The Gay Fray

[Tiassa]

A Threshold of Dubious Propriety and Much Importance

I have a powerful aversion to leaving human rights be decided by popular vote. It's the reason why our bill or rights and subsequent enhancements have not been done democratically (or, with minimal involvement of democracy).

Aye.

This is also a threshold. I'm uncertain how I feel about the idea of voting on civil rights, but only because this time we're going to win. And for some reason, the idea of simply following the law—such as we might suggest about the Fourteenth Amendment, and so on—isn't good enough. We've seen marriage equality come through the courts and through a legislature. I think to win a state will—

Regardless, I'm hoping that the SCOTUS takes up the case and jams it down frakking Christians' throats ....

—change the judicial balance on the issue. We can expect Scalia and Thomas to hold fast, of course, but the four stand a better chance of winning Kennedy if the sense of the society includes an electoral win. Same with Roberts; the Chief Justice isn't Kennedy's poodle in this, per se, but, rather, will have in the traditional swing justice's deliberations a reasonable corpus to compare and contrast with. An electoral win will alter the legal calculus for both of them.

And right now, the biggest enemy is complacency or, perhaps, if voters really are as stupid as some suggest, confusion. R74 will pass as long as (1) voters recognize what "yes" and "no" mean, and (2) marriage equality supporters make certain to vote.

(And, yes, I just checked again, because I would feel foolish to have been wrong after making the point; to approve the measure is to approve the bill and thus approve marriage equality. The confusion apparently, as near as I can tell, stems from the idea that the referendum is put up by the anti-equality movement. But, so that there is no question, the legislature passed the law, which would be in effect except for this anti-equality demand to put it to the ballot. To approve the measure is not to approve the sponsors' outlooks. To approve the measure is to affirm the legislature, and thus institute gay marriage in Washington state.)

 

[Tiassa]

Austin, Texas!

Austin, Texas!
City to back marriage equality

Heather Kovar of KVUE fills in the blanks for us:

Austin City Council members adopted a resolution Thursday declaring their intent to support marriage equality in the state of Texas.

Supporters filled City Hall Thursday morning.

Over the past few months, activists got more than 2,000 signatures on a petition in support of the city council's passage of this resolution. They believe Thursday's action sends a message to state and national leaders.​

Not that this changes anything as far as the legal status of same-sex couples is concerned. But, as Mayor Pro Tem Sheryl Cole explained, "any act, direct, or indirect, that helps with ending discrimination is important and it matters".

Raise a glass to the good folks of Austin, Texas, tonight.
____________________

Notes:

Kovar, Heather. "Austin City Council passes same-sex marriage support measure". KVUE. September 27, 2012. KVUE.com. September 28, 2012. http://www.kvue.com/news/Austin-City-Council-passes-same-sex-marriage-support-measure-171550591.html

 

[superstring01]

(And, yes, I just checked again, because I would feel foolish to have been wrong after making the point; to approve the measure is to approve the bill and thus approve marriage equality. The confusion apparently, as near as I can tell, stems from the idea that the referendum is put up by the anti-equality movement. But, so that there is no question, the legislature passed the law, which would be in effect except for this anti-equality demand to put it to the ballot. To approve the measure is not to approve the sponsors' outlooks. To approve the measure is to affirm the legislature, and thus institute gay marriage in Washington state.)

I'm still confused.

I'm just surprised there's nothing about a train leaving New York at 35 miles per hour, heading to Chicago.

~String

 

[Tiassa]

Yes Means Yes, and No Means No

I'm still confused.

All voters need to know this time that yes means yes and no means no.

Dominic Holden in June:

My neighbor walked into the coffee shop this morning—a working mom, has a wonderful kid, thriving career, acres of smarts, and enthusiastic support for gay marriage—and proudly informed me she was prepared to reject Referendum 74. Which seems like it makes sense. Anti-gay Preserve Marriage Washington is trying to place R-74 on the ballot to repeal Washington State's marriage law, so naturally a person like my neighbor thinks that she wants to reject whatever they're doing. But she doesn't. She wants to approve R-74.

