Let the game continue!

August 12, 2010 by Pastor Dan.

If you’ve been following the “ping-pong” match in the courts between lawyers for and against same-sex marriage in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case, here is the latest shot: Judge Vaughn Walker has lifted the stay as of the close of business on Wednesday, August 18. We of course will have to watch the news to see if an appeal by the losing Defendant-Intervenors for a stay is sustained by the 9^th Circuit Court, which is the next level up for this ping-pong match. – Dan Hooper

At 1:15 pm Marriage Equality USA posted the following information and appeal:

¶

Marriage Equality USA has just received word that Judge Walker has denied the stay and marriages can begin on August 18th at 5pm, but that decision is subject to an appeal.

“None of the factors the court weights in considering a motion to stay favors granting a stay. Accordingly, proponents’ motion to stay is DENIED. The clerk is directed to enter judgement forthwith. That judgement shall be STAYED until August 18th at 5pm…at which time all persons under their control or supervision shall cease to apply or enforce Proposition 8.”

We can’t say it enough. It is crucial that as we continue to move through the courts, we build support with the court of public opinion.

Lifting the stay and allowing marriage equality has the support of both conservatives and liberals. The California Governor and the Attorney General both asked for the stay to be lifted, saying they have no reason to continue discriminating against gays and lesbians and denying them the fundamental right to marry.

Remind fellow Californians that 18,000 same-sex couples married and no one was harmed when the gay family down the block was able to receive the happiness, dignity and protections that come with marriage.

If you hear 7 million Californians voted for Prop 8 and one judge overturned that vote, remind them that 14 times the US Supreme Court has ruled marriage is a fundamental right for all Americans. We shouldn’t vote on who can and cannot marry, just like we shouldn’t vote on whether Fox News should have the right to free speech or women should have the right to vote.

Most importantly, share your personal story. If you wanted to marry and couldn’t, share why you want to get married and the emotional roller coaster you are riding. If you were one of the 18,000 couples to marry, talk about how that experience made you feel. And share how we as a community will be stronger when we live in a world where a child who is born gay can dream about falling in love and getting married…and have that dream come true.

Stay engaged with Marriage Equality USA. Join our facebook page, get involved with your local chapter, and volunteer. It’s a marathon, we know… But we need your help and together we will win…

Founded in 1998, Marriage Equality USA is a national grassroots organization whose mission is to secure legally recognized civil marriage equality for all, at the federal and state level, without regard to gender identity or sexual orientation. For more information go to www.marriageequality.org.

¶

Posted in Lesbian/Gay Marriage, LGBT Rights, Public Affairs | Print | No Comments »

ADF misrepresents Yale study.

August 6, 2010 by Pastor Dan.

After the previous post’s review of the Alliance Defense Fund’s participation in Perry v. Schwarzeneggar, the landmark case decided earlier this week by Judge Vaughn Walker, I looked further into ADF’s web site. The ADF is self-described as ” a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith.”

As we know, the argument to “save the children” from the scourge of knowing about homosexuality and therefore opening the possibility—they think—that some children will grow up with open minds about homosexuality, figures prominently into the highly inflammatory rhetoric about gay and lesbian couples.

Never mind that many of the same-sex couples who wish to, or have already, wed are not raising children, the “save the children” mentality assumes that civil marriage is primarily about procreation and nurturing the young. So, of course the social conservatives wish to pull in every bit of evidence they can to bolster their view that two moms or two dads either can’t do a decent job of parenting or homosexual parents will harm the children. That argument, by the way, failed to be presented convincingly in Judge Walker’s court room, for lack of evidence.

But look what I found on the ADF’s web site (the right-wing Christian legal outfit who put up at least 8 attorneys to fight back against Olson and Boies): In the press release announcing that ADF will enter an appeal of Walker’s ruling, it said this:

“A recent study conducted by Yale University supports the position that children, all things being equal, should be raised with their own mom and dad: 81 percent believe that society should do everything possible to encourage the ideal of children being raised by their mom and dad, 57 percent believe the law should encourage that children be raised by a mom and a dad, 68 percent worry about the decline of the traditional family, and 70 percent believe that a man-woman relationship is important in teaching children about how men and women interact.”

Since such an 81% finding would seem to be quite the opposite of reports I have read elsewhere suggesting that no harm is being done to the kids, I wanted to know what Yale University said that “supports the position.” This 17-page report from the “Cultural Cognition Project” are actually preliminary findings of a survey on people’s attitudes, not on whether the children are actually alright or are being harmed by gay or lesbian parents. Event at that, what is “summarized” on the ADF page is grossly misleading. The Findings reported on page 4 reveal that 57% said “the law should encourage that children be raised by heterosexual couples wherever possible.” It also reported:

• 56% said that when a court decides whether a person should be allowed to adopt their partner’s children, the court should not be allowed to consider the person’s sexual orientation.
• 58% said Gays and lesbians should be allowed to legally adopt children.
• 59% said Gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve as legal foster parents.
• 59% said Lesbians should have access to sperm banks on the dame terms as heterosexual women.

In fact, the 81 % figure shows up only on page 9 in the Yale report where it is used to label “Liberals.” But the report’s authors say, “Those who oppose gay and lesbian parenting generally view it as a threat to the ideal of the biological family.” They are not reporting data which show that biological families are harmed in any way, or that children are harmed in any way, but that gay/lesbian parenting is “a threat to the ideal of the biological family.”

Apart from the fact that heterosexual divorce and remarriage should be seen similarly, or for that matter, the orphaning of children, etc., what exactly is a threat to an ideal? Is a alleged threat to an ideal sufficient basis to deny civil rights to real people? Is an ideal, any ideal, sufficient reason to shape public policy in a manner which categorically treats an entire class of people as inferior to others? And for that matter, weren’t the anti-miscegenation laws for a big part of American history trying to protect “an ideal family” as all one color?

—Pastor Dan Hooper

Posted in Family, wingnuts, Lesbian/Gay Marriage, LGBT Rights | Print | No Comments »

The Legal Playing Field on the morning after.

