House Republicans' Attorney Paul Clement

House Republicans have filed a reply brief defending the Defense of Marriage Act before the Supreme Court, but the arguments boil down to “nuh-uh” or “just because” responses to Edie Windsor’s attorneys. Though it reiterates many of the arguments made in their initial brief, here’s a summary of the final written arguments against marriage equality in the DOMA case:

• Same-sex marriage is still an “experiment,” so Congress was allowed to be cautious: “But when Hawaii was poised to become the first jurisdiction in the United States to deviate from the traditional definition, there was nothing incautious about retaining the traditional definition as the federal definition while states began a process of experimentation. That approach was a rational exercise in caution and a rational approach to the issue given our system of dual sovereignty.”
• It’s more “uniform” to ban all same-sex marriages than to recognize all valid marriages: “But the federal sovereign has a unique interest in treating a survivor of a same-sex relationship in New York the same as a survivor of a same-sex relationship in Oklahoma. And DOMA rationally furthers that uniquely federal interest in nationwide uniformity.”
• Most states ban same-sex marriage, so it’s rational that Congress did it too: “It bears emphasis that the traditional definition was the only definition at the time of DOMA’s enactment and remains the rule in more than 80% of the jurisdictions.”
• Children are better off with their biological parents: “DOMA’s opponents challenge as irrational the long-held cultural judgment that a child’s biological parents are, other things being equal, the child’s natural and most suitable guardians.”
• Only straight couples need marriage because only they have kids accidentally: “Marriage as an institution is linked to the unique tendency of opposite-sex couples to produce unintended offspring and the societal interest in providing a stable structure for raising such children.”
• DOMA doesn’t deny marital eligibility to same-sex couples: “DOMA defines terms for purposes of federal law; it does not deny marital eligibility— which remains a matter of state law—to anyone.”
• Gays aren’t politically powerless like women because women were discriminated against under the law: “The Court’s application of heightened scrutiny, despite the majority status and substantial achievements of women, was explained instead by over a century of official disenfranchisement that left the statute books littered with laws based on outdated stereotypes.”
• Sexual orientation is a behavior, not an identity: “Unlike the recognized suspect classes, sexual orientation is defined by a tendency to engage in a particular kind of conduct.”
• Let democracy play out on same-sex marriage so opponents aren’t called bigots: “The democratic process requires opposing sides to attempt to persuade each other, to understand each other’s positions, and perhaps, at least temporarily, to reach compromises that both sides can accept. A constitutional right to same-sex marriage, on the other hand, could be achieved only by marginalizing, as bigoted at worst or irrational at best, the ‘profound and deep convictions’ of those who disagree.”

Some of these arguments are simply rhetorical speculation (“experiment,” “uniform”), others are completely untrue (DOMA rejects states that recognize same-sex marriages, gays do have a history of disenfranchisement under the law), and others defy the lived experiences of gays and lesbians and their families (children who are adopted, sexual orientation as an identity). None of them reflect reality, and none of them should survive the scrutiny of the Court’s questions next week.

(HT: Kathleen Perrin.)

Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ)

Congressional Democrats have once again pressured President Obama to issue an executive order that would prohibit federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Today, 110 members of the House, led by Reps. Frank Pallone (D-NH) and Jared Polis (D-CO), signed a letter urging Obama not to delay the order any longer, regardless of the potential for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) to pass:

OUr request begins with a simple premise. It is unacceptable that it remains legal to fire or refuse to hire someone based on his or her sexual orientation or gender identity. Federal law continues to allow this and discrimination based on sexual orientation is legal in 29 states and discrimination because of gender identity is legal in 34 states. Action at the federal level can put a stop to these unfair and discriminatory workplace practices in every state. [...]

Executive Order 11246, signed by President Lyndon Johnson in 1965 and subsequently amendment, prohibits federal contractors from discriminating against employees based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. The executive order gave millions important workplace protections and to this day continues to stand as an important protection that is enforced by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs at the Department of Labor. According to the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law, an executive order prohibiting federal contractors from discriminating based on sexual orientation and gender identity would protect more than 16 million additional workers.

Last year, 72 Representatives sent a similar letter, as did 37 Senators last month. Despite a campaign pledge to sign such an order, Obama has avoided doing so, claiming he would prefer the legislative solution of ENDA. But even if ENDA were to pass (which it likely won’t while the House is Republican-controlled), an executive order would still be needed to protect employees in businesses with less than 15 employees. It was rumored Obama might use the State of the Union to speak out for nondiscrimination protections, but he did not.

