The Marriage Equality Fight

While most politicos are looking at gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia to determine whether Democrats gain maintain a short-term advantage in 2010, it's clearly the battles over marriage equality and gay rights in Washington state and Maine where the true potential of a progressive realignment can be measured. On the heels of the March for Equality, we're entering the final weeks of two ballot measures to gauge this support.

In Washington, a vote against referendum 71 would actually take away domestic partner benefits from LGBT couples. Approve 71 has released their first ad, featuring a lesbian couple who has been together for 31 years.

In Maine, the fight is over marriage. The legislature passed a marriage equality law earlier this year, and the same forces who pushed through Prop. H8 in California have reassembled to try and revoke the law in Maine. This will feature two highly motivated forces with a clear decision to make on an issue of progressive values. Unlike in California, the pro-equality forces are well-prepared with a better message. For example, they actually show gay families in their ads:



Forces of bigotry are trying to pull that ad because it features a Roman Catholic mother. I guess they missed both the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion clauses in the First Amendment.

No on 1 just released their funding numbers for the third quarter, and they've raised a whopping $2.7 million dollars (very large for Maine), and have over 8,000 Mainers volunteering for the campaign. The Yes side reported only $1.1 million for the same period. And a brand-new poll shows the No side leading, 51.8%-42.9%. The Yes side is freaking out and sent an urgent email to their list yesterday asking for cash. Expect the Bat-Signal to light up at the Mormon Tabernacle any minute now.

Included in that fundraising total for No on 1 is nearly $1 million dollars in online contributions. The netroots is pushing for a moneybomb on Thursday, October 15, the last day of the financial reporting period. Joe Sudbay explains:

That's why in Maine, we're making one last major pitch before 11: 59 PM on October 15th. That date has special significance for two reasons: 1) It's the last day of the financial reporting period (the last one to be made public before election day); and 2) It's the first day of in-person absent voting. We want the No on 1 campaign to have all the resources it needs -- and to know that in advance [...]

The Courage Campaign, OpenLeft, Pam's House Blend and others are setting a goal to reach $1.1 million in online donations by October 15th. AMERICAblog readers have been very generous already. We beat our first goal of $25,000 and are heading to $50,000 now. Help us get there. And, help us win in Maine.

No on 1 is already at $1.077 million dollars on Act Blue as of 2:30pm ET today, so I'd expect the goal to rise.

The battle on marriage equality is the civil rights movement of the 21st century, and we've seen movement over the year, including yesterday. Whether Democrats have a 16-vote or 18-vote or 20-vote majority in the Senate is less suggestive of a progressive realignment than whether real advances for groups of Americans can be achieved. The fights in Washington and Maine would show that to be the case.

Good News From Maine

Some encouraging news out of Maine:

A new public poll from Democracy Corps was released yesterday, showing us with a slight lead this race 50% to 41%, a significant jump from kos's numbers from the other week of 46-48.

The numbers are encouraging, but it's that 9% undecided that will determine this race. The investment of our supporters has allowed us to get on TV before our opponents and counter every lie they have tossed at us.

This is exactly slightly better position, from my recollection, than Prop. 8 at this time last year. But clearly, it's very close, and the undecideds will be crucial.

Establishment looky-loos will be checking out VA-Gov and NJ-Gov and possibly NY-23 (which has a conservative, a liberal Republican and a conservative Democrat duking it out, so I don't know how it'll be that descriptive) on November 3 to see if Democrats or Republicans have momentum heading into next year. I would advise them to take a look at this race. In a long-term sense, the winner of the equality fight in Maine will point the way forward for the country. We'll see if we're ready to embrace the future yet. The No on 1 folks are doing a great job so far, and I have faith that they can make this work.

I hate to do back-to-back fundraising pitches, but it is the end of the quarter. Give to No on 1, you'll be happy you were on the right side of history.

Fixing Our Left Coast Mistake

For so many people, the passage of Prop. 8 last November represented a civil rights failure. But it was just as much a political failure. A campaign that could have been about neighbor-to-neighbor contact and recognizing what brings us together rather than sets us apart was instead waged at 30,000 feet. The TV ads for the No campaign never showed one gay couple, and they never spent any resources on door-to-door canvassing. The consultants who ran that campaign (into the ground) claimed that visibility mattered more than personal persuasion (they actually told volunteers to get on a street corner and hold signs instead of interacting directly with people), and the entire race was waged in a defensive crouch, as the Yes campaign would post one lie after another to which the No campaign would belatedly respond.

