Reaction to the Marriage Rulings: Anderson Cooper

Anderson discusses the effect of the rulings with Jeffrey Toobin, Andrew Sullivan, and Evan Wolfson:

Reaction to the Marriage Rulings: David Cole

Justice Anthony Kennedy

David Cole, author, journalist, and professor of law at Georgetown University, writes in the New York Review of Books:

Together, these decisions are a consummate act of judicial statesmanship. They extend federal benefits to all same-sex married couples in states that recognize gay marriage, expand the number of states recognizing gay marriage to thirteen, yet leave open the ultimate issue of state power to limit marriage to the union of a man and woman. The Court took a significant step toward recognition of the equality rights of gays and lesbians, but by not imposing same-sex marriage on the three-quarters of the states whose laws still forbid it, the Court has allowed the issue to develop further through the political process—where its trajectory is all but inevitable.

What will the Court do when the issue of whether states can limit marriage to opposite-sex couples is put before it again? It is difficult to read Justice Kennedy’s opinion in Windsor without sensing, as Justice Scalia warned in his angry dissenting opinion, that the “other shoe” will drop eventually, and the Court will ultimately recognize that denying same-sex couples the right to marry violates the Constitution in the same way that denying mixed-race couples the right to marry does. (Significantly, in his opinion for the Court, Justice Kennedy cited Loving v. Virginia, the Court’s 1967 decision on interracial marriage, for the proposition that the state’s otherwise broad authority to define marriage is subject to constitutional limits.) But Kennedy’s opinion was nonetheless written in such a way to leave the question open while political thinking about gay marriage continues to evolve. . . .

So as a matter of pure judicial craft, Justice Kennedy could have been more clear and definite. But judging is not only a matter of craft. Justice Kennedy sought to walk a fine line—invalidating a federal law limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples without simultaneously resolving the question of whether similar state laws are constitutional. Had he pronounced that classifications based on sexual orientation are suspect and subject to heightened scrutiny, or had he held that the due process clause affirmatively protects the right of two committed adults to marry, regardless of sex, he would have, in effect, decided the broader issue. By focusing instead on the federal government’s unusual intrusion into a prerogative of state law, and its dramatic imposition of a double standard in states that recognize same-sex marriage, he wisely limited his decision to the federal law at issue. By allowing the transition to full recognition of same-sex marriage to take place gradually, Kennedy’s opinion avoided the backlash that a federal mandate to recognize same-sex marriage in every state might have triggered.

Ironically, Justice Kennedy did not join the majority opinion in Perry, the California case, which sent the issue back to district court. He dissented, joined by three other justices, and would have decided that case on the merits. Had he attracted a fifth vote for that view, it would have rendered all the care he took in the Windsor decision moot, because the Court would have had to address the question of state authority directly. The statesmanship of the two decisions, then, comes not from any one justice, but from the collective action of the court as a whole. There’s a reason we have nine justices. . . .

The justifications for denying a “dignity and status of immense import” to gay and lesbian couples are unpersuasive, whether at the federal or the state level. Same-sex couples, like opposite-sex couples, can and do make long-term commitments to live together as a family unit. They can and do raise children, pay taxes, care for dependent family members, and the like. The real reason so many states have denied marital status to same-sex couples is a sense, founded on tradition and moral disapproval, that these couples do not deserve it, simply because they are of the same sex. But the Court has already held, in Lawrence v. Texas, its 2003 decision invalidating state sodomy laws, that tradition and mere moral disapproval are insufficient grounds for differential treatment of gay and straight couples.

We will have to wait for the other shoe to drop, but drop it will.

FYI, from the Congressional Record, the Report of the House Judicial Committee, July 9, 1996, pp. 15-16, summarizing the principles and purposes of the Defense of Marriage Act then pending before the House:

Civil laws that permit only heterosexual marriage reflect and honor a collective moral judgment about human sexuality. This judgment entails both moral disapproval of homosexuality, and a moral conviction that heterosexuality better comports with traditional (especially Judeo-Christian) morality.

You can read the entire report here.

