I was originally writing something up on the conservative response to Lt. Dan Choi's arrest when I wrote this sentence: "If conservatives want us to stop equating their homophobia to the racism that the civil rights movement experienced, they should stop using the same talking points." I decided to write the following instead of a typical conservatives-freak-out-at-liberal-activism post.
Let us play a game. I am going to give you a quote about the bigotry of the armed forces. I will redact all names, dates, and any words along the lines of "homosexual", "gay", "sexual orientation", "black", "negro", "race." You try to guess what kind of bigot these perfectly rational arguments came from, homophobic or racist! Sounds fun, right?
This week in a San Francisco Federal District Court, a legal odd couple will be on display. Attorney David Boies, who represented Al Gore before the U.S. Supreme Court in the infamous 2000 case ofBush v. Gore, and conservative attorney Ted Olson, who represented George W. Bush, are joining forces to overturn California's Proposition 8. It will be their contention that the initiative passed by voters in 2008 banning same-sex marriage in the Golden State violates the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the U.S. Constitution, singles out gays and lesbians for a disfavored legal status, and discriminates on the basis of gender and sexual orientation.
Regardless of which side prevails, experts agree the case is likely to be appealed all the way to the highest court in the land.
Originally posted at Sum of Change, with lots more pictures available here
Over the weekend, you probably heard about tens of thousands of people standing up for LGBT rights at the Equality March in Washington, DC. It got some decent coverage, mostly on C-SPAN, but for the most part, the MSM really missed the scene. They missed the personal stories attached to this event. Our own Laura Gilbert was there to speak with the protesters.
On Monday, August 3rd, there was a candlelight vigil for the victims of the shooting at a support group meeting for LGBT youth at the Agudah LGBT community center headquarters in Tel Aviv. Hundreds of people gathered in Dupont Circle in Washington, DC at sunset. You can download the event press release in pdf format.
When Ellen Tauscher announced she was headed for the State Department it seemed there would be no shortage of Democrats running to replace her in this safe district, including California's Lt. Gov, John Garamendi, who ducked out of the race for governor when he got no traction and decided not to contest Republican held CA-03. Recently though, CNN's Campbell Brown (bleck!) interviewed a candidate I hadn't heard anything about until now, and after watching the clip I walked away impressed.
The theme of equality was central to our nation’s founding, with the declaration that “all men are created equal.” Our country’s history has witnessed the gradual evolution of that core principle from a ruling class that countenanced slavery and subordination toward an egalitarian vision that embraces the inherent equality of all people. We fought a civil war in part to give life to this proposition. It is embodied in our Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under law, and in the other Civil War amendments. And epic social movements of the past two centuries have moved our country, in fits and starts, further still toward the reality of truly equal opportunity. As Abraham Lincoln said of the Founders’ vision:
“They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society, which should be familiar to all, and revered by all; constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people of all colors everywhere.”
It's because of this rich history that recent happenings in Nevada and California are so discouraging. First, the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8's ban on same-sex marriage. Meanwhile, this week Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons vetoed a law that would give domestic partners similar rights and benefits to those enjoyed by Nevada married couples.
In a statement (PDF) released by the Governor, he writes: "My disapproval of this bill should not be taken to suggest that domestic partners are in any way undeserving of rights and protections." But this is a canard. As Justice Carlos Moreno, the sole dissenter in this week's California Supreme Court ruling, said:
"Granting same-sex couples all of the rights enjoyed by opposite-sex couples, except the right to call their officially recognized and protected family relationship a marriage, still denies them equal treatment."
He continued to say the ruling "places at risk the state constitutional rights of all disfavored minorities."
Granting gay couples anything but the ability to marriage is fundamentally separate and unequal. These actions in California and Nevada are a troubling trend and particularly discouraging in light of the recent advances in gay rights in so many other states.
As some of you may know, Greg Harris again passed a bill that would allow civil unions in the state of Illinois. His attempt last year was side-swiped by Blago's impeachment trial at the end of the legislative season which delayed the vote.
Apparently, the different now is that according to the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) , the Mormon Church is bringing their anti-gay crusade to Illinois
The e-mail, sent to at least one LDS ward in Illinois, was authorized by Bishop Chris Church, of the Nauvoo, Illinois 3rd Ward, and was sent out by that website's ward administrator. The messaging in the e-mail carries many of the same bigoted lies that were hallmarks of the LDS Church's campaign in support of Proposition 8 in California and Proposition 102 in Arizona. The e-mail misleads citizens in Illinois by blatantly misstating that the civil unions legislation would "empower the public schools to begin teaching this lifestyle to our young children regardless of parental requests otherwise." It goes on to issue this incendiary and inaccurate warning - "it will also create grounds for rewriting all social mores." The e-mail was uncovered by BoxTurtleBulletin.com, a website that tracks and monitors anti-gay rhetoric.
