Back in the good old days of 2008, same-sex marriage was legal in the Golden State of California for 143 days, and during that time 18,000 same-sex couples legally tied the knot. The existence of those 18,000 is why Proposition 8–which made same-sex marriage illegal later that year–is unconstitutional, according to today’s ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court. By a 2-1 vote, a court panel upheld the historic 2010 decision by Judge Vaughn Walker to strike down Prop 8 as unconstitutional.

Since Prop 8 set out to “eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California,” without providing any legitimate state interest for doing so, the appeals court calls that open discrimination:

All that Proposition 8 accomplished was to take away from same-sex couples the right to be granted marriage licenses and thus legally to use the designation of “marriage,” which symbolizes state legitimization and societal recognition of their committed relationships. Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples.

The court rejected one of the more ridiculous Prop 8 proponents’ arguments–that the constitutional ban “advances California’s interest in responsible procreation and childrearing”–and denied the much-criticized assertion that same-sex marriages cause any harm to straight ones:

It is implausible to think that denying two men or two women the right to call themselves married could somehow bolster the stability of families headed by one man and one woman.

The court also suggested that Prop 8 was “born of disapproval of gays and lesbians,” noting that Prop 8 was “presented to voters in terms designed to appeal to stereotypes of gays and lesbians as predators, threats to children and practitioners of a deviant ‘lifestyle.’”

Despite its strong wording, the decision is disappointingly narrow, applying only to the state of California and not to all of the western states under the Ninth Circuit’s jurisdiction (Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Alaska and Hawaii). But the precedent could nonetheless have far-reaching effects: in states like Iowa, where marriage equality has been granted but is contested, or states like Maine, where marriage rights were granted to same-sex couples and then taken away. At stake is the issue of second-class citizenship. As the court noted,

The elimination of the right to use the official designation of “marriage” for the relationships of committed same-sex couples send[s] a message that gays and lesbians are of lesser worth as a class–that they enjoy a lesser societal status.

The constitutional grounds for denying Prop 8 lie in the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment of the federal Constitution, which the court says was violated by using an initiative “to target a minority group and withdraw a right that it possessed, without a legitimate reason for doing so.” The appeals court even injected some humor into their ruling, invoking Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet to make the point that domestic partnership is not the same as marriage, and that separate is not equal:

A rose by any other name may smell as sweet, but to the couple desiring to enter into a committed lifelong relationship, a marriage by the name of ‘registered domestic partnership’ does not.

The judges drove the point home with yet another laugh line:

Had Marilyn Monroe’s film been called How to Register a Domestic Partnership with a Millionaire, it would not have conveyed the same meaning as did her famous meaning.

It’s unclear whether gay marriage rights will be immediately restored in California or whether they will be placed on hold, pending further appeals. Let’s hope that Proposition 8 will be stricken from the books right away so that lesbians and gay men will be able to marry the millionaire or average Jane or Joe of their dreams.

Print | Email | PDF

Via the AP:

The Manhattan district attorney’s office said it was declining to prosecute Yaribely Almonte but continuing to investigate. Prosecutors wouldn’t elaborate.

Almonte, 20, was arrested in November on the misdemeanor charge, which concerns a woman forcibly causing a miscarriage when more than six months pregnant. Abortion is illegal after that point in New York, unless the procedure is necessary to save the woman’s life.

The charge is seldom brought and even more rarely results in conviction, state statistics show.

The decision to keep the case open despite lack of evidence makes it clear that the incident is being used primarily to serve as a warning to other women who may attempt to induce their own abortions, as well as keep women who experience late term miscarriage and cannot afford health care in fear.

Cross-posted with permission from RH Reality Check

Photo from Flickr user Tex Texin under Creative Commons 2.0

Print | Email | PDF

The first is to extend the statutes of limitations (both criminal and civil) for such crimes. Usually, child sexual abuse is only reported years–sometimes decades–after the actual crime has occurred, at which point both the criminal and civil statutes of limitations have expired. Extending the statutes is therefore an important first step in holding perpetrators accountable.

But the Supreme Court has ruled that criminal extensions to the statutes of limitations cannot be retroactively applied to past offenses. That’s why the second reform is necessary: creating a retroactive “civil window” for past victims of child sexual abuse to bring suit. These laws give victims a legal window of months or years to come forward and name their perpetrators in open civil court, no matter when the crime occurred.

New York is considering a similar “window” bill, bolstered by the inability of local prosecutors to criminally charge Syracuse coach Bernie Fine (despite sufficient evidence that he abused children) because the statute of limitations had passed.

