Long history and tradition

Brian Chelcun and Ari Ezra Waldman take a look at Samuel Alito's dissent in the DOMA case. The Constitution doesn't say anything about marriage, so how can the Supremes declare marriage to be a fundamental right? Because of a long history and tradition. But in the case of same-sex marriage, according to Alito, there is a long history and tradition of discrimination. And that discrimination should continue.

So are gay couples "same-sex married" or simply "married"? If the former, Alito may have a point. If the latter, Alito is profoundly wrong. A fundamental right is fundamental for everyone.

Commenter Matt has an analogy. Before 1920 women had a long history and tradition of not voting. But after that date, voting was not "redefined" and there is no "female vote" separate from the "male vote". Matt says,

By Alito's argument, there can never be ANY extension of recognition of fundamental rights to groups that have traditionally been prevented from exercising those rights.

Which means we are working for marriage equality, not for gay marriage. Alas, I have 400 posts to this blog with the tag "gay marriage". So this post will use both new and old tags.

Lawlessness part 2

Oops, I missed including the last paragraph in the previous post. It won't do to update it because updates aren't sent out by the automatic email distribution system. That's how many family members read my blog. So…

Rob Tisinai compares county clerks in Pennsylvania who break the law in issuing marriage licenses with town clerks in New York who broke the law in refusing to issue marriage licenses. The National Organization for Marriage praised the action in New York but called the current action "lawless." Tisinai wonders if there is a difference between civil disobedience and lawlessness. Yes, he concludes. The Penn. clerks are disobeying the law because they want to draw attention to an injustice. The New York clerks merely said the law doesn't apply to them.

Civil disobedience or lawlessness?

The tale of Jim and John from Cincinnati who flew to Baltimore to be married on the tarmac has been noticed by Mike DeWine, the Attorney General of Ohio. He will appeal the decision from the judge who decreed that John's death certificate must declare him married. DeWine is up for reelection this fall and his opponent is David Pepper. He scolds DeWine, saying the AG took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.



Terrence Heath has collected about 3 dozen cartoons about the George Zimmerman acquittal in Trayvon Martin's death. Heath grouped them in three parts.



Officials in Montgomery County, near Philadelphia, have announced they are defying the gay marriage ban in Pennsylvania and will grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples. This comes after the ACLU has sued the ban in federal court and Kathleen Kane, the state's AG, declared she would not defend the ban. Yes, couples are taking advantage of the opportunity, though the ACLU warns later court action could invalidate the marriages. The GOP is complaining how horrible these marriages are. But, strangely, so far nobody is actually doing anything to stop them.

Surviving spouse

A week ago I wrote about the marriage of John and Jim. Because of ALS John is near death and doesn't travel well. The couple rented a private jet to fly from Cincinnati to Baltimore so a ceremony could be conducted on the tarmac.

Once back in Cincinnati, Jim went to a federal district court with a request that his marriage be recognized by the state of Ohio. And he wanted it for a specific reason. When John dies the couple wants the death certificate to list John's status as "married" and Jim as the "surviving spouse." With amazing swiftness the judge ordered the state to do just that. The justification is that Ohio will honor other marriages celebrated in other states when it would have been illegal if celebrated in Ohio. An example is a marriage of first cousins. If you can do it for them, said the judge, you can do it for John and Jim.

England and Wales!

The House of Lords approved the marriage equality bill. Approval was so lopsided during the amendment procedure that for final approval they didn't take time for a tally, simply approving it on a voice vote. Many of the lords wore pink carnations to mark the occasion.

The Lords tweaked the bill, so it went back to the House of Commons. They quickly approved the changes. The queen has given her Royal Assent (great picture with this post). Gay weddings can start in about a year (alas, several provisions, such as pensions, may take that long to implement).

Alas, this new law only applies to England and Wales. The Scotland Parliament is working on their own bill and may follow in about a year. No word on Northern Ireland yet.

One commenter adds: Keep calm and marry on.

Hurry up!

Marriage equality (at least at the federal level) almost came too late for John and Jim. The couple has been together for 20 years, but in the last year John has been afflicted with ALS and is now in hospice. When the Supremes struck down DOMA Jim contacted John's aunt Paulette, who is ordained, to request her services. He then contacted friends and family about his idea. John is too debilitated to spend many hours in a car. Friends responded with $12,000 to charter a private jet. Great friends! The couple, with Paulette, flew from Cincinnati to Baltimore, and while the plane sat on the tarmac, Paulette conducted the wedding ceremony. You'll need a hanky to watch the 10 minute video. Then pass it on to your friends.

