Box Turtle Bulletin

Maine, Gay Rights, and Religion: Can Gay Rights Groups Overcome Their Achilles Heel?

[Justin Lee is Executive Director of The Gay Christian Network, an interdenominational nonprofit organization serving LGBT Christians and changing attitudes in the church. The opinions expressed in this article are solely his own.]

Last night, gay marriage advocates suffered yet another defeat in Maine, in spite of tremendous efforts and optimism.

Today, many of them are asking, “What went wrong?”

The legislature had already passed a bill allowing same-sex marriage, and the governor campaigned in favor of it. Gay marriage supporters, motivated by last year’s defeat in California, had outspent their opponents and worked hard to get out the vote and keep the message positive. Voter turnout was higher than expected, and everyone was optimistic.

So why, in a progressive state like Maine, in a country that so values civil rights, in a world where gay people are highly visible in the media and daily life–why did people turn out in droves to vote against what so many in our community see as a basic civil right?And why have they done so every other time it’s been on the ballot, in 30 other states across the nation?

There’s no single answer, but the simplest one can be summed up in one word: religion.

Religious organizations have poured millions of dollars into campaigns against same-sex marriage. Pastors preach against it every Sunday in churches across America. Ask people who oppose gay marriage why they do so, and you will regularly hear religious arguments and Bible quotes. In the aftermath of Prop 8 in California, much was made of the apparent racial divide in how people voted, but more telling was the impact of the Mormon Church and other religious groups like Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council. Already, pundits are noting that 37% of Maine’s population is Roman Catholic, a statistic that likely influenced the outcome.

Frankly, anti-gay religious beliefs are the number one obstacle to almost every measure gay rights groups tackle. The single skill that could turn the tables in their favor is the ability to effectively reach people of faith.

So why are so many gay rights groups so shockingly ineffective on matters of faith?

Part of the problem is that many of us in the LGBT community have been so beaten down by religion that we now want nothing to do with it. Worse, some of us have come to see religious faith itself as the enemy.

But even if you have no faith of your own, if you think you’re going to take on American organized religion and win, you’re dead wrong. The vast majority of Americans believe in God, most subscribing to some version of the Christian faith. For many of them, their faith is deeply ingrained and a major influence in their lives. If we allow any issue to be set up as a contest between people’s faith and fair treatment of LGBT people, then we’ve lost already.

The Human Rights Campaign recognized this in 2005 when they created a “Religion and Faith Program” following crushing defeats in 11 state constitutional-amendment battles. Other LGBT groups have also reached out to faith communities in recent years. But it’s not enough. For real change to happen, there are four things the LGBT community must do.

1. Engage people of faith.
Anti-LGBT faith leaders want us to think this is a contest between faith and us. Don’t believe them. There are plenty of devoutly religious Americans who support the LGBT community, and we need to engage them and make sure they’re part of the discussion. Avoiding the subject only hurts us.

And it’s not just our supporters we need to engage, either. We must reach out to those who disagree with us. Remember Stephen Covey’s aphorism, “Seek first to understand, then to be understood”? Even those who condemn gay relationships as sinful may still find common ground with us on civil issues if we take the time to understand them and help them understand us.

I should know. I grew up Southern Baptist, came out of the closet, and have spent over a decade building bridges with conservative evangelical Christians, a group many of my LGBT peers have written off as a “lost cause.” The truth is, they’re not homophobic monsters. There are many good, intelligent people in even the most conservative faith groups, and interacting with LGBT people is the only way they’ll grow to understand us.

In his 1993 book A Place at the Table, gay author Bruce Bawer wrote of some gay activists, “They think that their enemy is conscious oppression and that their salvation lies in the amassing of power, when in fact their enemy is ignorance and their salvation lies in increased understanding.” Sixteen years later, the observation is just as true.

2. Think beyond politics.
Yes, some LGBT rights groups are already reaching out to supportive faith communities as part of their overall strategy. But it’s not good enough to simply start with a political goal (say, a piece of legislation) and then shoehorn the faith community in. Those of us in the faith community are good for a lot more than just helping get out the vote.

