The Gay Thing: Judge orders Ohio to Recognize Gay Couple’s Marriage

I'm not an attorney, nor am I any kind of legal expert. But I have to think this is a foot in the door to getting marriage equality in Ohio. Crossing fingers, because I may be moving back there one day.

[Excerpt]

Judge orders Ohio to recognize gay couple’s marriage

A federal judge ordered the state of Ohio on Monday to recognize the marriage of two gay men, one of whom is dying. According to Towleroad, Judge Timothy Black ruled that Ohio must list John Arthur as “married” on his death certificate and name his partner of 25 years, Jim Obergefell, as his “surviving spouse. . .”

Read more at: Raw Story

The Gay Thing: California, Here We Come!

We planned, long ago, to "return to the scene of the crime," and revisit Palm Springs on our fifth wedding anniversary. We got married a couple of weeks after same-sex marriage was legalized in June 2008. In November of that year, Proposition 8--sponsored largely by outside monies gathered in conjunction with the Catholic and Mormon Churches--passed on the same night Barack Obama was elected President. That was a paradoxical occurrence, one seemingly perfectly timed. The Prop 8 backers couldn't have known it, but that year was likely the very last time they could muster a majority vote against gay marriage in California.

Five long years have passed since that brief sunny period when same-sex couples could marry in California. At first, we were thrown into legal limbo. After some legal procedures we found out that stay that way, not that the Prop 8ers didn't try to annul us--they did. Next, there was a lawsuit against the state which resulted in throwing out Prop 8 as un-Constitutional, but wait! Can't let them just repeal it, no-no. A stay was placed, and appeal filed. . . and then an appeals court that concurred. . .then another stay. . .and then THE SUPREMES!

See, religious objectors? Not married in church, but at this
awesome city hall in Palm Springs. No Jesus, no "holy
matrimony." So, chill out.

Prop 8 had been legally drafted and voted upon (there had been procedural questions), and the 18,000 couples who had already married got to

For people like me who followed all of this, it was a long, aggravating slog. At all points along the way, and in internet message boards, Twitter, Facebook and elsewhere, we were subjected to homophobic idiots, all spewing the same loads of crap that failed in court. Worse, most "pro-traditional marriage" types seemed to have very little understanding of what the case entailed, though they think they know everything about "the homosexual lifestyle." Following that stuff is just a hideous, awful, viper's nest.

A lot of that is gloriously, fantastically over with. Of course, haters go'n hate, and there will still be spewing of nonsense. But it will be easier to let that stuff just roll off now.  California marriage equality will resume after a pointless, expensive interlude. I take great pleasure in knowing that the combined homophobic forces like National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and their affiliates spent millions and millions of dollars, and got nothing. This is my message to all of these busybody, Gladys Kravitzes. . .

So what does the death of Proposition 8, and the gutting of the badly named Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) mean for gay people? Well, it's not all 100% clear yet.  If you're legally married and reside within a state that recognizes it, you're good as gold, as married as married can be to all relevant government bodies and entities. If you're like me, and were married in a state that does recognize it, but live in one that doesn't, it's less clear, though it seems like we'll be able to have federal recognition, but not state.

I'm willing to bet that very, very soon, there will be several lawsuits over this very issue, and will very likely be won under the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution. The question is this: will it have to be done in each of the 37 states that don't recognize it, or with SCOTUS step in again?

At this point, I don't care about all of that. We got a huge win in this, regardless of whatever spin you hear. NOM lost; straight up lost. And that makes me very happy.

The Gay Thing: WE WIN!!!

The (always badly named) Defense of Marriage Act has been declared un-Constitutional by the Supreme Court! And the California Proposition 8 case was dismissed on lack of standing by the defense, meaning the lower court ruling stands, and same-sex marriages are going to be legal again in California. WOOHOOO!!!

Ramifications will be come clearer throughout the day, much more to come later. For now, back to work.

