Archive for category Equality
Marriage Equality Comes to Washington DC
Posted by Glenden Brown in Equality, GLBT issues, This Blog on March 3rd, 2010
And the WaPo editorializes powerfully, saying:
Here as throughout the country, same-sex marriage remains controversial. We don’t belittle the strong feelings of those who believe, for religious reasons or otherwise, that marriage can take place only between a man and a woman. But we believe that the tide of history is moving the other way — toward a recognition that gays and lesbians, no less than heterosexuals, are entitled to sanctify their love in marriage, and that society will be better off when that right is universally extended. Those seeking to exercise that right in the District are expected to overwhelm the system Wednesday. The media will tell and retell their stories. Over time, though, it is our hope and expectation that gays and lesbians marrying the one they love will be unremarkable as a spectacle and normal as a rite.
“To sanctify their love in marriage” – isn’t that really what’s it’s about? And isn’t opposition to same sex marriage really about the claim that the love in same sex couples is not deserving of such sanctification?
The Prop 8 Trial and the Constitutional Case for Same Sex Marriage
Posted by Glenden Brown in Equality, GLBT issues on March 2nd, 2010
I’ve been following this case with some trepidation. Like the 1986 Bowers case, this one could go badly awry (in Bowers the court found that sodomy laws were constitutional). Bowers stood until 2003 when the court overruled itself in Lawrence v. Texas.
I want to highlight two comments made by Ted Olson concerning Lawrence while he was on with Bill Moyers:
TED OLSON: Well, and let me say that I have enormous respect for all of the members of the United States Supreme Court and I’ve had wonderful relationships in one way or another with all of them. So, it’s, my friends are not on one side or the other. Secondly, Justice Scalia, he writes beautifully. And he has passionate, powerful views. But he lost. And he went on to say in that very opinion, “If we decide this case that way, what’s to prevent same sex marriage from being held to be a constitutional right?” Well, he’s right.
And once you make that decision in that case, and you put it together with the marriage cases, that’s the end of it, as far as that’s concerned. We hope to persuade everyone on that court. And part of what you just read was some people don’t want a homosexual to be a teacher in a school. Well, I don’t think today hardly anyone would agree that you could make a law that said a person whose sexual orientation is homosexual can’t teach in a public school.
And:
TED OLSON: Yeah, right. And struck down earlier decisions and many laws go back to the point you made before. The laws of many, many states that prohibited intimate sexual conduct between persons of the same sex. Now people are saying that because people exercise that constitutional right, that the Supreme Court has already upheld, because they do that, they can’t get married.
Well, people can get married and have that fundamental right to get married. And they have the fundamental right to engage in same sex behavior. We recognize that in this country now. To deny people the right to that marriage, because of that constitutional behavior is wrong.
Olson is building a powerful and persuasive case here. Previous cases have held that marriage is a fundamental right; they have also held that sexual conduct between persons is Constitutionally protected. If one is engaging in a constitutionally protected behvaior one cannot be banned from also enjoying a fundamental right. As I read it, Bois and Olson are making a “small c” conservative legal argument – precedents as widely and generally understood by the Court itself render unconstitutional laws banning same sex marriage.
Here’s how they describe the case:
Specifically, Proposition 8:
- Violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Violates the Due Process Clause by impinging on fundamental liberties.
- Singles out gays and lesbians for a disfavored legal status, thereby creating a category of “second-class citizens.”
- Discriminates on the basis of gender.
- Discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation.
And while separate is never equal, under Proposition 8, California distinguishes its residents into 4 separate and unequal groups:
- Opposite-sex couples who have full marriage rights
- Same-sex couples who have no marriage rights.
- Same-sex couples who were married between June and November 2008 whose marriages are recognized by the state; however, they have no right to remarry if divorced or widowed.
- Same-sex couples married in another state who may petition for state recognition of their marriage.
Because the suit challenges California law, the named defendants in the case are Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Attorney General Jerry Brown, and various other State and County officials with jurisdiction over California marriages.
Gov. Schwarzenegger, however, did not challenge the Foundation’s position against Proposition 8, and Attorney General Brown went so far as to file papers with the court agreeing that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. Accordingly, Proposition 8 is being defended by the group that led the campaign to pass it.
