Will the Supreme Court Take Utah's Gay Marriage Ban Appea?

With the 4th Circuit poised to release its ruling in the Virginia gay marriage ruling at any moment, with Wisconsin announcing that it will appeal the ruling striking down that state's ban to the 7th Circuit, the growing question is what will the U. S. Supreme Court do with the soon to be filed appeal by the state of Utah's appeal from the 10th Circuit ruling upholding the U.S. District Court ruling that declared Utah's gay marriage ban to be unconstitutional.  Based on Utah's pitiful argument before the 10th Circuit, any appeal to the Supreme Court will likely involve a regurgitation of the arguments - e.g., marriage is for procreation, it's a state rights issue, etc. - that to date have failed to impress any of the numerous U.S. District Courts and state courts that have found state marriage bans to violate the equal protection and due process guarantees of the U.S. Constitution.  Andrew Sullivan provides a good synopsis of the different "reading of the tea leaves" of what the court may do.  Here are highlights:

The court doesn’t have to take the case, of course, but Denniston explains why they might choose to:

With the case going to the Justices via such a petition, the Court will have complete discretion whether to review the Tenth Circuit ruling, or pass it up. Utah officials are almost certain to argue that the Court should take up the issue promptly based on the argument that there is now a conflict among federal appeals courts on the constitutionality of such bans.

The Eighth Circuit upheld such a ban, but that was in 2006, seven years before the Supreme Court’s Windsor decision — a ruling that many judges have said changed the legal landscape for review of those state laws. In the Windsor decision, which involved only a federal law, the Court indicated that it was not taking a position at that time on the validity of state laws forbidding same-sex marriages.

But there is no such conflict between courts regarding this particular case, so the justices might prefer to hold off:

While most observers expect the high court to take up the issue of marriage equality within the next few years, the Associated Press notes that the court has a history of declining to consider cases without divergent rulings from lower courts. In the Kitchen case, a federal trial judge and the 10th Circuit both ruled that the state’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. If the Supreme Court declines Utah’s request to hear the case, those lower rulings will stand, definitively declaring Utah’s marriage law unconstitutional and striking down the voter-approved law.

Some legal experts, however, doubt the court will turn it down:

“I think the Court will take the case. Since [U.S. v.] Windsor, all of the lower courts that have ruled have struck down laws prohibiting same sex marriages,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, the Dean of the University of California, Irvine School of Law. “Perhaps without a split in the lower courts, the Supreme Court will wait. My prediction, though, is that the Court knows the issue needs to be resolved and will take it.” And if the Court does hear the case, all eyes will be on Justice Anthony Kennedy, not simply because he’s the traditional swing vote, but because he has written all three decisions in Supreme Court history that advanced gay rights. “I also predict that the five justices in the majority in Windsor will be the majority to declare unconstitutional laws that deny marriage equality to gays and lesbians,” Chemerinsky said.

Also yesterday, Alito denied without comment a county clerk’s plea to stop same-sex marriages in Pennsylvania. “That appears to remove the last potential legal barrier to Pennsylvania becoming the nineteenth state in which same-sex marriages are permitted,” Denniston adds in an update. And, in other good news, a judge struck down Colorado’s marriage equality ban yesterday, though the decision is stayed pending appeal. The speed of all this is simply staggering.

Perhaps I am biased, but I believe that the Supreme Court will taker the Utah appeal and that ultimately, state gay marriage bans will all be ruled unconstitutional for reasons similar to those expressed by the majority in United States v. Windsor.   Yes, the shrieking and lamenting of the Christofascists will be off the charts.  But at the same time, the justices can see where the mood of the country is going and, if the Court is to maintain relevance and respect - especially after the ridiculous ruling in Hobby Lobby, there really is only one way for the Court to rule: gay marriage is a constitutional right.
 

Inside George W. Bush’s Closet

Like myself, a number of LGBT activist and bloggers are former Republicans who finally reached a point where we could no longer live a lie and/or be involved in a political party that held us in contempt at best in terms of official party platform.  Yet others were willing to live a closeted life for advancement and/or political opportunities.  In my view, they basically were willing to sell their souls.  Now, Politico Magazine has a length piece that looks at the closet that existed in Chimperator George W. Bush's failed regime.  Here are some highlights, although one needs to read the entire article:

It was a slap in the face.” Steven Levine is remembering that day in 2006 when President George W. Bush took the stage in a small-town school gym in Indiana. It was October 28, right before the midterm elections, and Levine was a 22-year-old White House advance aide. He’d been camped out in Sellersburg all week, working to get the details just right for Bush’s campaign rally. The flags hung just so, the big presidential seal on the podium. Then Bush started talking, his standard stump speech about taxes and supporting the troops. But a new applause line took Levine by surprise. “Just this week in New Jersey,” the president said, “another activist court issued a ruling that raises doubt about the institution of marriage. We believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman, and should be defended. I will continue to appoint judges who strictly interpret the law and not legislate from the bench.”

The crowd loved it. Levine was crushed.

He was gay and working for a Republican and convinced it was possible to be both at the same time.

Like dozens of other gay colleagues in the Bush White House, many of them closeted, Levine had been sure that Bush himself was personally tolerant even if the GOP was not—and uncomfortable with gay-bashing as a way to win elections. But this was a rebuff, and it was hard not to take it personally: “To be working extraordinarily hard with all of your energy, working through many nights for somebody that you believe in, and to hear that person that you work so hard for come out against something that you are.”

Levine stayed with Bush right upuntil the president hopped into the armored presidential limo for the ride to Barack Obama’s inauguration 27 months later. As the taillights disappeared down Pennsylvania Avenue, Levine left town. A few months later, one of his gay friends who had also worked in the White House sat down in front of Facebook and counted the Bush White House staffers he knew to be gay. He came up with at least 70 (only two of them women).

That number—and after speaking with two dozen sources I have no doubt it was an incomplete tally—has surprised almost everyone I’ve told.

“Did we have a lot of people in the closet in the administration?” says one former senior official in the Bush White House whose office included at least three gay staffers. “I used to say we had an entire warehouse.”

In recent months, I’ve reported extensively on life in the closet of the Bush White House, and a number of his former aides are quoted on the record in this story for the first time about their experiences as gay Republicans in an administration that was perhaps the last of the era when institutionalized discrimination against gays and lesbians was still legal, if increasingly frowned upon. Their accounts offer a time-capsule view of a Republican Party—and a president—at war with itself over an issue on which public opinion and the law have now changed dramatically. At the time, it seemed to be great politics for Bush

For some of his [George W. Bush's] gay aides, it was a struggle to reconcile the decency they usually saw up close with the frequent reminders, both large and small, that theirs was a party very publicly committed to the view that they were not entitled to the same legal protections as other Americans.

