Beltway tuxedo crowd is in no hurry, especially if actual activism might risk their coveted access and cocktail invites.
All this nonsense reminds me, unfortunately, of why I burned out on gay politics earlier this year. We can only hope that independent voices bypass the Solmonese/Smith crowd and demand change directly from the Democrats in power -- in the White House and on Capitol Hill.
Count me in for another March on Washington -- let's just make sure the HRC building is included on the protest route.
June 03, 2009
The 'big M' is 'empathy'
Posted by: Chris
It was a bit of a head-turner this week when Dick Cheney, the former vice president and conservative attack dog, took time out from his blistering critique of Barack Obama to disagree with the president from the left on the issue of same-sex marriage.
“I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish — any kind of arrangement they wish,” Cheney said during a question-and-answer session that followed his harsh assessment of how the current occupant of the White House is handling the economy and national security.
“The question of whether or not there ought to be a federal statute to protect this, I don’t support. I do believe that historically the way marriage has been regulated is at the state level. … But I don’t have any problem with that. People ought to get a shot at that,” he added.
Instant analysis from the blogosphere took pleasure in the obvious irony that such an iconic figure from the Republican right now appeared better on the issue than the Democratic president who despite opposing marriage equality has promised to be a “fierce advocate” for gay rights.
Not so fast. Careful observers like Denis Dison, who blogs for the Victory Fund at GayPolitics.com, noted that Cheney stopped just short of saying he actually supports marriage for gays, referring as he has in the past to gay couples entering into “any kind of union they wish.” We are dealing here, after all, with a politician who knows how to parse his words, re-branding waterboarding and other forms of torture as “enhanced interrogation techniques.”
More concretely, Cheney’s opposition to “a federal statute to protect this,” while also vague, could either be referring to a law banning states from marrying gays or a law that extends marriage rights nationwide.
In that sense, Obama still comes up better than Cheney on marriage friendliness, since the president supports full repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, the heinous federal statute that allows states to ignore same-sex marriages elsewhere, as well as blocking federal recognition.
A “federal statute” repealing DOMA could decide things nationwide as a practical matter, since even couples in states that ban gay marriage would be able to travel to places like Massachusetts or Iowa, get married, and demand legal recognition back home.
Even if Obama remains better on paper, it is certainly fair to complain that he’s done nothing concrete thus far toward ridding us of DOMA — much less been a “fierce advocate.” Then again, no Democrat in Congress has introduced repeal legislation either.
All in all, Dick Cheney’s supportive comments tell us less about the president than they do about gay marriage as an issue and how a personal connection can be so critical in winning over even hardened hearts and minds.
As we all know, the former veep’s younger daughter Mary is gay, and she and her long-time partner have a young son. By all accounts father and daughter are very close, personally and politically; so much so that Mary managed her father’s re-election campaign in 2004. From that close-in vantage point, Dick Cheney understands full well that her desire to marry — or “union”-ize — is a basic human need that poses no threat to the “traditional family.”
A Gallup poll out last week confirmed the importance of that personal touch. Among Americans who said they don’t know personally know anyone who is gay or lesbian, opposition to same-sex marriage runs almost three to one. Among those with who do, slightly more support marriage equality than oppose it.
Marriage isn’t the only hot-button controversy impacted this way. Nancy Reagan became such a "fierce advocate" for stem cell research, parting ways with the religious conservatives who are her husband’s greatest admirers, because she saw firsthand the devastating effect of Alzheimer’s.
There is a word to describe this ability to look beyond politics and even religious teachings to see how an abstract issue has real impact in real lives, whether among loved ones or strangers. It’s called empathy.
It’s the quality that President Obama said he was looking for in a Supreme Court nominee, and it’s the reason Sonia Sotomayor may well be right that, on average, “a wise old Latina” ought to make a better judge than “a wise old white man.”
It’s the reason your's truly is no longer the conservative Republican I once was, because seeing bigotry and grossly unequal treatment up close has given me greater empathy than I had before for the struggles of others.
And it’s empathy that will ultimately be responsible for President Obama eventually finding the political courage to lend his support for full marriage equality.
May 27, 2009
A wretched ruling that also happens to be right
Posted by: Chris
The ruling yesterday by the California Supreme Court upholding Proposition 8's same-sex marriage ban sent thousands into the streets of San Francisco, Los Angeles and dozens of cities across the country to protest. Long-time activist Robin Tyler, who was a plaintiff in last year's successful suit challenging the state's gay marriage ban and the unsuccessful legal attack this year on Prop 8, didn't mince words.
"The upholding of Proposition 8 by the court is a cowardly retreat from the pro-equality stance it took last year," said Tyler, "and makes our state a laggard behind pro-equality states like Iowa and most New England states."
The reason for her frustration is obvious enough. A little more than one year ago, the California high court struck down a ballot initiative banning same-sex marriage as a bias-motivated measure that violated equal protection under the law and impinged on a "fundamental right" guaranteed by the state's Constitution. Six months later, an almost identical ballot initiative called Proposition 8, adopted by an even smaller margin of votes, snatched away that "fundamental right."
Confronted with such a naked power play -- a bare majority re-adopting the same ballot initiative found unconstitutional a year earlier -- the California Supreme Court this week just shrugged its shoulders. "There's nothing we can do," the 6-1 majority said, essentially. "It's just really easy to amend our Constitution."
That’s really what the challenge to Prop 8 came down to -- the very same simple majority of California voters that can adopt a state statute by proposition can also amend the state’s constitution by proposition. It’s a huge flaw in the constitutional design of our most populous and influential state.
If individual rights are to be protected from the majority abuse, then trampling on a minority should obviously require something more than a simple majority of voters. That’s why the U.S. Constitution and the founding documents of the vast majority of other states don’t let amendments go before the voters at all, or only after they are pre-approved by a legislature, usually by super-majority and often over successive sessions.
The gay plaintiffs challenging Prop 8, backed by state Attorney General Jerry Brown, tried their best to make an end-run around the easy amendability of the California Constitution, honing in on archaic language that says “amendments” can go before voters but “revisions” have to get the legislature’s OK first.
Parsing through the difference between an “amendment” and a “revision” is the kind of thing that earns lawyers the revulsion of right-thinking people everywhere. In this case, the court majority got the better of the argument, pointing to an uninterrupted chain of earlier court rulings about what amounts to a “revision.”
Despite the best pro-gay efforts of some very smart lawyers, calling Prop 8 a “revision” rather than an “amendment” would require ramming a very square peg down a very round hole.
It’s very cold comfort, of course, to know that the justices weren’t simply cowardly fearing recall by voters -- another fundamental flaw in California’s legal system -- when they upheld Proposition 8; just like it’s pretty cold comfort that the court didn’t forcibly divorce the 18,000 same-sex couples who married before Prop 8 passed.
Still, the news isn’t all bad. Politically speaking, it will be much better for the gay rights movement in the long haul to repeal Prop 8 at the ballot box, rather than from the bench. Equality California has already announced plans to put a pro-gay proposition -- call it Prop Anti-8 -- on the 2010 ballot, and this week’s court ruling has at least energized volunteers. What’s more, this temporary defeat may actually turn into the mother of all victories for same-sex marriage. Just today, two of the most prominent lawyers in the U.S., who just so happened to be on opposite sides of the Bush vs. Gore case back in 2000, have come together to file a federal lawsuit challenging Proposition 8.
These two strange same-sex bedfellows include Ted Olson, a conservative hero as George W. Bush’s lawyer back in 2000 and subsequently solicitor general for W.’s first term, along with David Boies, Al Gore’s lawyer and the guy who took on Microsoft back in the ’90s for the Clinton Justice Department. Their Prop 8 suit is based on the guarantees of equal protection and due process in the U.S. Constitution, and if successful would in domino fashion strike down gay marriage bans everywhere, along with DOMA, the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
Even with the involvement of these legal giants, this latest lawsuit is itself a risky gamble, given the conservative state of the judiciary and the precarious balance of power on the U.S. Supreme Court. But if it works, this week’s protesters can take special joy in how Proposition 8 ultimately won the great gay marriage war.
(Protest photo via San Francisco Chronicle/AP)
May 05, 2009
Greek court annuls gay weddings
Posted by: Andoni
Remember those same sex civil weddings on the Greek island of Tilos that I reported a while back? Well, a Greek court, under strong pressure from the Greek Orthodox Church, ruled yesterday that those marriages were illegal.
One of the married couples said they are going to appeal -- that it's a human rights violation.
I believe this one will eventually end up in the European Union Court of Human Rights. Then we will find out if in the new Europe (the EU) the church is still stronger than the state.
As an aside, I just happen to be in Greece (on the island of Corfu). I have been planning to take a break from posting, but this is a story I had been following, so I felt obligated to report on it.
Although Corfu is not off the beaten path, my intention is to see many of the off the beaten path Greek islands (traveling as a local) over the next 8 weeks. On the list are Tilos (the island where the marriages took place), Amorgos, Folegandros, Symi, Patmos, Kefalonia, Paxi and Skopelos. That means I won't be visiting my favorite one, Santorini (or Thira, as it's called in Greek). Hmm..... Santorini, Corfu...how did so many Greek islands end up with Italian names?
As you have noticed, Chris is taking a break, and now I am too. So this site is going to get even quieter.
I will occasionally do a post if the news warrants, like if President Obama nominates an openly lesbian person to the Supreme Court. Short of that, not too many posts from me for a while.
April 19, 2009
Frank Rich prods CA Supreme Court
Posted by: Andoni
No matter where I am in the world, the first thing I do on Sunday morning is read Frank Rich's column in the NYTimes. It's a sad day for me when he is off.
As you know I am of the opinion that the California Supreme Court should void Proposition 8. You can read my reasoning in Dred Scott and the CA Supreme Court and in Marriage decision in Iowa - UNANIMOUS. Evan Wolfson's argument to void Prop 8 is here.
In today's NYTimes, Frank Rich (to my mind) reminds the California Supreme Court Justices of their role. After citing Brown v Board of Education, Rich asserts:
"But the judiciary has long played a leading role in sticking up for the
civil rights of minorities so they’re not held hostage to a majority
vote."
This is exactly the situation that we have in California. The majority (a very slim one at that) is holding a minority hostage and the Supreme Court has to speak out loudly and clearly to remedy this situation and lay a precedent so that it cannot happen again. There is no clear precedent to deal with this exact situation in California. The Court should set a precedent for this situation. They should declare loudly and clearly that a simple majority cannot strip away the rights of minority the way they did.
Should they decide the other way, this will be their Dred Scott decision and they will go down in history as the court that repeated that infamous mistake.
A 50 state solution
Posted by: Andoni
A recent Advocate article reports that LGBT Congressional supporters are working on a bill to partially repeal DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act). The elements of their legislation are remarkably similar to the one I made in a post the day after President Obama's inauguration.
In my proposal I didn't actively seek to repeal DOMA because I thought it would be politically too difficult at this time, but I effectively repealed it through definitions. The difference between my proposal and the current one being debated by gay leaders is that with theirs, marriages from MA, CT, IA, and VT will be able to be called marriages at the federal level instead of civil unions. Theirs is the better solution, but politically more difficult to do. Repealing DOMA, even only section 3 will be a hard task. But it is also the cleaner solution.
One current aspect of their legislation that is still under discussion is whether and how to open up the 1138 federal benefits of marriage to people in all 50 states. They seem to be leaning in the direction to do this. The legislation would have to be written so that it is triggered when a couple enters into a legally recognized same sex relationship in a state that creates same sex unions. It should not depend on where the couple resides, but rather that it was a legally sanctioned union when it occurred and that it continues to be legal in that jurisdiction. This would allow a couple from GA which has a constitutional amendment against recognizing same sex unions to go to MA to get hitched and then return to GA to receive the federal benefits (filing income taxes jointly, social security survival benefits, etc), even though the state of GA would not recognize them as married and they would receive no benefits from GA.
This is very important. For instance what happens if a couple is married in MA, lives there for a few years receiving both state and federal benefits and then the company transfers them to GA? Why should the federal benefits cease upon crossing a state line? It's the same federal government, it's the same couple and it's the same country. Of course, their state benefits would cease in GA, but I believe that their federal benefits should not. And if someone suggests that they should have to live in MA for a certain period of time before their federal benefits can be portable, what is the proper time? Six months? A year?
Another logical question is what if the couple remains in MA their whole life but move to FL (a non marriage state) to retire and one spouse dies the next day? Should no Social Security survival benefits be paid after all those years and a legal marriage in MA? What if the couple is in MA when one spouse dies, and the surviving spouse starts receiving Social Security survival benefits but then decides to retire to FL. Should the benefits stop when she moves to FL? These are all real life questions.
I argue, that the law should be written so that once you are in the federal system, triggered by a legal marriage, you stay in the system with respect to the federal government unless that marriage is legally dissolved.
But as I argued in my previous post:
You may ask, how can the federal government grant rights at the federal level, when the state government where the couple resides may not do the same?
There is at least one parallel situation - probably more.
Just like marriage licenses, the federal government does not issue doctors' licenses either -- states do. So how does the federal government recognize doctors who can practice in the federal medical system (the Veterans Administration, the military, the public health system, etc.)? It recognizes the state licenses. To practice medicine in the federal system and receive all the rights and benefits granted to a physician by that license, you must hold a license legally obtained from one of the 50 states. Your license may be from MA, but the federal government will recognize you as a doctor in the federal system in Alabama (for example at the VA hospital) even though the state of Alabama will not recognize that license and will not allow you the rights and benefits to practice in their state outside of the VA system. Alabama will not recognize your license to practice medicine from MA even if the federal government does. So just as the state of Alabama does not recognize a same sex marriage license from MA, or a doctors license from MA, the federal government does recognize the doctors license and could do the same with the other license. The federal system and the state system are two separate and independent systems. This is at the heart of federalism that some Republicans like Bob Barr strongly support.
