The anti-equality folks give lots of reasons (look through the discrimination label) for not wanting the LGBTQ community to have equal rights. Those reasons are based on fear of contagion, fear of angering God, fear of indoctrination, and fear of loss of superior status. But, sometimes they express concerns about what same sex marriage might be. On 20 October, Brian Raum, an attorney and head of marriage litigation for the Alliance Defense Fund, wrote a column on First Things, an on-line religious journal, and partially reprinted on the NOM-Blog where he made some confusing claims about same sex marriage that is now legal in New York. He begins
In the wake of the New York Legislature’s decision to pass the so-called
“Marriage Equality Act,” there has been a renewed discussion among
homosexual activists over whether they really ought to be pursuing an
institution historically rife with “heterosexual” values such as
exclusivity, fidelity, commitment, and monogamy.
This much is true. The LGBTQ community is a very diverse group of non-traditional and traditional views of sexuality, of relationships, of marriage. But, let's be clear, the same Bible that bans same sex male relationships (Leviticus 20:13) because of the long history of male homosexual behavior also bans adultery (Leviticus 20:10) because of the long history of heterosexual adulterous behavior. So, the claim that exclusivity, fidelity, commitment, and monogamy are the domain of heterosexuals is shown to not be entirely true three lines before talk of homosexuality.
There have always been people who did not fit into those historic "heterosexual values". Mr. Raum continues with quoting those who have concern over the religious exemption in New York.
[Howard Chua-Eoan, writing in Time Magazine was] lamenting the fact that “gay marriage will not quite be
marriage even in New York” because of exemptions for religious
institutions in the bill. “Marriage without a church or temple wedding
isn’t the real thing,” he writes. “Why can some people have all the
bells and whistles in the church of their choice but not me?”
Though
Chua-Eoan later writes, “The state cannot force a church to change its
beliefs. Even gay people realize that is wrong,” he is at least partly
mistaken about the realities of this interaction of church and state.
When the relationships of “gay people” need societal validation, some of
them, at least, have made it clear that it’s not all that wrong to stop
dissenters from living according to their beliefs.
It is certainly the case that some (I think it is a minority) of the LGBTQ community want the religious institutions to change to meet state laws. Far more of us want the religious institutions who object to us to stop trying to influence laws that are explicitly against us.
The Separation of Church and State -- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; -- also known as the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is clear in one direction only. The government cannot promote any one religion to be the state religion and cannot stop a religion from their practice of their faith. While the Establishment Clause does not say that religion cannot try to influence government, since there are many religions the influence of any one would be to the detriment of others, possibly violating the Establishment Clause. This gets a little tricky.
When it comes to marriage, we have always allowed clergy to determine who they would wed and who they would refuse to wed. The government has always allowed a consenting adult man and a consenting adult woman to wed in civil ceremonies.
I had a good straight friend and his wife wed twice, once in each families church, to keep peace in the families (along with a little lie that each was converting to the other's faith). Neither church would allow a "mixed marriage", each being different sects of the same Christian denomination. It is my contention that each church had the right to set the limitations that they chose. If they were only going to allow people who had attained seven feet in height to wed, that should be their right to set that limitation (although the tall marriages would be relatively rare).
If a church does not want to conduct same sex marriages or opposite sex marriages or differing skin shade marriages, that should be their right. If one can't marry in one church find another. But, the limitation should be set by the church, not by the government. To do otherwise would be a violation of the Establishment Clause.
And if you’re a New York clerk who has a problem of conscience with issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, Gov. Andrew Cuomo says you need to give up your job, despite New York law that states otherwise. After all, as one Albany law professor who apparently doesn’t bat an eye about putting this on par with racism says, “There is just not a good legal argument that you have the right to discriminate.”
The wall between Church and State is important to protect each. Town Clerks need to follow civil law. In their jobs, they are the representatives of the government, not the representatives of their church.
So if you’ve been on the fence about protecting marriage—wondering
how someone else’s same-sex “marriage” will affect your marriage—now
you’ve got a good bit of the answer: if you’re part of the 62 percent of Americans
who believe marriage should be defined only as the union of a man and a
woman, prepare to be regarded as the Ku Klux Klan member next door—and
for your children to be taught the same perspective at your local government-run school.
Okay, there is a lot wrong with what Mr. Raum said in this little clip. First the numbers have been changing for some time. The Pew Research Center published a report on the trend of greater acceptance of marriage equality last year. In March of this year, ABC News and the Washington Post found 53% acceptance of same sex marriage. By May, a series of polls found even greater acceptance. The claim of 62% opposed to marriage equality is dubious. If you ask the questions carefully enough, then you can get different results.
Children should be taught to accept all others in our society. That does not mean indoctrination or contagion. Silly concepts. I've already refuted the fears expressed by the links to changes in California education.
The message is frequently that recognition for same-sex unions will have
no effect on those who disagree with them, but the evidence clearly
says otherwise. As Princeton politics professor Robert P. George notes,
“once one buys into ideology of sexual liberalism, the reality that has
traditionally been denominated as ‘marriage’ loses all intelligibility .
. . one will come to regard one’s allegiance to sexual liberalism as a
mark of urbanity and sophistication, and will likely find oneself
looking down on those ‘ignorant,’ ‘intolerant,’ ‘bigoted’ people—those
hicks and rubes—who refuse to get ‘on the right side of history.’”
Same sex unions do not have an effect on opposite sex unions. The difference is that gays and lesbians are seen as equals. Marriage does not lose, it is enhanced. Society gains greater stability. But, Dr. George is correct that those who condemn a minority will be viewed as the bigots that they are.
We should not turn a blind eye to the physical and mental harms that people engaged in homosexual conduct bring upon themselves by chalking those harms up to “stigma, discrimination, and victimization”—demanding more health studies and changes to the medical system—rather than dare ask people to reconsider the path they are travelling down. Instead, we tell them “it gets better” when, in fact, it does not.
Mr. Raum and his fellow bigots are the cause of many of the health problems that he cites. The American Academy of Pediatrics has found that the social environment of hate that the Alliance Defense Fund and the National Organization for Marriage and their ilk create leads to depression and suicide. While Mr. Raum tries to prevent things from getting better, Mr. Dan Savage's It Gets Better Project endeavors to make things much better.
Yes, marriage as the union of a man and a woman is practical. Its
stabilizing nature is undeniable for those without blinders. As
political analyst Mona Charen wrote in a recent column,
“Much has been made by Democrats of the increasing inequality of income
distribution in America. That inequality is real. But it’s not the
result of tax cuts. It’s an artifact of family structure. And unless
we find a way to discourage unwed childbearing and revive marriage, the
chasm between classes will continue to grow. Gay marriage is a
distraction. The country depends on traditional marriage.”
Let's try a short rewrite: Marriage as the union of two consenting adults is practical. Its stabilizing nature is undeniable for those without blinders. Unless we find a way to discourage unwanted childbearing and revive marriage, the chasm between classes will continue to grow. Gay marriage is marriage.
It will take a long time before the LGBTQ community reaches a consensus as to the meaning of marriage in same sex relations. Just as heterosexuals don't agree on the acceptability of a brief fling (which I have heard argued as being healthy for a marriage), homosexuals will need time to get that close to being in agreement with each other.
The history is awkward. The LGBTQ community was entirely underground until the Stonewall riots in 1969. (Frank Kameny filed the first, unfortunately unsuccessful, lawsuit for equal rights in 1961, but few noticed). Gays and lesbians and cross-dressers were so despised at that time, were so far from being accepted, that many created new forms of relationships. For many, one-night stands were the only sexual relations that they had. Others formed quiet families and pretended to be straight. Shifting from a complete lack of acceptance to a majority favoring marriage equality in less than half a century is remarkable. From the Emancipation Proclamation to the acceptance of "mixed color marriages" with Loving v. Virginia took a full century.
Despite this, many filled the streets of New York to revel in the
unraveling on June 24, just as they did during the parades the day after
the legislature’s vote. USA Today made note
of “one parade attendee dressed as half bride and half groom.” The
symbolism couldn’t be any more poignant or clear: Not a bride, not a
groom. Both and neither at the same time. Marriage but not marriage.
The elimination of distinctions. The pursuit of “marriage equality” is
nothing less than an assault on marriage integrity.
Marriage but not marriage, perhaps. We will need time to see. There is, however, no assault on the integrity of any extant marriage or prospective heterosexual marriage. We don't seek marriage for gays instead of marriage for straights, we seek equality. Mr. Raum can pretend that there are other goals. We seek equality and acceptance. The only thing he has to lose is the artificial distinction that he is a first class citizen and thus superior to those who are second class. It is time for him to lose that.
22 October 2011
FollowUp 2: Voting Rights
It is one thing to talk about the theory of voting rights as being modified by numerous Republican state governments and the potential implications that the new restrictions on voting might have, it is another when it becomes real. On Friday, The Tennessean wrote about the situation of Virginia Lasater, a ninety-one year old citizen who will not be able to vote.
Lasater told The Daily News Journal that she has voted and worked in campaigns for 70 years. She recently moved to Murfreesboro and on Wednesday registered to vote at the local election commission.
A new law requires voters to show a photo ID at the polls. Since Lasater doesn't have a photo on her driver's license, she went to get one. But the testing center was packed and there were no chairs available.
Her son says a clerk told them there was nothing they could do.
This is not the first such situation. On the 5th of October, The Chattanooga Free Press wrote about the situation of Dorothy Cooper, a ninety-six year old citizen who will not be able to vote.
The retired domestic worker was born in a small North Georgia town before women had the right to vote.
She began casting ballots in her 20s after moving to Chattanooga for work. She missed voting for John F. Kennedy in 1960 because a move to Nashville prevented her from registering in time.
So when she learned last month at a community meeting that under a new state law she'd need a photo ID to vote next year, she talked with a volunteer about how to get to a state Driver Service Center to get her free ID. But when she got there Monday with an envelope full of documents, a clerk denied her request.
That morning, Cooper slipped a rent receipt, a copy of her lease, her voter registration card and her birth certificate into a Manila envelope. Typewritten on the birth certificate was her maiden name, Dorothy Alexander.
"But I didn't have my marriage certificate," Cooper said Tuesday afternoon, and that was the reason the clerk said she was denied a free voter ID at the Cherokee Boulevard Driver Service Center.
It may be a coincidence that both of these ladies are elderly and black. It may be a coincidence that both of these denials were in Tennessee. It may be a coincidence that so many states with Republican governors and legislatures are limiting the rights to vote of their citizens. I don't buy it.
Thanks to Talking Points Memo for the heads up.