Here's a quick reminder on the way a referendum works: It simply puts on hold a law passed by the legislature and places that same exact law before voters. A vote to approve the referendum makes the law pass; a vote to reject the marriage law means that marriage equality fails.​

Eli Sanders in July:

For Referendum 74, the vote on whether or not to uphold Washington's new gay marriage law, Elway sees voter confusion messing up the results. Some 52 percent of respondents support same-sex marriage rights, but only 49 percent say they'll vote to "approve" R-74. Which suggests that a lot of gay rights supporters don't understand that voting to "approve" means voting to uphold the same-sex marriage rights passed by the legislature. People have worried about this for some time, and now here's clear proof: this confusion is going to be a problem at the polls if it's not overcome.​

I tend to think this is the sort of confusion one can settle by simply reading the Voter's Guide when it arrives in the mail, but history speaks against me on that one. Few, it seems, give much attention to the Guide.

I'm just surprised there's nothing about a train leaving New York at 35 miles per hour, heading to Chicago.

Indeed. There was some talk earlier that the anti-equality movement was trying to exploit that confusion, but it hasn't amounted to much.
____________________

Notes:

Holden, Dominic. "Repeat Till You're Blue in Your Big Gay Face: 'Approve Referendum 74'". Slog. June 6, 2012. Slog.TheStranger.com. September 29, 2012. http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/ar...ue-in-your-big-gay-face-approve-referendum-74

Sanders, Eli. "New Poll Finds Hurdles Facing Every Single Statewide Ballot Measure Except Eyman's I-1185". Slog. July 24, 2012. Slog.TheStranger.com. September 29, 2012. http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/ar...statewide-ballot-measure-except-eymans-i-1185

 

[superstring01]

Yay . . . Texas!?

~String

 

[Tiassa]

California Says No to Quack Conversion Therapy; Conservatives Pitch a Fit

California!
Brown signs bill quashing quack therapy for gay youth

It seems an easy enough question: Should children be subject to medical and psychological quackery with no medical or psychological merit simply to satisfy parental moral demands?

California decided the answer is "no". Naturally, conservatives are furious:

Gov. Jerry Brown has signed legislation prohibiting a form of therapy aimed at changing a minor's sexual orientation from gay to straight, the first law of its kind in the nation, officials said Sunday.

Sen. Ted Lieu (D-Torrance) introduced the measure based on his belief that so-called conversion therapy isn't based on science and is dangerous.

"This bill bans non-scientific 'therapies' that have driven young people to depression and suicide," Brown said in a statement. "These practices have no basis in science or medicine and they will now be relegated to the dustbin of quackery."

Lieu commended the governor and hoped other states would follow California's lead.

"No one should stand idly by while children are being psychological abused, and anyone who forces a child to try to change their sexual orientation must understand this is unacceptable," Lieu said.

The measure was supported by groups including the National Center for Lesbian Rights. Kate Kendell, the group's executive director, said the bill was needed so "state-licensed therapists cannot subject young people to practices that have been universally condemned by mainstream medical experts and that cause terrible harm."

The bill, SB 1172, was opposed by Republican lawmakers as an intrusion by the state into the decision of parents about how to raise their children. The conservative Pacific Justice Institute has said it will file a lawsuit alleging the measure violates constitutional protections, including the free speech rights of therapists and the right of patients to get access to information.

(McGreevy)​

Christopher Rosik, president of NARTH—an organization that advocates dangerous, quacking crackpottery—denounced the indifference of the bill's supporters toward parental "freedom of choice".

Because, you know, that's the point: Parents, in the conservative view, have the right to deliberately harm their children, and the government needs to stay out of those important family decisions.
____________________

Notes:

McGreevy, Patrick. "Gov. Jerry Brown bans gay-to-straight therapy for minors". PolitiCal. September 30, 2012. LATimesBlogs.LATimes.com. October 1, 2012. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/cal.../governor-jerry-brown-gay-therapy-minors.html

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Yay . . . Texas!?

Austin is an oasis of liberalism in the Lone Star State.

. . . . dangerous, quacking crackpottery . . . .

Quackpottery?

