New Mexico: The New Gay Marriage Battleground As Judge Orders Issuance of Marriage Licenses

Unlike many states in America, the state of New Mexico never enacted explicit gay marriage bans through either statutes or an anti-gay amendment to the New Mexico Constitution.   As a result in the wake of the U. S. Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Windsor - which among other things correctly identified anti-gay animus as the real motivation behind DOMA - several counties in New Mexico have started issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples.  And as reported previously on this blog, the New Mexico attorney general has announced that he will not oppose the issuance of such licenses.  To further confuse the mix of legal directives, now a judge has ordered county clerks to proceed with the issuance of marriage licenses to same sex couples.  Here are highlights from BuzzFeed:

A New Mexico judge has ordered the county clerks of Bernalillo and Sante Fe counties to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples who apply and are otherwise qualified.

Because the clerk in Santa Fe County already began issuing licenses last week, as did the clerk of Dona Ana County, the addition of Bernalillo County into the mix makes a third county in the state where licenses will be issued to same-sex couples.

Issuing a peremptory writ of mandamus, Judge Alan Malott found Monday that the couples suing for a right to marry in one of the only states in the nation without either marriage equality or an explicit ban on such marriages have a “significant likelihood of success” on the merits of their lawsuit.   In reading his ruling in open court Monday, Malott said he ordered that:

New Mexico law, Malott found, “does not preclude nor prohibit issuance of a marriage license to otherwise qualified couples on the basis of sexual orientation or the gender of its members.”.

To the extent it is found to do so, “those prohibitions are unconstitutional and unenforceable under” New Mexico’s constitution, he ruled.

Bernalillo County Clerk Maggie Oliver and Santa Fe County Clerk Geraldine Salazar “shall comply with and perform” their duty to issue such licences.
Oliver and Salazar are “enjoined and restrained from refusing to issue” such licenses.

Malott is a district court judge in the Second Judicial District of New Mexico and was appointed to the bench by former Gov. Bill Richardson.

New Mexico Attorney General Gary King, meanwhile, has told that state’s Supreme Court in a third court challenge that any attempt to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying is unconstitutional.

It was not immediately clear who, if anyone, would appeal either last week’s or Monday’s court rulings. The question is relevant because neither ruling creates a final, definitive ruling about state law — a ruling that only could come from the state’s Supreme Court.

Read More

Alabama GOP Votes Against Removing Member For Supporting Gay Marriage

Click image to enlarge

Perhaps there is some hope for my former state of Alabama yet.  I frequently lament that Alabama is far more insane now that it was in the late 1970's when I lived there and George Wallace was governor (I got to meet Wallace once).  In a move that frankly took me by surprise, the Alabama GOP voted down a rule change aimed at expelling the president of the state College Republicans organization for committing the heresy of supporting gay marriage.  One can only assume that the Christofascist behind the proposed rule change failed to ladled out enough Kool-Aid to addle the minds of the governing board of the state GOP.   Talking Points Memo looks at the surprising and welcome move.  Here are highlights:

The Alabama Republican Party voted Saturday against a proposed rule that would have removed a junior member from its steering committee because of her support of gay marriage, the Associated Press reported.

The measure was aimed at Stephanie Petelos, the chairwoman of the Alabama College Republicans, who had made public comments in support of the Supreme Court's decision to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act. Petelos told the AP she hopes her ordeal "doesn't scare or shy anyone away from the party."

Bonnie Sachs, an executive committee member who proposed the rule change, told the AP that steering committee members need to serve "in such a way that we don't go to the media with an agenda that we may have." Other committee members said they didn't share Petalos' view on gay marriage, but did respect her First Amendment right to expressing that view.

"We're not the Taliban. We're not the Third Reich," committee member Clay Barclay told the AP.

Perhaps the GOP isn't yet the Taliban or Third Reich, but that is exactly the type of regime that the Christofascist who drafted the 20112 GOP party platform would like to implement.   Candidly, I can see FRC's Tony Perkins happily playing a role equivalent to that of Joesph Goebbels in the Third Reich.  Or if not Perkins, then Gary Bauer. 

Read More

GOP Senator Claims Pentagon Policy Allowing Gays To Marry Harms Straight Couples

One of the worse gay haters and homophobes in the United States Senate is GOP Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe who I suspect in truth would favor establishing a Christofascist ruled theocracy in America after an over throw of the U.S. Constitution in substance.  There seems to be no end to the man's anti-gay batshitery.  Now he is claiming that Pentagon policy allowing gay service members to marry is harming heterosexual couples.  Like most of what comes out of Inhofe's mouth its crazy bullshit.  Inhofe over looks one important fact: unlike gays, straights can marry in every state in America.  It's a huge difference. Think Progress looks at this batshitery erruption.  Here are highlights:

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) blasted a proposed Pentagon policy aimed at giving same-sex couples the time to travel to states where they can legally marry on Thursday. Inhofe, who takes great pride in having no LGBT relatives, wrote to Sec. of Defense Chuck Hagel that doing so would amount to “special uncharged leave benefits” for same-sex partners.