Hurry up with all the legal wrangling! It was almost too late for John.

Colombia!

Two years ago the Colombia Constitutional Court said the legislature had to provide full legal recognition of gay couples. The court said Congress had until June 20 of this year to enact the proper laws. A marriage equality bill was rejected in April and no action was taken since then, leaving gay couples wondering what to do. One gay couple went to their local judge and petitioned to have their relationship recognized. The judge set a date -- July 24 -- for their marriage ceremony.



This will be interesting. The gay marriage suit brought in Pennsylvania has been assigned to a judge, John Jones III. He had a famous case before. He's known as

the judge who previously ruled that a School District in Dover was not allowed to teach religiously-tinged Intelligent Design Theory in public schools, also known as the Kitzmiller case. He stated explicitly in his opinion that the district was attempting to "impose a religious view of biological origins into the biology course," despite a ban on state-sponsored religion in the Pennsylvania constitution

The case has left the governor, Tom Corbett, in a pickle. The Penn. AG, Kathleen Kane has refused to defend the gay marriage ban. That leaves it up to Corbett to defend. He's GOP in a bluish state (it went for Obama). Does he refuse to defend the law and annoy his base or defend it and annoy the majority who favor of marriage equality? Poor guy. He is up for reelection next year.



They're like zombies, you blast away at them and they keep on coming. ProtectMarriage, the group that brought us the gay marriage ban in Calif., is still at it. The Supremes told them they didn't have standing. They filed a motion with Justice Anthony Kennedy saying gay marriages started too soon, leaving them no time to ask for a reconsideration. Kennedy told them to go away. Now they're on the way to the state Supremes asking that gay marriages be stopped. The reasoning is that no appellate court ruled the ban unconstitutional. It was a district court ruling that was left standing. This effort is an "extreme long shot."

A plan for the big push

Freedom to Marry has released a 30-month action plan so that at least 50% of Americans are living in states with marriage equality by 2016. New York and Calif. mean there a good ways towards that goal already. But they probably need another 10 states.

The first part of the plan is to put serious money behind the state-by-state push. As part of that they hired the guy who led Minnesota to their recent win. They are working to make Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Oregon happen by the end of next year. Then they aiming for six of these nine -- Arizona, Colorado, Michigan (yay!), Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia -- by 2016.

The second part of the plan is the Respect for Marriage Act, which repeals the rest of DOMA and fixes any problems left behind from the Supreme's ruling. Freedom to Marry already has 42 Senators and 161 Representatives lined up.

And part 3 is to get public opinion to support marriage equality to over 60% by 2016. The message will be refined through the latest research and be available through a central communication hub. Messengers will include individuals and programs such as Mayors for the Freedom to Marry (currently at 350 in 35 states, aiming for 500 from 50 states by the end of the year), a program for Young Conservatives, and another for Latinos.

The total cost to finish the job (which I take to be all 50 states) to be more than $100 million and Freedom to Marry aims to raise a quarter of that.

Let's get those challenges rolling

We're not wasting any time capitalizing on the big gay rulings by the Supremes. The ACLU has filed a challenge in federal court to the Pennsylvania ban on gay marriage. There was no problem getting a slew of plaintiffs for the case. A second report is here.

And they are gearing up for a similar challenge in Virginia.

Even though a vote for marriage equality may come soon in Illinois (perhaps this fall) the ACLU and Lambda Legal have asked the state Supremes to hurry the process along by saying the situation in Illinois is the same as in Calif. -- civil unions are the same as marriage except in name. Whether the court will get around to ruling before the legislature gets around to voting is an open question.



The Campaign for Southern Equality is making a big push in its "We Do" campaign in Mississippi. That's likely the most homophobic state. The group's leader Rev. Jasmine Ferrara said, " the solution to the discrimination we face is not to move."

Clear and explicit commandment

A few years ago I read the book I'm OK, You're Not by John Shore. In it he humorously explains that Christianity's focus on the Great Commission (bring all nations to Christ) means we make a mess of the Great Commandment (love one another). I recommend it, though you can't borrow my copy, I've given it away.

