Marriage News Watch, 6/22/15

Matt Baume of the American Foundation for Equal Rights reports:




Just so you know, the remaining dates on which the Supreme Court may issue the gay-marriage ruling are this Thursday, Friday, and next Monday, which is the last day of the term. See the court's calendar at Scotusblog.  A summary of proceedings to date on Obergefell v. Hodges is here.

Marriage News Watch, 5/19/14; Oregon Marriages Begin

Matt Baume of the American Foundation for Equal Rights reports:




And good news from the Beaver State: U. S. District Judge Michael J. McShane overturned Oregon's same-sex marriage ban today, holding that it violates the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees of equal protection. By separate order, the ruling is effective immediately. The National Organization for Marriage filed an emergency appeal for a stay with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, but the Ninth Circuit promptly told NOM to go take a hike. Gotta love it.

According to the Christian Science Monitor:

Prior to the Oregon decision, 17 states and the District of Columbia recognized same-sex marriages. Thirty-three states had banned gay marriage either by passing a statute or enacting a constitutional amendment.

In addition to Monday’s action in Oregon, federal judges have struck down same-sex marriage bans in six other states – Utah, Oklahoma, Texas, Virginia, Michigan, and, last week, in Idaho. Those decisions have all been stayed and are either under appeal or are about to be appealed.

A state judge in Arkansas also recently struck down that state’s limitations on same-sex marriage. The Arkansas Supreme Court has stayed that ruling pending an appeal.

The Oregonian has a number of videos of the first couples to marry today, with county clerks waiving - for a fee - the state's normal three-day waiting requirement.

In his opinion, Judge McShane made this telling observation about Oregon law:

Despite the fact that these couples [the plaintiffs] present so vividly the characteristics of a loving and supportive relationship, none of these ideals we attribute to marriage are spousal prerequisites under Oregon law. In fact, Oregon recognizes a marriage of love with the same equal eye that it recognizes a marriage of convenience. It affords the same set of rights and privileges to Tristan and Isolde that it affords to a Hollywood celebrity waking up in Las Vegas with a blurry memory and a ringed finger. It does not, however, afford these very same rights to gay and lesbian couples who wish to marry within the confines of our geographic borders.

And the learned judge, who happens to be gay, said this in his poignant conclusion:

I am aware that a large number of Oregonians, perhaps even a majority, have religious or moral objections to expanding the definition of civil marriage (and thereby expanding the benefits and rights that accompany marriage) to gay and lesbian families. It was these same objections that led to the passage of Measure 36 in 2004. Generations of Americans, my own included, were raised in a world in which homosexuality was believed to be a moral perversion, a mental disorder, or a mortal sin. I remember that one of the more popular playground games of my childhood was called "smear the queer" and it was played with great zeal and without a moment's thought to today's political correctness. On a darker level, that same worldview led to an environment of cruelty, violence, and self-loathing. It was but 1986 when the United States Supreme Court justified, on the basis of a "millennia of moral teaching," the imprisonment of gay men and lesbian women who engaged in consensual sexual acts. Bowers 478 U.S. at 197 (Burger, C.J., concurring), overruled by Lawrence 539 U.S. at 578. Even today I am reminded of the legacy that we have bequeathed today' s generation when my son looks dismissively at the sweater I bought him for Christmas and, with a roll of his eyes, says "Dad . . . that is so gay."

It is not surprising then that many of us raised with such a world view would wish to protect our beliefs and our families by turning to the ballot box to enshrine in law those traditions we have come to value. But just as the Constitution protects the expression of these moral viewpoints, it equally protects the minority from being diminished by them.

It is at times difficult to see past the shrillness of the debate. Accusations of religious bigotry and banners reading "God Hates Fags" make for a messy democracy and, at times, test the First Amendment resolve of both sides. At the core of the Equal Protection Clause, however, there exists a foundational belief that certain rights should be shielded from the barking crowds; that certain rights are subject to ownership by all and not the stake hold of popular trend or shifting majorities.

My decision will not be the final word on this subject, but on this issue of marriage I am struck more by our similarities than our differences. I believe that if we can look for a moment past gender and sexuality, we can see in these plaintiffs nothing more or less than our own families. Families who we would expect our Constitution to protect, if not exalt, in equal measure. With discernment we see not shadows lurking in closets or the stereotypes of what was once believed; rather, we see families committed to the common purpose of love, devotion, and service to the greater community.

Where will this all lead? I know that many suggest we are going down a slippery slope that will have no moral boundaries. To those who truly harbor such fears, I can only say this: Let us look less to the sky to see what might fall; rather, let us look to each other . . . and rise.

Full text of the ruling here.

