The Supreme Court’s Decisions and the New Mason-Dixon Line

I have not posted here for several months and I will address that in my next post; however, I want to resume my blog commenting on yesterday’s significant developments.

Yesterday the long awaited decisions from the U. S. Supreme Court were finally announced. The first decision on DOMA was a substantive, although only a partial, victory. It was substantive because Section 3 of DOMA was struck down. The practical effect of this is that couples who are married in one of the states that recognizes full marriage equality for all of its citizens, will now have their marriages legally recognized by the Federal government.

Real world, this means they can file joint tax returns; in fact, they can amend their tax returns for the last 3 years, provided of course that they were legally married in a state that legally recognized their marriage. It means Social Security benefits for married partners. It means health care benefits. It means that persons married to someone in the military will now have access to base housing, spousal benefits and can be buried next to their husband/wife in a military cemetery. It means BI-national couples will not suffer the deportation of their other half by the INS. All of this and a myriad of other rights and obligations too numerous to list here.

For Californians, Prop 8 is finally dead, well almost. It will take 25 days for the U. S. Supreme Court’s decision to be officially communicated to the Ninth Circuit Court. Upon that official communication, the Ninth Circuit will then lift its stay on the decision that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. Governor Jerry Brown and the California Attorney General have already instructed all 58 counties in our state to immediately begin to issue Marriage Licenses once these legal technicalities are fulfilled. We should have Marriage Equality practically restored in California by the middle or end of July.

Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) had predicted a “HUGE” victory at the Supreme Court. He was correct, but for Marriage Equality and not for continued legal discrimination against LGBT people.

All of these developments are cause for joy and celebration. I recall being there at the corner of Santa Monica Boulevard and San Vincente in 2008 when the evil, and now defunct, Prop 8 was declared legal. We marched from that corner up to Sunset Boulevard and then on to Crescent Heights and back down to Santa Monica. In a humorous aside my partner and I found ourselves at the head of the crowd. We decided to walk back to the parking lot where our car was, not realizing that thousands of people were following us up the small side street. That little gaff provided a much appreciated, and needed, moment of laughter in an otherwise difficult night.

Yesterday streets were closed down here in LA, and other places across California and America. This time it was not to protest an evil injustice; but rather to mark and celebrate the achievement of a milestone for justice and human dignity. Such celebrations were more than warranted, as Thea’s partner and survivor said to journalists: “If I had to survive Thea, what a glorious way to do so!” Her love and wife were FINALLY recognized as valid and full citizens with the same equal rights and dignity that we all deserve! FINALLY!

Therein, however, lies the rub. Not everyone is equal. Proponents of injustice and inequality bellowed that 37 states deny those very rights to their subjects (citizens). They love to count their seemingly superior numbers; however, they conveniently overlook the populations of marriage equality v. discriminatory states. There are TWO Americas. I thought back to my 5th grade history class with Mrs. Martse, she explained the Mason-Dixon line to our class. It was an arbitrary line across America. A compromise, a way to accommodate two desperate views of humanity within a divided political reality.

The idea that an entire group of human beings can be abused, dehumanized, vilified and denied fundamental civil rights is not a new idea. The fact that other human beings can be so devoid of both empathy and wisdom, and create artificial justifications for such abuse of others, is a recurring tragedy within human history. Yet, here we are-again and so, while I rejoice that I live in a “Free” state, I lament that we live in a nation that is still half enslaved.

The words of President Lincoln speaking to this reality in his day, came to mind yesterday:

"A house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved; I do not expect the house to fall; but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other.

His words provide comfort and hope; but simultaneously they are a call to action until all of us in all 50 states, and internationally, are free. A Yale law school professor yesterday commented that the Supreme Court decision on DOMA will inevitably lead to full equality throughout America within five years. In principle that seems true; however, it takes blood, sweat and tears to translate principles into laws. It takes generations of such perseverance to then translate laws into social attitudes. Other people in other ages have overcome injustices and malicious prejudices, we will too and for the very same reason: because we have no other choice.

Dolan attempts Re-defining “Religious Liberty” for America.

I live in a heavily Jewish neighborhood in Los Angeles. Every Friday I see many of my neighbors walking (it is not permitted to drive on the Sabbath) with their families. Some of them wear clothing that would have been used in nineteenth century Eastern Europe. Some men simply wear conservative suits and yamaka their wives dressed in black or dark blue ankle length dresses.


My next-door neighbor is an Evangelical Protestant. Every Sunday, he and his wife, dutifully climb into their SUV and drive to their church for worship. The Buddhists down the block own a Thai restaurant and have a neatly manicured lawn. There is a gay couple a few doors down the street, one is an agnostic and the other is an atheist. There is a Church of Religious Science located at the end of our street. The Minister and his partner (a Roman Catholic) came to dinner a few weeks ago.