3 October 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings article.
14 October 2011, FollowUp 1 .
6 November, FollowUp 3.
14 November 2011, FollowUp 4.
14 December 2011, FollowUp 5.
8 March 2012, FollowUp 6.
2 April 2012, FollowUp 7.
3 June 2012, FollowUp 8.
Lasater told The Daily News Journal that she has voted and worked in campaigns for 70 years. She recently moved to Murfreesboro and on Wednesday registered to vote at the local election commission.
A new law requires voters to show a photo ID at the polls. Since Lasater doesn't have a photo on her driver's license, she went to get one. But the testing center was packed and there were no chairs available.
Her son says a clerk told them there was nothing they could do.
This is not the first such situation. On the 5th of October, The Chattanooga Free Press wrote about the situation of Dorothy Cooper, a ninety-six year old citizen who will not be able to vote.
The retired domestic worker was born in a small North Georgia town before women had the right to vote.
She began casting ballots in her 20s after moving to Chattanooga for work. She missed voting for John F. Kennedy in 1960 because a move to Nashville prevented her from registering in time.
So when she learned last month at a community meeting that under a new state law she'd need a photo ID to vote next year, she talked with a volunteer about how to get to a state Driver Service Center to get her free ID. But when she got there Monday with an envelope full of documents, a clerk denied her request.
That morning, Cooper slipped a rent receipt, a copy of her lease, her voter registration card and her birth certificate into a Manila envelope. Typewritten on the birth certificate was her maiden name, Dorothy Alexander.
"But I didn't have my marriage certificate," Cooper said Tuesday afternoon, and that was the reason the clerk said she was denied a free voter ID at the Cherokee Boulevard Driver Service Center.
It may be a coincidence that both of these ladies are elderly and black. It may be a coincidence that both of these denials were in Tennessee. It may be a coincidence that so many states with Republican governors and legislatures are limiting the rights to vote of their citizens. I don't buy it.
Thanks to Talking Points Memo for the heads up.
3 October 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings article.
14 October 2011, FollowUp 1 .
6 November, FollowUp 3.
14 November 2011, FollowUp 4.
14 December 2011, FollowUp 5.
8 March 2012, FollowUp 6.
2 April 2012, FollowUp 7.
3 June 2012, FollowUp 8.
Repudiation: Proposed Education Cuts
A blog entry at Education Week discusses thirty-one education programs that House Republicans would like to cut. Some parts of the proposed legislation look good
It would boost Title I grants to districts for education disadvantaged kids by $1 billion, to nearly $16 billion. And it would increase special education funding by $1.2 billion, to $13.7 million.
Other parts have me very concerned. Of the thirty-one programs cut, Education week cites these
• School Leadership - $29.2 million
• Arts in Education - $27.2 million
• Advanced Placement - $43.3 million
• Carol M. White Physical Education Program - $78.8 million
• Ready to Learn Television - $27.2 million
• Elementary and Secondary School Counseling - $52.4 million
• Mathematics and Science Partnerships - $175 million
• High School Graduation Initiative - $48.9 million
• Teaching American History - $45.9 million
Some of these jump out at me as reasons for concern. Arts, American History, Math and Science Partnerships. While it is important to get the budget under control, these are not areas that should be cut. We have been seeing a lot of teen suicides in the news, but they want to cut school counseling.
Because I have been a long-time AP teacher (since the mid-1990s), I received a memo from the College Board about what the funding cut to Advanced Placement means. Part of that memo says
These funds have helped a significant number of low-income students earn scores of 3 or higher on AP Exams. Before the funding, only 40,000 low-income students were earning AP scores of 3+, while now more than 220,000 low-income students per year are achieving such scores.
This is a merit-based incentive that they want to cut. While no program, including the advanced placement programs, is perfect, these give worthy students an important leg up. There may be good parts to the Republican House proposed legislation, but it should be rethought to include extant education programs that work.
It would boost Title I grants to districts for education disadvantaged kids by $1 billion, to nearly $16 billion. And it would increase special education funding by $1.2 billion, to $13.7 million.
Other parts have me very concerned. Of the thirty-one programs cut, Education week cites these
• School Leadership - $29.2 million
• Arts in Education - $27.2 million
• Advanced Placement - $43.3 million
• Carol M. White Physical Education Program - $78.8 million
• Ready to Learn Television - $27.2 million
• Elementary and Secondary School Counseling - $52.4 million
• Mathematics and Science Partnerships - $175 million
• High School Graduation Initiative - $48.9 million
• Teaching American History - $45.9 million
Some of these jump out at me as reasons for concern. Arts, American History, Math and Science Partnerships. While it is important to get the budget under control, these are not areas that should be cut. We have been seeing a lot of teen suicides in the news, but they want to cut school counseling.
Because I have been a long-time AP teacher (since the mid-1990s), I received a memo from the College Board about what the funding cut to Advanced Placement means. Part of that memo says
These funds have helped a significant number of low-income students earn scores of 3 or higher on AP Exams. Before the funding, only 40,000 low-income students were earning AP scores of 3+, while now more than 220,000 low-income students per year are achieving such scores.
This is a merit-based incentive that they want to cut. While no program, including the advanced placement programs, is perfect, these give worthy students an important leg up. There may be good parts to the Republican House proposed legislation, but it should be rethought to include extant education programs that work.
21 October 2011
FollowUp 4: Republican Denial of Climate Change
The vast majority of scientists have ascribed to climate change for a long time. Most Republicans have relied on a small minority who either deny the research or a few who are merely skeptical. One of the greatest skeptics was Richard A. Muller, a physicist who decided that he needed independent (under his own control) corroboration of the facts. Dr. Muller set up Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) to analyze more than one and a half billions pieces of data and determine the real state of the climate. The initial four papers from BEST were released for peer review yesterday.
The article in the Economist concludes that the Earth is warming. Mother Jones magazine breaks it down with the following points
BEST has all of their data and methodology available online (link above). The surprise to skeptics is that the new data matches very closely to the data which was under scrutiny with "climategate".
It is time for Republicans to accept science. The facts are apparent, even to those scientists who were once dubious. Thanks to Talking Point Memo for the heads up.
1 October 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.
10 October 2011, FollowUp 1.
11 October 2011, FollowUp 2.
17 October 2011, FollowUp 3.
27 October 2011, FollowUp 5.
30 November 2011, FollowUp 6.
29 January 2012, FollowUp 7.
15 February 2012, FollowUp 8.
18 February 2012, FollowUp 9.
2 March 2012, FollowUp 10.
11 March 2012, FollowUp 11.
4 June 2012, FollowUp 12.
The article in the Economist concludes that the Earth is warming. Mother Jones magazine breaks it down with the following points
- The earth is indeed getting warmer. Global average land temperatures have risen 0.91 degrees Celsius over the past 50 years. This is "on the high end of the existing range of reconstructions."
- The rate of increase on land is accelerating. Warming for the entire 20th century clocks in at 0.73 degrees C per century. But over the most recent 40 years, the globe has warmed
at a rate of 2.76 degrees C per century. - Warming has not abated since 1998. The rise in average temperature over the period 1998-2010 is 2.84 degrees C per century.
- The BEST data significantly reduces the uncertainty of the temperature reconstructions. Their estimate of the temperature increase over the past 50 years has an uncertainty of only 0.04 degrees C, compared to a reported uncertainty of 0.13 degrees C in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report.
- Although many of the temperature measuring stations around the world have large individual uncertainties, taken as a whole the data is quite reliable. The difference in reported averages between stations ranked "okay" and stations ranked "poor" is very small.
- The urban heat island effect—i.e., the theory that rising temperatures around cities might be corrupting the global data—is very small.
BEST has all of their data and methodology available online (link above). The surprise to skeptics is that the new data matches very closely to the data which was under scrutiny with "climategate".
It is time for Republicans to accept science. The facts are apparent, even to those scientists who were once dubious. Thanks to Talking Point Memo for the heads up.
1 October 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.
10 October 2011, FollowUp 1.
11 October 2011, FollowUp 2.
17 October 2011, FollowUp 3.
27 October 2011, FollowUp 5.
30 November 2011, FollowUp 6.
29 January 2012, FollowUp 7.
15 February 2012, FollowUp 8.
18 February 2012, FollowUp 9.
2 March 2012, FollowUp 10.
11 March 2012, FollowUp 11.
4 June 2012, FollowUp 12.
20 October 2011
Repudiation: Speaker Boehner's Defense of DOMA
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was enacted under President Clinton in 1996, making the federal definition of marriage a union of one man and one woman. DOMA further stipulated that if a marriage between two persons of the same sex is legal in a particular state, territory, or possession of the United States, that marriage need not be recognized by any other state, territory, or possession.
In February of this year, President Obama stated that DOMA is not constitutional and that his administration will no longer defend DOMA in court. In March, in response, Speaker of the House John Boehner said that if the President would not defend DOMA, the House of Representatives would. On 14 October 2011, Mr. Boehner's legal team filed their motion with the United States District Court in San Francisco. The Huffington Post has a pdf of the filing on line.
While neither am I an attorney nor have I ever taught law, I would nonetheless respond to salient points of the filling. Please leave a comment if you feel I have made errors in my analysis. The initial quotes are from page 10 of the filing.
The question presented in this case is whether Congress may define “marriage” for purposes of federal benefits and burdens as that term was commonly understood for more than 200 years—from the Nation’s founding through at least the close of the twentieth century—or whether Congress was constitutionally obligated to accept a redefinition by some states that would encompass a form of marriage first legalized in the U.S. in 2004. The Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) defines marriage for purposes of federal law as the legal union of one man and one woman.
Among the enumerated powers in Article One of the United States Constitution, there is no mention of marriage. There is no mention of social contracts or of regulation of religious rites (marriage often being cited as a religious rite) or of civil unions. DOMA is unusual in that it can be viewed as the federal government stepping into what had traditionally been entirely handled by the states. Yes, same-sex marriage is a change from the traditional American view of marriage, but until DOMA not something that had been under federal law.
Plaintiff’s contention that DOMA should be subject to heightened scrutiny fails. First, circuit precedent establishes that the proper test under which sexual orientation classifications, like DOMA, should be analyzed is the rational basis test. Second, even if this Court were writing on a clean slate, sexual orientation does not constitute a suspect or quasi-suspect class under the traditional factors used to determine such classes. Homosexuality is not immutable as that term has been used in constitutional analysis. Moreover, homosexuals are far from politically powerless. In fact, their significant political progress in recent months and years belies their numbers. DOMA also does not discriminate on the basis of sex nor does it implicate a fundamental right. Therefore, rational basis scrutiny applies to DOMA.