August 5, 2010 by Pastor Dan.

It was this morning’s top headline: “Ban on gay marriage overturned.” I expected that. The Los Angeles Times article [updated 7:42 a.m.] reviewed much of the same ground that yesterday’s on-line commentaries did. I have already downloaded the decision and read the back-end completely, from page 109–136, so I’m already somewhat familiar with Judge Walker’s careful legal reasoning in dispensing the Pro-Prop 8 arguments one by one under the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the federal 14^th Amendment.

After dispensing with other pro-prejudice arguments (two moms or two dads aren’t good for the children, etc.), and underlining the complete lack of supporting evidence for those arguments, Judge Walker concludes that the State of California has no compelling reason to deny lesbian and gay couples the fundamental legal right of marriage. “The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples,” he wrote.

Still, it is interesting to see what others have to say about the quality of the decision, especially authoritative minds. Shannon Price Minter was quoted in the Times, for example. She is the legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) a major player in the larger LGBT movement for many years. Said Minter: “This is a tour de force—a grand slam on every count. This is without a doubt a game-changing ruling.”

(The game that changes is because of a judicial ruling which goes beyond the close-in arguments about the meaning and scope of civil marriage, to rather help build a case in support of full equality before the law for sexual minorities.)

It did not surprise me that the defense counsel had little to say–the guys hired to defend the constitutionality of Proposition 8. At least in what they were quoted a saying, there was no counter-argument (e.g. that Judge Walker had erred in legal reasoning, that there is solid evidence that gay marriage will wreck heterosexual marriage, damage children, destroy the institution and sink the State of California, etc.) except the one which attempts to stoke right-wing indignation: How dare the judge decide against the 52.3% majority of voters who [having been intentionally mislead in the fall of 2008 by a blitzkrieg of anti-gay advertising paid for largely by members of the Mormon religion] said they don’t like gay or lesbian couples. The Times quotes Andrew Pugno (General Counsel for Protect Marriage) as saying that Walker’s “invalidation of the votes of over 7 million Californians violates binding legal precedent and short-circuits the democratic process.” The Alliance Defense Fund is calling Judge Walker’s ruling “dangerous.”

(Pugno has a tendency to puff and bluff, which is understandable because that is the posture of the organization which pays him. For example, this is what Pugno said about the lawsuit filed the day after Prop 8’s passage by the ACLU and Equality California: “The lawsuit filed today by the ACLU and Equality California seeking to invalidate the decision of California voters to enshrine traditional marriage in California’s constitution is frivolous and regrettable. These same groups filed an identical case with the California Supreme Court months ago, which was summarily dismissed. We will vigorously defend the People’s decision to enact Proposition 8.” As it turned out, the arguments advanced against Proposition 8 are certainly not frivolous, and Pugno’s “vigorous defense,” at least in Judge Walker’s court room, turned out to be a total dud.)

On “being intentionally misled” I think Protect Marriage sums it up for me:

“In the campaign, voters were told clearly that voting YES on Proposition 8 would do 3 simple things: . . .

• It would protect our children from being taught in public schools that ‘same-sex marriage’ is the same as traditional marriage, and would prevent other consequences to Californians who will be forced to not just be tolerant of gay lifestyles, but face mandatory compliance regardless of their personal beliefs.”And binding legal precedent is a valid concept. But it generally means that lower courts must abide by the decisions of higher courts. The whole concept of judicial review, which has been with this American republic for two centuries, is meant to, yes, have the authority to overturn legislation—whether written by elected lawmakers or by the initiative process—which is inconsistent with and in conflict with America’s highest principles. That’s what declaring a law “unconstitutional” is all about. The pro-Prop 8 attorneys, by the way, failed in Judge Walker’s courtroom to demonstrate that there is binding legal precedent for forbidding same-sex couples to have civil marital rights. For example, here is the Protect Marriage blog page for Pugno’s Closing Argument before Judge Walker 7 weeks ago:

Hmmm.  Whether pugnacious Pugno’s whimper has any muscle remains to seen. Judge Walker has given the defense counsel until tomorrow, August 6, to submit more papers for a follow-up hearing about whether Walker’s Order should be “stayed” until the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals has a chance to consider it. According to Times writers Maura Dolan and Carol Williams, “To win a permanent stay pending appeal, Proposition 8 proponents must show that they are likely to prevail in the long run and that there would be irreparable harm if the ban is not enforced.”

Meaning: the don’t-like-gay-marriage side must immediately convince Walker and/or the 9^th Circuit that when all the legal dust has settled, the anti-gay view will have won; and that permitting any more same-sex marriages in the meantime would cause “irreparable harm.”

The second half of this is easier for non-experts to analyze. For starters, can attorney Pugno prevent evidence now (that he couldn’t produce during the trial phase) showing that there was irreparable harm caused by the existing marriages of some 18,000 same-sex couples who wed between June and November, 2008? I don’t think so.

The first half is of course open to much debate. Will the anti-gay forces ultimately win? A lot of commentators still fear that the United States Supreme Court, if and when this case comes before them, and if they choose to review it, is so conservative it will make a decision that reinforces anti-gay prejudice in America for many years to come. That’s mostly a political guess based on attitudes which can and do shift. For example, the Lawrence v. Texas decision (2003) which decriminalized consensual sexual activity between persons of the same gender surprised many of us because we thought the right-leaning Supremes would echo the reactionary Bowers v. Hardwick decision (1986), a grossly prejudicial decision even for the times.

I can’t speak to the legal procedural issues on this, but it would seem to me that Pugno and his forces can’t argue for a “permanent stay” of Walker’s ruling on the assumptions that (a) this case will one day be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, (b) that they will accept the case, which they don’t have to do, and (c) that they will overturn the lower court. What comes in between is the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals, a noticeably more liberal court that could very much agree with Judge Walker’s legal conclusions.