Following the Supreme Court’s June ruling striking down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the Department of Defense has been working to update its systems to ensure it treats same-sex marriages equally, as required by the ruling. Since just 13 states and the District of Columbia have statewide marriage equality, the military is reportedly considering granting a few days of uncharged leave to soldiers and sailors who need to travel to a state where they can legally marry.

Inhofe, the ranking minority-party member of Senate Armed Services Committee, objects to the idea, suggesting it is an illegal benefit and that it would amount to discrimination not to offer the same amount of leave to those entering into opposite-sex unions:

Inhofe’s claim that he supports fair and equal treatment seems to conflict with his record. His official Senate website boasts that he has “consistently supported and defended traditional marriage between one man and one woman as a cornerstone to the strength of our society,” and that he strongly opposes “the Obama Administration’s attack on traditional marriage and attempts to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act.” Inhofe voted for the unconstitutional DOMA law in 1996 and co-sponsored a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages.

Of course, if his concern about “disparate treatment” is sincere, the solution is obvious: he should work toward making sure same-sex couples, especially those who serve their country, are free to marry in all 50 states. He could start with his own state of Oklahoma,

Read More

Charlottesville, Virginia Considering Same-Sex Mariage Ordinance

Charlottesville City Hall

Charlottesville, Virginia, the home of the University of Virginia is among the most liberal cities in Virginia outside of perhaps Alexandria located just across the Potomac from Washington, D.C. Now, Charlottesville is considering an ordinance that will drive Ken Cuccinelli, the lunatic "Bishop" W. W. Jackson, and Mark Obenshain to have spittle flecked conniption fits: an ordinance extending benefits, including health care, to city employees with same-sex partners who were legally married outside Virginia.  The animus based Marshall-Newman Amendment seeks to bar any legal recognition of same sex relationships whatsoever.  Hence, such an ordinance would be tantamount to giving the knuckle dragging Neanderthals who pushed passage of the Amendment - and falsely advertised what it would mean - the middle finger.  The Daily Progress has details:

The Charlottesville City Council is considering an ordinance extending benefits, including health care, to city employees with same-sex partners who were legally married outside Virginia. In Monday’s council meeting, Councilor Dave Norris presented the legislation, which is identical to a July proposal in Richmond City Council.  

“Spouses, at such time it is permitted by state law, should be defined to include same sex partners in marriages that legally occurred in another state,” Richmond’s ordinance summary reads. “With the recent Supreme Court opinion regarding the Defense of Marriage Act … this definition of spouse is consistent with the federal definition of spouse.”

“I thought it was something that Charlottesville should do,” Norris said.

“The value in taking a symbolic stance is that Charlottesville supports equality,” Norris said.
Norris said he would like to see if there are ways to proceed with the ordinance “in the spirit of the Supreme Court ruling and fairness,” he said. “But it may end up that it would be symbolic.”

Vice mayor Kristin Szakos, who also supports the ordinance, said she thinks it can be a message of intent, even if it is not able to be acted upon.

Szakos said the city does currently provide “certain benefits to married couples,” but is not able to extend some benefits, including health care, to same-sex partners.


“If public response is any indication, the proposal will be supported overwhelmingly,” he said.  “I’ve heard only positive responses so far,” Szakos said.

Charlottesville needs to pass the ordinance and grant benefits.  Let Cuccinelli then file suit to enforce and unconstitutional Amendment.  Although Cuccinelli doesn't grasp the concept, the U. S. Constitution trumps the Virginia Constitution.

Read More

New Mexico Atorney General Will Not Challenge Issuance of Gay Marriage Licenses

New Mexico has never enacted an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment.  As a consequence, in view of the absence of a constitutional prohibition, the Ana County Clerk Lynn Ellins decided to start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples earlier today.  The bigger news, however, is that New Mexico Attorney General Gary King told reporters that he does not plan to challenge said marriage licenses, since he believes the bans on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional.  Towleroad has details on the unfolding events in New Mexico.  Here are highlights:

After Doña Ana County Clerk Lynn Ellins decided to start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples earlier today, state Attorney General Gary King told reporters that he does not plan to challenge said marriage licenses, since he believes the state's current ban on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional. In another bit of possibly good news, King also told press that he would not challenge any other county clerk should they make the same decision, although he did warn that the licenses could be ruled invalid if the state Supreme Court deems the decision unlawful.

