Box Turtle Bulletin

Cook county: “my bad”

In a scenario reminiscent of the Proposition 8 trial in California, the lawsuit against the state of Illinois is having difficulty finding opposition.

The official defendant of the state’s discriminatory policy is David Orr, the Cook County Clerk. But Orr has filed a brief saying, basically, “yep, my bad, it’s discrimination all right”. The Illinois Attorney General intends on filing a brief indicating that it is his her belief that banning gay marriage is a violation of the constitution and the Governor is booking his seat on the Equality Train, as well.

So who will defend discrimination?

It may be the Thomas More Society, a Chicago-based Catholic legal group created to defend abortion protesters (not to be confused with the very truly evil Thomas More Law Center). As best I can tell the TMSociety does nothing but defend the crazy people who try and shove aborted-fetus placards in your face and they are likely to find themselves completely unprepared for the challenge.

Mormons for Marriage in Washington

We will win our battle for equality. And when we do, many of those who do not support us today will be cheering.

The irony is that equality is a value that people believe in and the exceptions made so as to disenfranchise gay people from our place in the social fabric are flimsy and it is only prejudice and tradition and ignorance that allow them to sound reasonable.

And those who live their lives under a structure of faith-based love are rapidly discovering them to be contrary to what they believe. As they come to join us, they will so because of their faith – not despite it – and will advocate with religious fervor and zeal.

Religion Dispatches interviewed Sara Long and Scott Holley about what led them to become pro-gay Mormons and their efforts towards equality in Washington State. I found about eight things I wanted to copy and write about here – which was about the whole interview and way too much – so you have to go read it yourself.

But the heart of it lies in this:

SL: Yes, when my children grow up I want them to look back and know that I did something during this civil rights effort. I want to make it clear that I did everything I could to advocate for equality.

[Note: above corrected: “…they will so not because of their faith – not despite it…”]

Moderate Christians begin to speak up

There is a fairly new but growing trend in Christianity: moderate Christians who have finally decided that far right conservatives will not be the only face of the faith. I’ve been saying for a while that if moderates don’t speak up that they have only themselves to blame if the unchurched think that all Christians are extremists and homophobes. But now they are speaking up.

In Minnesota, ministers from different denominations have joined together to oppose the proposed marriage ban. (Necn.com)

Among the latter was the Rev. Kelly Chatman, lead pastor of Redeemer Lutheran Church in Minneapolis. He took take a public stand against the amendment, he said Friday, “because I don’t want that other voice to be the only voice, I don’t want same-sex people to see all churches that way.

“I’m doing this because it’s important people see a pastor who believes that God is loving to everybody.”
…
Plenty of prominent Minnesota denominations have come out squarely against the amendment. Five Minnesota synods of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America have approved formal resolutions in opposition to the marriage amendment. Earlier this month, the general assembly of Minnesota’s United Methodists overwhelmingly approved a resolution against the amendment.

This is so important for us for two reasons: first, it is essential that people not believe that the position of all people of faith is to support discrimination or that this is what God wants (many who never darken a church door will do “what God wants” on an issue they are not real clear on).

But as important is that when ministers begin to see this as a matter of justice and what they believe to be consistent with the call of Christ, they can get pretty worked up about it. And they can inspire their congregations to become allies for equality. And little old Methodist church ladies can reach people we have no access to with the message of “well, I just believe God wants us to treat gay people the way we want to be treated”. And that is a very powerful message indeed.

And I think that when compared to the other voices, those who call for equality, justice, and mercy have a natural advantage. They don’t sound like this:

The Rev. Bryan Pedersen of Sacred Heart Catholic Church in Robbinsdale, said he’s been approached by parishioners at odds with his own public stand for the amendment.

“Every one of them will be accountable to God for how they’re informed by their conscience,” Pedersen said. “The definition of marriage is non-negotiable.”

Is the Telegraph’s John Bingham a lying scoundrel or a blithering idiot?

Bingham: liar or dunce?

John Bingham, the Social and Religious Affairs Editor on the Daily Telegraph, is either shamelessly lying in promotion of his opposition to equality in Britain or he is the biggest dunce to ever grace the pages of that newspaper. Bingham, without a moment’s hesitation repeated the “conclusions” of a “poll of homosexual people” paid for by Catholic Voices in order to bolster their claim that civil partnerships are enough and that the nation should not allow gay people equality.

