It's Time

Here's a sweet treat for you, fellas. Yesterday, YouTube threw me something I'd never seen before:  a beautiful ad for marriage equality from GetUp! Australia that aired in 2011, starring studly actor and filmmaker Julian Shaw.  After years of debate and campaigning by both sides, the Australian federal parliament finally legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in December 2017.

And here is the making-of video:

-----

Is Your Marriage Safe?

Ten years ago, the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.  Now a new petition asks the court to overturn that decision.  Read this summary from ScotusBlog to get up to date on what's happening:

Will the Supreme Court revisit its ruling on same-sex marriage?

You may want to look at some stats from the Pew Research Center on Americans' opinions about homesexuality and same-sex marriage.  Be aware that the latest poll that Pew conducted on these issues was in 2023-2024, when two-thirds of Americans favored same-sex marriage; however, some people may have changed their minds since then.

Religion and views on LGBTQ issues and abortion

It's also interesting to scroll to the bottom of that page and compare the very similar figures for attitudes about abortion, which also was legal nationawide until 2022.  As I said in this blog ten years ago when the Obergefell decision came down, what the Supreme Court gives, it can also take away.

We may all be about to find out who our friends really are.

-----

Ten Years On: Marriage Equality Day

June 26 should be a red-letter day on every gay and lesbian calendar - the day the Supreme Court extended marriage equality to all Americans in these momentous words that will ring through centuries to come:

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

—Justice Anthony Kennedy, Obergefell v. Hodges majority opinion (emphasis mine)

Here's the NBC news report on that day and President Obama's eloquent remarks:

Here's your Head Trucker's post on that day.  M.P. and I were teary-eyed with joy.  I thought, finally -- it's over, we won, now life can flow on smoothly and happily for us gay folks, as it should.

But of course life doesn't always go as we expect.  Now we face new challenges.  Let's stay united, firm, and courageous.  Our love is here to stay!

-----

Vatican Allows Same-Sex Blessings

 

An historic development in the Catholic Church - but it's only a small change in practice.  Reuters reports:

The Vatican said on Monday in a landmark ruling approved by Pope Francis that Roman Catholic priests can administer blessings to same-sex couples as long as they are not part of regular Church rituals or liturgies.

A document from the Vatican's doctrinal office, which effectively reversed a declaration the same body had issued in 2021, said such blessings would not legitimise irregular situations but be a sign that God welcomes all. . . .

The document, whose Latin title is Fiducia Supplicans (Supplicating Trust), said the form of the blessing "should not be fixed ritually by ecclesial authorities to avoid producing confusion with the blessing proper to the Sacrament of Marriage". . . .

The document said the blessing should not be linked to or timed with a civil marriage ceremony and be performed with none of the "clothing, gestures, or words that are proper to a wedding".

Places for such blessings, it said, might be "in other contexts, such as a visit to a shrine, a meeting with a priest, a prayer recited in a group, or during a pilgrimage".

The ruling was signed by Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernandez, the head of the head of the Vatican's Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith and approved by the pope in a private audience with Fernandez and another doctrinal office official on Monday.

Full text of the declaration from the Vatican press office here.

In-depth analysis by Catholic media project The Pillar here, which notes:

The text was not issued in forma specifica, a particular formula in which a curial document is effectively co-signed by the pope, giving it full papal weight.

In other news, the Church of England yesterday began offering rites of blessing to same-sex couples.

-----

The Right to Love: An American Family

This video was produced in 2012, but somehow I totally missed it back then, and just happened to come across it last week.  Be sure to watch the 2022 update as well. 

-----

Biden Signs Respect for Marriage Act

Biden signs same-sex marriage protections into law

In a ceremony at the south front of the White House, President Biden today signed the Respect for Marriage Act into law, thereby extending the protections of federal law to millions of gay, lesbian, and interracial couples nationwide.  A landmark piece of legislation that wipes DOMA off the books.

And I have lived to see this day.