 

[Tiassa]

Notes on the Significant Threshold

Source: The New Yorker
Link: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/10/states-vote-on-same-sex-marriage.html
Title: "Gay Marriage's Ballot Test", by Jeffrey Toobin
Date: October 2, 2012​

A brief consideration on the impact of upcoming state votes on marriage equality.

There is one unavoidable fact about American voters and same-sex marriage: every time the people have had chance to speak on the subject, they have voted it down. Over the past decades, voters in twenty-eight states have passed constitutional provisions banning same-sex marriage. The trend continued as recently as earlier this year, in North Carolina voted to ban such marriages.

This may change in November, when voters in Maine (for a second time), Maryland, Minnesota and Washington State have their say. The precise nature of the questions in each state varies. In Maryland and Washington, the voters will decide whether to override new state laws that allow same-sex marriage. The measure in Minnesota, if passed, would limit marriage to one man and one woman, and the one in Maine would explicitly allow same-sex marriage. Still, the larger issue is the same on all of these issues. Do the voters want to permit gay people to marry in their state? ....

.... The courts, especially the Justices of the Supreme Court, are acutely aware of how their rulings reflect (or conflict with) public opinion. Even Justices who are sympathetic to legal claims worry when their positions put them too far out of step with the voters. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for example, who made her name as the leading feminist lawyer of her generation, has expressed such views. Though Ginsburg herself always believed that women have a legal right to an abortion, she has often expressed unease with the Court's approach in the 1973 landmark of Roe v. Wade.

In Ginsburg's view, the Court generally should follow rather than lead on such controversial social issues. This is what happened with the Court and racial intermarriage. It was not until 1967, in Loving v. Virginia, that the Justices got around to declaring that states could no longer ban interracial marriage. Many (but not all) such laws were ignored or obsolete by that point. This is not to diminish the significance of Loving. The case was and remains a key practical and symbolic statement about race and the constitution. But by 1967, the hard work of changing the country on this issue had already been done by the civil-rights movement. The Court was a lagging indicator of where the country already was.

(Toobin)​

This is part of the reason why, despite our distaste for subjecting civil rights to a vote, these state votes—including Washington's Referendum 74—are thresholds of much importance. Interestingly, the Supreme Court has delayed its consideration of Proposition 8; as of yesterday, there exists a possibility that the Ninth Circuit decision striking the California law will remain as precedent.

We'll see how that goes, but it seems unimaginable that the Court, in deferring to the Ninth, will avoid the question in a later term; perhaps in spring, or next October.

In either case, though, a later consideration of the question will offer the Court the latest sample of voter results.

And, yes, that means these votes, however distasteful the proposition of voting on civil rights, have incredibly powerful significance.

The polling on R74 offer interesting snapshots. One firm is all over the map, ranging 40-56% over the last year. The rest of the surveys show a generally divided electorate with narrow majorities in favor. The real question in those results is how many say no and how many say they don't know.

Yeah. This is a big election season.

With marriage equality on the ballot in three states, and each showing leads for affirmation, there is a strong likelihood that undecided voters in at least one will swing heavily toward inevitability and the history books, providing a definitive outcome. But look for all three to pass.

Minnesota will vote on prohibition; that's a slight heterosupremacist advantage, but within the undecided bloc.

If the Supreme Court doesn't reschedule Prop. 8 for the October term, this will be a huge election season.
____________________

Notes:

Toobin, Jeffrey. "Gay Marriage's Ballot Test". The New Yorker. October 2, 2012. NewYorker.com. October 2, 2012. http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/10/states-vote-on-same-sex-marriage.html

 

[Bowser]

Interesting... I wonder how many people have little invested morally in gay marriage until they are actually asked to vote on it. I've seen it play out in my own state. It often results in more rigid opposition than otherwise would have been seen. When our county officials initiated gay marriage, the voters changed the state constitution to curb it.

 

[Tiassa]

Something about your phrasing ....

When our county officials initiated gay marriage, the voters changed the state constitution to curb it.

As I recall, the county clerk who issued that license did so because he had no legal standing to refuse it.

And we should also note that particular incident occurred in a climate that resulted from a decade of fighting over the issue, a fight instigated by a bunch of anti-abortion activists who were tired of always losing. So they picked a fight. Because, you know, some librarian in Springfield didn't go out of his or her way to break the law and ban a book for personal moral reasons.

