The same love, the same rights, with the same names

From Glenn Greenwald:

The contrast with the U.S. is quite instructive and depressing. Not only is the U.S. not close to nationally recognizing same-sex marriage, but we have a law -- the Defense of Marriage Act -- that explicitly bars the granting of any and all federal spousal rights whatsoever (including immigration rights) to same-sex couples. Despite the election of a President who campaigned on a pledge to overturn that law, and overwhelming Democratic control of Congress, repeal of that law isn't even on the table. ....

It's worthwhile now and then to take stock of the vast disparity between how we like to think of ourselves and reality. When a country with Argentina's history and background becomes but the latest country to legally recognize same-sex marriage -- largely as the result of a population which demanded it -- that disparity becomes quite clear.

Closing arguments in Prop8 federal trial: what's it all about?

Closing arguments in the Prop8 Federal Trial in San Francisco will be presented tomorrow (Wednesday), with the final decision expected some time this summer.

To re-cap, this is a federal trial that challenges Prop8 on equal protection basis in Federal law. The bad guys had two, almost laughably incompetent witnesses. The good guys had an impressive set of experts and an equally impressive odd couple of lead attorneys: conservative Ted Olson, stalwart of the Bush Administration, and liberal David Boies. (Unexpectedly on the same side here, these two are best known for advocating against each other in Bush v. Gore).

Whatever District Judge Vaughn Walker decides, the case can be (and almost certainly will be) appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and from thence to the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS). Walker is a libertarian-Republican, appointed by ReaganBush the First, with a generally conservative record. The bad guys liked him, until they found out that he's also gay. (How Fate loves a jest....!)

It's important to distinguish this from the previous trial which was in the California State Supreme Court. Since the issues there were limited to the STATE constitution, they allowed for no further appeal. To remind you, the SCoCal found regretfully that under California's dysfunctional constitution, a simple majority can take away rights from a minority. This led to the new challenge under the Federal Constitution, which is completely separate from the CA case.

You can see all my previous posts on the prop8 Federal case here.

The Judge has released a list of questions for both plaintiffs (the good guys) and defendents (the bad guys, pro-H8) that they are to address in closing.

The LA Times reports,

Attorneys in the case suspect that Walker has by now produced a draft opinion that touches on issues he has raised in his questions.

Among the questions asked of attorneys for the Proposition 8 opponents is how much importance should be placed on the motivation of voters who approved the marriage ban. ....

He also expressed interest in testimony that suggested women were more flexible in their sexual orientation than men....

Turning to the supporters of Proposition 8, Walker asked them how same-sex marriage would have negative social consequences and to describe how it would drastically change marriage as an institution.

"Why is legislating based on moral disapproval of homosexuality not tantamount to discrimination?" Walker asked both sides. "What evidence in the record shows that a belief based in morality cannot also be discriminatory?".

What are the possible outcomes?

First, Walker finds against Prop8, broadly finds that GLBT people are a protected class federally, and finds that anti-gay marriage laws are all unconstitutional. A sweeping decision that would challenge anti-gay laws nation wide and cause a complete uproar. Outcome: Appeal, and an immediate stay preventing any change in the status quo till that appeal is heard.

Second, Walker finds against Prop8 on narrow grounds, limited to California's unusual circumstance where there are currently two classes of gay people: those legally married in 2008, and all the others who can't marry. Uproar more local. Outcome: Appeal, and an immediate stay preventing any change in the status quo till that appeal is heard.

Last, and least likely, Walker finds in favor of Prop8 and legitimizes the right of a majority to vote on a minority's rights. Irate GLBT take to the streets and uproar continues. Outcome: Appeal. (No change in status quo.)

So, on the ground, nothing will change in the foreseeable future. The wheels of justice grind slow..... Regardless, this is a landmark civil rights case. I for one will be riveted to the liveblogs and twitter feeds, and hoping for justice.

More info from

• Prop8TrialTracker (includes liveblogging)
• LGBT POV
• Hunter for Justice
• The Advocate
• Gay Married Californian

Update Good overview on the law issues, including "rational basis" by Brian Leubitz here and LGBT-POV here. Read Olson and Boies et al response to the judge's questions.

Not so charitable Catholic Charities bans spousal benefits in DC

As they threatened previously, Catholic Charities is now closing down its foster care and adoption business in Washington, DC, lest they be forced to put children in same sex households (marriage equality becomes the law in the district starting tomorrow). Apparently, however, this is the only activity they will close-- although previously they had threatened to cut off the whole operation.

However, today it was revealed that they will cut benefits for staff

Catholic Charities will continue to honor the health plan coverage that current employees have as of March 1, 2010. As of March 2, a new plan will be in effect that will cover new employees and requests for benefit changes by current employees. The new plan will provide the same level of coverage for employees and their dependents that you now have, with one exception: spouses not in the plan as of March 1 will not be eligible for coverage in the future.....