Such child-sex-abuse window laws in California and Delaware have been tremendously successful. They exposed hundreds of predators across both states and allowed victims to gain access to abuse and cover-up records and court document. These laws also allowed victims to sue the institutions that covered up for and protected the predator. For institutions such as the Catholic Church, these laws forced church officials to turn over evidence about predators who had been working in churches and schools and offending for decades.

Victims’ advocates also hail civil windows as inexpensive and effective anti-crime legislation. Cases in California and Delaware have shown that when older victims are allowed to come forward in court and unearth decades of hidden evidence, younger victims feel safer talking to law enforcement. Law enforcement then has greater ability to find, charge and jail predators.

These laws also use the civil system to effectively punish organizations in a way that criminal laws cannot, penalizing institutions like the Catholic Church for knowingly allowing molesters to prey on children. Civil judgments can also force the institution to take some financial responsibility for caring for victims, instead of pushing the entire burden of care onto over-stretched public social services–which have paid for the care of sex abuse victims and their families for dozens of years. But as victim Mary Ferrell told the Los Angeles Times in 2007, going to court has little to do with money, “I didn’t sue for the money … I would give back the money if I could have my childhood back.” Usually, survivors are worried about keeping their predators from abusing more children.

In the end, the best way to ensure child safety is to allow child sex abuse victims access to criminal courts and civil avenues for accountability. Richard Tollner from the NY Coalition to Protect Children states the case for civil windows the best: “Rape and murder in New York State have no statute of limitations–as does parking tickets. But for the sexual abuse of a child, that has to be reported before the age of 23.”

Let’s hope that New York and Pennsylvania legislators share the same common sense.

Photo from Flickr user Viv@MiVid@ under Creative Commons 2.0.

Print | Email | PDF

This living situation was not their choice.

“The years start to blur because we have to go back and forth,” said Inger in a phone interview. “We start to remember them mostly by trips.”

Inger and Philippa are one of 15 couples featured in Torn Apart: United by Love, Divided by Law, a new book by Judy Rickard that sets out to raise awareness of the unique challenges facing same-sex binational couples. Because gay marriages and partnerships are not recognized under federal law thanks to the Defense of Marriage Act–a Clinton-era law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman–Americans cannot sponsor their same-sex partners for citizenship. That means that people in long term committed relationships, sometimes with children, can be divided by oceans.

Inger and Philippa met in 2008 and formed a quick friendship based on their shared passion for tattoo art. When Philippa came to visit, that relationship began to develop into something more.

“We got along surprisingly well,” Inger recalled. “My daughter just loved her.” With the eight-year-old’s blessing, they decided to make it official.

As of December, the family has spent a total of eight months together over a span of three and a half years.

Like many others in that situation, Judy Rickard has to travel across an ocean in order to be with her partner Karin Bogliolo. Karin had to return to England after her visa expired in 2008. In her book, Judy recounts their long-distance trips visit each other–trips the women, both over 60, never planned to take.

In fact, Judy never intended to write a book. “I was hoping that Elizabeth Gilbert would,” she said.

That wasn’t just a shot in the dark: The author of Eat, Pray, Love is an ally of the movement to reform immigration polices for same-sex couples, something Judy found out from a friend who attended one of Gilbert’s readings. But Judy decided to take the plunge and write the book herself, collecting stories from friends, people she found online, and people referred to her for the project. And later, she met Gilbert at an LGBT-marriage rights event held by advocacy organization Immigration Equality and convinced her to write the foreword.

“These laws force gay and lesbian families to do nothing but fight for their lives, rather than putting their shoulder to the wheel and working for the betterment of the society. And they are in a fight for their lives,” Gilbert wrote.

For Erwin de Leon and Rev. John Beddingfield, another couple profiled in the book, the political aspect of marriage could not be avoided. The couple married in 2010 and have been together 13 years. De Leon is a doctoral student and columnist for Feet in 2 Worlds, as well as a contributor to WNYC’s It’s A Free Country and Huffington Post’s Gay Voices.

“If gay marriage had been allowed then, I would be a citizen by now,” said de Leon, who may face an untimely return to the Philippines when his Visa expires next year. And he has proof: Within six months after his mother married his stepfather in the United States, she was able to get a green card. As much as he loves his mother, he says, “there’s just something wrong there.”

The tide may be turning, albeit slowly. A recent Williams Institute study found that there are an estimated 28,500 binational same-sex couples living in the United States. The report found that 35 percent of male binational couples and 39 percent of female binational couples are raising more than 17,000 children.

