Box Turtle Bulletin

Email of the Day

Oh boy! I'm in the big leagues now!

Jim,

I recently made headlines on the Huffington Post — one of the biggest liberal news sources — for speaking against Obama’s betrayal of Americans over real marriage. He has tried to cover up his flip flop on homosexual “marriage” by describing it as evolution — and I called him out on it.

You and I both know that he has been working to further homosexual “marriage” for years while continually telling his supporters otherwise — this just makes it official. The Homosexual Lobby couldn’t be happier to have a President who openly supports their agenda, but they are also worried.

They know that many in the Obama camp only supported him because they believed he would defend marriage. Well his deceit is finally public for everyone to see. And I will not let the leftist elite like the Huffington Post stop me from speaking out about it.

While I am frustrated with those who unknowingly put a radical homosexual activist in the White House, I cannot help feeling sorry for them as well. They were all deceived.

…

P.S. Please prayerfully consider chipping in with a donation of $10 or more to help Public Advocate fight for traditional values.

The Daily Agenda for Saturday, June 2

TODAY’S AGENDA:
Pride Celebrations This Weekend: Albany, NY (Black & Latino Pride); Birmingham, UK; Boston, MA; Buffalo, NY; Cambridge/Kitchener/Waterloo ON; Davenport, IA; Dayton, OH; Detroit, MI; Dresden, Germany; Gothenburg, Sweden; Honolulu, HI; Kansas City, MO; Karlsruge, Germany; Kiel, Germany; Lille, France; Ljubljana, Slovenia; Los Ranchos, NM; Mexico City, DF; Nantes, France; Pittsburgh, PA; Queens, NY; Riga, Latvia; Sacramento, CA; Salt Lake City, UT; Santa Cruz, CA; Sheffield UK; Sonoma Co, CA; Spencer, IN; Springfield, MA; Staten Island, NY; Tulsa, OK; Warsaw, Poland and Winnipeg, MB.

AIDS Walks This Weekend: Beaver Lake, NY; Boston, MA; Clinton, NY; Long Beach, CA and Syracuse, NY.

Other Events This Weekend: AIDS Lifecycle, San Francisco to Los Angeles; Connecticut Gay and Lesbian Film Festival, Hartford, CT; Gay Days at Walt Disney World, Orlando, FL.

TODAY IN HISTORY:
“Mama’s Boys” Deemed Unfit For Military Service: 1942. At a meeting in Boston of the American Psychiatric Association, Dr. Alexander Simon of St. Elizabeth Hospital in Washington, D.C., described the kinds of people who were more likely to end up in the psych wards after induction in the military: ”

…the chronic A.W.O.L’er; the lad who can’t stand the social gap between a private and Private First Class, the man or officer who can’t stand promotion, and the one who cant stand not to be promoted, the ‘Mama Boys’ who in peacetime (when there is no selective service) chose invariable the Navy and find that though the sea may be ‘Mama’ the Navy is definitely ‘Papa,’ and blow up promptly in the training station with the shock of the discovery; the lonely, the homesick, the timid, the despondent, the one who never took an order in his life; the one who can’t stand teasing, cussing, and dirty jokes, the alcoholic, the bad actor, the unexpectant father who gets a letter from the girl who met the fleet, the boy who didn’t know he was adopted unti lhe went to get his birth certificate and who must find his own mother instead of fighting a war, the boy who wanted to study Diesels, but who was made a sergeant and had to keep drilling others, the Reserve Officer who thought the sergeant knew more than he did, the man with psychotic episodes prior to service and the man whose best friend went down on his sister ship.”

Dr. Simon commended the Boston draft board for being particularly adept at turning down those who he believed would later become troublesome in the military. According to the press report from Science Service, “This board not only turned down obvious mental disorders but also psychopathic personalities, asocial and criminal types, chronic alcoholics and homosexuals. In other words, Boston selectees were turned down if they seemed more likely than the average (1) to break down under strain or (2) to be trouble makers.”

TODAY’S BIRTHDAYS:
Candace Gingrich-Jones: 1966. The lesbian advocate and kid sister to recent GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, Candice has publicly called her brother to task over his support for California’s Prop 8. “What really worries me is that you are always willing to use LGBT Americans as political weapons to further your ambitions,” she wrote. “That’s really so ’90s, Newt. In this day and age, it’s embarrassing to watch you talk like that.” Things haven’t changed much for Newt. He spent much of the past year running like it’s 1994. But Candace is married to her wife, Rebecca, and works as the HRC’s Associate Director for the Youth and Campus Outreach Program.

If you know of something that belongs on the agenda, please send it here. Don’t forget to include the basics: who, what, when, where, and URL (if available).

