Box Turtle Bulletin

A New Name for Domestic Partnerships in Salt Lake City

I’m often bemused at the lengths heterosexual legislators will go in order to make gay couple aware that they are inferior. Even many of those whose sense of fairness leaves them inclined to offer equality under the law seem compelled to say, “But don’t call it marriage. It isn’t marriage.”

So on the west coast (and Maine) you have Domestic Partnerships. And on the east coast you have Civil Unions. In between you have, well, I’ll just stop there and be polite.

We told you back in January that Ralph Becker, the mayor of Salt Lake City, wanted to set up a Domestic Partnership registry. While offering no state or federal benefits, it would help couples prove relationships when seeking insurance and other benefits offered by private-sector employers.

The city counsel passed his plan unanimously.

Well this was just too much for Utah’s legislature. They just couldn’t have gay couples being recognized in Utah, it was too much like gay marriage. Eeeeek.

But they’ve finally found a solution: the registry can be set up and couples can seek to protect their families in this limited way… they just can’t be called “Domestic Partnerships.”

I kid you not.

So in the spirit of cooperation, I offer the following substitute names for the registry:

The Really Really Not Gay Couple Registry,

The We Care More About Pandering to the Right Wing than We Do About Helping Citizens Registry, or

The It Ain’t Marriage Registry.

I think any one of those should pass the scrutiny of the state.

Rights of Gay Maryland Couples Threatened by One LegislatorDem

The Baltimore Sun is reporting that gay couples in Maryland may have to settle, at least for a while, for far less than marriage equality.

Although the state’s legislature is overwhelmingly Democrat, it appears that not only is marriage considered an impossible goal, so too is civil unions or really anything other than small package of selected benefits. And it is all due to one man:

[Sen. C. Anthony ] Muse, a Prince George’s County Democrat, opposes same-sex marriage but had considered supporting civil unions. He said yesterday that while civil unions are “off the table,” he’s concerned about providing equal rights. He said a more narrowly tailored bill could have the support in the full Senate to pass.

Although there are between 340 and 425 benefits provided by the state that could be provided on an equal measure, gay couples can at best expect a trickle.

Lawmakers expect that the alternative measure would combine three existing bills conferring some rights and benefits, such as hospital visitation rights, to same-sex couples into one bill. They plan to build upon that with other protections.

Muse, an evangelical minister, seems to base his objections to civil equality on his own religious beliefs. While this is not uncommon in Republican politics (to the dismay of fiscal conservatives, federalists, and libertarians), the Democrat Party prides itself – and rightly so – in placing equality of citizens as a higher priority than the observation of religious exclusionary traditions.

But as of yet I have not heard of any repercussions to Sen. Muse’s obstinate religously motivated political actions coming from either the state or national Democrat party. Muse seems to be free to dictate discrimination, and it does not appear to me that any Democrats in positions of leadership are willing to stand up to him and call him on his bigotry.

I have no doubt that there are a great many of our readers that are Democrats. Further, I am convinced that members of the gay community are far far more dedicated and contribute more time and money per capita to Democrats than nearly any other constituents.

It is a disgusting betrayal of trust that this state be dominated by Democrats who are willing to give their gay citizens merely the barest pitance. I think it may be time for loyal gay Democrats to contact their friends in Maryland leadership and in the national Democrat leadership and ask why Sen. Muse has been given veto power on providing any measure of equality to gay couples.

Perhaps a good question might be why Sen. Muse continues to sit on that committee.

And if the State or National Party is unwilling to stand up for gay citizens, perhaps the next fundraising appeal should receive the following response from gay party members:

Of course, in words I support the Party. And naturally some day, when the populace is in total agreement about the Democrat Party and such an act isn’t controversial, I’ll send you a check for $1,000. But in the meanwhile, here’s a check for two cents. Oh, and I’ll be sure to tell everyone just what a great person I am for giving you anything at all.

We deserve better, people. Let’s demand it.