The first poll of its kind in Britain also found that only a minority of gay people believe redefining marriage should be a “priority” and only half said that having the opportunity to marry was important to them personally.

By now our readers are well familiar with the difference between a poll that seeks to find out how the populace feels about a subject and a “poll” which uses loaded language, confusing questions, and a series of statements and prior questions in order to get a completely false and unrepresentative “conclusion” that can be used deceptively for public relations purposes. Clearly, Bingham is not a reader.

ComRes does not easily provide the methods used for sampling. The one item we do know is that their survey of “homosexual people” excluded “heterosexuals” and “refuse to answer” but includes the categories “gay/lesbian” and “bisexual” and “other” (ah, good old “other”). And considering that this is a candidate for (if not the very) worst example of a loaded poll that I’ve reviewed, I think it is far more likely than not that it too was rigged. [Update: it was an “online survey”, a polling method a step or two higher than “asking my friends and family”]

Here were the questions. Yes, you will laugh. Yes, you will find yourself muttering, “God, Bingham is a dunce not to see through this!”

Does each of the following apply to you or not?
• I am in a Civil Partnership
• I am not in a Civil Partnership but would seriously consider it
• I do not ever intend to be in a Civil Partnership
• I would get married to my partner if the law permitted it

Each category allows for “applies”, “does not apply”, and “don’t know”. So a person in a Civil Partnership might answer yes or no to marriage, but the deliberately ambiguous language encourages a “doesn’t apply” response from those who strongly support marriage, but are currently partnerless.

Does each of the following apply to you or not?
• I am against marriage as an institution
• I support marriage as an institution but only between a man and a woman
• It is important to me that marriage is extended to same-sex couples
• Insisting that Civil Partnership and marriage remain separate and distinct worsens public attitudes towards gay people

Again, it encourages those who oppose marriage as an institution to say that it is unimportant that marriage be extended to same-sex couples – a number that the Catholic Deceivers wanted to be as low as possible.

But now on to the question that qualifies this as a serious contender for “worst poll ever”. I mean even Maggie Gallagher wouldn’t put out this poll – and that’s really saying something.

Do you agree or disagree with these statements?
• David Cameron is only trying to extend marriage to LGBT people to make his Party look more compassionate rather than because of his convictions
• Generally speaking the best environment for children is to be raised by their own father and mother in a loving relationship
• Marriage is more about love between two people than it is about rearing and raising children
• I think redefining marriage is a priority for gay people
• True marriage equality would mean that same-sex couples could marry in places of worship as well as in civil locations
• Faith groups should be forced to allow gay weddings in places of worship
• There is no need to change the law on marriage because Civil Partnerships give all the same rights as marriage

How do you even answer this bullsh!t? Now do you think that “redefining marriage” is a “priority” for gay people? I don’t, so I would “disagree”. But then again I’ve never met a gay person who wanted to redefine marriage at all, though I know plenty who very much want to join the institution just as it is – except without discriminatory entrance requirements.

But absent a question that actually makes sense and reflects the views of the people being questioned, 39% “agreed”. I don’t even know what that means. But John Bingham thinks it means something so he parroted what the Catholic Deceivers fed him.

And look at the loaded “Faith groups should be forced to allow gay weddings in places of worship”. Obviously “forced” is thrown in there to make martyrs of the Catholic Deceivers. Say “no” to forcing and you don’t support marriage. Say “yes” to forcing and you hate religion and are tying to impose your will on people of faith.

But even beyond that, it’s vague and meaningless. Does that mean their places of worship? I would say, “no, Catholics should not be forced to allow gay weddings in Catholic Churches.” But that isn’t the issue in Britain. Rather, Catholics are trying to deny gay people the ability to marry in any places of worship, even those who are petitioning the government to allow them the religious freedom of conducting marriages in their own churches. So I could say “yes, Catholics should not be allowed to block gay weddings in churches that are none of their business”.

And after all of that confusion and nonsense and deception and intentionally vague wording, we come to the question that they are trying to drive: Do you agree or disagree that “There is no need to change the law on marriage because Civil Partnerships give all the same rights as marriage.”