-----

House Passes Respect for Marriage Act

The U. S. House of Representatives today passed the Senate version of the Respect for Marriage Act, by a vote of 258 to 169.  All Democrats voted for the bill, along with 39 Republicans.  After the vote, retiring Speaker of the House Nancy smiled broadly as she displayed an enrolled copy of the bill to reporters, capping her 35-year congressional career with a milestone piece of legislation.

 

Retired Senator Barney Frank (D-Mass.), was present at the enrollment ceremony and had high praise for Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.), one of the sponsors of the bill.  Both Frank and Baldwin were among the first openly gay people elected to Congress.

The bill will next be sent to President Biden, who will sign it into law - I haven't heard when, but I expect that will happen very soon.

And I have one thing to say to all the catty, ratty little creeps who are already bitching and moaning about what the law doesn't do, to wit:  STFU.

Why do I say that?  Because this bill is a) the FIRST TIME gay marriage has been ENACTED into federal law; and b), it is what could be passed right now, before the House gets a Republican majority on January 3rd.  It has a strong legal effect nationwide; and it sends a powerful message that the Supreme Court will surely pay attention to.

I vividly recall that when I came out in 1980, the idea of "gay marriage" was pure fantasy, wishful thinking, as remote from reality as any science fiction story.  At that time, there was NO protection or recognition of gay couples anywhere in this country, or in any other country in the world.  No domestic partnerships, no civil unions, no marriage equality. There still isn't, over huge swaths of the earth's surface.  But today in America, fifty years after Stonewall, democracy worked out beautifully.

So I am extremely grateful to all the legislators who walked this bill over the hurdles to get it passed.  If you aren't proud and happy - you are a stupid, selfish, short-sighted jerk, so just go away.

-----

Senate Passes the Respect for Marriage Act

More good news:  Last night, the Senate passed the amended Respect for Marriage Act by a vote of 61-36, with all Democrats and 12 Republicans voting in favor of the bill.  (Three senators were absent.)  Now the bill must be approved again by the House before it is sent to President Biden for signing into law.

 

It is important to note that the bill does not require any state to perform same-sex marriages, although at the moment all do. But if they should change their minds - particularly, if the Supreme Court were to overturn its 2015 ruling in Obergefell - all states would still have to recognize marriages legally performed in another state or foreign country.  

The bill as passed by the Senate also explicitly protects interracial marriages; does not require recognition of polygamous marriages; repeals the Defense of Marriage Act (1996); and provides exemptions for churches and other religiously affiliated organizations. 

See the text of the Senate version below the jump.

Mormon Church Comes Out for Gay Marriage

 

Huh, that's a shocker.  (Remember the Prop 8 fight?)  Read all about it in the Salt Lake Tribune.

And for your information, the Respect for Marriage Act was first introduced in Congress in 2009. and has been reintroduced several times.  But this year, the bill was finally passed in the House last July by a vote of 267-157, with the support of 47 Republicans.  

Now it's up to the Senate, if 10 Republicans will vote for the bill, and Democratic leaders think the votes are in the bag. So we should have more reason to celebrate soon; in fact, the Senate is holding a preliminary vote today.  So stay tuned and keep your fingers crossed.

Update, 7 p.m.:  The preliminary vote passed 62-37, with 12 Republican senators voting in favor of it.  A final vote on the bill is expected on Friday, after which the Senate version will be sent to the House for approval.

 

-----

Growing up Gay in the Country (Australia)

A mini-documentary from Australia about Ivan, a gay man going back to his roots in the homophobic small town of Tumut, New South Wales, shot in 2014. Ivan and his husband married in 2013 during a one-week period when same-sex marriage was legal in the Australian Capital Territory (like our District of Columbia) in 2013.  The Australian Federal Parliament legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in December 2017.

The film may be set on the other side of the world, but it all seems very familiar, somehow.

-----

House Passes Respect for Marriage Act

 

In an historic vote, the House of Representatives yesterday afternoon passed the Respect for Marriage Act, 267-157.  All Democratic members voted for the bill, and so did 47 Republicans.  Seven Republicans abstained from voting.

