Now This is Better Leadership

I consider leadership to be an act of courage, stepping out for what you know is right, even when it's not always popular. On the Fourth of July, when we are celebrating our nation's freedom, I want to salute these US Senators who have done that with this video, increasing the pool of people under whom freedom and justice -- and the pursuit of happiness -- should apply. I'm so pleased that the "It Gets Better" video project -- an act of courage in and of itself -- gave them the platform and idea to get this done and give U.S. kids struggling with their sexual orientation or gender identity a message of hope.

http://digitallife.today.com/_news/2011/06/29/6974424-senators-tell-gay-kids-it-gets-better

If you want to bring the reality of LGBT teen suicide closer to heart, I recommend the movie "Prayers for Bobby." It's a story of a family which struggles with the Bible and homophobia in trying to understand their gay family member. It's very moving and highlights the continued need for the "It Gets Better" video project.

The South Africa Paradox: Full Marriage Equality but Social Inequality

South Africa may have marriage equality under the law for LGBT people, as noted in Wikipedia, but many LGBT people still remain horrifying targets of violence.

Some lesbians have been murdered and have become the victims of "corrective rape" where patriarchal men who find themselves threatened and "not good enough" seek to punish the women that they sorely misunderstand.

Unfortunately, the police ridicule the women and few cases have resulted in convictions, as reported in this BBC article.

After a petition of 170K people all over the world calling for an end to "corrective rape" following Noxolo Nkosana's murder in April 2011, the S. African justice department is beginning to deal with these hate crimes and considering harsher sentences for crimes in which the victim's sexual orientation is a factor.

Unfortunately, S. Africa courts got way ahead of the people's understanding and acceptance of differences in sexual orientation. At least in the U.S. we are building a slower but potentially more lasting, steady consensus that at least LGBT people are worthy of respect and dignity before most of our courts move forward with full relationship recognition in the form of marriage.

Obama Gets Stronger on Marriage Equality

I wanted this stance in 2008 with California's Prop 8, but I will take it now with Minnesota. Obama says he is against Minnesota's proposed gay marriage ban. Their House and Senate just voted to have MN voters decide if marriage is only between one man and one woman on the November 2012 ballot box -- a constitutional amendment that may also be on the table in North Carolina (the NC General Assembly has not yet voted on that).

Obama is now clearly moving toward favoring marriage equality, when he says his views are "constantly evolving" and that, as Pink News reports, “What I know is that at minimum, a baseline is that there has to be a strong, robust civil union available to all gay and lesbian couples.”

I like that he's saying his views are evolving, as that signals to people that they should also evolve their views and expect that he may someday boldly declare full support for marriage equality. I look forward to that day! That would be the kind of change I can believe in, at long last.

Majority of Americans Favor Legal Gay Marriage: Tipping Point Reached?

Wow, look at this chart. Gallup shows more Americans now support equal marriage rights for same-sex couples, by a margin of 53% in support and 45% opposed -- nearly the reverse the case as in 2010. Could Obama's leadership (expressed late last year in his It Gets Better video and his unwillingness to defend DOMA), and the Congressional overturning of DADT have something to do with this, in addition to the clear trend over time? Regardless, this is progress! Exciting news!

Source: Gallup

Minnesota to Vote on Prejudice

Voters in Minnesota will decide next year whether to place a constitutional ban on the ability of gay couples to marry. Minnesota already restricts marriage to opposite sex couples but opponents argue that a constitutional amendment is needed to strengthen the ban and ward off challenges from gay rights campaigners. Really?

The Minnesota House voted 70-62 to put the referendum before voters in November 2012, just like efforts under way in North Carolina. Four Republicans voted against it, including John Kriesel, who lost both legs while serving in Iraq and who told lawmakers: “This amendment doesn’t represent what I went to fight for.” Well said, John. Like most of us who do any fighting at all, we'd like to think we were fighting for actual freedom, not for restrictions in freedom under the guise of "religious freedom."

John also had the courage to say this in reference to a photo he showed of Cpl. Andrew Wilfahrt, a gay soldier from Minnesota who was killed in Afghanistan in February. “I cannot look at this family and look at this picture and say, ‘You know what, corporal? You were good enough to fight for your country and give your life, but you were not good enough to marry the person you love,’” he said.

