Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings

The City Council of Dallas, Texas is set to approve a resolution supporting the right of same-sex couples to marry, but Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings (D) thinks the resolution is a waste of time. Rawlings is actually “an unequivocal supporter of marriage equality,” but he told The Dallas Morning News that he doesn’t understand why the Council is bothering to discuss it since they have no power to change the law:

“I don’t want to be talking about late-term abortions, or gun control, or Gitmo,” he said.

To do so is “a misuse of City Council time.”

As the Dallas Voice points out, the Council “can certainly exert some influence,” because “symbols do matter” when it comes to public opinion. Certainly, when President Obama came out for marriage equality, many other political leaders followed his lead, and last month many Democratic Senators continued to change their positions as the media focused on the Supreme Court’s oral arguments.

Rawlings similarly avoided joining the over 300 Mayors for the Freedom To Marry, claiming to be “pledge-phobic” because the campaign is “simplistic and not substantive.” There is a difference, however, between simple and simplistic, just as there is a difference between talking the talk and walking the walk. Rawlings may say he supports marriage equality, but he seems quine keen on avoiding opportunities to prove it through his leadership.

When ESPN’s Chris Broussard condemned NBA player Jason Collins for being gay, his comments spoke only to his beliefs about homosexuality, not about marriage. That didn’t stop the National Organization for Marriage from claiming him as their own. Jennifer Roback Morse, who heads up NOM’s Ruth Institute, told Lutheran Public Radio’s Issues, Etc. that Broussard “required more courage” to share his Christian beliefs than Collins did for being the first professional athlete in one of the country’s major sports to come out as gay:

MORSE: I think he required more courage than the basketball player did. I mean, it requires no courage at all today to say “I’m gay.” It’s my understanding [Collins] got a phone call from the president congratulating him on his courage. Well how much courage can it take if the president’s going to pick up the phone and give you a personal phone call, you know? But in the meantime, this fellow who says, you know, ‘I’m a Christian, and I believe that sex belongs in marriage and it belongs in man-woman marriage,’ to say that, now that will bring the whole wrath of society down upon your head. So that’s the guy that really required the courage and I give him a lot of credit for it.

Listen to it (via Equality Matters):

Morse’s insensitivity to the coming out process is not surprising. She believes that gay people can simply “stop acting in a gay way,” and that same-sex couples merely have “friendships.” In the interview, she added that Broussard might as well be a Ruth Institute spokesman “because he’s there saying all of these sins are sexual sins,” confirming that her mission is a religious one, not one with society’s best interests in mind.

As expected, the Delaware Senate Executive Committee voted 4-2 today to advance marriage equality legislation. Only one final vote remains for the bill to become law, and the Senate is expected to take that vote on Tuesday. Delaware would become the 11th state (plus the District of Columbia) to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples, following closely in the wake of Rhode Island, which will finalize its law on Thursday.

Obama's LGBT Money, as depicted by NOM.

The National Organization for Marriage is concerned that the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is working to promote LGBT equality across the globe. Asking, “Is Obama spending your taxpayer dollars to promote gay marriage in the developing world?”, NOM tries to draw a distinction between human rights abuses, which it opposes, and discrimination, which of course it supports:

While many of the initiative’s goals are unquestionably laudable – stopping real human rights violations and abuses – one must wonder, based on the Obama administration’s domestic policies, whether marriage redefinition will be an essential part of “unleash[ing] the potential” of LGBT folks worldwide.

It seems very likely that such will be the case, but only time will tell.

In other words, NOM’s support for the human rights of LGBT people has strict limits. It’s apparently okay to advocate against criminalization and torture of LGBT people, but pushing for an end to discrimination in marriage and public accommodations is going too far.  The United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, approved in 1948, does not qualify human rights in this way. For example, Article 7 asserts that “all are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.” Article 16 offers that all “have the right to marry and to found a family.”

“Only time will tell” if NOM will ever recognize the LGBT community as whole people entitled to all their human rights. For now, they seem to think that’s just a waste of taxpayer money.

WISCONSIN — Former GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan told a Wisconsin town hall audience on Monday that he now supports the right of same-sex couples to adopt children, even though he still opposes marriage equality.

Confronted by an audience member about his anti-LGBT voting record — Ryan earned a “zero percent” score on gay rights from the Human Rights Campaign — the House Budget Committee chairman admitted that gays and lesbians could provide a loving home to “orphans.” In 1999, Ryan voted against adoption for same-sex couples in the District of Columbia, but said he would vote differently today:

RYAN: Adoption, I’d vote differently these days. That was I think a vote I took in my first term, 1999 or 2000. I do believe that if there are children who are orphans who do not have a loving person or couple I think if a person wants to love and raise a child they ought to be able to do that. Period. I would vote that way. I do believe marriage is between a man and a woman, we just respectfully disagree on that issue.

Watch it:

Ryan’s opposition to marriage equality actually makes less sense given his support for same-sex adoption. One of the primary arguments against same-sex marriage is the false claim that children are better off with opposite-sex parents. Now it seems he supports allowing same-sex families to raise children, but he still opposes providing those families with the same legal protections afforded to opposite-sex parents.

