FEC: Same-sex couples can't make joint political donations

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) ruled unanimously on Thursday that gay couples legally married under state law cannot give joint contributions to federal candidates.

The FEC commissioners said in their ruling that even if they found such a restriction discriminatory, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) — which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages — effectively tied their hands.

"Sometimes the law's an ass," FEC chairwoman Ellen Weintraub said during the hearing, according to the Washington Post.

Dan Winslow, a Republican primary candidate in next week's Massachusetts special election to replace Secretary of State John Kerry in the U.S. Senate, had requested an advisory opinion from the body after two gay supporters, legally married in the state, attempted to have a joint donation attributed equally between the two of him. Straight married couples are allowed to do so.

Last month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments challenging the constitutionality of DOMA. In oral arguments, Justice Anthony Kennedy — thought to be the swing vote on the Court — signaled he was skeptical of the law, questioning “whether the federal government has the authority to regulate marriage."

Commissioners sympathetic to the ability of same-sex couples suggested that lawyers bring the case back to the FEC after the Supreme Court rules.

"Come on back," said commissioner Steven Walther, according to the Post.

View Comments

View the original article here

Ben Carson Finally Apologizes For Comparing Same-Sex Marriage To Pedophilia

A week and a half after Dr. Ben Carson outraged the LGBT community by linking same-sex marriage to pedophilia and bestiality in a nationally televised interview on Fox News, the Johns Hopkins brain surgeon is finally apologizing for his hateful remarks.

Carson had already tried to walk back his comments and extinguish a few fires late last week during an appearance on MSNBC, but he didn’t issue much in the way of an apology. This time though, in an email sent to the Johns Hopkins community, he sounded sincere:

In a Friday email to the Hopkins community – which a source shared with POLITICO – Carson apologized for having caused “any embarrassment” to the institutions he has been affiliated with.

“As you know, I have been in the national news quite a bit recently and my 36 year association with Johns Hopkins has unfortunately dragged our institution into the spotlight as well. I am sorry for any embarrassment this has caused,” wrote Carson, who is the director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital. “But what really saddens me is that my poorly chosen words caused pain for some members of our community and for that I offer a most sincere and heartfelt apology. Hurting others is diametrically opposed to who I am and what I believe.”

A majority of students in the 2013 graduating class at Johns Hopkins’ School of Medicine signed a petition calling on the administration to replace Carson as this year’s commencement speaker, but a report yesterday suggested that university officials were still planning invite him. Faculty and staff at JHU also condemned Carson’s remarks in the days following his appearance on Sean Hannity’s Fox News program.

View the original article here

Reagan’s Son: Churches Should Condemn Same-Sex Marriage Just Like Polygamy, Bestiality, And Murder

President Ronald Reagan’s negligence during the AIDS crisis combined with his empowering of social conservatives in the religious right make him pretty unpopular among the LGBT community, but even he opposed California’s Briggs Initiative, a proposed law to ban gays and lesbians from being teachers. His son Ron Reagan, Jr. has in turn been an outspoken supporter of gay rights, but it seems his son Michael has taken to being even more conservative than his father.

In a op-ed today in Ohio’s Ironton Tribune, Michael Reagan excoriates the “Protestants, Jews, and Catholics” for not expressing enough “moral outrage” about same-sex marriage. Churches, he believes, should start “fighting for America” to protect it from the “serious threat” marriage equality presents:

This fight over Proposition 8 isn’t just about saying it should be legal in the eyes of government for two people of the same sex to get married in California.

It’s ultimately about changing the culture of the entire country; it inevitably will lead to teaching our public school kids that gay marriage is a perfectly fine alternative and no different than traditional marriage.

There is also a very slippery slope leading to other alternative relationships and the unconstitutionality of any law based on morality. Think about polygamy, bestiality, and perhaps even murder.

Perhaps more social conservatives should start claiming that same-sex marriage will lead to legalized murder. With arguments that absurd and offensive, they might lose the fight against equality even more quickly. (HT: Jeremy Hooper.)