Personally, I cannot grasp the mindset of someone who would sell his/her soul to such a regime and imagined advancement. In my case, when the GOP in Virginia welcomed in the Christofascists and began to intertwine religion and the civil laws, I left the GOP and cited my disgust in my resignation later.  Since that time I have endeavored to see the GOP defeated whenever and wherever possible,  I am convinced that the GOP cannot be changed from within and that only repeated electoral defeats may, and I stress the word may, lead to change.

Federal Judge Plans To Strike Down Ohio Marriage Recognition Ban

In yet another defeat for those who seek to keep gays inferior under the civil laws, a federal judge in Ohio has announced that he will be issuing a ruling that will strike down Ohio's ban on recognition of same sex marriages legally performed in other states.  He is not striking down the ban across the board despite his announced reasoning for why he plans to strike down the ban on recognizing out of state marriages due to the posture of the case before the court..  Faced with yet another loss, oOne has to wonder when the National Organization for Marriage is going to close down and Brian Brown will have to find a real job.  BuzzFeed has details on the judge's announcement. Here are highlights:

Following a hearing Friday, a federal judge in Ohio announced he plans to rule that Ohio has to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples granted out of state.

In a docket entry summarizing the hearing, the court stated, “The Court anticipates striking down as unconstitutional under all circumstances Ohio’s bans on recognizing legal same-sex marriages from other states.”

Ohio’s 2004 law and constitutional amendment barring same-sex couples from marrying also bar the state from recognizing the marriages of same-sex couples performed elsewhere. The case is not about whether Ohio must issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but only the recognition portion of the state’s laws.

U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Black previously ruled in December 2013 that the state had to recognize out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples for the limited purposes of listing a couple as married on a death certificate of one spouse. The state has appealed that ruling to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.

This case, brought in February on behalf of Brittani Henry and Brittni Rogers, initially was about birth certificates, and being able to have parents’ marriages recognized on them, but, per Friday’s docket entry, the decision will be finding the recognition ban unconstitutional “under all circumstances.”

Presuming the state will appeal this coming ruling as well, expected by April 14, the case would join the other Ohio recognition case, as well as Tennessee and Kentucky cases about marriage recognition and the Michigan case about full marriage equality in that state, on appeal before the 6th Circuit.

Per The Independent, the judge said he based his decision on the fact that not recognising out-of-state same-sex marriages denied their “fundamental right to marry a person of their choosing and the right to remain married.”

Leading Republicans Move to Stamp Out Wingnut Challenges

More or less when I was exiting from the Republican Party I saw some of the early waves of the Christofascists beginning to over run the Republican Party of Virginia.  As these lunatic elements were elected to local committees, many moderates left in disgust as the GOP became a sectarian party for all practical purposes.  Things have only gotten worse as many of  the Christofascists have repackaged themselves under the Tea Party label.  Regardless of which label they use for themselves, these people are extremists who look to subvert the separation of church and state and who long for the days of the Jim Crow laws and when gays were closeted and largely invisible.  With the changing demographics of the country, if the GOP continues to go down this course it will become a permanent minority party.  Some in the so-called GOP establishment realize this even as they continue to prostitute themselves to these ignorance embracing extremists.  With the 2014 mid-term elections approaching, the establishment seeks to crush the insurgent forces of the Christofascists/Tea Party.  The New York Times looks at the effort.  Here are highlights:

As conservative activist groups stirred up trouble for establishment Republican Senate candidates in 2010 and 2012, party leaders in Washington first tried to ignore the insurgents, then tried to reason with them, and ultimately left it to primary voters to settle the matter.

But after several of those conservatives — in Nevada, Colorado and Delaware in 2010 and in Indiana and Missouri in 2012 — managed to win their primaries but lose in the general election, party leaders felt stung by what they saw as avoidable defeats.

This election season, Republicans led by Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky are taking a much harder line as they sense the majority within reach. Top congressional Republicans and their allies are challenging the advocacy groups head on in an aggressive effort to undermine their credibility. The goal is to deny them any Senate primary victories, cut into their fund-raising and diminish them as a future force in Republican politics.

“I think we are going to crush them everywhere,” Mr. McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, said in an interview, referring to the network of activist organizations working against him and two Republican incumbents in Kansas and Mississippi while engaging in a handful of other contests. “I don’t think they are going to have a single nominee anywhere in the country.”

Elevating the nasty intramural brawl to a new level, Mr. McConnell on Friday began airing a radio ad in Kentucky that attacked both Matt Bevin, the businessman challenging him in the Republican primary, and the Senate Conservatives Fund, one of the groups trying to oust Mr. McConnell and a political action committee that has been a particular thorn in his side.

The escalating tension between party leaders and Tea Party-aligned activists in groups like the Senate Conservatives Fund, the Madison Project and FreedomWorks arises from the activists’ view that some top elected Republicans are major obstacles to enacting conservative policies and need to be replaced.

The conservative activists say they are dedicated to deposing the lawmakers at the risk of losing seats.

“I know this: Politics doesn’t like losers,” said Mr. McConnell, who suggested that a high-profile series of defeats would deflate the groups. “If you don’t have anything to point to, it is kind of hard to keep it going.”

Even if they are shut out in attempts to oust incumbents, leaders of these organizations do not show signs of quitting. They say they are in the early stages of a long-term effort to build a movement, no matter what their scorecard looks like after the primaries and the general election. And they have not given up on this year yet.

“It is game on,” said Matt Kibbe, the head of FreedomWorks. “I think we are going to win one of these races.”

The GOP brought this problem on itself by initially welcome in these extremist elements, especially when George W. Bush and Karl Rove used anti-gay amendments in many states to mobilize the Christofascists and those who now wave the Tea Party banner.  And John McCain made things worse when he picked Sarah Palin - an utter lunatic in my view - for his VP running mate.  For many in the GOP, including my late mother, Palin's selection was the last straw. These elements should never have been given any legitimacy and the Frankenstein monster is going to be very hard to kill.

 

Ralph Reed: Federal Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment is a Dead Issue

With state bans on same sex marriage falling like dominoes some on the far right and in Christofascist camps are again calling for a federal constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage.  These Kool-Aid drinking elements do not grasp that the train left the station on that issue quite some time ago.  Not only is it unlikely that such an amendment could clear Congress, but it is even more unlikely that the measure could win approval of the requisite number of states.  While most Christofascists remain in utter la la land on the issue, surprisingly Ralph Reed is taking the position that such a federal constitutional amendment is a dead issue.  I met Reed years ago during my GOP activist days when he still headed up the Christian Coalitio and while I don't like his politics, I would never view the man as dumb or unintelligent.  I'd also put him in the closeted Republican category - he was very attractive in person and he made my gaydar go literally off the charts. :)   Here are some highlights from Huffington Post:

Former Christian Coalition leader Ralph Reed, now head of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, conceded in an interview at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on Friday that a federal marriage amendment that would ban gay marriage in the U.S. Constitution is a dead issue for GOP presidential candidates. Mitt Romney vowed to push for an amendment banning gay marriage in 2012, and George W. Bush announced his support for an amendment in 2004 and made it a big part of his re-election campaign.

