Pam Spaulding's Blog, page 18

Catholics and Marriage after New York

Cross-posted from Bold Faith Type Catholic writer Morning's Minion (MM) at Vox Nova looks at Kathryn Jean Lopez's recent interview with Robert George in response to New York's legalization of same-sex marriage.
Pushing back on George's singling out of same-sex marriage, MM presents an alternative approach to public life for Catholics in America, one that recognizes the constraints of a multi-religious, pluralistic society:

Let's get past the semantics. As Catholics, me must recognize that the culture does not see marriage as Catholics do, or are supposed to. Same-sex marriage is mere a symptom of this problem, not the problem itself. If we continue to single-out same-sex-marriage, we risk looking hypocritical. Why the years of silence about the culture of serial monogamy, followed by vehement outbursts against same-sex marriage? This is presents a unique opportunity for Catholics to be countercultural - to emphasize how our approach to marriage differs from the dominant cultural norm. Let's stay positive and let's stay optimistic.

Many people of faith (though not a majority) hold genuine views about gay marriage that differ from the increasingly supportive views of society at large. But as MM points out, this is far from the only issue in which that's the case. Many religious communities have already handled changes in societal norms about divorce, sex and gender with moral disagreement but with respect for the law and democratic process. There's no reason to believe changes in the civil institution of marriage need to be any different.
People of faith can and should speak up for their values in political life, but effective arguments extend beyond their own faith tradition and appeal to shared values and principles that cut across a broad swath of the American public.
As I highlighted before, groups like the National Organization for Marriage seem to understand this, mostly avoiding explicitly religious arguments against same-sex marriage and instead focusing on the alleged effects on children and what they refer to as "traditional marriages." The problem, of course, is that those arguments just don't hold up, falling short in both empirical tests and in the lived experiences of Americans who are getting to know the increasing number of gay couples and families in every community.
Despite the nostalgic protestations of some, it's highly unlikely that our political system will return to a model where policy around sex and gender is set by exclusively promoting a specific faith tradition's vision for society. Maybe George and other opponents of same-sex marriage ought to heed MM's advice, focusing on ways to positively articulate their beliefs in the face of cultural changes, rather than bemoaning their loss of moral monopoly.

Marriage equality advocates are back in court in New Jersey

Lambda Legal filed a lawsuit this week seeking marriage equality on behalf of Garden State Equality, New Jersey's statewide LGBT advocacy organization, and seven same-sex couples and their children harmed from the unequal civil union system.

The case is called Garden State Equality v. Dow (PDF) and combines both state and federal claims. It argues that New Jersey's civil union law violates both the New Jersey Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment of the federal Constitution.

Civil unions place same-sex couples and their children in an inferior status to different-sex couples and their children. Without full marriage equality, same-sex couples are denied workplace benefits and protections equal to those accorded to married people, and they are blocked from seeing their loved ones during medical emergencies. This exclusion deprives them of certainty in their legal rights and status, and often increases financial burdens.

Meet the plaintiffs and hear their stories here.  Read the legal complaint here.

In 2006 the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Lambda Legal's historic case Lewis v. Harris that same-sex couples must be provided all the benefits and responsibilities of marriage.  However, it allowed the New Jersey Legislature to decide how to provide those benefits and responsibilities.  The Legislature chose Civil Unions and passed the Civil Union Act in December 2006.

The civil union law mandated the creation of the Civil Union Review Commission which in December 2008 issued its unanimous report documenting how civil unions fall short of providing the court-mandated equality for same-sex couples.  In January 2010 the New Jersey Senate voted on but failed to pass a marriage equality bill.  In light of the Legislature's failure to provide equal rights and protections to same-sex couples, Lambda Legal filed a motion asking the New Jersey Supreme Court to intercede and order marriage to secure compliance with its original mandate of equality for the Lewis v. Harris plaintiffs.  But in July 2010, the New Jersey Supreme Court denied the motion, requiring further proceedings to develop a record in Superior Court.  The present case will do just that.

Tweet of the day: Bryan Fischer gets reality check by gay finance chair of RNC

The tiniest of violins goes out to anti-gay extremist Bryan Fischer of the AFA, who just got the memo that social issues will not be at the forefront of the GOP's agenda:

[image error]

Gay member of RNC finance team: GOP should "not take a position on social issues." Note to true conservs: GOP just threw us under the bus.

NC: Repub. House Speaker promotes amendment, says same-sex marriages not as 'stable and nurturing'

Wow. Just. Wow. Should we all now start investigating all of the heterosexual marriages in the NC General Assembly that have ended in acrimonious divorce ?