View the original article here

How Justice Scalia’s Same-Sex Parenting Ignorance Also Harms LGBT Foster Youth

Our guest blogger is Lindsay Rosenthal, Research Assistant with the Health Policy Program and the Women’s Health and Rights Program at the Center for American Progress.

During oral arguments on same-sex marriage last week Justice Scalia argued against recognizing marriage equality by pointing to what he perceives as the potential harm that could befall children if same-sex couples could eventually adopt:

SCALIA: If you redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, you must  permit adoption by same-sex couples, and there’s considerable disagreement among sociologists as to what the consequences of raising a child in a single-sex family, whether that is harmful to the child or not. Some states do not permit adoption by same-sex couples for that reason.

Scalia’s bigoted words contain a host of flawed assumptions. For starters, his comments are part of a discriminatory narrative that same-sex parents are inferior at best, or abusive at worst. But, as Ezra Klein pointed out, “there’s no evidence that gay parents aren’t great parents.” According to the American Sociological Association, “whether a child is raised by same-sex or opposite-sex-parents has no bearing on a child’s wellbeing.” A host of other reputable groups — including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Child Welfare League of America — agree with that conclusion.

Not only is Scalia’s comment about the scientific literature on LGBT parents outright wrong, his words also presume that there are no LGBT children in foster care and in need of adoption. But, in fact, the best evidence we have shows that LGBT foster youth are overrepresented in foster care, in part because of the discrimination they experience in their schools and families of origin. And there are documented instances of foster parents refusing to accept LGBT youth into their homes, kicking them out of their homes, or otherwise isolating them once they are placed in their home. Does Justice Scalia think, without a shred of evidence, that placing these children in homes with LGBT parents would somehow harm them more than the outright bigotry already experience?

LGBT youth in the foster care system are treated differently from other groups, such as racial, ethnic, and religious groups, who enjoy greater constitutional protections with regard to the provision of culturally competent placements. For example, case workers attempt to place African American youth with African American parents and Spanish-speaking children in Spanish-speaking homes, or to place these children only in homes that have undergone cultural sensitivity training that explicitly addresses their unique needs. Allowing LGBT adults to adopt is one of the more obvious steps the system could take to increase the number of suitable placements available to LGBT foster youth. But anti-gay groups have opposed efforts to even provide sensitivity training to those responsible for LGBT foster youth because they refuse to acknowledge the children’s identity in the first place.

Of course, denying LGBT families the right to foster and adopt doesn’t just harm LGBT foster youth, it harms all foster youth by preventing loving adoptive parents from being able to care for them. Despite the recommendations of many child advocates, only a few states currently allow LGBT Americans to adopt or foster children. Throughout most of the country, LGBT couples face significant barriers to either fostering or adopting and in some states are explicitly prohibited from doing so.

This discriminatory treatment of LGBT Americans in the foster care system is part-and-parcel of laws that define marriage as only between heterosexuals and discriminate against non-heteronormative family structures. At present, courts do not have to apply the same level of scrutiny to the treatment of LGBT Americans, so the foster care system simultaneously discriminates against LGBT adults who want to adopt children and LGBT children who desperately need to be adopted into safe and culturally competent homes.

If Justice Scalia really cares about the best interests of children he would protect the constitutional rights of all children who need to be adopted — gay or straight — and ensure that all adoptive parents are recognized and protected by the law.

View the original article here

Rising GOP star Carson defends comments on same-sex marriage

Dr. Ben Carson on Friday defended comments he made earlier this week that linked homosexuality to bestiality. 

Carson, a rising GOP star who came to fame in conservative circles with remarks critical of President Obama at the National Prayer Breakfast, said in an interview on MSNBC that his comments had been taken out of context. 

"I think what was said on Sean Hannity's show, that was taken completely out of context and completely misunderstood in terms of what I was trying to say," Carson said. "As a Christian I have a duty to love all people and that includes people that have other sexual orientations, and I certainly do."

Carson added that he hadn't meant to equate same-sex marriage to bestiality. 

"I wasn't equating those things, I don't think that they're equal," Carson said. 

But the pediatric neurosurgeon maintained his opposition for gay marriage. 

