Dan Wasserman is a genius.
Needs no further comment.
Gay Marriage
The President and Gay Marriage
The commentators are in full flower. “This is a great move.” “It is risky.” “This could cost him the election.” What does it really mean? We won’t know until the election in November, but we can try to bring some clarity to some of the noise.
Photograph by Pete Souza
We know that many of those who oppose gay marriage for religious or other grounds will never be convinced, but I expect that some will come around to saying something like “I personally don’t support gay marriage, but as a matter of rights, people should be able to choose.” Kind of like what many Democrats have said about abortion. But the majority of the opposition will remain opposed.
Some will say this was a cynical move on the part of the President to solidify his gay and lesbian supporter. I don’t think so. Richard Socarides wrote in the New Yorker
For a long time, Democrats have taken the gay vote for granted. Political consultants tell Democrats that gay and lesbian voters have nowhere else to go, and thus, in effect, can be counted on, so long as politicians pay lip service to the issue. But that is old thinking, out of touch with the new reality of the gay-rights movement. While I know that most gays and lesbians would have supported President Obama, both with their votes and with their financial contributions, no matter what he did on the issue of marriage equality, we were also not going to take “no” for an answer on the most important civil-rights issue of our day. That meant holding the President’s feet to the fire—first on the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and then on marriage equality.
What we do know is that this was an act of courage and leadership. President Obama may be part of the tide rising toward marriage equality, but he is part of the leading edge. Andrew Sullivan
I do not know how orchestrated this was; and I do not know how calculated it is. What I know is that, absorbing the news, I was uncharacteristically at a loss for words for a while, didn’t know what to write, and, like many Dish readers, there are tears in my eyes.
…
The interview changes no laws; it has no tangible effect. But it reaffirms for me the integrity of this man we are immensely lucky to have in the White House. Obama’s journey on this has been like that of many other Americans, when faced with the actual reality of gay lives and gay relationships. Yes, there was politics in a lot of it. But not all of it. I was in the room long before the 2008 primaries when Obama spoke to the mother of a gay son about marriage equality. He said he was for equality, but not marriage. Five years later, he sees – as we all see – that you cannot have one without the other. But even then, you knew he saw that woman’s son as his equal as a citizen. It was a moment – way off the record at the time – that clinched my support for him.
Today Obama did more than make a logical step. He let go of fear. He is clearly prepared to let the political chips fall as they may. That’s why we elected him. That’s the change we believed in. The contrast with a candidate who wants to abolish all rights for gay couples by amending the federal constitution, and who has donated to organizations that seek to “cure” gays, who bowed to pressure from bigots who demanded the head of a spokesman on foreign policy solely because he was gay: how much starker can it get?
Both Sullivan and Socarides do believe that in the long run, this will not hurt Obama’s reelection chances. Sullivan first
My view politically is that this will help Obama. He will be looking to the future generations as his opponent panders to the past. The clearer the choice this year the likelier his victory. And after the darkness of last night, this feels like a widening dawn.
Then Socarides
This is not to take anything away from the courage exhibited by President Obama today. His willingness to share with the American people his thinking, indeed, his struggle around this issue will help build a national consensus. Everyone is entitled to a journey on this issue.
I suspect that at the end of this national conversation the result will be a good one, and the process, including Obama’s painstakingly slow evolution, will have been a positive experience for the country. Hopefully, it will lead us in a positive direction—which, after all, is the job of a President.
This is a conversation that is just beginning and we owe the President a conversation that is at once passionate and reasoned. Let me end with this from him
This is something that, you know, we’ve talked about over the years and she, you know, she feels the same way, she feels the same way that I do. And that is that, in the end the values that I care most deeply about and she cares most deeply about is how we treat other people and, you know, I, you know, we are both practicing Christians and obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others but, you know, when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the Golden Rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated. And I think that’s what we try to impart to our kids and that’s what motivates me as president, and I figure the most consistent I can be in being true to those precepts, the better I’ll be as a dad and a husband and, hopefully, the better I’ll be as president.