Last week, a Star Tribune Minnesota poll suggested that just over half of Minnesota voters (55%) do not want a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, compared to 39% who said they did. The results were a “sharp reversal” of poll results from seven years ago. Could Minnesota be the one state that votes on and does not pass an anti-gay amendment?

Tell Business Leaders in North Carolina to Speak Out Against Anti-Gay Bigotry

Support the Unitarian Universalist Association's "Standing on the Side of Love" campaign and Equality NC in their quest to prevent discrimination from becoming part of the North Carolina Constitution by signing the petition at http://www.change.org/petitions/tell-business-leaders-in-north-carolina-to-speak-out-against-anti-gay-bigotry

This proposed amendment goes much further than enshrining bigotry into the state Constitution. It would prevent employers from continuing to offer health benefits to same sex partners. It says marriage between a man and a woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in NC. Who knows what other domestic arrangements from employers or cities could be taken away.

Governor Perdue, we need to hear your voice... This is a waste of money, and it is discriminatory toward a group of taxpaying citizens who currently pay for others to have rights they lack. We need strong leaders in the government and business to expose this amendment for what it is .... not good for NC in any way. This proposed amendment will NOT encourage companies to locate & bring jobs to North Carolina. It will make our state look backwards-facing at a time when several states have taken bold and progressive steps forward. In short, it will cost many North Carolinians and will give no real benefits to any of us. That, my friends, is a losing proposition.

Engendering Confusion: On Taxes and Texas

It's a confusing world some people engender when they hyperfocus on gender as the primary criterion for legal marital rights. When genders change or are unclear (e.g., intersex people or those in transition) or jurisdictions differ in their recognition, the solution is simple: just recognize people for the gender they feel they are and the partner they choose to marry.

Consider this issue: Once a transgender person gets sexual reassignment surgery to complete their transition to their identified gender, they are recognized as being that new gender under current Texas law (like most states) including in areas like their driving record and marriage licenses.
Since only a man and woman can marry in Texas, then, a person born as a male who becomes a woman is then able to marry a man. However, Republican Senator Tommy Williams is allegedly concerned about the confusion he thinks county and district clerks have in following the court orders. And even worse, as one article states, apparently Governor Perry never intended for transgendered people to marry! Not allowing them to marry at all would certain strip away their recognition as human beings -- as even gay people can marry someone of the opposite gender if they choose. Williams' intent is apparently not to prohibit any transgender marriages but to "clean up" a 2009 law in which sex change operations are recognized to revert to a 1999 state appeals court decision that said that in cases of marriage, gender is assigned at birth and sticks with a person throughout their life even if they have a sex change.


What Tommy and his cohorts may not realize is that their proposed "clean up" and reversal has the potential to cause even more confusion. If a person born as a male who then becomes a woman is only recognized as a male for marriage purposes, then that visibly female person can only legally marry a woman. So now you essentially have what appears to be a "same-gender" marriage, which seems to violate Texas' strict prohibition on same-gender marriages. While this may allow marriage in some cases, this law would undermine what I know is even more important to transgender people - being recognized by their gender identity. In short, this change does not serve to clear anything up - it only hurts another misunderstood minority group while benefitting no one.

And now consider this box-checking dilemma: A lesbian couple which includes NCLR's Kate Kendall gets legally married in California in the small window of time in 2008 in which it is legal. States typically decide who is and is not married, not the Federal government. They then go to file their Federal tax return and need to check the box "married" or "single." What should they do? They are, in fact, married. However, the Federal government, through the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), does not recognize their legal marriage. Nevertheless, the couple feels compelled to tell the truth -- and, get this -- pay MORE taxes to the Federal government than they would as "single." What should the IRS do - audit them for breaking DOMA and insist on giving them back all the extra money they paid, or keep the extra money and applaud their honesty and integrity?

The verdict? People are much larger than the little boxes (and rules) society creates for genders and marital status. And in trying to force-fit people into little boxes and rules rather than simply accommodating who they are and how they want to be recognized, people engender much more confusion.

