So a year ago I never would have asked such a question! But this week brings us diametrically opposing decisions from these two executives. Both executives had to decide whether to appeal court rulings striking down a statute as unconstitutional. Florida Governor Charlie Crist decided not to appeal the Florida Court of Appeals ruling that the state's ban on lesbian and gay adoptions is unconstitutional. Obama, on the other hand, has appealed two lower court rulings striking down the portion of the Defense of Marriage Act that requires the federal government to treat gay couples as unmarried even when they actually are married in the state where they live. Writing about Obama's decision, National Center for Lesbian Rights legal director Shannon Minter states that
there is no honor in defending a blatantly unconstitutional law. There is no shame in letting a decision striking down such a law stand. There is no duty to defend a morally and legally bankrupt law. President Obama’s belief that he must defend DOMA is no doubt sincere, but it is mistaken.
I would not necessarily attribute Obama's decision to his sincere belief that he must defend DOMA. More likely his decision is political, as was the decision of Bill Clinton to sign DOMA in the first place. Congress sent DOMA to Clinton (along with "welfare reform") within three months of his bid for reelection in 2006. While I assume he had a sincere belief that "welfare reform" was appropriate (and that is a true shame on his presidency), I doubt he wanted to sign DOMA. He was a sincere gay rights ally, but it would have been political disaster to veto this bill handed him by a Republican Congress. Although it's not Obama who's on the ballot next month, it's unlikely he would want to give Republicans one more basis for attacking him and by extension any Democrat running for office.
On the other hand, Crist is on the Florida ballot (running for Senate as an Independent), which makes it extra-interesting that he sees no down-side to his decision to eliminate the adoption ban without a final ruling from the state's highest court. It's especially interesting because the Florida attorney general may still appeal on his own, a decision he has until next week to make.
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Friday, November 20, 2009
Chai Feldblum coasting toward confirmation as member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
The Senate Health, Eduation, Labor and Pensions Committee held a hearing yesterday on all of President Obama's nominees to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, including gay rights scholar and advocate, law professor Chai Feldblum. Watch the hearing here. Prof. Feldblum noted that she was accompanied by her partner, Nan Hunter.
The first question to Prof. Feldblum concerned her signing of the Beyond Marriage statement. Senator Harkin, one of Prof. Feldblum's supporters, noted that she had signed the statement and that it included support for "committed loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner." Then he asked her directly if she supported polygamy. Obviously prepared for the question, Prof. Feldblum replied:
Harkin said sometimes if a friend asks us to sign we do and he asked how much thought she had given to it. Prof. Feldblum said that, indeed, another law professor, from Columbia Law School had sent it to her. She said she did read it through, that she agreed with the thrust of supporting caregiving relationships, but that the statement does go beyond what I would have said. She repeated that it was a mistake to sign it and that she had asked to have her name removed.
Republican Senator Mike Enzi asked Prof. Feldblum what she thought of religious exemptions to anti-discrimination laws. Calling upon her experience as the daughter of a Holocaust survivor, which she had highlighted in her opening statement, Prof. Feldblum said she feels strongly that protections in place for religious liberty should be effectively enforced. She expressed support for the exemption in civil rights law that allows religious employers to hire people from their own religion. She also expressed support for the religious exemption in the pending Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
Sen. Enzi that asked whether Prof. Feldblum believes that victims of employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and identity (I think he meant gender identity but he didn't quite get it out) should be able to bring disparate impact claims. She replied that very early on there was agreement that no such claims would be permitted, that she was comfortable with that at the time and is now.
Chai was eloquent, poised, and well-prepared. Do I wish she could have given a more nuanced answer to the question about the Beyond Marriage statement? Absolutely. That must explain why I will never be confirmed by the Senate for anything! It looks like Chai's confirmation will go through easily with the other nominees, although I do imagine a number of Republicans will characterize her in some extreme fashion and vote against her.
The first question to Prof. Feldblum concerned her signing of the Beyond Marriage statement. Senator Harkin, one of Prof. Feldblum's supporters, noted that she had signed the statement and that it included support for "committed loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner." Then he asked her directly if she supported polygamy. Obviously prepared for the question, Prof. Feldblum replied:
I do not support polygamy. I am sorry I signed that document and I have asked for my name to be removed. I agreed with the general thrust of the statement that we ought to support caregiving relationships, but the statement goes beyond what I would have said to communicte that point. It was therefore a mistake to sign that document.
