ThinkProgress Logo

LGBT

All Living Democratic Presidential Nominees Support Marriage Equality

Conservatives Object To AARP's Support For The 'Homosexual Agenda'

Anti-Gay Legal Group Works Against Its Own Cause

Alyssa

How Pop Culture Influenced Today’s Proposition 8 Ruling

By Alyssa Rosenberg posted from ThinkProgress Alyssa on Feb 7, 2012 at 5:25 pm

If you’ve ever doubted that popular culture influences public opinion and public policy, it’s worth reading today’s decision by Judge Reinhardt striking down Proposition 8, California’s equal marriage rights ban. In it, Reinhardt looks at popular culture across time to trace the particular meaning that marriage has for us, and to explain why the alternatives states have tried to offer gay couples simply aren’t as resonant or powerful to us:

We are excited to see someone ask, “Will you marry me?”, whether on bended knee in a restaurant or in text splashed across a stadium Jumbotron. Certainly it would not have the same effect to see “Will you enter into a registered domestic partnership with me?”. Groucho Marx’s one-liner, “Marriage is a wonderful institution…but who wants to live in an institution?” would lack its punch if the word ‘marriage’ were replaced with the alternative phrase. So too with Shakespeare’s “A young man married is a man that’s marr’d,” Lincoln’s “Marriage is neither heaven nor hell, it is simply purgatory,” and Sinatra’s “A man doesn’t know what happiness is until he’s married. By then it’s too late.” We see tropes like “marrying for love” versus “marrying for money” played out again and again in our films and literature because of the recognized importance and permanence of the marriage relationship. Had Marilyn Monroe’s film been called How to Register a Domestic Partnership with a Millionaire, it would not have conveyed the same meaning as did her famous movie, even though the underlying drama for same-sex couples is no different. The name ‘marriage’ signifies the unique recognition that society gives to harmonious, loyal, enduring, and intimate relationships.

The long-established tropes of popular culture, in other words, help shape our special understanding of marriage. And the weight and persistence of those tropes is part of the reason that creating alternatives to marriage doesn’t work: they don’t carry the same legal rights and responsibilities, and they don’t have the same cultural heft, and can’t for a very, very long time. Representation in culture, in other words, affects the way people and institutions are represented and protected in reality.

I also think it’s worth noting that Proposition 8 prompted a vigorous cultural response as well as a legal one. The No H8 campaign acquired such cachet that participation became near-mandatory in Hollywood, posing for it became a plot point on reality shows, and even Cindy McCain hopped on board in 2010, a clear case of cultural cachet trumping party loyalty. Milk, the Academy Award-winning biopic of slain City Supervisor Harvey Milk was released in the Castro to rally support against Proposition 8, a development that likely contributed to Sean Penn’s Best Actor victory in the role, and Milk screenwriter Dustin Lance Black followed up that movie with 8, a play about the legal challenge to the law that’s become a key tool in celebrity marriage quality fundraisers.

And I think it’s no surprise in the post-Proposition 8 era, we’ve seen an explosion of pop culture depictions of gay California couples, whether it’s Mitch and Cam on Modern Family, to Jules and Nic in The Kids are All Right, to Brady and Cheeks on webseries Husbands. These characters deserve the right to marry because they’re citizens who ought to be entitled to the rights and responsibilities available to their straight counterparts. But these portrayals are also about establishing gay couples as part of a rich comedic and dramatic tradition of flawed people in the process of building more perfect unions.

NEWS FLASH

Santorum Glitter Bombed In Minnesota | An LGBT equality activist glitter bombed GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum during a town hall event in Blaine, Minnesota this afternoon in protest of the former Pennsylvania senator’s dogged opposition to gay and lesbian rights. Last month, Santorum accused glitter bombers of “trying to shut down free speech, anybody who disagrees with them.” “As far as I’m concerned this just shows how intolerant they really are. They’re afraid of the truth,” he explained. Watch it:

NEWS FLASH

Romney Slams Proposition 8 Verdict, ‘Politics And Prejudices’ Of Judges | In 1994, Mitt Romney called for “full equality” for LGBT Americans, but this afternoon his presidential condemned the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal’s ruling against Proposition 8. “Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage. This decision does not end this fight, and I expect it to go to the Supreme Court,” Romney said. “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and, as president, I will protect traditional marriage and appoint judges who interpret the Constitution as it is written and not according to their own politics and prejudices.” As the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent asks, “That note about judges who interpret the Constitution according to their own “prejudices” — is that a reference to the fact that the judge on the case was gay, which was cited by Prop 8 supporters as proof of his bias? Naah, probably not. A major party presidential candidate would never go there.” For more on Romney’s devolution on LGBT equality, click here.