C. ANTHONY MUSE
Democrat, District 26, Prince George’s County
James Senate Office Building, Room 304
11 Bladen St., Annapolis, MD 21401
(410) 841-3092, (301) 858-3092
1-800-492-7122, ext. 3092 (toll free)
e-mail: anthony.muse@senate.state.md.us
fax: (410) 841-3410, (301) 858-3410

Maryland Democratic Party
188 Main Street Suite 1
Annapolis, MD 21401
410-269-8818 (main)
410-280-8882 (fax)
webdem@mddems.org

Democratic National Committee
430 S. Capitol St. SE
Washington, DC 20003
Main Phone Number: 202-863-8000
(For questions about contributions, please call 877-336-7200)
email here

Now An Entire Association of Anthropologists Disagrees With Stanton

Focus On the Family’s Glenn Stanton has really stepped into it this time. In Monday’s CitizenLink, he claimed that there’s a “clear consensus” among anthropologists that “A family is a unit that draws from the two types of humanity, male and female.”

But as we quickly learned, anthropologists vehemently disagree on what Stanton claims they agree on. The University of California at Irvine’s Anthropology Chair Bill Maurer and Associate Professor Tom Boellstorff reviewed ten thousand years of human existence and concluded:

[T]here is not now, and there never has been, one single definition of marriage. Marriage may be universal; but what counts as marriage is not.

And Dr. Patrick M. Chapman, anthropologist and author of the upcoming book “Thou Shalt Not Love”: What Evangelicals Really Say to Gays wrote to Box Turtle Bulletin with this:

… [A]pproximately 75 percent of the world’s cultures view polygamy as the preferred form of marriage. Furthermore, anthropologists document that cultures on every continent, excluding Antarctica, have accepted and recognized same-sex marriages.

Now comes word that the entire American Anthropological Association has joined the act with this letter to Focus On the Family (Emphasis in the original):

Dear Sir:

My name is Damon Dozier, and I am the American Anthropological Association (AAA) Director of Public Affairs. In this capacity, I am responsible for the Association’s full range of government relations, media relations, and international affairs programs. Founded in 1902, the AAA—11,000 members strong—is the world’s largest organization of men and women interested in anthropology. Its purposes are to encourage research, promote the public understanding of anthropology, and foster the use of anthropological information in addressing human problems.

I write to address the gross misrepresentation of the position of the anthropological community on gay marriage in your March 3, 2008 Citizen Link press release, “Anthropologists Agree on Traditional Definition of Marriage.” In the release, Glenn Stanton, an employee of your organization who does not identify himself as an anthropologist, asserts that “a family is a unit that draws from the two types of humanity, male and female.”

In point of fact, the AAA Executive Board issued in 2004, the following statement in response to President Bush’s proposal for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage:

The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.

I am alarmed and dismayed at this example of irresponsible journalism and deliberate misrepresentation of the anthropological community. In the future it is my hope that your organization will accurately and honestly convey and communicate the views and interests of the AAA, its 11,000 members, and the social science community at large.

Damon Dozier
Director of Public Affairs
American Anthropological Association
2200 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600
Arlington, VA 22201
703.528.1902
ddozier@aaanet.org

You can read the full AAA Statement on Marriage and the Family here.

See also:
Now An Entire Association of Anthropologists Disagrees With Stanton
Another Real Anthropologist Speaks About Marriage
Focus’ Glenn T. Stanton Speaks For Anthropologists

Washington State Senate Passes Domestic Partnership Improvements

UPDATED: see below

As we reported earlier, the Washington State legislature has been considering a bill beefing up domestic partnerships. The House passed the bill in mid-February. It has now moved one step further:

The Senate passed House Bill 3104, proposed by Rep. Jamie Pedersen, D-Seattle, by 29-20 along a mostly party-line vote.

The bill grants same-sex couples additional rights — including the ability to share bank accounts, the right to hold common property and immunity from testifying against one’s partner in court. Divorce rights — including child-custody provisions — were also granted.

The measure now goes to Gov. Chris Gregoire, who is expected to sign it into law.

UPDATE:

3/13/07

Domestic partners will be granted more than 170 of the benefits and responsibilities given to married couples under a measure signed into law Wednesday by Gov. Chris Gregoire.

The measure adds domestic partners to sections of laws where previously only spouses were mentioned, including areas referring to probate and trusts, community property and homestead exemptions, and guardianship and powers of attorney.

