Box Turtle Bulletin

Iowans couldn’t care less about gay marriage

Timothy Kincaid

February 8th, 2010

When the Iowa Supreme Court determined that denying state services based on sexual orientation was unconstitutional and that the State of Iowa must provide marriage equality, you could almost slice the glee of the Iowa Republican Party. Finally, there was an issue which they could use to perhaps increase their influence and maybe even win a few elections. So they because the “no gay marriage” party.

Last year they made several attempts at getting an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment up for a legislative vote and were unsuccessful. They chortled that Democrats would be sorry come election time.

But as it has turned out, running opposed to gay marriage has not proven to be a winning strategy. To their surprise, Iowans couldn’t care less about stopping gay folk from marrying. Literally.

The Des Moines Register conducted a poll of Iowans asking, “The state Legislature can address large and small issues during the course of the session. For the following issues, please tell me if you think the issue does or does not deserve the Legislature’s limited time.” Banning gay marriage did not make the cut; only 36% thought it was worth the time discussing.

Not only was it not deemed worthy of legislative time, of the six issues that Iowans were questioned about, addressing gay marriage concerned them the least. Iowans were more concerned about payday loans and puppy mills than there were about whether same-sex couples married.

This lack of interest appears to be reflected in a change in strategy in the campaigns of Republicans running for the party’s nomination for governor. Just a brief while ago they were all running to see who could be more extreme and reactionary.

Bob Vander Plaats pledged to halt such weddings with an executive order (an authority the governor does not wield) while Chris Rants declared that he’d veto every bill that reached his desk until the legislature voted on a constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality. Most of them supported calling for a constitutional convention so they wouldn’t have to wait for two sessions and a popular vote.

Only former governor Terry Branstad, also an opponent of gay marriage, chose not to run as a raving loon. Branstad took a more nuanced approach and expressed recognition of the difficulties that gay couples face when denied certain rights.

But that has changed. The race now appears to be between Branstad and Vander Plaats, and the latter has now discovered a different campaign strategy. (Register)

I’ve talked to Vander Plaats from time to time, but hadn’t really seen him out on the stump since last fall. His speeches used to give prime attention to conservative issues and gay marriage. This time, he focused entirely on job creation, state spending and education. Nobody even asked about the social issues.

I mentioned to him afterward that was a significant change from last summer, when he told me in an interview that he thought the election would hinge on two issues: gay marriage and the state smoking ban.

“Did I say that?” he asked. Yes, I told him.

“Campaigns always evolve, no doubt about it,” he said. (He didn’t mention the smoking ban at all today.)

Yes, there is no doubt that campaigns evolve, especially when the voters care less about your pet issue than they do about monitoring dog breeders.

Albania rejects Marriage Equality

Timothy Kincaid

February 5th, 2010

Last July we reported that Albania, a secular Muslim Balkan nation, was considering legalizing same-sex marriage. The Prime Minister announced his party will propose a law making the change.

Sadly, this did not come to be. However, a law was passed which outlawed discrimination. (PinkNews)

A gay rights law passed in Albania yesterday will outlaw homophobic discrimination but will not allow same-sex marriage.

The law gives protection to citizens against discrimination on grounds of gender, race, colour, ethnicity, religion and sexual orientation.

This change, though disappointing, was welcomed. (Reuters)

‘This law is not simply a fulfilment of requirements that Albania has undertaken for European Union integration and visa liberalisation. Above all, it is a victory for democracy and for human rights for all Albanians,’ the LGBT community said. The group hoped that Berisha would eventually keep his promise to legalise same-sex marriage.

Altin Azizaj, who runs the Children Rights Centre and had fought with parliamentarians over the role of a commissioner to monitor the law, said public and, most importantly, private institutions were now bound to respect human rights.

Meet New Mexico’s cowards and enemies of equality

Timothy Kincaid

February 4th, 2010

What do you do when you want to kill a bill and you don’t want any publicity for your action? Well, if you are a New Mexico Legislator you can use a procedural tactic.

New Mexico’s legislature meets for 30 days in even numbered years. So if you tie up a bill in committee after committee, you just run out of time. Which is what cowards and enemies of equality are seeking to do with New Mexico’s domestic partnership law. (New Mexico Independent)

Before sending the legislation on to Senate Judiciary Committee a 5-4 vote, the Senate Public Affairs Committee approved sending the 816-page bill to a third committee, the kiss of death during a 30-day session.

A bill that must go before three committees for hearings in either the House or Senate during a 30-day budget session is seen as having too much to overcome to survive the session.

The bill does have one powerful advocate in Governor, Bill Richardson (D) (LA Times).

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson is pushing for a vote by all state senators on a proposal to allow domestic partnerships.

Richardson said Wednesday he doesn’t want the bill to get bottled up in a Senate committee this session. The bill has cleared one committee but needs to get through two more to reach the Senate floor.

But even with the Governor’s support, the timing is difficult.

So those who sought to hide from the needs of gay citizens and shield their cowardice and animosity behind procedure may well succeed. However, as I don’t wish to reward their efforts at scurrying into the shadows, I want to introduce you to the cowards and enemies of equality in New Mexico:

Tim Eichenberg – Democrat
Senate District 15 – Albuquerque
Vice Chair of the Public Affairs Committee

On his website Eichenberg says

People dislike politicians for their self-serving agendas, their double-speak and for not honoring their commitments.

A healthy, robust democracy is one in which legislators listen to and are beholden solely to the voters in their districts — not big campaign donors and lobbyists.

In 2009 Eichenberg voted for domestic partnerships. This year he voted to have it disappear in commmittee. I guess that just makes Eichenberg a cynical politician. This is his first term. Let’s hope it’s his last.

Vernon Asbill – Republican
Senate District 34 – Carlsbad

On his website he lists the issues that he believes are a priority for his constituents.

• Family Values
This is a combination of many factors, mainly the preservation of our lifestyle and culture. These values are deeply rooted and need to be nurtured, instilled in our children and passed from generation to generation.

At least you know where you stand with Asbill. His family’s values will always trump your family’s civil rights.