Another point made by Mark in the discussion part of my prior blog is whether it is too much to ask a poor gay couple to have to travel to one of the coasts to get a civil union or marriage to receive those 1138 federal benefits? Now that Iowa has gay marriage, the people writing this legislation believe there is no need to consider how to get benefits to these people. (That would have required the federal government to create unions -- something that it is not in the business of doing.)
These are exciting times and I am anxious to see what the final legislation looks like. But I think that it is very important that it is written so that people in all 50 states can participate in federal benefits.
April 12, 2009
Rick Warren cancels interview
Posted by: Andoni
What's going on with Rick Warren? Yesterday , I wondered if he was changing his view on gay marriage, trying to rewrite history, or what.
Today, Warren was scheduled to be interviewed on This Week With George Stephanopoulos, but canceled just moments before the interview. It was a sure bet that Stephanopoulos would have asked him to clarify his position on gay marriage.
This is getting interesting.
April 11, 2009
Has Rick Warren changed his view on gay marriage?
Posted by: Andoni
Evangelical preacher Rick Warren claimed on Larry King Live earlier this week that he was not a proponent of Prop 8. This has stunned fellow evangelical leaders. Warren's words seem at odds with a video he sent to his parishioners just before the November election asking them to vote for Prop 8.
So what's going on here? Is Warren in denial over what he exactly said and did back in November? Or is he now ashamed of his actions and is trying to distance himself from those actions? Or has he changed his position?
If Warren is actually transitioning his position on gay marriage, then this is another example of Obama knowing exactly what he was doing when he invited Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration.
I would vote (again) for the fact view that Barack Obama knew exactly what he was doing by inviting Warren to the inauguration, and when the time comes Warren will be more of an ally for gay rights legislation than we ever dreamed.
April 10, 2009
The politics of marriage
Posted by: Andoni
Following the victories in Iowa and Vermont this past week, Matt Coles, Head of the ACLU LGBT and AIDS Project sent out an email analyzing the future of our continuing battle for marriage equality. With his permission I post his comments here:
Some week. The Vermont legislature voted to let same-sex couples marry, and the Iowa Supreme Court decided that it is unconstitutional not to let same-sex couples marry. Together, these two events are a much needed shot in the arm for marriage.
Matt Coles
April 03, 2009
Marriage in Iowa - UNANIMOUS
Posted by: Andoni
The Iowa Supreme Court ruled unanimously today that gay couples have the same right to marry in Iowa as straight couples.
Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal and House Speaker Pat Murphy, they issued the following remarkable joint statement following the decision:
"Thanks to today's decision, Iowa
continues to be a leader in guaranteeing all of our citizens' equal rights.
"The court has ruled today that when two Iowans
promise to share their lives together, state law will respect that
commitment, regardless of whether the couple is gay or
straight.
"When all is said and done, we believe the only
lasting question about today's events will be why it took us so long.
It is a tough question to answer because treating everyone fairly is really a
matter of Iowa common sense and Iowa common decency.
"Today,
the Iowa Supreme Court has reaffirmed those Iowa values by ruling that gay
and lesbian Iowans have all the same rights and responsibilities of
citizenship as any other Iowan.
"Iowa has always been a leader in
the area of civil rights. In 1839, the Iowa Supreme Court
rejected slavery in a decision that found that a slave named Ralph became
free when he stepped on Iowa soil, 26 years before the end of the Civil War
decided the issue.
"In 1868, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that
racially segregated "separate but equal" schools had no place in Iowa, 85
years before the U.S. Supreme Court reached the same
decision.
"In 1873, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled against racial
discrimination in public accommodations, 91 years before the U.S. Supreme
Court reached the same decision.
"In 1869, Iowa became the
first state in the union to admit women to the practice of
law.
"In the case of recognizing loving relationships between two
adults, the Iowa Supreme Court is once again taking a leadership position on
civil rights.
"Today, we congratulate the thousands of
Iowans who now can express their love for each other and have it recognized
by our laws."
Iowa is indeed a remarkable state. What a great decision and reaction from their political leaders!
I will update this post as I can. I'm beginning 3 months of intensive today, so my posts will be infrequent.
UPDATE: If you wish to read a summary of the decision from the Iowa Supreme Court, you can do it here, with the full decision here.
I am hoping that the justices from the California Supreme take note and read this decision. It just might help them develop the backbone to void Prop 8. They got it right in May in their landmark decision. To uphold Prop 8 at this point will not look good for them in history......and they should realize that.
March 21, 2009
Introducing: The Omnibus Gay Rights Bill
Posted by: Andoni
Finally, someone has put together an Omnibus Gay Rights Bill.
Officially called the Equality & Religious Freedom Act Proposal (Omnibus Equality Bill, for short), it is the work of eQualityGiving.org, a group composed of LGBT major donors and activists.
Tired of the piecemeal approach for equal rights taken by our leadership over the past 15 (or more) years, eQualityGiving decided to put it all on the table. If the goal is LGBT equality, let's spell out exactly what that means at the federal level -- in one bill. This is a very comprehensive, very well thought out proposal that has been months in the making. It is more than just the sum of the parts of our current proposals before Congress.
There are the major pros and cons of this approach. Critics will say that this bill is DOA. There is no way Congress will do all this. We aren't equal, we aren't close to being equal and they simply won't do it. Besides, a bill that encompasses so many issues will be split up and sent to a dozen different Congressional committees based on legislative jurisdiction, where it will turn into mincemeat when finished .....if it ever survives any of the committees.
The pro side says that we need to show Congress what true equality really looks like for the LGBT community. When you spell out what true equality is, it is glaringly obvious that we are second class citizens at best and in many cases -- non citizens. At the least this proposal can be used as the gold standard, the measuring stick, against which all piecemeal legislation will be measured.
So after ENDA (the Employment Non Discrimination Act) is passed and everyone says, wow how great, we can point to the Equality Bill and say, OK, that's a little bit of what is necessary, but look at how much is still missing. I think that alone makes this bill worthwhile to have around.
A lot of work by a lot of smart and enthusiastic people went into crafting this proposed legislation. I think you should take a look at it to see how good it is. It addresses everything but marriage at the state level, which is not a federal issue.
Feel free to tell us what you think.
Full disclosure: I am a member of eQualityGiving.
March 15, 2009
Prohibition and gay rights
Posted by: Andoni
History repeats itself. That is the theme in Frank Rich's wonderful Op Ed The Culture Warriors Get Laid Off in today's New York Times.
According to Rich, we are entering a new period where the public has again tired of the anti-science, let me impose my values on you crowd. After the major economic downturn we have experienced over the past year, the culture wars are a luxury we can no longer afford. The same sort of cultural reversal happened in 1933 during The Great Depression.
In the period leading up to the Depression fundamentalists pushed for Prohibition and anti-evolution legislation - succeeding on both counts. The Depression ended all that nonsense. In the period leading up to today's great recession, the fundamentalists peddled an anti-gay, anti-stem cell research agenda and also succeeded broadly.
Now history is repeating itself. Anti-stem cell research was reversed last week by President Obama with only a whimper from the religious right and public opinion is showing majority support on most of the crucial gay rights issues - employment, the military, and our relationships.
We need to take advantage of this moment in history. FDR demonstrated that a president can lead a nation to reform on cultural issues when the country's mood changes. Obama should follow that example. As the saying goes - it is his moment, it is his time.
March 13, 2009
Will he or won't he?
Posted by: Andoni
The New York Times says President Barack Obama is in a tough spot with regard to whether he should allow the federal government to provide health insurance benefits to partners of same sex couples as two California federal appeals court judges ruled yesterday.
The Office of Personnel Management has instructed insurers not to obey the judges' order because of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). And of course religious conservatives such as Gary Bauer, president of American Values, are threatening (in an almost gleeful manner) that if Obama provides these benefits it will reinvigorate the conservative coalition. To complicate all this further is the fact that Obama's designated, but unconfirmed, new director of the Office of Personnel Management is M. John Berry, a gay man.
The judges' ruling was not the result of of a lawsuit but as part of a ruling as employers resolving employee grievances.
I don't think Obama is in as tough a position as the Times says he is. He should simply say this is not about marriage, it's about equal pay for equal work. The partner benefits are part of the pay package for federal employees and the federal government cannot and will not be part of discrimination that pays some employees less than others for the exact same work. He can even say, "Let me be clear about this" so we know he means business.
There really is no other way to provide equality, because the insurance package is more than just the money involved to pay for the partner's insurance; a major benefit is the access to that insurance as well. In most instances the partner would not be able to buy this good insurance on their own.
Unfortunately, the IRS will tax this insurance benefit as income, which is patently unfair, but that's a different matter that is best left to fight about on another day.
March 06, 2009
Dred Scott & the CA Supreme Court
Posted by: Andoni
I watched online the entire oral arguments at the CA Supreme Court yesterday challenging the legitimacy of Prop 8. I must say, I was quite disheartened when it was all over. Our side's argument that Prop 8 was a constitutional revision (major change requiring a higher bar) versus an amendment (simple change requiring a lower bar) pretty much fell on deaf ears.
Chief Justice Ronald George pretty much summed it up when he suggested that maybe the real problem is that the California constitution is just too easy to change by amendment, having been done over 500 times, and that maybe it should be made more difficult to amend. My first thought was well, yes, but please don't change the rules now that we will probably have to go back to the people to amend again in order to get Prop 8 out of the constitution. Wouldn't that be the irony of ironies... they change the rules to make amendments more difficult to pass after we've been screwed, just in time for when we have to get something passed to undo the damage. Wouldn't that be great?
There was a line of reasoning during the case that didn't pass my logic test. The California constitution refers to the inalienable rights of all Californians to life, liberty, etc. But the justices also kept referring to the inalienable right of the people to change the constitution. The justices chose to think that the inalienable right of the people collectively to change the constitution (a simple majority) outweighed any inalienable rights of any individual or minority. This translates into the inalienable rights of the majority is more powerful than the inalienable rights of the minority. That means the majority rules the minority, regardless of inalienable rights.
Conclusion: there are no inalienable rights -- it's simply a matter of majority rules.
I can't imagine that is what the framers of the CA constitution had in mind when they wrote the constitution and described inalienable rights. If the that is what the CA Supreme Court decides, then the document is internally inconsistent.
Another point that got me angry was that the justices seemed to admit that it was indeed unfair for a simple majority to take rights away from a minority. They also said it would be unfair to those already married to have their marriages nullified. Both things unfair. But they chose reasoning that seemed to indicate that they would allow the first unfairness to stand, and somehow were finding reasons that the second unfairness should not stand.
My take-away is that the court would rule against the Prop 8 challengers (our side) and say Prop 8 is valid, but allow those 18,000 marriages to stand. Maybe they believe that by doing this they will seem more moderate, coming down on both sides of the issue giving the Prop 8 supporters a win, while also giving us a little something.
From my personal perspective (not married in CA or living in CA), I would rather that if we are defeated on Prop 8 the question, that they also rule to un-do all those marriages already performed. My reasoning is that this will demonstrate to the public more fully the damage they have wrought by voting for Prop 8 and it will demonstrate the real agenda of the religious right. If those 18,000 marriages are undone, I believe, we have a better chance of winning in 2010 when we try to overturn Prop 8. It will be crystal clear to the voters in the middle how damaging Prop 8 really was.
Finally, I was dismayed by the totally slavish way the justices felt their hands were tied by precedent (in the amendment versus revision question) even as they were simultaneously saying how they could see that it was unfair that a simple majority could remove a fundamental right from a minority. And they were simultaneously acknowledging that this was a totally unique case- nothing like this had ever come before them. They were certainly in new territory.
Well, news flash to the justices. When you are in totally uncharted territory you cannot go to the field manual they gave you in school. Old maps, precedents, etc don't apply! They won't work. Trying to apply old charts, rules, doctrines, to a totally new situation is what chained to the past people like Herbert Hoover do. In truly uncharted territory, smart people and true leaders find new ways to do the right thing and get to the right solution, even if it's not in the books. Think Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War or FDR during the Great Depression and World War II.
I'm afraid that the CA Supreme Court is going to act more like bureaucratic lemmings using inapplicable precedents to tackle a never before seen situation, rather than incorporating logic, wisdom, and creativity.
In one of the most monumental cases ever before the CA Supreme Court, I'm afraid these justices are going to think like the justices who produced the Dred Scott decision, rather than the Brown v the Board of Education decision. The Dred Scott justices based their decision on the old manual; it was tethered to precedent and the past. The justices in Brown used logic, wisdom, and new thinking to move the people to a better place.
I certainly hope I am wrong and will gladly admit it if I am.
March 03, 2009
Challenging DOMA, finally
Posted by: Andoni
Finally, someone is challenging the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in a smart fashion. The Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD, with one "A"), the same group that successfully challenged the marriage laws in MA and won -- resulting in the first state to perform same sex marriages, is now challenging DOMA. It isn't challenging all of DOMA, but only certain aspects of Section 3, the section that says that the federal government won't recognize same sex marriages.
The legal group is honing in on "equal protection" of certain federal benefits that most Americans can relate to, such as Social Security survival benefits, joint filing of income taxes, retirement plans for federal employees, and passports. GLAD has found eight married couples and three widowers as plaintiffs for the suit. One is Dean Hara, former spouse of deceased Congressman Gerry Studds (D-MA), who was denied the Congressional pension and other benefits normally given to surviving spouses of federal employees.
