Recently in Marriage Equality Category

It’s always tempting to characterize religious leaders like James Dobson and Pat Robertson as wingnuts, mere fruitcakes who aren’t meant to be taken seriously. To do so would not only be dangerous but would ignore the facts that (a) millions take their every word quite seriously and (b) they have a lot of influence in the corridors of power, much of it behind the scenes.

They don’t care if their opponents mock them. For them it is par for the course to be ridiculed repeatedly in the public square by ‘Godless liberals’. This is a sign of their supposed righteousness and the justice of their cause. And it removes the need to engage in serious dialogue with their opponents based on empirical evidence and established standards of truth telling.

In Religion Gone Bad, Soulforce founder Mel White makes a strong argument that powerful religious right leaders are not at all stupid. They know that a lot of what they say (about homosexuals, for instance) is utter crap and flies in the face of accepted truth. They keep on saying it regardless because their word makes it true for their countless followers. Telling lies in the name of Jesus galvanizes the troops and greases the fundraising coffers.

The latest such example is Dobson's shameless attack on Mary Cheney and Heather Po in the December 18 issue of TIME Magazine. In an article entitled 'Two Mommies Is One Too Many', Dobson makes the blatantly false claim (which he must know to be a complete sham) that “the majority of more than 30 years of social-science evidence indicates that children do best on every measure of well-being when raised by their married mother and father.” He goes on to say that same-sex parent families are “another untested and far-reaching social experiment”.

The social science evidence, far from corroborating Dobson’s views, completely disproves them. Years of research data have overwhelmingly demonstrated that the gender of parents has no bearing whatsoever on the developmental wellbeing of children.

Soulforce is mounting a petition drive to ask TIME Magazine to check Dobson’s facts on gay and lesbian parenthood. They quote Dr. Christopher Martell, President of the Society for the Psychological Study of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Issues at the American Psychological Association (APA):

Over and again the data show that a loving and safe home environment is important, not the gender of the parents. The mainstream research is so clear on this matter that the American Psychological Association's resolution on Sexual Orientation, Parents, and Children, which was adopted by the APA Council of Representatives in July, 2004, states: "the APA supports the protection of parent-child relationships through the legalization of joint adoptions and second parent adoptions of children being reared by same-sex couples."

The American Psychological Association, one of the world's largest mental health organizations, would not have supported the protection of legalized adoption by gay and lesbian parents if the data had suggested that children were at risk in such households.

TIME Magazine should require that contributors such as Dobson refrain from making misleading statements, or they should contextualize such statements by printing them alongside evidence from credible, peer reviewed research.

Sign the petition here.

Chip Berlet has an excellent piece on Talk To Action concerning the frightening direction culture war scapegoating is taking these days with the religious right. He is discussing the recent 'Value Voters Summit' orchestrated by the Family Research Council:

The Christian Right has regrouped and launched a new offensive in the ongoing Christian Right Culture War. Gay marriage and the "homosexual agenda" are the primary tactical scapegoats ...

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins suggested the nation was under attack from without and within, which was a theme throughout the conference. The domestic forces of Satan--secularists, liberals, homosexuals, feminists, abortionists, p o r nographers--are the subversives within; while the barbaric terrorist Islamic fascists are the external enemy. Godly "values voters" should remember how they felt on 9/11, and then go into the voting booth and vote to prevent the Democrats from having the opportunity to appoint more activist judges who are wittingly or unwittingly in league with the evil forces of darkness.

As I have said before on this blog, gay is the new Jew as far as the radical religious right is concerned. Gays have come to epitomize all that is evil, representing a threat to Godly sanctity that must not only be resisted, but eliminated altogether.

Time and again speakers at the conference made it clear that gay marriage was the key battle in the campaign to protect religion, (and thwart the plans of the Devil). Gay marriage, we were told, will spread like a disease across America from the source of the infection--Massachusetts and its cabal of activist judges.

But the fight against gay marriage and civil unions should be viewed for what it is: the thin end of a wedge, merely a starting point for drawing battle lines and testing the water to see what the citizenry will accept.

If the theocrats succeed in having enough 'Godly men' (i.e. fundamentalist or fundamentalist-controlled Republicans) elected to positions of power throughout the country, a Federal Marriage Amendment will be the least of our problems. The rhetoric will continue to ratchet up and the consequences will become ever more grave.

Will the true confessing church please stand up and be heard?

I've been somewhat busy lately and not too inspired to write. Here's a photo of me and some of the gang from church, taken at OutFront Minnesota' Just Fair Lobby Day yesterday at the capitol in St . Paul. That's me and Aaron at the back on the right.