Is this really the threshold upon which Speaker of the House Thom Tillis (R-Mecklenburg; his contact page here) bases his support for a marriage amendment?

That's what he told the Asheville Citizen-Times.

"The defense of marriage is one that a number of folks in our base feel very strongly about," Tillis said, noting the issue would definitely be brought up in a special fall session. "Generally speaking, it polls fairly high across the voter base. It's not a particularly partisan thing."

Asked how he personally feels about gay marriage, Tillis said "data" show that traditional marriages between men and women are more stable and nurturing.

He expects the measure, which can't be vetoed by the governor, to pass the House with the minimum 72 votes and go to voters in 2012.

As for whether the ballot measure should prohibit same-sex partner benefits given by some businesses and a few local governments such as Asheville, Tillis said he hasn't taken a formal position.

As I sit here typing this on July 1, the seventh anniversary of my LEGAL marriage to Kate in Canada that is not recognized by North Carolina, this science-free garbage spewed out of the Speaker's mouth is offensive. I would like him to explain how he knows that my marriage is less stable than his or anyone else's based solely on the fact that we are a same-sex (TAXPAYING) couple.

Obviously Speaker Tillis didn't read anything about the ridiculous, discredited expert "testimony" during the Perry v. Schwarzenegger Prop 8 trial, where the proponents of discrimination could not muster up any credible defense of their position. What it boiled down to was that they didn't like the idea of marriage equality. There was no science-based "data" to support marital instability (any more than exists now), poor child-rearing or any other obstacle that would justifying the denial of freedom to marry. And the witnesses failed.

Judge Walker in his ruling:

An initiative measure adopted by the voters deserves great respect. The considered views and opinions of even the most highly qualified scholars and experts seldom outweigh the determinations of the voters. When challenged, however, the voters' determinations must find at least some support in evidence. This is especially so when those determinations enact into law classifications of persons. Conjecture, speculation and fears are not enough. Still less will the moral disapprobation of a group or class of citizens suffice, no matter how large the majority that shares that view. The evidence demonstrated beyond serious reckoning that Proposition 8 finds support only in such disapproval. As such, Proposition 8 is beyond the constitutional reach of the voters or their representatives.

He further noted that Proposition 8 was based on traditional notions of opposite-sex marriage and on moral disapproval of homosexuality, neither of which is a legal basis for discrimination. He noted that gays and lesbians are exactly the type of minority that strict scrutiny was designed to protect.

With this in mind, I hope that Speaker come up with a reality-based reason why altering North Carolina's constitution to institutionalize bigotry -- no matter how many people culturally object to the freedom to marry -- is a huge mistake, an incredible statement that gay and lesbian couples, who pay his salary, mind you, are second-class citizens.

And by the way, Speaker Tillis, any religious argument presented to bolster support for an anti-gay constitutional amendment is not going to fly. You know and I know that this is about civil marriage, not anything about forcing a church to marry anyone.

In fact, if you want to "go there" on the religious tip, think twice - affirming this bigotry is going to flatly discriminate against the religious freedom of pastors and other faith leaders who would like to legally marry same-sex couples. It doesn't take a constitutional scholar to see this amendment, if voted for and placed on the ballot in 2012, will show this country whether our state is looking forward, or a cultural backwater to be ashamed of.

NOTE: Tillis's Twitter handle is @thomtillis. I just sent him a link to my post and said:

"Ask Speaker @thomtillis what science supports his view that "traditional marriage" is more stable than #SSM. http://goo.gl/DD9Er #ncpol

***

Reporter Scott Rose wrote a letter to Speaker Tillis. It is below the fold.  

From:

Scott Rose

newyorkcitywriter@earthlink.net

Speaker Tillis:

I am a reporter.

Be advised that when you cite a study saying that "traditional marriages" are "more stable and nurturing" as evidence against marriage equality, you are promulgating anti-gay hate speech.

I wonder whether you have a scientific understanding of human sexuality.  Orientation is not a commodity that can be turned on and off at will, like the hot and cold water knobs on a sink - FYI.  To say that a heterosexual marriage is "more stable and nurturing," in your view leaves gay human beings with exactly which viable options?

Are you as Speaker saying you believe that gays and lesbians should remain so deeply closeted that they enter into marriages with heterosexual persons?  If that is what you are saying, do you believe there is any chance for such marriages to be successful and happy, for either the closeted gay spouse or the heterosexual spouse?  And if you believe THAT, have you examined that belief to determine whether it is rational?

