Box Turtle Bulletin

Bozeman, MT To Support Marriage Rights

The Bozeman, Montana, city commission is expected to pass a resolution voicing support for a lawsuit by seven same-sex couples for marriage rights in the state of Montana. Two Bozeman couples are part of the lawsuit.  All five members of the city commission say they support the resolution, and Mayor Jeff Krauss believes that Bozeman can set an example for all of Montana:

“These couples are really walking out on a limb to put their faces forward, to put their stories forward, and I think they deserve the support,” Krauss told the Chronicle.

…A draft of the resolution the Bozeman City Commission plans to consider states that, “the Montana ‘marriage amendment’ precludes same-sex marriages, it does not preclude all couples from having the same fundamental rights of individual dignity, privacy, due process and the pursuit of life’s basic necessities guaranteed to all Montanans under the Montana Constitution’s Declaration of Rights.

“Same-sex couples are denied the basic legal rights of different-sex couples to succession to property upon the death of a spouse, employment rights, tax benefits, health insurance, rights to visitation in the event of illness, health care decisions, fish and game law licensing and many more,” the resolution continues.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of fourteen plaintiffs against the state of Montana in July. The ACLU claims that the state is violating the Montana Constitutional by denying same-sex couples many of the rights that married couples enjoy in health care, financial matters, inheritance, and other matters. The lawsuit calls for providing these rights through a civil union or domestic partnership arrangement in order to comply with the state constitution’s ban on same-sex marriage.

Do a majority of Americans support marriage equality?

Last month the New York Times reported that there were 17 states in which a majority of residents favored marriage equality. I dismissed it as wishful thinking. But today there is an AP poll out with numbers that are even more fantastical and which suggests that support for equality is increasing at an unexpected rate.

NCC10. Should couples of the same sex be entitled to the same government benefits as married couples of the opposite sex, or should the government distinguish between them?

58% – Yes, should be entitled to the same benefits
38% – No, should distinguish between them
3% – Don’t know
1% – Refused

NCC12. Should the Federal Government give legal recognition to marriages between couples of the same sex, or not?

52% – Yes
46% – No
2% – Don’t know

Additionally, there were a couple questions and responses which suggests that anti-gay complaints about “activist judges” may not be an effective strategy.

NCC4. And how about these, which do you agree with more?

35% – If a majority of people want something to happen, the rights of a few shouldn’t stand in the way
62% – The rights of everyone should be protected, even when that means saying no to something the majority of people want to happen.
2% – Don’t know
1% – Refused

NCC18. Which comes closest to your view?

41% – Judges should interpret the laws as narrowly as possible, taking into account only what is
clearly the intention of the lawmakers
56% – Judges should interpret laws broadly, taking into account the broader interests of the
nation
3% – Don’t know

This was based on a telephone survey (land and cell) of 1,007 participants around the third week of August and has a sampling margin of +/-4.5%. This was a survey of the populace, not of voters.

I still have difficulty in claiming that more than half of Americans support marriage equality. However, even if this poll is an outlier or an anomaly, the days are gone when anti-gays can claim that “the vast majority of Americans” oppose recognition of gay couples.

We are family

From the New York Times

A majority of Americans now say their definition of family includes same-sex couples with children, as well as married gay and lesbian couples.

At the same time, most Americans do not consider unmarried cohabiting couples, either heterosexual or same-sex, to be a family — unless they have children.

Yet more evidence that marriage equality is important. People really do so you differently when you are legally married.

If he was quoted correctly, David Blankenhorn, the lead witness for the defense of Proposition 8 in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, made a statement that could be interpreted to suggest that he’s finally made his way over to our side of the aisle.

David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute for American Values, a marriage research and advocacy group, said he was not surprised by the findings. “I like the standard definition of family: two or more persons related by blood, marriage or adoption,” Mr. Blankenhorn said. “Keeps it simple and coherent.”

But, he added: “We live in groups, and we need each other. So it’s always a good thing, isn’t it, when any of us truly loves and is loved by another.”

Yes it is, David.

The difference in social policy between a Democrat and a moderate Republican

In reading about the candidates vying for Mark Kirk’s old district, I ran across as clear a description between the social positions of a “Democrat” and a “moderate Republican” as I think I’ve seen:

The two candidates are facing off in the 10th Congressional District, portraying themselves as deficit and tax hawks who are more moderate on social issues.

Yet Dold and Seals noted their differences on abortion and gay rights.

