Rhode Island’s House of Representatives just voted for it by a massive margin of 51 – 19. The Senate is iffier, apparently, but that’s a huge margin of victory in the lower House.
Archives For: Marriage Equality
A reader writes:
This morning I was reading the Indiana University student newspaper (my wife is an alum, so I check it out from time to time), and I came across a stirring example of how the cause of same-sex marriage continues to progress among the younger generations. Here is a letter to the editor, written by an undergraduate who identifies as straight, Catholic, and a Republican – and he's written a concise and very persuasive defense of marriage rights for all. Reading it gave me hope.
Marriages already take place in casinos, court houses and without religious officials, and 50 percent of them end in divorce. If we don’t even bother to hold Christians to standards of a traditional marriage (“’til death do us part”), then how can gays be held to standards of traditional Christian marriage?
An anti-gay amendment is being discussed by the state legislature, while public opinion seems to be racing ahead of the politicians' assumptions.
Simone Eastman explores the harder parts of marriage equality:
We are one of the only married queer couples most of our friends know, and they've unwittingly turned us into their Poster Couple…. Getting married has created a huge amount of pressure for us to be a SUCCESSFUL HAPPY LOVING LESBIAN COUPLE who you can point to as a great reason to support gay marriage. Sometimes we aren't happy or loving. Sometimes, like almost all couples, we annoy the fucking shit out of each other. And sometimes we have serious disagreements or conflicts in our relationship. But it becomes impossible to talk about them or admit that my genetic inability to hang up my towel after a shower makes my wife want to strangle me. How could we? We know that people think we're "perfect together," which is its own kind of pressure, but even more than that, our relationship has all these other meanings for other people. We're your friends who Got Married In California, Isn't That Great? What would it mean if we were your friends who got divorced in California, too? What would happen then?
(Photo: Gay couples kiss during their ceremonial wedding as they try to raise awareness of the issue of homosexual marriage, in Wuhan, in central China's Hubei province, on March 8, 2011. By STR/AFP/Getty Images.)
John Corvino joins the monogamy debate:
While monogamy may be hard, it’s not so hard that a monogamous couple (straight or gay) can’t look at a non-monogamous couple (straight or gay) and conclude, “Nope, that’s not right for us.” After all, people read the Bible without deciding to acquire concubines. More generally (and realistically), people encounter neighbors with different cultural mores while still preferring—and sometimes having good reason to prefer—their own.
Robert Farley is dead on:
I read a lot of Savage in the 1997-2003 period, and it really, really seemed like much of his project was about convincing people that drag queens could be good Republicans, too. What I mean by this is that much of his writing and activism seems motivated by the idea of creating a standard nuclear family, with relatively standard ways of transmitting family mores, and simply substituting out some of the “traditional” members. Savage seemed enraged not by the notion of a “traditional” nuclear family, with pre-set roles and expectations, but by the idea that he should be excluded from this traditional vision. There’s some merit to that, of course, but it also reflects a certain comfort with a conservative vision of politics and family life.
Of course. That's why Dan was an early supporter of marriage equality and was a huge moral support in my own efforts to move the debate forward. What he really sees as the root of marital and relationship collapse is deception. It is lying to your spouse rather than dealing with reality. I've been around his family; it is as traditional as it is refreshing.
(Photo: Terry and DJ chilling on our deck in Provincetown a couple summers ago.)
David Kaufman says black "voters who don't support marriage equality still appear willing to elect politicians who do":
"The truth is, we just don't see blacks voting against a candidate based on [his or her] support of gay marriage," says Patrick Egan, assistant professor of politics and public policy at New York University. "We actually don't see this becoming an important issue for voters of any race."
Poor Karl Rove. Outfoxed by history in 2011. But, hey, he got Bush re-elected in 2004.
(Hat tip: Alvin McEwen)
It may be that high water-mark of the GOP tide has been reached in Wisconsin:
In Ohio, Republican lawmakers agreed to modify a bill that would have banned collective bargaining, allowing state workers to negotiate on wages. Michigan's GOP governor offered to negotiate with public employees rather than create political gridlock. Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) called on GOP lawmakers to abandon their "right to work" bill that would have made it a misdemeanor for an employer to require workers to become or remain members of a labor union.
Increasingly, it seems to me, Scott Walker's political gamesmanship is discrediting the vital cause of tackling deficits and debt in the states. It's a classic case of over-reach.
And the same can be said of marriage equality in Maryland, where extreme rhetoric in the debate turned some previously anti-gay marriage legislators around. The NYT reports on the muted response of the GOP's potential presidential candidates to the Obama administration's decision not to defend Section 3 of DOMA in the courts. I don't for a minute believe that the Christianist base will be satisfied if the House decides to let sleeping gays lie, but the feeling is different now, don't you think?
The genius of the Holder decision is that it forces the GOP to decide very quickly whether to double-down on this issue.Continue Reading...
In many ways, the debate over same-sex marriage began fifteen years ago in Hawaii, when the state’s Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage. Voters responded by becoming the first state to outlaw same-sex marriage, and the case also set off a nationwide debate that resulted in passage of the Defense of Marriage Act. So in many ways, with yesterday’s decision by the Obama Administration to not appeal the DOMA cases and this development in Hawaii, the gay marriage debate has come full circle. This time, though, its moving in the opposite direction.
Meanwhile, Maryland is on the cusp of getting marriage equality.
Both sides on the marriage equality front are hyper-ventilating about the Obama administration's decision not to defend in court the third section of DOMA as constitutional with respect to already married same-sex couples in various states and DC. Here are two representative emails. From the Christianist right, a fundraising email from NOM:
This is it. The whole ball game. If we back down here, it will be all over.
