feminist blogs

Tomorrow (March 3) is another historic day for same-sex marriage. Unless something drastic happens, it will be the day that the Washington, D.C., law allowing same-sex marriage goes into effect. Many marriage applications are expected.

That means that the Catholic Church has lost its battle to prevent the law from going into effect. As Emily wrote in November, the church had gone on attack against the bill by threatening to cut off services that it offers in D.C., That would mean that services would be removed for thousands of homeless or low-income people, even though the bill would not require any religious organization to perform or assist with any same-sex marriages. The reason that the church made that threat was because, if the law went into effect, it would not be allowed to discriminate against the people employed by the group (Catholic Charities) that provides the services. Its stance was that it could not agree to provide employment benefits to employees who were involved in same-sex relationships because that would go against the beliefs of the church.  (Of course, it would seem unlikely that the church would employ any open lesbians or gays.)

Well, now that the threat didn’t work, the church has had to make a decision on what it should do.  One possibility, of course, would be to continue to provide services and offer employment benefits to any of its employees who are in same-sex relationships.   But, no, the church is not going to take that approach.

Instead, it has decided to continue to offer services (good!), but will not provide any spousal benefits to any new employees it hires (whether straight, lesbian or gay) or to current employees who are not already enrolled in its health plan.  That is truly unbelievable, but, of course, there are many truly unbelievable things that the church does (see this and this for examples).

Happy Valentine’s Day.

In celebration of love, check out this great site from Zina Saunders called Love and Marriage. The site features a  series of painted portraits and interviews with long-standing gay and lesbian couples.

I wonder if any of the couples Saunders interviewed went to Smith & Wollensky’s for Valentine’s Day. I am still waiting for a reservation.

In December, I wrote that the Mexico City government had just voted 39-20 to allow people of the same sex to marry and to adopt children.   This weekend, the New York Times had an article about the law, which is expected to become effective on March 4.  I say “expected” because the Roman Catholic church has asked the federal government (which is conservative) to intervene.

Whether or not the federal government is able to stop the law from going into effect, there is other good news in Latin America.  The Times reports that, in Argentina, while the debate over gay marriage is making its way through the courts, the Argentine province of Tierra del Fuego had Latin America’s first gay wedding there on December 29.

Recently, I asked in comments what now-Senator, then-candidate Scott Brown’s position on same-sex marriage. Robert replied:

Same as Barack Obama’s. So he’s either a sensible centrist doing what he can, or a hate-filled gay-killing bigot, depending on whether you know he’s a Republican or not. :)

Chris Barron of GOProud made a similar point:

What’s the truth about Scott Brown? I will concede up front, that Scott Brown doesn’t support same-sex marriage. Brown, however, has stated that same-sex marriage in Massachusetts is settled law and that he personally supports civil unions. Brown has also said that he believes marriage is a state issue and that each state should be free to make its own law regarding same-sex marriage. Sound familiar? It should, because it’s the same position taken by President Barack Obama.

So Brown is just like Obama on gay rights? Well, no.

The difference between Brown and Coakley is even greater on homosexual issues. Brown opposes “gay marriage” and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and supports the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy and the federal Defense of Marriage Act. [...Brown] voted for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man, one woman. The amendment was defeated. Brown does support same-sex civil unions.

Because some Republicans talk a good game but support homophobic legislation when it counts — when they’re voting — conservatives tend to reduce being pro-gay or anti-gay to purely a matter of saying the right words, without regard to the actual policies being supported.

Both President Obama and Scott Brown have taken positions that are prejudiced against LGBT people. But there is a spectrum. Obama has never voted for anti-gay legislation, and — in his mild, gutless, and basically worthless way — has stated support for ENDA, and for ending Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and the federal non-recognition aspects of DOMA. I don’t say this to defend Obama, who I believe is bigoted against LGBT.¹ But we can recognize that Obama is bad while and still recognize that Scott Brown is, in most ways, even worse.

But there are two ways Obama is worse than Brown. First: Obama, unlike Brown, harms LGBT people by sucking away LGBT activism and money with promises that he (so far) has not attempted to deliver on. Second, Obama, unlike Brown, harms LGBT by providing anti-gay Republicans with Brown with cover, because Obama’s position on marriage equality allows many anti-gay conservatives to deflect criticism by claiming to hold the same position Obama does.

1. I don’t know or care if Obama is bigoted against LGBT “in his heart”; when I say he’s bigoted, I’m referring to his political actions and policies.

I don’t know about the rest of you, but for me the most exciting thing in the news is Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the lawsuit to overturn California’s anti-gay Proposition 8. (You can find a fairly complete background of this case in The New Yorker).

The trial began Monday, with testimony from the two couples (one lesbian, one gay) who are suing the state of California for equal treatment. On Tuesday, Harvard historian Nancy Cott testified.