Dold said he supports abortion rights, with restrictions. Dold backs parental notification for minors and opposes late-term abortions and tax money being spent on the procedure.

“Let me be clear, I’m pro-choice, while I may be more moderate than (Seals) is on this issue,” Dold said.

Seals said he supports abortion rights without Dold’s caveats and cited his endorsements from organizations such as Planned Parenthood.

Seals argued that limits on taxpayer-funded abortion and parental notification laws would force some women “to go to a back alley to care of this.”

On gay marriage, Seals supports it, calling it a “civil rights issue.” He also backs repealing military restrictions on openly gay soldiers.

Dold doesn’t support gay marriage, but said same-sex couples should have similar legal protections. Dold said he will support repealing the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy if military generals agree it won’t impact combat operations.

Yes, there are many Democrats that do not support marriage equality and some Republicans that do. But I think that these two positions probably reflect what the voter who self-categorizes as “Democrat” or “moderate Republican” finds most comfortable.

Irish eyes are smiling at you

From Ireland Today:

Just over two-thirds of people (67 per cent) believe gay couples should be allowed to marry, according to an Irish Times /Behaviour Attitudes social poll.
…
In addition showing strong support for gay marriage, a significant majority (60 per cent) also believe civil partnerships for gay couples will not undermine the institution of marriage. A large majority (91 per cent) also say they would not think less of a person if they revealed they were gay or lesbian.

If I translate that correctly, there is some percentage who support marriage for same sex couple because they fear the civil partnerships undermine the institution. Personally, I think there is merit in that argument.

Ireland’s civil partnerships law become effective in January and politicians are already planning ahead for full marriage equality. I wonder if the Pope is noticing the same correlation as the rest of us?

Catholics and Evangelical Hispanics: better no immigration reform than allow gay couples to stay together

Because the US Government does not recognize same sex couples, there are many indignities suffered. Taxes are higher, there’s a special “gay tax” on health insurance, and there are over 1,000 laws that effect same-sex couples differently than opposite-sex couples. But the cruelest by far is when the federal government breaks up of long-term, committed, married same-sex couples and kicks one of the spouses out of the country.

Yet some of those who are advocating for immigration reform support this position. They so strongly wish to forcibly separate same-sex couples that they would rather give up one of their most important agenda items than allow for multi-national gay couples to be treated like heterosexuals. (WaPo)

“It introduces a new controversial element to the issue which will divide the faith community and further jeopardize chances for a fair and bipartisan compromise,” said Kevin Appleby of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which last year said the inclusion of gay couples in a House bill aimed at reuniting families made it “impossible” for the group to support the measure. “Immigration is hard enough without adding same-sex marriage to the mix.”

The National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, a 16-million-strong group of evangelical Latinos that could play a key political role in an immigration overhaul, is similarly opposed to including provisions for gay and lesbian families. The president of the organization, the Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, said that including such a measure would prove to be the “death knell” for comprehensive change.

I have difficulty fathoming a moral code that includes deliberate and blatant cruelty. Surely these Catholics and Hispanic evangelicals are just so caught up in “fighting the homosexual agenda” that they have never asked themselves how they really want specific same-sex couples to be treated. Surely they do not actually wish for John Beddingfield and Erwin de Leon, a couple discussed in the article, to be forced to live apart.

Some day they will look back and be ashamed.

But in the meantime, there is a possibility for hope. The Obama Administration has not yet filed an appeal to Gill v. Office of Personnel Management or Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, the joint cases that found certain provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act to be in violation of the US Constitution. The filing deadline is October 11, and neither the Justice Department nor the White House have stated whether an appeal would be filed.

Should the Administration opt not to appeal, then married same-sex couples in at least the State of Massachusetts would have the ability to apply for citizenship consideration in the same manner as opposite sex couples. It would be – for many – a great hardship to relocate to Massachusetts, but for some desperate couples it could be a temporary solution.

CA Supremes: Gov and AG need not appeal Perry

After the Pacific Justice Institute was laughed out of court for claiming that Governor Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Brown should be forced to appeal the decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, PJI appealed the 3rd Appeals court’s dismissal to the California Supreme Court.

And they got all excited when the CA Supremes asked Schwarzenegger and Brown to weigh in on the appeal. (Karen Ocamb)

The California Supreme Court has ordered the Attorney General and the Governor to respond by 9 am this morning explaining why they have not filed this appeal. Then the Pacific Justice Institute has just three hours to respond by noon today.

“We are pleased that the judicial branch is at least considering forcing the executive branch to do its job,” said Karen England, Executive Director of Capitol Resource Institute.

