Box Turtle Bulletin

Are You Married?

That is a question that will be asked on the 2010 US Census and it you’re heterosexual it’s a pretty easy question to answer. But not if you are a same-sex couple.

Sure, if you live in Massachusetts and are married in the eyes of your state, or if you’re a single guy or gal who is living footloose and fancy free, then you know your answer. But what if you’re somewhere in between?

Suppose you live in South Dakota and you have made vows before your community blessed by your place of worship and honored by your friends and family. Are you married?

Or suppose that you live in New Jersey and entered into a civil union which has “everything but the name”. Are you married?

Or you live in California where the Supreme Court justified the implementation of Proposition 8 by stating that domestic partnerships are acceptable equality provided that there not any provisions offered differently between domestic partnerships and marriage. Is “included on the census” a difference? Are you married?

Or you married in Connecticut but live in Virginia. Traveling cross country would have you married on one day and total strangers on the next. Or if you live in Rhode Island and the state has told you that it will not grant you a divorce for your legal Massachusetts wedding. Are you married?

At some point, state law almost becomes moot in answering this census question. Because recognition based on one’s current residence may dictate whether one’s marriage is recognized, but say very little about whether one is married. At some point the real answer becomes, “Yes, in the eyes of my family, my friends, my employer, my neighbors, my community, my city government, my church and, most importantly, me and my spouse, I am married. And if my state can’t ‘recognize’ that simple fact, then it needs to clean its glasses.”

And that is just how same-sex couples are expected to answer questions about their marriage status in next year’s census count. (WaPo)

When the U.S. Census Bureau counts same-sex married couples next year, demographers expect hundreds of thousands to report they are spouses — even though legal same-sex weddings in the United States number in the tens of thousands.

The Post goes on to suggest that the primary motivation for this will be to provide a basis for advocating for gay rights. And indeed, the data will be used to show that gay people are everywhere in this nation and that even the most conservative representative in the reddest state has married gay constituents he needs to serve.

But I think the motivation will be much more primal and personal. I think couples will tick the “married” box because, well, they are. And what else could you expect them to answer?

D.C. Marriage Equality an All But Sure Thing

District of Columbia councilman David Catania will introduce a marriage equality bill for the District in the coming weeks. He appears to have adequate support for passage. (WaPo)

After months of buildup and behind-the-scenes lobbying, a bill by David A. Catania, one of two openly gay members of the council, has been drafted and is ready to be introduced in the coming weeks. Catania (I-At Large) expects a final vote before the end of the year. On Thursday, Catania said he had 10 co-sponsors, all but assuring that the measure will be approved by the council. The bill would have to survive congressional review before it could become law.

Wisely, Catania is following the precedent of New England states in assuring religious institutions that they need not change their theology.

Catania’s bill, titled the “Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009,” stresses that no religious organizations or their officials would have to perform a same-sex marriage or provide wedding-related services to same-sex couples.

“I think it is very important for people to realize we are talking about a civil marriage, not a religious marriage,” Catania said.

Starting in 2011, the bill would eliminate domestic partnerships, although any couple already registered would have the option of keeping their partnership or converting it for free to a city-sanctioned marriage.

Naturally, anti-gay activists will do whatever they can to deny to gay people the rights that they hold so dear for themselves. But with Democratic majorities in both houses, this bill may not be subjected to a congressional veto.

Bill To Repeal DOMA Coming Next Week

The Advocate is reporting that Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) will introduce legislation next Tuesday to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. According to reporter Kerry Eleveld, the bill has just over fifty cosponsors. The bill’s introduction is slated to be announced during a press conference on September 15 at 11 a.m. EST.

Referendum 71 Cleared for Vote

Thurston County Superior Court Judge Thomas McPhee has rejected the arguments by Washington Families Standing Together that only signatures of actual registered voters collected in conformity with required procedures should be considered as valid towards the anti-gay referendum.

WFST may appeal the decision, but time is quickly running out.

Maggie Thinks You’re a Bully… and She Wants You to Pay For It

Maggie Gallagher, president of National Organization for Marriage seems to be getting shriller every time I hear from her. In her latest rant on Townhall, Maggie equates even the most cautious of concern for gay people as an accusation that she is a hater and a bigot:

Most of the people in Maine were enthusiastic, but one clergyman asked me, “Shouldn’t we live with our neighbors in peace?”

His question haunts me for its debased presumptions: Is using democracy to fight for shared values somehow an act of war against our neighbors? “Agree with me or you’re a hater” is not the authentic voice of peace and tolerance. But the question underscored an increasingly obvious truth: Gay marriage advocates now rage against Americans who disagree with them, no matter how civilly we conduct the debate. They believe only one side has the moral right to be heard.

