Pro-Gay States Luring Discriminated Couples to Relocate

Numerous posts on this blog have tracked research that underscores that a thriving gay community is one of the hallmarks of cities and localities that attract the so-called creative class.  Similar research has led to the formulation of a "gay index" which shows that a large population of gays correlates with high tech businesses.  States like Virginia and North Carolina go out of their way to make life intolerable for gays and have written anti-gay discrimination into their laws.  Now, as Bloomberg reports, gay friendly states are seeking to lure gays to relocate from their hostile home states and to bring their talents and assets to those gay friendly states.  Here are articles from Bloomberg:

Hans Bernhard and Mitch Null say they may leave North Carolina -- taking their daughter, their jobs as a veterinarian and an information technology business operations manager at Cisco Systems Inc. (CSCO) and the tax revenue from their properties.

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn a key part of the Defense of Marriage Act, the couple is considering moving to Maryland, where they could have a recognized marriage and guaranteed access to the related federal benefits. Bernhard could also become a lawful father to the couple’s 1-year-old daughter, Eva, since North Carolina law prevents residents from adopting a child if they aren’t married to the legal parent.

Thirteen states and the District of Columbia, making up 34 percent of gross domestic product, have legalized same-sex marriage, including Minnesota and Rhode Island, where laws took effect Aug. 1.

Bernhard and Null’s dilemma illustrates the economic benefits and consequences of a state’s same-sex marriage policy. Following the Supreme Court’s June 26 ruling, gay rights proponents and some economic development officials say states with gay-friendly laws can leverage them for financial gain, while those with prohibitive policies will miss out. 

The Supreme Court ruling will force some states to examine whether it’s worth losing out on talent and businesses that are attracted to areas that allow same-sex marriages, said Richard Florida, a professor at the University of Toronto Rotman School of Management. Acceptance of gay communities signals cultural openness and attracts highly educated people and innovators, Florida wrote in his 2002 book “The Rise of the Creative Class.” 

Welcoming all people is necessary for states that want to “flourish economically and be an engine for innovation,” Chris Hughes, co-founder of Facebook Inc. and a native of Hickory, North Carolina, said in an e-mail. Hughes, now the editor-in-chief and publisher of the New Republic magazine, wrote an open letter to the North Carolina General Assembly in 2011 opposing the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. 

“Entrepreneurs are very careful when deciding where to start a company,” said Hughes, who now lives in Shokan, New York, with his husband Sean Eldridge. “Building a business in a state that denies basic rights to LGBT couples is difficult to justify to potential employees -- straight or gay.”

It all is actually common sense.  Not that common sense means much to lunatics like Cuccinelli and the hate merchants at The Family Foundation.

Read More

You Can Still Be Arrested for Being Gay in Red-State America

Following up on the last post, it is necessary to note that because of the deliberate twisting of Gospel passages and the spinelessness of politicians who prostitute themselves to the Christofascists, gays in red state America need to be concerned that they can still be arrested for being gay.  Leading the charge is Virginia GOP gubernatorial candidate  Ken Cuccinelli who wants to reinstate Virginia's sodomy statute.  Cuccinelli is blowing a smoke screen as to his real agenda, but past police stings in Virginia Beach and elsewhere in the Commonwealth make it clear that gays remain the special target of this statute which as currently written makes certain kinds of sex acts always a felony.  An article in Slate makes it clear that Virginia is not the only state where gays are targeted.  Here are article excerpts:

Last week, the Advocate reported some troubling news out of Louisiana: Since 2011, at least a dozen men have been arrested on a count of “attempted crimes against nature”—that is, an offer to have sex with another man. Even worse, the arrests were part of a sting operation in which undercover officers propositioned men, lured them into an apartment, then promptly arrested them and brought them to jail. The latest arrest occurred on July 18.