So the Governator and the Attorney General sent a letter to the court reminding them that they have discretion to appeal or not appeal and that this discretion is part of the constitutionally protected separation of powers. (And while it was expected and understood that neither wished to appeal, this is where the Governor went on record stating that he would not do so.)

And then the CA Supreme Court yawned and “denied review Wednesday without comment.”

So now it is official. Neither the Governor nor the Attorney General will be appealing the reversal of Proposition 8. But we will probably have to wait until the first week of December to find out whether the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will find that the appellants (the organization that sponsored Proposition 8) have any standing to appeal the case without them.

Justice O’Connor counters call for “representative” judges

Following the unanimous decision by the Iowa Supreme Court to protect the equality of gay Iowans, anti-gay activists wailed about “activist” judges and called to replace them with judges who could be reflective of the whim of the majority. Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor attended a forum to oppose that idea. (KETV)

Last month, Republican Bob Vander Plaats started a campaign to unseat three Iowa Supreme Court justices up for reelection.

The move started a debate over whether judges should be elected by popular vote.

O’Connor only spoke for about 10 minutes, but she was emphatic in her belief that appointing judges on a merit-based system as we do in Iowa is a much better option than voting for judges in a political election.

This effort by O’Connor may be seen by Iowans as an indictment of the effort to recall the three judges and a rejection of the current trend of calling every unpopular decision “judicial activism”. Justice O’Connor is a centrist who continues to hold the respect of a broad swath of middle-Americans.

O’Connor to weigh in on judicial process in Iowa

For 25 years Sandra Day O’Connor’s opinion mattered more than just about anyone in the country. Appointed in 1981 to be the first woman to sit on the Supreme Court, O’Connor was positioned such that half the court was more conservative and half the court was less so. There were very few decisions in which O’Connor was on the losing side and a great many where her judicial thinking determined the course of the nation’s laws.

Upon retiring, O’Connor was asked what she predicted for the court in the 21st Century. The jurist replied that just as matters of race had dominated the court during the 20th Century, the upcoming years would focus on matters of sexual orientation.*

Now, even though she has stepped down from the SCOTUS, O’Connor will be – at least tangentially – addressing same sex marriage.

After the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously found for marriage equality, anti-gay voices have been calling for their heads. Three are up for re-confirmation this year, and there is a campaign to vote them out.

Some argue that the current method of judicial selection – the governor selects from a list of potential jurists who have been vetted by a State Judicial Nominating Committee – leaves judges “unaccountable to the people”. Some, such as conservative Alabama jurist Tom Parker, have gone so far as to argue that Iowa should adopt Alabama’s practice of having their judges run for office and make decisions based on partisan maneuvering and campaign promises rather than on the protections in the state constitution.

That is why it is so important the people insist they be allowed to select those who sit on the bench over them. If judges want to be “super legislators,” then they must stand before their constituents and tell them what they believe about the Constitution as it relates to current public policy debates.

Next week the Iowa State Bar Association will host a panel to discuss judicial appointment, and O’Connor will come to advocate for experience, temperament, and merit as qualifiers rather than populist appeal.

Sandra Day O’Connor will take part in a panel discussion Sept. 8 advocating judge retention based on merits rather than political whim.
…
O’Connor’s visit next month will be held at Hotel Fort Des Moines. The specifics of the panel discussion, hosted by the Iowa State Bar Association, have not been finalized, said Steve Boeckman, a spokesman for the association, which is one of the hosts of the forum.

“It’s on the merit selection of judges in the state,” Boeckman said. “That’s one of her issues. She’s a proponent of using a merit selection system rather than an election system for judges.”

I don’t know if O’Connor will speak to the wisdom of the court’s decision or even her opinion on the federal constitutionality of anti-gay state amendments. But I find it likely that she will address the campaign to remove the justices from the bench.

And I have to say that I agree with her that the people are best served by having one governmental branch that is not subject to the whim of the latest political trend or the most affluent contributor.

Let’s not forget that “standing before their constituents” may well result in putting Sharron Angle in the US Senate.

* – I’m recalling this from memory, but I cannot, for the life of me, find the interview in which she said this. I would greatly appreciate anyone who has the source.

Omaha World-Herald creates criteria to exclude same-sex couples

One of the favorite tactics for those who want to exclude based on a class is to come up with a justification – a seemingly non-biased criterion – to engage in discrimination while deflecting criticism. This exorcise allows the perpetrator to simultaneously feed their animus while claiming the mantle of decency and reasonableness.