Another Real Anthropologist Speaks About Marriage

We’ve heard from Anthropology Chair Bill Maurer and Associate Professor Tom Boellstorff at UC Irvine on Glenn Stanton’s assertion of what “anthropologists agree” on about marriage. Now it’s Dr Patrick M. Chapman’s turn. He’s another real live anthropologist and author of the upcoming book “Thou Shalt Not Love”: What Evangelicals Really Say to Gays (Haiduk Press, 2008):

Anthropologists Reject “Traditional” definition of Marriage
By Patrick M. Chapman, PhD

A recent article from Focus on the Family’s CitizenLink suggests that “anthropologists agree on traditional definition of marriage.” This statement is true only if they reference what anthropologists consider traditional, not the Focus on the Family opinion that marriage is solely between one man and one woman.

The article also states “There are two definitions of marriage in today’s culture – one of them has been around for centuries; the other is brand new.” Once again, this statement is true. However, Focus on the Family is confused as to which definition has been around for centuries and which is new. Anthropologists, historians and sociologists all recognize the “one man with one woman” definition of marriage to be very recent and not representative of how marriage is or has been expressed throughout the world. For example, in Marriage, a History historian Stephanie Coontz documents the changes that occurred in Western marriages over the last few centuries. Her research demonstrates that what Focus on the Family calls “traditional marriage” developed over the last 200 years, reaching its current form only in the middle of the last century.

Anthropologists often define marriage as a social, political, or economic contract between two individuals and their families – this does not imply monogamy, as a man with five wives has five separate marriage contracts. In fact, approximately 75 percent of the world’s cultures view polygamy as the preferred form of marriage. Furthermore, anthropologists document that cultures on every continent, excluding Antarctica, have accepted and recognized same-sex marriages. For examples, the Azande of Africa used the same rituals and words for same-sex marriages as they did opposite-sex marriages; three percent of all marriages among the Nandi of Kenya were between two women; same-sex marriages were common in Micronesian cultures with the married couple often adopting children and raising them with no ill effects whatsoever.

In 2004 the American Anthropological Association, the largest association of anthropologists in the United States, issued an official statement opposing the proposed federal marriage amendment, indicating:

The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.

The Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association strongly opposes a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.

Suggesting anthropologists support Focus on the Family’s “traditional definition of marriage” is patently, unequivocally wrong.

See also:
Now An Entire Association of Anthropologists Disagrees With Stanton
Another Real Anthropologist Speaks About Marriage
Focus’ Glenn T. Stanton Speaks For Anthropologists

Focus’ Glenn T. Stanton Speaks For Anthropologists

From Focus’ Citizenlink publication:

Glenn Stanton, director of global family formation studies at Focus on the Family, said there’s a clear consensus among anthropologists.

“A family is a unit that draws from the two types of humanity, male and female,” he said. “Those two parts of humanity join together, create new life and they both cooperate in the legitimization of the child, if you will, and the development of the child.”

Stanton doesn’t give a source for claiming this consensus nor is Stanton an anthropologist himself. Stanton’s bio on Focus’ website only lists a master’s degree in interdisciplinary humanities with an emphasis in philosophy, history and religion from the University of West Florida.

I thought I’d see what an actual anthropologist had to say about the matter. To be specific, Bill Maurer, the anthropology department chair at the University of California, Irvine. I sent Focus’ article to Maurer who penned this response (reprinted in full) with a fellow professor:

Since its beginnings as a scientific discipline in the 19th century, anthropology has documented the historical and cultural variability of marriage and family forms. From ghost marriages to “female husbands” to polyandry, polygamy and cousin marriage, the cultures of the world exhibit incredible diversity in how they manage the universal problems of cultural transmission and the reproduction and care of the next generation. Indeed, Lewis Henry Morgan, one of the field’s forefathers, documented hundreds of distinct kinship arrangements. For over a hundred years, anthropologists have continually surprised themselves and other Western observers with the diversity of family and marriage arrangements deemed sacred, valuable, and morally necessary for the reproduction of society. The American Anthropological Association, the oldest and largest professional organization for anthropologists, affirms this diversity and noted its support for gay marriage in 2004-05. In fact, the Association requires academic recruiters who advertise with its service to state whether they provide benefits to same-sex partners and whether they forbid discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. It does this because the scientific evidence is on its side: there is not now, and there never has been, one single definition of marriage. Marriage may be universal; but what counts as marriage is not. The current American political debate is thus quite parochial when seen from the point of view of 10,000 years of human history.