So my suspicions are that Pugno and company (Texas attorney Austin Nimrocks representing the Alliance Defense Fund is another attorney being quoted, but there were a total of 11 attorneys listed on the Closing Arguments filing) will not be able to get a “permanent stay” against the Walker decision until the appeal process winds through the 9^th Circuit Court–which could take a year or two. This would mean that Walker’s Order (on page 136) would have to be given full force—Proposition 8 would not be enforceable and marriage licenses would begin to be issued again for same-sex couples. We should have an answer to this within days.

The Christian reactionary Alliance Defense Fund (founded by leaders of Campus Crusade for Christ, Focus on the Family and Coral Ridge Ministries among others), you will remember, is also opposed to hate crimes legislation. ADF also seems quite nervous about the Walker decision, if its website is any indicator, especially about the apparent intentions of the American Bar Association to endorse same-sex marriage later this week! See: ABA to Consider Same-Sex Marriage Measure” The ABA is meeting in San Francisco, beginning today (what timing, what synergy!).

—Pastor Dan Hooper

Posted in Family, wingnuts, Lesbian/Gay Marriage, LGBT Rights, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

Change looks like this!

August 4, 2010 by Pastor Dan.

Reaction has been swift to Judge Vaughn Walker’s sweeping decision that California’s Proposition 8 is unconstitutional because it violates both the equal protection and due process clauses of the U.S. Constitution’s 14^th Amendment.

But it is “all the usual suspects” who have weighed in during the last few hours — the Roman Catholic Bishops, the Mormons, the “Family Research Council” and the attorneys who “defended” Prop 8 in Walker’s federal court.

It is interesting that–in Judge Walker’s view and in the eyes of most independent observers—because the defenders of Proposition 8 made such a weak defense of the proposition, their official statements this afternoon do not take issue with Walker’s legal reasoning or conclusions, but instead try to throw the whole case back into the court of public opinion even while they vow to send the appeal to the 9^th Circuit Court.

The public opinion, of course, to which Alliance Defense Fund’s attorney Austin Nimrocks and attorney Andrew Pugno refer, is that the people voted for Prop 8 just as they had voted for Proposition 22 a decade ago. This is from the L.A. Now site of the Los Angeles Times:

Austin R. Nimocks, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund who fought to uphold Proposition 8 in Walker’s court, said they would appeal. “We’re obviously disappointed that the judge did not uphold the will of over 7 million Californians who made a decision in a free and fair democratic process.”Nimocks added that “tens of millions of Americans across this country” as well as Congress have expressed the belief that marriage should be limited to heterosexual couples. “To say that there is no reason whatsoever to define marriage as one man and one woman is not something that we expect to be upheld on appeal,” he said of Walker’s reasoning.Andrew P. Pugno, one of the lawyers who defended the Proposition 8 campaign in the trial in Walker’s San Francisco courtroom, referred comment on the judge’s decision to a spokeswoman for ProtectMarriage.com, who said the group opposed to gay marriage would later post a statement on its website. More than an hour after the ruling was issued, the group had yet to comment on it.

Walker’s “Conclusions of Law” [beginning on page 109] in contrast, quickly dispense with the popular vote and cite legal precedent that fundamental rights are not subject to the vote of the people.  Here are more stories and commentary:

The State Column “Prop 8 Ruling: Ban is Unconstitutional” www.thestatecolumn.com/blog/2010/08/prop-8-ruling-ban-is-unconstitutional/

The Wall Street Journal http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/08/04/breaking-news-sf-judge-shoots-down-proposition-8/Now 

Now Public www.nowpublic.com/world/prop-8-ruled-unconstitutional-protests-celebration-2647312.html  “US District Judge Vaughn Walker Rules Proposition 8 Unconstitutional”

USA Today : Faith & Reason http://content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/post/2010/08/prop-8-proposition-8-california-gay-marriage-vaugh-walker/1 ”Prop 8 ruling drives strong religious reactions: Outrage to joy”

The Washington Post On Faith : Religion Roundup http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2010/08/proposition_8_ruling_in_california_religion_roundup.html ”Proposition 8 ruling in California: religion roundup”

Los Angeles Times “L.A. Now / Southern California —This Just In http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/08/gay-marriage-foes-vow-to-appeal-prop-8-ruling.html ”Gay marriage foes vow to appeal Prop. 8 ruling [Updated 3:00 pm]”

— Pastor Dan Hooper

Posted in Lesbian/Gay Marriage, LGBT Rights, Public Affairs | Print | No Comments »

Another tipping point today?

August 4, 2010 by Pastor Dan.

I don’t know quite what to think or hope for this afternoon’s decision. Whether Judge Walker’s opinion is for us an with us, or against us (which is highly unlikely given the low level of intelligence during the trial coming from the Prop 8 defenders), it is not the last word, since the decision is more than likely to be appealed by either side.

The last word, since this is a federal case, is likely to be several years off before the U.S. Supreme Court. But given the current court, all we could hope for there is several more retirements and an Obama administration still in place to push through some nominations that will fairly judge our issues. The present nominee, Kagan, certainly trumps people like Scalia, Thomas, etc., but time after time we’ve seen a majority of the court who did not consider the entire scope of justice issues or found a way to elevate some values over others. I am still smarting from the Supremes’ decision last winter that corporations can legally spend as much money as they please to influence elections—and they called that a first amendment free speech right! (Treating the legal fiction that a corporation is a “person” in the eyes of the law of course.)

Bottom line: I don’t trust the Supremes to rule in our favor even though they certainly did in Lawrence v. Texas.

According to my e-mail, California Faith for Equality joins Community Prayer for Social Justice at 8pm tonight, August 4, at Father Serra Park on Olivera Street across from Union Station, with Latino Equality Alliance, Metropolitan Community Church Los Angeles, Moral Compass to Justice, and other faith leaders from across the city.

More interesting to me, California Faith for Equality will be holding a Statewide Faith Leaders conference call with Lambda Legal’s Senior Counsel, Jenny Pizer about the decision. Alas I have no details yet.