Think for a moment: If the LGBT community truly has an “agenda,” isn’t it really for current and future generations of LGBT people to be treated fairly, able to live as we see fit, without fear of harassment, violence, and discrimination? That’s a big goal, and achieving it will take more than political action.

To be sure, legislation is an important part of changing the future for the better. But no bill or ballot initiative can eliminate homophobia, hate, or prejudice. Increasing the penalties for hate crimes won’t stop them if churches are preaching hate. And federal marriage rights won’t stop a gay kid from being pressured into a loveless straight marriage by his parents or church.

If we want to make the world a safe place for the next generation, we must do more than change the laws. We must change the culture. So instead of thinking of people of faith as just another voting pool, we need to think about all the ways that faith impacts culture, and how supportive people of faith can help make those changes. Because even if your goals are exclusively political, it’s worth noting that culture shapes the political landscape in big ways.

3. Listen to faith leaders.
As executive director of an LGBT-supportive Christian nonprofit, I’m often in contact with supportive faith leaders from across the country. Over and over again, I’ve heard stories from faith leaders who want to make a positive difference for the LGBT community but feel that their input or support somehow isn’t valued by leaders in the broader movement. But if anti-LGBT religious beliefs are one of the biggest obstacles we face, shouldn’t these supportive faith leaders be some of our top advisors?

Too often, we treat faith leaders as pawns in a political chess game, bringing them out for a photo opportunity or asking them to sign a letter in support of a cause. They are capable of so much more. They have insights into how people within their faith group think, and they could help us build strategies to reach those people. In some cases, they may already have strategies in place that need our help to be implemented. We just need to ask them and sincerely listen to what they have to say.

4. Tailor the message.
A politician running for office doesn’t just give the exact same speech over and over; he or she tailors it to the audience. A union representing blue collar workers in the deep South has different concerns from a group of wealthy business leaders in Los Angeles.

The same holds true for people of faith. Different faiths, denominations, and sects have different beliefs and different concerns. Reaching each of them requires learning to understand them and speak their language.

A common mistake many LGBT groups make is to simply put together an interfaith “panel” of leaders to represent many different faith traditions, then have them give a joint statement of some sort and think they’ve reached the faith community. But this approach is most likely to appeal to those who already supported the cause in the first place, not to win new converts.

Instead, it’s important to work within different faith traditions individually. A devout Mormon needs to hear from other devout Mormons, not from a Catholic priest. Even within the same faith, people care much more what leaders in their particular sect have to say; not all rabbis are equally influential with all Jews, for instance. This is why it’s so important to work directly with many different people of faith, because each can change minds that others can’t.

Yes, the world is changing. And we can build a brighter future for the next generation. But among other things, it’s going to take a more deliberate effort by the LGBT community to reach people of faith.

The Day After Election Day

Submitted by BTB reader Elliot Ryan

Feelings will be running raw this morning. Having yet another state placing a portion of its own citizenry in the second-class column is never easy to take. There will be plenty of time for post-mortems; I guess you could say I’ve already gotten a jump on mine before the campaign was over.

But I think it’s very important to keep in mind what Protect Maine Equality has been able to do. They have put together one of the most outstanding grass-roots efforts I’ve ever seen in a political campaign, and for that they’ve provided a road map for future campaigns to follow. Nobody has done a better job at motivating thousands of individuals to give of their time, and nobody has put together a better get-out-the-vote effort. The fact that the vote was this close is a testament to those great accomplishments.

Meanwhile, we have an important victory in Kalamazoo, where the religious right pulled out all the scare tactics at their disposal to try to defeat a non-discrimination ordinance. It didn’t work. The ordinance was upheld by 7,671 to 4,731 — 62% voted for equality in Kalamazoo, which is now the sixteenth city in Michigan with a non-discrimination ordinance.

Meanwhile, Washington’s Referendum 71 is holding on by a razor-thin margin. The Seattle Times says that it looks promising, since most of the outstanding votes are in areas where the measure was passing. Washingtonians vote by mail, and since the law requires that ballot be postmarked by election day, they will continue to trickle in during the days to come.

