Halloween Early for Antis

A scary and insightful cover story in today's New York Times Magazine deserves wide reading by all concerned with same-sex marriage. The piece What's Their Real Problem with Gay Marriage? (It's the Gay Part) by Russell Shorto.

Note: This is free and in HTML, but you need to register to see it. If you don't grab it in the next week, you'll have to pay to read it online.

It's not about fairness or compassion or equality or civil rights or reasoning or freedom. It's about the queers.

The anti-same-sex-marriage folk Shorto follows and interviews slice it this way and that. In the end, they will do whatever they can to prevent any semblance of equal rights for gay couples -- no medical visitation, no marriage, no tax breaks, no civil union, no, no, no. They delude themselves and accept glaring lies based on dishonest articles from their leaders. There are a lot of them (a loose affiliation of 60 million from 61 organizations) and they deal in self-righteousness not righteousness.

This piece is not a hatchet job and I suspect the subjects will read it feeling pretty smug. They may momentarily cringe when he calls them on the baseless studies they use, but they can pretend he's either ignorant or damned or both.

Shorto features the Arlington Group and how widely it separates itself from an America of tolerance and freedom. He notes how one of its leaders (Gary Bauer, American Values) revels in same-sex marriage as the new abortion. That is:

(C)onservatives see gay marriage as a culture-altering change being implemented by judicial fiat. But gay marriage is also the new abortion in that it is for groups like Bauer's a base-energizing and fund-raising issue of tremendous power.

While that's not news, the power of the article is how these folk reason away their hate.

Rather, their passion comes from their conviction that homosexuality is a sin, is immoral, harms children and spreads disease. Not only that, but they see homosexuality itself as a kind of disease, one that afflicts not only individuals but also society at large and that shares one of the prominent features of a disease: it seeks to spread itself.

It is scary stuff indeed, as he profiles Maryland hausfrau Laura Clark. Her current guerilla tasks involve locating Internet stories to back up the anti-gay campaign and email to the eager minions.

There are also some powerful statements from the "men of God." One is Laura's pastor, Brian Racer. Part of his reasoning is what appears in various forms from the antis.

''The Hebrew words for male and female are actually the words for the male and female genital parts,'' he told me. ''The male is the piercer; the female is the pierced. That is the way God designed it. It's unfortunate that homosexuals have taken the moniker 'gay,' because their lifestyle and its consequences are anything but. Look what has happened in the decades since the sexual revolution and acceptance of the gay lifestyle as normal. Viruses have mutated. S.T.D.'s have spread. It shows that when we try to change the natural course of things, what comes out of that is not joy or gayness.''

In that compact quote, you see this world in all of its slimy glory.

Shorto identifies major sources from the twisted or outright lying truths as these groups pass around to each other. The worst may by Hoover Institute research fellow Stanley Kurtz. For example, he takes Danish studies of young, gay, single men and says their behavior is that of same-sex married couples.

Worst perhaps is how the anti folk justify their efforts to prevent homosexuals from getting fair treatment and take away any gains so far. The core of the argument is that gay is a lifestyle only.

But, of course, the Christian activists aren't vague in their opposition. For them, the issue isn't one of civil rights, because the term implies something inherent in the individual -- being black, say, or a woman -- and they deny that homosexuality is inherent. It can't be, because that would mean God had created some people who are damned from birth, morally blackened. This really is the inescapable root of the whole issue, the key to understanding those working against gay marriage as well as the engine driving their vehicle in the larger culture war: the commitment, on the part of a growing number of people, to a variety of religious belief that is so thoroughgoing it permeates every facet of life and thought, that rejects the secular, pluralistic grounding of society and that answers all questions internally.

For those Baby Boomers among us who grew up with the idea of a free America that shares rights with all in an ever expanding embrace of liberty, these folk are aliens and monsters. We also heard and believed that we were supposed to be stronger and better as a nation than the bigoted and narrow nations who restricted their people. Democracy was supposed to be sharing freedom and rights.

Mitt Meet and Greet

In more of a plunk than splash, Gov. Mitt Romney was the main speaker at the Flag Day celebration of the Orange County, California, Republican Party. The local media apparently didn't notice. The Orange County Register led with the Iranian runoff and Disney raising theme-park tickets by $3. The LA Times didn't cover it either.

Hover, the Globe has a piece on it today. The byline, Michael Levenson, Globe Correspondent, indicates he was an underwhelmed, non-booster California sort. He included in his coverage:

Contrary to what some local Republicans said, however, (Mark Petracca, professor of political science at the University of California, Irvine) said Romney has yet to establish himself as a leading contender for the Republican presidential nomination. ''I've not heard a single person talk about Romney," he said. ''Out here, people want to amend the Constitution to allow Arnold Schwarzenegger to run."

Because California's Republican primary is usually held relatively late in the season when the nominee is often all but certain -- he said Romney had little to gain here in the way of votes. ''It's dialing for dollars, not dialing for votes," Petracca said.

What I was most curious about didn't appear. It seems Mitt didn't try his anti-same-sex-marriage ploy last night. That may be wise in a state still divided and conflicted on the subject, even if SUV and BMW crowd at the hotel is not.

This is Romney's second trip this year to California to make himself known. Meanwhile. U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill (Remote Diagnosis) Frist was in South Carolina flashing his grin and doing his similar PR.

No South, Later North

In California, a federal judge will make a homosexual couple appeal to the U.S. Circuit Court in an effort to overturn the state's DoMA law. Uptown in Canada, the sure-to-pass bill legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide was forced to a fall vote when the Conservative Party leader sidetracked it from a vote this session.

In Santa Ana, Central District Judge Gary Taylor refused to rule on a petition Thursday. Christopher Hammer and Arthur Smelt of Mission Viejo, joined by another dozen gay couples, won a March state-trial decision saying DoMA was unconstitutional. Lawyers for the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund claimed victory (or Orange Crush). Taylor used standard anti lingo in his non-ruling, writing:

The Court finds it is a legitimate interest to encourage the stability and legitimacy of what may reasonably be viewed as the optimal union for procreating and rearing children by both biological parents.

That's a set of code words usually reserved by anti-gay groups. It always brings to question whether the majority of married heterosexuals who are unable or unwilling to procreate have the right to wed by that standard. Think. Think. Think.

In Ottawa, the Conservative folk and such humorless groups as Defend Marriage Canada! are doing whatever they can to keep this winner from coming to a vote. The San Francisco Chronicle has details on the current efforts here.

Key stages include:

• An Ontario appeals court okayed same-sex marriage two years ago.
• Courts in British Columbia, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, and the Yukon Territory followed.
• The national government stopped appeals and formulated a uniform bill (C-38) permitting same-sex marriage.
• Thursday, the legislative committee considering it reported it favorably for a vote by the full congress.
• Conservative Leader Stephen Harper will try to forestall a vote by June 23, forcing the issue to wait until the fall session.

The Liberals were unable to cut a deal with the Conservatives, who had linked pushing off C-38 with passing the budget. The version that finally passes will probably end up with U.S.-style exemptions for religious groups.

Mitt Goes West

Bada bing. Mitt shares the stage tonight in California with Rush Limbaugh's favorite comedian, Paul Shanklin. They'll be at the Hyatt in Irvine (where Republicans are 60% of registered voters).

The head of the Republican Party of Orange County, Scott Baugh introduces our gubenatorial unit as, "We are thrilled to have Governor Mitt Romney joining us here in 'America's most Republican County.' Governor Romney knows how to get elected and knows how to govern in a 'blue state.'"

It's only $250 for the evening, assuming you can keep from bidding during the silent auction. Drinks start at 5:30 p.m. and dinner at 7.

What About Those Married Gays?

Just in case you wondered what would happen to the 6000-plus same-sex marriages if the newest DoMA amendment version passes in 2008, the short answer is nothing. They would get grandfathered. The anti folk would then hope they would wither and disappear, much like the Shakers.

The actual wording of this week's one is:

When recognizing marriages entered after the adoption of this amendment by the people, the Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall define marriage as only the union of one man and one woman.

Of course, that would be confusing, legally and culturally. Yet, in the unlikely event this occurs, it would make plain the intent of the anti forces —— to limit the freedoms and take away rights from homosexuals. (Judge for yourself how anti-American stripping existing rights from citizens is.)

This might be a good time to recall that unlike other colonies and then states, Massachusetts kept a clear line between church and state, as described here. Marriage here was always and remains a civil contract. Ministers and other clerics were not originally allowed to solmenize marriages, only government officials could. It is fascinating to see how groups are trying to twist this into a religious issue.

Sure, Mitt Will Respect You

Gov. Mitt Romney is out of here. He made one big move yesterday and will do another today. After endorsing a DoMA drive locally, he's touring other states to kiss up to conservative groups.

Along the way to get the GOP POTUS nomination, he's already using the local anti-same-sex-marriage folk. He'll let them fail to get a civil-union-instead-of-gay-marriage amendment, then fail after he's gone to get a DoMA amendment, and stew in their own juices. Meanwhile, he can go to California (today) and Michigan and South Carolina to thump his chest. "Me anti-gay-marriage. Grunt. Look how hard me fight!"

