Ted Cruz courts gay voters. Seriously

By Richard Barry

Earlier in the day I wrote about the consistent movement of Americans in the direction of embracing same-sex marriage and the likelihood that Republican presidential hopefuls will begin to understand that they will have to soften their rhetoric as they defend "traditional marriage."

I'll grant that it's a somewhat obvious point, but it's still gratifying to see support for an observation be so quickly forthcoming.

The New York Times:

Senator Ted Cruz has positioned himself as a strong opponent of same-sex marriage, urging pastors nationwide to preach in support of marriage as an institution between a man and a woman, which he said was “ordained by God.”

But on Monday night, at a reception for him at the Manhattan apartment of two prominent gay hoteliers, the Texas senator and Republican presidential hopeful struck quite a different tone.

During the gathering, according to two people present, Mr. Cruz said he would not love his daughters any differently if one of them was gay. He did not mention his opposition to same-sex marriage, saying only that marriage is an issue that should be left to the states.

The article went on to state that one of the gay men in attendance was a strong supporter of Sen. Cruz's foreign policy, particularly on Israel. He was described as a businessman so may well also have a conservative view of economics. He then said that he "did not agree with the senator on social issues. Same-sex marriage, he said, 'is done — it’s just going to happen.'"

Politics is a complex affair. Voters hold a range of views, which are usually only imperfectly reflected in any given candidate. Voters who may strongly support same-sexy marriage will obviously believe all kinds of things on all kinds of other issues, and may decide they can live with Ted Cruz, or someone much like him, as long as they don't perceive him as too big a jerk.

On the point, as the Times notes,  Mr. Cruz had previously written to a group of ministers: 

"Will we discard an institution, ordained by God, which has brought so much stability and happiness to the human family? Or will we stand in its support?”

But he never said anything like that last Monday night. 

The country is moving further and further away from the GOP

By Richard Barry

A new Wasington Post-ABC News poll indicates that 6 in 10 Americans support same-sex marriage and also say that "individual states should not be allowed to define marriage as only between a man and a woman."

The Post-ABC poll finds 61 percent of Americans support allowing gays to marry and 35 percent are opposed. Support is up only slightly from last year but is a reversal from public sentiment a decade ago, when opponents outnumbered supporters 58 percent to 39 percent.

In the short and long run, support for same-sex marriage has grown significantly across demographic and political groups.

Among those under age 30, support has grown since 2005 from 57 percent to 78 percent. Among those 65 and over, it has increased from 18 percent to 46 percent. Support has also risen by double digits across partisan groups, though Democrats and independents have shifted the most.

Equally interesting is that more than 6 in 10 Republicans oppose allowing gay couples to marry, and 71 percent of conservative Republicans, who play an out-sized role in the party’s presidential primaries and caucuses.

Obviously, Republican hopefuls are going to state unequivocally their opposition to same-sex marriage, especially through the nomination process, but even then the language they use and the stridency they bring to the issue will be worth watching.

Certainly I don't believe a Republican can't win the general election while opposing same-sex marriage, but tone will matter, especially among voters who are on the periphery of the issue, accept it as a basic human right, and simply want the country to move on.

Any Republican who really digs in, as Bobby Jindal did today in the New York Times, will find him or herself on the wrong side of history and perhaps ultimate electoral success.

Louisiana judge exposes his ignorance (and bigotry) in upholding state's same-sex marriage ban

By Michael J.W. Stickings

With most of the country moving in a progressive direction on same-sex marriage, you knew you could count on a retrograde place like Louisiana to strike a blow for good-ol'-fashioned stupidity, bigotry, and medievalism:

People who think gay Americans do not deserve the same rights as straight Americans finally have something to celebrate.

After a disastrous losing streak in the federal courts — every single federal court to consider the question after the Supreme Court struck down the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 2013 has sided against marriage discrimination — Team Anti-Gay finally found a single court in Louisiana that was willing to stand up for the the principle that same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry. Judge Martin Feldman, a Reagan appointee to the federal trial bench, has now written the only federal court decision in the country holding that gay couples are not entitled to the same rights as straight couples.