Huh? I’m hearing double negatives so could you repeat the question?

And joy of all joys, they got 26% of respondents to say that they agreed. Yeah, mostly older and mostly rural, but hey they managed to get some positive response to that.

Which brings them to what they surely saw as the icing on the cake. Get ready to laugh. This is the question that would have led any responsible newspaper to say, “I’m sorry, we don’t print bullsh!t here.”

Do you agree or disagree with these statements?
• I’m glad I was raised by both a mother and a father because it means I can relate to both sexes

Really? Could they be more obvious? And what on earth does that have to do with the decision to support marriage rather than civil partnerships?

Okay, at least they didn’t follow it up with, “And why do you hate your Mum and Dad?” But to the credit of British gays, only 37% fell to the temptation to support Mum and Dad. So that question slipped out of the article somehow.

But while championing the completely bogus numbers in this completely bogus poll would have been dishonest, they went for the big lie. And having the mental competency of the average church mouse (or having not one smidgen of personal integrity), Bingham went along for the ride.

Looking at results for this ludicrous nonsense, Bingham announces

The poll suggests that support for changing the law to redefine marriage among the homosexual community could be more lukewarm than previously thought.

Or it suggests that Catholic Deceivers are a bunch or liars and you are a complete fool. I’m betting on the latter.

A Friday cute moment

The Telegraph ran a really stupid article about some completely bogus poll (biased language – push questions – meaningless sample) paid for by Catholic Voices (why are they such liars? Really, do they honestly think that God is hunky-dory with deception in his name?) And the author didn’t question a single claim. I could go on for pages about just how invalid this is, but it’s Friday so I’ll just let it go for this thread (though I may take it up elsewhere). but you can see it here.)

However, they did use this photograph. And, considering that the big news yesterday was about Denmark voting for marriage, without reading the article I responded to the pic. And my immediate thoughts were, “How cute.. and, yep, they’re Danes.”

Photo: ALAMY

The Federal Government already does recognize your marriage in Los Angeles

In the spate of DOMA challenges, I think it might provoke thought to rehash a DOMA case from last year. One in which the Federal Government conceded that – at least in some cases – same-sex married couples are, indeed, married.

February 24, 2011 – Gene Balas and Carlos Morales jointly filed for Chapter 13 Bankruptcy (a cooling down time to allow them to come up with a repayment plan).

March 28, 2011 – the attorney representing the Office of the United States Trustee at their initial hearing, noted that both Balas and Morales were male and therefore could not file a joint petition.

April 15, 2011 – the Trustee’s objection was formalized by Motion to Dismiss.

May 11, 2011 – this was the date set for hearing. The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (Paul Clement, under the direction of House Speaker Boehner) requested an extension until June 13, 2011.

June 13 2011 – BLAG filed no objections to the statements and arguments of Balas and Morales. Finding the the government’s “non-response to the Debtors’ challenges” to be noteworthy, Federal Bankruptcy Judge Thomas Donovan sided with the Debtors.

The Debtors have demonstrated that DOMA violates their equal protection rights afforded under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, either under heightened scrutiny or under rational basis review. Debtors also have demonstrated that there is no valid governmental basis for DOMA. In the end, the court finds that DOMA violates the equal protection rights of the Debtors as recognized under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.

In a rather unusual action, 20 of the 24 Central California Bankruptcy Court judges signed the ruling.

June 27, 2011 – the US Trustee appealed the decision.

June 30, 2011 – seven Trustees (that serve cases under the US Trustee) requested immediate certification of appeal to the Ninth Circuit, expressing concern that there was no certainty at the level on which it was decided (I know and work with several of these Trustees and they most certainly are supportive of marriage equality).

July 6, 2011 – noting that the President and Justice Department would no longer defend DOMA3 the US Trustee requested to withdraw his appeal.

The Department of Justice has advised the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (the “BLAG”) of the pendency of this appeal, and the BLAG has responded that it does not intend to appear to present arguments in support of Section 3 of DOMA. The BLAG is actively participating in litigation in several other courts in which the constitutionality of Section 3 has been challenged. In light of the decision by the BLAG not to participate in this appeal and the availability of other judicial fora for resolution of the constitutional question, the United States Trustee has determined that it is not a necessary or appropriate expenditure of the resources of this Court and the parties to continue to litigate the appeal.