Greg Harris himself sees the national implications such a bill will have and the mounting opposition from outside groups
Our opponents now see passage of civil union legislation in Illinois as a very real threat. Some of the forces that came in from out of state to defeat Proposition 8 in California are now beginning to turn their attention to our State.
Advocates in Illinois are now gearing up for a statewide campaign with national implications for this legislation as the United States turns its attention to Illinois on the issues of equality and fairness.
I am asking that for those of you who take same-sex liberties seriously, as I do, to please track the progress of HB2234. Please contact state representatives so they know where you stand, and help counter-balance those voices which oppose basic same-sex couple equality.
While I'm fairly certain we will win this battle, I'm not willing to watch a good bill slip away, again.
Amidst all of the discussion about how the Republican Party is searching for a way out of the wilderness, the sheer scope of the Republican deficit is often missed. Currently, Republicans face a far more severe electoral problem than Democrats faced four years ago. Consider the following:
Republicans equally popular as Republican boogeymen: With a favorable rating hovering just on the south side of 40%, Republicans are currently about as favorable as most of their favorite boogeymen used to scare voters. Republicans are currently viewed about as favorably as legalizing marijuana, gay marriage, Communist China, and increasing the current level of immigration. All of these right-wing scare tactics--increasing immigration, legal drugs, gay marriage, Communist superpowers--hover around the same 40% favorable rating as Republicans themselves. Among voters under 45, Republicans lose pretty solidly to most, if not all, of these boogeyman. If you are only as popular as the ideas you try to scare voters with, and if long-term trends suggest that it won't be long before the boogeymen you use will actually be more popular than you are, then it is really, really hard to see a way back for your party.
Demographic trends point in the wrong direction for Republicans. This has been a favorite subject of mine for a while, as I wrote in Maybe It Is A Battle Of Civilizations, Towards a Pluralist Strategy, and The End of Bubba Dominance. The simple fact is that Democratic voting groups, mainly non-whites and non-Christians, but also union voters and the LGBT community--are actually growing in size. For example, when projected ethnic population growth (PDF), and is applied to current ethnic voting patterns, if the 2008 election had been held in 2020, Obama would have defeated McCain by 9.8%, a 2.5% increase from the 2008 margin of 7.3%. That doesn't even factor in what will inevitably be a large non-Christian and LGBT vote, two groups that vote for Democrats at nearly the same rate as non-whites. The point is that if Republican popularity stagnates among current demographic groups, overall Republican popularity will actually decline. They have to improve just to maintain their current level of unpopularity.
(more great anti-Republican numbers in the extended entry)
At 10 am central time this morning, the Iowa Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Varnum v Brien, a case in which six couples are challenging Iowa's law declaring that "Only a marriage between a male and female is valid." Polk County has appealed a district judge's ruling last year that the statute is unconstitutional. Last night jpmassar published a good overview of the legal issues underlying Judge Robert Hanson's ruling as well as the county's defense of the statute.
If you like, you can watch a livestream of the oral arguments at the Iowa Supreme Court's website as well as at several other media sites. You can download pdf files of the district court ruling and the briefs submitted to the Iowa Supreme Court on appeal here.
My focus in this diary is not the legal arguments, but the political case that will need to be made for marriage equality once the Supreme Court has ruled on Varnum v Brien several months from now. Follow me after the jump for more.
Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson has an interesting article on the campaign against Proposition eight in California, and what they did wrong. What's interesting about the post-mortems, though widely known, is how little scrutiny the anti-prop 8 leaders have actually gotten. Dickinson's article is useful to a point in that he got five people to go on the record with what the group did wrong, but most of his piece is framed by sniping from anonymous top level Democratic consultants and strategists towards the (mostly) unnamed leadership of the No on Proposition 8 forces.
Here's a brief photo tour of what this historic day looked like in different parts of red state America today.
Think Texas? Think Dallas? Think again: Think Lubbock! .... And more below the fold.
Click on the photos to enlarge them, and/or click on the links below to go to the complete photo galleries at Join The Impact's Wetpaint site. Or just jump into all the Photos/Slideshows.
On the day after the historic election of Barack Obama as President of the United States and once the tears of joy had stopped flowing from eyes across the nation, a dose of sadness and disillusionment settled upon many members of the country's LGBT community.
