Mary Cheney speaks

Posted on May 8, 2006 by David

Mary Cheney, AOL executive, daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney and self-described Bush Republican, who became an unwilling focus of the 2004 presidential campaign and the website “Where’s Mary?” speaks out in USA Today.

This fall, Virginians will vote on a proposed amendment to the Virginia Bill of Rights that would ban same-sex marriages and civil unions in the state. Cheney says she will vote against it.

“What you have to understand,” she says, “is that as far as I’m concerned, Heather and I are married. We’ve built a home and a life together. She is the person I hope to spend the rest of my life with.

“We’re just waiting for the state and federal laws to catch up with us.”

Posted in Advocacy | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Justice for All

Posted on May 1, 2006 by David

A fine editorial from retired Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong in Richmond’s Style Weekly.

One word about this, where he is speaking of the fallacy that marriage has throughout human history been defined as between “one man and one woman:”

There were also times in history when the words one man and one woman did not imply equality because the woman did not enjoy the same rights in that marriage as the man.

Those who are currently so desperate to write this definition into our Bill of Rights, thinking that by doing so they can force the next generation to define marriage the way they do, are driven by precisely this model. In this world view, marriage is, by definition, a very specific relationship between two non-equals. Marriage as a partnership between two equal, fully autonomous human beings already represents a “radical redefinition of marriage.”

The conversation we are actually having when we talk about the definition of marriage is between those who see men and women as autonomous and fully human as individuals, and those who adhere to the Victorian idea that individual men and women are incomplete, and require an opposite sex mate in order to become fully human. This is the core of the so-called “natural law” argument, what some activists are now calling “organic marriage.” According to this argument, our integrity as human beings is defined entirely by the use of our “plumbing.” For an example, see this post and comments.

“Difference” is the crucial factor that both excuses and masks inequality. If two people of the same sex can marry, or even present themselves to the world as if they are married, the excuse for this foundational inequality goes away. What basis is there to decide who the “head of household” is between two equals? There is none – they have to negotiate and make decisions as if they are both whole, fully functioning adults. And that, these activists curiously believe, would mean the downfall of our civilization.

Posted in Advocacy | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Justice for All

Gay-Marriage Proposal

Posted on April 30, 2006 by David

Update: More on the irony of it all from Pam’s House Blend and Ex-Gay Watch.

Why the correct answer to the question, “So, are you two planning a trip to Canada?” is always “Nope, we’re holding out for a covenant marriage in Virginia.”

Washington Post
April 30, 2006
By William Saletan

Dearly beloved, we are gathered together to join two ideas in holy matrimony. On the right, covenant marriage, an option legalized by some states but widely shunned as too conservative. On the left, same-sex marriage, an option widely sought but outlawed as too radical. Covenant marriage, in which spouses choose to make divorce more difficult, has become a forlorn maiden, a home without a constituency. Meanwhile, the same-sex marriage movement has become a frustrated suitor, a constituency without a home. Let us bless them, that they may join as one flesh: gay covenant marriage.

more »

Read this. Seriously. The best line, possibly, is one that speaks directly to our local “Healthy Marriage Initiative” (see here and here):

[Those who claim to be protecting marriage] call for “mentor couples” and “influence within society” to promote marriage. Can you imagine a more powerful influence than finding out that the gay couple down the block has a stronger marriage than you do?

Posted in Advocacy | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Gay-Marriage Proposal

You just can’t make this stuff up.

Posted on April 27, 2006 by David

Today, a coalition from what can only be called the wacky wing of the anti-gay industry announced a new plan to have “concerned citizens” perform “audits” of our schools for signs of cooperation with our secret agenda (which I confess I still have not seen).

The warning signs they are instructed to be on the lookout for? “Political Science/ History/Civics classes on current issues,” “Programs on tolerance, diversity, ‘hate’ or ‘bias’,” “teacher/ staff training on ‘diversity,’ ‘tolerance,’ or ‘sensitivity’,” “Lessons on different types of families,” “anti-harassment, anti-bullying or ‘safe schools’ policies,” grants from the state Health Department, the U.S. Department of Justice (which supports something called “Civil Rights Action Teams”) or the National Institutes of Mental Health, and this (oh, the horror):

Certain schools have adopted what they call “safety” measures. Cardboard pink triangles or rainbows, both used as symbols of “gay rights,” are affixed to the office or classroom doors of some teachers or staff. The idea is that these are designated as “safe” areas for students to come if they want to privately ask questions about homosexual feelings, where they will receive sympathy and secret advice instead of warnings.

Ok, I admit that this is low hanging fruit. But, we should probably expect the usual suspects to again pose as “concerned citizens” and fail to identify who they work for, as they harass our education professionals. Perhaps they will receive instructions and assistance from Eugene Delgaudio and Steve Baldwin again.

Please bear in mind, too, that it does not matter that in some instances school districts are collaborating with homosexual activists because of state or local law.