King's decision comes after a prior legal challenge to New Mexico's ban on same-sex marriage, another one that he has chosen not to defend. According to the Associated Press, same-sex couples in Las Cruces have already started taking advantage of the decision. "I was in a coffee shop grading dissertations when my partner sent me an email saying, `you want to get married?'" said Char Ullman, 51. "I went home to brush my teeth and headed to the courthouse."



Meanwhile, the New Mexico Supreme Court has been asked to streamline and expedite all pending challenges to the state's mariage equality ban, partially thanks to Jen Roper and Angelique Neuman. Roper reportedly suffers from terminal brain cancer, and wishes to tie the knot with her partner before she passes. 

At present, New Mexico's Republican Governor Susana Martinez has yet to issue a comment on today's events.

From a legal perspective, I believe that Attorney General King is 100% on the money.  Hopefully, New Mexico wall join the list of pro-gay marriage states.  Meanwhile, we can expect the Christofscists to attack Mr. King.

Read More

The Brain Drain at Virginia Colleges and Universities

Backwardness and bigotry do have their price.  And it is often an economic price but it can also involve the less tangible loss of talent to more progressive areas.  Here in the Hampton Roads area of Virginia there is an ongoing loss of young college educated individuals.  They go off to college and never come back because the area is lacking in progressive ideas and opportunities.  Instead, they flock to Washington, D.C., New York and other progressive meccas which also offer more job opportunity.  And in Southwest Virginia, companies do not want to relocate to that backward region that makes even Hampton Roads look progressive in comparison.  Now, Virginia's backwardness and anti-gay fixation is harming the state's flagship public colleges and universities which are seeing top academics leave for institutions of learning in more progressive, gay friendly states.  The Washington Post condemns what is happening and calls on Virginia to drag itself out of the 19th century and provide domestic partner benefits to same sex couples (gay marriage is, of course, the real solution).  Here are editorial highlights:

NOT LONG AGO, a tenured professor at the University of Virginia’s College of Arts and Sciences moved to a university in New York because her same-sex partner, diagnosed with cancer, couldn’t get covered by her health insurance in Virginia. A physician at U-Va.’s medical school decamped for an Ivy League school because state law doesn’t recognize her relationship with her partner or their children, so she couldn’t get them coverage.

How many more talented minds have to leave before Virginia takes concrete action to protect publicly employed academics and thus the quality of their universities? 

In the wake of the Supreme Court ruling earlier this summer that the federal government must treat same-sex marriages the same as heterosexual ones, gay and lesbian academics are weighing a new set of incentives to leave public universities and colleges in the commonwealth.

“We already have lost valued gay and lesbian faculty to our competitors who do not discriminate,” Mr. Trammell told The Post’s Nick Anderson in an interview. “With changes in federal benefits soon available to legally married gay couples, we will lose more.”

A number of Virginia’s public university presidents pushed for the state to address this very problem in 2009. They have been ignored by Gov. Robert F. McDonnell (R) and the outspoken anti-gay rights attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli II (R).

U-Va., an academic powerhouse, is one of eight so-called “public Ivies.” It tied for second place in this year’s U.S. News & World Report rankings of the nation’s public universities. Unless the university fixes this situation quickly, its standing and prestige may suffer.  

[T]here is troubling evidence that the state may face an accelerating brain drain of gay academics. And when they leave, in many cases they take their grant funding with them. For example, he detailed how a tenured professor in Virginia Commonwealth University’s pharmacology and toxicology department moved to a private nonprofit research institution in North Carolina that offered full benefits to her partner of 20 years. When she left, she took along her grant of more than $1 million — a loss for Virginia and a win for North Carolina.

Even in states that, like Virginia, don’t recognize same-sex marriage, some public universities have expanded health-care benefits to include same-sex couples. The University of Missouri, for instance, recently adopted a more inclusive plan. There’s no reason that Virginia shouldn’t be able to do the same — especially at Thomas Jefferson’s university.

Naturally, the closeted Ken Cuccinelli vehemently opposes any recognition of same sex couples and has claimed that Virginia's public colleges and universities cannot provide non-discrimination protections to LGBT employees.  Should Cuccinelli win in November, expect the exodus from Virginia to accelerate.

Read More

Antonin Scalia Calls Gays an "Invented Minority"

Some describe Antonin Scalia as the "intellectual leader" of the conservative faction on the U. S. Supreme Court.  Candidly, a close minded, bigoted old grump who wants the Constitution to conform to his own prejudices is a more apt description of the man.  Now, speaking a meeting sponsored by the Federalist Society, Scalia is describing and once again arguing  the rights of minorities should be left to the whims - or more correctly, the tyranny - of the majority.  gays as an "invented minority" As I have noted before, the man needs to retire or be removed from the Court.  Here are highlights from Talking Points Memo:

The U.S. Supreme Court is making decisions that should be left to Congress or the people, from wiretapping to “inventing” new classes of minorities, Justice Antonin Scalia said Monday.

