If it were just Alan Keyes saying it, I'd shrug and write it off to the usual crazies, but it's not. Yesterday American Family Association director Bryan Fischer went on the radio to warn his listeners that homofascists were going to round them up and mark them -- BEWARE THE BEAST.

And now we have Alan Keyes, whose daughter is gay, claiming gay marriage will lead the country into an inexorable decline to communism. But not just communism, my friends. Oh no, we've got trouble in River City because those "homofascists" (WTF are those?) are going to lead us to the "murder of the masses."

RightWingWatch posted the transcript, and yes, he really did say that:

It returns us to the dark ages of human oppression, which America was founded to remove humanity from, and it is the whole point of the push for homosexual marriage and homosexual rights. The aim is not compassion for homosexuals, respect for homosexuals and all of this; the aim in the mind of these hardheaded, calculating, leftist, Communist, totalitarians is to destroy the family and to establish the notion that once you have seized power there is no limit whatsoever to what you can do. If you want to tolerate abuses then those abuses can be imposed upon the people. Once you establish that, the abuses are then not going to be confined to egregious outrages like this; those abuses are going to be committed against the whole society and they will in the end include the murder of the masses as has occurred in all Communist regimes that existed. That includes as well the expropriation of all property because if you don’t respect the primordial God-endowed belongings that are associated with family life then why on earth would you be constrained to respect any other form of human property claim.

What goes on in their little lizard brains? Teh gay will cause the murder of the masses?

I'm waiting for the air raid siren to go off warning me about the roving armies of "homofascists" coming for me and my family. And my healthcare.

DOWNLOADS: (106)

PLAYS: (903)

Embed

Under fire for his anti-gay comments on the Hannity show the other night, Fox’s GOP savior, Dr. Ben Carson, forgot all about how he dislikes divisiveness and playing the victim. Instead of taking the personal responsibility he advocates for others, Carson blamed those who were offended for “misconstruing” his remarks that equated homosexuality with bestiality and pedophilia. And then he doubled down on them by saying he can’t think of other “examples of variations on marriage and relationships.” Right before delivering an Easter message for the Fox & Friends viewers this morning.

It was telling that while Carson and host Clayton Morris whined about those “politically correct” meanies taking offense, they never re-played those “innocent” remarks that got Carson in so much hot water to begin with. Specifically, he said:

No group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality - doesn't matter what they are - they don't get to change the definition.

Jon Stewart nailed it in a scathing takedown: "It's not, you know, whether you're having sex with another consenting adult, or a horse, or a doughnut, it's all the same."

But Morris neatly mischaracterized the outcry by saying Carson is “under fire for some comments he made about marriage this week.”

By the way, much of the protest has come from medical students at Johns Hopkins University, where Carson is a professor of neurosurgery, who feel that he should withdraw as commencement speaker. But it’s not only for his comments about gays. They also feel that Carson has used his platform as a famous neurosurgeon to promote the rejection of evolution and used his platform at the National Prayer Breakfast as a partisan vehicle. They don’t want that kind of partisanship at their commencement.

Predictably, Morris didn’t go into any of that. He was too busy casting Carson as a media victim. “The media seemed to have jumped down your throat pretty quickly. ...Do you think you’ve gotten a fair shake in the media?” Morris prompted asked.

Carson didn’t quite jump through the hoop the way Morris was leading him. But he was more than willing to play the victim, point the finger at others, and then pretend that they were the ones doing the dividing:

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (89)

PLAYS: (754)

Embed

Cardinal Dolan joined George Stephanapoulos and ABC News this morning to discuss the new pope and his views on same sex marriage and the out of touchness most American Catholics feel towards the church. From a new poll from the NY Times: U.S. Catholics in Poll See a Church Out of Touch

Roman Catholics in the United States say that their church and bishops are out of touch, and that the next pope should lead the church in a more modern direction on issues like birth control and ordaining women and married men as priests, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Dolan said in the interview that he sees the biggest challenge for the church is to re-connect itself to Jesus.

Dolan: I think the biggest challenge facing him, George, is to reconnect Jesus and his Church. There's now a growing cleavage between Jesus and his Church. You reported some of the statistics. People will say, "I don't have any problem with Jesus. I got some problems with the Church." And probably, I think his greatest pastoral challenge is going to be – to reconnect Jesus and his church.