In November there will be a chance to right this wrong, to apply the proper political means to achieve a civil rights victory. Gay marriage has been legalized by the legislature in Maine (that activist legislature!), and the same forces that passed Prop. 8 in California have qualified a ballot measure to overturn it. Instead of a state with 17 million registered voters, the universe of likely voters in Maine is just around 500,000. The No on 1/Protect Maine Equality campaign figures that they will need between $3-$5 million to wage a successful campaign. Considering the netroots provided nearly $1.5 million for the failed No on 8 campaign, putting a similar amount into a campaign that will actually identify supporters and turn them out to the polls should be an easier task.

If you have any suspicion that the Maine folks don't know what they're doing, take a look at this first commercial, one of the best I've seen on this subject:



The theocrats are targeting Maine as the place where they can turn back the momentum on marriage equality from the past few months. Civil rights campaigns are long and often painful, and sometimes they have to go directly to the people. We can win this time. Support Maine Freedom to Marry.

Amazing How Leaving Public Office Can Clear Your Mind

If anyone thinks Bill Clinton's new position on gay marriage has anything to do with an evolution of his views and not the fact that he'll never run for public office again, they need to take a second look. Ex-politicians have a remarkably more open mind on this issue than active politicians, and that's no accident. I think it's a mistake with how active politicians view the beliefs of the electorate, but that's a different story.

A Second Chance

The state of Massachusetts upped the ante in the fight over same-sex marriage by suing the federal government over its DOMA policy.

Massachusetts, the first state to legalize gay marriage, sued the U.S. government Wednesday over a federal law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

The federal Defense of Marriage Act interferes with the right of Massachusetts to define and regulate marriage as it sees fit, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley said. The 1996 law denies federal recognition of gay marriage and gives states the right to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

Massachusetts is the first state to challenge the federal law. Its lawsuit, filed in federal court in Boston, argues the act "constitutes an overreaching and discriminatory federal law." It says the approximately 16,000 same-sex couples who have married in Massachusetts since the state began performing gay marriages in 2004 are being unfairly denied federal benefits given to heterosexual couples.

True, Massachusetts is the first state to challenge DOMA, but several individuals have chosen to do so. And the Obama Justice Department's brief in that case was basically the touchstone to seething in the gay community over the White House disrespecting their civil rights. Just yesterday AIDS activists shut down the Capitol Dome over a broken promise from Obama on needle-exchange programs.

It appears that Obama will have an opportunity, at some point, to submit a new brief and right this wrong. I hope he takes it.

Chris Dodd Comes Around To Supporting Gay Marriage

Chris Dodd's running for Senate re-election in a state that has already legalized gay marriage, in legislation eventually signed by a popular Republican Governor. So him coming out in support of gay marriage probably has a political significance. But he frames it on the level of wanting to properly meet the call of history.

While I’ve long been for extending every benefit of marriage to same-sex couples, I have in the past drawn a distinction between a marriage-like status (“civil unions”) and full marriage rights.

The reason was simple: I was raised to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. And as many other Americans have realized as they’ve struggled to reconcile the principle of fairness with the lessons they learned early in life, that’s not an easy thing to overcome.

But the fact that I was raised a certain way just isn’t a good enough reason to stand in the way of fairness anymore.

The Connecticut Supreme Court, of course, has ruled that such a distinction holds no merit under the law. And the Court is right [...]

My young daughters are growing up in a different reality than I did. Our family knows many same-sex couples – our neighbors in Connecticut, members of my staff, parents of their schoolmates. Some are now married because the Connecticut Supreme Court and our state legislature have made same-sex marriage legal in our state.

But to my daughters, these couples are married simply because they love each other and want to build a life together. That’s what we’ve taught them. The things that make those families different from their own pale in comparison to the commitments that bind those couples together.

And, really, that’s what marriage should be. It’s about rights and responsibilities and, most of all, love.

Even with gay marriage a reality in Connecticut, among those in the middle who would decide his re-election, this stand probably doesn't help all that much, although I'm not sure it hurts either. Dodd's simply trying to get this right. So good for him; others in the Democratic Party who probably share his views are afraid to speak out this way. And the rest of those lagging behind Dodd ought to catch up.

Dead Olive Branch

After seriously pissing off gays and lesbians since practically the day after the election, from choosing Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at the Inaugural to making no progress on nearly a dozen initiatives promised during the campaign, from gay marriage to Don't Ask Don't Tell to DOMA to the Employee Non-Discrimination Act, Barack Obama will offer job benefits to federal employees in same-sex relationships as a kind of consolation prize.

President Obama will sign a presidential memorandum on Wednesday to extend benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees, administration officials said Tuesday evening, but he will stop short of pledging full health insurance coverage.

Mr. Obama, in an Oval Office announcement, is expected to offer details about which benefits will be provided. It is the most significant statement he has made on gay issues, and it comes as he faces intense criticism from several gay rights leaders over what they suggest has been a failure to live up to campaign promises in the first months of his presidency.