Harkin said sometimes if a friend asks us to sign we do and he asked how much thought she had given to it. Prof. Feldblum said that, indeed, another law professor, from Columbia Law School had sent it to her. She said she did read it through, that she agreed with the thrust of supporting caregiving relationships, but that the statement does go beyond what I would have said. She repeated that it was a mistake to sign it and that she had asked to have her name removed.
Republican Senator Mike Enzi asked Prof. Feldblum what she thought of religious exemptions to anti-discrimination laws. Calling upon her experience as the daughter of a Holocaust survivor, which she had highlighted in her opening statement, Prof. Feldblum said she feels strongly that protections in place for religious liberty should be effectively enforced. She expressed support for the exemption in civil rights law that allows religious employers to hire people from their own religion. She also expressed support for the religious exemption in the pending Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
Sen. Enzi that asked whether Prof. Feldblum believes that victims of employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and identity (I think he meant gender identity but he didn't quite get it out) should be able to bring disparate impact claims. She replied that very early on there was agreement that no such claims would be permitted, that she was comfortable with that at the time and is now.
Chai was eloquent, poised, and well-prepared. Do I wish she could have given a more nuanced answer to the question about the Beyond Marriage statement? Absolutely. That must explain why I will never be confirmed by the Senate for anything! It looks like Chai's confirmation will go through easily with the other nominees, although I do imagine a number of Republicans will characterize her in some extreme fashion and vote against her.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Obama administration again validates gay and lesbian parents
The US Justice Department filed a memorandum in support of a motion to dismiss today in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. United States, the lawsuit brought by Massachusetts arguing that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. This lawsuit complements the one brought by GLAD on behalf of several named plaintiffs.
The Justice Department memorandum reiterates that the administration supports repeal of DOMA but must nonetheless defend its constitutionality. It makes no explicit argument that sexual orientation is not a suspect classification entitled to heightened Equal Protection scrutiny; rather it says that the court is bound by a First Circuit US Court of Appeals ruling to that effect. I confess that my aggravation with the memorandum was tempered, as I read it, with the knowledge that any such document filed by a Republican administration would say vile and offensive things about us. By that measure, this is surely an improvement.
And the administration once again took the opportunity to distant itself from assertions that we are bad parents. Here's the footnote in full (check out how the government says the Scalia dissent in Lawrence, meant to scare everyone into thinking that decriminalizing sodomy would lead to same-sex marriage, is essentially correct!):
In this case, the government does not rely on certain purported interests set forth in the legislative history of DOMA, including the purported interests in “responsible procreation and child-rearing” -- that is, the assertions that (1) the government’s interest in “responsible procreation” justifies limiting marriage to a union between one man and one woman, and (2) that the government has an interest in promoting the raising of children by both of their biological parents. See H.R. Rep. No. 104-664, at 12-13, reprinted in 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 2916-17. Since the enactment of DOMA, many leading medical, psychological, and social welfare organizations have issued policies opposing restrictions on lesbian and gay parenting upon concluding, based on numerous studies, that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents. See American Academy of Pediatrics, http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;109/2/339 (February 2002 policy statement); American Psychological Association, http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/parents.html (July 2004 policy statement); American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/policystatements/gaylesbiantransgenderandbisexualparentspolicystatement (June 1999 policy statement); American Medical Association, http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/about-ama/our-people/member-groups-sections/glbt-advisory-committee/ama-policy-regarding-sexual-orientation.shtml (AMA Policy Regarding Sexual Orientation); Child Welfare League of America, http://www.cwla.org/programs/culture/glbtqposition.htm (Position Statement on Parenting of Children by Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Adults).
Furthermore, in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 605 (2003), Justice Scalia acknowledged in his dissent that encouraging procreation would not be a rational basis for limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples under the reasoning of the Lawrence majority opinion -- which, of course, is the prevailing law -- because “the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry.” Thus, the government does not believe that DOMA can be justified by interests in “responsible procreation” or “child-rearing.”
