Avoiding months of pointless appeals the California Supreme Court has agreed to hear the challenge to Proposition 8, the initiative to ban gay marriage which passed with 52% of the vote earlier this month. The vote to accept the case was 6-1 so it seems justices on both sides of the earlier ruling felt it proper to hear the case now. However they did not vote to stay the law, so for the time being it remains in effect.

Pundits also debated the significance of the court refusing to hear the case until March or April. Some feel that it is a good thing for those opposing 8 because if the court was inclined to simply uphold the measure they would have done so now. It thus suggests that at least some of the Justices are undecided. Others however think it is simply the court doing the normal procedural things.

While I am sure a number of our readers think I am dumb as a doornail I am not stupid enough to try and predict what the court will do. This is a complicated legal proceeding which will require them to parse some fairly technical legal issues.

Read the rest of this entry »

As a retired military officer, a low-ranking one, the highlight for me of the Democratic National Convention in Denver this summer was what I called “the galaxy of stars,” dozens of retired generals and admirals that appeared on the INVESCO Field stage in support of Barack Obama the night of his nomination.

In my post on this event, I also noted that the Obama campaign listed more than 70 retired generals and admirals from all four services who were supporting and advising Barack Obama on national security, aerospace programs, energy and other issues, including retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark, retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Scott Gration, retired Army Lt. Gen. Donald Kerrick, retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, retired Adm. William Owens, Retired Adm. John Nathman, and “at least one former service chief; several service vice chiefs, a former head of the National Guard Bureau, a former commander of U.S. Fleet Forces Command and a former operations director for the Defense Intelligence Agency.”

I concluded, “Can such a galaxy of ’stars’ with a total of around 2,100 years of honorable, distinguished service to their country be wrong? ”

Apparently not.

Barack Obama won this battle and will be the 44th President of the United States. I am sure he owes part of his victory to these military officers.

However, another battle is yet to be fought, and won.

As I have repeatedly asserted, I support full equal rights for gays and lesbians.

I also support full equal rights for our gay and lesbian troops serving honorably, effectively and, in many instances, heroically in our armed forces.

I have written several columns (for example here and here) and many Letters to the Editor on the subject of gays serving in the military and, in particular, about the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that has been in effect for 16 years

In one of my posts, on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the integration of the armed services, I wrote:

But even President Truman’s 1948 Executive order, commendable and progressive as it was, left “without regard to sexual orientation,” out of his promise that ”there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services.”
It is this omission that our legislators are now addressing in the hearings on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” And, predictably, the same tired and repudiated issues and arguments that were used 60 years ago are now being raised again to prevent gays and lesbians from enjoying “equality of treatment and opportunity …in the armed services.”

In another discussion on this subject, I wrote:

The future of the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy will not be decided based on my personal views. Rather, it may be decided on what a majority of the American people feel is the right thing to do. I say, “may” because even though several reputable recent polls have found that a vast majority of Americans feel that homosexuals should be allowed to serve in the military, there will be other powerful factors and factions at play.

One of these will be the judgment and recommendations of present and recent military leadership in our country. While many high ranking and prestigious military officers, both active duty and retired, have expressed their views on this issue, it is not clear yet which way the pendulum will eventually swing.

Well, today, according to CNNPolitics.com, another galaxy of stars has come out in support of ending the “don’t ask-don’t tell” policy.

Read the rest of this entry »

Two cartoons from the Salt Lake City Tribune’s Pat Bagley:

Proposition 8

Gay Mormon

When we examine the election of 2008 and the makeup of government across the nation today, it seems that a few previously-uncomfortable questions have finally been answered. We have elected a black man as president. His chief rival in the primary was a woman who many analysts and poll results estimate would have beaten John McCain by an even wider margin. A gentleman of Hispanic descent is the Governor of New Mexico, was a serious contender for the White House and is widely being hailed as a highly qualified candidate to be Secretary of State. In 2000 we saw a Jewish man in the VP slot on the Democratic ticket which won the popular vote across the nation. In this environment are there any serious thinkers left who find the idea of an Asian candidate for President out of the question?