The Gay Thing: Supreme Court to Decide Prop 8 & DOMA Today

My assumption that the Supreme Court would decide the fate of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California's Proposition 8 on Thursday turned out to be wrong. Apparently it is some time today, and I'm actually a little beside myself. I needn't worry of course, my 2008 California marriage is secure either way. And hell, even if it was annulled, it's not going to change my relationship, SCOTUS be damned.

Still, both cases could have huge ramifications for gay people in general, and even for my marriage as it applies to federal law, and in other states. If neither case goes our way, it will be mostly a symbolic blow: something that catches headlines, and visibly stalls our momentum. But even in this worst-case scenario, nothing will actually have changed. It would be a status quo decision. Gay rights would continue on, marriage equality would continue on, and California would probably vote on a reversal of Proposition 8 anyway.

There are multiple ways the decisions could go, the easiest for SCOTUS would be to punt one or both cases on standing, in which case the gay side wins, though the ramifications are unclear. They could vote to kill DOMA and/or Prop 8, but limit the scope. Or they could make a very broad ruling. All of these eventualities in any combination is still pretty much a win for the pro-gay side. Only a decision to uphold both DOMA and Prop 8 is a total loss, and as I said before, that leaves us where we started, with a black eye (or two), but no backward movement.

One thing I can tell you: I don't appreciate having my life, my relationship's legal status as equal United States citizens hinging upon the whims of some of the people on this court. And one wonderful result--should we score even a modest victory--would be a reduction in the possibility that my life is ever a political football again.

And either way, we're going to have fun in Palm Springs, where we were married, on our 5th anniversary. That's one thing they absolutely can not take from us!

And again--any high tech robbers out there--we've got a house sitter, so just forget it!

The Gay Thing: SCOTUS Watch (DOMA & Prop 8 Decisions Due)

For the past few weeks, there have been a whole lot of people waiting with bated breath for the Supreme Court to issue their rulings on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) case, and the California Proposition 8 case, both with huge ramifications for gay rights and marriage equality. All along, many court-watching professionals have indicated they thought the decisions wouldn't come down until the last week of the session, perhaps even on the very last day of it.

New tungsten carbide/carbon fiber wedding bands
for the anniversary!

Still, each recent Monday, there have been many with crossed fingers awaiting a decision, only to be disappointed. And then Thursdays--apparently a bonus decision day irregularly added--there has been another trickle of news, but nothing on the gay stuff. All through this, I've been aware that the last day of the Court's calendar is June 27, which happens to be the 5th anniversary of my same-sex marriage in California! Which seems as much like fate or kismet as an atheist like me is comfortable with. Now, it is possible that the decisions will come down today, or even be split between today and Thursday. But I have a hunch they're coming down--both of them--on my anniversary. I'm hopeful that whenever it happens, it is good news. And as we are going to be back in Palm Springs where we were married on our actual anniversary, it would be pretty cool to have a favorable verdict on both cases.

Watch this space.

PS: Oh, and hey, to any tech-savvy robbers out there, we've got a house sitter, so just forget it, alright? Cool.

The Gay Thing: Living With Success and Setbacks

Back when I started this blog (almost 6 years ago now), I did a series of Behind the Blogger posts to introduce myself to whatever scant readership was around in those early days. I titled those segments in a similar way, The Politics Thing, The Religion Thing, The Writing Thing, The Debt Thing and ultimately The Gay Thing. I started the blog as an outlet for my frustrations during the second George W. Bush administration, not as a gay rights blog, neither primarily or even secondarily.

As the blog has evolved, and as news has more often been about The Gay Thing, there have been days--hell, sometimes whole weeks--where it seemed like this was full-on gay rights news blog. For some reason, I feel compelled to apologize for that, and explain it away with humor. This isn't due to some sort of lingering shame or self-loathing, it's just not the mission I set out for the blog. But maybe it should be.

My turn was 1996. A lifetime ago!