That's not going to be as easy as it appears, especially with not a mention of the child sex abuse scandal that has rocked Catholics and the church to its core, but what Cardinal Dolan said shortly afterwards about the gay community figured more prominently and showed no effort to get in line with what most Americans believe. You see, they can have his love and friendship, but gays are not entitled to sex or marriage. Those values are left only for child-bearing opposite-sex couples.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: And you know, especially this week – because it's been at the top of the news – for many gay and lesbian Americans –

CARDINAL DOLAN: Uh-huh.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS:– gay and lesbian Catholics, they feel unwelcome –

CARDINAL DOLAN: They do.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS:– in the Church. And what do you say as a minister, as a pastor – to a gay couple that comes to you and say, "We love God. We love the Church. But we also love each other, and we want to raise a family in faith."

What do you say to them?

CARDINAL DOLAN: Well, the first thing I’d say to them is, "I love you, too. And God loves you. And you are made in God's image and likeness. And – and we – we want your happiness. But – and you're entitled to friendship.” But we also know that God has told us that the way to happiness, that – especially when it comes to sexual love – that is intended only for a man and woman in marriage, where children can come about naturally.

We gotta be – we gotta do better to see that our defense of marriage is not reduced to an attack on gay people. And I admit, we haven't been too good at that. We try our darndest to make sure we're not an anti-anybody. We're in the defense of what God has taught us about – about marriage. And it's one man, one woman, forever, to bring about new life. We gotta do better to try to dis – take that away from being anti-anybody.

So as long as the church and their defenders don't personally attack gays over marriage it's okay to deny them the right to do so. What fun would that be for homophobes? And Nicole mentioned to me that does his definition also rule out sex for opposite sex couples who can't have children? With Catholic leaders like Cardinal Dolan being a major spokesmen, not much change is apt to take place for the church in the years to come except to foster in the Reince Priebus RNC playbook of better branding being needed for their positions.

Igor Volsky writes:

Dolan has been vocal in his opposition to marriage equality, repeatedly condemning the rights of same-sex couples under the guise of love and support for the gay community. After lobbying against New York’s marriage equality law, Dolan prohibited by decree any Church personnel or property from being utilized for same-sex marriage ceremonies under penalty of “canonical sanctions,” calling the state’s law “irreconcilable with the nature and the definition of marriage as established by Divine law.”

He has also compared the “threat” posed to marriage by gays and lesbians to that of polygamy, adultery, forced marriage, communist dictatorships, and incest.

Despite his rhetoric, a majority of New York Catholics supported the marriage equality bill months before it came to a vote and still do.

(h/t Heather@Video Cafe for the video)

Tuesday morning at the Supreme Court looked a lot like it did a year ago when the court heard arguments on the Affordable Care Act, except that people outside seemed to be in much higher spirits. It was the day for the court to hear arguments on whether California's Proposition 8 passed in 2008 violates the constitution.

John Aravosis was there:

It was a powerful morning – almost a jovial atmosphere outside the Supreme Court. I got there around 8:45am, the arguments began at 10am. But by 8:45am it was already packed outside – wall to wall people, and all, 100%, on our side. The bad guys were NOWHERE to be found. It was a huge tactical mistake on their part – they organized elsewhere and decided to show up at 10am AFTER much of the media had already taken its photos and left. Any freshman in college PR major could tell you that the media wants photos in front of the Supreme Court. And the only people in front of the Supreme Court were gay people and our allies. Oh well.

Before the court decides the question of Prop 8 itself, they first have to decide if the Proposition 8 proponents even have standing to bring the case before the court. Because California's Attorney General declined to join the action and argue for Proposition 8's constitutionality, the proponents of the original ballot initiative stepped in to do it.

From what I heard, it appeared that the court was leaning toward deciding the proponents did not have standing, which would allow them a way out of making a decision on the merits, while allowing the lower court's opinion to stand.

Chris Geidner has a detailed report here that does a great job of summarizing all of the high points. For me, the most significant moment in the entire hearing was when Justice Kennedy, widely considered to be the swing vote, jumped in with this:

Justice Anthony Kennedy, however, shot back by asking Cooper whether the "voice of the[ ] children" of same-sex couples "is important in this case," to which Cooper responded that there is "no data" on whether children of same-sex domestic partners face disadvantages from those of married same-sex couples.

