News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
Posts 
Posts via daily email:
Beyond Acceptance: Parents of Lesbians & Gays Talk About Their Experiences, by Carolyn W. Griffin and Marian J. Wirth
Always My Child: A Parent’s Guide to Understanding Your Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender or Questioning Son or Daughter, by Kevin Jennings
Coming Out to Parents: A Two-Way Survival Guide for Lesbians and Gay Men and Their Parents, by Mary V. Borhek
Families Like Mine: Children of Gay Parents Tell It Like It Is, by Abigail Garner
Sons Talk About Their Gay Fathers: Life Curves, by Andrew Gottlieb.
Out of the Ordinary: Essays on Growing Up With Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender Parents, by Noelle Howey and Ellen Samuels (Eds.)United Church of Christ Pastors Celebrate Marriage Equality
Timothy Kincaid
May 17th, 2008
The United Church of Christ, along with the Reform Jewish movement and many other religious organizations, believe that their morality their desire to know God requires that they serve justice to those around them. They believe that denying equality to gay persons is not just bad politics, it’s bad religion.
In my review of recent news stories, especially those about the intesection of sexuality and religion, I’ve noticed that there is an increasing willingness for pastors, rabbis and other persons of faith to step forward and declare that religious conservatives do not speak for God. Often these voices for equality come from the UCC.
The General Synod of the United Church of Christ was among the hundreds of churches, pastors, synagogues, and other religious organizations that attached their name and their support to this lawsuit. And they joyously report the news on the UCC website.
The Rev. Kevin A. Johnson, pastor of Bloom in the Desert Ministries (UCC/United Methodist) in Palm Springs, Calif., emphasized that today’s ruling is a continuation of the ways in which marriage has been redefined for the better over the centuries.
“Because of the positive ruling today in California, progress continues,” Johnson said. “Marriage equality for all continues our historical progress toward recognizing that love and responsibility are the keys to quality marriages, not unfair laws based on racial integrity, which were struck down in 1967 but remained in some states until 2000, and sexual orientation, like we have now.”
This is indeed a good week for gay individuals and couples. The decision by the California Supreme Court is monumental and not quickly forgotten.
But in our joy, let us recall that this victory does not just belong to gays. This is a time of jubulation and celebration for all persons who fight in the battle for dignity, equality, and justice.
Make It Personal
Timothy Kincaid
May 16th, 2008
It’s far easier to deny rights to them than it is to you.
Them, those un-named faceless homosexuals out there in San Francisco, are foreign and strange and we don’t care what they want. But you, the person we know and love, well we don’t like disappointing you.
Today Ellen Degeneres made gay marriage personal. She announced that she and Portia de Rossi plan to marry. The response: a standing ovation.
Now some of her viewers may not really approve in the abstract of state sanctioned marriage between persons of the same sex, but how can you not be happy for Ellen?
We all have an audience. We all have people who want to be happy for us.
Take Dan Pinello and Lee Nissensohn. These guys aren’t celebrities. But they found a way to introduce themselves to their neighbors and become a face and a name in the marriage equality debate.
Dan and Lee were arested for trespassing on April 28 when they refused to leave Oyster Bay Town Hall at closing time after officials politely rebuffed the couple’s request for a marriage license. And now when some New Yorkers think of gay marriage, they think of those two middle aged professionals with a weakness for stray cats.
You don’t have to announce your engagement on a popular talk show. You don’t have to get arrested or even speak to a newspaper. But your grocer and your autorepairman and your dentist all vote. For them you can give marriage equality your face and name.
Anti-Marriage Politics: A Losing Proposition
Jim Burroway
May 16th, 2008
More GOP strategists see divisive marriage politics as a losing proposition this year:
“At best, it doesn’t move voters, and at worst for Republicans, it moves them against them,” said Matthew Dowd, President Bush’s 2004 chief strategist. “Why are we having a discussion on this issue when we should be talking about things that matter, like the economy, health care, or the war?”
One Day After California…
Jim Burroway
May 16th, 2008
…Nineteen Minnesota lawmakers (the maximun number of allowable sponsors) have introduced the Marriage and Family Protection Act, which would allow for same sex marriages in Minnesota.
Arizona Lawmakers At A Crossroads
Jim Burroway
May 16th, 2008
On Monday, the Arizona House of Representatives voted 33-25 to approve SCR1042, a proposed anti-marriage constitutional amendment, sending it on to the Senate for its approval to place the measure on the November ballot.