Reed, who in his speech at CPAC attacked "left-wing bullies" whom he said forced Gov. Jan Brewer to veto an anti-gay bill in Arizona and railed against the Obama administration for fomenting a "war on religion," said in an interview with me on SiriusXM Progress that he doesn't "know of anyone [among possible GOP contenders] who plans to run for president in 2016" who supports gay marriage.

However, agreeing that no potential GOP 2016 candidate has yet to come out in favor of a federal marriage amendment, Reed conceded that it would be "trying to put the genie back in the bottle."

"Even if you passed a federal marriage amendment," he said, "I would assume it would grandfather in anyone who's been married, so I don't know. It was always a very difficult option. I don't think we ever got 50 votes in the U.S. Senate for that amendment. So, we always knew that the amendment was going to be very difficult to pass."

Texas Same Sex Marriage Ban Struck Down

Two of the Texas plaintiffs

 UPDATED: Here's the language the Court uses to demolish the usual proffered justifications for anti-gay discrimination:

Defendants in this case have identified two bases or purposes for Section 32: (1) to increase the likelihood that a mother and a father will be in charge of childrearing; and (2) to encourage stable family environments for responsible procreation. These bases fail rational basis review as explained below.

(1) Childrearing

There is no doubt that the welfare of children is a legitimate state interest; however, limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples fails to further this interest. Instead, Section 32 causes needless stigmatization and humiliation for children being raised by the loving same-sex couples being targeted. See Bostic, 2014 WL 561978, at * 18. "Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples have happy, satisfying relationships and form deep emotional bonds and strong commitments to their partners." Perry, 704 F. Supp. 2d at 967. Homosexual couples are as capable as other couples of raising well-adjusted children. See id. at 980 ("Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted"); Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d 862, 899 (Iowa 2009) ("Plaintiffs presented an abundance of evidence and research, confirmed by our independent research, supporting the proposition that the interests of children are served equally by same-sex parents and opposite-sex parents.")  Defendants have not provided any evidentiary support for their assertion that denying marriage to same-sex couples positively affects child rearing.

[T]his Court finds that far from encouraging a stable environment for child rearing, Section 32 denies children of same-sex parents the protections and stability they would enjoy if their parents could marry.

Furthermore, Defendants' proffered reason fails rational basis because Defendants have failed to establish how recognizing a same-sex marriage can influence, if at all, whether heterosexual couples will marry, or how other individuals will raise their families.

(2) Procreation

The procreation argument raised by Defendants also fails. The notion that same-sex marriage will encourage responsible procreation assumes that heterosexual marriage is "naturally procreative." However, procreation is not and has never been a qualification for marriage.  . . . . This procreation rationale threatens the legitimacy of marriages involving post-menopausal women, infertile individuals, and individuals who choose to refrain from procreating. See Bishop, 2014 WL 116013, at *30. These individuals who cannot or will not procreate are allowed to marry under Texas' current laws.

Therefore, Section 32 makes "no sense in light of how [it] treat[s] other groups similarly situated in relevant respects," and consequently, "encouraging stable environments for procreating" does not provide a rational basis for Section 32.

ORIGINAL POST: The dominoes continue to fall as today a federal court in Texas ruled that the Texas gay marriage ban is unconstitutional.  Expect plenty of shrieking and flying spittle from Christofascists circles which must be smarting as it is from all of the blow back against Arizona's Christofascist backed "turn the gays away" bill sitting on Gov. Jan Brewer's desk.  In the ruling, the Court found that there was no rational basis to support Texas' intentionally discriminatory ban,  Here are highlights from Huffington Post followed by the text of the Court's 48 page opinion (I will have further commentary once I read the opinion in full this evening):

U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia ruled Wednesday that Texas' ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, the Houston Chronicle and the Dallas Morning News report.

Garcia issued a preliminary injunction on the state's ban, citing Supreme Court precedent. However, Garcia issued a stay on his order, meaning the ban will remain in effect pending appeal.

“Today’s court decision is not made in defiance of the great people of Texas or the Texas Legislature, but in compliance with the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court precedent,” Garcia wrote in the order. “Without a rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose, state-imposed inequality can find no refuge in our U.S. Constitution.”

Texas Gay Marriage Ruling

Oregon AG Joins 5 States in Refusing to Defend Gay-Marriage Ban

As noted in my February column in VEER Magazine, an attorney's highest ethical duty is to the Court, not his or her client.  An attorney is ethically bound to (i) not proffer untrue facts or (ii) not misrepresent binding case law authority.  Here in Virginia, Attorney General Mark Herring recognized this ethical duty (much to the hysterical distress of Christofascists and the Republican political prostitutes) and refused to defend Virginia's foul Marshall-Newman Amendment and refused to lie to the Court about the stat of the case law on anti-gay measures.  Today, yet another state attorney general, this time Ellen Rosenblum in Oregon (pictured above), refused to defend that state's gay marriage ban stating that Oregon's ban could not be meet the level of scrutiny required.  Bloomberg.com has details.  Here are excerpts:

Oregon’s attorney general said she won’t defend her state’s ban on same-sex marriage, joining other top law enforcement officials in refusing to fight challenges to similar prohibitions in five other states. 

The law “cannot withstand a federal constitutional challenge under any standard of review,” Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum said in a court filing today in Eugene. She said the state will continue to enforce the ban unless it’s overturned by a court.

Rosenblum followed fellow Democratic attorneys general Kamala Harris of California, Mark Herring of Virginia, Lisa Madigan of Illinois, Kathleen Kane of Pennsylvania and Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada in refusing to defend lawsuits challenging gay-marriage bans.

Litigation over the issue has spiked since a June U.S. Supreme Court decision invalidating part of a law that limited federal recognition to heterosexual marriages. Since then, four courts have overturned state bans on same-sex unions. Three of those decisions are on hold pending appeal.

Rosenblum announced her refusal to defend the Oregon ban in an answer to federal lawsuits brought last year against her and Democratic Governor John Kitzhaber.

“State defendants admit that performing same-sex marriages in Oregon would have no adverse effect on existing marriages, and that sexual orientation does not determine an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and enduring relationship,” she wrote in the filing. 

“The Attorney General has taken a close look at the facts, and came to the same conclusion that courts around the country and freedom-minded Oregonians have: there is no reasonable or legal justification to exclude committed gay and lesbian couples from marriage,” Mike Marshall, campaign manager for Oregon Untied for Marriage, said today in a statement. 