That was how Chris phrased Kennedy's question. It was actually more powerful than that. Here's the quote from the transcript:

Justice Kennedy: I -- I think there's -- there's substantial -- that there's substance to the point that sociological information is new. We have five years of information to weigh against 2,000 years of history or more.

On the other hand, there is an immediate legal injury or legal -- what could be a legal injury, and that's the voice of these children. There are some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?

Imagine, someone who is actually thinking of the children!

Oral arguments are a lousy indicator of final outcomes. But if I had to bet, I'd probably place a small bet on the standing issues giving the court a way not to rule on the substance.

Today's arguments are about the constitutionality of DOMA. If the court rules DOMA unconstitutional but leaves the Prop8 decision in the lower court, they will have split the baby, leaving the question of same sex marriage to the states, but with the risk that narrow definitions of marriage may violate the 14th amendment as the lower court ruled with regard to Prop 8.

DOWNLOADS: (102)

PLAYS: (958)

Embed

Fox News “legal analyst” – and suspected Roger Ailes surrogate – Peter Johnson, Jr. is very worried about proposed changes to Washington state’s marriage license in the wake of legalized same sex marriage there. The issue is not gay marriage per se, mind you, but changes to the marriage license. Apparently, standardizing the form from “bride” and “groom” to “Spouse A” and “Spouse B” is not just going to alter how Washingtonians view marriage but will, according to Johnson, cause a “big, big sea change” in heterosexual relationships and just about every other aspect of American society.

“So much for wedded bliss,” Steve Doocy sneered in his introduction. He "asked" whether the proposed changes are "a good idea or political correctness gone too far?"

To Johnson, changing the wording on marriage licenses is not just a bad idea but spells doom for heteros and maybe even society as a whole.

The issue is “husband and wife,” “bride and groom,” do the cultural kinship terms that go with heterosexual marriage go out the window? This is a sea change. This is a big anthropological change. This will change society in Washington and in other states forever!

…Where does it go? Do we no longer say “father and mother?” Do we only say “parent?” Do we no longer say “brother and sister?” Do we say “sibling?” Do we no longer say “widow and widower?” What does it mean in terms of our relationships and how we view each other?

…It’s not about gay marriage, it’s about what happens to heterosexual marriage and how those partners are defined and how those relationships go forward in our society. It’s going to have a tremendous, tremendous impact. If language is part of our culture, language defines our culture, language often defines our behavior. Watch this! See what happens. This is going to be a big, big sea change in our society and how the smallest of our children understand relationships between parents, between husband and wife, between mother and father. There are such things in our society and if our society continues, there must be.

Nobody discussed what kind of form or forms there should be and whether in these times of budget austerity it might be worth the extra cost of printing different forms for different kinds of couples. But I guess when the very existence of American society is at stake, money is no object!

This is Julie Goodridge. Goodridge sued the Massachusetts Department of Health in 2003 because her partner was denied the right to see her newborn daughter or her after a difficult and life-threatening birth. That case turned into the landmark ruling that said gay couples do have the right to marry.

In this video, Goodridge tells us all what it was like to fight for those rights in a state where Mitt Romney was governor at the time. She said she begged him for a meeting and couldn't get one. When she did finally have an opportunity to speak with him, he had not read anything with regard to her case (or so she claimed). She described his answer to her question about what she should tell her daughter about why her parents couldn't be married as "cold." The answer was the equivalent of flipping her off. Via Boston.com:

“It was like talking to a robot. No expression, no feeling,” recalls David Wilson, one of the plaintiffs in the case who met with Romney that day. “People were sharing touching stories, stories where you’d expect recognition in the other person’s face that they at least hear what you’re saying — that there’s empathy. He didn’t even shake his head. He was completely blank.”

Occasionally Romney would say something.

“I didn’t know you had families,” remarked Romney to the group, according to Wilson.
The offhanded remark underscored that Romney, the governor of the first state prepared to grant same-sex marriage, hadn’t taken the time to look at what the landmark case was really about. By this point the plaintiff’s stories had been widely covered by national media — in particular, Julie Goodridge’s heartrending tale of how her then-partner, Hillary, was denied hospital visitation following the precarious birth of daughter Annie. It was the ignorance of these facts — and Romney’s inaccurate, insensitive answer to her parting question, that pushed Julie Goodridge to her breaking point.