In Houston, openly lesbian mayoral candidate Annise Parker will go up against Gene Lock for a December 12 runoff. Openly gay Mark Kleinschmidt was elected mayor of Chapel Hill, North Carolina, and Charles Pugh garnered the highest number of Detroit city council votes among all the city-wide at-large candidates to become that city’s first gay city council president. And in New Jersey, New York, and the District of Columbia, legislative battles are heating up for marriage equality.

There are steps forward and steps back. The struggle isn’t over. We lost this one, but we pick ourselves up and go on to the next one. Our community has forged a unique strength that way, and we’ve learned to do this in ways we didn’t want to, whether it was to respond to Governmental censorship, employment bans, Anita Bryant, the AIDS crisis when nobody else could be bothered, or these state-by-state ballot initiatives. They do wear us down, but they don’t wear us out. We pick each other up, dust ourselves off, and we go on to the next battle. It’s what we do.

Owens Wins Over Spoiler

For the past century and a half, New York congressional seat 23 has been in Republican hands. But when the local Republican leadership selected a candidate for the special election who supported marriage equality, that was just too much for some conservative out-of-state Republicans. Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Dick Armey, and others built a national campaign in support of the Conservative Party candidate – all for the purpose of destroying Dede Scozzafava.

And, millions of dollars later and hours of talk radio ranting, that is all they accomplished.

Unwilling to accept a Republican that agreed with them sometimes, they handed the election over to a Democrat who would have otherwise had little chance. The final vote was:

Bill Owens – Dem. – 60,824 – 49.0%
Doug Hoffman – Con. – 56,450 – 45.5%
Dede Scozzafava – Rep. – 6,855 – 5.5%

(Even though Scozzafava withdrew from the race over the weekend and endorsed Owens, her name was still on the ballot and drew some protest votes)

But the extremists will not see this as a loss. Rather, they are delighted that they drove from the Party a long-time faithful and active Republican because she was “Republican In Name Only”. They embody the politics of exclusion, rejection, and arrogance. And if the Party caters to them, it does so at its own peril.

But although the most pro-gay candidate was driven out, there is a silver lining. Hoffman did not win. And when the extremists whine and moan about Nancy Pelosi, they will know deep in the back of their mind, that they gave her another vote. I can hardly wait for the day on which Owens’ one vote makes the difference on a bill they deeply care about.

Refendum 71 Results

9:15

Approved (pro-gay): 506,936 – 51.13 %
Rejected (anti-gay): 484,567 – 48.87 %

All counties are now reporting. However there are still about 340,000 ballots to process. About a third of those are from King County which so far has approved the enhanced DP rights 66% – 34%.

8:51

Approved (pro-gay): 464,471 – 51.95 %
Rejected (anti-gay): 429,581 – 48.05 %

Although there are ballots to be counted in every county, the only significant county as yet unreported is Pierce County (Tacoma).

8:42

Approved (pro-gay): 444,336 – 51.90 %
Rejected (anti-gay): 411,882 – 48.10 %

8:28

Accepted (pro-gay): 436,801 – 52.09 %
Rejected (anti-gay): 401,700 – 47.91 %

8:19 (PST)

Accepted (pro-gay): 153,615 – 44.72 %
Rejected (anti-gay): 189,868 – 55.28 %

Republicans Win Governors Races in Virginia and New Jersey

In what was a not-unexpected result, the governorship of Virginia and New Jersey have changed parties.

This is relevant to us in that Governor Corzine of NJ had been criticized for supporting marriage equality. However, the race was fairly close (unlike the Virginia race which was called within minutes of the polls closing) and it is unlikely that it can be translated as some referendum on marriage. It has long been rumored to be the intention of Corzine and the legislature to pass marriage equality during the lame duck session before Governor-Elect Christie is inaugurated.

Oregon Advocates Mull Repealing Same-Sex Marriage Ban

In 2004, Oregon voters approved a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. In 2007, the legislature approved a law allowing limited domestic partnerships, a measure that survived a petition challenge. Now Basic Rights Oregon and Freedom to Marry are testing the waters to see whether another ballot measure to rescind the 2004 amendment is feasible. If so, they’re thinking about mounting a campaign no earlier than 2012.