When I think of “Religious liberty” I think of my neighborhood in LA. Religious Liberty for me, and many Americans, means that you are free to follow your own conscience on matters of belief. That no one, no institution and most certainly not the government have the right or the power to dictate to you what you may or may not believe, or what dietary or adult consensual sexual practices you may or may not engage in predicated on those beliefs.


The Buddhist couple, although they are vegetarians, serve meat dishes to their customers who wish to purchase and eat meat. The local supermarket stocks and sells both kosher foods and bacon. When the city repaved our street, the Religious Science Church down the block offered its parking lot to local residents, so that they had a place to park their cars. They did not require us to convert to Religious Science for that convenience. Occasionally Jehovah Witnesses ring the doorbell, I am polite but have absolutely no desire or intention of joining their religion. The Hasidic Jews have not threatened to burn down the Religious Science Church because the Minster is gay and has a male partner.


I would be offended and vocal, if any of my neighbors were attacked or maligned because of their beliefs, or if some entity attempted to force them to change their beliefs. I hope my neighbors would also stand by me, if I were attacked or maligned due to my beliefs, or some entity attempted to forcibly change my beliefs. That is my understanding of “Religious Liberty.” However, Archbishop Dolan of New York City, the current president of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops [NCCB] has a radically different understanding of “Religious Liberty.”


“Citing the famous preamble to the Declaration of Independence, Dolan wrote that the rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are now "increasingly and in unprecedented ways under assault in America" because of administration policies.”


He goes on to list six items he believes impinge on “Religious Liberty.” These include:


1. Proposed regulations that requires private health insurers to cover contraceptives for patients who wish to use contraceptives.

2. Proposed requirements those religious aid groups, who accept federal money, to include condoms in their HIV prevention campaigns.

3. Dolan claims that “the religious conscience exemptions” in the proposals from the Department of Human Services “are not broad enough.”

4. Dolan also cites the administration's challenge to the "ministerial exception" rule, which will be argued Wednesday (Oct. 5) at the U.S. Supreme Court, which could determine whether churches have to conform to employment discrimination laws for workers who are not clergy.

5. Dolan also blasted the White House's decision not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

6. Dolan voiced frustration that neither he nor the previous USCCB president, Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, received responses to private letters sent to Obama. Dolan said that's partly why he decided to take the feud public.




Essentially, Dolan wants,


1. For your health insurance NOT to cover the cost of contraceptives that you chose to use.

2. To use your tax dollars as he wishes, without requirements attached for the use of public funds.

3. To be able to invoke “religious conscience exemptions” at will and at his personal discretion.

4. To apply “ministerial exception” not only to clergy, but also to secretaries, gardeners, custodians, bookkeepers, choir directors, musicians, housekeepers, accountants, security guards, and any other person employed by the Church. That means these employees, as a condition of their continued employment, had better agree with the NCCB.

5. The NCCB not elected representatives, to decide policy decision and civil law.

6. The President of the United States (and all other elected officials and Judges) to “consult” privately with the NCCB in the formation/implementation of laws.

Where did the Roman Catholic Hierarchy get the idea that they have the right and the power to do all of this stuff? The Emperor Constantine and fifteen centuries of dictating moral laws in Europe and Catholic colonies. Oh, and that little exercise of over ruling the California State Supreme Court on Prop 8 (with a huge check written by the Mormon Church's leadership in Salt Lake City).

Thankfully, President Obama and the Federal government are choosing to follow the example of most Roman Catholics (and many Catholic theologians/priests) and simply ignore Archbishop Dolan, the NCCB and the Vatican. True Religious Liberty grants religious entities the freedom to make the laws of their religion, which may be voluntarily followed by their believers, but it does not grant them the power to dictate the law of the land, so far.

How to beat John Eastman, NOM's new spokesperson, in public debate

The Associated Press reports the following, re-printed by the Huffington Post:


"A law school professor from Southern California was named Thursday as the new chairman of the National Organization for Marriage, one of the most active groups opposed to the legalization of same-sex marriage.
John Eastman, a professor and former dean at Chapman University Law School in Orange, Calif., will replace NOM's co-founder, Maggie Gallagher, who will remain a member of the board while devoting some of her time to finishing a book about the same-sex marriage debate.


Eastman, a former clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, ran unsuccessfully last year for state attorney general in California, though he did garner support from some tea party activists."




In confronting John Eastman, the new spokesperson for NOM, I would suggest using material presented in Professors Salzman and Lawler’s recent book, “The Sexual Person.” ISBN: 9781589012080 (1589012089)


The Huffington Post re-published an interesting article by Phyllis Zangano on “The Sexual Person” on 29 September 2010,



"Salzman and Lawler's dense academic argument turns traditional Catholic teaching on natural law on its head. They redefine natural law, saying "nature" is personal and individual, and that sexual activity need not be directed at procreation (contrary to what the Catholic Church has always said).

Salzman and Lawler argue that what is "natural" for a heterosexual is not "natural" for a homosexual, and therefore homosexuals and heterosexuals must act in accord with their personal "natures".