Perhaps the Townhall readers can, with Maggie, hear rage, denial of a right to be heard, and an accusation that she’s a hater in the clergyman’s, but to me she’s sounding more and more like a loon. And a selfish entitlement-obsessed loon, at that.

Here’s the truth: You will now be called a hater and a bigot merely for standing for marriage as one woman and one man. What do we make of this sad truth? So far, the bullies pay no price for their meanness and their rage.

Oh, but you know that if Maggie can get her way, you’ll pay and pay dearly. How dare you question her authority?!

Which may be why I’ve finally figured out who Maggie Gallagher reminds me of: Delores Umbridge. They seem to share the same perspective on life.

Sunday Driver: Thoughts on Getting Married

As I write this, my partner Michael and I are on vacation in Winter Park, Colorado. One of my closest friends from New York City is getting married and we’ve flown in a few days before the wedding. It’s been a year since either of us has had any real time off, and despite the fact that I haven’t been able to stop myself from checking my work e-mail, it’s been a nice break.

The wedding on Sunday will be the first I’ve attended since Mike and I got engaged a few months ago, which has made me look at all the events with an eye toward our own ceremony. I take note of what I think would fit and what wouldn’t. Many of the rituals don’t — my dad, for instance, is not giving me away. So we’ve had to make up a lot as we’ve gone along; I think that suits us.

Me (left) and Mike at Niagara Falls

We planned the proposal together, chose matching Tiffany wedding bands and bought them, decided to go to Mario Batali’s Del Posto for dinner. As we walked over to the West Side for dinner, we stopped at Madison Square Park. We sat on a bench, and as people walked by with their dogs and children, we exchanged the rings in a place we had been many times before.

For a number of reasons, I never thought I’d get married. My experiences in reorientation therapy with Dr. Joseph Nicolosi had convinced me at a young age that being gay would mean being alone — gay relationships didn’t last. I believed that long after I gave up on therapy. But even after I disabused myself of that toxic notion, I had never met anyone I thought I could be with indefinitely.

I met Mike at a party and was dating someone else at the time. After we friended each other on Facebook, I asked him to dinner, which I knew was playing with fire. I told myself that it was just a friendly meeting, but none of my friends failed to point out that I was not telling my partner at the time. I said I did not want to upset him unnecessarily, but even I didn’t fully buy my own story. Shortly after we had dinner, my ex and I broke up, for a number of reasons, and Mike and I were dating within a few weeks.

Visiting my parents in Arizona

We’ve been together for nearly two years and decided to get engaged before I left New York to work at the Prospect in Washington, DC. The thought of getting married still scares me. Walking down Fifth Avenue after having bought the ring, I remember thinking, “This isn’t just talk anymore.” It was a serious, adult thing to do, and it made me a bit nostalgic for single life, which was lonely but always infused with a sense of possibility. When I first moved to New York, I knew no one and spent much of my free time wandering the city alone, walking home from work in the World Financial Center, or back and forth across the island, or in the park. Sometimes I miss that solitude, but I forget why I miss it when Mike is off in Boston from Monday to Thursday for work.

Marriage also scares me less when I think of the fact that I can still be myself in it; I don’t have to do any last-minute repairs to make myself “ready.” And it doesn’t mean everything will be perfect. In a way, it won’t change anything. Mike and I will still love each other, still share our thoughts and feelings. We’ll fight, too. The fact that it won’t change much in our day-to-day begs the question, Why get married? We would still be together even if Connecticut and Massachusetts were not a train ride away, and even if both DC and New York did not recognized gay marriage. But our relationship doesn’t exist in a vacuum; we share it with our friends, co-workers and, in my case, I share it with readers. It is as much a public partnership as a private relationship, which is why having it acknowledged from the outside is important.

This morning, Mike and I drove into downtown Winter Park (if you can call it that) and had brunch outside. I rarely remember the things we talk about, but I do hold on to the profound feeling of well-being, and remember how the midday light shone off the glass table. It’s then when I think marriage won’t change a thing. But when I’m at a social event and someone asks me about the ring, or when I have to take a flight on my own and worry about who will take care of him if the plane goes down, I realize: maybe marriage does change everything.

Consequences of Same-Sex Marriage: Lowest Divorce Rate Since WWII

Massachusetts was the first state in the union to grant full marriage rights to same-sex couples. They’ve been at it now for five years, and what do we have to show for it?

According to the most recent data from the National Center For Vital Statistics, Massachusetts retains the national title as the lowest divorce rate state, and the MA divorce rate is about where the US divorce rate was in 1940, prior to the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor that triggered the US entrance into World War Two.