You can read detailed analysis of his ploys in today's Boston Globe. It leads with his use of the Mass Family Institute and its allies here, although this is straight news. It gets down a little bit with its analysis of his new PAC that will shamelessly reframe his wavering politics as steady conservative leadership.

So far, the wires and other newspapers have just the facts. More analysis will follow and the Washington Post has yet to weigh in on this. The California papers may get a giggle out this too; they have their own Republican governor theater.

It really shouldn't be funny, but the Massachusetts anti forces have so clumsily and flagrantly used the sincere, religious and confused (or combinations of those) that Romney jumping up and down on their backs to raise his profile is sweet.

So, we can get a whiff from Orange Country today when Mitt lays it on at the Flag Day fund raiser for the California GOP. That should be rich, in every sense of the term.

Romney for Something

And speaking of Mr. Mitt, the .08 Acres blog has an insightful analysis and commentary on Romney's horizon. See the top June 14th entry Senatorial Approval Ratings.

He compares the approval ratings for Ted Kennedy and John Kerry. Then he dissects Kennedy's fundraising mail after the Wall Street Journal urges Mitt to run for Kennedy's seat. Pretty much like Mitt's posturing on same-sex marriage, that could be another meaningless way to puff himself up politically.

In Snit, Mitt Bit

Our governor, Mitt Romney, has likely killed the replace-gay-marriage-with-civil-unions amendment trying to wriggle through the constitutional-convention process. Shortly after the predictable group of anti folk announced today that they did in fact intend to try to get a DoMA amendment before the voters in 2008, Mitt said that's what he had in mind all along.

It looks like surrender clothed in bravado, shouting, "We'll get you now!," as they run away.

Putting the most positive spin on it, Mitt's man at the mic, Eric Rehrnstrom said, "Gov. Romney believes that voters should be given a straightforward amendment to decide the definition of marriage and not one that muddles the water by creating civil unions that would be equivalent of marriage in all respects but name."

It is to laugh.

From here it looks like:

• The anti folk figured they were not going to win the second vote to get their civil-union amendment on the ballot.
• Mitt wants to be POTUS or VP and was not about to leave the state soundly defeated by both same-sex marriage and failure to downgrade it to civil union.
• The bar to get the new amendment on the ballot in 2008 is half as high as the current one, so that even this group of clowns should be able to pull it off.

However, legislators and voters here are losing what light taste they had for this blood. Same-sex marriage works as smoothly as the old kind, letting homosexuals have equal rights has hurt no one and no one's estate of matrimony, and none of the dreadful plagues predicted by the naysayers and nigglers has befallen us.

Assuming the low-bar version gets on the ballot, it looks like a loser. Politicians are seeing that the majority of voters are either in favor of equality or indifferent to this non-problem. It's possible that in three years the only voters who will go for the amendment will be bigots who say they aren't bigoted and discriminators who say no one wants discrimination. Let us be thankful that they are the minority.

By the bye, no one other than Mass News paid much attention to the anti folk's announcement. That stalwart source listed, "Holding Thursday's press conference are Massachusetts Family Institute's Kris Mineau, Maria Parker of the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, Dr. Roberto Miranda of the Congregacion de Judah, Bishop Gilbert Thompson from the Black Ministerial Alliance, and Rep. Philip Travis (D-Rehoboth)."

New Jersey Decision Available

LAMBDA Legal has made the decision of the New Jersey Appeals Court rejecting same-sex marriage available online here. (This is in PDF and you need an Adobe Acrobat compatible reader to view or print it. It runs 75 pages of decision and dissent.)

We'll take a look through it. Meanwhile, for a taste of the 31-page dissent, consider its conclusion:

While the Domestic Partnership Act gives, at some cost, many, but not all, of the benefits and protections automatically granted to married persons, we have learned after much pain that "separate but equal" does not substitute for equal rights. Plaintiff Sarah Lael describes the difference in this way:
For me, being denied marriage, despite how hard we work and support each other and our children, it is demeaning and humiliating. These feelings are part of my daily life ... because of constant reminders that we are second class.

What Sarah Lael and her partner lack and seek may be summed up in the word dignity. But there is more they will gain from lawful marriage. That something else goes to the essence of marriage and is probably best left to poets rather than judges. It is the reason that people do get married. For marriage changes who you are. It gives stability, legal protection and recognition by fellow citizens. It provides a unique meaning to everyday life, for legally, personally and spiritually a married person is never really alone. Few would choose life differently.

With great admiration for the wisdom, logic and eloquence of my colleagues, I must dissent.

Judge Donald Collester

Equality v. Schadenfreude

For those still wondering what more do those queers want, several poignant examples appear in a piece by AP reporter Geoff Mulvihill. The Bridgewater, New Jersey, Courier-News has it here with pix.

The differences between what New Jersey's domestic-partnership law can offer and what married couples routinely get is probably best illustrated by the case of Marilyn Maneely and Diane Marini. They are among the plaintiffs in the three-year-old case suing the state for Massachusetts-style full same-sex marriage.

Four months ago, Maneely found that she had Lou Gehrig's disease. As the article notes, not only would Marini not be eligible for Maneely's Social Security were the latter to die, but:

Health-care coverage is a big issue for the couple. For 13 years, Marini, who owns a construction business, had been on Maneely's health insurance plan as a domestic partner. But Maneely can no longer work as a nurse and is forced to buy into her current plan. Without being married, Marini cannot be insured that way and must find private insurance.

The New Jersey law doesn't help at all. Of course, with Federal DoMA procedural restrictions, agencies are forbidden from extending marital benefits in such cases.

What Marini gets from the state is the right to visit her long-term partner in the hospital and the same inheritance exemptions for personal property that a spouse could claim.

Among the other theoretical benefits would be freedom from being compelled to testify against a spouse in court. New Jersey is one of five states that offer these minimal partner benefits.

Down Not Out in Newark

By 2-1, a New Jersey appeals court ruled against permitting same-sex marriage. The plaintiffs will take it to the state Supreme Court.

The Star-Ledger has a report online here.

The majority judges wrote that the legislature would have to change the marriage law first to permit same-sex marriages. The dissenter, Judge Donald Collester, had a strongly worded commentary, including that the right is "effectively meaningless unless it includes the freedom to marry a person of one's choice." His dissent included a comparison to race-mixing prohibitions.

The lead attorney, LAMDBA's David Buckel, said, "We are disappointed but not discouraged, because we always knew we were headed to the high court, and so, we'll be trying to get there as soon as possible and we are hopeful the high court will agree with the better-reasoned dissent."

The majority opinion of Judges Stephen Skilman and Anthony Parrillo compared the plaintiffs' arguments to those that could be made for polygamy. In contrast, Collester noted the circular reasoning of the majority — "...plaintiffs cannot marry because by definition they cannot marry."

A wrinkle in the New Jersey case is that while this suit was proceeding, the legislature passed a domestic-partnership act that went into effect last year. This grants same-sex couples limited rights. I bet the legislature thought they had side-stepped this issue.

Hardline DoMA Effort

According to today's Globe, the farthest right of the rights in the legislature will buck the current compromise effort to get a full marriage = 1 man + 1 woman amendment to the commonwealth constitution. They are supposed to announce the effort tomorrow.

Logistically, this try would be easier than the one underway to replace same-sex marriages with civil unions. Realistically, it seems doomed.

As for law, a DoMA initiative petition would still take a cycle of three years, getting on a ballot in 2008. However, instead of needing twin votes of a majority of the combines legislature, it would require only a quarter of the lawmakers to get before the voters.

Ironically, the effort would give voters two more years of seeing that there are no negatives to homosexual marriage. Already polls show that a majority (56% in the most recent) favor same-sex marriage. More people gay and straight are marrying, staying married, and increasing marital stability in Massachusetts.

The odd state Rep. Emile Goguen has his name attached to the latest effort. More on this when they, if you pardon the expression, come out.

Marriage Law Ref Guide

There is a pretty up-to-date and complete marriage/relationship law directory on the Human Rights Campaign Foundation site.

A spot-check shows it to be timely. For example, the Massachusetts section provides the background of the effort to put a civil-union amendment before the voters, but it does not have the latest legislative moves in the past few weeks. On the other hand, the issues with out-of-state residents trying to marry here is current as of the governor's May 205th announcement

Maine-ly Discriminatory

Slicing and dicing reason exceedingly finely, the repeal-the-homosexual-equality laws folk must still have a hard time making their case. In the following link to the law, you can read the 12 short pages or skip to the summary on the last, which reads:

This bill ensures that all citizens, regardless of their sexual orientation, have the same civil rights protections now guaranteed in employment, housing, public accommodations and credit to citizens on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin and physical or mental handicap. A religious organization that does not receive public funds is exempt from the prohibition against discrimination based on sexual orientation. The bill makes it clear that this change in the Maine Human Rights Act does not confer legislative approval of or special rights to anyone or any group.