Suspect classification is a way of saying that a group is subject to discrimination and deserves more careful scrutiny by the courts. The arguments are that homosexual are not due suspect classification because (a) homosexuality is not immutable, (b) homosexuals have political power, (c) DOMA's discrimination is not based on gender, and (d) marriage is not a fundamental right.
There is an excellent legal opinion of all of these factors based on the fight over Prop 8 at the Ninth.
(a) This is not true. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, individuals no more choose to be homosexual than heterosexual.
(b) This is not true. If the LGBTQ community had such power, DOMA would never have been passed in the first place. It is the case that people's attitudes towards gays and lesbians have shifted such that there is much more acceptance today than there was a few years ago. Still, we have few acknowledged gays and lesbians in government; even fewer bi or trans.
(c) Correct. DOMA discriminates based on sexual orientation, not based on gender.
(d) This is not true. The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) found marriage to be a fundamental right in the case of Loving v. Virginia, the landmark case that ended marriage discrimination for couples of different "races".
DOMA easily passes the rational basis test. There are a myriad of rational bases supporting DOMA. For example, the federal government has a valid interest in a uniform federal definition of marriage for federal law purposes, Congress was justified in acting with caution when facing the unknown consequences of a novel redefinition of marriage and Congress rationally could conclude that DOMA would advance responsible procreation and child-bearing. Accordingly, this Court should deny Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
I agree that there is a valid interest in having a uniform definition of marriage. That definition should not be as narrowly constructed as it is in DOMA.
I will also agree that some caution was warranted when the first state law was enacted granting marriage equality, but DOMA was an overreaction.
Making the leap from marriage to procreation and child-bearing is not necessary. Heterosexual marriage does not always lead to procreation and child-bearing. In fact, elderly heterosexuals, people well beyond the age of fertility, are allow to wed. Heterosexual marriage is not and has not been limited to those who are likely to have children.
Some of the arguments on later pages are worth our attention. On page 16, the filing discusses the history of discrimination of gays and lesbians.
Plaintiff first argues that DOMA is subject to strict scrutiny because lesbians and gay men have been subject to a history of discrimination. While the House does not dispute that homosexuals have been subject to discrimination, it is important to note that even Plaintiff’s own expert has admitted that “[a]lthough . . . antigay discrimination is popularly thought to have ancient roots, in fact it is a unique and relatively short-lived product of the twentieth century.” George A. Chauncey, Why Marriage? The History Shaping Today’s Debate Over Gay Equality 14 (2004). According to Dr. Chauncey, “most of [the discrimination] was put in place between the 1920s and 1950s, and most [was] dismantled between the 1960s and the 1990s.” Owen Keehnen, The Case for Gay Marriage: Talking with Why Marriage? Author George Chauncey, GLBTQ.com (2004), http://www.glbtq.com/sfeatures/interviewgchauncey.html.
Plaintiff’s expert agrees with the Supreme Court’s observation in Lawrence that the relatively short history of anti-gay discrimination is a consequence of the fact that homosexuality—as a distinct category or class—was not even recognized in the United States until the late nineteenth century. 539 U.S. at 568-69 (relying on scholarly position that “the concept of the homosexual as a distinct category of person did not emerge until the late 19th century”); George A. Chauncey Decl. ¶¶ 10, 20-21, June 24, 2011, ECF No. 134, (“Chauncey Decl.”); George A. Chauncey, Ph.D., Dep. 48:24-51:24, July 12, 2011, (“Chauncey Dep.”), attached as Exhibit A to Declaration of Conor B. Dugan (“Dugan Decl.”), filed herewith.
This is a strange argument. They are claiming that the concept of gays and anti-gay discrimination begins in the nineteenth or twentieth century. The argument that Dr. Chauncey was making was that laws institutionalizing anti-gay discrimination were made beginning in the 1920s, not that such discrimination did not exist outside of the law prior to that time. They are also claiming that the modern terminology for gays and lesbians and the concept of a homosexual community did not arise until the late 1800s. Thus, they find a short history to discrimination.
It is a strange argument because those who seek anti-equality laws are usually doing so on the basis of biblical laws, laws dating back between two and five thousand years. Arguing that the history of modern institutionalization of discrimination is brief so it is not important seems very strange.
The next argument, from page 17, is based on the ability to participate in or contribute to society.
Plaintiff next argues that DOMA does not “rest[] on ‘meaningful considerations,’” but rather “target[s] a characteristic that ‘bears no relation to ability to perform or contribute to society.’” Pl.’s Mem. Summ. J. at 6 (quoting City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 440-41 (1985)). That is not the case. The Congress that enacted DOMA, and President Clinton who signed it, obviously thought that defining marriage in the way it has traditionally been defined was relevant and rationally related to several legitimate legislative goals. See also House Mem. Mot. Dismiss at 22-29.
Sorry, but claiming that people thought about it does not change the fact that one's sexual orientation should not bear on one's opportunities. Gays and lesbians are individually as capable of any employment as are straights. Gays and lesbians are individually as creative in the sciences and the arts as are straights. A look at those being honored this month by sites like LGBT History Month make this very apparent.
On page 17, the filing returns to the topic of immutability of sexuality.
Plaintiff also states that the House cannot “argue there is a triable issue of fact regarding the immutable nature of sexual orientation, given Ninth Circuit authority already addressing this point.” Pl.’s Mem. Summ. J. at 7. But the Ninth Circuit has said conflicting things on immutability. In assessing whether homosexuality constitutes a suspect class the Ninth Circuit has held specifically that it is not an immutable characteristic: “Homosexuality is not an immutable characteristic; it is behavioral and hence is fundamentally different from traits such as race, gender, or alienage, which define already existing suspect and quasi-suspect classes.” High Tech Gays, 895 F.2d at 573.4 It is true that in Hernandez-Montiel v. INS, 225 F.3d 1084, 1093 (9th Cir. 2000), overruled in part on other grounds, Thomas v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2005), the Ninth Circuit described sexual orientation as immutable. But the court was not addressing the question whether heightened scrutiny applied. And, even if Hernandez-Montiel had addressed the relevant question, one panel of the Ninth Circuit cannot overrule another one, and absent en banc review, the earlier precedent controls. See Newdow v. Lefevre, 598 F.3d 638, 644 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 1612 (U.S. 2011) (quoting Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1149 n.3 (9th Cir. 2007)) (“As a general rule, we, as a three-judge panel, are without authority to ‘overrule a circuit precedent; that power is reserved to the circuit court sitting en banc.’”).
The argument in this paragraph is that the Ninth Court has issued different verdicts regarding whether homosexuality is an immutable characteristic. As such, they are choosing the ruling that sexuality is a choice.
Plaintiff further contends that “[t]his understanding conforms with the settled consensus of the major professional psychological and mental health organizations.” Pl.’s Mem. Summ. J. at 7. Whether a classification is “immutable” for purposes of equal protection jurisprudence is of course a legal conclusion—not a scientific one—and Plaintiff’s selective reading of scientific evidence warrants no deference from this Court.
The medical understanding is clear. Sexuality is immutable. The filing argues that this needs to be a legal decision, not a scientific decision.
Plaintiff’s claims also run headlong into the differing definitions of the terms “sexual orientation,” “homosexual,” “gay,” and “lesbian” supplied by her own experts. See Letitia Anne Peplau, Ph.D., Dep. 11:19-13:3, June 17, 2011, (“Peplau Dep.”), attached as Exhibit B to Dugan Decl. (declining to use term homosexuality and defining terms “sexual orientation,” “gay,” and “lesbian”); Gary M. Segura, Ph.D., Dep. 14:17-16:15, July 8, 2011 (“Segura Dep.”), attached as Ex. C to Dugan Decl. (defining terms “gay,” “lesbian,” and “homosexual”); Chauncey Dep. 12:15-15:15 (acknowledging that some people distinguish “gay” and “homosexual,” but stating that he uses them synonymously; defining terms “gay,” “lesbian,” “homosexuality,” and “homosociality”); see also Lisa M. Diamond, New Paradigms for Research on Heterosexual & Sexual-Minority Development, 32 J. of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychol. 490, 492 (2003) (“There is currently no scientific or popular consensus on the exact constellation of experiences that definitively ‘qualify’ an individual as lesbian, gay, or bisexual.”); Gay Histories and Cultures: An Encyclopedia 452 (George E. Haggerty ed., 2000) (“[T]he single word homosexuality has come to condense a variety of mutually conflicting ideas about same-sex sexual attraction and an assortment of conceptual models for understanding it . . . . [I]t is less useful to insist on any one definition of homosexuality than it is to describe and to account for the conceptual incoherence that now has become inseparable from both the term and the category.”). These differing definitions show that these terms are amorphous and do not adequately describe a particular class.
Here, the filing argues that because there are multiple definitions for homosexuality, it does not define a group for designation as a suspect class. The problem with this argument is that sexuality, according to some of the earliest research, exists on a spectrum. As such, a single definition does not make sense. That does not change the fact that there is an LGBTQ community that is the subject of regular discrimination, including institutionalized discrimination as is the case with DOMA.
Plaintiff’s argument also conflicts with her own expert’s admission that homosexuality cannot be determined at birth, see Peplau Dep. 25:21-23 (“[L]ooking at a newborn, I would not be able to tell you what that child’s sexual orientation is going to be.”), and that a significant percentage of gays and lesbians believe they exercised some or a great deal of choice in determining their sexuality, id. 36:24-37:24. Plaintiff’s own evidence indicates that more than 12% of self-identified gay men and nearly one out of three lesbians reported that they experienced some or much choice about their sexual orientation. Peplau Dep. Ex. 4 at 186. This contrasts with actual suspect classes, which involve “immutable characteristic[s]” determinable at birth and “determined solely by the accident of birth.” Frontiero, 411 U.S. at 686 (plurality).