During the town hall, Ryan also highlighted his support for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a bill that would prohibit employers from discriminating against workers based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. The measure has been introduced in Congress almost every session since 1994, through Ryan initially lobbied to weaken ENDA so it did not include gender identity, and ultimately voted for the weakened version in 2007. Ryan did not say if he would support the more inclusive bill in this Congress.

Throughout the presidential campaign, Mitt Romney argued that adoption “should be assessed on a state-by-state basis.”

Texas AG Greg Abbott advocating for the public display of The Ten Commandments.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott (R) has issued new guidance stating that domestic partnerships are unconstitutional under the Texas state Constitution’s amendment banning marriage for same-sex couples. However, his decision does contain a certain nuance that would still allow for same-sex couples to receive their partners’ health benefits. Abbott points out that recognizing relationships “similar” to marriage — like domestic partnerships — is unconstitutional, but, citing a lawmaker’s remarks when Texas passed its marriage amendment, he explains that the health benefits themselves are:

Representative Chisum’s statement simply explains that article I, section 32 does not, in his view, address whether a political subdivision may provide health benefits to the unmarried partner of an employee. The constitutional provision does, however, explicitly prohibit a political subdivision from creating or recognizing a legal status identical or similar to marriage. The political subdivisions you ask about have not simply provided health benefits to the partners of their employees. Instead, they have elected to create a domestic partnership status that is similar to marriage. Further, they have recognized that status by making it the sole basis on which health benefits may be conferred on the domestic partners of employees.

This presents a challenging space for employers who wish to recognize same-sex couples. The primary criterion that Abbott explains is problematic to domestic partnerships is that the requirement for their recognition is too similar to marriage, including that applicants must attest that they are not married and have no undissolved relational conflicts. Hypothetically, municipalities could offer employees the opportunity to designate a single beneficiary without requiring such qualifications for recognition and thus not violate the constitution at all.

Of course, Abbott’s opinion is nonbinding, and thus nothing is preventing domestic partnerships from continuing — only a court responding to a legal challenge could invalidate them. Currently, Dallas County and the cities of Austin, Dallas, El Paso, Fort Worth, and San Antonio, as well as Pflugerville School District, all offer domestic partnerships. Pflugerville was undoubtedly the specific target for the request for Abbott’s guidance, but district officials say the December decision to offer the benefits was simply a business decision by the insurance committee that does not cost the district or the taxpayers.

Today the U.S. Department of Education announced a small but significant change to the FAFSA, the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, that will make the application a more fair, effective, and efficient tool for students seeking financial aid to finance their college education.

The FAFSA currently uses the terms “mother/stepmother” and “father/stepfather” when requesting information about an applicant’s parents. Applicants with same-sex parents then must either arbitrarily designate one parent as “mother” and the other as “father,” or omit one parent from the form entirely. In other words, the current FAFSA puts these applicants in a lose-lose scenario forcing them to complete and submit an application that is inaccurate and not reflective of their family structure.

Today’s proposal will help change that. For the 2014-2015 FAFSA, the Department will amend the terms “Mother/Stepmother” and “Father/Stepfather” to instead read “Parent 1” and “Parent 2.” This change also means that for the first time the Department will collect same-sex parents’ financial information in the same way that it does for different-sex parents. In addition to accurately reflecting LGBT families, these changes will capture the economic situation of these families so that students applying for aid can access financial aid based on their true financial need — without any bearing on their parents’ sexual orientation.

This change mimics similar changes made at other federal agencies. In 2011, for example, the State Department initiated reforms to give passport forms a more gender-neutral parental designation. Doing so required minimal changes to federal forms while significantly enhancing the accuracy, fairness, effectiveness, and efficiency of government operations.

At its core, this much-needed change achieves two important policy objectives.

Read more

Crosby Burns is a Policy Analyst for LGBT Progress.

Family Research Council Senior Fellow Bob Morrison published a new blog post today posing the question, “Are Peter, Paul, and Mary Bigots, Too?,” referring to the folk trio. His entire argument is based on the song lyrics to “The Wedding Song,” which Paul Stookey wrote for Peter Yarrow’s wedding, which refer to a “man and wife”:

It’s an amazing song that must have been played at a million weddings since those halcyon days when this folk rock phenomenon hit the pop music scene. It’s wonderful just to consider the lyrics. “What shall be the meaning of becoming man and wife?” [...]

Question for the left: Are Peter, Paul, and Mary bigots, too? Is the mere fact that they knew what marriage was for fifty years enough to brand them as hate-filled?