The bill enacts into federal law the right to same-sex marriage and to interracial marriage.  Specifically, it does four main things:

1.  Repeals the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which permitted states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages.

2.  Requires states to give "full faith and credit" to marriages of "two individuals" validly performed in other states, regardless of "race, sex, ethnicity, or national origin."

3.  Requires the federal government to recognize all such marriages.

4.  Gives federal courts power to enforce these provisions.

Full text here.

Search the official roll call here to find out how your state's representatives voted.

Having read the text of the bill, it seems to me that it does not force any state to perform same-sex marriages; but every state has to recognize them as valid marriages.  However, I am not a lawyer, and this blog post is not legal advice.

To become law, the bill must next be passed by the Senate and signed by President Biden, who has already said he is ready and willing to do so.  At this time, it is not known when the Senate will take up the bill.  In order to avoid a filibuster, 60 votes will be needed to pass it in that chamber, split 50-50 between Republicans and Democrats.

Still, this is quite a remarkable vote, and calls for at least a wine spritzer to celebrate.  I well recall that when I came out in college more than 40 years ago, the idea that gays could have any legal relationship was just a sweet, idealistic fantasy.  

But I have lived to see this day.

-----

Being Gay in Ukraine

Pride march in Kyiv, June 2019.  Click to enlarge.

It just occurred to me to look into this subject.  Here are few videos, and I may add more as I find them.

1. From the Voice of America, posted February 12, 2021 - two weeks before Russia invaded:

 

 2. Yuri, a gay Ukrainian man, talks about life as a gay man in Ukraine - posted in July 2016:

 

3.  In January 2019, the BBC reported on this gay Ukrainian army veteran:

 4. Two Ukrainian young men got married in Denmark - posted in June 2019:

 

News articles:

• The Atlantic Council, a non-partisan group, reported on June 24, 2021, that while still far behind the rest of the Western world, Ukraine has made modest progress on recognizing LGBTQI rights in recent years.

• The journal Foreign Policy reported on February 18, 2022, that U. S. intelligence has said that Russia has drawn up detailed target lists of Ukrainians to be arrested or killed, including journalists, religious and ethnic minorities, and LGBTQI+ people.

• CBS News reported on February 24, 2022, that gays and lesbians fear persecution by the Russian invaders.

• The Daily Beast has an article on Ukraine's gay combat volunteers, posted February 28, 2022.

• And for the record, your Head Trucker posted this photo of a vicious attack on the leader of Kiev Pride in 2012:

-----

Pope Francis Nixes Gay Unions

 

Last fall, as I reported on this blog, for a moment it seemed that Pope Francis was smiling on same-sex unions; but I was mistaken.  Today the Pope signed off on a Vatican declaration that even in a committed union, homosex is a SIN, and since "God cannot bless sin," neither can the Church.  Excerpt:

It is not licit to impart a blessing on relationships, or partnerships, even stable, that involve sexual activity outside of marriage (i.e., outside the indissoluble union of a man and a woman open in itself to the transmission of life), as is the case of the unions between persons of the same sex. . . . [Blessing such unions] would constitute a certain imitation or analogue of the nuptial blessing invoked on the man and woman united in the sacrament of Matrimony, while in fact “there are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family”.

[This teaching] declares illicit any form of blessing that tends to acknowledge their unions as such. In this case, in fact, the blessing would manifest not the intention to entrust such individual persons to the protection and help of God, in the sense mentioned above, but to approve and encourage a choice and a way of life that cannot be recognized as objectively ordered to the revealed plans of God.

What pompous bullshit.  Since I'm an Episcopalian (lapsed), not a Catholic, this slanderous ruling has no direct relevance to me - but of course it reflects and encourages the same thinking in all other churches that hold to this antediluvian view of life and love.  When it comes to the gays, that is.  When it's about the straight boys and their spermatic proclivities, oh well, there's all kinds of loopholes, winks, and nudges, aren't there?

