When the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Edith Windsor late last year, they set a bold, long-awaited precedent. Not only did they declare that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, but for the first time the court decided that any law that limits the rights and freedoms of gay and lesbian Americans must be subject to “heightened scrutiny.” Basically, if the government passes a law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, there had better be a legitimate justification for doing so.

Speaker Boehner and House Republicans, who are poised to spend $3 million to defend the Defense of Marriage Act at the Supreme Court, have struggled to find reasons why the federal government must treat same-sex couples differently from other couples. Among the many is the ability for heterosexual couples to accidentally have children:

The link between procreation and marriage itself reflects a unique social difficulty with opposite-sex couples that is not present with same-sex couples — namely, the undeniable and distinct tendency of opposite-sex relationships to produce unplanned and unintended pregnancies.

For gay couples to have children, they argued, “substantial advance planning is required.”  It makes no intellectual or intuitive sense that the government should care about limiting marriage as a union between one man and one woman because gays and lesbians cannot accidentally procreate.

Clearly, there is no compelling government interest in preventing two people of the same sex from marrying. What’s more — according to a report released yesterday by the Center for American Progress, in collaboration with OutServe-SLDN — the Defense of Marriage Act undermines real national interests, namely our security and military readiness.

There are nearly 100 benefits which are denied to same-sex military spouses as a result of the Defense of Marriage Act, such as housing and relocation assistance, healthcare, and even survivor benefits and burial privileges.  These benefits programs not only honor the sacrifice of these families and equip them with the financial support they need to face challenges specific to a military lifestyle, but they also maximize our military readiness. According to a 2012 Department of Defense report, “’Without adequate compensation, the nation would be unable to sustain the all-volunteer force, in the size and with the skill sets needed to support the missions called for in the national security strategy.”

Read more

Our guest bloggers are Eryn Sepp, Special Assistant to the Chair and Counselor at the Center for American Progress and a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Katie Miller, Special Assistant to the LGBT Research and Communications Project at the Center.

Robert Gagnon is a close ally of the National Organization for Marriage, including being a regularly featured speaker at its national conference for college students; he’ll be there again this year. But Gagnon is also an outspoken advocate of harmful ex-gay therapy, and has helped to found the new ex-gay splinter group called the Restored Hope Network. Restore Hope broke away from Exodus International when that group’s president, Alan Chambers, admitted that there is no “cure” for homosexuality.

Equality Matters follows Gagnon closely, and noticed this week some outrageous comments he made on Facebook about gay-straight alliances (GSA). Chambers suggested in a recent video that if Christian young people attend a school that has a GSA, they should attend its meetings to learn and listen from those who utilize such a resource. Gagnon thinks they might as well attend a “Klu Klux Klan” [sic] or Nazi Skinhead group or one that advocates for “women abusers”:

GAGNON: More ridiculousness by Alan Chambers of Exodus (will it ever end?): Christian young people should respond to a “gay-straight alliance” in public school by going to such meetings “not to speak but to serve and listen and to offer to help, finding common ground.” There is no “speaking the truth in love” here (Eph 4:15). So if there is a “polyamory appreciation” group or “prostitutes for Christ” group or Ku Klux Klan / Nazi Skinhead group of “women abusers advocacy society” at a public school, Christian students should go to such meetings, not speak, but serve and find common ground? How can sane evangelical Christians support any longer any organization led by Alan Chambers? The man has become as “useful” to homosexualist advocacy as naive Western leftists of the 1920s to 1950s who extolled the virtues of Leninist and Stalinist Russia were useful to these dictatorial regimes.

Gay-straight alliances make schools safer for LGBT students and even help improve their academic performance, but Gagnon probably isn’t interested in such data.

No doubt, this is a man with fierce animus against gay people that extends well beyond just the question of same-sex marriage. It’s no stretch to conclude from these comments that he actually believes homosexuality will destroy modern society. NOM’s pride in highlighting him annually at its conference for young people is further proof of the organization’s clear anti-gay motives.