Maggiegate, Continued

Thomas Roberts interviewed - very lightly, I must say - the Queen of Mean yesterday on MSNBC.  (You fellas recall that a couple of days ago, she was a no-show for an earlier interview; MSNBC claims they made a scheduling error.)  Maggie, of course, did her fat-cat purr, all pretty in pink, and dodged and oozed all around the questions like snake oil, denying any hateful conspiracy, untoward action, or unkind motive towards anyone at all.  Why, as Scarlett said of India Wilkes, butter just wouldn't melt in her mouth!

Which strongly reminds your Head Trucker of the famous statement:  "I am not a crook."

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

By way of contrast, listen to civil rights leader Julian Bond's reaction to what he calls "one of the most cynical things I've ever heard of":

Maggiegate

I reckon you fellas already know about the smoking-gun document that reveals NOM's secret agenda - agenda! - to manipulate blacks and Latinos into hating on the gays. Which, even though I'm old enough to have long since figured out how the world really works, still sorta takes my breath away: my mind just doesn't work in such callous, contemptuous, thoroughly manipulative ways.  Not something I would have ever thought of doing.

But just for the record, if you want the low down on the dirty tricks Maggie and Co. have been trying to pull, you can read a quick summary or the document in full over at the HRC's website.

Lots of bloggers have written trenchant commentaries about NOM's plot to "drive a wedge between gays and blacks" - a direct quote from NOM's own report - but here I'll just quote what Evan Wolfson had to say about this revelation at Freedom to Marry, which reflects my own thoughts pretty well:

In its anti-gay crusade to block the freedom to marry, NOM has spent years working to drive wedges within communities across the nation, all the while claiming it does not ’hate’ anyone, gay or non-gay. Now exposure of NOM’s own strategy memos confirms that NOM will stop at nothing to push its agenda, pitting American against American, minority against minority, family members against family members.

NOM’s wedge-strategy memos detail its campaign to funnel money to a handful of African-American clergy in order to attack gay couples and, appallingly, discredit the strong and clear voice of those African-American civil rights champions, such as John Lewis, Julian Bond, and Coretta Scott King, who have stood up for the freedom to marry and the equal civil rights of all people, including gay people of color. These smoking-gun documents show how NOM has sought, in the most cynical ways imaginable, to bait the gay community in hopes of provoking a hurt response that would further divide, all in furtherance of the ugly and cruel anti-gay agenda.

NOM’s secret memos describe its intention to ‘interrupt [Latinos’] process of assimilation’ by ‘making support for marriage a key badge of Latino identity’ and ‘seek to identify glamorous young Latino and Latina leaders’ to reject equal protection for their own family members who are gay. And all of this to be done, fueled by NOM’s shadowy secret funders, in the name of religion -- in flagrant contempt of the Golden Rule of treating others as you would want to be treated. Despicable.

Wolfson concludes his post by showing that NOM is totally out of touch with reality:

Notwithstanding NOM’s efforts, an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, conducted Feb. 29 through March 3, confirmed growth in support for the freedom to marry since October 2009 across nearly every slice of the electorate, with strong growth in support among African-Americans by 56% (from 32% to 50%) and Hispanic voters now supporting the freedom to marry by nearly 2 to 1 (55% to 30%).

You might also want to read Rob Tisinai's answer to the question, Does Maggie Gallagher have blood on her hands?

"Marriage Is a Conservative Value"

Last night, Rachel interviewed Ted Olson who, along with David Boies, is lead counsel for plaintiffs in the Prop 8 case.

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

Over on the PBS Newshour, David Boies took the stuffings out of one of NOM's lawyers:




Finally, some of you guys may find Salon's in-depth investigation of Maggie Gallagher's sexual and marital history very, very interesting. An excerpt:

With Gallagher, it is not that the personal is political but that the personal gave birth to the political. They were umbilically linked, and they are related, but they are separate. Two anima live within her; when you are talking with her, sometimes the personal answers back, sometimes the political. The personal is uncauterized emotion; the political is pure thought, almost autistically so. The personal facts do not always impinge on the political conclusion. Gallagher’s family life is a cobbled-together, junk-strewn, happy, loving mess: absent baby-daddy, later husband (of a different religion), separation then reunion, two sons by two fathers, and an annoyed biological grandmother on Facebook. But Gallagher’s political philosophy brooks no uncertainty.

“I have no doubts who will win in the end,” Gallagher says. “One hundred years from now the globe will not be full of societies that endorse same-sex unions as marriages. What happens between now and then is going to be less certain and full of struggle. In the long struggle, I’ll bet on human nature to overwhelm ideology. The thing about same-sex marriage is it’s based on a fundamental untruth: same-sex unions are not the same as opposite sex unions. They are not marriages.” . . .

Same-sex marriage is just a big lie, she believes, like Communism. It is weak at its foundations, like the Iron Curtain. It may get built, she seems to concede — in 10 years, or 20, there may be more states that recognize same-sex marriage, more shiny, happy couples raising rosy-cheeked, well-adjusted children, children who play with dogs and go to school and fall from jungle gyms and break their arms, children often adopted after being abandoned by the heterosexuals who did not want them or could not care for them — but in time (big time, geological time, God time) the curtain will be pulled back, or it will fall. Because it has to. It cannot be otherwise. Because a son, as Maggie Gallagher will tell you, needs a dad.