According to Marriage Equality USA, Judge Walker will issue his decision in the Federal Prop 8 case on Wednesday, August 3, 2010 between 1-3pm. The decision will be posted at www.cand.uscourts.gov and at www.marriageequality.org.

A huge amount of preparation has gone into responding/reacting to the decision. How we respond/react will depend on whether we feel vindicated or screwed by Judge Walker. I’m not sure that a huge amount of street demonstration power is a useful thing, but of course it will happen. It’s nice to see a show of strength in the streets, but our opponents don’t both with that and they keep right on raising enormous sums of money to fight us every way they can.

Here are a few more links:

Rex Wockner’s column

American Foundation for Equal Rights

GetEqual.org – site is current

Robin McGehee’s blog

California Faith for Equality - for some reason Google was identifying this as an unsafe site with “malware” this morning, so use your own judgment. But there’s nothing posted there about today’s decision. Hmmm.

—Pastor Dan Hooper

Posted in Lesbian/Gay Marriage, LGBT Rights, History, Public Affairs | Print | No Comments »

Boycott Target and Best Buy!

July 30, 2010 by Dan Hooper.

Date: Fri 7/30/2010 3:06 PMFrom: “Joe Solmonese, Human Rights Campaign” hrc@hrc.org
Subject:  Target and Best Buy!  Make it right!

$250,000 in donations to a rabidly anti-LGBT candidate? Tell Target and Best Buy: You need to make this right. Add your name!                         Dear Daniel, One candidate for Governor of Minnesota has promised to veto marriage equality legislation and has ties to a Christian rock band that advocates death to gays. Target and Best Buy, both based in Minneapolis, have donated $250,000 to a political committee supporting his campaign. But they still have a chance to make it right. We’ve drafted an open letter calling on the companies to donate an equal amount to support fair-minded candidates. We’ll publish it in a full-page ad in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. Will you help us ratchet up the pressure by adding your name? Tell Target and Best Buy to make it right. Add your name now. By signing on, you’ll help make it clear that Target and Best Buy are risking the business of millions of pro-equality customers – and show the rest of corporate America, which is watching this situation very closely, that support for hateful and intolerant candidates won’t go unnoticed. But don’t stop there. Print out our letter, take it to the manager of your local Target and Best Buy, and let them know how disappointed you are. Here’s the backstory: Earlier this week, reports surfaced that Target had donated $150,000 to the political committee MN Forward. Best Buy pitched in another $100,000. MN Forward’s mission? Elect as governor an anti-LGBT state representative with a long history of attacks on LGBT Americans. This representative’s campaign even donated to a controversial “punk-rock Christian ministry” whose leader has advocated executing gays and lesbians! After all these two companies have done to build a fair and equitable workplace, it’s a slap in the face. In years past, Target and Best Buy consistently received 100 percent ratings on the Human Rights Campaign Foundation’s Corporate Equality Index. They need to make this right – by donating an equal amount to support candidates who will fight for equality. But they won’t do it just because we ask. They need to see that hundreds of thousands of customers across the country are upset and disappointed. Add your name now. I hope Target and Best Buy will do the right thing. But it’s up to us to show that fair-minded consumers are paying close attention to what they do next. Let’s make this happen, Joe Solmonese President  Share on Facebook  Share on Twitter This link is specific to you, so please take action on this campaign before you forward to your friends. Having trouble clicking on the links above? Simply copy and paste this URL into your browser’s address bar: https://secure3.convio.net/hrc/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=911

© 2010 The Human Rights Campaign. All rights reserved. Human Rights Campaign | http://www.hrc.org/ 1640 Rhode Island Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036-3278 Phone: 202/628-4160 TTY: 202/216-1572 Fax: 202/347-5323

Do not reply to this email. This inbox is not monitored on a regular basis. Replies to this email will not be read or responded to. If you would like to unsubscribe from a specific Human Rights Campaign list, or update your account settings, you can visit your Subscription Management Page.

Well, I was pretty outraged by this, and I have to assume it is accurate, even if Human Rights Campaign did not entrust us with the actul facts.  I frequently shop in both of these chains, especially the Target store in, of all places, West Hollywood, California. 

When I reflect back just a few years ago when people were fired or had a criminal record just for associating with a known homosexual, such guilt by association was assumed to be justifiable.  Politicians continue to use this practice to discredit and shame the other candidate and the other party.  Why then, if the public mind accepts the reasonable conclusion that association with bad is bad, should businesses be able to duck every blemish on their carefully-groomed public relations skin?

Fox News (!) reports that Republian candidate Tom Emmer doesn’t like the flap over the campaign contributions because “I thought we were supposed to be able to exercise our rights of free speech.”   Well, it is about free speech, so everybody is free, thanks to the Supreme Court decision earlier this year, to buy all the speech that their corporations want to pay for.  But that’s not the issue, Tom.  We are just as free to tell Target and Best Buy not that they don’t have a right to speak with their campaign dollars, but that we think what they’re saying is disgusting.

Am I being cynical about the Supreme Court?  Hardly.  The same Fox News story explains it in detail:

Target and other Minnesota-based companies, including electronics retailer Best Buy Co., Red Wing Shoes and snowmobile maker Polaris Industries Inc., donated to MN Forward after a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allowed companies to spend money on elections. The decision overturned prohibitions on corporate campaign spending in about half the states, including Minnesota.

If you can’t stand Fox News, catch the story on ABC News.

 

Posted in Violence, wingnuts, Lesbian/Gay Marriage, LGBT Rights, Public Affairs, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

Is DOMA doomed?

July 19, 2010 by Pastor Dan.

Another thing I’m slow to assess is the decision of the U.S. District Court judge in Boston to declare the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. According to Boston.com On July 8, Judge Joseph Tauro “struck down” the law which passed the Republican-controlled Congress in 1996—and to which Bill Clinton put his signature.

The Boston court is clearly the right venue to talk back to Congress on one of the two major issues which Tauro’s decision apparently addresses: that DOMA violates the rights of the individual states to control their own marriage laws. Massachusetts, afer all, legalized same-gender marriage in 2004.