Senator Michele Bachmann, Katherine Kersten, the Minnesota Family Council and their ilk couldn't care less if Susan Herlofson dies. As reported in today's Star Tribune, Herlofson has stage 4 breast cancer. She and her partner Pat Ferrian believe she wouldn't be alive today if it weren't for health insurance provided by Ferrian's employer, the University of Minnesota.

If the state constitution is amended to prohibit state recognition of same-sex marriages or their 'legal equivalent', then the U of M would likely be forced to stopped providing domestic partner health benefits to Susan Herlofson and others like her.

Bachmann denies that her consitutional amendment will result in women like Susan Herlofson losing access to health care. But that is exactly what will happen once government is prohibited from extending marriage-like rights to non-married families. After all, the 'legal equivalent' language is in the proposed amendment wording specifically to deny such rights. It serves no other purpose. It is happening now in Michigan, where an amendment passed in 2004: the University of Michigan is now barred from offering domestic partnership benefits to new employees.

The effect of so-called 'pro-family' activism by the religious right, as always, will be the erosion of rights and protections for any family that doesn't conform to the stereotype. The amendment favored by Bachman, Kersten and others, worded so broadly as it is, would create a legal vacuum that will quickly be filled by litigation to test its effects and reach.

If the amendment passes, its real implications will be decided by the courts, not by the legislature and certainly not by the citizens of Minnesota. So "let the people decide" really means "deceive the people, tie the government's hands and let conservative judges decide."

The proposed Minnesota anti-marriage amendment was voted down in the Senate Judiciary Committe today 5-4 along party lines. Its supporters will now try to bring on a vote on the Senate floor before the end of the current legislative session.

Michele Bachmann's lesbian stepsister, Helen LaFave, spoke to reporters afterward about how an amendment would hurt gay families. Coming out publicly for the first time,

LaFave said she disagrees strongly with Bachmann, R-Stillwater, the state's most visible champion of the amendment, which would ban same-sex marriage, civil unions and other legal equivalents.

"We've heard a lot of discussion about what this is all about," said LaFave, 46, of Minneapolis. "What this really is about is insurance coverage, inheritance rights and medical decision-making" for same-sex couples...

"This issue has been very hurtful to me personally, and divisive for our family." 

As Eva Young points out, LaFave wrote an insightful letter to the Star Tribune about Bachmann a year ago. 

Several others spoke of the real pain being caused already by the amendment's supporters. As reported by the AP via the Pioneer Press: 

"The whole premise is that if we do this, gay families and gay people are somehow going to go away," said Sen. John Marty, DFL-Roseville. "They're not going to. They're in my neighborhood and they're in your neighborhood. A constitutional amendment isn't going to stop any of these couples from falling in love, from making commitments to each other, from starting families. The only thing it would do is take away their rights."

... Cathy Peck, a Bemidji woman with a lesbian daughter, teared up as she described the emotional wringer she's been through over the issue.

"It makes us even more fearful for our gay and lesbian children," Peck said. "When you have pronouncements from authority figures, hateful letters to the editor, hate speak on the radio - these people are talking about our precious child, who came out of my body, and it hurts."

And from the recently chastened Star Tribune:

Ann DeGroot, executive director of OutFront Minnesota, the state's leading gay and lesbian advocacy organization, said passage of a constitutional amendment would create a "caste system" for families in Minnesota, including the potential for harming unmarried heterosexual couples and single-parent families.

"We believe this constitutional amendment is an attack on families," DeGroot said. "I look forward to a time when all of us can work together on legislation that strengthens and supports all families in Minnesota."

Australian Prime Minister John Howard claims that his government's plan to veto a proposed law in the Australian Capital Territory, that would recognize civil unions, should not be viewed as 'anti-gay'.

Mr Howard and Attorney-General Philip Ruddock view the ACT laws as an attempt to undermine federal legislation introduced in 2004, which defines marriage as a union between a man and woman to the exclusion of all others...

"This is not an anti-homosexual gesture. This is a gesture to support the special and traditional place of marriage as a heterosexual union for life of a man and a woman in Australian society. Why we're against what the ACT is doing is that, in all but name, they are equating same-sex unions with marriage. I don't support that, not because I'm against homosexuals, but I think there should always be a margin for marriage as we understand it in our society ... you don't equate a gay union with a traditional marriage - that's our position."

So he's not anti-gay, just in favor of preserving special civil, political and economic rights for heterosexually married couples (including those married in common law, or de facto) while denying those same rights to same-sex unions.

By comparison to the Star Tribune's puff pieces on the state anti-marriage amendment issue, the Saint Paul Pioneer Press ran a relatively informative article last Monday:

Amendment could reach far beyond marriage: A variety of rights for couples, gay or straight, are in doubt

The Pioneer Press discusses the 'legal equivalence' language present in the various proposed constitutional amendments, asking mumerous legal scholars what the effect of such language might be. The article points out that ramifications extend beyond same-sex couples to potentially include all unmarried couples — gay and straight.