Oh, but it took some of the usual right-wing ignorance to make it happen:

Political operatives seeking to cast aspersions on Feldman's approach to gay rights will find a lot to work with in his opinion. At one point, he describes being gay as one of several "lifestyle choices" a person can make. At another point in his opinion, he compares same-sex marriage to marriage between "aunt and niece," "aunt and nephew," or "father and child." He also likens marriage equality to polygamous marriages.

And on and on. ThinkProgress goes on to pick apart what turns out to be a remarkably unlearned opinion, an opinion obviously rooted not in an appreciation for the law, nor in an understanding of the issue at hand, but in the judge's own biases, an opinion that screams right-wing judicial activism. It's bigotry with respect to gay rights, but also astonishing ignorance with respect to the law, as well as to the basic elements of judicial review.

But this guy's a Republican. What else did you expect?

Craziest Republican of the Day: Karen Mueller

By Michael J.W. Stickings

ThinkProgress:

A Wisconsin Republican congressional hopeful warned Tuesday that a federal court ruling striking down the state's ban on same-sex marriage could lead to the legalization of marriage between siblings.

Karen Mueller, an Eau Claire attorney whose practice has focused on opposing abortion and defending those "discriminated against and harassed in the workplace, the school, college and/or the public square because of their faith," is one of three Republican candidates seeking to challenge Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI). At a Republican Party of Monroe County candidate forum, she denounced the ruling and warned that it would create a slippery slope.  

According to the Tomah Journal, Mueller said that the ruling might set a precedent that any two people can marry: "We've got, for instance, two sisters, and these two sisters want to get married. They love each other. They are committed to each other. They want to spend the rest of their life together." Lawyers, Mueller explained, would be able to argue "'We can just do away with that state law the same way we did away with sodomy laws,'" noting that "once you do away with that, you reveal what is really going on here."

Mueller also suggested that the court's ruling will be overturned on appeal because the state's ban is not really discriminatory against gay and lesbian citizens. "They can get married. They just can't get married to each other," she argued.

In other words, Mueller -- who is only a small-time pol at this point but who is obviously active on the bigoted theocratic right -- is a massive idiot spouting the same old Rick Santorum-style nonsense about how allowing gays and lesbians to marry will unleash the sort of wet-dream sexual chaos that gets fundies all revved up into frothing-mad hysteria, because apparently they just can't help thinking about all that sibling, not to mention inter-species, sodomizing. They get so hot and bothered about it you'd think they all want to go fuck their pet dogs.

So of course she's a Republican.

Former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo) in an ad supporting same-sex marriage

By Richard K. Barry

If you haven't seen this, it's worth a look. Huffington Post calls it the Republican case for same-sex marriage. Seems like a pretty compelling case to me, however you want to describe it.

Last month, Simpson joined a group of Republicans in filing a friend-of-the-court brief in the 10th Circuit in support of the freedom to marry. The 10th Circuit took up the issue after federal judges in Utah and Oklahoma struck down the states' constitutional bans on marriage equality.

Some social conservatives are clearly going to fight this to the end, as we can see by Mike Hukabee's recent idiotic comments, but it's over. 

On marriage equality, federal judge rules that Texas must be pulled out of the medieval shithole it inhabits

By Michael J.W. Stickings

CNN:

Texas on Wednesday became the latest state to have a federal judge strike down its same-sex marriage ban, thanks to a sweeping decision holding that its current prohibition has no "legitimate governmental purpose."

The ruling, by San Antonio-based Judge Orlando Garcia, will not take effect immediately: Its enforcement has been stayed while the case works its way through the appeal process, meaning same-sex couples in Texas cannot get married for the time being.

Still, gay rights supporters and activists believe the judgment -- because of what it says, how it follows similar rulings in other states and where it happened, in one of the most conservative states in the country -- has special significance.

