VIDEO: Holding NOM accountable for their absurd Iowa Supreme Court ad

By Matt Baume

They’re at it again.

Anti-gay groups like the National Organization for Marriage don’t have any facts to back up their crusade to ban marriage, so their ads all lean on innuendo, suggestions, and “weasel words.” Nowhere is that more apparent than their new ad, which calls for the ousting of Iowa Supreme Court justices based on one single ruling that NOM happens not to like.

If NOM wants to waste their money on these little games, that’s fine. Jeremy already did a spot-on job explaining why ads like these are, in fact, a big waste. But it’s also a good opportunity for us to step back, look at their silly claims, and expose them to the light of day.

Here’s the original:

And here’s my response:

To me, the most offensive thing about this new ad is the phrase “ignoring our traditional values.” Apparently now NOM feels that they are qualified to decide for us what our values are.

VIDEO: Exposing NOM/”Iowa For Freedom” anti-equality team’s failure in court

(Cross-posted at Good As You. Also, read Jeremy’s post yesterday here on NOM sinking $235,000 into a TV ad buy targeting the Iowa Supreme Court)

By Jeremy Hooper

We keep hearing the well-funded NOM/Iowa For Freedom coalition talk about how the state Supreme Court supposedly decided the marriage case inappropriately, and the judges should therefore be removed from their jobs. But nobody on the anti-LGBT wants to actually show people what went down in that court room and let them make up their own minds about how and why the justices arrived at their opinion. So we will.

Here now, six clips — three from pro-equality attorney Dennis Johnson and three from Roger Kuhle, an attorney who attempted to defend marriage bias. Take a look back:

Johnson kept his cool, relying on the state’s current policies and his plaintiffs’ demonstrated merit:

And then there’s Kuhle, who based his words around the flawed procreation argument, said that Massachusetts opened up a “Pandora’s box,” and who claimed that same-sex marriage “destroy the nature” of marriage itself:

Our verdict: Just like in the much more extensive Prop 8 federal trial, the anti-equality side lost because they simply have no reasonable foundation for their views. It’s the whole “you can’t polish a turd” thing. Their biggest argument is based on the idea that creating babies, something that is a 100% non-requirement of the civil marriage contract, is actually what the marriage institution is all about, and gay couples (who often parent themselves) will somehow ruin that for current and future generations. Honestly, they should save face by thanking their own parents for birthing them into this time, because the reality is that this kind of reasoning will someday not only be rejected in court — it will be unapologetically laughed out of the same!

***

**SEE ALSO: The 2009 decision that quite ably details

Iowa Code section 595.2 is unconstitutional because the County has

been unable to identify a constitutionally adequate justification for excluding

plaintiffs from the institution of civil marriage. A new distinction based on

sexual orientation would be equally suspect and difficult to square with the

fundamental principles of equal protection embodied in our constitution.

This record, our independent research, and the appropriate equal protection

analysis do not suggest the existence of a justification for such a legislative

classification that substantially furthers any governmental objective.

Consequently, the language in Iowa Code section 595.2 limiting civil

marriage to a man and a woman must be stricken from the statute, and the

remaining statutory language must be interpreted and applied in a manner

allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil

marriage.

VI. Conclusion.

The district court properly granted summary judgment to plaintiffs.

Iowa Code section 595.2 violates the equal protection provision of the Iowa

Constitution. Our decision becomes effective upon issuance of

procedendo.33

AFFIRMED.

All justices concur.

View this document on Scribd

VIDEO: NOM sinks $235,000 into TV/radio ad buy targeting Iowa Supreme Court

Check out the TV ad below and read Jeremy’s post. $235,000 is a lot money, given Iowa’s small media market. — Eden

(Cross-posted at Good As You)

By Jeremy Hooper

NOM is all kinds of proud to partner with the Sandra Day O’Connor-misrepresenting group “Iowa For Mob Rule” “Iowa For Freedom.” Here’s Brian Brown’s latest e-blast, promoting the majority tyranny coalition’s latest TV spot:

Perhaps the biggest waste of 200+k in American political history! Because first and most obviously: The attempt to use this one UNANIMOUS decision against these three justices simply because the findings don’t jibe with certain LGBT-hostile religious beliefs is a major threat to the nature of the fair and independent judiciary.

