CA Supreme Court upholds Prop 8 today

This is disappointing, but not unexpected and not all bad. Today the California Supreme Court upheld Prop 8, the ballot measure that limited marriage to straight couples. New York Times article here. The good part of the decision was that they upheld the thousands of same-sex marriages performed during the period before Prop 8 went into effect. This will surely throw a wrench into efforts to stop what seems like a steady march towards legality of gay marriage everywhere. There are now 18,000 valid gay marriages in California. These couples will demand recognition of their marriages by the federal government and other states, undoubtedly leading to many more lawsuits challenging anti-gay marriage laws in those jurisdictions.

Of course, Californians still can enter into legally sanctioned civil unions, with some attendant benefits, unlike residents of most other states, including the one I live in.

Here's the ad released by the marriage equality group Courage Campaign minutes after the decision was made public. Nice song by Regina Spektor.



Anti-Prop 8 demonstrators arrested in San Francisco, including two men who "stood for about an hour in the intersection calmly kissing while demonstrators all around them screamed, "Prop. 8 will go down, San Francisco (is a) big queer town" and other slogans." (emphasis added - these guys have stamina!)

Pam's House Blend (politically-oriented GLBT blog) links to a boatload of organizations' reactions to the decision.

Demonstrations across the country are planned for tonight. Click on that link for further info.

Consequences of Gay Marriage

(snagged from gypsylady at livejournal)

Veteran's Day; More on Prop 8

Today is Veteran's Day. There was a lot more traffic in my area today. There are many federal and military employees around here, so that makes sense. I went to the bank, forgetting it would be closed. Duh. If I ever knew that Veteran's Day commemorates the armistice of World War I, I forgot until I heard it on NPR today. How could I not know that? I'm in my 40's and have a history degree. Like I said, I may have known once upon a time, but loss of brain cells due to age or mind-altering substances wiped it out.

More on Prop 8 fallout today: Not surprisingly, lawsuits have been filed challenging the validity of Prop 8. Back to the courts again. Apparently the issue is a procedural one. Did Prop 8 amend or revise the California State Constitution? Legislative action is required to amend the constitution, whereas a proposition may revise it without any legislative action. This is what non-lawyers like to call a legal technicality. But you can see how important it is. According to the Washington Post, 18,000 marriages hang in the balance. Wow. That's a lot. Legality of Same-Sex Marriage Ban Challenged, Washington Post, November 10, 2008.

I'd like to know why Schwarzenegger is all of sudden vehemently pro-gay marriage. According to the Post, he said of Prop 8 opponents:

"They should never give up," he said in an interview on CNN. "They should be on it and on it until they get it done."
Schwarzenegger has been ambivalent on the issue, previously rejecting legislation allowing same-sex marriage and stating that marriage should be between a man and a woman, but he indicated Sunday that he is hopeful that the California Supreme Court will "undo" the measure."

It would've been more helpful if he hadn't rejected that legislation rather than just blabbing about being "on it and on it" now.

This is wonderful, moving, impassioned argument against Prop 8 by Keith Olbermann (thanks to Julie for the link):

Brain Dump: Lindsay Lohan, Happy and Gay; Prop 8 Fallout; Rachel Maddow

Brain Dump. Random interesting things. All gay related, it turns out.

I don't know if anyone's been following the Lindsay Lohan and Samantha Ronson saga. Well, not really a saga, more a game of cat and mouse with the media. Lindsay's been slowly working her way round to acknowledging she's in a relationship with Ronson. I find these stories of celebrities coming out of the closet fascinating. Today this tidbit appeared on Yahoo!News: Lindsay Lohan Opens Up About her Relationship with Samantha Ronson. According to an interview in Harper's Bazaar, Lohan acknowledged she's been seeing Ronson "for quite some time," and that most of her family is supportive. The most amusing parts were that "when asked if she had previously "been with a girl" by Harper's, the actress replied, "I don't know, maybe." LOL Must have been before rehab. And this is totally cool:

"Lindsay said she does not consider herself a lesbian, but as for whether she thinks of herself as bisexual, she told the magazine, "maybe." "I don't want to classify myself," she continued. "First of all, you never know what's going to happen -- tomorrow, in a month, a year from now, five years from now. I appreciate people, and it doesn't matter who they are, and I feel blessed to be able to feel comfortable enough with myself that I can say that."