Reactions to the Marriage Rulings: Rachel

The full import of yesterday's rulings by the Supreme Court in the DOMA and Prop 8 cases is still settling in with your Head Trucker.  Here's Rachel's inimitable, insightful take on things, and this clip should lead you through several segments of her show last night, dealing with various facets of the marriage news.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

DOMA OVERTURNED, MARRIAGE RETURNING TO CALIFORNIA

Bless God, I have lived to see this day.

The Supreme Court this morning overturned Section 3 of DOMA in a 5-4 vote as being an unconstitutional violation of due process and equal protection - meaning the federal government has to recognize same-sex marriage in those states where it is legal; text of the ruling is here. Commentary from SCOTUSblog editors:

In response to some questions about Windsor: Only Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act -- which defines the words "marriage" and "spouse," for federal purposes, as referring only to marriages between opposite-sex couples -- has been struck down. Consequently, any federal statute that refers to a "marriage" or a "spouse" should be interpreted as applying with equal force to same-sex married couples.

The federal Defense of Marriage Act defines "marriage," for purposes of over a thousand federal laws and programs, as a union between a man and a woman only. Today the Court ruled, by a vote of five to four, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy, that the law is unconstitutional. The Court explained that the states have long had the responsibility of regulating and defining marriage, and some states have opted to allow same-sex couples to marry to give them the protection and dignity associated with marriage. By denying recognition to same-sex couples who are legally married, federal law discriminates against them to express disapproval of state-sanctioned same-sex marriage. This decision means that same-sex couples who are legally married must now be treated the same under federal law as married opposite-sex couples.

The Court also in a roundabout way sent Prop 8 to the garbage can, also by a 5-4 vote; text of the ruling is here.  Comment from Amy Howe at Scotusblog:

Here's a Plain English take on Hollingsworth v. Perry, the challenge to the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage: After the two same-sex couples filed their challenge to Proposition 8 in federal court in California, the California government officials who would normally have defended the law in court, declined to do so. So the proponents of Proposition 8 stepped in to defend the law, and the California Supreme Court (in response to a request by the lower court) ruled that they could do so under state law. But today the Supreme Court held that the proponents do not have the legal right to defend the law in court. As a result, it held, the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the intermediate appellate court, has no legal force, and it sent the case back to that court with instructions for it to dismiss the case.

Photos of plaintiff Edie Windsor, at the home of her attorney in New York City, as she heard that she won her case this morning, in the New Yorker.

Report on the rulings from NBC News, with some jubilant crowd reactions in the background:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Update, 12 noon:  The ACLU has issued a FAQ on "Marriage for Same-Sex Couples in California," discussing the implications of the Court's ruling on Prop 8; a couple of notable excerpts:

A few final, legal steps must be completed before same-sex couples can once again marry in California, which should take only about a month. First, the Supreme Court’s ruling must become final, which will happen 25 days after the ruling. Under the Supreme Court’s rules, the party who loses a case has a right to ask the Court to re-hear the case within 25 days of the decision’s release. Petitions for re-hearing are very rarely granted, so it is unlikely that anything will change during this 25 days. Once the ruling is final, the Ninth Circuit will issue a “mandate” that will send the case back to the District Court. When the mandate is issued, the injunction against the enforcement of Prop 8 will take effect, and same-sex couples in California will once again have the freedom to marry. We expect that the State of California will issue guidance to all County Clerk offices in the state about when the decision becomes final and when those offices must resume issuing licenses on an equal basis to same-sex couples. Please note that couples should wait until the Supreme Court ruling is final and the Ninth Circuit issues a mandate to the District Court before attempting to obtain a marriage license or to marry, to ensure that your marriage is valid. . . .

Yes. The legal order (or injunction) that stops the State of California from enforcing Prop 8 applies to state officials throughout the state. This means that Prop 8 cannot be enforced anywhere in the state. There may be efforts to try to limit the effect of the injunction to apply to only some parts of the State but we strongly believe that those efforts are futile and will not succeed. . . .

If you live in another state and get married in California you will be legally married. However, depending on where you live, your home state may not respect your marriage. The Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Windsor striking down Section 3 of DOMA concerns only the federal government’s treatment of marriages. The ruling does not require states to recognize a valid marriage of a same-sex couple performed in another state. Thus, if you marry in California but live elsewhere, it is still possible that your home state will not recognize your marriage.

