Forbes Magazine says Gay Marriage for Straight Legislatures

This article from Forbes.com is probably one of the best defenses for marriage equality that I have seen in such short and succint form. If anyone had a question on whether or not the 1996 law, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is discriminatory and unconstitutional.

The author, Lisa Duggan, describes her first marriage from start to finish.

When I got hitched for the first time, in Staten Island’s tiny city hall, I was a naïve twenty-two year old, wearing a dress off Nordstrom’s rack. New York State didn’t ask, so we never had to tell anyone why we wanted to marry, only that we did.  Two signatures and two vials of blood was all that was necessary to be granted the state’s legal blessing.
New York State was there as well, three years later, when we decided to get unmarried—and this time they were asking questions. Cruel and inhuman treatment? Abandonment for a period of one or more years? Adultery? Who did what to whom, and when: it was all material to our legal grounds for divorce.

She then goes on to describe how married couples can completely lose any and all protections once they cross state lines, and how this law was written and passed specifically to discriminate against the LGBT population. It makes me sick to look back and see how complacent our legislators (and most of their constituents) were (and are) when it comes to writing discrimination into our laws, and potentially into our Constitution.

It means that our government will not pay Social Security benefits to the same-sex spouse of any enlisted person, grunt or officer, even if their partner of fifteen years dies while defending this country.
Is it me, or does all this scream civil rights violations? Isn’t it the height of hypocrisy for State and federal legislators to collect taxes from their gay constituents with one hand, while denying their rights with the other?

Especially when you consider that this legal landscape is neither an oversight, nor a murky interpretation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, which manages potential conflicts between various states’ rules.  In fact, the US Congress had to go out of its way to create this “marriage apartheid.”

She then goes on to attack DOMA and the potential Federal Marriage Amendment directly.

The 1996 law that unfairly singles out some American citizens based solely on sexual orientation is called The Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  The law was inspired when several gay couples from Hawaii sued for the right to legally marry. (DOMA was signed into law by that hero of marital fidelity, Bill Clinton.)

DOMA doesn’t prohibit individual states from allowing gay marriages, but it denies federal recognition of these marriages and grants each state the right to refuse recognition of same-sex marriages issued by other states.  Keeping gay families unequal and separate.  As legal scholar Andrew Koppelman observes in his book, The Gay Rights Question in Contemporary American Law, DOMA:

“Create(s) a set of second-class marriages, valid under state law but void for all federal purposes. The exclusion of a class of valid state marriages from all federal recognition is ‘unprecedented in our jurisprudence.”

And the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment will forever seal this separate status by defining marriage to be between one man and one woman. We’ve been here before, although some refuse to see the parallels: it wasn’t until 1967 that the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional every miscegenation law in the country.

Land of the Free? Home of the Brave? Please read the article. The rest is really good. Let me know what you think.

The Three Wings of the Republican Party.

I wish I would have written this piece (PLEASE READ IT! It's really insightful). Drew Weston, a psychologist who is now teaching at Emory University wrote a post for Huffingtonpost, describing three wings to the modern Republican party.

The first wing, the psychiatric wing, is defined by severe psychological and intellectual impairments, exemplified by the inability to read a birth certificate.

He cites the likes of Sarah Palin who rewrites history or factual information to cover gaffes, (or just don't realize their version of reality is actually just in their heads. Michelle Bachmann is another easy example that he comes up with. Politicians like these would stand no chance in elections if mainstream media types treated elections with greater importance instead of just popularity contests and celebrity reality shows.

The second wing is the corporate wing, also known as the wing-tip wing. Once the home of moderate Republicans such as Bob Dole, this wing used to be slightly to the right of the American center. Its advocates held beliefs now seen as "quaint" by modern-day wing-tips (e.g., that humans evolved the same way other animals did, that a fertilized egg does not hold property rights any more than an omelet does, and that cutting the jobs of hundreds of thousands of teachers, police, and firefighters does not reduce unemployment).