For more information: American Anthropological Association; on the gay marriage debate, see this link.

Bill Maurer
Professor and Chair
Department of Anthropology, University of California, Irvine
and
President, Association for Political and Legal Anthropology

Tom Boellstorff
Associate Professor
Department of Anthropology, University of California, Irvine
Editor-in-Chief, American Anthropologist, and
Former co-Chair, Society of Lesbian and Gay Anthropologists

See also:
Now An Entire Association of Anthropologists Disagrees With Stanton
Another Real Anthropologist Speaks About Marriage
Focus’ Glenn T. Stanton Speaks For Anthropologists

California Supreme Court Heard Marriage Arguments

Today the CA Supreme Court heard argument for and against requiring the state to provide civil marriage recognition to all of its citizens without regard to their sexual orientation.

The LA Times reports that the justices appear to be split on their thinking.

During three hours of arguments by lawyers for and against gay marriage, Justice Joyce L. Kennard questioned whether “the state has effectively conceded there is no valid grounds for distinction” between domestic partnership and marriage.

But at least three of the seven justices repeatedly noted that California voters have defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and that the public might not be ready to embrace same-sex marriage.

For audio clips from the pleadings, check out Good As You

The court will make its decision within the next 90 days.

Iowa Anti-Gay Activists Join Forces

Chuck Hurley of the Iowa Family Policy Center and Keith Ratliff , pastor of Des Moines’ Maple Street Missionary Baptist Church, have found a common cause: fear and loathing of the “homosexual agenda”.

Having met in their quest to deny gay couples any protections, the Des Moines Register reports that the two have become closer:

And on this Sunday morning, Ratliff looked up from his pulpit and saw Chuck Hurley, the former state legislator, walk in with his family. A while back, Hurley and his organization, the Iowa Family Policy Center, had organized a rally at which Ratliff spoke against same-sex marriage. They’d become fast friends.

But never before had Hurley brought his family to Ratliff’s mostly black church.

The choir belted out hymns. Hurley’s 10-year-old son, Tim, a vivacious boy who loved to sing and dance, swayed with the music.

The church quieted. Ratliff introduced his friend. Hurley put his hand on his son’s shoulder. The family had been searching for a wholesome, soulful place for Tim to express his God-given talents. They’d found that place.

“This is Tim,” Hurley said. “He’d like to join your kids choir.”

The church erupted in applause.

I do think it admirable that the Hurleys are supportive of their son and seek to find him a way to express himself. However, I wonder where this will lead.

Vivacious young boys who love to sing and dance tend to grow up to be vivacious young men that perform in musicals. And, as such, young Tim Hurley is quite likely to become close friends with a number of gay young men and will come to see that these young men are not the scourge of society nor the enemies of sacred institutions. He may even come to strongly believe that his father’s claim that homosexuality is based in “choice” is, at best, ignorant and hurtful.

Those who love the musical arts frequently are among the most vocal and convicted supporters of equality for gays and lesbians. And for this reason I hope that the love the Hurleys have for their son will be strong enough to overcome their fear and their loathing and that they will come to see that their drive “to speak up against” homosexuality may be based in their own biases and not a command by God.

If not, young Tim Hurley may have a tough row to hoe.

Illinois Senator Introduces Civil Unions Bill

From the Pekin Daily Times we find that

State Sen. David Koehler is proposing legislation that would legalize civil unions in Illinois and entitle unmarried couples – including those of the same sex – to the same protections and benefits currently afforded to traditional married couples.

Thank you, Senator Koehler for sponsoring the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act (a copy is here).

The bill was introduced in the House on 2/22/07 by state rep Greg Harris. It seems to have languored in the Rules committee. We wish Sen. Koehler much more success.