Some of the areas were unmarried partners might be impacted or face legal challenges include:

• Health care and other domestic partner benefits (from state employers)
• Health care and other domestic partner benefits (from private employers)
• Domestic partnership registration (City of Minneapolis)
• Health care directives
• Insurance claims
• Adoption rights
• Nondiscrimination in employment
• Child support
• Other financial arrangements
• Other contracts between unmarried couples

Would it matter if acceptance of gay marriage did lead to acceptance of polygamy (either socially or legally)? Should civil marriage be separated from the religious rite of matrimony, with the former being guaranteed by the state regardless of the gender of the two partners? Shouldn't GLBT couples have the same rights as different-sex married couples?

I think what is sometimes forgotten in such arguments (and deliberately ignored by the religious right) is that the prospect of marriage equality is largely academic in most US states (since same-sex unions are for the most part generally illegal already) and therefore not much of a serious threat to the status quo, Massachusetts and Vermont notwithstanding.

On the other hand, the orchestrated right-wing movement to enshrine anti-gay discrimination in every state constitution through amendments that prohibit state recognition of marriage’s ‘legal equivalents’ presents a very clear and present threat to the preservation of previously won GLBT rights. If such amendments continue to pass around the nation, more and more people will lose the parenting, adoption, inheritance and domestic partnership benefits they currently see as secure. The religious right, emboldened by their legislative successes, will not stop at constitutional amendments but will press on to strip further rights and ultimately recriminalize same-sex relationships through whatever means available.

I want to encourage people to stay smart (or get smarter) about what are the real tactical issues of discrimination vs. the important but longer term issues of achieving total civil equality. We have to keep our energies and attention focused on combatting these very real threats (already realized in Ohio at least) while continuing to advocate for the longer term goal of marriage equality. If we don't manage to successfully reframe the present debate in terms of what is at threat should such amendments pass, we might very well convince half the electorate that gays should be allowed to marry and still end up having much of our existing relationship and parenting rights snatched out from under our very noses.

I wonder if it's directly in response to the flood of complaints the Star Tribune must have received following Katherine Kersten's recent columns against 'gay marriage'? Anyhow, they have come clean with an admission (of sorts) of bias — or at least of inadequate and inaccurate coverage of the issue.

This admission appeared in the reader's representative section (Kate Parry), not the editorial, but the message is pretty loud and clear:

The newspaper needs to do a better job fully describing the scope of legislation to ban same-sex marriage and its legal equivalent...

It's the job of journalists to sniff out spin and do their best to expose it and neutralize the language... But the Star Tribune has done poorly so far this session neutralizing spin on legislation to put a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and "its legal equivalent" on the fall ballot...

Those words mean the amendment would "clearly include domestic partnerships and civil unions" as well as same-sex marriage... It also allows for judicial interpretation of other rights often associated with marriages that could be banned... This has potential impact on adoptions, inheritance and many other issues facing gay couples...

The newspaper has not made this clear, allowing the language to spin in a direction favoring those who want to see the amendment on the ballot. It's more likely to get there if lawmakers and citizens believe it applies only to marriages. But that's not the case, and the newspaper needs to quit implying that it is, through the language it uses -- not to defeat or support the bill, but to make sure everyone knows exactly what's up for a vote...

The Wasington Post ran an excellent editorial today on election-year machinations in Virginia and Maryland:

POPULIST CHAMPIONS of intolerance in Virginia and Maryland are pushing constitutional amendments that would outlaw not only gay marriage but also civil unions, domestic partnerships and any other arrangement between consenting adults who happen to be homosexuals. Those amendments could have cruel and discriminatory effects, but that is of little moment to some of their advocates, who, confident that the wind of popular opinion is at their backs, assert a monopolistic claim on morality and God's law. We don't doubt that some state lawmakers genuinely believe that gay marriage somehow constitutes a threat to the traditional variety, or that they think that the children of gay unions may in some way be disadvantaged. But those views are tainted by an atmosphere of blatant political opportunism now seizing Richmond and Annapolis.

The hardened cynicism of many Republicans (and some Democrats) must innoculate them to their own consciences as they posture and play with our civil and economic rights.

All but the most extreme among them must surely understand that the common purpose of all these marriage amendments is not to protect anyone's family, but to constitutionally prohibit state recognition or support for all non-'traditional' families, and to entrench a form of legislative apartheid for a whole class of people that not even the old sodomy laws had contemplated.

Pam Spaulding notes how the Faith and Freedom network in Washington state is trying to bully the state's Supreme Court into not overturning the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act, a ruling which is expected sometime during the legislative session ending in March.