It remains unclear what the Obama administration gains by continuing to deny these protections to the LGBT community.

Earlier this week, an ABC News/Washington Post poll found one of the highest levels of support for marriage equality, with 58 percent of voters endorsing same-sex marriage. Two more polls this week have found similar — though not quite as high — results.

A CNN/ORC International poll found that 53 percent support same-sex marriage with 44 percent opposed, a slight dip from last May’s 54-42 result in the wake of President Obama’s endorsement. As other polls have found, young people (71 percent for those 18-34), women (56 percent vs. 49 percent of men), and those who attended college (59 percent vs. 44 percent of those who didn’t) are more likely to support equality. Both Democrats (70 percent) and Independents (55 percent) side with equality more than average.

Similarly, a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted between January 1 and March 14 found similar results, though it fell into the trap of asking about civil unions without forcing respondents to choose between same-sex marriage and nothing. As a result, it found 63 percent support marriage or civil unions, with 41 percent favoring full marriage equality. Only a quarter of respondents opposed any form of relationship recognition, though opposition was stronger in regions like the South and lowest in the Northeast. The poll does note that support for marriage is surpassing support for civil unions.

Whatever arguments the Supreme Court considers next week, any claim the opponents of marriage equality make about having a majority of Americans on their side would be an outright lie.

The National Organization for Marriage’s Jennifer Roback Morse has been one of the most outspoken opponents of not only marriage equality, but homosexuality itself over the past year. Once again, this week, she used a radio interview to reiterate conservatives’ belief that homosexuality is a behavior, not an identity, and that ex-gay therapy works — all framed around NOM’s tactic about driving a wedge between the black and gay communities:

MORSE: When I was in Illinois a couple weeks ago testifying up there in Springfield about [same-sex marriage], there were quite a few African Americans there who who were speaking  on our side of the issue, and just very clear that this is not a civil right — that it’s a behavioral-based thing. A person can stop acting in a gay way, but they can’t stop being black.

She went on to highlight the testimony of Linda Jernigan, who not only claims to be ex-gay, but believes that homosexuality is “rooted in Satan.” Listen to it (via Equality Matters):

It’s important to note that Morse has no business speaking on behalf of African Americans; a poll earlier this week found that people of color support marriage equality at even higher rates than whites (61 percent and 57 percent respectively). Morse, more than almost any other anti-equality talking head, embodies the reality that theirs is a campaign not against marriage, but against homosexuality itself.

Earlier this week, Jamie McGonnigal learned that  DC-based band Scythian was actually temporarily splitting up so three of its members (calling themselves “Ultramontane”) could perform at the National Organization for Marriage’s march next week while the other two sat out. One of those two, drummer Andrew Toy, posted on Facebook that he “will always be an LGBT ally and supporter of marriage equality.” Now, the other member of the band, fiddler and Scythian co-founder Josef Crosby, has published a longer statement reacting to his bandmates’ participation in NOM’s rally:

The last few days have been really tough for me with the Ultramontane/Scythian/NOM controversy. I was completely unaware of this upcoming event and NOM in general. But I’ve since spent many hours researching this group and I’m saddened that now Scythian will be associated with an ideology I so strongly oppose.

I’d like to sincerely apologize to all of my friends and all Scythianfans that have been hurt by recent circumstances. I know my bandmates’ intention is not to harm, and their actions come from a place of faith, but I understand the response and concerns this has generated.

I’ve always made it a point to leave politics at the door when it came to Scythian, but I feel I have to go on record as saying that I am completely in support of full equality for all couples, no matter their orientation. I can only hope the Supreme Court agrees.

The other band NOM booked for its rally, The Lee Boys, backed out entirely when they learned what NOM stands for and how it advocates against equality.

Erica Keppler, who advocated for Phoenix's nondiscrimination protections, could face arrest for using the women's restroom under this law.

Last month, the City Council of Phoenix, Arizona passed sweeping nondiscrimination protections, ensuring that people have equal access to employment, housing, and public accommodations regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. One state lawmaker, Rep. John Kavanagh (R) is not pleased that transgender people will be protected when using the correct bathroom, and so he has introduced a new bill to ban them from doing just that.