As background, see the law 1365, An Act to End Discrimination, here in HTML. The talking points in the petition effort to defeat it are on the main Maine anti site here.

The repeal people seem to be largely fundamentalists, both Protestant and Roman Catholic. Whether they really believe their talking points is debatable. Yet, they seem to want others to buy into their doublespeak.

For example, the ballot question they want to present to voters reads simply, Do you want to reject the new law that would protect people from discrimination in employment, housing, education, public accommodations and credit based on their sexual orientation.

So in response to the quite obvious query from people they want to sign, they suggest:

Q. Isn't this all about discrimination? Why would anyone want to discriminate against gays?

A. Everyone is opposed to discrimination, but the law goes far beyond legitimate forms of discrimination. It is written in such broad terms that it covers behavior which is contrary to God'’s laws, and offensive to common decency. For example, the law would allow a man who believes that he is a woman to use a woman'’s rest room. There are many other examples of this sort. By preventing citizens from speaking out against outrageous and immoral behavior, the law effectively discriminates against people with traditional religious beliefs about homosexuality. The law also grants special privileges to homosexuals, which would allow many unscrupulous individuals to gain an unfair advantage over their fellow citizens through frivolous lawsuits. To say that the law is merely about discrimination is an over-simplification which is intended to be deliberately misleading.

That's a big "Huh?" You want to discriminate, protect those who discriminate, and overturn the anti-discrimination law, but I'm supposed to believe this is not discrimination.

Likewise, the talking point about the sin states to the south reads:

Q. Why do you claim that this is about same-sex marriage when the law mentions nothing about same-sex marriage. Didn'’t the Governor and the Legislature say the law has nothing to do with same sex marriage?

A. In Massachusetts and Connecticut, the actions which made same-sex marriage and civil unions legal took into consideration, or specifically cited, existing gay rights laws as reasons why same-sex marriage laws were needed. The ultimate goal of the gay rights movement has always been same-sex marriage; and they have stated this repeatedly in their own writings. Gay rights activists call this strategy of hiding the ultimate goal of same-sex marriage "“incrementalism."”

I suspect most Mainers will distance themselves from these anti folk. Certainly recently, both voters and lawmakers have shown they don't want to punish and discriminate against folk, no matter what you pretend it's about.

Mad Dad Becomes Maine Gimmick

With four days left to gather 50,000 verifiable voter signatures, the deceptively named Maine Coalition for Marriage is in the second day of its two-day Wake Up Maine tour. They want enough support to get plebiscite on the next ballot to overturn the state's anti-discrimination law covering sexual orientation.

If you want to catch the dog-and-pony show, you have until 6 p.m. EDT today in Ellsworth (Family Bible Church, across from Wal-Mart) for the last one. It's likely a short-lived link, but right now New England Cable News' opening page has a video clip of the story.

It shouldn't be funny, but our Lexington head-in-the-sand guy David Parker seems a bit caught up in his reactionary celebrity. He drove downeast to appear with the group. In a piece in Kennebec Journal, the aggrieved agonist played sidekick to the loathsome Brian Camenker of the Article 8 Alliance.

Parker urged Mainers to work to overturn a Maine law that gives gays and lesbians protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

"These laws will be used and have used been in Massachusetts to expose small children to these lifestyles," Parker said to about 25 supporters in the Statehouse Hall of Flags.

Parker and Camenker spoke at the invitation of the Christian Civic League of Maine, which recently launched a "Wake Up, Maine" tour to generate enthusiasm for its people's veto signature drive and to alert Mainers to what's happened in other states with progressive gay rights laws.

It doesn't look on the face of it like even these Traveling Spite Brothers can help amass 50,000 signatures. Yet, there are shopping malls and petition initiatives are very popular, particularly in New England.

More Folk Less Skin Pride Parade

Coming up on 35 years of Gay Pride parades in Boston, this year's version was big – about 8,000 walking, 200,000 watching on Saturday. There was less effort to shock and make personal physical statements. There was more political talk.

This year's organizers themed it Pride in Progress...What's Your Fight? The idea is that while same-sex marriage is in place here, "Gays are still discriminated against in the workplace, children of gay parents are discriminated against," said Pride Committee Director Aandre Davis. "It's still not legal in the rest of the country to get married and AIDS is still a big issue. Until we resolve these matters, the fight is not over."

The Boston Globe coverage noted that this year's parade had numerous corporate and political sponsors. Its article called this trend "another sign of the parade's increasing appeal to the mainstream."

Up or Down in Oregon

Oregon's hot on Connecticut's tail for civil unions. Its Senate will vote on amending the marriage statutes to permit civil unions. The Senate Rules Committee reported Senate Bill 1073 favorably by 3 to 2.

Not surprisingly, the tally was 3 Democrats for and 2 Republicans against. A full report on the committee action appears in the Salem Statesman-Journal.

Lest you think Oregon is dull, Senate Majority Leader Kate Brown describes herself as a bisexual. She is the unabashed champion of 1073. She is very optimistic that the Senate will pass it.

The dickering could then begin. The House pass its reciprocal-beneficiary bill. That lets unmarried folk get the legal and governmental benefits of marriage.

One senator who won't vote for the unions is Charles Starr, a Republican from Hillsboro. He testified that "Civil unions aren't good for the people who would be in them. The record shows homosexual activity is not normal. Neither the mouth nor the anus were intended for sexual intercourse."

There's the sound reasoning upon which to base your thinking and frame the laws for us all, eh?

No Ban in Maine

It wasn't even close in Augusta, where the Maine House of Representatives defeated a bill to ban same-sex marriages. Despite the state's reputation for stodginess, it might be the next one to legalized them, and by vote rather than court mandate.

The vote on June 8th was 88 to 56 against banning same sex marriages.

Technically, this only kills such a measure for this term of the legislature. However, realistically, the anti forces must recognize that they are nowhere near the required two-thirds votes to add such language to the state's constitution.

Walking the (Gay Pride) Walk

Two leading candidates for Massachusetts governor include one who talks and one who walks. Supposedly a politician would barbecue with the devil to be seen and heard by voters, but only one is taking the chance this time.

Tomorrow is Boston's gay-pride parade, with accompanying music, party, speeches and effusion. Duval Patrick will march (as well as Boston's mayor and his chief challenger in the fall mayoral race). Tom Reilly is sitting on his thumbs and likely squashing his ambitions instead.

Attorney General Reilly says he is for gay rights and is kinda, sorta in favor of same-sex marriage, but really only because it is the law of the land. In contrast, Patrick says that he, like the Democratic party here, supports same-sex marriage and demands equal treatment for homosexuals.

It's Squishy Tom looking spongier by the minute. Every time he makes a statement, he qualifies it and looks more and more confused.

He had his spokeswoman, Sarah Nathan, quibble for him. She said that he would attend his granddaughter's christening instead. Besides, she added, he didn't march in previous pride parades. The latter is a statement that cuts many ways, all of them to Reilly's harm.

Massachusetts voters love liberal Democratic legislators and reactionary Republican governors. Go figure. Regardless of why, the Democratic challenger would have to be strong and un-Republican to have a chance.

Timid Tom seems intent on knocking himself out of the box.

Michigander Ganders

I wouldn't want to be the answering machine for either David G. Myers or Letha Dawson Scanzoni. Their What God Has Joined Together? A Christian Case for Gay Marriage has already gotten quite a bit of attention in Michigan, where Professor Myers lives and appeared in the Boston Globe "Ideas" section yesterday.

Their book hit the street a few days ago (Harper, ISBN: 0060774614). Scanzoni is a Norfolk, Virginia-based Christian scholar and author. Despite Myers' religious credentials and his slot at Hope College, a Christian liberal school in conservative Holland, Michigan, he won't necessarily be the most popular guy right now. You can read a chapter from his book and a letter from the authors about what they intend on his site

The Globe interview was short but delightfully provocative. While scholars and even casual observers have long known how inaccurate and patchwork the King James version of the Bible is, the authors point out how even the twisted wording from the 17th century Bible-by-committee does not even suggest banning same-sex marriage.

Of course, fundamentalists dare not question, but for the vast majority of us, this is good background.

For example:

IDEAS: But isn't the destruction of Sodom in Genesis 19, after the men of Sodom demand that Lot hand over his male visitors so that they might ''know" them, often cited as God's judgment upon homosexuality?

SCANZONI: God's judgment was upon the lack of hospitality and attempted sexual humiliation of the visitors through gang rape. The judgment was not about the love of two homosexual persons for each other. Ezekiel 16 says, ''Sodom's sins were pride, laziness, and gluttony, while the poor and needy suffered outside her door."

IDEAS: What about the passages in Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and First and Second Kings that condemn sodomites or Paul's epistles condemning those men he describes as ''abusers of themselves with mankind"?

