Posts with the tag marriage equality

The Gays Have A Lot More Going On...

Tanya Paperny — Fri, 23 May 2008 16:54:27 EDT

...than just marriage.

Marriage Equality Woo Hoo!

Matt Zeitlin — Thu, 15 May 2008 16:39:53 EDT

Gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry in California, the state Supreme Court said today in a historic ruling that could be repudiated by the voters in November.

In a 4-3 decision, the justices said the state’s ban on same-sex marriage violates the “fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship.” The ruling is likely to flood county courthouses with applications from couples newly eligible to marry when the decision takes effect in 30 days.

What’s interesting about this decision, especially considering the inevitable cries of judicial activism from conservatives, is that this is exactly what Governor Schwarzenegger wanted to happen. When the California legislature twice passed bills legalizing gay marriage, Schwarzenegger vetoed them, saying that he didn’t want to override Proposition 22, which prevented California from recognizing out of state or international same-sex marriages. He also explicitly stated that he was amenable to either a proposition or the courts settling the issue. And now the courts have settled the issue, despite the fact that there is sure to be another proposition passing a constitutional amendment to get rid of same-sex marriage. But I’m optimistic - it’s unlikely that a socially liberal state will want to nullify the thousands of marriages that are sure to happen before the next election. This would square the circle of the decision being viewed as democratically legitimate - if the people refuse to overturn it, they’d essentially be giving their stamp of approval.

For more on the complicated mess that is California, same sex marriage and the constitution, read Josh Patashnik.

Julia Roberts, former actress

Jenny Odegard — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 15:49:41 EST

Julia Roberts, composting mother. CNN review’s Roberts’ decision to stop acting and start cooking:

"My dream is to be a highly fulfilled and productive stay-at-home mom and wife," the Oscar-winning actress tells Vanity Fair magazine. "The highest high would be growing our food that I then make, and then composting and growing more -- that kind of circle."

Roberts, 40, says that life would involve having "my own creative outlet, even if it's silly needlework and stuff like that."

THE DEBATE AND FRIVOLOUS ISSUES

Ben Adler — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 10:57:21 EDT

Although I found the questions and answers on marriage equality last night to be very interesting (particularly Bill Richardson's shrewd answer that he'd get the lesbian couple from Brooklyn "everything I think is politically feasible" thus hinting that he has no problem with full marriage equality but avoiding taking the political risk of saying so outright), I thought all the time spent on it was sort of a waste. Of all the important issues facing the next president, gay marriage simply isn't one of them. That's not to say it isn't an important issue. I think full marriage equality is a crucial civil right that no one should be denied. But since I've been following its progression I'm well aware of the fact that marriage laws are set by the states, and the conflicts between state laws will mostly be adjudicated in the courts. The one major national proposal on gay marriage is a constitutional amendment to ban it which stands no chance of passing, wouldn't be supported by any of the Democrats running for president, and the president has no power to vote for or against anyway.

So why is it that so many debates in the last couple elections, both in the primaries and the general have featured questions about this? My best answer is that it fits broadly into the characterological preference of the mainstream media. They ask about gay marriage for the same reason they ask Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama how they respond to inane allegations that they aren't feminine enough or black enough, respectively. It's because they're more fun to ask, and because it allows the media to create supposedly non-ideological narratives about the candidates. I'd rather see more questions on how the candidates would actually govern the massive federal bureaucracy, but maybe I'm not the typical voter.

Also on TAPPED.

TRENDS IN YOUTH OPINION

Ben Adler — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 18:58:04 EDT

As John Judis and Ruy Teixera recently argued in the Prospect "Generation Y" voters are trending heavily progressive. A New York Times/CBS News/MTV poll released a few days ago would seem to support their contention. A few highlights from the Times article:

Young Americans appear to lean slightly more to the left than the general population: 28 percent described themselves as liberal, compared with 20 percent of the nation at large. And 27 percent called themselves conservative, compared with 32 percent of the general public.

