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.
Read more….
(Houston) Annise Parker’s mayoral campaign Web site bio reads like a catalog of campaign catchphrases: She has been Houston’s city controller and a member of City Council. She’s for job creation, against irresponsible spending and tough on crime.
Until the last line: “Annise Parker and her life partner, Kathy Hubbard, have …
Read more….
On July 14, the day of a legislative hearing on the transgender rights bill currently on Beacon Hill, WCVB’s NewsCenter 5 ran a story about the bill on its evening newscast. Anchor Liz Brunner introduced the story by saying, “It’s being called the bathroom bill, [and it] is essentially meant to end discrimination based on transgender status.” Behind Brunner was an image of the traditional male and female stick figures found on restroom doors, positioned next to the State House dome and above the tagline, “Bathroom Bill.” Yet the only people calling the trans rights bill, House Bill 1728, a “bathroom bill” are its opponents, and the label is a misnomer by any objective criteria.
H.B. 1728 adds trans-inclusive language to the state’s non-discrimination laws in the areas of employment, public accommodations, credit, housing, and education, as well as to the state’s hate-crimes laws, going far beyond simply allowing transgender people to use bathrooms that match their gender identity or expression. Opponents of the legislation, led by the Massachusetts Family Institute (MFI), claim that the bill will allow male sexual predators to masquerade as women and sneak into women’s restrooms and locker rooms. WCVB’s coverage of the transgender rights bill, as well as the coverage by some other local media outlets, suggests that the work of the bill’s opponents to label the legislation a bathroom bill in public discourse has been at least somewhat successful. See Local media swallows ‘bathroom bill’ rhetoric Bay Windows
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
he amens in full force, the choir in full throated glory, Rev. Wilfredo De Jesus takes the pulpit at New Life Covenant Church to urge his congregation to dream big.
“Because we can change a life, we can change a community,” he preaches. “Because we can change a community, we can change a city.”
The sermon sounds like a campaign speech, fitting because De Jesus, one of Chicago’s most influential Latino pastors, is making a controversial leap into politics as the choice of outgoing Ald. Billy Ocasio (26th) to be his replacement on the City Council.
But, in a complicated blending of morality and politics, the pastor’s possible appointment has drawn protests from gay activists who object to other rhetoric used in De Jesus’ church that they say is not as uplifting — messages equating homosexuality with drug addiction and other social ills.
The activists call De Jesus “homophobic.” They worry that his appointment would give him the ability to control funds for agencies that serve gay clients and a platform to shape broader debates such as same-sex marriage.
De Jesus says that he has never preached hatred of gay people and that his church’s opposition to homosexuality is rooted in a literal interpretation of the Bible.
See Pastor who opposes homosexuality may get Chicago City Council seat …
Chicago Tribune
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
(Columbia, Mo.) They call it Speakers’ Circle, a First Amendment gathering spot at the University of Missouri where just about anything goes.
Confrontational evangelists condemn abortion and gay marriage. Conservative students bash President Obama’s bailout plan. The rhetoric is heated, and the discussions not always polite.
College campuses have long been hotbeds …
Read more….
The nation’s capital is suddenly center court in America’s loud argument over gay marriage. Nothing new about that, except that this time the battle is being hashed out in the streets, churches and living rooms in working class wards of the city. While there is something poignant about both sides literally singing the same hymn (“We Shall Overcome”) at its rallies, there is also something refreshing about the debate taking place in the unofficial part of Washington, D.C: For once, it’s not partisan.That is not to say it’s not a touchy issue. Gay marriage pits race and faith together in the same combustible conversation, and does so in a community in which both are sacrosanct subjects. The black Christian church predates Emancipation by more than two centuries, and served as a bulwark against the pernicious effects of slavery, Jim Crow, alcohol and drugs, AIDS, poverty, crime, police brutality and bad schools.
In the face of all that, African-American pastors and their churches have offered up faith and love of family as twin defenses. Thus they have been an institution with a message that at its core is fundamentally conservative. And at the same time, it was from the pulpits of these very same black churches that emanated the commanding voices that demanded fundamental change to the old order. Make no mistake, the moral authority and raw political power of the civil rights movement was rooted in these self-same churches. And in that sense they were a liberating, as well as a stabilizing, force.