NEWS FLASH

HealthCare.Gov Enables Search for Health Plans with Same-Sex Coverage | HealthCare.gov has altered it’s search filters to enable individuals to search for health care plans by narrowing their results to find plans offering “same-sex coverage” or “domestic partner coverage.” The website, which was established by the Department of Health & Human Services to help promote the Affordable Care Act, promised last year to improve their Health Plan Finder tool in an effort to make health care more accessible to LGBT Americans. “This is an important step that further demonstrates the department’s commitment to ensuring all Americans — including LGBT people — have better access to quality and inclusive health care,” said Michael Cole-Schwarz, spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign. — Fatima Najiy

Related Posts

By Guest Blogger on Feb 7, 2012 at 4:20 pm

Justice

The Ninth Circuit’s Prop 8 Decision: Good News For California, Bad News For Alabama

By Ian Millhiser posted from ThinkProgress Justice on Feb 7, 2012 at 3:35 pm

The most interesting thing about today’s decision striking down California’s unconstitutional Proposition 8 isn’t the fact that supporters of marriage equality won — that result was easy to predict from the judges’ comments during oral arguments more than a year ago. Rather, the most interesting thing about today’s decision is how narrow it is. The court crafted a rationale that applies to Prop 8 and probably only applies to Prop 8. While the opinion is firmly rooted in precedent, it expressly declines to consider the sweeping rationale employed by District Judge Vaughn Walker that is also grounded in precedent and the Constitution.

In 1996, the Supreme Court struck down an anti-gay Colorado constitutional amendment that stripped many gay men and lesbians of their existing legal rights in a case called Romer v. Evans. Today’s opinion relies heavily on Romer, honing in on the fact that Prop 8 stripped gay couples of a right they already enjoyed prior to its enactment — the right to marry a person of their choosing. As the Ninth Circuit explains:

The is not the first time the voters of a state have enacted an initiative constitutional amendment that reduces the rights of gays and lesbians under state law. In 1992, Colorado adopted Amendment 2 to its state constitution, which prohibited the state and its political subdivisions from providing any protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. . . . The Supreme Court held that Amendment 2 violated the Equal Protection Clause because “[i]t is not within our constitutional tradition to enact laws of this sort” — laws that “single out a certain class of citizens for disfavored legal status,” which “raise the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected.” . . .

Proposition 8 is remarkably similar to Amendment 2. Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 “single[s] out a certain class of citizens for disfavored legal status . . . .” Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 has the “peculiar property” of withdraw[ing] from homosexuals, but no others,” and existing legal right — here, access to the official designation of “marriage” — that had been broadly available, notwithstanding the fact that the Constitution did not compel the state to confer it in the first place.

In other words, the court finds a constitutional violation that is unique to the state of California — only California once extended equal marriage rights to gay couples, then yanked them away through a subsequent amendment.

There are two upshots to this California-specific reasoning. The first is that it reduces the likelihood that the Supreme Court will hear the case, although Supreme Court review remains very highly likely. Had the Ninth Circuit applied Judge Walker’s much broader reasoning, the implication would be that every single state has a constitutional obligation to marry gay couples. The justices typically hear cases that present an exceptionally important legal question of national importance, and such a broad decision would certainly qualify. Today’s decision, by contrast, is narrow enough that there is an off chance the justices could pass on it.

The other upshot is that today’s opinion gives an out to the justices in case a majority of them find Prop 8 constitutionally offensive but aren’t yet ready to kick off a political firestorm by ordering Alabama to marry same-sex couples. The opinion is, at its heart, a decision that discretion is the better part of valor, and that the Constitution is best served by banking an easier victory today and putting off the big fight until tomorrow. Gay couples in Alabama — and indeed the Constitution itself — may suffer longer for that decision, but today’s decision also maximizes the likelihood that Proposition 8 will stay dead.

NEWS FLASH

Ron Paul Glitterbombed | Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul was glitterbombed as he exited the stage at a campaign rally in downtown Minneapolis after delivering a speech last night. In town for tonight’s caucus, Paul was accosted before a crowd of supporters by a man going by the name “Charlie McAwesome,” who reportedly shouted “Housing and healthcare are human rights not privileges!” as he showered the congressman in glitter. This would mean every remaining Republican presidential frontrunner — Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Ron Paul — has now been glitter bombed. Watch it:

– Fatima Najiy

By Guest Blogger on Feb 7, 2012 at 3:05 pm

NEWS FLASH

White House Has No Comment On Proposition 8 Ruling | During this afternoon’s press briefing, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney had no immediate response to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling against Proposition 8. “I don’t have a comment on litigation in general and in this litigation to which we are not a party,” he began. “Beyond that, I can say that the President has long opposed, as you know, divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same-sex couples.” Watch it:

Update


Washington Blade’s Chris Johnson presses Carney on the issue and he notes, “these are proactive, deliberate efforts to deny benefits and to be discriminatory”:

BREAKING: Federal Appeals Court Finds Proposition 8 Unconstitutional

By Igor Volsky on Feb 7, 2012 at 12:55 pm

Lead attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies

In a 2 to 1 ruling, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed Judge Walker’s decision declaring that Proposition 8 violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Constitution. From Judge Stephen Reinhardt’s majority opinion:

– All Proposition 8 accomplished was to take away from same-sex couples the right to be granted marriage licenses and thus legally to use the designation of ‘marriage,’ which symbolizes state legitimation and social recognition of their committed relationships. Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow for “laws of this sort.”