The truth is, there is nothing glorious, notorious, or ridiculous about homosexuality, which has occurred naturally and spontaneously throughout human and animal populations since the dawn of recorded history.  I have no desire to change anybody's church; I just want to be left alone, neither glorified nor vilified nor ridiculed.  And I insist upon the right to the equal protection of the laws, with the same human rights and dignity as anyone else.  

This is not too much to ask; nor will it cause the world or the universe to collapse, despite hysterical religious claims to the contrary.  You straight people have already done more than enough, collectively, down through the centuries to merit the wrath of God, if it comes to that, so quit trying to shift your guilt onto the gay scapegoats.

[A lot of boring pontification omitted here.]

As for Pope Francis, I still respect him as a kindly, magnanimous leader who is doing what good he can for the world in other ways - but I now unsay my remark in that earlier post about considering him a gay ally.  

The Supreme Court of the United States ruling on marriage equality, June 26, 2015

God bless America!

-----

Supreme Court Rules, 7-2, for Colorado Baker

Embed from Getty Images

The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 on Monday in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for two gay men, as the New York Times reports:

The court’s decision was narrow, and it left open the larger question of whether a business can discriminate against gay men and lesbians based on rights protected by the First Amendment.

The court passed on an opportunity to either bolster the right to same-sex marriage or explain how far the government can go in regulating businesses run on religious principles. Instead, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s majority opinion turned on the argument that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which originally ruled against the baker, had been shown to be hostile to religion because of the remarks of one of its members.

At the same time, Justice Kennedy strongly reaffirmed protections for gay rights.

“The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts,” he wrote, “all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.”

Read the full ruling here.

There was some confusion of thought among the learned justices, it seems. This dizzying schematic diagram shows their various opinions, dissents, and concurrences.

The gay couple, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, appeared on CNN yesterday:



Baker Phillips appeared on the Today show yesterday:




What I say:  First, the ruling applies only to this particular case, and turns on the technicality of some careless remarks by members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission when they were considering the baker's case.  So nothing is settled yet, and there is no reason to get excited one way or the other.

Second, as shown by the divisions among the justices themselves, the larger question is a thorny one, and it will be difficult to weigh the competing claims of religious belief and sexual orientation in order to come up with a rule of law that will satisfy everyone, one that all reasonable people of good will can in good conscience support.  As Justice Kennedy said in the majority opinion,

any decision in favor of the baker would have to be sufficiently constrained, lest all purveyors of goods and services who object to gay marriages for moral and religious reasons in effect be allowed to put up signs saying “no goods or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages,” something that would impose a serious stigma on gay persons.

I well recall in the legally segregated South of my childhood that every restaurant, cafe, motel, and ice cream stand had a prominent sign behind the cash register:  We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.  As a kid, I thought nothing of it; only much later, as an adult in the post-civil rights era, did I realize that the message was code for "We don't serve Negroes, so don't even ask."

Of course it would be ridiculous, not to say unconscionable, for any business today to deny service to anyone on account of race, or religion, or ethnicity, or for almost any other reason except being drunk and disorderly, or unable to pay.  And in fact, I would venture to say that most business owners of any kind are too eager to get some greenbacks in the till to worry about such things.  As long as your credit card is good and you don't break up the furniture, you're good to go in our consumer nation, right?

And the laws should rightly penalize any business that discriminates against a paying customer for no good reason:  whether you are selling lettuce or light bulbs, cars or candy, hamburgers, hotel rooms, or helicopter rides, your personal beliefs and opinions about the customer are irrelevant, and you treat everyone the same, selling the same goods or services to all comers (the exception being certain sales prohibited by law, such as selling booze to minors, etc.)  This is a settled principle in our modern society, and rightly so.

However, when the goods sold are not essentially the same for all customers, personal preferences notwithstanding (a shirt is a shirt is a shirt; a cup of coffee likewise, and so on, and so on), then perhaps there is room for discussion--and especially, it seems to me, when communication is involved, or artistic talent (for at bottom, Art is always Communication of some sort, whatever else it may be).  And if communication is involved, then the First Amendment, which we all revere, comes into play--and if that guarantees our freedom to speak our minds as we will, does it not also strongly imply the right not to speak what we do not will?  Forced speech is not free speech, is it?