On this occasion, you may be transferring and projecting in order to justify your own outlook. I know we used to go rounds on this subject, but I don't know a whole lot about where you currently stand. But the county clerk would have had to invent a reason to not issue that marriage license, at least as I recall.

And that results in a strange formulation: Because someone will not break the law to enforce a moral assertion, he creates more rigid opposition than otherwise would have occurred.

It's almost as if one should break the law in order to enforce moral assertions, else one is violating the good, moral people who are upset that the law wasn't broken.

Am I missing something here?

 

[Bowser]

As I recall, the county clerk who issued that license did so because he had no legal standing to refuse it.

I don't recall the exact catalyst that initiated the lines for marriage licenses, but I do recall the reaction it produced. If I remember correctly, the state constitution was amended to define marriage between one man and one woman. I don't recall who floated the initiative.

And we should also note that particular incident occurred in a climate that resulted from a decade of fighting over the issue, a fight instigated by a bunch of anti-abortion activists who were tired of always losing. So they picked a fight. Because, you know, some librarian in Springfield didn't go out of his or her way to break the law and ban a book for personal moral reasons.

I can't address the above. Throw me a link or something.

On this occasion, you may be transferring and projecting in order to justify your own outlook. I know we used to go rounds on this subject, but I don't know a whole lot about where you currently stand. But the county clerk would have had to invent a reason to not issue that marriage license, at least as I recall.

Everybody around me (family and friends) are soft on the issue--including a couple serious Christians who threw me a curve ball. I suppose, if we can get people off the streets and into a committed relationship, society will benefit overall. I'm still not comfortable with all the weirdness that seems to follow the gay culture, and I suspect it might be harmful to those involved, but if these people want to try, let them. I wont stand in their way. That's where I stand on the issue.

It's been so long since the issue was on the news, and I wasn't following the details, so you may be right about the county clerk doing what he thought was legit. What I remember is the end result. And I think that many people will express their morals on the ballot if given the opportunity. When they do vote, gay marriage loses.

And that results in a strange formulation: Because someone will not break the law to enforce a moral assertion, he creates more rigid opposition than otherwise would have occurred.

It's almost as if one should break the law in order to enforce moral assertions, else one is violating the good, moral people who are upset that the law wasn't broken.

Am I missing something here?

Well, I think you have a valid point. I'm looking at the consequence that it provoked. And not knowing the specific laws involved in their decision to start issuing marriage license to gay couples, I can't comment on whether they were right or wrong. Apparently they had something; otherwise, there wouldn't have been an effort to alter the constitution.

 

[Tiassa]

PPP: Minnesota Marriage Equality Ban Slips to Trail in Polls

PPP: Minnesota Marriage Equality Ban Slips to Trail in Polls

It would seem the momentum is building. With three states offering marriage equality affirmation on their ballots this year, Minnesota stands alone in putting an equality ban before voters.

Jillian Rayfield notes the latest poll:

The latest poll from PPP shows that Minnesota’s constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage has slipped in the polls, shifting by four points since the last time a poll was taken.​

The three-paragraph article for Salon explains that the marriage equality ban held a one-point lead, 48-47, a month ago. The latest numbers, though, suggest the no vote leads, 49-46.

It is, of course, dangerous to invest one's hopes in a single poll, or even round of polling. But the data apparently suggests that independent voters have changed their outlook dramatically. They favored the ban a month ago by nine points; the latest poll suggests they would reject the ban by ten points.

Yes, a nineteen point swing from one poll to the next is ... interesting. We'll see how the numbers go over the next month.

But there does seem to be some sense of inevitability this time, such that the big danger in any of these votes—Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Washington—is complacency among marriage equality supporters. These measures appear to be equality's to lose; equality supporters need to vote—no excuses. Well, okay, if you're in a coma, sure, but come on. You know what I mean.