Mark Boitano – Republican
Senate District 18 – Albuquerque

He believes that “Religious faith and practice is an essential civil right and religious groups are important advocates in a pluralistic society.”

His views also link to the Fatherhood and Marriage Leadership Institute and he is somewhat obsessed with making sure that marriages be protected, advanced and given governmental advantage and financial preferences.

Gay Kernan – Republican
Senate District 42 – Hobbs

Gay seems to have no online presence. But she is a consistent vote for discrimination and inequality.

She hates treating all citizens equally.

Gay Kernan wants all of the rights that New Mexico has to offer. It’s a pity she cares nothing about what other gays may want.

George K Munoz – Democrat
Senate District 4 – Gallup

Munoz also voted against civil equality last year.

If this guy has an internet presence, I can’t find it. The only link I found to a campaign website led to an obsolete site. (Maybe he’s afraid of going on record about anything.)

I guess George Munoz is the male, Hispanic, Democratic version of Gay Kernan.

So now you know the New Mexico state senators who oppose equality but are too cowardly to do it by means of a public vote.

Mr. Burns thwarted in Maryland

Timothy Kincaid

February 3rd, 2010

Mr. Burn’s nefarious scheme to deny marriage recognition to Maryland residents who marry in the District of Columbia has been killed in committee. (Baltimore Sun)

Members of a Maryland House committee on Wednesday shot down a bill that would prohibit Maryland from recognizing gay marriages validated by other states or countries.

The House of Delegates Judiciary Committee voted against the proposal from Baltimore County Del. Emmett C. Burns Jr.

Now it is up to Attorney General Douglas Gansler to determine if DC marriages are recognized.

Nepal to get an LGBT Centre

Timothy Kincaid

February 3rd, 2010

In advance of the implementation in May of their new constitution which will allow same-sex marriage, and as part of their effort to become a tourist destination for gay travelers, the nation of Nepal is continuing to demonstrate their acceptance and welcome of gays and lesbians.

OneIndia reports

Nepal is all set to have Asia’s first LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual and Trans-sexual) regional centre, a lawmaker said on Wednesday, Feb 3.
…
The centre with a conference capacity of 300 people will be ready within three years at the cost of around USD 2 million.

The LGBT centre will be equipped with a theatre, workshop facility, gallery, library, cafeteria, playground, health clinic, gym and swimming pool among other things.

Those who were considering a trip to Hawaii this year may wish to splurge on an exotic picturesque location. And how cool would it be to tell your neighbors, “Yeah, our state may not recognize it, the when we married at the foot of Mt. Everest, the nation of Nepal treated our marriage with respect and dignity.”

Illinois primary elections: what it means

Timothy Kincaid

February 2nd, 2010

US Senator from Illinois

Republican

Today Illinois Republican voters elected Mark Kirk as their Senate nominee. Kirk, a moderate, has long been an occasional ally of the community. As a Congressman he has voted for ENDA and against the FMA and supports civil unions. During this election, one opponent sought to gain political mileage from rumors that Kirk is, himself, gay.

Kirk is not, however, perfect on our issues. He does not favor marriage equality and has stated that he does not support the reversal of the ban on open service in the Military. (Herald Review)

Kirk said he disagreed with Obama’s call to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell,” a policy that prevents homosexuals from serving openly in the military.

“I’m a member of the U.S. military,” said Kirk, a Naval Reserve intelligence officer. “I don’t think we should change the policy.”

But while Kirk has room for improvement, his positions on our issues are significantly preferable to most other Republican Senators. With 64% of the vote in, Kirk is the clear primary winner with about 58%.

Democrat

In the Democratic primary, the choices were much broader. Alexi Giannoulias and David Hoffman both endorse marriage equality and Cheryle Jackson endorses civil unions. All candidates support ENDA and repealing DADT and DOMA.

A gay long-shot candidate, Jacob Meister, received the endorsement of Stonewall Democrats. Meister withdrew from the race earlier this week and endorsed Giannoulias.

With 64% of the vote, the current tally is

Giannoulias , Alexi 38%
Hoffman , David 35%
Jackson , Cheryle 20%

Illinois Governor

Democrat

The primary contention was between incumbent Pat Quinn, who has served since Governor Rod Blagojevich was impeached in January 2009, and Dan Hynes. Quinn supports civil unions and Hynes supports full marriage equality. Hynes received the endorsement of Stonewall Democrats.

With 64% of the vote, Quinn has 51% to Hynes’ 49%. Quinn has held a small lead through all of the precinct counts so far.

Republican

The three five candidates, Kirk Dillard, Andy McKenna, Jim Ryan, Bill Brady, and Adam Andrzejewski all share opposition to civil unions and marriage equality. In their race to be the furthest far-right social-issues troglodyte they seem to be indistinguishable, but Log Cabin suggested that Dillard was the preferable of the bunch so perhaps they have some information that makes him the “lesser of evils”.

With 58% of precincts reporting:

McKenna , Andy 22%
Dillard , Kirk 20%
Brady , Bill 17%
Ryan , Jim 17%
Andrzejewski 15%

Senator-Elect Scott Brown talks gay issues

Timothy Kincaid

January 31st, 2010

Massachusetts’ newly elected Senator, Scott Brown, spoke with Barbara Walters on ABC This Week and part of the conversation included his stance on issues of importance to the gay community.

On Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the Military’s ban on service by openly gay men and women.

WALTERS: You have been a member of the National Guard for 30 years. You’ve talked about how important that service is.

BROWN: Yes.

WALTERS: You’re a Lieutenant-Colonel. On Wednesday the president announced that he wants to work with Congress to repeal don’t ask, don’t tell. What’s your view?

BROWN: I think it’s important, because as you know we’re fighting two wars right now. And the most — the first priority is to — is to — is to finish the job, and win those wars. I’d like to hear from the Generals in the field — in the field — the people that actually work with these soldiers to make sure that, you know, the social change is not going to disrupt our ability to finish the job and complete the wars.

WALTERS: But Senator, your own view.

BROWN: That’s my view.

WALTERS: So you can’t say whether you’re for or against it?