In other words, if it's "natural" for a homosexual to perform homosexual acts, then--for that person--heterosexual acts would be "unnatural" and immoral. For the two professors, homosexual activity is only immoral for the heterosexual acting against his or her nature."


Georgetown University Press offers this review, for more click here,


"Two principles capture the essence of the official Catholic position on the morality of sexuality: first, that any human genital act must occur within the framework of heterosexual marriage; second, each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life. In this comprehensive overview of Catholicism and sexuality, theologians Todd A. Salzman and Michael G. Lawler examine and challenge these principles. Remaining firmly within the Catholic tradition, they contend that the church is being inconsistent in its teaching by adopting a dynamic, historically conscious anthropology and worldview on social ethics and the interpretation of scripture while adopting a static, classicist anthropology and worldview on sexual ethics."


Professors Salzman and Lawler’s work is a very important tool in our battle for Full Federal Legal Equality, because “Natural Law” arguments form the philosophical foundation for Anti-Equality laws and policies. Salzman and Lawler's arguments transform Natural Law into our ally for full Equality and should be required reading for anyone debating John Eastman, Robert George and other NOM spokespersons.

The Day (and work) after the "End of DADT" Celebrations

As I drove home during LA rush hour traffic I was listening to National Public Radio news. The news commentator observed that the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen had been an important advocate for the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, especially in his testimony on several occasions last year on Capitol Hill.


At a news conference held on the day the repeal took effect, Politico reports
the following comments by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Admiral Mullen,


“Today is really about every man and woman who serves this country, every man and woman in uniform, regardless of how they define themselves,” Mullen said. “Tomorrow they’ll all get up, they’ll all go to work, and they’ll all be able to do that work honestly.”



Asked about how the military can guard members of the military against harassment and violence against gays, Panetta noted that the military has a “zero tolerance” with regards to harassment and that military leaders must be on the lookout for potential problems that arise.




I think that the Admiral’s words are the clearest expression of what is at the heart of our struggle for Full Federal Legal rights and protection. It really is simply about people, ALL people including LBGT people, being able to get up in the morning, go to work and live their lives (and relationships) in peace. Without harassment and violence.


Yesterday, we took a significant step forward towards that ultimate goal. It was an imperfect step, transgendered people are not protected by the repeal of DADT and gay/lesbian service member’s spouses/domestic partners are not granted the same rights and privileges of their heterosexual counterparts. However, it was a historic step forward, not only for the Armed Forces and their members but also, for American society.


When I arrived home I found the following article posted to my Facebook wall,


Jamey Rodemeyer, 14, Dies in Suicide


Another tragic reminder that bullying against gay youth is a continuing problem comes with the suicide of a 14-year-old boy, Jamey Rodemeyer, who had asked for help repeatedly.


The repeal of DOMA and the passage of ENDA are necessary and important next steps in our struggle for Full Federal Legal Rights. However, while we work to recapture the House of Representatives and secure victories in November of 2012 that will make such legislation possible, we can and must work on the grassroots level to advance Anti-Bullying laws.


You can be part of this effort by attending your local PTA meetings, School Board meetings and becoming informed, involved and advocate for Anti-Bullying Laws. Write local officials letters, with a postage stamp, members of Congress actually pay much more attention to real letters from constituents than to E-mails.


Anti-Bullying laws will help to avoid tragedies like the one posted above. Remember how you felt when you were very young and first discovered that you were “different?” Remember how alone and powerless you felt? You can be a voice for the voiceless. You can personally make a real and immediate difference in this battle. Finally, Anti-Bullying laws will help all the “letters” in our alphabet soup.

DADT Repeal, Part of Full Federal Legal Equality.

"The President-Elect has promised to lift the ban on homosexuals serving in the U.S. Armed Forces. What we are going to do here today is brainstorm about policy changes that we will make in the Air Force after the ban is lifted."


Through my peripheral vision I saw Airmen manning recording equipment and I looked down at that dime-sized microphone at my desk. I looked around the room at approximately fifty young officers, each at an identical desk also equipped with a dime-sized microphone. I raised my hand and said, "Major, until the Uniform Code of Military Justice is amended we are not free to speculate on policy changes." The Major paused and said, "That is correct." That was the end of the exercise.


Years later, I learned that similar exercises were held at various military bases. Many of those who offered policy recommendations in favor of accommodating homosexuals had their careers “negatively impacted.”


In those heady days, many of us believed that President-Elect Clinton would lift the ban. National Healthcare was given priority and all we got was DADT and DOMA. Still, LGBT people were thrilled that the President mentioned us at all. Oh, we never got National Healthcare either, even now we only have a partially implemented Healthcare Reform Act. Arguably, this is better than what we had, but still far less than Single Payor, or a National Healthcare Plan. So much for bi-partisan cooperation.