Sound retro? It is and it isn’t. On the one hand, Louisiana’s actions are patently, almost comically unconstitutional. It’s been a decade since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas that “the liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right ... [of] intimate conduct with another person.” That 6–3 ruling struck down every anti-sodomy law in the country, legalizing homosexuality—as well as any kind of sexual contact between consenting adults, gay or straight.

On the other hand, rejecting Lawrence has long been in vogue in red states. Ten years after Lawrence, 13 states, all of them red or red-leaning, have kept their anti-sodomy laws on the books. And three of them—Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas—explicitly outlaw consenting sex between people of the same sex. In much of red-state America, then, being gay remains officially illegal.

Yet these laws aren’t merely symbolic. Same-sex couples in North Carolina and Texas have been arrested for “homosexuality conduct” in recent years. And as the Louisiana debacle illustrates, overzealous law enforcement officers feel enabled by the law to arrest, prosecute, and generally humiliate gay people simply for being gay.

The continuing presence of anti-sodomy laws can’t be blamed on absentminded legislators, either. Equality advocates have mounted significant efforts in all 13 states to repeal these laws in the wake of Lawrence—efforts that failed in the face of conservative resistance. In Virginia, the endeavor actually backfired: An attempt to revoke the state’s “crimes against nature” statute led the legislature to reaffirm the anti-sodomy law—more than a year after Lawrence.

Virginia’s law has returned to the spotlight in recent months as Ken Cuccinelli, the state’s current attorney general, has centered his gubernatorial campaign on an effort to enforce Virginia’s Crimes Against Nature law. Cuccinelli was integral to the defeat of the 2004 repeal bill, and nearly a decade later, he remains strangely fixated on an issue settled long ago by the highest court in the land.

There’s no easy legal remedy for these holdout states. . . . . reactionary politicians and homophobic police chiefs will almost certainly continue to use these laws to intimidate and denigrate gay citizens. A decade after the Supreme Court found that matters of sexual intimacy are “central to the personal dignity and autonomy” guaranteed by the Constitution, too much of red-state America still formally outlaws homosexuality. 

Regular readers know why I believe Cuccinelli remains "strangely fixated" on sodomy.  He's another Ed Schrock.   He's out to persecute gays to hide his own closeted status.

Read More

The Ladies of "The View" Rip Into Ken Cuccinelli

It seems that Ken Cuccinelli's reaffirmation of his anti-gay animus over the weekend during the debate with Democrat gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe continues  to draw attention and commentary, but not the type Cuccinelli perhaps wanted.  Kookinelli really needs to spend some time outside of The Family Foundation's alternate universe (not to mention get over his self-loathing closet case mindset) or more episodes like this one are likely:

Here are more details via Think Progress:  

The hosts of The View ridiculed Virginia Republican gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli for his push to reinstate the state’s Crimes Against Nature law on Monday, a measure that would make felons out of consenting married couples who engage in oral or anal sex in the privacy of their own homes. The act was struck down by federal courts after Cuccinelli blocked efforts to bring it in line with the Supreme Court’s 2003 Lawrence v. Texas ruling.
 
Cuccinelli has long supported restrictions on the sexual behavior of consenting adults and has linked certain acts to homosexuality. “My view is that homosexual acts, not homosexuality, but homosexual acts are wrong. They’re intrinsically wrong. And I think in a natural law based country it’s appropriate to have policies that reflect that,” he told a newspaper in 2009.

He reiterated that view during the first gubernatorial debate against Democratic nominee Terry McAuliffe on Saturday, admitting that his extreme anti-LGBT beliefs have not changed. Those positions, however, are now raising concerns from some traditionally Republican business donors, who fear that his extreme views could jeopardize the state’s economic development, and have left the attorney general at a substantial fundraising disadvantage.