Perhaps the most egregious examples of this were the “literacy tests” used to deny African Americans the right to vote. Blacks in the South weren’t denied the ability to vote due to skin color, you see, just ignorance. All justified and righteous. Except, of course, they weren’t applied fairly and were nothing more than a cover, an excuse, to give a pretense of reasonableness to blatant racism and violation of the 14th Amendment.

And while the civil rights movement ended race-based “literacy tests” in the 60’s, this way of thinking certainly lingers today. And we certainly see a lot of it directed towards gay people and same-sex couples.

One of the more common – and more stupid – arguments against marriage equality is a variation on the theme: “Everyone has the equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex.”

This actually isn’t true (marriages in which one partner is gay are presumed to be fraudulent in a number of legal situations), but that’s beside the point. A rule which is designed to exclude based on specific attributes of the group excluded, is discriminatory on its face. As Supreme Court Ruth Bader Ginsburg famously said, “a tax on yarmulkes is a tax on Jews.”

Now enter Terry Kroeger, the oh-so-clever publisher of the Omaha World-Herald.

Jeff and Heidi Wilke were delighted that their daughter was to be married and wanted their friends and neighbors to share in their joy. So they contacted the paper, only to be informed by Kroeger, the papers publisher, that he wouldn’t print same-sex wedding announcements.

The Wilke’s weren’t too pleased and so they used the power of the internet – and Facebook – to inform the world. I was but one of undoubtedly thousands who dropped Kroeger a little note expressing our disappointment.

So now Kroeger has back-tracked. He’s made an announcement which, at first glace, seems like he’s found social awareness and a conscience and is doing the right thing. In fact, the New York Times ran a headline Omaha Paper to Print Same-Sex Wedding Announcements in which Kroeger plays the martyr.

“What has transpired over recent days has included some reasoned discussions with us about our practices, but mostly it has been a stream of vitriol against The World-Herald,” said the publisher, Terry Kroeger. “This news organization is not guilty of hating gays and lesbians. Should we have seen this issue more clearly? Probably. Have we been too slow in reacting to this matter? Maybe. But hateful? Never.”

And yet the Wilke’s shouldn’t get too excited. Kroeger won’t be printing their announcement. Because the Omaha World-Herald has a new criteria, one designed to exclude most same-sex couples who would request notice in Omaha while pretending to be balanced and fair.

The “Celebrations” page of the Omaha World-Herald has provided a place to buy space to celebrate weddings, engagements, anniversaries and birthdays. It will continue to be just that. Celebrations announcements regarding legal weddings, engagements for legal weddings or anniversaries of a legal marriage will be welcomed, regardless of the genders of the couple. We will not run announcements regarding commitment ceremonies, partnerships and other non-marriage unions, again regardless of gender.

Some will criticize this action because they would prefer that same-sex announcements not appear in their newspaper. Others will say it doesn’t go far enough. Our sense is that this change will provide for a public “celebration” of important milestones in the lives of people who take the significant steps toward legally sanctioned marriage. Iowa and four other states as well as the District of Columbia have legalized same-sex marriages. We will publish Celebrations announcements of marriages from those jurisdictions.

You see, only marriage is an “important milestone” and in Omaha marriage is denied to same-sex couples. It isn’t that they are gay, you see, just not legally sanctioned. All justified and righteous. It isn’t Kroeger that is discriminatory, just the voters.

And because Kristin Wilke and Jessica Kitzman are going to wed in Minnesota instead of Iowa, well then his problem is solved. Kroeger can keep the lesbians out of his paper and give a pretense of reasonableness to justify his discrimination.

But sorry Omaha World-Herald. Sorry Terry Kroeger. You may have dodged the bullet today. But history will be no kinder to you that it is to all the others who came before you who have sought to justify their bias by bogus “tests.”

Yes, you violated our stupid anti-gospel rulebook

Jane Spahr is in trouble again. A lesbian Presbyterian Church (USA) minister in Northern California, she has for years been dancing on the very edge of the church’s policy towards gay couples.

In 2006 she was convicted in church court for celebrating gay unions, but in April of 2008 the church’s highest court decided that as she had not actually quite broken church rules because the ceremonies she celebrated were not marriages.

But then along came the California Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage. And what do you suppose Jane went and did?

Yep, you guessed it. She conducted legal same-sex marriages.