Of course, my prediction is, after she and Ronson break up, she'll be with a man.

Proposition 8 and other Anti-Gay Ballot Initiatives

This is one that requires some more research. These anti-gay ballot initiatives are a quadrennial favorite. Gah, when are they going to quit with this? The California one is the worst because it took away a right that had already been given, twice in the case of San Francisco. The actual text of the new law is: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in CA.” It's only a matter of time, folks. The hodge podge of gay marriage laws in this country is not going to last. You just can't have a couple of states here and there allowing same-sex marriages, a couple of other ones allowing some form of civil union or domestic partnership. As a legal matter, this is not going to work in the long run. That's why every state has laws recognizing traditional marriages performed in other states. It would be a legal nightmare if you didn't. And that's what will happen with same-sex marriages. How many decades it will take, who knows? But eventually it will be legal in every state, and the federal government will have to recognize it and give same-sex couples the same benefits and rights as traditional married couples. And now that more same-sex couples are having children, the complications from the crazy quilt of laws will get even more ridiculous. This is exactly why federal law pre-empts state law in some areas, because it makes no sense to have 50 different versions of laws covering the same topic (e.g. immigration).

Andrew Sullivan, gay conservative yet not-quite-Republican pundit (he supported Obama), has an encouraging entry about Prop 8 here: Prop 8: Chill.

Other interesting things about the fallout from passage of Prop 8 are the number of protests against the Mormon Church and some other churches in Southern California, Mormon Church Draws Protest over Marriage Act, New York Times, November 9, 2008, Prop 8 Protesters Target Mormon Temple in Westwood, Los Angeles Times, November 8, 2008, Thousands in Salt Lake City Protest LDS Stance on Gay Marriage, The Salt Lake Tribune, November 9, 2008 ; the effort to start a boycott of the State of Utah Utah Faces Boycott After Mormon Work for Prop 8, Associated Press, November 7, 2008; and the fact that African-Americans voted overwhelmingly for Prop 8. Gays, Blacks, Divided on Proposition 8: For many African-Americans, it’s not a civil rights issue., Los Angeles Times, November 8, 2008.

The boycott of the State of Utah strikes me as slightly absurd. The State of Utah is not the same as the Mormon church. Not everyone in Utah is a Mormon. Isn't it more likely to hurt random Utah residents rather than the Mormon church? Not sure about that one.

(This blog is ending up being a lot more about gay stuff than I expected, by the way.)


Rachel Maddow

Rachel, Rachel, how do I love thee, let me count the ways. To be honest, I haven't seen that much of her political talk show on MSNBC yet. But it's hard not to love this totally out, sharp as a tack, Rhodes Scholar, lefty-liberal TV and radio personality. She also has a show on Air America. She's gotten a ton of media lately: a profile in New York Magazine The Dr. Maddow Show, November 2, 2008, another profile in The Advocate, The New American Classic, and inclusion in Out magazine's Out 100: The Men and Women Who Made 2008 a Year to Remember, with a total glamour shot that makes her look like a 1940's movie star.

The first time I saw her on TV, before I knew anything about her, I knew she was a lesbian. It's pretty obvious. In the New York magazine article, she says that she always wears grey suits on TV so no one can say anything about what she wears, so discussion about her clothes won't detract from the content of the show. LOL. (so I'll make a comment about her make-up - sorry, Rachel.) They started her off with very pink, pale make-up, which didn't suit her. You can really tell that she isn't someone who normally wears make-up and The Advocate article confirmed that. They seemed to have improved that and the makeup is more subtle now. I'll never forget reading an article in The Washington Post about "the new face" of TV political pundits, where they mentioned several African-American and Latino commentators, and...Rachel Maddow. I thought, well, it must be because she's a lesbian. Nope. Because she's a young woman! They didn't mention the fact that she's a lesbian at all. (she's totally out, that's not the issue). I was shocked. It's fantastic to have an out lesbian have a successful political show on TV, and her sexuality isn't even an issue. (Also see "Ellen" and the defunct "Rosie" for similar.) I predict Rachel Maddow is going to be big for a long time to come.

Mini-plug for one of the objects of my obsession with the TV show Torchwood (see right sidebar), John Barrowman, who's also on the Out 100 list, with a similarly glamourous photo. John Barrowman in bed here, making fangirls and boys happy the world over. And I loved this Victor/Victoria shot of another Out 100 nominee, Diana Nyad, here. The Out photographers rock!