I also believe that you are promulgating anti-gay hate speech when you allege overwhelming support for the continuation of sexual orientation apartheid but say nothing to acknowledge support for equality.   Many heterosexual people today favor equality for their LGBT fellow citizens.  Do you know who Elke Kennedy is and have you personally ever spoken with her?

Doubtless in your state it would be possible for anti-Semites to rile up the population enough that Jews could start getting sidelined and oppressed.  Instead though at present, you are a spokesperson and cheerleader for irrational, ignorant and cruel oppression of homosexual persons.  Hitler might have been proud of you, as he too oppressed gay people and sent them to gas chambers.  Even after WWII, gay prisoners were taken from the "liberated" concentration camps and thrown into German jails to rot for decades for no reason other than that they were gay.  Are you mindful of that history?

I would hope for you to take on a more enlightened view, and show more responsible leadership, but I am not going to hold my breath in anticipation of your doing so, because your remarks create the appearance that you are a gay-bashing monster in a business suit, eagerly encouraging your vicious gay-bashing supporters to continue oppressing their innocent gay victims.

Sincerely,

Scott Rose

Guest column by Irene Monroe: Tracy Morgan's homophobic rant is about black manhood

Tracy Morgan's homophobic rant is about black manhood

By Rev. Irene Monroe

While I will continue to argue that the African American community doesn't have patent on homophobia, it does, however, have a problem with it.

And Tracy Morgan, comedian and actor on NBC's "30 Rock," is another glaring example of the malady.

During a standup performance this month at the Ryman Auditorium in Nashville, Tennessee, Morgan's "intended" jokes about LGBTQ people were instead insulting jabs:

"Gays need to quit being pussies and not be whining about something as insignificant as bullying."

"Gay is something that kids learn from the media and programming."

"I don't "f*cking care if I piss off some gays, because if they can take a f*cking dick up their ass...they can take a f*cking joke."

Morgan has publicly expressed his mea culpas to the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), the nation's lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBTQ) media advocacy and anti-defamation organization, and he has now -- as part and parcel of his forgiveness tour -- spoken out in support of LGBTQ equality.

But Morgan, like many of us who have grown up in communities of African descent -- here and abroad -- cannot escape the cultural, personal, interpersonal, and institutional indoctrinations in which homophobia is constructed in our very makeup of being defined as black.

And the community's expression of its intolerance of LGBTQ people is easily seen along gender lines. For example, sisters mouth off about us while brothers get both -- verbally and physically -- violent with us.

My son "better talk to me like a man and not in a gay voice or I'll pull out a knife and stab that little n-gger to death," Morgan told his audience at the Ryman Auditorium.

(Just as the LGBTQ community got on Morgan for his homophobic rant, the community should have also called him out on his use of the n-word. Let's not forget about the racist rant in 2006 by Michael Richards, who played the lovable and goofy character Kramer on the T.V. sit-com "Seinfeld," for his repetitive use of the n-word in the context of supposed humor that has, many of us feel, cost him his career.)

CNN's Don Lemon, who just recently came out, gives a window into the male perspective on homosexuality.

"It's quite different for an African-American male," Lemon told Joy Behar on her HLN show. "It's about the worst thing you can be in black culture. You're taught you have to be a man; you have to be masculine."

Black GBTQ sexualities within African American culture are perceived to further threaten not only black male heterosexuality, but also the ontology of blackness itself, which is built on the most misogynistic and homophobic strains of Black Nationalism and afrocentricism that were and still are birth, nurtured, and propagated in black churches and communities.

The belief that exposure to LGBTQ people and anti-homophobia workplaces, classrooms, workshops and trainings lessens, if not eradicates, the prejudice is true. But for African American males that is not always the case.

More below the fold.

For example, life imitated art for Isaiah Washington, but he, like Morgan, went on his black male homophobic rant nonetheless.

In 2007 Washington's public apology to the LGBTQ community for the derogatory comments he deliberately and repeatedly made about his costar T. R. Knight's sexuality was a disingenuous statement to deflect attention away from his desperate effort to save his job.

Washington knows of both the psychological damage and the physical harm the word "faggot" engenders. And he knows it not only from empathizing as an African American where the n-word has been hurled at him, but he also knows of the harm the word "faggot" engenders from being called one.

Washington played the handsome Dr. Preston Burke on the hit drama "Grey's Anatomy," but he has taken on many other roles. His most challenging and rewarding role was that of an African-American gay male in the context of the most dangerous environment one can be in -- the company of homophobic black men.

