gay marriage news

SAN FRANCISCO mdash; California's attorney general on Tuesday joined lawyers for two same-sex couples and the city of San Francisco in asking a federal appeals court to allow gay marriages to resume while the court considers the constitutionality of the state's voter-approved ban.br / br / The latest offensive against Proposition 8 came when state Attorney General Kamala Harris told the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a letter that sponsors of the measure approved in 2008 were unlikely to prevail in their appeal of a trial judge's ruling last year that struck it down. pRead more: a href=/tag/california-gay-marriageCalifornia Gay Marriage/a, a href=/tag/california-gay-marriage-banCalifornia Gay Marriage Ban/a, a href=/tag/proposition-8Proposition 8/a, a href=/tag/kamala-harrisKamala Harris/a, a href=/tag/california-attorney-generalCalifornia Attorney General/a, a href=/tag/gay-marriageGay Marriage/a, a href=/los-angelesLos Angeles News/a/p

WASHINGTON -- In the wake of the Obama administration's decision Wednesday to cease its legal defense of a federal ban on gay marriage, gay-rights advocates are looking to lift the notorious state-level ban in California that remains in place during a protracted appeals process even after being declared unconstitutional.br / br / The American Foundation for Equal Rights, a group founded to overturn Proposition 8, the 2008 California ballot initiative that prohibited gay marriage, a href=http://www.afer.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/2011-02-23-Plaintiffs-Motion-to-Vacate-Stay.pdffiled a motion Wednesday/a asking the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to end its stay of the ban. A Ninth Circuit judge struck down Proposition 8 in August, but left it in effect pending appeal efforts. The Supreme Court of California agreed last week to consider the issue, but will not hear oral arguments until next fall. br / br / The foundation argued the stay should be lifted given the long timetable for a final decision on the law, claiming the ban will deal damage to gay families in the meantime.br / br / You can't just say 'Wait six months and then you'll get your constitutional rights,' Theodore Olson, co-lead counsel for the rights organization, said during a conference call with reporters Wednesday. Continuing to separate them out as a different class is harmful every day.br / br / Word of the filing came just hours after President Barack Obama a href=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/23/obama-doma-unconstitutional_n_827134.htmlannounced/a that he considers the Defense of Marriage Act, a federal law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman, to be unconstitutional. The Justice Department will no longer defend the law in court.br / br / The fight over Prop. 8 features some interesting parallels with Obama's move on DOMA. In August, key California officials, including former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and current Gov. Jerry Brown, then the attorney general, decided not to defend the ban against further legal battles.br / br / In their place, proponents of Prop. 8 have tried to appeal the ruling, but it remains unclear whether they have the legal authority to do so. The federal appeals court asked the state supreme court to first rule on whether the groups can appeal, possibly long delaying a final ruling.br / br / Last week, the American Foundation for Equal Rights filed a request with the state supreme court to expedite its ruling, but the foundation has grown more impatient with the ongoing delays.br / br / It would be one thing to have a stay if the determination was going to come relatively shortly ... now it's going to take considerably longer to get this resolved, so we think it's appropriate to ask the Ninth Circuit Court to end its order preventing gay marriage, said David Boies, AFER's other lead counsel.br / br / Although it is unclear when the courts will respond to the requests, the lawyers said Obama's announcement on DOMA could help their case.br / br / I think the combination of what the California Supreme Court did by suggesting it might take up to a year to resolve the procedural questions and what the U.S. government did today might induce the Ninth Circuit Court to respond very quickly, Olson said. pRead more: a href=/tag/gay-and-lesbian-marriageGay and Lesbian Marriage/a, a href=/tag/california-gay-marriageCalifornia Gay Marriage/a, a href=/tag/american-foundation-for-equal-rightsAmerican Foundation for Equal Rights/a, a href=/tag/proposition-8Proposition 8/a, a href=/tag/gay-rightsGay Rights/a, a href=/tag/prop-8Prop 8/a, a href=/tag/domaDoma/a, a href=/tag/glbt-rightsGLBT Rights/a, a href=/tag/gay-and-lesbian-rightsGay and Lesbian Rights/a, a href=/tag/gay-marriageGay Marriage/a, a href=/tag/defense-of-marriage-actDefense of Marriage Act/a, a href=/politicsPolitics News/a/p

The long-awaited reality series Girls Who Like Boys Who Like Boys, highlighting the unconventional relationship between heterosexual women and gay men deputed on the Sundance Channel on Dec. 7. The show is produced by Randy Barbato and Fenton Bailey, the gay producers of RuPaul's Drag Race.br / br / And the show is going to be a great reality series. br / br / Why?br / br / Because Girls Who Like Boys Who Like Boys, reveals how honest and raw interpersonal dynamics in friendships emerge among unconventional and fiercely loving and supportive relationships between heterosexual women and straight men contradicts the dominant views of gender and sexual identity coupling. br / br / And the show not only gives a human face to this reality of straight women with gay men as their best friends forever (BFFs), but the show also highlights our universal yearning for a person with whom we have a feeling of deep and natural affinity, love, intimacy, spirituality, and compatibility -- irrespective of race, gender and sexual preferences.br / br / Straight women with gay men as BFFs are not an anomaly. And the entertainment industry has successfully captured that reality.br / br / For example, television sitcom Will Grace that aired from 1998 - 2006 was about a gay male lawyer, Will Truman, and his BFF, Grace Adler, a Jewish woman who ran her own interior design firm. And, also, in 1998 the romantic comedy The Object of My Affection starring Jennifer Aniston and Paul Rudd was a story about a pregnant New York social worker and her gay male BFF.br / br / But back in the day women who like men who like men were called fag hags, a slang that originated in U.S. gay male culture that some heterosexual women still find insulting. br / br / Straight women who have rejected the label fag hag argue that lying at the etymological root of this moniker are misogynistic stereotypes. And they feel that the term is not only derogatory about them, but that the term also demeans and distorts their rich relationships with their BFFs.br / br / But there are many other women who have also lovingly embraced the term. Comedian Margaret Cho regularly talks about being a fag hag in many of her stand-up routines and she has written the now famous and oft-quoted piece On Being a Fag Hag.br / br / I am fortunate enough to have been a fag hag for most of my life. A fag hag is a woman who prefers the company of gay men. The marriage of two derogatory terms, fag and hag, symbolizing the union of the world's most popular objects of scorn, homosexual and woman, creates a moniker that most of those who wear it find inoffensive, possibly because it smacks of solidarity. Some women have come to me urgently expressing their desire for a new name.br / br / While it is clear that the unconventional coupling of gay men and straight women disrupts heterosexist patriarchy, it also debunks the stereotypical assumptions hoisted upon this distinct demographic group.br / br / Gay men whose BFFs are straight women are perceived to be effeminate, or wanna be females or looking for a gay-friendly mom, while others are perceived to embody internalized homophobia or relationship phobia.br / br / The commonly held assumption about straight women whose BFFs are gay men is that they are the world's female rejects, who are annoying, clingy, and incapable of intimacy. In other words, they are the consummate dumpees of failed heterosexual relationships. They are perceived to register low, if at all, on the sexual attractiveness, social self-worth, and body esteem scales that they seek safe refuge in the gay world.br / br / But the stereotypes are far from the truth. As a matter of fact, in a 2009 study conducted to test the hypothesis if there is any truth to the negative stereotypes surrounding women who like men who like men, research psychologist Jesse Bering wrote in Scientific American Mind that straight women with a lot of gay male friends actually fare better in life. The study found the more gay male friends that a woman had, the more sexually attractive she found herself, meaning these women either surround themselves with hot guys who happen to be gay, and/or gay men laud their BFFs with so many compliments it helps these women to perceive themselves to be attractive.br / br / We are from all walks of life, all classes, all ages, all races; straight, lesbian, and somewhere in between. We are as diverse as we are numerous. The common bond that we share is our alliance with gay men, a connection that is both nurturing and powerful, sweet and sour, retail and wholesale, Cho wrote.br / br / Girls Who Like Boys Who Like Boys is a must-see!br / br / But what might the general viewer not understand about these women?br / br / The friendships that women who like men who like men have are a special bond like no other. Gay men have an innate capacity to connect on deeply emotional and spiritual levels with women that is too often not experienced with heterosexual men. And with these friendships devoid of any sexual tension and competition for the same male suitors, it's easy for both gay men and straight women to open up to each other. br / br / And let's also be honest, Girls Who Like Boys Who Like Boys will give viewers an opportunity to see why so many women -- across sexual preferences -- say, we enjoy having our gay men friends because it's like having a girl friend in a boy friend. pRead more: a href=/tag/womens-rightsWomen#039;s Rights/a, a href=/tag/womenWomen/a, a href=/tag/relationshipsRelationships/a, a href=/tag/womens-issuesWomen#039;s Issues/a, a href=/tag/same-sex-couplesSame Sex Couples/a, a href=/tag/heterosexualHeterosexual/a, a href=/tag/sundance-channelSundance Channel/a, a href=/tag/womens-sexualityWomen#039;s Sexuality/a, a href=/tag/california-gay-marriageCalifornia Gay Marriage/a, a href=/tag/homosexualityHomosexuality/a, a href=/tag/gay-rightsGay Rights/a, a href=/tag/relationship-adviceRelationship Advice/a, a href=/tag/gaysGays/a, a href=/tag/gay-marriageGay Marriage/a, a href=/tag/gay-issuesGay Issues/a, a href=/tag/familyFamily/a, a href=/tag/couplesCouples/a, a href=/entertainmentEntertainment News/a/p

