Tuesday, May 14, 2013

Why Minnesota Matters

Ten other states and the District of Columbia have already passed marriage equality, and yesterday Minnesota made it twelve.  I congratulate those other states, but to me Minnesota matters a little more than Massachusetts, Vermont, Rhode Island, and the rest.

It’s for several reasons, all of them personal.  My father was born and raised in Minneapolis, and that’s where my grandparents are buried.  I went to grad school at the University of Minnesota in the Twin Cities, that’s where my first play was produced, and that’s where I was living when I came out to my friends and family and had my first significant relationship with another man.  So that’s why I was especially glad to see that it rejected the marriage-for-straights-only amendment last fall and very, very happy to see them pass the marriage equality law yesterday afternoon.  So far, of all the many places I’ve lived since leaving home, Minnesota is the only state where now I can get married to the man I love if I so choose (and assuming I have found him).

I think it says a great deal about the people of Minnesota and the strength of character they embody (and that I hope I inherited from my ancestral roots there) that they took on this issue and passed it not out of a sense of being radical or ground-breaking or even pro-gay and anti-family.  They did it, it seems, out the of basic goodness and fairness that Minnesotans have shown for generations.

Now if we could get some of that Minnesota Nice to spread to the other remaining states, including Florida.

Here’s the floor speech yesterday by the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Scott Dibble of Minneapolis.  He pretty much sums it all up.

Monday, May 13, 2013

Minnesota Makes It 12

Yip yah!

Gay marriage coupleWith deafening cheers and overwhelming emotion, the Minnesota Senate voted 37-30 to legalize same-sex marriage.

“Today, love wins,” said Sen. Tony Lourey, DFL-Kerrick.

The vote, on the heels of a vote last week in the House, brings to a close a decade of debate over marriage that has echoed through the Capitol, bringing thousands of friends and foes of gay marriage to its marbled dome to express their deeply held feelings.

The measure next moves to Gov. Mark Dayton, who will welcome it with his signature in a celebratory ceremony at 5 p.m. Tuesday on the south steps of the Capitol.

Once it is signed, Minnesota will become the twelfth state to legalize same sex-marriage.

“It’s historic and I can never be so proud of this body and of Minnesotans,” said Sen. Jeff Hayden, DFL-Minneapolis. On the Senate floor, Hayden said that his wife is white and noted that just 50 years ago, his loving relationship would have been barred.

Three Democrats – Sens. LeRoy Stumpf, Dan Sparks and Lyle Koenen –  voted against the bill. One Republican, Sen. Branden Petersen, voted yes.

Up until the last moments, some opponents had hoped the bill would fail despite clear indications that it would head to the Dayton’s desk.

Sen. Dan Hall, R-Burnsville, said up until the last he was praying for a miracle and the Senate to reject the bill.

“Some people have said that they are concerned about being on the right side of history. I am more concerned about being on the right side of eternity,” said Hall.

A few opponents of the bill dotted the Capitol holding signs that read ‘Don’t Erase Moms and Dads’ or gathered in a quiet spot to watch the debate unfold.

“In my heart, I grieve on both sides. Because I know what it’s like to be alone and I know what it is like to have somebody close to you and love you. But I grieve inside because I feel we are opening the doors to Sodom and Gomorra. And in the end, God is going to be the judge,” said Nelson, of Blaine, tears running down her cheeks.

Supernatural imaginary friends sitting in judgment notwithstanding, this is a great day for human rights.

Thursday, May 9, 2013

Minnesota On The Way To Equality

This just in…

Rainbow flagsA pivotal vote Thursday in the Minnesota House positioned that state to become the 12th in the country to allow gay marriages and the first in the Midwest to pass such a law out of its Legislature.

The 75-59 vote was a critical step for the measure, which would allow same-sex weddings beginning this summer. It’s a startling shift in the state, where just six months earlier voters turned back an effort to ban them in the Minnesota Constitution.

The state Senate plans to consider the bill Monday and leaders expect it to pass there too. Gov. Mark Dayton has pledged to sign it into law.