Half a continent away on Tuesday, voters in northern Mississippi’s first congressional district chose Travis Childers (D) over Greg Davis (R) by a margin of 54% to 46% in a special election to fill a vacant seat. Just to give you a sense of how bit this was, this was a district which President Bush carried by 59% in 2000 and 62% in 2004. Roger Wicker (R), the previous incumbent whose appointment to Trent Lott’s Senate seat created the vacancy, had won every election since 1994 by at least 63% of the vote.
One certainly has to wonder what was going through Rep. Marian McClure’s (R-Tucson) mind as she picked up Wednesday morning’s paper. She was among those who voted to put SCR1042 on the ballot in November.
That wasn’t always her position though. Just last April, Rep. McClure had been one of four Republicans who joined a procedural maneuver to kill an earlier identical anti-marriage amendment. In doing so, she followed not only her conscience, but the will of the voters in her district who sent her to the state house. In 2006, those voters soundly rejected Proposition 107 (that year’s anti-marriage amendment) with 52.5% voting against it and only 47.5% voting in favor. That margin was even wider than the statewide result. The statewide tally had 51.8% voting “no” and 48.2% “yes” (PDF: 220KB/18 pages).
But since that April House vote, the Center for Arizona Policy (CAP), Focus On the Family’s official state policy council for Arizona, has been pulling out all the stops. They’ve exerted extraordinary pressure on state lawmakers to bring the measure back for another vote. That pressure included both threats and promises, and for some lawmakers it seemed to have worked. Rep. McClure was among those who caved to CAP’s pressure and switched her vote on Monday. Instead of following the voice of her constituents, she chose to dance to CAP’s tune instead.
So now she can count on CAP’s support in the general elections in November. And with yesterday’s California Supreme Court ruling in favor of marriage equality, CAP’s political pressure has grown even stronger to get the bill scheduled for a vote in the Senate.
But does CAP really have the clout that they claim they have, when voters across the country have made it known that they’ tired of the same old politics that CAP represents?
Let’s go back to that vote in Mississippi on Tuesday. The national Republican Party had poured millions of dollars into that race. They even enlisted Vice President Dick Cheney to make an appearance. And yet Childers’ convincing win in what was supposed to be a solidly safe Republican seat sent shockwaves throughout the GOP. This loss follows earlier humiliating defeats in special elections to fill Rep. Dennis Hastert’s Illinois seat and Rep. Richard Baker’s Louisiana seat. These were also considered to be “safe” GOP seats.
A recent poll shows that 81% of Americans believe the US is on the wrong track. The divisive politics of the past have become an anathema. U.S. Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) describes this year’s political atmosphere as “the worst since Watergate and far more toxic than the fall of 2006.”
So all of this makes reviving a failed amendment from 2006 an odd choice for Arizona lawmakers. It certainly doesn’t represent the kind of change that voters say they’re looking for. It looks instead like the same old style of politics that voters in Mississippi, Illinois and Louisiana have rejected. And if the massive resources of the GOP financial and political machine couldn’t pull out a win in a solid-red district in Mississippi, what can CAP possibly offer to Arizona legislators like Rep. McClure?
Arizona voters have already indicated that they have rejected the kind of politics that CAP stands for. This rebellion first took shape in 2006 when Arizona voters said no to CAP and defeated Prop 107. That was also when voters sent Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D) to Congress to represent Rep. Jim Kolbe’s (R) district. Jim Kolbe, you may remember, was the openly gay Republican Congressman who voters returned to Washington five times since his coming out in 1996.
Why do I bring this up? Well many of those voters who sent Rep. Giffords to Congress — and who re-elected Kolbe five times until he retired in 2006 — these are the same voters who will be asked to vote for Rep. McClure in November. Rep. McClure’s state district lies almost entirely inside Rep. Gifford’s Congressional district. (Gifford’s district, but the way, voted down Prop 107 by an even larger margin: 54.6% to 45.4%.)
CAP may be able to mobilize emails and phone calls to state legislators, but they can’t mobilize voters to turn out and support their causes in November. If anything, there’s a backlash building.
What must Rep. McClure be thinking right now?
It used to be a rare thing to see a politician stand up to powerful special interest groups. Those groups are looking much more like paper tigers these days. Our congratulations go to two state GOP lawmakers who were wise enough to see through CAP’s lobbying efforts and vote with their constituents. They are Reps. Pete Hershberger and Jennifer Burns. You might want to drop them a line and thank them for their support. After the pressure they’ve endured from CAP, they could probably use it right now.
