The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled on Friday that same-sex couples have the right to marry, reversing a lower court decision that had concluded that the civil unions legalized in the state three years ago offered the same rights and benefits as marriage.
With the 4-to-3 ruling, Connecticut becomes the third state in the nation to legalize same-sex marriage. California legalized gay marriage in May 2008, and Massachusetts in 2004.
The justices noted in the majority opinion that they recognized “as the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court did in Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health … that ‘our decision marks a change in the history of our marriage law.’ ”
The case, Kerrigan v. the state Commissioner of Public Health, was brought by eight same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses by the Madison town clerk. They argued that the state’s civil union law was discriminatory and unconstitutional because it established a separate and therefore inherently unequal institution for a minority group. Citing equal protection under the law, the state Supreme Court agreed.
Here’s the short version from my good friend Dan Krisch, whose firm, Horton, Shields & Knox, represented 8 same sex couples who sought the radical right to be treated just like everyone else:
The basics (there are 3 separate dissents and an 85-page majority, so I’m cutting to the chase): Sexual orientation is a quasi-suspect class under the EP Clauses of our state constitution; denying same-sex couples the right to marry doesn’t survive the heightened scrutiny that comes w/quasi-suspect classification.
I admit to feeling a bit sentimental about the opinion, one for the merits, two for having clerked for CT SCT Justice Joette Katz after law school. Justice Katz joined a concurring opinion written by Justice Norcotte that explains precisely why civil unions just don’t cut it [READ ON].
Given that we are less than a month away from national elections, the biggest question about this decision is what impact, if any, it will have politically. Ironically, the court heard oral arguments more than a year ago, in the spring of 2007. The delay in reaching a decision had become something of a joke among lawyers. But it looks to me like the CT justices get to have the last laugh, since their timing was impeccable in terms of creating an impact. But — what kind of impact?
The ruling went beyond legalizing same-sex marriage. Palmer wrote that “sexual orientation constitutes a quasi-suspect classification for purposes of the equal protection provisions of the state constitution, and, therefore, our statutes discriminating against gay persons are subject to heightened or intermediate judicial scrutiny.”
Two of the three dissenters claimed that lesbians and gays are already a super-powerful group and therefore shouldn’t be seen as a suspect class. The third dissenter took the “marriage is about heterosexual reproduction and nothing else” route.
[S]tate Attorney General Richard Blumenthal noted that today’s decision cannot be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court because it was based on the state constitution.
As for the political implications, it’s hard to guess how and whether voters elsewhere will react to the decision. For that matter, we’ll have to wait and see whether McCain/Palin and/or the RNC try to exploit far-right anti-gay animus for electoral gain.
My hunch is, though, that given the financial crisis, and the fact that the sky didn’t fall when other states allowed gay couples to marry, today’s decision in Connecticut will have limited national implications. The issue just seems to lack some of the fear-factor the right relied on in previous years.
October 8th, 2008 By JOE WINDISH, Technology Editor
Stephen H. Miller comments on a Survey USA poll [pdf] finding that California voters now favor passage of Proposition 8 by a five-point margin, 47 percent to 42 percent:
One reason is the success of this anti-gay marriage ad showing San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom proclaiming same-sex marriage is here to stay “whether you like it or not.”
It’s not lost yet, but this is bad news, especially since the parallel Obama surge isn’t counteracting Prop 8’s growing support. It’s quite possible Obama will be the next president, but that all three anti-gay marriage state initiatives (California, Florida and Arizona) will pass. Given that LGBT activists have made the election of Obama their number 1 priority, with the lion’s share of the efforts aimed at getting out the vote, for Obama, and raising money, for Obama, a loss in California (especially, since it will roll back marriage equality) will be telling.
The swing (11 days prior found a five-point margin in favor of proposition 8 opponents) is attributed to young voters:
The only demographic group to significantly change their views during this period were younger voters — considered the hardest to poll and the most unpredictable voters — who now support the measure after previously opposing it…
“Polling on ballot measures in general is an inexact science, and polling on homosexuality in general is a tricky business. So, not too much should be made of the 5 points that separates ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ today,” concluded a summary of the results prepared by SurveyUSA.
RELATED: Last week I posted Support Sinks for California Gay Marriage Ban and pointed to a Salon piece questioning the liberal bona-fides of David Blankenhorn who wrote as a “liberal Democrat” in an OpEd in the L.A. Times endorsing the California initiative. Salon said his funders are largely right-wing. Blankenhorn replies here.