So now again the regional court has found Spahr guilty of breaking the rules. (AP)

A regional commission of the Presbyterian Church (USA) ruled 4-2 that the Rev. Jane Spahr of San Francisco “persisted in a pattern or practice of disobedience” by performing the weddings in 2008 before Proposition 8 banned the unions in the state.

But while they found her “guilty”, they made it perfectly clear that they supported her guilt.

At the same time, however, the tribunal devoted most of its 2 1/2-page ruling to praising the 68-year-old pastor, a lesbian who founded a church group in the early 1990s for gay Presbyterians.

Spahr was acknowledged “for her prophetic ministry” and “faithful compassion. The commissioners called on the broader church to use her example “to re-examine our own fear and ignorance.”

“In the reality in which we live today, marriage can be between same gender as well as opposite gender persons, and we, as a church, need to be able to respond to this reality as Dr. Jane Spahr has done with faithfulness and compassion,” the ruling stated.

The tribunal gave her a “reprimand”, the church equivalent of “Naughty girl, Jane, shame on you. Would you like a lollipop?” Because while they condemned her breaking of the policy, their real criticism was toward the policy itself. (LA Times)

“In addition, we call upon the church to reexamine our own fear and ignorance that continues to reject the inclusiveness of the gospel of Jesus Christ,” the decision said. “We say this believing that we have in our own Book of Order conflicting and even contradictory rules and regulations that are against the gospel.”

Spahr will appeal the verdict. The PC(USA) may well be next in the line of mainline churches who are finding ways for their congregations to honor the same-sex couples in their midst. And until they are fully inclusive, Jane will be there prodding them on.

CBS Poll: support increases for couples

CBS has a new poll out which asks a slew of questions on a broad range of subjects, and a few of them related to gay issues.

Relatedly, today NOM’s Maggie Gallagher whined about Ken Mehlman’s support for marriage equality:

Supporting gay marriage, however, is a very different and very public matter… The American people — including over 80% of Republicans and even 40% of Democrats — oppose same-sex marriage. NOM has already proven in races from New York to California that it is a particularly bad idea for Republicans to support gay marriage.

First up was marriage:

q57 Which comes closest to your view? Gay couples should be allowed to legally marry, OR
gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not legally marry, OR there should
be no legal recognition of a gay couple’s relationship?

40% – Allowed to legally marry
30% – Civil unions
25% – No legal recognition
5% – don’t know / no answer

We are now seeing some consistency to support for full marriage equality. In April, CBS reported 39% in favor of equality, and this confirms that April’s response was not a fluke.

But more importantly, the opposition to any legal recognition appears to be weakening For quite some time, nationally the polls have revealed a fairly even 1/3 split between marriage, civil unions, and nothing. At 25% is the lowest I’ve seen reported in the “nothing” category.

As for Maggie’s assertions about Republicans, they just don’t seem to hold up to the facts (like so very much that she says). Actually, Maggie and other opponents of gay couples also appear to be losing their sole demographic.

According to this poll, only 37% of Republicans oppose all recognition, while one in four Republicans now support marriage equality with an additional 34% opting of civil unions. Considering that well over half of Republicans now support couple recognition, this may well help us understand the party’s silence on both of the recent Massachusetts and California judicial decisions and the “congratulations” response to Kel Mehlman’s recent decision to come out. And Maggie’s increasing appearance of anger and depression.

Next came DADT:

q58 Do you favor or oppose permitting gay men and lesbians to serve in the military? Do
you favor/oppose that strongly or not so strongly?

54% – Favor strongly
21% – Favor not so strongly
10% – Oppose not so strongly
9% – Oppose strongly
6% – Don’t know / didn’t answer

No real surprises. As we have long known, large majorities of Americans favor gay service personnel (including 70% of Republicans). This number is up about 5% from earlier this year, mostly from the undecideds.

What is interesting is that 61% of Americans who have served or are currently serving in the military agree (sorry, Elaine Donnelly).

But then CBS skewed their own survey by asking the question a second time, but this time emphasizing “openly announcing their sexual orientation”.

q59 What if they openly announce their sexual orientation? in that case would you favor
or oppose permitting gay men and lesbians to serve in the military?

This is odd phrasing; “openly announce” suggests some form of aggressive activism.

Further, by asking again, CBS implies that this should change your answer. Any time a pollster asks, “yeah, but what if…” it will almost always result in some who question their first response and instinctively change it.

The poll would have been much more accurate had it simply asked the first question with the word “openly” before gay. I very much doubt that q58 would have had different results, as that is what most people would think they were answering anyway. But by asking a second loaded question, the “favor” numbers dropped by 11%.