“My family knew firsthand that same sex couples pay our taxes, we vote, we serve in the military, we take care of our kids and our elders and we run businesses in Minnesota,” said the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Karen Clark, a Minneapolis Democrat who is gay. “… Same-sex couples should be treated fairly under the law, including the freedom to marry the person we love.”

Hundreds of supporters and opponents gathered outside the House chamber up to and during the debate, chanting and waving signs. They sang “We Shall Overcome” and a John Lennon song in the minutes before the vote.

Four of the House’s 61 Republicans voted for the bill, while two of its 73 Democrats voted against it.

Opponents argued the bill would alter a centuries-old conception of marriage and leave those people opposed for religious reasons tarred as bigots.

“We’re not. We’re not,” said Rep. Kelby Woodard, R-Belle Plaine. “These are people with deeply held beliefs, including myself.”

Note to Rep. Woodard: bigotry is a deeply held belief, y’know.

Congratulations to the good people of my ancestral home state (on my father’s side) and a return to the common sense progressiveness and fairness of the place that gave us Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale, and Paul Wellstone.

HT to commenter Julie.

Wednesday, May 8, 2013

Delaware Passes Marriage Equality

This makes it eleven, plus the District of Columbia.

Gay marriage coupleA divided state Senate voted Tuesday to make Delaware the 11th state in the nation to allow same-sex marriage, after hearing hours of passionate testimony from supporters and opponents.

Less than an hour after the Senate’s 12-9 vote, Democratic Gov. Jack Markell signed the measure into law.

“I do not intend to make any of you wait one moment longer,” a smiling Markell told about 200 jubilant supporters who erupted in cheers and applause following the Senate vote.

“I am elated,” said Scott Forrest, 50, of Newark, who entered into a same-sex civil union last year with his partner of almost 21 years, Kevin.

Delaware’s same-sex marriage bill was introduced in the Democrat-controlled legislature barely a year after the state began recognizing same-sex civil unions. The bill won passage two weeks ago in the state House on a 23-18 vote.

We’re past the 20% mark now.  Next up: Illinois and Minnesota.

Friday, May 3, 2013

Thursday, April 25, 2013

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

Mariage Pour Tous

France goes for marriage equality.

French lawmakers voted to legalize same-sex marriage Tuesday, despite vocal protests from some conservatives opposed to the step.

The nation’s lower house approved a marriage bill, which would also give same-sex couples the right to adopt, in a 331-to-225 final vote.

They cast their votes after impassioned speeches by lawmakers for and against the legislation.

President Francois Hollande, who pledged his support for same-sex marriage on the campaign trail last year, will have to sign the bill before it becomes law.

It did not go over well with some of the opponents, but it is still going to happen.  C’est la vie.

Short Takes

Boston bombers learned their stuff on the internet.

Rhode Island is a step closer to marriage equality.

Three charges dropped in abortion doctor murder trial.

DHS Secretary Napolitano says immigration bill will help with border security.

Sen. Max Baucus (D?-MT) is retiring after 2014.

Supreme Court rules that minor offenses don’t warrant deportation.

R.I.P. Allan Arbus, 95, aka Maj. Sidney Freedman on M*A*S*H.

The Tigers got rained out in Kansas City.

Saturday, April 20, 2013

Some Good News

There was some good and uplifting news this week.  It happened when New Zealand legalized marriage equality.

Via Huffington Post:

The world can be a dark and scary place sometimes, but this video of spectators bursting into song after New Zealand legalized gay marriage has restored our faith in humanity (at least for today).

On Wednesday, New Zealand’s Parliament voted to legalize same-sex marriage in a 77 to 44 vote. As lawmakers applauded the final vote, spectators crowded into the public galleries above burst into song, serenading the bill’s sponsor, lesbian MP Louisa Wall.

The Associated Press reports the song was “Pokarekare Ana,” a love song in the country’s indigenous Maori language.

As Towleroad notes, “This is what equality sounds like.”

I feel better already.

Sunday, April 14, 2013

Friday, April 12, 2013

Bedside Story

In this day and age, this is just sad.

A gay man was arrested at a hospital in Missouri this week when he refused to leave the bedside of his partner, and now a restraining order is preventing him from any type of visitation.

Roger Gorley told WDAF that even though he has power of attorney to handle his partner’s affairs, a family member asked him to leave when he visited Research Medical Center in Kansas City on Tuesday.