October 6th, 2008 By JOE WINDISH, Technology Editor
Bishop Harry Jackson was a guest on The Michelangelo Signorile Show on Friday to respond to the fact that Mark Buse, John McCain’s Senate Chief of Staff and a longtime McCain adviser (and a Freddie Mac lobbyist whose firm earned $460,000 in lobbying fees in late 2003 and 2004) is now widely known to be gay.
Jackson, pastor of the Hope Christian Church in Maryland and founder of the High Impact Leadership Coalition, is on the board of the National Association of Evangelicals, Ted Haggard’s old stomping ground. Jackson isn’t among the most high-profile Christian right leaders on the national level, but he does travel in their circles, was a participant in infamous Justice Sunday, and talks to them all, including Focus on the Family’s James Dobson, Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins and the rest. So, while the big honchos are being curiously quiet, when Jackson says evangelicals weren’t happy with Palin’s performance at the vice presidential debate when it came to gay issues — and that there is a “split” among them about how Sarah Palin should have addressed the topic, as well as about John McCain’s chief of staff — it certainly is interesting:
“A lot of folks were upset that she didn’t say there is a marriage amendment on the ballot in Florida, California and Arizona…She missed an opportunity to say I’m for marriage…She could have defined that thing clearly and she would have a lot more people enthusiastic about her campaign. There have been people [grumbling]…I do think she seemed a little wishy-washy and unclear on the marriage issue. She left making it sound like she and McCain and Biden and Obama were exactly the same and they’re not.”
What’s even more interesting is that Jackson, possibly reflecting other leaders and possibly showing the beginning of a split on gay rights among evangelicals, now says he’s in favor of a national civil unions or domestic partnership scheme — because he’s being “realistic” — even as he still is opposed to gay marriage…
During a week that librarians nationwide are highlighting banned books, conservative Christian students and parents showcased their own collection outside a Fairfax County high school yesterday — a collection they say was banned by the librarians themselves.
More than 40 students, many wearing black T-shirts stamped with the words “Closing Books Shuts Out Ideas,” said they tried to donate more than 100 books about homosexuality to more than a dozen high school libraries in the past year. The initiative, organized by Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family, was intended to add a conservative Christian perspective to shelves that the students said are stocked with “pro-gay” books. [Later in the story we learn the students did not say they had read any of the books chosen for them by Focus on the Family.]
Most of the books were turned down after school librarians said they did not meet school system standards. Titles include “Marriage on Trial: The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage and Parenting” and “Someone I Love Is Gay,” which argues that homosexuality is not “a hopeless condition.” […]
Fairfax County’s policy on library book selection says “the collection should support the diverse interests, needs and viewpoints of the school community.” But library officials said donated and purchased books alike are evaluated by the same standards, including two positive reviews from professionally recognized journals.
Focus on the Family sees homosexuality as a disease infecting society and it is their God given duty to cleanse society of that disease. They will use any means necessary to demonize and exclude those of us who are gay.
Their stunt is a good one. But it’s time to call the question. As we’ll see in the upcoming elections, the larger society no longer agrees with them.
Photo above via Boing Boing from a ‘live’ Banned Book Display at Twin Hickory Public Library, Glen Allen, VA. Says Adrienne, “The best part has been hearing parents explain to their kids what the display is all about which is exactly what we wanted to happen!”
NEW YORK (AP) — The AIDS virus has been circulating among people for about 100 years, decades longer than scientists had thought, a new study suggests.
Genetic analysis pushes the estimated origin of HIV back to between 1884 and 1924, with a more focused estimate at 1908.
Previously, scientists had estimated the origin at around 1930. AIDS wasn’t recognized formally until 1981 when it got the attention of public health officials in the United States.
The new result is “not a monumental shift, but it means the virus was circulating under our radar even longer than we knew,” says Michael Worobey of the University of Arizona, an author of the new work.
The results appear in Thursday’s issue of the journal Nature. Researchers note that the newly calculated dates fall during the rise of cities in Africa, and they suggest urban development may have promoted HIV’s initial establishment and early spread.
The lag between when the virus first took virulent form and when it spread widely enough for us to recognize it shows that the concern over the bird flu and other potentially dangerous viruses is not as overblown as it may appear to the impatient.
