Box Turtle Bulletin

Frank Rich on NOM’s “Camp Classic”

In Frank Rich’s outstanding column in the New York Times yesterday, he sees the National Organization for Marriage’s latest add — which he called a “camp classic” — as a historic turning point:

What gives the ad its symbolic significance is not just that it\’s idiotic but that its release was the only loud protest anywhere in America to the news that same-sex marriage had been legalized in Iowa and Vermont. If it advances any message, it\’s mainly that homophobic activism is ever more depopulated and isolated as well as brain-dead.

Rich notes that the latest news from Iowa and Vermont was, with the exception of the NOM ad, greated with a nationwide yawn. Fox News barely mentioned it, Saddleback Pastor struggled to remake himself into a Prop 8 non-supporter, Dr. Laura Schlessinger decided that committed gay and lesbian couples were a “beautiful thing,” and John McCain strategist Steve Schmidt gave a convincinly conservative argument for same-sex marraige. All of which makes for a very lonely week for NOM.

McCain Advisor Announces Support for Marriage

In September of last year we noted that Steve Schmidt, John McCain’s top campaign advisor, had sought to encourage Log Cabin Republicans (a gay Republican group) at the National Republican Convention.

Today he has made headlines by telling the Log Cabin annual national convention that he endorses gay marriage and will be encouraging Republican leaders to drop anti-gay positions.

It can be argued, although I disagree, that marriage should remain the legal union of a man and a woman because changing it to admit same sex unions would undermine the most basic institution of a well ordered society. It can be argued according to the creeds and convictions of religious belief, which I respect. But it cannot be argued that marriage between people of the same sex is un-American or threatens the rights of others. On the contrary, it seems to me that denying two consenting adults of the same sex the right to form a lawful union that is protected and respected by the state denies them two of the most basic natural rights affirmed in the preamble of our Declaration of Independence – liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, I believe, gives the argument of same sex marriage proponents its moral force.

and

There is a sound conservative argument to be made for same sex marriage. I believe conservatives, more than liberals, insist that rights come with responsibilities. No other exercise of one\’s liberty comes with greater responsibilities than marriage. In a marriage, two people are completely responsible to and for each other. If you are not willing to accept and faithfully discharge those responsibilities, you shouldn\’t enter the state of matrimony, and it doesn\’t make a damn bit of difference if you\’re straight or gay. It is a responsibility like no other, which can and should make marriage an association between two human beings more fulfilling than any other.

For those who come from a conservative perspective, Schmidt’s speech is a joy to read.

Log Cabin’s convention this year is a bit of a McCainapalooza as in addition to Schmidt, the candidate’s wife Cindy and daughter Meghan will be hosting a reception for major donors tonight. Meghan McCain will also be headlining tomorrow night’s dinner.

Transcript of the entire speech below the break

Your Mail Order Ally

You’ve probably don’t recognize the name of the Universal Life Church, but you have heard of them and may even know one of its ministers. The ULC is that organization that will ordain you as minister for free over the internet without any religious training or belief requirements.

What you may not know is that this church is not a gimmick. They are a real church with real congregants and a real belief system. And part of their beliefs are that everyone is ordained by God to be a minister and that your religious values and ideals – as long as they are not violent – are as valid as anyone else’s (though much of their ministry has the language and a theological association with Christian traditions). Which is why they have for decades been providing mail-order ordination.

For the most part, the ULC has been non-political, entering into the fray only when the rights of their ministers or ministry have been challenged. But now the ULC has a cause that they believe is worth fighting for: you.

The Universal Life Church Monastery (TheMonastery.org) has announced a legal defense campaign that will take action in all states that have enacted unconstitutional same-sex sacramental marriage restraints. The Universal Life Church Monastery reports that “States that deny ministers the religious right to perform the sacrament of marriage, regardless of the couple’s sexual orientation, do so in violation of the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.”

It’s not clear what actions, if any, that the ULC will engage in. But it is encouraging that they have begun to look into the constitutionality of states denying recognition of sacraments solely based on the doctrines of those denied.

