A look back on a year in the politics of equality in Tennessee: Photos from around the state

It's not over yet, but 2013 has been an incredible year in forward movement for equality in Tennessee.  We fought hard and even got some results.  Check out a few of the highlights.

Advancing Equality Day on the Hill brought advocates from East, West, and Middle TN to the Capitol to attempt to stop negative bills like Don't Say Gay and advance positive legislation like the Dignity for All Students Act.  Here we are preparing for a press conference in Legislative Plaza.

On July 22 the Knox County Commission passed an inclusive non-discrimination ordinance for Knox County employees.  Pictured are bill sponsor Commissioner Amy Broyles and supporters in Knoxville in Commission chambers after the victory.

When Rep. John Ragan, House sponsor of the Don't Say Gay bill received an award from Students First, 11-year-old Marcel Neergaard called foul.  As a student who has endured bullying for being gay, Marcel received national attention when he called on Students First to rescind the award, which they did.  Yes, a student really can teach the public about what's going on in our Legislature!  Marcel continues to inspire us all at TEP.  

In order to show the reality of discrimination, couples in Nashville and a couple in Wilson County...

as well as couples in Shelby County applied for marriage licenses.

 

 

 

 

Knoxville, Memphis, Cookeville, West TN, Chattanooga, and Nashville held rallies at the end of August to celebrate TN Marriage Equality Day to counter the Legislature's Traditional Marriage Day.  I think we had a better turnout than they did.

 

 

In September the push began for inclusive non-discrimination and anti-bullying policies in Rutherford County Schools after a teacher was told to take down a safe schools poster.  The fight continues today with advocates developing strategy to advance their proposal in the School Board. 

 

At Olympus TEP honored 8 Champions of Equality--7 from state media outlets and 1 Memphis City Councilman--for their work in advancing equality in Tennessee.  Nothing we do is possible without our allies!

The Memphis community gathered in October to celebrate the one-year anniversary of the non-discrimination ordinance.

Also in October attorney Abby Rubenfeld, other Tennessee attorneys, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights filed suit to have the marriage of couples who moved to Tennessee legally recognized.  TEP identified 2 of the 4 plaintiff couples.

Collegedale detective Kat Cooper (center) led her city to be the first in TN to offer partner benefits.  Knoxville soon followed by executive order of Mayor Madeline Rogero.  In November Chattanooga Councilman Chris Anderson passed his partner benefits and non-discrimination ordinance making it the third city in Tennessee to offer such benefits.  Also pictured is Kat's TEP Hamilton & Bradley Counties Committee co-chair Marcus Ellsworth (viewer's left) and TEP executive director Chris Sanders.

Australian marriage ad everyone's talking about, TN Tech students against bullying, another swipe at HB600

We hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving.  Here's your weekend roundup.

Australian marriage campaign ad moves the world:  You would have to have avoided Facebook for the last three days or not known any gay people to have missed this compelling ad for the campaign for marriage equality in Australia.  I can't tell you the number of people, straight and gay, who posted "It's Time" over the weekend:



TEP wishes the Australians the best of luck as they get closer to marriage equality!  Spreading the ad around Tennessee can't hurt our own chances for advancing some forms of relationship recognition around here, by the way, even if they don't amount to full marriage equality.

Tennessee Tech students take on bullying:  The Herald-Citizen out of Cookeville has a great piece on a conference being organized by some Tennessee Tech students coming up in January. The conference deals with bullying that targets the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community as well as other minority communities and the topic of cyber-bullying: 

Why should Putnam County be interested in bullying?

"Because it affects everyone," [conference co-organizer Justin] Sweatman said. "Even if you're not a student or parent, you are still in a community where students are being bullied, and it's your responsibility."

And the conference isn't just for locals -- it's a statewide affair.

"Problems don't stop at county lines," Sweatman said. "Bullying is everywhere. But if we can start at home, maybe awareness will spread."

It's always a major win when a local newspaper provides this kind of coverage of an equality issue in Tennessee.  It helps change the attitudes of citizens and it sends a great signal to lawmakers representing the area.

