Same-Sex Marriage Update

[Soon]

[Soon]

Silver:


The big spike you see in 2008 is California recognizing gay marriage through the courts, and then un-recognizing it through the passage of Proposition 8. Right now, it's possible to marry your same-sex partner in Buenos Aires, in Mexico City, in Ames, Iowa, and in Pretoria, South Africa, but not in San Francisco. With countries like Argentina and Portugal now recognizing same-sex marriages, however, the global trajectory has returned to its slow-but-steady upward pace.

[Jess]

Not sure if this has been posted elsewhere.. but it's a good bit of news...

http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2010/07/...news-July-2010

[Heart]

This is the first time I have ever seen the words "...butch point of view," in the New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/16/us...1&ref=weddings

[Soon]

Do you see my love, NOM? A beautiful “Gathering Storm” rains on NOM’s parade in New York

By Eden James

Wow. You’ve got to hand it to the equality movement.

Our collective response to the NOM Tour just keeps getting better and better with each tour stop.

First, the Equality Maine and GLAD organizers of the Maine counter-rally to NOM actually attracted more people to their event than NOM’s kickoff event on Wednesday (102 to 76 by our hand-count). Then the New Hampshire counter-rally organizers held a brilliant “silent witness” event across the street from the Manchester event on Thursday.

And now the amazing Albany organizers, led by several wonderful organizations, have taken counter-protesting to a whole new level, surrounding the NOM event with one of the most brilliant actions I have ever seen.

Check out the gathering storm of rainbow umbrellas held aloft by equality movement activists silenting protesting NOM while asking a simple question adorned to their t-shirt:

“Do you see my love?”

NOM Executive Director Brian Brown (above) doesn’t look too happy, does he?
How could he? It’s fair to say that Albany turned into yet another NOM FAIL, due to the beauty of creative counter-protest and the paltry NOM attendance (Danny hand-counted 57 attendees).

Courage staffers Danny and Robert will be writing up their reports later, but for now, take note of this Albany protest. One thing is for sure — local organizers at subsequent counter-protests are going to have a hard time topping this poignant and powerful action. Can’t wait to see what they can do.

Again, here are the amazing organizations that made this counter-protest possible today (from a press release):

Marriage Equality New York
In Our Own Voices
Capital District Gay & Lesbian Community Council
Albany Queer Rising
HomoRadio on WRPI 91.5fm
Empire State Pride Agenda
Freedom to Marry
Courage Campaign
Social Responsibilities Council of the First Unitarian Universalist Society of Albany
Upper Hudson Planned Parenthood
Eleanor Roosevelt Democratic Club (ERDC)
New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) Capital Region Chapter
Albany Law School Civil Liberties Union
Choices Counseling & Consulting/The Institute for Gender, Relationships, Identity & Sexuality
GAES Magazine: Gay Arts, Entertainment & Lifestyle
The Women’s Building
Christians Responding with Equality, Diversity and Openness (CREDO) of the Capital District
National Organization for Women (NOW) Albany Area Chapter
Capital District Area Labor Federation

[Soon]

To begin with, I am a bit surprised about the tone, the tenor, and the content the dialogue has taken. The truth is that it's worrisome to listen to expressions such as 'God's Battle', 'The Work of the Devil', things which actually bring us back to the times of the Inquisition, to Medieval times, it seems to me. Particularly coming from those who should promote peace, tolerance, diversity and dialogue. Or at least that's what they've always said in their statements. And all of a sudden [we have] this aggressive language, this dismissive language invoking 'natural law' arguments...
...and to bring it back to our own history, when the civil code was approved, Velez Sarsfield takes - just as he took from the Roman and French civil codes in his notes about different laws - he takes 'marriage' from Canon law. That's why they could only get married through the church! There was no possibility, in Argentina, for people to get married in a civil registry.

When immigration began - there are many people who are not Catholic, who are not affiliated with any religion, or are anarchists, or Communists, or are Jewish ot Muslim - and it turns out that the only way they could get married was through Catholic rites. And so, a reform to the civil code was proposed, which was incorporated in 1888, through which 'civil marriages' were created. [EDIT]

I sincerely believe what's being presented before the current norm is something that the community already has. I believe it's fair - it's fair - to recognize this right for minorities. And I believe it would be a terrible distortion of democracy if the majorities - the actions of those majorities - denied rights to those minorities...

But what worries me the most is the tone in which these issues are being discussed, invoking questions such as the Devil, or the war...I heard someone talk about 'God's War'! As if we were still in the time of the Crusades! I can just imagine Roland going to conquer the Holy Sepulcher! Th truth is I don't believe this is good...