Rosenblum said in her own statement that while her office usually defends the state in litigation, “there is no rational basis for Oregon to refuse to honor the commitments made by same-sex couples in the same way it honors the commitments of opposite-sex couples.” 

Katharine Von Ter Stegge, who represents the Multnomah County assessor, a defendant in the lawsuits, had no immediate comment on the attorney general’s court filing.

The cases are Geiger v. Kitzhaber, 13-01834, and Rummell v. Kitzhaber, 13-02256, U.S. District Court, District of Oregon (Eugene).

No doubt Rosenblum will be pilloried by the Christofasicts who prefer lies, untruths and unethical conduct over a perceived betrayal of their hate and fear based religious beliefs.
 

Hate Group NOM Threatens to Sue Indiana Over Gay Marriage Ban

The last six to eight months have been really bad for the National Organization for Marriage ("NOM"), an anti-gay hate group which claims to want to "protect traditional marriage" yet has disseminated all manner of anti-gay lies and falsehoods.  Starting with United States v. Windsor and continuing through last week's ruling in Virginia that struck down Virginia's same sex marriage bans, nearly every lawsuit filed has prevailed in invalidating state marriage bans.  NOM keeps shrieking for money, but its not good for NOM's fundraising - or NOM president Brian Brown's comfortable life style - to have nothing but a string of defeats to show for millions of dollars in spending.  Hence NOM's hysteria over the development in Indiana that has ended the possibility of an anti-gay ballot initiative in November, 2014.  As the Windy Channel is rporting, Brown is now making spittle flecked threats that NOM will sue the State of Indiana if the ballot measure doesn't move forward.  Apparently, standing doesn't matter to NOM nor do the string of court cases which have struck down amendments such as the one NOM seeks to force on Indiana.  Here are some highlights:

A national group that promotes traditional marriage is considering whether to take legal action to force HJR-3 on the Indiana ballot in November 2014.

The measure came to a halt on Monday, when the Senate did not return the bill its original status, in which it would impact civil unions.

The National Organization for Marriage tells RTV6 that they met with the House Speaker Brian Bosma on last Wednesday.  "We are building a coalition of the willing and looking for legislators who are willing to join in this task," said Chris Plante, regional director of NOM.

Freedom Indiana has been the leading group opposing HJR-3.

"The fact is people don't want this issue taken to a constitutional amendment. They don't think it should be done with this issue of same-sex relationships and legal recognition. To me it reeks of desperation," said Freedom Indiana spokeswoman Megan Robertson. "They couldn't get a vote in the House. They couldn't get it in the Senate. The legislative process worked and a court case is trying to go around democracy."  Robertson has been the voice and face of the bi-partisan campaign.  She went on to say about any challenge,"I think they will be unsuccessful."

With no wins to show for its efforts, Brown no doubt is worried that he may lose his plush six figure income and have to - God forbid - get a real job.  As I said before, the most tawdry whore has more integrity than Brian Brown and his fellow Christofascists who are leeches who prey on the ignorant and bigoted.

Los Angeles Times: Courts Will Further Gay Marriage Advances

Today's first post looked at where gay rights may go in 2014.  As noted, there is much to be done and anti-gay animus remains far too wide spread.  If one wants to see but one example, to demonstrate the level of anti-gay animus behind Virginia's Marshall-Newman Amendment, the amendment was added to the Virginia Constitution's Bill of Rights of citizens as if the backers wanted to underscore that Virginia gays were indeed less than full citizens.  But I digress.  Looking forward in terms of the advance of gay marriage, an editorial in the Los Angeles Times posits that the courts will lead in making further advances happen.  This seems plausible in states like Virginia where Republican - slavishly obeying the dictates of The Family Foundation, an anti-gay hate group - will continue to block the repeal of anti-gay laws and constitutional amendments.  Here are highlights from the editorial and its analysis:

Even by the standards of this extraordinary year for gay rights — during which more than half of the 18 states that now recognize same-sex marriages were added to the list and the Supreme Court struck down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act — the last couple of weeks have been remarkable. Within a few days, courts made gay marriage legal in New Mexico and Utah, and a ruling in Ohio forced some state recognition of such marriages.

But those recent court decisions have also fed the long-standing perception among conservatives that gay marriage has been pushed through by "activist judges" forcing their personal beliefs on an unwilling populace. In fact, most of the states where marriage is recognized got to this stage through votes, mainly by state legislatures but in a few cases by the people themselves through ballot measures. Of the 18 states, only seven, including California, legalized gay marriage through court decisions.

It is, of course, preferable for progressive marriage laws to reflect the will of the people. . . . But, in truth, the road to civil rights historically has involved a mix of approaches — popular opinion, lawmaking and court ruling — each affecting the others. The repeal of state laws against interracial marriage, for instance, followed this path, with a combination of judicial rulings and voluntary state repeals in the late 1940s and beyond until, in 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned such laws in the 16 states that still had them. Some of the state decisions to repeal discriminatory marriage laws took place when a majority of Americans still favored such restrictions. But increased recognition of these rights by both legislatures and courts led to increased public support by the early 1960s.
It has been the same with gay marriage so far. . . . .  As a growing number of states have sanctioned gay marriages, more Americans have had an opportunity to observe that they have no effect on traditional heterosexual marriage, which in turn leads to more acceptance and more laws passed. And societal recognition has an effect on judges, whose decisions have reflected that growing acceptance at the same time that they have been ahead of it.

Now, the fight for same-sex marriage is entering a new phase. The low-hanging fruit — states without strong laws banning gay marriage and with more progressive populations — is pretty much picked and the new battles will be in stiffly resistant territory. In 32 states, same-sex marriage is banned by a combination of laws and constitutional amendments, which means change is less likely to come via popular or legislative votes. Courts will play a bigger role.

The most recent case in point: Utah, viewed as a hot spot of antipathy toward same-sex marriage because it is home to the headquarters of the Mormon Church, which strongly opposes such marriages. The state so far has lost its efforts to halt a ruling by U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby that struck down Utah's marriage ban.

One thing, though, is certain. Despite anger toward these supposedly anti-democratic decisions, judicial rulings have a necessary role to play in the advancement of civil rights, even when public and legislative opinion isn't on the same side. Especially when it isn't.

Candidly, I think the analysis is on point and, hopefully, one or both of the gay marriage lawsuits in Virginia will lead to the striking down of the Marshall-Newman Amendment if some other case before the U.S. Supreme Court doesn't do so first.

