Your Children and Chick-fil-A

A friend from high school just posted this on her Facebook page.  It reminded me of what is most upsetting to me about the recent Chick-fil-A controversy.

The glee with which so many laughingly and light-heartedly defended the right of someone to say hurtful if not hateful  things about gay people and pursue policies that will continue to deny their equal rights.

The right to say such things is not in question.  The joy and mirth that so many expressed in defending that right is.  They seem to have forgotten that their joyful anti-gay messages will be heard by small ears.

"Careful the things you say, children will listen."

Lost in all of this are the children growing up gay but too scared (some for their lives) to talk to their parents or loved ones.  They fear they will be cast out (because they see their loved ones doing it in the things they say and in the politicians and policies they support).  These kids will have no where to turn.  And so these kids will hide.  They will withdraw.  They may turn to drugs and alcohol for relief from the crushing loneliness and rejection.  All too many will see suicide as their only option in a world where loved ones mock other people who are just like them.

After all, what future is there in a world where your dreams for a relationship full of love and companionship are demonized and rejected?

I hope that all those people standing in line to support anti-gay free speech at Chick-fil-A and posting "funny" cartoons about it like this one do not have any gay children or grandchildren.  Sadly, I know they do.

More sadly, those kids are watching.

"We Have Nothing to Fear From Love and Commitment

A New York Senator knocks it out of the park for marriage equality. The other side wasn't listening. (Hat tip: Graham Gillette)

Harry Thomas, Marriage Equality Champ

I agree with DCists praise of DC City Council Member Harry Thomas Jr.'s vote in support of marriage equality. As the DC blog points out, Thomas was one of few council members who could face political fallout for voting for the measure. But Thomas said:

"I represent a ward that is torn down the middle on this issue," he said. "But as a legislator, I cannot allow my personal...or religious life to allow for the disenfranchisement of any individual in the District."

Thomas could have taken the safe path, voted no, knowing the measure was going to pass, making those who favor marriage equality in his ward less motivated, since the final vote went their way anyway. As it is, opponents to marriage equality are angry and motivated and have vowed to go after council members who supported the measure.

Lets hope some Senators in the New York legislator find some of Harry Thomas' courage.

Meanwhile, the Fierce Advocate:

Via the Independent Gay Forum:

"Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals, a libertarian-leaning Regan-appointee, orders health benefits for a lesbian spouse of a federal employee, and the Obama White House, through its highest ranking openly gay appointee (John Berry, head of the Office of Personnel Management), attempts to thwart the judge's order?"

The Least of These

Jesus:

Truly I say to you, as you did it to the least of these my brethren, you did it to me." (Gospel of St. Matthew: 35.40)

The DC Archdiocese, saying they will end their Charity Organization's work in the District if marriage equality is passed:

Church officials say Catholic Charities would have to suspend its social services work for the city, rather than provide employee benefits to same-sex married couples or allow them to adopt. (Gospel of St. Katherine of Graham, a.k.a., the WaPo).

So, the Church would end it's social programs (helping thousands of kids and the elderly), on the off chance they might have to provide health insurance to a gay employee's spouse? Really?

Has Archbishop Wuerl actually, um, read the Bible?

I'm not one who supports forcing private organizations (like the Boy Scouts, say) to accomodate gay people. And I would oppose efforts to force churches that oppose marriage equality to hold gay weddings in their chapels. But when it comes to employment law, if the church has employees, it has to follow employment law. It's the cost of doing business -- the cost of rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's. And the church gets something back for being a part of society. Your tax dollars can pay to bus Catholic school students on public school busses. And it pays for their secular textbooks, standardized tests and scoring, and diagnostic and therapeutic services.

Not to mention they get benefits from taxes without having to pay taxes.

I'd say the church gets a pretty good deal from Caesar.

But let's look at this another way.

Spousal employee benefits are primarily health care. So if mariage equality passes in DC, is it counter to Jesus' teachings to provide access to health care to an employee's spouse even if that person is gay? Catholic Charities already provides health care services directly to 3,000 people, according to the WaPo article. Presumably, some numer of those 3,000 people are gay. So Catholic Charities is undoutedly already providing direct services to gay folk in the city. But it can't bring itself to do that for the civil spouse of one of it's own employees? They don't have to bless or recognize the union -- just provide access to health care for another human being. Or, to put it in Jesus' words: "When...I was sick, you visited me."

Or, in the case of adoption, giving a previously unwanted baby a loving home? "I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me..."

But, silly me, there I go again quoting Jesus. I forgot this was about organized religion and has nothing to do with Him.