But beyond just that: Even if the anti-equality crowd was to remove the three (or even all seven) judges, the chances of them finding a majority of replacements that will go the faith-based, anti-LGBT way is slim to none (and growing slimmer every day). Because in any given state Supreme Court appointment, the three potential justices who are delivered to the governor are selected by a nominating commission. Seven members of that commission are indeed appointed by the governor, but they must then be confirmed by the senate. The other seven members are attorneys elected by the state bar association. And of course the nominating commission culls their three possibilities from those who have demonstrated the merit needed for the job, not the partisan politicking that NOM and Iowa For Freedom would like to see.

So the point: There are so many parts of this process that are completely out of NOM and Iowa for Freedom’s control. Sure there are some partisan elements, due to the governor’s role. And ultimately the governor’s office, which could possibly turn GOP in the election, gets the final say in who gets the appointment. But Iowa’s process is not a partisan election where interest groups can easily sneak in seven ideologues via the deceptive campaigns that they call normalcy! Firing these three won’t mean that Maggie Gallagher gets the job by default. Rejecting their accurate assessments won’t change said accuracy.

What NOM/Iowa For Freedom (and their more silent partners at AFA) really wants is an overhaul of the constitution. And not just a marriage amendment, which courts will ultimately roll back. At the end of the day, what these folks want is a newly written document that grants heterosexual, faith-based superiority. Fortunately, the constitution’s retention is not up for a public vote this November. At least not directly.

***

*Oh, and just a reminder (because it can’t be stated enough): “Liberal activist” Marsha Ternus was already appointed by the man who could be Iowa’s next governor: Terry Branstad, Republican former governor and current GOP nominee to retake the governor’s office. (*check bottom of this post to read what Brandstand said about Ternus back in ’93)

“American Taliban”: Markos Moulitsas joins Courage Campaign Conversation conference call on Thursday night

By Eden James

I don’t usually post Courage Campaign emails in full, but I’m running out the door and wanted you all to see this, in case you’re interested in joining us on the call, with Rick Jacobs moderating.

The subject of this new book by Markos Moulitsas dovetails directly with the mission of this web site — to cover the Prop 8 trial as it develops and hold the right-wing accountable across the spectrum of the LGBT rights movement.

If you can join us on Thursday night, we’d love to have you:

---

With the religious right continuing to use marriage equality as a wedge issue as the November election looms, we thought it would be a good time for a “Courage Campaign Conversation” with Markos Moulitsas, founder of Daily Kos, one of America’s largest online political communities. Markos has a written a new book called “American Taliban: How War, Sex, Sin, and Power Bind Jihadists and the Radical Right” and we’ve invited him to talk about it with you on a nationwide conference call this Thursday, Sept. 16, at 5:30 p.m. PST / 8:30 p.m. EST. Please read his message below and then RSVP for the call ASAP: http://www.couragecampaign.org/MarkosCall Rick Jacobs Chair, Courage Campaign

---

Dear Friend–

Right-wingers say a lot of ridiculous things. But few were more ridiculous than the repeated claims that progressives were in league with Islamic terrorists.

Why would progressives make common cause with terrorists? After all, the values and tactics that make Jihadists so despicable are the same values and tactics embraced by our own homegrown fundamentalists — the American Taliban.

That’s why I wrote the book “American Taliban: How War, Sex, Sin, and Power Bind Jihadists and the Radical Right.” In the book, I show how the modern conservative movement has taken on the  same attitudes and tactics of the Taliban, from their fetishization of violence and guns to their elevation of brute masculinity, love of theocracy, hatred of women and gays, fear of scientific progress and education, and disdain for popular culture.

