Gay Rights

by

Indiana joins the 21st Century

Another domino falls, and Indiana becomes the latest state to allow people in love to get married.

That brings the anti-gay-marriage wins up to a grand total of zero.    indiana-gay-pride

Today also saw Utah losing its appeal of last December’s decision, paving the way for marriages to start happening there as well.

“In less than a year, every Federal District Court to consider the issue has reached the same conclusion in thoughtful and thorough opinions – laws prohibiting the celebration and recognition of same-sex marriages are unconstitutional,” Judge Young wrote in the Indiana decision. “It is clear that the fundamental right to marry shall not be deprived to some individuals based solely on the person they choose to love. In time, Americans will look at the marriage of couples such as plaintiffs, and refer to it simply as a marriage – not a same-sex marriage. These couples, when gender and sexual orientation are taken away, are in all respects like the family down the street. The Constitution demands that we treat them as such.”

 

 

by

Homosexuality = Alcoholism

Texas Governor Rick Perry understands what the gays are going through.   That gay desire?  It’s just like alcoholism.  perry

“I may have the genetic coding that I’m inclined to be an alcoholic, but I have the desire not to do that, and I look at the homosexual issue the same way,” he said.

That’s why he supports the Texas Republican platform which calls for gays to be “treated” in order to “cure” them — a stand that has been rejected by every psychiatric group since the mid 70s.

This is in stark contrast to other states, which have specifically banned such fraudulent actions.  Anyone who says they can “cure” homosexuality is a con artist.

But there is good news in this statement:  Perry is admitting, perhaps for the first time, that being gay is not a choice — that no one chooses their sexuality.  It’s in their “genetic coding.”

The bad news is that he still considers homosexual acts as wrong, from which one should refrain.  Why?  Well, because the Bible, of course.  We need religion in our laws.  Except that terrible, awful Sharia law.  Only our religion should be in the laws, because ‘Merica.

I wonder how he would feel if Texas Republicans decided that heterosexuals needed counseling to cure them from performing sexual acts they disagree with?  “You may be genetically coded to enjoy sex in positions other than missionary, but we can treat you so that you no longer have those desires.”  Let’s see how well that goes over.

by

Wisconsin joins the 21st century

I love writing these posts.

Wisconsin has now joined 26 other states where either the legislature has passed marriage equality or a judge has ruled that they anti-marriage law was unconstitutional. (In some of those states, those decisions are still on appeal.) WI-Gay-Marriage Like Pennsylvania, it is surrounded by states that had been performing gay marriages for years without a single adverse affect.

It’s inevitable. It’s been inevitable for years. And finally, many on the right are acknowledging it. The fever in their fight is gone. Governor Corbett, here in Pennsylvania, didn’t even appeal the decision, and there’s no great movement in the state to urge him to do so (since the majority of people here are in favor of gay marriage).

Still, there are some who continue to argue that laws preventing people from marrying are perfectly constitutional. Their reasons make no sense (as every judge has held) but yet they keep making them.

These people are overwhelmingly elderly. They’re stuck in the 20th century. And I know it sounds cruel, but they are dying off — along with their antiquated notions of marriage.

by

Pennsylvania joins the 21st Century; and not all opponents are bigots

A new poll shows that 55% of Americans support gay marriage.  For those under the age of 30, that number is 78%.

Conservatives who scream that the courts are going against “the will of the people” are ignoring facts (as usual;  they also ignore the fact that a majority of Americans support Obamacare, think abortion and marijuana should be legal, want more gun control, support  raising taxes on the wealthy, raising the minimum wage, doing something about campaign finance reform, and do not believe that “corporations are people.” But that’s another topic…)

Anyway, the local federal court struck down Pennsylvania’s anti-gay marriage law yesterday, allowing us here to finally join the rest of the northeast in advancing into the 21st century, away from the prejudices of the past.  pa

Speaking of which, a friend of mine recently objected to being labeled as “prejudiced” for not supporting gay marriage, and pointed out that being against gay marriage had been the law of the land for years — so was everybody prejudiced before?

In the past, in a different world that we no longer live in, most people never even thought about this issue and I agree that they shouldn’t be called bigots or prejudiced. However, in today’s society, where the information is here and where no one can deny that people’s rights are being violated (only that they agree with the rights being violated) it’s a lot harder to defend yourself against labels like “bigot” or “prejudiced.”

If what you want takes away someone else’s rights for reasons for which they can’t control, then by definition your view is prejudiced, isn’t it?

However, I also think it’s not a good idea to call these people bigots or prejudiced.  (Well, most of them — some are so full of hate that they deserve the label).  Most people who are against gay marriage are, well, ignorant.

I don’t mean that in an insulting way.  Being ignorant is not a bad thing.  (I, for instance, am ignorant about calculus, fashion, and football teams.)  Ignorant is not the same thing as stupid.  Ignorance can be cured with education.

