Box Turtle Bulletin

Washington Catholic Bishops demean gay parents

Arrogance can be blinding. And the arrogance that the Roman Catholic Bishops hold in their perception of their role in society often leads them to make statements that only make sense to those who share their presumptions, prejudices and undying belief that the Catholic Church dictates what is real simply by declaring it so.

And in their blinding arrogance, Bishops in the State of Washington have released a letter that is so disdainful of gay parents, adoptive parents, and those who require help with fertility that I believe it will only serve to further illustrate how ignorant and out-of-touch the Catholic Church has become. Perhaps staying within the realm of religious doctrine their words could be given some respect, but posed as declarations about objective reality and public policy, their advice on the proposed marriage bill is laughable … and disgusting.

Married couples who bring children into the world make particular sacrifices and take on unique risks and obligations for the good of society. For this reason the state has long understood that it has a compelling interest in recognizing and supporting these mothers and fathers through a distinct category of laws. Were the definition of marriage to change, there would be no special laws to support and recognize the irreplaceable contribution that these married couples make to society and to the common good by bringing to life the next generation.

Upholding the present definition of marriage does not depend on anyone’s religious beliefs. Washington State’s present law defining marriage as “a civil contract between a male and a female” is grounded not in faith, but in reason and the experience of society. It recognizes the value of marriage as a bond of personal relationships, but also in terms of the unique and irreplaceable potential of a man and woman to conceive and nurture new life, thus contributing to the continuation of the human race. A change in legislation would mean that the state would no longer recognize the unique sacrifices and contributions made by these couples, thereby adding to the forces already undermining family life today.

You see, heterosexuals make “sacrifices and contributions” that are “unique and irreplaceable”. The rest of you are just slackers.

Those same-sex couples who adopt kids who are past the preferred adoption age – slackers. Those same-sex couples who adopt kids who are born addicted to heroin – slackers. Those same-sex couples who adopt kids who are mixed-race and hard to place – slackers. Those same-sex couples who adopt kids who are infected with HIV or have other special needs – slackers. These same-sex couples who carefully plan to have a family and wait until they can afford to do so without being a burden to anyone else – slackers. Those same-sex couples who step in when heterosexuals abuse and rape and torture their own offspring and who give endless hours of love and attention – there’s no sacrifice or contribution to society there. Nope, just slackers.

And you can ask anyone in adoption services – anyone in child protection – anyone in foster care administration who they turn to when no one else is willing to take a kid. It isn’t the Catholic Church; they care so little for children that they’d close adoption services rather than be seen treating their gay neighbors like themselves. And it’s not just a meme or a stereotype or PR, it’s a simple fact – gay couples take the kids that no one else will take. The damn slackers.

But when little Mary Catherine McPlaidskirt and Michael Joseph Illpullout have their backseat tryst and then rush into a Holy Union before they pop out the 6,988,281,769th human – and immediately get on public assistance – they are making “particular sacrifices” and taking on “unique risks and obligations for the good of society”.

Fortunately, this is not only offensive to gay couples, it’s offensive to those who have friends who are gay or infertile or adopted or who have ever been in a position where they were unable to provide for a child and took the responsible step of seeking a better home. Frankly, it’s insulting to anyone with even a modicum of mental capability.

Keep it up, Catholic Church. You may just reach the place where your opposition is so absurd and spiteful that it is all that is needed to ensure success.

Christie non-committal on equality bill

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has been presumed to be opposed to the marriage bill being proposed by Democrats. In fact, I suspect that it is the presumption of his veto that is a selling point to some hesitating votes who might see a Christie veto as a win-win; they get to vote for it but it doesn’t really happen.

But the Star-Ledger is reporting that Christie is being non-committal about a veto.

When forced to make a decision, if forced to make a decision on it, I’ll make a decision.

This is an interesting response. It may well be a positioning in which the Governor can ask for specific religious exemptions or other provisions and thereby make the Democrats be the “difficult” ones. Or it may reflect his recognition of the popularity of equality in his state. And no little part of the equation is whether Christie will be considered as a Vice President nominee choice.

But whatever the motivation, when a Republican governor indicates the possibility of signing a marriage bill (or letting it become law without signature), you know that it’s a very different world than it was just a decade ago.

