QUEER QUOTE: Mayor of South Bend, Indiana Comes Out As Gay Man

The 33-year-old Mayor of South Bend, Indiana (population: 101, 168), Pete Buttigieg, came out as gay in an op-ed published today in the South Bend Times which we will excerpt as part of today's Queer Quote:

Putting something this personal on the pages of a newspaper does not come easy. We Midwesterners are instinctively private to begin with, and I’m not used to viewing this as anyone else’s business. 

But it’s clear to me that at a moment like this, being more open about it could do some good. For a local student struggling with her sexuality, it might be helpful for an openly gay mayor to send the message that her community will always have a place for her. And for a conservative resident from a different generation, whose unease with social change is partly rooted in the impression that he doesn’t know anyone gay, perhaps a familiar face can be a reminder that we’re all in this together as a community. 

Whenever I’ve come out to friends and family, they’ve made clear that they view this as just a part of who I am. Their response makes it possible to feel judged not by sexual orientation but by the things that we ought to care about most, like the content of our character and the value of our contributions. 

Being gay has had no bearing on my job performance in business, in the military, or in my current role as mayor. It makes me no better or worse at handling a spreadsheet, a rifle, a committee meeting, or a hiring decision. It doesn’t change how residents can best judge my effectiveness in serving our city: by the progress of our neighborhoods, our economy, and our city services. 

We’re moving closer to a world in which acceptance is the norm. This kind of social change, considered old news in some parts of the country, is still often divisive around here. But it doesn’t have to be. We’re all finding our way forward, and things will go better if we can manage to do it together. In the wake of the disastrous “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” episode here in Indiana earlier this year, we have an opportunity to demonstrate how a traditional, religious state like ours can move forward. 

If different sides steer clear of name-calling and fear-mongering, we can navigate these issues based on what is best about Indiana: values like respect, decency, and support for families — all families.

Congrats to Pete on making an important step of living a more self-actualized and fulfilling life. Best of luck to you in a deep red state like Indiana.

IN and AR Guvs Sign "Fixes" To "Religious Freedoms" Bills To Allay Discrimination Concerns

In Indiana and Arkansas Republican Governors signed bills into law today which are intended to end a burgeoning controversy over whether their legislature's passage of religious freedom legislation also allowed discrimination against LGBT people. Both Governor Mike Pence and Governor Asa Hutchison are both well-known as hostile to the civil rights of LGBT people, with both politicians expressing opposition to the rights of same-sex couples to be married so it is with some degree of schadenfreude that LGBT equality activists like myself have watched the increasingly loud furor engulf both politicians, snuffing out the presidential ambitions of one (Pence) and badly damaging the reputation of the other (Hutchison).

Lambda Legal's Jenny Pizer Explains Why Indiana's New "Religious Freedom" Law Is So Wrong

This week Indiana Governor Mike Pence (R) signed into law a "license to discriminate" bill (SB 101) that proponents claimed was just aimed at clarifying protections for religious freedoms in Indiana but which LGBT activists and others had warned could open up all sorts of disfavored minorities to discrimination under the guise of protecting religion. Of course, we at MadProfessah.com have been following the recent proliferation of deceptively anti-LGBT legislation in multiple states such as Texas, Arkansas and West Virginia.

Lambda Legal's Jenny Pizer explains why Indiana's "Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)" is so dangerous to the civil rights of LGBT people and others:

The truth is, Indiana’s RFRA is designed to allow and in some respects, invites people to disregard laws that should apply to everyone conducting a business — laws to prevent people from harming each other in the name of religion.At Lambda Legal, our top concern is religiously motivated discrimination against people already vulnerable to exclusion and mistreatment, especially the LGBT community. 

Gov. Pence, in his signing statement, said, "This bill is not about discrimination, and if I thought it legalized discrimination in any way in Indiana, I would have vetoed it. In fact, it does not even apply to disputes between private parties unless government action is involved." 