Think about it. Both movements are dedicated to the unbridled pursuit of power at all costs, have little tolerance for the trappings of democracy, and quickly resort to violence when challenged… hardly the principles for which America stands.

I want to talk with you about “American Taliban” and American politics on Thursday, Sept. 16, at 5:30 p.m. PST / 8:30 p.m. EST.  Space is limited for this special “Courage Campaign Conversation,” so please click here to RSVP now. If you contribute $50 or more to the Courage Campaign, I’ll sign my book and send it to you (but you don’t need to buy a book to RSVP for the call):

http://www.couragecampaign.org/MarkosCall

When I typed my first words on Daily Kos in 2002, Democrats were cowering to the bullying of the Bush Administration, instead of standing strong against the opposition. We’ve made some progress since then. But we’ve still got a lot of work to do.

That’s why I wrote “American Taliban” — to establish what we’re up against and what it will take to fight it this November and in the coming years. I’ve got to say, I think this is my best book yet.

I’m looking foward to talking with you on Thursday — but space is limited on the call, so please hurry before lines run out. Just click here to RSVP for this “Courage Campaign Conversation” this Thursday (and consider making an optional $50 contribution to receive a signed copy of my book):

http://www.couragecampaign.org/MarkosCall

This should be a very open discussion. If you know any friends who would like to join us, please forward this message to them.

Thank you for all you do to make this a better country.

Markos Moulitsas
Founder, Daily Kos 

Is Maggie Gallagher a bigot?

By Rob Tisinai

Maggie Gallagher loves to complain about being called a bigot. It’s a favorite talking point. She writes whole columns about it. In fact, I’d bet she hopes people call her a bigot, just so she can roll around some more in the broken glass of victimhood.

The problem with this pose is that she founded the National Organization for Marriage . And on that group’s website is a page called “SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: Answering the Toughest Questions.” I see much claptrap on that page, but one mild statement shines out as the most offensive of all. She suggests this answer to a frequent question (or so she claims):

5. Why do you want to interfere with love?
A: “Love is a great thing. But marriage isn’t just any kind of love; it’s the special love of husband and wife for each other and their children.”

Logically, this answer is easy enough to pick apart. Certainly we’d laugh at the idea that there is a specific kind of love common to every husband/wife couple. There’s not even a love requirement for marriage in the first place, much less a legal obligation to feel some vague, undefined “special love.” In fact, Maggie and her ideological kin would argue that lack of love is no reason for heading to divorce court.

But NOM’s offense to logic isn’t what pisses me off. It’s the implication that gay and lesbian couples aren’t capable of feeling the same sort of love that straight couples can. Even more outrageously, that we can’t feel the same love for our children that straight couples can.

No. No, no, and no.

Gays and lesbians are not lacking in our ability to love. It’s literally dehumanizing to claim such a thing — to argue that we’re missing some essential component of what makes people human.

Is Maggie Gallagher a bigot? I can’t claim the right to judge the whole of her character. But in this case, to be sure, the answer she gives is the answer of a bigot. So Maggie, if you want, cry victim and roll around in that broken glass. You’re the one who put it there.

Hi Louis! “One Man, One Woman” stance on DADT exposes NOM’s duplicity and hypocrisy

(Cross-posted at Good As You)

By Jeremy Hooper

You know how we’ve told you a million times about that “One Man, One Woman” offshoot organization? The one run by National Organization For Marriage tour personality Louis Marinelli? The same OMOW group whose Facebook page NOM now claims as their own official site on both their own Twitter feed and their spinoff TwoMillionForMarriage.com site?