Update: More GOP strategists see divisive marriage politics as a losing proposition this year:
“At best, it doesn’t move voters, and at worst for Republicans, it moves them against them,” said Matthew Dowd, President Bush’s 2004 chief strategist. “Why are we having a discussion on this issue when we should be talking about things that matter, like the economy, health care, or the war?”
Reform Jews Offer Congratulations
Timothy Kincaid
May 15th, 2008
The Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism has issued a statement in support of today’s California Supreme Court Decision.
The Reform Jewish Movement has long been committed to welcoming GLBT Jews into our congregations, synagogues and communal life and strongly supports legislative efforts to provide equal opportunity through civil marriage for gay and lesbian individuals. As we teach our children, all individuals are created b’tselem elohim, in the image of the Divine; today’s ruling reflects that concept of inherent equality.
This is a historic day, a day to celebrate. Tomorrow, however, is the day to begin organizing against the all-but-inevitable initiatives to amend the state’s constitution to ban same-sex marriage equality. As soon as we finish today’s victory toast, we are ready to roll up our sleeves and get to work.
Their efforts are more than welcome.
Schwarzenegger: CA has Bigger Fish to Fry than to Ban Gay Marriage
Timothy Kincaid
May 15th, 2008
In an interview with the Sacramento Bee the CA Governor spoke against the anti-gay-marriage initiative that may be on the Novemeber ballot.
“I think we have bigger fish to fry than do people have a right, if they are gay, to get married or not,” Schwarzenegger said. “I think that we should think about fixing the budget system and think about fixing the health care system and rebuilding California.”
He didn’t commit to a campaign schedule against the initiative
The Republican governor told The Bee’s editorial board he would not commit to campaigning against the proposed initiative, though he said he will make it clear that he is against it in other ways. He called the initiative a “big mistake.”
As many of the Governor’s staff are gay and are in committed relationships, I suggest that one way that Schwarzenegger could make it clear might be to officiate at a wedding.
Marriage Rights Around the World
Timothy Kincaid
May 15th, 2008
The following countries offer some form of recognition to same-sex couples:
Marriage
Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, United States (Massachusetts, California)
Civil Unions
New Zealand, Brazil (Rio Grande do Sul), Argentina (Buenos Aires, Rio Negro), Mexico (Coahuila), Uruguay, United States (Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, New Jersey)
Registered Partnership or Domestic Partnership
Denmark, Greenland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Finland, Luxembourg, , Slovenia, United Kingdom, Czech Republic, Italy (City of Padua), Switzerland, Hungary, Australia (Tazmania), United States (Maine, Washington, Oregon)
Other Methods of Limited Recognition
France (PACS), Germany (Life Partnership), Croatia (Law of Same-Sex Relationships), Andorra (Stable Union of a Couple), Mexico (Mexico City - PACS), Columbia (Common-law marriage inheritance rights), Israel (Limited recognition of foreign legal arrangements), United States (Hawaii - Reciprocal Benefits; New York - recognition of out-of-state legal marriages)
Although recognition is in a rapid state of change, this is my best understanding of the current rights provided. Several nations are in the process of adding or revising recognition.
Maggie Gallagher is Untruthful About CA Marriage Ruling
Timothy Kincaid
May 15th, 2008
Maggie Gallagher, President of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy and Board Member of the Marriage Law Foundation, likes to present herself as thoughtful and reasoned. She likes to dance along the edge of deception, implying rather than declaring that which is not accurate.
But the decision of the California Supreme Court seems to have thrown her enough that her innate dishonesty has shown through. Gallagher released a statement saying the following:
“California’s supreme court has just ruled that the 62 percent of Californians who voted for marriage as the union of husband and wife are just bigots. But thanks to the 1.1 million Californians who signed petitions to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot this November, activist judges will not have the last word in California, California voters will,” said Maggie Gallagher, President of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy.
The problem is that the court said nothing of the sort.
Many of those Californians who voted in favor of Proposition 22 did not do so out of anti-gay animus. We have long acknowledged that there are reasons other than bigotry for persons to be uncomfortable with marriage equality. All the court said was that such reasons are not a compelling state interest for purposes of the equal protection clause.
Further, Gallaher knows full well that the California Supreme Court is not a collection of “activist judges“. The court would be best described as cautiously conservative.
Why then would Gallagher say these untruthful things?