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument Monday in emPerry v. Schwarzenegger/em, the challenge brought by gay and lesbian couples to Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative that amended the state's constitution to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples only. After a marathon argument that went on for more than two hours, at least one thing seems clear: Prop. 8 will likely not survive its journey through the federal courts in California.br / br / The big question after Monday's argument is how broad or narrow the appeals court's eventual ruling will be. Will the judges decide that it is unconstitutional for state voters to take away same-sex couples' rights to marry in a state where gay men and lesbians previously enjoyed the right to marry the person of their own choosing? Will the judges go further, and rule that the U.S. Constitution protects a fundamental right to marry the person of one's choice, which applies equally to gays, lesbians, and heterosexuals, and thus that every state in the Nation must afford all of its citizens the equal right to marry? Or will the judges never even reach the merits of the case, deciding instead that the official backers of Prop. 8 do not have the legal authority to appeal the lower court ruling that struck the law down? br / br / uThe Question of Standing: Who Can Defend Prop. 8 in Court?/ubr / br / The Ninth Circuit judges on the Perry panel--Judge Stephen Reinhardt, Senior Judge Michael Daly Hawkins, and Judge N. Randy Smith--all seemed very concerned about the issue of whether or not the backers of Prop. 8 had legal standing to defend it in court. The court allotted a remarkable two hours of argument time for Perry, and the entire first hour was devoted to the standing question. This issue is very important: If the Ninth Circuit finds that the Prop. 8 proponents have no standing to appeal the lower court's ruling striking down the ban on marriage for same-sex couples, it may not ever get to the actual question of whether such a ban is constitutional.br / br / The standing requirements for federal courts are drawn from Article III of the Constitution, which speaks of the judicial power to hear cases and controversies and has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to require that every party to a dispute must show that they would be affected in some concrete way by the law or by the court's decision. The Supreme Court has long held that simply disagreeing with a law isn't sufficient injury to confer standing. br / br / Usually, state laws that are challenged in court are defended by the state's Attorney General or Governor. The question in Perry is what happens when the Attorney General and other top state officials refuse to defend a voter-passed ballot measure--can the individuals who funded and worked for passage of the proposition then step in?br / br / After the legal dream team of Ted Olson and David Boies, who represented Bush and Gore respectively in the Supreme Court case that determined the contested election of 2000, filed their lawsuit on behalf of several gay and lesbian couples seeking to overturn Prop. 8, both Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General (and now governor-elect) Jerry Brown declined to defend the ban on same-sex marriage. br / br / We know at least two of the panel's judges would probably like to find that the backers of Prop. 8 have standing to appeal. Judge Reinhardt, the presiding judge of yesterday's panel, and Judge Hawkins ruled in another ballot measure case (involving an initiative that made English the official language of Arizona), that the measure's sponsors had standing to appeal a lower court ruling striking down the measure when the state declined to defend the measure's constitutionality. But, as Judge Hawkins pointed out Monday during argument, they were apparently on the wrong side: the Supreme Court, in a unanimous 1997 ruling written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, expressed grave doubts that such standing existed. (The Court vacated the Ninth Circuit's ruling on other grounds.) br / br / Despite these Supreme Court musings, Judge Smith, a relatively recent George W. Bush appointee, seemed to agree with his more liberal colleagues' inclinations on standing. Yesterday he asked whether Governor Schwarzenegger and AG Brown were able to effectively nullify the efforts of the Prop. 8 supporters and the will of the majority of California voters who approved the measure by not appealing the District Court's ruling striking down the law. After all, the initiative process was designed to empower the people to make laws when state officials refused. As UCLA Law Professor Adam Winklera href=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/will-a-technicality-save_b_792436.html target=_hplink has observed/a, the very purpose of direct democracy could be undermined if state officials could simply ignore the voters' will and no one would be able to defend the law in court. br / br / But there could be a way out for the panel. One idea that Judge Reinhardt seemed keen on yesterday was the possibility of certifying the question to the California Supreme Court, asking them to clarify whether proponents of a ballot initiative have standing to defend it in court under California law. This isn't merely passing the buck on hard questions; federal courts can certify questions to state supreme courts when a federal case involves questions of important, unresolved issues of state law that are necessary to resolve the federal matter. The state supreme court will send back an answer to the federal court, resolving the state law question, and the federal matter will continue accordingly. br / br / uIs Prop. 8 Constitutional?/ubr / br / When the Ninth Circuit finally reached the second hour of Monday's arguments and turned to the actual question of Prop. 8's constitutionality, marriage equality seemed to fare very well. Prop. 8, not so much.br / br / To start with, Chuck Cooper, the highly skilled lawyer representing Prop. 8's supporters, had a difficult time articulating the reasons for Prop. 8's ban on marriage for same-sex couples. Cooper tried the for the sake of the children route, arguing that the State has an interest in encouraging heterosexual marriage so that children will be born into two-parent homes. Judge Reinhardt pointed out that Cooper's argument might be a good argument for outlawing divorce, but doesn't appear to have any bearing on whether gay and lesbian couples should also be able to get married. br / br / Judge Smith didn't see why all of this even matters to Prop. 8 supporters: California gives gay and lesbian couples the same state law rights as married couples, so what would really happen if the court decides that the word marriage applies to same-sex couples, given that they have all the state law rights of marriage, just not the title? Even under the lowest level of scrutiny a court will give a potentially discriminatory law, the reasons for its enactment must still be rational. Giving gay men and lesbians the rights of marriage, but purposefully excluding them from the title of marriage for no good reason seems to be based on little more than the bare desire to exclude. br / br / Cooper then pressed the idea that the will of the people of California must be respected and that they can have their exclusionary, arguably pointless, definition of marriage if they want so long as a majority votes for it. But the judges yesterday would seemingly have none of that, and rightly so. As Judge Hawkins got Cooper to concede, the people of California could not vote to reinstate school segregation. The Constitution stands for the proposition that some rights aren't put to a vote. Equality before the law is one of those rights.br / br / As Ted Olson pointed out in his eloquent and stunningly effective presentation to the court--seriously, Olson's argument was so fantastic he was allowed to speak for significant periods of time without interruption by the judges--the Constitution's 14th Amendment protects the fundamental right to marry the person of one's own choosing regardless of whether one is a man or woman, white or black, gay or straight. Cooper conceded that this right to marry may not be denied on the basis of race, but drew the line there. br / br / However, as argued in the a href=http://theusconstitution.org/blog.history/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/CAC-Perry-Brief-FINAL.pdf target=_hplinkamicus brief of the Constitutional Accountability Center/a, the text of the 14th Amendment's guarantee of the equal protection of the laws and due process for all persons is sweeping and universal. In fact, the drafters of the Amendment considered and rejected a proposal that would have made the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equality specifically targeted at racial discrimination. They intentionally crafted a broader constitutional guarantee of equal rights under the law.br / br / While the framers of the 14th Amendment were looking for a broad answer to discrimination, it seems Judge Reinhardt was looking Monday for a narrow one. He repeatedly asked Olson whether the court could simply decide that taking away the right to the title of marriage from same-sex couples in California, which they enjoyed for a short window of time before Prop. 8 was passed, is unconstitutional. Olson agreed that they could by simply applying the Supreme Court's decision in ema href=http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-1039.ZO.html target=_hplinkRomer v. Evans/a/em, a 1996 case in which the Court found in favor of gay Coloradans who challenged an amendment to the state's constitution that prohibited any level of government from enacting anti-discrimination measures that protected gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals. br / br / By applying emRomer/em, the Ninth Circuit could issue a somewhat narrow ruling saying that taking away rights from gay men and lesbians--kind of Lucy-with-the-football style--is clearly unconstitutional, without ruling more broadly that the Constitution protects the fundamental right of marriage across the board--i.e., that Charlie Brown has an affirmative right to kick the football. But Olson also refused to give up the point that the Constitution also protects the right to marry in and of itself, even if the Ninth Circuit could take the narrow way out. Marriage discrimination cannot be justified under any standard of constitutional analysis. This is a powerful point, and not just because it was eloquently made by Ted Olson, George W. Bush's Solicitor General and one of the most famous conservative lawyers in the country.br / br / uWhat's Next for Prop. 8 and Marriage Equality?/ubr / br / The supporters and opponents of Prop. 8 must now wait for action from the Ninth Circuit. If the Ninth Circuit decides to certify the question of whether the backers of Prop. 8 have standing to defend the law to the California Supreme Court, we could see something in the next few weeks or even days. But if the Ninth Circuit panel decides to issue a ruling without asking the California Supreme Court to weigh in--even if it goes for the narrower route striking down Prop. 8--the ruling could take anywhere from three months to a year. br / br / At that point, the losing side will decide whether to ask a broader panel of 11 judges from the Ninth Circuit to review the three-judge panel's ruling in an en banc proceeding. Either after an en banc proceeding or perhaps even just after the panel's decision, the losing side will undoubtedly appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.br / br / But for now, we'll just have to wait.br / pRead more: a href=/tag/politicsPolitics/a, a href=/tag/ninth-us-circuit-court-of-appealsNinth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals/a, a href=/tag/california-gay-marriageCalifornia Gay Marriage/a, a href=/tag/californiaCalifornia/a, a href=/tag/proposition-8Proposition 8/a, a href=/tag/gay-rightsGay Rights/a, a href=/tag/ted-olsonTed Olson/a, a href=/tag/sexSex/a, a href=/tag/gays-and-lesbiansGays and Lesbians/a, a href=/tag/david-boiesDavid Boies/a, a href=/tag/constitutionConstitution/a, a href=/tag/gay-marriageGay Marriage/a, a href=/tag/samesex-marriageSame-Sex Marriage/a, a href=/politicsPolitics News/a/p

SAN FRANCISCO mdash; A line of questioning at an appeals court hearing over California's gay marriage ban suggested the three judges could issue a decision that would legalize same-sex marriage in that state but leave intact bans in other western states under the court's jurisdiction.br / br / The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard nearly three hours of arguments Monday during a televised hearing that reached a nationwide audience anxious for a final decision on whether voter-approved Proposition 8 and similar same-sex marriage bans violate the U.S. Constitution. pRead more: a href=/tag/california-court-gay-marriage-david-boiesCalifornia Court Gay Marriage David Boies/a, a href=/tag/california-gay-marriageCalifornia Gay Marriage/a, a href=/tag/proposition-8Proposition 8/a, a href=/tag/californiaCalifornia/a, a href=/tag/gay-marriage-rulingGay Marriage Ruling/a, a href=/tag/prop-8Prop 8/a, a href=/tag/california-gay-marriage-banCalifornia Gay Marriage Ban/a, a href=/tag/gay-marriage-banGay Marriage Ban/a, a href=/tag/gay-marriageGay Marriage/a, a href=/los-angelesLos Angeles News/a/p