Mr. Obama will be weighing in for the first time on one of the most delicate social and political issues of the day: whether the government must provide benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees. While he will announce a list of benefits, officials said, they are not expected to include broad health insurance coverage, which could require legislation to achieve.

The initial reaction from some gay rights advocates was mixed.

“Extending benefits to partners of gay federal employees is terrific, but at this point he is under enormous pressure from the gay civil rights community for having promised the moon and done nothing so far,” Richard Socarides, an adviser to the Clinton administration on gay issues, said Tuesday evening. “So more important now is what he says tomorrow about the future for gay people during his presidency.”

There's a backstory to this, as the DNC is planning a fundraiser for a lot of well-heeled gays and lesbians and the Human Rights Campaign just pulled out of it, after the Justice Department filed a fairly homophobic brief defending DOMA in district court. This kind of small-ball maneuver will not mend the rift that has opened through months of disappointment with Obama's reticence to meet his promises.

Unfortunately, federal benefits for gay federal employees is not even one of the eight campaign promises Obama made to our community (there are only seven now on the White House Web site - the DOMA promise went down the memory hole about two months ago).

Joe and I have written about this before. We had predicted that Obama would either give us the hate crimes bill or benefits for federal employees as a means of showing how much he's doing on his gay rights promises, without actually doing anything on any of the eight gay rights promises he made. (And guess what? After the DOMA brief controversy exploded, they suddenly announced plans to do hate crimes in the Senate this week. And now, poof, the bill is dead again until at least August. And remember folks, this is the easy one - it already passed the House and Senate, and survived a Senate filibuster, in the last Congress.)

Who is advising the president of the United States on gay issues? This is beyond belief. These people think we're living in 1993, where our number one issue is getting 2% of the gay population working for the federal government to get some of the benefits that straight employees get. Again, it's nice. And if I were kicking back in my Birkenstocks and joining a few friends to watch Melrose Place, I might think this was a huge deal. But it doesn't compare with Obama having promised to repeal DOMA, repeal DADT, and secure passage of ENDA. There is no progress whatsoever on that front, unless you call Obama continuing to discharge gay service members, and filing hideously anti-gay rehashes of George Bush's old homophobic legal briefs, "progress."

I agree with John Aravosis that Obama and his advisors appear stuck in a 1990s mindset, wary of a Clinton-style flameout on a gay rights issue at a time when same-sex marriage has been made legal in six states and most Americans have moved beyond the culture wars. Who exactly is Obama mollifying by not pressing on gay rights issues? Seemingly, a section of the public that will never vote for him anyway.

Furthermore, these benefits are restricted through the Defense of Marriage Act, and thus will be more symbolic and marginal than thorough.

I do agree that gay rights advocates should hold Congress to the same standard as the President, though obviously the man with the bully pulpit has a great deal of influence. Harry Reid told the Advocate that a repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell could happen in this Congress, and he should not only be held to that (it was actually a backtrack from a previous statement that a DADT repeal had no chief sponsor in the Senate), but pushed to do it this year. Reid tried to punt to the President by saying "We would welcome a legislative proposal from the White House on repeal so as to provide clear guidance on what the President would like to see and when." You can see the President punting to Congress (I need legislation) and Congress punting to the President (we need legislative language) forever. Pressure must be maintained on all fronts.

Six States For Civil Rights

This hit a snag a couple weeks back, but New Hampshire passed the bill extending marriage equality to same-sex couples, and the Governor will sign it. Good news.

Iowa, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire all have marriage equality now. Rhode Island could round out the entire New England region if they step up.

Another step forward would be the Uniting American Families Act introduced by Sen. Patrick Leahy.

Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont is moving forward with a bill that would allow American citizens and legal immigrants to seek legal residency in the United States for their same-sex partners, just as spouses now petition for foreign-born husbands and wives. Reintroduced this past February, the act is entitled the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA, H.R. 1024, S. 424). While the UAFA has been introduced in four successive Congressional sessions, the bill has languished. Still during last session the bill had 199 sponsors in the House and 19 in the Senate.

Discriminatory immigration laws against same-sex couples should not stand.

...sadly, homophobes in Congress and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops are trying to get this language taken out of a broader immigration bill.

Barack, Get Yourself To West Hollywood

When Ted Olson, who argued Bush v. Gore before the Supreme Court, took the case alleging that Prop. 8 violates equal protection laws and that same-sex couples have a Constitutional right to be married, that's one thing. When Republicans like Meghan McCain and Steve Schmidt make pronouncements in favor of gay marriage, it's another. But when Dick Cheney offers his support, and nobody bats an eyelash because he's supported gay marriage since 2004, basically, the political world should take notice.

