SCOTUS Blog publisher Tom Goldstein provides a quick analysis that, to sum it up, says it looks unlikely a majority will rule up or down on Proposition 8. Many of the justices think the opponents of gay marriage may not have standing (they aren't representing the State of California, they're just activists). Second, on the constitutionality question, Justice Kennedy seems to be the deciding vote (surprise!). Kennedy believes the jury's still out on the "social science of the effects of same-sex marriage" because it's a new phenomenon, Goldstein writes.

Here's his thinking on how this plays out:

If those features of the oral argument hold up – and I think they will – then the Court’s ruling will take one of two forms. First, a majority (the Chief Justice plus the liberal members of the Court) could decide that the petitioners lack standing. That would vacate the Ninth Circuit’s decision but leave in place the district court decision invalidating Proposition 8. Another case with different petitioners (perhaps a government official who did not want to administer a same-sex marriage) could come to the Supreme Court within two to three years, if the Justices were willing to hear it.

Second, the Court may dismiss the case because of an inability to reach a majority. Justice Kennedy takes that view, and Justice Sotomayor indicated that she might join him. Others on the left may agree. That ruling would leave in place the Ninth Circuit’s decision.

Pray.

You can pray for the Supreme Court to strike down gay marriage. You can pray the justices will fear the wrath of a vengeful god. You can pray your bigoted little heart out. So that's what Traditional Values Coalition president Andrea Lafferty, who has spent every other option, begs you to do in a letter:

Continue reading »

Jake Miller at CBS News writes:

"I could" see a Republican candidate for president in 2016 endorsing same-sex marriage, Republican strategist Karl Rove told ABC's "This Week" on Sunday, further underscoring just how quickly public attitudes on the issue are changing.

In recent years, Rove has very publicly tried to nudge his party closer to the center of public opinion on a variety of topics - a task he has taken on with renewed urgency in the wake of Republicans' 2012 election losses. Given polls showing a quickly increasing base of support for same-sex marriage, it is understandable that the electability-minded Rove could envision a GOP candidate publicly supporting the right of gay couples to get married.

How nice of Rove to try to "nudge his party closer to the center of public opinion," considering he's the architect of George W. Bush's 2004 campaign that used gay marriage as a wedge issue to win reelection. What a piece of shit this guy is—granting Rove the nickname "Turd Blossom" might be the smartest thing Bush has ever done.

This Politico story puts some perspective on the amazing things happening around us politically.

When historians write the story of America’s cultural revolution on gay marriage, March of 2013 may well get its own chapter — the month when the political balance on this issue shifted unmistakably from risky to safe.

But historians will surely also note that this was a movement in which the politicians, for the most part, were mere passengers along for the ride. With very few exceptions, elected officials remain profiles in caution and calculation, while activists and courts are the real engines of change.

It's not often that you can tell that you're living in a moment that will be historically important. It's even rarer when that obvious historical moment is a change for the better. This is one of those moments.

Twitter tipper @solitarymuser alerted me to the existence of this New York Times story about the very few conservative young people who are opposed to gay marriage:

They hear that their cause is lost, that demographics and the march of history have doomed their campaign to keep marriage only between a man and a woman. But the young conservatives who oppose same-sex marriage — unlike most of their generation — remain undaunted.

They identify themselves as part of the “pro-marriage movement” and see themselves at the beginning of a long political struggle, much like the battle over abortion. If they can begin shifting the terms of the debate away from gay rights and toward the meaning of marriage, they say, they have a chance to survive short-term defeats.

Nope! That's not going to happen. The only leverage the anti-gay bigots had was the idea that if gay marriage passed, a bad thing—an amorphous something terrible—would happen to us all. Now that states from coast to coast have approved gay marriage and nothing awful has happened, all their arguments are moot. Making the conversation more about "the meaning of marriage," which presumably means more bullshit Bible talk, isn't going to change that. People are seeing happy married gay couples, and now those who oppose gay marriage aren't just trying to stop something that has never happened before; they're trying to take something that is very real away from people. I'm happy to report that these conservative kids are in for long lifetimes of disappointment.

Some good news for your Monday morning:

Support for gay marriage reached a new high in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, marking a dramatic change in public attitudes on the subject across the past decade. Fifty-eight percent of Americans now say it should be legal for gay and lesbian couples to wed.

We've come a very long way in ten years. As ABC News notes, "in 2004, strong opponents outnumbered strong supporters by a broad 34 percentage points."