Or rather, maybe I should just allow the subject to be more front-and-center. Oh, I doubt things will change too much around here. In fact the extent of the changes are thus: the banner above has been created, and will be used for most stories with this subject. And I'm not apologizing or explaining the reason for the posts anymore. They are just part of the blog. I started making banners for different subjects a few years ago, and continue to add them when I recognize that I'm continuing on a theme. It's time The Gay Thing was it's own thing here at Greenlee Gazette.

Being gay in America has always had its challenges. I became an adult in a very scary era for gay people, the birth of the AIDS crisis. It kept me fairly monk-like in my behavior through much of the 1980s, which I can credit for a very lonely early 20s, and with potentially saving my life. I also never experienced the mass death of a circle of friends, because I was not in or of the community. I was unplugged, and am in some ways removed from my own generation.

But I was always clued in to any scrap of news, so it's not like I didn't know what was going on. And by the time I came out to the world at large at age 30, America was an easier place to be gay than at any earlier time. Sure, we were still used as a wedge issue, a scare tactic. Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) had only been law--by Bill Clinton of all people--for a couple of years. But friends and family were immediately (or almost immediately) accepting and supportive. It was practically painless.

Married for almost 5 years now, legally, though not in NV.
One reason that it is frustrating to have the topic of gay
marriage treated as a hypothetical. We've been getting
married for almost a decade now.

There was a dark time not long after that, for gay people across the country. There were rumblings of activity in Hawaii, where it appeared that gay marriage might become legal. In a panic--or in a shrewd fundraising/electoral move--the right wing went into heavy demonizing mode. In states across the country, they started passing preemptive laws and constitutional amendments that barred gay marriage. Often times, the laws were redundant, where marriage was already defined as "one man, one woman." Didn't matter, it was time to make a stand. The biggest move--again, by Bill Clinton--was the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The most head-scratching was the constitutional amendment in Nevada, home of the quickie marriage and quickie divorce.

All through this, the right maintained that it wasn't an anti-gay movement, no, no. They were merely "protecting marriage."  This focus-tested phrase came straight from groups with likewise focus-tested names, usually including the word "Family." But their motives have always been transparent. It doesn't take much effort to find a "traditional marriage" crusader's core motives, if you simply engage them in conversation. It's largely a fundamental inability for them to separate holy matrimony from civil marriage. And an inability to truly get them to acknowledge a separation of church and state.

A lot rests in SCOTUS's hands. Not scary at all. . .

But the tide has turned! The wave of anti-gay marriage measures seemed to not only recede, but race in the opposite direction. In April, we were up to 9 states plus the District of Columbia with full marriage equality. In this month alone, we've gained 3 more, with the possible inclusion of Illinois by month's end, plus very likely regaining California in June.

June is when the Supreme Court announces their rulings on DOMA and Proposition 8 (the referendum that rescinded same-sex marriage rights in California). Most SCOTUS followers believe we will get modest gains for marriage equality at the very least, with the possibility for a broader ruling. And this happens on my 5th wedding anniversary, which is very cool!

But any celebration is tempered by reality. In recent days, there have been reminders that gay people are not fully equal, or sometimes even safe in our own country. There's a teenaged girl whose girlfriend's parents conspired with police to arrest as soon as she turned 18, because the girl was dating their 15-year-old daughter, the motivation being that they didn't want their daughter to be gay. A Texas lesbian with a child by a previous marriage was ordered that she cannot reside with her partner and retain custody. There was a man shot in the head in New York City, killed just for being gay. There has been a rash of assaults in that city, all motivated by anti-gay animus.

A veritable anti-gay crime wave has hit NYC
Read about it here.