The cost of DADT was paid for in destroyed careers and ruined lives of countless members of our Armed Forces. Most of those costs will never be recouped. Moreover, gay and lesbian military personnel were forced to live double lives in the shadow of fear. DADT was a lie. Everyday at the water cooler people talked about whom they were dating. About their wives and husbands. About what they were doing on the weekend, or on leave. Gay and lesbian had to do what they had learned to do as adolescents, what they had learned as a survival mechanism, they had to lie. Heterosexual service members were quite free to Ask and Tell, gay and lesbian service members were not.


Pronouns were changed and reasons were fabricated as to why they were still single, why they chose to live off base. Worse still, some entered into sham marriages in order to protect their careers. I recall one such marriage that ended shortly after the military member reached his twenty years of service. Suddenly, his wife discovered that her husband was gay and that he was divorcing her. DADT had straight victims too.


Thankfully all that ends on Tuesday 20 September 2011 for most of our military. Most, not all, transgendered members of the Armed Forces are still at risk. They must still remain hidden. They are still required to lie merely to survive. At a talk I gave tonight, someone stated that we should have held out for “all or nothing!”


Although I empathized with the person’s zeal for justice, I quoted my old Political Science professor who said, “The reasons why liberals seldom win, is that they want the whole loaf of bread. In politics, you’re lucky to get one-third or one-half of what you want.” The repeal of DADT is imperfect for many reasons.


It is imperfect because it does nothing for transgendered members of the Armed Forces. It is also imperfect because spouses/domestic partners of gay/lesbian service members are not entitled to base housing, insurance benefits, etc. There is still much more work to be done, more battles for equality to be fought.


I think that the frustrations with incrementalism in our community are both reasonable and unreasonable. They are reasonable in that some LGBT organizations have used incrementalism as a license for inaction. One woman used to make a substantial donation to the Cancer Society every year and then, one year, she suddenly stopped her donations. Her son asked her why she stopped. The woman answered, “I discovered that they were only funding research for treatments and not research for cures.” If they found a cure, there would no longer be a need for the Cancer Society, or for continued donations and fund-raisers. Not to mention all the salaried positions. Some LGBT organizations might be afraid that the attainment of Full Federal Legal Equality would render them obsolete. Full Equality would mean an end to the donations and fundraisers that make possible all those salaried positions and benefits packages they currently enjoy. Incrementalism in this light is politically cynical and ethically indefensible.


Incrementalism in President Harry S. Truman’s Executive order desegregating the U.S. Civil Service and Armed Forces did little to immediately end segregation in this country. However, the Armed Forces socialize young enlistees from all over the nation and those enlistees bring their new thinking back to Hometown, USA. Truman’s act changed America’s culture and laid the groundwork for the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1954 and the Civil Right Act of 1964. In that light, the repeal of DADT is an ominous defeat for the forces of social bigotry they understand that this will affect all of American society.


It may also be argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was incrementalism. Since it failed to address the issue of housing discrimination based on race. Title VIII of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 addressed that, but without the Civil Rights Act of 1964 there would have been no Fair Housing Act of 1968. In that sense, incrementalism is an intelligent and necessary strategy. We take a third of the loaf of bread today and then fight for fourth of the rest of the loaf tomorrow and so on, until we have the whole loaf. The NAACP still has much work to do today, even though Civil Rights have come a very long way since Dr. King delivered his “I have a dream” speech at the feet of Lincoln’s statue. There will still be many generations of work ahead for LGBT organizations, long after Full Federal Legal Equality is attained.


We still have to pass ENDA and repeal DOMA. We still have to fight for those in our community who have not yet benefited from the repeal of DADT. Some of these battles will be fought by attorneys in courtrooms, some by you at the ballot box and in your conversations with family members, co-workers and in social settings.


Although imperfect, the repeal of DADT represents substantive progress for our community. Today is a day to draw strength from this battle victory by celebrating this encouraging step forward towards greater legal equality. Even after full federal legal equality and protection for our community is achieved, we will have to continue to work and fight for full social equality.

Easter Spring Cleaning in NYC's Saint Patrick's Cathedral

This Sunday 24 April 2011 is Easter Sunday. A group of LGBTQ people, both Catholics and non-Catholics, intend to meet in front of Saint Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City.


Why? In their own words,


“Right here in New York, Archbishop Timothy Dolan and other Bishops and other Catholics of New York State will travel to Albany to lobby state leaders on March 8 to, among other things, ‘’oppose efforts to redefine marriage.’’ It should come as no surprise, but the Pope recently said that no one has an absolute right to be married. More laws or doctrines that discriminate can only contribute to a culture of hate and violence.”



Some will attempt to depict this peaceful protest in support of LGBTQ Civil Rights as “an anti-Catholic attack” targeting Saint Patrick’s Cathedral on the Holiest Day in the Catholic calendar.