We sincerely regret that we have to make this change, but it is necessary to allow Catholic Charities to continue to provide essential services to the clients we serve in partnership with the District of Columbia while remaining consistent with the tenets of our religious faith.

Are you clear about this? They will continue to cover anyone who currently has spousal benefits. Including people who are divorced and remarried. But No Fags.

Which is ironic, because apparently they have a lot of gay employees.

Orzechowski said many of the people who work for Catholic Charities and receive its services are from the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community, but giving same-sex spousal benefits to staff members or placing adoptive children with gay couples would violate Church tenets.

I wonder how those employees feel now.

Was this the only option? No.

The church faced two options with the approval of the new law, said Robert Tuttle, a George Washington University professor who studies the relationship between church and state. One choice was to expand the definition of domestic partner, as the Archdiocese in San Francisco did years ago, to include a parent, sibling or someone else in the household.

The second choice was to do what the Washington Archdiocese has done: eliminate benefits for all spouses.

Because this is much more dramatic, and pisses off the straights against those Selfish Gays. There is a a certain whiff of --shall we say, inconsistency? --- in the sorrowful crocodile tears of the poor, oppressed Roman Catholic institution, forced to harm the children because of those Selfish Homos. The Lead frames it more considerately than I would:

Another question perhaps worth raising: when is a "religious objection" not really a religious objection, but a political one? Catholic teaching does not recognize re-marriage after divorce without an annulment. Like same-sex couples, the heterosexual couples involved in such relationships are engaging in sex outside of what the church recognizes marriage. Yet the church willingly provides services and benefits to those couples. Why? There is no hierarchy of sinfulness in Catholic theology regarding sex outside of marriage. So why treat gay and lesbian couples differently that twice or thrice married heterosexual couples?

The church is entitled to object to same-sex marriage on whatever grounds it chooses. The rest of us are entitled to point out that the double standard it has constructed on this issue has no basis in its own theology.

More at Gay Married Californian and even more at Streetprophets.

Are gay couples worthy?

The argument has been made that GLBT couples should be patient, and should be grateful for the 2nd class status of civil unions, in order to prove that we are worthy of marriage.

Once they see that we can do "marriage lite", the argument goes, then they may---may.... allow us to have access to marriage. Eventually. But we have to earn it.

(This ignores the fact that most vocal marriage equality opponents are just as resistant to civil unions. But I digress).

Now, that's pretty insulting,and of course it's another tactic to stress our "otherness" as though simply because of gender, we don't want/can't achieve "real" marriage. And those of us who are married, of course, prove the opposite entirely.

But what the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia has done is more insulting yet. In response to movements in the national church, and recognition of (gasp!) gay people in their midst, they admit they need to study the issue of same sex blessings (NOT marriage) in their diocese. To do so, they propose bringing together clergy and lay people and lawyers, which is all fine (although one might ask whether civil lawyers are really necessary for an internal church issue as "blessings" which have no civil component....but I digress again.)

Fine so far. However, their resolution also calls to consider whether blessing such unions requires them to consider the following issues:

(c) The age, capacity and degree of kinship, if any, of the parties;

(d) The effect of prior marriages or unions blessed by a licensed clergy person or registered with civil authorities, the responsibility to any former spouse or partner in such union, and responsibility to minor children of any prior marriage or union;

(e) The appropriateness of advance medical screening, if any;
...
(h) Review of financial arrangements to protect the parties in the absence of state law presumptions governing married couples, presumptions intended to protect the weaker party from potential exploitation, oppression, or improvident action by the other party in the relationship;

(i) Other factors listed in the General Convention canons for marriage, Canons I.1.18 and I.1.19, including the baptismal status of the parties, the commitment to life-long union, the voluntariness of consent, the absence of coercion, fraud, mistake of identity of the other party;
...
(l) Any requirement for written affirmation by the couple that the commitment is to a life-long union;
...
(p) Whether any blessing service for same-gender union may be used in lieu of marriage for heterosexual couples under any circumstances, and if so, what those circumstances are;
(q) How these might apply to all members of the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Trans-gendered community;
(r) Any other factor deemed important by the panel.

Take another look at that. GLBT people have to prove their worthiness by

• ensuring they aren't related (you know, incest?),
• proving they aren't married to anyone else,
• passing health exams (looking for what, pray tell?),
• financial disclosure (you have to be rich to be gay?);
• absence of coercion (because, of course, you may be forcing your cousin into a union, since no one would willingly join you),
• signing a form saying you want to make it lifelong, since of course if you want a church blessing etc clearly you might be doing it for a lark
• and just in case, anything else that they choose.