Forty-four percent said they believed that same-sex couples should be permitted to get married, compared with 28 percent of the public at large. They are more likely than their elders to support the legalization of possession of small amounts of marijuana.

This would seem to suggest, as I've argued before, that Democrats would be wise to take more forthrightly progressive stances on questions like gay marriage and reforming our draconian drug crime laws. Young people are voting in greater numbers than ever before, and they're open to sensible policies that were heretofore off-limits to mainstream politicians.

cross-posted on TAPPED

An Emerging Progressive Majority? The Impending Progressive Revolution in America and the Massive Political Realignment Ahead

Eugene Resnick — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 12:32:55 EDT

At the Take Back America conference held in Washington DC this week, the top Presidential candidates spoke to the 3,000 progressive activists, policy wonks and politicians presiding to convince them that they are the true progressive candidate going into 2008. Yet, what a remarkable shift in political ideology from the past 4 cycles. It seems that a new progressive movement is afoot and it is gaining steam not just due to the massive dissatisfaction with the Bush era and conservative policies, but through the enthusiasm of Democrats in recent months for the chance to seize the moment and move the country farther to the left to a magnitude that hasn't come to fruition since the days of the civil rights era of the 1960s or maybe even the New Deal Roosevelt Era of the 1930s and 40s.

Candidate after candidate rolled on stage uttering words such as the need for a "progressive agenda in America." We all may recall how Democrats have strayed away from their progressive-liberal roots in recent cycles post-Reagan era stigmatization of liberalism in American culture. The byproduct of that was the Democratic Leadership Council and the Presidency of Bill Clinton, a moderate Democrat at best. Therefore it is very fulfilling to hear the Democratic Party of today use "progressive" in a new light, a re-energized way of signaling a new direction for the country. It has signaled the beginning of a new progressive movement and a movement that is actually winning at the polls.

The 2006 mid-term elections ushered in Democratic control of both Houses of Congress. The more important victory was the large number of progressives that got elected into the Senate that year. At the conference, some of these movers and shakers in the progressive movement were featured speakers on panels including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), and Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH). Can we imagine for one second the magnitude of this massive political shift. The Senate, post 2006, actually has its first self-described Socialist. Sherrod Brown, a progressive populist, won in a state that has been solidly Republican for decades yet Ohio now has not only Sherrod Brown but a very progressive governor, Ted Strickland who recently signed into law gay rights legislation. The same goes for Colorado and its rising star governor Bill Ritter and their anti-discrimination bill. Ladies and gentleman, this is not just a temporary blip on the radar screen caused by deep dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq. The former governor of Colorado was a conservative Republican, as was the state historically, yet they elected a majority Democratic legislature, a very progressive Governor, and a Hispanic Senator in 2004. The 2008 Senate seat in Colorado is open and the door for liberal Mark Udall representing liberal Boulder to win is wide open. In fact he is heavily favored to win. Can you imagine Colorado, a Western state bordering Wyoming, Utah, Kansas and Nebraska being a bastion of deep blue in the West by 2008? The answer to that is definitely yes and thats exactly whats happening in Colorado. One cannot parallel the blunders in Iraq for such a deep political realignment. It is indicative of a larger political realignment that is currently in the process of developing in this country.

Going back to the Presidential election, the successes of 2006 were part of a larger process going into 2008. Howard Dean, the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, in his closing speech for Take Back America 2007 stated that the 2006 election was the watershed beginning of a massive shift. The 2008 election will seal that shift for a generation. Again I strongly reiterate, it is much more than just the Iraq War. Conservatism in this country has grown and flourished since Reagan's ascension in 1980 and Carter's embarrassing defeat ala the Iran hostage crisis. Liberalism was dead at that point as we were perceived as weak, incompetent, and wrong for the country. Anti-gay activists and pro-Lifers gained power and momentum. That era continued into the 1990s, and gained even more influence in the 2000s as an atmosphere of fear plagued the post-9/11 world. Can you imagine Al Gore in 2000 using "progressive" to categorize the political ideology of his policy proposals? Never. That is why, I emphasize again, the magnitude of this moment. Every candidate on that stage that we can actually take seriously (excluding Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel) including Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards and Bill Richardson basically sounded the same more or less on health care, education, the War in Iraq, national security, terrorism, the environment, global warming, the AIDS crisis, Darfur, spending, corruption, competence, and world leadership. Something remarkable was evident at that conference. Although we may all support varying candidates based on personality, style, experience, or approach, we were all part of the same emerging movement.