If I read it correctly, this case has potential not only to undo Prop 8 in California but laws across the nation against same sex marriage – Utah’s Amendment 3 would be found unconstitutional. After watching Olson and Bois on Bill Moyers over the weekend (thanks to Renate for reminding me it would be on!), I’m cautiously optimistic. They have a very strong legal case.
Utah is For Lovers, Gay and Straight
Posted by Cliff Lyon in Chris Buttars, Equality, Utah Politics on February 23rd, 2010
I took these shots at Gay Pride in Salt Lake City in 2008.
The most amazing thing about these pix is that they are all (except for 2) single, consecutive shots taken in the space of about 30 minutes walking from the library in one time around Washington Square.
I took a deep breath, and just walked around asking every *obvious* couple I saw if I could take their picture (not as easy as it seems). I can’t really explain why they turned out so great.
Let them speak for themselves.
If you like this video, please consider attending the Tanner Center 2010 Conference that starts tomorrow at the University of Utah Museum of Fine Arts…and share this on Facebook.
Thanks – Cliff
The very special cowardice of Chris Buttars
Posted by Glenden Brown in Bigotry, Chris Buttars, Equality, GLBT issues, Homophobia, Liars (politics), Religious Fundamentalism, Republicans, Tribalism & Blind Obedience to Authority on January 25th, 2010
So I’m watching KUTV’s ten o’clock news last night and they did a story about the Prop 8 film at Sundance, including an interview with Chris Buttars giving him a chance to correct any misimpressions about him the film created for viewers.
Buttars offered the most ridiculous defense I’ve ever heard: Sure he said offensive things but he was tricked into it by people wearing BYU shirts.
You can’t make this shit up. If someone put this in a film and tried to pass it off as fiction, no one would buy it, it stretches credulity beyond the breaking point.
The film-maker sent the TV station photos from the day showing that he and his crew weren’t wearing BYU shirts. So, not only is Chris Buttars a bigot, he’s a liar. But we knew that.
In essence, Buttars’ is saying that what he said (gays are the biggest threat to America) is okay but he would only say it to someone in the club – i.e. to good BYU Mormons who would agree and who would keep his comments secret so he wouldn’t look bad.
What we’re seeing is a very special kind of cowardice on Chris Buttars’ part. It’s not that he misspoke or said something and he’s changed his mind; he believes what he said and he’d say it again and still believe it. Chris Buttars wants to not be held accountable for his words. Like so many anti-gay conservatives, he wants to be able to say anything he wants and not have consequences. Go to Uganda, tell the folks there that gays are the biggest threat to humanity there is and they must be stopped any way you can and when Uganda says, “Okay, let’s pass a law with the death penalty for gay people” you throw up your hands and say, “Oh my, I never imagined anyone would do such a thing after hearing me speak.”
Chris Buttars: a man of cowardly convictions. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Health Care Crash and Burn?
Posted by Richard Warnick in American People, Conservatives, Democracy, Economy, Equality, Health Care on January 13th, 2010
It’s time to check in again with the health care “reform” bill, as the House is back in session and closed-door negotiations (aka ping-pong) continue in lieu of a formal House-Senate conference committee. Hey, what happened to C-SPAN?
“Earth vs The Flying Saucers” (1956)
FDL’s David Dayen counts House votes and does not find 218. Remember that the barely-better-than-nothing House version got only 220 votes, and one of those was a Republican, Rep. Joseph Cao. There are likely to be NO Republican votes this time around, and a majority of the 232 House Democrats do not like the Senate’s health care “reform” bill.
Maybe Nancy Pelosi can flip some of the no votes, especially with the more conservative Senate bill being the base, and the public option likely dead. But I have explained repeatedly that those Democrats who voted against the bill the first time around have every political incentive to vote against it again. …My point is that there will not be more than a small handful of no-to-yes flips available.
But there’s a HUGE universe of yes-to-no flips that are at least possible. Anthony Weiner yesterday said he would vote against the Senate bill. There are clearly others out there, like Peter DeFazio. There were 60 members vowing to vote against a bill without a public option. There are 190 members demanding the elimination of the excise tax on high-end insurance plans. Virtually everyone in the Democratic caucus has some problem or other with the bill.
Mike Stark of DailyKos went to Capitol Hill:
Yesterday, I caught up with a quite a few Democratic members. Some were willing to give me a statement, but a lot more were only willing to speak on background.
They are pissed.