Republican support for marriage grows in Washington State

Seattle Times columnist Danny Westneat notes a Republican county official who is taking a risk by supporting equality.

Reagan Dunn on Monday also said he supports allowing gays and lesbians to marry.

Dunn is a King County Council member. His blood bleeds so Republican his mother named him after Ronald Reagan. And he’s running statewide this year, to be attorney general — which means he is this state’s highest-profile Republican, by far, to come out for gay marriage.

It also means he’s out stumping for GOP money and votes not just in liberal King County, but in the reddest of red counties. Not to mention trying to rally the party’s base of social and church conservatives to his cause.

Westneat notes that there are now five elected Republicans who have in the past week come publicly on board. Let’s hope it’s a trend

France to upgrade couple recognition

Of those European nations which offer recognition to their same-sex couples, France’s form, Pacte civil de solidarité (PACS), is probably the weakest. And while they do offer protections and rights and there are some amusing advantages to a nation providing such a structure (many young heterosexual couples enter PACS as a sort of pre-marriage tryout), they simply do not provide equality. Gay couples are stuck in the “tryout” phase.

But that seems likely to change.

A poll to be released tomorrow will show that about two-thirds of the French (63%) support opening marriage to same-sex couples. And French politicians are scrambling to show that they are in alignment with the will of the French people. (Bloomberg)

Francois Hollande, the Socialist Party candidate and front- runner before the two-round election in April and May, supports homosexual marriage and will add it to his platform, Manuel Valls, head of communication for the Socialist campaign, said on RMC radio today.

And President Nicolas Sarkozy, while continuing to oppose same-sex marriage, has discovered a new-found interest in establishing a civil union provision that contains all of the rights, privileges, and duties of marriage.

Regardless of who wins which position in French Government, it is inevitable that the shame of offering less liberté, égalité, or fraternité than their ancient frenemies the Spanish, Dutch and British (especially the British) will eventually lead to change.

Equality in WA picks up 23rd supporting Senator

Yesterday we reported that Democratic Sen. Rosemary McAuliffe of Bothell was undeclared on whether to support the proposed marriage bill. She has now read the bill, discussed the matter with her constituents, and KEPRTV is reporting that she has pledged her support to its passage: “Now is the time to support marriage for all families.”

Two more to go.

Canadian Marriages Invalid? Ctd.

News cycles sometimes get mighty short. We opened this morning with the startling news that a lawyer for the Canadian government filed documents in a divorce case of a non-Canadian lesbian couple contending that their marriage is invalid because it isn’t legally recognize where they live. The couple was married in Canada, but live in Florida and England, neither of which recognize same-sex marriages.

Now the Conservative government of Stephen Harper is making noises that it will “clarify” the laws on same-sex marriage. The Globe and Mail now reports that Justice Minister Rob Nicholson has backed the claims in the court filing, saying that Canada has no jurisdiction over the divorce despite the fact that the couple wed in Toronto in 2005. But he added, “I will be looking at options to clarify the law so that marriages in Canada can be undone in Canada.”

Other Canadian leaders have denounced the government lawyers’ position, calling it a global embarrassment for a country that prides itself for being on the forefront of human rights. Liberal leader Bob Ray called the position “illogical” and “ludicrous.” Harper said, “We have no intention of further re-opening or opening this issue,” although it must be said that if the Justice Department lawyers’ position is backed by his government, than Harper has reopened the issue whether it was his intention to or not.

The federal government’s position does not yet have the force of law. At this point it is only an argument before a judge, who has yet to issue a ruling. But it has already sparked a political controversy in a country where about two-thirds of its citizens support equal access to marriage.

Washington: AP’s vote count shows hope for Senate

The State of Washington will be introducing an equality bill next week which will treat gay citizens who wish to marry the same as heterosexual citizens who wish to marry. The vote is expected to pass the House will little trouble, but the vote in the Senate is close. However the Associated Press reached out to the Senate members to get a feeling of where the votes lie. There are 49 Senators, so in order for the bill to pass, the support of 25 is required.

Here is what they found:

Sen. Cheryl Pflug

22 yes, including 20 Democrats and 2 Republicans. In addition to the previously mentioned Sen. Steve Litzow, Republican Sen. Cheryl Pflug indicated her support.