"I think that freedom means freedom for everyone," replied the former V.P. "As many of you know, one of my daughters is gay and it is something we have lived with for a long time in our family. I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish. Any kind of arrangement they wish. The question of whether or not there ought to be a federal statute to protect this, I don't support. I do believe that the historically the way marriage has been regulated is at the state level. It has always been a state issue and I think that is the way it ought to be handled, on a state-by-state basis. ... But I don't have any problem with that. People ought to get a shot at that."

Obviously, if he didn't have direct personal knowledge of gay relationships because of a member of his family, he probably wouldn't have the same position. And you can also see that in Bill Clinton's answer about gay marriage late last week. For context, Clinton signed DOMA and reportedly told John Kerry to endorse local bans against gay marriage and even the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Asked about same-sex marriages, Bush defended the "sacred" institution of wedlock between a man and a woman. Clinton said that the more he knows gay people, the more he thinks their relationships "should be up to them."

Barack Obama needs to talk to some gay Americans. Certainly that would be preferable to talking to the consultants that have him paralyzed with fear over extending civil rights to homosexuals.

Of course, one recognizes that Clinton and Cheney are not in office right now.

...Obama goes out on a limb, reiterates for the 500th time a promise to end the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy. Which he could do by putting a moratorium on firing soldiers today.

My Administration has partnered with the LGBT community to advance a wide range of initiatives. At the international level, I have joined efforts at the United Nations to decriminalize homosexuality around the world. Here at home, I continue to support measures to bring the full spectrum of equal rights to LGBT Americans. These measures include enhancing hate crimes laws, supporting civil unions and Federal rights for LGBT couples, outlawing discrimination in the workplace, ensuring adoption rights, and ending the existing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in a way that strengthens our Armed Forces and our national security. We must also commit ourselves to fighting the HIV/AIDS epidemic by both reducing the number of HIV infections and providing care and support services to people living with HIV/AIDS across the United States.

On The Legal And The Personal In The Prop. 8 Case

The Sacramento Bee will host a live webcast discussion with legal experts about the implications of the California Supreme Court's ruling on Prop. 8, on minority rights, the First Amendment, equal protection and even religious freedom. It promises to be a good discussion, and it starts at noon.

But considering that the Court has, for now, given up on its ability to protect the civil rights of the minority in the face of mob rule, the logical arguments must also incorporate the emotional ones, and what must be now taken into account are the personal stories, highlighted here by state lawmakers.

Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, confided in a Capitol press conference that her daughter is lesbian.

"This is a decision that affects all Californians in a very personal way," Skinner said of the ruling on Proposition 8.
"It impacts my family in saying that somehow my daughter's love for the woman who is her partner is not as valid as the love others have for the opposite sex."

Skinner appeared at a news conference with the Legislature's four openly gay members, all Democrats - Sen. Mark Leno, San Francisco; Sen. Christine Kehoe, San Diego; Assemblyman John Perez, Los Angeles; and Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, San Francisco.

San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders, a Republican, spoke briefly at the event, noting that he has one daughter who is lesbian and the other "straight."

"They don't have the same rights today," Sanders said.

I want to add my voice to that personalization by highlighting this section of an LA Times piece on some of the 18,000 married couples, now granted separate rights than their fellow gays and lesbians.

Julie Nice, a University of San Francisco law professor specializing in constitutional and sexuality law, sees the emergence of the legally married gay class as yet another inconsistency in the nation's laws governing same-sex marriage.

"This kind of chaotic patchwork is not sustainable," Nice said of laws recognizing the right of gays to marry in five states, granting recognition to legal marriages conducted elsewhere in a few others and now California's validation of the pre-Proposition 8 marriages while denying the status to other gays [...]

Several gay couples were in attendance as West Hollywood officials sought to chart a path forward in the fight for same-sex marriage rights after the high court's decision. Although Mark Katz, 58, and Robert Goodman, 48, continue to be recognized in the state as legally married, they deemed the ruling "tragic."

"This is as if we were freed slaves living in a slave state," said Goodman, a career counselor. "We were able to keep our marriage, but none of our brothers will be able to marry."

Mark Katz is my cousin. The rhetorical bomb-throwing must run in the family. But they are wonderful people, with an adopted son, and while yesterday's ruling secured some of their civil rights, they are not satisfied with being put on a kind of island, where their friends and fellow citizens must live under a separate system.