October 2nd, 2008 By JOE WINDISH, Technology Editor
Colbert Teen Talk - Voter Abstinence*
An LGBT campus group here in the rural antebellum capital of Georgia sponsored a “Guess the straight person” event last night. The student audience was uncharacteristically large and boisterous for a midweek event. They asked questions of the young panelists in order to determine which was the heterosexual.
One of the questions: “who are you going to vote for in this election?” Seven of eight said Obama. That same demographic is credited with the voter swing against California’s Proposition 8:
Backers of a referendum to ban same-sex marriage in California are winning the fundraising race, but analysts and public polls suggest that voter sentiment appears to be turning against them.
The main backer of Proposition 8, which would amend California’s constitution by defining marriage as a union “between a man and a woman,” has raised close to $18 million, said campaign manager Frank Schubert. By comparison, the main group opposing the ban has raised just over $14 million, said Geoff Kors, spokesman for the No on 8 campaign.
But according to a Field Poll released Sept. 18, 38 percent of likely voters backed the initiative, while 55 percent opposed it. Polls released shortly after the California Supreme Court ruled in May that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry found that voters were nearly equally divided on the issue at that point, polls showed.
Have Proposition 8 advocates resorted to trickery? Posing as a “liberal Democrat” in the L.A. Times, David Blankenhorn endorsed a California initiative to ban gay marriage. Salon questions his liberal bona-fides, observing that his right-wing funders must be pleased:
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with Blankenhorn taking millions of dollars for IAV and $317,225 annually for himself and his wife from ultra-conservative Republicans. But it certainly tends to undermine the notion that he’s a “liberal Democrat” who also happens to oppose marriage by same-sex couples. What sort of liberal Democrat builds his political forum and his personal fortune on the bedrock of ultra-conservative Republican money?
People will laugh, but I’m beginning to think that the McCain-Palin GOP ticket is one of the most gay-friendly Republican tickets in history.
No, they aren’t where Obama and Biden are at. But in light of past GOP tickets, this one is much more inclusive of gay and lesbian Americans.
Log Cabin Republicans reports that the Washington Blade, a local GLBT newspaper in the nation’s capital interviewed McCain recently, making the Arizona senator the first Republican candidate to be interviewed by a gay magazine.
That in itself is a major accomplishment, that and the fact that McCain used the word “gay” in a conversation, something the current occupant in the White House couldn’t say aloud.
So, what does this all mean?
I think it’s too early to say that there has been a sea change in regards to social issues, but we might be seeing its beginnings. Gleaning things from McCain and Palin, we see people who are definitely conservative and in some cases socially conservative, but they don’t seem to let these issues be the riding concern. They are much more interested in issues such as foreign policy and energy than in who is sleeping with whom.
A majority of younger white evangelicals support some form of legal recognition for civil unions or marriage for same-sex couples. Older evangelicals remain strongly opposed. At the same time, young evangelicals are as solidly pro-life on abortion as older evangelicals.
The fact is, people like Palin and to a lesser extent, McCain have become used to seeing gays in society lead normal, everyday lives. They may still have trouble with calling a relationship “marriage”, but they are less willing to denounce their friends as hell-bound.
I know this will not move my friends on the Left, but as for me, this is all good.
September 24th, 2008 By JOE WINDISH, Technology Editor
What might have been a routine preliminary hearing in the Oxnard, CA, trial of 14-year-old Brandon McInerney became newsworthy yesterday when Brandon’s father moved to fire the public defender representing him and bring in criminal lawyers from LA.
You’ll recall that McInerney is being prosecuted as an adult for first-degree murder and a hate crime in the Feb. 12 killing of his classmate, Larry King, 15, who sometimes wore makeup and told friends he was gay.
Q: What was your motion regarding the proposed change in attorneys?
A: To have a guardian ad litem appointed to see if this is in the best interests of Brandon. We have concerns, obviously, given the nature of this case whether this is in the best interest of Brandon. […]
Q: And who is the United Defense Group?
A: As far as I know, they offered to defend him for one dollar… I don’t know their retainer agreement. I haven’t seen it. But that’s my concern. I think they represented Alvarez, the guy who did the Metrolink for two months – for publicity – and they dumped it. So I think that’s what’s going to happen (in this case). I don’t know this firm. I’ve never seen them. They never operated here in Ventura, as far as I know.