I’ve long felt that laws which recognize the marriage sacraments of the local Southern Baptist Church but refuse to recognize those of the local Congregational Church were likely in violation of the Constitution. But because more people attend churches that are anti-gay (including legislators), they feel comfortable in declaring that pro-gay churches should be denied equality under the law.

And this has become even more clear to me when I note that nearly all of the argument in favor of excluding same-sex marriages performed by a Congregational Church were based on religious doctrine. Virtually all of those who stand to speak in opposition to marriage equality do so motivated by the desire to encode their religious doctrines into law.

This isn’t the first time churches have objected to inequality. More than a few Unitarian Universalist or United Church of Christ ministers have announced that they would not solemnize opposite-sex marriages for as long as the state banned them from solemnizing same-sex marriages.

So I’ve been waiting for the day when a denomination would announce that they were going to court to sue for religious freedom. I just was kinda was hoping that it would be the United Methodists or the UCC rather than the church of mail-order ministers.

Gov. Paterson Introduces NY Marriage Bill

Today, fulfilling his promise, NY Governor David Paterson held a press conference announcing that he would introduce a bill to the NY State Senate to legalize same-sex marriage. Although many supporters of marriage equality had originally balked at addressing the vote too quickly, today he was joined by NYC Mayor Bloomberg, Assembymember Danny Odonnell, Sen Tom Duane, City Council Speaker Chris Quinn, and Empire State Pride Agenda head Alan Van Capelle.

Jeremy at Good-As-You has video of the press conference.

This bill may fail in the Senate. And some fear that if this bill is defeated that it will be seen as a setback for marriage supporters and a victory for anti-gays.

But I think that if fear silences the debate and keeps the Senators from going on record, then the anti-gays have already won. It’s time to be counted. And those who oppose equality must be exposed.

And I’m optimistic. I think that there is a strong possibility that when it comes time to place their name next to this historical marker, some Republicans may surprise us and vote for the bill. Maybe even enough to make New York the second state to voluntarily enact marriage equality.

Washington Gets All-But-The-Name

In 2007, the State of Washington enacted a Domestic Partnership registry. It was beefed up in 2008, and now legislation has passed to give it all the same rights and responsibilities as marriage:

The bill, which adds hundreds of rights and responsibilities to current law, passed the house on a 62-35 vote. The vote follows a 30-18 in the state Senate several weeks ago. The bill now heads to Governor Christine Gregoire’s desk for a signature.

Congratulations Washingtonians

Nevada’s Governor to Veto Domestic Partnerships

Nevada’s Senate is now considering a bill to create a Domestic Partnership registry (pdf) which would provide domestic partners with “the same rights, protections, benefits, responsibilities, obligations and duties as do parties to any other civil contract created pursuant to title 11 of NRS” (marriage law).

But even should this bill pass, Gov. Jim Gibbons has said he will veto the bill:

Responding to reporters’ questions, the Republican governor said Tuesday that he will veto SB283, the domestic partner measure now under consideration in the state Senate, if it reaches his desk because “I just don’t believe in it.”

One interesting thing about Nevada is the power held by just one industry. Financed almost entirely by casinos, the State of Nevada collects neither income tax nor sales tax. And what is good for the Vegas Strip is good for Nevada.

Should the rest of the Strip decide to join Paris Las Vegas and seek to market to gay travelors, Jim Gibbons may well see a miracle that cures his disbelief.

When “Protecting Marriage” Means Ignoring Marriage

The Des Moines Register has a very small blurb about a new bill that a state Senator wants to introduce now that the Senate is winding down:

No Iowans should be forced to recognize a gay marriage if they\’re religiously opposed to it, a state senator said Tuesday.

Sen. David Hartsuch, R-Bettendorf, said he is proposing a bill that says “a person shall not be compelled to recognize a marriage solemnized in this state if such recognition conflicts with the person\’s religious beliefs or moral convictions.”