"My impression is what's being asked for is the convenience of the title 'marriage,' which is an institution that was established by God, and I'm not sure that that is the same thing" as letting same-sex couples have the same federal rights as heterosexual couples," Carson said. "Everybody has right of association and if we don't give them the right to transfer property and have visitation et cetera, then we really should be examining that."

During an interview on Sean Hannity's radio show on Tuesday, Carson, a neurosurgeon at Johns Hopkins University, argued that marriage is "a well-established, fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality — it doesn't matter what they are, they don't get to change the definition." 

NAMBLA is the North American Man/Boy Love Association. 

Carson on Friday said his opposition to same-sex marriage was not based on antagonism toward gays, but on Biblical beliefs. 

"And when I say we don't want to change it or degrade it by calling it marriage that's not aimed at any particular group," he said of gay marriage. The Bible and God "have set very specific standards," Carson said. "It's very clear what's being said. God doesn't change, man changes."

Carson's comments on Hannity's radio show resulted in an effort by some Johns Hopkins students to replace Carson as the 2013 commencement speaker. Carson suggested he would not be the speaker if that's what the students wanted.

"I would say that this is their day and the last thing I want to do is rain on their parade," Carson said. "I am waiting for appropriate channels."

View Comments

View the original article here

NOM Spokesperson: Children Of Same-Sex Couples Will Resent Their Parents

Among the speakers at Tuesday’s anti-gay Marriage March was National Organization for Marriage spokesperson Jennifer Roback Morse, who heads up NOM’s Ruth Institute. Morse has a reputation of saying horrid things about gay people and young people’s perceptions of LGBT issues, and she did not disappoint at the rally. Stoking fears that same-sex marriage has some kind of unforeseen experiences, she attempted to speak on behalf of the children of same-sex couples, claiming they would resent their parents for depriving them of a parent of the opposite gender:

MORSE: Eventually, young people are going to see that redefining marriage sets aside the interests of children for the convenience of adults. Now in the unhappy event that the Court should redefine marriage, which we pray that they will not — we pray that they will allow us to continue this nationwide conversation and discussion that we desperately need to have. But if they do redefine marriage, 40 years from the young people of that generation will have one simply question for our generation, “What were you thinking?”

They’re going to say, “Dad, you and your partner are lovely guys, I love you Dad, but did you really think I would never need a mom? What were you thinking?” “Mom, I know you love me, you and your partner are nice ladies, but the biological connection that was so important to you — did you think it would never be important to me? What were you thinking? What were you thinking?” That’s what they’re going to ask us.

Watch it (via RightWingWatch):

Actually, same-sex marriage is in the best interest of the many children already being raised by same-sex couples. And usually, they call both dads “Dad” or both moms “Mom,” and they wouldn’t have to say “partner” to describe a husband and a wife. Morse clearly demonstrates that she has little understanding or empathy for same-sex families. Oddly, NOM does not actively campaign against same-sex adoption even though the well-being of children is supposedly at the core of the arguments against marriage equality.

View the original article here

Justice Kennedy Suggests Children Of Same-Sex Couples Suffer ‘Immediate Legal Injury’ From Ban

Early in this morning’s Supreme Court oral argument over the constitutionality of the California ban on same-sex marriage, Justice Anthony Kennedy suggested the children of same-sex couples suffer “immediate legal injury” from Proposition 8, according to Bloomberg. “They want their parents to have full recognition and status,” Kennedy said, adding that the “voice of those children” is important.

Kennedy, who is likely the swing vote, also suggested he was very uncomfortable striking down Proposition 8, according to a tweet from SCOTUSblog. Kennedy raised dismissing the case, which would leave in place the lower court ruling invalidating the same-sex marriage ban, but would not set any precedent about equal rights or marriage equality.

In response to Kennedy’s assertion, Justice Antonin Scalia questioned whether children would actually be harmed by Proposition 8, saying there is “considerable disagreement” about the “consequences” of same-sex marriage. “I take no position on whether it’s harmful or not, but it’s certainly true there is no answer to that scientific question,” he said, according to tweets from the Huffington Post’s Ryan Reilly.

