Gay Romney Donor Asks for His Contribution Back

In what ought to be a lesson to gay Republicans - yes, those individuals that I view as the equivalent of blacks supporting the KKK - Bill White, the former President of  the Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Museum, a veterans activist, and founder of the strategic consulting firm Constellations Group, and maxed out donor to Mitt Romney's campaign, has belatedly awaken to the fact that the GOP as a whole and Mitt Romney in particular are the nothing short of avowed enemies of LGBT citizens.  That's not to say that the Democrats are the saviors of LGBT Americans, because they are not as proven by the cowards in the Virginia House of Delegates who were too afraid to vote "yes" for Tracy Thorne-Begland.  The New Civil Rights Movement has coverage on White's epiphany.  Here are highlights:

A famous donor has dropped his support for Mitt Romney‘s campaign, asked for a refund, and thrown his support to Barack Obama after the President announced his support for same-sex marriage and Mitt Romney derided it at his commencement address at Liberty University over the weekend.

Bill White, the former President of  the Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Museum, a veterans activist, and founder of the strategic consulting firm Constellations Group, wrote Mitt Romney and expressed his dissatisfaction.
“I feel that I no longer wish to support your presidential campaign and ask that you please return the maximum contribution that I gave to you last year,” Bill White wrote in a letter addressed to Romney, CNN reports:

“You have chosen to be on the wrong side of history and I do not support your run for president any longer,” White added.
…
White began his letter to Romney stating, “I am currently a max donor to your 2012 presidential campaign.” He did not fundraise for the Romney campaign, though he said his partner and some friends also contributed to Romney.
 
In his letter, White goes on to mention the president’s public announcement of his personal support for same-sex marriage last week.

“Several days later this past Saturday to a packed stadium of young college students you made the following statement that ‘Marriage is only between one man and one woman,’” White wrote, referring to Romney’s recent commencement address to Liberty University, an evangelical school in Lynchburg, Virginia.  “I believe that you will do as you now say and try to force a constitutional amendment which would attempt to make my own legal and blessed marriage null and void.”

CNN pressed White: Why now, given that Romney’s stance is not new?  “I had a very visceral reaction to him – he had a great opportunity… to get on the right side of history,” White responded. “And to be someone to the country that helps to unite us, versus what divides us. And I just think his very proactive intention to pounce on this issue now has sent me to the other side.”  “Now, I feel like he’s declared war on my marriage. And I could just sit back and not say anything. Or I could do something about it. And I’ve chosen to do something about it.”

White married his longtime partner last October at New York’s iconic Four Seasons Restaurant.  The wedding – the first legal gay marriage held at the Four Seasons – drew luminaries, including singer Aretha Franklin, astronaut Buzz Aldrin, Barbara Walters and [NYC] Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly.

Gay Republicans can try to convince themselves that they believe in fiscal conservatism - not that the 8 years of George Bush's failed regime and the then GOP controlled Congress demonstrated any fiscal restraint- but in doing so they are forfeiting their own humanity and, I would argue, integrity.  Are lower taxes worth the price of one's soul?  Not in my book.  I hope other gay Republicans wake up and defect from Romney and the GOP.  And that they ask for their money back.

Will Obama appeal DOMA Court Rulings?