Gorley said he refused to leave his partner Allen’s bedside, and that’s when security put him in handcuffs and escorted him from the building.

“I was not recognized as being the husband, I wasn’t recognized as being the partner,” Gorley explained.

He said the nurse refused to confirm that the couple shared power of attorney and made medical decision for each other.

“She didn’t even bother to look it up, to check in to it,” the Lee’s Summit resident recalled.

It’s also a violation of the law.  In 2010, President Obama signed an order that required any facility that receives Medicare or Medicaid funding to allow visitation rights to same-sex partners of patients.  In this case it sounds like the hospital got caught in the middle of a family feud.

There is a happy ending: according to JMG, Mr. Gorley has been allowed to return to the hospital to visit his husband.

Tuesday, April 9, 2013

Catholic Outreach

So this is their idea of showing love and compassion for their fellow man or woman, eh?

A Detroit professor and legal adviser to the Vatican says Catholics who promote gay marriage should not try to receive holy Communion, a key part of Catholic identity.

And the archbishop of Detroit, Allen Vigneron, said Sunday that Catholics who receive Communion while advocating gay marriage would “logically bring shame for a double-dealing that is not unlike perjury.”

The comments of Vigneron and Edward Peters, who teaches Catholic canon law at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, are part of a polarizing discussion about gay marriage that echoes debate over whether politicians who advocate abortion rights should receive Communion.

Far be it from me to dictate to someone else how to run their church, but between this and the ongoing criminal enterprise to cover up the rape of children, you would think that the Catholic church would at least be mindful of the fact that driving people away with threats and extortion isn’t exactly the way to tend to your flock.

Besides, shunning is the schtick of the Amish.

(Psst; if you Catholics who are denied communion want to switch churches, the Episcopalians do the full-tilt communion, and you get a sip of wine with your cookie.)

Down To Three

Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD) endorsed marriage equality yesterday.

After lengthy consideration, my views have evolved sufficiently to support marriage equality legislation. This position doesn’t require any religious denomination to alter any of its tenets; it simply forbids government from discrimination regarding who can marry whom.

That leaves three Democrats who have not come out, so to speak: Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AK) and Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA).  Chances are they will be the hold-outs.  We’re still at only two Republicans who support it.

Frankly I’m amazed that we have only three left.  Twenty — hell, ten — years ago, you would have been hard-pressed to find three senators who would have supported the idea of marriage equality in private, much less making a press release out of it.  That’s real progress.

Granted, having the Senate majority agree on something and actually being able to do anything about it are two very different things.  But at least the days of that creepy old Jesse Helms holding forth on the Senate floor and savoring the way he said “sodomites” like he was licking a barbeque rib (yeah, I wondered about that, too) are gone.

Friday, April 5, 2013

Bill Nelson Makes It 51

Florida Sen. Bill Nelson (D) now supports marriage equality.

Nelson, who last week insisted marriage should be between a man and a woman, said he concluded that stance was inconsistent with the beliefs embedded in the Declaration of Independence.

“It is generally accepted in American law and U.S. society today ‘… that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.’ I believe that. The civil rights and responsibilities for one must pertain to all.

“Thus, to discriminate against one class and not another is wrong for me,” he said in a statement to Tampa Bay Times editorial board.”If we are endowed by our Creator with rights, then why shouldn’t those be attainable by Gays and Lesbians? “Simply put, if The Lord made homosexuals as well as heterosexuals, why should I discriminate against their civil marriage? I shouldn’t, and I won’t.

“So I will add my name to the petition of senators asking the Supreme Court to declare the law that prohibits gay marriage unconstitutional.”

He is now the fifty-first U.S. senator — of whom two are Republicans — to support it.  It’s not like it carries a lot of political risk for him; he was re-elected last fall fairly comfortably over tea partier Connie Mack IV (a name that reminds me more of a yacht than a person), and he’s more of the old school Democrats like John Glenn than the newer hipper progressives.  (Hardly surprising; Mr. Nelson once flew in the space shuttle.)

But let us not be churlish.  Welcome to the party, Senator.