View the original article here

Same-sex marriage: From hot-button issue to litmus test

By A.B. Stoddard, columnist, The Hill - 03/22/13 11:23 AM ET

This was an historic week in U.S. political history. No Democrat can now seriously run for president, and survive a primary, without supporting gay marriage. Why? Ohio Sen. Rob Portman, a conservative Republican, came out in favor of same-sex marriage, followed immediately by a video announcement from Hillary Clinton (why wait for an interview?) declaring her support for the same. Then an ABC News/Washington Post poll released Monday showed that an all-time high of 58 percent of the country now supports same-sex marriage, up an astonishing 26 percent in just nine years.

The issue is now a litmus test in Democratic presidential politics, the exact opposite from 2008, the last open election, when no Democrat seeking the Oval Office would dare sanction marriage for anyone but one man and one woman for fear of tainting themselves for the general election. On this issue, most of the general election will now be behind them. Not so for Republicans, who would struggle in a GOP presidential primary among evangelical Christians who have enormous influence in the primary process. Their support may be an insurmountable hurdle. David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network questioned this week whether the GOP would lose evangelicals by remaining silent on the issue of gay marriage.

Clinton's announcement was clearly on its way, with her husband less than subtly laying the groundwork two weeks ago with his declaration of regret over signing the Defense of Marriage Act. After all, two gay-marriage cases reach the U.S. Supreme Court next week, and Clinton thought it the perfect time to announce her support in advance. But there's a pretty good chance she rushed out her video as soon as Portman's surprise announcement just days before. No matter what, it means Clinton doesn't want the 2016 presidential speculation to leave her out.

Just sayin'.

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN IS NOW URGING A GRAND BARGAIN WITH NEW REVENUE? IS THERE HOPE? AskAB returns Tuesday, April 2 after a cold spring break. Please join my weekly video Q&A by sending your questions and comments to This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it . Thank you.

View Comments

View the original article here

Portman’s Support For Same-Sex Marriage And Why Respect For Equality Should Be A Basic Qualification For Office

Sen. Rob Portman’s (R-OH) evolution on the issue of marriage equality—from opponent to advocate—followed a deeply personal conversation he had with his son two years ago. It’s a conversation countless families must grapple with and a conversation that now underscores the disconnect between the head and the heart of conservatism’s view of marriage equality at a pivotal moment in the debate.

Though Portman’s experience is heartening, Americans must demand more from their leaders than public acknowledgement of private family truths. Portman, Vice President Dick Cheney, and the recent wave of prominent conservatives coming out in support of equality should be commended for demonstrating a commitment to family above the politics of the moment. Still, respecting equality under the law should be a basic qualification for office, not an epiphany a lawmaker experiences after recognizing that inequality hurts the people he loves and the millions of parents and children he serves.

The damage is caused largely by the anti-gay laws and policies that their party has championed for years. DOMA, for example, is a legislative reflection of the discrimination that forces hundreds of thousands of gay and lesbian children to remain hidden in the closet living in shame of who they are. DOMA is the reason that same-sex couples face a higher tax burden than their heterosexual counterparts, resulting in less income and higher poverty rates among the LGBT community. And DOMA demonstrates that LGBT people are still treated like second class citizens in a country that supposedly values equality and justice above all else.

In coming out, one of the most powerful lessons learned is that telling your story may make it easier for the next person. By coming out to loving parents, Portman’s son made it that much easier for others to do the same. In fact, his example clearly demonstrates the ways in which coming out to your friends and family can enrich their lives, and may change the lives of people you’ll never meet.

Last month, 131 prominent Republican politicians signed a brief calling on the Supreme Court to end DOMA and rule in support of marriage equality for same-sex couples. These Republicans have acknowledged what a strong majority of Americans already know: that there is no reason for a Washington bureaucrat to stand between LGBT Americans and the altar. While the degree to which Portman’s evolution will move his party forward is still uncertain, by sharing an honest love for his son and concern for his future, he will make it that much easier for others facing similar circumstances. Hopefully, Portman’s conversion will inspire lawmakers to recognize the damage their anti-equality policies are causing to their LGBT constituents before they realize the victims are their loved ones.