And feel free to consider this your open thread for the day. What’s happening in your world?

A vietnamese wedding report

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

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

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

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

If you wear good shoes you won’t get glass shards in your feet

Dancing the horah at the 2009 wedding of Andrew Shulman and Jeremy Hooper of goodasyou.org

There are about 7 million Jews living in the United States and about 4.3 million are religious to some extent. Unlike Christianity with it gazillion different variations and denominations, Judaism basically falls into a handful of camps:

• 38% Reform
• 33% Conservative
• 22% Orthodox
• 2% Reconstructionist
• 5% Et Cetera

For several years Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism have been active supporters of marriage equality and have permitted and supported same-sex marriages. And now we welcome a new participant and ally: (Fox News)

The Conservative branch of American Judaism has formally approved same-sex marriage ceremonies, nearly six years after lifting a ban on ordaining gays and lesbians.

The Committee on Jewish Law and Standards issued the ruling Thursday on a 13-0 vote with one abstention, said Rabbi Elliot Dorff, the committee chairman. The panel of scholars approved two model wedding ceremonies and guidelines for a same-sex divorce. Rabbis can adapt the marriage ceremonies for the couples.

There are some distinctions between the new “Covenant of Loving Partners” and more traditional heterosexual marriages but the rabbis declare it to be “a Jewish wedding” nevertheless.

Mazel Tov!!

How to piss off One Million Moms

With one simple click you can piss off One Million Moms (or at least the half dozen finger-waggers over at the American Family Association who go by that name).

A happy green glow

In 1992, Marvel Comics outed the first mainstream gay comic book character, Northstar. To which I promptly though, who? I never was much of a comic book geek, but I know most of the major characters – okay, the really major ones anyway – and I had never heard of Northstar. Nevertheless this announcement deservedly got a lot of attention.

But it didn’t exactly rock the world.

When Archie Comics, that paean to middle-America and it’s values, had a same-sex marriage last December, fearful heterosexuals (including all half dozen of the Million Moms) were shocked. Shocked, I tell ya! But Kevin Keller was a new character reflecting a new reality.

Ah, but today the comic book community caught the nation’s attention. Today’s outing is a bit too big to miss: the Green Lantern is gay.

Coming in at Number 4 on ComicBookResourse’s listing, the Green Lantern is among the biggies, one of the superheros that everyone knows. Last year’s movie staring Ryan Reynolds pulled in boxoffice in excess of $200 million. This is no Northstreet, um Northbank, umm Northwhatever, this is a major figure in the world that is imagined in basements and treehouses across the nation, distinctly recognizable in the endless parade of “what are you exactly?” that knocks on your door on October 31st.

Unlike Superman, there are actually more than one Green Lantern. It’s more of a job title that various humans are assigned across the 70 years that Green Lantern has fought for justice in brightest day or darkest night. In the August 2012 issue of Earth 2, DC Comics is reintroducing their first Green Lantern, Alan Scott, along with what appears to be his boyfriend Sam (who may be Japanese).

No doubt Fox Commentators will be offended. And all the Million Moms will be apoplectic. And anti-gays will accuse DC Comics of trying to brainwash their impressionable children with perverse values.

But comic books don’t teach values; they reflect where society is at any given point. And that place is getting better every day.

Another Thought on the Polling Paradox

I want to add another thought to Timothy’s comment here about the gap between polling and vote results on marriage amendments. He raises an excellent point that a good portion of the explanation for the gap — at least as far as how the gap was written about in this particular AP article — ignores the logical fallacy of comparing today’s opinion polls to votes taken four to ten years ago.

And yet we have seen mismatches between what the polls tell us leading up to election days and what finally happens in the voting booth. Let’s take Maine in 2009 as an example. By the end of October, polling showed that those supporting or leaning to support Question 1 was at about 42 percent, while those opposing or leaning to oppose Question 1 were at 52%. But what happened on election day? Question 1 passed 53% to 47%.

The paradox does exist, but I think a lot of people are looking at it wrong. Polls asked about whether people think gay people should be allowed to marry. Because that’s the question polls ask, people are generally inclined to agree that others peoples’ marriages are other peoples’ business.

But as I said before when I expressed my concern that Maine was going to loose despite what the polls said, by the time people go to the voting booth the question isn’t whether gay people should marry or not, but whether their children should be “taught homosexuality” in the schools. That’s a completely different question from what the poll asked. As I said just five days before Maine’s vote:

Frank Schubert, who is running the Stand for Marriage Maine campaign has recognized something that is very fundamental in all politics. Former U.S. House Speaker Tip O’Niel famously said that all politics are local. Schubert recognized that politics aren’t just local, but personal. It hinges on the question, “How will this affect me?” Karen Ocamb’s brilliant analysis of the California campaign which Schubert ran, which should be mandatory reading for everyone, describes very carefully how Schubert came to this conclusion:

During the Prop 8 Case Study workshop, Schubert said he, Flint and their team spent hours “looking at where people were and what we needed to do to reach them.”