Update, 12:30 p.m.: In California, Governor Jerry Brown has issued the following statement:

After years of struggle, the U.S. Supreme Court today has made same-sex marriage a reality in California. In light of the decision, I have directed the California Department of Public Health to advise the state’s counties that they must begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in California as soon as the Ninth Circuit confirms the stay is lifted.

Update, 12:45 p.m.: At the Pentagon, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel has issued this statement:

The Department of Defense intends to make the same benefits available to all military spouses -- regardless of sexual orientation -- as soon as possible. That is now the law, and it is the right thing to do. The department will immediately begin the process of implementing the Supreme Court's decision in consultation with the Department of Justice and other executive branch agencies.

Update, 1:00 p.m.: From aboard Air Force One en route to Africa, President Obama has issued the following statement:

I applaud the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act. This was discrimination enshrined in law. It treated loving, committed gay and lesbian couples as a separate and lesser class of people. The Supreme Court has righted that wrong, and our country is better off for it. We are a people who declared that we are all created equal - and the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.

This ruling is a victory for couples who have long fought for equal treatment under the law; for children whose parents’ marriages will now be recognized, rightly, as legitimate; for families that, at long last, will get the respect and protection they deserve; and for friends and supporters who have wanted nothing more than to see their loved ones treated fairly and have worked hard to persuade their nation to change for the better.

So we welcome today’s decision, and I’ve directed the Attorney General to work with other members of my Cabinet to review all relevant federal statutes to ensure this decision, including its implications for Federal benefits and obligations, is implemented swiftly and smoothly.

On an issue as sensitive as this, knowing that Americans hold a wide range of views based on deeply held beliefs, maintaining our nation’s commitment to religious freedom is also vital. How religious institutions define and consecrate marriage has always been up to those institutions. Nothing about this decision - which applies only to civil marriages - changes that.

The laws of our land are catching up to the fundamental truth that millions of Americans hold in our hearts: when all Americans are treated as equal, no matter who they are or whom they love, we are all more free.

And in New York City, Edie Windsor, plaintiff in the DOMA case, had this to say, according to the Washington Post:

After learning of the Supreme Court ruling, Windsor broke into tears. “If I had to survive Thea, what a glorious way to do it, and she would be so pleased,” she said at a news conference. She thanked her lawyers and her allies, gay and straight: “We won all the way, so thank you from the bottom of my heart.”

Asked what Spyer would say to her if she were alive, Windsor replied, “‘You did it, honey.’”

And that's about as far as your Head Trucker can go today, I have to get some sleep now.  But I'll have more reactions and analyses in my next post, sometime tonight.

 

Odd sensation, looking out my window at the green grass and the rose bushes and the sycamore tree and corners of the blue summer sky above:  all is just as it was yesterday and all the days before, yet now there's something different about this plot of ground I live on, this green earth, this land of ours.  A quick, sly thought whistles up from my heart to my eyes:  we belong here, we are kindred, we are of the tribe - we are truly, fully Americans, and strangers no more. 

 

We belong.  And that makes all the difference.  

Just one more:

Scalia Arrested Trying to Burn Down Supreme Court

How to Get Ready for the Supreme Court Ruling

Matt Baume of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, sponsors of the Prop 8 case, explains what may happen when the Supremes release their ruling on the Prop 8 and DOMA cases in this coming week, as expected:




What I Say: Your Head Trucker reminds you that the legal and constitutional issues are complex, with many possible outcomes, and if the result is not all that you think it should be, it's no good whining and bellyaching like the rightwingers do about "unelected judges." We live under the rule of law, and up at the very top of the pile there has to be an umpire to have the final say. So deal with it. And no, you don't have a better idea, bubba, so sit down and hush up.

Once again, your Head Trucker predicts that the outcome of these two cases will be 1) that same-sex marriage is restored to California, and 2) that the federales will have to recognize same-sex marriages wherever they are legal. Anything beyond that will just be icing on the cake. But the Supremes are going to follow public opinion, not drag it kicking and screaming into the future. A lot more work for equality will remain to be done nationwide after this week. Bet on it.