The Justice Department memorandum reiterates that the administration supports repeal of DOMA but must nonetheless defend its constitutionality. It makes no explicit argument that sexual orientation is not a suspect classification entitled to heightened Equal Protection scrutiny; rather it says that the court is bound by a First Circuit US Court of Appeals ruling to that effect. I confess that my aggravation with the memorandum was tempered, as I read it, with the knowledge that any such document filed by a Republican administration would say vile and offensive things about us. By that measure, this is surely an improvement.
And the administration once again took the opportunity to distant itself from assertions that we are bad parents. Here's the footnote in full (check out how the government says the Scalia dissent in Lawrence, meant to scare everyone into thinking that decriminalizing sodomy would lead to same-sex marriage, is essentially correct!):
In this case, the government does not rely on certain purported interests set forth in the legislative history of DOMA, including the purported interests in “responsible procreation and child-rearing” -- that is, the assertions that (1) the government’s interest in “responsible procreation” justifies limiting marriage to a union between one man and one woman, and (2) that the government has an interest in promoting the raising of children by both of their biological parents. See H.R. Rep. No. 104-664, at 12-13, reprinted in 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 2916-17. Since the enactment of DOMA, many leading medical, psychological, and social welfare organizations have issued policies opposing restrictions on lesbian and gay parenting upon concluding, based on numerous studies, that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents. See American Academy of Pediatrics, http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;109/2/339 (February 2002 policy statement); American Psychological Association, http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/parents.html (July 2004 policy statement); American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/policystatements/gaylesbiantransgenderandbisexualparentspolicystatement (June 1999 policy statement); American Medical Association, http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/about-ama/our-people/member-groups-sections/glbt-advisory-committee/ama-policy-regarding-sexual-orientation.shtml (AMA Policy Regarding Sexual Orientation); Child Welfare League of America, http://www.cwla.org/programs/culture/glbtqposition.htm (Position Statement on Parenting of Children by Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Adults).
Furthermore, in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 605 (2003), Justice Scalia acknowledged in his dissent that encouraging procreation would not be a rational basis for limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples under the reasoning of the Lawrence majority opinion -- which, of course, is the prevailing law -- because “the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry.” Thus, the government does not believe that DOMA can be justified by interests in “responsible procreation” or “child-rearing.”
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
A nod from the President...I'll take it!
While I was in synagogue yesterday for Yom Kippur, the President proclaimed the day "Family Day 2009." Amid the platitudes on the importance of strong families in keeping adolescents from substance abuse and electronic device overdose came a nod to us...same-sex couples raising children. Here's the quote:
American families from every walk of life have taught us time and again that children raised in loving, caring homes have the ability to reject negative behaviors and reach their highest potential. Whether children are raised by two parents, a single parent, grandparents, a same-sex couple, or a guardian, families encourage us to do our best and enable us to accomplish great things.
We've heard Presidential rhetoric before. When Bill Clinton accepted the Democratic nomination for president in 1992, it was the middle of a family values war. Clinton's contribution in his acceptance speech was the following:
I want an America where "family values" live in our actions, not just in our speeches. An America that includes every family. Every traditional family and every extended family. Every two-parent family, every single-parent family, and every foster family. Every family.
At the time I was thrilled. He didn't mention us by name, but he didn't exclude us either. He said every family. I believed him. That was before the Newt Gingrich Congress of 1994 and a Congress that handed him the Defense of Marriage Act just before the 2006 election.
Obama is three years from reelection. It looks unlikely that he will get DOMA repealed before then. But he's willing to include us in the list of families. And when his administration defends the constitutionality of DOMA, it now makes clear that we make good parents.
It's not enough, but it's progress.
American families from every walk of life have taught us time and again that children raised in loving, caring homes have the ability to reject negative behaviors and reach their highest potential. Whether children are raised by two parents, a single parent, grandparents, a same-sex couple, or a guardian, families encourage us to do our best and enable us to accomplish great things.
We've heard Presidential rhetoric before. When Bill Clinton accepted the Democratic nomination for president in 1992, it was the middle of a family values war. Clinton's contribution in his acceptance speech was the following:
I want an America where "family values" live in our actions, not just in our speeches. An America that includes every family. Every traditional family and every extended family. Every two-parent family, every single-parent family, and every foster family. Every family.
