IGF CultureWatch

There's one big difference between the Ninth Circuit's order granting a stay of Judge Walker's decision and Judge Walker's opinion deciding that the decision should go into effect: reasons.

Walker's order is a brief 11 pages, but it sets out the four standards for issuing a stay, and then tests the arguments the Prop. 8 proponents made against those standards: Do the parties who want the stay have a good chance of winning on appeal? Will they be harmed - irreparably harmed - if the stay is not granted? Will other parties also be substantially injured? Is a stay generally in the public interest?

Eleven pages isn't a lot in the legal world, but Judge Walker does take each of these and argue why he thinks the proponents do not make the grade. Anyone can read his ruling and decide if they agree or not.

By contrast, the Ninth Circuit's order consists of two pages, with a single eighteen-word sentence devoted to the stay: "Appellants' motion for a stay of the district Court's order of August 4, 2010 pending appeal is GRANTED." The rest of the order sets an expedited briefing schedule for the first round of the appeal, specifically focusing on the question of standing.
And that's how gay equality proceeds. The people who support us are happy to lay out the reasons why, and engage a debate. But a whole lot of others are content not having to explain themselves. That, in fact, is the best answer to our arguments: silence or sidestepping.

The Ninth Circuit judges don't have to explain themselves in such hurry-up orders, of course, and they are obligated to set out their reasons once they get to the appeal itself. But for right now, we have once again found ourselves stopped short, armed with arguments unresponded to, just hanging in the air.

I can understand why Target Corp. would want to donate to politicians who support a pro-growth agenda and oppose the sort of job killing regulations, confiscatory taxation and anti-growth spending that aims to grow unionized government at the expense of the private sector. Unfortunately, many fiscal conservatives are also social conservatives and oppose legal equality for gay people.

That may describe Minnesota gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, a Republican who, as a legislator, supported amending the state consitutution to ban same-sex marriage. When Target donated to an independent political fund supporting Emmer (Best Buy did so as well), activists groups went into protest mode, including the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and Moveon.org. According to one gay media report:

Activists angry at Target for supporting an anti-gay marriage gubernatorial candidate in Minnesota are pressing on with their protests after the company apologized.

The Minnesota-based retail giant apologized last week for contributing $150,000 to MN Forward, an independent political fund supporting anti-gay Republican Tom Emmer. Emmer clinched the GOP nomination for Minnesota governor Tuesday.

In a memo to employees, Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel wrote that he continues to believe that a "business climate conducive to growth is critical to our future," but added he had not anticipated how the donation would affect its employees. "And for that I am genuinely sorry," Steinhafel wrote.

Of course, if Emmer were a Democrat who opposed gay marriage it's doubtful that HRC would be targeting Target, given that HRC has itself supported the campaigns of candidates such as Virginia's Sen. Jim Webb, a Democrat who favors keeping "don't ask, don't tell," as well as a great many Democrats who oppose gay marriage to varying degrees. Maybe HRC should target itself?

That being said, it's probably good to send a message that businesses that donate to candidates opposing legal equality for gay people are going to be held to account. Whether the protests should continue after the donors subsequently apologize, in an effort to get them to cough up more funds for LGBT groups and their favored causes and/or to keep activists in the news and gin up their fundraising operations, is debatable.

On that matter, consider that the gay conservatives at GOProud are out and proud about violating the boycott by LGBT activists and unions of the Manchester Grand Hyatt in San Diego. Doug Manchester, the owner of the hotel, was a financial supporter of California's anti-gay-marriage Prop. 8. Manchester subsequently issued a statement saying "I am sorry for the pain and conflict I have caused and would like to take this time to apologize, clarify my views on the matter and share some background on Hyatt's long-standing and commendable support of the GLBT community" (it's quoted in the link above).

Again, I think there is value in protesting businesses that support opponents of gay equality. But at this point, GOProud believes the ongoing boycott has all to do with unions opposing the fact that Manchester's hotel remains non-union, and I suspect the group is right.