Update:   Speaking to the North Carolina Bar Association on Friday, Justice Scalia declared somewhat ingenuously - and with a note of desperation, perhaps? - that judges should not rule on moral issues because "Judges are not moral experts, and many of the moral issues now coming before the courts have no 'scientifically demonstrable right answer.' As such, he said, it’s a community’s job to decide what it finds morally acceptable, not the courts’."

Of course, in the past he has never hesitated to mouth about moral issues both on and off the bench. And he knows full well that such cases are argued not in terms of morality, but according to the stated provisions and principles of law. I wonder if Scalia is pissed off because he's already been outvoted in chambers by his fellow judges on the two marriage lawsuits. We'll find out soon enough, I guess.

Waiting on the Supremes

Lambda Legal has published this quick-and-easy chart to explain the most likely possible rulings in the Prop 8 case, which deals with marriage in California. The chart also covers the separate case of United States v. Windsor, which addresses DOMA. Both rulings are expected to be issued before the Supreme Court takes its summer recess at the end of this month; but the legal and constitutional issues in both cases are complex, so there's really no way of predicting what the Court will say until they say it.



Click to enlarge.

Your Head Trucker has said before, and will say again, that he believes the Court will follow a cautious path and end up, whatever the legal justifications may turn out to be, restoring marriage equality to California only, and telling the federal government it has to recognize same-sex marriages wherever they are legal. And no more. I just don't see the Court legalizing gay marriage nationwide at this time. But we'll have to wait and see.

Love in Exile, an Update

Some of my truckbuddies may remember the story I posted here on the Blue Truck in 2009, about San Angelo, Texas, mayor J. W. Lown, who just days after winning re-election packed his bags one morning and without stopping to say goodbye, left home and country to be with the man he loved.

Since that dramatic, widely-reported moment, they've been living quietly and prospering in Mexico, as well as shunning publicity.  But now J. W. has given an interview to the San Antonio Express-News about their love and life together.  While J. W., son of an American father and Mexican mother, is entitled to live in Mexico indefinitely, his partner could not do the same in the United States, if they were to return to San Angelo - due to the effect of DOMA on the immigration law.  One member of a straight couple can easily sponsor his or her spouse for a green card, but not so if they are gay.

J. W. remains popular among the citizenry of San Angelo, who wish he would return and be mayor again, having done an outstanding job during his time in office.  He hopes by sharing his story to have a little influence over public opinion here, as Congress debates a new immigration bill - which still excludes the gays from consideration.

“It's painful to think about — leaving behind my family, leaving behind eight years of building a stellar reputation within my community,” he said in an interview from his new home, San Miguel de Allende, Mexico, where he and his partner have settled. “I'm hopeful the country has come to a point that we can have this discussion. . . . There's no other place than San Angelo I'd rather be,” he said. “But I have no plans to return again, unless (my partner) can come with me.”

Read the full story here.

We Can All Use a Little Comedy Relief Now

Cheering crowds hail Boston police at the end of the manhunt on Friday night.

1. D-O-M-A, by Columbia Law Review Students - crudely versified, but good for a laugh:




2. "Jesus, This Week" from The Onion - excerpt:

Following what could only be described by witnesses as the goddamned week to end all soul-crushing weeks, sources all across the nation reported that, sorry, is all this shit really happening at once? Because if all this shit is really happening at once, multiple reports verified, then this might actually be, honest to God, one of the worst weeks of all time.

No joke, added anyone with a set of working eyes and ears. Of all time.

3. Ah but truth is stranger than fiction, and not as funny: "Marathon Runner Witnesses Double Disasters," from the Associated Press.


4. And to take your mind off earthly things, what happens when you wring out a wet cloth in space? The answer is fucking amazing:




5. Andrew Sullivan: If Dali were a bird, he'd be an Inca tern.

How DOMA Hurts Military Families

You guys may remember when I posted a piece about the gay couple who got engaged at the White House last year.  Well now USMC Capt. Matthew Phelps and fiance Ben Schock share how their lives are hampered and unduly burdened by the continuing effects of DOMA - even now that DADT is history:

United States v. Windsor: Arguments and Analysis

Edie Windsor arrives at the Supreme Court this morning,
accompanied by her attorney, Roberta Kaplan.

Here is the audio file of this morning's hearing on the DOMA case:

The transcript is here (PDF, 698 kb).

