Here's Steve King (W-IA), explaining why the gays shouldn't be able to marry.

Marriage is the stable platform from which families are launched. Government surely has a compelling interest in ensuring the stability of that platform, and even subsidizing the practice with tax incentives. Moreover, society has an interest in promoting procreation amongst married adults. Same-sex marriage does not present the possibility of natural procreation nor has same-sex parenting endured and thrived for millennia of human experience.

Does King think the government should outlaw divorce, since that would certainly "ensure the stability" of marriage? Does he think the government should bar people over 50 from marrying, since they can't naturally procreate? I'm guessing no.

Insisting upon heterosexual marriage is therefore not discriminatory, nor does it constitute the government telling anyone whom to love. The argument for upholding the Defense of Marriage Act is rooted in the way marriage is historically treated by state laws. To understand why government is involved in marriage in the first place is to understand why government cannot validate same-sex marriage.

Very small government-y!

Nice to see that the wingers at The National Review, which published impassioned defenses of Jim Crow (by Buckley!), are honoring their traditions.

Trailer from 'Outrage,' a documentary about political outing.

Today, as the Supreme Court hears its second important case on gay rights in as many days, I'm thinking about all the gay people who came out of the closet, who brought us to the point where this could happen.

Because unlike those who are black, or women, gay people could hide. For a very long time, that's what so many of them did. They had some very good reasons to do so, because to acknowledge their sexuality risked the love and support of their families, their jobs, and even a place to live.

And yet, so many did, anyway.

I believe that, left to our own devices, the human impulse is toward authenticity. But in so many people, that impulse becomes distorted when overwhelming pressure to meet cultural norms is brought to bear. Once you can't even admit who you are to yourself, what do you have? Self-hate and loathing.

I'm so proud of each and every individual, alive and dead, who found the courage to be themselves.

This scene is played out in so many American families, every single day. Each coming out in past decades made it easier for the men and women who followed, to the point where kids are now coming out at younger and younger ages. Families are stepping up to show their kids they will always love and support them -- not all parents, but a lot of them. The possibility for evolution is strong once parents see just how many gay people there are.

Continue reading »

Synched transcript and audio, courtesy of the Oyez Project

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.

Some of the arguments from yesterday's Prop 8 hearing.

We all have gay friends, gay relatives, gay neighbors, or gay co-workers. (Some of us even have all of the above.) For the first time, it looks like our dear friends and relatives have a real shot at the same legal rights that apply to any married couple, as the Supreme Court listens this morning to arguments against the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. I hope and pray that those rights are finally recognized by the Court, and that the best American traits of generosity and inclusion are reflected in their decision, because to decide otherwise is not only crazy, it's indecent:

An 83-year-old former IBM programmer is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down a law that cost her more than a quarter of a million dollars and deprived her, and thousands of other gay couples, of federal marriage benefits.

At issue is the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, passed by overwhelming margins in both houses of Congress in 1996 and signed by President Bill Clinton. It bars federal agencies from recognizing the validity of same-sex marriages in the states where they are legal.

The arguments are being heard just one day after a challenge to California’s Proposition 8, which put an end to same-sex marriage in that state, was brought to the high court. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court hinted that it might be hesitant to issue any kind of sweeping ruling declaring that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. The justices seemed wary of issuing a broad decision that would apply to any state outside of California.

Continue reading »

Asked about this after his press conference yesterday, the Tan Man was very annoyed that anyone would question the same elected official who's been publicly blathering about the White House "spending problem" about the half-million bucks the Republicans saw fit to appropriate for DOMA:

It has come to light that House Administration Committee Chairman Dan Lungren (R-CA) secretly approved a $500,000 increase to a contract with a private law firm to defend the unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in federal court.

While the increase was approved in September, neither the public nor the Democratic House minority was informed until this week, Roll Call reports.The contract now authorizes Bancroft PLLC and former Solicitor General Paul Clement (R) to spend up to $2 million in to defend DOMA — the second increase to what was originally a $1 million cap. The U.S. Department of Justice stopped defending the 1996 law in February 2011 after determining the law to be in conflict with the U.S. Constittuion.House Democratic

Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) denounced the increased expense in a statement:

It’s bad enough that Speaker Boehner and House Republicans are wasting taxpayer dollars to defend the indefensible Defense of Marriage Act – and losing in every case. Now, they have reached a new low – signing a secret contract to spend more public money on their legal boondoggle without informing Democrats. Their actions are simply unconscionable; their decisions are utterly irresponsible.Hiding this contract from voters in the midst of an election season was a cynical move at best, and a betrayal of the public trust at worst. With Americans focused on the creation of jobs and the growth of our economy, Republicans should not be spending $2 million to defend discrimination in our country.