Q: And you were informed yesterday.
A: I had an idea over the weekend. And then I was notified yesterday. I talked to the father on Sunday.
A second part of the interview is here. Quest makes a compelling case that he is acting in McInerney’s best interest:
Exasperation over the standard of debate in the U.S presidential race is definitely global, and in ‘Old Europe,’ this exasperation centers on how sex and religion insert themselves into a debate that ought to be about better public policy.
“What I don’t understand is all the fuss about Sarah Palin. She, the clueless, internationally inexperienced Governor of the pygmy state of Alaska has been chosen by John McCain to be the Vice President of the United States, and all the media can get animated over is the fact that her 17-year-old unmarried daughter is expecting a child?”
“Why should I be at all interested in their husbands or wives, their mothers or children?
What does it matter if Palin’s husband was driving drunk, if her teenage daughter’s sex is good or bad, or whether Barrack Obama’s stepfather taught him to box in Indonesia? Why during an out-sized mass-gathering in Denver, do I have to witness Obama’s two little daughters standing in the spotlight waving like little dolls whose batteries are about to run out? Why should whether John McCain and his wife Cindy are happy be relevant?
“As far as I’m concerned, Sarah Palin’s children might not have sex at all, John McCain could be single and Obama’s children could play at home with their slot cars. They could all be bad husbands or wives, frequent brothels and subsequently lie to their families about it.”
From what we can gather so far from central Europe, there is little love for Sarah Palin or the McCain campaign’s apparent embrace of the Karl Rove election strategy.
Author, historian and political scientist Nicole Bacharan finds irony in the tactics used by the Republican Party, and fears that the more tolerant America that appeared to be emerging may once again be submerged under the out-sized influence of the Christian right.
“Up to now, John McCain, not much liked by his party, was trying to attract independents and moderates. The arrival of Sarah Palin radically alters this pattern: it greatly polarizes the election and has triggered an outbreak of moral intolerance in the campaign.
“There is cause to protest this equation in which a particular group - the Christian right - has a monopoly on morality, while all others are presumed to be living in debauchery. What a paradox for the Republican Party, always hostile to the encroachment of the state, to have become the champion of religious values imposed by public force!”
That statement by Defoe’s attorney Wednesday was the one thing on which he and his courtroom opponent agree in the legal battle over the Anderson County school system’s quarter-century-old ban on the display of the Confederate flag.
It was 18-year-old Defoe who was suspended from Anderson County High School in 2006 after repeatedly refusing, albeit politely, to take off or cover a T-shirt and belt buckle bearing the Rebel battle flag. It was Defoe who has been sitting at the table in U.S. District Court this week as the plaintiff in a lawsuit that labels the ban an unconstitutional violation of the teenager’s right to free speech.
If you are inclined to believe he should be able to wear his t-shirt and belt buckle would you then also say he should be free to show up in hot pink knee-length boots?
The boy’s parents, Dawn and Gregory King, along with his younger brother, Rocky King, are seeking unspecified damages related to the fatal shooting of the 15-year-old boy as he sat in English class at E.O. Green School on Feb. 12. …
In the claims, the Kings say school and county staff members failed to enforce the middle school’s dress code.
That put the feminine-dressing King at particular risk at a time when staff members knew he had “unique vulnerabilities” and was “susceptible to abuse” because of his perceived sexual orientation, the claim says. …
King had told friends he was gay, and he wore makeup, jewelry and high-heeled boots with his school uniform — something Dannenberg said the teen had the freedom to do under his First Amendment rights.
The school’s dress code prevents students from wearing articles of clothing considered distracting. Much broader — and thus more likely to survive a court challenge? — than the specific Confederate flag ban in Tennessee.
My own thought is that dress codes for kids are fine. I see us demanding that schools do more and more of our parenting, so we shouldn’t take away their tools.
For those following the case of Brandon McInerney (the teen who shot King), he entered a not guilty plea last week. The judge has ruled that his lawyers may view records documenting King’s behavior.
August 15th, 2008 By JOE WINDISH, Technology Editor
In a Daily Standard exclusive interview, John McCain explains that he could choose a pro-choice running mate but not one who is pro-gay:
“I think it’s a fundamental tenet of our party to be pro-life but that does not mean we exclude people from our party that are pro-choice. We just have a–albeit strong–but just it’s a disagreement. And I think [Tom] Ridge is a great example of that. Far moreso than Bloomberg, because Bloomberg is pro-gay rights, pro, you know, a number of other issues.”