It\’s too late for lawmakers to file new bills, but Senate Republican Leader Paul McKinley asked the Senate Democratic Leader Mike Gronstal Tuesday to sponsor the bill with him. Gronstal said he\’d consider it.

This would broaden the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision, which held that no religion would beforced to recognize a marriage it didn’t want to, to include virtually anyone. But this bill, it seems to me, would run afoul of the state Supreme Court decision, opening up same-sex couples to precisely the kind of discrimination that the Supreme Court sought to address.

More Lies from David Benkof

Last summer I started a project of exposing the lies of David Benkof, a man who had been gay (going by David Bianco), then bisexual, then queer with mutable identity, and now is “deliberately living traditionally”.

At that time Benkof was writing articles in straight publications in which he claimed to be a columnist for gay newspapers (he thought it gave credibility to his anti-gay rants). He also briefly had some articles published in some gay magazines until the editors or publishers discovered his intent.

After a bit of observation, it became clear to me that Benkof suffers from what I\’ll call “Truth Deficit Disorder”. He found it almost impossible to go more than a few paragraphs without busting into hyperbole, exaggeration, distortion, or just flat-out falsehoods. And David\’s favorite subject about which to, ahem, wax creatively was same-sex marriage.

However, David\’s desire to support Proposition 8 exposed him to those who were running the effort. And in what was a great surprise to him (but no one else) he discovered that bigots are generous in the extent of their arrogance and animus. Homophobes don\’t have much fondness for Jews, either.

And, feeling disillusioned, on July 13 of last year he blogged his final good-bye.

I wished him well and promptly put him out of mind.

Well now he\’s back and it seems that his methods haven\’t changed much since he saw the ugly side of bigotry. He\’s still more than eager to trot out dishonesty and deception as his hallmark and calling card.

Today Benkof has an article in the New York Post in which he uses a false pretext to spread more dishonesty about gay folk. Big surprise.

First Benkof praises Vermont for enacting religious liberty protections in their marriage laws. But the praise is artificial, based on a false premise, and nothing but a vehicle for attacking the gay community. Again, big surprise.

The Green Mountain State’s new law says in its “Public Accommodations” section that religious groups “shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges to an individual if the request . . . is related to the solemnization of a marriage or celebration of a marriage.” It also bars civil lawsuits against religious groups that refuse to provide goods or services to same-sex weddings.

Benkof sees this as a real difference. It isn\’t.

Churches can already deny services, accommodations, advantages, etc. to married couples of the same sex based on their religion. They always have and always will. What the Vermont law does clarify is that religious organizations, such as the Knights of Columbus, may also deny their halls or their facilities for marriage ceremonies.

And this is a clarification that I believe to be beneficial. I think that those religiously affiliated non-profits or fraternal organizations that wish to uphold their religious convictions about orientation or race or religion should be able to do so…. provided, of course, that they are not receiving special benefits from the state for being “open to all”.

But that\’s where Benkof and I cease to see eye to eye. What he does next is typical Benkof:

Without serious religious freedom guarantees, disturbing punishments have been meted out to people and groups who have acted consistent with their belief that marriage is between a man and a woman and that children are best served with both a mother and a father. The following actions have taken place in states with gay marriage, marriagelike institutions or even strong nondiscrimination laws on the basis of sexual orientation:

Now that is a carefully written paragraph. If one cares little for honesty and only wants to try and claim some technical truth, then one can feel all clever with oneself for writing it.

He doesn\’t say that what follows has anything to do with marriage. He just implies it by saying that this is how Vermont differs. In other words, deliberate deception rather than a direct lie.

These thing all happened “in states with marriage, marriagelike institutions or strong nondiscrimination laws.”

Or with running water.

Because the truth is that not a single example he lists had ANYTHING to do with marriage. Or with marriage laws – the subject he’s pretending to be talking about.

Then Benkof trots out the usual half-truths of anti-gays about a New Mexico photographer, eHarmony, Boston\’s Catholic Charities, and the lesbian denied fertility treatment.