According to Weston, a wing-tip politician holds three principles above all others: 1. when there is a problem, cut taxes for the rich, 2. There's no shame in being bought and paid for by special interest groups like the Chamber of Commerce, Big Oil, Pharma, Wall St, or anyone else out to make a profit at taxpayer expense 3. When not in power, deficits are the worst thing for the government; when in power, deficits do not matter (Pres. George W. Bush). Politicians who belong to this wing include the more 'pragmatic' legislators like Sen. Richard Lugar and Rep. John Boehner. It looks like Sen. Scott Brown is trying to embody this type of philosophy, but bounces back to the psychiatric wing when he's trying to win votes.

And that brings us to the third wing of the Republican Party, the Democrats. Their standard-bearer, President Obama, has proven himself perhaps the strongest potential challenger to Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination if he decides to join the debates, having established his conservative bona fides on a wide range of social and economic issues:

• Deporting more immigrants and breaking up more families than George W. Bush (or to put it in more business-friendly language, increasing U.S. "exports" of poorly documented human capital).
• Coming out in support of expanded off-shoring drilling just before the BP catastrophe in the Gulf; repeatedly touting production of a mythical substance (seen only, legend has it, by industry executives) as "clean coal" (widely believed to be found in the Fountain of Youth); and calling for the building of more nuclear plants, which the Japanese have shown to be a safe complement to offshore drilling (perhaps with the hope that water contaminated with radioactive materials discharged into the ocean might prove useful as a dispersant for oil).
• Extending the "Hyde Amendment" to allow GOP lawmakers to exclude abortion coverage from even private health insurance.
• Cutting 120 billion in taxes for the rich while proposing billions in cuts to "entitlements," such as home heating subsidies to people who are poor or elderly.
• Making sure the nation's largest banks remained solvent so they could continue to foreclose on the homes of millions of Americans, whose tax dollars supported the multi-million-dollar bonuses of the executives who continue to refuse to renegotiate their mortgages.
• Saying virtually nothing as Republican governors and state legislators around the country attack organized labor (e.g., remaining almost entirely mum on the Wisconsin law stripping workers of the right to negotiate their contracts).

But that's just the president. We can't blame the party whose name he never utters for the actions or inactions of its titular leader, who prefers to remain "post-partisan."

I know it's a long quote, but I could not have said it better myself. This complaint that Democrats are beginning to sound like, look like, and act like Republicans is something I've noticed since becoming interested in politics, and I've blogged about before, here, and here. If you've read this far, you should really read the rest. I'm all for progressive politics. We need to hold our elected leaders' feet to the fire, and remind them why we put them there in the first place. TO HELP US GET BACK TO WORK! Not to create a better environment for businesses to reap in record profits and take advantage of the little guy, or to police our social lives and bedrooms. For those interested in progressive coalition building, some good information can be found here.

UPDATE: News from New York

Over the last 24 hours, we have picked up another Republican state Senator, Roy McDonald, stating:

“I think I’m doing the right thing, it’s the appropriate thing, and if the public respects that, I’m grateful,” Mr. McDonald said as reporters pressed him in the Capitol for his decision. “If they don’t, then I move on.” (NYTIMES)

With his vow of support, we now have 31 of the 32 votes needed for a simple majority. (If you want to help, you can call a New York State Senator with my friendfactor account. It's easy, since they give you a prompt of what to say!)

Republican state senators caucused for four hours yesterday, without coming to a decision about a vote. According to the New York Times:

Anguished Senate Republicans held a four-hour meeting on Wednesday at which they were unable to decide even whether they would bring same-sex marriage to a vote, stalling a last-minute drive by supporters of the legislation.

The long-debated marriage measure, which has overshadowed all other issues in the final days of this legislative session, remained one vote shy of the number they needed for passage in the Republican-controlled Senate. The Democratic-controlled Assembly approved the legislation late Wednesday, by a vote of 80 to 63, and Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo is a strong supporter.

Dean G. Skelos, the Senate majority leader, emerged from his caucus’s meeting on Wednesday afternoon to say that Republicans had not decided how to proceed on the marriage bill, but would continue discussions on Thursday.

(my emphasis added)

We need ONE MORE GOPer. One more. I wrote earlier how Alesi, the first GOP defector stated that 6-7 others in his camp might join the side of equality. Here is a list of Senators still on the fence. If you believe in equality, CALL THEM!