Think Progress points out that McCain has sought the support of the gay comunity and in 1998 told Chris Matthews that the Republican Party shouldn’t “discriminate against anyone” because of “their sexual orientation“ but…
Now McCain is more than respecting the views of the Christian right when it comes to gay rights, he’s kow-towing to them. Earlier this year, McCain personally met with the president of the Log Cabin Republicans, but the group has yet to officially endorse him.
What do the Log Cabin members think of a candidate who now supports excluding those who are “pro-gay rights?”
Marc Ambinder has a spokesman’s comment that McCain’s statement is really a “message of inclusion.” I am inclined to think McCain is of the generation that’s personally uncomfortable around ‘out’ gay people but happy to be around them so long as they know their place and stay quietly in the closet. That would also be consistent with his accepting a $23,000 contribution from a gay sex site.
August 12th, 2008 By JOE WINDISH, Technology Editor
Karin Klein takes us behind the scenes at the LATimes editorial board meetings they had with opponents and supporters (separately) of Proposition 8 as they came up with last week’s editorial.
She tells us supporters were “careful to avoid appearing anti-gay.” Still:
At one point, the conversation turned to the “activist judges” whose May ruling opened the door to same-sex marriage, and how similar this case was to the 1948 case that declared bans on interracial marriage unconstitutional. According to one of the Prop. 8 reps, that 1948 ruling was OK because people are born to their race and thus are in need of constitutional protection, while gays and lesbians choose their homosexuality. So much for the expert opinions of the American Psychological Assn. and the American Academy of Pediatrics that people cannot choose their sexuality. Oh, those activist doctor types.
In any case, one Prop. 8 supporter said, gay rights are not as important as children’s rights, and it’s obvious that same-sex couples who married would “recruit” their children toward homosexuality because otherwise, unable to procreate themselves, they would have no way to replenish their numbers. Even editorial writers can be left momentarily speechless, and this was one of those moments. Aside from this notion of a homosexual recruitment plot — making it understandable where the word “homophobia” came from — this made no logical sense at all.
11,000 couples later, gay marriage largely a nonevent in Mass.
Says Kevin, “Good.”
Ampersand quotes from the California court ruling (pdf) that proposition 8 can be officially described as “Changes California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry” (opponents and advocates both recognized that the change of description worked in favor of those who oppose the initiative):
There is nothing inherently argumentative or prejudicial about transitive verbs, and the Court is not willing to fashion a rule that would require the Attorney General to engage in useless nominalization.
Says Ampersand, “Personally, I’d enjoy watching the news if high government officials were required to engage in useless nominalization at all times.”
One thing I’ve heard is, “at least he didn’t break the law.” Well, depending upon where his trysts took place, Edwards may have broken the law. Here in Massachusetts, for example, adultery is a crime that carries a penalty of incarceration in state prison for up to 3 years, jail up to 2, or a fine of up to $500. As of 2004, 24 states criminalized adultery. (Cossman, 2007: 209. fn6). Admittedly, such laws are rarely enforced, and the no-fault system means that even if cheating takes place, it’s less likely to be the legal “reason” for the divorce [”Irreconcilable differences” or its equivalent is the norm].
Marriage is a regulatory system. When folks stand in front of their witnesses, and take their vows (the state won’t allow you to marry without a public ceremony), they are entering a three-way contract, with conditions set by the state. One of those conditions is sexual monogamy. Mess around, and you’ve violated the terms of the contract. You’ve sinned against the state, and have committed a criminal offense.
Adultery itself has changed. At the founding of the Republic, it wasn’t sex outside of marriage but involved a married woman having sex with a man not her husband. Adultery laws were put in place to establish men’s property rights over their wives, and particularly to ensure that the children born into such relationships were theirs and not some other man’s. It wasn’t about violations of intimacy or trust, as we take it to be today. It was about stealing another woman’s womb. [Ed. Oops. Big difference]
Indeed, the comment of Edwards’s, that he “didn’t love” the woman with whom he had the affair is a sign of that. In contemporary society, marriage has become about companionship and intimacy [see, for example, Giddens or Seidman]. One of the things that makes same-sex marriage imaginable to many people is the fact that marriage itself has changed in such ways as to make it imaginable. We no longer have the explicit gender-based marital roles established in law. (Everyone say, “Thank you” to the feminist legal activists who brought about a lot of those changes.) Marriage isn’t gender-role based, at least legally, in the rigid ways that it once was.