They were asked to cast a tough vote on health care. They came up with what they consider to be a pretty damned good bill. And now, the House, the co-equal branch of our bicameral legislature that is closest to the people, is being asked to accept irrelevancy? They are being told only the Senate matters?
And then, there’s the mind-boggling but unavoidable fact that the Senate bill threatens to impose a form of neo-feudalism. It would harness the coercive power of the federal government to force Americans to purchase private health insurance. To say this proposal is unpopular would be an understatement.
When informed that an individual mandate “could mean that some people would be required to buy health insurance that they find too expensive or did not want,” support plummets to just 21%.
After all the yelling about a “government takeover of health care,” Congressional leaders are now working on an insurance industry takeover of the government.
UPDATE: FDL reports on the closed-door negotiations: Employer Mandate Dropped: 5 Million to Lose Coverage, Millions More To See Coverage Get Worse
UPDATE: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) apparently only now realizes he was duped by Senators Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) during behind the scenes health care negotiations.
UPDATE: After a marathon eight-hour White House session on Wednesday to close the deal on health care reform, word is that negotiators will have a final package ready by this weekend.
Further Thoughts on the State of City Address
Posted by Glenden Brown in Equality, Ralph Becker, Salt Lake City on January 13th, 2010
As I ponder my impressions from last night’s address, I have some thoughts.
Ralph Becker is a good public speaker but not a natural one - my impression has always been that he’s not terribly comfortable in behind the podium. Last night’s speech reconfirmed my impression (if I had to guess, I’d say he’s pretty strongly introverted).
Ralph is a good mayor because he has a first rate mind. Everything he’s done as mayor – from fostering collaborative decision making to building working coalitions within the city – demonstrates that he has a gift for organizing and coordinating groups.
Finally, I like the way he has a vision for the city, he organized it in a simple, easy to remember way and then communicated it.
It makes me glad I spent months volunteering and knocking on doors and standing on street corners waving signs and generally working to get him elected.
Fostering Effective Freedom by ending discrimination
Posted by Glenden Brown in Activist groups, American History, Equality, GLBT issues, Human Rights, This Blog on December 5th, 2009
The concept of effective freedom is core concept in liberal thought. Effective freedom refers to one’s ability to actively pursue one’s own interests. From John McGowan American Liberalism: An Interpretation for our Time:
Effective freedom requires having the means and the power to accomplish one’s ends. Not just direct domination, but also the lack of adequate material and spiritual resources, can render individuals incapacitated. No liberal polity committed to truly providing individual liberty can tolerate an economic order that uses people and then throws them away, or social discrimination that humiliates certain categories of people and/or limits their access to some goods or public spaces.
Salt Lake’s recently adopted anti-discrimination ordinance is an attempt to increase effective freedom. The argument is simple: refusing to rent to someone or to hire someone because of their sexual orientation is an invalid violation of their rights, it prevents them from having access to a good otherwise available. You can refuse to rent to smokers or people who own pets since those things are entirely within one’s control. By contrast, sexual orientation is involuntary and separate from one’s behavior; and it’s important to note that a great deal of discrimination and violence against glbt persons is based on the perception of their identity not on any acts or statements. Read the rest of this entry »
Gratitude
Posted by Becky Stauffer in American People, Equality, Poverty, Unemployment on November 27th, 2009
I belong to a little photo group on Facebook where we have themed contests every week and people post photos appropriate to the theme. This week a woman in San Diego posted a picture that keeps haunting my thoughts. I’ll just link to it here as I don’t want to use it without her permission. It’s a photo of a homeless woman of indeterminate age but certainly approaching or into middle age. She is neatly dressed in an almost clown-like colorful outfit. All her worldly belongings are neatly packed and stacked in three matching tote bags arranged on a baby stroller. She has a slight smile.
I see in this woman someone who cares. Cares about how she looks. Cares about tidiness. Cares for her few worldly belongings. It gripped my heart to see someone so destitute at her age of life and yet living a life that is as organized as she can make it and with all the dignity she can gather. I wondered how it would feel to live as she does.
Ruthie, the photographer, is herself barely employed and just scraping by. Upon my comment about the photo, Ruthie replied:
It’s a sad statement, Becky, that it is this way. Because I take public transport, I see them frequently. I’m not talking about the young druggies. There was something on TV once about families who have a camp in northern California .. displaced because of the economy. There are many of us who are simply “a paycheck away.” If it’s only you and you have no one else to be responsible for, then it’s easier and you can smile. It’s just another way of living.