Besides his continued failure to issue a stop loss order or other executive order to end discharges under DADT, we will soon see other proof as to whether or not Barack Obama has ever meant anything he has said to LGBT Americans. The next test? Whether his Justice Department will appeal the lower federal court rulings striking down DOMA as unconstitutional. If one strips religious belief from the equation and rejects further special rights for conservative Christian belief, there is NO justification for DOMA. The evidence in these case combined with the evidence in Perry v. Schwarzenegger make it clear the anti-gay marriage laws have one purpose: to discriminate against LGBT citizens and enshrine a RELIGIOUS definition of marriage into the CIVIL laws. As a supposed constitutional expert, Obama cannot help but realize this. The question is, will he put his own anti-gay marriage beliefs aside, stop pandering to those like his BFF Rick Warren and support the U.S. Constitution. Meanwhile, Democrats want LGBT voters to go vote for them even as their party through Obama likely is preparing to throw us under the bus yet again -they must think we are utter fools. The Washington Blade looks at this issue. Here are some highlights:
*
President Obama’s commitment to repealing the Defense of Marriage Act is likely to come under enhanced scrutiny next week when the U.S. Justice Department announces its decision on whether or not it will appeal federal court rulings against the statute.
*
Legal experts across the board are expecting the administration to appeal the decisions as many LGBT advocates grumble that the defense of DOMA in court undermines Obama’s campaign pledge to advocate for same-sex couples.

Richard Socarides, a gay New York attorney and former adviser to President Clinton, said he expects the Justice Department to appeal the cases because he believes the administration hasn’t shown any signs of changing its position after defending DOMA at the district court level.
*
“I think that they’re going to continue to battle the gay rights movement in the courts,” Socarides said. “I think it continues to be one of the most unfortunate decisions of the president’s entire first two years in office and really something that is perhaps the most troubling part of these first two years of his presidency.
*
[Evan] Wolfson said the extent to which the Justice Department defends DOMA at the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals would be an appropriate gauge to determine the Obama administration’s commitment to supporting LGBT people.
*
“I think the Justice Department can argue they have to appeal, but they should not be trying to win at all costs, and they should urge the court to adopt a presumption of unconstitutionality for the cruel exclusion from marriage that they themselves admit is discrimination,” Wolfson said.
*
Even as many LGBT rights supporters bemoan the administration’s defense of DOMA, others say continued support for the law in court could have some advantages. Defenders of the Obama administration have said defending anti-gay laws such as DOMA sets a precedent that would prevent future administrations from allowing litigation against pro-laws to go unchallenged.
*
But Socarides scoffed at the notion that defending laws like DOMA would keep pro-gay laws safe under future administrations. “I know that a lot of people make it in defense of the administration, but to me, it’s an entirely ludicrous argument,” Socarides said. “That argument turns all logic on its head. We’re not going to defend civil rights because some day the Republicans may choose not to defend civil rights.”
*
Socarides said the Obama administration shouldn’t be considered a friend to the LGBT community for appealing the lawsuits because the president hasn’t said he’s appealing them for the purpose of having a stronger ruling.
*
I stopped defending - and believing Obama and his administration months ago. Besides being Commander-in-Chief, he's liar-in-chief, in my view. And absent action that leads to inreased equality and legal rights for all LGBT Americans nationwide from Obama, I won't be changing my opinion.