Tuesday, April 2, 2013

Freedom to Choose

David Brooks thinks that he’s clever by saying that marriage equality is actually a loss of freedom for those who want it.

Recently, the balance between freedom and restraint has been thrown out of whack. People no longer even have a language to explain why freedom should sometimes be limited. The results are as predicted. A decaying social fabric, especially among the less fortunate. Decline in marriage. More children raised in unsteady homes. Higher debt levels as people spend to satisfy their cravings.

But last week saw a setback for the forces of maximum freedom. A representative of millions of gays and lesbians went to the Supreme Court and asked the court to help put limits on their own freedom of choice. They asked for marriage.

Marriage is one of those institutions — along with religion and military service — that restricts freedom. Marriage is about making a commitment that binds you for decades to come. It narrows your options on how you will spend your time, money and attention.

Whether they understood it or not, the gays and lesbians represented at the court committed themselves to a certain agenda. They committed themselves to an institution that involves surrendering autonomy. They committed themselves to the idea that these self-restrictions should be reinforced by the state. They committed themselves to the idea that lifestyle choices are not just private affairs but work better when they are embedded in law.

And far from being baffled by this attempt to use state power to restrict individual choice, most Americans seem to be applauding it.

Except that Mr. Brooks misses the larger point, which is that being denied the right to limit your own freedom is in itself a limitation on freedom.  Straight couples have the right to choose to get married or not.  They know going in that they may lose some of the freedoms that they had when they were single, but that’s a choice they get to make.  Same-sex couples don’t have that choice.

It sounds as if Mr. Brooks is telling us in the LGBT community “be careful what you wish for.”  Yeah, well, I think most people over the age of majority have pretty much figured out that, to quote Lawrence and Lee in Inherit the Wind, “progress is never a bargain.  You have to pay for it.”  In this case, however, I think a number of us would be willing to sacrifice something in order to be treated the same way as everybody else.  At the very least, give us the choice.

Father & Son

It was news when Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) announced that he had changed his mind on marriage equality — from against to for — after disclosing that his son is gay.  (It took a couple of years, but better late than never, etc.)

Not so with Rep. Matt Salmon (R-AZ).

In a recent interview with 3TV, Salmon said that while he has a son who is gay, he’s not a supporter of same-sex marriage.

“I’m just not there in believing in my heart,” said Salmon, adding, “My son is one of the most important people in my life. I love him more than I can say.”

Rep. Salmon has maintained a reputation as a staunch social conservative throughout his political career.

I don’t know anything at all about the dynamics between Matt Salmon Sr. and Jr., and it’s not my place to judge, but it occurs to me that if you’re a staunch social conservative — which brings to mind all that talk about family values and how important it is for parents to stand with their children at all costs — it is curious that Mr. Salmon qualifies his acceptance of his son in terms that sound like he’s more worried about losing his base of support in his congressional district than he is about what he believes in his heart about his son.

Sen. Portman took a risk by coming out, so to speak, in favor of marriage equality, but he also doesn’t have to face the voters next year.  Mr. Salmon does.  It would be really craven and would make a mockery of the Republican Party’s championing of family and character values if there was a political calculus in how GOP parents relate to their children.  Except that it happens all the time.

On the other hand, it sounds like there’s a growing number of LGBT offspring in the Republican party.  They should have jackets made.

She’s On To You

I saved this for today because if I had posted it yesterday, you would have thought it was my April Fool’s joke.

Ladies and gentlemen, for your delectation and delight, I give you Sue Everhart, the chair of Georgia’s state GOP.  Ms. Everhart told the Marietta Daily Journal that if gays are allowed to get married, straight people will take advantage of it.

“You may be as straight as an arrow, and you may have a friend that is as straight as an arrow,” Everhart said. “Say you had a great job with the government where you had this wonderful health plan. I mean, what would prohibit you from saying that you’re gay, and y’all get married and still live as separate, but you get all the benefits? I just see so much abuse in this it’s unreal. I believe a husband and a wife should be a man and a woman, the benefits should be for a man and a woman. There is no way that this is about equality. To me, it’s all about a free ride.”

I wonder if I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry was on Spike this weekend.  Because nothing inspires social upheaval like an Adam Sandler movie about two straight guys pretending to be gay and getting married to get healthcare benefits.