Republicans don't get any more mainstream than Ohio Senator Rob Portman. He's so Republican, he was very nearly Mitt Romney's choice for vice president last year, until Romney decided he had to make a big splash and went for Paul Ryan instead. And now, Portman has announced that he's in favor of gay marriage:

Sen. Rob Portman has renounced his opposition to gay marriage, telling reporters from Ohio newspapers yesterday that he changed his position after his son Will told him and his wife, Jane, that he is gay.

Portman, an Ohio Republican, made the stunning revelation just a week before the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments on a 1996 federal law asserting that gay marriage is not legal, a measure that Portman co-sponsored as a member of the U.S. House.

Portman couldn't do the full monty, though. He says gay marriage should still be a state-by-state issue. Still, this is huge news. Portman is as Republican as they come; his name has even come up a few times as a 2016 presidential contender. It'll be interesting to see how Republicans treat this news tomorrow at CPAC now that boring, reliable ol' Portman has backed off the bigot parade.

After the blatant anti-gay bigotry at Arlene's Flowers—the owner refused to serve two gay men getting married—Eryn Hugo walked out. She didn't even give two weeks. Slog tipper Jim says, "someone needs to hire this girl."

Hear, hear.

A flower shop in Richland, Washington, is refusing to do business for a same-sex wedding, teeing up what could become the state's first big test of its anti-discrimination law since voters approved gay marriage last fall. Now you may be thinking: an anti-gay florist? But Arlene's Flowers owner Barronelle Stutzman confirmed in a phone interview this morning that she refused to serve Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed's wedding "because of my relationship with Jesus."

"I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman," Stutzman explained. "If they choose to get married, that's fine, if that is what they believe. I just choose not to be a participant in the wedding."

But Freed, 43, points out that the owner was never asked to "participate" in a wedding she disagrees with—just sell them flowers. "We had no intentions of sending her an invitation to our wedding. We don't want her to walk us down the aisle," he says. The couple has been buying flowers from the shop for the nine years they've been together, but when Ingresoll asked the owner last Friday to provide floral arrangements for their September 19 ceremony, Stutzman refused. Freed was seething the next morning and posted about his experience on Facebook, he says. "After I posted it, I started crying. I said to Rob that I had to do this. We are not wanting to cause some fight or create national debate about this, but it was wrong what happened to us."

And apparently against the law.

This appears to be a cut-and-dried case of illegal activity under Washington State's 2006 anti-discrimination law, which bans discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, says Anne Levinson, a former Seattle Municipal Court judge and a leader of the marriage campaign. "If a business is putting themselves out there as serving the public, then they cannot discriminate," Levinson explains. And the Washington State Attorney General said in a statement that "if they sell wedding flowers to any other opposite sex couple, they must not discriminate against a same-sex couple seeking to buy wedding flowers."

Asked if she thinks she broke the law, Stutzman replied, "Well I guess we will find that out, won't we." Still, it's unclear if Stutzman will even have to defend herself in court.

Continue reading »

Thank God this man got reelected.

LOLGOP is playing slip 'n' slide on the culture's slipperiest slope:

When I tell my friends that I support letting the states decide if Republicans can marry, they often ask me to leave their sauna, unfriend them on Facebook and return all of their lent toiletries. In these instances, I’m reminded that the tradition of marriage is so sacred to many Americans that the notion of Republicans being allowed to marry can offend their very being. “Imagine,” their smoldering eyes seem to be screaming, “My dear, normal child being forced to sit in a classroom being forced to learn about Newt Gingrich’s belief that marriage should only between a man and a woman who doesn’t have cancer.”

I try to tell them that not all Republicans are like Marc Sanford, David Vitter or Herman Cain. Not all Republicans are Rick Perry who has executed hundreds of people, many of them likely guilty of crimes, while making it nearly impossible for thousands of poor children women to find basic health care.

That’s just most Republicans, I say.

I have to admit that LOLGOP makes a persuasive case for Republican marriage. Go read the whole thing.

Here's Jon Huntsman in The American Conservative, telling his fellow Republicans to support gay marriage:

.

..conservatives should start to lead again and push their states to join the nine others that allow all their citizens to marry. I’ve been married for 29 years. My marriage has been the greatest joy of my life. There is nothing conservative about denying other Americans the ability to forge that same relationship with the person they love.

All Americans should be treated equally by the law, whether they marry in a church, another religious institution, or a town hall. This does not mean that any religious group would be forced by the state to recognize relationships that run counter to their conscience. Civil equality is compatible with, and indeed promotes, freedom of conscience.