Yea, well check this out: In a surprising move, someone writing for OMOW (presumably Louis) has come out in favor of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell repeal:

Also, presumably-Louis has even joined this site, Towleroad, and Americablog in asking the DOJ to not appeal the recent court decision:

Uhm, okay. So now just to remind you: This Twitter account (which was once called NOMUpdates) is the same Twitter account that, over the past year, has tweeted all kinds of targeted hits not just against marriage equality, but also against gays in general. There was the time that Louis, or whoever was writing for the account, declared all gays to be single. There was the time that the Twitter-er said that Peter LaBarbera and his fringe “Americans For Truth” group merely “tell the truth about homosexuality.” There were times when he or she flat-out called us an abomination, citing Leviticus. There was this one: “Deviance” describes actions or behaviours that violate cultural norms – homosexuality is far from a cultural norm. Therefore, it is deviant.” And this: “Homosexuality and gay marriage are wrong and harmful to society.” And this: “#iaintafraidtosay that there shouldn’t be any recognition of homosexual relationships because that is saying that homosexuality is OK.” There was this next one, accompanied by a smile: “What they do is blantantly [sic] immoral. :)” There were times when Mr. Marinelli or his ally compared our unions to that which might exist between a sterile brother and sister. And other times when our very character was assaulted, like this one: “#nevertrust activists of the homosexual agenda – they are deceitful people who care only about themselves and not what’s best for society.” And so on and so on.

Plus, as we’ve seen time and time again, the OMOW Facebook page (which, again, NOM claims as their own in multiple places) hosts some of the most incendiary, blanketed comments on the ‘net. Comments that often go well beyond marriage and right into gays’ mental health.

So to have this site now coming out in favor of repeal? It’s kind of — something. Sure, it might be a naked attempt to say, “See we don’t really hate gays — we support their right to fight and possibly die on the battlefield.” But regardless of motivation, it’s certainly not a position that will sit well with the vast majority of organized anti-equality activists, as most of the socially conservative personalities and groups see the LGBT community’s every gain as an interconnected step down a slippery slope. So if OMOW is sincere, then we celebrate the dual takeaway: (1) The further evidence that even some “pro-family” peeps are coming around on basic rights, and (2) the further dissension that this support for basic rights will cause among those whose anti-gay “culture war” is an all-out “us v. them” battle rather than a series of tiered skirmishes with varying shades of nuance.

***

**True to form, OMOW is making yet another attempt to distance from NOM:

But here’s the deal: It is 100% impossible for an organization to embed a Facebook page…

(NOM’s TwoMillion For Marriage site, with “OMOW” Facebook embedded within)

…and for that same organization to list that same Facebook page on their branded Twitter account…

(NOM’s official Twitter sidebar, with “OMOW” listed as official Facebook)

…and still claim separation. IT. DOES. NOT. WORK. THAT. WAY.

“Moral rights”: A discussion of Peter, Paul & Mary’s cease-and-desist letter to NOM

Remember when Peter, Paul & Mary sent NOM a cease-and-desist letter a few weeks ago, after P8TT participant Kathleen Perrin notified them that NOM was playing “This Land Is Your Land” at their rallies? And when 23,154 Courage Campaign community members thanked Peter, Paul & Mary?

Well, the case has been the subject of discussion in other forums as well, including the blog of Brendan Riley, an Associate Professor in the English Department at Columbia College Chicago. Although Prof. Riley’s post is somewhat critical of our approach, we thought we should bring it to the attention of the P8TT community, in the interest of a free and open discussion that is edifying to all involved. I’m looking forward to reading your thoughts in the comments, as I’m sure Prof. Riley is as well. — Eden James

By Brendan Riley

There’s this concept in copyright and intellectual property law that I find pretty interesting: moral rights. While this set of rules relates to attribution (citation, etc), it’s also used to discuss the artist’s right to defend the “integrity” of the work. This could include the use of the work in a context outside its intended meaning. America doesn’t really recognize this right. We defend ownership and copying rights, but moral rights don’t have codified space in our legal system.

Except in campaign music. I presume large scale political events license the music they use, but usually those licenses are not cleared with the artists, so you get the famous moments when musicians protest the use of the music in the wrong context. (Think Bruce Springsteen and the Reagan campaign’s use of “Born in the U.S.A.”) It’s usually liberal artists protesting conservative uses of music. I wonder if it’s ever gone the other way?