Will this work? I think it has a darn good chance. GLAD has a great track record of knowing when and how to challenge things. Because of the importance of this case, it is quite likely that the final word will be from the U.S. Supreme many years from now. But because it would be extremely difficult for the Court to enumerate exactly what rights and benefits Section 3 should exclude, it is quite likely that all of Section 3 would fall. That would mean any legal marriage would be eligible for those 1100+ federal benefits now denied gay married couples.
What will be interesting for me is how vigorously the lawyers from the Obama Justice Department will defend this case. If Obama himself feels that all of DOMA is unconstitutional, can this be reflected by the Justice Department? And if the plaintiffs win in the First Circuit (Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, and Rhode Island), would the Obama Administration appeal to the Supreme Court? Or would they let the decision stand, allowing most of New England to receive federal benefits for same sex marriage.
I believe the most likely outcome of this lawsuit is that the publicity surrounding this case will shift public opinion into realizing the inherent unfairness of DOMA section 3, and that Congress will repeal that section before this case reaches the Supreme Court.
February 24, 2009
Civil unions WILL lead to marriage
Posted by: Andoni
Something that the far right realizes that seems to be outside of the grasp of many our leaders in the gay community is that once you have a national civil unions law, it is only a matter of time before you get marriage equality. Separate but equal is not a sustainable position in this country. It will be easier to go from civil unions to marriage than from nothing to marriage. Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, gets it. In responding to a compromise national civil unions Op Ed in last Sunday's New York Times, co-authored by a fellow leader of the religious right, Perkins warns that "once a civil unions law is in place, denial of marital status would be almost impossible to defend."
The right realizes this, our leaders don't.
Many proposals have been made advocating ways to achieve civil unions nationally, especially since it is President Obama's official position to have full civil unions for gay people. Federally recognized civil unions would mean civil unions in all 50 states. All couples would have to do is go to a state that offers civil unions to get hitched, then return to their home state. Federal couples' benefits in all 50 states is a big deal. These would include things like social security survival benefits, joint tax returns, partner immigration rights.. over 1100+ very substantial rights and benefits.
Federally recognized civil union proposals have been elucidated here, here and here.
Civil unions can be accomplished because 75% of the public supports the idea.
In private emails from leaders in our community, I have been told that I have it all wrong, that the best way forward is to hold out for marriage equality. I strongly disagree.
Right now it's like standing on the side of the road waiting for a bus and the bus keeps passing me by. The bus won't stop to let me on. If one day the bus stops and tells me that I can get on but I have to agree to sit in the back, I would gladly do it. Once on the bus I know I will be able to fight my way forward until I get a seat in the front. It's much harder to get a seat in the front of the bus if you're not on the bus at all. If I'm still standing on the side of the road, I seriously doubt that the bus will one day stop and offer me a seat in the front of the bus. It didn't happen that way for the African Americans; what makes us think it's going to happen for us?
From a public relations (selling the public) point of view (as well as I believe in court), it's much easier to argue that a national separate but equal institution for gays is un-American-- both historically and constitutionally. Separate but equal has been stigmatized in the US and the public will get it after a very few years. However, trying to convince people or the court that we should be allowed to marry when the starting point is having nothing (no recognition at all) is be a tougher sell.
This is a no-brainer folks, and I'm starting to get angry at our leaders who won't pick up on Obama's civil union idea. Obama clearly sees the way forward and is trying to lead us to that next step, but our leaders seem oblivious to it.
h/t Andrew Sullivan
February 23, 2009
Dustin Lance Black, award winning speech
Posted by: Andoni
If an Oscar were given for best acceptance speech while receiving an Oscar, Dustin Lance Black would win my vote. Black, who won the Academy Award for for Best Original Screenplay for "Milk," brought tears to my eyes with a brief description of his own personal struggle of being gay in a hostile world, then gave hope to millions of young gays by paraphrasing Harvey Milk, asking them to love themselves and assuring them that very soon they would have equal rights federally across this land.
February 22, 2009
Another civil unions proposal
Posted by: Andoni
Both Chris and I have each elucidated on ways to take take advantage of President Barack Obama's explicitly stated support for full civil unions on the White House web page to score a giant leap forward for gay rights. Chris' post on this topic is here and mine here .
The Washington Blade also did a story exploring how Obama's civil union proposal might be implemented.
So far, however, no such bill to recognize civil unions is on the radar screen at HRC (Human Rights Campaign) or the offices of any of our three openly gay elected Representatives, Barney Frank, Tammy Baldwin or Jared Polis.
But the civil unions idea keeps rolling along. In today's New York Times, David Blankenhorn, a religious conservative, and Jonathon Rauch, a gay marriage advocate, have teamed up in an Op Ed to make a specific proposal on how to move gay marriage forward -- in the form of civil unions. The key to passage of this bill which recognizes gay marriages as civil unions is a compromise with the religious community exempting it from having to recognize these unions and also giving them a wide exemption from any anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation. Just as Chris and I proposed, it defines civil unions as any same sex marriage or civil union legally performed by a state.
It is heartening to see the mainstream media picking up on Obama's civil unions and coming to the same conclusions Chris and I have. Also, since the proposed Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) already gives religious institutions an exception (this bill would broaden it), I can live with the proposal in today's New York Times.
There are several issues that must be considered before this bill is introduced. The main one is that if this is the compromise position, it would have to introduced with enough co-sponsors (or counted votes) in the Senate and the House that it passes as is, without amendment. Normally, such a bill would start out as a marriage equality bill, and end up like this after the compromise. If we start with this bill and work it through the normal channels of the House and Senate, the compromise wouldn't be worth too much.
My second main concern is that we would have to get our own left wing on board. There are people in our community that are for "marriage or nothing" and would try to kill this, even though it moves us 3/4 of the way to the prize and would recognize gay marriages from MA and CT.
I'm encouraged that Obama's willingness to support full civil unions is generating ideas on how to take advantage of this and move gay rights forward.
Now I have to ask, where are Barney, Tammy, and Jared.....and, of course, HRC. Being the leaders of our community bears some responsiblity to ..... well, actually lead.
February 04, 2009
Gays -- still criminalized
Posted by: Andoni
If you thought the Supreme Court decision declaring the anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional ended the criminalization of gays for simply loving another person, think again.
For gays in relationships, here is something not very pleasant to think about, especially now when tax problems are haunting a number of high profile public officials. Married straights can legally pass an unlimited amount of money, financial help, assets, benefits, services, etc. from one partner to another. Gay couples, however, cannot. Gay couples (and because the federal government does not recognize such marriages, even gays married in MA) can only pass $11,000 worth of cash, financial support, benefits, etc. from one partner to the other. Anything more than that is a taxable event (either as a gift tax on the donor or income tax on the recipient). And if you don't pay the taxes, it's a crime.
So the simple act of loving another person and doing for them what any straight married person would do for their partner can make you a criminal.
This is especially pertinent in these hard times when one partner may be totally supporting the other.
In a heterosexual marriage where one partner stays home and is supported by the partner who works, there is no tax problem. Such a situation can easily produce more than $11,000 worth of benefits moving from the working partner to the non working spouse. The value of mortgage or rent payments, food, car, insurance, clothes, utilities, etc. can easily surpass $11,000. Gay couples, however, in the exact same scenario, are breaking the law by taking care of their partner and not paying taxes on those benefits.
Is this fair? Absolutely not! But it's true.
There is a striking parallel here to the situation of old when in some states heterosexual sodomy was legal, but gay sodomy was not.
This potential tax problem doesn't only occur with stay at home partners. It can also happen when both spouses begin a relationship sharing expenses equally, but then one gets sick or loses a job.
Would any prosecutor or an IRS agent pursue gay couples for this type of tax violation or am I describing a non problem? Well for most of us the sodomy laws were non problems as well, unless of course you had an overzealous prosecutor who wanted to make a name for himself or score a political point. And at a time when government appointees are getting extra tax compliance scrutiny, it may only be a matter of time before a gay appointee faces this situation.
The basic problem, just as with the sodomy laws, is that anyone at any time can bring this infraction up to use against you.
A second problem is that this is not good for the psyche. Knowing that society's rules say that when you form a family and do the same loving, supportive things that a "recognized" married couple does, but your loving actions are illegal, this is not a great feeling. In fact, it's a terribly depressing feeling.
For the most part, breaking tax laws won't get you jail time, you simply have to pay the penalties and back taxes. But, just like after a plea bargain for a sodomy solicitation charge, it sure can short circuit a promising career in a hurry -- just ask Tom Daschle.
Do any of Obama's gay appointees have the type of tax problem I describe? I don't know. But the very fact that some schmuck has the ability to use this unfair part of the tax law against any one of us at any time should give all of us pause. In fact, it should give us motivation to fix this problem fast.
This tax predicament is just another good reason why our relationships should be recognized at the federal level as soon as possible. And if we can't have that, Congress should pass a targeted bill that addresses this couples' issue in the tax code. The best solution, however, is gaining the 1100+ federal benefits that opposite sex couples have all in one bill, not 1100 separate bills.
No gay couple that I know pays gift taxes or income taxes on net transfers of money or financial benefit from one partner to another. We are all potentially vulnerable at any moment if someone wants to make an issue of it. Just as the sodomy laws used to hang over our heads, these tax laws are also waiting to be used against us. We should move to fix the situation as soon as possible.
January 27, 2009
Throw some gays overboard, again?
Posted by: Andoni
Remember the battle last year when the trans members of our community were excluded from the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) --- resulting in activists and most LGBT organizations exploding in protest? They argued that it was not right to move forward with federal rights and benefits for some in the community while others are left out. We have resolved this bitter policy argument by committing that this year when we move forward with employment protections, we will do so only if all members of our community can receive these benefits.
We face a parallel situation again today -- leaving many in our community behind-- in our quest for federal marriage rights. If we pursue marriage as the sole vehicle to achieve the 1100+ federal rights and benefits for our relationships (the ones that come with opposite sex marriage), we will effectively be throwing gay couples who live in the 30 states with constitutional amendments prohibiting same sex marriage overboard. When everyone else gets marriage benefits, gay people who live in these 30 states will be left behind and get absolutely nothing. They will also have no hope of getting these benefits or protections for their relationships for a very, very long time.
Repealing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) will bring the 1100+ federal rights and benefits only to couples who live in states that perform same sex marriage (MA, CT) or recognize same sex marriage (NY, RI). Repealing DOMA also gives hope for gay couples in the 16 states that have the possibility of same sex marriage sometime in the future. However, gays in the 30 other states will be completely shut out and left behind.
This poses a huge problem. If we choose to go forward with a marriage only strategy at the federal level, we are actively choosing to pursue a strategy that excludes a segment of our community-- just as we did to the trans community when we left them behind over ENDA.
There is a simple and fair solution to this dilemma and that is to pursue a strategy of moving forward with both MARRIAGE and CIVIL UNIONS simultaneously. Pursuing this path is not only fairer, but would result in achieving couples' rights and benefits in all 50 states, not just 20. We would be taking care of our entire community and leave no one behind.
This solution permits us to pursue the strategy that Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry wants as well as the strategy that President Obama outlines for LGBT civil rights on the White House webpage -- at the same time. If we were investing in securities this strategy would be called diversification; it has the benefit of maximizing our protections and minimizing our risks.
If we pursue marriage and marriage only, here's what it would take to get federal couples rights and benefits to gays in all 50 states:
1. DOMA must be repealed (or declared unconstitutional) which would result in gay couples in four states getting the federal rights and benefits of marriage, with another 16 possible after some long and hard work in each state. For gays in those 30 states that have inoculated themselves against same sex marriage with constitutional amendments, nothing happens and much, much more would have to happen before they have a chance to see couples' rights.
2. Next, using the "full faith and
credit" clause of the US Constitution, some gay couples will have to
get married in (let's say) MA and then go back to (let's say) GA and
sue to try to have their marriages recognized there. After many years
this would end up in the US Supreme Court and then if we win (a very
big if), those 30 states will have to recognize our marriages. This may
take 10 years or more. But even after that victory, those 30 states
still will not have to perform same sex marriages.
3. Finally, another lawsuit will have to be filed challenging those state constitutional amendments on the federal "equal protection" clause, to compel those states to perform same sex marriages. This may also take 10 or more years.
Add this all up and it becomes a generational wait for the unfortunate gay people in those 30 states.
By SIMULTANEOUSLY going full steam ahead with marriage-- trying to repeal DOMA and get marriage rights state by state in the18 states where it's possible, AND pursuing a federal level civil union strategy as President Obama wants, we can end up with couples rights in all 50 states much quicker; 20 can have marriage and the other 30 who have no hope for marriage, can have civil unions while waiting for the courts or Congress to do the right thing. Another reason we can't forget gays in these 30 states (such as SC, GA, AL, MS, , TX, NV, etc.) is they are the ones who really need some gay rights, arguably more than the people in MA and CT -- although I know that no one group deserves rights more than another. The point is that EVERYONE deserves rights and we shouldn't neglect any subset of our community as we move forward.
Both Chris and I have blogged on ways to achieve civil unions that would work well for all 50 states, not depend on DOMA being repealed and complement the state by state fight for marriage.
At this point some clever person might say, but Don, being trans is not a choice, while living in GA is. If the person living in GA wants couples' rights and benefits, they should move to MA. Well that same argument was made about trans people and ENDA last year. Cynics suggested that any trans person who wanted employment protection should move to a state such as NJ or OR where they could have these protections. However, most commentators shouted this argument down saying a person should not be forced to make a geographical move in order to obtain basic rights. So for this discussion I'm going to stipulate that moving is not a valid solution for couples' rights either.
