Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Debate

Jon Wong writes…

In today’s New York Times “Room for Debate” series, where a panel of experts from a certain field answers questions on a current controversial topic or interesting question, the experts discuss the repeal of the Clinton-era Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy (DADT). Aaron Belkin, a professor at UCSB, states what seems to be a newly fascinating way to get rid of DADT:

A forthcoming study by experts in military law, sponsored by the Palm Center, shows that President Obama can circumvent the mess by signing an executive order commanding the military to suspend discharges for homosexuality.

This is certainly an interesting prospect, and one to surely lift the hearts of some progressives, but not so quick. As Aubrey Sarvis of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) notes, an executive order can be quickly reversed by a future administration (as we have no doubt seen with the back and forth EOs dealing with the Mexico City Policy). While it’s certainly true, I see no reason why Obama couldn’t sign an executive order and use it to leverage Congress to do the right thing.

Unsurprisingly, the retired Army Lieutenant Colonel opposes the repeal. He states that openly serving LGBT individuals would “polarize and fragment that critical trust” that exists within cohesive units. I don’t know how he can say that so assuredly, especially considering there is an abundance of anecdotal evidence from current and former members of the military that having someone in their unit be openly gay would be fine and would, in fact, increase trust. He also goes on to imply that retention rates would be severely undermined, yet fails to acknowledge that DADT is costing us millions of dollars and thousands of soldiers, or that  young people are increasingly favorable towards LGBT equality and so it won’t even be an issue in the next few years even if it is an issue now. He then goes on to say that somehow case studies from other countries who have open service aren’t relevant to US policy. His most ludicrous argument, however, is that there are “increased health costs associated with the gay lifestyle.” What? First of all, it isn’t a “lifestyle.” Secondly, I don’t see any increased costs of health insurance for LGBT individuals. Finally, if he’s even remotely referring to the myth that somehow just being gay makes it easier for you to get AIDS, I would like to refer him to the CDC and note that you can just as easily get HIV from vaginal sex.

I’ll end by agreeing with Jon Soltz, the final expert. Repealing DADT is easy. It just takes the political courage and political will of Congress (which really shouldn’t be difficult considering that the vast majority of Americans support the repeal). This means it also takes YOU to go to your e-mail account or cell phone and call your representative and senator to push for a repeal of DADT.

The Procreation Argument

David Musselwhite writes…

I’m moving this discussion from a comment threat to give it full treatment and some room to breathe.

The question we’re considering: Is the fact that homosexuals cannot procreate a sufficiently valid reason to oppose homosexual marriage? I’ll outline my own views here and then edit the post with subsequent rebuttals from anyone who wants to engage in some healthy dialogue.

I’ll start by placing the procreation argument in the wider context of reasons why people get married. I would argue that the creation and raising of children is only one of many reasons people enter into these covenants, and thus the ability to procreate should not be treated as a litmus test for marriage eligibility. These other reasons that people choose marriage include stability and commitment, emotional closeness, intimacy and monogamy, personal significance, recognition by society of a loving and committed bond, and the securing of myriad legal and economic protections, benefits, and obligations which stem from the acquisition of a marriage license.

That having been said, some may still argue that not being able to procreate is sufficient for the denial of marriage eligibility, even in light of those other reasons. My argument now moves into an evaluation of the characteristics of heterosexual marriages. As Vermont Supreme Court Chief Justice Amestoy wrote, “It is (…) undisputed that many opposite-sex couples marry for reasons unrelated to procreation, that some of these couples never intend to have children, and that others are incapable of having children.” As current marriage law stands, the claimed government interest in promoting procreation is not being achieved through the instrument of marriage, as neither the ability nor the willingness to have children is a prerequisite for attaining a marriage license anywhere in this country. As even Justice Antonin Scalia pointed out in his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, marriage of the sterile and the elderly renders the argument that government has a prevailing interest in limiting same-sex marriage due to inability to procreate moot.

Denying same-sex couples the right to marry because they cannot procreate also disregards the reality of many gay relationships. Children from former heterosexual pairings are often raised by same-sex parents, and the legal protections afforded children of heterosexual marriages should be extended to children of homosexual partnerships. The government has a prevailing state interest in strengthening the support system behind every child, and refusing to allow same-sex marriage severely disadvantages these children. Additionally, same-sex couples will continue to have children by way of donor-insemination and surrogacy. Should these children be denied the protections of the state which the marriage of their parents would afford them? Certainly they have done nothing to deserve this second-class citizenship status, nor have their parents. And finally, same-sex marriage will ease the path to adoption for homosexual couples, enlarging the pool of supportive and loving parents for children who need good homes. As many studies have shown the benefits of children living in two-parent homes, surely the government has an interest in placing as many of these children into them as possible. Gay marriage would allow for the furthering of this sound public policy.