Civil Rights and Gay Rights
In case you didn’t see it, Jonathan Capehart had an excellent and thoughtful essay in yesterday’s Washington Post. Titled “Blacks and gays: the shared struggle for civil rights”, it laid out the reasons why blacks (and I might add Asians, Hispanics and other minorities) need to support gay rights. I am going to try to give you the highlights, but you really should read the entire essay.
It opens
You may recall that last month Gov. Chris Christie (R-N.J.) and I sparred over same-sex marriageon “Morning Joe.” You may also recall that at the end of the interview, the show’s anchor, Joe Scarborough, asked me, “[W]ould you compare the civil rights struggles of African Americans over 300 years in America to marriage equity?” Without hesitation, I said, “Yes.”
“It’s an issue of civil rights, as you said. It’s an issue of equality. It’s an issue of equal treatment under the law,” I said. “No one is asking for special rights. No one is asking for any kind of special favors. We’re just looking for the same rights and responsibilities that come with marriage and also the protections that are provided under marriage. In that regard overall we’re talking about a civil rights issue and what African Americans continue to struggle with is exactly what lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are struggling with today.”
That didn’t go over so well with more than a few African Americans. They don’t see the struggles as comparable, equivalent or even related. Last Wednesday, @Brokenb4God tweeted to me, “@CapehartJ still can’t believe u think the choice of being gay is congruent to the struggle of blacks. Ain’t never seen no gay plantations!”
Clearly, she’s from the misguided pray-the-gay-away cabal, so no need to address that. I’ll leave the cheap and provocative “gay plantations” stink bomb alone, too, and get to my main point. What links the two struggles is the quest for equality, dignity and equal protection under the law. In short, gay rights are civil rights. It’s that simple.
Capehart goes through several points of similarity under topic headings: “Bullying and Murder”, “Denied equal protection: the right to marry” and finally, “Black leaders.” He quotes Reverend Al Sharpton and John Lewis. Lewis quoted Dr. Martin Luther King during the debate in 1996 on the Defense of Marriage Act.
You cannot tell people they cannot fall in love. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. used to say when people talked about interracial marriages, and I quote, ‘Races do not fall in love and get married. Individuals fall in love and get married.’ Why don’t you want your fellow men and women, your fellow Americans to be happy? Why do you attack them? Why do you want to destroy the love they hold in their hearts? Why do you want to crush their hopes, their dreams, their longings, their aspirations? We are talking about human beings, people like you, people who want to get married, buy a house, and spend their lives with the one they love. They have done no wrong.
Lewis supported Massachusetts activists during the debate over marriage equality.
In a 2003 opinion piece for the Boston Globe, Lewis wrote, “I have fought too hard and too long against discrimination based on race and color not to stand up against discrimination based on sexual orientation. I’ve heard the reasons for opposing civil marriage for same-sex couples. Cut through the distractions, and they stink of the same fear, hatred, and intolerance I have known in racism and in bigotry.”
Much of the resistance to the Maryland Marriage Equality law came from black churches who are traditionally unwilling to acknowledge a gay and lesbian presence in their own communities. One exception is my husband’s church, Union United Methodist in Boston. Their pioneering was highlighted in this recent article in the Boston Globe
Eziah Karter-Sabir Blake swiped the play debit card through a plastic reader during a game of Monopoly recently. Another multimillion-dollar sale. The buyer, Giftson Joseph, rubbed his hands together, a glimmer creeping in his eyes as he playfully nudged the Rev. Catharine A. Cummings.
The three – one gay, one transgender, one straight – sat around a table at a new youth drop-in center at Union United Methodist Church, a historically black congregation in the South End, the heart of Boston’s gay community.
Simply by being there, the trio was straddling a divisive line between the gay community and the black church, where many gay and lesbian minorities have long felt ignored or unwelcome in the pews.
“It’s a big risk they are taking in the black community,’’ said Joseph, an 18-year-old African-American college student who is gay. “There’s already enough stigma in the church. But this is a church that is accepting of all races and sexual orientations.’’