Gays are routinely viciously maligned on Twitter, Facebook, message boards, blogs, letters to the editor, and any other forum when a gay related issue is being discussed. "Good Christian" business owners are fighting for the right to refuse the sale of goods and services to gay people, because they "disagree with the lifestyle." Organizations like the "Family" ones mentioned above and the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) exist solely or primarily to actively fight gay civil rights. The Boy Scouts--who, to their credit just decided to allow gay scouts to be members--won't allow gay leaders. Arguments on that subject (and many others) falsely equate homosexuality with pedophilia. And finally, gays were used as a weapon again by the GOP, who held the immigration reform bill hostage, so long as it allowed gay married bi-national couples to be covered under it.

In short (I know, too late), there are still many mountains to climb for full civil equality.  And while I haven't been silent by any stretch, I have been reserved, timid even, though less so lately. I'm going to stop shying away. This is my blog after all, and it isn't as if I have an enormous and dedicated following anyway. So, expect to see the subject covered without apology from now on. Thank you.

Gay Marriage in the USA: Minnesota Makes 12 (Plus DC!)

Image from source, ABC News

Whatever spin the anti-gay groups like the badly named National Organization for Marriage come up with, there is no denying it. There is a wave of momentum in the struggle for marriage equality. On top of four (out of four!) successful electoral fights in November 2012, and both DOMA and Prop 8 about to be decided by the Supreme Court in June, we've had three states affirm same-sex marriage in the space of two weeks.

While no one knows what to expect from SCOTUS, it is widely believed that one way or another, California will be added to the tally to make thirteen states plus the District of Columbia. Whether the DOMA ruling expands that number further, paves the way, or puts up a road block remains to be seen. Almost nobody expects a broad ruling that expands marriage equality in one fell swoop (though that would be great!). But few expect for DOMA to be outright upheld either. In fact it's ironic that the DOMA case hinges upon an unfair tax law, a usually conservative issue.

But while we wait, we can celebrate! Same-sex married couples are now legally recognized in over 25% of the country (by state/district). When California joins that column, we will really add to the tally, not just of states but of people. Now, if my home states of Ohio and Nevada could step it up a little (the ground troops are working on it!).

[Excerpt]

Minnesota Senate Votes to Allow Same-Sex Marriage

After a day of passionate yet respectful speeches on both sides of the issue, the Minnesota State Senate voted 37-30 to legalize same-sex marriage today, overcoming the last hurdle before the bill moves on to Gov. Mark Dayton, who supports giving same-sex couples the freedom to marry. Minnesota would join 11 other states and the District of Columbia in legalizing same-sex marriage, meaning that about 18 percent of the country’s population has the option to marry regardless of gender. . .

Read more at: ABC News

Rude Pundit's "Guns for Gays" Plan

This is one of the funniest things I've read in a while.

[Excerpt]

Guns for Gays

"Here's what has to happen: we gotta get gays and lesbians by the thousands...no, no, by the tens of thousands to buy guns. No, wait, even better. Someone call George Soros for some major scratch. We gotta start a program to arm Ls and Gs and Bs and Ts and even Qs with the baddest ass guns currently legal, motherfuckin' AR-15s and fuckin' .50 caliber rifles, toss in some pistols like Glocks and Magnum revolvers. And get 'em all concealed carry and whatever other licenses they need. Then, once all the gays got themselves armed, they need to start showing up with their guns, all tricked out in the most over-the-top outfits. . ."

Read the rest (and then read his other stuff) at: The Rude Pundit

Rick Santorum Thinks Gay Marriage Rights the Fault of Will & Grace

Rick (don't Google me) Santorum is an idiot. To be specific, he's a gay-obsessed, probably deeply sexually repressed, homophobic idiot. Not realizing that there is a symbiosis between pop culture and actual culture, Santorum believes that a comedy show about gay people is responsible for the gay rights movement. Santorum must not realize that there have been other developments in both pop and actual culture since (and concurrent with) "Just Jack!" A short list would include Queer as Folk, The "L" Word, The New Normal, Happy Endings, Rachel Maddow, Ellen DeGeneres and Anderson Cooper. Plus, you have to throw in the fact that everybody and his brother is now comfortable enough to be out of the closet, and no longer hiding. So, you know, friends and family noticed, and had a V-8 moment, and kind of came around. Not so tough, Ricky.