Analysis: 

1.  Lyle Denniston, SCOTUSblog reporter: "Argument Recap: DOMA is in Trouble."

2. Amy Howe, Editor of SCOTUSblog: "DOMA as a States' Rights Problem? Today's Oral Argument in Plain English."

3. Tom Goldstein, Publisher of SCOTUSblog: "The Relationship between DOMA and Proposition 8."

4. Jacob Combs, Equality on Trial: "Supreme Court Likely to Strike Down DOMA: Here's Why."

5. Jacob Combs, "An In-depth Look at Questions of Standing and Jurisdiction."

6. Jacob Combs, "An In-depth Look at Questions on the Law's Merits."

Opinion:

7. Ezra Klein, The Washington Post: "Sorry, Justice Scalia: There's no evidence that gays aren't great parents."

For findings of fact on this matter, see In re: Gill, which was beautifully decided by a Florida court, ending three decades of prohibition on gay adoptions (which was begun at the instigation of Anita Bryant's notorious anti-gay-rights campaign in the 70's).

8. Jeffrey Toobin, The New Yorker: "Why the Gay-Marriage Fight Is Over."

9. Amy Davidson, The New Yorker: "The Skim Milk in Edith Windsor's Marriage."

10. Victoria A. Brownworth, The Advocate: "The Bigotry Isn't Over."


And after leaving the courtroom this morning, Edie Windsor tells us the Magic Word:



What a sweetheart, huh fellas?  BTW, she's been selected as a Grand Marshall of the NYC Pride Parade this summer.

Update, 3:32 p.m., Texas time: Now fellas, I have just listened to the tape and read along in the transcript, all the way from start to finish, which took two solid hours. And though I'm not an attorney and claim no special legal insight, I was impressed by what I read and heard. Of course, this is not, and was never intended to be, a full, complete discussion on the merits of same-sex marriage; that's not what a Supreme Court appeal is all about. Usually, the Court is asked whether the lower court or courts decided an issue correctly - it's in the lower courts where all the multitudinous details are threshed out and argued over.

Continued after the jump . . .

Marriage News Watch, 3/4/13

Matt Baume of American Foundation for Equal Rights reports:

Winning Hearts and Minds

How far we have come in half a century: 
 a small group of neatly dressed, very brave homosexuals -
in an era when homosex could get you not only fired, but also jailed
and even lobotomized - picket the White House in the first
gay-rights demonstration, April 17, 1965.

As the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments on the constitutionality of DOMA and Prop 8 on March 26, the tide of public opinion is rapidly turning more and more in favor of same-sex marriage.  To take but one example, 75 nationally prominent Republican politicians (including Clint Eastwood, former mayor of Carmel, California) have filed an amicus brief with the Court, supporting marriage equality. Yeah, that's right - supporting marriage equality.  Wow.  Here are some other voices you should hear:

1.  David Blankenhorn, one of two expert witnesses the Prop 8 proponents produced at trial to back up their claims, who gave only a half-hearted testimony then, and in the summer of 2012 publicly recanted his antigay views.  Now he speaks about the spiritual burden that has been lifted from him:



2. Wayne Besen, founder of Truth Wins Out, on "Porno Pete" LaBarbera's latest antigay rant:

It appears that even this stalwart homo-hater, who slithers around gay porn palaces and scurries about licentious leather bars looking for smut to post on his prurient website, knows the end is near. It is clear that there is a shrinking market for professional gay bashers and one can only hope he polishes off his cracker-thin resume and finds a new gig before it is too late. Since he has so much experience visiting the tubs in Chicago, and is likely a familiar face, maybe they will be kind and offer him an exciting, new opportunity cleaning the cubicles.

Read the rest of the article in which Besen demolishes LaBarbera's twisted claims here.

3. Another article by Besen, also well worth reading:

"Gay Marriage Might Cause the GOP To Divorce the Religious Right"

4. And finally, go read the personal stories recounted in PFLAG's amicus brief, filed this week with the Supreme Court - stories familiar to us all, but you will be moved.

Should the Supreme Court Just Butt Out?