Proposition 8 had passed in California. The amendment essentially overturns an earlier California State Supreme court decision that had extended the rights provided by legal marriage to same sex couples.
Leading up to the election, the hopes for an Obama victory were enhanced by the belief that another high profile pothole might be filled on the highway to true equality for gay and lesbian people. Publicly, blame for Prop 8 passage is being directed at a number of entities like the Mormon Church, well organized and moneyed efforts by conservative and right wing organizations from outside California while some have engaged in unfortunate knee-jerk tactics , laying blame on the heavy African American turnout and the tremendous influence of the Black church has in that community.
Before the vote, disturbing whispers of infighting among LGBT organizations who were attempting to lay blame for worrisome poll numbers on various interests, organizations and individuals for not staying focused, careful and on point so as to sway public opinion.
But, after some pause and reflection, one could in fact argue, that despite some truths in the above, most of these charges are simplistic, maybe even lazy but motivated by understandable, justifiable and reactionary anger at what the voters themselves wrought.
The massive No on 8 public relations campaign that sought to impact the California majority's attitudes about same sex marriage was somewhat hasty, perhaps idealistic and maybe even too hopeful. That despite the newfound sense of activism bubbling throughout the LGBT nation, the gay community was set up for disappointment especially since the battleground was California, a state most see assumed to be more socially liberal, a place many assumed to be more tolerant and accepting.
In the end, despite the joy of Obama's landslide, millions of gay people found themselves feeling let down, left behind, it was as this vote was a referendum on all gay people, as if the inclusive mosaic the election seemed to paint along with the supposed more compassionate and progressive tidal wave the election signaled, did not fully include them.
Truth be told, deep inside the souls of countless gay people, little voices were whispering, you, gay person, are still a second class citizen. And, the voices doing the talking were the people, at least the majority so far, who have shown in state after state, they are unwilling to accept the idea of same sex marriage.
The fact is, what happened in California was a reality check. California, the west coast trend setting home of Hollywood and the gay promised land of San Francisco, proved that despite how far the gay rights movement has come and attitudes changed, the majority is, at least now, not willing to extend the legal rights conveyed by marriage to same sex couples. No matter how one spins it, no matter who one seeks to lay blame on, the facts are what they are.
True, the Right played dirty, and no doubt the hyperbole they spewed played a role in the outcome. Funded by millions of dollars from across the right wing stratosphere, all manner of insidious ads, pulpit pleas and viral campaign tactics attempted to spook, prejudice and misinform voters into doubt on Tuesday. There was even the always reliable Anita Bryantesque use of the children, as rumors and lies were spread that, if Prop was not passed, the state's schools would be teaching students about the joys of gay coupling.
But, does all of his beg a greater question about who and how equality is dispensed in America?
Most supporters and experts have said that the road to full marriage equality will be a years long process that travels a highway of state by state activism and struggle. The consensus being, that the courts will pass it off to an eventual federal solution, most likely the Supreme court, provided there is an evolution of public opinion in the ballot box.
But, as indicated by the sobering California vote on Proposition 8, the majority is not always willing to take the necessary steps towards full equality.
At the risk of sounding simplistic, imagine if it had been left up to the majority white population to dispense equality to African Americans in America.
While it would be wrong to equate efforts to secure full marriage equality and the tremendous years long struggle for individual equality, dignity and the ladders of opportunity that were built as a result of the 1960's civil rights movement, there are are clues from history that might be worth studying.
First, it took heroic efforts, foot soldiering and the activism of black leaders who along with thousands of individuals, bravely stood up through countless marches, beatings, demonstrations and tragedy which along the way forced America to look in the mirror and confront the cancer of racism and all it had wrought. Every square inch of the Southern United States region, was essentially segregated.
History shows, the majority of whites, stirred on by segregationist leaders coupled with a fundamental sense of denial that was cushioned by the false comforts of separate but equal, were unwilling to take it upon themselves and tear down the barriers the segregated South presented. It was not until the courts and judges took on cases and allowed morality to rule over what had become the tyranny of the majority in the South.
In 1956, at the time of the Montgomery bus boycott, there was no state wide vote, after then US District Court Judge for the Middle District of Alabama, Frank Johnson, ruled in the Browder v Gale case that Brown v Board decision applied to public transportation as well as public schools, effectively integrating the state capital's bus system.
Subsequent decisions by Judge Johnson led to the integration of Alabama's public accommodations, libraries and agricultural services.
