The 2009 ACS found that DC had the most gay couples living together, Mass. the most lesbians.

Culhane: How DADT repeal will help gay marriage

Depending on whom you read and rely on, the DADT ban is or is not about to be history. Many stories have been written on the proposed law, but not much has been said about this point: If the repeal does go through, the case for marriage equality becomes rhetorically stronger. Why?

First, unlike many of the laws that seek equality for the LGBT community, DADT and the ban on same-sex marriages are instances where the government itself is doing the discriminating.

Thus, the rhetoric that’s used in one case applies to the other: Government should treat all of its citizens equally. Even an unreconstructed libertarian like Rand Paul – currently in boiling water because of his statements that the government shouldn’t tell private businesses whom they can and can’t deal with (including, say, African-Americans) – should support a principle of basic fairness and equality for all citizens. (He doesn’t, of course, so his libertarianism is born of convenience, not principle.)

Second, the most-often heard argument against allowing gay and lesbian soldiers into the military is that they will disrupt “unit cohesion.” But if this argument is ultimately rejected in the one area in which it at least sounds plausible (if only because of a homophobic atmosphere that has too often come from higher-ranking military), that rejection weakens a similar argument that’s advanced by many of those who oppose marriage equality: Allowing gays, lesbians, and transgendered people to marry will weaken heterosexual marriages – disrupt their “unit cohesion,” if you will.

But if folks in the military can somehow learn to deal with gay and lesbian troops who live and fight alongside them every day, then surely straight couples can absorb the blow inflicted by living in the same society as same-sex couples.

Sometimes the argument is pitched at a slightly more sophisticated level: While marriage equality won’t immediately affect heterosexual couples, in the long run it will change the message of marriage by suggesting that the biological connection between parents and children isn’t important.

Maggie Gallagher is perhaps the anti-equality spokesperson most associated with this argument, but I’ve also heard it made during litigation. For example, during oral argument before the Iowa Supreme Court, the state’s dramatically unsuccessful effort (7-zip) to block equality leaned almost exclusively on a version of that argument.

Courts, though, are rarely impressed by such abstract arguments – especially when they carry more than a whiff of desperation. You’ll notice that the anti-equality forces haven’t been especially vocal about opposing adoption, surrogacy, or no-fault divorce laws, all of which of course sever the biological connections between parents and their children.

Nor do they acknowledge that marriage sends a bunch of other messages, too – including that one about commitment and the raising of children, together.

Against these arguments stand the obvious and debilitating discrimination against all of us – those who’d marry if we could, and those who wouldn’t but who are constantly reminded of our second-class citizenship. Faced with the balancing of that ledger, any self-respecting court should require sounder arguments for the continued exclusion of LGBT couples from the institution of marriage.

And recently, they have: Supreme Courts in California (pre-Prop 8), Massachusetts, Iowa and Connecticut have all read their state constitutional guarantees of equality to require the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Are there other arguments against marriage equality?

Not good ones.

Even Justice Scalia admitted, in his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, that the marriage-procreation link isn’t a reason (we don’t require proof of reproductive capacity), and the related arguments that opposite-sex couples “need” marriage because only they can procreate “accidentally” (Oops! I Procreated Again!) is just plain dumb (even though it was accepted by the highest courts in both Washington and New York).

Religious arguments, of course, have no place in a public debate (for one thing: whose religion controls?)

So we’re left with this kind of discomfort with marriage equality – that somehow it will affect straight marriages, however indirectly and over time. Once this “unit cohesion” argument falls in the military setting, its demise in civilian life should be briskly achieved. Let’s begin to press this argument.

John Culhane is Professor of Law and Director of the Health Law Institute at Widener University School of Law in Wilmington, Delaware. He blogs about the role of law in everyday life, and about a bunch of other things (LGBT rights, public health, science, certain sports, pop culture, music, philosophy and lots of personal stuff) at: http://wordinedgewise.org. A fuller bio can be found here. He can be reached via email at: johnculhane@comcast.net.