BROWN: No. I’m going to wait to speak to the generals on the ground.

I find this exchange both encouraging and troubling.

Obviously Scott Brown has an opinion and is just hedging his bets. And I am not happy that he is discussing the issue as a “social change” and see it in terms of “disrupting”. But it is also nice that the Republican whom the party is lauding as the face of a cultural change is not speaking against the repeal.

Also encouraging is that much of the information that we hear suggests that our problem is with the Pentagon, not with generals in the field. If Brown is sincere – and for now we should give him the benefit of the doubt – there is a good chance that if he does speak to field operations, he’ll hear that good troups are more valuable to the war effort than anti-gay policies. It all depends on whether the officers to whom he speaks have had to lose soldiers that they valued and did not want to let go.

But if Brown is simply looking for an excuse to take an anti-gay position, I’m certain that he can readily find “generals on the ground” who will agree with him. When reporting what you heard from “generals on the ground” (anonymously, of course), they can say anything that your imagination can contrive.

On marriage:

WALTERS: And gay marriage is legal in the state of Massachusetts. But the Republican party platform language calls for the overthrow of Roe v. Wade, and they want a federal ban on gay marriage. Are you out of step with your party, or do you think that the party has to broaden, and change its platform?

BROWN: Well I’ve always been a big tent person, you know? We need more people to come into our tent to express their views in a respectful and thoughtful manner.
…
And on the marriage issue that you brought up, it’s settled here in Massachusetts, but I believe that states should have the ability to determine their own destiny and the government should not be interfering with individual states’ rights on issues that they deal with on a daily basis.

Again, this seems to be language that can leave open a lot of options.

It would seem clear that Brown will not support a Federal Marriage Amendment. But if the Supreme Court overturns Proposition 8, will that be justification for him to vote for a federal amendment to reverse that decision?

And what does this mean for DOMA? Can one truly be “states’ rights” and not support having the federal government honor the marriages of states that provide marriage equality?

We know from his efforts in the Massachusetts legislature that he is not an advocate for marriage equality. But he’s had five years to see that the sky hasn’t fallen and that churches aren’t being shuttered and that his neighbors, liberal and conservative, have come to accept and support the change.

I think there is much to hope for from Scott Brown. We should not expect an ally or even a secure vote on any issues, but if we do not approach him as an enemy I think that it is possible that we will find that Scott Brown could be a crucial bi-partisan vote on some issues of concern to our community.

The inhumanity of “protecting marriage”

Timothy Kincaid

January 30th, 2010

In 1995 Hootie and The Blowfish were on the radio, Waterworld was stinking up the movie theaters, and Tommy Lee married Pamela Anderson. It may not have been the best of years, but it was a good year for Kelly Glossip; that’s the year he met Dennis Engelhard.

Over the next 15 years the two men built a life together. They bought and decorated a house, joined a church, and helped raise Kelly’s son from a previous relationship.

And Dennis established a career in law enforcement, earning respect as a Missouri State Highway Patrolman. Even though Missouri is not a liberal state, the two lived openly, even attending social functions with Dennis’ coworkers.

But in 2004 the residents of Missouri decided that they needed to amend the state constitution to protect marriage from people like Kelly and Dennis. And in the process, they provided justification for treating them with contempt.

On Christmas Day, Dennis Engelhard was assisting at a minor accident when he was struck by a car which had lost control in the snow. He was killed. And at Glossip’s time of grief, his state did everything they could to make his life more miserable.

Although there was no confusion about the nature of their relationship, Glossip was denied Engelhard’s survivor pension benefits. And the trooper support organizations decided that they would treat Glossip as dismissively as they would “any other boyfriend” because he’s not a legal spouse (ignoring the fact that most of them had voted to deny Glossip any choice of being a legal spouse).

But in an astonishing act of cynicism, the BackStoppers Police and Firefighters Fund used Engelhard’s death as a fundraising tool:

On the debut night of season nine of American Idol on Fox 2, St. Louis, Idol wanna-bes sang in an effort to raise money for true St. Louis heroes: the families of police and firefighters who’d given their lives in the line of duty. It was night one of the 16 week Backstoppers St. Louis Idol karaoke contest at Helen Fitzgerald’s restaurant and bar in Sunset Hills.

Backstoppers gives financial support to the families of police and firefighters killed in the line of duty.

Tuesday nights contest had a very special significance: the entire evening was a tribute to Missouri State Trooper, Corporal Dennis Engelhard, 49, who gave his life in the line of duty in St. Louis County on Christmas Day.

Engelhard was working an accident on Interstate 44 when an approaching driver apparently hit a slick spot in the snow, went off the road, hit and killed Engelhard, who was standing near the trunk of his cruiser.

The highlight of the evening was a rendition of Danny Boy by 15 year old Ronnie Bass. People in the crowd teared up as he sang what has become something of anthem for police officers. Engelhard had no wife or children.

Backstoppers had already presented his parents with the first check to help them cover expenses related to his death.

Their contribution to Kelly? Nothing.

“The parents are the legal next of kin,” [BackStoppers director Ronald A.] Battelle said.

But it was the state of Missouri that really went out of its way to viciously erase Kelly Glossip from official existence. The department issued an obituary reporting that Engelhard was single and had no children. (StLToday.com)

Gov. Jay Nixon called on Missourians to pray for Engelhard’s family, who “lost a beloved son and brother.”
…
Neither [he nor his son] were formally recognized, Glossip said, at Engelhard’s funeral last month, attended by dozens of law enforcement officials in Engelhard’s hometown of Brookfield, Mo.

While policies that exclude long-term same-sex couples from financial compensation are disgustingly unfair, officials that erase their existence during a funeral are inhumane. This is deliberate callous cruelty was designed to celebrate Dennis Engelehard’s sacrifice for his fellow citizens and make police officers appear to be heroes while dismissing, ignoring, and erasing Kelly Glossip, the part of Dennis’ life that they find distasteful or embarrassing.

But no one displayed his contempt and an utter lack of empathy more than the man responsible for seeing that state employees are treated fairly:

The law would apply the same to a straight trooper with a boyfriend or girlfriend, said state Rep. Ward Franz, R-West Plains, chairman of the Joint Committee on Public Employee Retirement.