I've found Shore's blog and one of his entries is Taking God at His Word: The Bible and Homosexuality. This is the opening essay of his book UNFAIR: Christians and the LGBT Question. He explains why Christianity is wrong to condemn gay people and he does it in a way that is different and harsher (on Christians) than I've seen before. Here are some of the points he makes:

Follow the Biblical directive of compassion, which means advocating for full equality and inclusion, or follow the Biblical directive that homosexuality is a sin? False choice. Check those passages on homosexuality again.

There is no clear and explicit directive in the Bible that gay people should be ostracized. So don't do it. The suffering imposed on gay people by the church is so severe that shunning gays had better be backed by a clear and explicit commandment in the Bible, which isn't there.

The Bible says very little about homosexuality, only 6-7 verses. Yet Christians apply absolute standards of morality with absolute penalty based on them. This is for a "sin" that they have no interest in committing. However, there are lots of passages that insist on love, fairness, compassion, and the rejection of legalism. But since Christians routinely violate these ideals the standard of morality is much lower, taking circumstances and degree of harm into account. Homosexuality is the one exception.

The Bible isn't a rulebook. When one passage is pulled out of context it cannot be clearly understood. The Bible is so old that even the most fundamentalist do not take all of it literally. Claiming moral helplessness because "It's in the Bible" does a disservice to the book.

Using Old Testament passages to condemn gay people should not be done because St. Paul tells us not to do that. Here is one of several such passages:

The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God. —Hebrews 7:18-19

There are already so many Old Testament laws we ignore, such as the dietary laws.

As for the New Testament, we've already decided that many of its directives no longer apply to today. This includes women required to remain quiet in church. We no longer use the Bible to justify slavery and denying women the right to vote.

In the same way the New Testament verses describing homosexuality must be understood within their historical context. And the context Paul was writing about was coercive, non-consensual sex between men and boys. This was about power, not love. The same kind of coercion between a man and a woman is also condemned. In addition, the concept of a homosexual orientation was unknown to Paul so he was talking about straight people going against their nature. Paul couldn't have been writing about homosexuality any more than he could have been writing about smartphones.

Because the concept of gay marriage was unknown to Paul he couldn't say anything about sex acts within it. And because all sex acts outside of marriage are considered sin, denying gay marriage condemns gay couples to sin. So Christians cause gay couples to sin, then blame them for that sin. Unfair.

Thinking that gay sex is icky does not make it a sin.

Shore concludes this way:

Christians desiring to do and live the will of Jesus are morally obligated to always err on the side of love. Taken all together, the evidence—the social context in which the Bible was written, the lack of the very concept of gay people in Paul’s time, the inability of gay people to marry, the inequity between how the clobber passages are applied between a majority and a minority population, the injustice of exclusion from God’s church on earth and from human love as the punishment for a state of being over which one has no choice—conclusively shows that choosing to condemn and exclude gay people based on the Bible is the morally incorrect choice.

This is the definition of family

I arrived home around 8:30 this evening and saw the item in my calendar about city fireworks display this evening. I had seen raindrops on the way home and saw drops on my deck. So I checked the weather map. It showed the eastern edge of rain coming over the city. Well, so much for fireworks. But at 10:30 I heard the fireworks going off. Sigh.



Since the big gay rulings by the Supremes about 10 days ago I haven't written much about the Fundie response. It's been loud. But why bother? They aren't saying anything new. And why let all that nastiness ruin our parade?

Even though I'm doing my best to ignore them, others have been playing close attention. People like Seething Mom, who wrote in part:

Thank you for pretending it is you that has had something precious taken from you when you have lost absolutely nothing but the right to be bullies.
…
Thank you for playing the victim card every time you lose a fight. Nothing turns the stomach more than watching a big fat bully blubber for sympathy when he is exposed for the mean-spirited SOB he really is.

And finally, thank you for all the crazies you endorse and embrace. Please keep giving them a megaphone and a public stage. We've got a lot of marriage bans to repeal and gay weddings to plan and we sure could use their help to reach the finish line.

Jamie McGonnigal notes how small their crowds are becoming and how desperate their fundraising emails are sounding. Alas, they will never be gone for good. They will certainly be around long enough to make us work for the other 37 states.

And no matter what the Fundies say, this is the definition of family:

Two brothers from Reseda sat in red lawn chairs at the entrance to the City Council chambers, having staked out the prime position so their aunts, Helen Andersen and Pam Holt, could have the first wedding of the day on Monday.