Hospital Visitation Denied Again

Opponents to gay marriage routinely claim that gay couples can get all the legal protections of marriage through other means. Well that’s a crock:

Four months ago, Lacey resident Janice Langbehn, her partner Lisa Pond and their children Katie, David and Danielle, ages 10 to 13, were set for a relaxing cruise from Miami to the Bahamas.

But Pond, Langbehn’s partner for nearly 18 years, was stricken in Miami with a brain aneurysm and died. The family says the way they were treated by hospital staff compounded their shock and grief.

Langbehn, a social worker, said officials at the University of Miami, Jackson Memorial Hospital did not recognize her or their jointly adopted children as part of Pond’s family. They were not allowed to be with her in the emergency room, and Langbehn’s authority to make decisions for Pond was not recognized.

Here’s the kicker:

After Pond was taken to the emergency room, Langbehn said she was informed by a social worker that they were in an “anti-gay state” and that they needed legal paperwork before Langbehn could see Pond. Even after a friend in Olympia faxed the legal documents that showed that Pond had authorized Langbehn to make medical decisions for her, Langbehn said she wasn’t invited to be with her partner or told anything about her condition.

That’s right. Even with all of the legal paperwork in hand (and even though a straight couple would not have to show any sort of proof), Janice still wasn’t allowed to make any medical conditions, or even to sit alongside her partner as she lay dying. It took a Catholic priest to finally intervene as he administered last rites.

The doctors’ attitudes suddenly changed when they discovered that Lisa was an organ donor candidate. But since her death, the hospital reversed course again. The still haven’t given Janice Lisa’s medical records, and the county hasn’t provided her Lisa’s death certificate, items needed for their two children’s Social Security benefits.

Washington House Votes to Beef Up Domestic Partnerships

In April 2007 the State of Washington established Domestic Partnerships. Yesterday the House voted to add specific protections to these relationships.

The measure adds domestic partners to sections of laws where previously only spouses were mentioned, including areas referring to probate and trusts, community property and homestead exemptions, and guardianship and powers of attorney.

The measure makes dozens of changes to state law, including requiring domestic partners of public officials to submit financial disclosure forms, just as the spouses of heterosexual officials do.

It also would give domestic partners the same spousal testimony rights that married couples have, allowing domestic partners the right to refuse to testify against each other in court.

The bill passed 62 to 32.

Yes, 32 people decided that not just the establishment of a legal relationship, but these specific rights, should be denied gay couples. Somehow they think this is just protecting the family and society and isn’t just anti-gay. They love gay people, ya know, they just don’t think they should have homestead exemptions.

Sigh.

The Senate companion bill is currently winding its way through committees.

Maryland AG Endorses Marriage Equality

As we have noted before, the current front in the battle for marriage is in Maryland. Now WBAL is reporting that the Attorney General has spoke in favor of marriage equality.

“In five, 10, 15 years, there is no question in my mind we will have gay marriage in the state of Maryland and across the United States,” said Gansler, who acknowledged his arguments would be unpopular with some but that he was obliged as the state’s top lawyer to seek justice.

Interestingly, Gansler was the one who successfully defended the state’s anti-marriage legislation before the Supreme Court last year. Nevertheless, he can see that defending a legislature’s right to make a decision doesn’t make that decision right.

“All of us have gay friends, right? If you say to somebody, I’m not going to stand up for you, what good are you?” Gansler said.

That is a message that I wish everyone would hear.

See also:
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

Let Them End the Marriage They Cannot Enter

Massachusetts has a law that they will not recognize marriages between non-residents if their marriage would not be recognized in their home state. Because of a plethora of anti-gay amendments and the peculiarities of state laws, only Rhode Island’s gay residents may marry in Massachusetts.

Rhode Island recognizes Massachusetts’ marriages between persons of the same sex, but will not recognize marriages between the same citizens if they stayed home and married. Yeah, it’s confusing, but here comes the oddest part: only Massachusetts residents can divorce in Massachusetts.

But what are they to do if some couple goes to Massachusetts, marries, returns, and then decides to break up. Well the state Supreme Court said that they are not entitled to a divorce – unless the legislature should decide to change the law. It seems that Rhode Island gay marriages are more permanent than even “Covenant Marriages“.