Let us get down to cases:

• Suppose that you are a printer, and someone wants you to print up a thousand copies of a flyer for a KKK rally, something you find utterly abhorrent.  Should the law require you to fill that order?
• Or, say, you are a sign maker, and a very good one too, the old-fashioned kind who uses actual paint and brushes:  if someone comes into your shop and asks for a sign saying "Death to Jews," must you (a Gentile, as it happens, with no anti-Semitic feelings) paint it or face the penalties of law?
• Or again, if you are a seamstress specializing in custom-decorated clothing, and a biker brings you his leather jacket wanting "Fuck the Police" embroidered in great big letters on the back, should the law compel you to fulfill his request?

We could multiply examples ad infinitum here, but I think the point is clear enough:  if you are in the business of selling communication in one form or another, should the law protect your scruples, whether based on religious beliefs or not--or force you to violate your conscience, and ruin you if you fail to comply?  We are not talking here of great corporations selling housewares or hardware or trips to Tahiti, or the Moon--we are talking of individuals and small business owners whose livelihood is at stake.  People who are just trying to make a living and get by, like everyone else.  People who are, in the vast majority of cases, not bothering you or working against you, and not even thinking about you until you interfere with them.

Make no mistake: I sympathize strongly with Charlie and David. As my truckbuddies know from reading my story, I take a passionate, very personal interest in marriage equality, but not, I hope, an unreasonable one.  Today we have liberty, we have justice, we have the right to marry, something almost inconceivable forty years ago when I came out.  Let us rejoice in this magnificent turn of history, and not lose sight of the main thing:  our common humanity.  Let us not forget that we live in society with others, who also have a right to liberty and equal dignity under the law.  The search for a wise, humane balance of competing rights and liberties is and has been the eternal question of American democracy from the very beginning.

Frankly, your Head Trucker is inclined to side with the baker.  In the grand scheme of the universe, a cake is a silly little thing, a trivial thing, a ridiculous thing: here today and eaten tomorrow. If I were in the market for a wedding cake, I would certainly much rather take my business to someone who would bake it gladly and gratefully, rather than force another person to do it against his will and in violation of his conscience, which would do me and you and all of us no good at all, breeding resentment and even hatred. As history has shown times without number, in all ages and climes and countries, it is but one little step to go from oppressed to oppressor.

Of course, others may disagree with me, including some of my truckbuddies.  But we must all find a way to get along peaceably--as we always have, eventually, in our history, usually through the high art of compromise. How shall we decide such things, and where should the line be drawn?  And when I say "we," I mean straight and gay, religious and atheist, all the many colors of the human rainbow:  for every story has two sides, if not more, and every voice must have its say.  Is that not the first principle of democracy?

The Supreme Court has passed on the question, for now.  So come, let us reason together.

Australian Same-sex Marriages Begin

Embed from Getty Images

Congratulations and a truckload of good wishes to all the happy couples Down Under:

Love Wins Down Under

Embed from Getty Images

December 7 will be remembered fondly by our Australian brothers and sisters as the day Parliament passed the Marriage Amendment Bill 2017, legalizing same-sex marriage throughout the southern continent -- the last large English-speaking nation to do so.  Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull delivered the bill in person the next morning (remember, they are twelve hours ahead of us) to Governor-General Sir Peter Cosgrove, who promptly gave Royal Assent to the bill, making it the law of the land from December 9.  Same-sex marriages contracted by Australians in foreign countries will be recognized in law from that day forward.  Following the standard one-month waiting period, gay weddings on Australian soil can begin on January 9.



Only four members of the House of Commons voted against the bill; many conservative members simply abstained or absented themselves from the chamber.  The picture below dramatically shows the overwhelming majority of members sitting on the "yes" side, while the "no" side is practically deserted.  The galleries burst into applause and song when the Speaker declared the bill passed.