Zero Major Gay Changes by Obama This Term

To say that Barack Obama has been a major disappointment from the prospective of LGBT Americans who believed his campaign lies - I mean promises - would be a case of understatement. Other than passage of the Hate Crimes legislation (which in reality does nothing for the vast, vast majority of LGBT citizens), Obama has accomplished nothing during the almost first two years f his administration. Worse yet, if all of his half-measures and lack of leadership result in major Democrat losses in Congress, the coming two years can be written off as well. We in the LGBT community will have been cynically and disingenuously suckered and played for fools. Fools who wanted to believe that Obama was honest and actually meant even a fraction of his statements on LGBT issues. Yes, Harry Reid has announced that the Senate will now take up the DADT repeal legislation in Congress, but even if passed, the legislation does not guarantee repeal or set any real time table. John Aravosis has a column at America Blog Gay that sums up the sorry situation quite well. Here are some highlights:
*
With the imminent demise of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" compromise that did not, in any case, repeal DADT (even though the NYT and other lazy journalists like to claim it did), and the imminent demise of the Democratically-controlled House of Representatives, President Obama is about to have accomplished a record zero of his top promises to the gay community. A record that, if we lose the House, will likely remain at zero for the next six years, . .
*
[A]fter all the pandering by all the pro-Obama apologists who said that we were wrong to ask the President to address our community's needs during his first two years in office, that we were wrong to warn of the imminent loss of a Democratically-controlled House, and how that loss would stymie gay rights progress for years to come, and that we were wrong to suggest that this President would never, ever get to addressing a real repeal of DADT and DOMA, and the passage of ENDA - after all that, it turns out we were right.
*
Barack Obama is on the precipice of accomplishing a grand total of none of his major promises to gay and lesbian Americans in return for our supporting his candidacy with our votes and our money. I'm not smelling change.
*
It clearly was Barack Obama's choice not to move ahead with any of his major promises to the gay community in the first two years of his administration. No one else is to blame other than the President for that simple decision. That decision may have killed any chance of ever passing ENDA, or repealing DADT and DOMA, for the entire four years that President Obama in office. It was Barack Obama's choice not to even touch DADT until this year, and then not to push for a full repeal, but rather some make-shift compromise that may, or may not, lead to some kind of change in the policy at some future date (though what kind of change, for the better or the worse, isn't a guarantee). We simply weren't important enough, and now it appears we are getting nothing.
*
So what was the point of voting for President Obama, over Hillary, for example, if you're gay? If he wasn't going to keep his top promises to our community, then how was he any better than Hillary, or any other Democrat running at the time? Does anyone honestly think Hillary wouldn't have appointed more gays than any previous administration? Does anyone honestly think Hillary wouldn't have signed the Hate Crimes bill? President Obama has done nothing on gay civil rights that any other Democrat wouldn't have done in his stead. Such is not a definition of fierce advocate. It's the definition of business as usual.
*
[A]s I've written before, I'm not a big fan of being betrayed by friends, even when I know my enemies would have treated me worse. I expect my enemies to treat me like a pariah. I don't expect my friends to do the same. And in many ways, it's worse when the indifference, and the lies, come from a friend rather than an enemy.
*
If gay voters want to hand their money and their ballots over to someone who won't keep his major promises, who won't significantly advance the cause of their civil rights, who will outright work against those promises as we attempt to advance our civil rights in courts of law, but who at least won't be as big a bigot as John McCain, then they are certainly welcome to support him with all their hearts and wallets.
*
I expect politicians to at least try to keep their major promises. I never said they have to succeed. But they have to at least TRY. Our fierce advocate seems fiercely indifferent. And I fear that an increasing number of Democratic voters now share his indifference.
*
I believe that John is 100% on target and that many incumbent Democrats will be voted out of office on November 2, 2010 because of Obama's failed leadership. Again, we need a primary challenge to Obama in the lead up to 2012.