In 2000, Union began the process of educating themself about homosexuality and gay rights.
In 2000, church member Hilda Evans pushed Union United to again change course, and the church agreed to defy United Methodist leaders by declaring itself an open and affirming congregation to gays and straight people alike. It held its first gay service in June 2007 at the height of the state’s same-sex marriage debate.
Other black church leaders and churches in Boston have not followed Union’s lead. But as the Globe story pointed out
Union United has a long history of bucking tradition. In the 1800s, black worshipers walked out of their segregated Beacon Hill church home after whites grew uncomfortable and complained about their vibrant, African-style of worship. In 1818, members founded the May Street Church, which became a stop on the Underground Railroad, according to the church’s website,
What the Globe does not point out is Union’s civil rights activism during the 1960’s. You can read about that in the J. Anthony Lukas classic, Common Ground..
It takes a long time for people to see themselves in someone else’s stuggle but we can look at Jonathan Capehart for his articulate arguments about what is right and to places like Union United Methodist Church for leading the way.
Maryland makes eight
Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley has just signed legislation legalizing same-sex marriage. This bring the total number of states to eight.
(Sen. Richard Madaleno (D-Montgomery) celebrates with Rep. Maggie McIntosh (D-Baltimore City), left, and Rep. Heather Mizeur (D-Montgomery), all three of whom are openly gay, after the Senate approved a gay marriage bill. (Patrick Semansky – AP) )
According to the Washington Post
In one of the grandest stagings for any bill signing in recent memory, O’Malley, Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. (D- Calvert) and House Speaker Michael E. Busch (D-Anne Arundel) sat at a table erected at the bottom of a marble staircase leading to the second floor of the State House and O’Malley’s office.
Behind O’Malley was Lt. Gov. Anthony G. Brown (D) and First Lady Katie O’Malley who had also advocated forcefully for the bill.
More than 50 gay rights leaders and clergy members lined the ascending staircase. Hundreds of onlookers, lawmakers and 15 television cameras crowded in the hallway.
“For a free and diverse people, for a people of many faiths, for a people committed to the principle of religious freedom, the way forward is always found through greater respect for the equal rights of all, for the human dignity of all,” O’Malley said.
The Maryland law will take effect on January 1, 2013 provided it is not repealed by referendum in November. But let us be optimistic and know that Maryland will join Washington (as of June 7), Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont and the District of Columbia as a place where everyone is free to marry the person of their choosing. So far, the sky has not fallen.
Washington Makes Seven
Lots of news these days on the gay marriage front almost all of it good. Washington State has joined Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, Connecticut, and Iowa (plus Washington, D.C.) in legalizing gay marriage. Maryland and New Jersey are moving closer and the Appeals Court upheld the California ruling on Prop 8. And polls now show that most Americans support the equal right of gays and lesbians to marry. The tide has turned and the wave of gay marriage is coming in quickly now.
On the day before Valentine’s Day, Washington Governor, Christine Gregoire signed the bill legalizing gay marriage in that state. It will take effect in 90 days. According to the Reuters story
Gregoire, a Democrat and a Roman Catholic, signed the measure to raucous applause during a ceremony in the ornate reception room of the Olympia statehouse, declaring, “This is a very proud moment. … I’m proud of who and what we are as a state.” It was the latest victory for the U.S. gay rights movement.
…
Anticipating the repeal campaign that lies ahead later this year, the governor added, “I ask all Washingtonians to look into your hearts and ask yourselves – isn’t it time? … We in this state stand proud for equality.”
Democrats, who control both legislative bodies in Olympia, accounted for the lion’s share of support for the measure. The stage for swift passage was set after Gregoire, who is in her last term of office, said last month she would endorse the law.
Several prominent Washington-based companies employing tens of thousands of workers in the state have supported the bill, including Microsoft, Amazon and Starbucks.
Opponents were led by Roman Catholic bishops and other religious conservatives.
Meanwhile on the East Coast bills were advancing in Maryland and New Jersey. Taking Maryland first, Reuters reported
A joint panel of the Maryland legislature approved on Valentines’s Day a bill to legalize same-sex marriage, adding to national momentum for gay nuptials following advances in California, New Jersey and Washington state over the last week.