Finally, I would like to remind you of a really smart move right out of Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign playbook. Obama pursued a "50 state strategy" to win. If we go forward only with marriage, we are pursuing a "20 state strategy" because there are only 20 states currently "in play" for marriage. However, if we pursue both marriage and civil unions, we are using a "50 state strategy," putting all 50 states "in play."
For gay rights, a "50 state" strategy is far superior to a "20 state strategy.
I firmly believe that true equality comes only after we have same sex marriage coast to coast. That is our ultimate goal, and I am a supporter of marriage equality both politically and financially.
However the question today is how to get to that ultimate goal fastest while also being fair to ALL members of our community, not just some.The answer is that pursuing both marriage and civil unions simultaneously is the smartest strategy moving forward.
January 23, 2009
A switch in time saves Gillibrand?
Posted by: Chris
UPDATES: At the end of the post.
However you felt about Caroline Kennedy's precocious non-campaign campaign to be the new junior senator from New York, she would have represented improvement over Hillary Clinton on marriage equality. For whatever reason, Kennedy made support for marriage equality one of the few controversial issues on which she took a specific stand. Hillary, of course, insists she's not there yet -- in public or in her heart of hearts.
Now that we know New York Gov. David Paterson has selected Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand, it appears that all the time that he took to make the decision did not result in a better gay rights outcome. Gillibrand aligns with Hillary against marriage, though she does back federal civil unions.
In an interview with the gay-sounding non-gay publication Inside Out Hudson Valley, she elaborated:
What I’d like to do legislatively, on the federal level—and I think we’ll be able to do this with the new president—is actually make civil unions legal in all 50 states, make it the law of the land. Because what you want to fundamentally do is protect the rights and privileges of committed couples, so that they can have Medicare benefits, visit in the hospitals, have adoption rights.
All [the] things that we give to married couples, committed gay couples should be eligible for. And then the question of whether you call it a marriage or not, what you label it, that can be left to the states to decide.
[It’s] so culturally oriented. My mom’s generation, they want their gay friends to have every right and privilege that they should be eligible for as a married couple, but they feel uncomfortable calling it marriage. To them, a marriage is a religious word that they learned from the Catholic Church: It’s a covenant between a man, a woman, and God. So they feel uncomfortable with the word. But they don’t feel uncomfortable with the rights and privileges.
I think the way you win this issue is you focus on getting the rights and privileges protected throughout the entire country, and then you do the state-by-state advocacy for having the title.
You can roll your eyes right along with me on why we are deprived a basic human right because the senior generation is "uncomfortable" with us exercising it, but Gillibrand is right that the issue is largely one to be decided at the federal level anyway.
There are other areas of concern about Gillibrand. She missed the mark on 4 of the 11 issues on which the Human Rights Campaign scored her first term in Congress, scoring an 80 out of 100 (yeah, I don't get the math either).
She got three checkmarks for ENDA -- voting twice for the compromise version and co-sponsoring the trans-inclusive version -- another two for the hate crimes bill, one for backing needle exchange in the District of Columbia and one for an obscure vote against an amendment to the Head Start program.
But Gillibrand failed to sign on as a sponsor for four important measures:
- Repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell (146 Democrats sponsoring)
- Uniting American Families Act: equal immigration rights (118 Democrats sponsoring)
- Equal tax treatment for D.P. benefits (116 Democrats sponsoring)
- Medicaid funding people with HIV (140 Democrats sponsoring)
Hillary had been a co-sponsor of the Senate versions of those last two, and committed to supporting UAFA and repealing DADT though she had not signed on to sponsor.
Perhaps Gillibrand just needed more than her first two years in office to warm up to UAFA and DADT, and perhaps she'll be more ready to sign on now that she represents the whole state and not just upstate New York. Either way, her support for federal civil unions makes the glass at least half full, and is an excellent place to start.
UPDATE #1:
It appears Governor Paterson may have insisted on a commitment on marriage equality from Gillibrand before giving her the nod. So says the Empire State Pride Agenda:
Last night likely Senate pick Kirsten Gillibrand spoke to Empire State Pride Agenda Executive Director Alan Van Capelle about issues important to New York's lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community.
"After talking to Kirsten Gillibrand, I am very happy to say that New York is poised to have its first U.S. Senator who supports marriage equality for same-sex couples," said Van Capelle. "She also supports the full repeal of the federal DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) law, repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT) and passage of legislation outlawing discrimination against transgender people. While we had a productive discussion about a whole range of LGBT concerns, I was particularly happy to hear where she stands on these issues."
None of this explains why she fell so short of the mark before now, but it's still great news. We'll have to see whether the "whole range of LGBT concerns" included equal immigration rights, equal taxes on D.P. benefits, and early treatment of HIV.
UPDATE #2:
HRC has also chimed in with its own "clarification" of Gillibrand's gay rights views, claiming she supported repeal of DOMA and DADT, even if she didn't co-sponsor, begging the questions: (1) why didn't she co-sponsor? and (2) why doesn't HRC release this kind of information more generally? The reason for both, no doubt, is that members from moderate and conservative districts often will promise only quiet support, wanting to avoid controversy until such time as an actual vote occurs (if ever).
However understandable politically, it hardly engenders much confidence in a politician like Gillibrand's courage under fire. And to claim she supported marriage equality runs directly contrary to what she herself said publicly.
Here's the HRC "clarification":
"There has been some discussion about the record of Kirsten Gillibrand, New York Governor David Paterson’s pick to replace Hillary Clinton, regarding her stance on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and additional LGBT issues. In particular, we’d like to clarify references to the Human Rights Campaign Scorecard for the 110th Congress. Although Kirsten Gillibrand did not co-sponsor legislation to repeal DADT, non-cosponsorship does not mean support for the policy or opposition to repeal. In fact, in conversations with her office the Human Rights Campaign has confirmed Gillibrand is in favor of repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and supports full marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples."
Additionally, HRC confirmed with Gillibran’s staff additional points regarding her LGBT record:
- Supports marriage equality
- Co-sponsored and voted in favor of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act
- Co-sponsored inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and supports enactment of inclusive bill
- Voted in favor of ENDA
- Supports repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
- Supports repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act
- Supports equal tax treatment of employer provided domestic partnership benefits
- Voted against allowing discrimination in hiring for the Head Start program
- Voted in favor of allowing Washington, DC to fund needle exchange programs with local funds
- Voted against procedural attempts to derail ENDA and hate crimes
- Endorsed by HRC PAC in 2008
- Supports the Early Treatment of HIV/AIDS Act (ETHA) to allow states to provide Medicaid coverage for HIV-positive persons
(Photo of Kirsten Gillibrand and Hillary Clinton circa 2006 via New York Times)
January 21, 2009
Federal civil unions: so simple
Posted by: Andoni
".... and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions."
More properly, the title of this post should have been "Federal recognition of our relationships as civil unions: so simple."
Of all President Barack Obama's proposals for the LGBT community on the official White House webpage , I believe this one is the best and most powerful. It will achieve more rights and benefits for gay people than all the others combined. It's beautifully simple yet simultaneously brilliant. If done properly, it will bring gay rights to couples in Mississippi and Alabama as well as Massachusetts.
Repealing the Defense of Marriage Act will take many more years because marriage is still such a third rail issue, whereas benefits for civil unions is not. And when DOMA falls, only Massachusetts, Connecticut and New York couples will gain those 1100+ rights.
This is how you do it. The bill would not have to be complicated and could be as simple as this:
THE PURPOSE of this legislation is to extend to same sex couples the exact same rights and benefits from the federal government that married opposite sex couples receive from the federal government
THE LEGISLATION: All federal statutes, codes, rules and regulations are hereby amended so that wherever the word "marriage" appears, that word is replaced with the phrase "marriage or civil union." Additionally, when other forms of the word "marriage" are used, the appropriate form of "civil union" is used. (Example: "married" is amended to read "married or civil unioned.")
DEFINITIONS: For the purposes of this legislation "civil union" is defined as any same sex union legally created by a state government where such a union has the exact same or substantially the same definition, obligations and rights as a marriage in the state.
RESTRICTIONS: This legislation applies for federal rights and benefits only. There is nothing in this legislation to mandate state recognition of these relationships, or to compel the various states to grant similar rights and benefits to same sex couples. Such matters are left entirely to the states under the Tenth Amendment.
Here are some important things our community needs to understand about this proposal:
The federal government doesn't create marriages or other unions, it merely recognizes marriages legally performed by one of the states. This would be the same arrangements for "civil unions." The federal government would recognize a same sex union legally performed in one of the states and it would be called a "civil union."
This legislation does not require DOMA to be repealed. Only if the federal government wants to call these unions "marriages" does DOMA have to be repealed.
The federal government would acknowledge same sex couples in all 50 states, as long as the union was created legally by one of the states, which is what they do for marriage. It doesn't matter where you live, it matters that your union was created or performed legally -- which would mean in a state that performs these same sex uinons. A couple can go from a state that has no recognition of same sex couples to a state were same sex relationships are legally created. They can get hitched legally there and the federal government will acknowledge that relationship even if the couple returns to their home state where they get no recognition and no state rights and benefits.
Because of DOMA, the federal government cannot recognize same sex marriages (from CT and MA) as marriages, but under this legislation, those same sex marriages would be defined as civil unions (see definition above) at the federal level. Domestic partnerships from CA and civil unions from VT or NJ would also be called civil unions at the federal level. Should a future state decide to call a same sex union something new, such as a "civil partnership," this law would cover that too -- as a "civil union."
When DOMA is repealed, then same sex marriages from MA and CT (and any future same sex marriage state) will be recognized as marriage by the federal government. DOMA is the only thing preventing that now.
The fight for marriage can and will continue in the states. When new states choose to call our relationships marriage, people will receive the 1100+ federal benefits as civil unions. When DOMA is repealed, they will receive those same 1100+ benefits under a new name, marriage. Maybe then someone will propose to expand the federal definition of civil unions to include opposite sex couples as well, so they too can choose to have a marriage or a civil union, getting our country further along the road of separation of church and state.
You may ask, how can the federal government grant rights at the federal level, when the state government where the couple resides may not do the same.
There is a parallel situation. Just like marriage licenses, the federal government does not issue doctors' licenses either -- states do. So how does the federal government recognize doctors who can practice in the federal medical system (the Veterans Administration, the military, the public health system, etc.)? It recognizes the state licenses. To practice medicine in the federal system and receive all the rights and benefits granted to a physician by that license, you must hold a license legally obtained from one of the 50 states. Your license may be from MA, but the federal government will recognize you as a doctor in the federal system in Alabama (for example at the VA hospital) even though the state of Alabama will not recognize that license and will not allow you the rights and benefits to practice in their state outside of the VA system. Alabama will not recognize your license to practice medicine from MA even if the federal government does. So just as the state of Alabama does not recognize a same sex marriage license from MA, or a doctors license from MA, the federal government does recognize the doctors license and could do the same with the other license. The federal system and the state system are two separate and independent systems. This is at the heart of federalism that some Republicans like Bob Barr strongly support.
The best part of this is that it is such a powerful tool. Literally hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of gays in all 50 states will have the ability to access these 1100+ federal benefits even if their own state doesn't recognize that relationship.
Finally, I realize that the screams from our own left will say "marriage or nothing." Here's a counter argument. By setting up such a clearly "separate but equal system" (there is no debate on this, rigtht?), that separate but equal system, as a half step, will be successfully challenged more quickly (either through public education or in the courts) and become full marriage equality sooner, than the purer route of going from nothing at the federal level to full marriage equality in one step. Anyone who thinks that going from nothing to full marriage equality at the federal level all in one step is coming soon is fooling themselves. That is a much harder, bigger, and more time consuming route.
I wish I could say my thinking is original on this, but it is based on my discussions with a prominent LGBT Obama campaign official and a prominent ACLU attorney neither of whom wishes to go on record at this time.
January 18, 2009
Smoking dope and marrying gays...
Posted by: Chris
Well, the votes are in at Change.org, and equal immigration rights for same-sex couples didn't make the Top 10 ideas, which will be presented to Barack Obama after his swearing-in -- or did it?
On the one hand, the issue finished second among all ideas for immigration reform, but ultimately received only 1,325 votes in the second round of balloting. That put it not only out of the Top 10 but about a thousand votes short of the next 25 top ideas at the site.
On the other hand, marriage equality did make the final list, and equal marriage rights -- or even repealing DOMA or federal civil unions -- would effectively equalize immigration rights as well. While that's good news, it's instructive to see what finished ahead even of marriage equality.
In a fairly clever move, the folks at Change.org -- no connection with Change.gov, the official Obama transition site -- listed the top 10 finishers on the home page in something of a random order based on importance of the idea. But if you visit the web page for each idea, you can see how they really tallied.
Legalizing marijuana was the top vote-getter, just ahead of creating a new cabinet agency called the Department of Peace and Non-Violence.:
- Legalize marijuana, 19,530 votes
- Create Dep't of Peace and Non-Violence: 14,994
- Single-payer health insurance: 13,928
- Make the grid green: 12,913
- Repeal Patriot Act: 12, 285
- Exempt handmade toy makers from safety rules: 12,280
- Health care freedom: 12,062
- Pass the DREAM Act for immigrants: 12,010
- Pass marriage equality nationwide: 11,889
- Energy sustainability: 9,644
No other gay rights ideas, including repealing DOMA and passing the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act, made the top 35, which means they finished behind stopping puppy mills and introducing Esperanto as a foreign language subject in U.S. schools.
While you join me in a collective eyeroll, we can at least remember that the site was a useful venue to raise the visibility of immigration and marriage equality, among other LGBT issues.
