Perry vs. Schwarzenegger

There's a lot of stake in the court case being brought by Ted Olson and David Boies to strike down the hateful Prop 8 that re-instituted marriage inequality in California. Michael Petrelis pegs what this is really about in his post of impressions of Day One:

"I sense a foundation is being laid down to deal with the issue underlying the gay marriage question, the question of homosexuality itself, and that is what is really on trial here." (emphasis mine)

Yes. Exactly right. And that's always what gay marriage has been all about. For if gays can marry legally, then homosexuality will be morally equal to heterosexuality in the eyes of the law. As long as the most fundamental thing about us -- who we love and chose to spend our lives with -- is treated by law as morally inferior to the straight majority, state-sanctioned injustice is possible.

The other side gets it -- which is why they are saying the dumbest things and going to any length to prevent it.

This lawsuit is an enormous risk. With enormous possibilities.

Gay Marriage -- A Look Back

Jonathan Rauch provides an excellent summary of the year gay marriage went mainstream.

Re-Asking the Same Sex Marriage Question

Polling guru Nate Silver points out that Americans are more likely to be okay with marriage equality if asked the right question. Via Gay Politics:


When gay marriage is polled, it is almost always framed as a positive right, as in: “should the government permit Adam and Steve to get married?"

But there is a different way to frame the question that is no less fair, and flips the issue on its head. Namely: “should the government be allowed to prohibit Adam and Steve from getting married?“. This is closer to the logic embodied by the court decisions in Iowa, California, Massachusetts, and other states. Those courts didn’t create gay marriage; they argued, rather, that it was already protected by their respective state constitutions.

Obama and the Gays

Some in the community have expressed disappointment that Obama hasn't expressed greater enthusiasm for the advancement of marriage equality in the states over the last few weeks. Well, that really shouldn't be a surprise -- Obama does not support gay marriage. He's a one man, one woman kind of guy. While we may hope otherwise, when it comes to gay marriage he's not so audacious.

So, don't be disappointed that he hasn't said, "I applaud Vermont for approving something I don't support." Take cold comfort in the fact that, at least on this issue, he is being consistent.

The Greatest of These is Love

One of the most beautiful passages from the New Testament turned into an ad against Prop 8 in California. Question: This is truly a beautiful ad -- but it is politically effective?

Gay Marriage Advances Again in Massachusetts

The MA House of Rep. voted to repeal the 1913 law preventing out of state couples from getting married there is their marriage at home is not legal. The Senate earlier agreed to this and the Gov. said he would sign it.

This means gay couples from anywhere can be married legally in the Bay State. This was an expansion of marriage rights enacted not by court mandate (aka "activist judges") but by the people's duly elected representatives. If California voters reject their proposed constitutional amendment against same sex marriage this fall that will be another electoral victory and yet another sign that legalizing same sex marriage doesn't mean sudden death politically.

So, let's review the bidding. We have:

• A possible 60 seat majority for Democrats in the Senate - meaning Republicans couldn't filibuster without Democratic defections
• The electoral expansion of same sex marriage rights elsewhere in the country
• A possible Democratic president who has said states should decide the marriage issue for themselves
• A DC mayor and city council that is on record in favor of same sex marriage

You'd think the time would be right for DC to recognize gay marriages.

Won't happen, though. Gay marriage will be legal in Mississippi before it is here in the capital of the free world.

What's Lacking in Pride is a Movement

I shouldn't be so hard on Capital Pride.


Sidebar: Although they somewhat set themselves up for the ridicule. My main reason for being disdainful is that Pride is a lack of purpose pretending to have a purpose. From the Cap Pride's Web Site:

June 6th will kick-off the 33rd annual Capital Pride celebration! This years theme of "History. Vision. Legacy." will allow attendees from near and far to be part of a celebration of what it means to be Proud in our Nation's capital.

The weeklong celebration of educational, civic and social events, will culminate with the landmark parade on Saturday, June 14th and the street festival Sunday, June 15th. (emphasis added).

But if you review the schedule of weeklong events, you find one forum, one interfaith service, and then happy hour, a bachelor auction, a bachelorette auction, a Miss Capitol Pride Pageant, a men's party, a woman's party, a parade and a street festival. Dancing shirtless, bidding on on beefcake and competing drag queens -- this is "what it means to be proud in our nation's capital?" Drop the pretense. It's a party with no purpose other than partying. It's a Mardi Gras.