At the time I was thrilled. He didn't mention us by name, but he didn't exclude us either. He said every family. I believed him. That was before the Newt Gingrich Congress of 1994 and a Congress that handed him the Defense of Marriage Act just before the 2006 election.
Obama is three years from reelection. It looks unlikely that he will get DOMA repealed before then. But he's willing to include us in the list of families. And when his administration defends the constitutionality of DOMA, it now makes clear that we make good parents.
It's not enough, but it's progress.
Monday, August 17, 2009
The Obama administration thinks we make good parents!
The Obama administration is defending DOMA in the litigation challenging it filed in California. No surprise there.
Today they filed a brief in the case, and there is some good news in it. I'm going to let it speak for itself.
"The government does not contend that there are legitimate government interests in "creating a legal structure that promotes the raising of children by both of their biological parents" or that the government's interest in "responsible procreation" justifies Congress's decision to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Since DOMA was enacted, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Medical Association, and the Child Welfare League of America have issued policies opposing restrictions on lesbian and gay parenting because they concluded, based on numerous studies, that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents.
Furthermore, in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 605 (2003), Justice Scalia acknowledged in his dissent that encouraging procreation would not be a rational basis for limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples under the reasoning of the Lawrence majority opinion – which, of course, is the prevailing law – because "the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry."
For these reasons, the United States does not believe that DOMA is rationally related to any legitimate government interests in procreation and child-rearing and is therefore not relying upon any such interests to defend DOMA's constitutionality."
The bases that the Justice Department repudiates here are the ones state courts have relied on to rule against plaintiffs seeking the right to marry under state constitutional law.
Today they filed a brief in the case, and there is some good news in it. I'm going to let it speak for itself.
"The government does not contend that there are legitimate government interests in "creating a legal structure that promotes the raising of children by both of their biological parents" or that the government's interest in "responsible procreation" justifies Congress's decision to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Since DOMA was enacted, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Medical Association, and the Child Welfare League of America have issued policies opposing restrictions on lesbian and gay parenting because they concluded, based on numerous studies, that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents.
Furthermore, in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 605 (2003), Justice Scalia acknowledged in his dissent that encouraging procreation would not be a rational basis for limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples under the reasoning of the Lawrence majority opinion – which, of course, is the prevailing law – because "the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry."
For these reasons, the United States does not believe that DOMA is rationally related to any legitimate government interests in procreation and child-rearing and is therefore not relying upon any such interests to defend DOMA's constitutionality."
The bases that the Justice Department repudiates here are the ones state courts have relied on to rule against plaintiffs seeking the right to marry under state constitutional law.
Friday, October 31, 2008
OBAMA TAKES GAY RIGHTS STAND FOUR DAYS BEFORE THE ELECTION -- CAN THIS BE REAL?
In a move drawing outrage from gay rights leaders and the San Francisco District Attorney, the campaign to eliminate marriage for same-sex couples in California mailed flyers to voters with a picture of Barack Obama -- and Michele -- and a quote: "I'm not in favor of gay marriage." The message "Vote Yes on Prop 8" appears under Obama's image.
But Obama had gone on record AGAINST Prop 8, and the flyer was a blatant attempt to mislead California voters into believing to the contrary.
When National Center for Lesbian Rights legal director Shannon Minter brought this to my attention earlier today, I said it was especially infuriating because four days before the election Obama could not afford to publicly disavow it. Well I was selling short the man I hope will be our next President. In fact, late Friday evening his campaign put out a statement reaffirming his opposition to Prop 8. It gave me a pinch-me-I-must-be-dreaming moment.
When Congress passed DOMA weeks before the 1996 election, President Clinton signed it. It was widely believed that a veto would torpedo his reelection. Obama's response to this one misleading flyer is nowhere near as consequential as vetoing a law passed by Congress, but, still, I expected caution on Obama's part, and therefore silence.
I'm writing tonight from Hampton, Virginia, where I've been working this week on Get Out The Vote. The volunteers range from young people to 92. We work tirelessly. We have fun. We have faith in the future. And tonight my faith just deepened.
But Obama had gone on record AGAINST Prop 8, and the flyer was a blatant attempt to mislead California voters into believing to the contrary.