January 16, 2009
Lincoln's wisdom of leadership
Posted by: Andoni
OK, so I went out and bought Doris Kearns Goodwin's book "Team of Rivals" after it became clear that Barack Obama was trying to emulate Abraham Lincoln in this respect. I'm about 3/4 of the way through this 800 page tome and highly recommend it for new insights into Lincoln as well as possible insights into Obama's modus operandi.
Lincoln was one of the greatest leaders this country has ever seen, but one trait from the book that struck me was that Lincoln was not usually on the cutting edge of the great progressive causes of his day -- until the timing was right.
He is remembered as the great emancipator and terminator of slavery in the U.S., but he was not a strong proponent of either movement as they were building strength and volume. He joined and then acted when the timing was right.
As with any progressive movement there are activists who are agitated and want immediate change. They scream loudly but with little effect. When these big movements eventually do succeed, these people are not usually the ones remembered as much as the leader who actually jumped on the wagon at the right moment and escorted the sought-for change.
Take same sex marriage for instance. Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry is associated with this cause since his early efforts in Hawaii in the 1990's and has been a mover and shaker ever since. However, when gay marriage finally becomes a reality on the national level, it will be the Supreme Court justice or the president who makes it happen who will be remembered best. And most likely that person will not will have been an active gay marriage advocate all along. As they say, timing is everything.
Barack Obama is not a strong supporter of gay marriage. It appears that he was a stronger advocate in the past ---before he ran for U.S. Senate or for president. Lincoln did the same thing on the most controversial issues of his day. He was a more vocal opponent of slavery years before his run for the presidency, but became more cautious in his rhetoric the closer he got to the presidency and even in his first two years as president. When the time was right, and he knew he could win that battle, he took a very strong position however, against slavery and the rest is history.
During this period of being publicly cautious and not revealing their stronger internal positions, both Lincoln and Obama, at least leaned more toward the morally correct position.
A good leader cannot get too far out in front of the public. Lincoln himself said that he could not have successfully issued his emancipation proclamation even six months earlier than he did. The public wasn't ready yet and it would have failed.
A good leader while simultaneously not getting too far ahead of the public, uses his office to bring the public closer to his position by educating them and leading them there. Lincoln was great at this with his speeches and letters to the nation.
If a leader is too far ahead of the nation, he cannot make that change and fails.... no matter how moral that position is. Think Bill Clinton and "Don't ask, don't tell."
Two of Lincoln's contemporaries observed his leadership style. Leonard Swett wanted Lincoln to immediately propose a constitutional amendment abolishing slavery. Lincoln refused and replied that he could see a "time coming" for a constitutional amendment and whoever "stands in its way, will be run over by it" but that the country was not ready just yet. Swett later wrote that the secret to Lincoln's leadership was "by ignoring men, and ignoring all small causes, but by closely calculating the tendencies of events and the great forces which were producing logical results."
John Forney, a news reporter at the time, put it another way. Lincoln was "the most truly progressive man of the age, because he always moves in conjunction with propitious circumstances, not waiting to be dragged by the force of events or wasting strength in premature struggles with them."
I believe this is the way that it is with Obama and same sex marriage at the moment. Now is not quite the right moment for Obama to take up same sex marriage. It would be a premature struggle that would end as badly as Clinton's trying to lift the ban on gays in the military.
However, I bet that when the timing is right, Obama will jump on recognizing same sex marriage at the federal level and it will be historic. The timing isn't quite right yet. I don't know when it will be right, but I bet it's coming soon.
January 15, 2009
Did the Mormons lie about Prop 8 $$?
Posted by: Chris
A provocative eight-minute piece by the American News Project that provides some revelations about the extent of the Mormon Church holy war in favor of Proposition 8 and against gay marriage. The report raises some valid questions about the veil of secrecy with which churches are allowed to operate in politics while maintaining tax exempt status.
My reaction was how these internal Mormon documents and satellite transmissions offer up very clear evidence that the motivation of those opposing gay marriage in California was not the preservation of religious freedom but rather the contrary: imposing the theological views of the LDS Church and its conservative allies to deprive gay couples of the basic human freedom to marry.
The California Supreme Court need look no further for justifications for striking down Prop 8.
Wave buh-bye to the Bush legacy
Posted by: Chris
Asked how his presidency will be remembered, George W. Bush famously
said, “You never know what your history is going to be like until long
after you’re gone.”
We can chuckle all we want at Bush-isms like that one, but we needn’t wait “until long after we’re gone” to know that on issues important to gay and lesbian Americans, history will judge Bush unkindly.
The Texas governor and son of an ex-president campaigned as a “compassionate conservative,” but the contested election of 2000 made it almost impossible for Bush 43 to deliver on his promise to be “a uniter, not a divider.” He would squander his second chance to unite the country, after the horrific attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
The Iraq War again divided the country and re-election prospects were looking grim, but the landmark gay marriage ruling in Massachusetts presented Bush the perfect political opportunity to follow the cynical divide and conquer “strategery” of his political “brain,” Karl Rove. In the January 2004 State of the Union address, a speech itself mandated by the Constitution, Bush signaled his support for amending the nation’s founding document to ban gay marriage.
In one of many cruel ironies from the Bush years, W. used the “G word” for the first time as president during that 2004 campaign, while reassuring a voter that he would do everything within his power to save “traditional marriage.”
Sadly, the wedge politics worked even if the federal amendment never came close to passing. Across the nation, Republican politicians responded to the president’s call by proposing state constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage. The resulting ballot measures brought conservatives to the polls in November, tipping battleground states like Ohio for Bush and ensuring a second term.
Even in the waning months of his presidency last year, Bush reached out to remind gay Americans that we were second-class citizens. His White House staff threatened to veto the most basic gay rights legislation: a hate crime bill and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
There were some indications that ENDA amendments agreed to in the House, stripping gender identity protections and strengthening exceptions for faith-based employers, might have resulted in the president actually signing the legislation. Perhaps for that reason, as well as the divisive fight over transgender protections, the Democratic-controlled Senate never took up ENDA, and President Bush was never forced to decide whether to sign or veto.
The stormy Bush legacy on gay issues has a few silver linings. Some controversial executive orders ping-pong between presidents of different parties, signed by one only to be repealed by the next. Bush left in place a Clinton-era order that protected federal workers against anti-gay discrimination. But Bush did little when one of his own appointee watered down the protections until they were effectively meaningless.
Bush was the first GOP president to send openly gay nominees to the Senate for confirmation. During the Clinton years, appointees like Roberta Achtenberg and James Hormel faced stiff resistance from Republicans like Jesse Helms based solely on their sexual orientation. Although Bush made precious few out gay appointments, his willingness to do so at all marked an end to the Helms era even before Helms himself passed away.
Another Bush highlight was his massive commitment to the fight against AIDS outside the U.S., especially in Africa. Without taking anything away from that effort, it was hard not to see it as a signal that the heterosexual population affected by AIDS in Africa was more sympathetic to the president that the largely homosexual population here at home.
Because on the domestic AIDS front, Bush reverted to the Reagan-Bush policy of malign neglect, setting policy with almost total disregard for the health of gay and bisexual Americans, who remained at the greatest risk of contracting HIV.
HIV prevention policy under Bush emphasized abstinence only until marriage, ignoring the cruel irony that this same administration was actively working to prevent gays from marrying. Did he really expect gay men to abstain from sex our entire lives?
It wasn’t just in AIDS policy that W. treated us not just as second class citizens of this country, but worse even than foreigners. In yet another irony, this additional smack in the face came from a regulation that may actually mark the first time the U.S. government recognized same-sex relationships, and in immigration of all areas.
Foreigners who come to America on work visas are permitted to bring their unmarried partners with them, and the Bush administration decided that regulation includes same-sex partners as well. The motivation was not gay rights but competitiveness, since U.S. employers would otherwise lose out on talented young Europeans who are marrying later or entering into civil unions.
As positive as this recognition was, it only highlighted how gay and lesbian Americans now have even less rights than non-Americans to sponsor foreign same-sex partners to live in the United States.
It will take months if not years for the incoming administration and Congress to undo the harm done in eight years of George W. Bush, not to mention his Democratic predecessor. For that reason alone, Jan. 20 can’t come soon enough.
January 14, 2009
Obama's gay marriage closet (II)
Posted by: Chris
Some have reacted to news that Barack Obama unequivocally supported gay marriage when he ran for the Illinois state Senate in 1996 by saying they've always assumed that leading gay-friendly politicians were closeted supporters of marriage equality, despite their public opposition.
Others, myself included, reacted by giving Obama a bit of a pass because we perceive the political climate on gay marriage, while improving, as too hostile except in certain geographic pockets.
In reality, both sets of assumptions may well be wrong. For one thing, there are generational and faith-based reasons why even the politicians we assume are our closest friends continue to resist full marriage equality. Hillary Clinton, for example, shot down one reporter's concerted attempt to get her to send some sort of signal along those lines:
We’re supposed to be convinced that this brilliant Yale-educated lawyer and lifelong feminist, who hobnobs in Martha’s Vineyard and Malibu with her well-heeled friends from the business and entertainment worlds -- who famously declared that women’s rights were human rights at the 1995 World Conference on Women in Beijing while China was on lockdown -- is having trouble with the concept of same-sex marriage? Could [Hillary Clinton] perhaps be a closet supporter of marriage equality? …
But when I suggest that her “personal position” is actually not her position at all, she quickly interrupts me, sitting up in her chair with a start.
“I don’t think that would be fair,” she says. “Because, you know, I would tell you that. This is an issue -- I’m much older than you are -- and this is an issue that I’ve had very few years of my life to think about when you really look at it, when you compare it to a whole life span. I am where I am right now, and it is a position that I come to authentically. But it is also one that has enormous room and support both in my heart and in my work to try to move the agenda of equality and civil unions forward.”
I'm as cynical as the next guy -- OK, even more so -- about Hillary's ability to give a straightforward answer about pretty much anything. But I also think she could have signaled that she was further along personally if she had wanted to, much as Obama did and much as Bill Richardson did during the primaries.
As for giving politicians something of a pass in today's political climate, a new report by Evan Wolfson's Freedom to Marry organization "unequivocally" showed that "voting to support the freedom to marry and opposing anti-marriage measures helps rather than hurts politicians":
A review of all of these votes from 2005 to the present shows that legislators who vote to end marriage discrimination for same-sex couples are consistently re-elected. The success of more than 1,100 state legislators who voted to support the freedom to marry stands in bold contrast to the commonly held belief that supporting marriage equality ends political campaigns and careers. In fact, these legislators are re-elected no matter what party they represent or if they changed their vote from opposing to supporting marriage equality. Even better, legislators who run for higher office win after voting in favor of marriage for same-sex couples.
The study, which included votes over the last four years from 21 different states taken in each of the country's four major regions of the country, is available for download here.
January 13, 2009
Barack Obama's gay marriage closet
Posted by: Chris
Just how many gay marriage skeletons does Barack Obama have hiding in the closet? Eighteen months after we first learned the president-elect had given conflicting answers about the Defense of Marriage Act in candidate questionnaires back in 2003 and 2004, a new, even bigger bombshell has come to light.
Just one week before Obama takes the oath of office, a gay newspaper in Chicago is reporting that the president-elect vowed to support marriage equality for same-sex couples when he was a candidate for the Illinois state Senate way back in 1996.
Windy City Times editor Tracy Baim, who was the co-founder and publisher of the gay paper Outlines, which later merged with WCT, reported today:
IMPACT, which was Chicago's main GLBT political action committee for several years, surveyed Obama and other candidates, as did Outlines. What we are including with this special Presidential Inaugural issue of Windy City Times are copies of the answers to the IMPACT and Outlines questions.
For IMPACT, the Obama campaign simply responded on the form. For Outlines, the candidate typed in his answers and signed his letter.
It's a great scoop for Tracy, though her analysis raises a couple of questions for me: Why assume "the candidate typed in his answers" to the Outlines questionnaire, and why not assume that the handwritten responses to the IMPACT questionnaire were not by the candidate?
The usual course is for these types of questionnaires to completed by campaign staff and signed by the candidate, which can lead to later embarrassment -- or plausible deniability, however you want to look at it. However important these surveys can be in pinning down politicians, I've long viewed them with skepticism, including the survey responses by Obama on gay marriage that previously surfaced during the primaries.
But as much as these newly surfacing questionnaires from 1996 confirm my original intuition that Obama's apparent flip-flop on the Defense of Marriage Act was really just an erroneous questionnaire response, they pretty much have him dead to rights on the less subtle issue of gay marriage itself.
There is zero doubt in my mind that a candidate of Obama's intellect and political savvy knew what he was doing, and the political risk he was taking, when he voiced support for gay marriage back in 1996, only months after the issue burst onto the political scene because the Hawaii Supreme Court had indicated it was ready to strike down hetero-only marriage laws.
His response to the '96 Outlines questionnaire, signed by the candidate, indicates, "I favor legalizing same-sex marriage, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages."
In similar fashion the handwritten response to the IMPACT questionnaire indicates Obama "would support" something called "the Marriage Resolution," which in turn states:
Because marriage is a basic human right and an individual personal choice,
RESOLVED, the state should not interfere with same-gender couples who chose to marry and share equally in the rights, responsibilities and commitment of civil marriage.
That's two very clear indications that Barack Obama supported marriage equality back in 1996, the same year Congress passed DOMA, which he later called an "abhorrent law" that "perpetuates divisions."
One final indication that Obama backed gay marriage and later "evolved" to supporting civil unions as a strategic matter: the man said so himself in a 2004 interview with the one and the same Tracy Baim:
Tracy Baim: Do you have a position on marriage vs. civil unions?
Barack Obama: I am a fierce supporter of domestic- partnership and civil-union laws. I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about, primarily just as a strategic issue.