Last year, conservative superstar Glenn Beck said some truly stupid things about gay marriage, such as claiming it would lead to polygamy. Which is why it is so startling now to hear him refuse to condemn gay marriage, even as Bill O'Reilly tried to bait him into doing so:

O'Reilly: You are ignoring the profound change in the American family. ... Do you believe that gay marriage is a threat to the country in any way?

Beck: A threat to the country?

O'Reilly: Will it harm the country?

Beck: [Mockingly] Will the gays come and get us? I believe that Thomas Jefferson said if it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, what difference is it to me....

O'Reilly: So you don't. That's interesting. I don't think a lot of people understand that. ... Ok, gay marriage to you, not a big threat to the nation.

Beck has become more libertarian as he educates himself, and apparently now sees attacking gay marriage as needlessly divisive. A growing number of conservatives (though clearly not Bill O'Reilly and Cal Thomas) recognize that beating the anti-gay drum drives away independents whose support is needed to roll back the gargantuan, deficit-skyrocketing (see here and here) expansion of government (and government mandates) under Obama, Pelosi and Reid. And that's a positive development.

More. David Boaz cast as critical eye on Cal Thomas and his fulmination against freedom.

There is a sad story in the paper about a transgender woman in Texas, Nikki Araguz, who is being barred from collecting the death benefits of her husband, a firefighter killed in the line of duty. Her late husband's mother is arguing that Ms. Araguz was born a man and that since Texas defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, the marriage is void and she has no rights to spousal and survivor benefits.

In many jurisdictions transgender people are legally the sex they've transitioned to and have been able to marry someone of the (now) opposite sex. What's interesting about this story is that a transgender activist is decrying the confusion between the rights of transgenders and the fight for marriage equality for gays:

Shannon Price Minter, legal director for the National Center for Transgender Equality, said the national push for gay marriage has unintentionally hurt transgendered people and resulted in cases like this.

"I think it's very unfortunate that, perhaps because of the visibility of lesbian and gay couples seeking marriage, that transgendered people have been caught up in that frame and have been hurt by that and have actually, in some respects, are more vulnerable now than they have been in the past," he said. "I think it's really only in the past few years that we see pretty ugly cases like this coming up because people are, I think, exploiting homophobia."

Okay, but who was it that insisted that transgender people be conflated with gays and lesbians under the LGBT rubric, if not transgender activists?

Two prominent articles today - one from the NY Times and one in Politico - get right to the core of the problem that minorities face in a democracy. In the NY Times, Lou Cannon offers an interesting view of how Perry v. Schwarzenegger could play out in the gubernatorial race in California. At Politico, Maggie Haberman reports on how the national GOP is avoiding gay marriage as it focuses on the economy as its primary theme. In trying to attract independent voters, gay marriage and other social issues might be a distraction. Larry Sabato, from the University of Virginia sums it up: ""I don't think that moderates and independents get very excited about this."

What neither article discusses - or even mentions - is the question of whether gay marriage is a good thing or a bad thing; whether the constitution's guarantee of equal treatment of the law should apply to same-sex couples or not; whether heterosexual marriage will be affected by same-sex marriage; or any other of those nit-picky little issues that gays keep harping on.

For writers whose focus is politics, that's not too surprising. But that is exactly what the equal protection clause exists to address. In a universe of issues that affect people generally, it is easy for a majority (and in the case of heterosexuals a majority of unprecedented size) to not have much interest in how the law treats a very tiny minority. The economy affects every one of us irrespective of sexual orientation, and that is certainly what this upcoming election is about. That's how politics must work.

But it is not so easy - it is, in fact, virtually impossible -- for the minority to set aside its interest in its own rights until a better time comes along. America is at the stage where moderate and independent voters hold the political balance of power for gay rights. They have the luxury (their own rights not being affected one way or the other) to focus on bigger issues. Or bigger issues to them.