“I don’t feel diminished when another human being is allowed to exercise the same rights that I enjoy. I would feel diminished if I voted to deny others the right to exercise those same rights and freedoms.”

18 no, including 2 Democrats and 16 Republicans. Among the Republicans is Sen. Curtis King of Yakima who supported the domestic partnerships bill but does not feel ready to support full equality.

6 uncommitted, including 4 Democrats and 2 Republicans. Sen. Rosemary McAuliffe (D – Bothell) is leaning in favor of support and Democrats Brian Hatfield of Raymond, Jim Kastama of Puyallup and Paull Shin of Edmonds have previously voted against expanding rights but are now considering supporting the equality bill. Freshmen Republicans Sens. Joe Fain of Auburn and Andy Hill of Redmond are talking with their constituents before they make a determination either way.

Which leaves 3 about which the AP doesn’t provide information.

If supporters of equality can pick up three of the nine uncertain votes, then marriage equality is assured in the legislature.

Almost certainly opponents would begin collecting signatures to bring that vote to a referendum of the electorate. Anti-gay activists in 2009 found it very difficult to collect enough signatures to Ref. 71 on the ballot. As this is marriage rather than domestic partnerships it might be easier to collect signatures. But, on the other hand, anti-gay activists in Washington may be discouraged and find few willing to commit the time and energy into a project that they fear will only lose and start a trend towards voter-approved equality.

This promises to live up to Washington’s reputation for nail-biting situations.

Canadian marriages invalid?

A document filed in Canadian court by the federal government seems to argue that the governemt’s position is that out-of-nation same-sex marriages are invalid. The Globe and Mail identified documents filed in the divorce case of a lesbian couple who resided in Florida and England, neither of which recognize same-sex marriages.

The position, which seems to have taken Conservative Prime Minister Steven Harper by surprise, in addition to being aggressive and pointless, introduces an issue that Harper insists isn’t on the Conservative agenda and is not likely to well serve the image of his government. A poll taken last July found that 61% of Canadians wish to keep legal equality

The courts have yet to weigh in on the matter (but are rather unlikely to weaken equality). And in response to the brouhaha resulting from the Globe and Mail’s report, I think it likely that the Harper government will soon ‘clarify’ that marriages are not invalidated based on their legality in other nations.

UPDATE:

GLAD, the ACLU, Freedom to Marry, NCLR, and Lambda Legal issued a joint statement encouraging gay couples not to worry.

No one’s marriage has been invalidated or is likely to be invalidated. The position taken by one government lawyer in a divorce is not itself precedential. No court has accepted this view and there is no reason to believe that either Canada’s courts or its Parliament would agree with this position, which no one has asserted before during the eight years that same-sex couples have had the freedom to marry in Canada.

Box of Rocks coasts on to another day of victory

Today the Box of Rocks sat quietly and was bothered by no one. However, Rick Santorum found himself subjected to chants of “bigot” as he entered a campaign event. Which got me thinking, what does Santorum say on his website about matters of equality (Santorum, not santorum… that’s a different website).

In the section of “What I Believe” titled “Appointing Constitutionalist Justices and Judges Who Refuse to Legislate from the Bench”, he says the following:

Rick Santorum is no stranger to the issue of judges. … in 2004 when activist judges sought to legislate from the bench and redefine marriage, Rick spearheaded the debate in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment.

First, let’s consider whether that makes any sense at all. As of 2004, not a single Federal Judge had found anything favorable about marriage. However, a number of state judges had concluded that state constitutions disallowed discrimination against gay people and had demanded that either marriage or some equivalent be provided so that citizens can have equal access, so these must be the judges he’s talking about.

Which seems to suggest that Santorum thinks that as President he could appoint “Constitutionalist” state judges. But surely that can’t be the case. Even a box of rocks knows better than that.

But on to his performance. If I were considering how effective a president Rick Santorum could be, I’d look to the issues he spearheaded. And I’d have to say that on the Federal Marriage Amendment, Rick Santorum was a phenomenal failure.