“I personally feel that a relationship should be between a man and a woman,” Franz said. “They still love each other and care about each other, but I don’t think we can change the law for that.”

In the recent testimony for Perry v. Schwarzenegger, supporters of Proposition 8 sought to argue that there really isn’t any animus towards gay couples but that society simply wants to protect the status and tradition of the definition of marriage.

I think we know that isn’t true in Missouri.

HAWAII DEMOCRATIC HOUSE LEADERSHIP GIVES MESSAGE TO GAY COUPLES: “F*** OFF”

Timothy Kincaid

January 29th, 2010

The Democratic Party in Hawaii has told gay couples that they are insignificant, inferior, and beneath their contempt. There really is no other way to understand their decision not to vote on the civil unions bill.

The background:

In February 2009 the Hawaii House of Representatives voted for a civil unions bill. The margin was one vote shy of a veto-proof majority but one representative who supports civil unions was absent.

The Senate then shoved the bill into committee where it sat until the day before the session ended. Then they attached a meaningless and substanceless amendment to the bill so as to kill it for another year.

Then last week the Senate brought the bill back up. House leadership decided that the bill just wouldn’t be worth their attention unless the Senate passed it with a veto-proof majority. Because, you know, it’s possible that the Governor may veto the bill – even though she’s given no indication either way.

And then, to everyone’s surprise, the Senate did just that. They voted 18 to 7. But having their bluff called, the House leadership totally screwed the gay community.

The Democratic Caucus (which is nearly the whole house) went behind closed doors to decide if this vote might be a threat to some specific members who really didn’t want to go on record in an election year. They decided to protect their butts and to hell with you. (WaPo)

The state House of Representatives decided to indefinitely postpone a decision on whether to grant gay and lesbian couples the same rights and benefits the state provides to married couples.

Oh, and were they real men and women about it? Nope.

No roll call was taken on the decision to postpone the vote, which shielded representatives from having their position on the record. Instead, lawmakers shouted “aye” or “no,” and Vice Speaker of the House Michael Magaoay then ruled that the motion to delay a vote had passed.

And no House member called for a roll call.

So, based on today’s action, we can take it as a given that the Democratic House membership cares nothing at all about the inequalities and indignities suffered by their gay constituents. None of them. Not one house member cares enough about you to even get their fellow members to go on record.

And has the state Party, Democratic National Committee, the President, ANYONE, called them on it? Nope.

So here’s a little message from the Hawaii Democratic Party to you gay Hawaiians: “F*** off”

PA Senator introduces marriage ban

Timothy Kincaid

January 29th, 2010

From the Philadelphia Gay News

About eight months after he pledged to introduce a bill that would institute a ban on same-sex marriage in the state constitution, Pennsylvania Sen. John Eichelberger (R-30th Dist.) has made good on his promise.

SB 707, which Eichelberger introduced Jan. 26, would add to the Pennsylvania Constitution the language: “Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid and recognized as marriage.”

This bill would have to pass both houses in two back-to-back sessions. It currently has 15 cosponsors (13 Republicans and 2 Democrats). The Senate is currently under Republican control (30 – 20) but the House is under Democrat control (104 – 98).

There is also a bill in the Senate to legalize marriage equality.

Another Conservative for Gay Marriage

Jim Burroway

January 29th, 2010

This time, it’s Don Imus on Fox Business:

Is same-sex marriage coming for Maryland residents?

Timothy Kincaid

January 28th, 2010

Due to the control of the Maryland Senate being in the hands of Senate President Mike Miller, a Democrat representing Calvert and Prince George’s Counties, and due to the strategic placement of Sen. C. Anthony Muse on the Judicial Proceeding Committee, there is little chance of Maryland voting to offer its gay citizens the same marriage rights that it joyously bestows on its heterosexual citizens. These two men are devoted enemies of equality.

However, marriage recognition may come in another way.

Maryland code section 2-201 says: “Only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid in this State.” However, Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler has been asked to determine whether same-sex marriages conducted outside the state must be recognized within Maryland. Currently, speculation is that it must. (Daily Record)

He has not disclosed when he will issue his opinion.

Gansler’s silence has fueled speculation that he — a supporter of gay marriage — will suggest that Maryland must recognize same-sex marriages under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution. As interpreted by the Supreme Court, a state must extend full faith and credit to the laws of other states unless doing so would offend the state’s public policy.

This question has taken on increased attention as we get closer to March 2, the day that Washington DC attains marriage equality (much of the Maryland population lives in suburbs of the Nation’s Capital). To ward off that possibility, Sen. Emmett Burns has introduce legislation to deny recognition to out of state same-sex marriages.

Today Mr. Burns testified in the Judiciary Committee of the horrors that could come with recognizing the vows and promises of these long-term, committed, devoted relationships.

“I believe that same-sex marriage is against the natural order,” said Del. Emmett C. Burns Jr., D-Baltimore County, the measure’s sponsor.

I think it unlikely that Burns’ bill will win in the Senate. But it is fairly certain to fail in the House. In fact, should a bill allowing marriage equality be allowed to obtain a vote in the House, there is a good chance it would pass.

“We have the votes in the House to pass marriage equality,” said Del. Heather R. Mizeur, a Montgomery County Democrat. “There are not enough votes to get it out of [the Senate committee]. Until that happens, until there is some change of heart or change in political landscape or change of composition in that committee, that bill is going to have a hard time.”

If Gansler finds that Maryland must recognize the marriage occurring in Washington, that state may well join New York in recognizing but not conducting same-sex marriages.

Indiana Senate votes for constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality

Timothy Kincaid

January 28th, 2010

The full Indiana Senate has voted to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples. (WISH)

The state Senate passed a proposed constitutional amendment on gay marriage on a 38-10 vote late Thursday afternoon. The last time the Senate passed the proposal, the Indiana House blocked the effort to send it to a referendum.

The bill is unlikely to advance out of committee in the house, which is controlled by Democrats. Were it to do so, it would then need to be passed again by both houses after another election before being presented to the voters.