The filing is arguing, again, that homosexuality is not immutable, this time because there is no evidence of a gay gene. Here is the reference again to the 1993 paper by the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Moreover, according to multiple studies, a not insignificant number of persons experience fluidity in their sexual attraction and even label their sexuality differently at different times. See, e.g., Lisa M. Diamond & Ritch C. Savin-Williams, Explaining Diversity in the Development of Same-Sex Sexuality Among Young Women, 56 J. of Soc. Issues 297, 301 (2000) (“50% of the respondents had changed their identity label more than once since first relinquishing their heterosexual identity”); see also id. at 300 (“[E]xclusive same-sex attractions are the exception rather than the norm among sexual minority women.”); id. at 300-01 (“The prevalence of nonexclusivity in sexual-minority women’s attractions suggests that other-sex attractions and relationships remain an ever-present possibility for most sexual-minority women, a fact that creates multiple opportunities for discontinuity and inconsistency in the female sexual minority life course.”); id. at 302 (“One of the unavoidable implications of nonexclusivity and sexual fluidity is that no heterosexual woman can be unequivocally assured that she will never desire same-sex contact, just as no lesbian woman can be unequivocally assured that she will never desire other-sex contact.”);5 Nigel Dickson et al., Same Sex Attraction in a Birth Cohort: Prevalence and Persistence in Early Adulthood, 56 Soc. Sci. & Med. 1607, 1611-12 (2003). Even Plaintiff’s own expert discusses and recognizes the concept of sexual plasticity and fluidity—that “individuals have reported changes in their sexual orientation in midlife.” Letitia Ann Peplau, Ph.D., Decl. ¶ 23, June 24, 2011, ECF No. 137 (“Peplau Decl.”).
Still on the argument that homosexuality is not immutable, this time because young people sometimes experiment with different types of sexuality. It is even more complicated because of the concept of a sexual spectrum. This does nothing to decrease the fact that people do not choose their sexuality (although some may choose alternate behaviors from their nature). The discrimination remains quite real.
On page 21, the filing considers whether the LGBTQ community has political power.
More than twenty years ago, the Ninth Circuit in analyzing whether homosexuals were entitled to heightened scrutiny held that “homosexuals are not without political power; they have the ability to and do ‘attract the attention of lawmakers.’” High Tech Gays, 895 F.2d at 574 (quoting City of Cleburne, 473 U.S. at 445).6 That political clout has only increased, and dramatically, in the ensuing two decades. Despite this binding precedent, Plaintiff cites to the dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc in that case to argue that the House and the Ninth Circuit “approached the inquiry” into political powerlessness incorrectly by considering the question of absolute political powerlessness rather than relative political powerlessness. Pl.’s Mem. Summ. J. at 8. This misconstrues the House’s argument which, to put it clearly and succinctly, is that homosexuals have a great deal of political power – especially relative to other political constituencies.
Plaintiff’s claim to the contrary is particularly difficult to understand in light of recent political, legal, and cultural events that have occurred since High Tech Gays was decided twentyone years ago. Plaintiff cannot maintain that she is a member of a class that faces “discrimination [that] is unlikely to be soon rectified by legislative means.” City of Cleburne, 473 U.S. at 440. Given that the Ninth Circuit has just finished wrestling with the consequences of the repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,” Plaintiff should not be heard to contend that such issues cannot be rectified through the legislative process. Log Cabin Republicans v. United States, Nos. 10–56634, 10–56813, 2011 WL 4494225 (9th Cir. Sept. 29, 2011). Moreover, Plaintiff appears oblivious to the irony of maintaining that homosexuals have limited political power in a case in which her position is supported by the Department of Justice at the insistence of the President. In light of the Department’s longstanding duty to defend the constitutionality of federal statutes, its decision to decline to defend the constitutionality of DOMA—notwithstanding its acknowledgment that reasonable arguments can be advanced in defense of Section 3, that it survives rational basis review, and that eleven Circuit Courts of Appeal, including the Ninth, disagree with its conclusion that heightened scrutiny applies—and instead adopt the very position advocated by Plaintiff, is particularly telling. See Letter from Eric H. Holder, Jr., Att’y Gen., to John A. Boehner, Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, at 3 (Feb. 23, 2011), ECF No. 93-1. Indeed, President Obama’s decision came after he received a letter from the Human Rights Campaign criticizing his Administration’s defense of DOMA. See Segura Dep. Ex. 5. And the Human Rights Campaign rightly believed that it had helped persuade the President to change his mind. See Press Release, Victory! Administration Drops DOMA Defense, Human Rights Campaign, https://secure3.convio.net/hrc/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=1045 (“HRC supporters have written tens of thousands of letters to President Obama” and it is “time to thank the president for what he’s done.”).
A spate of recent news stories only confirms the conclusion that homosexuals are far from politically powerless. A recent poll showed that more than two-thirds of Americans would vote for a “well-qualified gay candidate for president if he or she were nominated by their party.”7 In the past several months alone, the first openly gay male federal judge was confirmed by an overwhelming majority of the Senate; 8 President Obama nominated his fourth openly-gay candidate for a U.S. District Court judgeship; 9 Rhode Island passed a bill instituting civil unions for same-sex couples; 10 New York passed a law legalizing gay marriage over the opposition of the New York Catholic Conference and other groups; 11 President Obama took the final step in repealing the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy; 12 President Obama announced his support of a Senate bill to repeal DOMA;13 and, several weeks ago, it was reported that the “Obama administration has all but officially recognized gay partnerships as the legal equivalent of marriage, gradually redefining the concept through a series of changes to regulations governing benefits for federal employees.”14 Accordingly, gays and lesbians cannot be labeled “politically powerless” without draining that phrase of all meaning.
This continues in the same vein for three more pages. Because there are individual instances of gay victories, the LGBTQ community has political power. That does not square with the majority of states that deny marriage equality, thirty of them with constitutional amendments. That does not square with the twenty-nine states that allow for employment discrimination based on sexual orientation.
There is a lot more in the thirty-six page filing, but no arguments that I have not already addressed. Again, if you think that I have made a mistake or missed an important point, please leave a comment or send me an e-mail.
Let's not forget, this defense of DOMA is all at a cost of up to $1,500,000.00 for taxpayers.
24 October 2011, FollowUp 1
In February of this year, President Obama stated that DOMA is not constitutional and that his administration will no longer defend DOMA in court. In March, in response, Speaker of the House John Boehner said that if the President would not defend DOMA, the House of Representatives would. On 14 October 2011, Mr. Boehner's legal team filed their motion with the United States District Court in San Francisco. The Huffington Post has a pdf of the filing on line.
While neither am I an attorney nor have I ever taught law, I would nonetheless respond to salient points of the filling. Please leave a comment if you feel I have made errors in my analysis. The initial quotes are from page 10 of the filing.
The question presented in this case is whether Congress may define “marriage” for purposes of federal benefits and burdens as that term was commonly understood for more than 200 years—from the Nation’s founding through at least the close of the twentieth century—or whether Congress was constitutionally obligated to accept a redefinition by some states that would encompass a form of marriage first legalized in the U.S. in 2004. The Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) defines marriage for purposes of federal law as the legal union of one man and one woman.
Among the enumerated powers in Article One of the United States Constitution, there is no mention of marriage. There is no mention of social contracts or of regulation of religious rites (marriage often being cited as a religious rite) or of civil unions. DOMA is unusual in that it can be viewed as the federal government stepping into what had traditionally been entirely handled by the states. Yes, same-sex marriage is a change from the traditional American view of marriage, but until DOMA not something that had been under federal law.
Plaintiff’s contention that DOMA should be subject to heightened scrutiny fails. First, circuit precedent establishes that the proper test under which sexual orientation classifications, like DOMA, should be analyzed is the rational basis test. Second, even if this Court were writing on a clean slate, sexual orientation does not constitute a suspect or quasi-suspect class under the traditional factors used to determine such classes. Homosexuality is not immutable as that term has been used in constitutional analysis. Moreover, homosexuals are far from politically powerless. In fact, their significant political progress in recent months and years belies their numbers. DOMA also does not discriminate on the basis of sex nor does it implicate a fundamental right. Therefore, rational basis scrutiny applies to DOMA.
Suspect classification is a way of saying that a group is subject to discrimination and deserves more careful scrutiny by the courts. The arguments are that homosexual are not due suspect classification because (a) homosexuality is not immutable, (b) homosexuals have political power, (c) DOMA's discrimination is not based on gender, and (d) marriage is not a fundamental right.
There is an excellent legal opinion of all of these factors based on the fight over Prop 8 at the Ninth.
(a) This is not true. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, individuals no more choose to be homosexual than heterosexual.
(b) This is not true. If the LGBTQ community had such power, DOMA would never have been passed in the first place. It is the case that people's attitudes towards gays and lesbians have shifted such that there is much more acceptance today than there was a few years ago. Still, we have few acknowledged gays and lesbians in government; even fewer bi or trans.
(c) Correct. DOMA discriminates based on sexual orientation, not based on gender.
(d) This is not true. The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) found marriage to be a fundamental right in the case of Loving v. Virginia, the landmark case that ended marriage discrimination for couples of different "races".
DOMA easily passes the rational basis test. There are a myriad of rational bases supporting DOMA. For example, the federal government has a valid interest in a uniform federal definition of marriage for federal law purposes, Congress was justified in acting with caution when facing the unknown consequences of a novel redefinition of marriage and Congress rationally could conclude that DOMA would advance responsible procreation and child-bearing. Accordingly, this Court should deny Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
I agree that there is a valid interest in having a uniform definition of marriage. That definition should not be as narrowly constructed as it is in DOMA.
I will also agree that some caution was warranted when the first state law was enacted granting marriage equality, but DOMA was an overreaction.
Making the leap from marriage to procreation and child-bearing is not necessary. Heterosexual marriage does not always lead to procreation and child-bearing. In fact, elderly heterosexuals, people well beyond the age of fertility, are allow to wed. Heterosexual marriage is not and has not been limited to those who are likely to have children.
Some of the arguments on later pages are worth our attention. On page 16, the filing discusses the history of discrimination of gays and lesbians.
Plaintiff first argues that DOMA is subject to strict scrutiny because lesbians and gay men have been subject to a history of discrimination. While the House does not dispute that homosexuals have been subject to discrimination, it is important to note that even Plaintiff’s own expert has admitted that “[a]lthough . . . antigay discrimination is popularly thought to have ancient roots, in fact it is a unique and relatively short-lived product of the twentieth century.” George A. Chauncey, Why Marriage? The History Shaping Today’s Debate Over Gay Equality 14 (2004). According to Dr. Chauncey, “most of [the discrimination] was put in place between the 1920s and 1950s, and most [was] dismantled between the 1960s and the 1990s.” Owen Keehnen, The Case for Gay Marriage: Talking with Why Marriage? Author George Chauncey, GLBTQ.com (2004), http://www.glbtq.com/sfeatures/interviewgchauncey.html.