Jon Shields is a Special Assistant for the Communications team at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

View the original article here

Republicans Once Again Try To Ban Same-Sex Weddings On Military Bases

Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS)

For the past two years, House Republicans have attempted to use the National Defense Authorization Act to solidify some anti-gay principles into military codes, including a ban on same-sex weddings on military bases, a “license to bully” that encouraged anti-gay harassment, and redundant conscience protections for military chaplains. Some of these conscience protections advanced in the final version of the bill this past fall, and Obama criticized them in a signing statement, calling them “unnecessary” and “ill-advised.” Now, Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) is once again trying to enshrine discrimination into the nation’s military.

His new bill, H.R. 914, the “Military Religious Freedom Protection Act,” contains more redundant protections for military chaplains, ensuring — as is already the case — that they cannot be penalized if their religious beliefs are not pro-gay. What seems evident is that those redundancies are simply a guise for the last little provision in the bill: a ban on same-sex marriages on military bases:

A military installation or other property owned, rented, or otherwise under the jurisdiction or control of the Department of Defense shall not be used to officiate, solemnize, or perform a marriage or marriage-like ceremony involving anything other than the union of one man with one woman.

Furthermore, if there is any concern that chaplains’ consciences are not already protected, it seems that these reiterated provisions could only serve to protect outright anti-LGBT harassment.

In the year after Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was repealed, only two individuals — both chaplains — left the military in protest. Nothing about this bill supports the military or its members.

View the original article here

STUDY: Same-Sex Parents Are Prevalent, Ethnically Diverse, And Struggling Economically

A new report from the Williams Institute paints a compelling picture of the nation’s same-sex couples, as well as the LGBT people in general who have had children. Not only are they particular prevalent, but they are also ethnically diverse. Unfortunately, many are struggling economically, contrary to stereotype.

Here are some of the compelling new data points:

Over a third (37 percent) of LGBT-identified adults have had a child at some time in their lives.An estimated 3 million LGBT Americans have had a child and as many as 6 million Americans have an LGBT parent.Nearly half (48 percent) of all LGBT female couples and 20 percent of LGBT male couples under the age of 50 are raising children.More than 125,000 same-sex couple households (19 percent) are raising over 220,000 children under the age of 18.Same-sex couples who consider themselves to be spouses are twice as likely (31 percent) to be raising children compared to unmarried same-sex partners (14 percent).Same-sex couples are four times more likely to be raising adopted children compared to opposite-sex couples, raising more than 22,000 adopted children.About 39 percent of individuals in same-sex couples raising children are people of color (compared to 36 percent among opposite-sex couples).Half of all children living with same-sex couples are non-White (compared to 41 percent among opposite-sex couples.)Single LGBT adults raising children are three times more likely than similar non-LGBT people to report household incomes near the poverty threshold.Same-sex couples living in two-adult households with children are twice as likely to report household incomes near the poverty threshold compared to similar non-LGBT people.The median annual household income of same-sex couples with children is significantly lower than that of similar opposite-sex couples ($63,900 versus $74,000, respectively).

These results actually confirm that what conservatives claim about marriage applies to same-sex couples equally. Marriage is an important framework with key economic benefits that specifically support children. With helpful research like this made available, it’s becoming increasingly difficult for opponents of LGBT equality to claim that same-sex families are not already a significant reality.

View the original article here

Defense Department Offers Limited Benefits To Military Same-Sex Partners

It took 17 months, but the Defense Department has finally issued guidance about benefits that can be extended to the same-sex partners of military servicemembers now that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” no longer requires that they hide their identities. The list does not address some serious issues of concern, including health care, housing, and survivor benefits because of the Defense of Marriage Act, but does allow servicemembers to designate specific protections to their partners, including some through the recognition of a domestic partnership. Here are a few of the new benefits:

Service Members Group Life Insurance BeneficiaryVeterans’ Group Life Insurance BeneficiarySurvivor Benefit Plan Beneficiary for RetireesCasualty NotificationDesignation of Persons Having Interest in Status of a Missing MemberHospital Visitation PrivilegesDesignation of Persons Authorized to Direct Disposition of Remains of Members of the Armed ForcePresentation of the Flag of the United StatesDependent ID cardsCommissary PrivilegesExchange PrivilegesMorale, Welfare, and Recreation programsEmergency LeaveYouth ProgramsFamily Center ProgramsChild CareLegal AssistanceJoint Duty Assignments