Perhaps the most important civil rights issue of the day will be before a federal appeals court this afternoon (Monday). But will gay marriage in California win on a technicality? br / br / After legal all-stars Ted Olson and David Boies, who represented Bush and Gore respectively in the contested election of 2000, joined together to bring suit on behalf of gay couples seeking to overturn California's Proposition 8, both Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown refused to defend the ban on same-sex marriage. The California officials said they thought the law was unconstitutional and nothing in state law required them to defend it. br / br / The trial court judge, Vaughn Walker, allowed two organizations that sponsored the initiative, ProtectMarriage.com and the Campaign for California Families, to step in and mount a defense of the law. Walker subsequently ruled that Proposition 8 violated the U.S. Constitution by denying gay people the fundamental right to marry and the equal protection of the laws.br / br / The initiative sponsors appealed that decision but now they face the real possibility of being removed from the case for lack of what lawyers call standing. That's a legal principle that requires every party to a dispute to show that they would be affected in some concrete way by the law or by the court's decision. The Supreme Court has long held that simply disagreeing with a law isn't sufficient injury to confer standing.br / br / There's no doubt that the gay couples who brought the case have standing or that the Governor or the Attorney General, had they chosen to defend the law, would have had standing. Whether sponsors of the initiative have it, however, is another matter. In fact, the Supreme Court suggested not long ago, in a case very similar to the one being heard today, that sponsors of an initiative probably do not. br / br / The case was Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, a 1997 decision involving a challenge to a ballot proposition passed in Arizona mandating official state business to be conducted in English. The governor, however, refused to defend the law and an organization that sponsored the proposition intervened. The Supreme Court ended up deciding that case on other grounds, but suggested that initiative sponsors are not proper parties to defend a state law.br / br / Standing to defend on appeal in place of an original defendant, the Supreme Court explained, demands that the litigant possess 'a direct stake in the outcome.' The decision to seek review is not to be placed in the hands of 'concerned bystanders' but should be left to state officials, like the state's executive or legislators. br / br / Arizonans for Official English and its members, the Court said in a unanimous decision, are not elected representatives, and we are aware of no Arizona law appointing initiative sponsors as agents of the people of Arizona to defend, in lieu of public officials the constitutionality of initiatives made law of the State. Nor has this Court ever identified initiative proponents as . . . qualified defenders of the measures they advocated.br / br / There may be good reasons why initiative sponsors generally should have standing to defend ballot measures when state officials refuse to do so. The initiative process was designed to empower the people to make laws when state officials refused. The very purpose of direct democracy could be undermined if state officials could simply ignore the voters' will and no one would be able to defend the law in court.br / br / Yet, Supreme Court language, not democratic theory, controls the outcome of constitutional cases. As in Arizona, no statute in California clearly provides initiative sponsors with standing.br / br / If the federal court of appeals decides that the Supreme Court's language from the Arizona case is controlling, the judges will declare that no one involved in the case has standing to defend Proposition 8. The gay couples represented by Olson and Boies would win by default -- and gay marriage would no longer be banned in California. br / pRead more: a href=/tag/california-gay-marriageCalifornia Gay Marriage/a, a href=/tag/marriageMarriage/a, a href=/tag/politicsPolitics/a, a href=/tag/gay-rightsGay Rights/a, a href=/tag/gay-marriageGay Marriage/a, a href=/tag/samesex-marriageSame-Sex Marriage/a, a href=/politicsPolitics News/a/p

Something happened on Election Day in Iowa that threatens the principles of democracy upon which this country was founded: Three well-respected Iowa Supreme Court Justices lost retention elections following a vicious campaign by anti-gay groups who targeted them because of the Court's 2009 unanimous decision to uphold marriage equality for same-sex couples. br / br / The purpose of the judiciary in Iowa is to uphold that state's constitution and protect the fundamental rights of individuals -- and the duty of the federal judiciary is to uphold the principles in the federal Constitution. The founders of our nation understood that if courts are not insulated from voters who disagree with particular decisions, then majorities will have the power to strip fundamental rights away from minorities -- and our cherished principles of liberty and freedom will disappear.br / br / In Iowa, seven jurists were posed a question by people who had been denied basic fairness guaranteed by the state constitution. The judges did their jobs with integrity -- as they must. Then, one-issue ideologues spent nearly $1 million to intimidate the three justices who were up for a routine retention election that occurs every eight years. Their campaign was surely intended not only to oust these three justices but also to intimidate any jurist facing a controversial case involving the rights of minority groups. The anti-gay bullies who toured Iowa represented some of the same groups whose appeals were rejected by the United States Supreme Court earlier this year when they attempted to conceal the names of supporters who signed an anti-gay ballot measure in Washington State by making false claims that they were fearful of retribution. In one state, they play victim while in another they intimidate.br / br / Attacking the authority of judges is not limited to Iowa. When Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that California's Proposition 8 (the ballot measure that amended the state Constitution to restrict marriage to different-sex couples) violated the guarantees of equal protection and due process, his credibility was immediately disparaged by anti-equality groups who claimed that because Judge Walker was rumored to be gay, he could not rule fairly on the case. Lose the argument, attack the judge. br / br / Political attacks on the judiciary are nothing new. In 1954, after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Brown vs. Board of Education that state-mandated segregation in public schools violated the U.S. Constitution, there were cries that the Court had overstepped its role and usurped power from the legislature. Billboards to Impeach Earl Warren littered the South. Thankfully, the nation rejected those attempts to politicize the judiciary and the Warren Court's landmark civil rights decisions are celebrated today.br / br / But the level of rage directed at judges and courts, and the degree to which the politicization of the judiciary has been embraced by mainstream elected officials is alarming. The U.S. Senate has now blocked or impeded the confirmation of federal judges to such a degree that legal professionals from all perspectives have declared it a crisis: By this point in the presidency of George W. Bush, the Senate had confirmed 78 judges, or 62 percent of the President's nominees. By contrast, the Senate has now confirmed only 41 new federal judges since President Obama took office -- only 48 percent of the President's nominees. There are over 100 vacancies on the federal bench. br / br / The director of One Iowa, the statewide LGBT equality group, called the results of the retention election a perfect storm of electoral discontent and out-of-state special interest money. It was also fueled by a blatant lie: A flier from their bus tour through Iowa reads, The ruling by these judges, a ruling which goes directly against the will of the citizens, can be reversed through the act of Iowans voting 'No' on the retention of all three activist judges. Retention elections have no effect on prior decisions -- nor should they. br / br / The Iowa Supreme Court delivered justice that will outlast this political fight by upholding the Iowa Constitution's guarantee of equality for all Iowans. But this spiteful campaign is a wake-up call to voters who must resist future attempts to politicize the courts. We all share the responsibility to protect the system of checks and balances that defines our democracy. If an embattled judiciary were to lose its ability to uphold constitutional principles with impartiality, that would be a tragic loss for our country. We can't let that happen.br / br / emShow your appreciation for the Iowa Supreme Court Justices and all judges who stand up for equality. a href=https://secure3.convio.net/lambda/site/SPageNavigator/petitions/iowa_judges?s_subsrc=wbab106z0hu target=_hplinkGo to lambdalegal.org and sign our pledge to support fair judges and fair courts./em/abr / pRead more: a href=/tag/iowaIowa/a, a href=/tag/lgbtLgbt/a, a href=/tag/california-gay-marriageCalifornia Gay Marriage/a, a href=/tag/gay-rightsGay Rights/a, a href=/tag/judicial-retentionJudicial Retention/a, a href=/tag/obama-lgbtObama LGBT/a, a href=/tag/judiciaryJudiciary/a, a href=/tag/iowa-gay-marriageIowa Gay Marriage/a, a href=/tag/gay-marriageGay Marriage/a, a href=/politicsPolitics News/a/p

emThis post was written with the help of a href=http://www.twitter.com/mpmcquinn target=_hplinkMike McQuinn/a, one of the leaders of Jerry Brown's LGBT movement./embr / br / There's been a lot of talk this election season about Jerry Brown's a href=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/13/prop-8-jerry-brown-urges-_n_682100.html target=_hplinkrefusal to defend Prop 8/a in court. As Attorney General, his utmost responsibility is to uphold the law, and he found the measure to be a href=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jerry-brown/proposition-8-should-be-s_b_171544.html target=_hplinkin direct violation of the constitution/a--plain and simple.br / br / But you might not know that Jerry has been standing up for gay rights for decades. So in honor of GLBT History Month, here's a little California history lesson for you.br / br / Back in the day, we had a discriminatory law in place that made consensual sex between two gay men a felony. In 1975, shortly after becoming governor, Jerry successfully repealed it.br / br / Abolishing the measure proved to be a difficult undertaking. In fact, Jerry's Lieutenant Governor broke the tied vote in the State Senate. Controversy notwithstanding, when the repeal bill got to his desk, Jerry unflinchingly signed it.br / br / Fast-forward three years to Jerry's re-election campaign. Alongside his name on the November ballot was an incredibly divisive proposition dubbed the a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Briggs_Initiative target=_hplinkBriggs Initiative/a. This initiative aimed to give school boards the power to fire gay and lesbian teachers solely based on their sexual orientation.br / br / A typical politician running for re-election at the time (and maybe even now) would have ducked the issue and focused his energies on his own campaign. But Jerry was, and is, no typical politician, so he decided to take a bold public stance against discrimination.br / br / With the likes of Supervisor Harvey Milk and President Jimmy Carter, Jerry campaigned to defeat the Briggs Initiative. Like the anti-sodomy law before it, Jerry knew such government intrusion into personal life represented the antithesis of the society he'd been striving to govern since his first day in public office.br / br / The Briggs Initiative was annihilated at the polls. Jerry coasted to victory.br / br / But he wasn't satisfied with the progress already made on his watch just yet.br / br / After his re-election, Jerry supported legislation barring employment discrimination based on sexual orientation because, as he explained, the diversity of our people can be a cause of hatred and anxiety or the source of strength and continued achievement. The choice is ours.br / br / He also appointed five openly LGBT judges to the bench, including two firsts: the first openly gay and openly lesbian judges in United States history.br / br / Although nearly 20 years passed before either another LGBT judge was appointed or the employment protections envisioned by Jerry became state law, none of these sweeping reforms would have been possible without his pioneering spirit and commitment to promoting equality.br / br / Class dismissed.br / pRead more: a href=/tag/lgbt-rightsLGBT Rights/a, a href=/tag/california-gay-marriageCalifornia Gay Marriage/a, a href=/tag/meg-whitmanMeg Whitman/a, a href=/tag/gay-rightsGay Rights/a, a href=/tag/proposition-8Proposition 8/a, a href=/tag/prop-8Prop 8/a, a href=/tag/california-governors-raceCalifornia Governor#039;s Race/a, a href=/tag/jerry-brownJerry Brown/a, a href=/politicsPolitics News/a/p