Faith and Freedom commissioned, wrote and paid for the poll of 405 registered voters by Elway Research. Heavily loaded questions were asked about 'gay marriage' vs. 'a union of one man and one woman,' and whether or not courts or the legislature should decide on the matter. Faith and Freedom then used the poll results to insinuate that Supreme Court justices who interpret the law to find the DOMA unconstitutional would suffer 'political consequences' at the next election:

"I think a person who is thinking about it would realize there is a political consequence to it," said Joseph B. Fuiten, chairman of the Faith and Freedom Network, which paid The Elway Poll to conduct the survey in late December. The group was "just making the observation," Fuiten said, when asked if the network was warning justices and Democrats to oppose gay marriage.

Göran pointed me to a wonderfully succinct article by Father Tobias Stanislas Haller concerning the general poverty of 'one man, one woman' religious arguments against homosexuality and same-sex marriage.

A chief strategy of fundamental/ist religionists is to assert their pronouncements to be fundamentally and unequivocally rooted in scripture and natural (or divine) law. Many hold the Christian bible to be the 'inspired, inerrant word of God'. Yet their use of scripture generally betrays a lack of reverence for an instrument held to contain such a divine revelation. Interpretation and exegesis is largely 'unsophisticated and sub-critical', as Father Tobias points out:

For example, the relevance of the “Sodom” story to male homosexuality (apart from assault) has surely been widely debunked — even among reasserters.

More problematical is the casual mixing of the two creation accounts in a way that fails to acknowledge that in the second account there is no sexual congress until after the Fall. The procreative and unitive functions are therefore clearly separable: human society requires procreation for its propagation, but unity for its well-being; nor does the church forbid marriage to those incapable of fertility, nor does it terminate marriages at the onset of infertility. It is also clear that the command to multiply, which is also given to the wild creatures in Genesis 1, is supplemented and crowned by the command to loving society established in Genesis 2, which endures in the absence and beyond the cessation of any capacity to procreate; and which indeed also allows for the recognition of celibacy as a legitimate way of life, contrary to the explicit command of Genesis 1:28.

Minneapolis-St. Paul Catholic Archbishop Harry J. Flim-Flam advised the faithful on January 5 that "now is the time to recommit ourselves with all of our energies to the ideal of marriage as intended by God: the lifelong union of one man and one woman with an openness to welcoming new life." Pope Rat-Zinger, in June, insisted insisted that marriage “is not a casual sociological construction,” and that, “in accordance with the plans of God, marriage and the family are irreplaceable and do not allow for other alternatives.”

Not all Catholics agree, and some had the personal courage to speak out in the online diocesan newsletter, Catholic Spirit.

I'm thrilled that God communicates his intentions so clearly to Harry and Rat-Zinger. But I'm wondering if God has a habit of changing his mind, or if Harry and Rat both are telling a little zinger about marriage. You see, I can't find their 'ideal' and 'irreplaceable' version of marriage in the Bible, the divine revelation upon which church teaching and tradition supposedly rest.

In Genesis, the first 'marriage' was between Adam and... Eve, his own flesh. Now Eve was made from Adam (not as a separate act of creation, and not the result of human conception), so the exact nature of their relationship to one another is somewhat murky. By virtue of being the first humans it is difficult to describe their partnering as 'traditional' in any sense. We do not know if they were 'married', that's for sure. It could even be argued that the relationship was a little too close, since both shared the same DNA. I'm told these sorts of relationships are popular in parts of Tennessee, but I don't see the church encouraging it at all these days.

Another heart-wrenching story illustrating how state enforcement of so-called 'family values' only serves to destroy families and cause harm to children.

A woman has sued her former partner of 11 years to be recognized as a parent of the two children they raised together until 2002. The court dismissed the case, ruling that although Donna Ellis "lived as a family" with her partner Rachel Burg and their two children, she is not legally entitled to compensation for the time, money and commitment she made to the family, nor is she entitled to visitation rights with the children. Ellis intends to appeal to a higher court.

According to Florida law, Donna Ellis and Rachel Burg's family was an illusion. When the relationship dissolved, so did the past. In a long-shot attempt to prove the illusion was real, Ellis sued Burg to show that she was as much a parent to the girls as Burg - their biological mother.

Burg, the biological mother, dismissed their relationship as one of 'room-mates', even though they were partners for 11 years, jointly owned a home and raised two children together. "We were a family in every respect", said Ellis -- except in one important respect, that of the law.

Yeah, right! One of the most interesting aspects of the whole same-sex marriage 'debate' is the way in which conservative voices position 'traditional marriage' (and by extension the Christian conservative movement) as the victim and GLBT-rights advocates as the oppressors.

It is most startling to hear conservative black clergy referring to their work to deny equal rights to a section of society as representing the modern continuation of the civil rights and justice struggle of the last century.