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