EDIT: Knox presents some interesting claims in his comment.

The government protects families and officially sanctions marriage to help families to raise children.

First, the government has more interest in marriage than just the raising of children. Marriage provides for more stable economic conditions for partners, meaning less reliance on public assistance programs. Marriage also, through spousal coverage attained from employers, eases the burden on our private healthcare system and reduces the number of uninsured people, reducing uncompensated care costs to healthcare providers. There are numerous other beneficial outcomes which the government promotes through marriage; to reduce the function of marriage to solely the raising of children is to deny the wider significance and function marital status has attained in our society.

Secondly, if the government’s goal in sanctioning marriage is to support the raising of children, then why are marriages sanctioned in which children are not and will not be present? Additionally, gay families raise children too. Why should the government not support the raising of these children, but support the raising of children of heterosexual marriages? The government should act in the best interests of all children, not just those of heterosexual couples.

What separates gay couples from polygamous couples?

Gay couples are separated from polygamous couples by the simple distinction that gay marriages, like heterosexual marriages, would be between two consenting individuals, whereas polygamous relationships by definition involve more than two. This respects the societal norm of choosing one partner, hopefully whom one loves and values over all others. The two-person household, in either a heterosexual or homosexual iteration, is, in my view, the only marital structure that government should support.

Pooh-poohing this argument by setting up straw men (e.g. “heterosexual couples can be infertile”) does not help the homosexual cause.

I fail to see how this qualifies as a strawman argument. The claim is that the government sanctions marriage to support the creation and raising of children. The counterclaim is that that assertion cannot be true, as marriages are sanctioned that by definition cannot result in the creation and raising of children. (Of course infertile couples can adopt, thus raising children becomes possible and the government should foster this occurrence. Likewise, gay couples can adopt, thus raising children becomes possible and the government should also foster that occurrence.) This is neither a misrepresentation nor an oversimplification of your argument, it’s direct evidence against the claim being made.

Monogamy is not one of the reasons to get married either; my girlfriend and I may well get married some day, but even if that happens I will still like threesomes.

Ha! An interesting position that I hadn’t considered before, and a point well-taken. However, monogamy may still represent a reason to get married to some people. Just as ironclad monogamy is not a singular prerequisite for marriage, nor should procreation be.

LMG rebuts Rep. Brady (R-TX)

David Musselwhite writes…

Representative Kevin Brady of Texas’ 8th District let loose this press release on April 29th in response to the Shepard Act:

Today, Congressman Kevin Brady (R-TX) voted against creating a new federal offense for crimes potentially motivated by the victims sexual orientation, ‘gender identity’ or the ‘perceived’ thoughts of the alleged criminal. “Violent crime against someone simply because of the color of their skin, their religion or because they are gay is repulsive. Punishment should be severe,” said Brady. “But in America, equal justice under the law requires that all victims of violent crime deserve justice.” Brady also noted that there is a genuine concern among local religious leaders that politically-motivated prosecutors could criminalize them simply for teaching their religious beliefs. “Last week we saw the Department of Homeland Security label as national security threats Americans who hold certain beliefs such as states rights, pro-life or secure borders. A government that conducts values profiling could easily use this new law to prosecute the free speech of those with whom they disagree,” said Brady. “I don’t trust the government with these new powers.” Congressman Brady was joined in his concerns by Pastor Reagan Cooksey of Northside Baptist Church in Huntsville, Texas, who said “if this bill is passed into law it will severely hamper the presentation of the truth of God’s word by people who are called to do so.

I’m glad Rep. Brady recognizes that “all victims of violent crime deserve justice.” But what he doesn’t see is that before the Shepard Act, homosexuals weren’t getting equal justice. Law enforcement agencies could be capricious at best or discriminatory at worst in deciding what crimes to investigate. Now the federal government can step in to help solve these crimes and stop the terrorizing of our community. But what I find even funnier is that Brady says he’s uncomfortable with all of the new powers of the government. Where was he when Bush was rapidly expanding powers of unwarranted surveillance? And, to the best of my knowledge, no hate crimes legislation has ever been used to silence peaceful religious expression of beliefs. No matter how wrong they may be, they are still entitled to be aired, and I doubt any but the most exceedingly liberal judge would disagree with that assessment.

In short, this falls back on my argument about Miss California: why are the free speech rights of conservatives so much more precious than the equal protection and equal treatment under the law rights of gays and lesbians? The correct answer: they aren’t, conservatives are just too selfish and bigoted to see that truth, or are too scared to acknowledge it.

Contact Representative Brady today and tell him how you feel about this darling little press release.
Unfortunately to e-mail Congressman Brady, you have to live in his district. Feel free to use the address I invented: 560 Galveston Street, Conroe, TX, 77304.

