Next Up on the Gay Agenda

Joe Biden made news the other day when he said that gay marriage was an "inevitability."  Then, in a (somewhat fawning) interview with The Advocate, Obama said that he is "wrestling" with the issue of gay marriage (he was for it before he was against it before he was "wrestling").

Translation: "Okay, gays, I ended DADT.  I also ended the HIV travel ban, extended partner benefits for federal employees, and extended hospital visitation rights.  I've done my part for term one.  Help me get a second term - and while you're at it, help me reclaim the House as well - and we'll see what we can do on DOMA and ENDA."

Personally, I see ENDA - a federal ban on employment discrimination against gays - as the bigger priority.  But even if we can only get one of the two accomplished over the next six years, it's a fair deal.

Incidentally - what will be Obama's stance on DOMA when he finishes his "wrestling" and comes to his senses?  Will it be merely repeal?  That should be enough to require all states to recognize gay marriages from other states, if my understanding of the Full Faith and Credit Clause is correct.  But might Obama push for a federal law requiring all states to recognize gay marriage?

I would guess that such a law would arguably be constitutional, under the enormously broad ambit of the Commerce Clause.  But the reach of that clause has been whittled down over the past decade or so - and rightly so, I believe; whether it would support a federal law on this matter is more questionable today than it would have been not too long ago.  The more decisive question, I think, is whether a second-term Obama administration would be willing to expend the political capital necessary to pass a measure that would assuredly meet with outraged opposition.  My guess on that would be no.

But no matter; repeal alone - if it would, as I suspect, require Utah to recognize gay marriages from Massachusetts - would be enough.

Onward and upward!

Catholicism and Human Dignity

A Jesuit priest urges his fellow Catholics to celebrate the repeal of DADT, since it "says nothing about gay marriage (nor would it have been approved by lawmakers if it had), since it does not contradict church teaching on that matter, and since it takes a strong stance against 'unjust discrimination' against gays and lesbians, as the Catechism encourages[.]"

Very welcome words.  While the author is absolutely right about the spirit and the letter of the Catechism, he is distressingly at odds with the thinking of the Church grandées.  While the Catechism says that gays "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity," the Church itself shows little of any of this to gays.

Indeed, the Church's recent decision that gays - and even those who "support homosexual culture" without themselves being gay - should not be permitted to become priests is the ecclesiastical equivalent of DADT.  Actually, it's worse the DADT, and more akin to the outright ban that DADT replaced.  Aside from the unequivocal ban, the Church's proclamation states that, "if a candidate practices homosexuality, or presents deep-seated homosexual tendencies, his spiritual director as well as his confessor have the duty to dissuade him in conscience from proceeding towards ordination."

Critics "have long objected that gay seminarians might feel they have no choice but to lie about their sexual orientation," and there can be no doubt that the consequence of the Church's hostile approach is to force devout gay Catholics who wish to join the priesthood to face an Inquisition if they pursue that dream.  Shrugging off the blame for the witchhunt they themselves create, the Church's lawgivers state, with sublime callousness, that "[i]t would be gravely dishonest for a candidate to hide his own homosexuality[.]"

More roadblocks, more unseemly inquiry, more humiliation, more degradation.  Do ask, do tell - and then reject.

Anglican Church - woo me.

Progress

DADT is now a dead letter.  On to the next battle:

Finally!

I need never blog about DADT again - except in a historical context.  But in the meantime, we can take a good hearty laugh at the temper tantrums being thrown by those who opposed repeal:

"We will no longer be able to bail out these other emasculated armies [i.e., our allies] because ours will now be feminized and neutered beyond repair, and there is no one left to bail us out."  Bryan Fischer, American Family Association.

"The American military [...] has now been hijacked and turned into a tool for imposing on the country a radical social agenda."  Tony Perkins, Family Research Council.

"If the lame-duck Congress succeeds in ‘gaying down’ our military this weekend, it will take a disastrous leap toward 'mainstreaming' deviant, sinful homosexual conduct – not just in the military but in larger society — thus further propelling America’s moral downward spiral."  Peter LaBarbera, Americans for Truth about Homosexuality.

"There'll be high-fives all over the liberal bastions of America. [...] But there'll be additional sacrifice."  John McCain, Douchebag.

Hahaha!  Pass the popcorn!

HRC's True Colors: Green and More Green

HRC has an app for the iPhone showing gay-friendly businesses.  It's called - brace yourself - HRC's "Buying for Equality Guide."  The icon is a little shopping bag with the HRC logo on it.  Not an app for news, not an app for gay resources in your town - an app for shopping.  How HRC!  (In fairness, it's free, so I downloaded it.)

Two Videos

Here's one on the failure of political leadership:

...and here's a bit of splenetics (with bad language):

Both with music!

HT: Savage.

Obama Heckled (on Video)

Not for the last time, I hope.