Plaintiff’s expert agrees with the Supreme Court’s observation in Lawrence that the relatively short history of anti-gay discrimination is a consequence of the fact that homosexuality—as a distinct category or class—was not even recognized in the United States until the late nineteenth century. 539 U.S. at 568-69 (relying on scholarly position that “the concept of the homosexual as a distinct category of person did not emerge until the late 19th century”); George A. Chauncey Decl. ¶¶ 10, 20-21, June 24, 2011, ECF No. 134, (“Chauncey Decl.”); George A. Chauncey, Ph.D., Dep. 48:24-51:24, July 12, 2011, (“Chauncey Dep.”), attached as Exhibit A to Declaration of Conor B. Dugan (“Dugan Decl.”), filed herewith.
This is a strange argument. They are claiming that the concept of gays and anti-gay discrimination begins in the nineteenth or twentieth century. The argument that Dr. Chauncey was making was that laws institutionalizing anti-gay discrimination were made beginning in the 1920s, not that such discrimination did not exist outside of the law prior to that time. They are also claiming that the modern terminology for gays and lesbians and the concept of a homosexual community did not arise until the late 1800s. Thus, they find a short history to discrimination.
It is a strange argument because those who seek anti-equality laws are usually doing so on the basis of biblical laws, laws dating back between two and five thousand years. Arguing that the history of modern institutionalization of discrimination is brief so it is not important seems very strange.
The next argument, from page 17, is based on the ability to participate in or contribute to society.
Plaintiff next argues that DOMA does not “rest[] on ‘meaningful considerations,’” but rather “target[s] a characteristic that ‘bears no relation to ability to perform or contribute to society.’” Pl.’s Mem. Summ. J. at 6 (quoting City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 440-41 (1985)). That is not the case. The Congress that enacted DOMA, and President Clinton who signed it, obviously thought that defining marriage in the way it has traditionally been defined was relevant and rationally related to several legitimate legislative goals. See also House Mem. Mot. Dismiss at 22-29.
Sorry, but claiming that people thought about it does not change the fact that one's sexual orientation should not bear on one's opportunities. Gays and lesbians are individually as capable of any employment as are straights. Gays and lesbians are individually as creative in the sciences and the arts as are straights. A look at those being honored this month by sites like LGBT History Month make this very apparent.
On page 17, the filing returns to the topic of immutability of sexuality.
Plaintiff also states that the House cannot “argue there is a triable issue of fact regarding the immutable nature of sexual orientation, given Ninth Circuit authority already addressing this point.” Pl.’s Mem. Summ. J. at 7. But the Ninth Circuit has said conflicting things on immutability. In assessing whether homosexuality constitutes a suspect class the Ninth Circuit has held specifically that it is not an immutable characteristic: “Homosexuality is not an immutable characteristic; it is behavioral and hence is fundamentally different from traits such as race, gender, or alienage, which define already existing suspect and quasi-suspect classes.” High Tech Gays, 895 F.2d at 573.4 It is true that in Hernandez-Montiel v. INS, 225 F.3d 1084, 1093 (9th Cir. 2000), overruled in part on other grounds, Thomas v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2005), the Ninth Circuit described sexual orientation as immutable. But the court was not addressing the question whether heightened scrutiny applied. And, even if Hernandez-Montiel had addressed the relevant question, one panel of the Ninth Circuit cannot overrule another one, and absent en banc review, the earlier precedent controls. See Newdow v. Lefevre, 598 F.3d 638, 644 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 1612 (U.S. 2011) (quoting Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1149 n.3 (9th Cir. 2007)) (“As a general rule, we, as a three-judge panel, are without authority to ‘overrule a circuit precedent; that power is reserved to the circuit court sitting en banc.’”).
The argument in this paragraph is that the Ninth Court has issued different verdicts regarding whether homosexuality is an immutable characteristic. As such, they are choosing the ruling that sexuality is a choice.
Plaintiff further contends that “[t]his understanding conforms with the settled consensus of the major professional psychological and mental health organizations.” Pl.’s Mem. Summ. J. at 7. Whether a classification is “immutable” for purposes of equal protection jurisprudence is of course a legal conclusion—not a scientific one—and Plaintiff’s selective reading of scientific evidence warrants no deference from this Court.
The medical understanding is clear. Sexuality is immutable. The filing argues that this needs to be a legal decision, not a scientific decision.
Plaintiff’s claims also run headlong into the differing definitions of the terms “sexual orientation,” “homosexual,” “gay,” and “lesbian” supplied by her own experts. See Letitia Anne Peplau, Ph.D., Dep. 11:19-13:3, June 17, 2011, (“Peplau Dep.”), attached as Exhibit B to Dugan Decl. (declining to use term homosexuality and defining terms “sexual orientation,” “gay,” and “lesbian”); Gary M. Segura, Ph.D., Dep. 14:17-16:15, July 8, 2011 (“Segura Dep.”), attached as Ex. C to Dugan Decl. (defining terms “gay,” “lesbian,” and “homosexual”); Chauncey Dep. 12:15-15:15 (acknowledging that some people distinguish “gay” and “homosexual,” but stating that he uses them synonymously; defining terms “gay,” “lesbian,” “homosexuality,” and “homosociality”); see also Lisa M. Diamond, New Paradigms for Research on Heterosexual & Sexual-Minority Development, 32 J. of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychol. 490, 492 (2003) (“There is currently no scientific or popular consensus on the exact constellation of experiences that definitively ‘qualify’ an individual as lesbian, gay, or bisexual.”); Gay Histories and Cultures: An Encyclopedia 452 (George E. Haggerty ed., 2000) (“[T]he single word homosexuality has come to condense a variety of mutually conflicting ideas about same-sex sexual attraction and an assortment of conceptual models for understanding it . . . . [I]t is less useful to insist on any one definition of homosexuality than it is to describe and to account for the conceptual incoherence that now has become inseparable from both the term and the category.”). These differing definitions show that these terms are amorphous and do not adequately describe a particular class.
Here, the filing argues that because there are multiple definitions for homosexuality, it does not define a group for designation as a suspect class. The problem with this argument is that sexuality, according to some of the earliest research, exists on a spectrum. As such, a single definition does not make sense. That does not change the fact that there is an LGBTQ community that is the subject of regular discrimination, including institutionalized discrimination as is the case with DOMA.
Plaintiff’s argument also conflicts with her own expert’s admission that homosexuality cannot be determined at birth, see Peplau Dep. 25:21-23 (“[L]ooking at a newborn, I would not be able to tell you what that child’s sexual orientation is going to be.”), and that a significant percentage of gays and lesbians believe they exercised some or a great deal of choice in determining their sexuality, id. 36:24-37:24. Plaintiff’s own evidence indicates that more than 12% of self-identified gay men and nearly one out of three lesbians reported that they experienced some or much choice about their sexual orientation. Peplau Dep. Ex. 4 at 186. This contrasts with actual suspect classes, which involve “immutable characteristic[s]” determinable at birth and “determined solely by the accident of birth.” Frontiero, 411 U.S. at 686 (plurality).
The filing is arguing, again, that homosexuality is not immutable, this time because there is no evidence of a gay gene. Here is the reference again to the 1993 paper by the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Moreover, according to multiple studies, a not insignificant number of persons experience fluidity in their sexual attraction and even label their sexuality differently at different times. See, e.g., Lisa M. Diamond & Ritch C. Savin-Williams, Explaining Diversity in the Development of Same-Sex Sexuality Among Young Women, 56 J. of Soc. Issues 297, 301 (2000) (“50% of the respondents had changed their identity label more than once since first relinquishing their heterosexual identity”); see also id. at 300 (“[E]xclusive same-sex attractions are the exception rather than the norm among sexual minority women.”); id. at 300-01 (“The prevalence of nonexclusivity in sexual-minority women’s attractions suggests that other-sex attractions and relationships remain an ever-present possibility for most sexual-minority women, a fact that creates multiple opportunities for discontinuity and inconsistency in the female sexual minority life course.”); id. at 302 (“One of the unavoidable implications of nonexclusivity and sexual fluidity is that no heterosexual woman can be unequivocally assured that she will never desire same-sex contact, just as no lesbian woman can be unequivocally assured that she will never desire other-sex contact.”);5 Nigel Dickson et al., Same Sex Attraction in a Birth Cohort: Prevalence and Persistence in Early Adulthood, 56 Soc. Sci. & Med. 1607, 1611-12 (2003). Even Plaintiff’s own expert discusses and recognizes the concept of sexual plasticity and fluidity—that “individuals have reported changes in their sexual orientation in midlife.” Letitia Ann Peplau, Ph.D., Decl. ¶ 23, June 24, 2011, ECF No. 137 (“Peplau Decl.”).
Still on the argument that homosexuality is not immutable, this time because young people sometimes experiment with different types of sexuality. It is even more complicated because of the concept of a sexual spectrum. This does nothing to decrease the fact that people do not choose their sexuality (although some may choose alternate behaviors from their nature). The discrimination remains quite real.
On page 21, the filing considers whether the LGBTQ community has political power.
More than twenty years ago, the Ninth Circuit in analyzing whether homosexuals were entitled to heightened scrutiny held that “homosexuals are not without political power; they have the ability to and do ‘attract the attention of lawmakers.’” High Tech Gays, 895 F.2d at 574 (quoting City of Cleburne, 473 U.S. at 445).6 That political clout has only increased, and dramatically, in the ensuing two decades. Despite this binding precedent, Plaintiff cites to the dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc in that case to argue that the House and the Ninth Circuit “approached the inquiry” into political powerlessness incorrectly by considering the question of absolute political powerlessness rather than relative political powerlessness. Pl.’s Mem. Summ. J. at 8. This misconstrues the House’s argument which, to put it clearly and succinctly, is that homosexuals have a great deal of political power – especially relative to other political constituencies.
Plaintiff’s claim to the contrary is particularly difficult to understand in light of recent political, legal, and cultural events that have occurred since High Tech Gays was decided twentyone years ago. Plaintiff cannot maintain that she is a member of a class that faces “discrimination [that] is unlikely to be soon rectified by legislative means.” City of Cleburne, 473 U.S. at 440. Given that the Ninth Circuit has just finished wrestling with the consequences of the repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,” Plaintiff should not be heard to contend that such issues cannot be rectified through the legislative process. Log Cabin Republicans v. United States, Nos. 10–56634, 10–56813, 2011 WL 4494225 (9th Cir. Sept. 29, 2011). Moreover, Plaintiff appears oblivious to the irony of maintaining that homosexuals have limited political power in a case in which her position is supported by the Department of Justice at the insistence of the President. In light of the Department’s longstanding duty to defend the constitutionality of federal statutes, its decision to decline to defend the constitutionality of DOMA—notwithstanding its acknowledgment that reasonable arguments can be advanced in defense of Section 3, that it survives rational basis review, and that eleven Circuit Courts of Appeal, including the Ninth, disagree with its conclusion that heightened scrutiny applies—and instead adopt the very position advocated by Plaintiff, is particularly telling. See Letter from Eric H. Holder, Jr., Att’y Gen., to John A. Boehner, Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, at 3 (Feb. 23, 2011), ECF No. 93-1. Indeed, President Obama’s decision came after he received a letter from the Human Rights Campaign criticizing his Administration’s defense of DOMA. See Segura Dep. Ex. 5. And the Human Rights Campaign rightly believed that it had helped persuade the President to change his mind. See Press Release, Victory! Administration Drops DOMA Defense, Human Rights Campaign, https://secure3.convio.net/hrc/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=1045 (“HRC supporters have written tens of thousands of letters to President Obama” and it is “time to thank the president for what he’s done.”).