Read More

Gay Couple Files Lawsuit Challenging Ohio' Gay Marriage Ban

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read More

GOP Voter Suppression Efforts Increasing in South

Perhaps realizing that their longs for a return of the Old South when blacks were chattel and obviously could not vote, Republicans in legislatures across the South are making frantic efforts to limit the ability of minorities and liberal leaning younger voters to vote.  Rather than facing the fact that what the are peddling is not wanted by more and more citizens, the GOP's last stand effort will be to limit voting to angry white Christofascists and Tea Party members.  It's disgusting to watch, but such is the nature of today's increasingly hideous GOP.  A column in Talking Points Memo looks at the phenomenon which is occurring here in Virginia.  Here are column excerpts:

In an era of declining white majorities in America, Southern Republicans in charge of state legislators are moving hard while they feel they still have the chance to clamp down on the right to vote and if at all possible restrict minority voting. Here’s the latest example. 

Republicans in the North Carolina state Senate introduced voter identification legislation Thursday that's even more restrictive than a version passed by the state House earlier this year, the Charlotte Observer reported.

The state Senate bill, which would take effect in the 2016 election, removed half of the forms of identification allowed under the state House's legislation, such as cards from the University of North Carolina system of colleges, state community colleges, local governments, private employers and law enforcement agencies. 

Under the proposal outlined by state Senate Republicans, seven types of government-issued identifications would be accepted, namely driver’s licenses, passports, non-driver IDs and military or veteran cards. The state's legislative session ends next week.

As is the norm and as occurred here in Virginia during the last session, the Republicans whine about voter fraud even thought there are almost no documents cases.  The seek to take away citizens' right to vote while fixing a problem that doesn't exist.  I ask again, when are GOP city and county committee meetings doing to start with white robes and hoods being passed out to all members (or will the members simply bring their own)?

Read More

Poll: Majority of Virginians Support Same-Sex Marriage

The hysteria at The Family Foundation ("TFF") and other falsely self-described "family values" organizations in Virginia whose real agenda is to impose their extreme hate filled religious beliefs on all citizens must be building.  As noted, a new poll reveals that 55% of Virginians now support  gay marriage.  Victoria Cobb and her fellow haters must be absolutely beside themselves.  And the timing of this new information could not be worse given that a lawsuit challenging the foul Marshall-Newman Amendment (which was spearheaded by TFF and proven gay haters like Del. Bob Marshall and Ken "Kookinelli" Cuccinelli) is likely to be filed any week now.  Note: the poll was done by bi-partisan polling organizations.  The Richmond Times Dispatch has details on the new poll findings.  Here are excerpts:

A new poll shows that Virginians’ views on same-sex marriage have shifted in its favor seven years after voters easily passed an amendment to the state constitution that defines marriage as between one man and one woman.

About 55 percent of Virginia voters now believe that marriage between people of the same sex should be allowed, while 41 percent oppose it, according to a poll released today by the Human Rights Campaign — the nation’s largest LGBT equality-rights advocacy group.

Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, will be in Richmond today to discuss the poll results and endorsements of the Democratic candidates for statewide office, Terry McAuliffe for governor, and state Sens. Ralph S. Northam, D-Norfolk for lieutenant governor and Mark R. Herring, D-Loudoun for attorney general.

A bipartisan team of pollsters, from the Democratic-leaning Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, and Target Point Consulting, a Republican organization, conducted the survey . . . .

In Virginia, where the American Civil Liberties Union announced this week that it will file suit in federal court to challenge the state’s 2006 constitutional amendment, the latest poll is the latest signal that the ground is softening.

The new poll shows that while Northern Virginia leads support for same-sex marriage with 68 percent, it also finds majority support in central (53 percent) and Eastern Virginia (51 percent).

The main opposition to gay marriage in Virginia remains centered in the Southwester and Southern tier of the state - regions not coincidentally with high unemployment which cannot attract modern, progressive businesses and employers to move to their areas.  At the same time, population in the gay friendly areas of Virginia is increasing while it is declining in the gay hating/GOP loving parts of the state.   Bigotry does carry an economic and a political price.  Not that the Virginia GOP has figured out yet that it is committing a slow form of suicide.