Conservatives always seem to get a rise out of gay marriage and while attempts to legalize it in California have fallen limp (for now), leave it to a pair of creative, industrious lesbians to pave the way for rethinking marriage, in general.br / br / Artists Annie Sprinkle and Elizabeth Stephens, who became a couple earlier this decade and were legally married in a same-sex wedding ceremony in Canada in 2007, seem to be asking: Shouldn't marriage be considered art? (As in an art project?)br / br / Judging by what the duo have engaged in over the past six years, the answer seems to be: Hell Yes!br / br / Sprinkle and Stephens, both artists and educators -- well, and environmental activists, too -- are in the thick of a seven-year art project dubbeda href=http://loveartlab.org/index.php target=_hplink Love Art Lab/a, which finds the couple exchanging vows to each other annually in intriguing performance art ceremonies that often bring a community of creative souls -- and onlookers -- together. Each wedding event has a theme and a color/chakra scheme. This year, year six, is devoted to the color purple -- the two woman will marry each other (symbolically) to the moon. But other ideals are explored here. The color purple represents the sixth chakra and the artists hope to illuminate the importance of intuition.br / br / In their artists' statement this year, they note that they invite everyone to share our practice of loving the Moon and the Mountains romantically in order to create more intimate relations with them and aim to activate a network of global citizens, artists, activists, sexologists, spiritual practitioners, academics, local folk, family and others.br / br / Bottom line: This is not your father's Purple Mountain Majesty.br / br / But it's destined to be majestic. The big event takes place in the early evening Saturday, Oct. 23 at Farnsworth Park Amphitheater in L.A. It will be officiated by the enlightening attention-grabber a href=http://www.revbilly.com target=_hplinkReverend Billy/a with the Church of Life After Shopping Choir on hand.br / br / I participated in 2008's a href=http://www.goodtimessantacruz.com/santa-cruz-news/good-times-cover-stories/682-love-the-new-sex.html target=_hplinkGreen Wedding/a up at the UC Santa Cruz campus in California. The grand event had an environmental theme and seemed to further push these ladies into going beyond the issue of gay marriage, but to explore the state of the environment. On a deeper level, they are exploring how their union/love/commitment to each other can be used as a springboard for activism and creating a positive ripple effect in the world.br / br / Needless to say, their efforts never cease to turn heads.br / br / In fact, just last week, the couple faced some unexpected drama when the deputy director of the L.A. County Parks and Recreation Department called them to inform them that their Farnsworth Amphitheater rental contract (in Atladena) had been cancelled. Shocked, the pair felt it was a direct response to the gender of the brides, and the environmental activist themes of their vows. br / br / No worries. a href=www.revbilly.com target=_hplinkReverend Billy/a, who is officiating this purple wedding, came to the rescue. It is bad enough that same sex marriage is illegal in California but now even the performance of a same sex marriage is called un-safe, he commented upon hearing the news. The Rev and his wife Savitri D. consulted their own legal team to help the brides.br / br / So... the wedding is back on!br / br / In the meantime, a few more lovely things to note about what, I feel, has to be one of the most inventive, titillating, ecosexual-civil rights estrogen parades to penetrate modern culture in decades: The video below gives you a better glimpse of the artists' causes. Below that, dive into a slideshow weddings from year's past (emPhotos courtesy of Annie Sprinkle and Beth Stephens/em) br / br / To learn more or to become part of the artists' causes, visit this kickstarter a href=http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/152588950/purple-wedding-to-the-moon-and-ecosex-honeymoon-sy target=_hplinklink/a.br / br / Here's to another year of I Do.br / br / HH--236SLIDEPOLLAJAX--12029--HH pRead more: a href=/tag/california-gay-marriageCalifornia Gay Marriage/a, a href=/tag/gay-rightsGay Rights/a, a href=/tag/slidepollajaxSlidepollajax/a, a href=/tag/elizabethstephensElizabeth-Stephens/a, a href=/tag/environmentalismEnvironmentalism/a, a href=/tag/gregarcherGreg-Archer/a, a href=/tag/loveLove/a, a href=/tag/annie-sprinkleAnnie Sprinkle/a, a href=/tag/same-sex-marriageSame Sex Marriage/a, a href=/tag/performance-artPerformance Art/a, a href=/tag/gay-marriageGay Marriage/a, a href=/artsArts News/a/p

Are they misinformed or deliberately lying? I don't know anymore.br / br / A group of medical marijuana dispensaries organized as the California Cannabis Association has a href=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/21/medical-marijuana-advocat_0_n_734063.html target=_hplinkcome out against Prop 19/a, California's a href=http://yeson19.com target=_hplinkTax and Regulate Cannabis/a initiative to legalize marijuana.br / br / The coalition claims that Prop 19's provisions giving local jurisdictions the power to regulate cannabis sales, including the right to choose whether to allow commercial or other outlets, would enable them to prohibit the sale of medical marijuana to patients, something that under California they currently can't do. In the words of Cascade Wellness Center head Amir Daliri, quoted in the Associated Press, The people who would be most affected are the sick, the elderly - patients who cannot grow their own and cannot travel to pick up a prescription.br / img alt=2010-09-23-californiamarijuanaleaf.jpgstyle=float: right; margin: 15px 10px 10px 10px src=http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2010-09-23-californiamarijuanaleaf.jpg width=300 height=285 /br / The claim is completely false. As attorney J. David Nick explained in a widely disseminated a href=http://www.weedtracker.com/forums/1189-181-medical-cannabis-use-and-discussion/1189-medical-marijuana-politics/255502-mmj-attorney-breaks-down-prop.html target=_hplinklegal analysis/a exhorting people to get on board and support the initiative, section 2B of the Prop 19 text explicitly guards against that:br / br / blockquoteSection 2B presents the controlling and relevant purposes for understanding what Prop. 19 can and cannot do. This section EXPRESSLY excludes the reach of Prop. 19 from the CUA and MMP. Sections 2B (7 8) specifically state that the purpose of this initiative is to give municipalities total and complete control over the commercial sales of marijuana EXCEPT as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9./blockquotebr / br / Even without that protection, Nick further explains, it would be virtually impossible for the courts to interpret Prop 19 as allowing cities or counties to gut the state medical marijuana law, because of the rules of statutory construction:br / br / blockquoteAlthough extrinsic materials (such as legislative committee memos or voter pamphlet arguments) may not be resorted to when the legislative language is clear, courts may never ignore the purpose of the legislation. Every interpretation a court gives a statute must be consistent with the purpose of the legislation. This is why statutes have long preambles which explicitly state the purposes of the legislation./blockquotebr / br / Unfortunately, the press has largely given the group a pass. In the press mentions I could find of the story, a href=http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/marijuana/pot-group-is-against-propositi/ target=_hplinkLA Weekly/a, a href=http://www.capradio.org/articles/2010/09/21/california-cannabis-association-opposes-prop-19- target=_hplinkCapital Public Radio/a, a href=http://www.ktvu.com/news/25104431/detail.html target=_hplinkKTVU/a and the aforementioned a href=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/21/medical-marijuana-advocat_0_n_734063.html target=_hplinkAP piece/a, campaign spokeswoman Dale Sky Jones is quoted making the opposite claim, that the initiative actually would clarify and improve protections for medical marijuana patients. But that important information appears toward the end of the articles, and the casual reader is left with the impression simply that different activists are saying different things, not necessarily knowing what to believe. I think the media professionals covering this should have taken the extra few moments needed to glance at the initiative text, or better yet spoken with a qualified attorney or legal analyst about it. They then could have verified that the campaign quotes were right and the opposition's wrong, and reflected that in their reporting.br / br / Fortunately, only some medical marijuana people are so shortsighted as to oppose this historic and important measure. a href=http://www.harborsidehealthcenter.com/ target=_hplinkHarborside Health Center/a in Oakland, and the a href=http://www.berkeleypatientsgroup.com/ target=_hplinkBerkeley Patients Group/a are among the top quality groups lending their support to Prop 19. But it's still worth asking, why are some other medical marijuana providers opposing it?br / br / Famed Canadian Marc Emery, from his US prison cell offered a href=http://cannabisculture.com/v2/content/2010/06/05/Why-You-Should-Vote-YES-California-Control-Tax-Cannabis-Initiative target=_hplinkthe obvious explanation: money/a. I've been charitable about this in saying that there's a little more to it than that. The medical marijuana providers have by and large created a good and wholesome environment, bringing dollars in for sure, but providing high-quality, compassionate services for their clientele. They've risked a lot to do it -- Daliri's center is among those to suffer a href=http://centralvalleycannabis.com/archives/1482 target=_hplinkraids on their operations/a -- and they don't want to see the world they've brought into being fall into nothingness in the face of the hugely increased competition that legalization of marijuana for anyone will surely bring. I happen to think that legalization will bring more opportunities for everyone in the industry, including the current medical marijuana providers, but I could be wrong. Maybe they will be put out of business.br / br / But that's not a reason to allow the continued mass law enforcement campaigns against marijuana users and sellers to continue -- more than 61,000 people were arrested for marijuana possession in California in 2009 alone. And these people were smart enough to start and maintain successful businesses, therefore they're smart enough to accurately understand the Prop 19 legislation, if they want to, so I say enough is enough. Whether they are doing it deliberately, or out of deliberate ignorance, they should stop spreading misinformation about Prop 19. Shame on the California Cannabis Association. And a href=http://yeson19.com target=_hplinkYES on PROP 19!/a pRead more: a href=/tag/california-prop-19California Prop 19/a, a href=/tag/california-gay-marriageCalifornia Gay Marriage/a, a href=/tag/ballot-initiativesBallot Initiatives/a, a href=/tag/ballot-initiativeBallot Initiative/a, a href=/tag/ballotinitiativesBallot-Initiatives/a, a href=/tag/prop-19Prop 19/a, a href=/tag/medical-marijuanaMedical Marijuana/a, a href=/tag/proposition-19Proposition 19/a, a href=/tag/californiaprop19California-Prop-19/a, a href=/tag/california-proposition-19California Proposition 19/a, a href=/los-angelesLos Angeles News/a/p

SAN FRANCISCO mdash; California's highest court on Wednesday refused to order Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the state's attorney general to appeal a federal ruling that overturned the state's gay marriage ban.br / br / The state Supreme Court denied a conservative legal group's request to force the state officials to defend the voter-approved ban. pRead more: a href=/tag/prop-8Prop 8/a, a href=/tag/california-gay-marriageCalifornia Gay Marriage/a, a href=/tag/schwarzenegger-prop-8Schwarzenegger Prop 8/a, a href=/tag/proposition-8Proposition 8/a, a href=/los-angelesLos Angeles News/a/p

SACRAMENTO, Calif. mdash; A California court has refused to order Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown to appeal a ruling that overturned the state's gay marriage ban.br / br / The 3rd District Court of Appeal on Wednesday denied a conservative legal group's request to force the officials to defend voter-approved Proposition 8. pRead more: a href=/tag/prop-8Prop 8/a, a href=/tag/california-gay-marriageCalifornia Gay Marriage/a, a href=/tag/prop-8-rulingProp 8 Ruling/a, a href=/tag/governor-arnold-schwarzeneggerGovernor Arnold Schwarzenegger/a, a href=/tag/arnold-schwarzeneggerArnold Schwarzenegger/a, a href=/tag/proposition-8Proposition 8/a, a href=/tag/gay-marriageGay Marriage/a, a href=/los-angelesLos Angeles News/a/p