A spate of recent news stories only confirms the conclusion that homosexuals are far from politically powerless. A recent poll showed that more than two-thirds of Americans would vote for a “well-qualified gay candidate for president if he or she were nominated by their party.”7 In the past several months alone, the first openly gay male federal judge was confirmed by an overwhelming majority of the Senate; 8 President Obama nominated his fourth openly-gay candidate for a U.S. District Court judgeship; 9 Rhode Island passed a bill instituting civil unions for same-sex couples; 10 New York passed a law legalizing gay marriage over the opposition of the New York Catholic Conference and other groups; 11 President Obama took the final step in repealing the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy; 12 President Obama announced his support of a Senate bill to repeal DOMA;13 and, several weeks ago, it was reported that the “Obama administration has all but officially recognized gay partnerships as the legal equivalent of marriage, gradually redefining the concept through a series of changes to regulations governing benefits for federal employees.”14 Accordingly, gays and lesbians cannot be labeled “politically powerless” without draining that phrase of all meaning.
This continues in the same vein for three more pages. Because there are individual instances of gay victories, the LGBTQ community has political power. That does not square with the majority of states that deny marriage equality, thirty of them with constitutional amendments. That does not square with the twenty-nine states that allow for employment discrimination based on sexual orientation.
There is a lot more in the thirty-six page filing, but no arguments that I have not already addressed. Again, if you think that I have made a mistake or missed an important point, please leave a comment or send me an e-mail.
Let's not forget, this defense of DOMA is all at a cost of up to $1,500,000.00 for taxpayers.
24 October 2011, FollowUp 1
19 October 2011
Repudiation: Anonymous Anarchist Attacks Christian School
The Chicago Sun-Times published an article on 15 October 2011 titled Christian School Vandalized Before Anti-Gay Speaker's Appearance. It seems that early on that Saturday the Christian Liberty Academy, a private K-12 school in Arlington Heights, Illinois, had several windows broken and two bricks were found with messages attached. The messages were in protest of a speaker scheduled for that evening.
Okay, some background on Mr. Lively before we proceed. Mr. Lively has called for criminalization of advocacy for homosexuality (not just criminalizing the LGBTQ community, but also those who support them). He has claimed that homosexuals created the Nazi movement in Germany (which makes no sense when one considers that homosexuals were arrested and put in concentration camps wearing pink triangles as their clothing code). Mr. Lively has also spread hatred of gays to Latvia and Uganda, being a significant inspiration for Uganda's "Kill the Gays" legislation. So there is plenty of reason for the LGBTQ community to be unhappy with Mr. Lively.
The American Family Association published an article today, 19 October 2011, criticizing the vandalism as terrorism.
"I'm not surprised that they did this," admits Liberty Counsel Action vice president Matt Barber. "This really amounts to an act of terrorism in that they threatened more violence if Dr. Lively and his speech went forward and if the Christian Liberty Academy did not disassociate from Americans for Truth About Homosexuality."
But in the face of all opposition, AFTAH has remained steadfast in exposing the homosexual agenda throughout the country. Barber contends the attack should trigger an investigation on the basis of hate crimes laws. He also points out that homosexuals who demand tolerance are not willing to repay the favor to opponents as they try to shut down the Christian message about their lifestyle.
Terrorism? Perhaps. But, as much as Mr. Barber would like to blame this on homosexual activists, that may not be the case. A couple of hours after breaking windows at the school, anonymous anarchists (their words) took credit for the damage and the threats. The only group affiliation cited on that web page is that it is anarchist news.
For a long time, bigots endeavoring to keep the LGBTQ community from full equality have claimed fear because of unproven threats to their personal safety. This is the case in the battle to release the videos of testimony in the California Prop 8 hearings. This was the case in getting Washington State Referendum 71 signatures released. It has always been about fear without basis.
There has never been an attack on bigots by gay activists.
This anarchist attack on a school, no matter how deserving Mr. Lively is of retribution for the murders he has inspired, weakens my last sentence. While it is still true that there are no proven attacks of anti-gay people by gays, Mr. Barber is beginning to run with this proof that he and his movement of hate are the victims. Mr. Barber is a liar and the anarchists made that just a little harder to prove.
Scott Lively, an anti-gay speaker and author, was scheduled to speak at the academy Saturday night at a dinner for the Naperville-based Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality (AFTAH).
Plastic bags containing bricks scrawled with messages such as “Shut down Lively” were thrown through the windows, said Calvin Lindstrom, pastor of the Church of Christian Liberty, which runs the school.
An envelope in one of the bags contained a handwritten message saying, “This is just a sample of what we will do if you don’t shut down Scott Lively and AFTAH. F--- Scott Lively. Quit the homophobic s---.”
Okay, some background on Mr. Lively before we proceed. Mr. Lively has called for criminalization of advocacy for homosexuality (not just criminalizing the LGBTQ community, but also those who support them). He has claimed that homosexuals created the Nazi movement in Germany (which makes no sense when one considers that homosexuals were arrested and put in concentration camps wearing pink triangles as their clothing code). Mr. Lively has also spread hatred of gays to Latvia and Uganda, being a significant inspiration for Uganda's "Kill the Gays" legislation. So there is plenty of reason for the LGBTQ community to be unhappy with Mr. Lively.
The American Family Association published an article today, 19 October 2011, criticizing the vandalism as terrorism.
"I'm not surprised that they did this," admits Liberty Counsel Action vice president Matt Barber. "This really amounts to an act of terrorism in that they threatened more violence if Dr. Lively and his speech went forward and if the Christian Liberty Academy did not disassociate from Americans for Truth About Homosexuality."
But in the face of all opposition, AFTAH has remained steadfast in exposing the homosexual agenda throughout the country. Barber contends the attack should trigger an investigation on the basis of hate crimes laws. He also points out that homosexuals who demand tolerance are not willing to repay the favor to opponents as they try to shut down the Christian message about their lifestyle.
Terrorism? Perhaps. But, as much as Mr. Barber would like to blame this on homosexual activists, that may not be the case. A couple of hours after breaking windows at the school, anonymous anarchists (their words) took credit for the damage and the threats. The only group affiliation cited on that web page is that it is anarchist news.
For a long time, bigots endeavoring to keep the LGBTQ community from full equality have claimed fear because of unproven threats to their personal safety. This is the case in the battle to release the videos of testimony in the California Prop 8 hearings. This was the case in getting Washington State Referendum 71 signatures released. It has always been about fear without basis.
There has never been an attack on bigots by gay activists.
This anarchist attack on a school, no matter how deserving Mr. Lively is of retribution for the murders he has inspired, weakens my last sentence. While it is still true that there are no proven attacks of anti-gay people by gays, Mr. Barber is beginning to run with this proof that he and his movement of hate are the victims. Mr. Barber is a liar and the anarchists made that just a little harder to prove.
FollowUp 1: Viki Knox, anti-gay teacher
The New Jersey Ledger Star has been following the situation closely. Tuesday evening, the Ledger Star reports that about three hundred people attended a Union Township school board meeting, apparently with a fair mix of those supporting and opposed to Ms. Knox.
Opposing Ms. Knox's open bigotry,
Garden State Equality, a gay rights advocacy group, organized some protesters, while representatives from Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay-rights association, attended to deliver a petition signed by 75,000 supporters calling for Knox’s firing.
Supporting her,
But others, like Harry Skeele of Hillsborough, defended Knox.
"I don’t want to see her get fired over this," Skeele said outside the meeting. "Viki has a First Amendment right to express her opinion, a freedom the gay community has ridden before."
Union parent Ondria Caffey said she corresponded at length with district administrators to express her dismay over the LGBT display — weeks before she learned of Knox’s comments.
"I rely on UHS for teaching my child academics, not for what this display represents," Caffey said at the meeting.
Regarding Freedom of Speech, it is a misnomer to consider that this Right extends into the workplace. And, while parents have every right to request particular topics be included or excluded, the school exists for the entire community. Parents can be even more effective by working with their children at home to reinforce those lessons that they choose and discuss why they disagree with other lessons. Education needs to include all groups, including the LGBTQ community.
Board president Francis "Ray" Perkins said members would not be taking any immediate action after the public comment session, which began around 9:15 p.m.
This is good. Personnel matters need to be handled in closed session. The public had its say, now we will need to wait and see what the results are.
Not waiting, Governor Christie has weighed in against bigotry in the classroom.
"I think that kind of example is not a positive one at all to be setting for folks who have such an important and influential position in our society," Christie said this morning on 770 WABC Radio. "I'm really concerned about those kinds of statements being made."
Christie said he finds the comments "disturbing."
Governor Christie does not support marriage equality, but is correct in his concern.
Thanks to Joe.My.God and TowelRoad for the heads up.
17 October 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post
27 October 2011, FollowUp 2
Opposing Ms. Knox's open bigotry,
Garden State Equality, a gay rights advocacy group, organized some protesters, while representatives from Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay-rights association, attended to deliver a petition signed by 75,000 supporters calling for Knox’s firing.
Supporting her,
But others, like Harry Skeele of Hillsborough, defended Knox.
"I don’t want to see her get fired over this," Skeele said outside the meeting. "Viki has a First Amendment right to express her opinion, a freedom the gay community has ridden before."
Union parent Ondria Caffey said she corresponded at length with district administrators to express her dismay over the LGBT display — weeks before she learned of Knox’s comments.
"I rely on UHS for teaching my child academics, not for what this display represents," Caffey said at the meeting.
Regarding Freedom of Speech, it is a misnomer to consider that this Right extends into the workplace. And, while parents have every right to request particular topics be included or excluded, the school exists for the entire community. Parents can be even more effective by working with their children at home to reinforce those lessons that they choose and discuss why they disagree with other lessons. Education needs to include all groups, including the LGBTQ community.