I believe it is because she has invested so much time and energy in opposing equal rights for gay citizens that she would rather try and sway public opinion than tell the truth. It is sad that many of those, including Gallaher, who most loudly claim the authority of morality, have so little personal integrity.
How the Marriage Map Now Stands
Timothy Kincaid
May 15th, 2008
Click to enlarge:
When I Was An Ex-Gay I Voted To Ban Gay Marriage
Today The State Supreme Court Ruled To Overturn My Vote
Daniel Gonzales
May 15th, 2008
Yes, in 2000 I voted yes on California Ballot Proposition 22 which defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. At the time I had recently concluded reparative therapy with Joseph Nicolosi and held beliefs about sexuality largely consistent with Evangelical Christianity. I believed marriage was created by the Christian God and that our society had no choice but to retain God’s definition and voted accordingly.
In reaction to today’s decision the religious-right will no doubt claim this decision is counter to the will of the people. However this assumes nothing has changed in 8 years.
Eight years later I now realize how flawed, hurtful, and destructive my logic was. I wish to apologize for that vote. There are very few things in my ex-gay experience I am truly ashamed of — My vote in 2000 is one of those things. I thank the California State Supreme Court for making right on my error.
I have never been prouder than I am today to be from California.
CA Gay Marriage Provided by Republican Judges
Timothy Kincaid
May 15th, 2008
One of the favorite arguments of anti-gays used to discredit judicial decisions in favor of equality is to dismiss the judges as “liberal activists”. This is why you must vote Republican, they declare.
But history shows that judges are often quite good at setting aside partisan positioning when they are entrusted with the task of measuring whether the law applies equally to all citizens. Often judges appointed by Democrats have ruled conservatively and judges appointed by Republicans have been liberal in their interpretation of the application of law.
Already anti-gays are whining and seeing this as motivation for conservative presidential votes
“It’s hard to see how this will end up helping Democrats,” Amar said before the ruling. “It feeds into a kind of perception that this is what liberal activist judges do.”
But just who are those liberal activist judges that voted for marriage equality in California?
Ronald M. George, (since 1991), Chief Justice (elevated in 1996)
Republican, appointed by Gov. Pete Wilson (R)
First judicial appointment by Gov. Ronald Reagan (R)
Joyce L. Kennard, (since 1989), Associate Justice
Republican, appointed by Gov. George Deukmejian (R)
Carlos R. Moreno, (since 2001), Associate Justice
Democrat, appointed by Gov. Gray Davis (D)
First judicial appointment by Gov. George Deukmejian (R)
Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, (since 1994), Associate Justice
Republican, appointed by Gov. Pete Wilson (R)
Say what they will about this court decision, no one can claim that this was the result of liberal activist Democratic appointments.
Governator Supports Gay Marriage
Timothy Kincaid
May 15th, 2008
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued a statement on the Supreme Court’s decision. From the San Jose Mercury News.
“I respect the court’s decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling,” Schwarzenegger said within minutes of the ruling. “Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.”
California Gets Gay Marriage
Timothy Kincaid
May 15th, 2008
UPDATED: See language from the ruling here
By a 4 - 3 vote, the Supreme Court of the State of California has legalized marriage equality.
The court ruled the state’s one man-one woman marriage laws violate the civil rights of same-sex couples.
More information will be provided as details come in. I still don’t know if the out of state restriction was overturned or whether the court’s declared the change immediately effective or is requiring the legislature to do so.
And this is not the final word. We are not yet sure whether a ballot initiative to ban gay marriage in the California Constitution received enough signatures to make it on the ballot in November.
But whatever you are doing right now, stop for a moment to celebrate an important change. Now one of ten Americans live in a state in which gay people are accorded full equality under the law.
It’s A Win! California Supreme Court Rules In Favor of Same Sex Marriage!
Jim Burroway
May 15th, 2008
Marriage equality has arrived in California (PDF: 469KB/172 pages):
…[W]e conclude that the purpose underlying differential treatment of opposite-sex and same-sex couples embodied in California’s current marriage statutes – the interest in retaining the traditional and well-established definition of marriage — cannot properly be viewed as a compelling state interest for purposes of the equal protection clause, or as necessary to serve such an interest.
A number of factors lead us to this conclusion. First, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage clearly is not necessary in order to afford full protection to all of the rights and benefits that currently are enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples; permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive opposite-sex couples of any rights and will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage, because same-sex couples who choose to marry will be subject to the same obligations and duties that currently are imposed on married opposite-sex couples. Second, retaining the traditional definition of marriage and affording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples. Third, because of the widespread disparagement that gay individuals historically have faced, it is all the more probable that excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of marriage is likely to be viewed as reflecting an official view that their committed relationships are of lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex couples. Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite-sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise – now emphatically rejected by this state — that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects “second-class citizens” who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples. Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest. Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional.