The Catholic Church has been quite vocal in its opposition to marriage equality in the United Kingdom, despite Parliament’s intention to pass it. Perhaps none has been more outspoken than Westminister Archbishop Vincent Nichols, who admitted that the Church doesn’t even recognize the existence of homosexuality and is prepared to fire teachers who marry someone of the same sex.

One 65-year-old nurse from Northern England was tired of the rhetoric she was hearing at Church, and decided to write to Nichols expressing her concern. In it, she calls out the Church’s obsession with social issues to the detriment of addressing real problems in society. She asked to remain anonymous, but shared her letter with Gay Star News. Here’s an excerpt:

I do not find it at all easy or even possible to uphold the church’s teaching on homosexuality. Among gay people of my acquaintance are those who have a deep spiritual life, to have one’s sexual orientation, an orientation that one is born with, described as an ‘objective disorder’ and to hear homosexual acts described as ‘intrinsically evil’ surely makes it almost impossible to feel at home or welcome in the church. It is utterly unrealistic to expect homosexual people to live celibate lives (We all know that many priests find this very difficult and sometimes impossible). The revelations of clerical sex abuse have led many of us to look with a very critical eye on the so-called celibate life and to realize that it has all to often lead to warped and destructive behavior.

The world is facing disaster on all levels and this church, when not obsessing about matters sexual, spends an inordinate amount of time on pointless activities such as changing the liturgy back to a correct translation of the original Latin – a language not spoken by Jesus but spoken by the oppressors of his time and country. Do you imagine that this obsession with precisely translated texts will win you a single new adherent? To me, you (particularly but not exclusively the hierarchy) appear to be a frightened group of men preoccupied with titles, clothing and other religious externals. You seem, with some wonderful and brave exceptions, to pay only lip service to ecumenism and matters of social justice. I would love to see the so-called ‘Princes of the Church’ (Where did all these triumphant, utterly anti-Gospel titles you award yourselves come from?) get rid of the silk, the gold, the Gucci shoes, the ridiculous tall hats, croziers, fancy soutanes etc etc and substitute bare heads and a simple pilgrim’s staff on all liturgical occasions and that might be taken as a small outward sign of your inner acceptance of fundamental Gospel values.

The woman has apparently received a reply from Nichols, but it unsurprisingly did not address the substance of her comments. Polls suggest that she speaks on behalf of many Catholics who stand far-removed from the Church’s teachings on such issues. Read her full letter.

In early 2012, lawmakers in New Jersey successfully passed marriage equality bill, but Gov. Chris Christie (R) vetoed it, claiming same-sex marriage was not an issue of “gay rights.” The legislature has until January 2014 to attempt to override that veto, and Democratic leaders in both chambers announced this week that they will attempt to do just that.

The bill originally passed the Senate with a 24-16 vote, so only three more votes are needed to reach a two-thirds majority for the override. In the Assembly, however, the bill only passed 42-33, so 12 more votes are needed. Lawmakers will likely wait until after the June elections to hold the vote so that Republicans are more willing to consider a controversial vote. LGBT activists have been lobbying for more support for an override since the bill’s passage last year, primarily because they are opposed to a referendum.

Openly gay Assemblyman Reed Gusciora (D) actually wants to allow for a vote, because he believes “the worst thing that can happen is the status quo.” However, Senate President Steve Sweeney also opposes a referendum, and for good reasons. As Garden State Equality pointed out last year, ballot initiatives are “a contest of which side can raise more millions” that offers “a community’s civil rights up for sale to the highest bidder.” Not only is a referendum incredible expensive, but it can have harsh consequences for the mental health of the entire LGBT community.

Arguably, a majority of New Jersey voters do support marriage equality, with polls showing as many as 53 percent, if not 57 percent, support. That, however, should be motivation for lawmakers to simply do their job and represent the interests of their constituents. Marriage equality is what’s best for New Jersey’s economy and the well-being of its citizens, in addition to just being the right thing to do.