The tides of change are lapping at another shore.

May 7, 2009 by Pastor Dan.

This is completely unprecedented, isn’t it? New Hampshire is on its way to joining its neighbors in extending civil rights to lesbian and gay couples who wish to marry, and truly creating the Lavender States of America. 

On Wednesday, May 6, the bill legalizing same-gender marriage passed the New Hampshire legislature, although narrowly. Democratic Governor John Lynch has five days to sign or veto the bill or it will become law anyway. As of this morning he hasn’t indicated what he will do. According to the Union Leader, all eyes are on Lynch. Associated Press says Lynch promises to make the best decision for the people of the state.

New Hampshire is completely surrounded by other states and Canada where gay marriage is legal or soon will be. (Tuesday’s breakthrough in Maine does not take effect until August 4; one news commentary said not until mid-September, but the law says 90 days not 120. Opponents are gearing up now.)

Is there political pressure on other states where action has been expected? My suspicion is that gay-positive activists are taking a gentle hand, knowing that time is on our side. The process is already underway in New York and New Jersey. Why push? Perhaps there will be less backlash (”wedlash”?) if progress there now slows and takes its time.

NGLTF’s “Recognition Map” of the status as of May 6. Download it here.

Of course, anti-gay voices in Maine are already threatening to overturn the legislature through a ballot veto, as early as November. (Would that be a special election? Does everybody have a ballot every November? And May and March and June and every time somebody wants to storm the electorate with their issue? This stuff is time-consuming to track.)

But what about the left coast of America? California is still waiting for its own Supreme Court. The clock is really ticking now, since a decision is “due” no later than June 4, or just 28 days from now.  Meet in the Middle 4 Equality is prepared to march, rally and carry candles to Fresno, California the Saturday after the California Court announces its decision.

My husband and I have been discussing the issues which our court must decide. In either case, whether they uphold Proposition 8 because it amended the constitution, or turn it down because it violates equal protection and the spirit of justice in the constitution, it seems that internal conflict might be a legal case worthy of the U.S. Supreme Court. Either side, pro– or anti-gay marriage, could presumably appeal the California decision over Proposition 8, but that would be a very slow and expensive process. In the meantime, today’s Los Angeles Times had a front page story by Jessica Garrison and Maura Dolan predicting that the repeal of Proposition 8 will be back on the ballot as early as 2010 (June? November? Aaaaarrrgh!) So does ABC News with a story by Teddy Davis, and the New York Times in a story by Jesse McKinley.

But to say that “time is on our side” is a simplism to be wary of. Timing, rather than the ticking of time itself, is critical for social change. If the California Court upholds Proposition 8, it will most likely not derail legislative or court changes in other states, although it might give momentary energy to right-wingnuts trying to fight change on all fronts (didn’t they learn anything from the Bush administration about fighting too many wars at once, or do they have unlimited budges for their histrionics and aggression?) After all, many non-Californians already see this state as a granola bowl–filled with fruits, nuts and flakes. Intyelligent people can be California-phobic because we frequently suffer whiplash (or again,”wedlash”), being hit from behind by extremists.

But if the California Court overturns Proposition 8, it is also possible that a long drawn-out appeal to the federal Court would give pause to other states on their own marriage statutes. If appealed to the U.S. Supremes, even before the case is presented or argued, the general perception would be this is now a nationwide issue, so local initiative could, therefore, be trumped federally.

Maybe. In the meantime, a federal marriage amendment (banning gay marriage forever and ever) seems to have less traction now than two years ago. With regard to that, time is on our side, because the more couples who wed and live and watch each day’s sunrise without social or cosmic catastrophe, the more the popular view of lesbian and gay couples shifts toward a “live and let live” view. And is time progresses, more issues and more expressions of LGBT people and their lives slide into that “live and let live” column.

Yes, Virginia, there is such a thing as a “slippery slope.” And, as reactionary as the wingnuts want to be, a slippery slope is impossible to defend. The slippery slope of social change, right now, are the shores of New England. But in 28 days the tides may shift.

—Pastor Dan Hooper, Los Angeles

Posted in Lesbian/Gay Marriage, LGBT Rights, History, Public Affairs | Print | No Comments »

There goes New England, there goes marriage!