Geez, the average reader – the one that Benkof is counting on reading his piece – would think, “Gosh, that\’s all due to gay marriage”. And if they missed that connection, Benkof slams it home by immediately talking about “the courts in Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, and Iowa”.

Now we\’ve covered all of Benkof\’s talking points before. But you may enjoy taking a good look at this video rebuttal by Rob Tisinai to the type of claims that Benkof’s making (including a few of his actual complaints). It shows just how dishonest Benkof and his ilk are and how they will say anything in the advancement of their attack on the lives and freedoms of gay men and women.

Richard Land\’s Ignorance-Based Argument

It is embarrassing to write an opinion piece only to find out that you\’ve gotten a fact wrong. If you\’re lucky it\’s only an incidental point and not the thesis of your argument; to discover that your entire opinion is premised on an inaccuracy is mortifying.

So Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, is probably not going to be very proud of his article in the Baptist Press entitled The poster child for marriage amends. In it he argues that every state needs to enact an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment, in large part because:

With no residency requirements, the court’s opinion means at the end of April when the order goes into effect, same-sex couples will be free to travel from other states to exchange “vows” in the Iowa heartland.

This ruling turns Iowa into a destination for “same-sex marriages.” No doubt, there are weekend travel packages already being planned. Iowa will soon be the Las Vegas of “same-sex marriage” for America. And you know those folks won’t be resettling in the Hawkeye state, but will be heading back home — perhaps to your state to sue for recognition there.

Oh my, that\’s certain to startle some who fear that now, starting on April 27, same-sex couples will be able go get married somewhere else and import that marriage right back to your own state. After April 27, the world will be a very different place.

Scary!!!

The problem is, of course, that this is nonsense.

First, same-sex couples can already marry elsewhere and return back home.

Connecticut has no residency requirements and in July of last year Massachusetts repealed the law that restricted same-sex marriage to residents. After September 1, Vermont also will happily accommodate out-of-state marriages.

So with all due respect to Iowans, it is extremely unlikely that Iowa will soon be the Las Vegas of same-sex marriage for America.

Second, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) currently exempts states from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states. And here is where Land\’s argument falls completely apart.

Your state is protected by federal law from recognizing a same-sex marriage in Iowa. Any attempt to force them to do so would be by means of a federal lawsuit, not a state lawsuit. And should the Supreme Court of the United States determine either that gay people cannot be restricted from the rights and privileges grated to heterosexuals, OR that the US Constitution\’s ‘full faith and credit clause\’ invalidates DOMA, it doesn\’t matter how many anti-gay amendments you have cluttering up your state constitution.

Conversely, if a gay couple sues in your state for marriage rights, it will do so under your own state\’s constitution. Whether they went to be married in Iowa or Canada or just to their local United Church of Christ minister, the legal argument is the same.

The only states that could even begin to be impacted by Iowa\’s decision are New York, Rhode Island and perhaps Wyoming, states in which there is some legal opinion that out-of-state marriage is recognized. And the only impact is that Iowa is now added to the list of marriage venue choices.

Richard Land wants his readers to be frightened that the decision in Iowa has changed the marriage landscape because now same-sex marriages will be exported to your state.

But when it comes to the facts about the current status of same-sex marriage, Richard Land is startlingly misinformed. Or he hopes that you are.

Maine Marriage Hearing on April 22

WHDH is reporting:

Because so many people are expected to turn out, Maine’s Legislature has moved a public hearing on a gay marriage proposal to the Augusta Civic Center.

The Judiciary Committee also has changed the date of its daylong public hearing from April 24 to April 22. Doors will open at 8 a.m.

New Hampshire Marriage Hearing on Wednesday

From the Boston Globe:

The Senate will hold a hearing Wednesday on whether to make New Hampshire the fourth state to allow gay couples to marry.

The House narrowly passed the measure last month. Democratic Gov. John Lynch opposes gay marriage but has not said specifically that he would veto it.