That's Jon Huntsman, everybody: A good human being, a sensible politician, a smart policy guy, and—according to other Republicans, anyway—the worst Republican on earth.

In a poll billed as the "first public opinion poll of 2013 on marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples," a majority of Americans—"91% of Democrats, 75% of Independents, and 56% of Republican voters"—believe that gay marriage is a Constitutional right. I think this second part of the poll is even more exciting than that:

With nine states now allowing same-sex couples to legally marry and more moving in that direction, voters almost universally believe that it will be legal nationally in the next five to ten years (83%), and 77% believe that it will be legal nationally “in the next couple of years” – regardless of their personal opinion on the issue. This represents a sizeable increase since 2011 when 72% believed it would happen in the next five to ten years, and 67% believed it would happen in “the next couple of years.” While Democratic voters feel most strongly (82% believe it will happen in the next couple years), huge margins of Independents and Republicans feel the same way (73% and 70% respectively).

This is exciting stuff. Go read all the heartening poll results.

The Chicago Mayor's Office celebrated the Illinois Senate voting to approve gay marriage with a very special Valentine.

The Democratic-led Senate delivered a Valentine’s Day victory to gay and lesbian couples today, passing legislation for the first time that would allow same-sex marriage in Illinois.

The gay marriage measure now goes to the House, where the fight is expected to be tougher. Gov. Pat Quinn is expected to sign the bill if it reaches his desk.

It passed by a 34-21 vote with two voting "present." But the Illinois House is more conservative. How tough will it be for this thing to pass the Illinois House, you guys? I poked around real quick looking for a recent breakdown of likely votes, but couldn't find one instantly. Any master analysts of Illinois legislative politics out there?

You can find livestreams of the debate here and here.

But there are holdouts, too. In America's gigantic wedding industrial complex—a $40 billion annual market in the United States—some are bristling at the prospect of taking two dudes as their lawfully wedded clients. In contrast to her own enthusiasm, Garness said, "I think you will hear that there are some officiants who aren't going to do it."

And she's not alone with that story. "I won't lie—I get a lot of calls from couples who are getting turned down at a lot of venues," said Amanda Bogue, who plans weddings at the Majestic Inn and Spa in Anacortes. She was positively thrilled to book gay weddings; she hosted one on New Year's Eve. "But nearly all the calls I've gotten from same-sex couples have said the same thing," she continued, recounting stories of gay clients who got the cold shoulder trying to rent a reception hall. "The reality is that not a lot of people are welcoming it like they should."

CONTINUE READING >>

The Boeing Company has finally agreed to grant pension survivor benefits to same-sex married couples equal to their straight counterparts, according to the union currently hammering out a contract for thousands of the company's technical workers.

That's a retreat for the aerospace giant (which is still locked in sour labor negotiations while its flagship 787 Dreamliner has been grounded by the FAA). As we first reported in November, the Boeing Company told union leaders that, even though Washington State's voters legalized marriage equality, it would continue to deny same-sex couples equal benefits because they weren't required to by federal law.

"We are satisfied that this language protects same sex spouses," says Ray Goforth, executive director of the Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace (SPEEA), IFPTE Local 2001, which represents 23,000 Boeing engineers and technical workers. Most of those employees are in Washington State.

The language negotiated today, which Goforth provided to The Stranger, reads as follows: "Recognizing Boeing’s commitment to equality without regard to sexual orientation, Boeing will extend pension survivor benefits to all spouses, as defined under either State or Federal law whichever defines the same sex person as a spouse."

"This language also protects members if same-sex marriage is recognized at the federal level but made illegal at the state level," Goforth says. For example, benefits could still apply if the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is struck down and marriage equality is legal, "but then a state adopts its own discriminatory statute," he says.

Nearly two months ago, Boeing told SPEEA that it intended to deny the benefits to same-sex married employees, and the company appeared to backpedal under media scrutiny by issuing a statement saying that it would be "taking a closer look" at company policy. One SPEEA member responded by launching an online petition asking Boeing to grant equal benefits to gay married employees, gathering 79,000 signatures.

But SPEEA remains at an impasse over other key aspects the contract negotiations. The Boeing Company, which hasn't yet responded to a request for comment, today rejected previous union offers, which would extend existing contracts, and instead gave its final offer. SPEEA members will vote on that offer in the coming weeks.