So I was interested to learn from the Courage Campaign that the National Organization for Marriage (which seeks to prohibit marriage, oddly) had been sent a Cease-and-Desist letter because they were playing the Peter, Paul, and Mary recording of “This Land is Your Land.”

Peter, Paul, and Mary love the marryin' gays

In the Courage Campaign email, they write:

Kathleen Perrin, a frequent commenter on the Prop 8 Trial Tracker, was stunned and deeply offended that NOM was using this beautiful folk song to drown out the chants of equality counter-protesters. Kathleen knew that Woody Guthrie and Peter, Paul & Mary unequivocally supported justice and equality for all.

This is a really interesting moment because of the usual copyright conditions attached to “This Land is Your Land.” Woody Guthrie famously released it under the first creative commons license:

“This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright # 154085, for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin it without our permission, will be mighty good friends of ourn, cause we don’t give a dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that’s all we wanted to do.”

So we have here someone advocating freedom and sharing, and another group from another era picking up that spirit and using the song again, and another group re-purposing that song in ways the original creators disagree with. Some thoughts:

• From a legal perspective, it seems like PPM could stop NOM from using the song by refusing to license it for public performance. Since those rates are negotiable (unlike radio-play rates, for instance), there might be some traction there. I wonder if the NOM could get around it by hiring a radio station to play the song on a loop for a while (as a patriot day or something). Then they could just play the radio broadcast over their speakers.
• But nothing would prevent them from using a different group’s cover of the song, or recording their own to play.
• Probably the most effective part is the public announcement of this disagreement. On one hand, the people choosing the song wanted some traction from the PPM recording because it’s nostalgic. By publicly disagreeing with the use of the song, PPM calls attention to it and disrupts that pleasant nostalgia.
• On the other hand, it seems like there’s a whole other angle here about the commodity-fetishism effect, in which PPM’s “This Land is Your Land” does more much to evoke positive memories of the 1960s than to evoke the political ideas that drove those movements. Even a rudimentary reading of the “Free Love” era would suggest that it’s clearly antithetical to Prop 8. Of course, many of the Baby Boomers are now conservatives, but they probably don’t think of themselves as no longer connected to their music. But it goes to the power of music to operate on valences other than the rational — we like the song, we enjoyed the era, therefore it’s nice. It doesn’t matter that the music actually says something opposed to what I want.
• Like protecting marching Nazis, I tend to side with the NOM in terms of rights. I don’t agree with the idea of moral rights beyond the copyright period. If we really want to be able to have a vibrant, creative culture, we need to allow for the possibility that art will be used in ways the original artist wasn’t intending. I also think it’s amusing that the Courage Campaign email slipped Woody Guthrie in there, as if he’s also one of the signatories. I’m sure Arlo could have gotten on board. More importantly, having published it under the cc-like license above, would Woody step up and complain? Would he try to take legal action to stop it?
• At the same time, I also appreciate that modern media gives moral rights a new kind of power, as artists like PP&M can make their disgust with groups like NOM clear and public.

I’ll file this away to discuss with my New Media students — we spend a lot of time talking about copyright and its importance or use in culture. The instinct is that artists should be able to control their work is a strong one when students think about their own work, but they also want to rip/mix/burn. Cognitive dissonance, ahoy!

Edit: As I read this, I realize it might be unclear which side of the debate I fall on, perhaps. I firmly believe that gay marriage is a fair and just idea, one we should all work for.