Texas Democratic Party chairman Gilberto Hinojosa called Wednesday "a historic day for the LGBT community and the state of Texas," while the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force's head predicted the ruling "hastens the day when all loving couples who simply want the ability to share the benefits and responsibilities of marriage can."

For all the courageous progressives who are there, fighting to make their home better, Texas is one of those retrograde states where the adoption of marriage equality will take time and meet an enormous backlash from the Republicans who run things.

For now, public opinion in Texas is generally against marriage equality. That may change, and likely will, over time, but rights are rights regardless of public opinion and that's where, like it or not, these rulings are necessary, the federal judiciary stepping in to strike down discriminatory state laws, just as was necessary during the civil rights era when both legislatures and public opinion were resistant, to say the least, to change.

I'm not sure just how "historic" yesterday was for Texas, but this ruling, coming in one of the reddest of red states, is certainly a huge step in the right direction.

Even Florida Gov. Rick Scott would veto Arizona's hate bill

By Michael J.W. Stickings 

Florida Gov. Rick Scott is a right-wing extremist and hyper-partisan Republican, and there are many, many reasons not to like him. But even he objects to Arizona's "religious freedom" hate bill targeting gays and lesbians but essentially legalizing discrimination against anyone for any "religious" reason:

Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) is now saying he would veto a controversial Arizona bill that lets businesses discriminate against LGBT people after dodging the question this morning on MSNBC.

"I don't want to tell Governor Brewer what to do, she can do what's best for her state. From my understanding of that bill, I would veto it in Florida because it seems unnecessary," Scott said in a statement Wednesday afternoon.

*****

"In Florida we are focused on economic growth, and not on things that divide us. We are for freedom here in Florida. And we want everyone to come here, create jobs, and live in freedom, and that includes religious liberty," Scott continued in his statement.

"I am very much opposed to forcing anyone to violate their conscience or their religious beliefs, and of course, I'm very much opposed to discrimination. As a society, we need to spend more time learning to love and tolerate each other, and less time trying to win arguments in courts of law," he said.

Well, fine, nicely put, though of course sometimes you have to try to win arguments in court, like when, for example, you're pursuing marriage equality or otherwise trying to roll back generations of bigotry and discrimination.

And of course this is Florida. Fucking Florida. Scott can say he's opposed to discrimination and open to more love and toleration, but this is the man who, for example, sought to make it more difficult to vote and to purge the voter rolls of non-Republican voters, essentially disenfranchising blacks and the poor, among others; the man who required drug tests for those seeking welfare (but not, of course, for those seeking corporate welfare); the man opposed to expanding health insurance to the uninsured; the man who is opposed to marriage equality.

(And while he talks up freedom in Florida, let's not forget that Florida is the state with a rather notorious "Stand Your Ground" law. So let's just say it's freedom for some and not so much for others.)

So great, he's opposed to Arizona's awful bill. That hardly makes him a saint.

Quote of the day

By Mustang Bobby

They just want to use brute power to force the states to take down marriage laws that have been in place for centuries and that’s inconsistent with the Constitution, it’s not right and it’s heartbreaking.

No, he was not talking about the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Loving v. Virginia in 1967 that did away with the bans on interracial marriage. But it’s easy to make the assumption that he was.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Wait, gay marriage in Kentucky?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Really? Yes. Well, maybe:

In a ruling that could open the door to gay marriage in Kentucky, a federal judge has struck down the state's ban on recognizing same-sex unions performed in states where it is legal.

U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II ruled Wednesday that Kentucky’s prohibition violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law by treating gays and lesbians "differently in a way that demeans them."

*****

Heyburn's decision strikes down part of Kentucky's marriage amendment, enacted in 2004 by 74 percent of the voters, which says "only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky."

In the 23-page opinion, Heyburn said the state and groups defending the amendment offered no evidence that recognizing same-sex unions would harm opposite-sex marriages, individually or collectively.

That's because there is no evidence. It's bigotry rooted in religious ignorance, combined with sexual delusion and personal psychosis. (Something like that.)