In an interview with the Huffington Post on Wednesday night, former Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman -- who a href=http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/08/bush-campaign-chief-and-former-rnc-chair-ken-mehlman-im-gay/62065/ target=_hplinkannounced earlier Wednesday that he is gay/a and intends to join the fight for marriage equality in California -- said he wishes he had come out while he was the face of a historically anti-gay Republican Party platform.br / br / Mehlman acknowledged regret that he remained closeted when he led the RNC between 2005 and 2007 -- a time when, as a href=http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/08/bush-campaign-chief-and-former-rnc-chair-ken-mehlman-im-gay/62065 target=_hplinkThe Atlantic's Marc Ambinder noted/a, it was stepping up its anti-gay activities.br / br / The reason I wish that I had been in a different place then, as I am now, is I know the personal benefit of being comfortable with, and at peace with, an important part of your life, Mehlman said. Until you get there, it's much harder. I'm very glad to be there. br / br / The former chairman argued that he tried hard to expand the party and build the party, but said he wished he had done more for gay rights. Still, he said, [You] can't look back, you've got to look forward.br / br / In the interview, Mehlman was reluctant to address current political subjects, declining to comment on President Obama's progress on LGBT issues and the conservative movement's often-offensive rhetoric toward gay men and women. He did, however, say that there is absolutely a place for LGBT individuals in the GOP. br / br / I think the Republican Party is a diverse party with lots of different views, and I think it's a mistake to presume that people who disagree with what I think is the right answer -- which is freedom to marry -- are inherently motivated by divisive instincts, Mehlman said, adding that he thinks conservatives are focusing less on social issues like opposition to LGBT equality and much more about the size and scope of the government -- spending, deficits, and taxes.br / br / Many high-profile LGBT activists have already embraced Mehlman since his announcement earlier Wednesday. We hope the fact that Ken Mehlman has reached this level of honesty will now encourage other political leaders to reject divisive anti-gay campaign tactics which, as Mr. Mehlman now admits, are purely cynical attempts to manipulate the American public, Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund President and CEO Chuck Wolfe said in a a href=http://www.gaypolitics.com/2010/08/25/breaking-victory-fund-responds-to-former-rnc-chairmans-coming-out/ target=_hplinkpublic statement/a. Openly gay Democratic strategist Steve Elmendorf told the Huffington Post that it was great for the community to get new converts because until we get 51 percent of the American public supporting us on these issues, it's really important that we welcome people who want to come help us.br / br / Center for American Progress Senior Vice President Winnie Stachelberg, who is a former Human Rights Campaign executive and longtime friend of Mehlman's, said, I'm sure there will be plenty of people who will be angry that he came out when he did and after the things that he did, and he probably regrets that more than most people, but I think that having him as part of the team moving forward will only help all of us in this fight.br / br / The impetus for Mehlman's coming-out was a a href=http://towleroad.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c730253ef0133f35340c2970b-pi target=_hplinkSept. 22 fundraiser/a for the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which is fighting for marriage equality in California. Mehlman will co-chair the event with Elmendorf and high-profile Republicans including Steve Schmidt, who managed John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign, and Nicolle Wallace, who advised both McCain and President George W. Bush. pRead more: a href=/tag/ken-mehlmanKen Mehlman/a, a href=/tag/california-gay-marriageCalifornia Gay Marriage/a, a href=/tag/gay-rightsGay Rights/a, a href=/tag/rncRnc/a, a href=/tag/steve-elmendorfSteve Elmendorf/a, a href=/tag/gayGay/a, a href=/tag/winnie-stachelbergWinnie Stachelberg/a, a href=/tag/gay-marriageGay Marriage/a, a href=/politicsPolitics News/a/p

In the weeks since Judge Vaughn Walker found California's gay marriage ban unconstitutional, the Right Wing has, unsurprisingly, worked itself into a characteristic bigoted bluster. But this time, something about the bluster is different.br / br / The Right's a href=http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/right-wing-reactions-prop-8-decision target=_hplinkearly reactions/a to the decision in emPerry v. Schwarzenegger/em ranged from the purely vitriolic:br / br / blockquoteemThe American Family Association/em: [Judge Walker is] a black-robed tyrant whose own lifestyle choices make it impossible to believe he could be impartial./blockquote br / br / ... to the conspiracy theorist:br / br / blockquoteemConcerned Women for America/em: Homosexual activists use same-sex 'marriage' as a political juggernaut to indoctrinate young children in schools to reject their parent's values and to harass, sue and punish people who disagree./blockquotebr / br / ...to the constitutional revisionist:br / br / blockquoteemThe Family Research Council/em, apparently forgetting that Prop 8 was found unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment, itself an attempt to right one of the Founders' omissions: To hold that the Founders created a constitutional right that none of them could even have conceived of is, quite simply, wrong. /blockquotebr / br / This parade of apoplectic anger is nothing new--the Right has fought every step toward acceptance of gay people with similar Armageddon-invoking tirades. What is remarkable about the reaction to the Prop 8 decision is that within the anger are the beginnings of admissions of defeat. The Right has won many important battles against gay rights, but they are losing the war...and they know it.br / br / A few days after Judge Walker's decision, the pseudo-historian David Barton, founder and president of the right-wing group a href=http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/wallbuilders target=_hplinkWallBuilders/a, explicitly described the nervousness that has been behind much of the Right's outrage. The case against Proposition 8, Barton argued, could win in the Supreme Court...so opponents of marriage equality should sacrifice California in order to save anti-equality laws in 31 other states. br / br / Right now the damage is limited to California only, Barton told Tim Wildmon, President of the American Family Association during aa href=http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/will-right-sacrifice-california-save-marriage-amendments-elsewhere target=_hplink radio interview/a, but if California appeals this to the US Supreme Court, the US Supreme Court with Kennedy will go for California, which means all 31 states will go down in flames, although right now this decision is limited only to California...the problem is that instead of California losing its amendment, now 31 states lose their amendment. And that won't happen if California doesn't appeal this decision.br / br / For years, the Right has watched its anti-gay agenda lose credibility as a href=http://www.swimmingfreestyle.net/swimming_freestyle/2010/05/new-gallup-poll-on-gay-acceptance.html target=_hplinkpublic acceptance/a of gays and lesbians has steadily grown and intolerance has declined. And that trend is going strong, as young people of all political stripes are a href=http://pewresearch.org/pubs/485/friends-who-are-gay target=_hplinkmore likely /ato know gay people and a href=http://www.swimmingfreestyle.net/swimming_freestyle/2010/03/gay-marriage-is-inevitable-its-just-a-question-of-when.html target=_hplinkmore willing/a to grant them equal rights and opportunities, including the right to marriage. A a href=http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/08/12/majority_backs_gay_marriage_for_first_time.html?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=feedutm_campaign=Feed%3A+PoliticalWire+(Political+Wire) target=_hplinkCNN poll/a this month found that a majority of Americans think gays and lesbians should have the right to marry--the first time gay marriage dissenters had slipped solidly into the minority in a national poll. Even in California, where Proposition 8 passed on the ballot in 2008, a href=http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/03/50-of-californians-now-support-gay-marriage-poll-finds.html target=_hplinka poll/a earlier this year found a majority now support same sex marriage rights. Indeed, this change is even visible on the Right, where the fight against equality is being waged by an increasingly marginalized movement. Who would have ever thought that Ann Coulter would be booted from a right-wing conference for being a href=http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/ann-coulter-deemed-too-gay-friendly-worldnetdaily-conference target=_hplinktoo gay friendly/a? br / br / Of course, basic human rights should never be decided by majority vote--they are guaranteed by the Constitution. But, on the issue of gay rights, the Right Wing now finds itself up against both the Constitution and the will of a steadily increasing majority. br / br / Moreover, in addition to a fundamental change in public attitudes, the Right is also facing a monumental transformation on this issue in the judicial arena. Nowhere was this more evident than in the courtroom at the Prop 8 trial, where Ted Olson, the conservative attorney most famous until now for essentially winning the presidency for George W. Bush inem Bush v. Gore/em, invoked case after case of legal precedent to back up constitutional arguments against marriage discrimination, and brought in witness after witness to testify to matters of fact. In response, attorneys for the Right Wing organizations backing Prop 8 could only manage to sputter tired prejudices barely disguised as legal arguments regarding the mythical damage to society caused by legal recognition of gay couples.br / br / It was clear in the a href=http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/California-Prop-8-Ruling-August-2010 target=_hplinkopinion/a of Judge Walker, nominated by both Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, who laid out 136 pages of factual findings and legal reasoning to support the case of equal access to marriage as a fundamental constitutional right, and debunked the myths of its opponents.br / br / And it is clear in the aftermath of Walker's decision, where Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger--a href=http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-10-13/bay-area/17266566_1_same-sex-marriage-veto-message-marriage-bill target=_hplinkby no means a hero/a to the gay rights movement--has shown no interest in appealing the case that bears his name.br / br / David Barton is correct that the Right's tired anti-gay arguments may not stand a strong chance, even in the current, exceptionally conservative Supreme Court. Dahlia Lithwick a href=http://www.slate.com/id/2262766/ target=_hplinkhas argued/a that Judge Walker's opinion was formulated specifically to persuade Justice Anthony Kennedy, currently the Court's swing vote. It's true that Walker backed up his legal arguments with repeated citations of Justice Kennedy's opinions in two anti-gay discrimination cases. But it's important to remember why this appeal to Kennedy is remarkable. Kennedy is hardly a liberal, or even a moderate justice--in fact, a a href=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/us/25roberts.htm target=_hplinkrecent study/a found him to be one of the ten most conservative justices to serve in past 73 years. If even a very conservative Supreme Court justice has shown a fundamental understanding that the Constitution's protections extend to gays and lesbians, the anti-marriage case stands on very shaky legal ground indeed.br / br / The Prop 8 lawsuit was meant from its inception to be a broad constitutional challenge to statewide bans on marriage for gays and lesbians. Whereas previous fights had been fought on smaller geographical or legislative turf, both sides of the Prop 8 case had their sights set from the start on a broad, national Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of marriage discrimination. Opponents of marriage equality still boast outwardly of the merits their case will have before the Court. But it seems that they are beginning to see that this case is likely to be both a far-reaching victory of the principles of dignity and personal freedom, and a powerful sign that anti-gay arguments, though loud as ever, are increasingly being shouted from the legal and social fringe.br / br / There is no question that, regardless of the ultimate verdict in the Prop 8 case, the work of equal rights advocates is far from over. The anti-gay fringe movement still makes noise disproportionate to its size, and is determined to fight to retain every anti-gay law currently on the books. br / br / But if the Right does sacrifice California, either by choice or because the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals finds they lack standing to pursue the case, the groundwork has been laid. Americans of all political stripes believe that their gay friends and family members have the right to equal protection under the law, and there is now a solid legal and factual precedent to back it up, shaped in large part by a conservative lawyer, filed by a conservative judge, and echoed by the traditions of a nation devoted to fairness and respect. pRead more: a href=/tag/supreme-courtSupreme Court/a, a href=/tag/california-gay-marriageCalifornia Gay Marriage/a, a href=/tag/proposition-8Proposition 8/a, a href=/tag/ted-olsonTed Olson/a, a href=/tag/prop-8Prop 8/a, a href=/tag/david-bartonDavid Barton/a, a href=/tag/perry-v-schwarzeneggerPerry v Schwarzenegger/a, a href=/tag/right-wingRight Wing/a, a href=/tag/people-for-the-american-wayPeople for the American Way/a, a href=/tag/arnold-schwarzeneggerArnold Schwarzenegger/a, a href=/tag/anthony-kennedyAnthony Kennedy/a, a href=/tag/gay-marriageGay Marriage/a, a href=/tag/marriage-equalityMarriage Equality/a, a href=/politicsPolitics News/a/p