Holt has terminal cancer and can't be on her feet for long. They all know time is of the essence. More than a year ago, Holt’s doctor told her she had three months to live, said Tyler Mead, 21, one of the brothers.

"They've been waiting 18 years for this," Mead said. "I'd wait days in this line for them."

The two young men had to wait a while because while Holt was undergoing chemotherapy her drivers license expired and she had to visit several gov't offices to get a proper identity card. Even so, Anderson and Holt are now married.

Same love

The performance duo Macklemore and Ryan Lewis created a song with video in support for the marriage equality vote in Washington state last year. They call it Same Love and in it a young man talks about his gay uncles. Yeah, I heard about it then, but didn't bother watching.

The video has gone national. Its rise started just before the Supremes ruled on DOMA and the Calif. ban. No doubt the ruling fueled that rise. It now sits at #16 on Billboard's Hot 100 and will likely go higher. I've now watched it and it's a good one. You can watch it at this link, but you'll need to use the full screen mode.

Costa Rica?

Did Costa Rica enact marriage equality and do it by accident? I don't understand Spanish, so I can't read the original text of the bill. That bill has both several things about services for youth and a few things about marriage. Along the way it clarifies the rights and benefits of civil unions, free from discrimination.

It was after lawmakers passed the bill that someone noticed what that "free from discrimination" phrase might mean. Since the country is very much against gay marriage lawmakers asked the president to veto the bill. She said she will sign it, probably because of all the other stuff in it, and she'll let the courts sort it out. And even though she is very much for traditional marriage, she'll abide by whatever the courts say.

Focus shift from Supremes to Obama

Congress enacts the laws. But if something isn't clear, such as the definition of "spouse," the Executive Branch writes regulations to create a working definition of the law. Which means, according to Ari Ezra Waldman, the president is sometimes a key player in how a law is interpreted.

That's especially true when the Supremes strike down a portion of the law, like they did with DOMA. All these agency staff people now have to update the regulations to implement the ruling. So our focus has shifted from the Supremes to Obama. How fast will he and his staff work through all those regulations to make sure they refer to any lawfully married couple and to make sure it discusses the state of celebration and not the state of domicile (to handle the case of being married in New York and living in Texas).

Alas, a couple laws specify they apply to the state of domicile, so the underlying regulations can't change. These laws are the ones that created the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Social Security Act. It is this last part that should get prompt Congressional attention. Lots of gay widows and widowers will need it. Alas, there is that GOP house…

Waldman asks an important question. If Romney was president how quickly would those regulations be rewritten? Well, gosh, it is all so complicated. It's going to take a while.

A commenter notes,

and had McCain won in '08, we'd not have seen pro-Equality judges on the bench, folks.

#votingisimportant

as much as conservatives want to ask "how's that Hope-y Change-y stuff working for ya?" with a smug little idiot's grin, the answer firmly remains "pretty darn good, actually"

Next?

Erin McClam of MSNBC gives predictions of which states will be the next ten to get marriage equality.

Illinois, through the legislature this fall.

New Jersey, by overriding Christie's veto or showing the state Supremes that civil unions are not equal because there are no federal benefits. That case heats up this week.

Hawaii, through the legislature. Perhaps by the end of the year.

Oregon, by voter referendum in 2014.

Arizona, Michigan, Colorado, Ohio, by voter referendum in 2014 or 2016.

Nevada, by voter referendum in 2016 (it can't come any earlier).

New Mexico, could be through the legislature or courts, and maybe next year.



Andrew Sullivan notes the Catholic Church has no trouble existing in a society that permits divorce (though divorce within its membership is another matter). So the Catholic Church should have no trouble existing in a society that permits gay marriage, even if they don't approve of it for their own members.



David Boies, one of the wonderful lawyers on our side the Calif. gay marriage case, talks about the implications. He notes the pro-gay side did have standing before the Supremes, the anti-gay side did not. That implies that all gay marriage bans are unconstitutional. Is it a state's rights issue? Nope. The Supremes didn't allow Calif. to decide for itself. "The 14th Amendment was passed for the specific reason of saying states have rights but one of those rights is not to discriminate against its own citizens."