The memo announcing the benefits notes that should the Defense of Marriage Act no longer apply to the department, policy will be to “construe the words ‘spouse’ and ‘marriage’ without regard to sexual orientation, and married couples, irrespective of sexual orientation, and their dependents, will be granted full military benefits.” It also contains a new process for same-sex couples to declare to the military that they are, in fact, domestic partners, which presumably even couples that are already married would have to fulfill to receive the benefits.

OutServe-SLDN praised outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta for “getting us a few steps closer to full equality.”

View the original article here

Mormons And Evangelicals To SCOTUS: Ignore Preponderance Of Science On Same-Sex Parenting

A group of religious organizations, including the Mormon Church, Southern Baptist Convention, and National Association of Evangelicals, have submitted amicus briefs to the Supreme Court arguing it should uphold both the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8. The briefs, written by Mormon Church lawyer Von Keetch, make similar points to other anti-gay briefs about the inferiority of same-sex couples, but notably tries to brush aside the research that suggests otherwise (HT: Kathleen Perrin):

DOMA BRIEF: Whether the Nation retains the traditional definition of marriage or redefines marriage to include same-sex couples is a social issue with potentially wide-ranging consequences. By their nature, such policy questions cannot be definitively answered by science, professional opinion, or legal reasoning alone. Although we are certainly persuaded by scholarly opinion supporting traditional marriage, the truth is that social science scholars, for instance, disagree about the effects of gay parenting on children. Whatever the ultimate conclusions may be, “nothing in the Constitution requires [government] to accept as truth the most advanced and sophisticated [scientific] opinion.”

PROP 8 BRIEF: Admittedly, there is an active debate within the social sciences over whether some of these common sense judgments are empirically sound. But “nothing in the Constitution requires California to accept as truth the most advanced and sophisticated [scientific] opinion.” Lawmakers – including the people of California – are entitled to “act on various unprovable assumptions,” including those that in “the sum of [their] experience” lead them to conclude that traditional marriage and the family structure it supports deserve distinctive legal protection.

In the footnotes, Keetch cites the Mark Regnerus “family structures” study, as well as the simultaneously published meta-analysis by Loren Marks, as evidence of research with a negative conclusion on same-sex parenting. But an internal audit by the publishing journal found Regnerus’ conclusions about same-sex parenting to be “bullshit,” and Marks’ analysis to be “lowbrow” and unworthy of publication. Despite how conservative groups have championed Regnerus’ methods and results, Regnerus himself has admitted that his research was not about gay parenting.

Contrary to what these religious groups claim, there is no debate among social scientists about the capacity of same-sex couples to raise children. In fact, it has already been nine years since the American Psychological Association resolved to support same-sex adoption, and subsequent research continues to confirm that children raised in such households fare just as well as children raised by opposite-sex couples. Researchers have objected that other briefs filed in these cases have cited their studies to draw conclusions about same-sex parenting that are not evident from the research.

The language in these particular briefs suggest that the religious groups don’t care what the research says anyway, hence their haste to dismiss it. Given their concern for protecting children, what is more telling is their refusal to acknowledge the two million children already being raised by same-sex couples. Even if the Court chooses to ignore the science that same-sex couples could make equally good parents, it cannot ignore that they already are doing so.

