Most Expensive Prom in History

By now, everybody has probably heard about Constance McMillen being sent to a fake prom while the real one was going on elsewhere.

'Everybody', I trust, includes Judge Glen Davidson, who on March 23 denied the preliminary injunction sought by McMillen. Judge Davidson found that McMillen's case met three of the four requirements, but not the fourth--the 'public interest' test:

...the Court is of the opinion that its failure to grant an injunction in this instance does not disserve the public interest. Defendants testified that a parent sponsored prom which is open to all IAHS students has been planned and is scheduled for April 2, 2010. Though the details of the "private" prom are unknown to the Court, Defendants have made representations, upon which this Court reilies, that all IAHS students--including the Plaintiff--are welcome and encouraged to attend....

You know, judges tend to be a little bit sensitive about parties telling outright lies in their courtrooms. It's just one of those quirky judge things.

In the conclusion of Judge Davidson's opinion:

This case remains active and Plaintiff, is [sic] she so desires, will be permitted to amend her Complaint to seek compensatory damages and any other appropriate relief.

I sure hope they got their money's worth.

Hate Crimes

The best way I can think of to respond to Rep. Foxx, and to celebrate (if that's the proper term) passage of the hate crimes bill in the house, is to Netflix The Laramie Project. It's a beautiful, heartbreaking film that never whitewashes bigotry but also never reduces people to caricatures--that recognizes the surprising capacity for basic decency in people whose values are otherwise unsympathetic. Who are, in fact, exactly the people we'll need to win over to achieve marriage equality in our time.

You Can't Make This Sh*t Up

The co-executive director of the Miss California Organization has confirmed that the organization paid for Carrie Prejean's breast implants just weeks before the Miss USA pageant. Yes, that's this Carrie Prejean. Miss Prejean, who believes in "opposite marriage", is all about following what she sees as God's will in that regard. So why would she flout God's will for her body by getting breast implants?

And now the ungrateful child is ducking her funders...

Carrie is still involved in a media frenzy, sparked by her controversial response at the Miss USA pageant, and Shanna [Moakler] claims the young woman has been avoiding responding to her Miss California bosses. “We’ve tried really hard [to get in contact] and she keeps referring us to her mother and her PR person,” Shanna claimed.

...while apparently shilling for NOM (yeah, that NOM). At least the producers of this ad were able to edit down her rambling response to something resembling a sound bite. Maybe they should have hired an actress to play the part of the poor, oppressed beauty queen forced to choose between the crown and her convictions (conveniently ignoring the part where Miss North Carolina -- the new Miss USA -- also won the swimsuit and evening gown competitions). We know how well that worked for them last time.

h/t Pam

A Gaythering Storm

A Gaythering Storm from Jane Lynch

I can't wait to see the Giant Gay Repellent Umbrella^tm.

*snerk*

via Misty at Shakesville

Bad Actors

2nd UPDATE: Here's another link to the audition tapes. Don't know how long it will be working.

UPDATE: I see NOM has yanked the Rachel Maddow video off YouTube, but I'm quite sure it will turn up again.

In more than one sense of the phrase. The National Organization for Marriage (no, I'm not linking; feel free to Google if you must) released a scare ad this week in which actors played the parts of various oppressed people whose lives have been devastated because they are no longer permitted to discriminate against gays and lesbians. The finished product was bad -- a combination of ridiculously overblown rhetoric and unconvincing line readings -- but the audition tapes were...well, they were just horrendous. I have no idea where NOM (maybe the funniest acronym ever!) got these people, but -- trust me -- I would look like Meryl Streep if I went up against them.

NOM was unhappy when the audition tapes hit YouTube, and its minions have been busy scrubbing them. It's embarrassing when the whole world can see that you couldn't get any real actors to show up for your casting call.

Unfortunately for NOM (but good for us), Rachel Maddow captured some of the most egregious moments last night.

More...



And if the audition tapes weren't funny enough, the parodies are a hoot.



NOM, you done messed with the wrong people. Seriously.

videos via Pam

The Will of the People Is Sacred Unless It Gets a Blowjob

So the 'respected' 'legal' 'scholar' Ken Starr doesn't like Attorney General Jerry Brown's reasoning on Proposition 8, which of course is just another reason to like Jerry Brown. Starr blathers on about "a constitutional revolution" and "the precious right of the people to determine how they will be governed"--the same thing we've heard hundreds of times before from the sort of people who think the courts have no business upholding the constitution.

Brown does a very interesting thing in his brief, defending Proposition 8 from the technical challenge advanced by gay rights organizations (their argument being that it was a 'revision' rather than an 'amendment' to the state constitution) while offering an entirely different (and, to me at least, more persuasive) basis for overturning the proposition (that the proposition is in conflict with the state constitution on a very fundamental level).