The stupid not only burns, it flames.

Monday, April 1, 2013

Dead Reckoning

In a column in yesterday’s New York Times, Ross Douthat tries to wrap his head around the fact that marriage equality is going to eventually win, but he doesn’t like it, and he tries to come up with some sociological explanation for the sudden shift in acceptance of it.

Since [David] Frum warned that gay marriage could advance only at traditional wedlock’s expense, the marriage rate has been falling faster, the out-of-wedlock birthrate has been rising faster, and the substitution of cohabitation for marriage has markedly increased. Underlying these trends is a steady shift in values: Americans are less likely to see children as important to marriage and less likely to see marriage as important to childbearing (the generation gap on gay marriage shows up on unwed parenting as well) than even in the very recent past.

[...]

But there is also a certain willed naïveté to the idea that the advance of gay marriage is unrelated to any other marital trend. For 10 years, America’s only major public debate about marriage and family has featured one side — judges and journalists, celebrities and now finally politicians — pressing the case that modern marriage has nothing to do with the way human beings reproduce themselves, that the procreative understanding of the institution was founded entirely on prejudice, and that the shift away from a male-female marital ideal is analogous to the end of segregation.

Now that this argument seems on its way to victory, is it really plausible that it has changed how Americans view gay relationships while leaving all other ideas about matrimony untouched?

So it’s the gays’ fault that straight marriage has been having a tough time for the last few generations?  Huh?  How does that even make sense even if you grant that people who once got married for the wrong reasons — unplanned pregnancy, for instance — or to prove to their families and themselves that they really aren’t gay (and end up with profiles on gay dating sites noting that they’re “discreet”) are now getting divorced or not getting married in the first place?  Straight marriage has been under attack by itself for the last 100 years without any help from the gay community.  The fall in the childbirth rate is thanks to the advances in contraception and education, and yet there still seem to be plenty of overcrowded classrooms.  Cohabitation without benefit of marriage has been going on long before Stonewall, and people have been having sex because it feels good since, well, they first discovered that it felt good.

Mr. Douthat, like a lot of conservatives who don’t embrace the Baby-Jesus-wept argument, is trying to justify his dislike for marriage equality with the last bastion of the concern troll: the “what does it do to the fabric of our society?” trope.  How will we cope with the new paradigm of societal challenges?  Will it harm the churches and the soccer teams?  The same arguments were made about desegregation and civil rights long before Mr. Douthat was born, and the same arguments were made about women getting the right to vote when my grandmother wasn’t old enough to vote.  They were dead wrong then, and they’re wrong now.

Sunday, March 31, 2013

Sunday Reading

Old Warriors — Jill Filipovic at The Nation explores the myth that Roe v. Wade started the culture war and that marriage equality will further it.

Numerous commentators, most notably at The New York Times, have expressed concern that a broad ruling on marriage equality could turn into the next Roe v. Wade, igniting decades-long culture wars and damaging public perception of the Supreme Court. Better to rule narrowly, they say, and let the states follow the emerging trajectory towards marriage equality.

That argument, though, is not only totally ahistorical, but dangerous for both civil rights and the Court’s credibility.

Contrary to the current mythology, Roe didn’t incite the culture wars, and before the case was decided in 1973, the right to abortion across the fifty states was far from a foregone conclusion. As Linda Greenhouse and Reva B. Siegel detail in their book Before Roe v. Wade: Voices That Shaped the Abortion Debate Before the Supreme Court’s Ruling, an organized, primarily Catholic Church–backed anti-abortion movement existed in force before Roe. Although abortion rights were initially championed by Republicans and favored by a majority of Americans, social conservatives saw an opening to exploit for political gain. According to Greenhouse, before the Court decided Roe, conservative architects of the “New Right” had already decided to use opposition to abortion as part of a strategy for party realignment that would come to fruition with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. “New Right” leaders sought to bring Catholics and into the party and politicize Evangelicals to form a coalition of traditionalists based on hostility to progress and change.