These resolutions by their very existence suggest that the Dio. VA thinks that GLBT people don't want lifelong unions, would try to join family, are riven with diseases, are coercing their partner for financial reasons. Of course none of these rules apply to straight couples seeking blessings. Because their health, finances, proof of lifelong fidelity, are all tacitly accepted along with the presumption they will engage in proper missionary position man-woman sexual intercourse.

But those faithful, partnered GLBT Episcopalian couples in Virginia must crawl, hat in hand, before the Bishop, stripped naked and exposed, poked and prodded by the diocese, audited and inspected, to get enough boxes ticked off, for the remote and grudging recognition that they just might, possibly, maybe, be good enough for a blessing.

It is hard to imagine how much larger the letters could be written because what this diocesan resolution really says is **** OFF, YOU AREN'T GOOD ENOUGH, AND WE WISH YOU WOULD GO AWAY.

Yup, got that message nicely, thanks.

Fortunately for the Episcopal Church, many, many other dioceses are moving ahead and recognizing that Gays Are People Too, who simply want the same rules and expectations applied to them as to straight couples. Many Episcopal bishops have been outspoken advocates for civil marriage rights in different states. Many Episcopal priests are tireless advocates for equality. Many Episcopal parishes, even in Virginia, or perhaps despite it (yes, we're looking at you Margaret!) are working for justice for all people. Many average Episcopalians are advocates for fairness for all.

So horrible as this is, it's a flare from a dying institutional world view that in 20 years will be viewed with the same horror as poll taxes and anti-miscegenation laws. It may be useful to remember that Virginia is politically a State of Hate that has banned recognition of even private contracts that give any semblance of marriage rights. That means, all those legal documents my wife and I have for health care etc. could be ignored in Virginia since their purpose is to give us some marriage-like protections. We don't exist there. We are less than nothing.

Clearly some of that sickness has percolated into the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia. Eventually, saner heads will prevail.

Meanwhile, they should be ashamed of themselves for this disgusting, insulting resolution.

Marrying a stranger: family values in action!

Of course, it's fine to marry a total stranger for no reason at all. As long as you are of opposite sexes.

From Buffalo, NY:

Entering the City Clerk’s office, Kitty and long-time partner Cheryl attempted to apply for a marriage license. Armed with the appropriate documents City employees informed them due to New York State law, they would be unable to grant them a license. As the clerk’s office employees gathered to watch, a tearful Lambert explained the benefits only available to straight couples with a marriage license.

With news cameras rolling, Kitty then turned to the crowd and asked for any male who would be willing to get married to her. A gay man named Ed stepped forward and volunteered. They briefly exchanged information and presented the appropriate documents along with $40. City staff verified the information, and proceeded to give them a marriage license.

Imprison the gays

Last night on Hardball, Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council said that gays should be imprisoned.

"I think that the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas which overturned the sodomy laws in this country was wrongly decided," said Sprigg. "I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior."

"So we should outlaw gay behavior?" asked Matthews again.

Yes,” said Sprigg.

And then he laughed.

As Rob Tisani writes,

You know, it’s the laughter that gets me. I live in L.A., where I can pretend this sort of thinking is limited to the extreme, bigoted fringes of society. But this is on MSNBC, and Sprigg is a spokesperson for a group that brings in over twelve million dollars a year. We see what their position is — and how can you compromise between full civil equality and being thrown in prison? What would that compromise even look like?

No matter what we do, no matter what we offer, it won’t be enough for these folk. If we agree to everything-but-the-word, they’ll go to work on the “everything.” They’ll chisel away at civil unions and domestic partnerships until they strip us of even the right to claim the dead body of your partner from the morgue. They’ll keep chiseling — chiseling until we’re in prison.

Let's be very clear what we are up against. It's hatred, ignorance, and violence all wrapped up with a veneer of religion.

Making it explicit: Religious freedom and civil marriage

Despite the fact that no religious group can be required to perform a marriage of which they do not approve (think Catholics and divorce) this continues to be a canard that the equality opponents raise. Apparently fearful of bands of tasteful homos demanding that a faith community that despises them, marry them anyway? Well, whatever. In order to spike the guns on that particular argument, openly gay CA State Senator Mark Leno has introduced The Civil Marriage Religious Freedom Act, SB 906.

Leno’s legislation is sponsored by the California Council of Churches, IMPACT a nd Equality California, which was the main group opposing Prop. 8.....

"We strong support religious freedom and the rights of clergy to only solemnize weddings they want to solemnize," [Geoff]Kors, [director of EQCA] says. The bill would not apply to government employees who perform weddings, who would have to treat gay and straight couples the same. It would also protect the rights of churches to reserve church facilities for their own members [as long as they don't rent them to the general public].

"As we know from the Yes on 8 Campaign and what we’re seeing in the federal trial, many people and a lot of the right-wing groups we’re up against have lied to Californians about who has to marry people and how clergy might be arrested and churches might lose their tax-exempt status," said Geoff Kors.

Equality CA urges Californians to write your state legislators in support. I agree!