On that stage, the candidates spoke to the liberal base of the party. It was evident from the beginning that not only was Barack Obama well received, but it was a pre-conceived fact that that would occur with the multitude of Obama wearing attendees at the conference throughout the three days. Obama's speech was very positively received and I must say that for a guy who strongly prefers Hillary Clinton, I must give him a lot of credit. The crowd went wild for him, clapping at almost every line that he uttered. I will also express my deep sympathy for John Edwards, who has a great message, but was in the predicament of going right after Obama. This created an atmosphere where about 1/3 of the audience left right after Obama finished all the while people stampeding (and I will admit I stood on a char desperately aiming to get a closeup photo) to the front of the stage to get autographs and photos taken. It was just unimaginable that someone could top his speech. People were overwhelmed and emotionally drained creating a very awkward situation for Edwards where the crowd was enthusiastic but not nearly as much as for Obama. Unfortunately, I resorted to watching Bill Richardson's speech online and it seemed like a good speech, and well received but not a first tier breakout speech by any means.

I will devote an entire paragraph to Hillary Clinton because I feel her speech asks for such. First and foremost, her speech was very dull and what I would call "safe." She said nothing that got booed in the first 25 minutes nor much applause either. Now I say that because the progressive crowd at Take Back America isn't too cozy with Hillary because of her stance on the war and funding. People just weren't excited by her. I blame the early morning hour (8am) which was strategic timing so that she wouldn't go on the same day as Obama and Edwards. It was actually announced in the latter part of the first day of the conference that she would speak on Wednesday instead of Tuesday which I understood as a tactical campaign move. It was also strategic for her to talk about Iraq last which was a way for the negative atmosphere not to set the tone for her entire speech. She was indeed booed, as media reports have circulated, for a comment she made referring to the fact that the US military has done its job and that it is time for the Iraqi government to step up and do its job too. I, for one, agree with that. But people like "code Pink" attack people on the left and eat them alive. I actually was very angry at the Code Pink women for heckling her and Nancy Pelosi and I actually struck a conversation with one of the ladies from their organization. It was very discouraging to see that people don't understand the limitations of a certain number of votes in the Senate. I expressed my frustration with the ability within the Republican Party to unite under a mantra that is winnable and as the record has shown has won in the past with great success. Yet our side bickers for not going far enough and we just destroy each other and lose.

With the anger came optimism. There is a new emerging progressive era coming and this country is ready for change. People are sick of conservative government. People are sick of vetoes on stem cell research funding. People are sick of the lack of good health care. People are sick of an incompetent government that destroys our reputation around the world. People are done with the Conservative Era. Our generation is vastly different from any before us. We are much more likely to be pro-stem cell research, pro-gay rights and gay marriage, pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-living wage, and pro-universal health care. Our generation hates the hawkish foreign policy that has dominated this country since the Vietnam War. A new progressive majority is building with the help of the influx of Hispanics. People are ready for not just turning the chapter, but writing a new book. People are ready for a completely different kind of politics. There is something brewing, and I sensed it at Take Back America 2007. Again, its not just about Iraq. We, as progressives, must look at the broader picture.