View the original article here

‘Family’ Group To Supreme Court: Same-Sex Couples Are Not Gay

The Family Research Council, an anti-gay hate group, has filed amicus briefs in both the Defense of Marriage Act and Proposition 8 cases before the Supreme Court. In these briefs, FRC claims that gays and lesbians do not deserve nondiscrimination protections because of their sexual orientation, but adds that even if they did, the Court could still rule against them in these cases. The group explains this by pointing out that gay people can enter opposite-sex couples, and thus laws like DOMA and Prop 8 do not discriminate specifically against gay people, just same-sex couples:

In his concurring opinion in Andersen v. King County, Justice J. M. Johnson noted that the state DOMA “does not distinguish between persons of heterosexual orientation and homosexual orientation,” and identified a recent case in which a man and a woman, both identified as “gay,” entered into a valid opposite-sex marriage. It is apparent, therefore, that the right to enter into a marriage that would be recognized under § 3 of DOMA “is not restricted to (self-identified) heterosexual couples,” but extends to all adults without regard to “their sexual orientation.”  Contrary to the understanding of the California Supreme Court,  a law that restricts marriage (or the benefits thereof) to opposite-sex couples does not, on its face, discriminate between heterosexuals and homosexuals.  The classification in the statute is not between men and women, or between heterosexuals and homosexuals, but between opposite-sex (married) couples and same-sex (married) couples.

FRC could have used the same argument in 1967 to defend bans on interracial marriage, something like, The classification in the statute is not between white people and colored people, but between same-race couples and mixed-race couples, differentiated for the purposes of racial integrity. Just as it’s clear such an argument would still be discrimination based on race, so too are DOMA and Prop 8 discrimination based on sexual orientation.

FRC relies on its own myths to support its other myths. The brief argues essentially that gay people don’t exist — that their identities are not immutable and can only be defined by behavior. Only with this narrow conception of the lives of gay people would any of these arguments hold up, and fortunately reality modern-day reality does not allow for such naivete.

It’s worth noting that RightWingWatch also noticed a stunning contradiction in FRC’s briefs. In an attempt to dissuade the Court from recognizing sexual orientation as a suspect class (like race and gender), FRC argues in the DOMA brief that gays are a powerful group, particularly given the victories for marriage equality in the November 2012 elections. However, in the Prop 8 brief, FRC argues the opposite: since 30 states have banned same-sex marriage, there is no “emerging awareness” that the right to marry extends to same-sex couples. In other words, FRC’s version of “truth” is whichever spin supports its argument against equality.

View the original article here

Obama’s Immigration Plan Protects Binational Same-Sex Families

On Tuesday, President Obama unveiled a comprehensive plan for immigration reform based on four tenets: continuing to strengthen border security, cracking down on employers hiring undocumented workers, creating pathways to earned citizenship, and streamlining legal immigration.

Speaking in Nevada, Obama said that the bi-partisan enthusiasm in the Senate is “very encouraging,” and offered a plan that closely resembles the framework outlined by a bipartisan group of eight senators. ”So at this moment, it looks like there’s a genuine desire to get this done soon,” Obama said. “The ideas I’m proposing have traditionally been supported by both Democrats like Ted Kennedy and Republicans like President George W. Bush.”

Obama’s proposal shares common ground with the bipartisan framework, but also goes further, specifically permitting binational same-sex couples to apply for legal residency. From the administration’s fact sheet:

The proposal seeks to eliminate existing backlogs in the family-sponsored immigration system by recapturing unused visas and temporarily increasing annual visa numbers.  The proposal also raises existing annual country caps from 7 percent to 15 percent for the family-sponsored immigration system.   It also treats same-sex families as families by giving U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents the ability to seek a visa on the basis of a permanent relationship with a same-sex partner. The proposal also revises current unlawful presence bars and provides broader discretion to waive bars in cases of hardship.

Under current law, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) prevents the government from recognizing the marriage of same-sex couples in which one partner is a U.S. citizen and the other is not. As a result, couples cannot petition for citizenship and are often separated by deportation, at great costs both emotionally and financially to their families.

Republican senators who are considering immigration reform generally oppose the amendment, however. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has said that protecting same-sex families is “not of paramount importance” and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) called their inclusion a mistake, adding, “Why don’t we just put legalized abortion in there and round it all out.”

McCain offered the following statement in response to Obama’s speech: “I appreciate the President’s support for our bipartisan effort on comprehensive immigration reform. While there are some differences in our approaches to this issue, we share the belief that any reform must recognize America as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. We should all agree that border security and enforcement is particularly important in order to ensure that we don’t repeat the mistakes of the 1986 immigration reform.”

