ThinkProgress Logo

LGBT

NEWS FLASH

New Oscar Producer Has Own Anti-Gay Controversy | After Brett Ratner stepped down from producing the Oscars after making homophobic comments, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences announced that Brian Grazer would replace him. Unfortunately, Grazer has his own baggage of promoting anti-gay language. He produced this year’s Vince Vaughn/Kevin James comedy, The Dilemma, which featured a joke using “gay” as a pejorative. GLAAD spoke out about how insensitive (and unnecessary) the joke was when it appeared in the film’s trailer, but it was not cut from the film.

Alyssa

The Shame Of Joe Paterno

Towards the end of the immortal baseball movie Bull Durham, Annie Savoy reflects that “Baseball may be a religion full of magic, cosmic truth, and the fundamental ontological riddles of our time, but it’s also a job.” What she meant is that for the men who play it, the game can be mundane, difficult, frustrating, and an obligation more than it is a joy. But watching the story of Penn State football coach Joe Paterno’s insufficient action when he learned that his former defensive coordinator and coach emeritus of the team had assaulted a child in Penn State facilities unfold, culminating in his firing late last night, I’ve been reflecting on another sense of that statement. No matter how important the work of sports is, whether economically to schools and regions, or emotionally to fans, it’s work. And if you’re incapable of performing it in ways that comport with the law, the ethics of your profession, and basic decency, it should be totally uncontroversial for you to be dismissed.

Jerry Sandusky raped a child in Penn State football facilities. It took three and a half weeks for Sandusky to be banned from the locker room after he was caught committing sexual assault. According to the Grand Jury report on the charges against Sandusky, Paterno didn’t even attend a follow-up meeting on Sandusky’s conduct after the witness to that rape reported it to him. Even if someone under Paterno was responsible for handing out and taking back locker room keys and the rights that go with them, Paterno has some responsibility for the facilities that were a part of his program, and for whether or not the team continues to give offices, facilities access, and honorifics associated with the program to people who are no longer staff or players. You’re not providing a professional environment for your players if your locker room is a place where children are being abused. You’re not providing a safe environment for your players if you let a sex offender in their locker room, even if he’s a pedophile and unlikely to target any of them. And ESPN’s Chris Fowler made the point last night that by not encouraging or directly helping the witness go to the police, Paterno sent the wrong message to his graduate assistant — and to people everywhere — that the honorable thing to do is to keep quiet to protect powerful perpetrators, rather than to report crimes perpetrated against particularly vulnerable victims.

And yet, people seem furious at the Penn State Board of Trustees for doing the decent, professional thing and firing Paterno. Some Penn State students rallied in support of Paterno at his house yesterday (others with an appropriate sense of events held a vigil for Sandusky’s victims), unaware that the sister of one of Sandusky’s victims attends school with them. When Penn State Board of Trustees Vice Chairman John Surma faced reporters after the Board’s decisions, some of the questions were vituperative. One wanted to know why the Board couldn’t let Paterno ride out the season and finish his career “with a little bit of dignity.” Another wanted to know what Surma had to say about “the perception that the Board has been gunning for Coach Paterno since ’04″ and was simply using the scandal to push out someone they unfairly disliked. And I understand how shocking it must be to have your trust and love for a man who helped you win a lot of football games and appeared to have an appropriate sense of the balance between sports and academics betrayed. But Joe Paterno’s right to do exactly what he pleased makes the fact that he didn’t do more than fulfill his minimum legal obligations particularly distressing, and like all the other people responsible here (and there are many) seems to me, I think he’s lost the right to dictate the terms of his retirement.

Joe Paterno’s right to his dignity is not more valuable than the right of children not to be assaulted by adults.

Joe Paterno’s right to employment if he can’t perform up to standards is not more important than the right of Penn State to run a safe campus.

If Joe Paterno’s highest priority is truly providing quality education, his loyalty to those values should have been higher than his loyalty to a man whose conduct represents a hideous rot in those values. You only stand for what you say you represent if you stand for it when it’s hard.

I cannot possibly imagine a cause so mighty and righteous that it outweighs shrugging aside child abuse and child assault. Certainly not football. College sports may be a business with deeply engaged consumers. But it’s still just a business. And Joe Paterno is just a man, subject to the normal rules of accountability and decency. These are the basic facts of which moral educations are made. Some of us, apparently, need remedial lessons.