But now there is a proposed solution. No, not treating gay tax payers like their heterosexual neighbors and allowing them to solemnize their commitments.

House Majority Leader Gordon Fox says he’ll file a bill in the General Assembly that would allow married gay couples to divorce.

Recognizing that any battle for equality is a worthy effort, gay Rhode Islanders and those who love them are welcoming this bill.

Steven Brown, executive director of the Rhode Island Affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union, said that regardless of where one stands on the issue of same-sex marriage, legalizing a couple’s ability to file for divorce just makes sense.

“Absolutely no public policy is served by requiring people to stay married when they have no desire to do so,” Brown said.

Oh, but there’s opposition. Those who oppose equality will fight this bill and it may well be vetoed by the Republican Governor, Don Carcieri.

Ironically, this may be a situation in which anti-gays are so opposed to gay marriages that they’ll insist on keeping them intact.

California Marriage Decision Due Before Summer

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the State Supreme Court has announced the date on which it will hear oral arguments over the state’s restriction of marriage to heterosexual couples.

A court scheduled a special three-hour hearing, three times as long as its usual sessions, for March 4 to consider lawsuits filed by the city of San Francisco and same-sex couples challenging the California law that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. A ruling is due within 90 days of the hearing.

This brings an announcement some time by June 4, 2008. It will be interesting to see whether a pro-marriage decision will have any impact on the national presidential campaign.

[Hat tip Good As You]

Tuesday was Super Duper for Gay Americans

At the conclusion of “America’s Primary”, the presidential primaries remain exciting. Senators Clinton and Obama are very close in delegate count and no one can know for certain whom will bear the Democrat banner.

Senator McCain is significantly ahead in delegate count and barring some unexpected event is likely to be the nominee. While there is still some life in the Republican primary and peculiar things do happen in politics, at the moment we will assume that McCain will be running against either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama.

But what does that mean to gay Americans?

Quite a bit, actually. Below I will explore where the candidates stand on a few issues that are of particular importance to our community.

Marriage

None of the three support marriage equality. Yet none of the three candidates are in favor of a constitutional amendment barring states from instituting or recognizing marriage between gay couples.

Interestingly, John McCain may have the most invested in opposing such an amendment. Citing his federalist ideals, McCain argued passionately on the floor of the Senate against the passage of the amendment.

However, this does not mean that McCain is in favor of gay marriage. Although he has expressed in the past that he is in favor of some recognition of gay couples, he campaigned for a constitutional amendment banning both marriage and any other form of recognition in his own state. It lost.

But in any case, with McCain as the Republican nominee, this election cycle is unlikely to have banning gay marriage as any central theme.

It is uncertain to what extent any candidate would champion rights for gay couples.

Both Senators Clinton and Obama have expressed approval of overturning the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), or at least that portion of it that defines federal recognition of marriage as being only between a man and a woman.

Senator McCain is very much in favor of that part of DOMA that releases states from recognizing gay marriages performed in other states. Senator Clinton also seems to favor keeping that restriction in place. From a pragmatic point of view, I too want this upheld for some time as I think that without it a federal marriage ban would have much more support.

There is some question as to whether McCain could support the federal recognition of marriage as defined by the various states (overturning that half of DOMA), especially those which do so by means of positive legislative action. His federalist philosophy may well override his personal affinity to an opposite sex definition of marriage if the appropriate argument was presented.

Ultimately, the decision to overturn DOMA is up to Congress. And while a vote for Clinton or Obama could be argued to be a mandate to overturn the bill, a McCain election would probably not be construed to be a mandate to keep it in place.

The most significant impact that the new President will have on the lives of gay persons in relationships will be on appointments to Department heads. On that level, it is likely that gay couples will fare better overall under Democrats than Republicans. However, it is also likely that McCain’s appointments will be far more centrist and moderate than those of some other Republicans.

ENDA

Both Clinton and Obama back non-discrimination in housing and employment.

It appears that McCain does not favor ENDA. It is unknown whether his opposition rises to the level of a veto should Congress pass the legislation.