Francois takes swipe at HB600:  In today's Tennessean, former Metro Nashville Council candidate Renard Francois knocks the Legislature over HB600, the Special Access to Discriminate law that nullified Metro's Contract Accountability Non-Discrimination Ordinance, in the course of taking on another state bill that would usurp local control in the area of property taxes: 

This is not the first time the state government has attempted to interfere and undermine the collective will of Davidson County. Last year, the state government simply overturned Nashville’s anti-discrimination ordinance despite robust countywide debate.

Yep, we hope more people will continue to notice the pattern and realize we should have all been trying to stop that train sooner.  But there is still time to fight for legitimate local control.  I hope that all the lobbying interests that are supposed to protect local government--and not the four largest cities in state that did an admirable job this year--get more involved in 2012.

The issue lives.  The press has largely done its job of helping make the citizens of Tennessee realize that they are being usurped.  It's up to all of us to start defending our right to shape our own communities throughout Tennessee.

-Chris Sanders






 

We are the 60%: Marriage inequality in TN and our options

ThinkProgress takes a look at a New York Times editorial lauding the recent Senate Judiciary Committee vote to pass the Respect for Marriage Act, which would overturn the Defense of Marriage Act.  The title of their post says it all:  "60 Percent of Americans Live in Places That Don't Offer Protections For Gay Couples."  29 states, including Tennessee, bar same-sex marriage via

Image from the Repeal Tennessee's Marriage

Amendment Facebook page

constitutional amendment.  They also include a map ominously called "The Geography of Discrimination."  Again, that's about as clear as it gets.

What can we do in Tennessee?  That's where things ain't so clear.   Here are our options for advancing marriage equality.  Nothing is easy or likely about any of them.

1.  Move our current Congressional delegation on DOMA.  We have a couple of Congressmen who might be persuaded to back repeal of DOMA--Cohen and Cooper.  I wouldn't take such a move for granted.  Our two U.S. Senators aren't fire-breathing Right wingers, but it would be an extremely heavy lift to move either one of them on DOMA.  Senator Alexander is starting to show more of his trademark moderation and independence.  And it's always good for more constituents to let him and Senator Corker, for that matter, know that they oppose DOMA, but don't hold your breath.

2.  Elect new anti-DOMA members to our Congressional delegation.  Defeating any of the decidedly pro-DOMA Senators or Congressmen with an anti-DOMA opponent also seems unlikely.  If Congressman DesJarlais goes down in defeat, it will likely be in the primary to another Right winger.  Tea Partiers talk about challenging Senator Corker, but we still don't know whether a viable Democrat will get in the race.  And even if one does, the odds are low that such a candidate would oppose DOMA--a lesson we learned in 2006.  Could the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community raise the $25,000+ in a House race or the $50,000+ needed to get the attention of a candidate in one of these races?  Yes, it could be done.  It seems unlikely to happen, though.  And even if it did, the anti-DOMA candidate has to win and stick to his or her position. 

3. Repeal Tennessee's amendment.  I'll offer the warning again:  Don't hold your breath.  To repeal a constitutional amendment is to amend the TN Constitution again.  That takes passing a resolution in two consecutive sessions and the second time you have to have two thirds of each House.  So we've got to elect, reelect, or persuade 33 Senators and 66 Representatives.  Are we willing to raise (and this is a conservative estimate) $10,000 for each of the 66 House races and $25,000 for each of the 33 Senate races?  First, I want to say that it could be done.  But I don't think it would happen because our community has shown more willingness to invest our political dollars out of state.  Additionally, all our candidates would have to win and then vote with us in two consecutive sessions.  If a miracle happened and the resolution passed, we would still have to win at the ballot.  Oh, and one last thing, we'd still have to repeal a state statute defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.  They spent over $3 Million in New York on ads designed to move Republicans in their legislative efforts.  Daunting!

4.  See you in court.  If DOMA is struck down in a court challenge, that would help ease another court challenge to Tennessee's state constitutional amendment and statute.  I'm not an attorney, but my hunch is that it is through the courts that Tennessee will achieve marriage equality.  But I'll let the legal experts weigh in on that one.