One of the murkiest swamps in our national legal history are these periodic fights between the federal government and the states over who has jurisdiction on something. The present fight between Arizona and the Obama administration over immigration law is the current issue. The states and the feds have been doing this almost since the founding of the nation, and perhaps it will never all get settled, partly because every few years the control of Congress and the state houses flips back and forth between two political parties that seem to despise each other passionately.

Tauro drew on history in his ruling, writing that the states have set their own marriage since before the American Revolution and that marriage laws were considered “such an essential element of state power” that the subject was even broached at the time of the framing of the Constitution. Tauro noted that laws barring interracial marriage were once at least as contentious as the current battle over gay marriage.But in Loving vs. Virginia (1967), the federal Supreme Court that said its opinion trumps the states’ rights to regulate marriage, and so opened the doors to interracial marriages in a single stroke.John Corvino has an interesting reflection on the Tauro decision, in contrast to some poor assumptions on the part of Roman Catholic Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz, who chairs the U.S. Bishop’s “Ad Hoc Committee for the Defense of Marriage“. (I stand by my remarks about “protecting marriage.” I told a reporter in June 2008 that “if you want to protect marriage protect your marriage. Buy your wife flowers, and listen to her when she talks to you.”)Marriage can no more be “defended” by keeping gay and lesbian couples away from it than a house can be defended from termites with a concrete block wall around it.Anyway, Corvino’s comments include three reasons why Archbishop Kurtz is wrong: ” . . . Third, and perhaps most interesting, there is an emerging social institution of marriage that includes gays. It’s time for the law to catch up to that.Last month I participated in a same-sex wedding for some dear friends. The Presbyterian church hosting the ceremony called it a ‘holy union,’ but just about everyone else called it a wedding—including the grooms’ families. There were tuxedos and champagne and cake and presents and all the other usual markers, including teary-eyed families witnessing solemn vows.The state where this event occurred (Michigan) forbids legal marriage for gays and lesbians. But each groom’s parents have begun referring to their son’s partner as their ‘son-in-law, and everyone around them understands why they do so.It’s not a legal reality. But it is a personal and social one.”Given the rejection of same-sex marriage by the Presbyterian assembly on July 9, I found Corvino’s personal observation of the Presbyterian “holy union” to be very compelling. Neither church delegates nor a partisan, sharply-divided Congress, can hold back the tides of change.But of course, Tauro’s decision could itself wind up before The Supremes, who have been pretty good at slowing the tides.

—Pastor Dan Hooper

Posted in Catholic matters, Lesbian/Gay Marriage, LGBT Rights, History, Public Affairs | Print | No Comments »

New victories, more recycled prejudice.

July 16, 2010 by Dan Hooper.

Yesterday was a pretty big day on my news radar, with the District of Columbia Court of Appeals turning back the homophobic forcers that wanted a fall ballot measure to get rid of same sex marriage.

You gotta feel for those “forcers” (it was a typo but I kinda like it!). They are trying to expunge us and our movement for justice and equality before the law by force because they see it and us as something like a dangerous infection to their values. Gert out the disinfectant, spray, clean and wipe, meaning: get rid of any evidence that gay tolerance and acceptance is “breaking out”. Forcefully overpower it with squeaky-clean-strict morality, and with money and law and lobbyists and anything else they can to intimidate it. Force shame upon us with righteous indignation, and push us back into our miserable closets.

Thank God it isn’t exactly working, even if Proposition 8 is still on the books in California (its Day will come in court—either Judge Walker’s court or another). Yesterday the world-wide movement for justice and equality got another big victory when the upper house of Argentina’s legislature legalized same-sex marriage, the 10^th nation to do so according to a very thorough BBC article on line.

The church continues, however, to get its shorts in a knot about these infectious signs of progress. According to the Human Rights Campaign story on the DC Court decision, “While Bishop Harry Jackson, a pastor in Maryland, has been the public face of this litigation, the truth is that outside groups like the National Organization for Marriage and the Alliance Defense Fund are the driving force behind these anti-equality measures.” Rev. Jackson (is he a so-called or self-styled bishop?) is clearly a front for money from Focus on the Family, the National Organization for Marriage, and Family Research Council, who coughed up $200,000 to put the initiative on the DC ballot. NOM, incidentally, is on an anti-gay marriage “tour” in New Hampshire right now. Relentless scrubbing of the American people trying to get rid of this infectious minority!

Money spent in DC is now money squandered, because the Appellate Court decision trumps the P.R. blitzes with which big money saturates the media. HRC reveals that “more than $40,000 to Schubert Flint Public Affairs, the firm behind the Yes on Prop 8 deal in California and the Question 1 deal in Maine, “similar fear-based strategies in each to spread misinformation and narrowly win both votes.”

The Latin American church has its shorts in a knot, too, about the decision in Argentina. According to the AP story,

The approval came despite a concerted campaign by the Roman Catholic Church and evangelical groups, which drew 60,000 people to march on Congress and urged parents in churches and schools to work against passage. Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio led the campaign, saying “children need to have the right to be raised and educated by a father and a mother.”This is just recycled prejudice. If it worked in California, maybe it will work in Argentina. Just spread misinformation about LGBT people and stoke indignation and maybe it will expunge the gay thing from the land!I am surprised the blowback in Argentina isn’t worse, given the fact that the law specifically allows gay/lesbian couples to adopt children. And the law will take effect in a matter of days.But what angers me about the Cardinal’s rant is that children continue to be pawns in adult relationships, even when just in concept. There is plenty of evidence that children are not harmed by having two moms or two dads, and in fact grow up remarkably well with only one mom or one dad. It is the quality of the relationship between parent and child that matters, not the gender or the sexuality.

Worse yet, same-gender couples do not all have children or desire children. This recycled prejudice tries to prevent all loving same-gender couples from having a civil and legal relationship with one another by shrieking about children. By my lights, I think we should start a national or global organization to protect the children from homophobia.

— Dan Hooper

Posted in Catholic matters, Homophobia, Lesbian/Gay Marriage, LGBT Rights, History | Print | No Comments »

Interesting times.