Provisional data from 2008 indicates that the Massachusetts divorce rate has dropped from 2.3 per thousand in 2007 down to about 2.0 per thousand for 2008. What does that mean ? To get a sense of perspective consider that the last time the US national divorce rate was 2.0 per thousand (people) was 1940. You read that correctly. The Massachusetts divorce rate is now at about where the US divorce rate was the year before the United States entered World War Two.

Maine’s Anti-Gay Marriage Campaign Leader is Completely Insane

Mark Mutty, Executive Chairman of the Stand for Marriage coalition, made a most interesting to a reporter from the Maine Public Broadcasting Network:

As a longtime public affairs director for the diocese, Mutty views himself and the coaliton as defending the traditional definition of marriage and the role it plays in society. To redefine it by allowing same-sex couples to marry, Mutty says will lead to curriculum changes in the schools.

“And many certainly feel uncomfortable about that, and the fact that children as young as seven or eight years old are going to be taught about gay sex in some detail.”

Wait… what?!?

If Maine gets marriage equality then seven year old kids will be taught about gay sex in detail?

OK.

That’s completely and entirely irrational. Second graders aren’t taught about straight sex and heterosexuals have been getting married in Maine all year long. No one is going to be telling small children the mechanics of sex between anyone in school.

So either Mutty is a completely delusional nutcase with no cognizance of the world around him and should be put somewhere for his own safety or he’s a bald-faced liar who is seeking to demonize gay people and scare voters with claims that he himself knows to be completely bogus.

Liar or lunatic. There really aren’t any other options.

Referendum 71 Signatures Released… But Not Public

The suit to release the names of the signatories of Referendum 71 to gay groups seeking to know who signed (and to publish the names) has been delayed for another week. But the opponents of the referendum seeking to have invalid signatures disqualified were provided with the names.

Yes, it’s confusing.

The Stranger:

In a dance between federal and state courts, US District Court Judge Benjamin Settle has just announced that petitions for Referendum 71 will remain sealed until September 10, when he will make his final decision whether the names and addresses of people who signed should be made public. However, Judge Settle did release petitions to Washington Families Standing Together (WAFST), which, earlier this afternoon, filed a lawsuit in Thurston County Superior Court to challenge the validity of signatures that were accepted by elections officials.

NOM Loses Big in Iowa

Maggie Gallagher gambled big in Iowa. Her National Organization for Marriage spent over $86,000 to buy television ads for the Republican candidate, Stephen Burgmeier, who supports putting marriage equality up to a vote.

While $86,000 might not be a large sum in, say, the New York gubernatorial campaign, it towers in comparison to the $63 K Burgmeier raised on his own or the $43 K pulled in by his opponent. But this flood of cash did not accomplish what they had hoped. (Iowa Independent)

Democrat Curt Hanson has defeated Republican Stephen Burgmeier by 107 votes in Iowa House District 90, according to unofficial results released by the Iowa Secretary of State\’s office Tuesday night.

Hanson will replace former state Rep. John Whitaker (D-Hillsboro), who was appointed to a position with the USDA. The balance of power in Iowa\’s lower legislative chamber remains unchanged, with Democrats holding on to a somewhat volatile 56-44 majority.

But the bigger loss for Maggie and NOM may be procedural and in reputation. As in Maine, questions have arisen about whether NOM is flouting campaign law and illegally money-laundering contributions. (Los Angeles Times)

Last month, W. Charles Smithson, the director of the Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board, wrote to NOM to “make sure everyone was on the same page” and that the group was familiar with Iowa election law. One point Smithson made was that NOM would need to register as a political action committee if donors are giving $750 or more for “express advocacy activities” – as well as disclose the identities of donors.

When NOM did not register as a PAC or disclose the source of the television ad funds, One Iowa and the Interfaith Alliance of Iowa Action Fund filed a complaint with the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board.

As these complaints continue to stack up, state by state, eventually Gallagher will find herself explaining to a judge a good deal more about the structure and funding of the National Organization for Marriage than she wishes. And if Fred Karger’s accusation about NOM being a front-group for the Mormon Church has any basis whatsoever, such a disclosure could be devastating to her efforts.

I hardly see how gambling on a long-shot candidate in Iowa in flagrant violation of campaign laws could have been considered a wise bet.

Washington Judge OK’s Referendum 71 Certification

In Washington, Judge Julie Spector has decided not to block Referendum 71 from being being certified. But her decision may be procedural rather than based on content. (Seattle PI)

Spector said challenges to a referendum must be filed in Thurston County Superior Court after certification – and supporters of the “everything but marriage” law still had that option for trying to get R-71 off the ballot. The group that brought the original lawsuit – Washington Families Standing Together – said it would go to court in Thurston County to try to block R-71.

As to whether the signatures were invalid, the judge found that question ambiguous.

In her ruling Spector said Reed has the power under state law to reject petitions with falsely signed declarations, petitions with blank declarations and signatures from people who weren’t yet registered to vote.