LMG responds to Orlando Sentinel

David Musselwhite writes…

The following editorial piece appeared in The Orlando Sentinel today:

Free speech seldom is. Just ask wannabe Miss USA Carrie Prejean.

Asked her stance on gay marriage, Miss California refused to retreat safely into politically correct pageant doublespeak: “In my country, and in my family, I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman.”

Freely speaking her mind probably cost Ms. Prejean a crown — which Perez Hilton, the openly gay blogger and pageant judge who posed the question, later insisted he would have ripped from her head had she won. And Ms. Prejean paid dearly afterward, becoming a punching bag for gay-rights proponents.

That’s a shame. Whether or not you agree with Ms. Prejean’s preference for what she called “opposite marriage,” you have to commend the courage it required not to compromise her convictions for a glittery tiara. Ms. Prejean voiced her belief soberly and without malice — unlike Perez, who later hurled an epithet at her on his video blog.

Free speech doesn’t guarantee lock-step agreement. It does guarantee us the right to say what’s on our minds. That’s all Ms. Prejean did.

First of all, I take umbrage to their insistence that her mistake was “refus(ing) to retreat safely into politically correct pageant doublespeak.” Nobody is criticizing her for not being PC, we’re criticizing her for holding bigoted and discriminatory beliefs.

Secondly, why does it matter if Perez Hilton is openly gay? The fact that they feel inclined to mention that reinforces their misguided belief that only gay people care about gay marriage. If another judge has asked that question, would the Sentinel feel compelled to label him as openly straight? I sincerely doubt it.

No, Sentinel editors, I do not “have to commend the courage it required not to compromise her convictions for a glittery tiara.” Had she been Miss Georgia 1950, would I have been required to commend her courage for stating that she believed marriage should not be between opposite races? I will not commend anyone for refusing to treat others equally, nor should you.

Free speech does guarantee her the right to speak her mind. Free speech is a part of the Constitution. The Constitution also provides for full equality under the laws for all people. Why is it not okay when someone allegedly violates the free speech rights of Carrie Prejean, but not when millions of gay people are denied their rightful equality every day?

Star Tribune poll makes me wonder…

David Musselwhite writes…

The Star Tribune out of Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, published results of a recently conducted poll of 1,042 Minnesotan adults which asked for their views on same-sex marriage. Cross-tabulations of their results can be seen here. The results overall aren’t necessarily favorable, with only 25% of respondents supporting same-sex marriage outright. And this from a state that went for Barack Obama by nearly eleven points last November!

But what’s interesting about the poll is that it’s the first I’ve seen that includes the option of letting the judicial system decide. 35% of Minnesotans said that they would prefer to “leave it to the MN Supreme Court.” Given the language of Minnesota’s mini-DoMA, enacted in November 2004 by popular vote and recently interpreted in National Pride at Work, Inc. v. Granholm, I cannot envision any situation in which the court would rule same-sex marriage as legal. I assume that most Minnesotans aren’t as familiar with that decision as I am, but still, one has to believe that at least a small portion of those who chose that option knew that same-sex marriage would never be approved by the Court.

Even more interesting, however, is the fact that 31% of Republican respondents chose that option. Considering all of the Conservative backlash against “judicial activism” and what they deem as “radical courts” imposing same-sex marriage on an unwilling populace (as happened recently in Iowa, and started with Massachusetts’ Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health), one would think that Conservatives would be loathe to choose this option. But they selected it with the same frequency as Democratic respondents! So either Minnesota is just strange (entirely possible), or the most prominent Republican tactic used to decry judges honoring the equality of all citizens isn’t in line with the wishes of the conservative constituency (much more likely).

There are plenty of other promising trends in the poll results, which I encourage you to check out if you’re interested, such as the steady increase in support for same-sex marriage as one moves into younger demographic groups. We’ll get there one day, let’s just hope it’s soon!

Snip-its, part I

David Musselwhite writes…

Sweden’s law legalizing same-sex marriage goes into effect today, making it the sixth European country to legalize either marriage or another status with the full measure of rights and responsibilities as marriage.

A humorous bit from Jay Leno: “It’s happening more and more. The New Hampshire Senate now has passed a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in New Hampshire. So, New Hampshire could go from the Granite State to the Tasteful Marble Countertop State.”

And finally, even though I can’t stand Miley Cyrus as an entertainer, she may actually be a decent human being. She’s taking flak from the American Family Association for some recent comments she made about same-sex marriage in light of the Perez Hilton/Carrie Prejean tiff. “Everyone deserves to love and be loved and most importantly smile,” Cyrus stated, as unicorns danced on rainbows around her saintly head. “Jesus loves you and your partner and wants you to know how much he cares! That’s like a daddy not loving his little boy because he’s gay and that is wrong and very sad!” Considering how much sway Hannah Montana has with children, maybe some of her attitudes will seep through to parents? One can only hope.