Why the Proposition 8 Trial Results Are so Threatening to Christianists

In a prior post I looked at David Boies' analysis of why the Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial was so damaging to and so feared by fundamentalist evangelical Christians, the Mormon Church and Opus Dei style Catholics (who for convenience I refer to as "Christianist"). In a nut shell, the case forced the opponents of gay marriage to back up their lies about and slander of gays and same sex couples with scientific evidence and objective facts. As the trial transcript confirmed and as Judge Walker ruled, they utterly failed to do so. Indeed, the preponderance of the evidence supported the claims and allegations of the plaintiffs, not the Prop. 8 supporters. Absent any scientific or objective factual evidence, the only support shown for Prop 8 was revealed to be religious based discrimination and a general dislike of LGBT individuals by the Christianists. Regardless of the Christianists' disingenous claims - both at trial and apparently in the filing with the 9th Circuit - that they they bear no animus towards gays and lesbians, the facts and evidence entered in the trial demonstrated clearly otherwise. A column in Huffington Post reiterates this reality that religious/moral disapproval of a minority does NOT justify depriving that minority of equal CIVIL rights. Again, despite all their whining and posturing with bogus experts, the supporters of Prop 8 have nothing except their personal opinions and religious beliefs to back up their desire to penalize and punish gays for not living their lives and forming their relationships in accordance with Christianist religious beliefs. Here are some highlights:
*
[Notre Dame Law School Professor Gerard]Bradley's attack on Judge Walker as unfit to decide the case if the reports of him being gay were accurate has received considerable attention, but Bradley and Whelan's attack on the trial itself is equally revealing. Bradley explained in his 2003 National Review article "Stand and Fight: Don't Take Gay Marriage Lying Down" why he feared a trial by any judge. The fundamental problem for the anti-gay forces was the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas declaring unconstitutional the state law making consensual adult sodomy a crime. The Supreme Court decision confirmed its unwillingness to treat "traditional attitudes towards homosexuality" as legitimate bases for discriminating against gays.
*
Bradley recognizes that whether we describe these "traditional attitudes" as revulsion, discrimination, or homophobia, they provide no rational basis for laws that discriminate against homosexuals.
*
Indeed, Scalia's dissent proved the point that the majority made in Lawrence -- the majority was discriminating because it despised a minority group, a classic violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Bradley warned his readers that trying to prove to a court that there was a "rational basis" for discriminating against gays was a disastrous legal strategy.
*
This is why opponents of homosexual marriage are desperate to avoid any trial in which they would be required to support their claims that such marriages would harm heterosexuals' marriages. Note that the disasters that Bradley fears are not televised hearings or the harassment of experts testifying in opposition to homosexual marriage. The disaster he fears is any fair trial because it will expose the fact the attacks on gays are baseless. He recognizes that this will cause immense harm to those that wish to discriminate against homosexuals by exposing their bias and by demonstrating that gays are normal rather than demonic.
*
Bradley's primary strategy is passage of a constitutional amendment removing the protection of the 14th amendment from homosexuals who wish to marry. His secondary strategy, which he believes would fail, is to create a new "natural law" theory that would provide a rational basis for the return of even the most draconian forms of discrimination against gays.
*
Bradley and Robert George, a fellow new natural law theorist, have acknowledged in their articles, the "rational basis" for prohibiting homosexual marriage that they claim arise from their theories cannot be demonstrated. . . . This is why those hostile to gay rights feared a trial on Proposition 8 rather than relishing the opportunity to back up their claims in court.
*
Regardless of what happens in the short term in respect to Judge Walker's ruling in Perry, in the long term the dam has been broken and a full blown trial with high media coverage has sent the message to many more Americans that there is no legitimate reason - and religious belief is NOT a legitimate reason - to deprive same sex couples of full equality. Ted Olsen and David Boies did a masterful job of documenting the lack of any non-religious justification for Prop 8 - or any other anti-gay laws or state constitutional amendments.