Embed from Getty Images



The change in the law is a happy conclusion to the long struggle for marriage equality in Australia, which has its share of right-wing fanatics and zealots; you can read the history of the struggle at Wikipedia.

Australia is now the 26th nation to embrace same-sex marriage. The Pew Research Center gives a global summary of same-sex marriage laws here.

Australia Votes YES for Marriage Equality

With about 80 percent of the population casting postal ballots, 61.6 percent voted in favor of same-sex marriage.  A crowd in Sydney reacts to the news:




Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull hopes to get Parliament to pass marriage equality by Christmas:




The New York Times reports:

Australians Say ‘Yes’ to Same-Sex Marriage, Clearing Path for Legalization

"I Just Want Him Here"

BuzzFeed reports on forbidden love:  a gay Texan separated from his Iranian fiancé by Trump's travel ban:

President Obama's Farewell Address

Last night, the President addressed the nation for the last time from McCormick Place in Chicago.  An excerpt:

For 240 years, our nation’s call to citizenship has given work and purpose to each new generation. It’s what led patriots to choose republic over tyranny, pioneers to trek west, slaves to brave that makeshift railroad to freedom. It’s what pulled immigrants and refugees across oceans and the Rio Grande, pushed women to reach for the ballot, powered workers to organize. It’s why GIs gave their lives at Omaha Beach and Iwo Jima; Iraq and Afghanistan – and why men and women from Selma to Stonewall were prepared to give theirs as well.

So that’s what we mean when we say America is exceptional. Not that our nation has been flawless from the start, but that we have shown the capacity to change, and make life better for those who follow.

Yes, our progress has been uneven. The work of democracy has always been hard, contentious and sometimes bloody. For every two steps forward, it often feels we take one step back. But the long sweep of America has been defined by forward motion, a constant widening of our founding creed to embrace all, and not just some.

If I had told you eight years ago that America would reverse a great recession, reboot our auto industry, and unleash the longest stretch of job creation in our history…if I had told you that we would open up a new chapter with the Cuban people, shut down Iran’s nuclear weapons program without firing a shot, and take out the mastermind of 9/11…if I had told you that we would win marriage equality, and secure the right to health insurance for another 20 million of our fellow citizens – you might have said our sights were set a little too high.

But that’s what we did. That’s what you did. You were the change. You answered people’s hopes, and because of you, by almost every measure, America is a better, stronger place than it was when we started.

In ten days, the world will witness a hallmark of our democracy: the peaceful transfer of power from one freely-elected president to the next. I committed to President-Elect Trump that my administration would ensure the smoothest possible transition, just as President Bush did for me. Because it’s up to all of us to make sure our government can help us meet the many challenges we still face.

We have what we need to do so. After all, we remain the wealthiest, most powerful, and most respected nation on Earth. Our youth and drive, our diversity and openness, our boundless capacity for risk and reinvention mean that the future should be ours.

But that potential will be realized only if our democracy works. Only if our politics reflects the decency of the our people. Only if all of us, regardless of our party affiliation or particular interest, help restore the sense of common purpose that we so badly need right now.

Full text of the President's remarks here.



In the following video, celebrities as well as ordinary citizens share their most memorable "Obama moments":



And here is mine, from June 26, 2015, the day the Supreme Court extended marriage equality - and to me, Mr. Obama will always be the Equality President for his outspoken support for gay rights and the freedom to marry whomever you love:

I'm sure all my truckbuddies will join with me in saying,

Thank you, Mr. President, for this and for all the good things you have done. Despite fanatical opposition in Congress, and in the midst of a world racked with violence and terror, you calmly upheld the highest traditions of the Oval Office with dignity, intelligence, and grace, and did the nation proud. You will be sorely missed.

Lennie and Pearl

From HRC, a sweet little campaign ad for Roy Cooper, North Carolina Attorney General and Democratic gubernatorial candidate:



Ironically, in 2014 Lennie and Pearl sued Cooper in his official capacity in Gerber v. Cooper for the right to marry - and won.

Here's a short bio of the couple made a couple of years ago on their first wedding anniversary: