Box Turtle Bulletin

Maryland to Recognize Same-Sex Marriages?

The State of Maryland offers limited rights to same-sex domestic partners. However, as the Governor, Speaker of the House, and Senate Majority Leader (all Democrats) oppose marriage equality, they are not likely to soon join the family of states that celebrate their gay citizens as equals.

But while the state is unlikely to allow same-sex couples the right to join in union, they may soon recognize marriages performed elsewhere.

Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler is exploring whether same-sex marriages performed in other states can be recognized in Maryland, a move that could open an avenue for legal recognition of gay and lesbian couples who have been rebuffed by the courts and legislature here.

This is a liberal state (in 2008 Maryland voted 62% for Obama) dominated by Democrats. The State Senate has 33 Democrats and 14 Republicans. The House has 104 Democrats, 36 Republicans and one unaffiliated member. Yet measures to recognize marriage – or even civil unions – have been thwarted by being shuffled off to committees with anti-gay membership.

Should Gansler find that Maryland law does not forbid recognition, this may result in a most telling turn of events. The Democratic establishment in the state could no longer hide behind committee structure and political games. They would be left with the unwelcome decision as to whether to allow married gay couples (though officiated out of state) the same rights and priveleges as married heterosexuals or whether to put their anti-gay animus on display in an open attack on gay citizens.

Gansler’s office is expected to issue an opinion in the coming weeks.

See also:
Maryland to Recognize Same-Sex Marriages?
Blade Asks What Happened In Maryland
Maryland Passes Limited Rights for Gay Couples
Maryland Balances Budget by Taxing Gay Widows
Maryland Senator Muse Champions Bigotry
Maryland AG Endorses Marriage Equality
Maryland Legislator Calls Anti-Gay Bluff
Maryland Introduces Bill to Legalize Same-Sex Marriage – Are Democrats Committed to Equality?
Maryland Marriage Poll

Sex With Ducks

Building on the “thirty-sexual orientations” lie, Pat Robertson last month asked his “700 Club” audience if passage of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act would protect people having sex with ducks. Garfunkel and Oates has the answer:

Why You Should Always Go To The Source

I’ve adopted a policy of never believing what I read on most anti-gay web sites, simply because when you go to the source, you find that things are never — never! — as they appear. And I say that mindful of the dangers of speaking in such absolutes. But here is just another of one those examples. This email landed in my inbox:

I’m a faithful DAILY (HOURLY?) gay guy reader of your blogs. I LOVE YOUR WORK!! I am grateful for all you do!

Since I also read WND to “find out what those guys are thinking”…every once in a while I come across something that makes me wince. If the below is true (is it?), it doesn’t look A-OK for our side…do you guys have any back-story on this? I don’t like the fact that parents can’t opt-out. Is this another scare tactic?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=99442

Good question, Thomas. Thanks for asking.

The WND article decries a “mandatory homosexual curriculum for children as young as 5.” But what is that “homosexual curriculum” that the Alameda (CA) Unified School District has developed?

Well, it’s all online right here. And as you look through it, you will find that it is simply a set of short discussions with students about fellow students’ families. Some of these families have a mom and a dad, some just a mom, some just a dad, some with two moms, and some with two dads, and some with no moms or dads but aunts, uncles or grandparents.

It’s the mentioning of two moms and two dads that’s stiring up the trouble. But having a child in school with two moms or two dads is just a fact of life. This curriculum is designed to reflect that ordinary fact, and to point out that ostracism, teasing, or bullying because of it are not acceptable.

But to anti-gay opponents, the possibility that we might just be ordinary families who happen to send children to school is very scary. So yes, it is a scare tactic. Anything that unmasks the horrible creatures invented by anti-gay activists and reveals that ordinary people in ordinary families send ordinary children to ordinary schools, well there’s nothing more frightening to them than that. And so they oppose it at all costs.

Our opponents are very good at scaring people. It’s all they have left. And so they label a curriculum designed to minimize bullying and ostracizing behavior as a “homosexual curriculum,” as if teachers were being ordered to teach the mechanics of homo-sex to school kids. But that’s not what this is. Not even close.

But the mechanics of hetero-sex, well that seems to be another matter.

[Thanks to Thomas for asking a very good question.]