60 Best Signs Against DOMA and Prop. 8

As I said in the previous post, there are going to be a lot of gay posts and stories, not just here, but all over the internets for the next few days. But I have always been as much about frivolity as I am about serious matters, so here is one that will tickle your funny bone, and make you think. There's some great stuff here!

(Click these to embiggen)

See them all at: BuzzFeed

The Internets Go Gay for a Day (Or Two?)

I know what you've been thinking, if you've been online much today. Something like this:

Am I right? Yes, on any given day, unless you're a very sheltered person, you may be confronted with gay stories and subject matter in a variety of places. But because of the two very high profile cases before the Supreme Court--California's Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act--gay stuff is suddenly everywhere. And I have one thing to say to anyone who is overwhelmed or offended by the spectacle:

Suck it up! Now you know how gay people feel! Every day is straight people day, and we learn to live with it. Seriously though, you don't have to put up with it on this scale every day, so just keep calm, and carry on. And if you're still asking yourself the question, "why do the gays want to get married anyway?" I have another entertaining piece of video to show you that explains everything.

Oh and by the way? I'm not done with the subject by a long shot, so if you arrived here and don't like it? Come back in a few days, okay? On second thought, don't come back.

Democratic Congress Members Sign on to Strike Down DOMA

Image from Towleroad

The Supreme Court will have a lot of incentive from some high wattage names to back up a decision to strike California's Proposition 8, as well as the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). They just keep pouring in, the latest being from 212 Democratic members of Congress. Sure, there are naysayers and busybodies sending in their briefs to retain both Prop 8 and DOMA, but I don't think (or hope) that they'll be as persuasive. The good guys are calling for tolerance, equality and justice. The bad guys are calling for the right to continue discriminating, to prevent people from having equal rights, and to base law on religion. If SCOTUS upholds either DOMA or Prop 8, it will be a sign that politics ultimately trumps the Constitution and fair play. And it will be a very sad day for America. Crossing my fingers that it doesn't end that way.

[Excerpt]

212 Democratic Members of Congress Ask Supreme Court to Strike Down DOMA: BRIEF

212 Democratic members of Congress led by Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) including all seven out LGBT members and some who voted for DOMA in 1996 have asked the Supreme Court to strike it down in a brief submitted today in the Edith Windsor case. . .

Read more: Towleroad

Stephen Colbert Makes Fun of DOMA Defender

Pro-DOMA lawyer Paul Clement gets totally spanked by Stephen Colbert for his ludicrous arguments for keeping the archaic Defense of Marriage Act. Brilliant, funny and biting.

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

SCOTUS Takes Two Gay Marriage Cases

Image from ABCNews

Oy. I'm a gay blogger who is actually half of a gay-married-in-California couple, and I'm plugged into the politics of marriage equality. I even get updates to my phone if a scintilla of homo news crosses the newswires! But even I don't know what to make of Friday's announcement from the Supreme Court.

SCOTUS is taking up two cases of more than 10 before them related to same-sex marriage rights. One of them is the one most famously known as Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the case that overturned California's Proposition 8. Prop 8 reversed a California Supreme Court ruling that allowed gay couples to wed--including me--in California during a brief window in 2008. Three court decisions have now affirmed that Prop 8 was unconstitutional, and therefore invalid. A stay has been placed all of this time, disallowing any further same-sex marriages in the state.

Well, the busybodies who put Prop 8 on the ballot in the first place are a tenacious bunch. Who knows what in the world drives them to be so involved in something that concerns them in no way whatsoever. But they have been appealing this up, up, up all the way to the Supremes, though they've been losing all the way. The key worry is that this happens to be pretty much the most conservative SCOTUS in history. Will they rule this case on the merits--and if so, I could relax--or will they go arch-right-wing? Will they use pretzel logic, as they do when they allow God on the money and in the Pledge of Allegiance? Or will this case finally be settled in marriage equality's favor five years after it began? We'll know in June.