Cardinal: Catholic schools welcome kids of gays – but priest made OK call

(Boston) Boston Cardinal Sean O’Malley on Wednesday defended a priest who denied admission to a parish school to a gay couple’s child, calling it a pastoral decision and saying the priest had his “full confidence and support.”

O’Malley’s comments on his blog were his first public remarks about the decision earlier this month by St. Paul Elementary School in Hingham to rescind the boy’s acceptance because his parents are lesbians.

A parent of the boy said the Rev. James Rafferty, the parish priest at St. Paul’s, said her relationship was “in discord” with church teachings, which sees marriage as only between a man and a woman. She said the principal told her teachers wouldn’t be prepared to handle the boy’s questions when he realized the church’s view of family conflicted with what he saw at home. The parent spoke to The Associated Press but asked not to be named to protect the welfare of the child.

The decision prompted calls for O’Malley to intervene. The Catholic Schools Foundation, which O’Malley chairs, said the decision was at odds with Gospel teaching, and it wouldn’t fund schools that made similar decisions.

The archdiocese’s head of education later called the parent, apologized and offered to help the 8-year-old enroll in another Catholic school.

O’Malley said Rafferty had come under “undue criticism” for the decision.

“He made a decision about the admission of the child to St. Paul School based on his pastoral concern for the child,” O’Malley wrote. “I can attest personally that Father Rafferty would never exclude a child to sanction the child’s parents.”

The archdiocese said it is creating a policy to clarify its schools don’t bar children with same-sex parents.

“It is true that we welcome people from all walks of life,” O’Malley wrote. “But we recognize that, regardless of the circumstances involved, we maintain our responsibility to teach the truths of our faith, including those concerning sexual morality and marriage.”

O’Malley began his post with a recollection about meeting the young daughter of a murdered woman who had run a brothel while he was bishop in the West Indies. He said the woman’s daughter had left public school because she was being badly taunted, and he immediately directed that the girl be admitted to the local Catholic school.

“Catholic schools exist for the good of the children and our admission standards must reflect that,” he wrote. “We have never had categories of people who were excluded.”

The Hingham case was similar to a situation in Boulder, Colo., in which a Catholic school said two children of lesbian parents could not re-enroll because of their parents’ sexual orientation, and the Denver Archdiocese backed the decision.

“It is clear that all of their school policies (in Denver) are intended to foster the welfare of the children and fidelity to the mission of the Church,” O’Malley wrote. “Their positions and rationale must be seriously considered.”

State rep.: Shame on school for withdrawing kid of lesbian parents

Massachusetts state representative Garrett J. Bradley, a Democrat who grew up in the same parish as the Catholic school who forced an 8-year-old to withdraw because he has lesbian parents [1] had this to say to the Boston Globe:

“These parents thought enough of St. Paul’s to want to send their child there; St. Paul’s thought enough of their child to admit him. For the school to then discriminate against him and withdraw his acceptance because of his parents’ sexual orientation is not only inappropriate, but mind-blowing. Shame on St. Paul’s, and shame on us as a community if we allow it.’”

Beautiful.

Read the Boston Globe [2] article for more local reaction.

[1] http://www.365gay.com/news/mass-archdiocese-to-help-find-school-for-son-of-lesbians/
[2] http://www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2010/05/13/students_exclusion_draws_denial/

Mass. Archdiocese to help find school for son of lesbians

(Boston) The head of education for the Boston Archdiocese offered Thursday to help find a different Catholic school for a boy denied acceptance at a Hingham Catholic school because his parents are gay.

In a statement, superintendent Mary Grassa O’Neill said she spoke with a parent of the 8-year-old boy and “offered to help enroll her child in another Catholic school in the archdiocese.”

“We believe that every parent who wishes to send their child to a Catholic school should have the opportunity to pursue that dream,” O’Neill said.

The parent, who has remained anonymous to protect her child from publicity, called the archdiocese’s response “compassionate” and said O’Neill apologized. But the woman said she was uncertain she would enroll her son in another Catholic school because she needed to learn more about their educational programs.