But for lesbians and gay men, the lack of equality we face in the law, and specifically the lack of legal recognition for our marriages, is a very big deal. We have fought for our role in society, and have taken it even as some continue to oppose even our simple, open and proud existence as fellow Americans. We are different from the majority in one thing, sexual orientation, but as varied as everyone in everything else. We have not been given anything, but have had to argue and convince and cajole every step of the way, armed with nothing but the facts and justice and pride and the promises in the Constitution. And we have had successes.

The Constitution guarantees that we have every available opportunity to make our case to the public, and to our elected representatives. But it also recognizes that for a minority - and specifically for a minority that many people simply refuse to accept as having any moral worth - the purely political burden may be unfair. The majority may have other things, what they view as bigger things, on their minds, and may not "get very excited" about the fight for equal treatment. If they feel they have nothing to lose, and nothing tangible to gain from a debate over the rights of the minority, their wishes (which, to democratically elected politicians, are a command) will predominate. If a discussion of gay marriage won't benefit a majority of people politically, then politicians won't bring it up.

That is itself evidence of our progress, of course. During George W. Bush's presidency, the discussion of gay marriage was, indeed, politically profitable, but the profit was for those seeking to keep marriage a restricted club. Today that calculation is a wash. A marriage will be valuable in some states and some districts, but as the Politico article notes, there are places where the benefit will accrue to politicians who oppose same-sex marriage, and there are places where it will accrue to our supporters.

But I hope heterosexuals can read these two articles and perhaps see what it feels like to be a political chit as part of your existence as an individual citizen. To politicians, and to political writers, our rights are a commodity, have a value that can be discussed in the abstract and with a sharp eye for the market. This is certainly not slavery, but it does make you understand what it's like to be bought and sold.

Andrew Sullivan's Dissent of the Day questions this observation from Judge Walker:

"Race and gender restrictions shaped marriage during eras of race and gender inequality, but such restrictions were never part of the historical core of the institution of marriage."

This is (the writer argues) nonsense, since there were no such eras, unless you are talking about all of recorded history up to the late 20th Century.

That's true, but it misses the point. Here is the more salient conclusion from the opinion:

"The evidence did not show any historical purpose for
 excluding same-sex couples from marriage, as states have never 
required spouses to have an ability or willingness to procreate in
 order to marry. Rather, the exclusion exists as an
 artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct
 roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed."

The proponents of Prop. 8 want to focus exclusively on justifying heterosexual marriage, but the court was being asked to decide something else. Heterosexual marriage is not at issue in this case. It will continue with or without a decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, or any other case. No one is challenging heterosexual marriage.

The relevant question is this: Are there reasons, historically or in the present, to exclude same-sex couples from marriage? That is both a different question from the one most people are accustomed to asking, and a vital one for the constitutional analysis of the issue lesbians and gay men are facing.

The U.S. Supreme Court has long held, very explicitly, that the constitution recognizes a fundamental right to marry. But that can be viewed in at least two ways. First, it could mean the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. That would be a right that only heterosexuals could exercise meaningfully. "Fundamental" in the constitutional sense, means that the government cannot interfere with the right's exercise except for the most compelling reasons. If the right is exclusive to heterosexuals (because it is not just "the right to marry," but "the right to marry someone of the opposite sex") then voters or legislatures can exclude homosexuals from exercising the right.

But it can also be viewed as the courts have actually stated it: a fundamental right to marry. Period. The question is whether the phrase, "someone of the opposite sex" is inherently included in the right.

That was what Judge Walker's opinion was examining. Marriage between heterosexuals has been taken for granted for all of recorded history, not because anyone ever made a decision to exclude homosexuals, but because no homosexuals had the visibility or political strength or will to even try. It was not until the late 20th Century when lesbians and gay men were able to become visible and politically active enough to challenge even laws that made them criminals -- the obvious first priority. And that task is accomplished.

Now is the time to ask the marriage question -- but it needs to be the right question. The anti-marriage forces have been enormously successful in keeping the focus on heterosexuals, and off of homosexuals. The political battles over same-sex marriages are battles focusing on heterosexual grievance, anxiety and privilege. Homosexuals do not play any role onstage in the fight against same-sex marriage. The Prop. 8 campaign was a classic example of an argument of, by and for heterosexuals.