Read More

Lambda Legal Announces Plans for Marriage Equality Case in Virginia

Just this morning I noted in an earlier post how the decision in Windsor would likely trigger a flood of lawsuits challenging gay marriage bans in anti-gay states like Virginia.  Now, Lambda Legal has announced plans to file a legal challenge in Virginia to the vile Marshall-Newman Amendment.  I hope it is filed very soon because it will make it all the more difficult for Ken "Kookinelli" Cuccinelli to dodge his extremist positions on so-called social issues.  As Attorney General, he will have to file a response to the lawsuit and layout his anti-gay bigotry for all to see.  Here are details from Lambda Legal's blog (the full press release is here):

Lambda Legal and the ACLU are planning a new federal lawsuit seeking the freedom to marry for same-sex couples in Virginia.

Virginia couples who have suffered from discrimination and are interested in sharing how marriage discrimination harms their families or being a part of a campaign for the freedom to marry are encouraged to fill out a survey.

Greg Nevins, Supervising Senior Staff Attorney in Lambda Legal's Southern Regional Office, says:

The end of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act opens a new chapter in our work to ensure same-sex couples and their families across the country are treated with dignity and respect. We know that many same-sex couples and their families have waited a long time and we are excited to announce that the campaign for the freedom to marry is coming south.

We do not want a country so divided by unfairness and discrimination. Same-sex couples are in loving, committed relationships in every region of our nation and should be treated the same way, whether they live in Maine or Virginia. This is one America.

State laws that exclude same-sex couples from marriage not only harm those couples by denying them state rights and responsibilities, but also currently pose obstacles for legally married couples and surviving spouses seeking numerous federal protections and benefits, such as Social Security.

Lambda Legal will file a marriage lawsuit in Virginia as co-counsel with the ACLU and the ACLU of Virginia in the coming weeks.

Read More

Post DOMA Legal Rights and Federal Benefits of Married Same Sex Couples

In the wake of the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Windsor many questions remain as to what federal rights will now be available to married same sex couples.  It will be a matter of time before the availability of many federal benefits becomes clarified.  Federal employees will benefit under new rulings of the Office of Personnel Management regardless of whether or not they live in an anti-gay state like Virginia.  The impact on benefits under Social Security and other programs/benefits remains unclear.  One thing that is clear is that couples with civil unions and domestic partnerships will not receive federal benefits.  Here is a summary via a Washington Post story:

FEDERAL BENEFITS:
The Obama administration responded to the Supreme Court ruling by making health, vision and dental benefits available to all same-sex spouses and children of legally married federal employees. In a memo on Wednesday, OPM said those guidelines will apply to all federal workers, regardless of whether they live in states that have banned same-sex marriage — Virginia, Ohio and Mississippi, for example.

That means same sex couples living anywhere in the U.S. will qualify for federal-employee benefits as long as they hold marriage licenses from any of the 13 states that recognize same-sex marriage, as well as from the District of Columbia, which has also legalized such unions.

SOCIAL SECURITY/VETERANS BENEFITS:
Questions remain about how the administration will treat same-sex couples and domestic partners outside the federal workforce, including with Social Security, tax and veterans’ benefits. The agencies that handle those programs have not issued guidance.

OPM has given legally married same-sex couples until Aug. 26 to apply for federal-employee benefits and two years to change their status for retirement benefits.

DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS:
couples who are not legally married “will remain ineligible for most federal benefits programs.” However, any existing benefits provided to domestic partners will remain intact, OPM said.

Here are excerpts from OPM's July 3, 2013 Memorandum:

[A]ll legal same sex marriages that predate the decision are being treated as new marriages; enrollees will have 60 days from June 26, 2013 (i.e., until August 26, 2013) for enrollment actions.

Benefits coverage is now available to a legally married same sex spouse of a Federal employee or annuitant, regardless of the employee’s or annuitant’s state of residency.

Legal same sex marriages entered into following this decision will be treated in the same

manner as opposite sex marriages, regardless of an employee’s or annuitant’s state of residency.