SCANZONI: Jewish and Christian scholars agree that the word sodomite doesn't appear in the original language. A Hebrew word for leaders in idolatrous rituals was mistranslated as sodomite in some older English Bible versions. The passages from the epistles refer to exploitative male prostitution practices in St. Paul's time. They don't apply to same-sex marriage any more than admonitions against heterosexual prostitution apply to heterosexual marriage.

That's far too Christian an attitude for many.

Benedict as Predicted

Pope Benedict XVI delivered his first major doctrinal speech yesterday. To no one's surprise, it was anti-artificial insemination and anti-same-sex marriage/civil union.

The gist of his 14-page speech was consistent with his previous statements as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the pope's enforcer of dogma. He didn't need his replacement prefect to speak for him on these issues. In effect, any sexual activity that is for pleasure and not procreation is taboo.

He doesn't get into the messy realities. Many married couples are infertile, at any given moment, probably most. They aren't supposed to have sexual contact. That is also the sin of the active homosexuals and reason to forbid gay unions and marriages. As his speech put it:

The various forms of the dissolution of matrimony today, like free unions, trial marriages and going up to pseudo-matrimonies by people of the same sex, are rather expressions of an anarchic freedom that wrongly passes for true freedom of man.

Apparently most Roman Catholics don't take his prohibition of sex for any purpose other than making Roman Catholics seriously. Yet as an absolutist, he stakes out his turf plainly.

He has stated several times he wants a smaller church of more obedient members. He seems intent on ensuring the smaller part.

Safety in Sneaking

School administrators and police in several Massachusetts towns used diversions to avoid confrontations with the Westboro Baptist Church demonstrators. In Lexington, the ploy was to reroute buses around the back of the school and skirt the anti-homosexual picketers. In Dracut, they shifted assemblies to different schools, so that kids were not where the demonstrators were.

Hot Day, Cool Greeting

In a series of sit-com length demonstrations, a small group of damnation threatening homosexual haters did show in Lexington to picket churches Saturday and Sunday. This is not the first time the Topeka-based Westboro Baptist Church visited the area to protest. However, this was not in the dreadfully sinful towns of Boston and Cambridge.

They claim that the local churches are going to hell because they have allowed an atmosphere that accepts homosexuality. They were met with the passive-resistance sorts of hand-holding graying and balding sorts, who had been trained in non-confrontational techniques. It was a good day for the upper middle class residents to feel political and righteous.

The catalyst for this visit was mad dad David Parker's control-freak sit-in at a local elementary school. Amusingly, Parker framed even this in terms of himself. He told the Boston Herald that the Kansas protestors should move their demonstrations to his front lawn. "Do they have the courage to face me instead of small children or will they take the coward's way out and ignore me," he said.

We can wonder whether he has a separate garage to house his ego.

Back in Topeka, the locals have long tired of the WBC and its demented leader, Pastor Fred Phelps. There is a great collection of newspaper articles on the church and its founder here, including the locals' opinions of him.

Oddly enough, Phelps was not a general hater. After moving from Mississippi to Kansas, he became a noted and very successful civil rights lawyer. He was a stalwart fighter for the black community. A plaque he received from the NAACP in recognition of his efforts reads in part:

Even though members of the establishment have attacked from every side, you have remained undaunted and never lost your spark and steely determination for justice.

He noted, however, that there is no conflict between his attitude toward black and gay Americans. "God Almighty never said that it's an abomination to be black," he said.

In Lexington, one of his group called out to St. Brigid Catholics as they left, "You're going to hell. Have a nice day."

Today, WBC should wrap up its roadshow with a protest at the elementary school where Mr. Parker has made himself infamous.

Mad Dad at Arm's Length

Oh, shucks, our favorite irate paternal unit, the mad dad of Lexington, David Parker is looking less and less like a principled civil disobeyer. Now he's playing coy with both his tresspassing charge and his affiliations.

Initially, I thought that forcing his arrest at his kindergartener's school was a statement and that he was willing to take his lumps. According to an interview with the Lexington Minuteman, he is not willing to take responsibility for his actions.

I don't agree with his homophobia and his fantasies that the entire educational department has to dance to his fanciful callings. Yet, I thought he might have some principles. It seems from the latest that not only could he use more RAM and a compassion transfusion, but his ethics are somewhat lacking.

Now he and his lawyers claim that they'll pore over town and school phone call records, faxes and radio transmissions. They'll also try to find one or more other cases where parents were in some way accommodated in curricula. In short, it looks like they'll try to find some excuse to claim he should not face charges for his lengthy sit-in demonstration.

Shame.

The Revolutionary War era orators, protestors and fighters knew they were risking fines, jail, life, limb, family and fortune when they stood up for their beliefs. So did Gandhi, Civil Rights era sitters in and countless others worldwide. This quibbling and technicality seeking is unworthy of his town and nation.

Oh, yes, and in the interview, he distanced himself both from his buddies at the Article 8 Alliance, and his supporters from the hate-mongering Westboro Baptist Church. Of the former, he said, "There's a degree of association, but they do not speak for me." Of the latter, he said he called and asked them not to come.

So there we have the modern hero. He won't act heroically. He wants the praises without the wounds. He has a lot of history and philosophy to read.

Sacked in Sacramento

California didn't quite have the guts yesterday to join Massachusetts in same-sex marriage. A bill to permit it failed 37-36. One Republican and seven Democrats abstained. A majority of 41 votes would have been sufficient to pass it.

The San Francisco Chronicle has the vote tally and a wrap-up of the rhetoric on all sides.

It was pretty much a party vote, with Republicans solidly opposed. Nearly a quarter of the Democrats joined them to scuttle the bill. This version would have amended the state family code to define marriage as between two persons.

Some hid behind the 61% voter support for DoMA Proposition 22. That non-binding ballot initiative passed in 2000, with the gist of "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Others were plain about their emotional basis for their votes. For example, Assemblyman Dennis Montjoy, Republican-Monrovia, was blunt in saying, "What the homosexuals in the state of California and in the United States want is not rights, they want acceptance. They want my children to be told that homosexuality is OK, that it is natural. I'm here to tell you that it is not OK, and it is not natural, and I will not have my children taught that."

He is in a position to legislate his emotions. It appears most California voters would agree with him.

Now there is a race by both sides. The cons want to put a DoMA constitutional amendment on next year's ballot. The pros are looking for resolution through court suits challenging the constitutionality of the ban on same-sex marriages.

This defeat was but a diversion.

Unite Free or Die

What report will the majority anti-gay-marriage commission do in New Hampshire if its public hearings are pro gay marriage? The 15-member commission held its first hearing and heard the herd say go for civil unions. It is supposed to turn in its report to the legislature in December.

The detailed Boston Globe article on the commission is reprinted here. The wire services have their own versions of the first hearing.

From the coverage, we learn:

1. Most of the appointed commissioners are anti-same-sex marriage and anti-civil unions.
2. The audience at the first of the four hearings was overwhelmingly in favor of civil unions or same-sex marriage.

The Democratic governor is in favor of same-sex marriage, but the legislature is a much harder sell. In the state famous for its Live Free or Die motto, it will be fascinating to see how the lawmakers react if the other three hearings are as tolerant and laissez faire as the first in Littleton on Tuesday.

About 100 showed up and stayed for the two and one-half hour meeting. Many spoke in favor, three against, and the Roman Catholic church mailed in its opposition from the Manchester Diocese. One minister was among the anti forces. Local Christ Church Rev. Curt Hanners claimed accepting homosexual unions or marriages would harm families.

Several other ministers disagreed. One pointed to neighboring Vermont's five-year track record of civil unions. Vermont UU Rev. Brendan Hadash said straight marriages are stronger. "Since civil unions were legalized in Vermont, the number of straight weddings I have performed has almost quadrupled.

The commission chair is Rep. Tony Soltani, who has opposed changing the state marriage law and last year spoke in favor of a gay-marriage ban. He seems only mildly mean in contrast t the vice chair, Scott Earnshaw. The latter heads the New Hampshire Traditional Marriage and Family Institute.

With Massachusetts at its feet and Vermont rubbing it back, New Hampshire must sleep fitfully.

By the Company We Keep

If you thought the anti-kiddy picture book people were weird, just wait until the Westboro Baptist Church gets to Lexington to support them. [Warning: The pamphlet linked here includes anti-papist slurs and images, as well as coarse language.] The Topeka, Kansas, based group says it will send its protestors for Saturday through Monday, June 4th through 6th.

They intend to picket local Roman Catholic, Methodist, Episcopal and Baptist churches. The hate highlights will be, as the group's flyer puts it, "picketing the fag-infested Estabrook School and the Lexington Public Schools administrators Mon. June 6 (and) the dog kennels and leper colonies masquerading as Lexington churches."

They must assume that subtlety is wasted on anti-homosexual folk.

The local religious groups and school staff are receiving short-course training in non-confrontational protest, according to the local weekly, the Lexington Minuteman. Parents of the elementary-school students got notes about the protests and will get at least one more.