The bill, as presented, would ban both same-sex marriage and any “legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage“.

The Republican response doesn’t address Don’t Ask Don’t Tell

Timothy Kincaid

January 28th, 2010

With each State of the Union address, the party not occupying the White House issues its response. And while a President may lay out his intentions, the response can often clarify which plans will flow smoothly and which will face fierce resistance.

This year the Republican response was presented by Bob McDonnell, the newly elected Governor of Virginia. And in a speech that in some ways reflected his campaign, McDonnell avoided social issues and focused on jobs, the role of government, and taxes and regulations. Most importantly, he said nothing in response to the President’s promise to “work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are.”

This does not mean that the Party avoided all response to the issue of gays in the Military. John McCain, the 2008 party nominee, responded with a statement:

“In his State of the Union address, President Obama asked Congress to repeal the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy. I am immensely proud of, and thankful for, every American who wears the uniform of our country, especially at a time of war, and I believe it would be a mistake to repeal the policy.

“This successful policy has been in effect for over fifteen years, and it is well understood and predominantly supported by our military at all levels. We have the best trained, best equipped, and most professional force in the history of our country, and the men and women in uniform are performing heroically in two wars. At a time when our Armed Forces are fighting and sacrificing on the battlefield, now is not the time to abandon the policy.”

However, it should be noted that this rebuttal is the McCain response, not the Republican response. If I’m evaluating this situation correctly, the Republican Party will be expending little capital this year in opposing the change in Military policy.

And it may be a stretch to read too much into this, but I think I am beginning to see a pattern emerge. It appears to me that anti-gay policies may be shifting from being Official Republican Positions to becoming the positions of Republicans. And this instance is not the only indication of a shift; here are a few other indications.

Recognizing a decline in emphasis on “values issues” within recent elections, some conservatives have been seeking to impose a litmus test on candidates which they would have to pass in order to receive support or funding from the Party. They sought to require that all Republican candidates agree with at least eight of ten key points, including “retention of the Defense of Marriage Act”. It was an effort to diminish moderates and other “RINOs” (Republicans In Name Only).

Although most Republicans could agree on many of the positions, party leadership strongly opposed the effort. Chairman Michael Steele said,

“Every community should have responsibility for deciding who best represents their values, their interests, their principles. I trust them to do that. It is not the business of the RNC,” Steele said. “Ronald Reagan would be ashamed if the party moved in that direction.”

Leaders recognize that purity tests would eliminate the Party’s ability to run candidates in more liberal parts of the country and pointed out that Massachusetts’ Scott Brown likely could not have passed the test. Yesterday, at the RNC’s winter meeting, the state party leaders voted unanimously to reject the proposed restriction.

Another indication that the Party may be allowing dissension on gay issues is the recent public support for gay marriage from John McCain’s wife and daughter. The senator took the opposite position, thus presenting an image that one can be a “good McCain” and, indeed, a “good Republican” and hold differing opinions on issues surrounding gay equality. Nor did party officials loudly condemn Cindy McCain; indeed, it seemed as if they wanted to avoid any discussion of the issue.

Reluctance to visibly oppose marriage equality can also be seen in the response to the District of Columbia’s decision to enact marriage equality. A mere handful of legislators (29) signed an amicus brief in support of having a referendum and visibility on the issue has been scarce. In an election year, the Republican Party has elected not to make gay marriage in the nation’s capital much of an issue at all.

Now, I do not expect that Republicans are now going to immediately become allies of our community. Nor do I have any hope for an outbreak of Republican support for marriage equality.

Also I think that the Dede Scozzafava situation has shown us that hardcore conservatives will not readily or happily accept much divergence from their anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-freedom agenda. They will fight the “big tent” ideology with the vast resources they can muster and will at times be successful.

But I do think that perhaps signals are being sent from Party leaders that individual Republican legislators are free to take positions in opposition to DADT or in favor of ENDA without facing official repercussions or Party sanctions. And, while this could all change at a moment’s notice, I hope that taken together, these signs indicate that the days of the Republican Party using the gay community as a convenient scapegoat for all of the nation’s ills are waning.

Chaffetz feebly tries to stop DC marriage

Timothy Kincaid

January 27th, 2010

From the Mormon Church’s Deseret News

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, introduced a bill Wednesday that seeks to overturn a new District of Columbia ordinance allowing gay marriage, but he predicts Democratic leaders will not allow it to come to a vote.

Not only are the Democratic leaders going to ignore Chaffetz, so are the Republican leaders. The poor guy is the Rodney Dangerfield of Congress.

Perry v. Schwarzenegger: day twelve summary

Timothy Kincaid

January 27th, 2010

Today David Boies continued his cross-examination of David Blankenhorn. It started with Blankenhorn saying that the children of gays and lesbians would almost certainly be benefited by their parents being able to marry, but that the rights of gays should take second place to the institution of marriage. It’s about “goods in conflict”; same-sex marriage is good but it should be sacrificed for the greater good (this idea always makes me think of the final Harry Potter book).

Blankenhorn agreed that same-sex marriage would provide a large number of benefits including more committed relationship, less promiscuity, higher living standards, reduced burden on the state, less prejudice and hate crimes, more scholarship and discussion on the value of marriage, an expansion of the American idea, and less heterosexual marital unhappiness due to gay people heterosexually marrying.

He even agreed that civil unions and domestic partnerships harmfully blur the distinctions of marriage.

But he believes that same-sex marriage will harm the institution of marriage. Boies asked him to indicate in his list of references which scholars make this claim, he included Alan Carlson from the Howard Center (an ultra-conservative think tank) and Maggie Gallagher. (It’s amazing how circular the anti-gay argument is. They all rely on each other for validation of their opinion with little to no actual research.)

Boies had Blankenhorn list his three “rules of the game” (essential structures of marriage): 1) rule of opposites, man and woman; 2) set of two; 3) sexual relationship.

When asked if there were exceptions to rule one prior to 50 years ago, he listed a tribe in Africa with possible man-boy temporary marriages as part of a warrior caste.