NEWS FLASH

First Openly Gay American Soccer Player Comes Out | David Testo has become the first openly gay professional soccer player in the United States. He told the CBC: “I really regret not have coming out publicly earlier… Living the life of a professional athlete and being gay is incredibly hard. It’s like carrying around a secret and never actually being allowed to be yourself.” He admitted he has thought about quitting athletics before and described how uncomfortable he felt receiving an MVP award and not being able to recognize his partner. Watch the full interview, in which Testo gets choked up talking about his struggles:

(HT: Towleroad.)

Debunking The ‘Marriage Equality Costs Too Much’ Myth

At this morning’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Republicans argued that extending federal benefits to same-sex couples would increase spending during a period of large federal deficits and economic turmoil and urged Democrats to refocus their priorities on jobs and the economy. “Social security is beginning to run a deficit,” Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) warned just moments before the Committee repealed DOMA and approved the Respect for Marriage Act. “Your bill would erode the fiscal soundness of Social Security,” Grassley charged. “Increasing the number of survivor and other benefit recipients would impose new costs on Social Security.”

Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) responded that same-sex couples paid into the program in the same way that opposite-sex coupled had and argued that it would be unfair to deny them an equal benefit. “Fair is fair, they paid. It should be allowed,” he said. “I think if you’re paying the taxes, you’re fulfilling the obligations, you ought to get the same benefits as anybody else.” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), the lead sponsor of the legislation to eliminate DOMA, added that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that “on net, those impacts would improve the budget’s bottom line to a small extent.” From the 2004 report:

In some cases, recognizing same-sex marriages would increase outlays and revenues; in other cases, it would have the opposite effect. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that on net, those impacts would improve the budget’s bottom line to a small extent: by less than $1 billion in each of the next 10 years (CBO’s usual estimating period). That result assumes that same-sex marriages are legalized in all 50 states and recognized by the federal government.

Watch the exchange:

The report also found that marriage equality could slightly increase revenue “by less than $400 million a year.” “Those amounts represent less than 0.1 percent of total federal revenues,” it concluded.

NEWS FLASH

Colbert Takes On Michigan’s Republican Bullies | Last night, Stephen Colbert used his “The Wørd” segment to take on the Michigan Republicans who recently sabotaged an anti-bullying bill by creating a religious exemption for anti-gay bullies. Colbert points out that the bill makes “bullying just fine, so long as you get a permission slip from God.” Under the proposed law, Colbert made the case that the Book of Leviticus would give bullies license to torment not only students who are gay, but classmates who have tattoos, who wear clothes woven of two different fabrics, or who are on their period or who have touched someone who is. Watch it:

(HT: Equality Matters.)

Justice

After 18 Months Of Delays, First Openly Gay Court of Appeals Nominee Asks Obama To Withdraw Nomination

Edward DuMont

Edward DuMont is an outstanding attorney. A former Supreme Court advocate in the U.S. Solicitor General’s office and later a senior DOJ official responsible for computer crime, e-commerce and privacy, DuMont held a prestigious clerkship with conservative superjudge Richard Posner, and was voted one of the best appellate attorneys in the country in six different annual surveys of his peers. After President Obama nominated DuMont to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, three former Republican Solicitors General endorsed his nomination.

DuMont is also openly gay — indeed he would have been the first openly gay federal appeals judge in American history if he had been confirmed. Sadly, that will not happen. In a recently released letter, DuMont asked President Obama to withdraw his nomination — citing the nearly limitless ability of just a few senators to shut down the confirmation process:

Although I was first nominated more the 18 months ago, the Senate Judiciary Committee has not held a hearing on my nomination. My understanding is that this inaction results from opposition on the part of one or more members of the Committee minority. While I regret this, I also recognize that any degree of opposition can be enough, as a practical matter, to prevent action by the full Committee or the Senate. Given the passage of time, that appears to be the case here.

Under these circumstances, drawing the process out further does not seem either sensible for me or fair to the Federal Circuit, which has important work to do and deserves to be able to address it with a full complement of active judges. Accordingly, I respectfully request that you withdraw my nomination at this time.

DuMont is correct to be concerned about the dysfunction that now rules our Senate. By this point in their presidencies, both of President Obama’s two predecessors had confirmed 50 more lower court judges than have been confirmed under Obama. In today’s filibuster-driven Senate, unambiguously qualified nominees with impressive bipartisan support languish until their nominations finally die of old age.