I have posted a couple of columns 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 15 years and is now being reviewed by Congress–a policy that is also being vigorously discussed in the media and in the blogs.
I have made my personal views on this issue quite clear. In one of my posts, 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.”
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.
Another factor may, or should, be the judgment and thoughts of the men and women who will have to literally live with the outcome of this debate: The men and women presently serving in our military. A Zogby poll conducted in 2006 surveyed 545 military personnel who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan and found that only 37% of the respondents opposed openly gay military service. The views of those who have served in the past will also be, albeit to a lesser extent, a factor in the debate.
In fact, the Military Officers Association of America, MOAA, the nation’s largest and most influential association of military officers with about 370,000 members–active duty and retired–is planning to survey its members on this issue shortly. MOAA is a powerful lobbying organization on matters and legislation affecting the career force and veterans. The opinions of MOAA and its membership will undoubtedly be influential on the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy discussions and decisions. We will keep you posted.
Since the initial Congressional hearings were held a couple of weeks ago, those who are or have been “on the ground” are already expressing their opinion. And what better place to get a sense of those sentiments than in the Letters to the Editor section of the for-the-military newspaper the Stars and Stripes.
The following are excerpts from the letters on this issue that appeared in the Stars and Stripes chronologically during the period July 30 through August 8. The names have been deleted (with one exception), and, for brevity’s sake, only the sections that best summarize the writers’ opinions and intent have been quoted:
July 30— ‘Don’t ask’ a slap to patriots
I praise Stars and Stripes for its article on the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy hearings…In my view, this policy has hurt our military readiness, hurt the morale of the estimated 65,000 lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender troops serving around the world, including in the Iraq and Afghanistan theaters of war. It does a disservice to them, as it says to them you can join, you can risk your lives, and you can die, and many have…
.
.
I feel in long-overdue time these people will have their justice. The military will have a black mark the likes of which it may take 60 years to recover from, as the recent anniversary of desegregation in the ranks shows. These gay and lesbian heroes serve a nation that gives them neither the comfort of freedom, nor the time of day, and I, for one, thank them for their service in defense of the freedom of others that they cannot enjoy themselves. And they do so in total silence.
Spc….Camp Adder, Iraq
August 1— Gays deserve military equality
.
.
In revisiting “don’t ask, don’t tell,” our country is addressing “equality of treatment and opportunity” for gays in the military. Many of today’s arguments to keep gays and lesbians from openly serving in our armed forces are the same or similar to those advanced more than 60 years ago to keep our military segregated.
.
.
Thousands of homosexuals are serving honorably in all our military branches, being injured and most probably dying for us in battle.
.
.
Let us hope U.S. leaders will remember [Secretary of Defense Gates’ words, “We must make sure the American military continues to be a great engine of progress and equality.”]when debating the rights of gay and lesbian service members.
Maj. Dorian de Wind (USAF, Ret.)
Aug 3—Why accommodate gays?
I am writing this letter to say that I think it is so absurd that people are bending over backward to try and accommodate people that are homosexuals that are in or want to join the military.
.
.
So if the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy can be revisited because of the attempt to draw competent servicemembers to remain in or join the military, let the policies that deny entry to people who want to serve but may have a visible tattoo or a spouse who is enlisted already [also be revisited].
Andersen Air Force Base, Guam
August 6— Against gays in military
After reading the latest pro-gay views…I would like to go on record as firmly opposing gay service in the U.S. military.
Men and women are thrown into close confines aboard ships and aircraft where even heterosexual contact and ensuing sex can lead to loss of unit cohesion. A homosexual undercurrent blatantly allowed to co-exist with good military order and discipline will not work.
What if a gay soldier, sailor, Marine, airman or Coast Guard individual decides to flaunt his or her tell-it-to-the-world, everybody-out-of-the-closet lifestyle? Chaos. No barriers — right. Orgies on demand. Dream your own dream of wild sex on demand and homosexuals and the threat of homosexuals preying on friends and foes and casual acquaintances at sea.