July 13, 2010 by Dan Hooper.

365 Gay: News

California trial opens on military gay policy

Associated Press • 07.13.2010 2:34pm EDT

(Riverside, Calif.) An attorney for the nation’s largest Republican gay rights group has told a judge he will use a statement by President Obama as part of a federal court lawsuit challenging the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

In his opening statement Tuesday at the trial in Southern California, attorney Dan Woods said he would enter as evidence Obama’s comments that the policy has weakened national security.

Woods is representing the Log Cabin Republicans. The group wants the judge to halt the policy that prohibits military members from acknowledging they are gay and requires them to be discharged if they are discovered to be gay.

The case puts the government in the position of defending the policy while Obama is pushing Congress to repeal it.

Soooo . . . .  while we’re still hanging on the decision in the federal trial over Proposition 8 (Judge Walker, where are you?), now comes a new trial over Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.  As with the Prop 8 case, this seems to be coming out of left field, if not stranger quarters.  My suspicion is that the Log Cabin Republicans —still using a closeted name from a bygone era when it was important to have an identity that didn’t say “GAY” in big letters—needed an issue to keep their own group alive.

I didn’t know LCR had the kind of resources to make a federal case out of DADT. But Woods’ take on this case could be fascinating.  But again I’m left wondering if the Log Cabin (fiscal conservative) Republicans are banking on the case becoming moot if the Pentagon self-study of the policy which excludes gays and lesbians from the armed forces–which is due to be completed in December—allows the Congress to move forward on repealing the law anyway.  Federal trials move equally as slowly as Congress.

And as I caught in the Los Angeles Times coverage of the efforts to repeal DADT, our wonderful Senator John (”Arizona Mindset”) McCain has threatened a filibuster to keep the Senate from considering the House-passed repeal bill.

Old Chinese curse:  “May you live in interesting times.”  Now it’s the Republicans who are keeping our times so interesting.

– Dan Hooper

Posted in LGBT Rights, History, Public Affairs | Print | No Comments »

Party of No reveals true prejudice.

July 8, 2010 by Pastor Dan.

The veto of House Bill 444 by Hawaii’s Republican governor Linda Lingle does not surprise me. The bill would have allowed civil unions in lieu of civil marriage for same-gender couples.

Remember that the state of Hawaii started all this marriage mess in America when in 1993 its supreme court found no reason under the current constitution to forbid same-gender marriage. The people of Hawaii then took it upon themselves to amend the constitution to make sure it couldn’t happen. The actual procedure differs from other states’ bans, but it has the identical affect. Take your gay/lesbian family elsewhere.

California has its own special issues, but I can’t help seeing a pattern in states where there are large concentrations of retirees as well as Relephantitis (the affliction of the Party of No): Arizona, Florida and Hawaii come to mind.

On the Party of No, the Governor’s own web site, http://hawaii.gov/gov brags on July that she has vetoed 32 bills. Her veto statement is here.

According to Associated Press, Lingle explained her veto: “There has not been a bill I have contemplated more or an issue I have thought more deeply about during my eight years as governor,” she said. ” have been open and consistent in my opposition to same-sex marriage, and find that House Bill 444 is essentially same-sex marriage by another name.”

Lingle’s prejudicial view may actually strengthen our case in the long run. Opponents have frequently said it is the name “marriage” that they want to protect but that they’re not against lesbian and gay couples from having legal protections which are similar or the same, as long as “tradition” marriage of “sacred” marriage are not involved. But Lingle has called the spade by its real name: prejudice. She doesn’t think our relationships and families should have any legal protections by any name.

There is no way that a minority (LGBT people) can affect the thinking of the majority without exposing prejudice every time it is involved.

It is also obvious to me that the battle will probably stay in the courts for some time, because all it takes is a prejudiced governor with Relephantitis to veto the work of many legislators who have already worked through an issue such as this as a political issue. Lingle is a lame duck but has an eye for her party’s chances in the midterm election only four months away. As Governor—think Schwarzeneggar—she doesn’t have to engage individual voters and their views or concerns, but she has to engage the media. So whatever she thinks will play well in the media is what she will do.

Lingle also commented in her press conference that voters, not politicians, should decide the fate of civil unions. Ahh, the eternal triangle between electorate, legislators and courts. But voters–as long as they are allowed to decide things by majority vote—will typically not vote for anything that benefits the minority. A bill or an initiative constitutional amendment is never framed to advise the voters to think and vote on behalf of persons other than themselves, i.e., for the good of the larger community, or for the good of a minority. Clearly, only a court or a representative) legislative group is charged to think and act on behalf of all citizens and not just a majority of citizens.

In the meantime, Lingle’s prejudice lingers in Hawaii.

—Pastor Dan Hooper

Posted in Homophobia, Lesbian/Gay Marriage, LGBT Rights, Public Affairs | Print | No Comments »

If we don’t tell we don’t exist.

June 22, 2010 by Pastor Dan.

This is a couple of weeks old but it’s worth reading, and participating in the survey (Link is below) — P.D.

Friends,

When I heard the news yesterday, I couldn’t believe my ears.

Rep. Ike Skelton, a Democrat from my home state of Missouri and the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said he was against the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” because he is worried it would force parents to explain homosexuality to their children and would open up a national discussion. “What do mommies and daddies say to their 7-year-old child?” Mr. Skelton asked reporters at a news media breakfast. [1]

It would be bad enough if Ike Skelton were just pretending that DADT still makes sense. But based on his comments yesterday, Skelton wants to pretend that LGBT people don’t even exist!