May 7, 2009 by Pastor Dan.

Okay, I know this is way too much marriage talk for a general LGBT/Christian blog. BUT, well, Maine just made New England’s tipping point on gay marriage, by imitating Iowa, … or was it Vermont, … or California?

Maine’s Gov. John Baldacci signed the legislation on Wednesday that was passed by the state House only the day before (and previously by the Senate). It had been up in the air whether he would sign or not. According to 365Gay.com,

Up until he put his pen to the bill, it was anyone’s guess whether he would sign or veto it. Baldacci had said previously he had not made up his mind on gay marriage. Had he vetoed it, the bill likely would have died. It received final approval in the Senate by a slim majority, not enough to override a veto.

As the governor appeared to be equivocating, same-sex marriage advocates delivered more than 10,000 postcards asking him to support the legislation.

So Maine becomes the second state to legalize same-gender marriage by action of the legislature. And again, the opponents who have loudly cried about “judicial activism” have to remain silent on this one.

For example, Maggie (National Organization for Marriage) Gallagher’s testimony before a U.S. Senate subcommittee in March 2004, which argued for a federal marriage amendment (to disenfranchise us) was prepared for a hearing linked to “judicial activism.” Gallagher’s thinking is at best flimsy whenever she sounds off, and I applaud John Corvino’s May 1 opinion piece “Gay marriage and the bigot card” for exposing some of this.

But Maine may be more like Iowa because, although same-gender marriage became legal by action of the Supreme Court, a constitutional amendment to reverse the court’s decision is also unlikely. A constitutional amendment in Maine apparently requires the action of the legislature itself—the same legislature that just passed the law—but by a 2/3 vote in each house, and then only with subsequent ratification by the voters. And please note (365gay.com) “The new law repeals Maine’s 12-year old so-called Defense of Marriage law, which bars same-sex marriage. Under the new law, churches are not compelled to conduct same-sex weddings if it would be inconsistent with their doctrine.” Observers think it is highly unlikely that the Maine legislature would reverse itself any time soon.

But Maine is also like California, because with enough signatures, according to Ballotpedia, the voters themselves could put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to overturn same-gender marriage (see Maine’s constitution, Article VI, Part 3. Section 18). And what is particularly noteworthy is that instead of having to gather 1 million signatures as in California, it would apparently require only 55,000 signatures.

The Maine Marriage Alliance, a conservative consortium of mainly churches and individuals, are pushing such an amendment, but they don’t appear to be a formidable group. As of Wednesday, May 6, their web site is completely ignorant of the new law. And interestingly, there is no religious-based argument against gay marriage. The Pastor’s Portal is a private, secured site.

Maine’s situation is also like California in another regard: the law signed May 6 doesn’t take effect for 90 days, meaning that the first legal marriage would not happen until August 4. I don’t know if there is enough time beginning now to gather and qualify 55,000 signatures to put a repeal on a ballot in November. If not, Maine voters could face a November 2010 constitutional amendment to undo what the legislature has done. In either case, there will almost certainly be hundreds of same-gender couples who legally wed before any voter backlash could stop the process.

Certainly the more couples who wed, and the more days that pass, and the more states that legalize gay marriage, will only add to that sense that gay/lesbian marriage is inevitable.

As a final observation, I was surprised and amused that the National Organization for Marriage would put (at least for today) a Carrie Prejean video in a pop-up box in front of their site.

I wasn’t going to go there, but: it is fascinating that a woman who happily commoditizes her own breast-enhanced body should become the poster child for a NOM advertisement “protecting” marriage “and the Faith Communities that Sustain It.” According to an Associated Press story on May 6, “The directors of the Miss California USA pageant are looking into whether title holder Carrie Prejean violated her contract by working with a national group opposed to same-sex marriage and by posing semi-nude when she was a teenage model.” If this kind of thing is the moral high ground, Ms. Gallagher, then “traditional marriage” is doomed, and it won’t be the lesbians, gay men, court justices or state legislators who doomed it.

— Pastor Dan Hooper, Los Angeles

Posted in Lesbian/Gay Marriage, Sex, LGBT Rights, Public Affairs | Print | No Comments »