I think people who are against gay marriage are ignorant about the issue.  They haven’t really thought it through and once they do, they will come to the right side.  Maybe their religion keeps them ignorant (lots of religions do that) and maybe they like being ignorant.  But that doesn’t necessarily make them bigots.

I am old enough to remember when the thought of gay marriage was just plain silly.  Although I had plenty of gay friends in school and even some gay housemates when I was in college, I never considered marriage as a serious thing for them.  Marriage is for men and women, I’d say.  And then I wouldn’t think about the issue.  It wasn’t until the gay marriage movement started much later that I said to myself, “Hey, they’re right.  Why shouldn’t they get married?”  I wasn’t a bigot or prejudiced;  I just never really thought about it seriously before that time.  And I think that’s probably where a lot of people are today.

So let’s encourage them to see the light.  Let’s make them see that treating people as second class citizens is wrong, and that we should be encouraging love and marriage.

“We are a better people than what these laws represent, and it is time to discard them into the ash heap of history,” wrote Judge John E. Jones III (a Republican!) in his decision.  And he is absolutely correct.

 

by

Oregon joins the 21st Century

For those keeping score at home, the number of anti-gay marriage lawsuits that have succeeded is up to a grand total of zero.

Oregon is the latest state to affirm equality in marriage.  That’s a 100% success rate.  Some of my conservative friends (you know who you are) still claim that these laws preventing gay marriage are constitutional.  Not sure how many more cases we need to convince you if 100% isn’t enough.   gay oregon pd

In Oregon (like Pennsylvania) the Attorney General refused to defend a law that is clearly unconstitutional.

In his opinion, Judge McShane wrote, “Expanding the embrace of civil marriage to gay and lesbian couples will not burden any legitimate state interest … The state’s marriage laws unjustifiably treat same-gender couples differently than opposite-gender couples. The laws assess a couple’s fitness for civil marriage based on their sexual orientation: opposite-gender couples pass; same-gender couples do not. No legitimate state purpose justifies the preclusion of gay and lesbian couples from civil marriage.”

Watch:  The attack will come that Judge McShane, who is gay himself, is unable to make this decision because he is biased.  Conversely, it is just as easy to argue that he is more qualified than a straight person to make this decision, as he has suffered through the discrimination and knows first-hand its effects.

by

Idaho joins the 21st Century

Hooray!  I get to do two of these posts in one week!

With this decision, anti-gay marriage wins in state courts rise to a grand total of zero.  gay+marriage+generic081612

In the last year, we’ve had decisions in Arkansas, Illinois, Michigan, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and Virginia.  Meanwhile, Hawaii, New Jersey and Rhode Island have removed the provision by the legislature, without a court decision.

That’s now eight decisions out of eight in the past year which have knocked down these laws. Not one court case has gone the other way.  The breaking down of discrimination has been 100% effective.  So to my friends who keep insisting these laws are constitutional:  How’s 100%? Is 100% enough for you?  What percentage will convince you?

“Marriage is a fundamental right of all citizens, which neither tradition nor the majority may deny,” said Judge Dale.  “The defendants offered no evidence that same-sex marriage would adversely affect opposite-sex marriages or the well-being of children.  Without proof, the defendants’ justifications echo the unsubstantiated fears that could not prop up the anti-miscegenation laws and rigid gender roles of days past.”

by

Arkansas joins the 21st century

I love doing these posts, watching the dominoes fall.

In the last year, we’ve had decisions in Michigan, Illinois, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, and Virginia.  Meanwhile, Hawaii, New Jersey and Rhode Island have removed the prohibition without a court decision.

Not one court case has gone the other way.  The breaking down of discrimination has been 100% effective. Clay Bennett editorial cartoon

It will be quite difficult for the Supreme Court to rule that all of these cases were wrongly decided when they are unanimous.  This is especially true when all of these decisions rely upon and quote the Supreme Court’s decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act to justify their rulings.

“This is an unconstitutional attempt to narrow the definition of equality,” Judge Piazza wrote in the most recent case. “The exclusion of a minority for no rational reason is a dangerous precedent.”  

He compared the case to the 1967 Supreme Court case of Loving v. Virginia, which invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage.  “It has been over 40 years since Mildred Loving was given the right to marry the person of her choice,” he wrote. “The hatred and fears have long since vanished and she and her husband lived full lives together; so it will be for the same-sex couples. It is time to let that beacon of freedom shine brighter on all our brothers and sisters. We will be stronger for it.”

by

She’s a witch! Impeach her!

Republicans here in Pennsylvania have started an impeachment drive against our Attorney General Kathleen Kane.

Impeachment, as you know, is available to remove politicians accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors.”  So what did Kane do?  Take bribes?  Rob a bank? Attorney-General-Kathleen-K

She is refusing to defend Pennsylvania’s anti-gay marriage law in court.

I don’t need to mention that she’s a Democrat, do I?

You see, Republicans are claiming that she is obligated under the law to defend lawsuits against the state.  This ignores the fact that Attorneys General have discretion, like all prosecutors, as to which cases to litigate.