In this sense, I understand fully the federal district court action being represented by former Bush v. Gore foes David Boies and Ted Olson to challenge their denial of marriage licenses in California. The federal judiciary has a role to play in upholding the 14th Amendment and ensure equal treatment under the law. From a practical perspective, a conservative Supreme Court may issue a 21st-century Plessy v. Ferguson and set back the cause of gay rights in the states for decades, a frightening thought. But the legal logic at work here is unassailable.

The ultimate outcome of the lawsuit depends, as usual, on Anthony Kennedy. He has been consistently good on gay rights issues, but I suspect he would only sign onto a more limited ruling saying that states must have convert civil unions and domestic partnerships into marriages, or else not recognize same-sex relationships altogether, if even that. The best case scenario - a Loving v. Virginia-style invalidation of all bans on same-sex marriage, including DOMA and state constitution amendments - would probably only be possible if someone like a (preferably LGBT) visionary like Pam Karlan or Kathleen Sullivan is appointed to the Court in time to push a 5-4 majority toward a bolder opinion.

The legal ramifications of this are truly troubling, and ought to be examined thoroughly. But my first thought turns to my cousin. And those familial connections, and the new connections forged through organizing, will eventually be how these rights are achieved for everyone. While the courts should protect minorities - Loving wasn't put to a vote - the world in which we live demands civil actions for civil rights. And so did the world of the 1950s and 1960s, actually. Contra the robots on the right, public opinion does move political action in legislatures and the judiciary.

Openly gay LA City Councilman Bill Rosendahl has some further thoughts, arguing persuasively for a national action at the national level for the same benefits and rights for gay couples, the ones heterosexual individuals and couples take for granted.

California's Decision Day

The California Supreme Court is supposed to deliver their opinion in the Prop. 8 case right now, but for me at least, the site where they're dropping the opinion has clogged toobz. Will bring it to you when I can. The consensus CW is that the Court will not invalidate Prop. 8 but will allow the 18,000 marriages consummated when same-sex marriage was legal in California to remain legal.

LA Times City Desk sez the Court upheld the ban, but the 18,000 marriages will be recognized. As expected.

...what this means is that gay rights advocates will go back to the ballot to overturn Prop. 8. I'm trying to wrap my head around how 18,000 gay couples can be legally married in a state where gay marriage is banned in the Constitution. It's a split-the-baby decision that really doesn't make a lot of sense to me, and will probably disappoint both sides of the debate at some level. The LA Times has a link up, finally.

If you're looking for something to do with the disappointment, join 300,000 other Californians and sign the pledge to repeal Prop. 8.



...State Senator Mark Leno, who wrote two gay marriage bills passed by the legislature and vetoed by Arnold Schwarzenegger, has this reaction:

"Today's decision is extremely disappointing for California and hurts thousands of caring couples who wish to make lifelong commitments to one another through marriage. Let today's decision be a rallying cry for all Californians who believe in equality and fairness, and encourage thousands more to stand up and fight the pervasive injustices LGBT people face in our community and our nation."

"The issue before this court was much greater than marriage equality. The question asked of our justices goes to the core of our society. Can a majority vote undermine a foundation stone of our constitutional democracy, equal protection under the law? Today our highest court ruled that minorities do not matter."

"Through our disappointment, we will still find hope and encouragement, including the 18,000 couples whose marriages in California remain secure and protected today. Through our sadness, our resolve to fight for justice and equality only grows stronger. Love is an unstoppable force, and equality is right around the corner."

As I understand the ruling, the Court did a complete reversal of their previous ruling legalizing same-sex marriage. They asserted that gay couples retain all the rights and obligations in the domestic partnership laws, and the only difference is the word "marriage," which is Constitutional. But last year they ruled that the word marriage matters. It's a very political ruling meant to save their hides. They appear on a ballot every 10 years and they wanted to keep their jobs. I can't think of another reason.

They also appear to demur from standing in the way of any assault on individual rights in California. By this standard, a 50% + 1 majority at the ballot box could conceivably take away ANY minority right they pleased, without the California Supreme Court stepping in as an arbiter. Presumably the federal Constitution would come into play on certain issues as a kind of floor. But realistically speaking, the Court just gave up their function as a defender of the minority.

Decision

The California Supreme Court will deliver its verdict on Tuesday morning at 10am PT on whether or not to throw out Prop. 8, a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in the state. Brian Devine has the best legal description of this anywhere, which you can read here. The Court isn't really looking at the law itself, but whether a change of this type violates the limited ability of the people to amend the Constitution through an initiative; in other words, whether Prop. 8 was an amendment, which is legal through the initiative process that was used, or a revision, which requires a more deliberative process.

Based on the oral arguments, most people believe that the Court will not overturn Prop. 8, but may allow the 18,000 marriages that were consummated when same-sex marriage in the state was legal to remain that way. But the Court could surprise.