I like Brown's argument for a couple of reasons, not least of which is the fact that it parallels my own thoughts about it. More... Prop 8 doesn't alter the constitutional basis for the Supreme Court's ruling; it just changes the result. (In effect, it was a bunch of voters sticking their fingers in their ears and saying 'LA LA LA I can't hear you'.) That means there is now an internal conflict in the state Constitution, between the equal protection clause (as interpreted by the Court) and a brand new section mandating discrimination. Brown gets that:

Brown said he was particularly struck by the idea that a ban on same-sex marriage conflicted with the Constitution's language protecting liberty, noting that the state Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that the language encompasses the right for same-sex couples to marry.

"The more I reflected on the argument, the stronger I thought it was," he said. "What is a guarantee worth if you can strip it away by calling it an amendment?"

I have no idea which argument against Prop 8 is more likely to be successful (or if there's any chance for either), but Brown's would certainly be a better win--that is, it would be more likely to gain acceptance because it addresses the substance of the thing, rather than invalidating it on what most people would see as a technicality.

Prop 8 supporters, needless to say, are unpersuaded by Brown's arguments:

Prop. 8 proponents...argued that if the attorney general's argument prevailed, it would be virtually impossible for voters to amend the state Constitution whenever the courts determined that inalienable rights were involved. [emphasis added]

Well, yeah--isn't that exactly the point?

Prop 8: The Musical

Clever lyrics, a message of inclusion (from Jesus himself!), and Neil Patrick Harris -- what more could we ask?



H/T Birmingham Blues reader (and brother-in-law) Tony, who sent me this link from the Los Angeles Times. The first comment cracked me up:

This video is actually blasphemous to Christians and will change no minds, imo - in fact, it will just backfire. It shows typical Hollywood irreverance and misunderstanding of Christianity. Jack Black as Jesus is really bad.

Really? I didn't know one could blaspheme a fellow human. I thought that was reserved for the higher beings. Methinks someone is getting above himself. And Jack Black as Jesus actually reflects the Gospel message of love. What a concept!

****

Whedonverse connections: NPH, of course, and Adam Shankman. And there may be others that I missed. :)

Olbermann: It's About Love

This has been on a number of blogs, but in case any of you haven't seen it, Keith Olbermann had a great Special Comment last night on Proposition 8:



Meanwhile, the Courage Campaign is already organizing to repeal it (via my brother Phil). Definitely not over.

Change I Can Believe In

From the Obama-Biden transition team's online job application form:

The Obama-Biden Transition Project does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, or any other basis of discrimination prohibited by law.

For the first time, sexual orientation and gender identity are both included in a federal non-discrimination policy. The times, they are a-changing' -- for the better.

[edited for clarity -- thanks to KRK in comments at No More Mister Nice Blog]

Bittersweet

America is a better country than it was yesterday; California is a worse state.

I wish our folks had lived to see Obama win. Last night MSNBC had John Lewis on, and he talked about the hundreds of thousands of civil rights workers in the '60s who had helped to make this election possible. Mom and Dad were among those hundreds of thousands, and they would have been thrilled beyond measure to see this victory. Not the final victory, not the promised land, but an enormous step in that direction.

And Proposition 8 was a step backwards. Our folks spent 25 years fighting for equality; they would have been so disheartened to see the voters of California reject it. Today, hundreds of thousands of Californians who for a little while had equal rights are again second-class citizens.

Another Marriage-Equality Domino Falls in CT

The Connecticut Supreme Court has just ruled in favor of same-sex marriage and against the state's civil union law.

Summary and news link below the fold...

[Credit: Blue Mass Group]

We conclude that, in light of the history of pernicious discrimination faced by gay men and lesbians, and because the institution of marriage carries with it a status and significance that the newly created classification of civil unions does not embody, the segregation of heterosexual and homosexual couples into separate institutions constitutes a cognizable harm. We also conclude that

(1) our state scheme discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation,

(2) for the same reasons that classifications predicated on gender are considered quasi-suspect for purposes of the equal protection provisions of the United States constitution, 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, and

(3) the state has failed to provide sufficient justification for excluding same sex couples from the institution of marriage

.... In accordance with our conclusion that the statutory scheme impermissibly discriminates against gay persons on account of their sexual orientation, we reverse the trial court's judgment and remand the case with direction to grant the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.

Coverage at the Hartford Courant includes a link to the full ruling.

Bad News/Good News

First the bad news:

Lesbian rights pioneer Del Martin, whose trailblazing activism spanned more than five decades, most recently in the battle for same-sex marriage, died Wednesday, just two months after she made history again by wedding her longtime partner in San Francisco City Hall....