Political battles can be over anything, or nothing. That is the nature of politics. But when it comes to some rare things that are important enough to be set out in our collective aspirations, known as the Constitution, real and substantial justifications are required along with a vote. Fundamental rights cannot be taken away by majority vote. And the equal protection of the law, by definition, cannot be abridged by a majority of any size.

Perry v. Schwarzenegger is the first opportunity in a federal court for exploring and answering that kind of question. No one is asking whether heterosexuals have to defend their marriages. They don't. The question - the only question - is whether there are reasons to exclude homosexuals from that vital and deeply human institution.

Opponents of same-sex marriage had every opportunity to offer any such reasons. And any one would have done. But in the end, they continued their pathological focus only on themselves, and failed to answer the question they were being asked.

The Cato Institute's David Boaz blogs that Judge Vaughn Walker, who just struck down the California ban on same-sex marriage, is no "San Francisco liberal" (as some marriage equality opponents are claiming). In fact, "progressives" and gay activists fought his appointment. As Boaz writes:

Judge Walker was first appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, at the recommendation of Attorney General Edwin Meese III. ... Democratic opposition led by Sen. Alan Cranston (D-CA) prevented the nomination from coming to a vote during Reagan's term. Walker was renominated by President George H. W. Bush in February 1989. Again the Democratic Senate refused to act on the nomination. Finally Bush renominated Walker in August, and the Senate confirmed him in December. ...

[C]oalitions including such groups as the NAACP, the National Organization for Women, the Human Rights Campaign, the Lambda Legal Defense Fund, and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force worked to block the nomination.

In other words, this "liberal San Francisco judge" was recommended by Ed Meese, appointed by Ronald Reagan, and opposed by Alan Cranston, Nancy Pelosi, Edward Kennedy, and the leading gay activist groups. It's a good thing for advocates of marriage equality that those forces were only able to block Walker twice.

It almost makes you doubt whether progressives really are smarter and more insightful than the rest of us.

More. James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal predicts that Justice Kennedy, based on the consistency of his pro-gay equality rulings, will vote to uphold Judge Walker's decision:

Yet while Kennedy cannot be pigeonholed in terms of "ideology," on this specific topic, he has been consistent in taking a very broad view of the rights of homosexuals. He not only voted with the majority but wrote the majority opinions in two crucial cases: Romer v. Evans (1996) and Lawrence v. Texas (2003). ... Those who see Justice Kennedy's position in Perry as difficult to predict in effect entertain "the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do" with his decisions on the court.

Kennedy, too, was a Reagan appointee opposed by liberal advocacy groups.

Furthermore. Jon Rowe has a different prediction.

It will be interesting to see if Perry meets up with July's federal district court ruling in Boston that found parts of the Defense of Marriage Act to be unconstitutional.

Very good news. From the ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger:

Plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition 8. California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as it has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same-sex couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result ...

Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8.

It will be stayed, appealed, and eventually make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Passing marriage equality in a few more states legislatively, and managing to defeat some anti-gay-marriage ballot initiatives, would certainly help its chances there. Public perceptions are changing, but the Supreme Court, with Justice Kennedy as the swing vote, under the best case scenario won't get too far ahead of public sentiment. There is work to be done.

We'll also have to see how this plays out come November in California, with the GOP senate and gubernatorial candidates opposing gay marriage and favoring Prop. 8. Things certainly would have been brighter if, in the GOP senate primary, gay marriage opponent Carly Fiorina had lost to former GOP congressman and gay marriage supporter Tom Campbell. But sadly, that didn't happen.

Bad News. Bradley Manning, the alleged leaker of the Afghan war memos that put at risk the lives of Afghans identified as aiding the U.S.-backed war against the Taliban, is, reportedly, openly gay. Thanks guy, if it was you, this will be a big help with ending don't ask, don't tell (already, we're seeing responses like this one). But hey, what does the fight against Islamofascism matter when there's a chance to boost your cred with the left.