To pass the Senate and be considered by the states, the FMA had to pass both houses of Congress by a two thirds vote. In the House in 2004 that was 290 votes in favor, and in the Senate it required 67. So Sentorum’s goal, his measure of competency, was obtaining 67 Senate votes in favor of the amendment.

There were at that point 51 Republicans, 48 Democrats and 1 Independent. To achieve his goal, Santorum needed to keep hold of the presumed support of all 51 Republicans and pick up support of a third of Democrats.

But before he could pass the FMA and start campaigning in the states, he had one further roadblock. He needed to get a vote. And if the Senators don’t want to vote on an issue, they can fillibuster – or just keep talking. As long as a Senator wants to talk – be it about the bill or his neighbor’s dog or reading the phonebook (as as happened) – they are entitled to do so.

However, there is a ‘sit down and shut up’ provision to keep any one Senator from disrupting business. If any Senator wishes to end debate and just vote already, he can call for cloture. And if three fifths (60) Senators agree, debate stops immediately and the bill itself is voted on. So before he could get his 67 Senators to send the FMA to the states, he needed 60 who were wanted to take a vote.

He didn’t even get half.

Santorum managed to get three Democrats to vote on whether to vote (Byrd, Miller, and Nelson), but he lost twice as many Republicans who refused to bring the FMA to cloture (Campbell, Chafee, Collins, Snowe, Sununu, and McCain – yes, that McCain). His cloture vote fell flat 48 to 50 (Senators Kerry and Edwards were unavailable.)

So what Santorum is loudly touting on his website is that on the FMA, he is a failure. A colossal failure. The box of rocks doesn’t have a website and is making no claims as to its ability to spearhead anything. On this matter of intellect and wit, the rocks win. Again.

But to really set himself apart from a box of rocks, Rick Santorum goes further to explain his understanding of the judicial process and the roll of the judiciary in a checked and balanced government:

Rick Santorum believes that the Judiciary is a critical part of our system of government, but it is the third branch of government under our Constitution, and should not act like the first. President Obama often prefers when it does legislate instead of Congress. For example, when he refuses to defend the Congressionally approved Defense of Marriage Act.

Okay, it can be difficult to understand the workings of Santorum’s brain, but if I have this correct, when the President chooses not to defend a law he thinks unconstitutional, then the judiciary is acting like Congress. By hearing argument in a lawsuit brought by the State of Massachusetts, the judiciary is, in Santorum’s words, “legislating from the bench” and is “usurping” the role of Congress.

I’m a bit at loss as to what Santorum thinks the Judiciary is to do when a lawsuit is presented. Really, I’m not being facetious. I have no idea what he thinks is the appropriate response when a State sues the federal government for what it perceives to be an encroachment on states’ rights. I suspect that it all depends on what the position of his Church is on the matter.

Although Rick Santorum served in the Senate for twelve years, it’s abundantly clear that a box of rocks has a far better grasp on the separation of powers and role of the judiciary.

Goodbye to “marriage equality”

A while back it was noted that discussing the issue of marriage using the term “gay marriage” played into the notion that there were various different types of marriage, one of which was gay. Of course, marriage is marriage and there is no material difference between a marriage in which the partners are of different sex, different race, different religion, or of all the same sex, race, and religion. We were advised to adopt “marriage equality” as an alternate term, one that more correctly addressed the issue. And, as this seemed right and fair, I quickly complied.

But I am now ready to let go of the term “marriage equality”. For the same reason that I adopted it.

Equality is equality. It is not compartmentalized. One does not support equality for all (but not for people with red hair) or equality for all (but not for the poor, or Latinos, or middle age white men with executive jobs). Equality is a simple term and easily understood. It doesn’t need qualifiers.

I don’t support “racial equality” or “religious equality” or “marriage equality” or equality with any other adjective.

What I support and demand is equality, the unfiltered equality expressed in the engraving on the face of the Supreme Court Building: “Equal justice under law” and the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law” and the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Equality is equality and it should not be presumed to come with asterisks, qualifiers, exceptions, and omissions. Nor should my language suggest that one can be in favor of equality, but well there’s this other thing over here called “marriage equality” that is maybe not really part of the package and you don’t have to fully accept it. And so, when possible (which I recognize will not be always), I intend to remove that qualifier from my writing.