The Respect for Marriage Act, would repeal DOMA, allowing same-sex couples the same marriage rights as anyone else. Until this act, or one like it, is signed into law, Inger and Philippa will be spending the holidays apart.

“It’s small things that are challenging, things that most people take for granted,” says Philippa. “You have a bad day and there’s no one to give you that much needed hug. Trips become built around not missing special occasions but inevitably that means you can’t do everything so we have to decide which are more important. Time difference means that everything has to wait unless it’s really urgent and we have to wake each other up in the middle of the night. I guess the biggest challenge is not being allowed to have any level of normalcy to a day.”

“There are still times when I turn to say something to Philippa and she’s not there, and your world just comes crashing down,” says Inger. “Of course, love has nothing to do with convenience. If it did, it wouldn’t be love.”

Sign here to urge the repeal of DOMA so that couples like Inger and Philippa be together:

A video of  Inger and Philippa by Kate Burns:

Still of Inger and Philippa from the above video.

Print | Email | PDF

Since the decision on the tapes won’t affect the outcome of the trial–although it might set important precedent about courtroom transparency–and it seems virtually impossible that the Ninth Circuit will throw out the case because Judge Walker is gay, the next big news expected out of the Ninth Circuit is the upholding of Judge Walker’s decision that California’s gay marriage ban is unconstitutional. That would be a huge victory for marriage equality.

Over the course of the trial, proponents of the marriage ban have had to show all their cards. What we’ve learned is that there are no legally defensible arguments against same-sex marriage, just outdated mumbo-jumbo about the roles of women and men within marriage. With the final ruling potentially just weeks or days away, we’re in a good position to take stock of what the trial has taught us.

LESSON ONE: UGLY CAMPAIGN TACTICS MAY WIN OVER VOTERS, BUT THEY DON’T HOLD UP IN COURT. We’ve all heard the Prop 8 campaign rhetoric. Phrases such as “protect marriage” and “defense of marriage” were  bandied about. Anti-gay-marriage ads play scary music while voice-overs bespeak the dangers of teaching children that gay marriage is okay. But when the Prop 8 proponents went to court, they made no such claims about the evils of homosexuality. And ultimately, Judge Walker took a stand against the bigotry and intolerance of the campaigns. “Moral disapproval alone,” he wrote in his decision, “is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians.” 

LESSON TWO: OPPONENTS OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE ALSO WANT TO CONTROL STRAIGHT MARRIAGES. As I wrote in 2010, when Prop 8 supporters talk about “traditional marriage” between a man and a woman and fret that marriage equality will “redefine” the institution, they are making a coded case for women’s subordination to men. Disagreeing with this view, Judge Walker ruled that marriage has evolved over time in this country and has been “transformed from a male-dominated institution into an institution recognizing men and women as equals.” He noted that it is not the state’s role to prescribe gender roles within marriage: “Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.” 

This lesson illustrates why straight people need to be paying close attention to the marriage equality debates. Most Americans don’t want the state telling them how to organize their home lives. When the Prop 8 defenders repeatedly argued in court that the state has an interest in ensuring that children will be born only to heterosexual couples joined in wedlock, they made it clear that they’re not just talking gay marriage. By their logic, the state could impose severe penalties on couples or individuals who procreate outside of marriage. Straight couples could be subject to mandatory fertility testing before being issued a marriage license. Single mothers could be forced to marry the fathers of their children.

Legalizing same-sex marriage, then, won’t just benefit gay couples; it will cement feminist reforms of the institution of marriage and ensure American citizens’ rights to sovereignty within their own households.

LESSON THREE: TIME IS ON MARRIAGE EQUALITY’S SIDE, BUT DELAYS ARE COSTLY. Sixteen long months have passed since Judge Walker concluded his decision. As appeals drag on, the delay has deep costs for Californians such as Derence Kernek, who wanted to marry his partner of over 40 years, Ed Watson. Earlier this year, he and Ed made an appeal of their own to the courts to come to a speedy decision, citing Ed’s Alzheimer’s disease as a factor that added urgency to their desire for marriage. Sadly, Ed passed away this week.

