Behind ‘Enemy’ Lines
by John Corvino | May 15, 2008
On a recent visit to Focus on the Family's Colorado headquarters, the author found fundamental disagreements, yes—but also opportunities for dialog. [read article]
What's New?
Ordinary, Like Us
by Jennifer Vanasco | May 7, 2008
To have kids, to love and be loved, to marry: the aspirations of today’s gay and lesbian youth are as ordinary as they are diverse. [read article]
The Pope, Gays, and World Peace
by Dale Carpenter | May 7, 2008
We can be grateful that Pope Benedict XVI has made a point of distinguishing between homosexuals and pedophiles. But now for the bad news… [read article]
Keep Talking
by John Corvino | May 1, 2008
Nowadays some gay-rights supporters are as eager to ostracize our opponents as the anti-gay side once was to ostracize us. But turnabout is neither fair play nor smart politics. [read article]
Laughing With Us
by Jennifer Vanasco | April 29, 2008
Lesbian comics are turning humor into a lever for civil rights. It’s one more sign that we’re moving beyond rage to integration. [read article]
Laughing Matters
by Dale Carpenter | April 25, 2008
Humor at the expense of gay people isn’t necessarily the same as anti-gay humor. And sometimes gay stereotypes are funny. [read article]
We Are Everywhere
by Jennifer Vanasco | April 24, 2008
It’s not uncommon to hear Africans deny that homosexuality exists there, but a surprising encounter with a lesbian in a Nairobi slum shows otherwise. [read article]
Class Dismissed
by John Corvino | April 22, 2008
By canceling the author’s lecture on the ethics of homosexuality, and then by maligning him to boot, a Catholic college missed a chance to teach intellectual integrity. [read article]
Creating Community
by Paul Varnell | April 12, 2008
Talk of a “gay community” is just that — talk — if we don’t take active steps to build one. Chicago’s Gay and Lesbian Artists Network shows the kind of cultural activism we need. [read article]
A Hope for Audacity
by Dale Carpenter | April 10, 2008
On gay issues, the two Democratic candidates offer comparable policies and legislative experience. But Barack Obama comes out ahead on one key dimension: commitment. [read article]
The Sins of Sodom
by John Corvino | April 3, 2008
The common misreading of the Sodom and Gomorrah story as anti-gay shows that most people who cite the bible against homosexuality have little idea of what it says. [read article]
Let Them In
by Paul Varnell | April 2, 2008
Western gay-rights advocates and leaders can’t stop homophobia around the world, but we can, and should, do better by gay asylum-seekers. [read article]
State of the World, 2007
by Richard J. Rosendall | March 27, 2008
In 2007, according to a key State Department report, anti-gay oppression and violence remained common around the world. But there’s a rising tide of gay activism from here to Timbuktu. [read article]
Action, Not Words
by Paul Varnell | March 26, 2008
Too often, gay voters settle for sympathetic speeches. We need to ask candidates what specific actions they intend to take to advance gay equality. [read article]
It's Self-Defense, Stupid
by Jonathan Rauch | March 23, 2008
The Washington, D.C., gun-control case now before the Supreme Court concerns the most fundamental gay right of all. [read article]
Equality through Visibility
by Paul Varnell | March 22, 2008
Though politics is important, everyday life provides opportunities for impromptu gay activism of a more personal, and sometimes more effective, kind. [read article]
Hold the Champagne
Posted on May 15, 2008
I wish I could be as overjoyed by the California Supreme Court's ruling for same-sex marriage as the rest of the gay world is. Politically, the ruling merely sets up an initiative battle, to be decided by simple majority vote. Backlash against the Court may make that battle harder to win. Affirmation of the Court's decision by plebescite would be tremendous, but it's too early to celebrate.
As for the ruling itself, my reading of it leads to a reaction I wish I didn't have: the majority opinion here is an example of judicial overreach.
Caveat: That's a flash reaction subject to change as I learn more. But, as I understand the opinion, here's what the court did.
In Massachusetts, the state Supreme Court had a stark choice before it: SSM, or throw gays out the window (TGOW). TGOW was a clear denial of equal protection, not remotely justified by the state's arguments, so the court went with SSM.
California offers a very different situation. Gay couples already have available all the substantive state rights of marriage, under the state's domestic-partner program. The state Supreme Court was merely deciding whether the legislature could withhold the word "marriage" in deference to tradition and public preference.
No, said the court. Gays are a "suspect class" and no differentiation of any kind is tolerable. The Court acknowledges that in California "marriage" has always, until now, meant opposite-sex marriage. Nonetheless, it holds that marriage definitionally includes same-sex couples.
Wait a minute. If the state constitution never even contemplated SSM before, why does it mandate SSM now? Because, says the Court, social mores and state policies (including the state's domestic-partner law) have, in the past 30 years, recognized the fundamental importance of equal rights for gays. The state has implicitly repudiated its tradition of discriminating against gays, and marriage law must reflect this change.
What the Court seems to be saying, then, is that SSM is constitutional in California. And TGOW would also be constitutional, if it reflected a broad consensus against gay equality. But once the state has decided to treat gay people equally, it must go all the way. No compromises allowed! All or nothing!
This kind of legal totalism, it seems to me, is tailor-made to rule out compromise, even if that compromise gives gay couples most of what we need with the promise of more to come (soon). As one of the dissents points out (PDF), it also may make legislators reluctant to even start down the road toward civil rights.
I think SSM is a better policy than civil unions (at least one of the dissenters agrees). And I think denial of marriage to gay couples is discriminatory. But to make even a well-intentioned compromise ILLEGAL strikes me as a step too far, and a good example of how culture wars escalate.
-- by Jonathan Rauch
Golden State Equality
Posted on May 15, 2008
Let's hope California can avoid a constitutional amendment overturning this morning's state Supreme Court ruling that laws excluding gay and lesbian couples from the right to marry are un(state)constitutional — which follows on the heels of a legislatively passed but gubernatorially vetoed marriage rights bill.
If so, then the pressure will certainly mount to challenge the (federal) constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars the U.S. government from recognizing state-sanctioned same-sex unions for purposes of joint tax filings, spousal immigration, Social Security survivors' income, and myriad other benefits that married heterosexuals take for granted.
-- by Stephen H. Miller
Whose Marriage Was He Defending?
Posted on May 14, 2008
Former Congressman Bob Barr (R-Ga.), who is hoping to win the Libertarian Party's presidential nod and cause problems for John McCain, gets a puff profile here from the New York Times. But the thrice-married father of the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act and congressional opponent of medical marijuana makes for a strange libertarian indeed.
More. Barr also had an terrible record on free trade (voting against it, that is) while in Congress. As David Boaz told the Times, if Barr should head the LP ticket, "I think he's going to have a problem." That seems clear: only unhappy GOP social conservatives — and New York Times liberals hoping for "Barr to block" — will wish him well.
-- by Stephen H. Miller