First, Professor Cott provided a detailed historical account of how marriage restrictions based on race, ethnicity, and immigration status have been used “punitively” - to stigmatize and demean disfavored groups - in the same way that Prop 8 now stigmatizes same-sex couples. When these kinds of laws are enacted, she explained, many people believe they simply reflect “common sense” or God’s will. Only later is it fully apparent that they are in fact based on a failure to appreciate the full humanity of certain groups. The same is true of Prop 8.

Second, Professor Cott explained that in the past, marriage law imposed strict gender roles that sharply distinguished the legal rights and duties of wives and husbands. For example, at one time, married women were unable to sign legal documents or testify in court, because they were not considered to be individual citizens - once married, a woman had no legal identity apart from her husband. But today, the law recognizes that all adults should be given equal rights regardless of gender and should be able to choose for themselves how to allocate duties in a marriage. Because modern marriage law is gender-neutral in this way, permitting same-sex couples to marry doesn’t change the law’s basic structure.

Finally, Professor Cott showed that marriage has changed significantly over the years, and that most of those changes involve “shedding inequalities.” But the central function and purpose of marriage - to enable adults to create stable families that provide enormous benefits to the couple, to children, and to society - has endured. Professor Cott testified that based on the historical evidence, permitting same-sex couples would not undermine marriage, but instead would strengthen it. Both couples and the larger community would benefit.

Yale Professor George Chauncey also testified Tuesday; his testimony will continue Wednesday.

In the afternoon, Terri Stewart questioned Dr. George Chauncey, an expert in LGBT studies. Dr. Chauncey gave a lengthy discussion about discrimination and oppression of gay people in America.

Dr. Chauncey showed how the themes of Anita Bryant’s “Save Our Children” campaigns in the 70’s were successfully carried into the 80’s and 90’s and are the central themes of Proposition 8. He sees them as part of a continuum.

Stewart: Do you believe Prop. 8 ads perpetuate the stereotypes of the history you describe?

Chauncey: I think they do, but they are more polite than the Anita Bryant ads. Society has changed such that what you can say in polite society is different, but most striking is the image of the little girl who comes in to tell her mom that she can marry a princess. There’s a strong echo of this idea that simple exposure to gay people will lead a generation of young people to become gay.

This will be the fullest trial to date of the marriage equality issue, with both sides calling and cross-examining expert witnesses. (David Blankenhorn will be appearing for the anti-gay side.) One interesting question is whether or not the trial will be broadcast on YouTube; the Judge wants it to be, but Prop 8 proponents are trying to get the Supreme Court to forbid it. The Supreme Court has put a stay on the YouTube broadcasts, and will issue a final ruling sometime soon.

Overall, I think this lawsuit is a bad idea; it’s likely to go to the Supreme Court, and I doubt the Supreme Court (or, more accurately, Justice “swing vote” Kennedy) will vote for marriage equality. In the New Yorker, Nan Hunter (whose blog is excellent, btw) is quoted:

Nan Hunter, a law professor at Georgetown University, is skeptical about Olson and Boies’s chances. “As a purely formal matter, one could argue that Olson and Boies are correct,” Hunter said. “But invalidating roughly forty state laws that define marriage as between a man and a woman is an awfully heavy lift for the Supreme Court, and especially for Justices who take a limited role of the scope for the judiciary.” She added, “I fear that their strategy is: Ted Olson will speak, Anthony Kennedy will listen, and the earth will move. I hope I’m wrong about this—they’re excellent lawyers—but I fear, frankly, that there’s more ego than analysis in that.”

But sometimes unexpected things happen; maybe this time justice will win out. In the meanwhile, I expect the trial will be fascinating.

From the LA Times:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton won praise in June after pushing to extend many federal benefits traditionally provided to diplomats’ spouses to gay and lesbian partners.

Since then, unmarried heterosexual couples have been lining up to ask for benefits too. They have approached the State Department’s personnel office and the diplomats’ union, arguing that they are entitled to equal treatment. At least one couple has threatened to challenge the rules in court as discriminatory.

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management, which is responsible for policy on federal workers, is weighing such an extension of benefits, U.S. officials say — to the consternation of conservatives.

This is predictable. If same sex couples cannot marry, then “marriage-light” policies have to be created for same-sex couples. But why should “marriage-light” policies exclude heterosexual couples?

Marriage laws, fundamentally, are how we turn someone unrelated to us, into our legally recognized closest relative in the world. I don’t think that purpose is undermined by opening marriage lite provisions to straight couples.¹ However, there’s no doubt that conservatives who oppose equality for gay people do see marriage lite laws as diluting marriage, which makes it ironic that their actions make the continued growth of marriage lite arrangements inevitable.

In somewhat related news, the DC group Full Equality Now! has walked back its initial opposition to anti-gay ads on public buses (which they now say was just a draft), after the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance and the ACLU stood up for the free speech rights of anti-gay groups. Good for GLAA and the ACLU, and good for FEN! for being willing to back off their mistake (even if they did it a little ungracefully).

Hat tips to Marriage Debate.

1. Although I can see a disadvantage to having a multiplicity of marriage and marriage-lite laws; the more such laws there are, the less they will be universally understood, which makes them less useful.