Committee approval of Governor Martin O’Malley’s bill on Tuesday moves Maryland closer to becoming the eighth state to legalize gay marriage.
The House of Delegates’ Judiciary Committee and the Health and Government Operations Committee approved the measure 25-18 in a joint vote, a judiciary panel spokeswoman said. The measure is expected to go to the full House on Wednesday, she said.
Interestingly the opposition in the Maryland legislature – and in the state – is coming from African Americans. Rev. Al Sharpton is lobbying black ministers to support the bill. Anyone who wants to characterize the black community as monolithic is mistaken as when the Massachusetts bill passed some of the most passionate supporters were African American legislators like Dianne Wilkerson.
New Jersey is, unlike Washington and Maryland, facing opposition from Governor Chris Christie who believes that civil rights issues should be referendum issues. The New York Times reported
The New Jersey State Senate voted on Monday to legalize same-sex marriage, a significant shift in support from two years ago, when a similar measure failed.
The legislation faces a vote on Thursday in the State Assembly, but even if that chamber passes the measure, as expected, Gov. Chris Christie, who favors holding a referendum on the issue, has said he will veto it.
But advocates hailed the Senate vote as a huge advance, noting that they won 10 more votes than they did two years ago. And both supporters and opponents said they were surprised by the margin: the bill needed 21 votes to succeed and passed 24 to 16.
“The margin brought the notion of an override out of fantasyland,” said Steven Goldstein, chairman of Garden State Equality, a gay rights group. “Before today, I would have said the chances of an override were one in a million. Now I’d say it’s about one in two.”
…
Mr. Christie, a Republican, has said the issue should be put on the ballot in November as a constitutional amendment. Some polls have found that a slight majority of New Jersey voters support same-sex marriage. Advocates note, however, that in 31 states where same-sex marriage has been put to a referendum, it has failed.
On Monday, Mr. Sweeney [Senate President] said there was “not a chance in hell” that he would support the legislation required to put the question to a ballot, which he said would mean allowing “millions of dollars to come into this state to override a civil right.”
New Jersey already has legalized civil unions.
Watch to see if Rick Santorum makes gay marriage repeal an issue if he gets the nomination. Likewise Mitt Romney. The Republicans are, I think, swimming against the tide.
New York votes for marriage equality
New York is now the largest state to approve same-sex marriage joining Iowa, Vermont, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and the District of Columbia. The law, passed and signed late last night, takes effect in 30 days. With California’s law in limbo, New York becomes the largest state to legalize gay marriage.
With his position still undeclared, Senator Mark J. Grisanti, a Republican from Buffalo who had sought office promising to oppose same-sex marriage, told his colleagues he had agonized for months before concluding he had been wrong.
“I apologize for those who feel offended,” Mr. Grisanti said, adding, “I cannot deny a person, a human being, a taxpayer, a worker, the people of my district and across this state, the State of New York, and those people who make this the great state that it is the same rights that I have with my wife.”
In the end, four Republicans voted in favor; one Democrat voted against.
One last thing. Can someone please explain this picture?
I’m confused. Is this Tea Party person just opposed to government controlling marriage? Or wants more government control in the form of restricting who can marry? I thought Tea Party people were libertarian and shouldn’t care. I guess this falls into the “I oppose government, but don’t take away my social security” category. Maybe they are confused, not me.
Prop 8 is ruled illegal
In a ruling my husband said he could have made, Judge Vaughn Walker held this afternoon that the Califorina voter approved proposition is unconstitutional. The Prop 8 Suporters are expected to appeal and to argue that Judge Walker is gay and therefore biased.. I call this grasping at straws.
The Washington Post quoted Governor Schwarzenegger who as Govenor was the noninal defendant.
In a statement, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) said, “For the hundreds of thousands of Californians in gay and lesbian households who are managing their day-to-day lives, this decision affirms the full legal protections and safeguards I believe everyone deserves.”