– The People may not employ the initiative power to single out a disfavored group for unequal treatment and strip them, without a legitimate justification, of a right as important as the right to marry.

– That designation [of marriage] is important because ‘marriage’ is the name that society gives to the relationship that matters most between two adults. A rose by any other name may smell as sweet, but to the couple desiring to enter into a committed lifelong relationship, a marriage by the name of ‘registered domestic partnership’ does not.

– A law that has no practical effect except to stip one group of the right to use a state-authorized and socially meaningful designation is all the more “unprecedented” and “unusual” than a law that imposes broader changes, and raises an even stronger “interference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected.”

The Court clarified that their ruling is “unique and strictly limited” to California’s Proposition 8. Supporters of the measure can now either ask for a hearing before the full circuit or appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. It’s likely that the courts will maintain a stay on Walker’s ruling, preventing same-sex marriages from taking place.

Read the decision HERE.

Update

Newt Gingrich Tweets out a response: “Court of Appeals overturning CA’s Prop 8 another example of an out of control judiciary.

National Organization for Marriage (NOM): “As sweeping and wrong-headed as this decision is, it nonetheless was as predictable as the outcome of a Harlem Globetrotters exhibition game,” said Brian Brown, NOM’s president. “We have anticipated this outcome since the moment San Francisco Judge Vaughn Walker’s first hearing in the case. Now we have the field cleared to take this issue to the US Supreme Court, where we have every confidence we will prevail.”

The White House doesn’t have a comment on the ruling.

Mitt Romney: “Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage. This decision does not end this fight, and I expect it to go to the Supreme Court. That prospect underscores the vital importance of this election and the movement to preserve our values. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and, as president, I will protect traditional marriage and appoint judges who interpret the Constitution as it is written and not according to their own politics and prejudices.”

NEWS FLASH

Birtherism Makes A Comeback Among Republicans | A new poll from YouGov’s Adam Berinsky shows that the number of people who believe President Obama was born in the United States has dipped to levels below even the weeks leading up to President Obama’s release of his birth certificate last April. The movement appears attributable to Republicans, 37 percent of whom now say that President Obama was not born in the US. That’s 12 points higher than when Republicans were polled just before President Obama released the certificate.

Baltimore County Residents Decry, Belittle Transgender Nondiscrimination Protections

By Zack Ford on Feb 7, 2012 at 11:38 am

The Baltimore County Council is primed to pass a measure protecting transgender people from discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations, but opponents of the change continue to attack transgender people as threats to women’s safety. Many have spoken on both sides of the issue before the council, but at yesterday’s meeting, 15 people spoke against the protections while only one defended them. Here are some of the transphobic thoughts shared at the meeting and with local media this week:

  • Tina Siegert, resident of Catonsville: “I have not had good sleep in the past few weeks because of this bill. The thought of a man being in a [women's] restroom just unnerves me.”
  • William Howard, former councilman: “This bill is a steppingstone in causing children to sin. [Advocates] will eventually come here and ask for more liberties that would be considered outrageous today.”
  • Unidentified organizer against the bill: “We dug and found out this bill is just a monster… As a grandparent and a parent, it’s just very upsetting. There are rape victims who are real concerned about this. They’ve been through it. I mean, you’re going to be in the lady’s room, dressing room, locker room, public shower possibly, and here comes a man dressed as a woman who’s going to undress and you’re undressed in front of him.”
  • Unidentified “ex-transgender” representing Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays: “The confusion it brings to the minds of children. When you think of a little girl in a bathroom and there’s a man. You can tell it’s a man but then has a wig on.”

Opponents of transgender equality regularly smear the community as predators to try to obscure the fact that they are significant victims of discrimination throughout society. Last year’s National Transgender Discrimination Survey found that trans people regularly face workplace harassment (90 percent), employment discrimination (47 percent), housing discrimination (19 percent), homelessness (19 percent), public harassment (53 percent), denial of equal treatment by government officials (29 percent), denial of medical care (19 percent), and poverty rates four times the national average. To define the protections with a myth that bathrooms will somehow become less safe is to completely disregard the entire life experiences of transgender people.

The council is expected to vote on the measure on February 14.