SAN FRANCISCO mdash; A retired Presbyterian minister is facing a church trial for performing weddings of gay couples during the brief period when same-sex marriage was legal in California.br / br / The Rev. Jane Spahr has been accused of publicly, intentionally and repeatedly violating church doctrine when she presided at the weddings of 16 couples between June and November of 2008. pRead more: a href=/tag/jane-spahrJane Spahr/a, a href=/tag/california-gay-marriageCalifornia Gay Marriage/a, a href=/tag/rev-jane-spahrRev. Jane Spahr/a, a href=/tag/california-gay-marriage-banCalifornia Gay Marriage Ban/a, a href=/tag/gay-marriageGay Marriage/a, a href=/los-angelesLos Angeles News/a/p

When I grew up, the rap on gay people was that they were promiscuous, emotionally stunted and immature, fixated somewhere back in adolescence and had never grown up. Which meant that they were totally incapable of adult relationships -- i.e. marriage. Homosexuals were therefore unworthy of respect and deserving of contempt.br / br / But what was so great about marriage anyway?br / br / Sure, it was how romantic comedies ended, but I grew up with a very sour image of marriage, determined never to let the same fate pull me under. br / br / My Holocaust survivor parents could argue like fiends, my father passive aggressively getting my mother to ignite. And boy could that Gemini explode! It didn't have to be about money or us kids or anything major at all. They once had a row over which dish to serve the green beans in when my brother's girlfriend was over for dinner. World War III was raging (in Yiddish) in the kitchen while the rest of us sat at the dining room table. My brother and I were unfazed, but his girlfriend was astonished when we told her what exactly was going on. Have some more wine, I said. It helps.br / br / Reading American and world literature didn't improve my perspective on marriage. Everywhere you looked there was dissatisfaction and adultery in one classic novel after another: emAnna Karenina/em, emMadame Bovary,/em emEffi Briest/em, emSister Carrie/em, emThe Great Gatsby/em and many, many more.br / br / My all-time favorite novel, emThe Portrait of a Lady/em, was no exception to the rule that marriage was definitely a grim fate. The elderly Touchetts in that novel can't live together for more than a few days at a time, and the heroine, Isabel Archer, makes a completely disastrous marriage. She expects openness and understanding from Gilbert Osmond but instead finds dumbness, deafness, and suffocation. And that's on a good day.br / br / D. H. Lawrence put it bluntly in emWomen in Love/em where Birkin grouses about the world all in couples, each in its own little house, watching its own little interests, and stewing in its own little privacy--it's the most repulsive thing on earth. I can't recall a single good novel I've read -- classic, modern or contemporary -- that paints marriage as even mildly happy.br / br / And yet here I am watching the world change via court rulings and legislative decisions, eagerly waiting with my partner of 26 years to see what happens next in the Prop 8 case, and what it means.br / br / Chris Rock raised gay marriage in one of his routines a few years ago: Why the fuck shouldn't gay people be as miserable as the rest of us?br / br / Why indeed? Give us the chance, let us feel your pain. It's not a bad price to pay if we get full citizenship and equal treatment under the law. pRead more: a href=/tag/gay-marriageGay Marriage/a, a href=/tag/chris-rockChris Rock/a, a href=/tag/california-gay-marriageCalifornia Gay Marriage/a, a href=/tag/cheatersCheaters/a, a href=/tag/booksBooks/a, a href=/tag/cheatingCheating/a, a href=/tag/marriageMarriage/a, a href=/tag/samesex-marriageSame-Sex Marriage/a, a href=/tag/novelsNovels/a, a href=/booksBooks News/a/p

If I were Ted Olson, the former US solicitor general who is leading the legal battle against Prop 8, I would be unhappy with Jerry Brown right now.br / br / Olson's hard-won victory before federal district court judge Vaughn Walker was meant to be the first stage of a legal strategy culminating in a US Supreme Court decision establishing -- emfor the entire country/em -- a constitutional right of gay marriage. But Judge Walker's decision striking down Prop 8 may never be considered by the federal court of appeals, much less the Supreme Court. Worse, the obstacle to appellate review could result in the voiding of Walker's decision altogether, thus restoring the gay marriage ban in California.br / br / How does this scenario involve Jerry Brown? As California's Attorney General, Brown has the job of defending the state, and its laws, in court. Like a private lawyer representing a client, he is supposed to defend California whether or not he thinks the state's legal position is correct. This is so not only because the state deserves a defense, but also because our judicial system, in order to function, requires legal advocacy on behalf of both sides to a dispute. When a judge hears from one side only (the favored approach in countries that tend also to have only one political party), the judge is likely to make lots of mistakes.br / br / With an eye on higher political office, Brown declined to defend Prop 8 in Judge Walker's courtroom. Instead, the defense of Prop 8 was left to a group of citizen activists involved in the Prop 8 electoral campaign. Brown's absence may have helped his own political fortunes, but, ironically, his strategy of non-participation ultimately may play into the hands of Prop 8's supporters.br / br / Although the defenders of Prop 8, ably represented in Judge Walker's courtroom by conservative litigator Charles Cooper, put up a strong fight, they may lack legal standing -- a constitutional requirement in federal suits -- to appeal Judge Walker's decision to the federal court of appeals and, ultimately, to the US Supreme Court. Judge Walker highlighted this issue in a recent order, and the defendants, in their brief to the court of appeals, focused on it.br / br / Without digging too deeply into the intricacies of the federal constitutional doctrine of standing, suffice it to say that the standing issue in the Prop 8 case is not trivial. Suffice it also to say that, if Jerry Brown had participated in the case and presented even a weak, half-hearted defense of Prop 8 at trial, standing would, at this juncture, pose no obstacle to appeal to the court of appeals and the Supreme Court.br / br / But it gets worse. The problem is not limited to obtaining appellate review of Judge Walker's decision. If it turns out that the Prop 8 supporters lack standing to appeal, it may also be the case that they lacked standing to represent the state's interests in their defense of Prop 8 in the District Court. So says UC Davis Law School professor Vikram Amar, who is no friend of Prop 8, in an interview with emTime/em magazine.br / br / While I disagree with Amar on this point (because I think states should not have the power, through their absence, to veto federal constitutional challenges to state laws), these are, at best, unchartered legal waters. emIf it turns out that none of the parties before Judge Walker was a constitutionally adequate defendant, the judge's entire decision may fall -- which is to say, gay marriages in California would once again be illegal./embr / br / Although Jerry Brown is no doubt sincere in his view that Prop 8 violates the Constitution, his role as Attorney General is not to advocate his own personal views or to take positions that please his political base. Rather, his job is to defend California in all cases except where the state's actions are patently indefensible. (And while it may be terrible public policy, Prop 8 is unquestionably defensible under existing constitutional doctrine). This aspect of the attorney general job description may not be spelled out in any law. Nonetheless, it is necessary for the functioning of the judicial system.br / br / Ted Olson's legal strategy is gay Californians' last best hope for judicial affirmation of their right to marry. Ironically, Jerry Brown's pursuit of short-term political advantage jeopardizes that strategy.
br / ---
br / emPeter Scheer, a lawyer and journalist, is executive director of the a href=http://www.firstamendmentcoalition.org. target=_hplinkFirst Amendment Coalition./a The views expressed in this column are Scheer's own, and are not necessarily shared by FAC's Board of Directors./embr / pRead more: a href=/tag/california-gay-marriageCalifornia Gay Marriage/a, a href=/tag/gay-rightsGay Rights/a, a href=/tag/ted-olsonTed Olson/a, a href=/tag/prop-8Prop 8/a, a href=/tag/jerry-brownJerry Brown/a, a href=/tag/judge-vaughn-walkerJudge Vaughn Walker/a, a href=/tag/gayGay/a, a href=/tag/gay-marriageGay Marriage/a, a href=/tag/gay-issuesGay Issues/a, a href=/politicsPolitics News/a/p