The deck is definitely stacked against us, but it's always up to us to decide what to do. There's no doubt in my mind that we could raise the money and volunteer army needed to make a move in 1 to 4 federal races.  That would increase the odds for desperately needed votes out of Tennessee's congressional delegation to pass the Respect for Marriage Act.  As I said, my doubts hinge on our ability to get that kind of agreement and focus statewide. 

I may very well have missed an option.  If so, let's get it out there on the table and discuss it.  Maybe that would help contribute to a statewide consensus so we could develop a plan of action to make our contribution to the movement for marriage equality in Tennessee. 

I'm in.  Are you?

-Chris Sanders

Marriage equality and Tennessee: A fiscal note

Occasionally when you read the news, you get a real window into what some of the everyday opponents of equality are thinking. Reading this Volunteer TV report was one of those moments:

"I don't think it's an institution I want to support," said one man who wished to remain anonymous. He said he hopes gay marriage isn't in Tennessee's future. "I don't want to sit there and pay for a lifestyle," he said.

We'll leave aside the vexing question of where it is this man thinks he's supposed to sit while he's paying for someone else's marriage--some sort of gay waiting room?--but it occurs to me that some people probably think that, since marriage equality would require government action, it must necessarily cost money.

But anyone who gets over the fog of the idea of a same-sex marriage will remember that marriage is a source of revenue for the state. A marriage license is between $60 and $100, at least in Nashville, depending on whether you complete a premarital preparation course. Yes, marriage equality would be a direct source of revenue to the State of Tennessee. And studies indicate that it provides indirect economic benefits as well.

Oh, yeah, it's also the right thing to do.

-Chris Sanders

Knoxville News Sentinel looks at local perspectives on marriage with a glaring omission

In response to a Pew Research Center and TIME study called "The Decline in Marriage and Rise of New Families," the Knoxville News Sentinel talked to eight couples or singles to get their views of marriage.

But they didn't include a same-sex couple in their set of reactions. Since marriage equality or so-called "gay marriage" is such a big topic today, it clearly should have been included. Readers would have learned what it's like to be in a committed relationship without any legal options to protect one's partner.

Unfortunately such erasure is far too common in the pages of this paper. If you'd like to contact the Knoxville News Sentinel, you can write to them at letters@knoxnews.com .

-Chris Sanders

Politics of Ignorance: Marriage Rhetoric in TN Elections

A quick comment on the appearance of rhetoric about marriage in the upcoming August primary in Tennessee and the need for protections against job discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in our state. Video link here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kpb5lKAi2iU . Best of all, you get to push (or punch, if you prefer) my nose to play the video.

-Chris Sanders

Ford's run to the right in TN may hamper a NY Senate bid

Many of you have heard by now that former Tennessee Congressman Harold Ford, Jr. is considering a bid for the U.S. Senate in New York. But will his positions on abortion/choice and same-sex marriage come back to haunt him if he jumps in the race? Glenn Thrush is taking note:

His positions -- including his opposition to gay marriage and opposition to some abortions -- put him to the right of Gillibrand, who was considered one of the most conservative members of the state's House delegation during her two-plus year tenure as an Albany-area rep.

Gillibrand, who may indeed be vulnerable, nevertheless figured out that she needed to move left to represent voters throughout the state. It will be interesting to see how Ford approaches the culture war issues if he enters the race. If Gillibrand made some changes, I don't see why Ford couldn't. After all, time has passed since he was in Congress. He is allowed to say that his views have evolved. Will it fly with New York skeptics?

-Chris Sanders

Manhattan Declaration: Making Martyrdom out of Discrimination

The Manhattan Declaration of some Catholic, Evangelical, and Orthodox leaders has received some notable coverage over the last couple of days. The declaration itself isn't terribly long, certainly not long enough to deal realistically with any of the issues that it addresses such as abortion, stem-cell research, or same-sex marriage. But it is long enough to raise the question of whether it is trying to reverse a trend signaled in the 2008 Evangelical Manifesto, in which some leading Evangelicals called for less of a politicization of the faith. I'd like to take a look at the sections of the document and argue that it has failed to make an adequate case for its position on same-sex marriage.