Worse, while DuMont’s opponents in the Senate have refused to even explain why they believe he is unsuited for the bench, it is difficult to ignore the fact that DuMont is not the first openly gay nominee to receive questionable treatment from Senate Republicans. Last month, the GOP caucus suddenly decided to oppose lesbian Judge Allison Nathan’s nomination to a federal court in New York after two anti-gay group announced they were opposing her. Like DuMont, Nathan is an exception attorney — a former Supreme Court clerk, even — and had broad bipartisan support. Indeed, many of the Republican Senators who voted against her confirmation on the Senate floor first voted for her in committee.

In other words, it’s difficult to escape the conclusion that Senate Republicans are holding gay nominees to a different standard than everyone else.

NEWS FLASH

Senate Judiciary Committee Advances Respect For Marriage Act | Moments ago, in a vote of 10 to 8, the Senate Judiciary Committee reported out the Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and allow the federal government to provide benefits to couples in same-sex marriages. It’s not clear when the Senate will take up the measure. Watch it:

Update

A White House spokesman just issued the following statement: “President Obama applauds today’s vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee to approve the Respect for Marriage Act, which would provide a legislative repeal of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act.” “The President has long believed that DOMA is discriminatory and has called for its repeal. We should all work towards taking this law off the books. The federal government should not deny gay and lesbian couples the same rights and legal protections afforded to straight couples.”

Al Franken Fact Checks Chuck Grassley: Marriage Has Evolved Over Time

This morning, in a vote of 10 to 8, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and allow the federal government to provide benefits to couples in same-sex marriages. During the hearing, Minnesota Senator Al Franken (D) fact-checked Sen. Chuck Grassley’s (R-IA) claims that marriage has always been between a man and a woman by providing a history lesson on the evolution of the institution:

FRANKEN: I just believe you misstated the history of marriage. Marriage has not existed as a union between one man and one woman for thousands of years in every culture. In many cultures, men have been able to marry many women and young girls. For centuries, women have been treated as chattel in marriage. Further, if the religious purpose for marriage is procreation, why would we sanction marriage between an 89 year-old widower and an 80 year-old widow? I just think we need to be accurate when we talk about the history of marriage, the history of man and woman, the history of our institutions.

Watch it:

The act, which has 31 co-sponsors, now moves to the Senate, where it has yet to be scheduled for a vote.

Republicans: Only Straight Couples Form ‘Stable Families’, Marriage Equality Is Too Expensive

Republicans spoke out against repealing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) this morning, as the Senate Judiciary Committee marked up the Respect for Marriage Act, legislation that would repeal DOMA and offer federal benefits to same-sex couples married in states that recognize their relationships. The GOP maintained that same-sex couples have not lost any rights because their relationships had never been recognized by the federal government in the first place and claimed that the measure would undermine states rights because the federal government could recognize same-sex relationships that are illegal in some states. Democrats countered that marriage policy would still be left to the states, but that the Act would guarantee that the federal government treat all marriages equally.

Below are highlights form the hearing:

– Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) argued that only opposite-sex couples promote “stable families, good environments for raising children and religious beliefs.” He also added, “the Fourteenth Amendment would probably never have been ratified if the public understood it to provide for same-sex marriage.”:

– Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) explained that extending federal benefits to same-sex couples would cost too much. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) responded by arguing that ending discrimination based on gender or race also increased spending and added, “we can afford to be a free nation whatever the cost may be.” ”

– Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) argued that marriage equality will force the government to recognize and provide benefits to relationships “between two sisters”:

As Maryland Prepares For Marriage Equality Push, Catholics Complain Of ‘Religious Liberties’ Infringement

The Maryland Catholic Conference has called upon its followers to stand up for “religious liberty” by opposing efforts to legalize same-sex marriage in the 2012 legislative session. In a statement released this week, the bishops suggest that marriage equality conflicts with “nature” and “infringes upon religious liberties”:

For all the changes, for better or for worse, that marriage and the family have experienced in recent decades, one factor has remained constant: Marriage is between one man and one woman. It is based not on a social prejudice, but rather on the recognition that the union of a man and woman is the only possible source – and their married relationship the best possible environment – for the children who will become society’s next generation. Efforts to alter society’s longstanding definition of marriage distort this important reality. Moreover, and despite protestations to the contrary, they infringe upon the religious liberties of individuals and institutions that acknowledge heterosexual marriage not only as a fact of nature but also as an article of faith.