This piece of legislation codifies in state law that no member of clergy is required to solemnize a civil marriage that is contrary to the tenets of his or her faith or that would infringe on his or her right to freedom of religion as guaranteed by the California Constitution and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The bill also clarifies that civil marriage is a civil contract that requires a state-issued marriage license.

Both the California and U.S. Constitution currently protect religious freedom. However, until such protections are codified under law, there is ambiguity. It is necessary to strengthen these religious protections for clergy through state law to eliminate any uncertainty. The state cannot compel clergy to solemnize any civil marriage.

The anti-equality guys have claimed this is one of their big concerns. Even though they already have the protections, let's call them on it. Take this excuse away. Call or write your state senator and urge them to sponsor this bill. Keep a bright line between civil and religious unions.

The next proposition: ban atheist marriage!

From the Pew Foundation, in a study on race, we find this morsel:

The survey finds that most Americans also are ready to accept intermarriage in their family if the new spouse is Hispanic or Asian. But there is one new spouse that most Americans would have trouble accepting into their families: someone who does not believe in God. Seven-in-ten people who are affiliated with a religion say they either would not accept such as marriage (27%) or be bothered before coming to accept it (42%).

To do the math for you, that means only 31% of Americans of faith are fine with having an atheist in the family. Compare this to the inter-racial issue, where 64% or whites are okay with a family member marrying a black, and 80% of blacks have no problem with a family member marrying a white. From a previous Pew study, 35% of Americans support same sex marriage (this drops to 21% for regular church goers, and rises to 67% for people without religious affiliation). I've graphed these numbers for you below.

So does this mean that we can expect a new proposition, banning marriage to atheists? Come on, isn't that the logical next step?

Pope calls gay marriage an "attack"

From Reuters

:Pope Benedict on Tuesday linked the Church's opposition to gay marriage to concern about the environment, suggesting that laws undermining "the differences between the sexes" were threats to creation.....

"Creatures differ from one another and can be protected, or endangered, in different ways, as we know from daily experience. One such attack comes from laws or proposals which, in the name of fighting discrimination, strike at the biological basis of the difference between the sexes," he said.

"I am thinking, for example, of certain countries in Europe or North and South America," he said.

This was a clear reference to legislation either enacted or proposed in several part of the world.

Last month, Mexico City became the first capital in Catholic Latin America to allow same-sex marriage.

In California, the U.S. state's ban on gay marriage goes to trial on Monday in a federal case that plaintiffs hope to take all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and overturn bans throughout the nation.

Gay marriage is legal is several U.S. states and some European countries.

The Affirmation Declaration

In response to the bias of the Manhattan Declaration that opposes (among other things) gay rights, a group of affirming Christians has created a response. Called the Affirmation Declaration, its intent is as follows.

The Affirmation Declaration is a statement that expresses the convictions of Christians all over the world. It was written in response to the now famous Manhattan Declaration, to correct egregious errors contained in the document, errors that have been preached in the pulpits of many local churches for far too long.

With the growing notoriety and support for the Manhattan Declaration, our Affirmation Declaration reflects an urgent need to respond to the portion of the Manhattan Declaration dealing with issues related to sexual orientation—specifically, homosexuality and same-sex marriage. We strongly disagree with the contention that same-sex attractions and the oft-resulting romantic activities are immoral.

Because of the large number of people affected by this serious issue one way or the other, we felt it expedient to respond formally, both by submitting our Declaration to the drafters of the Manhattan Declaration, as well as by releasing our Declaration to the public, allowing Christians to show their support for love and affirmation, just as so many have shown their support for the propagation of false doctrines of oppression and inequality against the GLBTI (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered, and Intersex) community.

We also desire to let the world know that not all Christians are locked in what we believe to be an ancient worldview regarding homosexuality. We want to give people hope—hope to know that God loves them just as they are; hope to know that their gay loved ones are not destined for Hell; hope to know that although some Christian churches will never accept them or their same-sex unions, a great many will.

May the signatures we garner serve as a fire that will never burn out, lighting the way through the darkness of bad theology, and setting Christ's Church back on the right track as it relates to matters of sexual and gender orientation, and gender identity.

Like it? Go read the whole thing and if you still like it, sign it!

A Christian Case for Same-Sex Marriage

TEC Bp John Chane, in the Washington Post

Most media coverage of the D.C. Council's steps toward civil marriage equality for same-sex couples has followed a worn-out script that gives the role of speaking for God to clergy who are opposed to equality. As the bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, I would say respectfully to my fellow Christians that people who deny others the blessings they claim for themselves should not assume they speak for the Almighty.

Christians have always argued about marriage. Jesus criticized the Mosaic law on divorce, saying "What God has joined together let no man separate." But we don't see clergy demanding that the city council make divorce illegal. ....