Preamble: The Preamble is a quick trip through 2000 years of Christian history. It is a story of Christianity resisting and fighting evil. There is no hint about same-sex marriage in the preamble. But there are lines that deconstruct the narrative that the writers wish to weave. They note in passing that Christian women were "at the vanguard of the suffrage movement." Indeed, they were. It seems odd to me that the document, written by representatives of faith traditions that are the least likely to recognize women's leadership in the Church, would highlight this fact. But what should be suggestive about this bit of history is that the Church has encouraged people to achieve things in the secular realm that it would not allow them to achieve in the spiritual. So why would it not celebrate the Christians today who are working for same-sex marriage in the civil realm? I guess that would confuse the clear lines of us and them that the writers are drawing.

Declaration: Thankfully, the declaration acknowledges that the writers or signers are speaking on their own behalf and not on behalf of their faith traditions. They mention as their sources of authority Scripture, natural human reason, and the nature of the human person. So we basically have a mixture of Bible and Robert George's conception of natural law. It is in this section that we find the first explicit comments on marriage: "...the institution of marriage, already buffeted by promiscuity, infidelity and divorce, is in jeopardy of being redefined to accommodate fashionable ideologies." And that leads them to their definition: "marriage as a conjugal union of man and woman, ordained by God from the creation, and historically understood by believers and non-believers alike, to be the most basic institution in society." Here the writers seem to be covering their bases in that they locate marriage as they understand it in the divine command but also in society. But the words "historically understood" complicate both the roots of marriage--the divine command and society. In fact, they complicate the picture sufficiently to make their own swipe about "fashionable ideologies" incoherent. The historical interpretation of God's commands about marriage and the social pressures shaping marriage show great variety. Those of us who are seeking to give legal sanction to same-sex marriage are not outside the narrative that the Manhattan signers develop, but we are a part of it. Those of us who are people of faith are attempting to be faithful to our religious views and our partners in seeking marriage, and we are also responding to social changes that make it possible for us to establish lasting relationships, like our non-religious counterparts. There is no one ideology of same-sex marriage. The question for many of us arises out of Scripture, natural human reason, and the nature of the human person, just as it does for the signatories of the declaration.

Marriage: Following the declaration are sections on issues. I'll skip to the one on marriage. One finds a rehearsal of the benefits of marriage, how God has honored it, and a discussion of the threats to marriage. There is an interesting acknowledgment about the causality between same-sex marriage and problems in the wider marriage culture: "The impulse to redefine marriage in order to recognize same-sex and multiple partner relationships is a symptom, rather than the cause, of the erosion of the marriage culture." I was pleased to see this admission. Of course, the section goes on to argue that the impulse must nevertheless be resisted since it would lock confusion into place. But at least these leaders are on the record as saying that same-sex marriage does not directly hurt heterosexual marriages. But did you notice what else they did with that line? They put same-sex marriage and multiple partner relationships together. And they did the same in the following paragraph. Since there isn't to my knowledge legislation pending about multiple partner relationships, the effect is fear-mongering. I guess we can at least be thankful that they didn't bring up bestiality, though they did conjure the image of incest. As I've said before, the nearest analogy is between opposite-sex marriage of two partners and same-sex marriage of two partners. Those are the only viable ones under debate. Adding anything else has nothing to do with the issues at hand in politics today. Britney Spears songs notwithstanding, there is no lobby for threesomes.

Of course, they develop their argument for only allowing opposite-sex marriage based on "sexual complementarity" and procreation. Procreation always seems to be the obvious argument, the common sense position. But it's not. Not every opposite-sex married couple wants to procreate or can procreate, whether that be for age or medical reasons. So marriage need not be about procreation. The complementarity issue also seems to be common sense to many straight people, and one occasionally hears it explained in terms of pegs fitting into holes! I'll resist the urge to be crude in return and simply say, even if there were no same-sex couples...straight people have found plenty of ways to use their pegs and holes that don't have anything to do with procreation and certainly have nothing to do with sexual complementarity. The Manhattan folks won't be saying anything about that because they know how ridiculous they would sound if they started regulating those practices.