Anyway, this is certainly a giant step forward, even if we're probably still a long way off from seeing marriage equality in Kentucky, a state with great whiskey, excellent college basketball, a famous horse race, and a Corvette museum with a large sinkhole in it, but one not exactly known for its progressivism and commitment to civil rights.

Virginia is for lovers, finally!

By Carl 

This item popped up last night:

New Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring says his decision to challenge his state's ban on gay marriage, rather than defend it on behalf of the state, is part of an evolution in his views on the subject.

Herring announced his decision to side with plaintiffs in lawsuits challenging the state's ban on Thursday, a reversal from the position of his predecessor, Republican Ken Cuccinelli.

The Democrat, who was elected in November and took office this month, said though he voted against same sex marriage in the past, his views have changed.

Think of it as evolution in action. While I'm not sure I like the political theater involved – either you're for it or against it, and expediencies should be damned – this is a better outcome than the reverse, pursuing such cases more actively.

See, it does two things, one good and one bad.

Read more »

Federal judge rules Oklahoma's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional

By Michael J.W. Stickings

This is happening -- in Utah, now in Oklahoma. Federal courts are weighing in on state laws that are inherently discriminatory, and what they're finding is that those laws ought to be struck down, that in essence those laws are profoundly un-American: 

U.S. Senior District Judge Terence Kern ruled Tuesday that Oklahoma's ban on marriage equality is unconstitutional.

The ruling is stayed pending appeal, meaning marriages will not occur immediately in Oklahoma.

In striking down Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriage, U.S. District Judge Terrence Kern described it as "an arbitrary, irrational exclusion of just one class of Oklahoma citizens from a governmental benefit."

"Equal protection is at the very heart of our legal system and central to our consent to be governed," Kern's 68-page decision says. "It is not a scarce commodity to be meted out begrudgingly or in short portions. Therefore, the majority view in Oklahoma must give way to individual constitutional rights." 

Republican Gov. Mary Fallin points out that the ban was passed in 2004 with 75 percent popular support, but of course majority rule does not supersede Americans' foundational rights. (Slavery was once a popular thing, too, remember.) Perhaps Fallin and her fellow bigoted Republicans ought to read the Constitution they claim to hold in such high esteem. (It's also rather hypocritical to be so democratic when it suits their far-right agenda.)

I still think it's important for democratically-elected legislatures to legalize same-sex marriage and thereby to put a democratic stamp on marriage equality. But there's also a role for the courts to play alongside legislatures, and it's good to see federal judges like Kern taking a firm stand against what is nothing other than blatant discrimination that treats gays and lesbians like lesser citizens, if citizens at all.

Aloha!

By Mustang Bobby

Via ThinkProgress:

Wednesday evening, the Hawaii Senate passed marriage equality by a remarkable 20-4 vote as part of a special session convened primarily for that purpose. The House will begin consideration of the bill in committee Thursday morning, and it is expected to pass the full chamber with at least one vote to spare. Hawaii would become the 15th state to recognize same-sex marriage.

You might remember that the first inklings of same-sex marriage in the United States being a possibility began over twenty years ago with a case in Hawaii.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Ernie and Bert and the meaning of marriage equality

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Here's one of the greatest magazine covers ever. In its quiet way, it its expression of love, it explains what the whole fight over same-sex marriage, over equal rights, is all about. I find it deeply moving.

After DOMA, the fight for marriage equality moves to the states

By Mustang Bobby 

Florida Gov. Rick Scott on the repeal of DOMA:

Look, I've been married since I was 19. I believe in traditional marriage.

This was, in his lizard-brain reaction, his way of saying that the repeal has no impact on the laws of Florida and its constitutional amendment passed in 2008 banning same-sex marriage.

But Mr. Scott is predicting the next battle for marriage equality. The fact that he is (we assume) happily married doesn't mean anything other than there is connubial bliss in the Scott household, and his marriage doesn't have any bearing on the people next door. Equal rights is not a zero-sum game. Granting marriage equality to a gay couple doesn't take it away from the straight people. (Please don't let's rehash the slippery slope argument of man-on-dog marriages. That will only happen when a dog has the ability to comprehend and accept the terms of a contract. Dogs may rule, but that's not a part of the deal.)