Board president Francis "Ray" Perkins said members would not be taking any immediate action after the public comment session, which began around 9:15 p.m.
This is good. Personnel matters need to be handled in closed session. The public had its say, now we will need to wait and see what the results are.
Not waiting, Governor Christie has weighed in against bigotry in the classroom.
"I think that kind of example is not a positive one at all to be setting for folks who have such an important and influential position in our society," Christie said this morning on 770 WABC Radio. "I'm really concerned about those kinds of statements being made."
Christie said he finds the comments "disturbing."
Governor Christie does not support marriage equality, but is correct in his concern.
Thanks to Joe.My.God and TowelRoad for the heads up.
17 October 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post
27 October 2011, FollowUp 2
Praise: White House LGBT Update
This morning's e-mail included the following:
Good morning,
Welcome to the inaugural edition of the White House LGBT Update, where you'll hear from the White House Office of Public Engagement on President Obama’s continued commitment to progress for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community.
We need your help to get the word out! Please encourage your friends and family to sign up for updates and don’t hesitate to drop us a line with your comments, suggestions, and ideas.
All the best,
Gautam Raghavan
Office of Public Engagement
The White House
Time will tell if this Update is as good as we might hope.
Good morning,
Welcome to the inaugural edition of the White House LGBT Update, where you'll hear from the White House Office of Public Engagement on President Obama’s continued commitment to progress for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community.
We need your help to get the word out! Please encourage your friends and family to sign up for updates and don’t hesitate to drop us a line with your comments, suggestions, and ideas.
All the best,
Gautam Raghavan
Office of Public Engagement
The White House
Time will tell if this Update is as good as we might hope.
18 October 2011
Praise: UC Irvine ROTC
Last month the University of California at Irvine launched a new Army Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) on campus, the timing to coincide with the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. UC-Irvine knew that it was important that a program like ROTC be open to all students. The Army would have to comply with UC-Irvine's non-discrimination policy:
It prohibits discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, pregnancy, physical or mental disability, medical condition (cancer-related or genetic characteristics), ancestry, marital status, age, sexual orientation, citizenship, or service in the uniformed services.
The program is up and running.
UCI alumnus Christian Peralta, battalion commander for the program, said he is glad the hard work and good relationships forged among cadets, campus military veterans, student government leaders, and key administrators and faculty members paid off. Now, with an established program in place, Peralta said he wants to help mentor and develop the kind of strong, ethical leaders needed in today’s military.
“UCI graduates intelligent and adaptable students needed to be successful in today’s world,” he said. “The military needs capable, intelligent and adaptable leaders, so one of the aims of establishing a program was to create a connection between UCI students and officer leadership in the military.”
Of course hate groups like the American Family Association are upset. Too bad for them. The future of the United States Army and the University of California at Irvine looks bright.
It prohibits discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, pregnancy, physical or mental disability, medical condition (cancer-related or genetic characteristics), ancestry, marital status, age, sexual orientation, citizenship, or service in the uniformed services.
The program is up and running.
UCI alumnus Christian Peralta, battalion commander for the program, said he is glad the hard work and good relationships forged among cadets, campus military veterans, student government leaders, and key administrators and faculty members paid off. Now, with an established program in place, Peralta said he wants to help mentor and develop the kind of strong, ethical leaders needed in today’s military.
“UCI graduates intelligent and adaptable students needed to be successful in today’s world,” he said. “The military needs capable, intelligent and adaptable leaders, so one of the aims of establishing a program was to create a connection between UCI students and officer leadership in the military.”
Of course hate groups like the American Family Association are upset. Too bad for them. The future of the United States Army and the University of California at Irvine looks bright.
Praise: Elmhurst College Endeavors to Better Serve LGBTQ Students
Elmhurst College, a private four-year college in Illinois, made the headlines back in August. The school, affiliated with the United Church of Christ, added a question to its admission form, asking a new and controversial question:
The new application includes the question: “Would you consider yourself a member of the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) community?” It joins several other questions—related to religious affiliation, language spoken at home, and other factors—that are presented to prospective students as optional, i.e., they can choose whether or not to answer them.
The Elmhurst College page describing the change continues
As the institution notes on the application itself, it asks these optional questions because it is “committed to diversity and connecting underrepresented students with valuable resources on campus.” When a student chooses to answer the optional questions, he or she helps the institution to advance its diversity goals and to connect prospective students with the resources, including scholarships and campus organizations, that the College makes available to students from underrepresented groups.
“We took this step in an effort to better serve each of our students as a unique person,” says Elmhurst President S. Alan Ray. “It also allows us to live out our commitments to cultural diversity, social justice, mutual respect among all persons, and the dignity of every individual. These are among the core values of this institution. They provide the foundation for all of our academic, student and community programs.”
The reasons for adding the question to the 2012-2013 admissions application are further explained in an article in The Chronicle of Higher Education
Admissions officers at the Illinois college plan to use the question to connect students with campus programs and services. They will also use it to help determine eligibility for institutional scholarships given to applicants from underrepresented groups.
“We ask a lot of questions in admissions, so we thought, why not ask about this, too?” says Gary Rold, Elmhurst’s dean of admission. “We are trying to recruit students who are academically qualified and diverse, and we consider this another form of diversity.”
A Time Magazine article also explained that while Elmhurst is the first tertiary institution in the United States to ask about students' sexual identity, the answer provided will not affect admissions.
It is not surprising that there were early, albeit fairly timid, complaints from the Family Research Council and The New American among others. Now, two months later, Equality Matters reports that Fox News has had a pundit session where they are alleging an LGBTQ quota and calling the question divisive. Thanks to Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters for the heads up about Fox.
Last week Northwestern University graduate students interviewed officials at Elmhurst who are confident that they made the right decision.
In addition to acquiring data, Rold hopes the question will send a message to applicants.
“I was talking to a representative of a college out in Oregon, a very progressive campus with a large population of gay and lesbian students already enrolled,” [Dean of Admissions Gary Rold] said. “Their stance on it is, ‘We don’t need to ask that question because we are already identified as a very progressive campus.’ We didn’t feel as though there were things about Elmhurst that would necessarily send those signals to students and we felt the application sends a lot of signals.”
The options of “yes,” “no” and “prefer not to answer” appear next to the inquiry on the application. Rold insisted that the answer would not be used for any sort of exclusionary practice.
“Can we assure that the item will not be misused in any way? Yes,” he said. “Is that the same as gay and lesbian students feeling 100 percent secure all the time? I don’t know.”
This would be enough to cheer Elmhurst College, but there is more. Last week Elmhurst celebrated one of its gay alumni.
Bill Johnson’s advice to young gays and lesbians of Elmhurst and any other “child of God’’ committed to justice and equality is to “get vocal, get visible, get free.” It’s the principle he has followed in the nearly 40 years since his historic battle for ordination in 1972 by the United Church of Christ.
The trail-blazing alumnus, who made history as the first openly gay person to be ordained in modern times by a mainstream Christian church, was honored on October 11 as the College inaugurated the William R. Johnson Guestship, formerly called the LGBT Guestship.
The new application includes the question: “Would you consider yourself a member of the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) community?” It joins several other questions—related to religious affiliation, language spoken at home, and other factors—that are presented to prospective students as optional, i.e., they can choose whether or not to answer them.
The Elmhurst College page describing the change continues
As the institution notes on the application itself, it asks these optional questions because it is “committed to diversity and connecting underrepresented students with valuable resources on campus.” When a student chooses to answer the optional questions, he or she helps the institution to advance its diversity goals and to connect prospective students with the resources, including scholarships and campus organizations, that the College makes available to students from underrepresented groups.
“We took this step in an effort to better serve each of our students as a unique person,” says Elmhurst President S. Alan Ray. “It also allows us to live out our commitments to cultural diversity, social justice, mutual respect among all persons, and the dignity of every individual. These are among the core values of this institution. They provide the foundation for all of our academic, student and community programs.”
The reasons for adding the question to the 2012-2013 admissions application are further explained in an article in The Chronicle of Higher Education
Admissions officers at the Illinois college plan to use the question to connect students with campus programs and services. They will also use it to help determine eligibility for institutional scholarships given to applicants from underrepresented groups.
“We ask a lot of questions in admissions, so we thought, why not ask about this, too?” says Gary Rold, Elmhurst’s dean of admission. “We are trying to recruit students who are academically qualified and diverse, and we consider this another form of diversity.”
A Time Magazine article also explained that while Elmhurst is the first tertiary institution in the United States to ask about students' sexual identity, the answer provided will not affect admissions.
It is not surprising that there were early, albeit fairly timid, complaints from the Family Research Council and The New American among others. Now, two months later, Equality Matters reports that Fox News has had a pundit session where they are alleging an LGBTQ quota and calling the question divisive. Thanks to Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters for the heads up about Fox.
Last week Northwestern University graduate students interviewed officials at Elmhurst who are confident that they made the right decision.
In addition to acquiring data, Rold hopes the question will send a message to applicants.
“I was talking to a representative of a college out in Oregon, a very progressive campus with a large population of gay and lesbian students already enrolled,” [Dean of Admissions Gary Rold] said. “Their stance on it is, ‘We don’t need to ask that question because we are already identified as a very progressive campus.’ We didn’t feel as though there were things about Elmhurst that would necessarily send those signals to students and we felt the application sends a lot of signals.”
The options of “yes,” “no” and “prefer not to answer” appear next to the inquiry on the application. Rold insisted that the answer would not be used for any sort of exclusionary practice.
“Can we assure that the item will not be misused in any way? Yes,” he said. “Is that the same as gay and lesbian students feeling 100 percent secure all the time? I don’t know.”
This would be enough to cheer Elmhurst College, but there is more. Last week Elmhurst celebrated one of its gay alumni.
Bill Johnson’s advice to young gays and lesbians of Elmhurst and any other “child of God’’ committed to justice and equality is to “get vocal, get visible, get free.” It’s the principle he has followed in the nearly 40 years since his historic battle for ordination in 1972 by the United Church of Christ.
The trail-blazing alumnus, who made history as the first openly gay person to be ordained in modern times by a mainstream Christian church, was honored on October 11 as the College inaugurated the William R. Johnson Guestship, formerly called the LGBT Guestship.
17 October 2011
FollowUp 1: Sen. Santorum on DADT
My prediction (again): The repeal of DADT and subsequent adjustments of military policy will
end up strengthening the United States military. When soldiers do not
need to hide who they are, they will be more confident fighters. When
soldiers are not making assumptions about their fellow soldiers, they
will be more confident fighters. The necessary social bonding of our
soldiers and sailors will enhance performance in the long run.