Gay Couple Files Lawsuit Challenging Ohio' Gay Marriage Ban

In follow up to my post on Lambda Legal (and other self-anointed "gay elites") perhaps being in a snit over the federal law suit filed last week by a Norfolk, Virginia, now a couple in Ohio has filed a federal lawsuit in that state.  Obviously, if Lambda Legal and the ACLU want to monopolize the filing of such lawsuits, they need to get on the ball.  ABC 5 News reports on the new suit in Ohio.  Here are details:

CINCINNATI - Two Cincinnati men who married in Maryland last week filed a federal lawsuit Friday claiming it is unconstitutional for Ohio not to recognize their marriage.  While the marriage of John Arthur and Jim Obergefell of Over-the-Rhine is legal in Maryland, it is not in Ohio.

The suit, filed by the couple, states the way the law treats marriages between opposite-sex couples is unfairly different from the way it treats marriages between same-sex couples.  "It's blatant discrimination," said the couple's attorney Al Gerhardstein. "It's a denial of equal protection."

The suit points to an example of a marriage between first cousins. In Ohio, it is illegal. But if first cousins go to another state and marry where it is legal, Ohio will recognize their out of state marriage as valid.

"Equal protection demands that opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples should be treated the same," Gerhardstein said in a release. "John and James were validly married in Maryland. If they were an opposite sex couple, Ohio would recognize their marriage. Being a same-sex couple is no longer a good enough reason to deny them equal rights."

While Lambda Legal has its reasons for having lawsuits coordinated, as I noted before, there is growing frustration in states like Virginia where those who some call the "gay elites" sit safely in gay friendly jurisdictions like New York and Washington, D.C., and lecture those faced with no rights or legal protections, give them a pat on the head and then tell Virginians and others "be patient, we know best."  One must not forget that when the Hollingsworth v. Perry suit was filed, these same elites argued against the case being brought.

The reality in Virginia is that only federal court rulings will bring marriage equality in the near term since the Virginia GOP has gerrymandered General Assembly districts in such a manner that public approval of gay marriage can and will be flouted as the Virginia GOP continues to prostitute itself to the Christofascists.

States with Anti-Gay Marriage Amendments Have Highest Percentages of Gay Couples Raising Children

The Christofascists played a lead role in passage of anti-gay marriage amendments - in Virginia, The Family Foundation orchestrated the passage of the Marshall-Newman Amendment - in the hope it would stigmatize same sex couples and perhaps discourage parenting by same sex couples.  A new study by the Williams Institute shows that the results have been just the opposite: states with anti-gay amendments have the highest percentages of same sex couples raising children.  Here in Virginia, surprisingly Virginia Beach has 24% of sames sex couples raising children (see the image above).  Talk about busting The Family Foundation's bubble.  The Los Angeles Times looks at the study's findings:

Salt Lake City: the gay parenting capital of the United States?  Unexpected as it may sound, a new study finds that the Utah capital and its outskirts have the nation's highest percentage of gay or lesbian couples raising children.  Among couples of the same sex in the Salt Lake City area, more than 1 in 4 are rearing children, the analysis of census data reveals.

That fact may seem at odds with perceptions that San Francisco and New York are the centers of gay and lesbian life. Pop culture depicts gays and lesbians turning to adoption, sperm banks or surrogacy to form families in decidedly liberal cities such as Los Angeles.

But the reality for gay parents can be very different, said Gary J. Gates, the researcher behind the new estimates from the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law.  For instance, "a big chunk of them are people who had children young, with opposite-sex partners, before they came out," Gates said. After coming out, they raised those children with a partner of the same sex, he explained.

That may be one reason that in some more conservative places not known for celebrating gays and lesbians, a striking percentage of same-sex couples are rearing children, Gates said. Among states, Mississippi has the highest percentage of gay or lesbian couples raising children — 26% — his analysis of census data found.

"When you ask, 'Why are you living here?' they almost always say family," said Abbie Goldberg, an associate professor of psychology at Clark University in Worcester, Mass., who has studied gay and lesbian parents in rural areas. "It shouldn't really be surprising. They value family — and now they're creating families of their own."

Activists who support marriage rights for gays and lesbians said the study underscores that many couples are raising children in states where they lack the protections of wedlock.

 Among the most significant things gay marriage bans do is harm children of gays and deprive them of stability.  But then again, once children leave the womb, the Christofascists don't really give a damn about them.  

The GOP Again Denigrates LGBT Lives and Relationships to Drive Voter Turnout

Never under estimate the cynicism of some in the Republican Party to trash LGBT citizens and damage lies in the quest to make sure the Christofascists turn out and vote on election day.  We saw this behavior back in 2004 when Karl Rove and his forces of evil pushed to get anti-gay marriage amendments on the ballot to drive Christianist turnout and help secure the re-election of George W. Bush, a man who likely ought to be on trial for war crimes given the torture that was approved and utilized by his regime.  Now, it turns out that the GOP is up to the same old game in Minnesota where gay rights and lives have yet again been cynically put on the ballot.  Here are highlights from WCCO-TV 4 in Minneapolis:

But Brodkorb — once a powerful Republican insider — says a big reason it’s on the ballot isn’t family values. Top Republicans needed a way to get conservatives off the couch and into the voting booth.

“It provided a turnout opportunity for Republicans,” he said.  Brodkorb was former Deputy Chairman of the State Republican Party and top Senate staffer, and says GOP Senators knew a driving force behind the gay marriage amendment wasn’t morality. It was political reality.

Top GOP leaders thought they couldn’t beat incumbent Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar, and Republicans would stay home.  “The belief was, the United States senate race was not going to be close, and that Republicans needed and social conservatives needed a reason to get to the polls in November,” he said.  The marriage amendment brought thousands of protesters to the Capitol, and it passed with all Republicans and only one Democratic vote.

WCCO talked with a number of Republican leaders Monday night who declined to talk on the record.  The main group opposing the amendment, Minnesotans United, made this statement Monday night: “It’s disappointing to hear this freedom-limiting amendment was pushed solely for political gain. Regardless, in just a few short weeks, Minnesotans are being forced to vote on whether we will permanently limit the freedom to marry for gay and lesbian couples in our state. This amendment doesn’t represent our Minnesota values or what is best for our future, and we believe that Minnesotans will reject it.”

Brodkorb’s job with the state Republican party and the State Senate was to maximize the vote for Republicans, and he says many Senators saw this as a good way to do that. Ironically, he now says it’s a strategy that could backfire.

Opposition to the amendment is strong in the Twin Cities suburbs, and it could cause some Republican state Senators to lose.   Republican Senator Warren Limmer, (R) Maple Grove — the author of the marriage amendment — acknowledged GOP Senators did discuss some get-out-the-vote efforts “among many other amendment-related items.”

Thus, the sad truth is that LGBT citizens' lives do not matter to those in the leadership of the GOP.  Meanwhile, the ignorant loons in the Christofascist element of the GOP base are being played for suckers by the same GOP leadership that in truth doesn't give a rat's ass about "protecting marriage."  It's enough to make one physically sick. 