“I looked him in the eye as we were leaving,” recalls Goodridge. “And I said, ‘Governor Romney, tell me — what would you suggest I say to my 8 year-old daughter about why her mommy and her ma can’t get married because you, the governor of her state, are going to block our marriage?’”

His response, according to Goodridge: “I don’t really care what you tell your adopted daughter. Why don’t you just tell her the same thing you’ve been telling her the last eight years.”

Romney couldn't even be bothered to know that Goodridge's daughter was not adopted. She was her natural daughter. In fact, it was Goodridge's childbirth experience that sparked the lawsuit. But he hadn't bothered to pay attention at all, yet was supporting a constitutional amendment banning her marriage.

If Goodridge's story was unique, it could possibly be dismissed as pure politics. But it's not. The words she uses to describe Mitt Romney -- cold, lacking any empathy, dead eyes -- are what we see every day. This is the same Mitt Romney who says students should get the best education they can afford, who profiteers from the 9-11 tragedy, who stores his money in Swiss and Cayman bank accounts while placing his hand over his heart and singing "America the Beautiful."

It's no stretch to imagine Julie Goodridge begging Willard to just try and see things from her vantage point, only to be rebuffed and told that she wasn't worth him even reading about her case.

On top of all the other reasons, imagine what it would be like to have someone like Romney as president. Shoot, just look at the states that are currently run by Republicans! Women? Bah! Let them do laundry! Gay people? Suffer, sinners. That would be what would happen. There would be no rights for anyone but wealthy white dudes.

Julie's story is only one of many, but all of them tell the same tale.

In a groundbreaking ruling, a First Circuit Court of Appeals panel struck down DOMA, ruling that the federal government does not have authority to deny same-sex couples benefits if they are legally married in a state.

What makes this ruling different from others is the composition of the panel: Two conservative judges, one liberal. The author of the opinion, Judge Michael Boudin, is a well-respected Bush appointee who, according to ThinkProgress recommends clerks for Supreme Court clerkships.

Chris Geidner:

Judge Michael Boudin, appointed to the bench by President George H.W. Bush, wrote for the court: "[M]any Americans believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and most Americans live in states where that is the law today. One virtue of federalism is that it permits this diversity of governance based on local choice, but this applies as well to the states that have chosen to legalize same-sex marriage. Under current Supreme Court authority, Congress' denial of federal benefits to same-sex couples lawfully married in Massachusetts has not been adequately supported by any permissible federal interest."The decision follows oral arguments that were held in the cases on April 4. Today's decision upholds U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Tauro's July 8, 2010, decision finding the federal law defining marriage as consisting of only one man and one woman to be unconstitutional.

As ThinkProgress and Geidner note, the panel was unwilling to step on states who have amended their constitutions to ban same sex marriage:

Continue reading »

Let's do a little compare-and-contrast between New Jersey, whose loudmouthed "straight shooting" governor just wasn't man enough to sign a straightforward same-sex marriage bill, and Maryland, where Gov. Martin O'Malley (a politician no one has ever accused of lacking ambition) has not only said he will sign the bill, he called in favors and campaigned hard to get it passed.

In other words, he actually expended political capital to accomplish something he thought was right - as opposed to Mr. Chris "Let The Majority Decide The Rights of The Minority" Christie, who only had to sign a bill both houses passed. Remember that.

At some point, Martin O'Malley will either be on a presidential ticket, or run for the top office himself. But no matter what pounds of flesh he has to sell to get there, no matter what compromises he may make along the way, I will always remember that here's a guy who simply did this one right thing for the right reasons. That has a certain appeal, doesn't it? I'd like to see more Democrats like him.

A bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in Maryland was approved by the state Senate, which advanced a measure that narrowly cleared the House of Delegates last week.

The final vote by the state Senate ended a yearlong drama in Annapolis over the legislation, and marked the first time an East Coast state south of the Mason-Dixon line has supported gay nuptials.

With the vote, the measure moves to Gov. Martin O’Malley (D), who has said he will sign it.