Gay marriage’s legalization is increasingly seen as a matter not of whether, but of when. Looking ahead, The New Yorker has listed the overturn of Prop 8 as one of the likely “Top Five Legal Stories of 2012” and noted that once gay marriage is legal in California, “the pace of change may accelerate.” Earlier this week, Hillary Clinton received a standing ovation when she took a strong stand in favor of LGBT rights in her address to the United Nations in recognition of International Human Rights Day. In this speech she drew a line in the sand, stating emphatically, “Gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights.” Secretary of State Clinton’s remarks indicate the extent to which the Obama administration’s views on gay rights have evolved.

Kate Kendell, Executive Director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, is optimistic:

After this week it is clear where we are headed. This country and the world can no longer discriminate against and stigmatize gay people. Keeping us out of marriage and other institutions that everyone else has access to is becoming utterly untenable. 

As we await the Ninth Circuit Court’s imminent decision, let’s find inspiration in Hillary Clinton’s words, “Those who advocate for expanding the circle of human rights were and are on the right side of history.”

Print | Email | PDF

I didn’t know Tayshana Murphy was gay. I’m from Harlem, and I like to think I’m tapped into important conversations among New York’s LGBTQ people of color communities. I learned of 18-year-old Murphy’s murder early on September 11th of this year—heard about it, in fact, from an auntie of mine before I heard it on the news. Both framed it as a modern-day Sophoclean tragedy, in which someone else’s vice brought on the fall of a rising star. Murphy, a promising athlete, was shot to death by three young men in a stairwell in the Grant housing projects in Harlem, or, as some like to say, “Morningside Heights.” Many news sources reported that she was mistakenly implicated in a dispute between Grant residents and a group of young men from the nearby Manhattanville projects. The news, like my auntie, reported Murphy’s name and that she was a star basketball player. They said that she ranked 16th in the nation, that she was singing and dancing just before her murder, and that she did well in school. They never said she was gay.

But then, three weeks after her murder, the Manhattan district attorney identified violent, homophobic comments and drawings about Murphy on the wall of the stairwell where she was killed. The D.A.’s indictment press release doesn’t mention the homophobic comments or the possibility that anti-gay hate played a role in the crime. Even the New York Times article on the Grant-Manhattanville feud, which quotes another 18-year-old woman as Murphy’s “girlfriend” leaves the issue of homophobic hate silent, focusing instead on Murphy’s foreshortened basketball career. One exuberantly homophobic blog even goes so far as to say that the love of basketball turned Murphy gay. The message of all these sources is clear: Murphy wasn’t really a black lesbian; she was an athlete. And her loss should be mourned accordingly.

Murphy’s story begs a set of questions that have needed answers for a while now. What are the relationships between athlete culture and LGBTQ identity for youth of color in 2011? Why does the principle of the open secret persist for youth athletes, even as institutional structures like Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, long convicted in the court of public opinion, have finally fallen away? And what are the roles of race in all of this? We know white men’s lives and deaths get wildly disproportionate media coverage, but what happens when responsible journalism means frank discussions of sexuality, outness, and homophobic violence? If Murphy had been white or male, would we know more of her story? And would more people know about her in general? The homophobic hate scrawl, deemed too derogatory to be repeated in public media, was found at the scene of Murphy’s murder well over a month ago, and still this story is conspicuously absent not only from news sources, but also from Facebook and all the other social forums many depend on to know what’s going on in the world. Even as we gather to Occupy economic hegemony across the hemisphere; even as we demand responsible criminalization of sexual violence and harassment through SlutWalk and take to task figures such as Herman Cain and the Penn State coaches; even as, just a year ago, we videoed, Tweeted, lit candles and cried to remind LGBT youth—and perhaps to convince ourselves—that epistemic, psychic and physical homophobic and misogynist violence somehow ‘Gets Better,’ at least for some; even with all that, still this black woman’s death and life are absent from the conversation. And that’s a problem, regardless of how Murphy identified.

I didn’t know Tayshana Murphy was gay, but many folks still don’t know a thing about her—that she was killed, who she was, that she had ever lived.

Reprinted with permission from The Feminist Wire.

Photo from Flickr user VJnet under Creative Commons 2.0.

Print | Email | PDF

Prop 8 trial watchers have been waiting almost a year for the ruling, but if you haven’t been paying close attention you’ll no doubt be confused about what this decision means. Basically, it just means that the Prop 8 ball is back in the hands of the Ninth Circuit Court.