The reality is that it is Archbishop Dolan and other Catholic bishops who are out of step with the vast majority of Catholics. It is their relentless and unjust attacks on members of their own flocks, that constitute an “anti-Catholic and anti-human attack.” It is they who blaspheme the Holy Day, as Jesus said, “I ask you, is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath or evil? To preserve life or destroy it?” [Luke 6: 9]


These homophobic attacks on the Civil Rights of LGBTQ Catholics, their dependents and their loved ones, are what are truly anti-Catholic and anti-human. Denying people with same-sex orientation the right to a Civil Marriage, not only robs them of over 1,000 legal protections, rights and obligations associated with Civil Marriage. Dolan and American bishops are supporting a system of Apartheid laws that effectively condone bigotry and stigmatization of people with same-sex orientation in American culture. The Center for Disease Control “Youth as Risk Study” of 1999 states that 33% of gay adolescents attempt suicide, Last years spate of suicides by LGBTQ students was a chilling reminder of the power of hate in our society. Jesus’ words about taking a life on the Sabbath are not mere hyperbole in this matter.


Archbishop Dolan and many of America’s bishops are accomplices to this hatred. Polls demonstrate that they do not speak for the vast majority of American Catholics on this issue. Dolan & Co. attempt to further the cause of bigotry by attempting to unduly influence elected officials, they support hate organizations like the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) headed by Maggie Gallagher.


As Jesus said of religious officials of his day, “Their words are bold but their deeds are few. They bind up heavy loads, hard to carry, to lay on other men’s shoulders, while they themselves will not lift a finger to budge them. All their works are performed to be seen. They widen their phylacteries and wear huge tassels. They are fond of places of honor at banquets and the front seats in synagogues.” [Matthew 23: 4-6]


Archbishop Dolan knows all too well, that if he wants to become “Cardinal” Dolan, then he must “persuade” New York’s State Elected Officials to legislate what Benedict XVI wants as law for the citizens of New York State.



The irony about the Church’s overt homophobia is illustrated in Tim Unsworth’s book, “The Last Priests in America” (New York: Crossroad, 1991) on page 248, Unsworth states,


“An NBC report on celibacy out of Chicago stated ‘anywhere from 23 percent to 58 percent’ of the Catholic clergy have a homosexual orientation. A newly ordained priest from a large, multidiocesean seminary believes that at least half his classmates were gay, and a gay Catholic layman, who frequents gay bars in his city stated, ‘I just can’t go into a gay bar without meeting at least one priest….I’m told that the diocese punishes its diocesan priests if they’re seen in a gay bar. That’s terribly ironic since some of the ones meting out the punishments are gay themselves.’ A.W. Richard Sipe’s estimate is that by the year 2010, if the present trend continues, the majority of the clergy will be homosexual.”



Speaking the truth is never an offense against God, or authentic spirituality. Not speaking the truth, especially on Easter Sunday, does constitute such an offense.


What can you do?

1. If you are in, or near New York City on this Easter Sunday join in this peaceful demonstration for Civil Rights and Human Dignity.

2. Write a letter to the Editor in your local newspaper expressing your support for this action.

3. Encourage family and friends who live in the NYC area to participate in this Action.

4. Publicize this Action.

DOMA is Cruel, Discriminatory, and Unconstitutional

Here’s Rep. Jerry Nadler’s opening statement. Nadler has introduced the “Respect for Marriage Act,” a bill that would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.






DOMA is immoral, because it is (as is all bigotry against LGBTQ people) based on irrational hatred of a minority group within society. It is immoral because it unjustly targets, stigmatizes and penalizes same sex couples. It does this with an obstinate and cavalier disregard for both the findings of science and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Representative succinctly drives home this point as he quotes from the Congressional Record and explains the bigotry that motivated legislators to enact this law. As Rep. Nadler said,



“The Congressional record makes perfectly clear, that DOMA is intended to express moral disapproval of gay men, lesbians and their families. Representative Henry Hyde, then Chairman of this Committee, for example declared, “Most people do not approve of homosexual conduct and they express their disapprobation through [enactment of] the law [DOMA].” During floor debate of the law representatives expressed disapproval of homosexuality as being immoral, or depraved and argued that allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry would demean and trivialize heterosexual marriage and might prove to be, “The final blow against the American family.”


This evidence of the intent of the law being to discriminate against a specific group of people, based on prejudice against them, or disapproval of that group, on pure animus [hatred against them] is presumptive evidence of denial of Equal Protection [the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution] and of the need for Heightened Scrutiny. The Administration so concluded and that conclusion compelled the determination that the law [DOMA] could never survive Heightened Scrutiny and therefore could not be defended as to its constitutionality.”




Representative Nadler specifically used the term “immoral” in describing DOMA and by implication, the intent of legislators who enacted this immoral law. I believe that Rep. Nadler is both correct and temperate in his statements regarding DOMA. Nadler joins Federal Judges, such Walker, Senators, members of Congress, and even Republican former California Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, in their opposition to bigoted laws like DOMA and Prop 8.


Proponents of such bigoted laws are unable to offer any compelling reason for denying military service, marriage, and employment non-discrimination protection to LGBTQ people. Their political obstruction of such Civil Rights for LGBTQ human beings stem not from reason, but from hatred, ignorance and fear. Their segregation of LGBTQ people is not, as they claim, motivated out of a desire to “protect marriage, or children,” but out of hatred for a minority group who they intensely dislike and which they want to force to be like them, or at least invisible.