Obama's Position on Gay Marriage is Disturbing

“If Elected: Hopefuls Differ as They Reject Gay Marriage”, New York Times, Nov. 1, 2008.

I’m a supporter of gay marriage. I have a same-sex partner and children, so the issue directly affects me. I’ve never looked carefully at Barack Obama’s position on gay marriage. I’ve always supported him and knew I would vote for him in the primary and, with luck, the general election. His position on gay marriage was not going to change my mind on that score. However, this article in yesterday’s New York Times gives me pause. The article describes Obama and McCain’s positions on gay marriage and why they hold them. I knew that Obama opposed gay marriage and this didn’t surprise me. I don’t think any candidate for national office could support gay marriage and expect to be elected in this country, sadly. But apparently his reasons for not supporting it are religious and I find that kind of disturbing. I suppose because it seems irrational. And Obama seems supremely rational – that’s one of the things I love about him (after 8 years of irrational floundering in the White House). But you can’t reason with “God”. It’s like passing the buck, particularly for an attorney and former constitutional law professor.

According to the article, “Mr. Obama believes that marriage is a sacred union, a blessing from God, and one that is intended for a man and a woman exclusively”. This just seems very inconsistent with his generally liberal views. I’m a little skeptical that his position is simply politically advantageous rather than sincerely held. I’m not sure what to think about the whole thing. Anyway, if one believes in gay rights, that people shouldn’t be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation, that people should be able to realize the full potential of their lives, including long-term committed relationships and procreation, why does Obama believe that “God” suddenly draw the line at “marriage”? It’s even more strange when you consider that his own parents were personally affected by anti-miscegenation laws that prevented them from marrying in certain states. The article quotes Obama as saying “Look, when my parents got married in 1961, it would have been illegal for them to be married in a number of states in the South...So, obviously, this is something that I understand intimately. It’s something that I care about.” The article goes on to say that, “At that point, [Obama} veered onto legal rights, saying that — both in 1961 and today — it was more important to fight for nondiscrimination laws and employment protections than for marriage.”

Well, in my opinion, that’s fudging it a bit. That issue goes more to tactics rather than being a rationale for not believing in gay marriage. It’s certainly legitimate to argue that now is not the time to fight for gay marriage. But what Obama is saying is that, for him, that time will never come, he doesn’t believe in gay marriage.
Going back to the religious basis for Obama’s position, the article describes an encounter Obama had with a lesbian: “In one of his books, “The Audacity of Hope,” however, Mr. Obama describes a conversation with a lesbian supporter who became upset when he cited his religious views to explain his opposition. “She felt that by bringing religion into the equation, I was suggesting that she, and others like her, were somehow bad people,” he wrote. “I felt bad, and told her so in a return call. As I spoke to her, I was reminded that no matter how much Christians who oppose homosexuality may claim that they hate the sin but love the sinner, such a judgment inflicts pain on good people.”

Well, duh. And I agree. The “hate the sin, love the sinner” argument is utter crap and completely hypocritical. So...Obama, what gives? How does he square this “God” argument with his reasoning mind, or is he just a typically hypocritical politician who actually does support gay marriage, but isn’t about to say that publicly?

And McCain? Who really cares? Hopefully all of his positions will be moot after Tuesday.

Connecticut Legalizes Gay Marriage

I’m not personally all that interested in marriage. However, the legal protections for spouses and children are unparalleled. Civil unions can never replicate all the protections and legal rights that marriage guarantees. This is especially true when federal law doesn’t recognize any civil unions or marriages between same sex couples. Federal law provides many marital benefits that state law cannot (e.g. Social Security). In addition, the right to marry is important symbolically, as it acknowledges that same-sex relationships deserve the same legal protections as traditional straight couples.

So it’s a big deal whenever a state recognizes the right of same-sex couples to marry. And Connecticut has just done that.

Gay Marriage is Ruled Legal in CT (NYTimes)

Text of CT Supreme Court decision

Pretty soon New England is going to be a gay mecca. Gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts, gay civil unions are legal in Vermont and New Hampshire, and Maine has legal domestic partnerships that provide many of the same rights as civil unions. (see NYTimes article link above)