Kalamazoo Claims Victory

One Kalamazoo, which has been facing a bruising election fight to retain that city’s anti-discrimination ordinance against a blistering attack by the religious right, is claiming victory (no link yet):

With only absentee ballots outstanding, 65 percent of Kalamazoo voters have approved Ordinance 1856 by a vote of 6,463 to 3,527, adding protections for gay and transgender people to the city\’s nondiscrimination ordinance. This margin is larger than the number of outstanding absentee ballots that are currently being counted.

Maine Question 1 Results

10:56 AM
575 precincts reporting (95%)
Yes: 293,228 – 52.90%
No:  261,071 – 47.10%

With a final tally like this, I think this should probably put talk of a recount to rest. We lost this one, and it really hurts badly.

2:05 AM
523 precincts reporting (86%)
Yes: 266,324 – 52.75%
No:  238,595 – 47.25%

The Associated Press declares Question 1 passed, and Protect Maine Equality has conceded:

Yesterday, hundreds of thousands of Maine voters stood for equality, but in the end, it wasn’t enough.

I am proud of the thousands of Mainers who knocked on doors, made phone calls and talked to their family, friends and neighbors about the basic premise of treating all Maine families equally.

And I’m proud of this campaign because the stories we told and the images we shared were of real Mainers — parents who stood up for their children, and couples who simply wanted to marry the person they love.

We’re in this for the long haul. For next week, and next month, and next year– until all Maine families are treated equally.  Because in the end, this has always been about love and family and that will always be something worth fighting for.

Thank you. Thank you for everything you did. Thank you for digging deep and giving one more dollar to run our TV ads, for making those phone calls for one more hour. This campaign was, from the beginning, powered by people like you who rolled up their sleeves and did the hard work of change.

12:53
523 precincts reporting (86%)
Yes: 265,189 – 52.74%
No:  237,638 – 47.26%

It’s still close, and a lot of precincts have not yet reported — with the Portland are, being the most significant, and the most pro-NO.

12:42
509 precincts reporting (84%)
Yes: 256,671 – 52.60%
No:  231,314 – 47.40%

Adam Blink (Update 47) says:

The No On 1 campaign manager, Jesse Connolly, just went down with us to the ballroom and announced that the race is too close to call and they are still counting. The counting could continue well into the morning. There will be no concession or declaration of victory, it appears, tonight. Things are extremely tight and no news media so far has called the race either.

12:34
502 precincts reporting (83%)
Yes: 251,213 – 52.41%
No:  228,079 – 47.59%

Rex Wockner says the No on 1 campaign is not conceding:

[12:26 a.m.] Campaign Director Jesse Connolly says absentee ballots have not been counted, and neither have towns and villages.

12:29
497 precincts reporting (82%)
Yes: 248,965 – 52.39%
No:  226,239 – 47.61%

12:20
483 precincts reporting (80%)
Yes: 242,158 – 52.47%
No:  219,389 – 47.53%

12:14
475 precincts reporting (79%)
Yes: 237,749 – 52.32%
No:  216,667 – 47.68%

12:10
463 precincts reporting (77%)
Yes: 231,273 – 52.22%
No:  211,634 – 47.78%

Adam Blink says that No on 1 is preparing for a recount and has the run-down on the process (at update 46):

• The campaign has to wait for certification from the Sec of State, which will happen after all absentee ballots come in. In Maine, there is a no-excuse absentee ballot law and she expects there to be a “significant” number of absentees.
• The certification takes a maximum of 20 days but is almost always done before then. The campaign has to pay a nominal fee (ranging from a few hundred bucks to $10K but more likely to be a few hundred) depending on how close the vote is.
• The recount is statewide, all or nothing. Not challenging individual precincts.
• Based on past experience, the recount will take at least a few weeks and likely longer than that.

12:04
459 precincts reporting (76%)
Yes: 228,140 – 52.13%
No:  209,520 – 47.87%

12:00
451 precincts reporting (75%)
Yes: 223,841 – 51.99%
No:  206,741 – 48.01%

11:56
439 precincts reporting (73%)
Yes: 219,747 – 51.86%
No:  203,956 – 48.14%

11:50
424 precincts reporting (70%)
Yes: 214,182 – 51.83%
No:  199,036 – 48.17%

11:33
395 precincts reporting (65%)
Yes: 197,471 – 51.59%
No:  185321 – 48.41%

Adam Blink is reporting from the No on 1 campaign: “After talking with some people here, based on projections from the campaign and looking at the rural numbers starting to trickle in, there is a very, very good chance of a recount, and we’re making preparations for that.”