…
Accordingly, in light of the conclusions we reach concerning the constitutional questions brought to us for resolution, we determine that the language of section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a union “between a man and a woman” is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples. In addition, because the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples imposed by section 308.5 can have no constitutionally permissible effect in light of the constitutional conclusions set forth in this opinion, that provision cannot stand.
Plaintiffs are entitled to the issuance of a writ of mandate directing the appropriate state officials to take all actions necessary to effectuate our ruling in this case so as to ensure that county clerks and other local officials throughout the state, in performing their duty to enforce the marriage statutes in their jurisdictions, apply those provisions in a manner consistent with the decision of this court. Further, as the prevailing parties, plaintiffs are entitled to their costs.
The judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed, and the matter is remanded to that court for further action consistent with this opinion.
Update: The court’s decision was a 4-3 split. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has released the following statement:
I respect the Court’s decision and as Governor, I will uphold its ruling. Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.
CA Supreme Court To Issue SSM Decision Tomorrow
Jim Burroway
May 14th, 2008
That’s the word on the street anyway. Their long-awaited decision is expected to be released tomorrow at 10:00 am PDT. There has been some speculation on what that decision might be, but that was a month ago. We’ll find out soon.
Anti-Marriage Proposal Fails In Illinois
Jim Burroway
May 14th, 2008
Illinois opponents to same-sex marriage failed to collect enough signatures to put an advisory referendum on the November ballot. Protect Marriage Illinois (PMI) had said that they would turn in 300,000 signatures to the state’s Board of Elections by the May 5 deadline. Supporters needed 270,000 valid signatures, but they did not file in time for the deadline.
This is the second time PMI failed to collect enough signatures. An earlier effort in 2006 failed also.
The advisory referendum would have asked the state legislature to amend the constitution to bar same-sex marriage.
Update: I neglected to include a link to the source.
AZ House Approves Anti-Marriage Amendment Proposal
Jim Burroway
May 12th, 2008
We’ve just learned that thirty-three members of the Arizona House of Representatives approved SCR1042, the proposed anti-marriage amendment. The resolution passed 33-25, with two representatives not voting. You can see how each representative voted here. The battle now moves to the Senate. If SCR1042 passes the Senate, the proposed anti-marriage amendment goes onto the ballot for November’s general election.
Now it’s time for Arizona residents to shift their attention to their state Senator.If you don’t know who your Senator is, the Equality Arizona web site can find him or her for you and provide you with phone numbers and contact information. You can call directly, or you can even send a message via Equality Arizona. They’ve made it extremely easy to do this.
AZ Anti-Marriage Bill Scheduled For Vote Monday
Jim Burroway
May 10th, 2008
As we reported earlier, the Arizona House of Representatives gave preliminary approval to move a bill onto the House floor that would place an anti-marriage amendment proposal on the ballot for November. Since that vote was taken, Speaker Jim Weiers (R-Phoenix) has placed SCR1042 on the calendar for a third reading on April 28th, 29th, 30th and May 5th. Each day has come and gone without a vote, and SCR1042 was pulled off the calendar for May 6th and 7th. Now we see it back on the calendar for Monday, May 12.
For Arizona residents, it’s still not too late to act. Remember: there are two representatives for each legislative district. Contact both of them and let them know where you stand. If you don’t know who your representatives are, the Equality Arizona web site can find them for you and provide you with their phone numbers and contact information. You can call them directly, or you can even send a message via Equality Arizona.
Michigan Court Rules Against Health Care Benefits
Jim Burroway
May 7th, 2008
We’ve heard this over and over again: opponents to same-sex marriage don’t want to go after our domestic partnership benefits. We heard it most recently here in Arizona just a few weeks ago when opponents to same-sex marriage accuse LGBT advocates of “dragging in other issues” when they warn about the potential dangers of these anti-marriage amendments.
Michigan now provides a perfect object lesson:
An amendment to the state constitution approved by voters in 2004 to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman also prohibits public employers from providing health care and other benefits to the same sex partners of employees, a divided Michigan Supreme Court ruled today.
When anti-marriage activists tell you that their proposals have nothing to do with domestic partnerships, don’t believe it. They said that in Michigan also.