Our evolving understanding of what marriage is leads, of necessity, to a re-examination of who it is for. ....

Theologically, therefore, Christian support for same-sex marriage is not a dramatic break with tradition, but a recognition that the church's understanding of marriage has changed dramatically over 2,000 years.

I have been addressing the sound theological foundation for a new religious understanding of marriage, because it disturbs me greatly to see opposition to marriage for same-sex couples portrayed as the only genuinely religious or Christian position. I am somewhat awed by the breadth of religious belief and life experience reflected among more than 200 clergy colleagues who are publicly supporting marriage equality in D.C.....

D.C.'s proposed marriage equality law explicitly protects the religious liberty of those who believe that God's love can be reflected in the loving commitment between two people of the same sex and of those who do not find God there. This is as it should be in a society so deeply rooted in the principles of religious freedom and equality under the law.

Are gays people? Christian? American?

NO ONE should put the rights of a minority to the ballot. They will always lose. NO CIVIL RIGHTS BATTLES ARE WON AT THE BALLOT BOX. It's outrageous that we have to beg our fellow citizens for citizenship. And they aren't going to give it to us now, any more than the majority would have voted to end slavery, to give women the vote, to give African-Americans full civil rights, or to allow mixed race marriage.

We did not vote on any of those issues. Why is MY citizenship up to the ballot? Why are gay people uniquely required to be approved by a majority vote?

As quoted by Susan Russell,Harry Knox wrote,

Once again, when American voters have had an opportunity to affirm my humanity and the loving commitment I have made to my husband, a majority of those voters have made a conscious decision to deny my humanity and treat me as if my citizenship and my marriage mean nothing; all the while patting themselves on the back for their piety. The slap they intended is received. I am made to wonder – Am I human? Am I an American? Am I a Christian? Am I married?

It is clear that most voters in Maine, like majorities in other states before them, intend for me to feel less than human. People we respect as sisters and brothers in the human family, we treat as equals. Those majorities have reserved to themselves a legal right they feel specially entitled to – in spite of the fact that my husband and I face all the health, financial, familial and social challenges they do, and need the same supports they enjoy.

Once you dehumanize, it's not a long step to seeing no problem with imprisonment, or even death. Here's a sample of the hate language from the Maine Campaign: "evil", "sickness", "perversion", "unspeakable".

Let's look at a few issues in the broader world/Anglican-Episcopal flavor on these lines.

Item 1: The nation of Uganda plans to increase the criminal penalties for "homosexual behavior" up to and including the death penalty. There are also penalties for "advocacy". This "Anti-Homosexuality Bill" has been met with surprising silence. US Rep Tammy Baldwin has written Hilary Clinton asking for a response. THe US and French Embassies have decried it. But there appears to be no response from TEC or the Anglican Communion overall, outside of the blogs.

Item 2: In the almost-schismatic Dio South Carolina, which is holding its breath so as not to be contaminated by the cooties of the rest of TEC, they had a resolution as follows:

Whereas the Diocese of South Carolina recognizes we have all been created in God‟s image and are precious in his sight, and
Whereas we acknowledge we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and stand equally in need of his mercy and grace, we thankfully and humbly,
Resolve that this Diocese will not condone prejudice or deny the dignity of any person, includingbut not limited to, those who believe themselves to be gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered. Nevertheless, we will speak the truth in love as Holy Scripture commends for the amendment of life required of disciples of Christ. It is love of neighbor and the abiding concern for their spiritual well being that compels such honesty and will never allow us to remain silent.

Despite basically being a resolution allowing them to slap around gays with the literalist bible, this nevertheless was defeated, 182-117. As commented by LIsa at My Manner of LIfe, this makes it official: the Dio South Carolina WILL condone prejudice and deny the dignity of gay people. (Of course the "believe themselves to be" is another slap in the face, but given that South Carolina is a hotbed of anti-science creationism, perhaps not surprising).

The official TEC responses to these? ::crickets::

But at least there are a few bright lights. The Episcopal Bishop of Maine has a sad statement of regret about Question 1,

Many faithful Episcopalians are deeply grieved at this decision. They had hoped that they and their families might enjoy the recognition and protections afforded heterosexual couples. The rejection of the law also feels like rejection of them as persons. I join in their grief that the right of same gender couples to enter into a lifelong, monogamous marriage has been denied. ....

The Episcopal Church in Maine will continue to offer a warm welcome to all people including those for whom the results of this referendum are disappointing. Especially in this tender time, I offer our assurances to gay and lesbian Mainers that you, your relationships, and your families have our support and blessing.

Yay, Bishop Lane. We saw in California a number of RC seeking solace from their church's institutional hatred in the Episcopal Church. Look for Mainers to do the same thing, I think, especially because their Roman Catholic Bishop of Maine was the major supporter of the anti-equality alliance (a view not necessarily shared by Maine Catholics).