Religious Liberty: This final section is the most melodramatic. It is an attempt to scare socially conservative Christians into believing that the state will begin infringing the Bill of Rights with respect to some of the political questions addressed in the document. The state is not going to make any religious body perform a same-sex marriage. But some religious bodies want it both ways. They want the budgeting and tax advantages of forming separate 501c3 organizations to do social work and still not have to comply with non-discrimination laws. My advice would be keep your ministries in house. If you form a separate corporation to do social work and employ over 15 people, there is a reasonable expectation that you will have to comply with federal, state, and local non-discrimination laws and give spousal benefits to whoever is legally married in that jurisdiction. The dramatic language of resisting the state in the same way that the early Church did is laughable. The early Church kept its ministries within the Church and some of its members went to their deaths when they were compelled to worship idols. What those who complain about non-discrimination policies really want are the state-granted advantages of having their social ministries in a separate corporation. My guess is that in many cases, compromises would allow even their separate non-profits to be exempt.

Despite their rhetoric, they will never be commemorated in the liturgy for whining about their affiliated 501c3 charity resisting a local non-discrimination ordinance. They will not end up in the martyrologies. Those men and women were made of much stouter stuff than the signatories of the Manhattan Declaration.

-Chris Sanders

Family Action targets ENDA and DOMA and so do we

The Family Action Council of Tennessee has been writing about the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act and the Respect for Marriage Act, which would overturn the so-called Defense of Marriage Act.

Family Action's objection to ENDA is that it would cause a problem for employers with religious objections to people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender and want to have the ability to fire them or not hire them in the first place. It should be noted that ENDA does not apply to religious organizations. But it would apply to organizations and businesses that are not religious in nature such as Exxon or the State of Tennessee. What if there is a director in one of their departments who has a religious objection to hiring people with different sexual orientations or gender identities? Too bad. I fail to see how a religious understanding of sexual orientation or gender identity should be the basis of whether someone at Exxon or in State government gets a job.

That's really the issue. It's not that the top leadership of most large employers like the State of Tennessee have established some policy that seeks to root out GLBT people. The problem with large employers with hundreds or even thousands of supervisors is that some of them will bring their views of us to the workplace and use their power to deprive us of work. ENDA would deter that sort of discrimination.

Family Action is nervous about the Respect for Marriage Act, not because it would immediately lead to same-sex marriage in Tennessee, but because of the surprising ways that federal action reaches into the states. I agree that the Repeal of DOMA will not immediately lead to marriage equality in Tennessee. But working to repeal DOMA is the one constructive thing people in Tennessee can do to bring it closer.

So this coming Sunday, which is National Coming Out Day, we'll be gathering to contact our Members of Congress about ENDA and the repeal of DOMA--two pieces of legislation that can make a big difference in states like Tennessee where the advances in equality are beginning but small.

The Road to Marriage in the South: Part 2

In my last post, I talked about developments in Illinois and Texas that put those two states on the road to marriage equality. I mentioned Virginia and North Carolina as the two states most likely to achieve marriage equality in the South. I should have backed that assertion up with a little checking. There are, in fact, small developments that bear out the prediction, though I suspect those victories are still years away.

In Virginia, Republican candidate for the House of Delegates Eric Brescia submitted an October 2 column to the Washington Blade arguing that equality requires Republican allies. He hopes to be that ally:

IF THE REPUBLICAN Party wants to be relevant for the newest generation of voters, it cannot continue to drive a social wedge between those who seek to protect “traditional marriage” and those who seek to extend the rights and responsibilities to couples who want to enjoy such a commitment. And if gays and lesbians want to enter into civil marriages in states like Virginia, they’re going to need Republicans in Richmond advocating on their behalf. The GOP is the majority party in Virginia’s House of Delegates and polls indicate Republicans could win the three statewide races — governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general — this November. No change in Virginia law will be possible without a broad coalition and an advocate for equal rights working within the majority party.

Whether you call him Don Quixote or a pioneer, he's right. Marriage equality won't come to the South without some Republicans moving on the issue. Whether Brescia becomes the first in a minor chorus or an anomaly for the next five to ten years depends, of course, on whether he wins.

Across the border in North Carolina, a billboard campaign for marriage equality has begun. Although some would consider any such campaign an in-your-face gesture, this one is really restrained. It shows four couples with the number of years they've been together and asks, "Haven't we waited long enough?" The campaign debuted in Greensboro, which is surprising because one might have expected Raleigh-Durham or Charlotte.