In an apparent reference to the court’s recent decisions on gay marriage and benefits for same-sex couples, Scalia said it is not the function of the courts to create exceptions outside the Constitution unless a majority of people agree with them.

“It’s not up to the courts to invent new minorities that get special protections,” Scalia told a packed hotel ballroom in southwestern Montana.

Changes to the Constitution were made to protect minorities and to give women the right to vote, but that’s not how the court operates today, he said.  Rather, a majority of five judges decide issues that should be in the hands of Congress or made through a change to the Constitution.

 Per the Billings Gazette this also:

Scalia, considered an intellectual leader of the Supreme Court’s conservative wing, said the court’s justices are no better suited to decide what rights ought to exist than is “Joe Sixpack.”

“These aren’t questions for lawyers,” he said. “These are the kind of questions that society debates and decides.”

Many of his comments centered on his cause of interpreting the “original meaning” of the U.S. Constitution and its amendments, which he said spell out clearly defined rights that should not be embellished by the courts.

“I’m just pointing out what happens when you don’t stick to the original meaning of the Constitution,” he said. “The court makes an amazing amount of decisions that ought to be made by the people.”

Let's be clear, Scalia believes in the tyranny of the majority - unless, of course, it differs with his own bigotry.

 

Read More

Alabama GOP Seeks To Oust Pro-Gay College Republican Chairwoman

Proving yet again that Alabama has gone increasingly insane and reactionary compared to when I lived there 30 years ago, the Alabama GOP is seeking to oust the chairwoman of the College Republicans in that state.  Here offense? Her support for gay marriage and having the courage to state that not all Republicans agree with the dictates of the Christofascists who have taken over the party base.   The irony, of course, is that by conducting these kinds of witch hunts, the GOP is mere guaranteeing that the party's demographics will become even more centered on elderly far right Christian white voters.  Here are highlights from Yellowhammer News:

A proposed amendment to the bylaws of the Alabama Republican Party would remove from the Party’s steering committee any member who publicly supports a position contrary to the most recent GOP platform, which was adopted during the 2012 Republican National Convention.

Don Wallace of Tuscaloosa and Bonnie Sachs of Double Springs are the amendment’s sponsors. Sachs’ husband, Harold, is the most senior staffer at the Alabama Republican Party under Chairman Bill Armistead.

Party insiders say the proposed amendment was written as a direct result of comments made by current Alabama College Republicans Chairwoman Stephanie Petelos around the time the Supreme Court ruled the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional.

“We just [love] freedom and fun. That’s all. Don’t hate.” Petelos posted on her Facebook page after the Court’s decision was announced. She also encouraged her Facebook friends to “like” a page for a pro-gay marriage group called “Young Conservatives for the Freedom to Marry.” Petelos said she joined the group because she believes “all people deserve to be treated equally under the law.”

[T]he ALGOP bylaws committee went a step further and proposed a written agreement that instructed Petelos to never speak publicly against any part of the Party’s platform. She declined to sign it. 

The amendment will be voted on by the Alabama Republican Party executive committee at the Party’s summer meeting on Aug. 24.

As readers may recall, the "social issues" portion of the GOP Party Platform was authored in large part by hate group leader Tony Perkins and similar Christofascists.  The clear message to younger pro-gay Republicans is that they are not wanted in the party.  I hope they get the message and walk away and thus hasten the much needed death of today's GOP.

Read More

AFA's Sany Rios: the Face of Bigotry (and Insanity)

Since it's Sunday morning, it's timely to look at some of the batshit craziness being spewed by the "godly Christian" crowd.  Always a contender for the title as one of the most hate filled and virulently anti-gay members is Sandy Rios, of the certified hate group, American Family Association.  Rios like most of the Chriatofascists has a bizarre fixation on gays and gay sex whether it's because she secretly longs to have some gay sex of her own or because we threaten her flimsy faith  system is hard to discern.  The woman needs a mental health care intervention in my view.  Right Wing Watch looks at Rios' latest explosion of verbal diarrhea.  Not surprisingly, the always racist Rios attacks Barack Obama as well.  Here are highlights:

After denouncing First Amendment protections for Muslim-Americans, American Family Association talk show host Sandy Rios saidthat despite the political setbacks of the Religious Right, “God will even the score” with President Obama and “homosexual activists.” She said that Obama and “homosexual activists” will be punished in the end for “breaking all kinds of moral laws and mocking everyone in the process.”