While mad dad David Parker and his lawyer say his anti-same-sex-family stance is not about hate, the WBC make no such pretence. It castigates the local churches for complicity in not safeguarding their community. Again from the flyer:

The unfaithful, apostate churches are mostly to blame for creating the Satanic zeitgeist where in filthy, militant fags & dykes have seized control of Massachusetts government, sending feces-eaters to Congress, and same-sex marriage is law.

Perhaps we should appreciate the smallest positives. Unlike the Mass Resistance/Article 8 folk, the WBC does not use quotes around same-sex marriage.

One would hope that Parker would be insightful enough to see how he is on a spectrum of bigotry, much closer to the WBC than to the New Testament teachings of love and tolerance. His words are nowhere near as strident, but we are all known by the company we keep. Will he distance himself from those putting his feelings into the worst possible words or will he look at his sneakers and hum a hymn?

Don't Sit When You See The Whites of Their Eyes

The mad dad of Lexington, David Parker, doesn't seem to get the nature of civil disobedience. At his pretrial hearing yesterday in Concord, he and his lawyer tried the old not-guilty-because-it-was-a-good-cause ruse.

I am embarrassed for him. In the spirit of Emerson and other Transcendentalists from those very towns, he should take his lumps. Protesters have paid the fine, probation or other trivial penalty for such sit-ins for centuries. I hope he bones up on cause and effect and on action and responsibility before his trial on August 2nd.

Of course, he's guilty prima facie and in law. He wanted to make his (very control-freak silly) point and chose to occupy a public building for hours after closing to do so. He engineered his arrest for trespassing. Pay the man and go about your business, Davy.

According to the report on the hearing in the Boston Globe, Parker's lawyer claimed, ''...there are issues relative to necessity, justification, and the exercise of civil disobedience in this case that override whether he was technically trespassing or not." The lawyer is Jeffrey Denner Denner O'Malley, Boston.

Coverage in both the Globe and the Boston Herald, noted parents on both sides appearing at the court. A couple were for Parker and perhaps a dozen opposed him. The groups had delightful suburban names – Lexington Parents for Respect and Lexington CARES (Community Action for Responsible Education and Safety). Those are ever so much more genteel than Queers Can't Tell Us What to Do, and We're Not All Crazies Here. Although these latter seem more precise for this issue.

I would hope that the hardheaded Mr. Parker, backed by the intractable Brian Camenker of the Article 8 Alliance, does not cut a deal on this petty charge. I for one would love to hear his explain how the school system is obliged to give every concerned parent say-so over any scheduled or spontaneous discussion in his kid's classroom on subjects tangential to his specifications.

If there was ever an argument for home schooling, this is it. This guy wants absolute control over any aspect of same-sex relation mentions, precisely as he defines the term. If he expounds publicly on his reasoning, it could become a classic in logic classes.

Busy in Austin

The Texas legislature completed its 79th session Tuesday, May 31st. In what surely must be a touchstone for their peers throughout the country, their work included SCR No. 8 on the official vehicle:

The vehicle resolution's highlight is:

RESOLVED, That the 79th Legislature of the State of Texas hereby acknowledge the important value of preserving the chuck
wagon and designate the chuck wagon as the official vehicle of Texas...

It also passed the HJR (joint resolution) No. 6, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman. The key text of this is:

SECTION 1. Article I, Texas Constitution, is amended by adding Section 32 to read as follows:

Sec. 32. (a) Marriage[0] in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.
(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

This puts the issue on the ballot in the next general election.

This must surely fall in the having-solved-all-other-problems class. Note that the chuck-wagon vote does not require voter approval.

Wikipedia Resource

You can find a nice overview of same-sex marriage in the United States in Wikipedia. It comes complete with a timeline and links to articles on same-sex marriage in other countries.

That has such goodies as that South Africa at the end of last year received an order from its highest court to change the laws to legalize same-sex marriage.

Given the fluidity of Wikipedia entries, I suspect this will be worth checking from time to time for news one might have missed.

With Many One?

Just when it seemed the anti-same-sex-marriage folk had the oddest interpretations, along comes the polygamy people. One lenghty essay asserts that both pro and anti folk support multiple-partner marriages. It picks the parts it wants from the Supreme Judicial Court decision to make its case. Then it turns to the anti folk.

For a flavor the carefully chosen arguments, read the whole work. An abbreviated argument for the latter group includes.

First, polygamy creates an even more "favorable setting for procreation."

Second, polygamy empowers wives who want to stay home with the children, equally empowering other wives who want to work. It motivates men to profound maturity and responsibility. Children can be raised at home by family members who love them - rather than being raised by low-paid strangers at daycare. Unquestionably, that creates an "optimal setting for child rearing."

Third, polygamy can free abandoned single moms from the "work-just-to-pay-for-day-care" cycle, empowering them to leave or avoid the welfare trap. That helps to preserve "scarce State and private financial resources."

Where’s Joseph Smith when he’s needed?

Princess of Justice

"Respect for the rule of law is deeply embedded in our American experience, but it is not embedded in our DNA," Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Chief Justice Margaret Marshall told the graduating class of Brandeis University in Waltham yesterday.

Of course, she was alluding to the attacks from our POTUS and from local crazies. The idea that judges are negatively activist when they do their jobs has led to the most irrational view of the judicial system. Anyone who took a civics class learned that legislators, executives branch members and judges each play their roles.

She had no problem with criticisms of judges or their decisions. However, "I worry when people of influence use vague, loaded terms like 'judicial activism' to skew public debate or to intimidate judges," she said. "I worry when judicial independence is seen as a problem to be solved and not a value to be cherished."

Marshall was a voice of reason in this otherwise emotional atmosphere following her court's interpretation of Massachusetts law allowing same-sex marriages starting a year ago. She noted that "Our courts function as a pressure valve to defuse political and social tension." She was calm considering recent threats against judges here and the murder of the family of a U.S. District Judge in Chicago.

Most tellingly and accurately, she concluded, "Individual rights and human dignity are vulnerable when they depend on protection on the will of the majority or the good faith of those in power."

Try, for just a moment, to imagine the current White House being as reasonable or fair.

V State Spitting Contest

Vermont and Virginia are at it. Both claim jurisdiction on a child-custody case with all the trappings of a made-for-TV movie.

The short version is that

1. a lesbian couple joined in a civil union in Vermont
2. they returned to Virginia
3. they had a child by artificial insemination there
4. they returned to Vermont
5. love waned and they dissolved their union in Vermont
6. the biological mom took their kid to Virginia
7. she sued for full custody
8. Virginia courts granted that

Now the stew festers and all the rotten ingredients boil to the surface.

In this corner, the ex, the ACLU, Virginia Equity, and LAMBDA want visitation and shared custody. In the other corner, the ever flaming Liberty Counsel and the mom (who claims to have become both straight and born-again) nah nah nah nah nah. Vermont says it was already considering custody and therefore Virginia has no right to even discuss it. Virginia says it doesn't recognize same-sex marriage or even civil unions. Tough bananas, kiddies.

Both corners have filed briefs in the ex's appeal of custody. This will be a battle.

For Virginia, the home of Patrick Henry, the place where the majority of the Civil War was fought, the ideal of states' rights, this is actually a disgrace. To try to tramp on another state that way is a real disgrace.

Check out one side here, the news version here, and Liberty Counsel's version here.

The theater of the Liberty Counsel is always entertaining. Their fabulous Matt Staver paints this not as a custody case or as proof that the reactionaries are nasty, but his statement is, "Same-sex unions will inevitably cause havoc among the states when one state law collides with another. Since children are caught in the middle of this battle, Congress should move quickly to pass a bill to amend the United States Constitution to preserve traditional marriage. Let the people vote and put an end to this madness."

You'd hope for the mom's case that they don't let him argue anything.

Doyle Foiled

What was he thinking? The persistent-in-the-face-of-the-facts C. Joseph Doyle got the Massachusetts high-court rejection we all expected. Today, the Supreme Judicial court rejected his flimsy appeal of his failed effort to block all further same-sex marriages until maybe the issue gets to a commonwealth constitutional convention and just maybe again passes.

As executive director of the Catholic Action League, Doyle argued oddly that because his folks and others were fighting the marriages, that these activist judges (smirk) should halt the marriages...just in case.

Of course, their is no legal basis for his argument, just shots in the dark. However, Mr. Doyle was not put off by that. A single judge, Roderick Ireland, had already turned him down. He then had to fight on the even slimmer appeal that maybe something was wrong with that decision. The law had been fully explained to Doyle; he just didn't like the answer.

Doyle says he'll fight on, aiming for the amendment to the constitution. Ho hum.

Salem Solution?

Oregon is still trying to dance its way to a same-sex-marriage solution. The most recent effort, House Bill 3476 gets a hearing next week.