I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation. I know that's true in the African-American community, for example. And if you asked people, ‘should gay and lesbian people have the same rights to transfer property, and visit hospitals, and et cetera,' they would say, ‘absolutely.' And then if you talk about, ‘should they get married?', then suddenly ...
TB: There are more than 1,000 federal benefits that come with marriage. Looking back in the 1960s and inter-racial marriage, the polls showed people against that as well.
Obama: Since I'm a product of an interracial marriage, I'm very keenly aware of ...
TB: But you think, strategically, gay marriage isn't going to happen so you won't support it at this time?
Obama: What I'm saying is that strategically, I think we can get civil unions passed. I think we can get SB 101 passed. I think that to the extent that we can get the rights, I'm less concerned about the name. And I think that is my No. 1 priority, is an environment in which the Republicans are going to use a particular language that has all sorts of connotations in the broader culture as a wedge issue, to prevent us moving forward, in securing those rights, then I don't want to play their game.
No reading between the lines required here, friends. The man who will be president in one week supports full marriage equality and backs civil unions as the expedient path to get there. That's true whether you agree or disagree with his political analysis, and I definitely take issue with his excuse-making and rationalizations.
The point is, we've got the goods on the soon-to-be former-president-elect, and this latest finding should give us greater confidence to push with full force for real gay rights progress, meaning a federal civil unions bill that would extend those "more than 1,000 federal benefits that come with marriage" to every gay couple who wants them in all 50 states -- and even for those ex-pats stuck living in "love exile."
January 12, 2009
Can you spot the real activists?
Posted by: Chris
What is it about our nation's beloved capital that depletes the will to act from our so-called activists?
Across the country just this weekend, tens of thousands of lesbians and gay men rallied in dozens of cities to call on President-elect Obama fulfill his campaign promise to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, that notorious statute passed back in 1996 by a Republican Congress and signed by Bill Clinton that robs gay married couples from any recognition of their relationship by the federal government.
DOMA also purports to allow each state to decide for itself whether to refuse recognition of marriage licenses issued by other states or foreign governments. Politicians like Hillary Clinton who insist they have our best interests at heart have warned against touching DOMA for fear of inciting a new movement for a federal marriage amendment. Yet these tens of thousands of lesbians and gay men understand that politicians and their activist-apologists will always tell us that our calls for equality are poorly timed for one reason or another. They also understand that fighting for our basic civil rights will always carry some risk.
That basic activist nerve unfortunately gets dulled by the risk-averse Beltway doubletalk that has long handicapped our movement. I've already noted any number of times the disconnect between these grassroots activists pushing for relationship recognition and the D.C.-based LGBT rights groups, which are cutting deals for lower-hanging fruit -- like workplace rights and hate crime laws.
But the difference isn't just between local activists across the U.S. and the national activists lobbying the federal government. Even the local activists in Washington, D.C., lack the basic nerve to act and are woefully out of touch from even the local D.C. community they claim to represent.
Just last week, these "activists" declared victory when gay D.C. Council member David Catania decided not to introduce a marriage equality bill that had the support of the mayor and would have passed the Council by a lopsided vote of 12-1 or 11-2. Lou Chibbaro of the Washington Blade reported:
His decision followed what appeared on the surface to be an ironic development: A number of prominent gay rights advocates lobbied Catania and other Council members not to take up a gay marriage bill so soon in the legislative year.
That's what "activism" looks like in our nation's capital -- convincing politicians not to act. Why? The excuses are old and tired and make even less sense today than they have for the last decade that we've heard them from the same small cadre of mostly elderly folks, who are sadly blinded by their own partisanship and arrogance or who value their own influence over the process than they do the constituents they claim to represent. They fail to realize, of course, that their power is wholly illusory, since politicians -- Catania excepted -- are only to eager not to act when given an excuse not to.
When I first moved back to Washington in 2001, this same group -- personified by Rick Rosendall (pictured) of the ironically named Gay & Lesbian Activist Alliance -- urged caution because President Bush had proposed a federal constitutional amendment and Congress, which has veto power over D.C. laws, was under the control of anti-gay Republicans.
Never mind that these same Republicans had portrayed the marriage movement as one in which judges impt puttiose their will on "the people." The GL"A"A cautioned against putting the lie to that argument by forcing these same Republicans to veto or not the democratically-elected legislature and executive in Washington.
Years later, the threat of a federal amendment subsided almost entirely after it failed miserably in votes in 2004 and 2006. What's more, Democrats retook control of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections. Robbed of those excuses, these "activists" still refused to budge from the game plan they adopted sometime in the last millennium, claiming the Democrats hadn't wrested sufficient control of Congress so our equality was still too risky.
The election of 2008 put the final nail in that particular coffin, as Democrats won very comfortable majorities in both the House and the Senate. It's beside the point whether majorities in both houses of Congress favor gay marriage itself. Like the new president, clear majorities in the House and the Senate favor leaving D.C. alone to self-govern, especially on areas of social policy like this one.
Now these "activists" are offering up Proposition 8 as their latest excuse against action, since Washington, D.C., is majority African American, and black Californians voted in favor of the gay marriage ban. We are, of course, months and months away from a Prop 8-style referendum in D.C., assuming its backers could successfully navigate the District's complex referendum process to even get it on the ballot. Should they succeed, we have already learned much from the Prop 8 battle, and a campaign across a heavily Democratic city of 600,000 is far more manageable than it was in a geographically sprawling state of more than 36,000,000.
If these "activists" aim to prove that if we wait long enough, gay marriage won't be very controversial in Washington, D.C., then of course they are right. But since when is that the point of a civil rights movement? The prize is our equality, and the point of the movement is to make that day happen sooner rather than later. And yet still they counsel keeping our gunpowder perpetually dry for fear that success will illustrate the timidity of their long-time strategery.
If Rosendall, Rosenstein and other self-proclaimed "activists" in D.C. don't get that, then it is long, long, long past time that they just get out of the way and let others fight where they are unwilling or unable.
(Photo of DOMA protest in San Diego via Rex Wockner)
January 08, 2009
It's our relationships, stupid!
Posted by: Andoni
Chris has been monitoring the voting at change.org (a non-profit organization that will present to President Obama the issues obtaining the most votes after all the voting rounds are completed) and I have been monitoring the voting at Open for Questions on Obama's official web site. On Obama's site you can propose a question or vote on other people's questions. They have finished round two and soon they will post answers to the top questions from round two.
The questions on Obama's site are grouped into pre-assigned cateories: The Economy, Health Care, National Security, Foreign Policy, Education, Energy and Environment, Science and Technology, and finally the catch all group for everything else -- Additional Issues. Any topic not in the assigned groups fell in this last group and that's where the gay and lesbian questions ended up.
You can find all the gay related questions by searching for the words gay or lesbian or LGBT using their search tool.
Not surprisingly, questions on the Economy and Health Care are leaders at the moment.
But outside of the top questions in those categories, here's the big surprise. This question
"You've stated during your campaign that you don't support marriage rights for LGBT citizens. How will you ensure that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered Americans have rights equal to those married couples?"
is one of the overall top vote getters. This LGBT question about obtaining rights for our relationships beat out the top question in every other category, except for the Economy and Health Care. In particular it got more votes than the top vote getters in: National Security, Foreign Policy, Education, Energy and Environment, and Science and Technology.
Also among all the Additional Questions, it ranks #7 under with 6488 votes. The #1 question under Additional Issues wants Patrick Fitzgerald to be appointed Special Prosecutor to investigate crimes committed by the Bush Administration over the past 8 years. The next six questions in this category deal with legalizing marijuana and lessening drug law penalties.
Further down the list of Additional Issues are questions dealing with repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and then granting equal immigration rights to gay and lesbian couples.
A specific question about ENDA doesn't appear until you get near the bottom. The first ENDA question garners only 268 votes, about 4% of the votes garnered for rights for same sex couples.
I would bet that the people asking questions about gay issues are gay. However, the people voting on these questions are both gay and straight. So why does the question about obtaining rights for our relationships come in so high, and a specific law for employment protection comes in so low?
It could be that equal marriage rights is the new hot issue because it's in the news after the Prop 8 battle in CA. Or it could be that people think we already have employment rights (but if they read the question they would know we don't). Or it could be that most people think that rights and benefits for gay couples are more important at this juncture in time.
Whatever the reason, this is certainly an interesting finding.
Realizing that these votes come from both gay and straight people, it is a very good sign for the future in obtaining rights for our relationships.
This survey demonstrates that we have support for a lot more than just ENDA and Hate Crimes and that we should be taking advantage of this by broadening our legislative goals.Of course ENDA and Hate Crimes are important, but we should not be focusing solely on them. And if we learn that there is more support for some of our other issues, we should move the ones with the most support first.
Bottom line: I think we can accomplish a lot more in the next two years than our national leaders seem to think we can.
January 06, 2009
Bob Barr: "DOMA has to go"
Posted by: Andoni
This won't seem as newsworthy a statement as it is, unless you realize that Bob Barr was the author DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act) in 1996.
In an Op Ed in today's Los Angeles Times, Barr goes through the reasoning of why he proposed DOMA in the manner that he did, how he had to compromise with fellow Republicans who wanted the federal government to tell the states that they could only recognize unions between a man and a woman, and why he thinks it is time for DOMA to be repealed now.
This is fascinating stuff folks. I know Barr personally and have spoken to him about this issue many times over the years. To see him grow this way is mind-boggling. Barr is a federalist, and unlike most of his Republican colleagues, his view of federalism seems to have become purer over the years. You may argue, where was his federalism in 1996 when wrote this law. That's a good question. He was probably more influenced by fellow Georgian and Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich at the time. But to see this man admit errors he's made over the years gives me more respect for him.
So when Obama thinks the time is ripe to repeal DOMA (hopefull soon), I envision a press conference with Bob Barr standing next to him. It will be a most powerful statement to see the author of DOMA standing there saying Obama is 100% correct. This could indeed be the era of a new kind of politics.
As an aside, when Obama proposes his HIV/AIDS initiatives, I expect to see Rick Warren standing beside him endorsing those plans as well.
P.S. Sorry I'm not uploading a photo of Bob Barr. I'm still in rural Thailand using a 28.8 dial up connection. Most of the time it's slower than 28.8, and it's a miracle I'm connected at all. And the server is down half the time, to boot.
January 02, 2009
Change I hope I can believe in
Posted by: Chris
Thanks in part to you, the readers of this blog, equal immigration rights for same-sex couples finished in 2nd place among all immigration-related proposals in voting on Change.org:
- Pass the DREAM Act: 2,219 votes
- Equal immigration rights for same-sex couples: 1,011 votes
- Citizenship route through marriage for undocumented immigrants: 850 votes
It's especially heartening to see this modest proposal compete effectively outside the area of gay rights, which was a separate category on the website, which is unaffiliated with Barack Obama's official transition site, Change.gov.
As I explained in an earlier post, the top three ideas in each category now go into a second round of voting, and the top 10 ideas from that round will be presented to the president after the inauguration and the website's affiliated groups have vowed to lobby for their enactment.
In the area of gay rights, these three ideas move on to the second round:
- Pass marriage equality rights for LGBT couples nationwide: 2,889 votes
- Pass the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act: 877 votes
- Repeal the Defense of Marriage Act: 852 votes
The new Congress is expected to quickly enact the hate crimes bill, which already passed both houses last year. It's noteworthy how much more important relationship recognition was to the voters, dwarfing all other categories. (Enacting a trans-inclusive ENDA came in fourth place, at 779 votes, and does not go on to the second round.)
Of course the new president and Congress can't simply "pass marriage equality rights," and Obama does not support gay marriage anyway. But they can either repeal DOMA (idea #3) or they can enact federal civil unions, extending all the rights and benefits of marriage under federal law to gay couples who enter into marriages, civil unions and domestic partnerships.
Stay tuned for the second round of voting, which will begin on Jan. 5.
December 30, 2008
Rick Warren clarifies and confuses
Posted by: Chris
Throughout the outcry over Barack Obama's selection of Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration, I have taken a lot of heat for defending the megachurch pastor against claims he considers gay relationships the "equivalent" of incest and pedophilia.
As I explained (here and here and here), it was flatly irrational to interpret Warren that way, given that he was making a "slippery slope" argument that depends logically on examples like incest and pedophilia as horrific consequences of recognizing relationships like ours that are much less objectionable. I also interpreted Warren as favoring some forms of recognition for gay relationships, which of course he would never support for incest and pedophila, both illegal.
Now there's confirmation from the horse's mouth, so to speak. In a video available for viewing on the website for Warren's church, the evangelical is ostensibly speaking to his own congregation, but of course he knew that whatever he said on the subject of gay marriage would enjoy a much larger audience.
Here are some highlights (transcribed by me):
I have been accused of equating gay partnerships and relationships with incest and pedophilia. Now of course, as members of Saddleback Church you know, I believe no such thing. I never have. You've never once heard me in 30 years talk that way about that. …
God created sex to be exclusively in a marriage relationship between a man and a woman. But I've in no way ever taught that homosexuality is the same thing as a forced relationship between an adult and a child or, you know, between siblings, things like that. I've just never thought that in 30 years.
However, I understand how some people think that because of a recent Belief.net interview. ... In that interview I named several other relationships, in fact I've done it several times, named several other relationships such as living together, man with multiple wives, or brother-sister relationships or adults with children or common law partnerships -- all kinds of relationships -- I don't think any of them should be called marriage.
I was not saying those relationships are the same thing because I happen to not believe that and I've never taught it.
Just to reiterate my own view, I am not defending Warren's opposition to gay marriage, which is based on imposition of his own theological view in the law and "slippery slope" scare tactics that would fear-monger if they weren't so ridiculous.