Gay Marriages Resume in California - It's Decision Time for Obama

Judge Walker has ruled that he will not stay his decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger and, therefore, same sex marriages will resume in California starting on August 19, 2010. Walker's decision to allow marriages to resume is due largely to his view that the non-governmental Prop 8 supporters cannot appeal unless the State of California in the form of the governor or the attorney general files an appeal. It comes down tot he "standing" issue I've previously discussed on this blog and in related posts at The Bilerico Project. Needless to say, the Christo-fascists are none too happy (see the photo above) and claim that Judge Walker mocks God. Meanwhile, of course, they totally mock the U.S. Constitution and forget that this nation is governed by the civil secular laws, not their twisted and hate based version of Christianity. The Virginian Pilot has this on Judge Walker's latest ruling:
*
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- The federal judge who overturned California's same-sex marriage ban has more bad news for the measure's sponsors: he not only is unwilling to keep gay couples from marrying beyond next Wednesday, he doubts the ban's backers have the right to challenge his ruling.
*
Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker on Thursday rejected a request to delay his decision striking down Proposition 8 from taking effect until high courts can take up an appeal lodged by its supporters. One of the reasons, the judge said, is he's not sure the proponents have the authority to appeal since they would not be affected by or responsible for implementing his ruling.
*
Walker gave opponents of same-sex marriage until Aug. 18 at 5 p.m. to get a ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on whether gay marriages should start before the court considers their broader appeal. Their lawyers filed an request asking the 9th Circuit to intervene and block the weddings on an emergency basis late Thursday.
*
San Francisco Chief Deputy City Attorney Therese Stewart, who during the trial helped argue that Proposition 8 should be overturned, said that while it will not be up to Walker to decide the eligibility issue, "it's very realistic" that the 9th Circuit could reach the same conclusion.
*
As previously discussed here, the Ninth Circuit would seem to have the case law precedent to readily refuse review of Judge Walker's ruling. Such a refusal could set the stage for a similar rejection of the Prop 8 supporter's efforts by the U.S. Supreme Court.
*
With this setting, the time has come for Barack Obama to declare once and for all whether he is friend or foe of the LGBT community and LGBT Americans. The days of his parsing words and trying to be only half pregnant if you will are over. Having alienated so much of the activist base of his own party, Obama's continued defense of bans on gay marriage are a "deal breaker" for me and I am moving more and more towards hoping Obama has a primary challenge in the run up to the 2012 presidential election. Chris Geidner at MetroWeekly has a good analysis as to why Obama has come to a crossroads where he must put up or shut up and poses four questions that Obama must now answer. Here are highlights from Chris' article:
*
The caution bred by seeing gospel singer Donnie McClurkin, who has preached about ''curing'' homosexuality, on the campaign trail and Pastor Rick Warren, who endorsed Proposition 8, at the inauguration turned into suspicion or even distrust. This was seen many times, most clearly in the lackluster LGBT response to the Obama administration's action on hospital visitation and the animosity in some corners to the certification language in the ''Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' compromise amendment.
*
Over the course of the next two or three months, however, marriage – whether Obama wants to deal with it or not – is very much going to be an issue for the Obama administration. What's more, Obama did not hold and, from Axelrod's comments, continues not to hold the view that most LGBT Americans and liberal activists wish he held.
*
The way in which Obama handles the appeals of these [DOMA]cases is likely to have a long-lasting, if not permanent, effect on his relationship with the LGBT community. As was clear at the LGBT media meeting with Barnes, communication – or the lack thereof – will be key. But, substance must underlie that communication if it is to be effective.
*
In addressing these cases, four substantive questions to be answered by the administration are:
*
Will the Justice Department appeal the decisions in Gill and Massachusetts, thus continuing to defend the validity of Section 3 of DOMA in the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals?
*
Will Obama take an individual position on the constitutionality of DOMA, and what is it?
*
Will Obama take an individual position on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, and what is it?
*
Will the Obama administration address its views on Proposition 8 to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals through the filing of an amicus curiae, or friend of the court, brief in any appeal of Perry?
*
Regardless of whether Obama or Axelrod believe or want it to be so, two judges in three lawsuits have put same-sex marriage front and center on the national stage. Pretending it not to be so is no answer, and failing to communicate more effectively and substantively about the administration's actions and Obama's positions regarding same-sex marriage could be disastrous.
*
Although Obama may say he no longer favors legalizing same-sex marriages, he has opposed restrictions on those marriages as discriminatory and promised to work toward equality for same-sex couples.
*
I and many, many others in the LGBT community are watching and waiting. If Obama continues to throw us under the bus again, he's likely lost my support permanently - he lost my trust long before now. It's up to him to prove that he's not just another cynical, lying politician who has played the LGBT community for a bunch of suckers.