View the original article here

Kentucky Minister Arrested After Trying To Marry His Same-Sex Partner

Rev. Blanchard and Dominique James

A Kentucky Baptist minister protested on behalf of same-sex marriage by refusing to leave the county clerk’s office until he and his partner received a marriage license. Rev. Maurice “Bojangles” Blanchard and Dominique James walked in — already knowing they would be refused — and were later arrested when the office closed. Blanchard said the sit-in showed they would not be “silent accomplices to our own discrimination.”

In an interview with the Louisville Courier-Journal, Blanchard pointed out that religious leaders stand behind his right to marriage:

We’re here today to give nonviolence witness and let folks know that even people of faith, most definitely people of faith are going to stand up to and say this is wrong [...] We anticipate being denied and upon that denial we are going to sit down and not be moved and not leave as a sign of a method of nonviolent resistance. Because we feel if we do not resist we’re silent accomplices to our own discrimination.

Watch the interview and their arrest:
 

Same-sex couples have sought to expose discrimination in Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia by applying for marriage licenses, only to be denied because of state law. Polls show that most Americans endorse marriage equality, while the movement has strong backing from the religious community.

View the original article here

Conservatives Expect Rhode Island To Protect Discrimination Against Same-Sex Marriages

This afternoon, the Rhode Island House Judiciary Committee will hold its first hearing on a bill to legalize same-sex marriage. Coalitions have already formed on both sides of the issue with Rhode Islanders United for Marriage supporting equality and the National Organization for Marriage’s Rhode Island for Marriage opposing it. It seems conservatives will not be holding back in their assault on the rights of same-sex couples, as demonstrated by the testimony Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Kellie Fiedorek will offer at today’s meeting:

FIEDOREK: Religious freedom belongs to everyone, not just a handful of people. The government cannot limit constitutionally protected religious liberties in a way that’s foreign to our Constitution. This bill fails to ensure that those liberties of every Rhode Island citizen will be respected. The First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom for all Americans is not limited to the four walls of a church.

The OneNewsNow article highlighting Fiedorek’s remarks clarify her intention that justices, judges, court commissioners, business owners, and counselors should all have protections to not recognize same-sex marriages.

Unfortunately, this is a realistic problem for the Rhode Island legislation. When lawmakers attempted to pass marriage equality in 2011, they ended up settling on a civil unions bill with some of the most extreme “religious exemptions” of any similar bill in the country. According to that law, administrators at religion-run schools, hospitals, and businesses can simply refuse to treat civil unions as valid if doing so violates their religious beliefs, essentially making legal recognition of civil unions pointless. Combined with the access and recognition of same-sex marriages from neighboring states, it’s unsurprising that civil unions have been “a complete failure” in the state, with less than 100 couples bothering to get one after the law had been in effect over a year.

Gov. Lincoln Chafee (I), who is eager for the new legislation to pass, issued an executive order last May requiring all state agencies to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. The kind of exemptions ADF is demanding could essentially roll back protections married same-sex couples already enjoy. Fortunately, there is little reason for lawmakers to cave to such inordinate invitations to discriminate, as 56 percent of voters support marriage equality.

View the original article here

VIDEO: How The Military Treats A Fallen Soldier’s Same-Sex Widow

NEWS FLASH

VIDEO: How The Military Treats A Fallen Soldier’s Same-Sex Widow | Army National Guard Staff Sgt. Donna Johnson was one of three soldiers killed by a suicide bomber in Afghanistan on October 1, but she was the only one of the three whose spouse was not taken care of by the military after her death. Johnson’s wife, Army National Guard Staff Sgt. Tracy Dice, was not eligible to have her travel expenses to Dover Air Force Base covered, nor can she benefit from Dependency and Indemnity Compensation, the Survivor Benefit Plan, VA education benefits, or Tricare health coverage. The repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell allowed Johnson and Rice to be open about their marriage, but the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act still prevents the military from legally recognizing their relationship. Watch an interview with Dice about losing Johnson and the mistreatment she has experienced as a same-sex spouse (HT: Towleroad):

By Zack Ford on Jan 8, 2013 at 4:10 pm

View the original article here