Ms. Martin's crusading began in 1955, during an era in America known more for social conformity than for rebellion, when she co-founded a lesbian social-turned-political organization, Daughters of Bilitis, named after a 19th century book of lesbian love poetry.

This year, on June 16, she and her partner of 55 years, Phyllis Lyon, were legally wed.

Now the good news:

The gap between those who support and those who oppose same-sex marriage is closing, and a poll indicates that backing for a proposition to ban such marriages is lagging....

The results suggest that 54 percent of likely voters will say no to Proposition 8, the proposal to ban same-sex marriage, come November.

I can't think of any more fitting tribute to Del Martin's extraordinary life than defeating Proposition 8.

This Explains Everything

HT: HumboldtBlue

We Had to Destroy Marriage in Order to Save It

Q: How do you save the hallowed institution of marriage from being destroyed by gays getting married?
A: You stop doing marriages altogether.

That's the answer of two California counties, anyway: More...

County officials in at least two California counties say they'll stop performing all wedding ceremonies by next week, arguing that they don't have enough resources to marry both gay and straight couples.

Officials in Kern and Butte¹ counties cited budget and staffing constraints as the rationale for halting the ceremonies....County clerks are required by law to issue marriage licenses, but the offices do not have to perform wedding ceremonies....In Kern County, Clerk Ann Barnett announced her decision only after county lawyers told her she could not refuse to marry gay couples. Butte County Clerk Candace Grubb, meanwhile, blamed budget constraints, telling the Chico Enterprise-Record that her decision was made long before the court ruling.

Too bad about the baby, but that bathwater was just so filthy and immoral...

But of course the decision is completely justified by the gay tsunami threatening to engulf the beleaguered counties:

"Bakersfield (the Kern County seat) is not a very safe place to be out," added the Rev. Byrd Tetzlaff of the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Kern County. "We are not expecting that many couples, maybe 10 or 12"....

At least 25 opposite-sex couples who had weddings scheduled at the clerk's office are also being forced to make other plans, [Kern County Supervisor Maben] said.

Well, that'll show them!

Snark aside, there is at least one hero in this:

After hearing of the decision, Tetzlaff announced she would perform free marriages to same-sex couples until Nov. 4, when voters will weigh in the proposed constitutional amendment.

Next Tuesday she plans to offer her services to all couples getting licenses at the county building. But she said she and other gay-marriage supporters have been told that the police will not allow them to conduct the ceremonies there.

"We are looking at places nearby where we can be, and there are a number of us that are going to be supporting the couples as they go in to get their licenses," she said.

As for Butte County, perhaps our readers will help come to the rescue. If you'd like to donate money so they can go back to performing marriages, call the clerk's office at (530) 538-7691 or e-mail them at clerk@buttecounty.net. Let them know how you feel, and tell them you're willing to help.


¹Already the Butte of many jokes.

Faster than I Expected

I got off the bus this morning and walked past a Chronicle newsrack with this headline: CALIFORNIA MAJORITY BACKS GAY MARRIAGE. It's the first time any poll has shown support higher than opposition--51% to 42%, which is a pretty good margin. I was optimistic, but even I didn't think it would happen this quickly.

Quote of the Day

Okay, two days ago. Still. Here's the always-lucid Jon Carroll:

Gay marriage is, at its heart, a deeply conservative idea. It is the very opposite of an alternative lifestyle. If people truly care about the preservation of traditional values, they should get on the gay marriage bandwagon as soon as possible. What happens in the bedroom is of intense interest to the people in the bedroom, but of scant significance to society as whole.

What happens outside the bedroom (which is, worse luck, where most of life takes place) is what defines a culture. It's how we raise our kids and make our myths and create our art. It's how we fight for peace and justice and freedom and tolerance. If we let everyone into the society on equal terms, then everyone has an equal stake in fighting to preserve that society. If not - well, say hello to a lot of enemies you didn't have to make.

Gay Marriage, Massachusetts, and Harry Truman

This was one of the first things I posted when I started here, about a year after the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling; I'm re-posting it today in honor of the California Supreme Court decision. I don't know if our experience will be like that of Massachusetts, but I sure hope so...and I think we have reason to be optimistic.

My father, who was a civil rights activist in Mississippi in the mid-'60s, is was fond of citing Truman desegregating the military through Executive Order 9981 as a paradigm for civil rights action. Racism and bureaucratic inertia had always defeated efforts to integrate the armed forces, and even after Truman signed the order it took 5 years before they were fully integrated. Once it happened, though, the strife many had predicted never materialized; black and white served together in relative, if not perfect, harmony--more harmony, certainly, than there was in American society as a whole.
More...