The gay marriage issue is challenging Christianity's credibility just as it is challenging Constitutional credibility. Really, the challenge of radical love, just like the challenge of true American liberty, is applying those principles to those who are distinctly Other.

Equality Now: the March on Washington

For more about the March, go here for a video of Julian Bond's great speech.

People of Faith in Maine oppose Question 1

Glad to see them standing up and being vocal:

Faith leaders from the Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry in Maine gathered simultaneously today in Portland and Bangor to endorse NO on 1/Protect Maine Equality. Representing 18 faith traditions from Fort Kent to Kittery and from Farmington to Castine, the coalition of active and retired clergy believe that all Maine families should be treated equally under the law.

The coalition, according to its key spokespersons, said only marriage equality confers full dignity and respect to loving and committed gay and lesbian couples. The religious leaders also said they are speaking out so that people of faith know that many faith leaders believe deeply in fully supporting all their congregant families.

“I believe that faithful, lifelong, monogamous relationships are among the building blocks of a healthy and stable society, “ said Rt. Rev. Steven T. Lane, IX Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Maine. “Last spring, the rights and obligations of civil marriage were extended to all Maine citizens. The passage of Question 1 would deny those rights . . . create two classes of citizens and deny one group what we believe is best for them and for society.”

Why Marriage Equality Matters: lesson from Florida

In Florida, a woman collapsed and a hospital refused to let her partner or kids in to see her or have any say in her care despite a medical power of attorney. She died. The partner sued. Remarkably, the court's response is a "Tough @%$":

Lambda Legal reports,

While on a family cruise leaving from Miami, Lisa Pond, a healthy 39 year-old, suddenly collapsed. She was rushed to Miami's Jackson Memorial Hospital with her partner Janice and three children following close behind. There, the hospital refused to accept information from Janice about her partner's medical history. Janice was informed that she was in an antigay city and state, and she could expect to receive no information or acknowledgment as Lisa's partner or family.



A doctor finally spoke with Janice telling her that there was no chance of recovery. Other than one five minute visit that was arranged by a Catholic priest at Janice's request to perform last rites, and despite the doctor's acknowledgement that no medical reason existed to prevent visitation, neither Janice - who provided the hospital with a medical Power of Attorney document - nor their children were allowed to see Lisa until nearly eight hours after their arrival. Soon after Lisa's death, Janice tried to get her death certificate in order to get life insurance and Social Security benefits for their children. She was denied both by the State of Florida and the Dade County Medical Examiner.

Today's ruling comes after the Public Health Trust of the Miami Dade County, the governing body of Jackson Memorial Hospital, filed a motion to dismiss the case. The court ruled that the hospital has neither an obligation to allow their patients' visitors nor any obligation whatsoever to provide their patients' families, healthcare surrogates, or visitors with access to patients in their trauma unit. The court has given the Langbehn-Pond family until October 16 to review the ruling and consider all legal options.

So please, haters and bigots who oppose marriage equality and civil partnerships: explain to me why you think this is a just and proper response to a loving family ripped apart by an awful tragedy. Does this make you smile? Does it make you happy? It must, because this is exactly what you are praying for: that gay families have no rights whatsoever, that gay people die alone. What on earth justifies treating any loving family in this way? Do you really think this is what Jesus would have you do?

This family did everything right on legal grounds, and they were treated like scum by people who probably consider themselves "Christians" (at least it sounds like the family got some help from a Catholic priest, good for him). I hope there's a hot couch in hell for that hospital staff for their bigotry and needless emotional violence against that suffering family. And I hope that the justices of the District Court never sleep again without nightmares of their loved ones dying alone, while they rail and wail in a remote waiting room.

Meanwhile, this story should be held up from Maine to Washington as a major reason WHY IT MATTERS. Force the bad guys to defend the indefensible. I hope someone makes a Youtube about this--I'll post any competent viral video on my blogs and accounts if you do.

More commentary at PamsHouseBlend.

The surviving partner, Janice, comments on her blog.

Catholics in conflict in Maine

As the race for Question 1 in Maine continues to be very close, the Bangor Daily News reports that the Catholic Church is working hard to raise more money and even asking people to fast to "save" marriage.

A recorded message from Bishop Malone was played during the St. Matthews service on Sunday asking church members to do four things — pray that “marriage as we know it” prevails, financially support the campaign, volunteer in support of the campaign and vote yes on Question 1...

“Same-sex marriage is a dangerous sociological experiment that many of us believe will have negative consequences for society as a whole,” he said. “Children need the love of a mother and a father.”

(Aside: don't you get tired of that? They think if they ban same sex marriage, then we will stop having children and suddenly all children will have 2 heterosexual parents? How willfully blind can they be?)