The bishops cite three examples of such “infringement”: 1) the New Mexico photographer who was sued for not photographing a same-sex ceremony, 2) the New Jersey Methodist pavilion that lost its tax-exempt status for not renting to a same-sex couple for their wedding, and 3) DC Catholic Charities, which voluntarily shut down rather than provide adoption services to same-sex couples. These are the only examples they have, and religious conservatives use them over and over even though they’ve been thoroughly debunked: none of them have to do with marriage equality. In all three cases, unlawful discrimination was taking place based on people’s sexual orientation. Both the Methodist Pavilion and DC Catholic Charities were subsidized by the state but expected that they could still treat same-sex families as second-class citizens in public services. They have the right to believe what they will about same-sex couples, but they do not have the right to perform state-sanctioned discrimination.

Marriage equality is all about giving same-sex couples the opportunity to openly declare their love and commitment to each other and be recognized by society the same way all families should be. No Catholic will be forced to perform a same-sex marriage or participate in one either. Rather than trying to support same-sex families, Catholic leaders would prefer to use the same self-victimizing tactics as the National Organization for Marriage to try to garner sympathy while they proliferate stigma. If polling of Catholics at large is any indication, it won’t work.

NEWS FLASH

REMINDER: Cain’s ‘Princess Nancy’ Remark Not An Isolated Incident | Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain, who has spent the last two weeks denying multiple sexual harassment and assault charges, was roundly criticized in last night’s debate for referring to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) as “Princess Nancy.” Cain was contrite afterward, saying, “That was a statement I probably should not have made.” However, on his radio show prior to running for president, Cain regularly referred to Pelosi by the same chauvinistic moniker. Listen to one example of Cain deriding “Princess Nancy” from Aug. 11, 2010 (relevant portion at 2:05):

Rhode Island’s Civil Unions Law Costing State Millions

Only 14 couples have entered into civil unions in Rhode Island since the law passed this summer, but approximately 600 same-sex couples traveled to states like Massachusetts to be married instead, WPRI reports. Rhode Island recognizes same-sex marriages from out of state and its marriage inequality laws may be draining more than $8 million out of the state economy. Watch the local news report:

Gay couples leaving RI to get married: wpri.com

Interestingly, a new Williams Institute study out today confirms that “same-sex couples are marrying at higher rates than they are entering civil unions or other legally recognized partnerships, particularly when the options are first introduced by a state.” “Our findings are consistent with other research showing that couples value marriage more for its social meaning than for its practical benefits,” M.V. Lee Badgett, Williams’ Research Director explains. The study found that in the three states that track residency among same-sex couples who marry, “60 percent of same-sex couples marrying are from other states.”

  • Comment Icon

The Morning Pride: November 10, 2011

Welcome to The Morning Pride, ThinkProgress LGBT’s 8:45 AM round-up of the latest in LGBT policy, politics, and some culture too! Here’s what we’re reading this morning, but let us know what you’re checking out as well. Follow us all day on Twitter at @TPEquality.

- Today the Senate Judiciary Committee will vote on the Respect for Marriage Act, but first there are three amendments to address, two of which have nothing to do with repealing the Defense of Marriage Act.

- The Human Rights Campaign has rallied several governors and mayors to show their support for repealing DOMA.

- Some transgender protesters have had to abandon Occupy Wall Street over concerns for their safety.

- A Chicago man has testified in detail about the brutal gay-bashing he experienced.

- A new Williams Institute study shows that same-sex couples value the social significance of getting married over the access to rights provided by civil unions.

- Researchers at George Mason University found that bisexual teenagers faced a higher likelihood for depression, and that bisexual women felt “invisible” and were more likely to be depressed than women who are straight or gay.

- Why transparency is important in Minnesota’s fight over same-sex marriage.

- A group of LGBTQ Friends and Allies participated in the Anoka Halloween parade in suicide-riven Anoka-Hennepin School District for the first time this year.

- Basic Rights Oregon will not pursue a ballot question to legalize same-sex marriage.

- Three young people were kicked off a Spokane bus for talking about bisexuality.

- The Uganda man who murdered gay activist David Kato has been sentenced to 30 years in prison.

  • Comment Icon

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up