New Hampshire Marriage Back on Track

The Boston Globe reports:

A little over a week after the House rejected language Gov. John Lynch had demanded, House and Senate negotiators agreed to a compromise Friday that added one sentence and changed one word in the Senate-passed bill. Negotiators planned to sign off on the final language by Monday, allowing for a vote by the full House and Senate on Wednesday.

Barring any additional unexpected hickups, marriage equality should be in place in New Hampshire by the end of next week.

Heterosexual Menace: Teaching Heterosexuality In The Public Schools

If opposite-sex marriage becomes legal, then they’ll be teaching heterosexuality to your children in the public schools:

Radical heterosexualist Melissa Weber

A middle school teacher has been arrested after authorities said she had sexual trysts with a 14-year-old student in a Queens classroom after school.

Social studies teacher Melissa Weber was awaiting arraignment late Thursday on rape, sexual abuse and child endangerment charges. Prosecutors don’t know whether she has a lawyer, and no telephone number can be found for her home.

Prosecutors say Weber had sex with the boy seven times at M.S./I.S. 8 this month and last. Prosecutors say the teen’s mother heard about the liaison Wednesday and found hundreds of contacts with the 27-year-old teacher in her son’s cell phone.

There’s more heterosexual menace here and in our report, “The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing the Myths.”

Black Leaders Step Up for Equality

While there is debate over the extent to which black Californian voters supported Proposition 8, polls consistently show that there is less support for marriage equality from African Americans than from other ethnic subgroups. While there are undoubtedly old and established cultural bases for antipathy towards homosexuality in general and marriage in particular, these can be overcome.

Part of the lack of support for equality among black voters may be due to a failure to craft the right message. But I believe that a large part was also due to a failure to use the resources that were available to reach and appeal to black voters.

Because while many black voters may not yet see the justice of our cause, many others who are leaders and influential in the Civil Rights movement, those who fought – and still fight – first hand against discrimination and indignity towards black Americans, are stepping forward to speak loudly on our behalf. They see the fight against discrimination to be their cause and they don’t see that fight stopping at the border of race or ethnic heritage.

Today we have two examples.

Julian Bond, the Chairman of the NAACP, sees a link between any effort to marginalize minorities and deny them rights others enjoy and a threat to the equal protection that all citizens should enjoy:

My own marriage feels in no way threatened by gay marriage – any more than its interracial nature threatened those who made my union criminal until 1966. My marriage survived the interracial same-sex marriage I attended last weekend. The couple had legally married in Connecticut, but their hometown Virginia ceremony was witnessed by 200 friends and family, most of them Christians, including the grandfather of one partner who conducted it. It was a rebuke to those who base their opposition to marriage equality on the Bible. Let’s all pray that those who want to block access to the church sanctuary won’t continue to block access to city hall.

The California court has given new meaning to the song’s line “California here I come, right back where I started from.” California law is back where it started, to the detriment of us all.

What is at issue is the arbitrary denial of a civil rite to some – if that’s not a denial of civil rights, I don’t know what is.

But perhaps more impressive – on an individual level – than Bond’s support, is this report from the New York Times.

State Senator Shirley L. Huntley, a brassy, big-haired Democrat from Queens who opposes same-sex marriage, received a call on Wednesday that left her momentarily stunned.

Maya Angelou was on the line, and she wanted to know if the senator might reconsider her position.

I would have pooped.

In a telephone interview, Ms. Angelou, who has a home in Harlem, said she felt compelled to speak out because she believes that legalizing same-sex marriage is a matter of social fairness — a subject that has been a theme of her writing.

“I would ask every man and every woman who\’s had the blessing of having children, ‘Would you deny your son or your daughter the ecstasy of finding someone to love?\’ ” she said.

Ms. Angelou said she believed that society made gay relationships hard enough without the added burden of making marriage illegal.

Although Sen. Huntley still intends on voting to keep her own personal priveleges and rights while denying them to her gay contituents, I am deeply grateful for Ms. Angelou’s efforts. Along with the efforts of Julian Bond and John Lewis and Coretta Scott King and Mildred Loving and Rev. Eric Lee and Rev. James Lawson and Rev. Peter Gomes and many many others in Black America who are willing to stand up and be known as supporters of equality, not only for race but for orientation as well.