Go away

The ProtectMarriage organization and their money source, the Alliance Defending Freedom, brought us the Calif. gay marriage ban and tried to defend it at the Supreme Court. They're not done yet. They are throwing a hissy fit that the 9th Circuit Court lifted their stay before the Supremes took their 25 days of paperwork and allowed gays to start getting married. It's within those 25 days that ProtectMarriage can file a petition to request the Supremes reconsider the case. So they filed an emergency motion with Justice Anthony Kennedy (who oversees the 9th Circuit) to tell the 9th Circuit to keep the stay. Kennedy's response was: go away.

It is worth noting that Kennedy was not one of the five justices who said ProtectMarriage had no standing. But his denial is a strong indication the Supremes won't bother with any sort of reconsideration.

Another detail worth noting is that the 9th Circuit Court put the stay on their own ruling that the Calif. marriage ban is unconstitutional. They can remove their own stay anytime they want.

Commenters noted the motion filed with Kennedy was long (76 pages), not very logical (amateur night?), and insulted the 9th Circuit Court. Good luck with future cases, bud.

Commenter Hunter notes the stench of desperation and says,

They literally cannot admit they lost. They’re fighting for God’s law, which is the ultimate authority, and so anything that contravenes that is illegitimate. They will also fight until everyone else sees the error of their ways and falls into line.

Or they die off.



Frank Schubert was the PR mastermind behind the National Organization for Marriage's success in banning gay marriage in Calif. in 2008, Maine in 2009, and a few other states. But after three losses this spring and the big Supreme ruling last week, he's having a hard time raising money. He gives a reason: “Donors are afraid to give because they don’t want to be harassed.”

Laurel Ramseyer of Pam's House Blend summarizes Schubert's message: “The gays will come after you if you donate to NOM! Please donate to NOM.” No wonder it doesn't work.

Commenter Bose notes that our side has based its efforts on the courage to come out, to put ourselves on the line to explain why we want equality. But NOM has been carefully telling its donors that their names will be secret (and been involved in lawsuits in attempts to do just that). So how can they now ask for courage of conviction?



The ACLU has announced a $10 million nationwide campaign to urge repeal of state marriage bans. They've hired two conservatives to get the message to Republicans. One of them is Jimmy LaSalvia, former head of GOProud, who seemed to dismiss gay rights in favor of conservative ideas. Because if that this ACLU campaign is seen as suspicious.



Brad Pitt's current movie is World War Z. The group Funny or Die has created a trailer for an alternate version, World War G in which the attackers aren't zombies, but gays who want to get married. Even so, that brings the world to an end. Enjoy the 1.5 minutes of a conservative's fever dream. Just to be clear -- that ruling by the Supremes was Wednesday. This is Sunday. The events depicted in the movie did not happen.

How to start a movement

We've come a long way since 1969. Today is the anniversary of the Stonewall riot in New York City. They are named for the Stonewall Inn where they took place. The riot marks the start of the era of gay civil rights, when feelings shifted from fear to a confident push for dignity and full rights. If you don't know about the Stonewall riot, you have some Googling to do. Not bad work for 44 years.



I've been writing that the demise of DOMA means federal benefits for married same-sex couples will be true across America. That may not be the case immediately. Obama has said he very much wants it to be true and he has his staff looking into the issue.

In the meantime a couple Congresscritters are submitting bills to overturn the rest of DOMA, the part that says one state can ignore a marriage that was celebrated in another state.



Rob Tisinai looks at the latest ad from the National Organization for Marriage. It says "The Supreme Court has not ended the debate. It has started a movement." Presumably, NOM believes it is a movement to overturn our gains in gay equality, especially marriage. Does that mean all the work they've done over the last decade (or at least half-dozen years) hasn't been a movement?

Well, says Tisinai, that work did start a movement. And they did it by relentlessly humiliating a tiny minority and stripping away their rights. They kept doing that until that minority rose up and fought back. Which is how we came to repeal the Calif. gay marriage ban. Tisinai says he didn't particularly care to get involved -- until he was stung by that big defeat in Calif. Yup, a movement was started. But not the kind NOM intended.

Commenter Richard Rush notes another effect of the actions of NOM and other Fundies who attack gays. That is a movement away from religion. It has caused many to seriously look at religious belief and many of those see bigotry and want no part of it.



I wrote about Tim Huelskamp of Kansas filing a new version of the federal marriage protection amendment. One little problem -- his fellow GOP members (both in Congress and in the state legislature) in Kansas are doing all they can to distance themselves from him. Maybe his voters still love him?



Ohh, there are some fun implications to the latest cover of the New Yorker.