End Sidebar.

Problem is, there is a vacuum in our community, one that Pride could help begin to fill by being a rallying point. What's missing in Pride is a national gay civil rights movement.

In California a volcano just erupted. Part of the fallout of that event is going to be a backlash at the ballot box this November. Winning there has ramifications for the entire community. It's the beginning of the collapse of legal and political discrimination against gays. If we win.

You couldn't tell that D-Day will be happening this November based on Capital Pride (and the gays in California acted like they've already one, according to this observer).

But, as I said, I'm expecting too much of Pride organizers. Their task is to throw a party, not galvanize a community into a national movement. Problem is, no one is doing this. One might think HRC would be such a vehicle, but HRC is fundamentally a fundraising organization not a civil rights grassroots organization. And it's too in bed with the Democratic Party to take the risks needed for a civil rights movement. Partisans don't like to rock the boat in favor of their incumbents and civil rights movements make waves.

Pride has its pleasures (as this fellow noted). It's just too bad that nearly 40 years after Stonewall our community hasn't been able to form a cohesive national civil rights movement.

Happy Pride.

Ellen and McCain, Part II

When I was growing up, I remember a news show where they interviewed a "practicing homosexual." The man was afraid -- ashamed was the implication -- to show his face and they kept him in shadows. Being gay was so bad you couldn't show your face. The love that dare not speak its name and all that.

Fast forward to yesterday, and on one of America's most popular daytime talk shows a lesbian host talks about her upcoming wedding with another woman with the Republican nominee for president, and with the audience cheering on it's the straight man in the room who looks awkward and uncomfortable.

Incredible.

Ellen v. McCain

She's been criticized for de-emphasizing her gayness in favor of celebrity. That can be said no more. Perhaps she was waiting for a moment when it would matter most. I'd say this is pitch perfect:

ELLEN DeGENERES: Yeah, I mean, I think that it's -- it is looked at -- and some people are saying the same -- that blacks and women did not have the right to vote. I mean, women just got the right to vote in 1920. Blacks didn't have the right to vote until 1870. And it just feels like there is this old way of thinking that we are not all the same. We are all the same people, all of us. You're no different than I am. Our love is the same. To me -- to me, what it feels like -- just, you know, I will speak for myself
-- it feels -- when someone says, "You can have a contract, and you'll still have insurance, and you'll get all that," it sounds to me like saying, "Well, you can sit there; you just can't sit there." That's what it sounds like to me. It feels like -- it doesn't feel inclusive...It feels -- it feels isolated. It feels like we are not -- you know, we aren't owed the same things and the same wording.

SENATOR JOHN McCAIN: Well, I've heard you articulate that position in a very eloquent fashion. We just have a disagreement. And I, along with many, many others, wish you every happiness.

ELLEN DeGENERES: Thank you. So you'll walk me down the aisle? Is that what you're saying?

SENATOR JOHN McCAIN: Touche.

ELLEN DeGENERES: Well, my hope is someday it won't be called a contract; it will be called marriage.

California Supreme Court Decision on Same Sex Marriage

The right is making predictable noises on the California Supreme Court decision on same sex marriage, about activist judges and the will of the legislature being overturned.

The CA legislature has twice voted in FAVOR of same sex marriage.

The elected governor of CA, Ah-nold, supports the CA Supremes' decision.

Now the right will strike back with a ballot initiative to make same sex marriage unconstitutional. Which is their right to try and do.

And we must stop them. And the polls are moving in our direction. Winning in CA on this issue should become the number one gay civil rights issue in the nation. More important than Hillary. Or Obama.

Do you get it, HRC?

The Clintons and the Gays

Andrew Sullivan has been posting a small series on this topic. Two things I'll direct your attention to. First, Sullivan's personal experience when fighting DOMA:

My most vivid memory was testifying against the Defense Of Marriage Act in 1996. It was the day of the hearings. We were going to lose; we always knew it. But the Clintons told the press on the morning of the hearings that they didn't believe there were any constitutional problems with DOMA, cutting us off at the knees. Yes, that was politics. I understand. All I want to remind the next generation of gays about is: don't ever expect anything more than "just politics" from the Clintons.