When asked about rule two, he admitted that previously to 100 years ago, 83% of societies were polygamous. But Blankenhorn doesn’t think that polygamy violates the rule of two because it is a bunch of separate one-man-one-woman marriages. (This is, I believe, a distinction without a difference. It is the fallback position for those who try and imply that marriage has always been the 1950s nuclear family in the face of incredulous historians.)

In referencing Blankenhorn’s third rule, Boies noted that the Supreme Court had already determined that incarcerated persons may marry without the presumption that they would ever have sex.

Boies then entered a report signed by Blankenhorn which listed six dimensions of marriage: legal contract, financial partnership, sacred promise, sexual union, personal bond, family making bond. Blankenhorn testified that both opposite-sex and same-sex couples can engage in these dimensions.

Boies asked Blankenhorn about what professional organizations have said. Blankenhorn answered that their lobbying boards (or leaders) were supportive of same-sex marriage. (He tried to imply a distinction between political opinions and research based opinions.) Boies referred him to the articles listed by the professional organizations supporting their views; Blankenhorn had read about ten percent of them.

Boise closed cross-examination by having Blankenhorn agree that he had written that there is no universal definition of marriage and that it is constantly evolving.

In re-direct, Cooper had Blankenhorn clarify that he sees the same-sex marriage issue as a choice between two goods, the good of dignity and respect for same-sex couples verses the good of children growing up in their biological family. And he sees the way to embrace these two goods in harmony is through domestic partnerships. (This is, I believe, their “rational basis” argument. The Pro-8 side is counting on the SCOTUS not recognizing gay people as a suspect class and therefore there only needing to be a rational basis for discrimination. And the belief, however mistaken, that biological parental marriage would be damaged by same-sex marriage would be the basis they have presented.)

And with that testimony ended.

There are still questions about compelling documents from the No on 8 campaign and if that happens, there may possibly be more testimony about these documents. The attorneys will present proposed findings of fact and findings of law by February 26.

Then the judge will consider all the testimony and all the documents and set a date for closing arguments.

I am very appreciative of the efforts of Courage Campaign and FireDogLake in liveblogging the entire trial and allowing for a timely summary. For those who want more accuracy and the absence of any inherent bias from either myself or the livebloggers, the American Foundation for Equal Rights has posted the official transcripts (there is a one-day delay).

Portugese support marriage equality

Timothy Kincaid

January 27th, 2010

A poll taken after the Portugese Parliament voted to enact marriage equality shows the move to be popular in the Catholic nation. From Bay Windows:

Fifty-two percent of Portuguese support legalization of same-sex marriage, according to a new Eurosondagem poll for Rádio Renascença, SIC TV, and the Expresso newspaper.

The Eurosondagem poll quizzed 1,010 people by telephone from Jan. 7 to 12. Forty-three percent said they oppose same-sex marriage.

Perry v. Schwarzenegger: day eleven summary

Timothy Kincaid

January 26th, 2010

Thanks to Courage Campaign and FireDogLake

Today started with the continued cross-examination of Professor Ken Miller. Attorney David Boies further proved that Miller was ill informed and that his stated opinions did not seem to be consistent with the facts.

Boies provided exit polling that revealed that the third of Californians who attend church weekly voted 84% for Proposition 8 and in all other category of Californians the majority voted “no”. And while Miller had claimed that gay people have power due to union support, the exit polls show that union households supported the proposition. (which, I suppose, means that union households are disproportionately religious)

Boies provided a poll that showed that Americans were much less willing to vote for a presidential candidate that was gay (55%) than they were for a Catholic (95%), an African American (94%), or Hispanic candidate (85%).

He went on to illustrate that Miller had not familiarized himself with workplace discrimination, school bullying, or stereotypes about gays preying on children, or the extent to which such stereotypes impacted voters. (In short, the proponents’ expert witness isn’t very expert at all. But considering what he might have found had he bothered to look, ignorance may have been their best option.)

Miller admitted that some people voted for Proposition 8 based on stereotypes, but he could not say to what extent.

Then it got unpleasant for Miller. He has a new book that came out in 2009 in which he argues that initiatives that disadvantage minorities “can easily tap into an anti-minority sentiment”. He even gave examples including initiatives directed towards restricting the rights of homosexuals. One of Miller’s examples of initiatives that tapped into anti-minority sentiment and disadvantaged homosexuals was Proposition 22, the original ban on gay marriage that was overturned by the California Supreme Court.

Miller argued in his book that courts needed to strictly scrutinize initiatives and not be lenient because their role was to protect minorities from such initiatives. He had written in an article that “Once this majority puts its preference into the state constitution, the legislature and state courts can’t take it out. Only federal courts are the remedy.”.

A year later, Miller “no longer believes” his own book. In fact, he “did not believe all of it” when he wrote it. (Miller has just torpedoed his own career.)

Miller had earlier presented the support of the California Council of Churches as evidence of large religious support for gay rights. In cross-examination he reveals that he really doesn’t know what the CCC is or even if they were a group organized to oppose Proposition 8 (they trace their history back to 1913). His earlier position was that if a church belonged to the CCC then they supported gay marriage.

After all of Miller’s testimony about support from the Democrat Party, he was presented with an article in which he said that Democrats splintered along religious lines. Miller had already written that the issue, the primary determinant was religion: In order for gay people to have marriage rights, “They need to persuade those Christian voters that extending marriage rights to the gay community is consistent with their religious beliefs, not undermining them.” He had written that blacks and Latinos had been taught in church that sexual orientation was a matter of scripture and thus could vote for Barack Obama as a civil rights issue and for Prop 8 as a religious issue without conflict.

Boies got Miller to agree, as a social scientist, that “it is a general principle that it is undesirable for a religious majority to impose its views on a minority”. While Miller was babbling trying to find an out for the religious oppression of gay people, Boies announced that he had no more questions.

Thompson tried to recover in redirect. He had Miller reiterate that the Briggs initiative (to ban gay school teachers) and the LaRouche initiatives (to quarantine AIDS patients) did not pass.