These contradictory forces of liberalism and conservatism have coexisted, not always easily, for centuries within the church. But gay marriage has opened a chasm in the black community, in which, to paraphrase (and modernize) Lincoln who, while speaking about the North and South during the Civil War, observed that each side reads the same bible, prays to the same God, invokes His wisdom against the other – and belongs to the same political party.
In the local politics of Washington, the true power brokers are predominately black, monolithically Democratic and tuned into the religious sensibilities of their constituents. Thus, the discussion taking place here over gay marriage is really a series of conversations; some within the black community and some within the Christian churches, and almost all of it within the Democratic Party. This is not altogether a bad thing. For starters, there’s no Republican bogeyman, and for another, the race card is played to establish one’s bona fides, not to stoke prejudice. Finally, the church-bashing rhetoric one finds in other places where this debate is taking place is muted here: Attacking the church would simply be a good way to lose the argument. And judging by the language being invoked by both sides, the stakes of this argument are high: Leaders of competing camps clearly believe that what unfolds here in unofficial Washington will be a harbinger for where this nation is heading on gay rights.
“The march towards equality is coming to this country, and you can either be a part of it or stand in the way,” David Catania, one of two openly gay D.C. Council members, declared on May 5, as the council approved his pro-gay marriage measure.
“This is the Armageddon of the marriage debate,” was the rejoinder offered by Bishop Harry Jackson, pastor of Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, Md., and author of a petition seeking to have the question put on the ballot for every voter in Washington. “It’s a declaration of war.” See Black Pastors and Gay Rights: DC Becomes a Battleground
Politics Daily
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
Stephen Colbert took on a formidable opponent last night in the debate over allowing openly gay men and women to serve in the U.S. Armed Forces: Himself. After an intro from George H.W. Bush and brief plug for Amp energy drink, Colbert One told Colbert Two that his gay Arabic translator had been fired, bringing the total to 59 in the past 5 years.
Colbert Two took a pro-gay stance, whereas Colbert One defended the army’s choice to fire these men. The segment was funny and intriguing, but Colbert (as a whole) seemed unwilling to take a hard stance on the issue while performing in front of an audience of active troops.
In the past Colbert has mocked “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in his typical pompous fashion, with much harsher rhetoric. See Colbert Debates Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell In Front Of Audience Of Active Troops
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
Those self-anointed “Christians” who hate gays (and lesbians and bisexuals and especially transgender folks) are at it again.
This time they are out howling against a program in Alameda, CA designed to protect LGBT kids (and the kids of LGBT parents) from being harassed at school.
These “Christians” – who undoubtedly believe they hate the “sin” and not the “sinner” are nevertheless ready to crucify these children on the cross of political expediency and fund raising priorities. They don’t care what happens to LGBT kids (and the kids of LGBT parents). All they care about is their right to let their kids grow up to be bullies, haters and bigots. After all, where would their “Christian” church be if people didn’t hate gay folk?
There’s nothing in the Alameda plan that prevents parents from teaching their kids that homosexuality is against their religion, morally wrong or bad. What the schools want to teach is that (whatever you believe about homosexuality) you can’t beat kids up because they are LGBT kids (or the kids of LGBT parents.
Is this a measure of acceptance? Only if you believe that the alternative of having kids bullied – sometimes to the pint of suicide – is acceptable in a country that claims to be the “Land of the Free,” let alone a “Christian nation.”
Protesting LGBT kids (and the kids of LGBT parents) is not negotiable. It is a whole lot closer to what Jesus had in mind than the empty rhetoric of these far right law firms that exist only to raise money by demonizing LGBT people and their allies.
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
By mid-afternoon, authorities reportedly had someone in custody in connection with the murder of Wichita abortion doctor George Tiller at his church on Sunday morning.
So far, we know nothing about the suspect. Though the motive for the crime we can all surmise in light of the vitriolic campaign that has been waged against Tiller for more than two decades by anti-abortion groups.
And if we’re right about that, then we already know the identities of his accomplices.