And if you think the Clintons "had" to do it because of the Republican-controlled Congress, I urge you to read the account posted by John Aravosis on AmericaBlog regarding Bill Clinton's advice to John Kerry to support anti-gay marriage state initiatives in 2004.

And remember...the same people that were advising him then are advising her now.

Gay Marriage in Iowa

Shouldn't we expect more from our Democratic "allies" than this?

Action and Tangible Commitment, Not Political Correctness

A reader writes that Obama's inclusion of rabidly anti-gay ex-gay Donnie McClurkin on a gospel tour disqualifies him as credible on DOMA repeal. I was hoping someone would bring up the McClurkin thing, as it's an old controversy and I have been thinking about it.

I would rather support a candidate who will bring about real, beneficial change even if he or she hangs out with people I don't like or agree with. Hillary is very politically correct, goes to the right dinners, hangs with the right crowd and obviously has won the well, support I guess (you can't call it affection) of a great deal of the establishment, including the gay establishment (read: HRC). So she may not have ruffled any gay feathers but she won't stick her own neck out either on behalf of the gay community.

Obama has and is -- by telling the black religious establishment that they are wrong about their homophobia.

Obama is not perfect and he has flaws like any other candidate or human being. I'm not nominating him for saint (I happen not to believe in them). But I am considering giving him my vote (I still have until Feb. to make up my mind).

Here's Obama in his own words defending his record on gay issues as well as stating plainly that he will legalize federal marriage benefits for gay couples in civil unions. I cannot imagine Hillary being so direct.

Obama v. Hillary on Gay Marriage (with an update on Edwards)

I'll never understand the fascination and respect that many gays give the Clintons. I recall when Bill was in office a friend of mine was swooning over the president and I asked him to explain to me why. "He says our name," he gushed. Meaning, that Clinton wasn't afraid of being seen with "professed homosexuals" to use Huckabee's term. Ironically, that same week my friend and I had that conversation, Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act. And that's the problem with Clinton(s) -- symbolically supportive yet not willing to take a true stand and enact real positive change for gay Americans. I acknowledge the symbolic support, it frustrates me that Clinton's adoring gay fans can't see the flip side.

Which brings us to Hillary. As with the husband, so with the wife.

A commenter remarked that Hillary was better than Obama on gay rights. In point of fact, that's simply not true, especially on the subject of marriage.

Obama was opposed to DOMA when it past and favors its full repeal now. Hillary was for DOMA and favors only a half repeal. Obama would support legislation giving gays in civil unions the nearly 1,200 rights and privileges under federal law now enjoyed by married couples. Hillary is more vague.

John Edwards has also recently come out for full repeal of DOMA.

Thus, Hillary is the candidate farthest to the right on gay marriage among the top three Democratic contenders.

So for true, positive change on gay rights, my money, literally and figuratively, is on Obama.

Gay Marriage Threat to Civ, Says Huckabee

Perhaps Mike Huckabee should have spent less time watching Chuck Norris films and more time reading his bible. In an interview with GQ, he said:

You have to have a basic family structure. There’s never been a civilization that has rewritten what marriage and family means and survived."

Really? The 1950s image of the mom and dad and two kids with the white picket fence idea of marriage was handed down to us unchanged since Eden?

Let's go to the Bible:

• Genesis 16:1-11 Abram impregnates his wife's maid, Hagar. He later marries her. And angel of the Lord appears to Hagar and blesses her and her baby.
• Genesis 26:34: Esau, son of Isaac, takes two wives
• Genesis 28:9 Esau takes a third wife, to annoy his father, Isaac.
• Genesis 29:15-15-30: Jacob exchanges labor of seven years to Laban, in exchange for getting the right to marry his daughter Rachel. At the end of seven years, Laban pulls a switcheroo and sends his older, less attractive daughter Lean "in" to Jacob. When Jacob discovers the deception, he works another seven years so he can take both women as wives.

Now -- that's the way things worked way back when and guess what -- we don't do things like that anymore. Society changed the definition of marriage. Women aren't passed into marriage --at least in the West -- as property. Most people would say marriage is based on love between two equal partners.

Marriage is a social institution and as society changes it can and must change. It certainly has since Biblical times. Or is Huckabee saying we must return to a time when men could buy multiple wives? Nah -- but he is cherry picking the Bible to pick on the rights favorite straw man -- the rights of gay Americans.