I would not want to be in the shoes of any of the left right now. I would not want to be in Barack Obama’s shoes. I would not want to be in the shoes of homosexual activists. I say that with humility and with fear for them because God will even the score, he will sort things out, he will be God and he will not be mocked. Whereas they think they are getting away with breaking all kinds of moral laws and mocking everyone in the process, they just don’t know God, they don’t know who they are up against and we do. And that should bring out some mercy in us because I wouldn’t want to be—what did that old evangelist say: ‘it’s a fearful thing to fall into the hands of an angry God.

Personally, I love her reference to "that old evangelist."   We have no idea who actually wrote the books of the New Testament other than it wasn't those to whom they are attributed and we know the Bible has been manipulated and re-edited over and over again over the course of the first 1,000 years of the Church.   As for "God punishing" Obama and gay activists, Rios is unclear as to whether she is call for far right nutcases to inflict the punishment as instruments of God or if that will only happen on the supposed Judgment Day.  The woman is insane and she's dangerous in that she spews hate and venom that could incite violence.

I would not want to be in the shoes of any of the left right now. I would not want to be in Barack Obama’s shoes. I would not want to be in the shoes of homosexual activists. I say that with humility and with fear for them because God will even the score, he will sort things out, he will be God and he will not be mocked. Whereas they think they are getting away with breaking all kinds of moral laws and mocking everyone in the process, they just don’t know God, they don’t know who they are up against and we do. And that should bring out some mercy in us because I wouldn’t want to be—what did that old evangelist say: ‘it’s a fearful thing to fall into the hands of an angry God. - See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/rios-god-will-even-score-obama-and-gays#sthash.rpj2Sdvi.dpuf

I would not want to be in the shoes of any of the left right now. I would not want to be in Barack Obama’s shoes. I would not want to be in the shoes of homosexual activists. I say that with humility and with fear for them because God will even the score, he will sort things out, he will be God and he will not be mocked. Whereas they think they are getting away with breaking all kinds of moral laws and mocking everyone in the process, they just don’t know God, they don’t know who they are up against and we do. And that should bring out some mercy in us because I wouldn’t want to be—what did that old evangelist say: ‘it’s a fearful thing to fall into the hands of an angry God. - See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/rios-god-will-even-score-obama-and-gays#sthash.rpj2Sdvi.dpuf

After denouncing First Amendment protections for Muslim-Americans, American Family Association talk show host Sandy Rios said that despite the political setbacks of the Religious Right, “God will even the score” with President Obama and “homosexual activists.” She said that Obama and “homosexual activists” will be punished in the end for “breaking all kinds of moral laws and mocking everyone in the process.” - See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/rios-god-will-even-score-obama-and-gays#sthash.rpj2Sdvi.dpuf

Read More

California Supreme Court Again Rejects Prop. 8 Proponents' Arguments

The supporters of Proposition 8 continue to try to derail the striking down of their hate and animus based agenda.  Their latest attempt sought to claim that a U.S. District Court could not strike down a state wide constitutional amendment.  Like all of these hate merchants' other arguments, the California Supreme Court threw out their claims.  Should they continue to file frivolous petitions and lawsuits, one can only hope that the courts will start imposing sanctions on both the Prop 8 proponents and more importantly, their legal counsel.  The Los Angeles Times looks at this latest defeat.  Here are highlights:

The California Supreme Court refused Wednesday to revive Proposition 8, ending the last remaining legal challenge to same-sex marriage in the state.

Meeting in closed session, the state high court rejected arguments  by ProtectMarriage, Proposition 8’s sponsors, that only an appellate court could overturn a statewide law.

A federal judge in San Francisco declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional in 2010, and state officials refused to appeal. ProtectMarriage did appeal, but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that initiative sponsors have no right to defend their measures in federal court. The decision left in place the ruling by retired Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker.

In its challenge before the state’s highest court,  ProtectMarriage argued that a single judge lacked the authority to overturn a state constitutional amendment.  The group also contended that Walker’s injunction applied to two counties at most and that state officials had overstepped their authority by ordering county clerks throughout California to issue same-sex marriage licenses.

State officials countered that the challenge was a veiled attempt to persuade a state court to interfere with a federal judge’s order in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Same-sex couples began marrying in California in late June after a federal appeals court lifted a hold on Walker’s injunction. ProtectMarriage went back to the U.S. Supreme Court the following day, arguing the appeals court acted prematurely because the high court’s decision was not even final. The Supreme Court refused to intervene.

Then the group went to the state Supreme Court, asking the justices to halt the marriages immediately while considering the legal arguments. The seven-member court unanimously rejected the request for a “stay” or hold.

Let's be clear.  The Christofascists do not give a damn about the U.S. Constitution and the religious freedom rights of others.  Instead,  they seek to subvert the Constitution and impose a theocracy on America based on their sick, hate and fear based version of Christianity.  They remain a clear and present danger and need to be treated as a threat accordingly.