We'll also find out how the case against the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) goes. That one, I'm fairly certain will go our way. DOMA has lost case after case in several courts. Just about the only thing the Supremes would have to hang their robes on (assuming they'd want to keep DOMA intact) would be the recent Nevada decision, which ruled my state's marriage ban* constitutional. Otherwise, unless they do deep logic backflips, they pretty much have to kill at least part of DOMA. And good riddance.

My marriage license from California
(Blurred to protect the innocent!)

In any event, may I say--as a taxpaying, law-abiding citizen--that I'm sick and tired. I'm offended. I'm angry, and I'm indignant. Why? Because I shouldn't have to beg for equal rights. My life, my husband's life, and our lives together shouldn't be subject to the whims of ignorant bigots or uninformed voters. We shouldn't be a "wedge issue." And we shouldn't have this long delayed slog through the courts, and be kept on pins and needles for months and years on end. I want this to end, and I want equality to win. Let the busybodies stick their prudish, superstitious, illogical noses into somebody else's business.

[Excerpt]

Supreme Court Will Hear Same-Sex Marriage Cases

The Supreme Court plunged into the contentious issue of gay marriage Friday when it agreed to take up California's ban on same-sex unions and a separate dispute about federal benefits for legally married gay couples. . . 

Read more at: ABC News

*The Nevada marriage ban is especially galling, since I was here for both votes (two are required to change the Nevada State Constitution). A human-shaped turd named Richard Ziser--in cahoots with radio personality Alan Stock--managed to convince the voters of Nevada that our state believes in "the sanctity of marriage." Now, forget that "sanctity" is a religious concept, not a state one. No, more important is that this is Nevada we're talking about. As I've said before, we're the state of quickie marriages (Britney Spears, for example), quickie divorces, drive-thru wedding chapels, Elvis impersonator "preachers" and the Who Wants to Marry a Multi-Millionaire game show, where the prize was a rich husband! "Disingenuous" is the most charitable description of the entire campaign. They won, but only because it was one of the early efforts, and the gay community here is to amorphous. Fortunately, Ziser's political aspirations didn't pan out. And Stock hasn't exactly become a household name.

DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional. . .Again

Image found at Moorfield Storey Blog

It's irritating sometimes to pay a lot of attention to a particular issue. Because the more intensely you watch it, the longer it seems to take for anything to happen. Like a watched pot, following marriage equality wend its way through the courts can be interminable. Proposition 8 passed in California in November 2008, and has been challenged and beaten in court. The revocation of same-sex marriage rights in California was declared federally unconstitutional. This was in 2010. And here we are in 2012, and gay couples still can't get married, even after the ruling was affirmed.

Of course, as far as legal cases go, this isn't unusual. And if it weren't for the rampant busybodies fighting marriage equality, the whole fight would be over by now. Progress is going very fast, considering. It just feels like forever. Still, our hopes are buoyed often these days. There have been encouraging decisions all over the country recently, even with the party poopers like New Jersey's Chris Christie trying to sit on our parade. Even the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)--that Clinton-era compromise--is getting chunks taken out of its hide. Another judge has ruled it unconstitutional. Frustratingly, DOMA still stands. But its days seem to be numbered.


[Excerpt]


Federal Court Says DOMA Unconstitutional: Analysis of the Ruling

Another day, another victory for equality. Today, Judge Jeffrey White, a George W. Bush appointee to the federal bench, declared the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was unconstitutional as it applied to Karen Golinski. . .