But, it was a later decision that brought out the true rage of many white Alabamians at the time,
After the 1954 Brown v Board Supreme Court decision ruling that separate but equal public schools were un-constutional, throughout the South, individual school districts continued to take their time on full integration. In 1963, most districts in Alabama were still balking at the ruling. But, when faced with the Lee vs Macon County Board of Education case, Judge Johnson issued Alabama's first statewide desegregation order. Johnson bravely endured death threats and other insults as he went against the majority of his home state.
Had it not been for the sense of urgency and the thirst for equality and justice by activists and leaders of the movement coupled with the actions of courts and judges of that time, America may have taken a slower path to the moment we witnessed in this years election.
Interestingly, the very idea that Judge Johnson's decisions would have ever been put before voters is nothing short of laughable.
There are plenty of Southerners, who today, will seek to explain, why, in all the years preceding the Civil Rights movement, they simply believed this was the way we lived, we knew nothing else and sometimes, they will say in no uncertain terms, we were in a state of denial about how difficult it was for a black person to exist with any sense of dignity in the deep south much less to get ahead in a white world.
But, they will also share, that they were taken aback, when they had to be forced to accept that that this way of life, was no longer acceptable, that everything segregation in America stood for, was in fact, the antithesis of what this nation supposedly stood for, that it was in fact unconstitutional. Black people in the south were living in a society where the tyranny of the majority stood firm. If it had not been for the efforts of the movement's soldiers, but also what today might be called by certain politicians, activist judges and courts, the majority may have maintained that un-just status quo even longer.
It appears that most Americans support the injustice of denying same sex couples the almost 700 federal rights and privileges that marriage conveys. But, it also appears that vast portions of the lesbian and gay community have been slow to recognize what passage of amendments like Proposition 8 say about the nation we call home. Perhaps California was a wake up call. Perhaps too, the California decision offered evidence that this section of the fight for full equality may not be won in the public's courtroom of opinion. Instead, the Prop 8 decision might be a call for more intense activism that seeks to challenge the status quo through the courts with the goal being an eventual Supreme Court ruling.
Yesterday the voters of California have chosen bigotry and hate over love and peace. Yesterday the voters of California did not choose the path of MLK by elected Barack Obama but the path of Jesse Helms and Storm Thurmond. Yesterday proved to be not the end of MLK's dream of equality but only the beginning. As a gay teenager not yet out except to two of my best friends I am extremely disheartened and depressed over what happened in not only California but in Arizona and Florida too.
Yesterday proved to me that as we a society choose to accept one people we then decide to hate another. The age of race discrimination may be over but MLK's torch of equality has been passed to the fight for Gay and lesbian rights. I cried at 3 exact moments yesterday. First, when Barack Obama was projected the 44th President of the United States. Second, when Obama was giving his Presidential acceptance speech. And lastly when I realized that Proposition 8 would pass in California. Many people say that the fight for civil rights and the fight for gay rights are not a like, but I say say they are the same fight with a different face.
Why am I, an American who happens to be gay, a lesser citizen or patriot than any one else. Why should I be treated as a second class citizen. Why should I fear to be outed and exiled. As much as I love President Obama and Senator Clinton I strongly disagree with them when they tell the story of parents holding up their children and telling them that they can be whatever they what to be. That's not true. I can't be whatever i want to be. I can't be President, Or Senator, or even get married. I can't show love, or hold the hand of a loved one without fearing what would happen to me.
I'm not going to say that gay discrimination is exactly a like from racial discrimination because it is not. What happened to the Africans Americans in this county can not equal to anything else, but they share an inner struggle. A struggle to be accepted. A struggle for equality. I don't expect everyone in American to like gays and lesbians, but to just tolerate us and accept us. You don't have to like us but at least admit that we deserve the basic rights of human beings.
Hopefully I am wrong and that one day I as a gay 16 year old can achieve my basic human rights. Maybe I won't see that day but I can promise you this that I learned something from President Obama. I learned that even if I don't achieve my rights, that if I fight hard and speak my mind then maybe my children (If I'm allowed to adopt) will be able to see a time where there is no discrimination. No matter who you are.
I would like to end this diary with a quote from Senator Hillary Clinton. "If there is one message that echoes forth from this conference, let it be that human rights are women's rights and women's rights are human rights once and for all." In this case gay rights are human rights.