Coverage is available to a legally married same -sex spouse of a Federal employee or annuitant, regardless of his or her state of residency.  This decision does not extend coverage to registered domestic partners or  individuals in civil unions.

In addition, the children of same sex marriages will be treated in the same manner as those of opposite sex marriages and will be eligible family members according to the same eligibility guidelines. This includes coverage for children of same sex spouses as stepchildren.

One thing is clear:  in Virginia and many other anti-gay states, same sex couples will continue to hold an inferior level of citizenship and will have no employment non-discrimination protections and will be deemed legal strangers under state law.  There remains much work to be done.

  

Read More

The Coming Texas Gay Brain Drain

In the wake of the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Windsor, gays living in states with gay marriage bans will find themselves unable to receive federal benefits - Social Security in particular - that same sex couples in states with gay marriage will now enjoy.  The result?  The anti-gay states will find themselves even less competitive when it comes to attracting gay entrepreneurs and gay friendly businesses.   As I have often noted, but for family circumstances, I would leave Virginia in a heart beat.  Hopefully, with the changes wrought by the Windsor decision, more gays will begin to move to gay friendly states and big business will be motivated to take on the power of the Christofascists in states like Texas and Virginia.  A piece in The Dallas Voice looks at what may happen in Texas.  Here are highlights:

Although same-sex couples legally married in other states may receive some federal benefits if they live in Texas, they won’t receive as many federal benefits as couples living in marriage-equality states.

And because it could be anywhere from a few years to a decade or more before Texas recognizes same-sex marriages, some experts believe the talent pool for employers will shrink as LGBT Texans leave the state and others opt against relocating here.

Bob Witeck, president of the Washington, D.C.-based LGBT marketing company Witeck Communications Inc., first analyzed the concept of “gay brain drain” in 2004 when Massachusetts began allowing same-sex marriage. Now, 13 states allow same-sex marriage, covering a third of the nation’s population, and the playing field has put marriage-equality states ahead.

Places with marriage equality like New York, Washington, D.C. and California that also have a lot of talent compete with states like Texas and Illinois for employees and companies to boost state revenue. But unlike Illinois, which is in line to have marriage equality, Witeck said Texas is lagging behind strong business states because of its focus on social issues.

GOP politicians in Texas haven’t caught up to conservative business leaders — many of them also Republicans — who value the economic opportunity from LGBT equality and same-sex marriage.

“It deepens the challenges in corporate America to speak to these inequities,” he said. “It’s going to create the impression that [marriage-equality states are] forward thinkers and the others are not.”

Perry may soon find the reasons companies aren’t bringing their businesses to Texas. He signed HB 2482 in June that will create a study to determine why major companies have chosen to invest or relocate to other states after considering Texas.

Jim Henson, director of the Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas at Austin, said while a gay brain drain is possible, the full effect of the high court’s rulings may not be felt for a few years.  “I think there will be some danger of something like that happening,” Henson said. “It’s too early to tell. …What we’re more likely to see than a brain drain is a reluctance of people who want marriage equality to move here in the short term.”

For places like Dallas, Austin and Houston where companies and cities have LGBT-inclusive polices, officials and employers are concerned about losing talent and being able to recruit future talent. Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings said he’s concerned about LGBT people leaving the city and avoiding moving to Texas altogether.

John Cramer, CEO of AT&T’s LGBT resource group LEAGUE, said management at Dallas-based AT&T has already discussed the possibly of being able to retain and attract LGBT employees and have begun brainstorming on how to remain competitive.   “AT&T is looking into this issue and met with folks inside and outside the network to see what other companies are doing,” Cramer said.

In Virginia, the lunatic GOP slate of statewide candidates is gaining national media coverage on their extremism and anti-gay vitriol.  Even if Ken Cuccinelli doesn't want to accept reality, he and his Christofascist supporters are dimming Virginia's economic future.