And the backlash? Straight folks, in and around the military taking matters into their own hands to rid the environment of this deviant behavior. It would happen.
Homosexuals in the military. Sure, maybe in 50 or 150 years.
Lt. Cmdr. (retired) Rota, Spain
August 8— Don’t wait ‘to do what’s right’
After reading “Against gays in military” I got a sick feeling in my stomach. The letter writer suggests that if homosexual sailors were allowed to be open with their sexual orientation, it would result in “homosexuals preying on friends, foes and casual acquaintances at sea.”… There is no reason to believe that a gay person is any more likely to “prey” on another than a straight person, and to suggest otherwise is slanderous.
He also states that if gay servicemembers were allowed to serve openly that there would be “orgies on demand” and “wild sex on demand.” In my view, the discipline of a unit is a direct reflection of its leadership. As a company commander, I am responsible for everything my company does or fails to do. Perhaps the writer didn’t see leadership in the same way.
There are undoubtedly numerous gay soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen serving our country honorably.
.
.
I think most leaders could handle someone coming out of the closet.
Why do we ask these young men and women to violate their integrity by hiding who they really are as they serve their country in the same honorable manner as every other servicemember? Why should we wait “50 or 150 years” to do what’s right?
Capt. … Forward Operating Base Fenty, Afghanistan
Aug 8—Keep policy on gays as is
The author of “Against gays in military” (letter, Aug. 6) is right, but only in one respect: Gays shouldn’t be allowed to serve “openly” in the military.
The picture the writer paints of all gays as immoral is likely inaccurate and surely comes from a place of prejudice and dated thinking. “Orgies on demand”? Give me a break.
Unfortunately, he is not the only one. Many members of our fine military have personal views that strongly conflict with that of alternative lifestyles. I can say with certainty that letting many of our outstanding soldiers out of the closet will create a strained environment and a hostile working place, to say the least.
It’s unfortunate, but in an organization that has many of its values rooted in Christianity, it may be a long time before many of those dated thinkers come around. It’s not that I feel they don’t deserve to serve openly, but for the safety of these individuals, to protect them from people who fight “deviant behavior” like superheroes, just keep it like it is.
Spc. …Camp Victory, Iraq
Well, there you have it. Not a comprehensive nor a scientific survey by any stretch; just six letters from those who are serving and who have served, covering virtually the entire spectrum of possible attitudes on a very important and controversial issue.
Assembly Republicans who bucked party leaders and voted to legalize same-sex marriage in New York have been rewarded with an outpouring of donations from gay rights advocates across the nation.
The lawmakers…have benefited from a fund-raising network stretching to at least nine other states. The money has flowed in at such a rapid pace that these Republicans have seen more than half of their individual contributions in the latest filing cycle come from donors with addresses outside the state.
Their donations also far surpassed political giving from the national gay rights movement to Assembly Democrats who voted for the bill, including Democratic members in upstate districts with conservative leanings.
“It was very shocking to me to watch it come in,” a Republican assemblywoman, Teresa Sayward, one of four Republicans who voted in favor of gay marriage, said.
Tim Gill’s strategy pays off. It didn’t hurt that Sayward, a Roman Catholic, had a gay son who “over time she came to accept.” State Republican leaders have reaffirmed their opposition:
A Republican senator of Brooklyn, Martin Golden, said the support received by Assembly Republicans would not influence his conference. “It’s a strong belief among many Republicans that it’s not the way to go. It’s a core belief that we have. We stick with our core beliefs,” he said.
“Many of them are a bunch of fossils from a bygone day,” a Republican assemblyman of Dutchess County, Joel Miller, who also backed the bill, said of the Senate Republicans. “Constituents have changed. More of us represent a district in which there’s a lot more people of diverse views.”
I like Miller! He’s feisty:
Mr. Miller, a dentist who is facing a Democratic challenger, said his Republican colleagues last year urged him not to speak out in favor of gay marriage on the Assembly floor and to wait until the Democrats voted — and the bill’s passage was a foregone conclusion — before placing his vote.
“I wanted it recognized that my vote counted. I told them I was prepared to leave the conference,” Mr. Miller said.
[A] Christian legal group from Arizona will face off against representatives of the governor’s office in the first direct legal challenge to Governor Paterson’s executive order mandating that all state offices recognize out-of-state same-sex unions.