Mr. Santorum is among many with dire predictions, lower recruitment and loss of unit cohesion being common fears. But, the Stars and Stripes today offers the other side of this story, not as speculation but for real.
At an eastern Afghanistan base, Army Pfc. Ted Bonham’s revelation elicited little more than shrugs from his fellow civil affairs soldiers.
Freeing himself of the secret was thrilling, and he was relieved to find that they stood by him.
Having served in the Navy, it does not surprise me that those who work together in the field are going to either not care or are going to be relieved that it is now in the open and no longer a secret. Our soldiers and sailors are made of tougher stuff than to be upset with such details.
Bonham, a reservist Tennessee, didn’t go shouting “from the mountains of Afghanistan that I’m gay” but he made a choice not to hide anymore.
Now PFC Bonham is likely to be a better soldier and his unit will benefit. We all will.
9 October 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings Post
Mr. Santorum is among many with dire predictions, lower recruitment and loss of unit cohesion being common fears. But, the Stars and Stripes today offers the other side of this story, not as speculation but for real.
At an eastern Afghanistan base, Army Pfc. Ted Bonham’s revelation elicited little more than shrugs from his fellow civil affairs soldiers.
Freeing himself of the secret was thrilling, and he was relieved to find that they stood by him.
Having served in the Navy, it does not surprise me that those who work together in the field are going to either not care or are going to be relieved that it is now in the open and no longer a secret. Our soldiers and sailors are made of tougher stuff than to be upset with such details.
Bonham, a reservist Tennessee, didn’t go shouting “from the mountains of Afghanistan that I’m gay” but he made a choice not to hide anymore.
Now PFC Bonham is likely to be a better soldier and his unit will benefit. We all will.
9 October 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings Post
Repudiation: Viki Knox, anti-gay teacher
The New Jersey Ledger Star has been following the situation closely. Tuesday evening, the Ledger Star reports that about three hundred people attended a Union Township school board meeting, apparently with a fair mix of those supporting and opposed to Ms. Knox.
Opposing Ms. Knox's open bigotry,
Garden State Equality, a gay rights advocacy group, organized some protesters, while representatives from Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay-rights association, attended to deliver a petition signed by 75,000 supporters calling for Knox’s firing.
Supporting her,
But others, like Harry Skeele of Hillsborough, defended Knox.
"I don’t want to see her get fired over this," Skeele said outside the meeting. "Viki has a First Amendment right to express her opinion, a freedom the gay community has ridden before."
Union parent Ondria Caffey said she corresponded at length with district administrators to express her dismay over the LGBT display — weeks before she learned of Knox’s comments.
"I rely on UHS for teaching my child academics, not for what this display represents," Caffey said at the meeting.
Regarding Freedom of Speech, it is a misnomer to consider that this Right extends into the workplace. And, while parents have every right to request particular topics be included or excluded, the school exists for the entire community. Parents can be even more effective by working with their children at home to reinforce those lessons that they choose and discuss why they disagree with other lessons. Education needs to include all groups, including the LGBTQ community.
Board president Francis "Ray" Perkins said members would not be taking any immediate action after the public comment session, which began around 9:15 p.m.
This is good. Personnel matters need to be handled in closed session. The public had its say, now we will need to wait and see what the results are.
Not waiting, Governor Christie has weighed in against bigotry in the classroom.
"I think that kind of example is not a positive one at all to be setting for folks who have such an important and influential position in our society," Christie said this morning on 770 WABC Radio. "I'm really concerned about those kinds of statements being made."
Christie said he finds the comments "disturbing."
Governor Christie does not support marriage equality, but is correct in his concern.
Thanks to Joe.My.God and TowelRoad for the heads up.
17 October 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post
27 October 2011, FollowUp 2
Opposing Ms. Knox's open bigotry,
Garden State Equality, a gay rights advocacy group, organized some protesters, while representatives from Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay-rights association, attended to deliver a petition signed by 75,000 supporters calling for Knox’s firing.
Supporting her,
But others, like Harry Skeele of Hillsborough, defended Knox.
"I don’t want to see her get fired over this," Skeele said outside the meeting. "Viki has a First Amendment right to express her opinion, a freedom the gay community has ridden before."
Union parent Ondria Caffey said she corresponded at length with district administrators to express her dismay over the LGBT display — weeks before she learned of Knox’s comments.
"I rely on UHS for teaching my child academics, not for what this display represents," Caffey said at the meeting.
Regarding Freedom of Speech, it is a misnomer to consider that this Right extends into the workplace. And, while parents have every right to request particular topics be included or excluded, the school exists for the entire community. Parents can be even more effective by working with their children at home to reinforce those lessons that they choose and discuss why they disagree with other lessons. Education needs to include all groups, including the LGBTQ community.
Board president Francis "Ray" Perkins said members would not be taking any immediate action after the public comment session, which began around 9:15 p.m.
This is good. Personnel matters need to be handled in closed session. The public had its say, now we will need to wait and see what the results are.
Not waiting, Governor Christie has weighed in against bigotry in the classroom.
"I think that kind of example is not a positive one at all to be setting for folks who have such an important and influential position in our society," Christie said this morning on 770 WABC Radio. "I'm really concerned about those kinds of statements being made."
Christie said he finds the comments "disturbing."
Governor Christie does not support marriage equality, but is correct in his concern.
Thanks to Joe.My.God and TowelRoad for the heads up.
17 October 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post
27 October 2011, FollowUp 2
FollowUp 3: Republican Denial of Climate Change
It is bad when people are foolish enough to look at science and decide that their preconceived notions are right and that the evidence in front of them must be somehow flawed. It would be reasonable, when confronted with evidence that challenges prior knowledge, to endeavor to determine if the new evidence is valid, seeking additional studies or testing. What is not reasonable is changing the evidence to suit outdated notions.
Nearly all of the Republican candidates for President deny that there is climate change and that humans impact that change (link to my first article on this). Mr. Perry has gone a step further and endeavored to hide scientific findings. Mother Jones Magazine published an article last week titled Perry Officials Censored Climate Change Report.
The Mother Jones article describes a Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) study, commissioned from the Houston Advanced Research Center that was to produce a series of reports on the status of Galveston Bay. Quoting from Mother Jones, But when HARC submitted its most recent State of the Bay publication to the commission earlier this year, officials decided they couldn't accept a report that said climate change is caused by human activity and is causing the sea level to rise. Top officials at the commission proceeded to edit the paper to censor its references to human-induced climate change or future projections on how much the bay will rise.
The Mother Jones article includes the original report with the edits shown. The original had already not included references to human activity since the TCEQ is staffed by those who are known to deny global warming. Still the scientists had not expected for so much to be changed.
The Guardian reports that lead author John B. Anderson who released the original document to Mother Jones, and all of the scientists who worked on the report have asked that their names removed from it. The Guardian refers to the editing as a scientists' revolt after purging mentions of climate change and sea-level rise from what was supposed to be a landmark environmental report. The scientists said they were disowning the report on the state of Galveston Bay because of political interference and censorship from Perry appointees at the state's environmental agency.
Thanks to Care2 for the heads up.
1 October 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.
10 October 2011, FollowUp 1.
11 October 2011, FollowUp 2.
21 October 2011, FollowUp 4.
27 October 2011, FollowUp 5.
30 November 2011, FollowUp 6.
29 January 2012, FollowUp 7.
15 February 2012, FollowUp 8.
18 February 2012, FollowUp 9.
2 March 2012, FollowUp 10.
11 March 2012, FollowUp 11.
4 June 2012, FollowUp 12.
Nearly all of the Republican candidates for President deny that there is climate change and that humans impact that change (link to my first article on this). Mr. Perry has gone a step further and endeavored to hide scientific findings. Mother Jones Magazine published an article last week titled Perry Officials Censored Climate Change Report.
The Mother Jones article describes a Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) study, commissioned from the Houston Advanced Research Center that was to produce a series of reports on the status of Galveston Bay. Quoting from Mother Jones, But when HARC submitted its most recent State of the Bay publication to the commission earlier this year, officials decided they couldn't accept a report that said climate change is caused by human activity and is causing the sea level to rise. Top officials at the commission proceeded to edit the paper to censor its references to human-induced climate change or future projections on how much the bay will rise.
The Mother Jones article includes the original report with the edits shown. The original had already not included references to human activity since the TCEQ is staffed by those who are known to deny global warming. Still the scientists had not expected for so much to be changed.
The Guardian reports that lead author John B. Anderson who released the original document to Mother Jones, and all of the scientists who worked on the report have asked that their names removed from it. The Guardian refers to the editing as a scientists' revolt after purging mentions of climate change and sea-level rise from what was supposed to be a landmark environmental report. The scientists said they were disowning the report on the state of Galveston Bay because of political interference and censorship from Perry appointees at the state's environmental agency.
Thanks to Care2 for the heads up.
1 October 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.
10 October 2011, FollowUp 1.
11 October 2011, FollowUp 2.
21 October 2011, FollowUp 4.
27 October 2011, FollowUp 5.
30 November 2011, FollowUp 6.
29 January 2012, FollowUp 7.
15 February 2012, FollowUp 8.
18 February 2012, FollowUp 9.
2 March 2012, FollowUp 10.
11 March 2012, FollowUp 11.
4 June 2012, FollowUp 12.
16 October 2011
Praise: Home Depot Supports Gay Pride
For a number of years, Home Depot has welcomed everyone to its stores and given to numerous causes, including the Olympics and the Republican Party. They have a good environmental record and for a couple of years have been getting the anti-equality movement upset because they participate in gay pride activities.
A week ago Home Depot had a booth and a float at the Atlanta Gay Pride parade. So, the American Family Association is calling for a boycott. AFA is supported in its call by White Pride Worldwide, a successor group to the Ku Klux Klan. This is a repeat of an older boycott, AFA called for a boycott in June of 2010.
It is good to have a large company like Home Depot standing firm as those opposed to equality, anti-gay and racist organizations, call for them to limit their outreach. Home Depot is praiseworthy.
A week ago Home Depot had a booth and a float at the Atlanta Gay Pride parade. So, the American Family Association is calling for a boycott. AFA is supported in its call by White Pride Worldwide, a successor group to the Ku Klux Klan. This is a repeat of an older boycott, AFA called for a boycott in June of 2010.
It is good to have a large company like Home Depot standing firm as those opposed to equality, anti-gay and racist organizations, call for them to limit their outreach. Home Depot is praiseworthy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)