Read More

Staunton Newleader Endorses Gay Marriage in Virginia

Last week's gay marriage rulings will be placing more and more pressure on Virginia to move into the 21st century, especially with Maryland and the District of Columbia both having marriage equality just across the Potomac River.  The Christofascists led by The Family Foundation - which deserves a hate group designation by the Southern Poverty Law Center - and their  puppets in the Virginia Republican Party will resist, but the tide is inevitable, and some are calling on Virginia to change rather than ultimate face the ignominy of another ruling like that in Loving v. Virginia.  The Staunton News Leader is leading the call:

Last week’s gay rights victories in the Supreme Court leave Virginia with this question: Will ours be one of the last states to allow same-sex marriage?

It took another Supreme Court case – Loving v. Virginia in 1967 – to make interracial marriage legal across the country. We hope the Commonwealth is not such a high-profile holdout on this century’s marriage issue.

Gay marriage will eventually become the law of the entire land. Even social conservative Gov. Bob McDonnell recognized this . . . . 

Surely many Virginians agree with our local congressman, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, in thinking that “preserving the institution of traditional marriage is crucial to the stability of our society and serves the best interest of American families.”

However, more and more of us cringe at statements like Goodlatte’s. A tradition that denies loving, committed, adult couples the privileges of marriage is a tradition our society has outgrown, much as we have segregation, forced though we were, again by the Supreme Court. Any implication that families created from gay marriages undermine “the stability of our society” is either ignorant or pandering to a segment of the population that claims to be conservative but, when it comes to social issues, is really about control over other people’s lives.

The term “family values” has been co-opted by social conservatives who want all families to look a certain way. Virginia is growing beyond this. We value all families. May our constitution soon reflect this progress.

Head hate merchant at The Family Foundation, Victoria Cobb, is likely acting like someone peed in her Cheerios if she's read this editorial.

Read More

Will The DOMA Decision Have a Ripple Effect?

Justice Anthony Kennedy

One thing is clear in the wake of yesterday's Supreme Court rulings on gay rights: there is still a great deal of work to be done in states like Virginia where legal recognition of gay relations is banned by the state constitution, where gays can be fired at will from their jobs and where we still face housing discrimination and all too often homophobic judges.  Thus, while yesterday gave rise to reasons to celebrate, the reality here in Virginia is that little has really changed.  LGBT Virginians remain second class - fourth class? - citizens.  Will the DOMA ruling help to set a movement for change in motion?  A piece in Politico looks at this question.  Here are excerpts:

The Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage decisions managed to do the impossible: get gay rights advocates and conservative Justice Antonin Scalia to agree.

Writing for the majority striking down the Defense of Marriage Act, Justice Anthony Kennedy was unsparing, declaring that the law’s “purpose and effect [is] to disparage and to injure” those in same-sex marriages, subjecting them to “a stigma” that “humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples.”

Kennedy insisted this kind of language wasn’t meant to support marriage equality litigation in future state-by-state fights, but the justice often seen as the intellectual leader of the court’s conservative wing wasn’t convinced.

“By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition,” Scalia warned. 

Precisely, say the prospective challengers.  “Scalia’s dissent is absolutely on the money,” American Civil Liberties Union executive director Anthony Romero told POLITICO. “It’s going to open the floodgates for litigation applying equal protection standards to laws discriminating against LGBT people.”

“It gives me great joy” to find agreement with Scalia, gay rights activist and Clinton White House adviser Richard Socarides said. He said Kennedy’s withering condemnation of the motivations of same-sex marriage opponents and his lamentations about the impact of discrimination on the children of same-sex couples will be a major boon for the gay rights cause.  “I think the language is going to be extremely useful because it’s very powerful and it makes clear the court takes a very dim view of laws targeting gay people,” Socarides said.

However, Kennedy’s majority opinion in the DOMA case falls short of something both gay groups and the Obama Administration asked the court to do: explicitly declare that government classifications based on sexual orientation are subject to “heightened scrutiny” by the court.