The Alliance Defense Fund is suing Mr. Paterson, citing an online [edition of the Merriam-Webster dictionary as evidence that the word “marriage” applies only to a bond between a man and a woman] and claiming that legal recognition of such marriages “will undermine the democratic process and force taxpayer dollars to fund benefits for same-sex couples.”
August 6th, 2008 By JOE WINDISH, Technology Editor
Many wonder. Jonathan Rauch points to his 1996 article in The New Republic,Making the case for gay (and straight) marriage, and says ever since then he’s “been concerned that G&L people might demand marriage but then neglect it.”
He finds in a study (pdf) from the Williams Institute at UCLA “welcome evidence” that we won’t:
We analyze data from states that have extended legal recognition to same-sex couples. We show that same-sex couples want and use these new legal statuses. Furthermore, they react more enthusiastically when marriage is possible. More than 40% of same-sex couples have formed legal unions in states where such recognition is available. Same-sex couples prefer marriage over civil unions or domestic partnerships. In the first year that marriage was offered in Massachusetts, 37% of same-sex couples there married. In states that offered civil unions, only 12% of same-sex couples took advantage of this status in the first year and only 10% did so in states with domestic partnership registries.
Focus On The Family’s CitizenLink will have none of it. They argue that the “supposedly unbiased” institute “claims to be a public-education program” but it can’t be because it “receives funding from Tim Gill — a gay activist and software mogul who has spent millions promoting the gay agenda.”
Jenny Tyree, associate marriage analyst for Focus on the Family Action, cited data from the U.S., Canada and Europe that show, after an initial rush, a dramatic decrease in the number of same-sex unions following legalization of gay “marriage.”
“The report’s projections assume that the inherent nature of male-male and female-female relationships is the same as male-female and that they will respond similarly to legal recognition,” she said. “But it seems unlikely when science tells us that male and female are unique, even at the cellular level.
“Marriage traditionally celebrates the differences between male and female, and gives a mother and father to children. There will be little to celebrate, however, if marriage is reduced to nothing more than benefits for two consenting adults.”
Jonathan’s cautious optimism makes more sense to me:
It takes generations to establish a culture of marriage in a social milieu where marriage has always been not just illegal but inconceivable. Low take-up rates, by themselves, would not vitiate the case for SSM. But it is good to know that gay culture is already responding to this powerfully life-enhancing institution.
In the meanwhile, Obama has reaffirmed his support for LGBT adoption rights, CA Attorney General Jerry Brown said in a court filing Monday that Prop 8 will not undo same-sex legal marriages, and with Prop 8 supporters raising more money than opponents some on the Right have declared it “the Armageddon of the culture war.”
Just finished watching “Countdown with Keith Obermann.” Keith brought up the Christian Science Monitor report on the $150,000 bonuses for Arabic linguists, and in his inimitable way blasted the Pentagon for firing the gay Arabic translators because of their sexual orientation.
If Keith is correct–and I have no doubt that he is–300 (not 58, as I reported as of a year ago) Arabic linguists have been fired because they are gay. Furthermore, according to Keith’s calculation, “it would cost $45 million just in bonuses” to replace these translators.
Thanks, Keith for the update and for putting this calamity in a dollars-and-cents perspective.
The Army may begin paying a retention bonus of as much as $150,000 to Arabic speaking soldiers in reflection of how critical it has become for the US military to retain native language and cultural know-how in its ranks. Only one other job in the Army, Special Forces, rates such a super-sized retention bonus. Now, as the military makes a fundamental shift toward rewarding the linguistic expertise it needs the most, it is expanding a program to train and retain native Arabic and other speakers from the same regions in which it is fighting.
Nowhere in the article is there mention of how the same U.S. Army has been discharging expensively trained Arabic linguists by the dozens…because they are gay.
As of May 2007, the military had kicked out at least 58 Arabic linguists because of their sexual orientation, and because of “Don’t ask, Don’t Tell,” a policy that prohibits openly gay individuals from serving in the military.
A couple of weeks ago, on the occasion of the House of Representatives’ first hearing in 15 years on the policy, I commented on the absurdity, shame, and cost of this policy.
Specifically referring to the waste in skills, talent, money and, most importantly, human resources and dignity that this policy is costing our nation, I wrote:
Never mind that the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy cost taxpayers nearly $19
