Prop 8 Supporters STILL Trying to Stop Gay Marriage in California

Good grief, you guys, unclench and just forget it! Not only did you lose--repeatedly--you have suffered no harm. Gay people have resumed marrying each other in California, and life has gone on as before. And now, you're just embarrassing yourselves, and hurting your (dubious) cause.

[Excerpt]

Prop 8 Authors Ask California Supreme Court To Stop Same-Sex Marriages 

Proposition 8 has been dead for less than a month, and already, its advocates are trying to honor its memory by asking the California Supreme Court to order county clerks to stop issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples. They contend that governor Jerry Brown lacked the authority to put an end to the enforcement of Prop 8, since a provision in the California constitution prohibits officials from refusing to enforce a law unless an appellate court has first determined that said law is unconstitutional. . .

Read more: Towleroad

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

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

More Than 75 Prominent Republicans Rebuke Prop 8

So, Meg Whitman is now an ally?
Weird. Image from Towleroad.

Yes, two stories about the gay in a row. But hey, it's in the news! This one is particularly interesting. Though I'm not sure I agree with the reasoning of this group of Republicans, this is a case where the ends justify the means: major GOPers on the record against Proposition 8, the referendum that struck down same-sex marriage in California (after it was already legal).

I'm half of one of the 18,000+ couples who were married in California in 2008, and though my marriage is "grandfathered," it is still in something of a limbo, a "pocket universe," or something. The Supreme Court could--should, dare I say--strike Prop. 8 down this spring.  Though that may only affect California, it's possible that it could cause the dominoes to fall, particularly if they also strike down all or part of DOMA. Fingers crossed. . .

[Excerpt]

75+ Prominent Republicans Sign Brief Urging Supreme Court to Strike Down Proposition 8

More than 75 current and former GOP elected officials including former Reagan and Bush cabinet members, former governors, and key GOP consultants and strategists have signed on to an amicus brief to be filed on Thursday urging the Supreme Court to strike down Proposition 8. . .

Read more: Towleroad

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.

4th Anniversary for Greenlee Gazette Editor's Big Gay Marriage!

The only time I ever use the term "gay marriage" is in internet discussions, because that is the colloquial term most used. "Same-sex marriage" is a little more descriptive, but still cumbersome. "Marriage equality" is now the preferred term by supporters. The decidedly odd opposition (I mean really, who dedicates their life to trying to stop other peoples' weddings, outside of a soap opera?) has more colorful, but usually badly descriptive terms. I just call mine a marriage.

But I'd be lying if I said that my fourth marriage anniversary with The Other Half is a huge event. We've been together for 14-1/2 years. We got married in Palm Springs just a few weeks short of 10-1/2 years together. So "four" sounds kind of silly. And there was no pomp nor circumstance at our wedding. Just a couple of friends, and later, dinner at a Mexican restaurant with them. The date was chosen because we were nearly certain that Prop. 8 was going to pass, and make the possibility disappear, at least in a nearby state. We already felt "married," but on June 27, we made it official.  And, of course, the busybodies (armed with bucketloads of cash from the Mormon and Catholic churches) managed to convince enough Californians to squash marriage equality in the state.

Our marriage is still valid in the states where same-sex marriage is still legal. In some of the states that have legalized it, the busybodies are at work again, trying to reverse it. Why, I have no idea. This is no longer a hypothetical concept. We're real, married couples. And the sky didn't fall. "God" didn't swallow up those states. And to what end? Even if my marriage did get nullified by voters (and in America, can you imagine that concept?), are we going to split up? No. Are we going to stop being gay? No. Stop loving each other? No.

I started this post with the intention of merely commenting on my anniversary, and saying "I love you honey" to The Other Half. But posts on this blog are read by many who never comment, never tell me they were here. This is an important issue, and I think it needs to be reiterated again and again. If you take nothing else from this post, remember this: Gay people aren't looking for "holy matrimony." If we wanted a church wedding, there are already denominations who will accommodate that. We're looking for nothing more than civil marriage equality. Civil marriages only include religion if you want them to. Unless you're going to try and stop atheist and interfaith marriages.

Another Step in the Prop 8 Case Tuesday

Image from Towleroad

Tuesday isn't just about the recall votes in Wisconsin. It's also the day we hear the next phase in the seemingly glacially slow Proposition 8 case in California. I got married to my husband during the short window of time when it was legal. We'll have our fourth anniversary (though together for over 14 years) this month. Voters took away that right for others the following November, the same night President Obama was elected. Since then, there has been a huge trial on the subject in which Prop 8 was overturned. But the busybodies who brought the issue up wouldn't have it, and so the case is like a beachball being batted around. That ball comes down again today.

Whatever happens, the ball is going to be batted again, it's just a question of which direction. Unfortunately, the misguided Prop 8 proponents are much more passionate on the issue than a lot of marriage equality supporters. Or, I should say, they get more fired up about it. While I was mightily impressed with the legal team on the marriage equality side (the defense was just horrible, go read the case if you don't believe me), and with Judge Walker's decision, I don't have a lot of confidence in the legal system, particularly the Supreme Court. I meanwhile remain hopeful.


[Excerpt]


Ninth Circuit Announces Filing Tomorrow in Prop 8 Case Likely to Be Decision on 'En Banc' Rehearing
KQED's Scott Shafer said this is almost surely the decision on whether to rehear the case en banc. An en banc panel is made up of 11 judges, chosen at random from the circuit.

If the 9th Circuit denies the request, Prop 8 supporters will almost certainly ask the United States Supreme Court to hear the case. . .

Read more at: Towleroad