Miller testified that he used to think that initiatives did not well serve democracy but since Massachusetts legalized marriage he changed his views and now sees them as a way for people to express their popular sovereignty. The exception he now sees is marriage. (In short, he found that his prejudices disagreed with his principles, so he made an exception. I can’t see how this will help either his credibility or his argument.)

In the afternoon, the defendants presented their second witness, David Blankenhorn. He is president of the Institute for American Values, a non-profit think tank that focuses on fatherhood, marriage, child rearing, child well being, and family structure.

He testified that to write his book, The Future of Marriage, he sought to learn about the anthropology of marriage across cultures.

In voir dire, Boise noted that none of Blankenhorn’s marriage writing was peer reviewed. Nor has he taught courses about marriage, fatherhood, family structure or anything else. Blankenhorn’s examinations of the results of same-sex marriage are limited to discussions with colleagues and reading articles. His only peer-reviewed work was on cabinet makers and black fathers. Judge Walker indicated that were this a jury trial Blankenhorn might not be qualified to testify as an expert but that he can testify.

Blankenhorn testified that marriage is the socially approved sexual relationship between a man and a woman which establishes the parenthood of the children. Marriage brings about the social, the legal, and the biological consequences of parenthood. “East, West North, South, 1000 years ago, it always does this thing.” As marriage changes, this aspect never does.

This is based on a broad consensus of scholars and anthropologists. For his “broad consensus”, Blankenhorn relies on a number of quite old books, the most recent of which is from 1985.

Blankenhorn read from some who say that marriage is an adult relationship but stated that he disagrees. Earnestly. He testified that he could not find any animus or hatefulness of gay people as the reason that people get married. (I dare say he’s correct. No one marries to spite gay people. And the original definitions were not designed to exclude but rather to allow society to know which man owns which woman and is responsible for her care. But the new definitions as applied by anti-gay amendments are absolutely intended to exclude gay people and to spite them.)

He testified that research shows that the ideal family relationship for a child is a biological mother and father in low-conflict marriage. (Again, he’s likely correct. And a principled argument could be made that these are the only family forms that society should reward with marriage. But it doesn’t. It rewards remarriage of widows and widowers, divorced people with children, the childless, the elderly, and indeed absolutely every other less-than-ideal coupling provided that they are opposite-sex. The question is not whether biological parents are a smidgen better than two mothers (a position that could probably be made), but why two mothers (who are better than, say, a mother and stepfather) are not provided with marriage.)

Blankenhorn testified that changing the rules of an institution results in weakening, what he calls deinstitutionalization. He notes that the deinstitutionalization has been the fault of heterosexuals: out of wedlock childbirth, divorce, assisted reproductive technology, and the very idea of same-sex marriage. He claims that “Scholars are telling us that process of weakening will be accelerated significantly by same sex marriage.” Transferring the institution from a child centered one to an adult-pleasure centered one would erase the institution.

It would become impossible to opine that a child needs a father. It could lead the public to consider polygamy. In short, Blankenhorn believes that allow same-sex couples to marry would remove the core purpose for marriage and leave it essentially meaningless and valueless. An institution that doesn’t define heterosexual couples tied to their biological children would have no purpose and would eventually die off.

Blankenhorn supports domestic partnerships and civil unions. He just wants to protect the privilege of marriage. (This is, in my thinking, the weakest argument. If one truly wants to “think of the children” then any structure that “denies a child their biological mother and father” would be equally disadvantageous. It matters little whether this deprived child’s same-sex parents are civilly unioned or civilly married.)

He co-authored an article supporting civil unions (and implies that Jonathan Rauch agrees with him that they are better – he does not). In reality the article supported a temporary compromise in which the federal government would recognize state marriages as civil unions provided that there were robust religious-conscience exceptions.

He argued that marriage is bigger than just the legal incidences of marriage (a point that our side has made repeatedly). Domestic partnerships are comparable but not the same as marriage. Then he said something perplexing: “It is discriminatory and morally wrong to call two things that are the same by different names.”

Boies then led cross-examination.

Boies showed that Blankenhorn’s institute treats biological and adoptive families the same. Blankenhorn testified that adoptive families are just as good. And he is not aware of any study that shows that children of gays and lesbians have different worse outcomes than straight.

If I understand the liveblogging correctly, Blankenhorn believes that the adoption of same-sex marriage would be likely to improve the well-being of gay and lesbian households and their children. And he believes that America would be more just by allowing same-sex marriage. But he thinks it would lead to fewer marriage between heterosexuals.

(Odd, it never occurred to Blankenhorn that he would actually have to tie his opinions back to those who did research. I get the impression that he thought it would be similar to the polite debates in which everyone’s opinion is considered to be valid and that real research was treated as no more valuable than opinions based on “thinking about it for a long time” or writing a book.)

Boies gets Blankenhorn to admit that few (perhaps none) of his listed sources actually discuss either disinstitutionalization or same-sex marriage and that none make the two part linkage: same-sex marriage leads to deinstitutionalization which then leads to fewer heterosexual marriages. (This may be simply an extrapolation on the part of Blankenhorn, and he simply is not qualified to make such an extrapolation. He has not done research and it appears that he cannot back up his positions with the research of others. It’s difficult to understand why Cooper allowed two very unprepared witnesses to take the stand.)

That was it for today and cross-examination will continue tomorrow. The case is scheduled to end around noon, after which the judge will go ponder the evidence before the attorneys make their closing statements some time in February. Then Judge Vaughn Walker will make his decision.

Pugno’s illogical complaint about documents

Timothy Kincaid

January 26th, 2010

Anthony Pugno is the general counsel for ProtectMarriage.com and is posting his daily perspectives and arguments about Perry v. Schwarzenegger on the ProtectMarriage.com website. As such, Pugno is responsible for spinning the story in the way that the supporters of Proposition 8 wish and one of his themes has been Judge Walker’s “bias” against his side.

In a commentary posted yesterday he expresses a complaint that reveals the lack of logic, principle, or purpose behind the team seeking to defend Proposition 8:

Before resting their case, plaintiffs began Week Three this morning with a “document dump,” which means they admitted into the trial record a slew of documents they view to be evidence to support their case. Nothing earthshaking in and of itself, but the subtext is utterly astounding.