[...] Despite one of the largest Democratic majorities in any state legislature, backers of gay marriage in Maryland had to overcome fierce opposition from blocks of African American lawmakers and those with strong Catholic and evangelical views to cobble together coalitions big enough to pass both chambers.

As the Atlantic points out, in some ways, the Maryland compromise wasn't any prettier than Christie's political abdication. As part of the deal to get the bill through the House, opponents get the opportunity to put the issue on the ballot this November, which also makes it possible that the same-sex marriage issue Obama's been trying to sidestep will dog him there.

And as a final hurdle, the law doesn't go into effect until all legal challenges have been exhausted. That will take a long time.

But O'Malley did get out and fight for it. That's what leadership looks like.

DOWNLOADS: (185)

PLAYS: (485)

Embed

Congratulations, Washington State! On Monday, Governor Christine Gregoire signed legislation legalizing same sex marriage between couples in the state.

Via SeattlePI:

Gregoire's voice broke as she descrbed conversations with her two daughters, who told her that marriage equality was "the civil rights issue of their generation . . . Thank you to that younger generation and my two daughters."

The governor presided at a ceremony in Olympia, joined by legislative leaders and the longtime same-sex partners of such lawmakers as Sen. Ed Murray and Reps. Jamie Pedersen and Laurie Jinkins.

The law goes into effect on June 7, unless opponents succeed in gathering 120,577 valid voter signatures to force a referendum in November. If so, marriage equality would be held up pending a decision by Washington voters.

She's right. In a few more years, people will wonder what the big deal is. My 17-year old daughter does not understand why people want to bar committed same-sex couples from affirming their commitment legally and publicly. The difference? She understands because she has long-term friendships with gay friends. The ignorance factor just doesn't exist.

Of course, this will not stop the haters from trying as hard as they can to pull a Proposition 8 move in Washington State. They're already launching their campaign, and I'm sure they've got plenty of help from the Mormon and Catholic church members in that state.

Ex-Sen. Rick Santorum, a scathing critic of marriage equality, will meet this afternoon in Olympia with opponents of the bill Gregoire signed into law. The Republican presidential candidate holds a rally with supporters tonight at the Washington State History Museum in Tacoma.

The Family Policy Institute and the Catholic Archdiocese of Seattle had asked followers to call on Gregoire to veto the marriage equality bill. A statement by diocesan bishops, critical of the law, was included Sunday in Catholic parish bulletins.

The Family Policy Institute is one of NOM's front groups and regularly emits fits of hysteria over same sex marriage. They also really like using culture war issues like this to try and get out the vote for conservative candidates. It's a common tactic of theirs.

Stand firm, Washington State, and in the meantime, congratulations to all of the couples waiting to get married. I look forward to seeing wedding albums.

Judge Walker has opened the door for same-sex marriage, but with a bit of a twist. The stay will remain in effect until August 18th to give the proponents of Prop 8 an opportunity to appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

That's not surprising, but what does surprise me is the lengthy discussion of whether those same Prop 8 proponents even have standing to file such an appeal.

Because Prop 8 was an amendment to the state Constitution, the Attorney General and Governor are the parties with standing to appeal Judge Walker's ruling. However, Jerry Brown and Arnold Schwarzenegger both declined to do so. At the trial, the original proponents were allowed to present their case instead of Brown and Schwarzenegger, but after the judge ruled, responsibility for appeal bounced back to the state.

Brown and Schwarzenegger argued that the stay should be lifted and marriages allowed immediately. What Judge Walker has done with this short extension of the stay is to allow the Prop 8 proponents to argue: a) that they have standing to appeal; and b) that the stay should be made permanent.

Judge Walker seems to think they don't have standing. Key conclusion:

Because proponents make no argument that they -- as opposed to the state defendants or plaintiffs -- will be irreparably injured absent a stay, proponents have not given the court any basis to exercise its discretion to grant a stay.

Bottom line: This is moving toward the Supreme Court. The real question is what will happen in the interim.

Chris Geidner has a quick analysis with key points. Maddow also reacts. The LA Times reports that Prop 8 proponents plan an immediate appeal.

Update #2: According to Right Wing Watch, the American Family Association is considering the possibility of dropping any challenge to Prop 8 in order to save bans on same-sex marriage in other states.