This is a flyer being used by conservatives in California to pass Proposition 8, a segregationist proposal to deny marriage rights to gay people. And the quotes in it are absolutely true. Obama has consistently been against marriage equality, both as a Christian and a politician. It's clear to diehard progressive supporters of Obama that he's simply pandering to conservatives, that he is essentially lying about his position because he knows that there's no way to win as a black man supporting gay rights this strongly. It's equally clear to conservative supporters of Obama that he's telling the truth, that his position on gay rights is solid and that he's a Christian man who doesn't believe in gay marriage. Who is correct? I don't think anyone knows.
Dear ex-Hillary fans who are showing their support for her by ignoring her call to support Obama and supporting McCain,
First, I'd like to congratulate you. You've asked yourself WWJMD and
you've decided to vote against your own interests and principles while
furthering Senator McCain's. Before you're allowed on the band wagon,
we are asking you to sign the following oath. A McCain presidency will
mean different things for different people, so we have tailored the
oaths accordingly.
The McCain Loyalty Oath for Gays
I, _____________, pledge to transfer my support from Hillary Clinton
to John McCain. I agree to do all I can do to get McCain the vote. In
order to achieve this noble goal I promise to support McCain's...
promise to protect "the sanctity of marriage as between a man and woman."
commitment to banning federal recognition of gay marriage and domestic partnerships.
opposition to gay adoption which he doesn't think is "appropriate."
opposition to expanding the federal hate crimes law to include sexual orientation.
As a gay person, I promise to apply McCain's principles to my own life and vow to...
stop engaging in gay sex.
never try to marry or adopt.
enroll in a program to treat my homosexuality and "straighten" myself out, such as a "M.A.N.S. Journey" (Masculinity, Authenticity, Need Fulfillment, Surrender Journey).
install nanny cams in my house to prevent any gay relapses.
Once McCain is elected, I will continue to support him and his
programs and I will not complain about my loss of civil rights. And I
will continue to refrain from gay sex.
Wow. At first glance, that's all I can say about the comments from Pastor Hayes Wicker of Naples, Florida. Here's what he said at an anti-gay event last week:
This is a tremendous social crisis, greater even than the issue of slavery.
The revelation last week that Albus Dumbledore, the powerful and wise wizard of the Harry Potter series, was gay caught the attention of the entertainment news. It earned the wrath of the the religious right and Bill O'Reilly (who called it part of author J.K. Rowling's "gay agenda." And most importantly, it received applause from the audience of children and families to whom Rowling was speaking.
This is the reaction that matters -- because Harry Potter readers are soon going to be running the world and their beliefs will triumph while O'Reilly joins anti-wizard Jerry Falwell in the hereafter. Messages of hate from the religious wrong are having less and less impact in this next generation -- while messages of love, like that Rowling offer, are gaining traction.
Among the tongue-in-cheek tells -- his sense of style, his "flaming" phoenix pet and that his name's anagram is "Male bods rule, bud" -- are reasons more core to the HP Alliance's mission: Dumbledore's openness and sensitivity. As Slack argues:
Rowling said that she viewed the whole series as a prolonged treatise on tolerance....Like the LGBT community that has time and again used its own oppression to fight for the equality of others, Dumbledore was a champion for the rights of werewolves, giants, house elves, muggle-borns, centaurs, merpeople -- even alternative marriage.
The Alliance's aim to promote issues from genocide in Darfur to workers' rights in America isn't a stretch -- these lessons are in the novels, even if readers don't realize how political the message is. Should we be surprised that a story-teller does a better job communicating values than many of our politicians?
So the religious right is right to be worried. Their stranglehold on our culture has been broken. Jerry Falwell would never have been able to stand up to Albus Dumbledore in a fight.
CNN is reporting that Iowa has just taken a big step toward recognition of same-sex marriage:
(CNN) -- An Iowa district court ruled Thursday that same-sex couples can marry based on the state constitution's guarantee of equal treatment, court documents show.
The ruling was in response to a December 2005 lawsuit brought by six same-sex couples seeking to wed. They were denied marriage licenses and claimed such treatment violates equal-protection and due-process clauses in the Iowa constitution.
The court also struck down a state law declaring valid marriages are only between a man and woman.
The Iowa District Court for Polk County advances the case to the Iowa Supreme Court which will make a final decision on same-sex marriage...
What I'm not clear on is whether this district court ruling is binding in the absence of a ruling from the Iowa supreme court-- that is, may licenses for same-sex marriages now be issued in Iowa until the state supreme court rules otherwise?
I also do have to say I find it a little bit interesting to ponder what to make of this in relation to the 2008 primaries. If this decision is still standing by the time the Iowa caucus hits, we'll have the candidates being chosen by a state which is already ahead of every single major candidate of either party on this issue...