In Spike Lee's 1996 film Get on the Bus, Washington and Harry J. Lennix play a black gay couple (Kyle and Randall, respectively) in the midst of a breakup that gets played out in high homophobic drama in the cramped quarters of a group of African-American men taking a cross-country bus trip from Los Angeles to our nation's capital in order to participate in Minister Louis Farrakhan's historic Million Man March -- a march that explicitly forbade women and gay men to attend.

Playing the role of a black gay Republican Gulf War veteran, Washington imparts to the group the violent acts of homophobia and racism he incurred on an ongoing basis from his fellow comrades, like being purposely shot at by his own platoon because of both his sexual orientation and race.

In October 2006, Washington got into fisticuffs with "Grey's Anatomy" costar Patrick Dempsey by grabbing him by the throat and outing Knight, saying, "I'm not your little faggot like [T.R. Knight]." Washington plays out a similar scene as Kyle in Get On the Bus.

Morgan's homophobic rant is not about LGBTQ people, but rather it's about the tightly constructed hyper-masculinity of black manhood.

In my brothers cultivating "images of strong black men," can the brotherhood also include the diversity of their sexual orientations?

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker to gays: no hospital visitation for you

It's nice to know that along with union-busting, The Homosexual Menace is another political football for Scott Walker. The lack of humanity in this case is particularly astounding, since Wisconsin passed a domestic partnership registry law that provided the right to visit your partner in 2009.

Gov. Scott Walker wants Wisconsin to abandon legal defense of a new state law that gives same-sex couples the right to visit partners who are hospitalized.

...The law has been challenged by an anti-gay rights group, Wisconsin Family Action, saying the visitation privileges violate an amendment to the state constitution that bans same-sex marriages or similar legal agreements.

Republican State Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen has refused to defend the law, saying he believes the registration procedure violates Wisconsin's constitution.

"Governor Walker, in deference to the legal opinion of the attorney general that the domestic partner registry . . . is unconstitutional, does not believe the public interest requires a continued defense of this law," says a brief from Walker, filed by his counsel Brian Hagedorn.

I see -- the public interest is coddling believers in instutionalized bigotry.

Happy Anniversary - Kate and I married seven years ago today

Kate and I married at 11 AM on July 1, 2004 at the Apricot Cat and Black Dog Bed & Breakfast in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Appropriately, we were married on Canada Day.

Pat Mitten, the marriage commissionaire (equivalent to a justice of the peace in the U.S.) who married us, did so in a ceremony in the backyard of the B&B. And instead of fretting about what shoes to wear, we decided to free the feet!

From Pam and Kate Marry

While our marriage has been recognized by New York for some time, it would be great to renew our vows  there with family and friends present.

I love you honey; thanks for putting up with the late-night tapping on the keyboard, the multiple health crises, and all the woes of putting up with an accidental activist. xo

Williams Institute: New Census 2010 Snapshot Reports for Alaska, Colo., Conn., Neb., NC

There are a lot of gay households in places other than the large metropolitan (read solid Blue) areas of the country, and the Williams Institute has sliced and diced census numbers to give a better picture of where we are.

The Williams Institutes will be releasing Census Snapshot: 2010 reports throughout the summer and will provide demographic and geographic information about same-sex couples and same-sex couples raising children for all 50 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico. These most recent batch is about Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Nebraska, and North Carolina.

The authors of these reports are Gary J. Gates, PhD, the Williams Distinguished Scholar at the Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law and Abigail M. Cooke, a PhD candidate in the Department of Geography at UCLA, affiliated with the California Center for Population Research.

In looking at my state - North Carolina, it's no surprise that we have a lot of same-sex households as a percentage of the population, particularly in Durham, Carrboro and Asheville (notably, not Raleigh, though nearby Garner makes the list).  Total census-declared came-sex couples in NC: 27,250; Same-sex couples per 1,000 households: 7.28.

Those aren't insignificant numbers, given our state has zero employment discrimination protections, and a hostile judiciary (for second parent adoptions in particular). Individual cities have offered same-sex partner benefits and have anti-discrimination laws in place; and the state has passed a gender identity and presentation-inclusive anti-bullying bill, something several Blue states have yet to get around to passing.

So with all of the talk and push to eliminate DOMA to obtain full marriage rights, LGBTs in states like Alaska, Nebraska, and North Carolina are restless and hopeful that the focus will return to federal ENDA - in order to marshall more LGBTs to political activism, these folks need to know they won't be fired for being out of the closet.