God Save the President?

The British system of government distinguishes between a Head of State and a Head of Government. The Queen is the Head of State and as such, she presides at State banquets, receives foreign dignitaries, and officiates at ribbon cutting ceremonies, generally smiles, and waves at the masses. The Prime Minister is the Head of Government and as such sets budget priorities, decides foreign policy, directs the Armed Forces and leads Great Britain on a practical level. The Prime Minister has to role his/her sleeves up and does the dirty work of politics, the dirty work of governing. Unlike the Queen, who is above all that and simply presides graciously and serenely as a paternal/neutral mascot.


In the United States of America, the President is BOTH the Head of State and the Head of Government, at least until Barack Obama assumed the office of President. Take the current budget crisis that threatens to shut down the federal government for example. Democrats on Capitol Hill are frustrated that the President only became directly involved in budget negotiations this week. Democratic members of Congress feel that he needed to be in the fight a few weeks ago.


All of this is déjà vu with Obama; remember the Health Care Public Option fight? In his State of the Union address before both houses of Congress, Obama gave away “Single Payor” even before the battle for Universal Health Care began. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had to do the dirty and hard work of governing, i.e. pushing the legislation forward. Only at the last-minute after the idea of a Public Option had been scraped and even modest Health Insurance Reform seemed doomed, did Obama deign to become directly involved and get his hands dirty.


The same can be said of DADT, ENDA and now DOMA. ENDA could have been passed and become the law of the land by the 111th Congress, if Obama had pushed for it. DADT could have been repealed last summer, if Obama had pushed for it. Instead, his subordinate, Secretary of Defense Gates argued before the Senate Armed Services Committee to postpone repeal until another redundant report on repeal was issued on 1 December 2010. Conveniently, that report would come out one month after Mid-Term Elections in November. DOMA was declared unconstitutional by Judge Virginia Phillips, yet Obama (until very recently) directed his subordinates at the Department of Justice to fight to defend DOMA in the courts. Obama would prefer to appear for a cameo shot at a signing ceremony after all the “politicians” have hammered out a “done deal,” a deal that is politically popular in the polls and “safe.”


Compare/contrast with how Republicans govern when they control the Presidency, e.g. “W” and the invasion of Iraq, Gitmo, the Patriot Act, etc. After his Election in 2004 “W” famously said, “I have political capital and I intend to use it.” Obama prefers to remain serenely above it all, the great reasonable compromiser who will listen to both sides and negotiate a “reasonable settlement” acceptable to both parties.


Obama is, like Queen Elizabeth II, an outstanding Head of State. He delivers inspirational and moving speeches. He possesses a commanding public presence that projects confidence, strength and poise. He, like a young Elizabeth II, is attractive and, like the present day Elizabeth II, is dignified. Like the Queen, Obama fills the room and fills hearts with hope in the face of adversity.


The problem for both Obama and for the Americans that voted for him is that in the United States, being the Head of State is only half the job. On a practical level, it seems that in the 2012 Election Americans will have a choice between a Centrist Republican and a Right-wing Republican for President. Now, who benefits from such a voter choice?


The real winners, yet again, will be the Corporations that fund (bribe) politicians. These Corporations view social issues as an entertaining distraction meant to draw voter attention away from the need for an effective energy policy, finance reform, universal health care and a foreign/military policy that represents the interests of the American people and not of Multi-national Corporations.

United we will win Full Equality.

Back in January/February of 2010, I was one of the founding Board Members of “Catholics For Equality.” I later resigned from the Board of Directors of that organization for several reasons. However, one of the good ideas in the nescient stage of that organization was that it would serve as a “holding company” for many and varied Catholic LGBTQ organizations. It would be able to provide a rapid response to any Anti-LGBTQ legislative/media attacks by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. It would also be able to conduct media campaigns and coordinate legislative efforts in our quest for full equality.


This last weekend I attended several receptions for differing LGBTQ organizations in Washington DC. In a conversation with a journalist, we lamented the fact that different LGBTQ organizations often work at cross-purposes. Most recently in the legislative battle in Maryland, some LGBTQ organizations refused to share data base information with other LGBTQ organizations that were attempting to mobilize voters. If only we had a “holding company” for all the major LGBTQ organizations. Let’s call it, “Equality Now,” for the sake of convenience.


The Board of Directors of Equality Now would be comprised of the Executive Directors of the major LGBTQ organizations. The Board would meet quarterly and, although these proceedings would be confidential, transcripts would be kept and later be made public, as are done with Presidential papers. Let’s say, seven years. This would assure transparency and accountability from Board Members/Organizations for their words and actions/inaction.


The Board would also oversee particular campaigns as required by circumstances (e.g. legislative battles such as the one in Maryland, ballot initiatives in the various states, etc.). The fact that the existence of something like “Equality Now” would be publicly known, would go a long way in helping to coordinate and unite our community in the many battles yet to come. Public knowledge of this organization would also serve to lift morale and provide focus for our community, as we fight for full legal equality on the Federal level and then, later in the battles for full social inclusion.