• • •​

A note for Bowser:

I actually need to go be a responsible grown-up today. Yeah, imagine that. And I've managed to put it off 'til noon. I'll get back to you this evening.
____________________

Notes:

Rayfield, Jillian. "Minn. gay marriage ban slips in the polls". Salon. October 9, 2012. Salon.com. October 9, 2012. http://www.salon.com/2012/10/09/minn_gay_marriage_ban_slips_in_the_polls/

 

[Bowser]

It is, of course, dangerous to invest one's hopes in a single poll, or even round of polling. But the data apparently suggests that independent voters have changed their outlook dramatically. They favored the ban a month ago by nine points; the latest poll suggests they would reject the ban by ten points.

Yes, a nineteen point swing from one poll to the next is ... interesting. We'll see how the numbers go over the next month.

I would hold out for the actual vote. I've often thought the results concluded until being proven wrong by the actual outcome. One example was the Kulongoski tobacco tax that hit the ballot a few years ago. I thought it was a done deal, but to my surprise, it failed. But I live in a liberal city that's surrounded by conservative country folk. You never can be certain where the vote will go.

Per my earlier post, here's a link...Wiki

 

[Tiassa]

New York: Stakes Rise as Appeals Court Affirms DoMA Loss

New York: Stakes Rise as Appeals Court Affirms DoMA Loss
2-1 decision: gays have "suffered a history of discrimination"

BLAG, the House of Representatives' so-called "Bipartisan Law Advisory Group", which these days runs around promoting Republican causes in the courts, suffered another defeat today. Having claimed the banner of homophobia after President Obama announced he would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court, BLAG will likely get its appearance before the Supreme Court next spring; the justices decided to delay any consideration of the issue during the current session.

In Manhattan this morning, a federal appeals court ruled in a split decision (2-1) that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional:

In a majority opinion written by Judge Dennis Jacobs, the 2nd Circuit, like a federal appeals court in Boston before it, found no reason the Defense of Marriage Act could be used to deny benefits to married gay couples. It supported a lower court ruling after a woman sued the government in 2010, saying the law required her to pay $363,053 in federal estate tax after her partner of 44 years died.

Jacobs, though, went beyond the Boston court, saying discrimination against gays should be scrutinized by the courts in the same heightened way as discrimination faced by women was in the 1970s. At the time, he noted, they faced widespread discrimination in the workplace and elsewhere. The heightened scrutiny, as it is referred to in legal circles, would mean government discrimination against gays would be assumed to be unconstitutional.

"The question is not whether homosexuals have achieved political successes over the years; they clearly have. The question is whether they have the strength to politically protect themselves from wrongful discrimination," said Jacobs, who was appointed to the bench in 1992 by President George H.W. Bush.

He said it was difficult to say whether gays were under-represented in positions of power and authority without knowing their true numbers.

"But it is safe to say that the seemingly small number of acknowledged homosexuals so situated is attributable either to a hostility that excludes them or to a hostility that keeps their sexual preference private - which, for our purposes, amounts to much the same thing," Jacobs said ....

.... The 2nd Circuit said the law's "classification of same-sex spouses was not substantially related to an important government interest" and thus violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

"It is easy to conclude that homosexuals have suffered a history of discrimination," Jacobs said, noting that for many years in many states, homosexual conduct was criminal and that even the law's supporters acknowledge that gays endured discrimination since at least the 1920s.

He said the law was written so broadly that it touches more than a thousand federal laws. "Homosexuals are not in a position to adequately protect themselves from the discriminatory wishes of the majoritarian public," Jacobs wrote.

He rejected arguments by supporters of the law that it was intended to limit new categories of eligibility for federal funds, promote uniform administration of federal law, protect traditional marriage and encourage responsible procreation.

"Even if preserving tradition were in itself an important goal, DOMA is not a means to achieve it," he said.

Jacobs disputed arguments that same-sex couples have a diminished ability to discharge family roles in procreation and the raising of children, saying the arguments were "inconsistent with actual cases."

And in a footnote, he said that to the extent the law's supporters contend that "Congress' laws might actually influence sexual orientation, there is no evidence to support that claim (and it strikes us as farfetched)."

Judge Chester J. Straub dissented, saying that if the government was to change its understanding of marriage, "I believe it is for the American people to do so."

