Gay Rights

Get ready to start biting your fingernails again, or chomping on some Tums to quell the anxiety. Because sometime today, between 12noon and 3:00PM EST, Judge Vaughn Walker in California will rule on whether same-sex couples can start marrying in the state.

The decision today stems from the ruling last week by Walker which declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional. In that ruling, Judge Walker said that there was "no rational basis" for a law like Proposition 8, and that California should not be in the business of giving heterosexual couples access to one institution, while denying it from same-sex couples. Walker's ruling was poetry to millions, articulating the devastating impacts of marriage bans like Proposition 8 all across the United States.

"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same-sex couples," Walker ruled. "Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional."

With those words, Walker set in motion one immediate question: does that mean that same-sex couples can start tying the knot again now, or will this eloquent ruling be placed on hold while the appeals process runs its course? And that's the question Walker is going to answer today, sometime between the closing moments of The View, and the start of the Rick Sanchez show (at least if you're on the East Coast). If you listen to many within California, from leaders in West Hollywood to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to Attorney General Jerry Brown to the voices of same-sex couples themselves, people are ready to put Proposition 8 behind them, and start celebrating another summer of love.

The following article was written by Laura Wadden, the Founding Director of the National Marriage Boycott. It is reprinted here with her permission.

gen*er*a*tion no H8 – noun – new activists who feel a deep, emotional connection to Prop 8, and are now working toward full federal equality. Judge Walker’s decision was an especially meaningful victory for Generation No H8.

Not many people know this, but I came out shortly after Proposition 8 passed in November of 2008. That makes it officially 622 days since I came out, 642 days since I unflinchingly held a megaphone in front of a rally of 400 students, and 637 days since Amanda Gelender first had the idea to boycott marriage.

It is now just five short days since Judge Walker ruled Proposition 8 unconstitutional, and the decision is bringing deep-rooted emotions full circle for young activists like me. Those ‘young activists’ – whether identified by age or number of years in activism – are part of a generation of activists I call, ‘Generation No H8.’ Those belonging to this generation feel a deep, emotional connection to Prop 8, and are now working toward full federal equality in other ways in their own local communities.

Jan Brewer has an axe to grind. Well, make that multiple axes. We already know the Arizona governor has got a thing for the issue of immigration, given that it's probably the biggest issue that defines her political career. As a proud supporter of the infamous SB 1070, Brewer has made it crystal clear that she's less interested in the humanity and dignity of undocumented immigrants, and more interested in criminalizing those who don't look like they're from her neck of the woods.

But lest folks think that immigration is the only issue that sweeps Jan Brewer's heart away, point your eyes in the direction of partner benefits for LGBT people who work for the state of Arizona. Upon entering office last year, Jan Brewer immediately began work on repealing a policy put in place by former Gov. Janet Napolitano that allowed LGBT couples who worked for the state to share certain benefits with their partners. Brewer was successful, when House Bill 2013 passed and was signed into law. It essentially told LGBT employees who work for the state that they could not share benefits with their partners.

Brewer claimed victory, and pumped her fists in the air. But it was a bit premature, because just last month, a federal judge blocked implementation of House Bill 2013, telling Brewer and the rest of the state of Arizona that denying family health insurance benefits to state employees' same-sex partners was a violation of the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

You might think that Brewer would let things lie low, given the rebuke by a federal judge. But nope. Brewer wants to fight this federal judge, issuing a statement today through a spokesperson that LGBT employees won't be able to share benefits with their partners unless it's over her dead body.

The American Family Association (AFA) and other social conservatives have been hounding Home Depot for months over the company's support for LGBT employees and pride events. The protests didn't get too far, and it looked like the AFA's cries had been in vain. Luckily for them, the right has found a new case to help bolster their crusade: Home Depot's firing of employee Trevor Keezor for wearing a "One Nation Under God" button.

Now Keezor has filed a lawsuit on grounds of religious discrimination and joined the AFA's cause. "If you're a Christian or a patriot and you want to wear a patriotic button, that violates the corporate policy," he claimed. "But if you're a homosexual and you want to wear an apron with pro-gay buttons and homosexual messages, and wear them in pride parades and gay and lesbian film festivals, those are approved by the Home Depot."