Both Brescia's candidacy and the North Carolina billboard campaign are the start or the new start of many difficult public discussions about marriage equality in the two Southern states that could lead the way. What they have begun will eventually spill over into their neighbor to the West and we welcome the discussion.

Marriage: The More You Ignore Me the Closer I Get

Some interesting marriage equality news has just come out. A Texas judge ruled today in a "gay divorce" case that the state's marriage ban is unconstitutional because it violates equal protection. The state attorney general has already said he'll appeal. No surprise there. What is surprising is that the judge made this ruling despite the fact that Texas not only has a statute defining marriage but a state constitutional amendment as well. Just like Tennessee.

Miles to the North in Illinois, a marriage bill has been introduced just months after the state had been looking at civil unions.

So what's the point for Tennessee? Both states are closer to Tennessee than any of the others that are on a path towards marriage equality. And I guess that's the other point--both states are now on some kind of path to marriage equality. In Illinois, it's going to be a legislative solution. In Texas, it could be a judicial solution. And even if the series of cases don't result in marriage, they could reignite a marriage equality movement there. Tennessee's path is more likely to be like Texas once it finally begins. Since we've just passed our first employment protections at the local level this year, it's unlikely that we'll move significantly on relationship recognition soon. But we need to be open to that kind of surprise, too. Perhaps one of our cities will adopt a domestic partner registry.

If more states closer to Tennessee adopt either marriage or civil unions, it will be harder to ignore the need for some reforms to family law. Tennessee couples have already gone to Massachusetts, Canada, and California to get married. If Memphians can go to Dallas, Nashvillians to Chicago, and Knoxvillians to Asheville (North Carolina or Virginia is likely to be the first Southern state to make a significant move on same-sex unions), then we're going to have a lot of cases related to divorce, inheritance, etc. in Tennessee courts that call for a policy remedy.

It's coming closer and we will not be able to predict what brings it to our borders and when. Perhaps some gubernatorial candidate will meet the new development at the state line. But even he can't hold it at bay forever.

Robin Smith's mixed feelings on Tennessee's marriage ban

From her congressional campaign site:

"In 2006, more than 80% of Tennesseans declared their support at the polls for the belief that marriage is between one man and one woman. I stand with that 80%. No one should ever be discriminated against or feel threatened for the life they lead, but Tennesseans have spoken on this issue."

That's right. She stands with the ban 80%. 20% of her is fighting back against it. After all, "No one should ever be discriminated against."

OK, OK, we're kidding. We know that what Smith means is that she is standing with the 80% of people who voted for the marriage ban. Now that's courage! Standing with the majority. After all, she wouldn't want to be thought of as "pro-gay."

Painful reading on Obama admin's defense of DOMA

From John Aravosis at Americablog on Obama administration's defense of DOMA:

We just got the brief from reader Lavi Soloway. It's pretty despicable, and gratuitously homophobic. It reads as if it were written by one of George Bush's top political appointees. I cannot state strongly enough how damaging this brief is to us. Obama didn't just argue a technicality about the case, he argued that DOMA is reasonable. That DOMA is constitutional. That DOMA wasn't motivated by any anti-gay animus. He argued why our Supreme Court victories in Roemer and Lawrence shouldn't be interpreted to give us rights in any other area (which hurts us in countless other cases and battles). He argued that DOMA doesn't discriminate against us because it also discriminates about straight unmarried couples (ignoring the fact that they can get married and we can't).

He actually argued that the courts shouldn't consider Loving v. Virginia, the miscegenation case in which the Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to ban interracial marriages, when looking at gay civil rights cases. He told the court, in essence, that blacks deserve more civil rights than gays, that our civil rights are not on the same level.

And before Obama claims he didn't have a choice, he had a choice. Bush, Reagan and Clinton all filed briefs in court opposing current federal law as being unconstitutional (we'll be posting more about that later). Obama could have done the same. But instead he chose to defend DOMA, denigrate our civil rights, go back on his promises, and contradict his own statements that DOMA was "abhorrent." Folks, Obama's lawyers are even trying to diminish the impact of Roemer and Lawrence, our only two big Supreme Court victories. Obama is quite literally destroying our civil rights gains with this brief. He's taking us down for his own benefit.