Thankfully, many Catholics are starting to speak out against this civil intolerance. A new Maine group, Catholics for Marriage Equality, has released the following:

As faithful Roman Catholics and citizens of the State of Maine, we believe that the right of every citizen to practice freedom of religion is based on the principle of respect for the dignity of each individual. Without that guarantee, the danger of one religious tradition or doctrine dominating another threatens all and protects none. Making the equality of citizens not only an ideal but a living truth, we affirm the May 6, 2009 act of the Maine Legislature to end marriage discrimination by granting civil marriage for same-sex couples. Our declaration of conscience is based on the following:

The American principle of the separation of Church and State was enshrined in the Constitution to ensure that no particular religious perspective would be imposed on our pluralistic society.

Catholic teaching on social justice has been central to the building of a just society, creating awareness of diversity in the human family, calling us to lives of respect for one another, and not only tolerance.

We remember that Roman Catholics were once denied civil rights, treated with suspicion, ridiculed because of our sacred rituals, and questioned as to our allegiance to “foreign authorities.” Memory challenges us to remain vigilant whenever bigotry and injustice enters into public discourse.

Same-sex civil marriage does not in any way coerce any religious faith or tradition to change its beliefs or doctrine or alter its traditional marriage practices.....

As Roman Catholics, we differentiate between sacramental marriage and civil marriage. Therefore, we perceive that same-sex civil marriage poses no threat to our Church. While we respect the authority and integrity of the Church in matters of faith, our prayers and discernment have brought us to a new openness on this issue. We do not ask the Church to perform same-sex marriages. We do implore the Church to honor the State’s prerogative to authorize civil marriages for our gay and lesbian family and friends.

Grateful for the gift of our faith and the ways that we have been nourished by faith throughout our lives, and also grateful for our citizenship in America and in this State, we sign this statement as Roman Catholic citizens of Maine.

Check it out! (Emphasis mine) And support equality in Maine: vote NO on Question 1, and protect Maine equality.

Phonebanking Maine

This Sunday you can, as part of the National Day of Action for Marriage Equality, volunteers from all over the country will help us do one of the most important jobs in any campaign -- identify Maine voters who will vote NO on Question 1.

Here's the beauty and simplicity of Sunday's action: all you need is a phone and a computer screen. This campaign is neck-and-neck, but there's good news: it will only take about 250,000 votes to protect marriage equality in Maine.

That means every call you make makes a real difference.

Please, sign up to make phone calls this Sunday as part of the National Day of Action for Marriage Equality.

Landline, cell, iPhone, Blackberry, you pick. But please help us and pick up your phone.

Support equality in Maine. Join Sunday's phonebank

Catholic Bishops attack Marriage Equality in Maine

In less than 60 days, Maine's version of Prop8 (called Question 1) will be on the ballot.

Frank Schubert, who ran the Yes on Prop 8 campaign, is leading the attack on our northeastern brothers and sisters, along with Maggie Gallagher and NOM. NOM is laundering money to hide the identity of the donors, which has led to an ethics investigation from Maine's election commission. (There's a reason haters want their names secret. It's the same reason, frankly,that the Klan wore hoods. )

A big leader in the pro-hate campaign is the Roman Catholic church. The Catholic church in Maine is in tough financial straits...closing parishes, cutting programs. But they can still donate against gay marriage, to the dismay of many Maine Catholics. The Catholic diocese is holding a second collection this Sunday explicitly to fund their attacks on marriage equality this weekend. And what will they do with the money?

How about fund advertisements with known lies? As should be expected by ANY battle-scarred veteran of the Prop8 war, the haters in Maine are insisting that kids will be taught about gay sex in schools if marriage remains legal. This was one of their most successful arguments in California EVEN THOUGH PROVEN UNTRUE and they are doing the same thing in Maine. The Portland Press Herald exposes the lies told by Marc Mutty's fundraising email (Mutty is on loan from the Catholic Diocese to the haters campaign):

the Rev. Bob Emrich of the Emmanuel Bible Baptist Church in Plymouth, a member of Stand for Marriage Maine's executive committee, said the group stands by Mutty's claim that the same-sex marriage statute will require "explicit homosexual instruction in the classroom."

One problem. Emrich and Mutty are wrong. Nowhere in the law do the words "school" or "classroom" even appear....

For starters, Maine doesn't "mandate" a "comprehensive family life curriculum" for its schools......

The statute also says that if any family-life education takes place in a school, "a parent may choose to not have (his or her) child participate" in the program...

As for any "explicit" instruction on homosexuality, [ Superintendent Jim] Morse said it simply doesn't exist – nor will it if the same-sex marriage law is upheld.

This should be absolutely familiar to anyone who followed the California campaign. Indeed, as laid out in this OUTSTANDING exposé at Daily Kos, this is completely in line with the deliberate decision to campaign with lies on Prop8. Rather than fighting about marriage, they made a cynical decision to fan paranoia. Not unlike "death panels" in the health care debate. Indeed, the strategy of both right and left in dealing with GLBT issues recently has been instructive in how they are dealing with broader issues. (I for one would prefer to STOP being the canary in the coal mine.)