What they found was that most Californians were very tolerant of same sex relationships. Schubert said:

“They didn’t see how gay marriage effected them, per se. It wasn’t their issue. It wasn’t something they cared to think about. It wasn’t something they wanted to talk about. It was an uncomfortable subject generally for them event to get their arms around.”

If we really want to win these battles, we need to begin with an understanding of this important truth:

Nobody Cares About Same-Sex Marriage

When I said “nobody cares,” I wanted to make the point that the average voter doesn’t care personally about marriage. It is this insight that our opponents have seized on and used to win the day every time. Thirty-two times we have failed to grasp this important lesson, and thirty-two times we have lost because of it. And every time, it was because we failed to grasp the real question that was before voters. Again, as I wrote in 2009 just five days before the vote:

Stand For Marriage Maine’s “positive” feel-good approach didn’t last long. They have a new ad out: …Notice how it’s loaded with all the bad stuff that you care about – out-of-state militant activists corrupting your values, gay teachers pushing their agenda on your children, militant gay activists in your schools and even your daycare centers. “IT’S ALREADY HAPPENED HERE! DON’T BE FOOLED!”

Here’s Protect Maine Equality’s response: …In a nutshell: please help someone else.

What the Yes on 1 folks in Maine did was make it possible to support marriage equality but vote against Question 1 because the changed the question before the voters. A year later, Maine’s campaign manager Marc Mutty made a startling admission on camera that their campaign message was the equivalent of slamming people over the head with “a two-by-four with nails sticking out of it,” adding, ” it’s the only thing we’ve got — it’s the only way. That’s the way campaigns work.”

There’s a popular saying about defining insanity as doing the same thing over and over but expecting a different result. As a political movement, ours has to be about the most insane of all when it comes to this particular issue. We keep coming up with messages that resonate with us, but which do not connect with the average voter. Until we recognize that nobody deeply cares about same-sex marriage — but they do care about other things which more directly affect them — then we’re going to keep on losing for a very long time.

Least logical marriage article of the week

The Associated Press put out a real dud of an article this week pondering why the polls show majority support for marriage equality in the country but the votes in the states all went against us.

For now, however, there remains a gap between the national polling results and the way states have voted. It’s a paradox with multiple explanations, from political geography to the likelihood that some conflicted voters tell pollsters one thing and then vote differently.

“It’s not that people are lying. It’s an intensely emotional issue,” said Amy Simon, a pollster based in Oakland, Calif. “People can report to you how they feel at the moment they’re answering the polls, but they can change their mind.”

California experienced that phenomenon in November 2008, when voters, by a 52-48 margin, approved a ban on same-sex marriage in the state constitution.

No it didn’t. Polls leading into the Prop 8 election showed that 48% of voters opposed the proposition (i.e. “told pollsters one thing”) and 48% voted no (i.e. then DID NOT vote differently). The poll numbers of those supporting the bill along with those ‘uncertain’ reflect the number voting for Proposition 8.

And as for the “paradox”, it’s only confusing to people who don’t own a calendar. Comparing current polling numbers with votes that are up to a decade old may make for sensational writing, but it’s logically absurd.

In about May, 2011, polls began to (unexpectedly) show that a majority of Americans support marriage equality. Other than North Carolina (in which the polls were mirrored in the vote), every single one of those “way the states have voted” occurred in 2008 or before. Oh, the paradox. Oh, the gap.

And that says noting to the irrationality of comparing national polls to state elections.

It’s pretty simple. Anti-gays went first for the low-lying fruit: Southern and other anti-gay states. Then they fought hard and employed a campaign of implied threats and blatant dishonesty to win in California. But with each election it has become clear that they are reaching – or have reached – their apex and their margins of victory are growing razor thin. There’s no mystery, there’s no drama. And soon – perhaps as soon as November – there will be no further advances of their anti-gay agenda.

Incidentally, Amy Simon opted not to respond to the offer to clarify her explanation.

The Daily Agenda for Friday, June 1

TODAY’S AGENDA:
“8” Available on CD and for Download: Amazon & iTunes. On March 3, L.A. Theatre Works (LATW) presented the West Coast premiere of Dustin Lance Black’s “8”, a dramatization of the lawsuit in Federal Court against California’s Proposition 8. The play, which was based on court transcripts, was directed by Rob Riener and featured Kevin Bacon, George Clooney, Jamie Lee Curtis, Christine Lahti, Jane Lynch, Brad Pitt, Martin Sheen and John C. Reilly. A recording of that reading is now available for download at iTunes and Amazon.com. It is also available on CD.