There was talk it would take maybe 3 weeks for the Supreme Court to go through the paperwork to notify the 9th Circuit Court and several days for the 9th Circuit to lift it stay before marriage could resume in California. Eager couples were looking at perhaps a wait of a month. Nope. Took two days. The 9th Circuit lifted it's stay today. The plaintiffs, Sandy Stier and Kris Perry have already been married by the Calif. Attorney General Kamela Harris. Jeff Zarillo and Paul Katami, the other pair of plaintiffs are on their way to their own ceremony. Done.



Equality Michigan reports that a federal district judge has struck down the ban on employee benefits to same-sex partners of public workers. The law is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution.

The debate moves to the states

Gay news sources are full of reactions and implications of yesterday's gay marriage rulings by the Supremes.

The end of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) had an effect within 30 minutes. There was a court hearing to determine if a Colombian man should be deported. He is married to an American man. The hearing was interrupted with the news of the ruling. Deportation was suspended. Thanks to Gabe the intern who dashed through five city blocks to get the ruling to the judge. Rachel Maddow includes that story in her report.

That report by Maddow, all 15 minutes (and well worth it), talks about the importance of these rulings. That's the first of 3 videos on this page. She focuses on the gay-rights case of 10 years ago, Lawrence v. Texas that said gay sex is not criminal. In horror, Scalia predicted that the case would be used to justify gay marriage. He was right -- Kennedy, who wrote both that ruling and this one cited the previous one. Scalia, still horrified, said in his dissent, that yesterday's ruling will bolster the case for gay marriage in states where their constitution bans it. And I agree, it will. But with hope, not horror.

Ari Ezra Waldman, who has a regular column on Towleroad to explain gay legal issues, explains both cases. In the Calif. gay marriage case he explains why the Supremes rejected the case. Even though the Calif. Supremes said the authors of the law have standing, federal law is very clear in saying they don't. They have a grievance, but they aren't injured.

In the DOMA case, even though the GOP House leadership brought the suit instead of the Justice Dept. they do have an injury as part of the gov't -- somebody in the gov't has to pay back Edie Windsor's $350,000 estate tax bill. It is the language of the ruling that is most important. Justice Kennedy wrote a lot about the importance of marriage and the dignity equality brings. These words will be used again.

The organization Freedom to Marry put out a fact sheet. It lists the various areas that are affected by the elimination of DOMA. These include bankruptcy, benefits for federal employees and the military, family and medical leave for non-federal employees, federal taxes, federal student aid, immigration (leaving gays out of the big immigration bill doesn't matter anymore), Medicare and Medicaid, employment benefits, Social Security survivors, veteran spousal benefits, and assistance to needy families.

Some news reports talked about how much gay couples will save in federal taxes. Rob Tisinai reminds us that not all the changes will save us money. There are also responsibilities -- the income of both couples will be used to determine student financial aid, for example. These are responsibilities that any couple in love would take on.

The leadership in the House -- who spent several million defending DOMA -- are saying the debate now moves to the states. That means the House leadership is done with the issue. They've accepted the ruling by the Supremes. Subtext: gays are no longer relevant to their reelection.

That's not true of all the House members. Tim Huelskamp of Kansas, surely playing to his base, announced he will introduce a federal marriage protection amendment. At least we're now confident it won't go anywhere. The last such amendment came in 2006 and came 54 votes short of the required 2/3 majority.

Money shifts to the states as well. Both marriage equality and anti-gay organizations are starting fundraising pushes for a state-by-state battle. Expect to raise at least $1 million per battle.

Civil unions were sold on the idea that they are identical to marriage except in name. Several states have this variety now, including New Jersey, Oregon, and Nevada. There were countless little ways where this was not true -- various businesses saying, "but that's for married couples." But now there is a really big, demonstrable difference between civil unions and marriage -- married couples get federal benefits. Civil union couples do not. This is the start of a fresh crop of lawsuits, starting at the state level.

Though the Supremes are done with rulings for this term, they had a couple bits of business for today.

In 2008 Arizona added domestic partner benefits for state employees. In 2009 Gov. Jan Brewer canceled them. In 2011 the 9th Circuit Court told Brewer she can't do that. Now the Supremes say they aren't taking the case, leaving the 9th Circuit ruling in place.