"Courts should not intervene where there is a robust political debate because doing so poisons the political well, imposing a destructive anti-majoritarian constitutional ruling on a vigorous debate," he said.​

It was only in June when DoMA lost the first round in this case. Today's decision reaffirmed that outcome.
____________________

Notes:

Neumeister, Larry. "NY appeals court nixes Defense of Marriage Act". Associated Press. October 18, 2012. SeattleTimes.com. October 18, 2012. http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2019463070_apusgaymarriage.html

 

[Asguard]

ACT candidate wants to outlaw gay sex
By Louise Willis
Updated September 24, 2012 11:56:14

PHOTO: Independent candidate Philip Pocock is calling for the right to discriminate against homosexuals. (www.philippocock.info ) RELATED STORY: Senate votes down same-sex marriage billRELATED STORY: Bernardi resigns after bestiality commentRELATED STORY: Christian lobby head's influence at stake
MAP: ACT
An independent candidate in next month's ACT election says gay sex should be treated as a criminal offence.

Philip Pocock is running in the Molonglo electorate and describes himself as a conservative independent.

He has told an online forum run by the Catholic Church that a true union only occurs in heterosexual vaginal intercourse and that homosexual unions must be seen as destructive behaviours to be actively discouraged.

He says sodomy should be regarded as a criminal offence.

"In the case of male homosexuality, sodomy and fellatio are psychological and biological aversive acts and are therefore harmful to the individual," he said.

Mr Pocock says people should also have the right to discriminate against gays and lesbians.

"People who are engaging in aberrational behaviour, is similar to say a heroin addict - people have the right to discriminate against employing a heroin addict, renting accommodation to a heroin addict," he said.

"It's similar to that basically. It's a judgement. This person does not have the insight to see the truth and that's why they're carrying on the way they are.

"They are addicted to these behaviours which are harmful. As a heroin addict is addicted to a behaviour that is harmful and keeps on doing it. It's exactly the same."

Though Mr Pocock says people do not have the right to go "poofter bashing".

Chief Minister Katy Gallagher has condemned the views.

"I think the views as described by him are hateful. They're prejudicial, they're bigoted and I don't think there's any place for them in a modern election campaign," she said.

But Mr Pocock has rejected the criticism saying he is entitled to his views.

"She's just defending a position that's completely untenable basically in the eyes of history and psychological and biological reality," he said.

"She has no point. I'm not a bigot at all. I've sacrificed 30 years to protect people from this sort of thing."

Canberra Liberals Leader Zed Seselja says Mr Pocock's views are extreme and he does not support them.

"They should be condemned and I certainly do think that they wouldn't be shared by many people in the community," he said.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-24/candidate-wants-to-outlaw-gay-sex/4276800

To our eternal shame this thing revived 0.7% of the vote in the ACT election. Normally the ACT is the most left wing, probably partially because of its high percentage of public servants compared to other demographics so this is the last place this THING should have been able to crawl out of. That's 495 votes, one will be his own but still

He is not just a homophobe, he's not even just whatever is worse than a homophobe concidering not even the biggest bunch of homophobes, the Catholic Church is calling for them to be executed. His sexual hatred goes even further, if his plans were enacted and could be enforced 90% of the adult population and most of the teenage population would be executed. There crime? Giving a blowjob or having anal or whatever interesting "non missionary" sex they chose to play with.

That's not even to mention the fact he wants to make premarital sex, divorce, abortion, and adultery criminal offences.

 

[Bells]

Impressed..

All I can say is wow.. just.. WOW..

Pastor Snider sounds like a homophobic bigot. His argument is one that has been heard many times before from people who make arguments against homosexual rights in society.

But with a very surprising twist..

A must watch..

[video=youtube;A8JsRx2lois]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=A8JsRx2lois[/video]

 

[Asguard]

I'm glad I watched all of that, what a brilliant speech

 

[Neverfly]

That was well worth watching and good for a laugh. Thanks for posting.

 

[Bowser]

Yet the matter was tabled because of its divisive nature. Looks like the issue became too hot to handle, so they created a task force.

 

[Bowser]

And it looks like the matter hasn't been resolved. It is up for a vote though.