On December 6, 2010, those judges heard testimony from both sides in the case (Prop 8 Trial Tracker live-blogged the hearing here), and afterwards the Ninth Circuit decided to look closely into the matter of standing. At issue is whether the proponents of Prop 8 could appeal Judge Walker’s decision, because the named defendant in the Prop 8 case—the governor of California—refused to defend the marriage ban. Judge Walker allowed them to do so, but the Ninth Circuit Court sent it back to the Supremes. Now the appeals court may either go along with the California Supreme Court ruling or reject its finding. Either way, the American Foundation for Equal Rights, the team that has been fighting the gay marriage ban, say that they expect a decision on the Prop 8 appeal soon.

As we’ve noted on the Ms. Blog, time is of the essence in this case, since many couples have put their lives and marriage plans on hold as they await a decision. In cases where partners are elderly or ill, the clock may run out for legal marriage before Judge Walker’s historic decision gets upheld. In the best-case scenario, the Ninth Circuit will overturn Prop 8, and same-sex couples will be free again to marry in the state of California. Also, if the Ninth Circuit decides that the proponents of Prop 8 do not have standing, then Judge Walker’s ruling will go into effect.

Kate Kendell, of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, explains why today’s ruling is both bad and good news:

We disagree profoundly with the California Supreme Court’s holding that a handful of unelected initiative sponsors have the power to represent the interests of the entire public and to override the decisions of the state’s elected executive officers. Nonetheless, we are relieved that the case is once again moving forward and the Ninth Circuit will now address whether the initiative proponents can continue this appeal and, if so, whether Prop 8 is constitutional. We hope the Ninth Circuit will issue its decision soon and hasten the day when this damaging law is off the books. Every day that goes by, same-sex couples in California are being denied not only the basic right to marry, but the right to be treated with equal dignity and respect. Same-sex couples in California have lived under the shadow of this unfair law for far too long.

Stay tuned for more updates on this historic case.

Photo from Flickr user Fibonacci Blue under Creative Commons 2.0.

Print | Email | PDF

I’m talking, of course, of community support for Penn State’s coaching staff, particularly head football coach Joe Paterno, who was fired for protecting defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky, who now stands accused of 40 counts of sexual abuse.

Shockingly, it’s not especially unusual for communities to rally around perpetrators over victims.

At least when the perps are powerful.

And that all reflects what’s typical of rape culture.

In 2008 a 16-year-old high school cheerleader in a small Texas town said she was raped at a post-game party by Rakheem Bolton, a member of the basketball team. He and two friends forced her into a room to commit the assault. When others tried to get into the room the men fled. Bolton left clothing behind and threatened the homeowner when he refused to return them. Bolton eventually pled guilty to a lesser charge.

School officials responded by asking the cheerleader to avoid the school cafeteria and homecoming activities. And then they kicked her off the cheerleading squad for refusing to root for her rapist. She sued the district attorney, the school district and the principal, but an appeals court ruled against her.

In the summer of 2004 three varsity members of the Mepham High School football team were sexually abused at training camp. The young men were sodomized with pine cones, broom handles and golf balls which had all been coated with a mineral ice that causes severe pain.

Many of the witnesses felt terrible about what had happened. Yet they kept silent.

When the national press broke the story, the community defended the players and coaches. Parents of the abused boys were threatened with death if they pressed charges. Campus rallies were held for the team. When the school administration cancelled football season, Mepham students felt that they had been victimized.

And now, an assistant coach for the Syracuse University basketball team, Bernie Fine, has been accused of molesting two ball boys, Bobby Davis and his step brother Mike Lang. Davis alleges that head coach Jim Boeheim saw Fine molesting him in a hotel room and did nothing. In response, Boeheim has called the two victims–now grown men–money-grubbing liars.

A culture of entitlement, silence and protection lies behind all of the above, says Michael Kimmel, one of the nation’s leading researchers and writers on men and masculinity.

Sports stars are prone to feeling entitled, with schools, coaches, professors and even the police covering for their mishaps and crimes. After all, if the team is damaged, so is the school. And people’s identities are closely tied to their teams.

And so when the Penn State Board of Trustees announced Coach Paterno’s firing, fans became incensed:

• You said Coach Paterno was fired “in the best interests of the university.” Can you define in the best interests of the university?
  
• Why was Coach Paterno informed about his firing over the phone?
  
• Was any consideration given as to how this would affect the football program?

Allen Barra over at Salon has an answer:

The football program? The football program?? Are you serious? A former assistant coach was just indicted for over 40 counts related to sexual assault on a child… crimes against humanity — against children — took place in the university’s athletic facilities…

So don’t worry about the football team. Worry about the fact that from now on, whenever the name of Penn State is mentioned, people all over the country — make that all over the world — will be sneering, snickering or spitting. Worry that a long period of penance and healing must begin, and that your actions are delaying this process.