Read More

U.S. Military Endorses Same-Sex Marriage

In addition to defending America, the U.S. military historically has been in the forefront of leading societal change be it racial integration, increased opportunities for women and now the embrace of same sex marriage.  Recent announcements by the Pentagon will have the Christofascists howling because they will allow same sex married couples to receive the same benefits as married heterosexual couples even if they are stationed in anti-gay states like Virginia.  Like big business, the military recognizes that across the board benefits for same sex couples is a plus for recruitment and retention.   A piece in Slate looks at soon to be implemented policies that will help solidify the acceptance of gay marriage over time.  Maggie Gallagher, Tony Perkins and other hate merchants will be surrounded by sheets of flying spittle.  Here are article highlights:

Today, the Pentagon has announced that it will grant the exact rights and benefits to married same-sex couples that it does to married straight couples, including housing and healthcare, a vast expansion of its previously announced plans to extend only meager perks to gay couples. Even more surprisingly, the military will offer a 10-day leave to gay couples stationed in a non-marriage state to travel to the 13 states plus Washington, D.C., to be legally wed.

Make no mistake: This is huge news, the biggest military-related LGBT victory since the repeal of Don’t Ask Don't Tell. Arguably, by the letter of U.S. v. Windsor, the Supreme Court’s decision striking down DOMA, the Pentagon is compelled to provide benefits to already-married same-sex spouses. But the marriage furlough is another matter altogether. To allow gay couples to leave the homophobic states in which they are stationed to gain equal rights—to encourage it, actually, by tethering it to a holiday—is a bold endorsement of marriage equality by the military.

And that endorsement will have broad repercussions throughout society. The DADT repeal has already improved the military by fostering better peer bonding and leadership among both gay and straight troops. But what’s less frequently discussed is its effect on society overall. Gay rights group targeted DADT because the military stood as the last bastion of entrenched, mainstream homophobia. Once gays could serve openly in the military, they believed, the noxious stereotype of gay people as hyper-sexed wimps would fall, as would many soldiers’ knee-jerk homophobia.
There’s no way to prove a direct causation between DADT repeal and the astounding spike in support for gay rights. But the successful drive to allow openly gay service members is indubitably a crucial pillar of the broader edifice the gay rights coalition has been building. Today’s policy announcement proves that no American institution is too reactionary to adjust to the changing climate of equality—that, in fact, such institutions can learn to take a leading role in the fight. And those decisions will reverberate throughout every tier of society for years to come.

Make no mistake, this new policy is a huge defeat for the Christofascists.

Read More

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

McDonnell and Cuccinelli Respond to Gay Marriage Suit

In a somewhat bizarre argument - namely that they enjoy sovereign immunity and are apparently by implication above the U.S. Constitution - Bob "Rolex Bob" McDonnell and Ken "Kookinelli" Cuccinelli have asked that the lawsuit filed against them in U.S. District Court in Norfolk be dismissed.  I have yet to see a copy of the filing, but from the coverage in the Richmond Times Dispatch, McDonnell and Kookinelli would apparently leave the other defendant in the action, the Clerk of the Norfolk Circuit Court to his own devices.  Here is what the Virginia Constitution says about the responsibilities of the Governor in relevant part:

Article V Section 7. Executive and administrative powers.  The Governor shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

As for the Attorney General, the Code of Virginia states in part as follows:

2.2-500. Attorney General to be chief executive officer; duties generally.  The Attorney General shall be the chief executive officer of the Department of Law, and shall perform such duties as may be provided by law.

2.2-513. Counsel for Commonwealth in federal matters.  The Attorney General shall represent the interests of the Commonwealth, its departments, boards, institutions and commissions in matters before or controversies with the officers and several departments of the government of the United States.

Despite these provisions McDonnell and Cuccinelli seemingly are claiming that they have nothing to do with the states anti-gay marriage laws.  Here are highlights from the Times Dispatch article:

Gov. Bob McDonnell and Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli have filed to be dismissed from legal action against them as representatives of the state in a federal lawsuit brought by a gay couple from Norfolk who were denied a marriage license.

Court records show that McDonnell and Cuccinelli asked the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in Norfolk to dismiss the plaintiffs’ suit on grounds of sovereign immunity.
 

In his complaint, Solicitor General E. Duncan Getchell Jr., who represents McDonnell and Cuccinelli in the case, cited the 14th Amendment because “limitations on eligibility to marry in Virginia” are “enforced by withholding a marriage license as happened in this case.”

Getchell continued that neither the governor nor the attorney general has “any proximity to, responsibility for, or a special relationship with the laws of marital eligibility. As a consequence both should be dismissed on the ground of sovereign immunity.”

I'm sure the Clerk of the Norfolk Circuit Court will be thrilled to learn that he apparently has the burden of defending Virginia's anti-gay laws under the Taliban Bob/Kookinelli theory to the case.  Once I see the pleading, I will post an update.