What follows in the post is much of the text and it's a good reminder that we shouldn't expect any goodies at the federal level soon. Now returning you to your regularly scheduled program in Tennessee.

No TN sponsors of DC anti-marriage equality bills YET

The city council of Washington, D.C. recently voted to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. That decision is in jeopardy with the introduction of legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives, according to the Human Rights Campaign.

So I looked up H.R. 2608 fully expecting to see at least one Tennessee member of Congress listed as a cosponsor. No dice. Maybe they haven't heard about the bill. Maybe they haven't been approached. Maybe they don't care. Maybe some of them see it as a home rule issue and are avoiding it on principle. I'd like to think it's the last of those four, but I'm not holding my breath. Still, it was a pleasant Memorial Day weekend surprise.

More Iowa reaction: penal colonies and cow rights

And so the conversation turned
Until the sun went down
And many fantasies were learned
On that day

Human League, Fascination

It never fails. Whenever there is a major decision on GLBT rights, we learn the most outlandish fantasies of some of our opponents. Here's a lovely reaction to the Associated Press piece that appeared in the Tennessean:

Now that there are 3 states, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa, that should be enough to take care of all the abnormal gay people. Since there are 47 states who realize how this will decay our society, why don't all of you who have this lifestyle move to one of those states. That way you would be happy and those of us who do not want you here would be also. It would be somewhat like a penal colony. That way you could openly practice your sick lifestyle and no one would notice or even care.
I am not surprised at the 2 Northeastern states but am very surprised at Iowa. Since that state is loaded with cattle, wonder what the courts will do the first time a farmer falls in love with one of his cows and wants to marry her. After all, it is a living, breathing animal and should not be discriminated againist. Cows should have rights too.

Wow! A whole three penal colonies for gay people. Our own private Australia times three! Here the extreme right meets the extreme left who wonder why GLBT people stay in states like Tennessee. Ugh.

In the next argument we find animal husbandry gone awry. I tell you what, buddy, when there's a powerful lobby for bestiality and when cattle can consent, then we might have something to worry about.

Leaving aside the craziness on both sides, Family Action's David Fowler gives a more typical conservative reaction to the events in Iowa.

The Iowa Supreme Court decision and religious views on marriage

In a unanimous decision today, the Iowa Supreme Court held that the Iowa statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution. The court's opinion is worth reading, but I was particularly interested in the court's position on religious opposition to marriage:

In the final analysis, we give respect to the views of all Iowans on the issue of same-sex marriage—religious or otherwise—by giving respect to our constitutional principles. These principles require that the state recognize both opposite-sex and same-sex civil marriage. Religious doctrine and views contrary to this principle of law are unaffected, and people can continue to associate with the religion that best reflects their views. A religious denomination can still define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and a marriage ceremony performed by a minister, priest, rabbi, or other person ordained or designated as a leader of the person’s religious faith does not lose its meaning as a sacrament or other religious institution. The sanctity of all religious marriages celebrated in the future will have the same meaning as those celebrated in the past. The only difference is civil marriage will now take on a new meaning that reflects a more complete understanding of equal protection of the law. This result is what our constitution requires.

My hope is that our country is returning to a place where religious pluralism is allowed to flourish without the interference of the state adopting any particular religious point of view. The historic separation of Church and State is exactly why faith and religious life has thrived in the United States since our nation was founded. The return to this founding principle allows all people freedom to hold any religious belief. The decision to allow all dual- and same-sex couples access to civil marriage will not force any church or religious institution to bless a union it does not recognize.

Quote of the day: "We're not married, actually. We're a legal corporation, though."

From the Nashville Scene's interview with Augusten Burroughs:

Tennessee is unfortunately one of the many states where gay people are not allowed to marry the person we love, but you're lucky enough to live in Massachusetts. Are you and Dennis married, and if not, any plans?

We're not married, actually. We're a legal corporation, though. That's close. But we're not married and there really is no good reason for this; we've been together nine years and we both wear rings as if we were married. And I am sure that at some point we will actually formalize our union. But I am very proud that once again, Massachusetts has made a bold and controversial move to assure the freedom of every American citizen, regardless of sexual orientation.