The fact that DOMA is now dead means that states that do not recognize all marriages no longer have much of a leg to stand on in denying spousal benefits when a married couple named Fred and Paul from Massachusetts relocates to Palmetto Bay, Florida. And in a way, Justice Antonin Scalia, in his rant against the ruling, predicted the next shoe to drop. Marriage equality at the state level is coming up next.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Why Minnesota matters

By Mustang Bobby

Ten other states and the District of Columbia have already passed marriage equality, and yesterday Minnesota made it twelve. I congratulate those other states, but to me Minnesota matters a little more than Massachusetts, Vermont, Rhode Island, and the rest.

It’s for several reasons, all of them personal. My father was born and raised in Minneapolis, and that’s where my grandparents are buried. I went to grad school at the University of Minnesota in the Twin Cities, that’s where my first play was produced, and that’s where I was living when I came out to my friends and family and had my first significant relationship with another man. So that’s why I was especially glad to see that it rejected the marriage-for-straights-only amendment last fall and very, very happy to see them pass the marriage equality law yesterday afternoon. So far, of all the many places I’ve lived since leaving home, Minnesota is the only state where now I can get married to the man I love if I so choose (and assuming I have found him).

I think it says a great deal about the people of Minnesota and the strength of character they embody (and that I hope I inherited from my ancestral roots there) that they took on this issue and passed it not out of a sense of being radical or ground-breaking or even pro-gay and anti-family. They did it, it seems, out the of basic goodness and fairness that Minnesotans have shown for generations.

Now if we could get some of that Minnesota Nice to spread to the other remaining states, including Florida.

Here’s the floor speech yesterday by the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Scott Dibble of Minneapolis. He pretty much sums it all up.



(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Lincoln Chafee, Rhode Island, and the fight for marriage equality (and against Republican extremism)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Yesterday, Rhode Island became the tenth state to legalize same-sex marriage.

The state's governor, the man who signed the Marriage Equality Act into law, is Lincoln Chafee.

Governor Chafee, now an independent, used to be a Republican, serving in the Senate from 1999 to 2007. He was defeated in 2006 by Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse and left the Republican Party for good in 2007.

"It's not my party anymore," he explained at the time.

The following year, in an interview with Mother Jones, he said that he "saw the Republican Party change over [his] lifetime" and agreed that he had more in common with the Democrats than the Republicans.

And, to be sure, his views on issues ranging from abortion to Israel are quite progressive. The thing is, they always have been. But he was a Republican when a lot of Republicans were fiscally conservative and if not progressive on social and other issues at least not rigidly right-wing.

Which is to say, once upon a time, it made sense for Chafee to be a Republican, particularly in a blue state like Rhode Island. It would make zero sense now. Which is why he left.

Read more »

Bedside story

By Mustang Bobby

In this day and age, this is just sad.

A gay man was arrested at a hospital in Missouri this week when he refused to leave the bedside of his partner, and now a restraining order is preventing him from any type of visitation.

Roger Gorley told WDAF that even though he has power of attorney to handle his partner’s affairs, a family member asked him to leave when he visited Research Medical Center in Kansas City on Tuesday.

Gorley said he refused to leave his partner Allen’s bedside, and that’s when security put him in handcuffs and escorted him from the building.

“I was not recognized as being the husband, I wasn’t recognized as being the partner,” Gorley explained.

He said the nurse refused to confirm that the couple shared power of attorney and made medical decision for each other.

“She didn’t even bother to look it up, to check in to it,” the Lee’s Summit resident recalled.

It’s also a violation of the law. In 2010, President Obama signed an order that required any facility that receives Medicare or Medicaid funding to allow visitation rights to same-sex partners of patients. In this case it sounds like the hospital got caught in the middle of a family feud.