We need to address some of the issues that have divided our community in the past and now in the present. Two comments that I have often heard are:


SOME LGBTQ ORGANIZATIONS ARE MORE INTERESTED IN POLITICAL CLOUT AND MONEY THAN IN EQUALITY.


Some flagship LGBTQ organizations stand accused of compromising with politicians for the sake of access and the purported “influence” that such access provides. Some have gone so far as to assert that these flagship organizations’ worst nightmare would be the immediate certification/repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell [DADT], the repeal of the “so-called” Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA] and the passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act [ENDA]. The rationale for such an assertion is that if we attained full legal equality today, these organizations would lose their funding and go out of business tomorrow.


President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964 and the NAACP did not cease to exist the next day. Sadly, long after we win full legal equality we will still have many struggles and much work to accomplish before we end social bigotry against LGBTQ people in this nation.


SOME LGBTQ EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS MAKE SIX-FIGURE SALARIES AND LIVE LAVISH LIFESTYLES.



Years ago my niece required very delicate neurosurgery. There was a high risk that the surgery would only be partially effective and that she might lose some cognitive and speech functions. The surgeon worked for many hours and my niece came out of the surgery with her faculties intact. I do not care how much money that surgeon makes a year, in fact I hope that he is very generously paid. There is a Spanish saying, “Save on the physician, spend on the mortician.” Free/cheap is not always better and in fact can be a false economy. “You get what you pay for.” Is a good rule of thumb, provided of course, that you actually get what you pay for.


Frankly, it is irrelevant if an LGBTQ Executive Director, Development Director, Communication Director, etc, gets to work in a City bus or in a chauffer driven Bentley limousine. What is relevant is that they get to work and that work produces substantive and discernable results. Lest any eyebrows be raised here, I am a volunteer Board Member with Get Equal, I filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy last year and my total cash reserves, as of this writing, are $24.19 so, this statement is in no way “self-serving.”


IF WE DO NOT STAND/WORK TOGETHER, WE WILL FAIL TO WIN FULL EQUALITY.


“Human progress is neither automatic nor inevitable... Every step toward the goal of justice requires sacrifice, suffering, and struggle; the tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals.” –Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.


Progress requires of us the humility to recognize that no one individual or LGBTQ organization alone will be able to “win the day.” Each individual and LGBTQ organizations possess talents, strengths, also weaknesses, and shortcomings. Together we can hold each other up and carry each other forward towards victory. Otherwise, we will become a parody of ourselves, twelve divas fighting for one spotlight. The cost of that parody does not merely entail suffering bad theater and over inflated egos, the cost will be the unnecessary and unjust postponement of full equality for us all.

A Fatal Blow for DOMA

President Barack Obama has ordered the Department of Justice to stop defending Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA]. In a letter to House Speaker John Boehner, the Attorney General Eric Holder gave the rationale of the White House and the Department of Justice for this decision.

Moreover, the legislative record underlying DOMA’s passage contains discussion and debate that undermines any defense under heightened scrutiny. The record contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships – precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against. See Cleburne, 473 U.S. at 448 (“mere negative attitudes, or fear” are not permissible bases for discriminatory treatment); see also Romer, 517 U.S. at 635 (rejecting rationale that law was supported by “the liberties of landlords or employers who have personal or religious objections to homosexuality”); Palmore v. Sidotti, 466 U.S. 429, 433 (1984) (“Private biases may be outside the reach of the law, but the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give them effect.”).

FULL TEXT

Note the language employed by the U.S. Attorney General in his letter explaining “why” the Department of Justice will no longer defend Section 3 of DOMA and considers it to be unconstitutional. He specifically states, “the kind of sterotype-based thinking and animus the Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against.” This expresses almost verbatim Judge Walker’s ruling on the unconstitutionality of Prop 8 in California. In that decision Judge Walker also stated that the proponents were motivated by an animus against same-sex couples.

What is beginning to take shape here is an increasingly clear legal opinion based on the findings of science. The American Psychological Association bluntly states

Is sexual orientation a choice?

No, human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight. For most people, sexual orientation emerges in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.

FULL TEXT

This represents reasoned thinking and that is one of two critical components in the advancement of our rights. Julian Bond, the former President of the NAACP stated, “this is the Civil Rights movement of this generation.” The other critical component in our struggle for justice is that our cause be reasonable. For political parties and politicians that means voter approval, and in 2010, according to the Gallup Poll Organization, for the first time fifty percent of Americans accepted Same-Sex relationships.

The hesitation on the part of the judiciary in declaring laws such as DADT and DOMA unconstitutional is historically based. The landmark Roe v. Wade decision by the U. S. Supreme Court in 1973 was far ahead of popular opinion at that time. The Court experienced a backlash that still manifested today by the social conservative political movement and accusation of “activist judges.”