From anyone, these comments are uneducated and unfortunate; from a U.S. Congressmen, those kind of statements are simply unacceptable. That’s why we’re calling on Skelton to offer a full public apology to the LGBT people in his district, and across the country. Join us in demanding a public apology!

http://www.getequal.org/missouri.php

Sadly, Ike Skelton has a history of actively working against our civil rights. He was one of the original authors of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” legislation 17 years ago. [2] And it’s long been clear that the law needs to end. In fact, a 2010 poll found that 60% of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans believe that being gay or lesbian “has no bearing on a service member’s ability to perform their duties” and 73% say it is “personally acceptable to them if gay and lesbian people were allowed to serve openly in the military.” [3]

That’s why I’m asking you to sign this petition to call on Rep. Skelton to apologize for his remarks. Democrats and Republicans alike need to understand that our community is everywhere, and it is not okay to continue with this type of political homophobia.

I hope you’ll join me in signing this petition. Help us hold Rep. Skelton (D-MO) accountable by demanding that he represent the full diversity of his community and of communities across the country.

Sign the petition here! http://www.getequal.org/missouri.php

Get out, get active, GetEQUAL!

Thanks for your support,

Ed Reggi

Co-founder, Show Me No Hate

St. Louis, Missouri

[1] “He’d Rather Not Talk About ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/09/us/09brfs-HEDRATHERNOT_BRF.html

[2] “Skelton opposes repeal of ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’” http://thehill.com/homenews/house/76427-skelton-opposes-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell

[3] “Bi-Partisan Poll of Iraq & Afghanistan Vets” http://www.vetvoicefoundation.com/new?id=0002

Posted in LGBT Rights, History, Public Affairs, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

Transgander passports.

June 10, 2010 by Pastor Dan.

[This news comes to us from the National Center for Transgender Equality, by way of Lutherans Concerned/North America. — P.D.
Last night [July 9, 2010] the US Department of State announced new guidelines for issuing passports to transgender people. Beginning today, applicants for a gender marker change on their passports will need to submit certification from a physician that they have received “appropriate clinical treatment” for gender transition. Most importantly, gender reassignment surgery is not required under the new policy.

The new rules will also apply to changing a Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA) for US citizens who were born outside of the United States. CRBA’s are the equivalent of a birth certificate.

For years, NCTE has been advocating with the State Department to change their rules about gender markers on passports and CRBA’s. Previously they had required proof of irreversible sex reassignment surgery before the gender marker could be changed, although there were exceptions for temporary, provisional passports to allow someone to travel for surgery.

NCTE and other advocates have stressed with the State Department that this policy unnecessarily called attention to transgender travelers whose appearance and gender marker were at odds. In some destinations, this had the potential to create an extremely dangerous situation when a traveler is outed as transgender in an unwelcoming environment or in the presence of prejudiced security personnel.

Fortunately, the new rules represent a significant advance in providing safe, humane and dignified treatment of transgender people. There are details in the guidelines about what information a physician must provide and we will communicate those to you as soon as possible. However, the State Department notes that applicants will not need to supply any additional medical documentation and that there is no SRS requirement.

“We want to extend our thanks to the Obama Administration, and particularly to Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, for understanding the need for this change and then responding to make travel safer for transgender people,” commented Mara Keisling, Executive Director of NCTE. “This shows how changes in government policy directly impact people’s lives, in this case, for the better.”

In the next few days, NCTE will be issuing a definitive resource that fully explains the new guidelines and outlines the ways in which transgender people can make changes to their passports and CRBAs.

Many people-from elected officials to LGBT advocates-have worked for years to change these policies and deserve credit and thanks. Particularly important work was done by Rep. Barney Frank as well as Rep. Steve Israel in the House of Representatives; Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies (GLIFAA), which represents LGBT employees and their families working in foreign affairs offices for the US government; all of our allied LGBT organizations who have been committed to this work, including the Center for Global Equality, The Task Force, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Campaign; and those working on medical policies, including the American Medical Association and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH).

Phil Soucy
Director Communications LC/NA
communications@lcna.org

Further information is found at www.ncte.org.

Posted in LGBT Rights, History, Public Affairs, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

We are not criminals.

May 29, 2010 by Pastor Dan.

I know “criminals.” They are people who have been convicted of crimes. All of us break laws, but criminals are those who are caught.

I recently learned (where have I been?) what a RAP sheet is.  It is an acronym for Record of Arrests and Prosecutions. It is part of my continuing education about crime and justice, especially in light of our congregation’s emerging Mariposa Ministry, its outreach to prisoners and parolees. We have developed relationships with more than a dozen current and former inmates in California prisons. And this year we expect to help –spiritually and tangibly– at least three men who will be paroled in Los Angeles County.

So I know criminals. But what I also know is that many ordinary people, who break laws, are never arrested or prosecuted largely because of privilege or good luck. It is sad to admit that the world is not divided between “good” people and “bad” people, but between privileged and lucky people and under-privileged and un-lucky people.

Decades ago, when I was dating, it was still a crime for two persons of the same gender to have sexual relations. This was long before Lawrence v. Texas, and the sodomy laws in almost every state had the authority to put decent, upstanding people behind bars. I was one of the privileged and lucky ones. Knowing my gay brothers who are in prison, I realize I could have been in prison myself in the 1970s and 1980s, simply for being who I am.

But our entire world is still struggling to enlarge its understanding of human diversity and to stop using laws as a moral bludgeon to punish or destroy what it does not understand or does not want to see.

This spring, as we have watched the blunt force of African nations, specifically Uganda, trying to blame perceived social ills as a Western degradation, with a proposed death penalty for homosexual acts, I have been encouraged that sane voices have spoken up world-wide.  Thank God for the likes of Anglican Bishop and Nobel Peace Prize recipient Desmond Tutu for leading this fight in Africa (see: Desmond Tutu leads fight to halt anti-gay terror sweeping Africa.”

The battle is not over. But at least two gay men in Malawi have now been spared a near-certain death sentence (14 years of hard labor) for pledging their love to one another.  Their pardon came about, apparently, because of world moral pressure in the form of a meeting of the Malawian President Bingu wa Mutharika with U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

The CNN story released today quotes the White House as saying that gay people are “not criminals and their struggle is not unique.”