Romero called the ruling “huge” and “a tipping point, but said the ACLU will be hedging its bets on the legal impact of the decision. The civil liberties groups is pressing on with litigation in some states but also mounting a significant legislative effort to legalize gay marriage in many of the 37 states where it is not legal, and in many cases, banned.

The ACLU has hired Republican strategist Steve Schmidt, a top adviser to Sen. John McCain’s 2008 campaign, to build GOP support in the states for legislation to make gay marriage legal. “There’s support for marriage equality among Republicans ranging from moderates to the Tea Party,” Romero said, offering a pitch that casts the issue as one of “limited government.”

Romero noted that the DOMA case the court decided Wednesday left intact a portion of the 1996 law that says states can’t be forced to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. He said that means marriage rights in every state remain critical even if same-sex couples have more and more places they can tie the knot.

In short, the battle continues, although there are many days I'd like to just leave Virginia and move to a place where the boyfriend and I could be fully equal.  Sadly, many gays don't have the luxury of being able to pick up and move.   Hence we remain in backward rat holes like Virginia.

Read More

Where Will Gay Rights Be After SCOTUS Rules?

Many are waiting with apprehension this morning since today or Monday will likely be when the U. S. Supreme Court hands down its rulings in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Proposition 8 case, and United States v. Windsor, the DOMA case.   The speculation is that DOMA will be ruled unconstitutional and for gays in states where gay marriage is legal, a host of new legal rights will become available.  The Proposition 8 case is another matter and few seem to anticipate a broad ruling that would strike down bans on gay marriage nationwide.  So where does that leave those of us living in virulently anti-gay states like Virginia?  Mostly still totally screwed and second, third or even fourth class citizens.  But, if DOMA does fall, there will be some possible rights flowing to us if we marry in states where gay marriage is legal.  As noted in prior posts, we will face very complicated and inconsistent legal rights and challenges.  A narrow ruling on Prop 8 and a striking down of DOMA will no doubt unleash a further host of law suits.  Here are highlights of some further analysis from Towleroad.

Normally, marriage law is pretty simple: For 99 percent of heterosexual couples, the hardest thing about marrying in one state and moving to another state is packing the fine china. Sure, there are some states (New York) that allow first cousins to marry and some states (West Virginia) that do not, but for the most part, when a man marries a woman, they are married in all legal respects whether they live on the 65th floor in an Upper West Side hi-rise or in a ranch house in Oklahoma. 

The end of DOMA doubles down the complexity faced by legally married same-sex couples. What is the governing law for marriages for federal law: the place of celebration or the place of domicile? What if the choice of law is different from different aspects of federal law? What happens when a legally married couple moves to a state that feels that their marriage violates public policy? What of gay couples that do not have the option of marrying and are in registered domestic partnerships or civil unions that provide all the benefits of marriage?

[I]n a world without DOMA, which makes the choice of law question moot, what will the federal government do? The general rule is the marriages are recognized in the state of celebration, or the state the couple signed the marriage license, even if they reside somewhere else.

Some people argue that all states should recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states because the Constitution, specifically the Full Faith and Credit Clause, requires the states to recognize the "the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings, of every other state." But a marriage license is not a judicial proceeding and although it could be considered a "record," courts have generally not required other states to give binding recognition under the Full Faith and Credit Clause to similar documents, such as a pharmacist's, dentist's, or a lawyer's license.

That means that the Constitution isn't going to be much help coming up with a clear choice of law rule in a post-DOMA world. We could rely on the common law default rule that marriages are recognized by the federal government based on the laws of the state of celebration. But the common law rule has exceptions -- big ones -- that make life impossibly difficult for gay couples to move from one state to another when those state gay marriage laws differ. For some moves -- say, from New York to New Mexico -- there is no problem because whereas New Mexico may not be a freedom to marry state, it will recognize out of state gay marriages. But for other moves -- say, from Massachusetts to Utah -- the public policy exception to out-of-state marriage recognition takes Utah off the map as a viable destination for gay couples.