I also could not help but laugh at Warren's hypocritical views on civility in public discourse. At one point in the video, he complains that gays treat all disagreement with them as some form of "hate speech," an accusation I think is unfortunately all too true:
Some people today believe if you disagree with them you either hate them or are afraid of them. I'm neither afraid of gays nor do I hate gays. In fact, I love them, but I do disagree with some of their beliefs and I have that constitutional right just as I would fight for their constitutional right, too.
Then, later in the video, when he answers questions from his congregation about how he plans to respond to the controversy over his role at the inauguration, Warren engages in the same demonization and demagoguery he earlier criticized, and without even a hint of irony:
You've asked, 'What about these hateful attacks? ... How are you going to respond to all these false accusations, attacks, outright lies, hateful slander and really a lot of hate speech -- it's what I would call Christ-aphobia -- people who are afraid of any Christian. You know how I'm going to respond. You already know the answer. ... We return good for evil, we return love for hate.
Just as progressives want Obama to unify the country without including the views of millions who disagree with them, Warren objects to demonization of his views while readily engaging in the same smear tactics. Warren will never gain credence as an advocate for civility as long as he uses such doubletalk.
But again, trying to focus on common ground, Warren does suggest without specifics in the video that he supports legal recognition in some form for gay couples, if not full marriage equality. Whether or not you believe, as I do, that Warren is clarifying his view, or is modifying his position in response to the controversy, he has very clearly left the door open to support for legal recognition for same-sex couples.
Given the proliferation of "bad cops" who have made hay out of this controversy, including gay leaders trying to change the subject from Prop 8, now is the time for "good cops" to reach out to Warren and see whether he would throw his specific support around some level of legal recognition, or perhaps even federal civil unions.
December 23, 2008
Watch the Warren bait and switch
Posted by: Chris
A lot of the anger over Barack Obama's selection of Rick Warren to say a prayer at the inuauguration springs from genuine (if misplaced) resentment over the mega-church pastor's previous pronouncements on marriage, mixed with a disturbing streak of P.C. intolerance that runs through the gay rights movement and liberals generally.
Part of it is lingering distrust of Obama by gay Hillary supporters, who still revel in the chance to stick it to him, as they did on the (similar and analogous) Donnie McClurkin flap. Another part is from Clinton-haters, who are already bracing themselves for Obama to "throw gays under the bus" the way Bill Clinton did on gays in the military (1993) and the Defense of Marriage Act (1996).
And then there are the "leaders" of the gay movement, who absolutely love this kind of controversy for an entirely different reason: the gay and gay-friendly masses are exorcised and primed for fund-raising, successfully distracted from the indefensible lack of progress, even backsliding, on the actual push for legal equality. You know who I'm talking about, people, so let's just get to the quote (from Politico.com):
The rapid, angry reaction from a range of gay activists comes as the gay rights movement looks for an opportunity to flex its political muscle. Last summer gay groups complained, but were rebuffed by Obama, when an “ex-gay” singer led Obama’s rallies in South Carolina. And many were shocked last month when voters approved the California ban.
“There is a lot of energy and there’s a lot of anger and I think people are wanting to direct it somewhere,” [Joe] Solmonese [of the Human Rights Campaign] told Politico.
B-I-N-G-O and BINGO was his name-o! A nice juicy controversy with absolutely nothing of consequence at stake, and all those angry gays upset by the humiliating defeat of gay marriage rights in California, Arizona and Florida are distracted from further inquiry into why we lost, or whether there is anything that Democrat-controlled Washington can do anything about it.
Look at this shiny Rick Warren bauble, gay people! Pay no attention behind that curtain to the deal Joe Solmonese, Barney Frank, Tammy Baldwin and others have cut to give you only hate crime and ENDA crumbs until after the mid-term elections! (And by then, of course, the excuse will be that controversial issues like Don't Ask Don't Tell and relationship recognition must wait for Obama's re-election.)
Remember Solmonese's "very frank" letter -- we know it's "very frank" because HRC said it was -- to the president-elect calling the Warren invitation "a genuine blow to LGBT Americans"? Does anyone remember HRC sending such a very frank letter when congressional Democrats failed to pass even the most benign form of gay rights legislation? (No, actually, HRC thanked them for giving it the ol' college try -- for the 12th consecutive year.)
(And why can't the cynic in me shake the notion that Obama's real transition sin was failing to hire more Beltway gays to high White House and cabinet posts? Hillary surely would have emptied out HRC with cushy bureaucratic jobs.)
On the other side of the country, another gay leader in the hot seat is also trying his hand at the Warren bait and switch. Geoff Kors, the Equality California leader under heavy fire for the horribly mismanaged and poorly strategized No on 8 effort. You think he's gonna miss out on this chance to point the heat in another -- any other -- direction?:
The head of California’s largest gay civil rights organization has declined an invitation to attend the inauguration of President-elect Barack Obama because Rev. Rick Warren will deliver the invocation.
It is extremely disappointing and hurtful that President-elect Obama has chosen California Rev. Rick Warren, who actively supported Prop 8 and the elimination of existing civil rights for LGBT Californians, to give the invocation at his inauguration,” said Equality California executive director Geoff Kors in a statement.
“Accordingly, I have decided to decline the invitation to attend the inauguration as I cannot be part of a celebration that highlights and gives voice to someone who advocated repealing rights from me and millions of other Californians.”
The EQCA home page devotes its premium space to Kors' silly refusal to attend the inauguration, which makes about as much political sense as his silly refusal to meaningfully debate Prop 8. Does he really think we can boycott and refuse to debate our way to equality? He needs to watch "Milk" again.
There's still time to make lemonade from these lemons. If the uproar over Rick Warren has the Obama folks anxious to mollify the gays, then let's ask for something real -- not simply long-promised hate crime and employment non-discrimination legislation. Something real -- like administration support for pushing a federal civil unions bill.
December 19, 2008
Newsweek: Warren outrage justified?
Posted by: Chris
Newsweek.com has posted my debate with Leah McElrath Renna over whether gay outrage over Rick Warren's role in the inauguration is justified.
My thanks to Carl Sullivan at Newsweek.com and to Leah for being such an provocative debate partner. She surprised me a bit by coming at the controversy from a spiritual perspective, and I'm curious whether our exchange raised any new issues for any of you.
Just a quick highlight:
Chris Crain: Leah, you and others are criticizing the selection of Rick Warren as a betrayal of Barack Obama's promise to unify the country, but the way you define "unity" is really very exclusionary. … Obama's point was to unify us around areas of agreement, and here you are focused on disagreement, so where's the betrayal? For "unifying the nation" to mean anything, there must be "inclusion" for conservatives, including the many millions like Warren who oppose gay marriage. Excluding those with whom we disagree is the antithesis of unifying. …
We are only deferring that happy day when we win our equality if we are unwilling to find common ground and respectfully engage those with whom we disagree—especially those like Rick Warren who are so influential with so many. We can't get away with "refusing to get into" whether Warren in fact "equated" our relationships to abusive ones. The argument isn't beneath you, Leah, it's in front of you.
Leah McElrath Renna: I need to return to my central point that is not
about marriage equality for same-sex couples or any other
policy-related issue. The reality is that Rick Warren does not believe
that lesbian and gay people exist. In his worldview and spiritual
perspective, LGBT individuals are people who choose to engage in
sinful, sexually disordered behavior. This worldview is justified by
him and others by a narrow, ahistorical and literal interpretation of a
very small number of Biblical passages. It is not shared by all
religions, nor by all people or denominations within the Christian
faith.
As long as LGBT people and our allies continue to allow others to define our very existence as a so-called "social issue,'' we will not succeed in creating a world that is safe for ourselves, our loved ones and our families.
December 18, 2008
Lowering the volume on Warren-gate
Posted by: Chris
I'll admit that my initial reaction late last night to the controversy over Barack Obama naming evangelist Rick Warren to give the inauguration invocation was a bit unfair in characterizing (err, disparaging) the motives of those offended by the decision. I still believe that political correctness and ideological purity underly most of the complaints, but I have heard from some who I would never characterize that way.
One thing they cite is how supposedly "compared" or "equated" gay marriage to incest and polygamy in explaining his support for Prop 8 in California:
I’m not opposed to [gay marriage] as much as I’m opposed to the redefinition of a 5,000-year definition of marriage. I’m opposed to having a brother and sister be together and call that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.
This is neither "comparing," nor "equating." In fact, Warren specifically draws a distinction between that which he does not oppose -- gay marriage -- and the parade of horribles he thinks opening up redefinition of marriage will lead to -- incest, pedophilia and polygamy.
The proverbial "slippery slope" is used when the speaker knows his audience sees no real problem with the proposal at hand, and so must be jolted to attention by what would somehow inevitably follow:
If you raise taxes, it will slow the economy, put people out of work, throw us into a recession and require socialist bailouts to get us back on track.
Does that "equate" or "compare" raising taxes with socialism? No.
Recognizing Rick Warren's argument as slippery slope and not comparison does not make his claim any more reasonable, but it does make it less offensive -- although clearly offended is what we do best on our side, rather than meet arguments head to head, with confidence that ours is the stronger position.
Obama's unity call falls on P.C. ears
Posted by: Chris
It hasn't taken the gays long to find fault in the still-transiting Obama administration. You can almost guess from the level of fury that what's at stake isn't something real, like a retreat on policy or foot-dragging on a campaign promise. That's because content- and consequence-free is exactly how the politically correct crowd likes their controversies.
Barack Obama's offense was to select Rick Warren, a conservative evangelical who opposes gay marriage, to deliver the invocation at his inauguration. Never mind, for the moment, that Obama also opposes marriage equality, as did Hillary Clinton and every other viable presidential candidate.
Warren also spoke out in favor of Proposition 8, but never mind that support for a constitutional amendment overturning a historic gay marriage ruling puts Warren in smack dab the same spot as presidential candidate John Kerry, who nonetheless received heaped praise from the Human Rights Campaign and other gay rights groups. And never mind that Warren was selected to deliver a prayer, not a political speech, and will no doubt say nothing at all relating to gays or marriage -- come to think of it, that kind of avoidance would have practically qualified Warren for a "strategery" role in the No on 8 campaign.
Never mind all of those things because they do not matters as much as ideological purity, as defined by those who somehow think of themselves as "progressive" despite their own naked intolerance. We must demand exclusion in the name of "unity"! Isn't that ironic, doncha think?
A number of critics trace Obama's supposed betrayal to this transition-team promise:
"The Presidential Inaugural Committee, at the direction of President-elect Obama...will organize an inclusive and accessible inauguration that...unites the nation around our shared values and ideals."
"Shared values and ideals?" huffs Leah McElrath Renna on HuffPo ("Rick Warren, Obama? Really?"). How dare Obama when we don't share Rick Warren's views on gay marriage!
Shared values and ideals, Leah. Do please try to focus, honey. You successfully honed in one of those un-shared values. Try to remember that the whole idea behind unity is finding areas of agreement, not disagreement, and focusing on common ground to bring us together as a nation.
Can you imagine what sort of "unity" party that HuffPo and the "progressive" left would have Obama throw? One in which only other progressives are invited, thereby completely missing the point. Yes, election night was magical, and as a long-time Obama supporter I too was moved and inspired. But recreating Grant Park (or the Denver acceptance speech) will not unify the country.
This twisted idea of unifying only among the like-minded reminds me of the joke about St. Peter giving a tour of Heaven. "Keep quiet as we pass this next doorway," he tells the new arrivals. "This is where we keep the fundamentalists, and they think they're the only ones here." I hate to break it to you P.C. stormtroopers, but your Obama-America Paradise includes more than gays and gay-friendlies.
Another predictably knee-jerk response was Queerty shrieking headline -- "Barack Obama's 'new pastor' is a slap in the face to the gay community":
Barack Obama's decision to allow a direct enemy of gays and lesbians to officiate at his inauguration isn't just alarming, it's outrageous and indefensible. We call on President-Elect Barack Obama to rescind his offer to Rev. Warren immediately.
I'm sure Obama is quaking in his boots, Queerty. So I best step up to your challenge. I am hereby defending what you call "indefensible" (and "alarming" and "outrageous," those rhetorical handmaidens to lazy left outrage). And I will do so as someone who has closely watched, cared about, cried over and covered the gay rights movement since you were in diapers -- and as someone whose life and livelihood depend far more than yours on Obama living up to his LGBT campaign promises.
Keep your eyes on the prize, boys. Obama's campaign to unify the country -- which last I checked includes millions of Warren's fellow travelers -- is in the service of an administration whose stated policy positions are the most supportive ever on LGBT civil rights. Winning over support for a pro-gay president from anti-gay leaders isn't just defensible, it's downright brilliant.
Ahh but the shiny bauble of a controversy will always distract the ideological purists among us, who are spoiling for a fight more than they are fighting for a cause. Still, how disappointing and sad that it is the gays who are first to break ranks and declare some other (much larger group) as untouchable. It's the kind of exclusionary politics we should expect from our enemies, not from ourselves.
(Photo of Barack Obama and Rick Warren via L.A. Times)
December 17, 2008
'Hide the gays' backlash grows
Posted by: Chris
Those responsible for the monumentally unsuccessful "hide the gays" strategy against Proposition 8 have heard the complaints about failing to connect with the grassroots; they feel your pain. They even held a cyber town hall meeting, although you couldn't participate with an Mac (ahem!) or without a high-speed internet connection.