Home Depot defended themselves by insisting that corporate policy prohibits unapproved pins. This associate chose to wear a button that expressed his religious beliefs. The issue is not whether or not we agree with the message on the button," said a spokesman. "Only company-provided pins and badges can be worn on our aprons." Despite all the conservative the outcry, Home Depot refuses to buckle to conservative pressure, thereby earning some LGBT love for their unyielding support of same-sex acceptance.

Before we celebrate Home Depot too much, however, let's consider their PAC's campaign contributions: like Target and Best Buy before it, Home Depot's politics are not as LGBT-friendly as the company lets on.

Let the temper tantrums begin. It took a few days for the anti-equality forces to figure out how to respond to last week’s Prop 8 decision. But by the weekend they were out and shouting, making their objections to anyone who would listen. And they didn’t let any little considerations of logic, dignity, or that pesky U.S. Constitution get in their way.

Their complaints came in three general forms: 1) this judge is biased because he’s gay (maybe); 2) religion needs to play a much bigger role in U.S. law and politics (like it does in, you know, Iraq and other holiday spots like that); and 3) Constitution? I don’t need your stinkin’ Constitution! I got me a majority!

Let’s start with the easy one. Yes, there have been rumors that Judge Vaughn Walker is gay. No, that doesn’t indicate, as Gerald Bradley ranted to Fox News before the verdict was even announced, that he’d already made his mind up about the case before he ever entered the courtroom. In fact, as Margaret Hoover, another super-conservative commentator has pointed out, in the past, Judge Walker has not been seen as a particularly good friend to the LGBT community, but has established his credentials as a paragon of judicial care and political conservatism. And, as discussed when this story first broke six months ago, the whole issue is a distraction and a red herring from the anti-marriage side. It is simply not credible (like so much of the pro-Prop 8 case) as a serious argument. So there.

If recent marriage equality victories in California and Massachusetts federal courts weren't enough to convince you that the winds of justice are shifting in our favor, consider this: the American Bar Association (ABA) has just adopted a resolution in favor of marriage equality.

At its annual meeting this week, the ABA's policy-making House of Delegates endorsed a measure that said the organization "urges state, territorial, and tribal governments to eliminate all of their legal barriers to civil marriage between two persons of the same sex who are otherwise eligible to marry."

ABA President Carolyn Lamm issued a statement before the vote explaining, "We know that marriage equality impacts issues in families’ lives -- taxation, succession, custody of children, breakup and others. As the nation's largest organization of lawyers, we in fact need to consider these issues because it impacts the lives of the public."

Even before the measure passed, however, the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a conservative legal advocacy group, told the Christian Post that the ABA does not speak for all lawyers on the matter. It claimed that three-quarters of all U.S. lawyers do not even belong to the ABA and that many do not support marriage equality. (According to statistics from the ABA, that is a slight exaggeration. One third of lawyers -- about 400,000 out of roughly 1.2 million active attorneys -- belong to the ABA, leaving only two thirds outside it.)

The ABA, however, is still the largest professional organization for lawyers in the country -- and the largest voluntary professional association in the world. It accredits law schools and provides continuing education and other programs to aid lawyers in their professional development. Among its goals are also to "Eliminate bias in the legal profession and the justice system" and "Work for just laws, including human rights, and a fair legal process." The marriage resolution, though lacking the force of law, is at the very least a sign that a key portion of the legal profession feels that marriage equality helps meet these goals.

Yesterday was primary day in many states around the country, including Minnesota, where a recent $150,000 donation by Target to support an anti-gay candidate for governor has made significant waves. That candidate, Tom Emmer, easily won his primary race for the GOP nomination. Emmer will now square off in the governor's race against Mark Dayton.

Dayton is a bit of an interesting story. He's a former U.S. Senator who retired after just one term. But before his political career, Dayton was a department store heir, as his family started the Dayton's department store chain back in 1902. For most of the 20th century, the department store was a powerhouse brand in the Midwest.

Now for some interesting political irony:  the Dayton's department store chain opened up the first ever Target store in 1962. Meaning that historically speaking, the family of Mark Dayton birthed Target.