It would provide some important rights to couples, short of permitting marriage. The gist of it is that if you cannot legally marry, you can contract to agree to such rights as:

• Make funeral arrangements
• Inherit Property
• Visit in emergency rooms

In operation, the resulting law would require the state to create a contract form and permit such agreements among those who meet the simple requirements:

1. Each party must be at least 18 years of age;
2. Each party may not be married or a party to another reciprocal beneficiary relationship;
3. The parties must be prohibited from marrying each other under ORS chapter 106;
4. Each party must consent to the reciprocal beneficiary relationship, and the consent of a party may not be obtained by force, duress or fraud; and
5. Each party must sign a declaration of reciprocal beneficiary relationship as provided in section 5 of this 2005 Act.

While mostly for gay couples, the bill provides examples, "... such individuals (as) two individuals who are related to each other, such as a widowed mother and her unmarried son, or two unrelated adults of the same gender."

In a state like Massachusetts where marriage has always been a civil contract legally, this seems harmless enough. I'll watch the Oregon reaction though.

New Boston Mugwump

Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly is about out of chances. He made another effort to please everyone yesterday. As he runs for governor, he is likely to find that he just cannot accomplish that.

The subject yesterday was the 1913 law about marriage that Gov. Mitt Romney dusted off to attack same-sex marriage. (Shame on that cowardly man with the fancy hair.)

The law forbids marrying folk from other states here if the marriage would be illegal in their home state(s). It was written to prevent interracial marriages and keep the peace with discriminatory, anti-miscegenation states. Since that form of bigotry is not longer on the books, the law (Chapter 207:Section 12:CERTAIN MARRIAGES PROHIBITED) has not been enforced for decades.

Reilly tells Democrats, liberals and interest groups that he supports same-sex marriage as the law of the land, while telling Republicans and reactionaries that he supports the 1913 statute as the law of the land.

Republican Party Executive Director Tim O'Brien got Reilly to bite on that one yesterday. He had a letter delivered asking whether the AG would defend keeping 207:12 on the books. Gay-rights groups want it repealed.

Reilly wasted no time in having First Assistant Stephanie Lovell email a reply. According to the Boston Globe, the reply included:

It is our job to defend the laws of the Commonwealth. This is what we have done from the beginning of this case, and is what we will continue to do.

Of course, both as AG and gubernatorial candidate, the gutsy, visionary response would have been that following the implementation of same-sex marriages here, such laws that conflict need to be dropped or changed. Yet, Tommy wants it all ways.

Reilly's office has until June 24 to file its brief in the Cote-Whitacre case on this matter. In February 2006, the Supreme Judicial Court will hear GLAD's appeal of its loss at the Superior Court level in an effort to overturn 207:12.

The other announced candidate for governor, Deval Patrick, will unquestionably benefit from Reilly's failed gambit. Yesterday, his statement was strong and to the point, as a governor should speak. "It's a shame that we are spending any more time on the subject...This is old politics all over again. The court got it right. Let's move on."

The cochair of the Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, Arline Isaacson, was less kind. "I think it is deplorable that the highest-ranking elected official in the Democratic Party in this state would act this way. Tom Reilly has to decide what he really thinks and feels about this issue. Defending an obviously antigay application of this law is reprehensible."

Family Coming Out

One Massachusetts same-sex marriage that was good for all involved appears in Our family's values by Anne and Chad Gifford. The op-ed column appeared in the Boston Globe on May 17th.

One of their four kids is a gay man, who married his partner a year ago. The family is better off than most (dad is chairman emeritus of the Bank of America), but had the same hopes and expectations of most for their children.

The parents fess up that it took them some years to come to terms with their son's homosexuality. Now though a year after his marriage, they write:

Gay marriage conjures strong feelings on all sides. For many, religious beliefs simply prevent the acceptance that two individuals of the same sex should be legally married. We understand that change can be threatening, and in fact, we must respect differing opinions. However, we believe that same-sex or equal marriage is a right that must be supported and preserved. Why is this simple human desire, this simple human right, so difficult to accept?

Our initial period of concern and confusion and the subsequent learning has, at times, been tumultuous. But how could we as parents not do all we could to embrace our child? How could we not do all we could to strengthen our family? Many object to equal marriage because it represents an attack on family. This is tragic and wrong. Family means love and support for all, not the marginalization of one member of the family.

That certainly takes it out of the realm of self-rightenousness and disdain.

They note that when their son came out to them in 1993, they found their stereotypical hopes dashed. Yet a dozen years later they say those hopes have been fully realized. They conclude, "What more could we have wished for than to have our son find happiness and share his life with someone he loves?"

Shrinks Expand

Down in the annual conference in Atlanta, the American Psychiatric Association's advisory group urged support of same-sex marriages. If the APA's board approves this as expected in July, it will be a boost to the cause. It would become the first major medical association to do so.

[It was not that many years ago – until 1987 – that the APA classified homosexuality as a mental illness.]

The advisors are the 250 representatives in the APA's Assembly. Five years ago, they recommended and the board passed support for civil unions. The key idea behind both is that discrimination is bad for mental health.

This weekend's amplification was evolutionary, reports the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

In the wake of Vermont's adoption of civil union and Massachusetts' same-sex marriage, it became clear that the two notions are not equal, said psychiatrists who voted for gay marriage.

Same-sex marriage supporters say a civil union is tailored by each state, comes with fewer benefits and is not recognized by other states with the same measure. Marriage, theoretically, is recognized universally even though states do not accept Massachusetts' approval of gay marriage at the moment.

"Civil unions are more restrictive to strengthening the couple and family. They're not transportable. Marriage is transportable from state to state, from country to country," said Jack Drescher, a New York City psychiatrist in charge of the assembly's committee on gay issues...

Yet while a sizable majority of the shrinks approve, some are gun-shy and not too eager to offend. The article quotes a West Virginia psychiatrist F. Joseph Whelan as saying, "Marriage has a lot of Judeo-Christian connotations" attached..."Many of us did not see it was appropriate for APA to be a vanguard to change that."

Those many were outvoted.

Chasing the Chaste

Now that same-sex marriage is permissible in Massachusetts, I think chicken hawks who want to wed their kiddies may fall under CHAPTER 272. CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY, MORALITY, DECENCY AND GOOD ORDER. It reads:

Section 1 Enticing away person under 16 for marriage

Whoever fraudulently and deceitfully entices or takes away an unmarried person under sixteen from the house of such person's parents or elsewhere, without the consent of the parent or guardian, if any, under whose care and custody such person is living, for the purpose of effecting a clandestine marriage of such person without the consent of such parent or guardian, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, or both.

If your pubescent love object is pregnant or has the parents' permission and a judge's approval, you may still be able to marry him or her. However, being a sneak and snatching a child for marriage is out of bounds here and has been for a long time.

The locals can laugh about the hillbillies and the Jerry Lee Lewises of the world, but that law is on the books for good reason — and based in experience here.

Burned Waffles

While I was in Seattle, Boston Globe columnist Joan Vennochi assessed the Massachusetts Democratic Party's formal incorporation of a same-sex-marriage plank in its new platform. (Unfortunately, you need to be a subscriber or pay to read the Globe archives...no link here.)

She mused on how badly John Kerry got burned in the last presidential election by seeming to change his opinions on major issues. In this case, the conviction shown by the Democrats raises such questions as:

• Do voters really want a firm position or was that just an excuse?
• Will the fear of same-sex marriages alienate more voters than the honesty and humanity of the plank?
• Will stating a strong position attract voters who are undecided about the issue?
• Is a controversial position a liability

Vennochi writes:

However, there is risk in this gay marriage resolution, in Massachusetts, too. Advocates argue same-sex marriage is a pressing civil rights issue. But is it really the most pressing issue in this state? Even people who support same-sex marriage may conclude that with this emphasis, the Democratic Party is losing its focus on economic issues that win elections. In that case, the party nomination could be worthless, especially if the nominee is viewed by the general electorate as a pawn of one special interest group.

For those who watch politics, it is an interesting laboratory test case of conviction versus expediency, of boldly pushing left rather than safely hugging the middle. In a party filled with equivocators on controversial social issues, the liberal Democrats who run the party here are taking a liberal position and sticking with it, without apology and without regard for those who call them out of touch and worse.

Then again, it may work in Massachusetts. That could be more from the obvious that it has become a less powerful issue. We've had same-sex marriages for a year. Thousands have benefited directly and no one has been harmed. What's the problem and why is it even an issue?

Ban Ban at Con Con?

Same-sex marriage supporters, particularly gay spouses, are not counting their friends until the votes are compiled. According to Can These Marriages Be Saved in the latest Bay Windows, the issue is far from settled.

I may be impatient, but I'm willing to call the defeat of the amendment that would put a ballot question reversing gay marriage in favor of civil unions a certain thing. Several recent articles in the Boston Globe also counted up the newly elected pro-same-sex legislators and noted that the Speaker of the House is pro.

Not so fast, reads the Bay Windows piece. Gay-rights politicians, organizers, and mostly married homosexual couples are actively engaging legislators, particularly those who voted for the amendment last year.