Kavanagh gutted a Senate Bill about a Massage Therapy Board to use as a shell for his new amendment, which prohibits a person from entering a “public restroom, bathroom, shower, bath, dressing room, or locker room” if the sex designation of that facility does not match the individual’s birth certificate. He defended his “show your papers to pee” bill in an interview with 12 News Phoenix:

KAVANAGH: The city of Phoenix has crafted a bill that allows people to define their sex by what they think in their head. If you’re a male, you don’t go into a female shower or locker room, or vice versa. It also raises the specter of people who want to go into those opposite sex facilities not because they’re transgender, but because they’re weird.

Watch it:

Violating this law would constitute “disorderly conduct” and could be prosecuted as a class 1 misdemeanor. The bill describes itself as “an emergency measure that is necessary to preserve the public peace, health or safety and is operative immediately as provided by law.” Inappropriate behavior, such as the potentially harmful or invasive actions of the “weird” people Kavanagh referenced, is already illegal.

In Arizona, it is possible for transgender people to receive a new birth certificate with their proper gender, but only if they undergo gender reassignment surgery, which not all trans people choose to pursue. In addition to being quite expensive, it also results in sterilization. Were Kavanagh’s bill to pass, trans people would have to sacrifice their ability to ever have children just to legally use the proper bathroom.

There’s a polished new guide to opposing marriage equality released by a coalition of anti-gay organizations, whose partnership alone is notable: the Alliance Defending Freedom, Family Research Council, National Organization for Marriage, and Heritage Foundation. The entire argument put forth by the booklet is that marriage benefits children, citing only the thoroughly debunked Regnerus study to suggest same-sex parents should not be allowed to have children:

All people are capable of loving children, but all the love in the world can’t turn a mother into a father or a father into a mother. A child needs a mom and a dad. Children do better when raised by their married mom and dad, and decades of social science evidence show this. We shouldn’t place the desires of adults over the needs of children.

The latest and most comprehensive research continues to confirm what social science has shown for decades: children do better when raised by a married mother and father. The New Family Structures Study by Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas–Austin and a report based on Census data recently released in the highly respected journal Demography supported this idea. Still, the social science on same-sex parenting is a matter of significant ongoing debate, and we shouldn’t let it dictate our choices about marriage.

The Demography report cited here attempted to apply the same faulty methodology from the Regnerus study to research that actually showed that children of same-sex parents perform as well academically as children from other families.

The document is set up in a “Frequently Asked Questions” format, but one question is notably missing: “What about the millions of children already being raised by same-sex couples who would benefit from the legal protections of marriage?” Instead, these groups make their arguments as if these families simply don’t exist — they have to, because they have no answer to the question.

Jacob Rudolph (Photo Credit: Thomas P. Costello)

In January, Jacob Rudolph came out as an LGBT teen to his fellow seniors at Parisppany High School in New Jersey and received a standing ovation in a video that quickly went viral. He has since launched a petition urging Gov. Chris Christie (R) to support a proposed ban to ex-gay therapy for minors. On Monday, Jacob testified on behalf of this bill before the Senate Health, Human Services, and Senior Citizens Committee, which voted to advance it. Powerfully declaring his identity as a bi teen, he told the panel about some of the responses he received to his viral coming out video:

RUDOLPH: Like every other LGBT person, I am not broken, I am not confused, and I do not need to be fixed. I did not choose my sexual orientation, but what I did choose was to pretend to be somebody that I was not. I came to terms with myself that I was bisexual when I was in the 9th grade, but I was truly afraid to share with anyone else who I really was. High school is challenging enough for teens who are straight, but it is even more challenging for LGBT teens, because they have to risk alienating their friends, being subjected to taunts and physical violence, and having their families reject them. [...]

The video of my speech was posted online and has since received nearly 2 million hits. Of all the responses I have received, however, the ones that meant the most to me were those that were sent by five teenagers from various locations across the United States. Each of those five teenagers had something in common: they had made preparations to commit suicide before watching my video, yet after watching my video they all decided against it. Some of these teens had been rejected by their families, who’d believed they had chosen to be gay, and these families refused to accept them for who they are.

It is beyond baffling to me that anyone might actually believe that sexual orientation is a “lifestyle choice” that can be altered if desired. Even more disturbing, however, is that there are organizations whose sole mission is to “cure” LGBT individuals of their orientation through the truculent practices that have been deemed dangerously harmful and ineffective by the American Psychological Association and other meritable groups.

Watch his full testimony:

Those advocating for ex-gay therapy claim there is no evidence that it doesn’t work. Unfortunately for them, there is no evidence that it does work, and there is evidence that it’s harmful.