Tittygate

Wish I could take credit for the title, but Joe Jervis thought that one up, brilliant as usual.

Guess by now you know that topless pictures have surfaced of the very Christian Carrie Prejean, Miss California, whose very righteous stand on the issue of no-marriage-for-queers cost her the Miss USA crown last week. I never expected to be posting cheesecake on this blog, but for the record, here she is, from Joe's website:

Maggie Gallagher, head of the National Organization for Marriage that Miss Prejean signed up with following the pageant debacle, has posted this response:

Because Carrie honestly said what she believed in answer to a question--marriage is the union of a man and a woman-- she is now the subject of ongoing character assassination. The level of hatred directed at her is astonishing. Even more astonishing is her personal courage and strength of character in the midst of these attacks. Of course Carrie is not perfect. On a personal note, as a former unwed mother, I want to say to Americans: you don’t have to be a perfect person to have the right to stand up for marriage. Nothing gay marriage advocates can do can change the fact—we all saw it on national TV—that Carrie is a young woman who surrendered all the glitter Hollywood has to offer, because she would not become the kind of person afraid to say the truth.

Here's a news report on the developing scandal; apparently there are even more revealing pics of Prejean yet to come:

Mmm, okay, let me see if I got this straight: you are still a good Christian if you spread outrageous lies, strut around dolled up like a harlot, show your fake titties, fornicate, and have babies out of wedlock. (Remember Bristol? There's a lot of that Christian fornication going around.) But it's all good: God don't mind any of that a bit. Don't you worry your pretty little head about it.

Right. But if you are gay, you are pure evil and will burn in hell forever. No exceptions, no questions asked.

Um, what's wrong with this fucking picture?

What I Say: I've held back from blogging about Prejean because

a) she's very young and still has a lot to learn about real life, who cares what her vaseline-toothed opinion is - a few years from now she may see things very differently; and

b) Perez Hilton, the pageant judge who asked the notorious question, is a fucking asshole, as smugly self-righteous and hateful as anybody on the other side could be. He deliberately set her up to fall, and then when she didn't give the "right" answer (as he knew she wouldn't), immediately set about castigating her for it, even calling her a "dumb bitch."

That sucks, guys; that's nasty, unfair, and utterly unworthy of the gay community in general. Hilton can kiss my ass - because he just lowered me and all the rest of us in the estimation of millions of people. We don't need that kind of smarmy shit - our cause is bigger, better, and nobler than that little guttersnipe, who certainly doesn't represent me.

On that particular point, I agree with Gavin Newsom, mayor of San Francisco: "I want to challenge her on her point of view, but she spoke her conscience; I think she's being a little unfairly maligned."

Remember fellas - our glory as Americans is that this is a free country, where everybody is free to speak their mind, and believe what they want - right or wrong. Stating what you believe is not the same thing as stating a provable lie.

But - now that Prejean has joined forces with NOM and is making herself a spokeswoman for denying millions of gay people the equal justice of the laws, she is fair game to be held accountable for lies and hypocrisy. You can't say "well, I never claimed to be perfect," when you are holding other people to a super-strict and one-sided definition of what you think good morality is. Oh no, Miss Thing, it don't work like that.

And btw - the asshole British MP who said, "If you read that Miss California has been murdered, you will know it was me, won't you?" needs his ass kicked. That kind of shit talk has no place in civilized discourse. Again, that's being just as nasty and self-righteous as the other side; but we don't need that, boys, it's unhelpful and it's just plain wrong.

Like my mama always said: two wrongs don't make a right.

A Storm of Lies - and Laughter

First, the oh-so-scary storm warning from the wingnut National Organization for Marriage (quick - hide the children and the dogs before viewing):



Then, the "best parody" of quite a few that have come out in recent days:



Though I also like the straightforward refutation of NOM's lying claims in this video:



And as usual, Rachel Maddow connects all the dots in this goofy picture:



Even better: You have to watch Stephen Colbert's hilarious send-up of the storm ad.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Colbert Coalition's Anti-Gay Marriage Ad
colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor NASA Name Contest

And check out Frank Rich's brilliant New York Times piece:

Yet easy to mock as “Gathering Storm” may be, it nonetheless bookmarks a historic turning point in the demise of America’s anti-gay movement.

What gives the ad its symbolic significance is not just that it’s idiotic but that its release was the only loud protest anywhere in America to the news that same-sex marriage had been legalized in Iowa and Vermont. If it advances any message, it’s mainly that homophobic activism is ever more depopulated and isolated as well as brain-dead. . . . . It is justice, not a storm, that is gathering. Only those who have spread the poisons of bigotry and fear have any reason to be afraid.