Here we have selfish and shortsighted people who can only think about themselves, and not the pain of others, but who actually work against their own interests in the process—both in terms of how they look and the state of their souls.

So long as we continue cultures of entitlement, silence and protection, we continue our culture of rape.

Originally posted at Broad Blogs and cross-posted at Daily Kos.

Photo of a boy watching a football game by flickr user Ed Yourdon under Creative Commons 2.0

Print | Email | PDF

Ms. Blog readers will recall the recent indictment of Bishop Robert Finn of the Kansas City (Mo.)-St. Joseph’s Catholic diocese, making him the most superior member of the Roman Catholic Church in the U.S. to be charged with a crime related to abuse by priests. The misdemeanor charge against Finn is that he failed to report that a priest under his jurisdiction, Shawn Ratigan, had pornographic pictures of young girls on his computer.

But that news has now been followed by this: Bishop Finn has made a pact with the prosecuting attorney of Clay County, Mo., Daniel White, in an effort to avoid prosecution on the misdemeanor or face further charges.

The New York Times reported that, for the next five years, Bishop Finn will meet on a monthly basis with a county prosecutor to report all and any suspicious activity regarding priests and sexual abuse. Terms of the contract state that if the bishop breaks the contract of this diversion program, the misdemeanor charges could be imposed.

Print | Email | PDF

It’s pretty clear that the time has come to repeal DOMA. When DOMA was passed, no one was affected because no one was legally married, because no state had passed a law. That’s changed now.

In the six states plus the District of Columbia where same-sex marriage is legal, 131,000 gay and lesbian couples are now legally wed. As that number continues to grow, the disconnect between the federal law outlawing gay marriage and state laws legalizing it is becoming increasingly unsustainable.

For one thing, DOMA causes knotty problems for businesses when they dispense employee benefits. In fact, 70 businesses and professional organizations filed an amicus brief [PDF] in the Massachussets case challenging DOMA, complaining that the federal law forces them to become the “face of … discrimination” in states where same-sex marriage is illegal. The signatories, who include Xerox, CBS, Aetna, Time Warner, NIKE, Starbucks, Google and Microsoft, write:

In the modern workplace, the employer becomes the face of DOMA’s discriminatory treatment, and is placed in the role of intrusive inquisitor, imputer of taxable income, withholder of benefits. The employer is thus forced by DOMA to participate in the injury of its own workforce morale.

They further chastise the federal government for placing them in a precarious legal bind by forcing them to discriminate:

The American enterprise is accustomed to statutory regimes that are either silent as to, or prohibitive of, workplace discrimination. But a regimen that forces it to discriminate imposes subtle, but real risk.

What this brief acknowledges–that DOMA supporters do not–is the distress and confusion caused by the federal gay marriage ban. (See my Five Questions to Ask Defenders of DOMA from last week.)

DOMA defenders are also stubbornly unwilling to recognize the reality that same-sex marriage is here to stay. In voting against the Respect for Marriage Act yesterday, marriage-equality opponent Sen. John Cornyn offered the following cynical analysis:

Knowing that this bill will never become law in this Congress, I think [today's vote is] a transparent appeal to a special interest group that our Democratic friends believe is a key to their electoral victory in 2012.

Let’s look at who comprises the “special interest group” Senator Cornyn refers to. In addition to business interests, according to a Pew Study released last week, 59 percent of Millennials, 50 percent of Gen X-ers and the growing majority of Americans favor the legalization of gay marriage.

Even though Senate Republicans are expected to filibuster the Respect for Marriage Act, which is what Senator Cornyn means when he says that Congress will “never” vote it into law, pressure to repeal DOMA shows no signs of letting up. Senator Al Franken, member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a champion of the marriage equality bill, celebrated yesterday’s victory, telling the press:

This is a good day and it is one step on an inexorable march and I think that’s because we’ve seen in America a real change in attitude.

Supporters of DOMA need to wake up and realize that this law does nothing to prevent same-sex couples from marrying in states that permit them to do so. DOMA unjustly discriminates against lesbians and gay men. Congress needs to follow Senator Feinstein’s lead and pass the Respect for Marriage Act. Or, if John Cornyn is right, maybe that broad-based “special interest group” will bring in some new players in 2012 to get the job done.

To voice your support for marriage equality, you can sign this Change.org petition:

Photo by flickr user Fibonacci Blue under Creative Commons 2.0

Print | Email | PDF