My father's point was that in matters of basic human rights, sometimes the action has to precede public support; that when fundamental change is presented as a fait accompli, opinion swings around to embrace it; and that if we wait to change things until everyone agrees it'll never happen.

I have always been a little skeptical of this view--not least because it is at the root of a liberal reliance on top-down solutions that, while never as pervasive as caricature would have it, gave the right a populist fig leaf for their anti-equality agenda. The ultimate fiasco for this kind of approach was court-ordered busing, which crystallized the white rage that was eventually manifest in the phenomenon of Reagan Democrats. This is not to say that it was the wrong thing to do; only that it didn't play out the way supporters had hoped.

But now we have another example to vindicate my father's view of things: the Massachusetts experience with gay marriage.

Last month, a year or so after the Massachusetts Supreme Court invalidated the state's marriage laws (effectively establishing same-sex marriage in the state), the Massachusetts legislature voted 157 - 39 against a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage. This is a bill that passed 102 - 92 just last year. Meanwhile, polls show that something like 56% of Massachusetts residents approve of gay marriage--a huge turnaround in public opinion from a year ago. So what's changed since then? One thing: people in Massachusetts are now responding to the reality of gay marriage, instead of their preconceptions about it. Apparently, the reality isn't so bad, more Ozzie and Harriet and less Folsom Street than they envisioned.

The same thing has happened in California, to a lesser degree. Mayor Newsom's great experiment in equality may have been legally invalidated, but not before Californians were exposed (ever so briefly) to the reality of the thing. We saw thousands of loving, committed couples pledging to share their lives--including the ultimate couple, Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, who had been in a committed relationship for 50 years--and apparently a lot of us didn't find this horrifying: polls in California went from 60% opposed to a roughly even split as of August, 2005.

All of which serves to undermine the position of people who, like Debra Saunders, argue that gay marriage should be established by referendum rather than by the courts or the legislature. Saunders, a libertarian-leaning Republican who is sympathetic on gay rights, misses the point when she argues that

Supporters of same-sex marriage should ask themselves if they want to win their cause without public support or -- even if it takes a little longer -- with public support.

Because the Massachusetts experience, like Executive Order 9981, shows that it doesn't always happen that way. Because prejudice is fear, and people naturally fear the unknown, and so to defeat prejudice sometimes you have to make them know the thing they feared instead of waiting for them to stop fearing it.

I'm still wary of Truman's example, for the reasons I described above; but I am enormously happy to see it apply in this case.

Celebrating in San Francisco

C. W. Nevius has a lovely column about local reaction to the California Supreme Court decision. My favorite bit:

Karen Strauss and Ruth Borenstein were holding hands and waiting for the traffic light to change in front of the public library across from City Hall when we began to chat.

"Can I tell him what I told you when we left the house this morning?" Borenstein said. "I said, 'If we win this, you better f- marry me.' "

"Well, she'll have to ask more nicely than that," Strauss said.

More...
But then, at the end of the piece, comes the kicker:

I asked Borenstein whether she'd called her parents, who had wanted to attend their wedding.

"My father died about a year and a half ago," she said, her eyes filling with tears. "That's the problem with waiting."

Yeah. That's the problem, all right. The 'I'm not against it but we need to wait for the people to catch up' folks should never be allowed to forget it.

Yes!!!

The California Supreme Court has overturned the state's ban on gay marriage. I'm grinning so much I can barely type! This is a huge win, and I know my brother is smiling today.

Read around the blogosphere:

Pam's House Blend - California Supreme Court Ruling: Thumbs UP on Marriage Equality

Shakesville - California Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban!

Deborah at Property of a Lady - The Radio News Kind Of Makes It Up To Me

Catherine at Poverty Barn - CA Supreme Court Lets Freedom Ring

Generik - Pride In California

and more to come as I find them.

Another Hero Passes

Bruce Hilton, father of Tom and Steve Hilton of If I Ran the Zoo, passed away on Thursday. Their mother Virginia died in October 2007. Both of the Reverends Hilton worked on the front lines of the civil rights movement and continued to advocate for social and economic justice throughout their lives. They were strong supporters of LGBT equality and founded the Parents Reconciling Network. Bruce was the author of Can Homophobia Be Cured?, which graced my bookshelf for many years before I "met" Tom and Steve online and became part of the IIRTZ family.

There is a nice article from the University of Indianapolis alumni magazine detailing Bruce's life and career here. The San Francisco Chronicle did a feature on Virginia after her death. Go read them and be inspired by what two ordinary people can do when their lives reflect their passion for justice.

Tom and Steve, I'm so sorry for your loss. Your father and mother left a wonderful legacy -- for you and for us.

Cross-posted at Birmingham Blues. ADDENDUM: Also cross-posted at Shakesville, at Melissa's request, and at No More Mister Nice Blog.