NH Tea Partiers Reject Idea That Marriage Equality Hurt Their Relationships

Well, here we go, proof from what look to be average conservative citizens that marriage equality does no harm to straight people. While they don't seem to care much about whether or not gay people can marry their partners, they also admit that it does not impact their lives much at all.

So if a law benefits some people and does not cost other people anything, seems like a pretty good law to me. As more states allow gay marriages and more people realize the sky does not fall and heterosexual marriages are not threatened, more people -- conservative or not -- will come to this conclusion.

Progress on Capitol Hill: Renewed Respect for Marriage?

Kudos for bold leaders in the House and Senate who Wednesday threw their political weight behind the aptly-named Respect for Marriage Act, which seeks to repeal the so-called "defense" of marriage act (DOMA). In the House this included U.S. Representatives Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Barney Frank (D-MA), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Jared Polis (D-CO), David Cicilline (D-RI), and John Conyers (D-MI), who reintroduced the “Respect for Marriage Act” on Wednesday morning in their effort to repeal DOMA. U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) followed in the afternoon with similar legislation in the Senate.

"It is time to right this wrong," Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said in introducing the bill with other senators. "This bill will ensure that all married couples in the United States enjoy equal protection of our laws."

Calling DOMA an "injustice that is wrongly enshrined in U.S. law," Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) referenced the successful passage of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act and said, "I know we will will prevail for marriage equality, too."

President Obama has stated that DOMA is discriminatory and unfair, and has pledged to work with Congress to overturn it as well as to stop defending it through his Department of Justice. However, House Republican leaders under Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) have initiated their own legal defense of DOMA through the House counsel's office.

Many of us were impressed by the repeal of DADT in Congress back in December. Hopefully members of both houses will see the writing on the wall with this one as well and stand on the right side of justice and history.

The Case That Changed Obama's Mind

Widow Edie Windsor's case is one of two cases pending in federal courts cited in the announcement that Obama will stop defending DOMA.

Edie Windsor is suing for the right to not pay a $363,053 federal tax bill following the death of her long-term partner Thea. She would not have faced this liability had the federal government recognized their union.

To learn more about the couple and their story, watch the movie "Edie and Thea: A Very Long Engagement"

NC Republicans Propose Constitutional Amendment...Again, With Poor Timing

President Obama and the Department of Justice announced last week that they are abandoning their legal defense of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act DOMA, saying that they believe the statute is unconstitutional.

Their decision to stop defending of DOMA underscores the inherent unconstitutionality of marriage bans in states across the country. Ironically, the same week, NC Sen. James Forrester (R), who has been trying to push a constitutional amendment for nearly a decade, thinks its time to put the ban to the voters in 2012.

At the present moment, 16 states have either same-sex marriage or civil unions, with Maryland in a position to legalize same-sex marriage soon.

North Carolina is the only southern state that has successfully avoided such an amendment, largely due to a Democratically-controlled legislature that did not want to see this go before the voters; up until this year (when Republicans rule both houses for the first time in decades), the bills have stayed tied up in committee.

This year, it could go out of committee and be debated on the floor, but there is a question whether each chamber has the 3/5 vote required, according to NC's only openly gay legislator, Representative Marcus Brandon. According to Brandon and Equality NC's Executive Director Ian Palmquist, the key to this vote is putting pressure on the conservative Democrats. If it does reach both floors, consider this: NC wants businesses to relocate in the state to provide needed jobs, but passing backwards-looking constitutional amendments is not going to help attract forward-thinking businesses. Consider also all the money and time required to pass an amendment that would effectively do nothing. Gay couples married in other states cannot have their marriages recognized in NC due to NC's DOMA. The amendment would only make extra sure that they cannot have what they already don't have. The amendment is fiscally irresponsible.

And this is just a matter of time, anyway. Within the next decade, the US Supreme Court will probably decide the matter for all states. An amendment in NC is too late, redundant, costly, backward-thinking and misguided. In short, it's a waste of time.

Senator Richard Burr (R-NC) was smart enough to see the writing on the wall, demonstrated with his vote to repeat "Don't Ask Don't Tell" in December.