These voices should not and cannot be ignored or underutilized in our efforts to win the hearts and minds of all Americans, not just the liberal white English-speaking ones.

Boies and Olsen on Hardball

Ted Olson and David Boies appeared on Chris Matthews’ Hardball to talk about their federal lawsuit challenging California’s Prop 8. Matthews counted up the votes in the Supreme Court based on Lawrence vs. Texas and declared, “You’ve got a good shot at this it seems to me.” The best line comes near the end, when Olson declared:

You don’t take your constitutional rights to the ballot box. They are protected by the Constitution. That is why we have a Constitution and that’s why we have courts.

Defending Traditional Marriage

Tracking New Hampshire’s Marriage Effort

The marriage equality express in New Hampshire was unexpectedly sidetracked last week when some members of the House refused to accept the Governor’s language about religious protections, choosing instead to send the bill to a committee to craft language of their own.

The Nashua Telegraph has an update:

The Senate agreed Wednesday with the House to name a conference committee to craft a compromise on gay marriage.

Last week, the House narrowly turned down religious exemptions to the law that Gov. John Lynch had insisted upon.

House and Senate negotiators will meet and try to come up language acceptable to Lynch, as well as the House and Senate majorities by the time the Legislature meets in session next Wednesday.

Some Republicans in the Senate had sought to send the issue to a nonbinding referendum by the voters. However, New Hampshire’s Courts have found that the state’s Constitution does not allow for the use of such referenda to make legislative decisions. The Democrats in the Senate voted this proposal down.

Let’s hope the drive to make New Hampshire the sixth Marriage State will soon be back on track.

Obama Can’t Remember His Promises

As I noted earlier, President Barack Obama remained silent on the Supreme Court ruling which validated Proposition 8 at a fundraising event in Los Angeles. But he did manage to make a very oblique reference to the hundreds of LGBT people and allies protesting outside last night:

A gaggle of sign-waving protestors milled around outside The Beverly Hilton, the sprawling hotel on Wilshire Boulevard. They must have caught the president\’s eye when he arrived at the hotel from an earlier stop in Las Vegas because he relayed one of their messages to the crowd.

“One of them said, ‘Obama keep your promise,\’ ” the president said. “I thought that\’s fair. I don\’t know which promise he was talking about.”

The people in the audience – who paid $30,400 per couple to attend – laughed as they ate a dinner of roasted tenderloin, grilled organic chicken and sun choke rosemary mashed potatoes.

There were eight of them, Mr. President.

Yes He Can!

I asked last Friday:

President Barack Obama will be in Los Angeles on Wednesday, which will be the day immediately following Decision Day. Do you think he can make it through the entire visit without mentioning Prop 8?

The answer is yes, he did.

Tuesday’s Anti-Prop 8 Rally In Los Angeles

When we see YouTube videos of rallies taking place in other cities, we get simple editing, poor sound, and shaky cameras. But no, not in the entertainment capital of the world. This is what Tuesday’s rally against Prop 8 looked like in Los Angeles:

Press Conference Announcing the Constitutional Challenge to Prop 8

Here is the video and transcript of the press conference held earlier today by lawyers for the American Foundation for Equal Rights, announcing their lawsuit against the state of California in federal courts.

Click here for the transcript

Rhode Island Strongly Supports Marriage

The legislative leadership of Rhode Island is working in conjunction to ensure that the state’s gay citizens are denied equality. (AP)

Bills legalizing gay marriage have been introduced in the Statehouse every year since 1997, but none has been approved by a legislative committee. House Speaker William Murphy and Senate President M. Teresa Paiva-Weed, both Democrats and Catholics, oppose gay marriage, and Republican Gov. Don Carcieri — another Catholic — would likely veto such a measure.

However, they do so against the strong wishes of their constituents.

A Brown University poll showed 60 percent of registered voters in the state said they would support a law allowing gay couples to marry, and 75 percent said they would support a law allowing civil unions. Thirty-one percent said they would oppose a gay marriage law.

The startling figure of 77% of Democrats favor a marriage equality bill. I think it is time that the leaders of the Democratic Party in the state of Rhode Island put the desires of their constituents ahead of the political careers of a few politicians. The need to tell leadership that unless they cease obstructing equality that they will not get the Party’s support or endorsement.