What this means is that although the Executive branch will continue to enforce DOMA, it will not defend it in court. Eventually, the law will be ruled unconstitutional and Same-sex married couples will enjoy the federal protections and benefits (e.g. income tax, immigration, etc) currently enjoyed by opposite-sex couples.

Today we have won a battle in an ongoing war to claim full Civil Rights for LGBTQ people, and ENDA is next. It is important to remember that even after the signing of the Equal Rights Act in 1964 and the establishment of full legal equality racism did not end. The NAACP is still fighting for the day of full social equality. So it is premature and unwise to claim this is the “Victory.” We are refreshed and encouraged, but the struggle continues.

When the Church married Same-Sex couples.

The following is a reprint of an article by Jim Duffy that appeared in 1998 in The Irish Times. The Yale history professor quoted in the article is Dr. John Boswell. For an extensive list of books by this noted historian on Same-Sex marriages in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, please follow this hyperlink to Fordham University. When Marriage Between Gays Was a Rite An article in the Irish Times that discusses same gender unions in the early church. by Jim Duffy Published in 1998

As the churches struggle with the issue of homosexuality, a long tradition of gay marriage indicates that the Christian attitude towards same sex unions may not always have been as "straight" as is now suggested, writes Jim Duffy.

A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St. Catherine's monastery on Mt. Sinai. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman pronubus (best man) overseeing what in a standard Roman icon would be the wedding of a husband and wife. In the icon, Christ is the pronubus. Only one thing is unusual. The "husband and wife" are in fact two men.

Is the icon suggesting that a homosexual "marriage" is one sanctified by Christ? The very idea seems initially shocking. The full answer comes from other sources about the two men featured, St. Serge and St. Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who became Christian martyrs.

While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early church, was not unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly close. Severus of Antioch in the sixth century explained that "we should not separate in speech [Serge and Bacchus] who were joined in life". More bluntly, in the definitive 10th century Greek account of their lives, St. Serge is openly described as the "sweet companion and lover" of St. Bacchus.

In other words, it confirms what the earlier icon implies, that they were a homosexual couple. Their orientation and relationship was openly accepted by early Christian writers. Furthermore, in an image that to some modern Christian eyes might border on blasphemy, the icon has Christ himself as their pronubus, their best man overseeing their "marriage".

The very idea of a Christian homosexual marriage seems incredible. Yet after a twelve year search of Catholic and Orthodox church archives Yale history professor John Boswell has discovered that a type of Christian homosexual "marriage" did exist as late as the 18th century.

Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has evolved as a concept and as a ritual.

Professor Boswell discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient church liturgical documents (and clearly separate from other types of non-marital blessings of adopted children or land) were ceremonies called, among other titles, the "Office of Same Sex Union" (10th and 11th century Greek) or the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

These ceremonies had all the contemporary symbols of a marriage: a community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar, their right hands joined as at heterosexual marriages, the participation of a priest, the taking of the Eucharist, a wedding banquet afterwards. All of which are shown in contemporary drawings of the same sex union of Byzantine Emperor Basil I (867-886) and his companion John. Such homosexual unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12th / early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (Geraldus Cambrensis) has recorded.

Unions in Pre-Modern Europe lists in detail some same sex union ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century "Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex Union", having invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus, called on God to "vouchsafe unto these Thy servants [N and N] grace to love another and to abide unhated and not cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God and all Thy saints". The ceremony concludes: "And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded".

Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic "Office of the Same Sex Union", uniting two men or two women, had the couple having their right hands laid on the Gospel while having a cross placed in their left hands. Having kissed the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.

Boswell found records of same sex unions in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, Istanbul, and in Sinai, covering a period from the 8th to 18th centuries. Nor is he the first to make such a discovery. The Dominican Jacques Goar (1601-1653) includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek prayer books.

While homosexuality was technically illegal from late Roman times, it was only from about the 14th century that antihomosexual feelings swept western Europe. Yet same sex unions continued to take place.

At St. John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope's parish church) in 1578 a many as 13 couples were "married" at Mass with the apparent cooperation of the local clergy, "taking communion together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together", according to a contemporary report.

Another woman to woman union is recorded in Dalmatia in the 18th century. Many questionable historical claims about the church have been made by some recent writers in this newspaper.

Boswell's academic study however is so well researched and sourced as to pose fundamental questions for both modern church leaders and heterosexual Christians about their attitudes towards homosexuality.

For the Church to ignore the evidence in its own archives would be a cowardly cop-out. The evidence shows convincingly that what the modern church claims has been its constant unchanging attitude towards homosexuality is in fact nothing of the sort.

It proves that for much of the last two millennia, in parish churches and cathedrals throughout Christendom from Ireland to Istanbul and in the heart of Rome itself, homosexual relationships were accepted as valid expressions of a God-given ability to love and commit to another person, a love that could be celebrated, honoured and blessed both in the name of, and through the Eucharist in the presence of Jesus Christ.