The simple answer is no, Peter, Paul, and Mary are not bigots. And the best explanation for this is that they have always supported LGBT equality. Though Mary has passed away, Peter and Paul made this very clear to the National Organization for Marriage in 2010 when it used a recording of them singing Woody Guthrie’s “This Land Is Your Land” at an anti-gay rally. Not only did Peter Yarrow describe the use of the song “heartbreaking,” but he and Paul Stookey wrote to NOM explaining that they were full supporters of marriage equality and have been “for decades”:

We would like to respectfully request that you refrain from playing the Peter, Paul, & Mary recorded version of Woody Guthrie’s “This Land Is Your Land” at your public rallies. We respect your right to hold and advocate for any position you wish, but the philosophy of the “National Organization for Marriage” is directly contrary to the advocacy position Peter, Paul, & Mary have held for decades, and so we do not want our recording of this song played at your rallies.

We strongly support the rights of all gays and lesbian to enjoy the rights and rituals of marriage that are enjoyed by their straight counterparts, and consider the abridgement of this right contrary to the sense of equal protection and fairness inherent in, and implied by, the law of the Constitution of the United States.

If Morrison’s best argument in the fight over same-sex marriage is to assume musicians’ positions based on their lyrics, perhaps he should read all of the lyrics. “The Wedding Song” is often subtitled “There Is Love,” because that is the lyric that recurs the most throughout. Just because the song was written for a specific marriage that happened to be for a “man and wife” doesn’t mean that’s its most important message. Indeed, when any two “shall travel on to where the two shall be as one,” there is love, and Stookey and Yarrow don’t seem to have any doubts about that.

Listen to the classic tune:

The National Organization for Marriage has sunken to a new low: quibbling with fourth graders. An anonymous fourth grader’s two-paragraph essay defending marriage equality went viral on Reddit last week, prompting Salon contributor Katie McDonough to deem it the “world’s most perfect argument” for the cause. Here’s what the elementary school student wrote (spelling errors and all):

Why gay people should be able to get married is you can’t stop two adult’s from getting married because there grown and it doesn’t matter if it creeps you out just get over it. And you should be happy for them because it’s a big momment in their life. When I went to my grandparents wedding it was the happies momment.

As you can see gay people should have the right to get married and you shouldn’t judge other peoples lives because if you was gay you wouldn’t want people talking about you.

NOM claimed, “we’re not interested in arguing with a fourth-grader,” but nevertheless took exception to McDonough’s characterization:

Proof again that the activists pushing same-sex marriage aren’t interested in reasoned debate and argument: just silencing the other side. A tactic fitting maybe for a schoolyard, but not the public square.

This “Nuh-uh!” response utilizes the exact same tactic it attempts to rebuke — simply disregarding opponents’ points — and ignores the actual merits of the student’s argument. It’s quite true that no ban on same-sex marriage has ever stopped same-sex couples from forming and raising their own families. Certainly, the gay community is not going to suddenly start marrying people of the opposite sex, as the “responsible procreation” argument suggests. Banning same-sex marriage definitely does not have any impact on whether straight men over the age of 55 cheat on their wives, as some conservatives have claimed.

In fact, one of the biggest gaps in NOM’s arguments against equality is the fact that the protections of marriage would greatly benefit these same-sex families. Children raised by same-sex couples fare just as well as other children, and allowing their parents to marry will only add to their protection.

It could very well be that the fourth-grader who wrote this essay actually has same-sex parents. Regardless, there are plenty of nine-year-old’s who do. It’s unclear whether NOM would ever concede that this reality “creeps them out,” but considering that they felt the need to take umbrage to this essay, they certainly don’t seem ready to “get over it.”

Next Wednesday, the Delaware Senate’s Executive Committee will consider HB 75, the same-sex marriage equality bill that passed the House of Representatives on Tuesday. Should it clear committee — which ThinkProgress has confirmed it likely will — the leadership would then be free to bring up the bill at any time they believed they had sufficient votes to pass it.

Seven of the Senate’s 21 members are official sponsors or co-sponsors of the measure. They include Senate President Pro Tempore Patricia Belvins, Majority Whip Margaret Rose Henry, and Senators Harris McDowell III, Karen Peterson, Nicole Poore, and Bryan Townend — all Democrats. Senate Majority Leader David McBride (D) told ThinkProgress today that he will also vote YES on the bill and Sen. Brian Bushweller (D) pledged his support earlier this week.

Of the four other Senate Democrats, two conservatives voted against the state’s civil union’s law in 2011 and have vocally opposed same-sex marriage: Sens. Bruce Ennis and Robert Venables. Sen. Robert Marshall and Sen. Bethany Hall-Long have not yet made their positions clear.

Of the Senate’s eight Republicans, Sen. Catherine Cloutier is considered by observers the most likely to back the bill. Sen. Ernesto Lopez is also considered to be a possibility.

The six-person executive committee includes supporters Blevins, Henry, McBride, and McDowell. This means the bill will pass 4-2, regardless of the votes of Republican Minority Leader F. Gary Simpson and Minority Whip Gregory Lavelle.

In the full Senate, the bill would require 11 votes (2 more than currently pledged) should all Senators be present. In the event of a tie, marriage equality supporter Matt Denn (D), the state’s Lt. Gov., could cast the deciding vote. Gov. Jack Markell has promised to sign the bill should it reach his desk.