We are still mid-struggle in America for LGBTQI rights, and one of the battles we fight is with other oppressed peoples (including but not limited to African-American people) who don’t want to bestow the honored label of “civil rights struggle” on our movement. All it would take, I know, for our Black brothers and sisters to stop being protective of their struggle is for more Black gay men and lesbians to come out to their families and their communities. African-American sexual minorities, who have very little to fear by way of criminal conviction in this country for their sexual orientation or gender identity, could put their faces on the world-wide struggle for dignity, purpose and freedom. I hope the example two brave gay men in Malawi, Steven Monjeza and Tiwonge Chimbalanga, will encourage them.

—Pastor Dan Hooper

Posted in Ecumenical Issues, LGBT Rights, Public Affairs, Coming Out, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

Milk on the Capitol steps.

May 24, 2010 by Dan Hooper.

I am passing this on from my colleague Kerry Chaplin. I’m sorry I couldn’t be in Sacramento for this. – Dan Hooper

You honor Harvey Milk’s memory on what would have been his 80th birthday. Harvey Milk would be proud of your courage. And yes, I believe God is proud of you too.

— Pastor Wilk Miller, First Lutheran Church of San Diego

Sacramento faith leaders, Rev. Brian Baker, Rev. Jason Bense, Rev. Doretha Flournoy, and Rev. Lindi Ramsden, mark the legacy of California’s first Harvey Milk Day on the Capitol steps.

What a meaningful weekend!

Over 30 congregations, from Riverside and San Diego to Vallejo and Stockton, honored the legacy of Harvey Milk in their worship services to mark California’s first ever Harvey Milk Day.

In San Diego, East and Downtown Los Angeles, Fresno, San Jose, San Francisco, and Sacramento, clergy inspired canvassers and activists to take Harvey’s message of hope to the streets.

In Los Angeles, Rev. Neil Thomas met with Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, emphasizing the unique role that people of faith play in our LGBT Movement.

I believe Harvey would be proud of our work. And as Rev. Miller has said, our Divine Power(s) is proud of us too.

Help us to continue to make sure LGBT seekers know that they are supported by people of faith, and to make sure Californians know that Divine Power(s) and equality for ALL people are symbiotic.

To Harvey’s Legacy,

Kerry Chaplin, Interfaith Organizing Director

Posted in Ecumenical Issues, LGBT Rights, Public Affairs, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

First Harvey Milk Day

May 22, 2010 by Pastor Dan.

Today is the first official observance of Harvey Milk Day in California.  Below is the press release from the Mayor’s Office.—Pastor Dan Hooper

MAYOR VILLARAIGOSA HONORS HARVEY MILK WITH FIRST ANNUAL DAY OF SERVICE IN HIS HONOR: Commemorates the Late Activist for Work Building Coalitions, Breaking Down Barriers; Asks Angelenos to Serve Their Own Communities

LOS ANGELES – On the eve of the first annual Harvey Milk Day of Service, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa honored the late activist for his public service, unwavering championship of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues (LGBT), and dedication to social change across a wide-range of issues including education, low-income housing, and public transportation. In anticipation of tomorrow’s day of service in Milk’s honor, Mayor Villaraigosa today met with a coalition of LGBT community leaders and activists, including Academy Award-winning screenwriter Dustin Lance Black (Milk), Equality California Marriage Director Marc Solomon, and Rev. Dr. Neil Thomas Senior Pastor of the Metropolitan Community Church of Los Angeles and President of the Board, California Faith for Equality.

“Harvey Milk had the courage to stand up, live his life openly, and challenge people to judge him first on his ability to get the job done,” said Mayor Villaraigosa. “What he accomplished in his few years in public office remains nothing short of extraordinary, and tomorrow I encourage all Angelenos to celebrate his life and legacy by giving back to their own communities.”

“All of the Abrahamic faiths teach us that it is our responsibility to do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with our God,” Rev. Dr. Neil Thomas said. “Let us commit ourselves to follow Milk’s example and do all in our power to make hope a reality for all our oppressed brothers and sisters in this world.”

“Harvey Milk believed in the power of personal stories to change hearts and minds,” said Equality California Marriage Director Marc Solomon. “That’s why we call on all those who stand for equality to join us on Saturday—the first-ever Harvey Milk Day of Recognition—as we take to the streets and engage Californians in personal conversations about why LGBT people deserve the freedom to marry.”

To commemorate the first annual Harvey Milk Day in California, community and LGBT organizations from across Los Angeles will join together tomorrow, May 22, for a day of service and action to honor Milk and his legacy. Projects include a community garden clean-up,

neighborhood canvasses, and a “Coming Out” rally.

Throughout his life, Milk worked to find common ground with others and demonstrate the positive effect that this had on the greater community. He initiated programs that benefited underserved and minority communities, workers and the elderly. He was also the driving force

behind the passage of a gay rights law that prohibited discrimination and/or unequal treatment on the basis of sexual orientation in housing and employment.

“At a time when the forces of hatred and bigotry caused many to live their personal lives in secret, and far too many Americans feared for their safety and even their lives if they let the world see their true selves, Harvey Milk inspired people to work for social change,” Villaraigosa said. “He was a true pioneer whose message of love and acceptance should never be forgotten.”

Mayor Villaraigosa, in partnership with Councilwoman Jan Perry, Gay for Good, LA Neighborhood Land Trust and the LA Garden Council, will be holding a day of service by helping to clean-up and rebuild the Vermont Square Community Garden with other community stakeholders.

To ensure Harvey Milk’s legacy of community engagement and service lives on, Mayor Villaraigosa pledged to hold a day of service every year to commemorate Harvey Milk and urged the LGBT leaders and organizations present, as well as his fellow Angelenos, to join him in giving back each year on this day. In 2008, the California State Legislature and Governor designated May 22 as Harvey Milk Day in the State of California. In 2009, President Obama posthumously awarded Milk a Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor.

There are lots of Google hits on Harvey Milk Day.  Thanks especially to GSAAragon a.k.a. Jason for posting his lively youtube coming out clip — the “big surprise” in it is not his coming out, though. You will get a kick out of it.

Posted in LGBT Rights, Public Affairs | Print | No Comments »