They include every one who has ever called Tiller’s late term abortion clinic a murder mill.
Who ever called Tiller “Tiller the Killer.”
The groups who spent decades fomenting hate toward a man who simply believed that he was serving a purpose by being one of the few doctors in the country performing late-term abortions.
Hate. Not heated opposition. Not strong disagreement.
But blind hatred.
The kind of hate that would prompt some maniac to take a gun into a church and shoot a man to death in front of friends and family.
His accomplices know they have blood on their hands, which might explain why they were quick to issue statements today expressing disapproval of Tiller’s murder.
Among them, the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue.
“Operation Rescue denounces the killing of abortionist Tiller,” read the headline of a new release posted on that group’s website.
Those words drip with hypocrisy.
After all, it was Operation Rescue that coined the nickname “Tiller the Killer.” It was Operation Rescue that was most responsible for ratcheting up the heated rhetoric toward Tiller over the past two decades.
The group issued the following statement today:
“We are shocked at this morning’s disturbing news that Mr. Tiller was gunned down. Operation Rescue has worked for years through peaceful, legal means, and through the proper channels to see him brought to justice. We denounce vigilantism and the cowardly act that took place this morning. We pray for Mr. Tiller’s family that they will find comfort and healing that can only be found in Jesus Christ.”
Shocked? Are any of us really shocked that it would come to this after the many years of demonizing one man?
Certainly the group’s founder, Randall Terry, didn’t seem shocked when he issued a statement that, I would suggest, provides a truer sense of how the anti-abortion movement saw today’s events:
”George Tiller was a mass-murderer. We grieve for him that he did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God. I am more concerned that the Obama Administration will use Tiller’s killing to intimidate pro-lifers into surrendering our most effective rhetoric and actions. Abortion is still murder. And we still must call abortion by its proper name; murder.
Those men and women who slaughter the unborn are murderers according to the Law of God. We must continue to expose them in our communities and peacefully protest them at their offices and homes, and yes, even their churches.”
I’d suggest that if anyone is in need of salvation right now it’s the anti-abortion movement in Kansas and across the nation.
As Terry’s statement makes clear, the same bullet that killed George Tiller also shattered the moral underpinnings of the movement that inspired its firing.
If a gay marriage question is put on the California ballot in 2010, it will put the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at a seriously interesting crossroads.
It has been three or four decades since the Mormon Church chose a low profile in American politics, after its opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment, and theological hostility to black Americans, spurred an anti-Mormon backlash. The Mormons are among the most persecuted of American sects, and highly sensitive to criticism.
The church’s low-key strategy seemed to work. There are still some Mormon-haters in evangelical Christian
circles, but for the most part the Mormons are accepted and admired, and church membership has soared. Mormon politicians like former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman are regarded by mainstream America as legitimate presidential timber.
Mormon watchers were surprised, then, when the church hierarchy took such an active role in the passage of Proposition 8 in California, limiting marriage to a man and a woman. Gay Americans were surprised as well. They didn’t expect the church to embrace gay marriage, but neither did they predict that the Mormon Church would emerge as a resolute and politically-active foe, whose support for Prop 8 was perhaps determinative. Some of the resultant anti-Mormon rhetoric has been vicious.
Now that Prop 8 has been upheld by the California Supreme Court, gay rights groups say they will put gay marriage on the ballot in California again, and mount a full scale effort to win public approval, perhaps as soon as 2010.
That will put the ball back in the church’s court. The family is at the center of Mormon theology. But the national political trends are running against the church. Younger Americans—even young evangelicals—are more than willing to see their gay friends get married.
Opposing gay marriage in Utah (as the church did in 2004) is one thing, but taking a lead public role in a national campaign to deprive a persecuted minority of a right shared by all other Americans is another. It would be seen as a sign that the days of low-key tactics are over, and that the current Mormon leaders are prepared to give, and get, the political bruising that occurs when religion mixes with politics in America.
Check out our political cartoons.
Become a political insider: Subscribe to U.S. News Weekly, our new digital magazine.
See How Far Will Mormons Go to Fight Gay Marriage? U.S. News & World Report* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
Next Page →