Ignorance is a Choice, Not Being Gay

Occasionally, I find it helpful to go directly into the lion's den and speak directly with opponents of gay rights. Last night, outside the Human Rights Campaign gala fundraiser in Raleigh, NC, with several hundred well-dressed gay people safely inside, I went outside to speak with a group of about ten Bible-thumper protesters. One young woman wore a huge sign with a blatant lie: "Homosexuality is a choice." I questioned her about why she thought that. She could only offer up the lame excuse: "It is the word of God."

As others confirmed that they were there because they viewed the Bible as the word of God and God as the only source of morality, I explained to them that they were abdicating their critical thinking skills to their faith, and that everyone reads a text with his or her own experiences. Some read the Bible and focus on what many consider its main point - that God is love and we should love our neighbor as ourselves. Moreover, the Bible is a poor authority not only on the exact details of Jesus' life (since its writers wrote in Greek while the followers were Aramaic and it was written a few decades after JC died --see Dr. Bart Ehrman's books), but on the topic of homosexuality. It was also written about 1,600 years before the emergence of the scientific method of impartial observation illuminated our understanding of most subjects, including homosexuality.

I asked the sign-bearer how many homosexual people she knew. She admitted that she knew none. She was making this laughable statement based on a sample size of zero.

The reason it is relevant for her or anyone who makes claims about homosexuality (particularly in the public square) to conduct an unbiased study of gay people to find out whether they chose to be gay is because gay people are the authorities on their own homosexuality.

Experience matters. Evidence matters. Nothing written in the Bible can invalidate that and will not change the fact that there are gay people in every culture and that homosexuality exists in several hundred animal species. The fact that these unquestioning "believers" cannot reconcile the reality of human and animal nature with their belief that the Bible is actually accurate is their problem, but unfortunately it becomes ours when they vote and influence others.

The reason I spoke with this group is that I had hoped that the news coverage from News 14 Carolina was not interviewing them; I wanted to set the record "straight." Fortunately, the TV station covered the event and ignored the protesters. Fortunately, I felt the protesters listened to me and they did hear my point of view, at least 30 minutes of it. If I became the one gay person they know just well enough to question their beliefs, then I consider it a success.

It's their choice whether to be ignorant about gay people. It's not my choice to be gay.

Marriage in Maryland..Could Be Soon!

Yesterday, the Maryland Senate voted 25-21 to end marriage discrimination. The marriage equality bill next heads to the House of Delegates. If it passes there, it goes to the desk of Governor O’Malley, who has pledged to sign it.

With every state that passes marriage equality, it makes the federal DOMA more absurd and out-of-date. The Federal government traditionally has just accepted state marriages. DOMA is an odd exception to this general rule, and it's made only odder still when more states add themselves to the list of jurisdictions who are unwilling to cling to discrimination.

The death of DOMA is coming slowly, but believe me, it's coming.

(Image: Baltimore Pride 2010)

Progress Report: Obama Stops Defending DOMA!

Good news at last! I welcome and applaud Obama's courageous policy reversal today to no longer waste taxpayer money defending the increasing indefensible and poorly-named federal "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA). It is hard to justify not only that the Federal government has the right to get involved in what are traditionally state marriage decisions, but also that an Administration which recognizes the full humanity and dignity of gay citizens should do anything to counter that stance.

Back in 2009, in a move which greatly disappointed drew fire from the gay community, the Obama administration's Department of Justice (DOJ) actively defended DOMA (and used offensive language in the process) -- which they argued at the time that they had to do. Now, the Obama administration is using justification for its current stance from Clinton's Solicitor General, Seth Waxman, saying that historically the DOJ had declined to defend statutes “in cases in which it is manifest that the president has concluded that the statute is unconstitutional.”


WHAT's NEW & WHY NOW?
The change of heart was partly explained by Eric Holder, who said that the president has concluded that, given a documented history of discrimination against gays, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny than the department had been applying in legal challenges to the act up to now. Holder has also explained that DOMA fails to meet a rigorous standard under which courts view with suspicion any laws targeting minority groups who have suffered a history of discrimination.