NOM’s Maggie Gallagher: “A man who committed sodomy may have lost his soul, be he did not lose his gender”

(Cross-posted at Good As You)

By Jeremy Hooper

Not sure when or where or why she said it. But according to Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president Albert Mohler Jr., writing in the 2008 book The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics: Surveying the Evidence, National Organization For Marriage chair Maggie Gallagher did in fact say this about gay people:

(*NOTE: quote starts in highlighted right column, continues in left)

*SOURCE: The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics: Surveying the Evidence [Google Books]

Okay, first off: Ridiculous! “Homosexuality did not exist”? There is homosexuality in the historical record dating back as far as it goes. Some of these reports are more likely and valid than others, admittedly. But to act as if two men and two women were nothing more than “sodomy” or “buggery” partners prior to the nineteenth century is as silly as saying that dinosaurs never existed. Oh wait a minute…

But beyond just denial, there’s also the element of perspective. There are many, many things that were considered taboo or forbidden or, conversely, acceptable, that we now look back on with humor, embarrassment, or shame. Because that’s what society does: Learns and grows from its mistakes, ideally remedying all past oppressions within a more enlightened people’s powers.

Of course there aren’t glowing reports of weekly gay unions from the year 1100 — gays, witches, liberated women, and those with the crazy theory that the world was round (among many, many others) were all too busy watching their backs to write any of it down. Many were shamed into silence or repression or worse. Much, much worse.

So we’d seriously caution Maggie about showing unqualified nostalgia for past human treatments, even if she’s only feigning these feelings for her own political purposes.

Maggie Gallagher on National Review article: “Single best piece I’ve read” on same-sex marriage

(Cross-posted at Good As You)

By Jeremy Hooper

A new National Review editorial that Maggie Gallagher calls the “single best piece I’ve read on the subject” of same-sex marriage features lots of the usual, increasingly-rejected arguments about procreation and slippery slopes. It also works the same “they’re gonna call us bigots!” victimization routine that Maggie’s National Organization For Marriage has taken on as their number one strategy as of late (while, of course, not taking responsibility for the “why” of that possibility). So since the piece is an amalgamation of what we take on here, nugget by flawed nugget, every single day of the work week, we’re not gonna pick the whole darn thing apart in this post.

We do, however, want to look at one particular segment that somewhat sums up the skewed mentality that underlies every last bit of our opposition’s marriage bias. Namely, this snip:

“Same-sex marriage would introduce a new, less justifiable distinction into the law. This new version of marriage would exclude pairs of people who qualify for it in every way except for their lack of a sexual relationship. Elderly brothers who take care of each other; two friends who share a house and bills and even help raise a child after one loses a spouse: Why shouldn’t their relationships, too, be recognized by the government? The traditional conception of marriage holds that however valuable those relationships may be, the fact that they are not oriented toward procreation makes them non-marital. (Note that this is true even if those relationships involve caring for children: We do not treat a grandmother and widowed daughter raising a child together as married because their relationship is not part of an institution oriented toward procreation.) On what possible basis can the revisionists’ conception of marriage justify discriminating against couples simply because they do not have sex?“

The Case for Marriage [Nat’l Review]

Sex. That’s where these opposition voices begin and end with us. Heterosexual married couples have love, commitment, companionship, shared goals and dreams, combined financial means, rights, privileges, tax breaks, PTA meetings, and entitlement to the easy marital currency that will be painlessly recognized in hospitals, courts, tax bureaus, and anywhere else where the one with whom a person has pledged a life commitment most comes into play. But gay couples? Well, we’re just friends who like to play with each others’ genitals, dontcha know? Like a pair of friends who are having so much fun exchanging orgasms that they decided to turn it into a permanent sleepover with their favorite bunkmate.

Now, these social conservatives have of course set up this heterosexual procreation argument because they think it’s the one thing we cannot refute. But marriage is not and has never been based around the ancillary component of children. Not fully. And nowhere else, other than in the confines of a politically-charged conversational contrivance like the one Nat’l Review‘s editors have proffered onto their partisan pages, would anyone debate that fact.

Human beings the world over know what love and marriage is, and we all know it goes well beyond whether or not the couple (homo or hetero) chooses to invoke on a path filled with diaper changes and Dora The Explorer DVDs. We know that Harry and June, sixty and childless even after being married for forty years, are no less nuptially-bonded than a teenage couple who spend their honeymoon in the maternity ward. We know that Bob and Joe, Sigma Delta Beer Bong brothers and roommates, have much more than sex separating their relationship from friendship to loving union (and that one drunken sex session isn’t enough to change that, so stop worrying, Joe).