The point of all this is not the questions we’re asking, but the questions we are no longer asking. Are these people equal? Do they have the same rights and opportunities as “the rest of us?” In almost every case the good news is not that the answer is “yes,” but that we’re no longer even asking the question. These things are accepted as a given. No, I’m not so foolish as to think that racism and intolerance have completely disappeared from our shores. But at this point it is at least increasingly-restricted to some backward holdouts in comparatively small numbers who are primarily engaged in developing a time machine so they can go back and take one more crack at Pickett’s Charge or rescue some of Hitler’s DNA to be stored until cloning techniques improve. Given this heartening news, though, I find myself wondering whether anyone was left behind in these advances? I’m afraid that the answer is still yes.

The current spate of demonstrations against California’s decision on Proposition Eight should be the first indicator of Something Being Rotten in Denmark. Allow me to tie this point in with the two preceding paragraphs. We aren’t asking a question along the lines of whether or not a gay or lesbian American could be elected as president here. We’re holding an allegedly serious national debate as to whether or not gays and lesbians even have the same basic rights as everyone else, or whether it is proper for the majority to pass legislation limiting their rights based solely on their sexual orientation. Opponents - primarily found in the so called “social conservative” band of the political spectrum - are quick to point out that of course they aren’t homophobic, and of course gays have the same rights as anyone else. That’s why we’re going to provide them with these shiny new civil contracts which are pretty much just as good as a marriage, see? (Astute readers who have studied the civil rights movement in America should, at this point, be nodding their heads and reminding us of exactly how well “separate but equal” worked out for black Americans.) It is not the struggle for “marriage rights” which should capture our attention, but the fact that we are even debating the question at all which should sadden us.

The second group of Americans who seem to have missed the Hope and Change Bus are Muslims. For evidence of this, one need look no further than the campaign of our President-Elect. Right wing supporters were running around the nation making hay out of Obama’s middle name, Hussein. His supporters on the left were equally involved in accentuating the divide. While loudly proclaiming that all religions are equally welcome here, they were quick and vocal in attacking those who invoked the H word when speaking of Barack. If the fact of being a practitioner of the Muslim faith were really not an issue, why would you work so hard to establish Obama’s Christian bona-fides? It’s something that everyone knows, but nobody wants to talk about.

The election of Keith Ellison, a Muslim, to Congress sent shockwaves through the Right wing. CNN’s Glenn Beck went so far as to show up on national television and challenge Mr. Ellison, saying, “Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.” What should be automatically shunned in a real nation of religious freedom is still taken as a matter of fact. Today you can be an atheist, a Jew, a Hindu, Buddhist, Wiccan or any species of Christian and get by just fine. Others may raise an eyebrow at you or smugly mutter about how you will get your “reward” when you wind up roasting in hell, but you’re still part of America’s tattered religious tapestry. Muslims, however, are seen by too many has having “something to prove” by default, even if they were born and bred in the U.S.A.

These are the questions we are left with, representing the rotten dregs of sour grapes at the bottom of a rancid barrel. In the America most of us envision - that shining beacon of hope, opportunity and equality standing out on the hill - we shouldn’t be looking for answers to these questions. We need to be examining why anyone is still asking them at all. Should we ever reach the point where such queries are no longer taken seriously, then we may finally be getting close to the finish line. Until then, roll up your sleeves. The election of Obama sends a fine message to everyone, but there’s still plenty of work left to be done.

Mata H. of BlogHer has a sensitive and poignant entry about the 70th anniversary of Kristallnacht. I urge you to go read it there, but I’m grafting just a couple of things to share and adding a bit more. First, please listen to and watch this short clip:

One of the truths I’ve always known about has been the failure of the United States to intervene in the events as they unfolded in Europe and resulted in the death of more than 11 million people, 6 million of whom were Jews. However, it wasn’t until I saw a video clip at Yad Vashem this August that retells the story of a Polish resistance fighter and member of the Polish underground government during WWII who met with FDR in 1943 that this ability to rationalize away meaningful assistance hit me.

Here’s what happened:

I asked our guide about whether the museum presented any information on a professor I’d had in college, Jan Karski. Karski is well-known to people familiar with the concept of righteous gentiles. There is even a statue of him in New York City:

Jan Karski (real name: Kozielewski) was born in 1914 into a Catholic family in ?ód?. After graduating in law, he began work in diplomacy. During the Second World War, as an emissary of the Home Army to the Polish Government in Exile, he gave the Allies a detailed account of the extermination of Jews in Poland. In the US, he among others met with President F.D. Roosevelt, who did not, however, believe his reports on the Holocaust.