Can You Be Openly Gay and Survive in the South?

A column in the New York Times looks at the issue of being gay and living in the American South.  The short answer to the question asked in the caption of this post is, yes, one can be openly gay and survive in the South.  At least as long as you are willing to be a third or fourth class citizens and devoid of any non-discrimination protections whatsoever.  Oh, and did I mention that recognition of your commitment to your life partner will be banned by state constitution?   Provided one is willing to overlook these serious issues, then one can be happy and survive in many parts of the South - at least in the larger cities.  Areas of say Southwest Virginia on the other hand might make taking razor blades to your wrists look attractive.  Here are highlights from the Times piece:

Many people assume that because the South is the nation’s most evangelical and politically conservative region, it is probably also a hotbed for hate crimes against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. But while such crimes do occur, they are less common than in large urban centers, where the absence of a tight community and the abundance of strangers make it easier to target people for their differences. 

I should know: as a lesbian who has lived in the South my entire life, and in a small town in the Deep South for part of it, I’ve met many people — men, women and transgendered — whose sexual identity has not prevented them from living a life of acceptance, admiration and even respect by their families and communities. 

My friend Helen and her partner, Kathleen, for example, have made an enormous impact on the small town of Louisville, Ga., in rural Jefferson County.  .  .  .  .  .  It’s an unspoken truth that Helen and Kathleen are in a committed relationship, and yet they’re invited to social gatherings as a couple, and only a few months ago Helen gave the graduation address at the local high school. People know who they are and very likely understand the nature of their relationship, and it’s clear they value the investment that Helen and Kathleen have made in their community. 

In the mid-1990s, while in graduate school, I lived in the small city of Hattiesburg, Miss. There I met gays and lesbians who came to Hattiesburg from nearby rural communities like Petal, Wiggins, Runnelstown and even more far-flung places to enjoy the one gay bar that was within reasonable driving distance, or simply hang out with friends. Though they came for the comforts of a larger L.G.B.T. community, their sexual orientation was often known to their communities back home. 

And there is a limit to the acceptance. In the rural South, people love their sons and daughters and they may even break bread with the florist and his partner, but they still believe homosexuality is a sin. They draw the line at a gay pride march down Main Street, and they won’t stand for gay marriage. 

Still, as Alana’s Uncle Lee has shown America, there are gays living in the rural South who don’t all set out for the big city. They lead rich lives and have families, and sometimes even communities, that love them and accept them for who they are.

Despite the positive picture the article seeks to depict, all things considered, if I could leave the South and no offense meant to our friends, I would - in a heart beat.

Chris Kluwe: A Kick Ass Ally

I have written several times about Minnesota Vikings player Chris Kluwe's outspoken support for gay marriage and his condemnation of the Christofascists who through their anti-gay message and support for religious based bullying are responsible for untold gay teen suicides.   Now, Kluwe (pictured above) has been interviewed by Out Magazine where he further expounds on his pro-LGBT advocacy.   Here are some article excepts:

On September 7, you could sense the howls of laughter reverberating across the Internet after Kluwe’s excoriating letter to Maryland state delegate Emmett C. Burns Jr. was published on the sports fansite Deadspin and quickly went viral. A week earlier, in a letter brimming with self-importance, Burns had told the Baltimore Ravens to “order” linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo to cease advocating for same-sex marriage. Kluwe’s response was a master class in how to take down a pompous and wrong-headed ass.

“I find it inconceivable that you are an elected official of Maryland’s state government,” Kluwe’s letter started, reasonably enough. “Your vitriolic hatred and bigotry make me ashamed and disgusted to think that you are in any way responsible for shaping policy at any level.” Kluwe then went on to dismantle Burns’s position, point by point, culminating in a crescendo of wit and impishness -- and that now-fabled coinage. It’s worth running the penultimate paragraph in full, if only because it does such a good job of clarifying the issues:

“I can assure you that gay people getting married will have zero effect on your life. They won’t come into your house and steal your children. They won’t magically turn you into a lustful cockmonster. They won’t even overthrow the government in an orgy of hedonistic debauchery because all of a sudden they have the same legal rights as the other 90 percent of our population -- rights like Social Security benefits, child care tax credits, Family and Medical Leave to take care of loved ones, and COBRA healthcare for spouses and children. You know what having these rights will make gays? Full-fledged American citizens just like everyone else, with the freedom to pursue happiness and all that entails. Do the civil-rights struggles of the past 200 years mean absolutely nothing to you?”

“I’ve always relished breaking that stereotype of the dumb jock athlete because while I enjoyed athletics growing up, I also enjoyed reading and video games, and athletic sport is not what defines me as a person,” says Kluwe. “I think as more and more generations start rising through the NFL, a lot of these kids see that it’s OK to be something other than an athlete.”

But for Kluwe, taking a stand on gay rights is as instinctual as planting his foot into a ball. “It’s all about the Golden Rule,” he says. “Treat other people as you want to be treated. It’s that simple. It’s something that needs to be spoken about, and it’s something I can do while fulfilling my job as a football player.”

I'm not a sports follower in general, but I like Kluwe's style and intelligence - he can quote Voltaire or Ralph Waldo Emerson and reads voraciously - and I might just grow to be a Vikings fan.  As for the anti-gay Christofascists who Kluwe criticizes, I deem them to be one of the lowest and most vile forms of humanity.

Catholic Church Continues Its Anti-Gay Jihad in Minnesota

While the priestly sex abuse scandal continues to explode in many parts of the world - my Google search agent has turned up much coverage in Australia of late - rather than purge itself of predator priest and make just compensation to victims of child rapists, the Catholic Church continues to push an anti-gay rights jihad.  One of the centers of anti-gay Church activism is in Minnesota where an anti-gay marriage amendment is on the ballot in November.  The lies and hypocrisy are shocking, but par for the course for an institution which has organized a worldwide conspiracy to protect clergy who molest children and youths.  Think Progress has a piece that looks at the latest developments coming out of Minnesota.  Here are highlights:

Minnesota Archbishop John Nienstedt has penned a verbose letter calling on Catholics to support the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, which many priests read to their parishes last week. Nienstedt claims that he opposes discrimination against “brothers and sisters living with same-sex attraction,” yet admits that the entire reason to support the amendment is to keep gays and lesbians from marrying:

First, some ask, “Why is a constitutional amendment necessary?” Well, the fact of the matter is that politicians and activists are working right now in Minnesota to redefine the institution of marriage from one that bonds a man and a woman to any children born from their sexual union into another that licenses the romantic preferences of same-sex adults. [...]