Greg Gutfeld on marriage

Lately a number of conservatives have been making statements that throw all of our assumptions out the window. Those we expect to be the most obnoxious about gay issues suddenly announce that they don’t care in the slightest whether gay folk get married. You’d think we’d learn when Glenn Beck put gay marriage in the “meh, whatever” category.

But presumptions are a hard thing to kill and I’m no less guilty than others. So when I heard (via snippet) that Fox News’ Red Eye host Greg Gutfeld was proposing a gay bar for Muslims (specifically to annoy the builders of the “Ground Zero Mosque”), I jumped to the immediate conclusion that Gutfeld was, at best, not sympathetic to gay rights. I jumped too quickly.

Now, I’m not without cause. After all, GLAAD declared Gutfeld “one of the worst voices of 2008” saying that

Gutfeld criticized Ellen DeGeneres for announcing her upcoming wedding, saying Ellen should “shut the hell up about it.”

And I foolishly took GLAAD’s word rather than go hear the clip for myself, so I didn’t realize that Gutfeld’s monologue was on how talking about your marriage will doom it – which is why he doesn’t talk about his own. Today, I listened hard to hear the homophobia, but it appears that GLAAD’s ear may be better fine-tuned than mine.

The Daily Caller followed up on Gutfeld’s satirically proposed bar and reports the following:

5.) I heard you have a proposal to build a gay bar near the Ground Zero mosque with fun names like “Heaven and Halal.” Where does that currently stand?

I actually haven’t decided on the name yet. I like the name — and this is Bill Schulz’s idea –”Dialogue” because that way I really am building dialogue and I think that is a really smart idea.

6.) Have you had any financing offers for the bar?

I’ve had literally hundreds, maybe a thousand offers anywhere from $10 to thousand and thousands of dollars, from all over the world. This thing hit a nerve. I spent the last week just trolling through my emails and dividing them into files, “okay this guy is serious, this guy doesn’t have any money but wants to get involved, this person is offering to be my bouncer.” This guy, a former Green Beret, I think, offered to be my bouncer. Other people are offering real estate advice, people from the hospitality business offering consultation. After almost 18 years of being in the media, I’ve never seen this kind of a response to a story or an idea or a proposal. It’s really great because people get the idea. They understand what I am talking about. Because really, what is true tolerance? What is real tolerance? It is not about words. It’s about deeds.

7.) Along with all this gay talk, I’m wondering, where do you stand on gay marriage?

I have no problems with it. Look, gays deserve everything straights have, that’s just the bottom line. If it makes it easier for everybody, just remove the whole idea of marriage from government. I think it’s more of a religious question. They attach marriage to their religious beliefs and I can understand, it’s about the word. You know, I don’t care what they call it. And this thing out in California — so confusing to me. But you know what, whatever makes you happy and doesn’t hurt anybody — which sounds really contrived — is basically the way it should be, in my mind.

NY Times: 17 states support marriage equality

The New York Times released a graph in which they claim that 17 states have support for marriage equality at 50% or higher. I think that’s a pipe dream; the polls I’ve seen simply don’t support it.

But, nonetheless, there is value to be found in looking at the progress made in the past decade and a half. And even if their numbers are off by 5 to 10 percent, there are still a sizable number of states that either support equality or soon will.

Mexico’s Catholic Church threatens war

You can’t always trust what you read on the often-nutty Catholic news source LifeSiteNews, but considering the wackadoodle craziness we’ve been hearing from the Catholic hierarchy in Mexico lately, it’s hard to put anything beyond them.

As we told you, Cardinal Juan Sandoval Iniguez of Guadalajara accused the mayor of Mexico City of bribing the nation’s Supreme Court to find that Mexico City’s marriage equality law did not violate the constitution. And he says he has proof.

Mayor Marcelo Ebrard filed a defamation suit against Iniguez. And it is in that context that LifeSiteNews tells us:

The spokesman for the Archdiocese of Mexico City, Hugo Valdemar, is coming out swinging against the socialist political establishment, which is threatening him, the city’s cardinal archbishop and the cardinal archbishop of Guadalajara, with punitive measures following comments condemning the city’s new pro-abortion and gay “marriage” legislation.

Denouncing the “new religious persecution” begun by Mexico City Chief of Government Marcelo Ebrard, which is motivated by “intolerance, hatred, and viscerality,” Valdemar warned that the actions of the mayor could “unleash a war in the country.”

If, indeed, the Church is declaring Holy War on the government, then this is actually becoming serious.