July 11, 2011 – the appeal was dismissed. Balas and Morales continued with their joint bankruptcy as the married couple that they are.

So how, exactly, does this play into the whole scheme of DOMA challenges? It would appear that if you file for bankruptcy in Los Angeles, then the Federal Government considers your marriage to be valid. It would be most curious if Balas and Morales were to make a social security claim based on marriage; how could the government object? It has already conceded that they are married.

Denmark legalizes marriage equality

ABC News

Denmark’s Parliament has approved a law allowing same-sex couples to get married in formal church weddings instead of the short blessing ceremonies that the state’s Lutheran Church currently offers.

Lawmakers voted 85-24 on Thursday to change Denmark’s marriage laws.

The law takes effect June 15 and will put Denmark on par with countries such as Iceland and Sweden that allow full wedding ceremonies for gay and lesbian couples.

Not exactly detailed by ABC is that the change moves Denmark’s couple recognition from Registered Partnership to Marriage. Which makes Denmark the 11th or 12th nation to give its citizens full couple recognition equality (depending on how one counts Mexico where you can only marry in two states but the marriages are recognized throughout the country).

Someone dropped a house on DOMA – again

Okay by now it’s clear that DOMA is pretty much dead and it just doesn’t know it yet.

In the case of Edie Windsor, Federal Judge Barbara S. Jones has now informed the government that it cannot tax Windsor differently than any other widow. In Edie’s case, the ‘gay tax’ charged to her was $363,053.

When Edie’s wife died, Edie inherited her wife’s estate. Now normally, when a spouse inherits no inheritance tax is assessed. However, due to DOMA, gays get special treatment. We get the special right to pay more taxes than straight people (funny, anti-marriage conservatives never talk about this).

But Judge Jones said no. Nope. Nada. Nosireeee. No brainer.

As in “Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is granted“.

Which makes this about, oh idunno, the fifth time that a Federal Judge has said that DOMA violated the US Constitution. And after that many whacks in the head by flying floorboards, it’s dead. Grab those shoes and look out for some really angry flying monkeys.

A vietnamese wedding report

I find it interesting to see how other cultures approach issues of sexuality.

In this article in the VietNamNet Bridge (in English) one can sense both the authors fascination with an unfamiliar subject along with a effort to be serious and unsensational.

In its announcement released on May 30, ICS supported the wedding of Nguyen Hoang Bao Quoc and Truong Van Hen, reasoning that holding wedding party without marriage registration is completely legal. This organization praised the two men for being brave to overcome social discrimination to live with their true nature.

“Love and be loved is not the privilege of any gender. The right to seek happiness is the most fundamental right of everyone. ICS is glad because your love is supported by your families, who organized a wedding for you. This is a humane activity based on parents’ love for their children…,” the press release wrote.
…

Washington’s Ref 74 soon to be a reality

Those who are gathering signatures for R-74, a referendum on Washington’s November ballot putting that state’s marriage law up to confirmation from the voters, are predicting that they will turn in sufficient ballots to ensure qualification on next Tuesday. They will need 120,577 valid signatures, have about 150,000 from volunteers and project that when paid signatures are added in the total will exceed 200,000.

Three years ago, a sister referendum putting domestic partnership expansions before the voters (Ref 71) had so few surplus signatures that there was a strong suspicion that it would not qualify. After over a week of counting and comparing to voter rolls, there was a margin of only a few thousand valid signatures. This time around, absent a shockingly low validation rate, the referendum is assured to go before voters.

The good news is that a Strategies 360 poll for the Associated Press found strong support for legal marriage among likely voters.

Do you think it should be legal or illegal for gay and lesbian couples to get married?

54% – legal
33% – illegal
4% – depends
8% – “Elvis is living in my basement”

The poll has a margin of error of 4.4% and appears to have valid methodology and does not seem to have any leading questions. While this question does not specifically ask about intent to vote on Referendum 74, it is very encouraging.

Support comes from 87% of Democrats, 52% of Independents, and 22% of Republicans. And a strong majority of support comes from King County and North Puget Sound while West Washington polled at 50% to 37% and East Washington eked out a plurality of 44% to 41%. Age trended predictably with only those over 65 failing to produce a majority (44% to 40%).