Nienstedt’s letter is an exemplar of cultural abuse, simultaneously feigning compassion while advocating discrimination. It may, in fact, have had the opposite effect, as Catholics for Equality reported an uptick in lawn sign requests, with many reporting they walked out of their churches during the letter’s reading. According to the Facebook group, “I am Catholic. I am voting NO!”, many churches did not even read the letter. Nevertheless, the Minnesota Catholic Conference remains one of the largest donors to the amendment campaign, an alliance between the conference, Minnesota Family Council, and National Organization for Marriage.

Washington [State] Bishop Blase Cupich similarly wrote to parishioners earlier this month, urging them to oppose marriage equality so that opposite-sex couples continue to get “special support and recognition.”

How church going Catholic can reconcile supporting a Church hierarchy which has deliberately protected sexual predators with pushing for discrimination against normal, law abiding same sex couples is mind boggling.

Hypocrisy in California Part 2: California Prop 8 Donor, Douglas Hesse, Arrested for Molesting Boys

As noted in the prior post, Archbishop Cordileone isn't the only self-righteous, falsely pious hypocrite to experience a take down over the weekend.   Joining the list of those under arrest is California Prop 8 donor and homophobe extraordinaire, Douglas Hesse. Hesse's offense? Molesting numerous boys in true self-loathing homophobe fashion. I frankly have no sympathy whatsoever for either Cordileone or Hesse.  Both have ruined numerous lives, albeit in different manners.  Back2Stonewall has details on Hesse's arrest. Here are some highlights: 

A longtime anti-gay activist, California Prop 8 donor,  and  elementary school teacher was taken into custody on August 17th after admitting inappropriate contact with young boys.   Caleb Douglas Hesse, a teacher for the Morongo Unified School District since 1987 .   .   .   .   and a longtime youth volunteer with the virulently homophobic Evangelical Free Church of Yucca Valley, has  confessed to sexually abusing “numerous underage boys,” with authorities believe the crimes occurred between the early 1980’s and as recently as a week ago.”

Investigators say Hesse met the majority of the victims during overnight outings with a youth group at the Evangelical Free Church.  During his arraignment on August 21st Hess recanted his confession and changed his plea to “not guilty”.  Hess’s bail was set at 2,5 million dollars.

Note: Hesse is suspected of molesting boys for possible close to 30 years yet he was a vocal backer of Proposition 8 and belongs to a virulently anti-gay church.  He might as well have been a Catholic priest or bishop given the disconnect between what he did and what he preached.

Christianist Hypocrisy in North Carolina

Click image to enlarge

James Hamar - who is likely a distant cousin from South Carolina (and yes, he's gay) - had this image on Facebook and it was too good to pass up.  The image underscores the hypocrisy and selective reading of the Bible that are the norm for the Christianist crowd.  It also underscores why North Carolinians ought to be ashamed of the passage of Amendment One.   Like myself, James is of an activist mindset, so, if we are indeed related, I guess we must come by it genetically.

The Catholic Bishops' Crusade Against Gay People

With so many problems on so many fronts - with parishes closing, the ranks of the priesthood dwindling, and church membership falling - one would think that the Catholic bishops would have better ways to spend the large amounts of money being directed towards the suppression of the civil rights of LGBT citizens.  But instead we continue to witness an almost extreme hysteria against gays in dioceses across America country and the world.  One of the worse anti-gay zealots is Archbishop John Nienstedt of Minnesota (at left). Interestingly enough, however, it seems that more and more of his flock are ignoring his message.  Even more interesting is the refusal of Fr. Mike Tegeder to preach Nienstedt's message of anti-gay hate.  A lengthy piece in City Pages looks at the confrontation and the Catholics who are refusing to buy into Nienstedt's message.  Here are some highlights:

Which is why Mike's here, talking about it, slamming his finger on the desk and calling out the shame that his church promulgates. Calling out the way his church robs homosexuals of their dignity, the way it stares them down and claims they are "intrinsically disordered."

"The greatest threats to marriage are the economy, joblessness, alcoholism, drug abuse — there are a lot of threats to marriage, but it has very little to do with homosexuals having a committed relationship," says Tegeder, who's also a pastor at the Church of Gichitwaa Kateri. "I know committed same-sex people who are doing God's work."

Tegeder knows what the Bible dictates on homosexuality — along with what it dictates about shellfish, and mixed-cloth clothing, and all those other Bronze Age concerns. And he knows there's no single person responsible for the shame his church lifts from these passages.

But there is one person who could single-handedly end it all in the Twin Cities: His Excellency, the Most Reverend Archbishop of St. Paul and Minneapolis John C. Nienstedt.

"Nienstedt is just so rigid about these things," Tegeder continues, growing animated. "But, you know — just let go of it. What are we trying to defend? Marriage? Has the Catholic Church protected marriage? I mean, [Nienstedt] has a priest who impregnated one of his staff members, broke up their marriage, and the guy's still functioning! ... Why don't we take care of our own issues before we start imposing views onto other people who don't have the same religious beliefs?"

"I'm afraid these men have sex on the brain, and between you and me that's not the best place to have sex," says Leonard Swidler, a prominent Catholic theologian and professor of Catholic Thought and Interreligious Dialogue at Temple University. "Issues of birth control, marriage, divorce, married priests, female priests, same-sex marriage — it's all sex, sex, sex. They're sex maniacs."

Few fit Swidler's caricature of the current episcopacy more naturally than Nienstedt. Born in Detroit in 1947, Nienstedt took to the church early. His parents were devout Catholics, and it took little time for Nienstedt to find his calling, claiming from an early age that he'd someday become a priest.

 Nienstedt first showed his willingness to tow the church's anti-gay line while working as a bishop in New Ulm, which happened to coincide with the release of Brokeback Mountain. Nienstedt forbade his fellowship from seeing the film — a unique step among American bishops. Even more odd, he felt the need to explicitly detail the reasons for his decision in the diocesan bulletin.

Next he inserted into Mass what was colloquially called a "marriage prayer," instructing priests to force parishioners to "proclaim and defend [God's] plan for marriage, which is the union of one man and one woman."

This year, Nienstedt has also taken the extraordinary step of assigning priests and married Catholic couples to carry anti-gay messages to seniors in the archdiocese's Catholic high schools. The couple dispatched to DeLaSalle High School compared same-sex relationships to bestiality.

Nienstedt is, of course, parroting the Vatican's party line, and was recently burnished by Pope Benedict in a March visit to Rome. Still, few bishops have taken such public, vocal stands on the matter — and none have employed the panoply of methods the archbishop has utilized to get out the anti-gay message.

"[Nienstedt has] this idea that the truth is already complete, that he's got it, that he's the keeper of it, and that you make sure your experiences match this truth," says Bayly. "Such hubris. It makes him and the system they've built into what I consider to be a clerical caste. And it's the antithesis of what Jesus was about."

"There's a fear that the bishops utilize: If gays get the right to civil marriage, then the church will be sued if we don't marry them," Bayly says. "That's a crock. The church can choose not to marry divorced people, but you don't see straight couples getting turned away because one of them is divorced."