Blue Ducks in Love

Two blue ducks at the West Sussex Bird Sanctuary are raising conservative feathers at the American Spectator.

David Musselwhite writes…

An incredibly sweet story out of England this week, where two of the last remaining blue ducks in England have fallen in love. The only obstacle that presents to mating, however, is that the two ducks are male.

Ben and Jerry were brought in to hopefully raise a last clutch with the female Cherry, but plans went awry when Ben and Jerry started directing mating whistles at one another. They now live in a separate enclosure, and Cherry doesn’t seem upset by this at all. (Who knows, perhaps she is a lesbian?)

This story gets really interesting when the American Spectator decides to comment, however:

“According to a birder who has watched the male ducks closely, ‘They stay together all the time, parading up and down their enclosure and whistling to each other as a male might do with a female he wants to mate.’ But the gay ducks, despite being very amorous, cannot mate, so there will be no offspring. Even if homosexual marriage were licit in the West Sussex bird sanctuary there would be no offspring, just confusion.”

Yet again the conservative anti-marriage-equality crowd equates marriage with the ability to reproduce. As I have stated before, and will continue to reiterate, nowhere in the country is the production of offspring required in order to attain a marriage license. Nowhere are marriages invalidated by law for failure to produce offspring. And nowhere should gay couples be denied the right to marry because they cannot reproduce; the government has more interest in fostering stable, loving, committed relationships than just the production of children, especially in the face of an increasingly serious overcrowding problem on our fair planet.

In short, American Spectator, go duck yourself.

The Lies Conservatives Told America, part I

David Musselwhite writes…

This post picks apart the inescapably flawed logic of an editorial opinion in The National Review’s May 4, 2009 edition entitled “PUBLIC POLICY — Marriage and Civilization,” the full text of which can be found here.

Few social goods will come from recognizing same-sex couples as married.

All it takes to refute this point is to identify some social goods which would derive from same-sex marriage. Firstly, universities which offer discounted or free tuition to spouses of current students or employees would be required to offer same-sex couples that same treatment. I doubt marriage equality opponents would argue that a more highly-educated workforce doesn’t qualify as a social good; making it easier to invest in education is undoubtedly a valid public policy to advance. Additionally, same-sex marriage would allow for stepparent or joint adoptions, providing children with caring and supportive environments which will foster their mental and physical development. Surely widening the pool of potential qualified adoptive parents is a “social good.”

In any case, the encouragement of commitment among homosexuals is simply not as important a goal as the encouragement of lasting heterosexual bonds.

Simply because of a fact of our biological endowment, we are not entitled to the same socially-provided supports for our relationships. By this logic it is valid to treat any inherent characteristic seen as repugnant (race, gender, disability, etc.) as the dividing line between those who deserve government benefits and those who do not. Our society has long-held this kind of discrimination invalid, and should continue to do so in the case of homosexuality.

Same-sex couples want their unions recognized by governments in large part as a symbolic affirmation of their equivalence, at least for public purposes, with traditional married couples. As individuals, of course, homosexuals are the equal of any other citizens in their rights to vote, own guns, speak freely, and so forth.

I do not need a marriage license to tell me that I am the equivalent of every other citizen of the United States; the Constitution guarantees me that. I am not, however, currently treated as an equal under the law. To cite three areas in which I do have equal rights does not magically transform me into a wholly equal being under the full purview of the law. I am not allowed to marry, which means I am treated unequally, even in light of the promise of our founding document that I and all others should be so. That is the bottom line.

Both as a social institution and as a public policy, marriage exists to foster connections between heterosexual sex and the rearing of children within stable households.

Marriage does not currently function to foster heterosexual sex; indeed, there are many abstinent same-sex marriages, whether by choice or by unfortunate animosity.
Marriage does not connect heterosexual sex and the rearing of children; indeed, marriage is in no way required for children to be conceived, nor are infertile couples prevented from the full measure of rights and responsibilities associated with marriage.
Heterosexual marriage is not the only way to foster the rearing of children within stable households; indeed, allowing supportive and financially able same-sex couples to adopt children would further this goal. Denying homosexuals the right to marry is weakening the very public policy interest which the authors claim to hold so dear.

Silent No More.

As the right-wing religious machine spews more bigotry and hatred, most recently in the form of NOM television ads and misleading claims about the recently-passed hate crimes legislation, I have decided to become a more vocal advocate for the gay community. Being silent is getting us nowhere. So, here I am, and get ready to hear my voice, because I am a LoudMouthGay.