During a later courier mission, Karski (his wartime underground pseudonym) was arrested and tortured by the Gestapo. So as not to breakdown – he tried to commit suicide by cutting his veins. Taken to hospital, he managed to escape with the aid of Poles working there.

To corroborate his reports on the Holocaust, Karski twice entered the Warsaw ghetto in disguise with the aid of “?egota” (the Council of Aid for Jews) and Irena Sendlerowa, who saved 2,500 Jewish children by transporting them out of the ghetto.

In 1994, the 80th anniversary of Karski’s birthday, he was given honorary citizenship of Israel. He also received the Righteous Among the Nations title from the Yad Vashem Institute.

In Claude Lanzmann’s 1984 nine-hour film, Shoah, Karski walks off during the interview (I watched the entire nine hours when it first came out; I’d just returned from a year doing volunteer work in Israel; I will never forget the experience of being in a theater over two nights watching it) though eventually returns to continue helping Lanzmann’s efforts. You can read a transcript of the interview here and see on page 12 and 32 where it is that Karski tries to stop. I cry just reading. He says that he cannot go on, though he does, and repeats multiple times that he understands the reason that Lanzmann wants to have this documentation. Read the rest of this entry »

Yesterday People For the American Way’s president, Kathryn Kolbert, put out a statement on Blaming Black Voters for Prop 8 Loss is Wrong and Destructive:

The past 72 hours have brought an extraordinary range of emotions - great joy at the election of Barack Obama and defeat of John McCain, and sadness and anger at the passage of anti-gay initiatives in Florida, Arizona, Arkansas, and California. That sadness has turned to outrage at the speed with which some white gay activists began blaming African Americans - sometimes in appallingly racist ways - for the defeat of Proposition 8. This is inexcusable.

As a mother who has raised two children in a 30-year relationship with another woman, I fully understand the depth of hurt and anger at voters’ rejection of our families’ equality. But responding to that hurt by lashing out at African Americans is deeply wrong and offensive - not to mention destructive to the goal of advancing equality.

Before we give Religious Right leaders more reasons to rejoice by deepening the divisions they have worked so hard to create between African Americans and the broader progressive community, let’s be clear about who is responsible for gay couples in California losing the right to get married, and let’s think strategically about a way forward that broadens and strengthens support for equality.

Via Pam Spaulding who has gathered statistics and background. The statement should be read in its entirety. For more see also: Jeralyn@Talk Left, Ampersand@Alas, a blog and  Ta-Nehisi Coates.

Pam Spaulding points to Gabriel Malor of the “arch-conservative blog” Ace of Spades quietly outing himself as he mourned the passage of Prop 8:

On Prop 8: I know most of you disagree with me about it. But could we have a moment of silence for those poor fools who were happily married or engaged yesterday and today are finding out that they don’t have squat? Prop 8 was much more personal than some silly high-speed train or hospital funding. People are hurting today. And I’m one of them.

I, too, have continued to be uncharacteristically melancholy about the election results. There are now 29 states that have same-sex marriage prohibitions in their constitutions. And with fifty-seven percent of voters approving their measure, Arkansas joined Florida in prohibiting unmarried partners from adopting.

Glenn Greenwald proposes an appealing answer — Repeal DOMA:

With their newly minted control over the White House and Congress, Democrats can easily provide a vital (if not complete) antidote to Proposition 8:  repeal of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (.pdf).  Enacted in 1996, DOMA’s principal effects are two-fold:  (1) it explicitly prohibits the Federal Government and all federal agencies from extending any federal marriage-based benefits, privileges and rights to same-sex couples [Section 3]; and (2) it authorizes states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages from other states [Section 2].

While Section 2 is symbolically wrong (though ultimately inconsequential), it is Section 3 which is especially odious and damaging.  Opposite-sex couples receive a whole slew of vital marriage-based benefits and entitlements from the Federal Government which DOMA expressly denies to same-sex couples.

Andrew Sullivan comments:

[M]y own view is that the advocacy work should take precedence. I’m uncomfortable with a legal strategy alone. We need to do a much better job of communicating the moderate, conservative reasons for why marriage equality is a great thing for all of us. We need especially to get more serious about the African-American community.

There was no Bradley Effect keeping white voters from Obama; but was there black homophobia boosting Prop 8?