You may recall that the case was aruged by what has been described as the legal “odd couple”. The New York Times put it this way
…the plaintiffs’ case was argued by David Boies and Theodore Olson, ideological opposites who once famously sparred in the 2000 Supreme Court battle beween George W. Bush and Al Gore over the Florida recount and the presidency. The lawyers brought the case — Perry v. Schwarzenegger — in May 2009 on behalf of two gay couples who said that Proposition 8 impinged on their Constitutional rights to equal protection and due process.
The San Franciso Chronicle reported
Within minutes of the ruling, Maria Ydil, 31, and Vanessa Judicta, 32, headed to City Hall to apply for a marriage license. It was not immediately clear if they would get a license or be allowed immediately to marry.
A crowd trailed behind singing, “The Chapel of Love.”
While they were allowed to fill out paperwork, they were denied a license because the judge issued a stay on enforcement of the ruling pending further hearings on the issue, a city official said.
From the Times
“Being gay is about forming an adult family relationship with a person of a same sex, so denying us equality within the family system is to deny respect for the essence of who we are as gay people,” said Jennifer Pizer, the marriage project director for Lambda Legal in Los Angeles, who filed two briefs in favor of the plaintiffs. “And we believe that equality in marriage would help reduce discrimination in other settings because the government invites disrespect of us when it denies us equality.”
Between this decision making its way though the appeals process and the Massachusetts decision on the Defense of Marriage Act, the Supreme Court is going to have a pivitol role in the next step toward equal rights. I will be posting more on this in coming days, as I digest the ruling, but I think that the Loving v. Virginia decision is finally going to be extended to same sex marriage as well.
2009 Elections
Call me an apologist for the Democrats, but I know why Creigh Deeds lost in Virginia. He lost because Virginia voters are historically strange. Eight to 12 years of one party and they switch. When Charles Robb was elected Governor he was the first Democrat in 12 years. He was followed by two more Dems. Then there were 8 Republican years followed by 8 Democratic ones. See the pattern here. I think the swing has become shorter because people’s attention span has become shorter. I’ve said for years that Virginia needs to change this crazy one term and you’re out rule for governors. I think Tim Kaine could have been re-elected.
I’ll leave the analysis of Jon Corzine’s loss to others, but I think it had something to do with raising taxes and the unemployment rate in New Jersey. The subway news-sheet I read on my way to work yesterday advised that if you were looking for a job, don’t think about moving to New Jersey.
Most disappointing is the rejection of gay marriage by the Maine voters. As I have said about California’s Prop 8, I think it is wrong to let people vote on other people’s civil rights. This also shows why we need national protections beginning with an ending “don’t ask” for the military and the Defense of Marriage Act. Of course, this will probably make the Obama administration even more cautious.
But,
Democrats won a special election in New York State’s northernmost Congressional district Tuesday, a setback for national conservatives who heavily promoted a third candidate in what became an intense debate over the direction of the Republican Party.
This is the district which clearly showed Republican party differences.
The district has been a Republican stronghold for generations, and the party has represented parts of it since the 19th century.
The battle became one of the most closely followed races in the nation, drawing in some of the biggest forces in politics in both parties. Republicans who viewed the race as a test of the party’s most deeply held conservative principles — including Sarah Palin, the former governor of Alaska; Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, a presidential hopeful; and grass-roots groups that have forcefully opposed Democratic economic and health care policies — rallied behind Mr. Hoffman.
Democrats threw muscle behind the race as well, eager to avoid a potentially embarrassing defeat as President Obama’s approval ratings have softened and efforts to portray them as the party of big government and deficit spending appear to be sticking. A win in the Republican-leaning 23rd Congressional District would provide Democrats with a welcome boost, while a loss would reinforce the notion that the party is struggling.
The seat became vacant after President Obama appointed its long-serving Republican congressman, John M. McHugh, as secretary of the Army.
But as you will recall
Leading conservative voices — including The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page and The Weekly Standard and the talk show personalities Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck — took on the Republican nominee, Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava, who supports gay rights and abortion rights and had embraced some Democratic economic policies like the federal stimulus package. They labeled her as too liberal.