“Call Me Kuchu” Reception Announced: San Francisco. American Jewish World Service, in association with San Francisco’s Frameline LGBT FIlm Festival, will hold a cocktail reception for documentary filmmakers Malika Zouhali-Worrall and Katherine Fairfax Write, whose film Call Me Kuchu follows the efforts of slain Ugandan LGBT-advocate David Kato to promote tolerance for the country’s gay community. The reception will take place on June 19 from 5:00 to 6:15 p.m. at the Bisou French Bistro, 2367 Market St. Advance tickets are not needed for the reception, but organizers request that you RSVP Sprinza Kats at skatz@ajws.org or call 415.593.3297.

Call Me Kuchu will be shown at the nearby Castro Theater that same evening beginning at 7:00 p.m. Tickets for that showing can be purchased at Frameline’s web site.

Pride Celebrations This Weekend: Albany, NY (Black & Latino Pride); Birmingham, UK; Boston, MA; Buffalo, NY; Cambridge/Kitchener/Waterloo ON; Davenport, IA; Dayton, OH; Detroit, MI; Dresden, Germany; Gothenburg, Sweden; Honolulu, HI; Kansas City, MO; Karlsruge, Germany; Kiel, Germany; Lille, France; Ljubljana, Slovenia; Los Ranchos, NM; Mexico City, DF; Nantes, France; Pittsburgh, PA; Queens, NY; Riga, Latvia; Sacramento, CA; Salt Lake City, UT; Santa Cruz, CA; Sheffield UK; Sonoma Co, CA; Spencer, IN; Springfield, MA; Staten Island, NY; Tulsa, OK; Warsaw, Poland and Winnipeg, MB.

AIDS Walks This Weekend: Beaver Lake, NY; Boston, MA; Clinton, NY; Long Beach, CA and Syracuse, NY.

Other Events This Weekend: AIDS Lifecycle, San Francisco to Los Angeles; Connecticut Gay and Lesbian Film Festival, Hartford, CT; Gay Days at Walt Disney World, Orlando, FL.

TODAY IN HISTORY:
New York State’s Mazet Committee Investigation: 1899. In 1899 and 1900, a New York state special legislative committee was formed to investigate the corruption of Tammany Hall. The city’s Democratic bosses’ corruption notwithstanding, the Republican-led state investigation took on a decidedly partisan tone, with committee members taking every opportunity to portray New York City as a den of filth and degeneracy. Among those called to testify was Joel S. Harris, a police investigator, who told of the goings-on at Paresis Hall, a popular hangout for “sexual degenerates”:

I was with Mr. (John R. Wood, another investigator) last night at Paresis Hall, No 392 Bowery. I observed the actions of the persons congregated there. I saw and heard immoral actions and propositions by degenerates there. Captain Chapman came in about five minute to 1, as we stepped out. … We had been in the place about an hour or so; plenty of time for information to get from Paresis Hall to the stationhouse. Captain Chapman didn’t say anything to us, but I overheard him say to the proprietor … that he would not tand for any dancing on souvenir night, and he wanted it shut up. I have been in that place before, recently, three or four times, and I have on each occasion noticed the same conduct as I have just testified to. That is a well-known resort for male prostitutes; a place having a reputation far and wide, to the best of my knowledge. I have heard of it constantly. I have never had any trouble in going in. You go in off the street with perfect ease. These men that conduct themselves there — well, they act effeminately; most of them are painted and powdered; they are called Princess this and Lady So and So and the Duchess of Marlboro, and get up and sing as women, and dance; ape the female character; call each other sisters and take people out for immoral purposes. I have had these propositions made to me, and made repeatedly. There is not difficulty in getting into that place.

George P. Hammond, Jr., also testified:

I know this place called Paresis Hall, and under your directions I have visited it a number fo times. I have been in the place since April 1st to the present time fully half a dozen times. I knew of it before, as an officer of the City Vigilance League. I am in the produce business. When this committee began its sessions I took a vacation on the produce business and came in to help you. The character of the place is such that what we call male degenerates frequent the place, and it is a nightly occurrence that they solicit men for immoral purposes. They have one woman who goes there they call a hermaphrodite. These male degenerates solicit men at the tables, and I believe they get a commission on all drinks that are purchased there; they get checks. I have observed five or six of these degenerates frequent that place, possibly more; the last we were there we saw a greater number than we did previously. Those five or six are always to be found there; almost invariably you will find them there .hey go from there across the street to a place called Little Bucks, opposite, and from there to Coney Island. I have never had any difficulty in getting in; not the least; I have been received with open arms. There are two ways of going in, one way up through the barroom, the other through a side entrance; any way at all that suits you can walk in … They have a piano there, and these fairies or male degenerates, as you call them, they sing some songs.