Abortion was hardly their only issue. The new conservative coalition opposed the Equal Rights Amendment, claiming that gender equality would destroy the family and send our daughters to war. They stoked white voters’ fears of full racial integration with racist tropes about black criminals and welfare queens. Those narratives and appeals to tradition continue today, with social conservatives hoping for a return to a gauzy vision of Good Old Days America before the social upheavals of the 1960s and ’70s—and before women, people of color, religious minorities and other marginalized groups were able to secure a full range of rights.

A different ruling in Roe—or none at all—wouldn’t have prevented a Republican Party realignment that was already underway. It wouldn’t have prevented abortion, and the rights of women and other traditionally disempowered groups, from becoming controversial political issues. But a Roe-free United States would almost certainly mean a United States wherein abortion laws were wildly varied, with women in many parts of the country having no legal right to abortion at all. Similarly, even though Brown v. Board of Education inspired an immediate backlash from Southern racists, it’s tough to argue that without court intervention, racial integration of public schools and other facilities would be better without Brown than the (admittedly lacking) state of racial equality today.

Acceptance — Aaron Hartzler tells how he gets along with his parents who would rather see him dead than gay.

“Honey, we’re praying for you.”

This is how my mother ends every email she sends me. Typed in italics and peppered with smiling emoticons, Mom’s electronic missives are as precious as she is — as earnest as the Empty Tomb Cake she bakes each spring on Good Friday. An edible replica of the cave where Jesus was buried after dying on the cross for our sins, the Empty Tomb Cake is the standard passion week centerpiece in my childhood home. It is frosted in gray, surrounded by a field of green coconut grass, and finished off with a Hostess Ding-Dong as the stone that was rolled away. On Saturday night, after everyone goes to bed, Mom steals into the kitchen under cover of night and rolls the Hostess Ding-Dong away from the door of the Empty Tomb Cake, then retouches the frosting. On Easter morning Jesus has risen — right there in the middle of the kitchen table.

As sweet as Mom’s loving messages and born-again baked goods appear at face value, there’s a silent threat in “we’re praying for you” that sticks in my craw. I came out to my parents the first time at the age of 19 when I was kicked out of the Bible college where my dad taught. Since then, their ongoing prayers for my “deliverance” from “Satan’s lie of homosexuality” have continued unabated in the presence of my four younger siblings and the unsuspecting wait staffs of Olive Garden restaurants nationwide. Indeed, my parents offer a never-ending stream of supplication to a God they’re certain is testing them with a son who has been blinded to the righteous pursuit of a female partner by the penis-shaped temptation of Satan.

“We’re praying for you” isn’t a harmless afterthought. It’s not a pleasant wish for my general well-being, continued physical health or financial security. No, my mother’s “we’re praying for you” is an italicized baseball bat, a silent plea for God to change her oldest son from something abhorrent and abominable back to the fresh-faced young man who dated the captain of the Bible college cheerleading squad, before it was discovered he was also sleeping with the captain of the boy’s soccer team.

Very Natural Gas — A dairy farm in Indiana goes for recycling in a big way.

Here at one of the largest dairy farms in the country, electricity generated using an endless supply of manure runs the equipment to milk around 30,000 cows three times a day.

For years, the farm has used livestock waste to create enough natural gas to power 10 barns, a cheese factory, a cafe, a gift shop and a maze of child-friendly exhibits about the world of dairy, including a 4D movie theater.

All that, and Fair Oaks Farms was still using only about half of the five million pounds of cow manure it vacuumed up from its barn floors on a daily basis. It burned off the excess methane, wasted energy sacrificed to the sky.

But not anymore.

The farm is now turning the extra manure into fuel for its delivery trucks, powering 42 tractor-trailers that make daily runs to raw milk processing plants in Indiana, Kentucky and Tennessee. Officials from the federal Department of Energy called the endeavor a “pacesetter” for the dairy industry, and said it was the largest natural gas fleet using agricultural waste to drive this nation’s roads.

“As long as we keep milking cows, we never run out of gas,” said Gary Corbett, chief executive of Fair Oaks, which held a ribbon-cutting event for the project this month and opened two fueling stations to the public.

“We are one user, and we’re taking two million gallons of diesel off the highway each year,” he said. “That’s a big deal.”

Doonesbury — Live birth.

Thursday, March 28, 2013