From gay blogger, Rex Wockner:
DOMA can't withstand heightened scrutiny, Prop 8 can't withstand heightened scrutiny, and pretty much any governmental anti-gay thing ever simply cannot withstand heightened scrutiny. Huge.
But there are some obvious points against this analysis, it seems to me. The first two sections of DOMA remain. So no state will be forced to recognize civil marriages from another (something that was the case and would be the case without DOMA, given legal precedents). Indeed, DOMA will remain in full and enforced by the DOJ until or unless the Supeme Court rules it as unconstitutional or the Congress repeals it in whole or in part.
What's left is the federal government's recognition of heterosexual civil marriages in one state but not of homosexual civil marriages in the same state – and it's here that attorney general Holder says that, given legal precedents already set, making such a distinction, as DOMA's Section 3 demands, violates equal protection rights under the Fifth Amendment. In the view of the Justice Department, laws discriminating in that way against gays as a class require "heightened scrutiny" in the Courts and when this is applied, it is clear that irrational discrimination is unconstitutional, and the Justice Department will no longer make that argument.
The reason Holder gives is that two new cases require the federal government to take "an affirmative position on the level of scrutiny that should be applied to DOMA Section 3 in a circuit without binding precedent on the issue." If forced to make such a judgment, which it hasn't had to make before, the Obama DOJ refuses. And so it withdraws from the defense of that provision of the law in the courts. Generally, the Obama administration has been punctilious in defending DOMA and even DADT in the courts, as well as other legislation on the books. But, Holder argues,
"this is the rare case where the proper course is to forgo the defense of this statute. Moreover, the Department has declined to defend a statute 'in cases in which it is manifest that the President has concluded that the statute is unconstitutional,' as is the case here. Seth P. Waxman, Defending Congress, 79 N.C. L.Rev. 1073, 1083 (2001). "
Who can defend the statute? The Congress:
Our attorneys will also notify the courts of our interest in providing Congress a full and fair opportunity to participate in the litigation in those cases.
And so Obama has basically tossed the ball on this to the Speaker of the House, John Boehner. It's interesting that Boehner's immediate response is not to grandstand on the core issue but to change the subject to the timing:
"While Americans want Washington to focus on creating jobs and cutting spending, the President will have to explain why he thinks now is the appropriate time to stir up a controversial issue that sharply divides the nation."
But these cases are pending and the DOJ had to make a decision one way or the other. So will Boehner. This used to be a no-brainer. But as the polls show greater acceptance of gays and marriage equality, as the old arguments against it begin actually to repel previously anti-same-sex marriage legislators, as in Maryland, the Speaker is being offered to forge a defense of such discrimination in the courts. He seems queasy about that. And he should be.
DOMA is still on the books, and it has not been declared unconstitutional. It does mean however that the Justice Department won’t defend section 3 of the statute which bars federal recognition of marriage of same-sex couples when that portion of the law is challenged in court. And so one possibility is that we may have a national patchwork of DOMA enforcement — it is kaput where Federal judges or their Appeals Courts have ruled against it, while it remains on the books where the courts have upheld the law or haven’t ruled.
That would make, for example, the IRS’s administering the tax code a logistical nightmare, with some gay couples filing as married couples in some jurisdictions while others are barred from doing so elsewhere. Immigration can become a similar quagmire for transnational couples. Without, ultimately, either an appeal somewhere to the Supreme Court or repeal of DOMA itself, it’s going to be very intresting — and probably frustrating — for a very long time.
There are many questions to ponder, including: who will now defend DOMA and will they have standing to do so? The DOJ suggests that members of Congress may be able to defend the federal law, but that is far from clear under the Court’s standing precedents, like Raines v. Byrd, written by Chief Justice Rehnquist.
Both of Holder's statements carefully state that they will cease to defend Section 3, without commenting on the constitutionality of the rest of the law. Section 2 still allows the states not to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. But that doesn't mean that the administration necessarily believes Section 2 is constitutional.
Under these conditions, it becomes much more likely that DOMA will be struck down by at least one federal Court of Appeals– possibly the Second Circuit, where the latest cases are being brought–and therefore even more likely that DOMA will be struck down when it finally gets to the Supreme Court. All of my previous predictions as to how constitutional challenges to DOMA will go forward must be revised.
(Photo: Aleyna Stroud (L) and Mandy Harris kiss after requesting and being rejected for a marriage license at the County Clerk's Office in Los Angeles on Valentine's Day, February 14, 2011. By Robyn Beck/AFP/Getty Images)
National Catholic Reporter's Maureen Fielder reads a recent WaPo editorial:
[It] urged Maryland to live up to its moniker, “The Free State,” by approving marriage equality. I found some of The Post’s revelations especially interesting. It seems that the homophobic speech and false arguments touted by some opponents are turning skeptics into supporters. According to The Post, “several formerly undecided lawmakers have listened to the arguments of opponents – and recoiled at the vitriol they heard. State Sen. James Brochin, a Baltimore County Democrat who previously backed same-sex civil unions but not marriage, changed his mind after taking in what he called the "appalling" views of opponents at a Senate hearing. 'Witness after witness demonized homosexuals, vilified the gay community and described gays and lesbians as pedophiles,' he said in a statement …”
A heads up from a reader:
My state, Maryland, is poised to take a big step forward this week by legalizing same sex marriage. The State Senate appears to have the 24 votes to advance the bill and the House of Delegates is more than ready to pass it. The Governor will sign the bill without pause.
I am proud of my state. Our General Assembly meets only 90 days a year and passes only 1/3 of the introduced bills (by law, the only bill that must pass is the state budget).