11:14
350 precincts reporting (58%)
Yes: 175,990 – 51.29%
No:  167,158 – 48.71%

10:47
There appears to be a lull in reporting (Timothy)

10:21
172 precincts reporting (28%)
Yes: 74,802 – 50.51%
No:  73,293 – 49.49%

9:54
132 precincts reporting (22%)
Yes: 55,267 – 49.38%
No:  56,659 – 50.62%

9:38
100 precincts reporting (17%)
Yes: 35,892 – 47.70%
No:  37,891 – 51.30%

9:21
82 precincts reporting (14%)
Yes: 29,575 – 47.51%
No:  32,670 – 52.51%

The larger cities are now beginning to report in. (Jim Burroway)

8:59
32 precincts reporting (5%)
Yes: 12,524 – 45.42%
No:  14,988 – 54.48%

The larger cities are now beginning to report in. (Jim Burroway)

8:38
15 precincts reporting (2%)
Yes – 3,837 – 50.67%
No – 3,736 – 49.33%

And there’s the first sign of bad news. As the night goes on we should expect shifts in both directions. We can only hope and pray that in the end that Mainers decided to be good citizens and neighbors.

8:23
6 precincts reporting:
No – 2,064 – 61.70%
Yes – 1,281 – 38.30%

Still WAY too early to mean anything at all. But at least it is nice to start the night in the right position.

8:01 EST
Two precincts reporting:
No – 45 – 88%
Yes – 6 – 12%

Can’t we just quit counting now?

Being Gay Grounds for Judicial Disqualification for Texas Republicans

Social conservatives will often tell you that they aren’t anti-gay, they just oppose the homosexual agenda. They don’t hate people, you see, just the sin they are committing.

Don’t believe them.

As an illustration, let’s look at what’s going on in Texas. There, Republicans are all up in arms about a judicial recommendation. (Dallas News)

Last month, Hutchison and fellow GOP Sen. John Cornyn endorsed two applicants for chief prosecutor in the Western District of Texas, which includes Austin, San Antonio and El Paso: Robert Pitman, a U.S. magistrate in Austin, and San Antonio criminal defense lawyer Michael McCrum.

Pitman is highly regarded in legal circles. In a recent bar poll, lawyers rated him the most competent judge in Travis County.

But Pitman is entirely unacceptable to socially conservative Republicans in Texas.

Tim Lambert, president of the Texas Home School Coalition, a former member of the Republican National Committee – and, like nearly all prominent social conservatives in Texas who have picked sides, a Perry supporter – called the recommendation “very unusual and disturbing.”

The “unusual and disturbing” thing? Pitman is gay.

That’s it. No scandal. No issue about qualification. No indication of judicial activism or unusual decisions. He’s just gay.

And in Texas, it may hurt Hutchinson’s campaign to replace Rick Perry as Governor. It has become a campaign issue.

Just to be clear, the sole motivation for conservative Texas Republicans opposing Pitman or criticizing Hutchinson’s endorsement of him is anti-gay bigotry. It is as simple as that.

A Hopeful Sign in Maine

The Secretary of State is reporting that voter turnout is much higher than expected. Common wisdom suggests that this will be beneficial to supporters of marriage equality as the “usual midterm election” voters tend to skew older and more conservative.

Kalamazoo Episcopalians Step Up

Too often I am frustrated by Christendom turning over its name, image, and perceived doctrine over to the most conservative of its sects.

We all know that the faith encompasses a broad range of views ranging from devotion to literal translations of specific texts to general application of spiritual principles, from rigid conservative lifestyles to social religion, from a faith of love for all to a faith of hatred toward others. Yet when it comes to matters of social policy, especially that which involves the rights of gay folks, it seemed that the only Christian perspective presented for a long time was that of rejection, oppression, and condemnation.