The US District Court decision on August 4, overturning California's Proposition 8 and its ban on same sex marriages was a watershed moment for proponents of equal rights for gay and lesbian Americans. br / br / Within hours of the a href=http://www.beyondchron.org/news/news_images/2010/walkerdecision.pdf target=_hplinklandmark decision/a, pundits ranging from MSNBC's liberal Rachel Maddow to Fox's ultra-right wing Glenn Beck, began postulating that the ruling signaled a new post-homophobic era in America. br / br / Maddow, who among news anchors may well be America's most trusted lesbian, led her show for the two nights after the decision with celebratory coverage of the ruling. She went so far as to taunt GOP leaders for being uncharacteristically quiet during the 24 hours after the US District Court decision. br / br / Speaking presumably to Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, and John Boehner, among others,a href=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908//vp/38586009#38586009 target=_hplink Maddow asked at the top of her August 5 program/a, emWhere were the outraged Republicans? Where are you? You guys used to be so good at this. /embr / br / At the same time, Glenn Beck, who is to liberal causes what Mikey was to breakfast foods in the 1970s Life cereal ads (he hates everything), turned heads by telling Fox's Bill O'Reilly that emI don't think marriage, that the government actually has anything to do with . . . [what] is a religious right, /emand then added a quote from Thomas Jefferson:em If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, what difference is it to me?/embr / br / script type=text/javascript src=http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=4308988w=466h=263/scriptnoscriptWatch the latest video at a href=http://video.foxnews.comvideo.foxnews.com/a/noscriptbr / br / In the wake of the decision, both sides held their breath as Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker gave opponents of the ruling six days to appeal it. On August 16, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals left in place Prop 8 and its same sex marriage ban in California, as the case winds its way through its appeal process toward the Supreme Court, where it may ultimately be decided. Depsite forcing Golden State gay and lesbian couples to put their nuptial plans on hold, this delay has one possible plus for same sex marriage proponents. br / br / Loyola Law School professor Richard Hasen a href=http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gay-marriage-stay-20100817,0,3298714.story target=_hplinktold the emLA Times/em /a, thatem If this case takes another year to get to the U.S. Supreme Court, there could be more states that adopt same-sex marriage and more judicial opinions that reach that conclusion. /embr / br / In fact, despite the dramatic victory in the federal court, the battle over same sex marriages in the US continues to rage at the state and local levels. br / br / emStreak of 31 Straight Victories Brought to an Endbr / /embr / Over the past decade, gay marriage opponents have racked up an impressive winning streak of a href=http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/us/05marriage.html target=_hplink31 straight victories/a against no defeats when the issue of same sex marriages has been on the ballot in state elections. Loss number 31 was in Maine, on November 3, 2009, when voters repealed a law that had allowed gay unions. The 31-0 streak was brought to an abrupt end by Judge Walker's Prop 8 decision. br / br / As recent events have been developing in San Francisco, filmmakers Dean Hamer and Joe Wilson have been traveling the country with their feature documentary film, a href=http://outinthesilence.com target=_hplinkemOut in the Silence/em/a. The film captures the remarkable chain of events starting with the announcement of their wedding, which ignited a firestorm of controversy in the small Pennsylvania hometown Wilson left long ago. br / br / The documentary tells the story of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights in rural America, and premiered at the Human Rights Watch International Film Festival, was broadcast on PBS stations across the country, and has been shown at over 400 community and school screenings accompanied by public discussions.br / br / Currently, Dean, who has worked for the past three decades at the National Institutes of Health, and received international attention after the journal Science published his research in 1993 that he had identified a gay gene, and Joe, a human rights activist and native of Oil City, Pennsylvania, where the documentary takes place, are traveling with the film through all 67 counties in Pennsylvania, a state that prohibits same sex marriage. emThe following is Dean Hamer and Joe Wilson's dispatch from the front regarding the latest battle in America's 2010 culture wars:/embr / br / br / br / centera href=http://tinypic.com?ref=34yp3zo target=_blankimg src=http://i38.tinypic.com/34yp3zo.jpg border=0 alt=Image and video hosting by TinyPic/a/centerbr / centeremPlaintiffs Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier at federal courthouse./em/centerbr / br / The images of the plaintiffs in the Proposition 8 case standing on the steps of the Federal Courthouse in San Francisco during the trial, were typical of the now standard media portrayal of gay America: out, proud, comfortably middle class, living in a big city or suburb. br / br / But there is another side to gay America that is rarely seen. It takes place in conservative, often deeply religious small towns and rural communities where those who are found, or even perceived to be lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, strive to fit in rather than to stand out. For these people coming out means risking their families, friends, jobs and livelihoods, their safety and at times even their very lives. br / br / Our documentary film, a href=http://outinthesilence.com target=_hplinkemOut in the Silence/em/a focuses on the harrowing, ultimately successful battle waged by a 16 year-old gay student and his mother against recalcitrant school authorities when the teen was brutally gay bashed for courageously coming out at his rural high school. br / br / centera href=http://tinypic.com?ref=b98081 target=_blankimg src=http://i37.tinypic.com/b98081.jpg border=0 alt=Image and video hosting by TinyPic/a/centerbr / centeremFilmmakers Hamer (L) and Wilson (R) in Oil City, Pennsylvania/em/centerbr / br / We've reached half of our goal of screening the film in all 67 counties in Pennsylvania, and most of the events have been greeted with enthusiasm. But in Coudersport, a town of 2,650 people along the northern border of the state, we received an email from Keturah Cappadonia, a town librarian just two days before the scheduled screening informing us that the event would have to be canceled. The reason, a href=http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2010/07/potter_county_library_challeng.html target=_hplinkas the emHarrisburg Patriot-News/em, later reported/a, was that 'after several hours of people pointing their fingers in her face and telling her she was going to hell, Keturah Cappadonia cracked' and was reduced to tears by the experience.br / br / The controversy resulted from, no surprise, an alliance between fundamentalist Christians and right-wing conservatives. Pastor Pete Tremblay of the Coudersport Free Methodist Church a href=http://coudynews.com/?p=5216 target=_hplinktold a local news web site/a that the film was em'designed to get people to give up their convictions based on the word of God and accept these practices as equivalent to God's design for human sexuality. It is propaganda.' /embr / br / Pastor Tremblay went on to request that people 'emcall the library...and in a Christian manner inform them that this event is not a benefit to our community, and ask that it be canceled.'/embr / br / He was joined in his condemnation of the film by George Brown, president of the Potter County Tea Party, who said he was upset at having to be em'attacked for our beliefs at a public library we support with our tax money. This is wrong and cannot be tolerated.'/em br / br / Brown also told the web site that $1.5 million of local taxes was used to support the library (the actual number is $42,000), and went on to say that em'Should this agenda be continued, we may need to ask if the library should be defunded.' /embr / br / centera href=http://tinypic.com?ref=3179wk2 target=_blankimg src=http://i34.tinypic.com/3179wk2.jpg border=0 alt=Image and video hosting by TinyPic/a/centerbr / centerDiane Gramley, head of the American Family Association of Pennsylvania/centerbr / br / That appeared to be one threat over the line for the library board. Following a quick phone meeting, they unanimously decided that the screening would go ahead as originally planned anda href=http://outinthesilence.blogspot.com/2010/07/coudersport-public-library-response-to.html target=_hplink issued a public statement for the library patrons/a: br / br / blockquoteThe mission of any public library is to serve a diverse community with varying opinions about what is and is not objectionable material . . . We believe the library would fail in its mission if it did not provide information about ideas or topics that each of us might find uncomfortable at some level . . . American libraries are the cornerstone of our democracy. Libraries are for everyone, everywhere. /blockquotebr / br / And so two days later, on the evening of July 28, 2010, a standing room only crowd gathered in Coudersport's public library, made up of mainstream members of the community along with lesbian, gay, bisexual and heterosexual, transgender and cisgender, young, middle-aged and senior citizens, together with a goodly handful of reporters, all gathered together in a public place and ready to talk about a subject that had divided their community for far too long. br / br / As soon as the film was over, one of the opponents in the room quickly rose and read from a long list of objections to the film, including that em'most homosexuals are very well off.'/em Another spoke at length of his belief that homosexuality is against 'emGod's word./em' br / br / But then, gradually, slowly and often in tears, the LGBT folks and their family members, friends and allies began to recount their personal experiences. br / br / A teenager described how he had been harassed at school when his classmates discovered his father was gay. em'I didn't understand why my friends turned their backs on me/em,' he said. em'To accept everyone is the only way to go about living.' /embr / br / Then the teen's father - a local business owner, Episcopal Vestry member and former Republican Party Chair - spoke of the acceptance he has quietly gained over his 30 years in the town. br / br / Another young man, visibly nervous, publicly announced for the first time that he was proud to be both gay and Christian, even though his church had rejected him. That prompted a local minister to stand and announce that her church was supportive of LGBT people and would serve as a resource for those who wanted a welcoming spiritual home. br / br / When a woman with a small child in her arms offered to make a financial donation to the library to offset any losses due to the screening, she was greeted by a solid burst of applause. br / br / The topic of marriage equality was never even mentioned. But audience members did circulate a sign-up sheet for people who wanted to work with one another and Equality Partners of Western Pennsylvania to try and make Coudersport a more welcoming and tolerant place. By the time the event was over, the majority of the people in the room had signed up. br / br / While it was painful, even frightening to observe the open hostility of the handful of individuals who attempted to stop the meeting from occurring, and then to disrupt the conversation with angry diatribes and personal attacks, people in the community have told us that it was actually useful that it all took place in full light of day because it revealed the seriousness of the problems that LGBT people face, often alone and without any networks of personal or legal support in such an environment. br / br / The other screenings throughout Pennsylvania, which has a law on the books prohibiting same sex marriage, drew good crowds of local LGBT people and allies including educators, social workers and business owners, but only one minister showed up, in Emporium, PA. After watching the movie he took off his white collar and placed it in his shirt pocket. 'emSometimes I'm embarrassed to be associated with the clergy in this area,/em' he said. 'emMy religion is about faith, not about hate/em.'br / br / br / centera href=http://tinypic.com?ref=2wqalia target=_blankimg src=http://i33.tinypic.com/2wqalia.jpg border=0 alt=Image and video hosting by TinyPic/a/center br / centerVisit the official Out in The Silence web site ata href=http://www.outinthesilence.com target=_hplink Outinthesilence.com/a br / Out in the Silence a href=http://bit.ly/aIGw4d target=_hplinkcan be seen On iTunes/a or a href=http://www.amazon.com/Out-Silence-Joe-Wilson/dp/B002Y3GZD2/ref=pd_ts_d_2?ie=UTF8s=dvd target=_hplinkpurchased on Amazon/a./center pRead more: a href=/tag/lcmediaLcmedia/a, a href=/tag/lgbt-issuesLGBT Issues/a, a href=/tag/proposition-8Proposition 8/a, a href=/tag/prop-8Prop 8/a, a href=/tag/no-on-prop-8No on Prop 8/a, a href=/tag/documentary-filmDocumentary Film/a, a href=/tag/joe-wilsonJoe Wilson/a, a href=/tag/california-prop-8California Prop 8/a, a href=/tag/gayGay/a, a href=/tag/filmFilm/a, a href=/tag/california-gay-marriageCalifornia Gay Marriage/a, a href=/tag/bill-lichtensteinBill Lichtenstein/a, a href=/tag/lgbtLgbt/a, a href=/tag/lichtensteinLichtenstein/a, a href=/tag/gay-rightsGay Rights/a, a href=/tag/dean-hamerDean Hamer/a, a href=/tag/lgbt-rightsLGBT Rights/a, a href=/tag/out-in-the-silenceOut in the Silence/a, a href=/tag/documentaryDocumentary/a, a href=/tag/california-gay-marriage-banCalifornia Gay Marriage Ban/a, a href=/tag/sundanceSundance/a, a href=/tag/gay-issuesGay Issues/a, a href=/tag/gay-marriageGay Marriage/a, a href=/tag/california-proposition-8California Proposition 8/a, a href=/politicsPolitics News/a/p