The Supreme Court Justices and Marriage Equality

Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads as follows:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This amendment is home to the “Equal Protections Clause” and “Due Process Clause”. And it is under the language of this clause that Theodore B. Olson and David Boies seek to have Proposition 8 determined to be unconstitutional.

Now to me it’s a simple proposition. Gay persons – and couples – are entitled to the priveleges of any other citizen. And, if it up to me, I would probably argue more about how Proposition 8 is an abridgement of my privileges as a citizen than I would about the due process of law. And I’d probably lose.

But regardless of the merits of the arguments, ultimately it isn\’t what I think, or what Olson and Boies think that about the application of these protections, it is what the nine Justices of the Supreme Court think.

It is not possible at this time to know the composition of the court should this suit ever reach it. Several members are quite elderly and some are not in good health and lawsuits of this sort can take years before they are heard.

But we can look to the present composition of the court and make some educated guesses about whether they would find such arguments compelling. To guide us, we can look to two significant previous rulings on gay issues that dealt with equal protections and due process.

In November 1992, the voters of Colorado passed Amendment 2 with 53% of the vote. This amendment to the state constitution disallowed sexual orientation as a basis to “claim any minority status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination”. The Colorado State Supreme Court invalidated the amendment on the basis that it violated the equal protections clause of the 14th Amendment. The state appealed to the US Supreme Court who, by a 6-3 split, found Amendment 2 unconstitutional, though for a different reason. Justice Kennedy wrote that the state had no rational reason to identify persons by a single trait – create a class – and to then deny them the right to even appeal for protection from the law.

Of those currently on the court, Justices Kennedy, Stevens, Ginsberg, and Breyer voted to overturn Amendment 2. Justice Souter also voted with the majority, but he has tendered his resignation.

Justice Scalia, on the other hand, found Amendment 2 to be “a modest attempt by seemingly tolerant Coloradans to preserve traditional sexual mores against the efforts of a politically powerful minority to revise those mores”. Justice Thomas agreed.

In June 2003, the Supreme Court declared that the sodomy laws of the State of Texas were unconstitutional by a vote of 6-3. Five justices, again Kennedy, Stevens, Ginsberg, Breyer, and Souter, found that it violated due process guarantees, specifically the “substantive due process” right to privacy. Justice O\’Connor based her position on “equal protections”, a position which she conceded raised the issue of marriage rights.

Justice Scalia wrote an angry screed in which he accused the court of having “largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda.” Thomas called the law “uncommonly silly” but found no right to privacy in the constitution.

Based on those two decisions, we can assume the following:

• Justices Thomas and Scalia to not believe that laws created solely to disadvantage gay persons are contrary to any protections found within the Constitution.
• Justices Kennedy, Stevens, Ginsberg, and Breyer are generally more sympathetic to the plight of persons who are singled out for exclusion from society. But we cannot make the assumption that this sympathy will extend to the definition of civil
  marriage.
• Appeals to equal protections – the appeal that I would think most closely applies to marriage rights – do not seem to be the arguments that speak strongest to those on the court likeliest to be sympathetic.

And we have three lesser known quantities: Justices Alito and Roberts and judicial nominee Sotomayor. Reputation places the three as conservative, moderate, and liberal, respectively.

Justices have a habit of defying reputation and presumed ideology. However, I think it safest to assume that Justice Alito can be counted as a vote against marriage equality. And there is simply not adequate record to determine whether Roberts or Sotomayor (if confirmed) would be inclined to see protections for gay people in the Constitution, much less marriage rights.

So, we approach the court knowing that two are definitely anti-gay in their rulings, one is likely to be so, four have sympathy to gays who are excluded from due process but may not extend that sympathy to marriage, and two are an unknown quantity. This is not the court that I would like to approach with questions about my rights.

Considering that we have a deck stacked against us, we have to wonder at the wisdom of going to the Supreme Court at this time. Should we lose, it is a greater loss than a state\’s denial of equality. Should the Court reject our argument, not only will it set federal precedent that is likely to require decades to reverse, but it will give guidance to such other state courts as are approached with an appeal to our equality and liberty.

So I concur with Jim and with other prominent gay organizations that our best bet is to appeal to our neighbors and change hearts and minds before we go to the Supreme Court.