Big News in the Empire State

This is a big week for New Yorkers. Yesterday three Democrats from the State Senate, Addobbo, Huntley and Kruger flipped their votes to Yes for marriage equality! That's every Democrat except for the homophobic senator from the Bronx, Rev. Ruben Diaz, Sr.

Later in the early evening, the first Republican, James Alesi, broke from the ranks and joined the side of equality! He is now predicting up to six other Republicans will join him. What a turn around from two years ago!

Andrew Cuomo, New York's Governor, vowed to make marriage equality one of his main priorities, but with the legislative session ending June 20th, I didn't think he could make it happen. It looks like I was wrong! There have been tons of big names (and small ones too), that have made videos through the HRC's New Yorkers for Marriage Equality.  Thousands have joined Friendfactor.org, a new type of advocacy website, where you can show your support for your LGBT friends and call state and federal legislatures. (My friendfactor page is here). Everyone is doing some last minute lobbying, including Cynthia Nixon (Sex in the City) and Sean Avery (New York Rangers). After some major disappointments in Maryland and Rhode Island, I have my fingers crossed for this one.  Come on New York! Let's make it happen!

UPDATE: Push Back

I posted last week about Senator Ruben Diaz, Sr., a pastor and state senator for New York from the Bronx. He is about as vocal an opposition leader to marriage equality in a position of power, considering he can actually cast a vote for or against it in the legislature.

He has sad many hateful things about LGBTs, and opposes marriage equality SOLELY on his religious beliefs. He also claims to be the church, and the state.

Besides all these things, he is a family man. He is a father, and also a grandfather. One of his grandchildren, Erica Diaz, is a partnered lesbian with two children. On May 15, 2011, she held a opposing rally in support of marriage equality, while her grandfather and several others spoke against gay people. (Many continued to spread falsehoods of and anti-gay stereotypes) Before her grandfather finished his speech, Erica wanted to stand beside him. To show him that his family was watching.

After she returned to her side of the plaza, after her girlfriend greeted her with a jubilant kiss and her friends raised her arms in victory, like a triumphant boxer who had just left the ring, Ms. Diaz said she believed her grandfather, particularly at this moment, needed to be reminded that his family was watching.
“It was important,” she said of her decision to go onstage. “I wanted him to know that I’m here, and that as long as I am alive, I’m going to stand up for what is right.”
How did she expect all this to go over at the next family dinner?
“We don’t really mix politics at the dinner table,” Ms. Diaz said, allowing herself a smile. “Family is family.” (NYTIMES)

She later responded to her grandfather, and his rally through an interview with the NY Post.

When I was younger, marriage equality was not an issue for me. But now, as my grandfather ceaselessly and callously comments on the issue, each and every word stings, since I live with my girlfriend of 2½ years, Naomi Torres, and our two sons, Jared and Jeremiah Munoz. This fight is personal.

My family deserves the same benefits as others. Naomi -- whom I would like to marry -- should be able to do things that straight married people take for granted, like make a decision for me if I'm sick.

And my grandfather has witnessed our love. At Christmas he lovingly played with our children.

But as he continued to ratchet up his rhetoric, something in me snapped. I decided to show up at his rally last month on the steps of the Bronx County Courthouse so that he could face a person he loved, a person who was gay, as he spoke against us.

That day I waded through the religious crowd and saw children as young as mine say hateful things. "You're not God's child. One man, one woman. You're not living by God." I was so nervous that morning that I threw up. I spoke against him across the street, directly within his view. But then I approached a police officer who escorted me to the podium where he spoke. My grandfather introduced me to the crowd and kissed me on the forehead. "This is my granddaughter," he said. "She chose her way of life, but I chose God's way, but I love her." Grandpa even called me after the rally, to say that he was proud of me for "respectfully speaking up for what you believe in." You cannot tell someone that you love them and stay silent when people call for their death. "Love" is empty when you say someone's life isn't natural.

He could quietly vote "no" if that's what he believes is right. But I want him to know that every word he utters hurts his own blood. (NYPOST)

Her question is one I can mirror myself. How someone play with the life of a family member so easily?