Read more at: TowleRoad

House Democrats Ask Boner Boehner to Explain Support for DOMA

The badly named "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA) is presumed to be un-Constitutional by the Obama Administration. But the John Boner Boehner-lead House of Representatives has decided to defend it anyway. But House Democrats decided to make it an issue. In a statement, they asked,

"As Members who believe that DOMA is unconstitutional and support the President’s decision to stop defending it, we believe that the law is not factually or legally justifiable and were interested in hearing what arguments might possibly be made in its defense."

In response, they got this (non-) answer:

"Following the Department of Justice decision to stop defending a law passed by strong bipartisan majorities in Congress, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group voted to retain counsel to defend the law." 

So, much like the past four or five GOP presidential debates, the questions are not really answered.

Read more at: Washington Blade

Oh, Heck. Rep. Joe Heck Supports DOMA. Surprise!

"Does my hair look like a sister wife's?"
No! Not at all!

The other day, encouraged by a friend who is half of a same-sex marriage (as am I), I signed an online petition against the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The act has been ruled unconstitutional in part by at least one court, and the Obama Administration agreed, and has decided not to defend the law in court.  Online petitions are literally the least we can do, of course, but this one had the added benefit of sending letters--automatically--to each of our individual Congressmen. Unfortunately, my Congressman is Joe Heck.

In an extreme case of fickle, uninformed and/or abstaining voters, freshman Congresswoman Dina Titus was elected and unelected in the space of two years. I voted for Titus, but have no relative opinion of her. I didn't have time to form one! But I've never been a fan of Heck, who was a perennial candidate for something here in the Las Vegas Valley for many years. Anyway, Heck did do me the courtesy of responding to my letter, even if it was from a nondescript address (NV03JHIMA@mail.house.gov) with an equally vague subject line ("Responding to your message"). What is correspondence coming to in this country?

Anyway, here are excerpts from his letter, with my responses bolded in brackets:

Dear Mr. Greenlee,



Thank you for contacting me to share your opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). I understand your concerns, and appreciate the opportunity to respond to you on this important issue.


As you may know, Dear Mr. Greenlee, [I know, Dear Mr. Heck] the Obama Administration and Attorney General Eric Holder recently stated their belief that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, and as a result, will not defend the law against a legal challenge. DOMA was originally signed into law by President Clinton (P.L. 104-199) [Republicans cannot resist pointing out that Bill Clinton signed this law. They don't cite Clinton for much else, ever, and they don't point out that he now regrets having signed it.] and defines marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman. [Among other things, including preventing the exercise of the Constitution's full faith and credit clause.] The decision by this Administration to abandon the law oversteps presidential authority. [No, it doesn't. Presidents have done this before, notably St. Ronnie Reagan.] The separation of powers clearly outlined by our Constitution gives only the Supreme Court the power to interpret the law - not the President. [And he's not interpreting the law, he's declining to DEFEND it.] Additionally, as the institution of marriage is not a right defined in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, the issue of marriage falls to the people of the states to decide, and the people of Nevada amended the state constitution to provide that definition. [In a laughably transparent campaign to "protect the sanctity of marriage." In NEVADA, home of the quickie divorce and the drive-up window, Elvis impersonator wedding.] Unless the Supreme Court decides that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, it is the responsibility of the Administration to uphold [Refusing to defend in court is not the same thing as enforcement.] the law of the land.


While I agree with President Obama when he says that marriage is between a man and a woman, [Another thing Republicans never fail to point out. Obama's unfortunate, politically expedient stance on marriage is the ONLY thing about the man Heck would likely ever cite. And Obama himself is AGAINST DOMA, and has said his opinion on same-sex marriage is "evolving."] his decision to not defend the law and the voice of the people is disappointing. Speaker of the House John [Boner] Boehner has asked that the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group meet to determine how to uphold its duty and protect the will of the states, and I support these efforts. [Kinda figured.] Please know that I understand your concerns and will follow this matter closely as it moves forward [I'm sure you will. And that you'll continue to tithe, to help support the effort].