We also know that marriage is one way that many committed couples choose to solidify this, the ultimate declaration that there’s more to this bond than just high fives and tenuous shared interests. And most importantly: We know that if one kind of couple within the known, scientifically-recognized spectrum of sexual orientation is included in the CIVIL system that we call marriage, than *ALL* couples who fit within this span are also to be included.

Oh, and some of us know that this is no longer a request: It is a demand.

***

*UPDATE: Now to be fair, Nat’l Review tries to blow off our beliefs by claiming that same-sex marriage advocates raise these three points:

The first is that law and society have always let infertile couples marry; why not treat same-sex couples the same way?

…

The second objection proponents of same-sex marriage raise is that the idea that marriage is importantly linked to procreation is outdated.

…

The third objection is that it is unfair to same-sex couples to tie marriage to procreation, as the traditional conception of marriage does.

The Case for Marriage [Nat’l Review]

And then they give the usual convenient reasons for why these points are supposedly faulty (hetero couples still have poss. of mating, the pregnancy connection is timeless, no animus is intended, etc.). But the problem? Well, in their strawman-like insistence on boiling down our arguments to three convenient claims, they fully overlook some of the more pertinent points that we raise. Points like:

1) That civil marriage laws do not speak to the ancillary component of children AT ALL, so the only way for these personal arguments about acceptable reproduction to come into play is for the religious right to start working toward procreation amendments rather than gay marriage bans.

(2) That when it comes to marriage’s supposed “tradition” and history, our modern opponents have no leg to stand on when it comes to marriage supposedly being the thing that we know it to be today.

(3) That nothing same-sex couples do or do not do in terms of their freedom to marry changes any of these beliefs, opinions, or even truths about marriage as we have known it!

And there are others, of course. All building on the actual reality of the world. One where gay people are born. Where gay people give birth. Where gay people contribute to births. One where the only folks who are playing politics with procreation are the social conservatives who look at the unique role that gay people play in the life chain, then take it upon themselves to decide that this role is to our society’s collective detriment.

Perhaps it’s time they embark on a National Re-Review.

Kafka and the National Organization for Marriage

(Over my first few weeks here on the Prop 8 Trial Tracker, I’m going to reprint a few — just a few — prior entries from my blog at Waking Up Now. The story of Ron Hanby and Mark Goldberg is one that everybody ought to know. First, because it’s a wrenching story that should open all but the coldest of hearts. Second, because it shows we need full marriage equality on a national scale. And finally, because it demonstrates the nightmare world that NOM wants us to inhabit. — Rob)

by Rob Tisinai

Ron Hanby, struggling with depression, took his own life on October 2, 2008. Mark Goldberg, his partner of 17 years, battled Rhode Island bureaucracy for weeks before the state would release Ron’s body to him. Ron had no living relatives. The couple, however, did have:

• wills
• living wills
• power of attorney documents
• and a Connecticut marriage certificate (Rhode Island doesn’t permit same-sex marriage or even civil unions)

None of that mattered in Rhode Island. Mark spent every day of his immediate grief on the phone with state officials, trying to get his husband’s body out of the morgue. Finally, after four weeks, a state bureaucrat took a special interest and helped him get Ron’s body released.

One good thing came out of this: Rhode Island’s state legislators wrote a bill creating funeral rights for domestic partners. They passed it in a bipartisan show of humanity: 63-1 in the House, unanimously in the Senate. And the Republican governor vetoed it.

Now the National Organization for Marriage is urging legislators not to override that veto. Chris Plante (executive director of NOM-RI), has written to them:

[T]he proposed legislation simply is not necessary… The right of any person, without regard to sexual preference or relationship to the decedent, to serve as a designated funeral-planning agent is already expressly guaranteed by Rhode Island Law 5-33.1-4. That statute only requires a simple notarized form naming an agent.