Judge Vaughn Walker's decision to allow resumption of legal same-sex weddings in California has right-wing Christians claiming his ruling against Proposition 8 threatens a href=http://protectmarriage.com/testimonials target=_hplinkBible believing Christians./a I've read the Bible pretty carefully myself (I read it cover to cover when I was in high school) and even taught it as a college professor. It is not a source I'd turn to in order to defend traditional marriage, but I think it does offer ways to think about ethical marriage.br / br / The Bible presents multiple views of marriage, and most actual marriages it depicts are terrible by modern standards. Traditional marriages in ancient biblical times were arranged as transfers of the ownership of daughters. The tenth commandment lists wives among properties like houses and slaves: You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor (Exodus 20:17, also found in Deuteronomy 5:21). Marriages occurred via deception, kidnapping, adulterous seductions, theft, rape, and murder, and were often in multiples so that the pater familias could amass land, flocks, and progeny and cement political alliances. Abraham, David, and Solomon had marriages that would be illegal today. The book of Hosea likens the mercy of God to a husband who has the right to beat or kill his adulterous wife, but spares her -- for this, she was supposed to be grateful. When women seek marriages, such as Naomi arranged for Ruth, it was to avoid an even worse fate such as destitution.br / br / The ideal of a housewife that a href=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/diana-butler-bass/the-real-housewives-of-pr_b_668186.html target=_hplinkDiana Butler Bass recently lifted up in Proverbs 31/a suggests that a decent married life for women might have been possible in biblical times, but actual examples are rare. It's a telling fact that at Christian weddings today, passages of scripture used in the service mostly avoid marriage texts. They extol love between two women ([M]y people shall be your people [Ruth 1]) or communitarian values (The greatest of these is love [I Corinthians 13]) or erotic passion between unmarried lovers ([S]et me as a seal upon your heart [Song of Songs]). (Some people are shocked to find Song of Songs in the Bible at all.)br / br / In the Christian section of the Bible, Jesus and Paul disagreed about what marriage was supposed to be. The difference between them is striking: Jesus thinks of marriage as divinely sanctified while Paul thinks of it as an option for the morally weak who need to avoid fornicating. They lived around the same time, and both were Jews, so it's a bit puzzling why they differ so radically, perhaps as puzzling as why, today, some Christians vehemently oppose marriage equality while others like myself support it. Even evangelicals differ; a href=http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week1204/survey.html target=_hplink poll data show/a that in 2008, 84 percent of those under age 30 supported same-sex civil unions or outright marriage equality while only 54 percent of their elders did.br / br / So let's at least get clear about one important fact: there is no Christian view of marriage; there are different Christian views, even if you follow the Bible. For over a millennium, the Christian church in Europe leaned toward Paul. It did not sanctify marriage but regarded it as a civil ceremony instead. br / br / Paul, a citizen of the Roman Empire, spent time in jail for opposing that Empire, and his negative view of marriage was probably another form or resistance. Other celibate religious movements of his time also saw avoidance of marriage and procreation as a form of resistance to the Empire and a sign of a new kind of religious society. Why was marriage such a huge political issue during Paul's time? br / br / During the two decades before Jesus was born, a href=http://www.unrv.com/government/julianmarriage.php target=_hplink the Roman Empire passed a slew of marriage laws/a that forced marriage on all Roman citizens. To have enough tax revenues and soldiers for its military legions, the empire needed an expanding citizen population, but the population was shrinking. The situation was dire because average life expectancy was only 25 years, and two thirds of all infants died. Just to stay even, the state required a five-child birthrate per woman. Many elite Roman families resented military conscription of their sons and found the tax burdens excessive. Hence, refusing to marry was a way to resist imperial exploitation.br / br / In addition to such political pressures, Paul may also have rejected marriage because it separated sex and love. Under Roman marriage laws and customs, sex was a function of male domination and aggression. Princeton historian Peter Brown, in his study of this period, ema href=http://www.amazon.com/Body-Society-Professor-Peter-Brown/dp/0231061013/ref=sr_1_1?s=booksie=UTF8qid=1281987116sr=1-1 target=_hplinkThe Body and Society/a/em, wryly remarks that the Romans viewed male adolescents as human espresso machines; they were always near a sexual boil, ready to erupt. In her careful study of documents from this period, Bernadette Brooten, in ema href=http://www.amazon.com/Love-Between-Women-Christian-Homoeroticism/dp/0226075923 target=_hplinkLove Between Women/a/em, notes that a pater familias could have sex with anyone under his authority and economic control, which mean virtually any female, as well as boys and male slaves. The only people a head of household could emnot/em have sex with were his equals or superiors, including female superiors, like goddesses or his mother. E. J. Graff in her book,em a href=http://www.amazon.com/What-Marriage-Strange-Intimate-Institution/dp/0807041351 target=_hplinkWhat is Marriage For?/a/em, notes that rape of the bride was commonly expected, and in wedding ceremonies, the groom and father-in-law exchanged the vows, since women were exchanged as property and could not take vows. While marriages might have love in them, this was not expected. br / br / For women in marriage, sex was for procreation -- a dangerous destiny at a time without reliable birth control or adequate maternal medical care. That women had sexual desires and enjoyed sex was not doubted, but respectable women confined these to the marriage bed. Brooten found that while homosexual orientations were regarded as immutably determined by astrological influences, lesbianism was regarded as a medical disorder because sex as domination and subordination were crucial. Women's sexual relationships lacked a dominant inserter and subordinate receiver and were, thus, an unnatural disorder. The construction of sex as male dominance may be why conservatives obsess over rare biblical texts against homosexual practices, while, like the C Street Family, they think of male heterosexual adultery, condemned in their beloved 10 commandments, as a lesser sin, since so many biblical patriarchs were adulterers. The sin more frequently condemned is usury, but I digress...br / br / Paul believed love was the highest value, whereas sex was a problem. Paul advocated abstinence, though this suggestion has led some to regard him as psychologically disturbed. Ironically, current condemnations of his version of ascetic Christianity exist side-by-side with great admiration for monastic figures such as the Dalai Lama. But religious abstinence is another discussion.br / br / Jesus' view of marriage in Matthew 19 was not the Roman version. He turned to the Jewish scriptures in Genesis 2. Conservatives like to use Genesis 2 to defend marriage as between one man and one woman for procreative purposes only (emi.e./em, as authorizing sex between one dominant inserter and one subordinate receiver). However, I don't think this is what Jesus meant.br / br / A careful look at Genesis, provided by scholar Phyllis Trible, offers an interesting alternative to the conservative view. She notes that God creates an earthling, emadam/em (emi.e./em, a being made of earth, emha'adama/em; emadam/em in the Hebrew is not a proper name until later in the story), and breathes divine spirit into him to make him come alive. All the animals are insufficient to satisfy the emadam/em's needs for a helper. emEzer kenegdo/em, translated help meet, literally means an equal helper. Help, by itself, referred to a superior, such as God. Hence, the addition of emkenegdo/em, surrounding, modified emezer/em to suggest an equal. So God divides emadam/em into emish,/em male, and emissha/em, female. Made of the flesh of adam, Eve is neither superior nor subordinate to Adam. Given that the woman's subordination to the man and painful childbirth were a punishment for the two having sinned in Genesis 3, I think the decision goes against traditional marriage as divinely ordained. Inside paradise, God intended relationships based on equality. br / br / Jesus had to go back to the paradise garden to find a model of what he thought marriage ought to be. Given that model, he observed that Moses created divorce because men behaved badly (he calls them hard-hearted, which suggests unloving), which might be understood as a condemnation of traditional marriage. He also conceded that the demands of marriage were not for everyone, and remaining unmarried was OK.br / br / Arguments for California's Prop 8, which Judge Walker overturned, narrowed the purpose of marriage to procreation. Neither Paul nor Jesus explicitly mentioned procreation as a reason for marriage. While I don't think Jesus was talking about same-sex marriages, his reference to Genesis 2 grounded marriage in equality and companionship. While Jesus and Paul differ on marriage, they differ for the same reason. They uphold love as the highest divine good, not women's subordination. In fact, because of the nasty history of institutional marriage in the Bible and heterosexist civil laws that are built on male dominance and female subordination, I think marriage equality means such gender inequality will no longer be inscribed as a necessary basis of marriage.br / br / In his carefully written decision, Judge Walker remarked on changes that have eliminated most of the values and reasons for traditional marriage. He noted that marriage had recently been transformed from a male-dominated institution into an institution recognizing men and women as equals (p. 112). The changes also reflect cultural ideas that marriage is a union of sex with love. They do not nullify marriage per se:br / br / blockquoteThe evidence shows that the movement of marriage away from a gendered institution and toward an institution free from state-mandated gender roles reflects an evolution in the understanding of gender rather than a change in marriage. The evidence did not show any historical purpose for excluding same-sex couples from marriage, as states have never required spouses to have an ability or willingness to procreate in order to marry. Rather, the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed. (p. 113)/blockquotebr / br / Judge Walker ruled that the state's interest in marriage is guided by the rights of equal protection, not by religion, and that religious ideas should not determine marriage law. He has, for the time being, restored legal same-sex weddings as a right than cannot be decided by majority vote. br / br / A number of Christian groups in California, as well as Reformed Jews and Unitarian Universalists, would agree. Prop 8 denied us our religious freedom by prohibiting us from authorizing same-sex marriages, but, even worse, it denied the basic human right of marriage to a group of people based on unfounded biases about their sexual orientation. Same-sex couples, like heterosexual couples, offer each other love, companionship, and a stable family environment for raising children. If marriage is good for society, and equality is the ethical basis for marriage, then gender difference is irrelevant. Marriage equality is good for everyone, including Bible-believing Christians. pRead more: a href=/tag/progressive-christiansProgressive Christians/a, a href=/tag/california-gay-marriageCalifornia Gay Marriage/a, a href=/tag/bible-and-marriageBible and Marriage/a, a href=/tag/proposition-8Proposition 8/a, a href=/tag/gay-marriageGay Marriage/a, a href=/tag/marriage-equalityMarriage Equality/a, a href=/tag/bible-homosexualityBible Homosexuality/a, a href=/tag/bible-marriageBible Marriage/a, a href=/tag/bible-samesex-marraigeBible Same-Sex Marraige/a, a href=/tag/prop-8Prop 8/a, a href=/tag/bible-traditional-marriageBible Traditional Marriage/a, a href=/tag/samesex-marriageSame-Sex Marriage/a, a href=/religionReligion News/a/p

img alt=2010-08-17-gaymarriageHUFPOScan490copy.jpg src=http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2010-08-17-gaymarriageHUFPOScan490copy.jpg width=490 height=358 / pRead more: a href=/tag/marraigeMarraige/a, a href=/tag/california-gay-marriageCalifornia Gay Marriage/a, a href=/tag/californiaCalifornia/a, a href=/tag/divorceDivorce/a, a href=/tag/gay-marriageGay Marriage/a, a href=/comedyComedy News/a/p