While the facts of discrimination have not changed since then, we welcome this change of heart and know that history will show it was the right thing to do. A law intended to hurt some families and help none can no longer be rationally defended. This is the kind of presidential leadership and bold action many of us expected from the beginning, but we'll take it now. Obama is likely emboldened by the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" or inspired by former CA Republican Governor Schwarzenegger's refusal to challenge a federal judge's unconstitutional ruling of CA's anti-gay marriage amendment, Prop 8.

The Attorney General’s statement is available here:
www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/February/11-ag-222.html

The Attorney General’s letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner, explaining the decision in more detail, is here:
www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/February/11-ag-223.html

WHAT'S NEXT
Attorney General Eric Holder said the Department of Justice will immediately bring the policy change to the attention of two federal courts now hearing separate lawsuits targeting the DOMA.

1) The Connecticut case challenges the federal government's denial of marriage-related protections for federal Family Medical Leave Act benefits, federal laws for private pension plans and federal laws concerning state pension plans.
2) The New York case challenges the federal government's refusal to recognize the marriage of two women and tax the inheritance that one of the women left to the other as though the two were strangers. Under federal tax law, a spouse who dies can leave her assets, including the family home, to the other spouse without incurring estate taxes.

It's nice to see Obama taking the lead from the courts here... of the three branches of government, they alone are in a position to reflect rationally and in a principled way -- making it much harder for the whims of prejudice to prevail.

New IRS Tax Break for Some Same-Sex Couples

I've long joked that committed gay couples who would otherwise be married should get a federal tax break for having to pay for the rights of others that they themselves are denied.

Well, there is not exactly a tax credit for committed gay couples, but here's what we have: under "income splitting," the IRS is requiring all same-sex married couples or registered domestic partners in the state of Washington, California and Nevada to divide their combined income equally and report it on their separate tax returns.

Those who will save the most are same-sex couples with the biggest disparities in income. For instance, a couple where one earns $100,000 and the other is a stay-at-home spouse with little or no income, will split their combined community earnings on their individual tax returns, with each reporting $50,000 in income. The result: an overall lower tax bill for both.

Read more: http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/02/23/1009054/new-irs-rule-might-mean-tax-break.html#ixzz1EodbRGUi

Nebraska Lesbians Cannot Divorce!

Brenda Mueller and Deborah Pry have been told by a Nebraska judge that they cannot divorce, as Nebraska does not recognize their marriage. Judge Randall Rehmeier cited Nebraska’s constitutional ban on gay marriage. The couple had a civil union in Vermont in 2003. So now Brenda and Deborah are in legal limbo.

It Gets Better Because of You

Federal Courts Dismiss Marriage Equality Foes

In civil rights, progress is slow. It's two steps backward, one step forward. Three steps forward, one step backward.

Tuesday was a step forward. Though the US Supreme Court acted somewhat passively -- refusing to take on the case of a DC bishop who wanted to give DC voters the right to overturn same-sex marriage -- it is starting to wear a path toward where many of us feel it will eventually go: active, legal acceptance of the equal protection of the law for gay couples seeking to marry. But for now, passive dismissals of foes is just fine.

In regards to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals January 4th, 2001 request to the CA Supreme Court on whether Prop 8 proponents could have standing in lieu of the Governor and Attorney General's refusal to challenge the unconstitutional ruling, I remain as optimistic as Kate Kendall, Executive Director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights:

“We are confident the California Supreme Court will act quickly to resolve this question and to hasten the day when California once again treats all families with equal dignity and respect.”

and NCLR's Legal Director, Shannon Minter:

"I am confident the California Supreme Court will hold that California law does not give initiative proponents any special power to override the decisions of the state’s elected representatives."

Source: Prop 8 TrialTracker.com

It seems a stretch for state law, and an even greater stretch for federal law, to give standing to citizens just because they disagree with federal judges' rulings.

It's really refreshing to see the foes of marriage equality face an uphill battle to get heard in the federal courts and prove that they have standing. Forced to make rational arguments that stem from anything other than an irrational fear of change or stereotypes, I think they are doomed to fail.

I don't think our country or the U.S. Supreme Court is ready to rule on the constitutionality of this issue; we need more states to allow same-sex marriage. For now, I'm content that opponents of equality are turned away because they just don't have the legal standing to complain about things they fear.