Obama, Not Kucinich

Barney Frank and Tammy Baldwin have both come out and endorsed Hillary for president, even though they both disagree with her on marriage equality.

As a reader points out, the only Democratic candidate who supports full marriage rights is Dennis Kucinich which does about as much for us as writing to Santa Claus and asking for marriage to be tucked into our stockings come Christmas morning.

The real comparison is Hillary vs. Obama -- Obama is more progressive on the issue than Hillary, as noted earlier. But, as usual, our leaders, be they Members of Congress or HRC, follow the Democratic establishment.

Republican San Diego Mayor Reverses Course and Supports Gay Marriage Resolution

Thanks in no small part, apparently, to his gay daughter and openly gay staffers (Cheney family, take note). From his statement:

“As I reflected on the choices that I had before me last night I could just not bring myself to tell an entire group of people in our community they were less important, less worthy or less deserving of the rights and responsibilities of marriage than anyone else simply because of their sexual orientation,” Sanders said.

In a reference to his daughter and two staff members who are gay, he said, “I want for them the same thing that we all want for our loved ones, for each of them to find a mate whom they love deeply and loves them back, someone with whom they can grow old together and share life's experiences, and I want their relationships to be protected equally under the law.

Watch the video of his news conference. It's very emotional and moving. (hat tip: Rex Wockner)

Hillary and Obama take note: this is what conviction looks like.

The Hypocrisy Behind Fred Thompson's Stand Against Gay Marriage?

Fred Thompson, having just announced (surprise!) that he's running for president, made haste to tackle what he clearly considers one of the top priorities confronting the nation today: Stopping Gay Marriage:

“I am proposing a constitutional amendment that would stop gay marriages as a practical matter in this country."

Is this because Thompson clearly believes gay marriages are a serious moral threat or because Republican strategist Rich Galen -- who is a senior advisor on the Thompson campaign -- told him that playing the gay card was a good way to win conservative votes.

Lat fall, before the 2006 Congressional elections, Galen publicly (in a column published Oct. 27) called on GOP candidates to tie the then-recent NJ Supreme Court decision supporting gay unions to Nancy Pelosi, her "San Francisco values" and to Congressional Democrats.

Okay, pandering to homophobia to win votes isn't that new, but then comes the blatant hypocrisy from Galen:

I know I will be accused of gay-bashing, but I am not. I am looking at this from a purely political standpoint. I understand homosexuality exists and denying that is foolhardy. If we want to reduce the effects of HIV/AIDS on society, fostering long-term relationships - even homosexual relationships - would be one very good way to do it.

I was so stunned that someone could acknowledge that gay unions might be a good thing for society (Rich equates it with reducing the the effects of HIV/AIDS, which I might point out, people still die from) but at the same time abandon that moral and public good for partisan political gain. I am naive, which Rich pointed out to me when I emailed him challenging him on this point. He wrote me:

...you're shocked that political people look at things through a political prism? Oh, please.

So, the questions that Fred Thompson should be asked:

1. Are you privately supportive of gay people and their relationships (surely you came across many in Hollywood) despite this public stand?
2. Are you viewing the gay marriage issue through a "political prism" and not a societal/moral/public policy one?
3. With senior advisers on your payroll who believe one thing but abandon their beliefs to win votes, how will the American people know you are sincere about your beliefs when you stake out a position, especially on polarizing issues?
4. Will you take stands on issues you believe in even if you know it may cost you votes?

Gay Marriage a 600-Year-Old Idea?

Apparently yes, according to this Science Daily article. Single unrelated males were getting married in France 600 years ago.

Edwards and the Gays

I was at rehearsal tonight so did not see the Dem YouTube debate, tough I gather from Michael at Gay Orbit I did not miss much. I did watch the clip (via Pam) of John "Bridge Over Troubled Waters" Edwards answering Rev. Longcrier's question about whether personal religious belief should be used to deny gays the right to marry. After dodging the question, he said, basically, he's personally against gay marriage, because of his faith, but doesn't think a president's personal faith should be used to deny people's civil rights.

Soooooo, that means as president, if presented a bill legalizing civil marriage for gays you'd be for it?

Artful dodging, this one. He points out wife Elizabeth is all for letting the gays marry. Could it be he's maintaining opposition, talking about that bridge he won't cross, while he lets his wife send a subliminal message to the gays that he's more with us than he can politically let on right now?

Or is that just the cynicism talking?