Read the rest of this entry »

It’s easy to get caught up in the excitement of the moment. For someone like me, this is really the first time I’ve seen a Democrat win on the national stage. The historic nature of the candidacy only adds to the emotion.

But I wanted to focus on some other things. First, an open letter to my conservative friends, who still have a valuable role to play in our democracy for the next four years. I look forward to your engagement.

And second, and more somberly, it’s important to remember that while Obama broke a tremendous barrier yesterday, this election was an out-and-out catastrophe for the equality of gay and lesbian citizens. Our repudiation of their equal humanity — particularly when the electorate was primed to be thinking about discrimination, prejudice, and exclusion — is a shame upon the nation. And the pain that these men and women must feel — to have been affirmatively and explicitly written out of perhaps the greatest public expression of the American ethos of equality under the law — is unimaginable to me.

Amidst the enthusiastic celebration of change, I was oddly-depressed last night. Early on, it became apparent that Obama would not win my home state of Georgia. Worse:

When the votes have been counted tonight, the G.O.P. will reap the final fruits of its Southern Strategy. The Republican Party will have transformed itself from the Party of Lincoln into the Party of the Old Confederacy. We will find that John McCain has achieved his best results in the Old Confederacy—to which only a sprinkling of thinly populated states of the Plains and Mountain West will be added (states that share strong demographic similarities with the “Confederate” states). The core of the congressional G.O.P. will be drawn from the Old South.

I had honestly hoped that that notion would be defeated. Then there are the ballot measures:

As of now (6:45 a.m.), CNN is projecting that Arizona Prop. 102 and Florida Amendment 2 will both pass–by wide margins, 56% and 62% yes votes, respectively–and add bans on same-sex marriage to those state’s constitutions. CNN is also projecting that Arkansas’s Initiative 1 to ban same-sex couples from adopting or serving as foster parents will also pass–again, by a wide margin (57% yes votes). Right now, California Prop. 8 has not been called, but the yes votes are leading the no votes 52%-48% with 87% of the precincts reporting.

Read the rest of this entry »

As my half dozen or so regular readers are aware I have written a couple of posts on the issue of Same Sex Marriage and Proposition 8.

In these posts I have tried to lay out my arguments for why Same Sex Marriage should be legal and why you should oppose Proposition 8.

At this point I see no point in making another lengthy argument but I would like to offer some comments on the Yes on 8 campaign and suggest a way you might think of the issue.

Read the rest of this entry »

As Tuesday draws near Andy Towle has put out an Urgent Call to help get out the vote against Prop 8 in California:

The “No on Prop 8″ campaign urgently needs 10,000 volunteers on the ground to staff the final “No on Prop 8″ push. They’ve been signing many up but they need more.

If you can help, please SIGN UP HERE. Clickthrough for more information & links. The California vote is too close to call, but trending against the proposition. The Advocate has a look Inside the Belly of No on 8 campaign.

And Stephanie Coontz, who wrote the book on marriage, Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage, explains that marriage as we know it is a recent invention. She has a piece up at religious dispatches, “Traditional” Marriage or a Break with Tradition?

A snippet:

Not until the 16th century—and not until 1754 in England—did states require couples to obtain a license to marry. And even after governments began requiring couples to register to marry, they did not initially enforce this. In America, authorities traditionally “inferred” marriage from a couple’s behavior rather than demanding a public ceremony or a license. Until the latter half of the 19th century, American courts routinely ruled that cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage. When one woman in New York laid claim to her brother’s estate because his “widow” had not had a registered wedding, the judge indignantly declared that “society would not be safe for a moment…if an open and public cohabitation as man and wife for ten years…could be overturned.”

Her conclusion:

Today, the American government is much more insistent than it traditionally was that couples who want the rights and protections of a committed relationship must first get a marriage license and be formally married by a judge or member of the clergy. But the state is much more willing than in the past to guarantee that all individuals—except gays and lesbians—have access to these legal formalities. These two innovations—channeling more benefits through marriage than in the past while also repealing the denial of individual choice to most groups—have given gays and lesbians a strong socioeconomic incentive to demand access to marriage and a strong moral argument to press their case on the basis of equal justice. And contrary to “Conventional Wisdom,” their case is also supported by the Western legal and religious tradition, which has never made ability to procreate a precondition for marri