A new progressive era is upon us as Americans are ready to embrace liberal values because liberal values ARE American values. This mantra was constantly reiterated at the conference. I knew at Take Back America 2007 that progressives have taken control of the Democratic Party and they aren't being alienated but embraced. Progressives are replacing the moderates. Progressivism is becoming mainstream. Universal health care is supported by all the Democratic candidates. Such a plan would have been heretical and Socialist only 10-20 years ago. Every candidate supports Civil Unions for gays and lesbians publicly and enthusiastically. Although I acknowledge that isn't enough, the country is moving in the right direction on the issue. I'm confident that privately many of these candidates support full marriage equality such as Hillary Clinton or Chris Dodd. 46% of Americans support full marriage equality, according to a newly released Gallup Poll. That's the highest in history. It is, after all, nearly a majority. A vast majority want us to do something about global warming. A vast majority are willing to do their part to help that happen. This country is based on liberal values. We cannot forget that nor shall we abandon that. A massive political realignment is on the horizon and it is developing right as I write. A new Progressive Era is upon us and we must embrace it and propose our plans to the American people. We must do it in a way that breeds consensus and fairness. I embrace the impending Progressive majority with open arms.

Wacky Gays Marrying, Cont.

Jesse Singal — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 13:28:28 EDT

From The Boston Globe:

NEWS UPDATE: A joint session of the Massachusetts Legislature has defeated a constitutional ban on gay marriage 151-45, eliminating any chances of getting it on the ballot in November 2008. At least 50 votes were needed to advance the measure. --Developing

Somewhere, James Dobson just angrily punched a kitten.

Those Wacky Gays Keep Marryin'!

Jesse Singal — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 09:49:51 EDT

I've always been proud that my home state of Massachusetts was the first to grant full marriage rights to all of its citizens. As far as I can tell, none of the conservative predictions about gay marriage's profoundly deleterious impact have come to pass since the first same-sex couple tied the knot in 2003 (then again, I haven't spent much time at home the past few years -- for all I know packs of gays are roaming the streets, destroying every hetero marriage they can find).

Who Tolerates LGBT People?

Dana Goldstein — Fri, 25 May 2007 11:51:53 EDT

Via Ezra: Matt Zeitlan hopes the public can be convinced to support LGBT rights under the rationale that as decent people, we should support equality even for those whose lifestyles we find discomfiting. It's a nice thought, but alas, I fear that chronology is exactly reversed. Surveys show that the number one indicator of increased tolerance of LGBT individuals is knowing an LGBT person. As Pew reports:

Personal contact with homosexuality is also a key factor in shaping people's views on this policy issue. Americans who have a friend, colleague or family member who is gay are roughly twice as likely to favor gay marriage as those who do not (39% to 21%).

The good news is that Americans are trending in a direction of growing tolerance for LGBT people and lifestyles. People in their teens and twenties are evenly divided on the question of marriage equality, while older generations overwhelmingly reject the idea. But it's important to understand the contours of the organized opposition to equality for LGBT Americans. Forty-five percent of Americans who oppose marriage equality say homosexuality is immoral, a sin, in contradiction to the Bible, or against their religious beliefs. Another twelve percent cite "[homosexuality] is just wrong." And then there are the nine percent who call homsexuality "not natural or normal."

It's clear that opposition to marriage equality and LGBT rights generally is based on unadulterated intolerance. So asking people to tolerate that which they find immoral, unnatural, sinful, and wrong is not a winning strategy.

My First Entry

Eugene Resnick — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 18:41:14 EST

Well this is the first entry for me on this blog. I'm quite excited! So what is going on right now....Obama is being attacked from all sides and it seems like the Republicans are trying to kill their own candidates. Can some candidate please stand up and say, "I support full marriage equality." No, G-d forbid a candidate would support the actual foundations of this country: ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL.

The Aftermath: The OTHER Prop 2

ashwini — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:42:50 EST

Before the state of Michigan set back civil rights with the passage of Proposal 2, the affirmative action ban, in November 2006, it set back civil rights with the other Proposal 2, which banned gay marriage, in 2004. Almost 3 years later, we are dealing with the aftermath. Last week, the Michigan Court of Appeals declared that under the marriage ban, same-sex domestic partners are ineligible for benefits from public employers. This reversed an earlier decision by a lower court, which affirmed the right of same-sex couples to continue to receive benefits post-Prop 2. Countless government, public college and university employees now have their futures hanging in limbo.

Things are getting rough out in my home state...I wish I could say I didn't run away from it all, but I did.