Tennessee contributors to Florida's marriage ban revealed with handy map

Based on this map of residents of Tennessee who contributed to the effort to pass Florida's marriage ban, persecuting GLBT people in other states isn't a very high priority. The dollar amounts aren't very high either. Maybe no one told Lee Beaman about the Florida amendment because his name doesn't show up.

But if you click on the balloon around Franklin, you'll see that one of our friends at the Family Action Council of Tennessee did his part. Disney may be too pro-gay, but at least it's still safe to go to the beach without running into married same-sex couples.

NAE government affairs VP Richard Cizik resigns over civil unions remark

Richard Cizik, vice president of governmental affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals, has resigned over remarks he made on National Public Radio in support of civil unions. Christianity Today interviewed NAE president Leith Anderson on the reasons for the resignation and the fallout.

According to Anderson, "There was a discussion and a consensus that his credibility as spokesperson for the NAE was irreparably compromised. It was out of reporting that discussion to Richard Cizik that he and I discussed together and mutually concluded that his resignation was appropriate."

It's not a puff piece. It's a hard-hitting interview and Anderson's answers are not very strong at points. Anderson refuses to say, for example, whether the NAE has seen a spike in negative emails in reaction to Cizik's remarks. What I wish they had asked was whether the NAE had seen a high volume of criticism of the NAE for pressuring Cizik to leave.

Another example of how ill-prepared Anderson was for the interview is this exchange:

Has the rise of the Religious Right made it more difficult for the NAE to try to represent evangelicals?

I don't know. I've never thought about that.

I'm sure the interviewer had to bite her tongue or restrain her facial expressions after that answer.

While not backing full marriage equality, Cizik is to be commended for the courageous stand he took. There are many Evangelicals who are with him on this point. Obviously there are still many who are not.

The Cizik resignation signals to me, despite setbacks like California's Proposition 8, that Evangelicals know they are losing on this issue. When you're losing, you can shift your position or dig in. You can also keep using the same tactics or change your methods. While the continuing leadership of the NAE may dig in on their position, the fact that someone at the highest levels of the organization is shifting is probably indicative that rank-and-file Evangelicals may be more receptive to civil unions.

Evangelical leaders attack Newsweek piece, but they say they really aren't worried about it.

Politico quotes a number of Evangelical leaders who express their dismay with the recent Newsweek cover story about the religious case for same-sex marriage.

“It doesn’t surprise me. Newsweek has been so far in the tank on the homosexual issue, for so long, they need scuba gear and breathing apparatus,” said Richard Land, who heads the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. “I don’t think it’s going to change the minds of anyone who takes biblical teachings seriously.”

Tony Perkins, president of the socially conservative Family Research Council, agreed, calling Newsweek’s cover story “yet another attack on orthodox Christianity.”

“I hardly think that Newsweek is a credible venue for theological discussion,” said Perkins. “I mean, I thought it was just full of holes.”

Of course, they really are worried about the piece. It bypasses their pronouncements and lands in the mailboxes of hundreds of thousands of people around the country. It will spend a week in waiting areas of barber shops and doctors' offices for anyone to pick up. You won't be able to browse the magazine section of Kroger without seeing it. And it hits them where they believe they're strongest--religious authority. It adds another jolt of momentum in public opinion that is gradually shifting in favor of some kind of state sanction for same-sex relationships.

And best of all, it highlights the irony of the names of the organizations opposing same-sex marriage that include the words "liberty" and "research."

The problem that the Religious Right has is that it has no end game, except holding onto the status quo. While there can be little doubt that their hardcore adherents would like to see a return to sodomy laws, there is almost no chance of that happening. So we're in the purgatorial situation of not being able to go backwards. The GLBT genie is out of the bottle. More and more people are going to live their lives openly and lawfully and form relationships, and they have straight friends and family members who love them. So if we're not going to go back to sodomy laws and we've got hundreds of thousands of people forming relationships, doesn't the state have an interest in recognizing and ordering those relationships in order to secure the status of children and protect the partners involved? If that is the case, the only solution is a state sanctioned means of entering and dissolving committed relationships. The arrangement society knows best is marriage.