Ah, yes, Rhode Island Law 5-33.1-4. Of course. And what can we say in return except:

Thank you Mr. Plante!

We keep hearing that same-sex marriage isn’t necessary, that we can secure civil equality by visiting lawyers and drawing up contracts. That’s false, but people don’t always understand that. Luckily for us, Mr. Plante has taken this argument into the realm of satire: Mark and Ron had wills, power of attorney, and an actual marriage license? Simpletons! They should have known to go to a notary and designate each other as funeral planning agents, pursuant to R.I. Law 5-33.1-4!

Franz Kafka wrote this kind of satire. The term “Kafkaesque” describes a world in which “characters lack a clear course of action, the ability to see beyond immediate events, and the possibility of escape. The term’s meaning has transcended the literary realm to apply to real-life occurrences and situations that are incomprehensibly complex, bizarre, or illogical.”

Compare that to Mark’s own description of what his life turned into:

I called the Police to our home where the death occurred and in two hours they performed their investigation, offered their condolences, removed Ron’s body and left our house. No one offered any information on what I was to do next. No phone number to contact the detective in charge, no information on where they were taking Ron’s body, no information on what I as his partner for so many years should do next.

Ron had no next of kin other than me. I shared our Wills, Living Wills, Power of Attorney and Marriage Certificate to the Police Department, Medical Examiner’s Office and the Department of Health, but no one was willing to see these documents. The State Law stated that a two week search for next of kin must be done. The Medical Examiner’s office waited a full week before placing an ad in the Providence Journal. After no one responded they waited another week to send paperwork to the Health and Human Services Department listing Ron as an unclaimed body. During this four week process, I was on the phone every day trying to convince someone, anyone, that I was the person claiming Ron’s body. The same response came back to me every time; “It’s State law, our hands are tied, there’s nothing we can do”.

I attempted to place an obituary in the Providence Journal and again, I was denied because we were not blood relatives, and the Journal had to comply with state rules. GLAD, the Gay and Lesbian Advocacy and Defenders could not help me because our bond was not recognized in the State of RI. After four weeks an employee in the Department of General Public Assistance of Human Services took pity upon me and my plight. She reviewed our documentation and was able to get all parties concerned to release Ron’s body to me.

Mr. Plante and NOM look at this nightmare and say, No problem. Because, after all, Mark and Ron could have avoided it simply by following the instructions in Rhode Island Law 5-13.1-4.

I’ll make a deal with NOM: If they specify every law, every form, and every contract – in every state – that gay couples need to pursue in order to secure their rights as a couple, than I’ll do the same for straights. In fact, I’ll provide a complete and exhaustive list for straight Californians right now:

• California Marriage License, Registration and Ceremony Information

Okay, NOM, your turn.

But I doubt NOM will return the favor. They don’t want us to have any rights and benefits of marriage. Mr. Plante is clear about his reasons for opposing the funeral rights law.

[T]he legislation in question is actually an exploitation of Mr. Goldberg’s tragedy by the homosexual-marriage activists in Rhode Island. Despite their claims to the contrary, these bills serve simply as “Trojan Horses” for homosexual-marriage. In California and Connecticut…courts found that when rights of domestic partners, under either that nomenclature or as “civil-unions,” were expanded…that the State must by extension fully recognize homosexual marriage…

As such, NOM – Rhode Island respectfully requests that you vote to sustain the Governor’s veto both to avoid creating unnecessary law and to not move Rhode Island closer to recognizing homosexual-marriage.

[full quote here]

NOM doesn’t just oppose marriage equality. They don’t just oppose robust civil unions or watered-down domestic partnerships. They oppose anything that might constitute even the slightest formal recognition of our relationships. They want instead to send us running down a thousand different legal avenues in a labyrinth that they’re lobbying to turn against us.

Franz Kafka won a place in literature by creating a vivid and chilling world of bureaucratic brutality. That’s the world in which NOM wants us to live.

UPDATE: The Rhode Island legislature did override the veto.