The initiative battle and particularly the aftermath of Prop. 8 have sparked a tremendous amount of activism in the state and nationally. Regardless of the outcome, the group at Day of Decision will hold nationwide events praising or protesting the Court ruling. On Saturday, 70 civil rights and progressive groups are sponsoring Meet In The Middle For Equality, a large gathering in Fresno, CA.

Lucas O'Connor remarks:

All of which adds up to yes, Prop 8 has proven to be one of the best organizing points in recent decades for the state of California. It's been a perfect storm of tactical and technological innovation from facebook and text messaging plus orgs like Courage Campaign and CREDO meeting resurgent activist energy and experience coming from the issue and the '08 presidential campaign legacy.

Like with the Dallas Principles, those battling for equality have devised new outlets for activism which have amped up the pressure for action at every level. 300,000 people have signed the pledge to repeal Prop. 8. Grassroots groups have sprung up out of nowhere, with more coming on line every day. There is no equal to the activism and organizing this has set off.

If I have any faith left in the ability for California to manage its seemingly intractable governmental problems, it's because I see this effort that has been launched in the name of rights and equality, and dream that it can be scaled up into a larger progressive movement that expands the fight for justice. Such an organizing effort has never even really been tried in the nation's largest state, and if successful could spread like wildfire across the country.

No Middle Ground

The Obama Administration won't challenge a legal ruling on gays in the military, but will fight it in the lower courts.

A federal appeals court in San Francisco last year ruled that the government must justify the expulsion of a decorated officer solely because she is a lesbian. The court rejected government arguments that the law banning gays in the military should have a blanket application, and that officials shouldn't be required to argue the merits in her individual case.

The administration let pass a May 3 deadline to appeal to the Supreme Court. That means the case will be returned to the district court, and administration officials said they will continue to defend the law there [...]

White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said the president remains committed to repealing the law "in a sensible way that strengthens our armed forces and our national security" but added: "Until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system."

There's something to be said for following the law and past precedent. But first, the President could easily put a moratorium on firing gay and lesbian soldiers today, and second, this respect for the law hasn't extended to many, many other policies that the President has overturned. Only in the area of gay rights, it appears, must those laws be followed to the letter.

As Joe Subday notes, the LGBT community is organized and impatient, and these games of "we want to repeal it, but until then we'll follow the law" won't fly for much longer.

There's a case in the pipeline on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) already, which challenges Section 3 of that law. The lawsuit, Gill, et al. v. Office of Personnel Management, et al., was filed in March. The head of the Office of Personnel Management is gay, coincidentally. Will the Obama administration defend DOMA in court, too? Will the gay head of OPM defend DOMA?

If the White House thinks signing the hate crimes bill is enough, which it appears they may do soon, they're wrong. And, a beautiful proclamation about gay pride won't cut it either. The times have changed and the President and his people need to catch up -- fast.

It seems that Obama's fetish for a middle ground actually hurts him here. Either gays and lesbians have the same rights as all Americans or they don't. There's not a "common ground" position to take.

Stop Making Them Second-Class Citizens

Following up on the gay marriage talk, it really grates on me that social conservatives can still use the words of Democratic leaders who are too milquetoast to argue fervently for equal rights. We're not even talking about just marriage, but the entire umbrella of gay rights, things that the nation has come to a consensus on long ago, like banning discrimination against gays in employment or stopping the insane policy of firing willing public servants at a time when we need as many eager members of the military as possible because of their personal relationships. Hearing the White House hem and haw on these issues, which are uncontroversial to the vast majority of the public, just really makes you sad. Democrats continue to tie themselves up in knots with fear of actually producing for communities like the LGBT base, despite the fact that social conservatives have become totally marginalized and nobody who listens to James Dobson would vote for a Democrat anyway.

Andrew Sullivan has an important piece on these issues.

I have a sickeningly familiar feeling in my stomach, and the feeling deepens with every interaction with the Obama team on these issues. They want them to go away. They want us to go away.

Here we are, in the summer of 2009, with gay servicemembers still being fired for the fact of their orientation. Here we are, with marriage rights spreading through the country and world and a president who cannot bring himself even to acknowledge these breakthroughs in civil rights, and having no plan in any distant future to do anything about it at a federal level. Here I am, facing a looming deadline to be forced to leave my American husband for good, and relocate abroad because the HIV travel and immigration ban remains in force and I have slowly run out of options (unlike most non-Americans with HIV who have no options at all).

And what is Obama doing about any of these things? What is he even intending at some point to do about these things? So far as I can read the administration, the answer is: nada. We're firing Arab linguists? So sorry. We won't recognize in any way a tiny minority of legally married couples in several states because they're, ugh, gay? We had no idea. There's a ban on HIV-positive tourists and immigrants? Really? Thanks for letting us know. Would you like to join Joe Solmonese and John Berry for cocktails? The inside of the White House is fabulous these days.