Read More

Gay Marriage Issue Entangles Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett

With the State Attorney General of Pennsylvania stating that she will not defend Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage and some county clerks issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples and one mayor conducting marriages, the hot potato issue of gay marriage has landed firmly in the lap of Pennsylvania's GOP governor, Tom Corbett (pictured above).  It's an issue that is probably a lose-lose situation for Corbett, whose popularity has plummeted, but the Christofascists in the GOP base will be screaming for his head on a pike if he does not defend the law.  Politico looks at Corbett's unwanted position.  Here are highlights:

Defending a divisive gay marriage ban is probably not the fight Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett would have chosen 15 months ahead of an election he’s widely expected to lose. A majority of Pennsylvanians now support same-sex marriage, a dramatic shift from just a few years ago.  But the issue has been thrust in the first-term Republican’s lap — and the politics may not be all bad for him.

Corbett’s decision to stand by the state’s 1996 ban will help shore up his shaky support among Republicans and all but eliminates the possibility of a primary challenge from the right, strategists said.

But the conflict between Corbett and Kathleen Kane, Pennsylvania’s attorney general, also prolongs a conversation about an increasingly unpopular law when the governor is struggling to pick up every vote he can. A June poll out of Quinnipiac University said that Corbett, who is in his first term, has a dismal 30 percent favorability rating among Pennsylvania voters.

Although the defense of such challenges ordinarily falls under the purview of the state attorney general, Kane made the rare decision to not to back the law, saying she believes it to be “wholly unconstitutional.”

That put Corbett, one of the least popular governors in the country, in a tough spot: defend a law that a growing number of voters disagree with; or side with Kane and anger the GOP base.  On July 30, he chose the former.

Corbett’s decision adds gay marriage to the list of issues he must juggle ahead of what’s expected to be a vicious reelection fight. His tanking popularity and struggles to push his agenda through a legislature controlled by his own party — privatizing liquor stores, public pension reform and transportation funding — have prompted several Democrats to jump into next year’s race.

Although the decision angered Democrats and could alienate moderate Republicans from the must-win Philadelphia suburbs, analysts said that in defending the law, Corbett all but guaranteed himself a straight shot at the Republican nomination, which had looked to be in jeopardy.

Nevertheless, strategists said the debate over gay marriage will remain at the forefront of Pennsylvania politics in the coming months. The fact that the state’s attorney general and governor are at odds on the legality of a law passed by the state legislature will provide ample fodder for the media.ot

For Corbett, the extended coverage is less than welcome news. In 2006, a decade after the marriage law in question was passed, just 33 percent of Pennsylvanian vers approved of gay marriage. That number shot up by about 20 percentage points in the past seven years.  A February Franklin and Marshall poll found that 52 percent of Pennsylvania voters approve of gay marriage, the first time a public poll registered majority support. This number increased to 54 percent by May.

The ACLU lawsuit isn’t all that’s fueling the gay marriage controversy. The Corbett administration recently sued Montgomery County register of wills D. Bruce Hanes after he began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the Supreme Court struck down DOMA. And the mayor of Braddock, a Pittsburgh suburb, officiated a gay marriage on Monday in defiance of the law.

Slowly but surely catering to the Christofascists will be the death of the GOP.

Read More

Visas Are Now Available For Same-Sex Couples

Among the clear winners in the aftermath of the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Windsor are bi-national same sex couples who had heretofore been unable to get visas for the non-U.S. spouse and often faced having to move abroad to stay together.  Yesterday, the State Department announced that effective immediately same sex spouses would be treated equally and have the same visa rights as heterosexual couples.  We can expect flying spittle and hyperventilating among the Christofascists in reaction to this development.  Metro Weekly has details:

In a policy change announced Friday by Secretary of State John Kerry, the United States will begin processing visa applications for same-sex couples effective immediately. 

"If you are the spouse of a U.S. citizen, your visa application will be treated equally. If you are the spouse of a non-citizen, your visa application will be treated equally. And if you are in a country that doesn’t recognize your same-sex marriage, then your visa application will still be treated equally at every single one of our 222 visa processing centers around the world," Kerry said during an appearance at the U.S. embassy in London.

The announcement is the latest repercussion following the Supreme Court's June decision striking down Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

"Now, as long as a marriage has been performed in a jurisdiction that recognizes it so that it is legal, then that marriage is valid under U.S. immigration laws, and every married couple will be treated exactly the same, and that is what we believe is appropriate," Kerry added.

According to Freedom to Marry, sixteen countries permit same-sex marriage — Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland, Argentina, Denmark, France, Brazil, New Zealand, Uruguay and Britain — while certain regions of the U.S. and Mexico also allow same-sex couples the right to marry.