LGBT Community Needs New Rules for Democrats

This past Thursday I was asked to consider joining the local Democratic City Committee as a voice of the LGBT community. In addition, I was asked to attend an event on this coming Tuesday evening where the state party leadership will be in attendance. I accepted the invitation with a warning that I am none too happy with the Democrats and, in fact, am an advocate for the "Don't Ask, Don't Give" campaign. I asked are you sure you want to hear what I've got to say, because the Democratic leadership probably isn't going to like what I have to say. On issues ranging from DADT repeal to employment non-discrimination protections, Democrats give plenty of lip service in terms of supporting full legal equality for LGBT citizens, but fall miles short on delivering real action. The sell-out DADT repeal compromise that might not even pass the U.S. Senate is a perfect example of nice talk but only less than half measure action. Ironically, Act on Principles has a new post on what the LGBT community needs to tell the Democrats are the new operating rules. They mirror my own thoughts and I will certainly deliver this message come Tuesday. Here are some highlights:
*
RULE ONE(Democratic Treasurer rule):
*
Old Rule: It is more important to win a Democratic House and Senate Majority than lose that majority or potential majority fighting for LGBT equality. And both are mutually exclusive of one another. This rule can also apply to the Presidential race.
.
New Rule: It is AS important to fight for LGBT equality, as winning or keeping a House and Senate Democratic Majority. And neither are mutually exclusive. This rule also applies to the Presidential Race.
*
RULE TWO:
*
Old Rule: Money and support will be given by the LGBT community to Democratic candidates, in turn for the expectation that they will be supportive of LGBT issues.
.

New Rule: Money and support will “earned” by Democratic candidates who demonstrate CONTINUED SUPPORT of LGBT issues.
*
RULE THREE:
*
Old Rule: LGBT donors will give to Democratic candidates and Committees first (DNC, DSCC, DCCC) and expect leadership on LGBT equality later.
.
New Rule: LGBT donors will FIRST expect Democratic candidates and Committees (DNC, DSCC, DCCC) SUPPORT for equality, and will DONATE LATER.
*
RULE FOUR (Harold Ford Rule):
*
Old Rule: African American and/or Southern Democrats get a pass on advocating for LGBT equality.
.
New Rule: African American and Southern Democrats are expected to be MORE VOCAL for LGBT equality as those communities are disproportionately impacted by homophobia and inequity.
*
RULE FIVE:
*
Old Rule: It is ok and understandable if a Democrat refers to his or her culture, religion, or upbringing as reasons not support full LGBT equality.
.
New Rule: It is offensive and no longer acceptable if candidates embrace the bigotry of their culture, religion and/or upbringing as reasons not to support full LGBT equality.
*
RULE SIX:
*
Old Rule: If LGBT community supports Democratic candidates and the candidate is successful in their race, the LGBT community can then ask the newly or re-elected Democrats to support equality. If key votes or legislation are not delivered, the candidate should continue to receive the same support during re-election.
.
New rule: If LGBT community supports Democratic candidates and the candidate is successful in their race, the LGBT community will demand the newly or re-elected Democrats to support LGBT equality. If key votes or legislation are not delivered, the candidate WILL NOT and SHOULD NOT receive similar support during re-election.
*
Will the Dems like the new rules? I doubt it, but it is time for LGBT Americans to stop being used by Democrats who claim to be gay supportive and then never follow through. Barack Obama's broken campaign promises illustrate the cycle that must be broken. How many times do we have to be played for suckers before we say NO MORE?

The Religious Violence of "Defending Marriage"

A friend who is a retired professor formerly at a large ELCA seminary and who is very supportive of gay equality recently forwarded me a column written by Dr. Jon Pahl, Professor of the History of Christianity in North America at The Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia. The column was published in Sightings, an electronic journal of the University of Chicago Divinity School. Interestingly, Pahl calls anti-gay marriage laws a form of religious violence. I agree with his verdict completely and I have often advocated to members of my own ELCA parish that anything less of full acceptance of LGBT individuals works spiritual violence against those who are born LGBT through no choice of their own. Would that more Christians would adopt Pahl's perspective. Sadly, many never will because their own severely screwed up psychological issues pertaining to their own sexuality and others because they see anti-gay jihad as a lucrative money maker. Here are some highlights from Pahl's column:

*

A recent article in The Atlantic and recently released Lutheran documents give good reasons to revisit the status of gays and lesbians across American society. Unfortunately, few commentators to date have addressed the most troubling development of the past few years: the growth of DOMA Laws, or "Defense of Marriage Acts." These laws are forms of religious violence.