Undaunted, some of those dissed grassroots held their own town hall meeting at Ground Zero -- West Hollywood. There was not a lot of love in the air:
Most of the voices heard expressed frustration and/or anger at what they called the insular and inept leadership of the campaign. Organized by Robin Tyler, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit that won Californians the right to marry, and the organization Marriage Equality, on whose board she sits, a panel of long time activists listened to speakers and then opined themselves on the No On 8 campaign’s shortcomings.
A Los Angeles man, Jerry Johnson, criticized the television commercials the No On 8 campaign ran as not representing the reality of being gay couples or parents. He said that the ads he saw looked as though the gay leadership was trying to hide gay faces rather than showing them, missing a chance to humanize the community.
Hide the gays they did, so much so that the G-word was never uttered, neither was the M-word ("marriage"), or even the D-word ("discrimination").
Even Madonna, Janet, Whitney and Liza know that at least a first name is required for people to know what the hell you're talking about. Just ask the Artist Formerly Known As Prince; that is when he's not condeming you gay folk for "sticking things wherever you want."
(Photos courtesy of West Hollywood News)
December 15, 2008
Quarantining gays from marriage
Posted by: Chris
I'm usually a bit loathe to sit and watch the latest Jon Stewart and Keith Olberman video making the rounds of gaydom, even though they both are strong supporters of our equality, because a political preacher exhorting his choir does not make for the most interesting viewing, IMHO.
But I will pass on Jon Stewart's mini-debate on gay marriage with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee because it is two-sided and touches on a lot of the hot buttons of this issue generally. Huckabee's folksy image and guitar skills have successfully refurbished his image from that of an angry Baptist minister who urged that people with AIDS be quarantined to protect us from "the dangerous public health threat of homosexuality."
At one point in the discussion, Huck defends treating same-sex marriage differently than interracial marriage because, "There's a big difference between a person being black and a person practicing a lifestyle." Nice try, Mike, but you said otherwise on "Meet The Press" a year ago.
You can take the Baptist preacher out of Arkansas, but you can't take the Arkansas out of the Baptist preacher.
I'll also note, in passing, that almost none of the pro-marriage-equality arguments that Stewart voices so effectivly were even attempted in opposition to Proposition 8 -- mainly because doing so would require using words like "discrimination," "marriage" and "gay," which our side's focus groups apparently found too messy.
December 14, 2008
Our leaders aim too low
Posted by: Andoni
The Advocate just published 26 open letters to Barack Obama from prominent LGBT Americans advising him on the important issues we face as a community and making suggestions on how he should address them. These letters are fascinating to read.
Some are from leaders of single issue organizations and they concentrate mainly on their own issue. Others simply repeat the list of narrow items that have been on HRC's agenda for what seems like forever, you know, Hate Crimes, ENDA, etc. A few push Obama beyond what he has volunteered to give us, such as Evan Wolfson's appeal for full marriage equality.
My favorite four letters cite the inequities in U.S. immigration laws for gay and lesbian citizens, a subject dear to my heart, and specifically ask Obama to remedy this situation by ushering through Congress the Uniting American Families Act or recognizing our relationships for immigration. These letters are from Rachel Tiven, Vestal McIntyre, Jim Buzinski, and Lorri Jean.
But what struck me most about these letters was how timid the ones from the people we consider our national leaders are. In particular, Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin simply asks for Hate Crimes legislation, a T inclusive ENDA, domestic partnership for federal employees (for federal workers only and only a very few of those 1200 federal benefits), and repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." No great vision.
Joe Solmonese , President of the Human Rights Campaign doesn't suggest anything, he simply offers that HRC will work with the president.
And none of these leaders picks up on a monumental issue Barack Obama has put in writing that he would like to give us.....it's right there in his Agenda items under Civil Rights on his webpage and is called the The Obama-Biden Plan. Barack says that we need to
...enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions.
This is powerful stuff folks. If we pass this legislation, it would bring more gays rights to more Americans than all the other items on HRC's list combined. This legislation means that if a gay couple has a legally-recognzied union (any couple can go to VT to get civil unioned or MA to get married - both legally recognized unions), the federal goverment would then grant you those 1200 federal benefits that married opposite sex couples have. This is seismic. And recognition of our relationships has an approval rating of 55-66% as long as you don't call it marriage. This could be easier to pass than the controversial T inclusive ENDA.
Barack Obama is proposing one great piece of legislation here, yet none of our leaders seems to have noticed. None of our national organizations have picked up on this item on his agenda to begin working on it with him; none of our Congressional leaders are writing such a bill that the president would welcome.
It's time to stop thinking about getting our rights one small sliver at a time. It's time to start thinking bigger and grander than most of our leaders and national organizations are doing.
It's mind boggling that none of our leaders in Congress or our national organizations seem to have realized the full potential of what Obama is proposing. If passed this legislation would bring more equality, more happiness to more LGB Americans than any other piece of legislation I can think of.
The letters in the Advocate indicate to me that most of our leaders are aiming too low and aren't fully listening to Obama to take advantage of all that he is offering.
December 11, 2008
NY Dems change their minds
Posted by: Andoni
There are reports today that New York state senator Malcolm Smith has changed his mind on throwing gays under the bus in exchange for promises from three Democratic dissidents to vote for him as majority leader. Originally he was willing to exchange his promise not to bring up same sex marriage legislation in the state senate in 2009 for the votes of three members of his own caucus. The three had threatened to cross the aisle and join the Republicans if Smith did not agree to this.
For whatever the reason, angry calls from gays or simply not being able to live with his conscience, Smith has decided that it is better to wait for two years to gain control of the senate without a deal, than making this deal now. So he called off negotiations. Now we'll see if the three Democrats were bluffing or they will actually join the Republican caucus.
I give credit to Evan Wolfson, who through all my getting angry and jumping to conclusions, told me that all this was simply posturing, and not the final act.
(photo credit: this comical photo is from toole.blogspot.com)
December 09, 2008
Politically correct window-dressing: A+ ... Actual work: F
Posted by: Kevin
For as long as I can remember, the leading national gay rights organizations (and their statewide cousins, in terms of imperial attitude) have made a great deal of noise to indicate they were "working hard" to reach out to the African American community in the United States. This was often couched in the language of building political coalitions to advance gay rights legislation and policy, as it should be. We need to do it.
Well, the results are in. And to say that their efforts were an abject failure is being kind.
The 2008 election proved decisively in California, and hinted strongly in a national way, that all the flowery announcements by Human Rights Campaign directors past and present, as well as the multi-hue-drenched righteousness peppering speeches at NGLTF's Creating Change conferences, amounted to a lot of hot air in an echo chamber.
When you read the latest Gallup Poll on African American moral and political attitudes on homosexuality, you can't help but think of the bullshit events on "diversity" sponsored by your state's left-wing gay rights juggernaut, or the dumb multi-racial hack love-ins among left-wing Democrats under an HRC logo-banner over the last 15 or so years. In reality, any statement by HRC or NGLTF today boasting of their outreach to the African American community smacks of Kenneth Lay telling investors that Enron was solid bet, just before the truth was revealed that he knew it was a sinking ship. Enron's stockholders had bankruptcy, we have the lovely Proposition 8 - and whatever else awaits us.
This is not to say that building a strong political coalition with black Americans isn't absolutely necessary. It is. But what this Gallup poll says is that our current and past gay leadership did nothing effectively, and continues to be a total and complete failure at this.
Since Prop 8 and the key fact that 70% of a tidal wave of African American votes in California voted against us on it, the issue of race has resurfaced for good reason. The gay African American voices have run the gamut from pointing the finger where it belongs -- at those hypocritical gay organizations with money and clout who pay lip service to this hard work but never listen or apply themselves to do it right -- to the same old blaxploitation songs of "gay whitey" this and "gay whitey" that.
But what is so interesting about the Gallup poll to me is the headline: "Blacks as Conservative as Republicans on Some Moral Issues." In a white liberal context, that headline must be like the sound of hand grenades going off: "conservative" (boom!)..."Republicans" (bam!)....."Moral" (ka-BOOM!). Because left-wing political hacks don't let themselves hear, say or deal with those three words in any real way. And now we're all paying the price. Because just like the way HRC did its "building bridges" with "fair-minded Republicans" after the 1994 election basically forced them, the gay establishment's outreach to the black community has been a front. Not real.
I will never forget one moment at the 2000 Creating Change conference in Oakland, California. I think it was the only one I ever attended, basically because I was a speaker on a panel. But I sat in on a different panel on "people of color" issues, and behind me were two folks who I guess were local gays from Oakland. The panel was the usual suspects whose jobs it seemed (to me) were to blather endlessly in person and in print in talking point-ese about "POC issues" (I always cringe when I hear that term). The panel moderator beamed regally while a usual suspect gushed about some meeting in what sounded like the most marginal, way-left church-of-the-misfit-toys in some mid-sized city, where "we melded in song" about "the equality of peoples." One of the folks behind me said in a stage whisper to his friend: "What the hell are they talking about?" I chuckled to myself, in agreement. It was funny to see these left-wing hacks talk about religion and morals the way an alien might discuss life on Earth. Or the Republican Party.
And here's where a gay Republican with a lot of experience with this now-generalized brand of incompetence can give advice to any African American gay activist who wants to channel their anger effectively right now. First step is to wake up. This isn't about racism - it's about competence.
The reason they failed is because they didn't do their jobs. The reason they didn't do their jobs is because they have no fucking clue how to build political coalitions outside their extreme political comfort zone -- be they white, black or fuschia in skin tone. They know how to hire people with the right color skin to run around saying "look at me, I'm Mr. or Ms. (fill in the blank) Outreach!". And as circumstance would have it, they've never been pushed to the wall so blatantly the way the Prop 8 results have nailed them.
So, don't lobby for them to hire some token staff person or launch some bullshit "outreach campaign". You'll just be participating in the ongoing failure. Think of the gay movement like a business - someone isn't do their job, you fire them. Demand the heads of those responsible, and demand they be replaced by someone of any race, any gender, who has the political and intellectual and moral skill to do the job in the African American community that nobody has been doing in this movement for decades. Someone proven. Someone who would be honorable enough to look at Prop 8, and at the Gallup poll results, and resign in disgrace.
Right now, this movement is all about electing Democrats, with this as the only result worth any real investment of time and money and effort. You see what that has gotten us. So let's make it about advancing the gay cause again, and let's leave absolutely nothing to window dressing or lip service anymore. Let's be bold and courageous, and demand leaders who get the job done.
December 08, 2008
Latest on that N.Y. marriage 'deal'
Posted by: Chris
The Gay City News reports gay marriage advocates aren't necessarily buying published accounts that the state's leading Senate Democrats bargained away a marriage equality bill to win the support of three dissident Dems threatening to throw their support, and control, to the Republicans:
New York's three dailies provided differing accounts of what Diaz came away with from the December 4 meeting, which Governor David Paterson also attended. The Times reported that sources with knowledge of the negotiations said Diaz is "confident" that there will be no vote on gay marriage in 2009.
The Daily News wrote that Diaz said he had been "assured" the measure would not come to a vote; its print story did not give a time frame, but News political blogger Liz Benjamin said the agreement was for at least 2009.
The Post reported that a vote would not happen in the 2009-2010 session, meaning that no action would come before the 2010 election, when Paterson and the Senate Democrats must both stand for reelection.
[Gay Chelsea Sen. Tom] Duane, speaking from Washington late in the afternoon of December 5, said he knew no more about the negotiations than had been published and noted that none of the dailies' sources had been named - though the News account reads as though Diaz made his comment to the newspaper. Duane argued that Smith has repeatedly voiced support for marriage equality, while Skelos is opposed.
There's little encouraging here, since the evidence suggests such a deal was cut to postpone a vote at least until after the midterm elections in 2010.
December 07, 2008
Hillary as president = no Prop 8?
Posted by: Chris
An interesting op-ed in today's New York Times engages in some familiar analysis concerning the growing cracks in the progressive coalition opened up by the passage of Proposition 8:
Left-leaning California’s horror about this newly revealed schism between two of its favorite sons is a situation that cries out for a villain, but the one that liberal white Hollywood has chosen for the role probably won’t make it all the way to the third act.
“It’s their churches,” somebody whispered to one of us not long after the election; “It’s their Christianity,” someone else hissed, rolling her eyes. Apparently the religion espoused by the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is now the enemy, at least among the smart set, and if this sounds like a regional issue, it’s not.
But this intriguing little notion was news to me:
Many gay activists have begun quietly to suggest that had Hillary Clinton been the Democratic nominee, Prop 8 would not have passed.
I'd say that's a hard case to make stastically and smacks of never-ending bitterness that even Clinton herself seems to have admirably gotten over. Considering that black voters were only 6% of the total in California, it would have taken more than depressed turnout of their numbers to have brought down Prop 8, which passed by 4 percentage points. Remember that black voters alone were not responsible for the gay marriage ban's margin of victory.
That said, I can't help but chew on the question. Which would you prefer: President-elect Obama and Proposition 8 (e.g., what we have now), or Hillary as president-elect and Prop 8 voted down?
To read Kevin's repent (which I am as thrilled as you to see), I am guessing he'd pick Hillary/No 8, despite his antipathy for all things Clinton. I share many of those same sentiments -- multiplied by years of exposure due to my Arkansas roots -- and probably as a result I'm happier with what we got.
For one thing, the activism unleashed by the combination of Obama's empowering victory and anger over Prop 8 has the potential to transform a movement that has badly needed it for years. Maybe I'm too optimistic, but I would also expect Prop 8 to live a very short life, whether gutted next year by the California Supreme Court or rejected by voters in 2010 or 2012.
Of course, President Obama could still bitterly disappoint us the way the Clinton I administration did in the 1990s, but despite early worries I like our prospects -- and certainly more than under a Clinton II regime.
(Prop 8 illustration via New York Times)