Despite supposedly winning our appeal in the Ninth Circuit to protect the privacy of our internal Prop 8 campaign records, the trial judge has still forced us to hand over literally tens of thousands of pages of sensitive campaign memos, emails and other documents to the plaintiffs. After sifting through our internal documents for facts they think aid their case, they had them labeled as trial exhibits and added to the court record.

So if the Yes on 8 campaign has been forced to open up its internal campaign records for this court trial, then shouldn’t also the No on 8 campaign have to do so, too?

Well, although we filed a motion some time ago asking the court to order the “No on 8” campaign to disclose to us the same types of documents as those we had to disclose to them, the court has refused to rule on our request and thus we have been prevented from examining even one single document from the opponents of Prop 8. [emphasis in original]

This argument betrays that either Pugno is completely lacking in logic and knowledge of the purpose of the case, or else he believes that his readers are not too bright.

Perry v. Schwarzenegger seeks to prove that animus and bias were the bases for the initiation, collection of signatures, strategy, marketing, and implementation of the campaign to pass Proposition 8. As such, Pro-8 campaign correspondence is relevant in that it can reveal whether, indeed, animus and bias were motivators.

But the correspondence of the Anti-8 side would tell us nothing about the motivations for passing Proposition 8. It would add no value, answer no questions, and provide no insight. Pugno and company would have to argue for a reason to see this material based on its relevance to the question at hand, and there is none.

But in Pugno’s us-v.-them Culture War mentality, if you can read my email then I should be able to read yours. It’s not about the legal principles behind the constitutionality of discrimination, it’s all about waging war on a culture that doesn’t privilege the religious beliefs of his faith.

Perry v. Schwarzenegger: day ten summary

Timothy Kincaid

January 25th, 2010

Thanks to Courage Campaign and FireDogLake

Today the day started with plaintiffs (those seeking to overturn Proposition 8) entering a large quantity of items into the record. They began by playing a video of a simulcast of religious supporters of Proposition 8. (Were there any other kind? Yes, there were non-religious voters, but I’ve yet to find a prominent non-religious advocate for denying marriage equality.) This are rather nasty and claims:

• same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy, bestiality, and incest
• gays are trying to “hijack the civil rights movement”
• race is inborn and homosexuality is “deviant behavior” and a choice
• children in Massachusetts are “being taught homosexuality”
• same-sex marriage is comparable to the 9/11 terrorist attacks
• children raised without fathers will not learn how to be leaders

Boutros presented a document that, in the words of Ron Prentice, illustrated that he wanted to keep the simulcast off the Dr. Phil Show because such imagery “shows religious bias to a national audience”. He also showed Prentice telling pastors that the way to flip a No vote was to tell voters that “children will be taught about homosexuality”. Prentice also told pastors how involved the Mormon Church was in the campaign and how they were instrumental in Hawaii (as Fred Karger has revealed).

Boutros provided a flyer prepared by Prentice which claimed that the goal of the community was not to get married but the full annihilation of the institution of marriage. He showed that NOM cleared everything with the campaign.

There were also a lot of documents that related to or supported earlier testimony but which had not been specifically discussed.

This is the completion of the case for the plaintiffs. (However, because they received 7,500 documents at 11:30 last night, they are reserving the right to reopen testimony based on their review.) Boies: “The plaintiffs rest.”

The first witness for the defendants is Prof. Kenneth Miller, an attorney who also teaches constitutional law in powers and civil liberties on a graduate and undergraduate level. Boies objected to Miller being presented as an expert on gay and lesbian political power. Before deposition he had never heard of the Mattachine Society and he still doesn’t know about a number of important events during the 70s, the period Miller presents as an expert. Miller said that since the deposition he’s read more and could probably write an article now. The judge allowed Miller to testify about current gay political power as he knows American and Californian politics.

(Miller may not have been a good choice. In addition to a lack of knowledge about gay history, he was nervous and kept confusing whether Prop 8 supported gay marriage or opposed it. Additionally, the Prop 8 attorneys continued to commit the cardinal sin of trials: they asked questions when they did not know the answers.)

Miller testified that the keys to political power are money, access to lawmakers, ability to persuade, size and cohesion, and allies. He testified that opponents of Prop 8 raised $43 million, more than supporters; that gays have influential allies including the Democratic Party, labor unions, and newspapers.

Miller testified that many churches opposed Proposition 8. However, he was unaware which churches actually conducted them. He wondered about the United Methodist and the Episcopalians. (at the time of Prop 8, the only sizable churches in California to do so were the Univeralist Unitarians and the United Church of Christ).

He testified that educators and professional organizations often support gay causes. Miller provided examples of when California voters chose not to quarantine HIV positive persons as evidence gay political power. Additional evidence was “increased support” for ENDA and overturning DADT and DOMA.

David Boies led the cross-examination. He illustrated how Miller was unfamiliar with laws and history impacting the gay community (he didn’t even know that the term “gay-bashing” could include physical violence). He then had Miller identify the subsequent research he did himself and the documents which were provided to him by the attorneys. It took him twenty minutes. (This is why Boies is so respected. Illustrating that the expert was told what to say by the attorneys is breathtaking.) Boies went on to show that his testimony relied not on his own documents but on what he was fed.

And then. Oh my. Oh my, oh my, oh my. Boies got Miller to describe the Defense of Marriage Act as “official discrimination” against gays and lesbians. He even said that speaking as a political scientist, Proposition 8 is discrimination (There is not adequate agreement between FireDogLake, Courage Campaign, and the Mercury News. He definitely said it “creates a distinction” and tried to say it was not invidious discrimination but we’ll have to defer to the transcripts whether he said “discrimination”.)

Miller testified that he had written that initiatives are less democratic than legislatures because there is no ability to have transparency, compromise and consensus building. He tried to argue that frequently initiatives are pulled back and reworked after the signatures were gathered but couldn’t name a single instance of it occurring (neither can I).

Miller’s cross-examination will continue tomorrow. I don’t think he will get a good night’s sleep.