Guest post by PFAW President Michael B. Keegan: Dear Arnold - NY Victory Made Us Think of You!

Dear Arnold:

How does it feel? Any pangs of regret?

On Friday, the governor of New York signed a marriage equality bill, hours after it was passed by the legislature. It's being called a monumental historic victory and is in the news all around the world. The suspense leading up to it built for weeks, ending in a cliffhanger finish that rivaled your biggest Hollywood blockbusters. New York's Gov. Andrew Cuomo has been called a true hero, and is even being mentioned as 2016 presidential material. And he's not even a showy guy. Just imagine what you could have done with this in a state twice the size of New York!

But what Andrew Cuomo signed was something that you vetoed... twice.

To put it bluntly: where you cowered, Cuomo led.

There is a lot of credit to go around in New York. It's going to the steadfast governor who confidently rallied support from a variety of constituencies, to admired figures in culture and sports who took a stand for equality, to the New York City mayor who articulated why marriage equality would be good for the state and for business, to the activist groups that fought for years to change the law, and to thousands of individuals who never stopped pushing for what was right.

And it was not a partisan victory. Members of New York's Republican-majority Senate spent many weeks deliberating, listening seriously to a wide range of opinions. In a demonstration of courageous leadership, some senators who had previously voted and campaigned against marriage equality changed their minds and their votes, deciding that it was simply the right the thing to do. They took a politically risky but principled vote. It is said that they will be remembered in history.

 

You will be remembered, too, but far differently. You say you are for equal rights but when it came time to act on your words, you stopped equality in its tracks.

And your two vetoes happened before we even knew just how non-traditional your own marriage was. Was the second veto at least a little harder to sign?

When you vetoed marriage equality for millions of Californians, you said you thought the issue should be decided in the courts. So that's where we are now. Tens of millions of dollars have been raised and spent by both sides of the Proposition 8 lawsuit. Millions more will be spent by both sides in court. And Californians will wait years for a decision from the Supreme Court, most likely a Court with no Californians on it. Meanwhile, same-sex couples in New York will begin marrying in less than a month.

It has to be frustrating when your disapproval ratings of 75% are almost the same as Cuomo's record approval ratings. But it must have been worth it. I guess giving in to right-wing demands and twice vetoing marriage equality was the price we had to pay for your legacy of reformed government, balanced state budgets, and a booming California economy. Oh, wait... never mind.

Sincerely,

Michael B. Keegan

On Twitter: www.twitter.com/peoplefor

 

Rhode Island's legislature votes for separate-and-unequal civil unions

By the way, the Catholic Church made it clear that even civil unions weren't palatable. The religious exemption language is onerous; more on that after this NYT snippet:

Less than a week after same-sex marriage was legalized in New York, the Rhode Island State Senate on Wednesday evening approved a bill allowing not marriage, but civil unions for gay couples, despite fierce opposition from gay rights advocates who called the legislation discriminatory.

The bill, which already passed in the state's House of Representatives and which the governor said he was likely to sign, grants gay and lesbian couples most of the rights and benefits that Rhode Island provides married couples. It was offered as a compromise this spring after Gordon D. Fox, the openly gay speaker of the Democratic-controlled House, said he could not muster enough votes to pass a same-sex marriage bill.

Gay rights advocates say the bill is unacceptable because it allows religious organizations to not recognize the unions. For example, they say, a Catholic hospital could choose not to allow a lesbian to make medical decisions on behalf of her partner, and a Catholic university could deny family medical leave to gay employees.

So back to those religious exemptions. Zack Ford at Think Progress LGBT laid out the cold, hard, bigoted facts - the language allows religious organizations the right to deny recognition of civil unions altogether:

15-3.1-5. Conscience and religious organizations protected. - (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, no religious or denominational organization, no organization operated for charitable or educational purpose which is supervised or controlled by or in connection with a religious organization, and no individual employed by any of the foregoing organizations, while acting in the scope of that employment, shall be required:

(1) To provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for a purpose related to the solemnization, certification, or celebration of any civil union; or

(2) To solemnize or certify any civil union; or

(3) To treat as valid any civil union; if such providing, solemnizing, certifying, or treating as valid would cause such organizations or individuals to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs.

(b) No organization or individual as described in subsection (a) above who fails or refuses to provide, solemnize, certify, or treat as valid, as described in subdivision (a)(1), (a)(2) or (a)(3) above, persons in a civil union, shall be subject to a fine, penalty, or other cause of action for such failure or refusal.