But in recent years that appears to be changing. Mainline Christians are beginning to stand up and say that anti-gay activism is not a part of their belief structure and that, indeed, their faith demands that they treat gay people the way they want to be treated.

We have seen that with the United Church of Christ commercials (that were deemed too “controversial” for network television). We have seen it in the large number of diverse churches lending their name to oppose Proposition 8. We have increasingly seen it in local debates and discussions around the nation in which the neighborhood Methodist or Lutheran pastor shows up to balance out the anti-gay pastor who is trying to act as the spokesman for God.

And now we see it in the Episcopalians in Kalamazoo, MI. When the local Catholic Bishop endorsed keeping discrimination legal in the city, they knew they had to do something. So they raised the money and ran a full page color ad in the Kalamazoo Gazette on Sunday.

Check it out on the Towleroad site, here.

I especially like the message that the Kalamazoo Episcopalians sent to their neighbors: that they do not support gays in spite of their faith but because of it.

As Christians we believe that discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity is wrong. The Episcopal Church has taken a strong stand against discrimination of all kinds including discrimination against our gay and transgender sisters and brothers.

So Christians in Kalamazoo, go vote yes on Ordinance 1856. Not only because its the right thing to do, but because it is the Christian thing to do as well.

Dobson To Quit Radio Broadcast

Focus On the Family founder James Dobson has announced that he will be leaving his radio program at the end of February. Last February, Dobson stepped down as chairman of Focus On the Family last February. Dobson will also stop writing his monthly newsletter and turn it over to Focus President Jim Daly. Daly insists however that Dobson is not moving into retirement and “will continue to make his voice heard in the public square.”

[Hat tip: Ex-Gay Watch]

Throckmorton Appeals to Ugandan Christians

Dr. Warren Throckmorton has had published a guest blog in The Independent, a Ugandan news blog. In it, he appeals to fellow Christians to follow the lead of Christ and avoid harsh civil punishment for spiritual sins.

Throckmorton selected the story of the woman at the well caught in adultery whose accusers disappeared when Jesus said that the person who was without sin should be the person who threw the first stone.

As I read the Anti-Homosexuality Bill proposed in Uganda by MPs David Bahati and Benson Obua, I wonder if perhaps these gentlemen think Jesus should have picked up a stone. Instead, Jesus intervened on behalf of the woman, was He wrong? Clearly, He did not believe adultery was proper. But He signaled a new way of dealing with sin, one which emphasizes mercy and freedom, rather than coercion and death. People must choose to follow the teachings of Christ, not be coerced by Pharisees or government officials. The human heart cannot be changed by laws, but through the freely chosen grace of Christ.

Brothers and sisters, jailing or killing gays or those suspected of being gay or those who know gays cannot create a righteous people, and in fact may further a self-righteous people. One may disapprove of homosexuality, and still treat homosexuals as you would want to be treated. Who among us could stand if our private sins were judged in such a manner as the Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009?

I urge my brethren in beautiful Uganda to follow the example of Jesus. Please, for the sake of Christ, put down your stones.

Click here to see BTB\’s complete coverage of recent anti-gay developments in Uganda.

Administration to Massachusetts: “You Can’t Force Us to Treat Gay People Equally”

The State of Massachusetts is suing the Federal Government over what is, at heart, a states-rights issue.

For the history of our nation, the states have the right to determine and define marriage. Although the US Supreme Court placed limitations on the definition, barring states from denying mixed-race marriages, the states have enjoyed broad freedoms in this area. The age one can marry varies, as does blood test requirements, residency rules, pre-marital counseling, closely related relative rules, and a number of other issues.

And for the history of our nation, the Federal Government has said that if your state recognized your marriage, they would as well.

Until 1996. That year the Federal government passed the Defense of Marriage Act, in which it said “The federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman.”

In 2004 Massachusetts began allowing marriage between persons of the same sex. But the federal government, for the first time, refused to recognize the state’s legal marriage. So Massachusetts is suing the feds claiming that not only do they not have the right to define marriageas “a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman”, they don’t have the right to define it at all.

The Obama Administration, announced that while the President opposes DOMA, his administration will defend it in court. On Friday we got a taste of the direction of that defense.