For additional information, please visit my website, http://www.heck.house.gov. From this site you can access statements about current events or pending legislation, and receive detailed information about the many services that I am privileged to provide for Nevadans [Blah, blah, blah.].


Again, I appreciate your thoughts [No, you don't] and it is an honor to serve you in Congress [Bite me]. Your suggestions are always welcome, and if ever I may be of assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me [Oh, I won't].


Sincerely [REALLY?],


DR. JOE [Oh my heck] HECK
Member of Congress

[Color me unimpressed, and unsurprised.]

Obama: Key Part of "Defense of Marriage Act" Unconstitutional

Image from source, Raw Story

A president can't rule on the constitutionality of a law. But he can order his Justice Department to stop defending a law against legal challenges. And so, a crucial first step in the overturning of DOMA (the badly named Defense of Marriage Act) has been made. The ridiculous Clinton-era law (something he regrets) will still be law, but pending legal challenges will not be met by any kind of Justice Department obstacle. This will go a long way toward making Obama's gay critics (and their allies) a little more comfortable with him and his administration.

So, good. DADT (Don't Ask, Don't Tell) will be--barring some sort of right-wing dirty trick--history soon, and DOMA is on its way to becoming so. If history is any lesson, this means we'll have some sort of minor setback soon, followed by another victory of a sort. And so it goes.

[Excerpt]

Obama declares key section of gay marriage ban ‘unconstitutional’



In a stunning reversal of policy announced Wednesday, President Barack Obama decided that a key section of the Defense of Marriage Act, a Clinton-era law that restricts the benefits of marriage to a man and a woman only, is unconstitutional, and ordered the Department of Justice to stop defending it. . .
 
Read more at: Raw Story

Cenk Uygur To Gays: The GOP ''Just Isn't That Into You''

Big Gay News: DADT Halted; DOMA Appealed

Image from the Legal Broadcast Network

As is always the case when it comes to gay rights, Tuesday's big news was a mixed bag. It is also a head-scratcher for those of us who voted for Barack Obama at least partially for his gay rights stance.  More on that in a minute.  Anyway, a Federal judge ruled that the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is un-Constitutional on multiple grounds, and that it must be halted.  And over in the "Defense of Marriage Act"--also ruled un-Constitutional--the Justice Department has appealed, rather than let DOMA (or parts of it) die.

DOMA's and DADT's days are very clearly numbered, but neither seems likely to die today. Arguments in support of either policy are fairly weak, and strewn with homophobic nonsense for the most part. Both should very likely have been killed in Congress when political capital was high.  Both could have been greatly aided by a more forceful Presidential push. Obama's DOJ has already appealed the DOMA ruling, and has 60 days to appeal the DADT ruling. I hope they don't, and just let the thing die. But so far, whenever presented with something like this, Justice appeals it. I can't for the life of me figure out why they keep throwing a wrench in, when the President is on record being against both policies.

Image from Against8.Blogspot.com

I've been a vocal supporter of Obama, though I've been critical of him on some issues.  And even if his administration drags their feet enough to let DOMA and DADT live another day (or couple of years), I can't swear I won't vote for him anyway. I won't want to, but the likelihood of a viable, sane Republican alternative is seeming increasingly unlikely.  But for all the talk of motivating the base, appealing these two ridiculous policies is not the way to go about it.

[Excerpt]

NEWS ANALYSIS: What’s next for DADT and DOMA?

“May you live in interesting times” is as much a curse as a warning. Turbulence, upheaval and revolution – these lead to difficult lives, implies the supposedly Chinese curse. But they are also the defining characteristics of great social change.


There are protests and arrests, laws passed and challenged, pickets and bullhorns, hate mongering and fear baiting. And our judiciary is not immune. To suggest that our judges are like traffic lights hovering above the fray of an ungovernable intersection is to ignore history, logic and reality. The judiciary has always been and will always be part of these “interesting times” whether we like it or not. . .

Read more at: San Diego Gay & Lesbian News