That’s right, Sparky. Your single-minded obsession with making sure that a gay kid who needs support doesn’t have a single place or person to turn to means that you are above the law, and above human decency. You just keep thinking that.

Posted in Commentary, News | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on You just can’t make this stuff up.

Which ones are the ‘activist judges,’ again?

Posted on April 26, 2006 by David

Virginia Centrist has a post up about the Ohio court ruling that the Ohio version of the Marshall-Newman amendment prohibits the application of domestic violence law to unmarried people. This immediately elicited comments complaining that this strict constructionist reading of the amendment is an example of “legislating from the bench.” Even more hilariously, one of them is from a local anti-gay activist who routinely claims that marriage equality advocates “don’t understand the English language.”

Here is my comment:

This is just hilarious – not the ruling itself, but the complaints from the anti-gay right that the court is “legislating from the bench” by reading the amendment exactly as written.

The court in this case has in fact refused to legislate from the bench, which is infuriating to people who wish to cloak their anti-gay animus in legal terms. If we were actually talking about a “gay marriage ban” we wouldn’t be having this conversation, but, just like with the Virginia Marshall-Newman amendment, the authors of the Ohio amendment wanted much more than that.

They were unable or unwilling to articulate clear boundaries around what they were trying to accomplish, and expect that the courts will now step in and do it for them. This court correctly read the amendment as having no logical stopping point, and ruled accordingly. Like the Virginia amendment, it is very poorly drafted. The terms seem to be deliberately undefined, in the hope of casting the broadest possible net. The Ohio court explains that “the evident purpose” of the amendment is exactly to prohibit the indirect recognition of all quasi-spousal privileges that are not enumerated, and that “the list is endless.” You can read the excerpt here.

The truth is that both amendments are intended to have these broad effects, such as rendering health insurance coverage for domestic partners illegal. It is disingenuous in the extreme to draft deliberately vague language with that intent, and then expect the courts to interpret this vague language in accordance with the political objective that the authors couldn’t/wouldn’t articulate for themselves (but not in a way that looks too bad, please).

Because, of course, had they articulated it honestly, the people wouldn’t have voted for it.

To add a little humor to the mix, we now have apologists for this debacle complaining that a strict constructionist reading of this amendment is somehow “legislating from the bench.” I would say that now I’ve seen everything, but it’s probably not true.

To help defeat the Marshall-Newman amendment, visit www.voteNOva.org.

The Equality Loudoun post on this ruling is here. VC, better late than never.

There is also discussion of the amendment up at Virginia Ramblings, to be continued..

Posted in Commentary, News | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Which ones are the ‘activist judges,’ again?

Abstraction has its limits

Posted on April 24, 2006 by David

This conversation reminds me of a photograph that was published in the Washington Post during the Massachusetts hearings on marriage equality. Demonstrators had gathered outside the courthouse from both sides of the issue, and were energetically engaged in “dialogue.” One photo showed a man and a woman trying to shout each other down. The man was holding a sign, on which he had drawn a diagram consisting of male and female stick figures, connected with circles and arrows to a symbol with the label “children.”

The woman was holding a framed photograph of her family.

Reality bites when you’re trying to ignore it.

Posted in Commentary | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Abstraction has its limits

When did civil liberties become a partisan issue?

Posted on April 24, 2006 by David

The Arlington County Democratic Committee has overwhelmingly passed a resolution condemning the anti-gay, anti-single people Marshall-Newman amendment, stating in no uncertain terms that this despicable assault on our community belongs in the garbage.

Now we have, in the New York Times, the open admission that a new push for conservative religious leaders to create petition drives in support of the federal Constitutional amendment is just a cynical, partisan strategy to turn out otherwise demoralized voters.

Organizers of the petition said it was in part an effort to revive the groundswell of opposition to same-sex marriage that helped bring many conservative voters to the polls in some pivotal states in 2004.

In spite of polling data that demonstrates less than robust enthusiasm for this tired gay-bashing act, these campaign strategists are determined to create what doesn’t exist by demonizing GLBT families in our places of worship. How disgraceful.

Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay advocacy group, said supporters of the amendment were out of touch. “We have a war raging in Iraq, we have a Gulf Coast that needs to be rebuilt, we have an economy barely hanging on,” he said. “The last thing America wants is this Republican-controlled Congress spending time writing discrimination into the Constitution.”

That would include the many fair-minded Republicans who are fed up with nonpartisan issues – like our efforts to provide basic security for our families – being turned into bashing campaigns that divide people and serve no pro-social purpose whatsoever.

If the only thing that makes the existence of our community a “partisan issue” is our presumed vulnerability for use as a punching bag and all around get-out-the-vote boogeyman, that’s pretty pathetic. Here’s a question: If the people behind this are not “pro-family,” and are not Republicans, what are they?

Posted in Commentary, News | Tagged , | Comments Off on When did civil liberties become a partisan issue?