Though Lungren lost re-election in November, the Republicans maintained control of the House — and its operating budget.

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 »

This is why we need same-sex marriage rights on the federal level. This is just disgraceful. You'd think with all those dangerous medical marijuana dealers Homeland Security is hunting down, they'd be too busy to deport lawfully married spouses:

A lesbian couple in Vermont has been thrust into the national spotlight. They are legally married here, but not at the federal level. Now one of them is considered an illegal immigrant and is facing deportation.

Frances Herbert and Takako Ueda met in college and have known each other for 30 years. They have shared countless dinners, laughs and tears. "I knew that she was the one," Ueda said.

After college Ueda returned to Japan and started a life with a husband and new home. But after a visit from Herbert in 1999, her life changed again.

"When I die, when I put my one leg into a coffin, I don't want to regret," she said.

Ueda divorced and moved to the United States. The couple have been living together ever since and married last year. But in December -- another change.

They received a letter from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which denied Ueda's request to stay in the county, a right granted to heterosexual spouses of different nationalities. Sadness quickly turned to anger.

The letter states that because the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines a marriage as one man and one woman, Ueda had to go. "How can our country, with a President who knows discrimination in his core, how can they continue to uphold DOMA?" Herbert questioned.

Vermont's congressional delegation, including Congressman Peter Welch, who recently gave a speech on the house floor highlighting the issue, is urging Homeland Security to reconsider. "The United States has always recognized the law of a state when it comes to marriage. So why shouldn't Washington recognize what Vermont has done, what Massachusetts has done," he said.

[h/t scarce]

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.

Congress is back with a triple serving of crazy. As I watch C-SPAN on one screen and Occupy Wall Street protests on another, it makes me wonder if this is what it feels to be on a bad acid trip. Do these Republicans actually ever look beyond their ideological blinders at what is going on in this country? Surely not.

Here's a shining example: Eric Cantor has declared he will not bring President Obama's jobs bill up for a vote. Jobs, you know. That thing not enough people have and because they don't have it, that thing that is pushing economic growth down. Those. And even though the jobs bill is just a dent in a very large bucket, it's a jobs bill. It does things. Like repair roads and pay for teachers and things like that. So of course, Cantor wouldn't bring it up for a vote. Why would he?

But look at what they are voting on today!

Defund Planned Parenthood and NPR - AGAIN

IB Times:

Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives are again trying to defund Planned Parenthood and National Public Radio, this time through a draft bill to fund several departments and agencies.

Planned Parenthood would be banned from receiving federal funds unless the organization certifies it will end abortion services under the House Appropriations Committee's draft legislation released Thursday. The proposed spending bill would also cut all funding to a family planning program, known as Title X.

Meanwhile, the proposal includes a provision preventing the Corporation for Public Boradcasting from using federal money to support NPR.

Oh wait, there's more:

Continue reading »

I am writing this at 9:05 PM PDT on September 19th. Five minutes earlier, the Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal was effective (Midnight EDT), and there can be no more discrimination in our armed forces against people for their sexual orientation.

This is a BFD, and a long, hard slog.

Huffington Post:

It took nearly a year for the President's plan to jell. And it would be another painful year before the winning votes on Capitol Hill. And after that, another seven months would pass before Jeh Johnson would hand-deliver the signed Gates and Mullen certification to the White House for the President's signature and transmitted to Capitol Hill. All in all, not that long for a successful legislative and military operation, but inordinately protracted for advocates and especially long for gay and lesbian service members being discharged every day under DADT and for those serving in silence.

And make no mistake. The President directed his forces with precision, methodically insisting all options be examined and re-examined. He realized almost from the beginning that success would depend upon the military, that he would need Gates and Mullen and his senior commanders and the troops with him to bring about this change. And he also knew that would take time. He was determined not to be rushed. The last time this was rushed without a plan and military support the results had been disastrous. He would not make that mistake.

Indeed. He didn't make that mistake, and today that horrible, discriminatory, brutal policy is gone. There's still work to be done with DOMA and treatment of transgendered individuals. But today represents real, tangible progress.

Jonathan Capehart:

There are still issues concerning benefits that have nothing to do with the legacy of DADT and everything to do with DOMA, the so-called Defense of Marriage Act. For instance, because of DOMA, the surviving same-sex spouse of a service member is out of luck in receiving the same considerations a surviving straight spouse. You better believe there are plans in the works to right this wrong.

Greg Sargent nailed the larger significance of the demise of DADT in a post earlier this afternoon. “It was an extremely hard-fought win — a massive victory for common sense and decency over bigotry and legalized discrimination,” he wrote. “At a difficult moment, it stands as a sorely needed reminder that progress remains possible. Let’s not forget it.”

To those who served in silence: Thank you for your service, your sacrifice, and your patience. Welcome to the light.