State Rep. Marty Walsh (Dorchester) says the left wing has become complacent. According to the article:

Walsh suggests that now is the time to ratchet up lobbying efforts. "It's very close," he says of the upcoming vote. "Seats have been picked up. And I think a lot of people took a vote against gay marriage last year that took a very bad vote. They feel very bad about the fact that they voted that way and they're on the cusp of realizing it."

Lord knows, the anti folk are certainly calling and visiting.

Grannies in the Aftermath

What rights do grandparents have when their children divorce? It is no concern, except for that small group who suddenly faces it.

The Massachusetts Bar Association has a nice piece on it here. Note that when last accessed, it referred to the law as Chapter 199, when it is actually 119.

The salient points are:

Since 1972, Massachusetts Law has provided for visitation rights to certain grandparents of unmarried children (who can visit their grandchildren):
–If the parents of the child are divorced, married but living apart, or under a temporary order or judgment of separate support.
–If either or both parents are deceased.
–If the child was born out of wedlock and the paternity of the child has been established by a court or the father has signed an acknowledgment of paternity.

They are out of luck if the minor grandchildren are adopted by someone other than a stepparent.

The full statute is available here. It is Massachusetts General Law Chapter 119, Section 39D. It includes the petition procedures for in and out-of-state grandparents.

Really, Reilly?

Get off the fence, Tommy, say both Democrats and Republicans in Massachusetts. Poor Attorney General and declared candidate for governor Thomas F. Reilly wants it all ways on same-sex marriage. Nobody wants to let his dissemble.

At last weekend's state Democratic convention, he still would not declare. He is in a strongly Roman Catholic state and understandably wants to please those voters (who have a wide range of opinion on the matter, regardless of the Pope's position). His party put a pro-gay-marriage plank in its platform.

Last year, when the court mandated legalization of the marriages came under his jurisdiction, he twitted Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, saying it was the law of the land and as chief law enforcement officer, he'd see it was obeyed.

Yet privately, he has told several people he favors civil unions.

Yesterday, U.S. Rep. Michael E. Capuano, a Democrat, took his shot at Reilly as quoted in the Boston Globe. "I'm not happy that the current front-runner doesn' know whether he's for or against (same-sex marriage)."

Capuano himself has declared. He's in favor. Also, he has not ruled out running for governor.

On the Republican side, they are having a good time drawing attention to Reilly's gutlessness, saying he runs from the issue like its "the plague."

By trying to please all, Reilly seems to have offended all.

Joy v. Spite

One year on, Massachusetts saw glad and mad demonstrations to mark the anniversary of legalized same-sex marriage. A big, happy group celebrated and a sad, strange, little one protested.

On the Boston Common, several hundred couples and their kids cheered, laughed and celebrated. A short distance away at the State House, about 16 protesters staged a bit of street theater. Led by the every dour and always self-righteous Brian Camenker, the anti forces included a woman parodying Supreme Judicial Court Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, ripping up a fake commonwealth constitution. The cons get the art points.

Camenker, executive director of the Article 8 Alliance, is dedicated to firing the four judges who declared same-sex marriage legal here. Despite any supporting evidence, he called the past year "frightening, illegal and despotic." His best trope may have been, "The people of Massachusetts are living under a reign of madness."

Of course, from where he was wailing, one could hear the cheers and joy of the happy families. Take your choice.

Maybe Married

For 611 couples who have married in Massachusetts, their marital status is pending. The out-of-state pairs await the results of a September Supreme Judicial Court hearing on whether Massachusetts will allow such marriages.

The question revolves about a 1913 law designed to keep the peace with anti-miscegenation states. It remains on the books as:

CERTAIN MARRIAGES PROHIBITED Chapter 207: Section 12: Legal ability of non-residents to marry; duty of licensing officer to ascertain

Before issuing a license to marry a person who resides and intends to continue to reside in another state, the officer having authority to issue the license shall satisfy himself, by requiring affidavits or otherwise, that such person is not prohibited from intermarrying by the laws of the jurisdiction where he or she resides.

This statute has prevented Massachusetts from recognizing out-of-state same-sex couples' marriages. This is true even for New Yorkers, whose attorney general has said he will recognize the marriages. Couples there are waiting for the Massachusetts ruling before filing state income taxes jointly in New York.

GLAD filed a suit on behalf of Connecticut couples denied licenses by Massachusetts town clerks adhering to the current law. See the complaint (in PDF) here.

Marriage Amendment Mirage

Many anti-gay-marriage soldiers are now looking for a battle in 2008, it seems. The tiny majority that voted last year to roll back the law and replace it with civil unions is probably gone. The cons may have to try a ballot initiative now.

When John Adams led the commonwealth's constitution effort in 1780, he was wary of hotheaded legislators responding to more hotheaded constituents. So, he included a procedure that continues. A proposed amendment must get a majority in a joint House/Senate vote twice – exact proposal in two consecutive years.

Since the first vote, a few things have changed:

• the new speaker of the House, Sal DiMasi, strongly supports same-sex marriage
• interim elections have added four pro-same-sex-marriage legislators
• three who had favored the amendment are rethinking their stances
• the Roman Catholic Church has backed off and no longer supports the amendment

Game. Set.

On the other hand, the match cannot be declared until the ballot initiative runs its course. That is likely the last gasp of the desperate, but they have as much right to play out their serve as anyone.

A serious problem for the cons is the lack of problems. Voters are increasingly complacent. The year of the queer marriage has not produced any issues. Straight marriages are the same as ever. Increasing numbers of voters say, "So what?"

Of course, legislators are not immune to the new reality. The cons may be left like the peasant standing in the field in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Screaming, "Help. Help. I'm being oppressed," loses its edge pretty quickly.

Squeaky Plank

Over the weekend, the Massachusetts Democrats did in fact add a pro-same-sex-marriage plank to their platform. At their convention, they changed from the squishy rights-for-all stuff to saying what they mean.

Now we can see how it plays in the suburbs and exurbs. This is a state that has long elected Republican governors and has herds of moderate and conservative voters out there who call themselves Democrats and who send donkeys to the legislature.

One of the three (two announced) gubernatorial candidates there still tried to play all sides. As attorney general, Tom Reilly loved bucking Republican Gov. Mitt Romney. On gay marriage, he relished saying it was the law of the land after last May, and he'd enforce the law.

At the convention, he wouldn't say. However, he personally favors civil unions.

Another candidate, Deval Patrick came out strongly in favor of same-sex marriage. He also has law credentials, as former U.S. assistant attorney general.

The other likely candidate, Secretary of State William Galvin, didn't have to declare. He has not formally announced his run.

The plank vote was by voice and nearly unanimous. A few "no" pips here and there offered scant opposition.

“FRESH” FISH in Lexington

You know those store signs that make you ask what they were thinking or at least where did they go to school? Well, it shouldn'’t be funny, but the quotes and air-quotes types are at it with vigor. Do check out the current Mass Resistance blog entries, particularly David Parker'’s Civil Disobedience the Only Way He Could Be Heard.

There, you’ find quotes around marriage, news story, husband and wife. It's defamation by punctuation.

If you have the stomach, check out the Article 8 Alliance site entry on Parker. The guy wanted to be arrested, he pushed until he got the minimum, trespassing, and yet the A8A folk portray him as victim. They like to quote safety, marriage and most important trespassing.

The local weekly Minuteman is pretty conservative, particularly for Massachusetts. However, it gets the blame for a two week total of 25 against the mad dad and 4 in favor of him. We are apparently to think that the newspaper scrounged up negative comments and squelched positive ones, rather than think that Mr. Parker might be an outlier and not a leader, someone out of step with education, ethics, liberty, honesty and of course, law.

The people against handing control over the curriculum to individual, one-trick ponies of parents get the calumnies – fascists, lesbian radical activists –– in a piece that concludes:

WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THE BIRTHPLACE OF AMERICAN LIBERTY???

Indeed, perhaps we need only put the David Parker and Brian Camenker types in charge to feel free again.

New Bully Pulpit

Not all the extremists in San Francisco wear tutus while rollerblading or sleep with their rifles. One just became the first American to be Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The recent past Prefect, the Pope formally known as Joseph Ratzinger, appointed him, the Vatican announced on Friday the 13th.

San Francisco Archbishop William Levada, 68, has long been in Benedict XVI's mold. Both are strongly anti-reproductive choice, anti-homosexual, and of course, anti-same-sex marriage. The office basically is the interpreter of doctrine for those who might have any ambiguity or doubt.

However, he can be very slick and diplomatic. While he angered many with his let-them-eat-wafers attitude during the clergy abuse allegations, he also defused a gay-rights issue in heavily left-wing and homosexual-friendly San Francisco. The city squeezed Catholic Charities there, which is not exempt from employment law, to offer benefits to domestic partners of city employees. The Archbishop was savvy enough to expand health care to all household members of a city employee, thus turning the issue from laws and rights to health.

No one can know yet what lead he will give from this powerful office when it comes to U.S. dioceses. He's a heavy hitter now. When he speaks, bishops will listen.