“It is conceded that the number of signatures represented by these inadequate petitions is significant. Without them, the secretary of state could not certify Referendum 71 for the ballot,” Spector wrote.

However she also said that state law does not require the secretary of state to not accept petitions that don’t meet statutory requirements. “In summary, under Washington case law it is unclear whether there are any limits to the secretary of state’s discretion as long as he has chosen to accept petitions rather than reject them.”

In other words, it was up to the Secretary of State whether he wanted to allow Referendum 71 to go to ballot. We will see if Superior Court agrees.

But judge also noted that there was language in the petition that may invalidate the entire process.

The judge also said there were highlights on top of the petitions that contain “apparent falsehoods,” such as the statement that if same-sex marriage becomes law public schools would be forced to teach that homosexuality is “normal…even over the objections of parents.”

Spector said the required signature-gatherers declaration swears that people who signed the petition did so “knowingly.”

“It is unclear whether a signature-gatherer can swear than an individual signer has signed the petition ‘knowingly’ when the signature-gatherer has allegedly misrepresented the contents of the petition,” Spector wrote.

Bishop Jackson is Back to Fighting Marriage in D.C.

In July Bishop Harry Jackson of Maryland lost his battle to stop the District of Columbia from recognizing same-sex marriages conducted in states where they are legal. The D.C. Board of Elections & Ethics ruled that such a referndom was in violation of the city\’s election code because it was not consistent with the District’s Human Rights Act.

Now he’s back with a request for a ballot initiative. (Washington Post)

The one-sentence initiative reads, “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in the District of Columbia.”

The legislature of the District has already indicated that it will propose and pass legislation legalizing same-sex marriage in the nation’s capital. Jackson hopes this will stall the process.

Court Decision on Referendum 71 on Wednesday

Seattle PI:

During a hearing Monday afternoon, King County Superior Court Judge Julie Spector heard arguments from lawyers representing the Secretary of State, proponents of R-71 and Washington Families Standing Together, the group opposed to the referendum.

Families Standing Together filed a lawsuit last week requesting an injunction that would keep the referendum off the fall ballot. Spector said she will issue a ruling by Wednesday on the matter.

Referendum 71 Qualifies

From the Secretary of State’s website:

With the Referendum 71 signature-check now nearly complete, state election officials say they\’ve now confirmed that sponsors turned in more than the bare minimum needed for a spot on the November statewide ballot. Signature-checkers passed the 121,000 mark on Monday, the 23rd day of an exhaustive hand check of all 137,000-plus signatures submitted on July 25 by foes of a new “everything but marriage” domestic partnership law passed by the Legislature in April.
…
The numbers still are unofficial and not final, as checkers do one final check of hundreds of previously rejected signatures of people who weren\’t initially found in the voter registration records. That should extend the margin a bit, but the final margin could be in the range of 1,000.

Unless the court rules against the Secretary’s procedure of accepting unsigned and fraudulently stamped petition sheets, refusing to double-check identified questionable signatures, and allowing signatures for not-yet-registered voters, then Washingtonians will be asked to validate or reject the legislature’s action.

Take a moment now to think about what you can do to impact the outcome of votes in Washington and Maine.

Referendum 71 Hinges on Lawsuit

The Washington Secretary of State’s Election Division has now observed 125,631 (91.2%) of the signatures submitted for validation. Of these, 110,797 have been accepted and approximately another 500 will be accepted by the “third check” process.

This means that of the remaining 12,058 signatures to review, the opponents of domestic partnership enhancements need only get 9,260 signatures, or 76.7% deemed valid. This is, at this time, a foregone conclusion.

However, Washington Families has sued to stop the Secretary of State from certifying the signatures. They raise a number of issues encompassing several irregularities.

Procedural: The SoS is accepting petitions that are not signed by the circulater or which are known to be fraudulently signature-stamped by the campaign manager. While this may seem a matter of technicality, the fraudulent signature-stamps is a criminal act and in addition to those petitions being rejected, Larry Stickney should be prosecuted.

Fraudulent: Signatures are being accepted as valid even when it is known that the signer was not registered to vote at the time they signed.

Dismissive: The Elections Division is refusing to reinspect over 1,000 specific instances where observers believe they have detected error. I’m confused as to the purpose of observers if the Secretary refuses to listen to their observations.

Should Washington Families prevail in having the 36,154 signatures on unsigned or stamped petitions be removed then the referendum is invalid. If the unregistered signers or the specific errors be considered, then the referendum again becomes to close to call.

Addendum: For those following the peculiar “third check”, had this step not been incorporated, today the fail-rate would have for the first time exceeded 12.4% and the failure of this referendum would have been predictable.