Yesterday, Robert Gibbs gave non-answer after non-answer on civil unions and Obama's clear campaign pledge to grant equal federal rights for gay couples; non-answer after non-answer on the military's remaining ban on honest servicemembers. What was once a categorical pledge is now - well let's call it the toilet paper that it is. I spent yesterday trying to get a better idea of what's intended on all fronts, and the overwhelming sense - apart from a terror of saying anything about gay people on the record - is that we are in the same spot as in every Democratic administration: the well-paid leaders of the established groups get jobs and invites, and that's about it. Worse: we will get a purely symbolic, practically useless hate crimes bill that they will then wave in our faces to prove they need do nothing more.

It's not only wrong, it's no longer even smart politics. The gay community has money, ground troops and power, and they are increasingly organized. What you rile up on the right gets more than made up for from the energy and effort from the left. Not to mention, it's the right thing to do.

Gay Marriage, The Real Financial Crisis

It's not bigotry or homophobia, but the cost to small businesses as a result of putting a new set of spouses on the health plan. That's why Republicans oppose gay marriage.

Let's set aside the multiple efforts during the Bush Administration to encourage marriage, which would place the exact same burden on those small businesses, only not with the ickiness of teh ghey.

But if we really want to talk about the high cost of spousal benefits for businesses, um, Michael? I've got a way around it for you. Stay with me on this one.

NATIONAL HEALTH CARE.

New Hampshire Makes It Six

John Lynch's statement on the gay marriage bill in New Hampshire merely asks for some fundie cover, and considering that similar language was used in other states that passed marriage equality, I think nobody will find it objectionable. We're going to see gay marriage legal in every state in New England except Rhode Island.

The speed with which a lot of this has happened is pretty striking. Eventually, once every state finally allows marriage equality, people will look to this time as when the floodgates burst open.

VA-Gov: Terry McAuliffe's Money To The Rescue

The NYT Mag has a profile of Terry McAuliffe, who to me represents the worst of the Clinton-era corporate Democrats, but who is re-inventing himself as a candidate for Governor of Virginia. He's simply swamping the state with money, much of it out-of-state (82%) and corporate money, and using his peripatetic style to attract votes. Apparently he's campaigning on a message of jobs - a keen political insight considering the country has lost 5.7 million of them in the last year-plus:

His campaign is tailored for these times. “Jobs is the issue — the issue, the issue, the issue,” Cranwell, the Virginia Democratic chairman, told me. And wherever McAuliffe goes, he is surrounded by campaign placards reading, “New Energy for New Jobs.” He talks everywhere, albeit often vaguely, about using economic incentives to attract out-of-state industry and to promote clean-energy technology. When Terry McAuliffe pitches Terry McAuliffe, it is not as the former head of the Democratic National Committee but as the businessman who started his first enterprise, tarring driveways for Syracuse neighbors, when he was 14. “If the biggest problem facing Virginia today were crime, Terry would not be a plausible candidate,” says Paul Begala, who first worked with McAuliffe on Richard Gephardt’s presidential campaign in 1988 [...]

As he campaigns, McAuliffe’s economic plan is “probably the most aggressive economic plan that has ever been put out in the country,” if McAuliffe does say so himself. By the time he is done as governor, he will “create more jobs than all the other 49 governors,” Virginia will supplant California as the film-production capital of the world and Old Dominion University in Norfolk will become the nation’s leading research university.

His business acumen, however, mainly involves shilling for candidates and taking money off the top of deals, not creating thousands of middle class jobs for Virginians. I mean, this is ridiculous:

In December, in response to Moran's claim to be the only candidate who had run a business and raised a family in Virginia, McAuliffe boasted of launching five businesses in Virginia.

It turned out that all five are investment partnerships, with no employees, registered to his home address in McLean.

McAuliffe may or may not have some liabilities - the $100,000 investment in the ultimately failed company Global Crossing, which netted him $18 million while employees lost their pensions - on the business and jobs front. He's always been a salesman, and that sales pitch might get him through an election. But I worry more about his policy menu:

There are a few policy differences among the Democrats, in particular Moran and McAuliffe. Moran opposes offshore oil and natural-gas drilling and the construction of a coal-burning plant in Surry, and he has pledged to fight to repeal a 2006 state constitutional amendment banning gay marriages and civil unions. McAuliffe has said he is open to coal-burning plants and offshore drilling for natural gas, though only under stringent circumstances. While McAuliffe says he also opposed the gay-marriage amendment, he has argued that it is politically unrealistic to think the state’s two Legislatures would ever vote to repeal it.