The DK author shows how the key to the bad guys' victory was framing the question not about our marriages, or about justice, but about paranoid fears, generated by palpable LIEs about children and education. Coupled with numerous mis-steps on our side it was a masterful bit of swiftboating, as the author terms it.

The story is instructive because Religious Right professionals have succeeded in making it appear as if all people of faith are antigay and anti-marriage equality. Worse yet, they are using religion as an excuse to perpetrate lies and deception – to swiftboat same sex couples in the name of God, when in fact they are just advancing another end-justifies-the-means political scheme.

Now, they are trying exactly the same approach in Maine, and they will continue to do this unless and until we manage to expose their lies and dishonesty.

So what can we do? First, resist the lies: support the truth. Donate to the No-on-Question 1 campaign ! Faith groups who support equality should speak out, and not let Maggie Gallagher and her band of haters define what Christianity is. And Roman Catholics angered by their church's misplaced priorities should protest these attacks on their neighbors. Let's not let them win another battle of hate... keep equality in Maine!

When gay people marry: The Horror! The Horror!

Recently, a Chicago Trib writer asked a number of prominent opponents of marriage equality what is it is that they think will happen if gays marry.

At first, none of them answered, although after a while Maggie Gallagher dove in and said that, gasp, if same sex marriage is legalized, then children will learn about gays! And religious people will be persecuted! As Conor Clarke, writing at Andrew Sullivan's blog remarked,

Is this really the best they can do? First, none of these things are "simple, concrete predictions about measurable social indicators." ....Gallagher's list amounts to this: As support for gay marriage grows, the public institutions and sentiments that oppose gay marriage will become increasingly marginalized.

A new scholarly book recently published called When Gay People Get Married addresses the question with actual data. As the publisher's blurb reports,

The evidence shows both that marriage changes gay people more than gay people change marriage, and that it is the most liberal countries and states making the first move to recognize gay couples. In the end, Badgett compellingly shows that allowing gay couples to marry does not destroy the institution of marriage and that many gay couples do benefit, in expected as well as surprising ways, from the legal, social, and political rights that the institution offers.

That certainly agrees with my experience, being married, as I've previously reflected.
And what's happening here in the US? As discussed at Talk2Action (h/t Toujours Dan), Massachusetts still has the lowest divorce rate of any state (data here ). And where are the highest rates of divorce? There's a big cluster in the South, which corresponds very well with the Bible belt. And born-again Christians reportedly have some of the highest rates of divorce.

So actual data suggest that same sex marriage is good for gay people, does not negatively affect the marriages of straight people, and that those opposed to same sex marriage on faith grounds are no less likely, and may even be more likely, to divorce themselves.

One hopes these data will be used to rebut the lies for the upcoming Federal Prop8 case, and the lies that are being told in Maine in the run-up to their election.

Did the Lutherans approve gay marriage & gay clergy? It sure looks that way!

From here, via Jake:

Recommendation two (of four) has just passed on the floor of the ELCA 2009 General Assembly. The vote was 61% for and 39% against, and it reads as follows:

Resolved that the ELCA commit itself to finding ways to allow congregations that choose to do so to recognize, support, and hold publicly accountable, life-long, monogamous same gender relationships.

During debate, both opponents and proponents of the recommendation suggested that this open ended recommendation will allow local congregations to conduct gay marriage ceremonies (if allowed in that state). They are probably right. I think the ELCA has just approved rites for gay marriage, in principal.

From the Lead, they are voting in order on the following resolutions,each requiring only a simple majority.

1 (originally 3) asks this church whether, in the future implementation of these commitments, it will make decisions so that all in this church bear the burdens of the other, and respect the bound consciences of all.
passed 771 to 230.

2 (originally 1) asks the assembly whether, in principle, this church is committed to finding ways to allow congregations and synods that choose to do so to recognize, support and hold publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships.
passed 619 yes to 402 no.

3 (originally 2) asks the assembly whether, in principle, this church is committed to finding a way for people in such publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships to serve as professional leaders of this church.
Passed 559-451

4. Step four proposes the specifics of how this church can move toward change in a way that respects the bound consciences of all.
Passed 667 to 307

UpdateHere's a new acronym for you: PALMSGR. It means "publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships". that's the new standard for partnered gay clergy in the ELCA. But the question is, what does "publicly accountable" really MEAN? I suppose it means that if you can get married in your state, you should be; ditto for DP or CU. But what if you were married in another state but your current state doesn't recognize it? Or if your current state has a hate amendment against any gay unions? What does "publicly accountable" mean then?

Update 2 The LEad reports on the last resolution THere's a boatload of resolutions calling for study of the issue, policy development, and provisions for those who disagree.