It's not good because it establishes, as a society, a place which I don't think any of us wants to have. We are all willing to debate, discuss, dissent, but do it with a rational frame, without stigmatizing others because they think differently, and, fundamentally, also without violating the constitution [EDIT]

...eh, but in reality I don't think it's a question that should be taken lightly. We are talking about whether we are going to be a society which recognizes the rights of minorities. This is the axis. Or if we are going to require that when someone signs official paperwork, instead of writing an ID, they should write "gay" or "lesbian" so some public official can say "Yes, I will see you", "I won't see you", "You have the right to in-vitro fertilization", "No, you don't have the rights"...

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/...riage-equality

[Soon]

A Summer for Gay Rights

This is shaping up as the summer of gay rights in the courts. The twin victories last week from the US District Court in Massachusetts striking down as unconstitutional key portions of the anti-gay "Defense of Marriage Act" and the eagerly anticipated decision in the federal Proposition 8 case in California have made for enormous excitement in the legal and civil rights communities.

We are at a tipping point in which the federal courts appear finally willing to recognize and more aggressively enforce civil rights for gay and lesbian Americans. Much as they did for African Americans a generation ago.

In the Proposition 8 gay marriage case especially (Perry v. Schwarzenegger), lawyers Ted Olson and David Boies have made a comprehensive and overwhelming case for basic fairness and full equality. Their opponents, on the other hand, presented no credible expert testimony and made arguments so flimsy -- and at times even patently false - that a ruling in their favor appears highly unlikely. The decision is expected soon.

Despite all this, there remains some marginalized skepticism from some unusual critics.

The Brookings Institution's Jonathan Rauch recently wrote in The New York Times that while he personally supports equal marriage rights (and is, in fact a married gay man), he nonetheless thinks it is bad public policy for the courts to enforce such rights, suggesting that we should instead let the political process bring about equality, as and when the country is ready for it.

Rauch's argument stems from a comment (which he completely misappropriates) by Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, who said, "The Supreme Court, of course, has the responsibility of ensuring that our government never oversteps its proper bounds or violates the rights of individuals. But the court must also recognize the limits on itself and respect the choices made by the American people."

Rauch himself admits that the comment was not in any way a reference to gay marriage - in fact it had nothing to do with the issue. Kagan was speaking broadly about the role of the Supreme Court, historically and today - a role which led to such landmark civil rights victories as Brown v. Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia.

The Washington Post's Jonathan Capehart also has a piece in which he argues that the political environment is not yet ripe for full equality and that the potential backlash against any pro-equality court decision could be so great that the gay-rights movement might be set back by years, even decades.

Capehart's position is that since 30 states currently outlaw gay marriage, the Supreme Court would never stick its neck out to overrule what he claims is the popular view.

But here's another statistic: at the time that the Supreme Court struck down the remaining state laws banning interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia, the Gallup Poll found that some 72% of Americans were opposed to interracial marriage. At one time or another, 37 states had passed anti-miscegenation laws. When civil rights are being infringed, "sticking out its neck" to protect minority rights is not only something the Supreme Court does, it is one of the primary reasons for the Court's existence.

Both Rauch and Capehart are ignoring not only our political history, but the history of civil rights advances through court rulings. Importantly, there is now an emerging consensus among gay rights advocates that these cases, including the one brought by Olson and Boies on behalf of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, can succeed and that the timing is right.

In the two Massachusetts cases, U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Tauro (a Republican appointee) concluded that the anti-gay marriage law was so blatantly unconstitutional that he issued summary judgments in favor of the plaintiffs.

While the scope of those cases was somewhat narrow - having to do with the denial of federal benefits for gay couples whose marriages had been fully recognized in the states where they live - the rulings were broad in their implications.

The court cited Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan's famous words (in dissent at the time) that our constitution "neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens," and though the decision does not say, in so many words, that states should be required to recognize same-sex marriage, it systematically undercuts all the arguments that anti-equality groups have used to date - including "harm to the children," "procreation as the goal of marriage," and preservation of the status quo - concluding that "the constitution
will not abide a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group."

These words make for trailblazing precedent, even if they are not now binding.

Let's be clear: this is not an argument about public opinion polls, political environments, or even what motivates the anti-gay movement - we're talking about a basic civil right.

As lead counsel Ted Olson said in his summation, "This case is about marriage and equality. The fundamental constitutional right to marry has been taken away from the plaintiffs, and tens of (if not hundreds of) thousands of similarly situated Californians. Their state has rewritten its constitution in order to place them into a special disfavored category where their most intimate personal relationships are not valid, not recognized and second rate."

In cases like this, our history tells us that the courts are the most appropriate, effective and productive battlefields.

Richard Socarides, an attorney, was White House Special Assistant during the Clinton Administration and senior advisor on gay rights.