The Department of Justice is entirely ignoring the rights of states to have their marriages recognized and is instead posturing the argument as that of a state trying to dictate the benefits policies of the Federal Government.

Stating that “There is, however, no fundamental right to marriage-based federal benefits,” the feds are saying that therefore they can pick and choose to whom they will provide benefits. They are, of course, failing to acknowledge that such benefits are, and have always been, based on qualifications that are defined by states. (A/P)

Justice Dept. spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said any state “can allow gay and lesbian citizens to marry and can make its own decisions about how to treat married couples when it comes to state benefits.”

“Massachusetts is not being denied the right to provide benefits to same-sex couples and, in fact, has enacted a law to provide equal health benefits to same-sex spouses,” she said.

But the issue isn’t about forcing the Feds to offer joint tax returns; rather, it is much bigger. It is about whether the State of Massachusetts is truly free to define marriage for the residents of their state or whether that determination has been transferred to Congress.

Perhaps the administration believes that DOMA will be reversed before the SCOTUS could hear this case. Otherwise, I’m not sure that they are pursuing an argument that holds much weight.

Either the Federal Government recognizes marriages as defined by the states, or it has some unique recognition of its own. Either it accepts the registration of the states, or it applies a consistent nation-wide registry with rules relating to age, blood-line, testing, counseling all consistent from sea to shining sea. And considering that states have jealously held family law as their purview, such a usurpation of states’ rights would likely result in political revolt.

But without such a registry, the feds may be facing a tough legal challenge. It is difficult to argue for recognition as defined by the various states – with a narrow exception solely to exclude same-sex marriages – without running foul of the problems that Colorado found in Romer v. Evans. You cannot create and define a group of people solely for the cause of denying them the rights shared by others. And with a handful of states now recognizing, registering, and solemnizing same-sex marriages, excluding just those couples seems to me to be a clear violation.

Scozzafava Out, Hoffman Ahead, Republican Leadership Sends “Moderates Not Welcome” Message

Over the weekend, Dede Scozzafava, the very gay-supportive Republican candidate for the 23rd Congressional district in New York pulled out of the race. Faced by a Democrat with heavy party funding and a prior-Republican-now-Conservative with financing from hard-core right-wing party purists, Scozzafava was not receiving adequate funds run an adequate campaign and maintain her early lead.

In many ways, this highlights the problem that moderate candidates face. If they are not perceived as being “our guy in Congress” for some special interest or if the party doesn’t make their seat a priority, it can be difficult to finance a campaign. Representing the moderate views of your constituency is all fine and good, but moderate positions are not much inclined to get the average voting citizen fired up enough to give.

Unfortunately, the voters are now left with a choice between Bill Owens, an nonsupportive Democrat, and Doug Hoffman, a hard-core anti-gay Conservative. Scozzafava has endorsed Democrat Bill Owens but that may not be enough. Polls are suggesting that Conservative Hoffman may be leading in the now two-man race.

The most frustrating thing about the situation is that the right-wing extremists are now feeling justified and vindicated in their effort to destroy Scozzafava. They are “sending a message to all of the RINOs” (Republicans in name only) that they are not welcome in the Republican Party and that they will be driven out. Today Rush Limbaugh chortled that Scozzafava’s endorsement of the Democrat might lead to the “extinction” of RINOs.

Some Republican Party leadership had been showing signs lately that they are aware that moderates are needed in more liberal parts of the country in order for the Party to be competitive. But that may be more lip service than reality.

It will be interesting to see what they do. So far, there have been some very disturbing statements. (Bloomberg)

House Republican leaders embraced Hoffman after Scozzafava suspended her campaign. Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio, Republican Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia, and Texas Representative Pete Sessions, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said in a statement that they “look forward to welcoming Doug Hoffman into the House Republican Conference.”

Boehner and Cantor said in a separate statement they would support Hoffman to fill the next available vacancy on the House Armed Services Committee.

By promising Hoffman plum appointments, both Boehner and Cantor have sent the message that they will richly reward those who destroy the more moderate elements of the Party and drive out those who do not share their extremist views on social issues. If the leadership continues in that vein, they may well be successful in turning the Republican Party into an ideologically pure, but politically irrelevant, permanently minority party.