Bayly is planning more gatherings, more vigils. He's planning to write more op-eds, and will be trying, against the odds, to finally discuss with Nienstedt why the archbishop carries such a preoccupation, such an obsession, with the idea of same-sex attraction.

"I think this whole issue of homosexuality is the last one the bishops still have any sort of control over, and they see that going," Bayly says. "And that's why they're putting up such a huge fight. Because after that's gone, there's nothing left in the realm of sexuality that people will listen to them about."

Personally, I believe the main hallmarks of today's Church leadership are rank hypocrisy and a pathological obsession with all things sexual and gay sex in particular.  Most of the bishops are in my view very psychologically disturbed individuals.

Religion's War on Gays

Via City Watch

A piece in City Watch has an interview with Mel White, founder of Soul Force, which takes a pretty negative look at the status of gays in America - at least gays living outside of progressive major metropolitan areas (which excludes pretty much all f the cities in Virginia).  Despite the "It Gets Better" campaign, White maintains that for many in the LGBT community, things may actually be getting worse in "fly over states" as the Christian Right ramps up its efforts to denigrate and marginalizes gays and their families.  He gives particular focus on Lynchburg, Virginia which has come to be dominated by Liberty University and its creationist believing and gay-hating zealots.  While White may take too gloomy a view in someways, his indictment of religion is dead on.  Here are some excerpts: 

White and hundreds of Soulforce volunteers protest outside megachurches that preach hatred and bigotry in the name of religion. White travels to communities where young gays, lesbians, bisexuals or transgender people have committed suicide.

He holds memorial services for them in front of the church doors. He accuses the pastors of these churches of murder. His books “Stranger at the Gate: To Be Gay and Christian in America” and “Holy Terror: Lies the Christian Right Tell Us to Deny Gay Equality,” are two of the most important works that examine the innate cruelty and proto-fascism of the Christian right.

At its heart it is the church. The churches should be convicted, not just Ravi. He’s just an extension of the hatred that people feel about this threat, this gay threat. Pope Benedict XVI should be on trial. Richard Land from the Southern Baptists should be on trial. Religious leaders, Protestant and Catholic, should be on trial. They made this happen, but too few Americans make the connection.”

White applauds President Obama for taking a personal stand for marriage equality. But he also notes that the president’s statement was accompanied by a reiteration that states have the right to determine their own policies toward marriage.

Despite gains by gays in the wider culture, especially in the entertainment industry, and despite the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the civil rights of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people in most states are deteriorating, White said. 

White and Nixon left Virginia for California a few weeks ago because the culture, he says, had become increasingly inhospitable to gay couples. In distressed communities across the country there is a correlating rise in intolerance, hate talk and homophobia.

“When I moved to Lynchburg it was a blue city, in spite of Liberty University being there,” White said.   “We had an amazing progressive woman, Shannon Valentine, as our state representative. She visited our home. We had a progressive mayor and a progressive City Council. In 2009 everything went to hell. Our new attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli, is crazy. 

“We have 29 states that do not outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,” White said.   Transgender Americans are invariably the worst victims of discrimination and violence. And yet there are 44 states that do not outlaw discrimination on the basis of gender identity. There are 44 states that have laws or constitutional amendments denying us the rights of marriage, claiming our relationships are unholy, that we’re sick and icky,” White said.
 
“Too many of my sisters and brothers in the gay community don’t seem to understand the power of religion,” White lamented. “They have been rejected by religion. They hate the idea of religion. Therefore, they’re not going to deal with religion, which is fatal, because religion is the heart of homophobia.

“Without religion there would be no homophobia. What other source of homophobia is there but six verses in the Bible? When Bible literalists preach that LGBT people are going to hell they become Christian terrorists. They use fear as their weapon, like all terrorists. They are seeking to deny our religious and civil rights. They threaten to turn our democracy into a fundamentalist theocracy. And if we don’t reverse the trend there is the very real possibility that in the end we will all be governed according to their perverted version of biblical law.”  

Yes, it's a grim perspective, but living in a state like Virginia where we just witnessed religious extremism on a wide basis in the Virginia General Assembly, it is very important to recognize that the ultimate enemy of LGBT equality is religion.   

Support OBX Pridefest and Gay Friendly Dare County, NC

As noted before, the organizers of OBX Pridefest have been concerned over the consequences of the Amendment One Vote on this year's Pridefest event.  Initial reports of voting results incorrectly put Dare County in the column of bigoted counties that had voted for passage of the hideously anti-gay Amendment One.  Final tallies, however, showed that Dare County - the only county not home to a major city or university - had in fact voted against  Amendment One.  The organizers of Pridefest hope the word will get out that their portion of the Outer Banks is gay friendly and that supporters will come down and support their event.  As I have noted before, the Boyfriend and I attended last year's inaugural event and had a wonderful time. And, yes, we will be attending again this year.  Information on OBX Pridefest can be found HERE.  An article in the Virginian Pilot looks at the Dare County vote and the hopes and efforts of the Pridefest Organizers.  Here are article excerpts:

The first thing David Miller did when he heard that Dare County had voted down Amendment 1 opposing gay marriage was head to Facebook.

"There is no reason to boycott Dare County, North Carolina!" wrote Miller, who co-founded the nonprofit entity that organizes the gay-pride event OBX Pridefest. "We are the progressive, free-thinkers in this part of the state."

Miller had particular reason to be worried about the publicity over Amendment 1, which changed the state's constitution to define marriage solely as a union between a man and a woman. After it passed overwhelmingly, receiving 61 percent of 2.1 million votes in North Carolina, Miller heard from visitors saying they were no longer coming to his June event, to show opposition to the voting results.  "There was a very emotional, knee-jerk reaction from a lot of folks up North," he said.

Miller said he now thinks the publicity could help the 2-year-old OBX Pridefest, with more visitors venturing to the Outer Banks to show solidarity with the gay community. He's expecting 2,000 people to attend, up from 1,500 last year, partly because of the attention the amendment has attracted. The event will be held June 15-18.

Beth Storie was proud of her county's vote, but not necessarily surprised by it. In the 35 years she's lived here, she said she's noticed an acceptance in Dare that doesn't exist in neighboring counties.

Storie, who is not gay, planted a sign reading "Vote Against Amendment 1" in the yard of her Manteo home. A neighbor down the street had one, too. She thought it would encourage a dialogue with those holding a different view, but she's gotten more messages of support than contradiction.

"Even if they don't agree with it, they still practice tolerance" of gay people, she said. An active arts community has helped attract people with more variety in points of view, she added.

I sincerely hope that readers within reasonable distance of the Outer Banks will consider visiting OBX Pridefest.  I hope to see you there.