Marriage Defined

One of the biggest myths that the anti-marriage equality folks cling to is that marriage "between one man and one woman" is the way it's been throughout human history. They know not history nor even the bibles they thump. How many bible characters - favored by God - had a marriage that was one man and many women? Not to mention the concubines? But don't take it from me, listen to Dan Savage talk about how straight people evolved marriage making it the institution of privileges and responsibilities between two consenting adults that it is today.

Oh, and Dan being Dan, there's a few F bombs in here so NSFW. But well worth listening to.

"Hard Times for Homophobes"

David Link makes the argument that we should be cheered that we're winning every issue except marriage:

Marriage is not just an outlier, it is the only outlier. The fringe of the right will complain about any legal protections for lesbians and gay men, but they can’t put together a majority on any issue except for full marital equality. An enormous majority of Americans even support repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, though political cowardice on that issue still lingers in Congress -- the same cowardice that got us the policy in the first place.

This chart shows that more than a majority in virtually every state, including the ones with the most anti-gay sentiment, supports employment and housing protection, hate crimes laws and health benefits for homosexuals. The trailing issue in all states is always marriage, with majority-plus support in only six states.

In comments to Link's post on Indy Gay Forum, several argue that marriage equality shouldn't be that important. But, they are wrong. Marriage equality is the ballgame. It is legal recognition that homosexuality itself is fully equal with heterosexuality. The Christian right gets this, it's why they will stop at nothing to prevent it from happening.

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.

Marriage Equality - a Busy Day

Lots today on the marriage equality front.

All the major GLBT "activist" organizations counsel against filing federal lawsuits on marriage equality.

David Boies and Ted Olsen (yes, that Ted Olsen) file suit to do just that, claiming Prop 8 violates the U.S. Constitution.

Meanwhile, more locally, some pastors announce plans for a referendum in DC on whether we will recognize same sex marriages legally performed in other jurisdictions.

Lots to digest. Meanwhile, there is a great discussion over at Pam's House Blend about the call for a moratorium on lawsuits by our "leaders" and the Olsen gambit. Don't just read the post, there's some great points made in the comments.

And, President Obama's spokesperson ducks and weaves on the issue. Perhaps he should consult a Constitutional law professor.

I'm mulling it all over. What do you think?

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.

No On 8 Afterthoughts

Lots has been said and done since the disappointing defeat...the grassroots organized a massive protest and HRC organized a black-tie inaugural gala...and a lot of blaming the No on 8 campaign staff for missteps.

One of those criticisms is that they kept the gay out of the campaign. I tend to buy into that criticism, but Dale Carpenter makes the opposite point:

"This may have been the only strategy that had any chance of winning under the circumstances. If the campaign had frankly presented the case for gay families and marriage we might have lost by a much larger margin. No on 8 leaders were trying to dislodge in five months what people have been taught for a lifetime about homosexuals and marriage. Given the size of the task, it’s amazing we nearly succeeded."

I'd like to think he's wrong. But although I've been out to my family for a good many years now, and out to all my friends, I have family and friends who would have voted "yes" on 8. They accept me and the LTR in every other way. But they can't bring themselves to go for the "m" word. So giving our relationships and even just gayness a "face" may not in this case have worked (Sean Bugg makes the simple and elegant point that the mainstream press viewpoint is that gay people have sex, straight people have relationships. I think that viewpoint is sadly universal).

I'd like to think that being "out" is key to knocking down bigotry and fear. But at least as regard to acceptance to gay marriage in my own family, it has not.

Marriage may be the true glass ceiling.

'I No Longer believe in Marriage"

Via Andrew Sullivan, Tom Ackerman has an idea:

Tell 'em you don't recognize marriage anymore. And watch them squirm.

Reax on Prop 8

Andrew Sullivan tries to find a positive note while conceding this was a gut-punch:

My own marriage exists and is real without the approval of others. One day soon, it will be accepted by a majority. And this initiative in California can and will be reversed, as California's initiatives are much more fluid than those in other states; and the younger generation is overwhelmingly - 2 to 1 - in our favor. The tide of history is behind us; but we will have to work harder to educate people about our lives and loves and humanity.

It cannot be denied that this feels like a punch in the gut. It is. I'm not going to pretend that the wound isn't deep and personal, like an attack on my own family. It was meant to be. Many Obama supporters voted against our rights, and Obama himself opposes our full civil equality. The religious folk who believe that Jesus stood for the marginalization of minorities, and who believe that my equality somehow threatens their children, will, I pray, see how misguided they have become. And make no mistake: they won this by playing on very deep fears of gay people around kids. They knew the levers to pull.