Terry McAuliffe strikes me as a huckster, not a leader. He'll compromise and not advocate. He'll listen to donors while talking to voters. And he's apparently winning the primary. I hope Brian Moran can come back.

Remember The Maine

Governor Baldacci just signed the marriage equality bill, making Maine the 5th state to allow same-sex couples the right to marry.

AUGUSTA – Governor John E. Baldacci today signed into law LD 1020, An Act to End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom.

“I have followed closely the debate on this issue. I have listened to both sides, as they have presented their arguments during the public hearing and on the floor of the Maine Senate and the House of Representatives. I have read many of the notes and letters sent to my office, and I have weighed my decision carefully,” Governor Baldacci said. “I did not come to this decision lightly or in haste.”

“I appreciate the tone brought to this debate by both sides of the issue,” Governor Baldacci said. “This is an emotional issue that touches deeply many of our most important ideals and traditions. There are good, earnest and honest people on both sides of the question.”

“In the past, I opposed gay marriage while supporting the idea of civil unions,” Governor Baldacci said. “I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage.”

“Article I in the Maine Constitution states that ‘no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor be denied the equal protection of the laws, nor be denied the enjoyment of that person’s civil rights or be discriminated against.’”

There's likely to be a ballot measure on this in the near future. For now, same-sex couples can marry in three more states than they could have just weeks ago.

Gay Marriage Snowball Continues Downhill

Maine passed a gay marriage bill out of both houses of its legislature. After a couple procedural votes, the bill moves to Governor John Baldacci's desk for signature. He has recently hinted toward approval while officially remaining undecided.

And the City Council in Washington, DC, approved recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages, with Marion Barry (yes, he's still a city councilman in Washington) playing the role of sideshow freak:

The vote was originally unanimous, until “councilman Marion Barry proclaimed that he didn’t realize what he was voting for and asked for reconsideration of the measure. The measure was amended to another bill.” Berry said that his nay vote was an “‘agonizing and difficult decision’ that he made after prayer and consulting with the religious community.”

When your only ally is Marion Barry, you aren't in the most advantageous position.

Notably, the DC Council vote forces a vote before Congress, because they hold jurisdiction over city laws. That could get interesting.

Exponential Movement

I always expected American attitudes against gay marriage to fade as young people who clearly support gay rights matured and the older people who don't, well, reach their end. I didn't expect that change to come so rapidly.

It's a country, in short, in which no fixed ideological orthodoxy holds sway, and attitudes on hot-button issues can and do shift over time, sometimes in surprising ways.

Take gay marriage, legal in Massachusetts, Connecticut and now Iowa, with Vermont coming aboard in September. At its low, in 2004, just 32 percent of Americans favored gay marriage, with 62 percent opposed. Now 49 percent support it versus 46 percent opposed -- the first time in ABC/Post polls that supporters have outnumbered opponents.

More than half, moreover -- 53 percent -- say gay marriages held legally in another state should be recognized as legal in their states.

The surprise is that the shift has occurred across ideological groups. While conservatives are least apt to favor gay marriage, they've gone from 10 percent support in 2004 to 19 percent in 2006 and 30 percent now -- overall a 20-point, threefold increase, alongside a 13-point gain among liberals and 14 points among moderates. (Politically, support for gay marriage has risen sharply among Democrats and independents alike, while far more slightly among Republicans.)

Americans also seem to be more supportive of decriminalizing small amounts of marijuana, which truly is a sea change. As the article said, the "close the border" crowd still has some cachet, however, and just half support banning torture of terrorism subjects in all cases. Those are a function of conservative demagoguery and cultural demonization - it's striking that this isn't working when it comes to gay marriage.

The AP's Liz Sidoti even claims that Democrats have an opportunity on gay rights as support grows.

In recent weeks, Vermont and Iowa have legalized same-sex marriage, while New York, Maine and New Hampshire have taken steps in that direction. Polls show younger Americans are far are more tolerant on the issue than are older generations. For now at least, the public is much more focused on the troubled economy and two wars than on social issues.

In addition, over the past decade, public acceptance of gay marriage has changed dramatically.

It's the passage of Prop. 8 in California driving a lot of this, I feel. That slap in the face sparked a real movement with lots of activism that added to the national trend. It urged immediate action in other states, as activism in California bled over into other states. We're now seeing a national marriage equality movement, and I don't think Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine would have necessarily scheduled legislation without it. And when legislation passes, minds really do change. Because along with that legislation comes a debate, and when more and more states offer gay marriage in a legal process, you see more images of people who love each other, who don't deserve scorn. And even more minds change.