The National Hangover

Today, of course, is National DADT Repeal Fail Hangover Day (NDADTRFHD). How does your head feel today? Mine is pretty banjaxed, I must admit.

Well, if you feel as I do, here's your aspirin: a Florida state appeals court today upheld a lower court ruling that the Sunshine State's ban on gay adoptions is unconstitutional. (It's unclear from the story whether that was the state constitution or the U.S. Constitution.)

Oh merciful God, some good news!

John McCain Is an Evil, Lying Bigot and Should Resign

Department of "The Root of All Evil"

So, what are the gays being blamed for now? Why, global warming and human trafficking, natch! (HT: JMG.)

Sheesh. What won't the gays be blamed for? Well, at least they can't blame us for hurricanes - whoops, spoke too soon there. Well then, surely not for terrorist attacks - whoops again. Well, they would never say that people with HIV/AIDS got what they deserved - argh, wrong again (those who say this then run for the Senate from Delaware).

Okay, let's try one last time. To my knowledge, gays have never been blamed for the death of Jesus. In the long history of nutjob accusations against gays, this is one bomb that's never been thrown. Whew.

It's no surprise, though. We all know who is really responsible for the death of Jesus, anyway. You know - those scheming evilmongers who engage in ungodly work and who are up to their armpits in the blood of Christian babies. That's right. The abortionists. Get 'em, Glenn Beck!

The Right Thing To Do

Ireland's president, Mary McAleese, declines to march in the New York St. Patrick's Day Parade because the organization behind that parade won't allow gays to participate. I've been amazed at recent indications of how tolerant Ireland is becoming, and appalled at how stubborn we are here. Why the surprise, in both respects? Have I been expecting too much from America? Not enough from Ireland?

Exactly.

HT: Sullivan.

And Just What Is This?

Did a staffer for Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) post "all faggots must die" in the comments section of a gay blog moments after the vote on DADT? WTFF?

Coward.

UGH.

The DADT vote just failed.

The roll 'o jackanapes:

• Susan Collins, R-Me., for voting against.
• Olympia Snowe, R-Me., for voting against.
• Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., for voting against.
• Mark Pryor, D-Ark., for voting against.
• John McCain, R.-Ariz., for outright douchebaggery and disgracing his uniform.
• General James Amos, Obama's recent pick to lead the Marines, for opposing repeal hours before the vote.
• Barack Obama, for doing fuck-all on this.

But not, it seems, Harry Reid, who also voted against it. Apparently, under Senate rules, voting with the majority allows him to reintroduce the measure at a later date. Erm, okay. Pass, for now.

Quote of the day from Alexander Nicholson of Servicemembers United:

Today's vote is a failure of leadership on the part of those who have been duly elected to serve this nation and to put the best interests of the country ahead of partisan politics," said Alexander Nicholson, director of Servicemembers United, an advocacy group that sought the law's repeal. "The Senate could learn a good lesson from those who serve in uniform and who stand to benefit from proceeding to debate on this bill -- serving this country means putting politics aside and getting the job done. It is simply inexcusable that this vote failed today.

Anger is justified. Anger is the only appropriate reaction.

Reax from pro-repeal groups here. A good, detailed accounting here - shame on Susan Collins for voting against just because Republicans wanted to offer more amendments.

More Folderol from the Family Research Council

Here's an exchange between Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis and the FRC's Tony Perkins, concerning gays in the military:

Maginnis: That's why countries like the ten largest militaries in the world, that have the ten largest militaries in the world say 'no, this isn't the thing to do.' They spin this as if Great Britain and we ought to copy them and the Dutch. Well the fact is that 80 percent of the militaries in the world don't embrace this particular view.

Perkins: Well, those that do, they're the ones that participate in parades, they don't fight wars to keep the nation and the world free. So there's a big difference.

That little dollop of vitriol got laughs and applause from the audience. Keepin' it classy, fellas. Video clip here.

HT: Sullivan.

Meanwhile, in Ireland

67% support the right of gays to marry. And a whopping 91% say they would not think less of a person for being gay. (I'm a little skeptical with this one.) These are amazing statistics.

But then, only 46% think gays should be able to adopt children, while 38% think they should not. These numbers make for a somewhat confusing composite - but what do you expect when opinion is in flux?

Which brings to mind a caveat that's always worth remembering when looking at numbers on gay issues: we can easily measure how widely support spreads, but it is harder to measure its depth. In other words, things can change just as fast in the opposite direction.

Absolutely Unbelievable

An assistant attorney general in Michigan has launched a weird, perverse campaign against the openly gay president of the Student Assembly at the University of Michigan. This is just unreal:

More info here. And here's the AAG's blog itself. Unreal!

Gaga Does the Full Court Press to End DADT

I usually wince when celebrities weigh in on political concerns. But Lady Gaga does so with conviction and, more impressively, reasoned argument. Good for you, Gaga. It's worth watching the whole thing.

I, Too, Am Confused

Funny:

HT: David Mixner.