NEWS FLASH

Minnesota Rabbis Oppose Marriage Discrimination Amendment | The Minnesota Rabbinical Association, made up of 35 rabbis representing 15 synagogues and the majority of the state’s Jewish population, has come out against the proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. The rabbis’ resolved that “throughout history, the Jewish community has faced discrimination, and therefore we will not stand by while others are targeted.” Orthodox rabbis did not sign the coalition’s statement.

NEWS FLASH

Gay Activists Interrupt Gingrich, Supporters Boo | Two protesters interrupted Newt Gingrich at a campaign stop in Minnesota last night, challenging, “Why do you support discrimination against gays and lesbians all the time? Serial hypocrisy!” and “No hate in our state, why do you discriminate?” The crowd responded by booing the activists and chanting “Newt!” while Gingrich rebuffed the disruptions, saying, “My guess is it’s 407 to three.” Both activists were escorted out of the room. Watch the first of the two interruptions:

(HT: Towleroad.)

Update

Here’s a clip that more clearly shows the activists speaking out. Note how a woman aggressively grabbed the second protester by the wrists:

Bill O’Reilly Defends Ellen, Says Push To Fire Her Is Reminiscent Of A ‘McCarthy Era Witch Hunt’

By Igor Volsky on Feb 7, 2012 at 9:28 am

Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly stuck up for Ellen DeGeneres last night in a segment about ‘One Million Moms’ proposed boycott of JC Penney, which has named the openly gay comic and talk show host their spokesperson. “If you remember with the McCarthy era, in the 50s and they were trying to hunt down communist sympathizers and not let them work and put them. What is the difference between McCarthy era communist blacklist in the 50s and the million moms saying, ‘Hey, JC Penney and all you other stores don’t you hire any gay people, don’t you dare.’ What is the difference?” O’Reilly asked:

O’Reilly’s guest Sandy Rios defended the boycott and explained that since DeGeneres has “chosen to act out her lesbian lifestyle and marry her partner…people that believe that marriage is between a man and woman and children should not be exposed to propagandized in homosexuality have a moral problem with that.” “It’s disturbing to them. They are trying to say to JC Penney please don’t do that,” she added.

JC Penney has said that it has no plans to break ties with DeGeneres and has issued a statement emphasizing, “we share the same values as Ellen.”

  • Comment Icon

NEWS FLASH

White House Condemns Virginia’s Anti-Gay Adoption Bill | The White House has spoken out against a bill advancing in Virginia’s legislature that would allow private adoption agencies to discriminate based on religious beliefs — specifically against same-sex couples. White House spokesperson Shin Inouye said the following on behalf of President Obama:

While the president does not weigh in on every single action taken by legislative bodies in our country, he has long believed that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals based on their interest in offering a loving home, not based on discriminatory and irrelevant factors. He recognizes that adoptive families come in many forms, and that we must do all we can to break down barriers to ensure that all qualified caregivers have the ability to serve as adoptive families.

The bill has already passed the Virginia House and will soon be heard by the Senate. The Williams Institute reported yesterday that the state could incur great costs for every young person that remains in the foster care system because of the discrimination the provision allows for.

Update

Jeff Caldwell, a representative from Gov. Bob McDonnell’s (R) office, responded to the White House’s comments:

If/when it passes the General Assembly and reaches his desk, he will sign it. The governor has expressed his belief that faith-based adoption agencies should not be required to conduct adoption services that run counter to their religious beliefs, understanding that these organizations conduct a large portion of the state’s adoptions and could cease working to find homes for these children if they feel they cannot do it in accordance with their beliefs.

The Morning Pride: February 7, 2012

By Zack Ford on Feb 7, 2012 at 8:39 am

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.

- The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will determine the fate of Proposition 8 today.

- The Washington Post and New York Times have both written positively about an executive order enforcing LGBT nondiscrimination protections among federal contractors.

- Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad’s administration will appeal a recent court decision allowing both members of a same-sex marriage to be named as legal parents on their daughter’s birth certificate.

- A Utah state Senate committee has tabled a bill that would have created employment protections for the LGBT community.

- A New Hampshire lawmaker is single-handedly funding much of his own campaign against marriage equality.

- Watch as an Atlanta gang brutally assaults a man outside a grocery store as they yell “No faggots in Jack City.”

- Bob Vander Plaats of Iowa’s The FAMiLY LEADER posted a lie-riddled video supporting a boycott of Starbucks for its endorsement of marriage equality, but the video has since been removed.

- Campus Pride congratulates young leaders making a difference on their campuses and in their communities.

- Daniel Radcliffe told Attitude magazine that he supports marriage equality for the sake of same-sex couples’ children.

- Watch a New Jersey Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg (D) talks with her grandchildren about passing same-sex marriage legislation:

  • Comment Icon

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

Sign Up