If that doesn’t make you feel grateful today, it should. With a warm roof overhead. More food than a person needs. A comfy bed and clean sheets. A hot shower and a job to go to.
I know my conservative friends will tell me that I earned the comforts I enjoy. And those who live destitute lives have just made poor choices that brought them there. But it’s not that simple. People are sometimes victims of place and time and circumstances. I, for one, do not take for granted the circumstances that placed me where I am and the opportunities that have come my way. Nor do I attribute it to the grace of God. If there is a God, I’d hate to think she would be playing favorites in such a way. No, I think poverty has a lot more to do with the disgrace of mankind.
LDS Church: “Jump!”, Buttars: “How High?”
Posted by shane in Bigotry, Bigotry, Chris Buttars, Conservatives, Equality, GLBT issues, Homophobia, Human Rights, Mormon LDS, Queer, Religion, Tribalism & Blind Obedience to Authority, Utah Politics on November 19th, 2009
If you have not had your head buried in the sand you have likely noticed that Chris Buttars has been going all out to win the “ignorant homophobe of the decade” award. He is a veritable quote mine:
In interviews, Buttars says that gays and lesbians are the biggest threat to America and… are inherently amoral
In their own words: “Church Supports Nondiscrimination Ordinances”
Posted by Becky Stauffer in Bigotry, Equality, GLBT issues, Homophobia, Mormon LDS, Religion, SLC Politics, Salt Lake City, Utah Politics on November 17th, 2009
I’ve been thinking back over the many debates that took place here at OneUtah and elsewhere during the fight over California’s Prop 8. An argument I heard over and over from church members supporting Prop 8 was that legal precedents that applied in racial, sex, and religious discrimination cases did not apply for gays, and that gays could not be recognized as a protected class or group. I didn’t follow that arbitrary and twisted logic then and I don’t follow it now.
Today I reread the church’s statement to the Salt Lake City Council, there is no doubt in my mind that the church recognizes those with same-sex attraction as a distinct identifiable group entitled to the same legal protections the rest of society enjoys with regard to housing and employment. And the church specifically names this group rather than using a broad generic “all residents of the city” or something similar that would have been more palatable to the anti-gay crowd.
On the church’s own web site, the headline is “Church Supports Nondiscrimination Ordinances”.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has declared its support of nondiscrimination regulations that would extend protection in matters of housing and employment in Salt Lake City to those with same-sex attraction. [snip]
The Church said that while protections in housing and employment were fair and reasonable, the Church also remains “unequivocally committed to defending the bedrock foundation of marriage between a man and a woman.” Otterson also pointed out that this position was “entirely consistent with the Church’s prior position on these matters.”
Otterson added, “I represent a church that believes in human dignity, in treating others with respect even when we disagree — in fact, especially when we disagree.”
I think this is the biggest and most important change in this milestone announcement—that the church does recognize gays as an identifiable group in need of special legal protections. Even though the church stopped short of supporting full and equal rights for gays, this step is extremely important and paves the way for setting of new legal precedents that may eventually break down all barriers to full and equal rights under the law—including marriage.
Is Religious Freedom Endangered?
Posted by Glenden Brown in Bigotry, Equality, Free Speech, GLBT issues, Homophobia, Human Rights, Mormon LDS, Religious Fundamentalism, This Blog on October 17th, 2009
I touched on this the other day in my post about Dallin Oaks’ comments but I want to expand on it.
Oaks argued that respect for religion has declined in our society, there has been a corresponding increase in the number of people who are nonbelievers and an increase in criticism of religious belief all of which added up (to him) to a threat to religious freedom.
During my lifetime I have seen a significant deterioration in the respect accorded to religion in our public life, and I believe that the vitality of religious freedom is in danger of being weakened accordingly.
Using the model of framing favored by Jeffrey Feldman, here’s what Oaks is saying [loss of respect] = [loss of freedom] – or [respect] = [freedom]. It’s an interesting argument, but what does it mean? Oaks went on to explain. Read the rest of this entry »
killed
wounded
-
-
You are currently browsing the archives for the Equality category.
-
Utah Blogs
BlogNetNews (Utah)
.
Recent Comments