When National Center for Lesbian Rights legal director Shannon Minter brought this to my attention earlier today, I said it was especially infuriating because four days before the election Obama could not afford to publicly disavow it. Well I was selling short the man I hope will be our next President. In fact, late Friday evening his campaign put out a statement reaffirming his opposition to Prop 8. It gave me a pinch-me-I-must-be-dreaming moment.
When Congress passed DOMA weeks before the 1996 election, President Clinton signed it. It was widely believed that a veto would torpedo his reelection. Obama's response to this one misleading flyer is nowhere near as consequential as vetoing a law passed by Congress, but, still, I expected caution on Obama's part, and therefore silence.
I'm writing tonight from Hampton, Virginia, where I've been working this week on Get Out The Vote. The volunteers range from young people to 92. We work tirelessly. We have fun. We have faith in the future. And tonight my faith just deepened.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND VISITING LOVED ONES IN THE HOSPITAL DO NOT BELONG IN THE SAME SENTENCE
By now we all know what Obama said about us in his acceptance speech, but here it is in total:
I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in a hospital and to live lives free of discrimination.
Now I can't criticize the "live lives free of discrimination" part...amen to that. But as for hospital visitation, don't all hospital patients deserve visits from the people they love?? Don't all gay people deserve this...and isn't marriage a completely different issue?? By putting these two concepts in the same sentence, Obama has fallen into the rhetorical morass created by the marriage equality movement.
The rhetoric goes roughly like this...A lesbian is denied the ability to see her hospitalized partner; spouses are allowed to visit each other in the hospital; therefore lesbian (and gay) couples must be allowed to marry so they can visit each other in the hospital. So then Obama steps into this conversation, saying that we can't agree on marriage but we can agree that couples who can't marry should still be able to visit each other in the hospital.
But try this. Hospital accreditation standards include those who play a significant role in a patient's life, even if not legally related, within the definition of family. Neither gay nor straight couples should have to marry to visit each other in the hospital. Gay people without partners need assurance that those they love and consider family will be allowed to visit them in the hospital. Consider that LGBT people may be more likely than heterosexuals to move away from unsupportive families of origin and/or to more accepting cities or towns.
If we make any discussion of hospital visitation policies about same-sex couples, we are going to miss the vast numbers of unpartnered LGBT people who don't want their estranged parents given hospital access while their closest friends are kept out or who don't want to be left all alone because their families of origin live at a great distance and their families are choice are excluded.
In 2007, Virginia passed a law that requires hospitals to allow patients to choose their visitors. Gay and straight; coupled and not. That's the law Obama should support...along with a federal advance health care directive registry. He should also support LGBT equality..including in access to marriage...but not in the same sentence.
I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in a hospital and to live lives free of discrimination.
Now I can't criticize the "live lives free of discrimination" part...amen to that. But as for hospital visitation, don't all hospital patients deserve visits from the people they love?? Don't all gay people deserve this...and isn't marriage a completely different issue?? By putting these two concepts in the same sentence, Obama has fallen into the rhetorical morass created by the marriage equality movement.
The rhetoric goes roughly like this...A lesbian is denied the ability to see her hospitalized partner; spouses are allowed to visit each other in the hospital; therefore lesbian (and gay) couples must be allowed to marry so they can visit each other in the hospital. So then Obama steps into this conversation, saying that we can't agree on marriage but we can agree that couples who can't marry should still be able to visit each other in the hospital.
But try this. Hospital accreditation standards include those who play a significant role in a patient's life, even if not legally related, within the definition of family. Neither gay nor straight couples should have to marry to visit each other in the hospital. Gay people without partners need assurance that those they love and consider family will be allowed to visit them in the hospital. Consider that LGBT people may be more likely than heterosexuals to move away from unsupportive families of origin and/or to more accepting cities or towns.
If we make any discussion of hospital visitation policies about same-sex couples, we are going to miss the vast numbers of unpartnered LGBT people who don't want their estranged parents given hospital access while their closest friends are kept out or who don't want to be left all alone because their families of origin live at a great distance and their families are choice are excluded.
In 2007, Virginia passed a law that requires hospitals to allow patients to choose their visitors. Gay and straight; coupled and not. That's the law Obama should support...along with a federal advance health care directive registry. He should also support LGBT equality..including in access to marriage...but not in the same sentence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)