Dan Savage finds a new culture war:

African American voters in California voted overwhelmingly for Prop 8, writing anti-gay discrimination into California’s constitution and banning same-sex marriage in that state. Seventy percent of African American voters approved Prop 8, according to exit polls, compared to 53% of Latino voters, 49% of white voters, 49% of Asian voters.

I’m not sure what to do with this. I’m thrilled that we’ve just elected our first African-American president. I wept last night. I wept reading the papers this morning. But I can’t help but feeling hurt that the love and support aren’t mutual.

I do know this, though: I’m done pretending that the handful of racist gay white men out there—and they’re out there, and I think they’re scum—are a bigger problem for African Americans, gay and straight, than the huge numbers of homophobic African Americans are for gay Americans, whatever their color.

Ar Pam's House Blend, Autumn is upset that voters approved animal rights but denied gay rights:

Whether or not Proposition 8 ends up being defeated or being approved by California voters, one way to look at the Prop 8 vote is in light of the Proposition 2 vote. And that is that a larger percentage of Californians are against mistreating farm animals in hoow these animals are caged than are against mistreating gay and lesbian human beings by eliminating their fundamental marriage rights. Put simply, If one evaluates by the votes cast and the percentages of the votes cast, the rights of farm animals appear to be more important to Californians than the rights of gay and lesbian human beings.

Dale Carpenter notes we gays are still the detested "other:"

Over the past few days I’ve volunteered at various sites in the Bay Area trying to get people to come out and vote against Prop 8. This included speaking at a rally, distributing literature, and holding up signs to passing motorists. While I got an overwhelmingly favorable reception, not surprising for the Bay Area, I saw firsthand an angry and ugly underbelly of the opposition to gay marriage. I was called a “sicko,” had the Bible cited to me more than once, was asked whether I’d want my "own child to be one,” and was told that “they” molest lots of children, among other things.

And Eugene Volokh offers the depressing analysis that those who got married while it was legal will lose their designation:

According to the text of the amendment, as soon as the amendment takes effect, only male-female marriages are valid or recognized. (Nor is there any language in the initiative summary, or the supporters' arguments, that purports to interpret this text as not applying to existing marriages.)

The Advocate Article and Hillary

Is out. The earlier portrayal was accurate.

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 Children of Gay Couples Don't Matter in Maryland

Maryland is now officially not marry land for gays, with yesterday's MD Supreme Court decision declaring that denying gay couples their nuptials is not unconstitutional. What troubles me is the apparent reasoning:

In reversing a lower court's decision, the divided Court of Appeals ruled that limiting marriage to a man and a woman does not discriminate against gay couples or deny them constitutional rights. Although the judges acknowledged that gay men and lesbians have been targets of discrimination, they said the prohibition on same-sex marriage promotes the state's interest in heterosexual marriage as a means of having and protecting children.

Um, hello...many gay couples have kids (and many straight married people do not). Like so many others opponents of gay marriage, the Maryland supremes are hiding behind the kids of straight parents while ignoring the children of gay couples. If it's in the state's interest to protect children who are progeny of straight people, why isn't it in the state's interest to protect the kids of gays?

NM Same Sex Couples Can Wed in Massachusetts

MA tells it's clerks to allow NM residents to apply for a marriage license, since NM does not prohibit same-sex marriage.

Hello, DC?

The Times They Are a-Changin'

A poll by the New York Times/CBS News and MTV (free registration required) shows that the younger generation (17-29) is more favorable to same sex marriage:

Forty-four percent said they believed that same-sex couples should be permitted to get married, compared with 28 percent of the public at large.

I'm actually a little surprised it's not higher, but this is still encouraging. The era of the 'phobes is coming to an end.

Columbia Update

Spoke too soon.

HRC: Against FMA Good, For SSM, Bad

I just don't get it. In her statement for Gay Pride Month, Hillary Clinton says this:

Just a year ago, I worked with my Democratic colleagues in the Senate as well as with LGBT leaders to defeat the divisive and discriminatory Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA). Since then, we not only defeated FMA, but we have been able to make real progress in achieving fairness for all Americans.

Okay, if the Federal Marriage Amendment was discriminatory for defining marriage as between a man and a woman, wouldn't the failure to act to allow same sex marriage be the same? One a sin of commission and the other a sin of omission? Hillary -- like the rest -- doesn't believe gays should be able to marry (we get civ unions instead) so how is her position non-discriminatory?

I don't get it. Explain it to me?

(hat tip: Gay Orbit)