This raises questions of social justice and fairness, but also constitutional rights. You have a right to move, and states that ban gay marriage and refuse to recognize out-of-state marriages put an effective burden on gay would-be new residents. In Saenz v. Roe (1999), for example, the Supreme Court held, in part, that those who leave one state and become permanent residents of another state have a right to be treated equally to native born citizens of that state. That holding is not cabined by a mover's sexual orientation: a gay person isn't entitled to be treated like any other gay person in his new state, but rather he is entitled to treated equally to any other person in his new state. That could apply to marriage discrimination, as well.

Of course, Congress could step in and solve the complexity problem. The Respect for Marriage Act (ROMA), for example, would codify the following rule:

For the purposes of any Federal law in which marital status is a factor, an individual shall be considered married if that individual’s marriage is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside any State, if the marriage is valid in the place where entered into and the marriage could have been entered into in a State.

Short of this kind of Congressional action -- which, by the way, is unlikely, given the makeup of the House and the long decades that have passed without Congress taking any action to mop up the messy patchwork of choice of law rules when it comes to marriage -- the post-DOMA world will be a tangled web of common law rules that will be subject to future litigation. There are no simple answers to the next questions. The IRS may interpret the tax and bankruptcy codes to define marriage based on state of celebration, but that rule can be challenged. Immigration authorities may interpret the rule differently, based on contradictory case law coming out of the spousal visa context, though, as attorney Lavi Soloway has argued, the celebration rule is the stronger argument.

Yes, it will be very complicated for many of us.   All so that the Christofascists can feel morally superior and inflict their anti-gay animus on as many of us as possible.  So much for religious freedom and the "liberty" that America pretends to offer to all.

Read More

Organization for American States Backs Anti-Discrimination Resolution

The United States finds itself increasingly out of step on gay rights compared to other nations in the western hemisphere.  While the State Department speaks nice words against anti-gay discrimination in Africa and elsewhere overseas, the fact that gays face open, stat endorsed discrimination in states like Virginia is conveniently overlooked.  Now, the Organization for American States has adopted an anti-discrimination resolution that ostensibly the USA doesn't comply with.  The Washington Blade looks at the development and how the Obama administration continues to talk out of both sides of its mouth when it comes to gay rights.  Pretty words are not what is needed.  We want and need to see real action.  Here are highlights from the Blade article:

The Organization of American States on June 5 adopted an anti-discrimination resolution that includes sexual orientation and gender identity and expression.

“Every human being is equal under the law and has the right to equal protection against all forms of discrimination and intolerance in whatever aspect of public or private life,” it reads.

The resolution the OAS adopted during its annual meeting that took place in Antigua, Guatemala, also said member countries have an obligation to prevent “all acts and demonstrations of discrimination and intolerance.” These include hate and bias-motivated violence and using the Internet and other media to incite “hate, discrimination and intolerance” against marginalized groups.

Anti-LGBT discrimination and especially violence remain serious problems in the hemisphere in spite of recent advances on same-sex marriage and other issues in countries that include Brazil and Uruguay.

The U.S. State Department has spoken out against anti-LGBT violence in Jamaica and other countries that include Honduras and Perú.

Wilson Castañeda Castro, director of Caribe Afirmativo, a Colombian LGBT advocacy group that works in cities along the country’s Caribbean coast, attended the OAS meeting in Guatemala.  He told the Washington Blade earlier this week his group welcomes the anti-discrimination resolutions.

“This has been a triumph for the region’s LGBT and Afro-descendent movement,” Castañeda said.

Note the language of the resolution :  "member countries have an obligation to prevent “all acts and demonstrations of discrimination and intolerance."   Here in Virginia, one can be fired for being gay - even by state agencies and departments - and we can be refused housing and accommodations.  And, of course, our relationships receive no legal recognition and we are deprived of over 1000 legal rights.  Let's be real.  America's behavior- and laws like DOMA - makes a mockery of the new resolution.

Read More