The election should have a strong turn-out as while the poll shows support for the reelection of Barack Obama, the gubernatorial race is within the margin of error with Republican Rob McKenna leading. Additionally, questions on the ballot about the legalization of marijuana and college tuition may ensure that younger voters show up at the polls.

NOM may blather on about “31 states” and “the people have always voted no” but we have a very good chance at winning in Washington.

Some thoughts on the Massachusett and Gill appeals ruling

Some initial thoughts upon reading the ruling (supplemental to Jim’s excellent write-up)

1. “…the need to assess the rationale for a congressional statute passed with minimal hearings and lacking in formal findings.”

You can almost hear the sarcasm dripping off the page of the ruling. Basically, he’s saying that it’s hard to assess the rationale when there was little rationale at all. Later Boudin rejects the presumption of ill intent, but it’s clear that he was not impressed by the thoughtless way in which the bill was enacted.

The rush to pass DOMA coupled with the premise that “everyone knows marriage is a man and a woman” plus the wisdom of some legislators not to go on record with any legal arguments in its favor may have proven to be its downfall. Having almost no hearing on the matter limited the number of possible benefits of the bill that were proposed.

2. It’s a bit interesting that the court tossed out the rational v. heighten review analysis. Instead they found a new methodology of thinking which applies intensified scrutiny to “historically disadvantaged and unpopular” groups, whether or not they have been assigned suspect classification.

This is fascinating and (political junkies, this is for you) an interesting take on the Republican think tank arguments that law and policy ought to be blind to group politics. (This sounds contradictory, so stick with me). It sounds a bit like Boudin is saying that matters should not be based on whether the group before him is a traditionally recognized minority as approved by court precedent, but whether they are a group that has experienced disadvantage.

If so, this is a rather significant legal shift. If this stands, it could be a huge legal precedent to any group that experiences hostility based discrimination.

3. This is the first time that courts have addressed Federalism in relation to DOMA. I’ve long thought this was the strongest line of argument, but the First Circuit did not see it those terms. It may not have been as compelling to the court as I have thought, but it is nevertheless a consideration and increases the intensity of the review.

“…but Congress’ effort to put a thumb on the scales and influence a state’s decision as to how to shape its own marriage laws does bear on how the justifications are assessed.”

4. Evidently some of you have been invading Judge Boudin’s dreams because the following statement is quite similar to comments made here with regularity:

The evidence as to child rearing by same-sex couples is the subject of controversy, but we need not enter the debate. Whether or not children raised by opposite-sex marriages are on average better served, DOMA cannot preclude same-sex couples in Massachusetts from adopting children or prevent a woman partner from giving birth to a child to be raised by both partners.

Although the House Report is filled with encomia to heterosexual marriage, DOMA does not increase benefits to opposite-sex couples–whose marriages may in any event be childless, unstable or both–or explain how denying benefits to same-sex couples will reinforce heterosexual marriage. Certainly, the denial will not affect the gender choices of those seeking marriage. This is not merely a matter of poor fit of remedy to perceived problem, but a lack of any demonstrated connection between DOMA’s treatment of same-sex couples and its asserted goal of strengthening the bonds and benefits to society of heterosexual marriage.

Darn those radical activist judges for using straight-forward logic.

5. I learned a new word: encomia.

en·co·mi·um
n. pl. en·co·mi·ums or en·co·mi·a
1. Warm, glowing praise.
2. A formal expression of praise; a tribute

6. The court lays out the only way in which DOMA is permissible: blind deference.

If we are right in thinking that disparate impact on minority interests and federalism concerns both require somewhat more in this case than almost automatic deference to Congress’ will, this statute fails that test.

7. And again the matter is stayed.

Yes, this is the correct and proper action when a case is unquestionably going to be appealed up the ladder. But it truly is frustrating and is a hardship on real families. And I rather doubt that it will be any time soon that DOMA finally reaches its (rather likely) death.

Those darn activist (Republican appointed) judges

Whenever we win any court battle we are regularly treated to massive doses of whining about activist judges. And during election season, some of the less ethical Republican candidates rant on and on about how you must vote Republican because Democrats appoint “judges who legislate from the bench” (by which they mean “judges who treat gay people as equal citizens”).