DADT

Both Clinton and Obama have expressed interest in overturning DADT.

McCain has hedged his bets a bit. He claims that senior military officers claim that the policy is working. This leaves him open to change in policy should “senior military officers” tell him that the policy is no longer a necessity.

Judicial Nominees

This is a subject that is raised as being of paramount importance for the advancement of any faction’s social agenda. But it is also the least easy to predict.

Conservative Republicans have nominated judges for the bench, and even the Supreme Court that have championed causes that conservatives find abhorrent. And Democrats have appointed judges whose decisions were decidedly conservative.

Ironically, many of the decisions decried as the actions of “liberal activist judges” were made by conservative judges taking positions that were strictly constructed rather than simply parroting the platitudes of their political friends. It is my personal opinion that those judges who are most exact in their interpretation of law will eventually be those judges that establish equality for gay persons – and on such terms that their decisions will be difficult to fault. Equality under the law is, at its heart, a conservative ideal.

We can assume that to some extent Democrats will appoint judges that are somewhat more approachable on gay issues than will a Republican. But McCain is no usual Republican when it comes to judicial appointments.

In 2005, Senator McCain was part of the “gang of 14”, a group of moderate Senators of both parties that stood in the way of filibuster efforts to force controversial and highly partisan judges through approval. While McCain has promised to appoint “strict constructionist judges”, it is unlikely that he would make appointments based on partisan ideals or conservative ideology that did not have bipartisan respect. An adamantly anti-gay judge is unlikely to make McCain’s list.

Overall Comfort and Access

The candidate with the most comfort and ease with gay people, Rudy Giuliani, has been eliminated from the running. But all of the remaining credible candidates have demonstrated that they are more-or-less approachable to our community.

Hillary Clinton will probably continue in the vein of her husband and her Senate career. She will probably not be closely aligned to our community and will likely place us lower in priority if she needs to broker a deal, but she has been known to have some gay friends – at least in the past. She is likely to give access to gay groups and perhaps appoint a gay liaison.

Barack Obama is more difficult to measure. His religious community has a strong social justice history and is officially favorable to gay equality. But his campaign has shown insensitivity to the community by pushing forward some within the black community that have a history of homophobia and support for the ex-gay movement. However, he has strong gay support and has spoken out against homophobia. It is likely that Obama will provide access to gay groups.

John McCain is a social conservative, but this seems to be tempered by a federalist streak. Further, I have watched McCain for many years and have yet to see an overtly hostile attitude towards gay people. I recall many years ago when Lon Mabon’s anti-gay group, the Oregon Citizen Alliance, invited him to speak, McCain came and gave them a little lecture about being tolerant of others with whom they disagree.

Some have expressed alarm over robo-calls made by McCain’s campaign that discussed “special rights”, but the candidate did pull the calls immediately upon being informed of their content. It’s difficult to know to what extent McCain approved the calls, but the content seemed inconsistent with his history.

The jury is still out on McCain, but I don’t anticipate anti-gay activism to be a part of his campaign or his administration. Further, as the more homophobic elements of the Republican Party have been openly attacking him, McCain may not feel that he owes anything to them if elected. I am cautiously optimistic that McCain would give access and a fair hearing on gay issues.

Conclusion

Gay people should be encouraged with the current state of the elections.

While true gay champions such as Kucinich or Gravel have been eliminated as possible nominees, the two remaining Democrat candidates support gay equality, if to a somewhat lesser degree. While I personally don’t see much conviction in their support, we can be sure that gay people will not be treated with hostility by either administration.

Further, gay people should be overjoyed that Huckabee’s theocratic campaign has been all-but-eliminated from any chance of winning. A Huckabee administration would prioritize anti-gay discrimination as part of a Kingdom of God in America agenda.

In the upcoming national election I anticipate that the differences between the two candidates (whomever they turn out to be) on gay issues will have little resonance or impact on the election. We will not have to spend the rest of the year hearing about how marriage needs to be “protected”. Nor will we hear about “San Francisco Values” or an “attack on the family”.

And I anticipate that the next President, regardless of party, will not be overtly hostile to gay people or gay couples and may indeed be open to arguments about equality under the law.