The question is no longer, “Do you support marriage equality?”, but “Do you support equality?” Let those who make exceptions to their concept of “equal” explain and defend them. Let’s not make it easy on them.

Colorado Republicans start pro-civil unions group

With very high support for civil unions in Colorado – including from one in five Republicans – a new group has formed to give voice to that support. (Colorado Statesman)

“Coloradans for Freedom” enters the scene less than one year after a bill to legalize civil unions was voted down by Republicans on party lines in the state’s House Judiciary Committee last March.

Coloradans for Freedom spokesman Mario Nicolais, a Jefferson County attorney who served as a Commissioner on the Colorado Reapportionment Commission, said the group exists primarily to serve as a resource for Republicans and anyone else interested in a conservative argument for civil unions.

I wish them well.

Renault Twingo

This stands on its own.

Teleprompter reader selected to be NOM’s “Face of Minnesota for Marriage”

Unable to find anyone qualified to speak authoritatively on the subject of marriage, the National Organization for Marriage and the other anti-gay activists at Minnesota for Marriage have decided that the face of their anti-gay movement would be Kalley Yanta, a former anchor for a Minneapolis-based television station. Which means that the level of intellectual discourse will be as follows:

“If marriage between homosexuals is legalized, what would some of the consequences be?” she asked rhetorically. “Parents who want to opt their kids out of the public school on the day that they’re teaching about homosexual relationships how it should be okay and accepted, and the parents are charged with discrimination and are hauled away sometimes in handcuffs. … We just can’t allow this to happen.

That probably shouldn’t surprise us much. Minnesota for Marriage is releasing a number of Marriage Minute videos to get their views across. The 18 second long Marriage Minute introductory segment displays pictures labeled “Our Families”, “Our Futures”, “Our Marriages”, and “Our Children”. But the Washington Independent notes that they seem a bit confused on what “our” means.

Minnesotans United for All Families, a coalition of more than 100 groups, analyzed the images in the first video released and determined that not a single person in the video was actually from Minnesota.

“While this video is full of stock images, it is strangely lacking in real Minnesotans,” the group said on its Facebook page. “Perhaps they couldn’t find any real Minnesotans willing to support their divisive agenda?”

One image appears to have been taken by a French photographer of a French family, and another is being used on the website of an India-based health-care center.

Oh my, it’s going to be a busy season for that box of rocks.

Box of Rocks takes impressive 3-0 lead

In the battle of intellect between Rick Santorum and a box of rocks, the rocks are making a surprisingly strong showing. While the rocks haven’t said anything incredibly stupid at all today, Rick Santorum described his position on recognition of gay couples thusly:

The question is do I think I can beat President Obama cuz I have strong feelings on the issue of marriage and other social issues. Everyone on the stage yesterday and the day before has pretty much has the exact same position I have on all those issues. President Obama says he has the same position I have on gay marriage. So people always talk about the… the only difference is between myself and any of them is that when someone asks me a question I answer it.

I must have missed the press conference wherein the President announced that he has the same views on gay marriage as Rick Santorum. But, knowing the President’s positions, we can now conclude that:

• Rick Santorum believes that DOMA (the anti-gay federal “Defense of Marriage Act”) is a violation of the US Constitution
• Rick Santorum supports civil unions that “provide all the benefits that are available for a legally sanctioned marriage.”
• Rick Santorum may not yet fully support marriage equality, but his views are evolving in that direction.

Or that Rick Santorum is so incredibly stupid that he doesn’t know what President Obama has said on the subject. (One alternate possibility is that Santorum knows Obama’s position and is betting that his audience does not. Frankly, I don’t think he’s bright enough for that sort of political calculation.)

Oh, the humanity

Pope Benedict has started out the new year with one of his favorite themes: the superhuman power of gay couples to destroy all of civilization.

“This is not a simple social convention, but rather the fundamental cell of every society. Consequently, policies which undermine the family threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself,” he said.

Perhaps it isn’t surprising that some of the things that Sen. Rick Santorum says sound downright idiotic. When the leader of your church predicates the survival of the human species on denying gay couples legal recognition, any nutcase theory can sound plausible. And he is, after all, under the watchful eyes of Papa Ratzi.