So I find it amusing that in our battle for recognition of our equal marriage rights – surely the issue most concerning the opponents of “judicial activism” – by far the judges who have found in our favor have either been appointed by Republicans or are in the party themselves. And the latest victory is no exception.

The three federal judges who unanimously agreed with Judge Joseph Tauro (a Nixon appointee) are:

* Judge Michael Boudin (author) – appointed by George H.W. Bush in 1990 to the the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and elevated to the First Circuit in 1992.

* Chief Judge Sandra Lynch – appointed by Bill Clinton to the First Circuit in 1995.

* Judge Juan Torruella – appointed by Ford to the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico in 1974. Elevated to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit by Ronald Reagan in 1984

Somehow I don’t think we’ll be hearing “Damn that Ronald Reagan for appointing that judicial activist! That’s the problem with America, Republicans keep appointing judges who legislate from the bench!”

But I’m just guessing.

The miracle worker

Anti-Obama activists like to sneeringly refer to the President as “the liberals’ messiah”. But maybe they are really on to something; maybe Barack Obama really can work miracles.

From Public Policy Polling (pdf):

-57% of Maryland voters say they’re likely to vote for the new marriage law this fall, compared to only 37% who are opposed. That 20 point margin of passage represents a 12 point shift from an identical PPP survey in early March, which found it ahead by a closer 52/44 margin.

-The movement over the last two months can be explained almost entirely by a major shift in opinion about same-sex marriage among black voters. Previously 56% said they would vote against the new law with only 39% planning to uphold it. Those numbers have now almost completely flipped, with 55% of African Americans planning to vote for the law and only 36% now opposed.

-The big shift in attitudes toward same-sex marriage among black voters in Maryland is reflective of what’s happening nationally right now. A new ABC/Washington Post poll finds 59% of African Americans across the country supportive of same-sex marriage. A PPP poll in the critical swing state of Pennsylvania last weekend found a shift of 19 points in favor of same-sex marriage among black voters.

What happened in between? The President evolved. And then NAACP board endorsed equality. And now it appears that there were a large number of black voters who have also completed their evolution process.

To be honest, I did not expect this in the slightest. And (like the polls last year that suddenly and unexpectedly showed a majority of Americans support marriage) it seems too good to be true. And I’m still going to wait for additional polling confirmation (and perhaps even the Maryland vote) before I am fully convinced.

But these are huge and very significant changes and if they are real then I’m delighted to give credit where due. I think that discovering that the National Organization for Marriage was condescendingly playing up racism played a part, but it was the President’s announcement that I think really cued the change. (And I can’t wait for NOM’s response… I’m grinning already)

If Black Americans are supporting equality, then I’m ready to party. You bring Obama and I’ll bring the wine… no, scratch that… I’ll bring the water. Miracles are happening.

‘Target funds the radical homosexual “marriage” agenda.’ Woo-Hoo!! Time for a Target run.

Today the American Family Association informed me that “Target donating its sales in support of gay marriage laws”.

Now usually when the AFA tells me that some company is endorsing ‘homosexual “marriage”‘, what they really mean is that the company allows it’s gay employees to march in a group in some gay pride event. Or that they contribute to some gay professional organization. Because as all gay people are in favor of being treated equally, anything other than “hatin’ the siiiin” is the same thing as endorsing marriage equality.

But this time they are right. Target is sending money from the sale of gay themed T-shirts to an actual organization that really and truly does put effort into relationship recognition: Family Equality Council.

Love ya, Target.

Now, lets see, I really do need to pick up face wash, coffee, and vitamins. Thanks, AFA, for the reminder.

Another ABC Poll, yet more good marriage news

23. On another subject, do you think it should be legal or illegal for gay and lesbian couples to get married? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?

39% – strongly legal
14% – somewhat legal
7% – somewhat illegal
32% – strongly illegal
8% – “Oh, gee, I don’t know. Do you like my hair?”

Analysis of the full polling demographics (pdf) suggests to me that those who believe that God has ordained them to dictate to you the details of your life are not shifting on this issue. But they are rapidly losing influence over everyone else.