Kane points out that there is no defense.  The law is clearly unconstitutional.  Every single state with a similar law that has been challenged in federal court has watched the law fall, domino-like, one after another.  To waste taxpayer money defending something that has no defense is ridiculous.  It’s unethical for her to make an argument before the court she knows is invalid.  “If there is a law that I feel that does not conform with the Pennsylvania state constitution and the U.S. Constitution, then I ethically cannot do that as a lawyer,” she said.

The Republican legislators claim that she is mandated to do what the legislators want because they represent the “will of the people.”  At the same time, the majority of people in Pennsylvania support gay marriage (57%).  Further, if not for gerrymandering, a majority of our legislature would be Democratic.  (Seriously:  more people voted for Democrats in Pennsylvania in the last election but more Republicans won because of the way the districts were drawn.)   Kane rightly points out that she is following the will of the people of Pennsylvania, not the legislature.

Pennsylvania Democrats walked out of the committee meeting where the Republicans tried to set up an impeachment proceeding, and rightly so.

Just like our anti-gay marriage law, the impeachment also has no legal merit.

by

Why are they always so obsessed with sex?

It always seemed to me that the men who scream the loudest against gay marriage are often closeted themselves.  Why do they think of gay sex so often?  Why is that always the first argument they give against gay marriage?  Being in love doesn’t matter, it’s that gay sex thing they just can’t stop thinking about and researching on the internet and visiting gay hangouts to study further… Print

The latest example comes from GOP legislator Steve Hickey who has ignored the entirety of human existence and implies that somehow this whole gay sex thing is a new idea, and a nasty, evil, bad one at that.

Pastor Hickey (whose opponents in his district call “Doo” Hickey) calls out any doctor who claims that it’s not harmful, because obviously it is.  I mean, obviously, right?  It has to be!  I mean, I’m no doctor, but certainly the fact that doctors aren’t telling people it’s dangerous doesn’t mean the medical community knows anything about, you know, medical stuff.

And it’s only gay anal sex that bothers him.  He either is unaware that many heterosexual couples do that, too.  Or else he doesn’t think that’s nasty.  

Chances are he just never thinks about that, because he’s too busy thinking about those evil, nasty gay men with their chiseled buttocks just waiting for dirty gay sex to happen.

by

“Freedom of speech” does not equal “freedom to be free of the consequences”

Mozilla’s CEO Brendan Eich resigned after complaints that he was a supporter of the anti-gay marriage campaign, and now certain conservatives are in an uproar.

You see, when they boycott businesses and TV shows they believe have anti-Christian messages, they are exercising their free speech in a totally American and patriotic way.  But when others do it against issues they support, they are suppressing anti-Christian ideals and trying to silence people in the same way the Nazis did.   boycott

I mean, it’s only logical, right?

Look, this guy has every right to his opinion.  What he doesn’t have is the right to the job.

As the NY Times pointed out:

Mozilla competes in two markets. First, obviously, it wants people to use its products instead of its rivals’ stuff. But its second market is arguably more challenging — the tight labor pool of engineers, designers, and other tech workers who make software.  When you consider the importance of that market, Mr. Eich’s position on gay marriage wasn’t some outré personal stance unrelated to his job; it was a potentially hazardous bit of negative branding in the labor pool, one that was making life difficult for current employees and plausibly reducing Mozilla’s draw to prospective workers.

This company has a policy that supports gay rights, and their guy in charge is working against that policy. It hurts the business’ image with the public, and therefore he has made himself unqualified for the position.

Suppose he had supported the KKK or some other group whose main purpose it was to deny rights to others?  Do you think the company should just look the other way, knowing it would hurt their business and their reputation?

Part of the problem too is that equality for gays and lesbian is indeed a new issue, and hard to understand for some people.  Most who are against it are not necessarily evil or mean, just ignorant or unwilling to take that step yet.  They don’t see themselves as bigots.

However, this was also what it was like at the start of the civil rights movement in the 60s.  Many whites just could not conceive of equality with blacks, and some churches even preached that equality was against God’s will — therefore to allow equality meant you were doing the Devil’s work.  Doesn’t that sound like what some who are against gay marriage are saying these days?

Bigotry is objective.  Are you in favor of denying rights to people over things they do not control?  You’re a bigot.  Sorry if that makes you angry, but that’s the definition, no matter how you may justify it to yourself.

A company has the right to say “We don’t hire bigots.”

I cannot deny that there is a “slippery slope” argument to be made here, where a company can fire you simply because you have a political position they don’t like.  I hold that there is a difference when (a) you are the CEO or someone who speaks for the company and represents its image;  and (b) when your position specifically says “I will be treating some of our employees as second-class citizens and advocating discriminating against them.”    In a sense, his position on that issue directly affects his job, in the same way a nun could be fired for saying “I don’t believe in God.”

This is not the same as an employee saying “I dislike Obama.”  Or even a low level employee who has no control over the company saying “I am against gay marriage.”  I agree that firing someone for those things would be absolutely wrong.