The new State Department policy will also impact the children of the foreign national spouse by considering them "step-children" of the parent who is a U.S. citizen.

"Today, the State Department, which has always been at the forefront of equality in the federal government, I'm proud to say, is tearing down an unjust and an unfair barrier that for too long stood in the way of same-sex families being able to travel as a family to the United States."

Read More

Lambda Legal and ACLU File Federal Class Action Challenging Virginia's Gay Marriage Ban

Following up on their previously announced intention to challenge Virginia's anti-gay marriage ban, Lambda Legal and the ACLU filed a class action suit this morning in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, Harrisonburg Division.  This comes in the wake of a suit filed last month in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Norfolk Division, filed by a Norfolk couple.  The new lawsuit, as noted is a class action suit, and the plaintiffs are  Joanne Harris and Jessica Duff of Staunton and Christy Berghoff and Victoria Kidd of Winchester, and seeks to represent all same-sex couples in Virginia who wish to marry there or who have married in other jurisdictions.  Here are excerpts from Lambda Legal's blog that discusses the lawsuit:

“Virginia is home for us. Our families are here, our jobs are here, and our community is a great support for us, but it makes us sad that we cannot get married where we live,” said Joanne Harris, a lifelong Virginian and the daughter of Bedford, Va., farmers. “It hits me in the gut that two hours from our house same-sex couples in Maryland and D.C. can marry. I have a serious medical condition and we’ve had to spend lots of money to try to make sure that Jessi can make decisions for me if there were ever a crisis.”

"I’m an Air Force veteran, and if Virginia would just respect our marriage from D.C., it would ensure that my spouse and family could access all the benefits I’ve earned," said Christy Berghoff, from Winchester. "I’ve been with Victoria for almost a decade now; and it hurts to have our home state say we are not married when it recognizes marriages entered into by different-sex couples who may have only recently met.”

“More than half of the people of Virginia believe all Virginians should have the freedom to marry the person they love, said Claire Guthrie Gastañaga, Executive Director of the ACLU of Virginia. “Every day that same-sex couples in Virginia are denied the freedom to marry, the government sends a message that they are second class citizens and their families are not worthy of equal dignity and respect.”

The press release on the filing of the suit is here.  The complaint itself can be found here.  The following are some excerpts from the complaint:

The Named Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on behalf of themselves and the Plaintiff Class, seeking declaratory and injunction relief for the violation of Plaintiffs’ rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution caused by the exclusion of same-sex couples from the freedom to marry and from recognition of the marriages some Plaintiffs have entered into in other jurisdictions under the law of the Commonwealth of Virginia (“Commonwealth” or “Virginia”).

Marriage plays a unique role in society as the universally recognized and celebrated hallmark of a couple’s commitment to build family life together.   It confers upon couples a dignity and status of immense import.  Plaintiffs have formed committed, enduring bonds equally worthy of the respect afforded by the Commonwealth to different - sex couples through marriage. Yet, the Commonwealth, without any adequate justification, has enacted an unprecedented series of statutory and constitutional amendments to single out lesbian and gay Virginians by excluding them from the freedom to marry, or by refusing to recognize their existing marriages from other jurisdictions, based solely on their sexual orientation and their sex.

The marriage ban inflicts serious and irreparable harms upon same sex couples and their children.   Joanne Harris and Jessica Duff are unmarried, and wish to marry for the same reasons as different - sex couples to publicly declare their love and commitment before their family, friends, and community, and to give one another and their son J. H. D. the security and protections that only marriage provides.   Christy Berghoff and Victoria Kidd have married in another jurisdiction, but are treated as legal strangers in the state they call home a painful invalidation of their relationship that also deprives them and their daughter L. B. K. of  the protections that a legally recognized marriage most securely provides.

[T]he Commonwealth’s exclusion of  same - sex couples from marriage and refusal to recognize their valid marriages from other jurisdictions and Defendants’ enforcement of the marriage ban violate the due process and equal protection guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

As the Supreme Court has made clear, the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give effect to private biases.   Liberty and equality, not moral disapproval, must be the guiding framework for a state’s treatment of its citizens.

Excluding same - sex couples from marriage does nothing to protect or enhance the rights of different - sex couples. Different - sex spouses will continue to enjoy the same rights and status conferred by marriage regardless of whether same - sex couples may marry, unimpaired by the acknowledgment that this freedom belongs equally to lesbians and gay men.

The Commonwealth’s interest in child welfare is affirmatively harmed rather than furthered by the exclusion of same - sex couples from marriage. That exclusion injures same - sex couples’ children without offering any conceivable benefit to other children.  . . . Other courts have found, after trials involving expert testimony, that there is no rational basis for favoring parenting by heterosexual couples over gay and lesbian couples.

 

Read More