Larry Duncan and Randy Shepherd of Washington state, whose marriage-license pic I posted last Friday, arrived for their wedding on Sunday, nattily attired this time.  The couple were married at Seattle First Baptist Church, along with 24 other same-sex couples.  All good wishes to them.

When the Supreme Court rules on the DOMA and Prop 8 cases, less would be a whole lot more, suggests gay conservative pundit Jonathan Rauch:

Here is a movie plot you have never seen and never will see: a disadvantaged athlete struggles against the odds, makes it to the Olympics by sheer force of grit and talent, and is ahead in the race for gold—when, with the finish line in sight, the referee calls off the competition, hands the hero a medal, and everybody goes home.

Gay Americans are in sight of winning marriage not merely as a gift of five referees but in public competition against the all the arguments and money our opponents can throw at us. A Supreme Court intervention now would deprive us of that victory. Our right to marry would never enjoy the deep legitimacy that only a popular mandate can bring.

I tell my gay friends: imagine if the Supreme Court had ordered gay marriage this past June, at the end of its 2011-2012 term. November’s game-changing electoral victories would never have happened. Gay marriage advocates would be forever stereotyped as political losers who won by running to mommy. Our opponents would mock and denigrate our marriages as court-created, legalistic fictions. The country would never have shown how much it has changed.

If we have come that far in five years, imagine where we might be in five more. Imagine, then, the opportunities to extend and consolidate support that we will lose if the Supreme Court steps in now. Strange but true: a favorable Supreme Court intervention next year would make us weaker, not stronger.

Do you agree?

Why Marriage Matters: Meet the McLaughlins

From Freedom to Marry:  a very nice video with the plaintiffs in McLaughlin v. Panetta, one of several military-family cases contesting the constitutionality of DOMA that are headed for the Supreme Court.

Married but Not Equal

From In the Life, a look at the families and legal issues involved in several same-sex marriage cases now awaiting review by the Supreme Court:



Also, check out this quick summary of how the Supreme Court is likely to handle the marriage cases, written by New Yorker legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.

The Arc Bends Further

Karen Golinski and wife Amy Cunninghis

Yesterday, in a major advance for equality, another federal judge ruled DOMA is unconstitutional.  Judge Jeffrey White of the federal District Court for Northern California held, in the Golinski case, that

DOMA, as applied to Ms. Golinski, violates her right to equal protection of the law under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution by, without substantial justification or rational basis, refusing to recognize her lawful marriage to prevent provision of health insurance coverage to her spouse.

Accordingly, the Court issues a permanent injunction enjoining defendants, and those acting at their direction or on their behalf, from interfering with the enrollment of Ms. Golinski's wife in her family health benefits plan.

More on the story here and here. Text of Judge White's ruling below, which applies very nearly the same judicial reasoning found in the ruling by Judge Joseph L. Tauro in the Gill and Massachusetts cases in 2010:  it just ain't right to discriminate without good reason, and the other side has no damn good reason.  Period.

3:10-cv-00257 #186


In other news, what looks to me like a delaying action: the backers of Prop 8, who got a big ol' bitch slap from a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit federal appeals court last week have asked to have the case reheard by the entire bench of judges - this instead of moving on directly to the Supreme Court. Guess they want to string their losing game out as long as possible, ya think?

Through Thick and Thin

Thanks to my truckbudy Frank for his blog post about the case of Mark and Frédéric, who are fathers of four and facing the destruction of their family by the inane immigration laws that make no provision for same-sex couples.  The couple were among the subjects of the documentary film Through Thick and Thin, made a few years ago, which the clips above and below are from.

An excerpt from Mark's blog, where he details what they are up against:

Although we are both the legal parents of four American children, and both the state and federal government recognizes our status as parents, it will not recognize our marriage because of the Defense of Marriage Act. According to the U.S. government, I am the father of our four children, and Fred is the father of the same four children, but we are legal strangers to each other. Our marriage, our nearly 22 years together, all of that amounts to nothing. Fred has no right to stay in the United States beyond the expiration date of his visa. And that day was rapidly approaching. At the same time, while France would recognize our relationship under its less-than-optimal Civil Solidarity Pact (“PACS”), and it may even permit me to reside in France legally as an immigrant on the basis of our relationship (but not our marriage), the French government refuses to recognize the adoption of our children, because under French law same-sex couples are prohibited from adopting children. We are trapped by U.S. law that refuses to see our marriage, and French law that refuses to see our children.