There is a happy ending: according to JMG, Mr. Gorley has been allowed to return to the hospital to visit his husband.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Your slip is showing

By Mustang Bobby 

Jon Stewart's pithy question about right-wingers and their obsession with intimate acts with barnyard creatures reminds me that there are some people who have some really creepy things lurking around in their subconscious.

For example, last month Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) said he was not in favor of marriage equality because he didn't plan on marrying a man. Okay, fine; no one is asking him to. The question is really about those people who want to.

Now we have another member of the Georgia congressional delegation telling us that he’s not interested in gender transition surgery. Via The Huffington Post:

"I don't want to pay for a sex-change operation," [Rep. Paul] Broun told town hall attendees, presumably referring to a proposal, scrapped by the Obama administration late last month, that would have allowed gender confirmation surgeries to be covered under Medicare and Medicaid. "I'm not interested. I like being a boy."

Yeah. Anyone over the age of twenty-one who refers to himself as a "boy" has a few more issues than what's in the fine print of Obamacare. (FYI, such surgeries are not covered. That's up to your insurance company.)

By the way, the news that Mr. Chambliss is not gay was received with great joy amongst those of us who are.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

And then there were four

By Richard K. Barry

Now that North Dakota Sen. Heidi Heitkamp and Indiana Sen. Joe Donnelly have voiced their support for same-sex marriage, there are only four Democratic senators who maintain the opposite view.

The hold outs are are Joe Manchin (WV); Mary Landrieu (LA); Mark Pryor (AR); and, Tim Johnson (ND). 

Not to simplify things too much, but Manchin is a right-wing crank and Landrieu and Pryor are both up for re-election next year in states that are strongly opposed to same-sex marriage. 

The most complex of the four is likely Johnson, who is not running again. As The Week reports:

Johnson is unique in that he's retiring at the end of the year, leading some to speculate that, given the minimal personal political risk, he'll be the next senator to change his mind. However, Johnson's son may enter the race to replace him, and "having a parent weigh in would lock him into a position he might not hold or want to hold," says Slate's Dave Weigel. Last week, Johnson's office told The Huffington Post that he remained opposed to gay marriage.

Just the thought that we are down to a few stragglers, at least among Democrats, is quite remarkable.

Thoughts on the marriage equality conversions of Senators Carper and Kirk

By Michael J.W. Stickings

There were two high-profile endorsements of same-sex marriage today from two senators who have "evolved" on the issue:

Democratic Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware:

As our society has changed and evolved, so too has the public's opinion on gay marriage — and so has mine. I pray every day for God to grant me the wisdom to do what is right. Through my prayers and conversations with my family and countless friends and Delawareans, I've been reminded of the power of one of my core values: the Golden Rule. It calls on us to treat others as we want to be treated. That means, to me, that all Americans ultimately should be free to marry the people they love and intend to share their lives with, regardless of their sexual orientation, and that's why today, after a great deal of soul searching, I'm endorsing marriage equality.

Republican Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois:

When I climbed the Capitol steps in January, I promised myself that I would return to the Senate with an open mind and greater respect for others," Kirk wrote on his blog.

Same-sex couples should have the right to civil marriage. Our time on this earth is limited, I know that better than most. Life comes down to who you love and who loves you back -- government has no place in the middle.

Okay, my thoughts:

1) Great. Wonderful. Fantastic. Public opinion has been shifting rapidly in support of marriage equality, but it still needs all the help it can get, including from those on Capitol Hill.

2) I realize that "evolve" is the word being used by politicians to explain what might otherwise be seen as a Romney-style flip-flop, but, really, it's not so much evolution as it is (often belated) reaction to shifting public opinion. Which is to say, it's "safe" now to come out in support of same-sex marriage, and indeed politically dangerous in many cases not to, so politicians are doing just that. This is not to say that people can't grow, and can't change their minds, but in many cases all this just smacks of political convenience as opposed to sincere conviction. And, yes, that goes for President Obama as well. (And, yes, I get political convenience. Politicians need votes and so much paner to public opinion. I'm just saying.)

Read more »