Someone should inform the Globe that though Iowa is outside of New England, it still is a state. New Hampshire would be the sixth state to allow gay couples to marry and the fifth in which same-sex marriages could still be performed.

State sanctioned same-sex marriages were allowed in the following order:

• Massachusetts: May 17, 2004 onward
• Iowa: August 31, 2007 (one couple) and again from April 27, 2009 onward
• California: June 16, 2008 through November 4, 2008
• Connecticut: November 12, 2008 onward
• Vermont: September 1, 2009 onward

Maggie Gallagher’s PR Advisor Must Hate Her

“Ah,” you’re thinking, “How tacky. Box Turtle Bulletin is now trolling for three-way hook-ups”.

But no. We haven’t turned into a sex site and actually 2M4M isn’t “two men for men” at all. It’s the name of the new initiative by the National Organization for Marriage: Two Million for Marriage.

Right on the heels of their much-mocked zombie ad sponsoring their Opus Dei buddy, NOM brings us their latest:

In just a few minutes, NOM President Maggie Gallagher and I will hold a press conference in Trenton, NJ, announcing an ambitious new nationwide “2 Million for Marriage” (2M4M) initiative.

C’mon. You’ve got to be kidding.

Surely her PR people are having a laugh at her expense. Can anyone really be in PR and not have at least done a quick google to see if your new acronym is going to engender giggles?

Although…. if I saw, “Hi, we’re 2M4M and we are against marriage”, it might make some weird sense.

But seriously, how is this even an accident. It’s not like M4M is new. They were using it in the personals columns before the first chat room ever lit up a green blinking curser on a solid black screen.

Colorado Enacts Designated Beneficiary Act

The Human Rights Campaign is reporting that HB 1260 Designated Beneficiary Act has been signed by Colorado Governor Bill Ritter.

The new law, which will take effect on July 1, will permit any two people – regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity – to enter into designated beneficiary agreements that confer specific legal rights and responsibilities, including the right to receive state employee pension benefits, the right to make medical decisions for an incapacitated partner, and the right to inherit if a partner dies without a will.

These rights will undoubtedly benefit sets of individuals, including same-sex couples, and for them I am appreciative. The opposition to this bill derided it as “marriage light” and clearly objected to the fact that it would make the lives of gay people easier.

However, I find reciprocal beneficiary plans troubling.

I believe that there is a benefit to society for intertwining romantic relationships and social obligations and that such relationships are not comparable to roommates or poker buddies. And one core purpose of reciprocal beneficiaries is to make darn sure that those eligible for them know that their relationships are legally devoid of love and romance. You may have some selected rights – but only as a set of individuals, not as a family.

And, looking at Hawaii as an illustration, it seems that providing for some few rights to any designated beneficiaries can create a legal limbo from which it is difficult to emerge.

In California and other states, couples were recognized first. They became families. And then succeeding legislatures could argue over exactly which benefits should be denied some families based solely on the gender of those comprising them. Over time, it became obvious that denial of specific benefits to same-sex couples that were granted to opposite-sex couples seemed based on arbitrary distinctions or bigotry and gradually the state benefits and obligations granted became identical.

In Hawaii, however, there are no same-sex couples – only individual persons who have some reciprocal benefits. And it is easy to argue that there should be benefits granted to couples that are denied to roommates; surely we would not grant joint custody or apply community property, for example.

So it’s not surprising that rather than a gradually increasing bundle of rights and obligations, over time Hawaii has actually removed benefits leaving them of little value. Which may well be why less than a tenth of one percent of Hawaiians even bothered to sign up.

But having “granted rights to those who can’t marry”, the otherwise liberal legislature of Hawaii feels content denying marriage rights to same-sex couples.

I do see this as an improvement for Coloradans; and likely this will not be the stopping point. So I am celebratory of this victory – especially for those who now will find their lives easier.

But it’s a very minor celebration.