She added: “I will be a little bit more guarded in my questioning so I’ll be able to have a real clear picture where they stand.”

The boy was to enter third grade at St. Paul Elementary School in the fall. But the woman said the parish priest, the Rev. James Rafferty, began asking questions about her relationship during a meeting last week.

On Monday, she learned her son’s acceptance had been rescinded during a conference call with Rafferty and the school’s principal, Cynthia Duggan. She said Rafferty said that her relationship was “in discord” with church teachings. The Catholic church believes marriage is only between a man and a woman.

Rafferty and Duggan did not respond to requests for comment Thursday.

The Boston archdiocese said it learned of St. Paul’s decision late Tuesday. In her statement, O’Neill said the archdiocese doesn’t bar children of same-sex parents from attending Catholic schools, and that it will develop a policy in the coming weeks to make that clear. Terry Donilon, a spokesman for the archdiocese, said local pastors have autonomy to run their parishes within basic church rules, but the archdiocese can set new policy when something needs to be clarified – as in this case – and pastors are expected to follow it.

O’Neill also said the schools expect parents to understand “that the teachings of the Church are an important component of the curriculum and are part of the students’ educational experience.”

O’Neill’s statement came as some Catholic groups criticized St. Paul’s decision.

On Thursday, the Washington-based group Catholics United said it had collected 2,500 signatures on a petition asking Boston Cardinal Sean O’Malley to ensure the archdiocese’s schools would allow all children access to a Catholic education. Executive Director Chris Korzen said he welcomed O’Neill’s statement and looked forward to the release of the archdiocese’s promised new policy.

The Catholic Foundation, which is chaired by O’Malley and raises money for Catholic education, called St. Paul’s decision “at odds with our values as a foundation, the intentions of our donors, and ultimately with Gospel teaching.” The foundation said it would not fund any school that treats students and families in such a manner.

The foundation’s executive director, Michael Reardon, said the foundation did not give money to St. Paul’s.

The Massachusetts case is similar to a decision by a Catholic school in Boulder, Colo., the Sacred Heart of Jesus, which said two children of lesbian parents could not re-enroll because of their parents’ sexual orientation. The Denver Archdiocese backed the school’s decision.

School: No lesbians in yearbook

Ask the Expert: Should I invite anti-gay relatives to my wedding?

Stumped on when to send out your STDs (save-the-date announcements)? Don’t know who should be invited to your rehearsal dinner? Get the answers to all your wedding etiquette questions by submitting your dilemma to etiquette@equallywed.com [1]

I have relatives who have made it clear they’re uncomfortable with me being gay. But I’m still unsure if I should invite them to my wedding. Am I being the bigger person if I send an invite? I don’t want to get my feelings hurt.

Unfortunately, being related to someone doesn’t guarantee fair treatment of gays, lesbians, bisexuals or transgender people. And as sad as that is, we’re probably all used to it on some level or another and are constantly working to heal those wounds.

Your wedding is your day to celebrate your love and commitment to each other with your family and friends—the ones who love you and believe in your love. So why would you want to invite anyone who wouldn’t allow themselves to feel the love?

If you want to reach out to them to see how they’d feel or behave at your wedding, give them a call and talk to them about your feelings and hesitation. And if that’s a bit much for your taste, send them a wedding announcement after the big day.

It requires no response, but lets them know you’ve taken the leap with your—gasp—gay lover.

Kirsten Palladino is Editor in Chief of Equally Wed, the nation’s premier same-sex wedding magazine, online at www.equallywed.com [2]. Equally Wed offers gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender couples an extensive, trustworthy and fashionable guide of inspiration, ideas and trends for planning their engagements, weddings and honeymoons, as well as their happily ever after. The photo-rich site is home to Equally Wed’s Local Resources, a veritable marketplace of vetted GLBT-friendly wedding vendors across the United States and abroad. It also offers an interactive social community to talk to other readers about all things wedding, as well as the latest news from the frontlines of the fight for marriage equality

[1] http://www.365gay.commailto:etiquette@equallywed.com
[2] http://www.equallywed.com/