The attacks on Ms. Scozzafava eventually took their toll, and she stunned her party over the weekend first by withdrawing from the race and then by urging her supporters to vote for Mr. Owens, a 60-year-old lawyer from Plattsburgh.
So despite the gloomy election news elsewhere, we can watch the Republicans fight some more. I have a feeling they will try to run against more moderate Republicans. Maybe some of them should try to save themselves by supporting health care reform. And if, as some have speculated, the Democrats are appointing these moderate Republicans to set up a Democratic win in the next election, the strategy worked in New York’s 23rd.
The stage is set for 2010.
Hypocracy about marriage
It is 40 years now since the Stonewall Riots first brought gay and lesbian civil rights into the public spotlight. People who are gay or lesbian still can marry only in New England (except for Rhode Island) and Iowa. They can’t serve in the miliary if they are openly expressing their sexuality. The issue of ordination of homosexuals is spliting the Methodist and Episcopal churches. And it appears that those leaders who are most vocal about the scanctity of marriage being only between a man and a woman are the most likely to divorce and the most likely to be as Jon Stewart put it “…just another politician with a conservative mind and a liberal penis.”
This is the graphic from Charles M. Blow’s op ed in the New York Times on Mark Sanford.
Blow writes
Sanford voted to impeach Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky saga. According to The Post and Courier of Charleston, Sanford called Clinton’s behavior “reprehensible” and said, “I think it would be much better for the country and for him personally” to resign. “I come from the business side. … If you had a chairman or president in the business world facing these allegations, he’d be gone.” Remember that Mr. Sanford?
And this kind of hypocrisy isn’t confined to the politicians. It permeates the electorate. While conservatives fight to “defend” marriage from gays, they can’t keep theirs together. According to the Census Bureau’s Statistical Abstract, states that went Republican in November accounted for eight of the 10 states with the highest divorce rates in 2006.
Conservatives touted abstinence-only education, which was a flop, when real sex education was needed, most desperately in red states. According to 2006 data from the Guttmacher Institute, those red states accounted for eight of the 10 states with the highest teenage birthrates.
A little bragging here: Massachusetts was the first to legalize gay marriage and we are at the bottom of the list in divorce and teen pregancy.
So we need less hypocacry from the conservative camp and a lot more reality. I really don’t think anyone, except the politician’s family, cares about them having an affair as long as other laws (Spitzer and Vitter engaging prostitutes which is still illegal or Ensign and potential conflict of interest) are not also broken. But please, practice what you preach or shut-up and don’t interfere with legal abortions or birth control or with the right of homosexuals to get married.
As Maureen Dowd put it
Sanford can be truly humble only if he stops dictating to others, who also have desires and weaknesses, how to behave in their private lives.
The Republican Party will never revive itself until its sanctimonious pantheon — Sanford, Gingrich, Limbaugh, Palin, Ensign, Vitter and hypocrites yet to be exposed — stop being two-faced.
New Hampshire Makes Six
Six states now recognize gay marriage: Massachusett, Vermont, Maine, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Iowa. I’m not surprised at Vermont and Massachusetts, but never thought New Hampshire and Iowa would be among the early states.
Governor John Lynch made a great statement when signing the bill. His own thinking has evolved from thinking only in terms of civil unions to recognizing the right to marry. According to the story just posted on the Boston Globe
Lynch said at the bill signing ceremony that he hoped that despite passionate debate about the issue, citizens would respect each other as they had after the civil union law was passed.
“It is my hope and my belief that New Hampshire will once again come together to embrace tolerance and respect and to stand against discrimination,” he said.
“Today is a victory for all the people of New Hampshire who, I believe, in our own independent way, want tolerance for all. That’s truly the New Hampshire way,” he said.
New Hampshire Episcopal Rev. Gene Robinson, the church’s only openly gay bishop, said the law is about being recognized as whole people and whole citizens.
But the real celebration will come when we hit 50.
FortLeft 