State Marriage Equality Update

There has been a lot of movement recently in various states on the issue of recognition for same-sex couples. Here is a brief synopsis (I apologize if I missed anything):

Arkansas – on March 27, a bill was killed that would have banned cities and counties from creating domestic partner registries.

California – the State Supreme Court is deliberating on whether Proposition 8 is constitutional and, if so, what impact it has on the 18,000 same-sex couples who married between June and November 2008.

Colorado – at least two initiative drives are underway to either change the constitution to allow for gay marriage or alternately to statutorily create civil unions. The legislature has just passed a Designated Beneficiary Agreement Act, which has been signed by the Governor.

Connecticut – last week codified – with bipartisan support – marriage equality in the state\’s laws to agree with the decision of the state Supreme Court.

Delaware – proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage defeated in the Senate in the last week in March.

Hawaii – Civil Unions bill was tied up in committee. Although the bill has a strong majority of support in the Senate, they voted not to pull it from committee.

Illinois – a bill (HB 0178) has been introduced to legalize same-sex marriage along with a bill (HB 2234) to enact Civil Unions. The marriage bill is resting in the Rules Committee but the Civil Unions bill passed out of committee in March and now faces a House vote.

Iowa – last week the Supreme Court found that the state must recognize same-sex marriage. It will go into effect on April 27. The Governor, the Senate Majority Leader, and the Speaker of the House have all announced that they will oppose efforts to change the Constitution. Iowa has no initiative process so it would require a change in leadership and several years before it would be possible to revoke this right.

Maine – both a marriage bill and a civil unions bill are before the legislature. The Judiciary Committee has scheduled a hearing on April 24. Gov. John Baldacci is “keeping an open mind”.

Maryland – on April 7, the State Senate upgraded benefits offered to same-sex couples in domestic partnership relationships but do not allow for official state recognition of those relationships.

Minnesota – there is a bill before the legislature to provide new marriage equality. It is unlikely to pass.

Nevada – a bill to provide Domestic Partnerships with all the rights and obligations of marriage has passed out of committee and is before the Senate.

New Hampshire – at the end of March the House passed a bill to allow for gay marriage. It will be considered by the Senate, where Democrats have a 14-9 advantage (a dozen Republicans in the House supported the bill). Governor John Lynch has not stated whether he will veto the legislation, should it pass.

New Jersey – a commission has found that civil unions are inadequate and polls have found that residents favor gay marriage but a bill before the legislature appears not to be moving.

New Mexico – in March the Senate defeated efforts to enact Domestic Partnerships.

New York – the Governor has announced that he will push for a vote in the Senate on gay marriage. Although marriage equality has passed in the House, without support from some Republicans, the votes do not appear to be there in the Senate.

Rhode Island – a gay marriage bill is unlikely to make it out of committee. A “reciprocal beneficiary agreements” bill, a darling of anti-gays who want to label gay couples as identical to roommates or cousins, has been proposed as a “compromise”.

Vermont – this week the legislature overrode the governor\’s veto to pass marriage equality.

Washington – a bill to upgrade the state\’s Domestic Partnerships to provide all the rights and obligations of marriage has passed the Senate and will come before the House soon.

West Virginia – last week the House of Delegates defeated a proposed state constitutional amendment that would have banned same-sex marriage.

Wisconsin – the Supreme Court is being asked to review the constitutional ban on marriage. The Governor, in his budget, has proposed Domestic Partnership benefits.

Wyoming – in February the House defeated a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

District of Columbia – the Council voted unanimously to recognize out of state marriages. Same-sex marriage bill expected later this year.

Domestic Partners Bill Advances in Nevada

SB 283, a bill that would provide for Domestic Partnerships with all the rights and responsibilities of marriage. It has now passed out of the Senate Commerce and Labor Committees and is facing a vote in the Senate.

The bill now must clear the Senate floor, where Democrats hold a 12-9 majority over Republicans.

Sen. David Parks, D-Las Vegas, the only openly gay member of the Legislature, sponsored the bill.