A challenge to Nevada's ban on gay marriage (they have civil unions that are supposed to be the same, see above) was denied by the Supremes. Though the high court doesn't explain why it takes or rejects a case, the assumption this time is because those seeking equality in Nevada asked to bypass the 9th Circuit.

Gay rights groups are laying out a five-year plan:

* In moderate states, such as Oregon, use a ballot initiative to overturn the constitution ban.

* In states that have civil unions same as marriage in all but name, aim for a court case.

* In more conservative states, work for expansion of gay rights, such as non-discrimination cases, and recognition of marriages celebrated elsewhere. This will get the citizens of those states at least talking about marriage equality to lessen a backlash when the Supremes rule again.

Yup, the goal is marriage equality across the country by 2018. Go for it!

Marriage equality at the federal level

I've got a full schedule this afternoon and evening, so I'll note what I can before I have to get lunch.

In case you've had no access to news in the last few hours…

The Defense of Marriage Act, part 3 (which prohibits the federal gov't from recognizing same-sex marriages) is overturned by a 5-4 decision. You can read a sufficient summary (or find a link to the full ruling) here. It includes Scalia's dissent on the grounds that the case shouldn't have come before the court (a tangled case), that the Court shouldn't trouble itself with moral issues, and, by golly, the law was not created because of hatred for gay people, nosiree! The anti-gay crowd will be quoting Scalia quite a bit now.

Edith Windsor, the plaintiff, is delighted!

So is the president! He may have a big task ahead sorting through gov't regulations to find those that specify they are based on where the couple resides, rather than where the wedding took place.

In California's gay marriage ban the Supremes' punted. They declared that since the state didn't protest the District Court decision no one else can. Therefore it is improper for the Supremes to rule on the case. In addition it was improper for the 9th Circuit Court to have taken the case. Thus the District Court ruling stands. It said that California's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional. That means Calif. gets gay marriage but the status in all other states is unchanged.

This ruling was 5-4 and had a strange coalition: Roberts, Scalia, Kagan, Ginsberg, and Breyer.

Tighten the hold on the House

Decision Day is tomorrow. The Supremes will be announcing their rulings on the gay marriage cases at 10:00. Alas, I won't be near a news source until about 11:30. I've written about various places around the country hosting Decision Day events, whether a party or protest depends on how the Court rules. One more Decision Day host has been announced -- the National Cathedral in Washington, DC. This one means a lot to me. They'll hold a 7:00 pm. service to celebrate or commiserate.

A Decision Day event will be held at the Affirmations Center in Ferndale starting at 3:00. I should be able to fit in some of it before heading to Ruth Ellis Center for my usual evening volunteering. I suggested they also do a Decision Day event, though don't know yet what that might be.



Lots of commentary today on the Supremes ruling that guts an important part of the Voting Rights Act. Instead of getting approval from the Department of Justice, states are now free to make whatever changes to voting laws they want. Parties that are injured by those new laws still have the opportunity to go to court -- only after they're injured.

And it won't take affected states long to take advantage of this ruling. It took two hours for the Attorney General of Texas to say the Voting ID law blocked by the DoJ last year is now in effect. And we know who is excluded by that kind of law.

I hear that the Supremes are saying that the particular formula for who needs to go to the DoJ is what is struck down. Congress is invited to come up with a more up-to-date formula. Which probably isn't possible in the current Congress.

Interesting that 20 gay rights groups issued a letter deploring the ruling and pledging to work with coalition partners to undo the damage of this ruling.

Joshua Green of Bloomberg Businessweek says the effect will tighten the GOP hold on the House (and various statehouses and governor offices), but will so disgust everyone else that the presidency (and maybe the Senate) will be even further out of reach. There will be a backlash.

Ari Ezra Waldman notes that today's ruling was a blow to equality. He explains the ruling well. Tomorrow's gay rulings are also about equality. Does today's ruling imply tomorrow's will worsen equality? Waldman says no, though on reflection I'm not sold on his argument. The Voting Rights Act was reauthorized several times and each time, especially in 2006, Congressional hearings created a great deal of evidence of actual discrimination. The Defense of Marriage Act was passed quickly, with "scant hearings and no evidence." Waldman (working from Ginsberg's dissent) says the Supremes should have deferred to Congress in the VRA. But since there is no evidence for DOMA the Supremes shouldn't defer to Congress.

But since the Supremes didn't defer to Congress when they should have, what does that say about tomorrow's ruling?