Mark and Frédéric are seeing U.S. immigration officials this week in yet another bid to get permission to keep their family united in this country.





It would be a good idea to let your Congresspeeps know how you feel about the Uniting American Families Act, which has been introduced in every Congress since the year 2000 but has not yet been passed, thanks to the Republicans - you know, the family values party. Immigration Equality has details on how you can help.

A Very Long Engagement

On Netflix last night I came across a great documentary you fellas would probably like as much as I did.  Edie & Thea:  A Very Long Engagement is a love story spanning nearly half a century that does end happily ever after - what I suppose we all wish for but not all of us find.  Very well-told too, with lots of anecdotes and snapshots from across the decades.

The couple married in Toronto in 2007; but after Thea died in 2009, the feds hit her widow with a $363,000 tax bill on the proceeds of Thea's estate - relying on the Defense of Marriage Act -  a tax which straight married couples are exempt from.  Do you hear me, guys?  Whiny little pinheads who write articles about "Oh, the government should just get out of the marriage business," etc., are not dealing with the realities of life.  Marriage matters, a hell of a lot - in this and all kinds of ways.

Do you realize that no matter how long you have been together, if your partner dies without a proper will, you have no right to anything he owned?  Not so much as a teacup or a shirt button.  His parents or sibs or children can walk right into your house and haul everything away, and if the place was in his name, they can change the locks on the doors, set your ass right on the street - and not a fucking thing you can do about it.

And even if he did make a will and leave you something - be it a house, a car, money in the bank, whatever - because you are not legally married, all of that is counted as income to you, and subject to ordinary income tax just like your paycheck.  If your partner is killed in an accident or a crime, you can't sue the guilty party for damages.  In most states, if your partner was a schoolteacher or civil service worker, you can't collect from his state pension, nor can you always count on pension benefits from private employers, either.  And you certainly can't collect his Social Security or veteran's benefits.  Yet.

Now Edie is suing the feds for discrimination; Obama's Justice Department last February announced it would no longer defend DOMA in court, calling it unconstitutional.  So the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, a creation of House Republicans, is pressing on with the defense in this case.   The way the court rules will no doubt set a big precedent for future same-sex marriage cases on the federal level.

In the meantime, go watch Edie & Thea, which was filmed before Thea died.  A really great love story.  And yes, you will need a few kleenex before it's over.

Newsbites


At the moment it's actually 99 degrees here in Texas, which feels like one big toaster oven.  Don't feel like writing much today, so you guys can go read these stories if you want to:

Ghana Regional Minister Orders All Gays Arrested

--Both Christian and Muslim groups rejoice, now that God's wrath has been averted; an MP looks forward to lynching parties.

Senate Confirms First Openly Gay Man as Federal Judge, 80-13
 
--A surprising yawn.  Even major homophobes like John Cornyn (R-TX) and Tom Coburn (R-OK) didn't bat an eye while voting for J. Paul Oetken's lifetime appointment to the Manhattan bench.  Go figure.

15 Years after DOMA, Hearing Reveals a Nation Transformed

--This last article gives a good recap of pre-DOMA attempts to win marriage recognition, and profiles two early leaders in the marriage fight:  Evan Wolfson and Andrew Sullivan.

Boehner Says No House Vote on DOMA Repeal

--The Republican Speaker of the House will not allow a vote on DOMA, regardless of the Senate hearings on this topic.

DOMA Repeal and the Truth about Full Faith & Credit

--Gay law professor and activist gives a very detailed explanation of why repealing DOMA won't force all states to recognize same-sex marriages.

Photo:  Honk to Shawn Stingel.

Why Marriage Matters

Ron and Tom's story:



Edie and Thea's story:



Kelly and Dennis's story:




And though I can't find the video that used to be available on this, read Sam and Earl's story - a sort of real-life Brokeback Mountain, which ended with Sam losing the Oklahoma ranch they built together as well as being sued by the greedy relatives for 23 years' back rent for the years he spent living there with Earl.


And don't think all these things can't happen to you.

It did to me.