A Law Too Far in Lincoln

In Nebraska, U.S. District Court Judge Joseph F. Bataillon ruled the state's DoMA law unconstitutional. In a 43-page commentary, he shredded it thoroughly, so much so that Nebraska should forget trying to get it to the U.S. Supreme Court.

It would be smarter to try to write a less restrictive and less anti-American law instead. It looks as though the law is so far out there that it was bound to fall.

The winners here were LAMBDA and civil-rights related groups, Citizens for Equal Protection Inc., Nebraska Advocates for Justice and Equality, Inc., and the ACLU Nebraska. Even though same-sex marriages are not against the law in Nebraska and the judge's rule permanently enjoins the state from enforcing its anti-same-sex marriage law, Attorney General Jon C. Bruning stated that he was not about to allow gay couples to wed.

The amendment in question came from Initiative 416, passed by 70% of voters in 2000. It looks like what happens when folks get too self-righteous and think they can get away with anything. The current D.C. culture seemed to have spread widely among cornhuskers.

According to ACLU's timeline on the initiative effort:

The amendment will ban same sex couples from being legally married in Nebraska as well as prohibit recognition of same sex relationships in any form. Organizers and donors to the initiative project include a coalition of Christian, Mormon and Catholic churches. Reports of the amount of money raised for their public campaign indicate they have nearly ten times the funds that opponents to the initiative have. The initiative's supporters launch a television, radio, newspaper, and direct mail campaign is launched across the state to promote the initiative.

The resulting amendment signed by the governor five years ago is:

Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in Nebraska. The uniting of two persons of the same sex in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other similar same-sex relationship shall not be valid or recognized in Nebraska.

The second part went way too far, according to Bataillon. He ruled that it punished the class of homosexuals and forbade free speech and rights given to all citizens of majority. It was so broad that "(a)mong the threatened relationships would be those of roommates, co-tenants, foster parents, and related people who share living arrangements, expenses, custody of children, or ownership of property. Many of these associational relationships are constitutionally protected at some point along the spectrum from the most hallowed and intimate to the most trivial."

He found that Nebraska law "...also effectively disenfranchises lesbian, gay and bisexual people and their supporters as they can no longer petition their representatives and city and local governments for legislative changes that would protect their relationships."

The gist of his findings was that Nebraska started out to have DoMA legislation. Instead it ended up punishing homosexuals in ways that clearly violate rights due all citizens.

Let us pause to bless those who would stay the very heavy hand of majority rule that does not respect the freedom and humanity of the minority.

Bobby Takes (Out) His Lumps

With the pivotal player having lymph nodes removed, the joint session of the Massachusetts legislature met only briefly and did not debate civil unions or anything. The Constitutional Convention folk recessed until August 24th. Then it will begin its agenda, including the ballot initiative that would ban same-sex marriage.

Senate President Robert Travaglini was in Mass Eye and Ear to have lymph nodes removed. His doctors said that was standard follow-up for thyroid cancer surgery he had four years ago. He expects to return to work next week. He will miss the Democratic Party convention this weekend.

In his absence Senate Majority Leader Frederick Berry chaired the joint session. Bobby watched the Sox, which must have been a welcome and much lower stress way to spend the afternoon.

Putting the Gee in Gay

Stunning the assembled crowds and onlookers, State Senator Jarrett Barrios proposed a bill that would ban both same-sex marriages and civil unions in Massachusetts. He is a long-term and prominent same-sex-marriage and gay-right supporter.

The anti forces are wondering what he's up to, as are the pro types. The president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, Kristian Mineau, is concerned that conservatives might be confused by this choice. There is presently a tenuous compromise heading to the vote for the 2006 Constitutional Convention. The hateful, the knee-jerk religious, and the addled joined last year to pass a civil union bill. The conservatives in the coalition have said that they'd do anything to reverse same-sex marriage, even support civil unions.

The same bill must pass a combined legislative session this term to get to the convention and thus have a shot at being on the ballot in 2006. Last year, it barely passed. Since then, several liberal legislators unlikely to vote for the bill have taken office. For now, it looks like a civil union bill would fail this time.

For the new ban-everything-queer-marriage bill, Barrios used only lawspeak. "My sponsoring this bill is to allow the elected legislators of the Commonwealth to once again review and I hope reject this effort to write discrimination into the Constitution," he said, refusing to elaborate. Perhaps it is simply brinkmanship.

Advice on Vice

I'm not sure what the effect in law is, if any, of Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 71: Section 30 Moral Education. It reads:

The president, professors and tutors of the university at Cambridge and of the several colleges, all preceptors and teachers of academies and all other instructors of youth shall exert their best endeavors to impress on the minds of children and youth committed to their care and instruction the principles of piety and justice and a sacred regard for truth, love of their country, humanity and universal benevolence, sobriety, industry and frugality, chastity, moderation and temperance, and those other virtues which are the ornament of human society and the basis upon which a republican constitution is founded; and they shall endeavor to lead their pupils, as their ages and capacities will admit, into a clear understanding of the tendency of the above mentioned virtues to preserve and perfect a republican constitution and secure the blessings of liberty as well as to promote their future happiness, and also to point out to them the evil tendency of the opposite vices.

The university in Cambridge is, of course, Harvard. Do you suppose that having something like Ethics 101 covers that?

WA WA Everyone's a Winner in Washington

Like two puppies with a sock, the Seattle weekly that broke the Microsoft gay-rights-bill story won't stop tugging. The Stranger hit the street today carrying this flag around the stadium one more time.

After Microsoft reversed its reversal on support for gay rights legislation, everyone says he's a winner. The most outrageous was the Dr. Hutcherson, who told Fox News that MS' Ballmer called him to warn him before the public. "I've already won," he told The Stranger. "I can see why Microsoft gets sued so much when its CEO makes such dumb decisions."

Smart money will bet that Hutcherson's ploys raised the stakes and profile here, probably putting Washington State on course for gay rights and maybe civil unions. Some winner.

Property Rights in Black and White

Massachusetts atoned for it Colonial oppression of Africans and the whole cycle of importing, marketing, selling and buying people – just two centuries later. It seems long overdue, but Massachusetts overturned its laws against interracial marriage in 1843. As hard as that may seem to believe, that make it the first state in the country to do so.

There's a nice analysis of the history of such laws here. Info there includes:

Interracial romance has been a point of contention in America since the first English settlers established colonies in the seventeenth century. In 1664 Maryland banned interracial marriage due to questions over whether the offspring of a black slave and a white person would be considered a free person or property. In following years, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and South Carolina instituted antimiscegenation laws which banned interracial marriage.

Marriage for Kids

Minimum legal age for marriage is now 18 in Massachusetts. Anyone younger wanting to marry needs a court order. In most states, 16 and 17 year olds can marry with permission of their parents.

However, a century and one half ago, the Supreme Court of the Massachusetts had a different view, in Parton v. Hervey (1854). Basically, a man married a 13-year-old girl. Her mother found the girl and kidnapped her. Mom held daughter captive for her own good, in the mother’s opinion.

The husband sued. The majority opinion included:

…I was entirely satisfied by the testimony, that the marriage of the petitioner with the daughter of the respondent was not procured or solemnized clandestinely, or through fraud and deceit practised on the wife; but that she freely and willingly assented thereto, without undue influence or persuasion; that she was not of weak or impaired intellect, but of competent understanding, and of the ordinary degree of intelligence of persons of her age; and that the respondent had restrained her of her liberty against her will, and had prevented her by force from joining the petitioner and living with him as his wife.

Upon this state of facts, the only remaining question raised by the respondent is whether, under the laws of this commonwealth, a marriage by a female infant of the age of thirteen years is legal and valid, if had and solemnized with the free assent of such infant, but without the knowledge or consent of her parent and guardian…

Absent a state statute at the time that set a lower limit on marriage, the court decided to turn to common law, in Massachusetts and England. As the old standard was age 12 for a girl, that is what the court used.

Interestingly enough, the decision noted that the legistature had recently had the opportunity to set the age of consent for marriage. The recommendation was 17 for boys and 14 for girls. Other recommendations became law, but the state legislators struck the consent provision. This reinforced the court’s opinion that common law prevailed. The court ordered the girl’s release from her mother to her husband.

Belly of the Ballmer

I'm in Seattle, where, understandably, it very serious news that Microsoft switched teams again. The company will support gay-right legislation in Washington State next time.

CEO Steve Ballmer previously justified the company's dropping support for House Bill 1515, which lost by one vote afterwards. One would have to be naive indeed to suppose that the largest employer around didn't drive public and legislative opinion. Yet, that is Microsoft's contention.

Meanwhile in the two local dailies, many letters to the editor call MS cowardly and a few say that companies have no right having any political opinions or taking any stance on legislation. (Pause for hearty laughter.)

More to the point, the Seattle Times lead story today ran the head, Microsoft decides to back gay-right bill: Will it help? Fair question, to which legislators claimed MS didn't have influence.

From outside, it sure looks like MS is too late on this. Legislators already defeated it, surely due in part to Gates and folk dropping support. What was the downside for them? At this point, they are safe ignoring this hot coal.