*

The rationales for such defensive laws are often couched in neutral, "secular", or "naturalist" language. But the move to establish such laws came from religious groups, notably conservative Protestants, Catholics, and Mormons. And the logic and appeal of these laws also originates in religion, and functions as a form of violence. Six theses can clarify the contours of the religious violence embedded in these laws.

*

1) DOMA Laws violate sacred texts. Many of the arguments against gay and lesbian civil unions or marriage appeal to biblical texts from Genesis, Leviticus, Romans, or I Corinthians. But such arguments impose upon the texts a twentieth century understanding of sexual identity alien to the Jewish or Hellenistic cultures in which these texts arose.

*

2) DOMA Laws elevate heterosexual marriage to idolatrous status. In some communities of faith, defending "marriage" has become all but an item of confessional status (it is absent from any historic Christian Confessions). This arrogates to a majority – heterosexuals – special privileges (economic, social, and spiritual) not available to sexual minorities.

*

3) DOMA Laws scapegoat gays and lesbians. As Rene Girard argues, scapegoating is a chief manifestation of religious violence. It is difficult to see what real threat is posed to heterosexual intimacy, much less to civil society, by the desire of homosexuals for similar rights. It is easy to see how DOMA laws organize consent over and against a relatively voiceless and powerless group.

*

4) DOMA Laws sacrifice homosexual rights, and damage civil society, in the interest of religious purity. One measure of the justice in any society is how well it cares for vulnerable members. Sexual difference marks individuals as both vulnerable and "dangerous." And as Mary Douglass showed, any "danger" against which a law must defend is invariably constructed around some purity interest. DOMA Laws require gays and lesbians to sacrifice rights others take for granted, and render them subject to legalized forms of exclusion and discrimination. They damage the deep trust that is the most important social practice in civil society.

*

5) DOMA Laws confuse legislation with religion, and violate the First Amendment, as Ann Pellegrini and Janet Jakobsen have argued. It is entirely permissible (although ethically subject to scrutiny) for private communities to shape the boundaries of association in whatever ways members agree upon. It is a violation of the First Amendment's protection of free association to inhibit by law some forms of association that pose no harm to the common good, and a violation of the freedom from an established religion when religiously-inspired exclusions are written into law.

*

6) DOMA Laws perpetuate an association of sex with power, and thereby do damage to any sacramental sensibility that might remain in association with even heterosexual marriage. As Hendrik Hartog and other historians have shown, marriages have shifted in the modern era from patriarchal patterns of coverture to social contracts in which couples seek mutual fulfillment. Such contracts might be compatible with a sacramental sensibility, since they entail pledges of sexual fidelity and commitments to share social resources and responsibilities, along with (one might argue) other gifts of God. DOMA Laws associate sexual fidelity with legislated forms of coercive power, and inhibit the deep trust and mutuality intrinsic to modern (and sacramental) marriage. They establish hierarchies of relationships, and associate heterosexual unions (and sexual practices) with dominance.

*

Such laws point, unfortunately, to a deep tendency of religions to consolidate power through exclusion, as Miroslav Volf has so cogently shown; these laws have no rationale for their existence apart from that exclusion. People who wish to "defend" corrosive influences on marriage – and I count myself as one – might actually find allies among gays and lesbians who desire public recognition for their pledges of fidelity and their commitments to share resources and responsibilities with one another. A true defense of marriage would not involve mean-spirited exclusions, but would embrace practical policies that strengthen deep trust and support families facing economic challenges.