[From Jonathan Katz’s Gay American History: Lesbians and Gay Men in the U.S.A. (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1976): pp 46-47.]

If you know of something that belongs on the agenda, please send it here. Don’t forget to include the basics: who, what, when, where, and URL (if available).

And feel free to consider this your open thread for the day. What’s happening in your world?

NJ Dems nix gay black Supreme Court nominee

According to the Washington Post, Bruce Harris was rejected by the New Jersey Senate Judiciary Committee:

Democrats who control the Senate Judiciary Committee questioned Harris’ lack of courtroom experience and vow to recuse himself from deciding gay marriage cases.

Harris says his prior support of gay marriage creates a perception that he would be biased on the issue.

The 61-year-old would have been the state’s third black justice and the court’s first openly gay jurist.

This is disappointing.

But while sad, it’s also an odd illustration of how politics works. In a display of partisanship, it was the Democrats who voted against – and the Republicans who voted for – the gay, black, marriage equality activist. In a weird way I guess that can be viewed as progress.

Delighted, truly delighted

I frequently insist that most Christians do not hate us. I continue to believe that to be true.

However, the people in this video are viscerally excited about the idea that “ain’t no homos going to make it to heaven”. Not just applauding a small child, but whooping at his message. They aren’t vaguely disinterested, theologically pondering, or politely appreciative. No, they are delighted, genuinely thrilled that their idea of heaven has a “no homos” policy.

That’s hatred.

Now the church has released a “we don’t hate anyone” statement, but it simply isn’t possible to be thrilled that there ain’t no homos going to make it to heaven, unless you hate homos.

But what is even more fascinating are the words that were replaced in the song so as to give it a message that caused the congregation to leap to its feet. The child sings:

“I know the Bible’s right, somebody’s wrong/ the Bible’s right, somebody’s wrong/ Romans one, twenty-six and twenty-seven/ Ain’t no homos gonna make it to Heaven.”

The original words were

“I know the Bible is right / Somebody’s wrong… / I told you once, I told you twice / You can’t make it to Heaven with a sweetheart and a wife”

I guess that just wasn’t inspiring enough.

Washington’s Ref 74 soon to be a reality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clementi Family Rejects Ravi’s Apology

Remember that apology? The one where Dharun Ravi spent about a third of his words defending himself rather than actually apologizing? The one that didn’t mention Tyler Clementi or his family? Tyler’s family isn’t buying it:

“As to the so-called ‘apology,’ it was, of course, no apology at all, but a public relations piece produced by Mr. Ravi’s advisers only after Judge Berman scolded Mr. Ravi in open court for his failure to have expressed a word of remorse or apology,” they said in a statement.

“A sincere apology is personal. Many people convicted of crimes address the victims and their families in court. Mr. Ravi was given that opportunity but chose to say nothing. His press release did not mention Tyler or our family, and it included no words of sincere remorse, compassion or responsibility for the pain he caused.”

Tyler’s family has also expressed dissapointment over Ravi’s brief thrirty day sentence, which he behan serving today. In New Jersey, people sentenced to thirty day terms typically get ten days off for good behavior. Prosecuters are appealing the sentence.

For the Record, I Believe Men Should Be Able to Marry Women. Now Can We Move On?

Yesterday I slammed a Minnesota for Marriage video. It promised to give us a rational basis for banning same-sex marriage, but in fact it just made a cause for allowing the bio-parents of a child to marry. Somehow, M4M just took for granted that this means same-sex couples shouldn’t have marriage rights without bother to make a rational case for this leap.

Apparently that’s a common failing.

When the 1st Circuit Court struck down DOMA today, it addressed some of the arguments Congress had used to justify the law. Here’s what it says about House of Representatives stated goal of “defending and nurturing the institution of traditional, heterosexual marriage.”

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

Exactly. No one is working to eliminate opposite-sex marriage, and legalizing same-sex marriage won’t keep one mother from marrying the father of her child. Our opponents can fill the air with praise for hetero-coupling until there’s no air left to fill. But that still won’t explain why I shouldn’t be allowed to marry my partner Will.

Some thoughts on the Massachusett and Gill appeals ruling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. I learned a new word: encomia.

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

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

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

7. And again the matter is stayed.

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