He’s wrong, or disingenuous, on both points. If this new law does not seek to facilitate discrimination, why did legislators pressing for its passage say it’s “needed” to allow businesses to turn away same-sex couples? And why did a majority of Indiana legislators then reject amendments offered to specify that these enhanced religious rights cannot be used to excuse discrimination?  

Further, about disputes between private parties, the law says explicitly, “A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” This language was included to allow private parties to object to following a law that otherwise would apply to them, and to assert these expanded religious rights in a dispute with another private party. 

A stark problem for LGBT Hoosiers is that unlike in other states, Indiana law does not include sexual orientation and gender identity within the state’s nondiscrimination framework. 

When antigay lawmakers say laws like this are “needed,” and they point to cases from other states where we successfully resisted use of religion to defend discrimination, they don’t acknowledge that a statewide nondiscrimination law was on the books in those places. Currently, less than half the states have such laws.

When asked about these points on national television, Gov. Pence (who previously had been mentioned as another potential Republican candidate for President in 2016) did not acquit himself well. He said that he wanted to work with the Indiana legislature to clarify that SB 101 does not include a license to discriminate but that he did not intend to include sexual orientation or gender identity in statewide nondiscrimination legislation.

Indiana's largest LGBT group, Freedom Indiana immediately took the Governor to task on the lack of a real commitment to protect LGBT people from discrimination in Indiana:

Governor Pence didn't listen last week when he signed this discriminatory law into effect, and he's still not listening to the growing chorus of criticism locally and nationally. While we appreciate his recognition that he's placed our state in peril, he's obviously trying to have it both ways. You can't 'clarify' discrimination. Indiana now has billions of dollars and thousands of jobs on the line, all because the Governor wouldn't stop this dangerous bill. He has a second chance to save our reputation for Hoosier hospitality, but he has to stand up and protect LGBT Hoosiers. Discrimination is not a core Hoosier value, and we can't afford to let our state continue to suffer. 

Thousands of people attended a march protesting SB 101 in Indianapolis yesterday and major corporations are announcing that they are scuttling plans to expand or do more business in Indiana as a result of the controversy.

Already the reaction in Indiana seems to be dissuading other red states like Montana and Georgia from moving so quickly to appear to trample the civil rights of American citizens in the quest to reify religious beliefs.

SCOTUS Refuses To Hear Marriage Equality Appeals From 4th, 7th and 10th Circuits!

Wow! The Supreme Court today surprised almost all legal observers by refusing to hear ("called denying certiorari") appeals from five states of decisions in three federal appellate circuits that said that bans on marriage equality violated the federal constitution. The nearly immediate effect of the Supreme Court action means that the fight for marriage equality in those states (Oklahoma, Indiana, Utah, Wisconsin and Virginia) is over. Once final orders are issued from the corresponding U.S. appellate circuits (which usually takes a month) same-sex couples will be able to get married in those states. Effectively, it means that as of today there are now 24 states that "have" marriage equality.

Very soon after those orders go into effect the number of states with marriage equality will include the other six states within the 4th, 7th and 10th circuits covered by the previously issued rulings in those marriage equality cases: Colorado, Kansas, Wyoming, North Carolina, South Carolina, and West Virginia.

Evan Wolfson Founder and President of Freedom to Marry issued the following statement:

Today’s decision by the Supreme Court leaves in force five favorable marriage rulings reached in three federal appellate courts, ensuring the freedom to marry for millions more Americans around the country. The Court’s letting stand these victories means that gay couples will soon share in the freedom to marry in 30 states, representing 60% of the American people. But we are one country, with one Constitution, and the Court’s delay in affirming the freedom to marry nationwide prolongs the patchwork of state-to-state discrimination and the harms and indignity that the denial of marriage still inflicts on too many couples in too many places. As waves of freedom to marry litigation continue to surge, we will continue to press the urgency and make the case that America – all of America -- is ready for the freedom to marry, and the Supreme Court should finish the job.

I wonder if this surprising result is an example of the Posner effect, i.e. Judge Richard Posner's evisceration of the arguments against marriage equality in oral arguments and then eloquently in his written decision (upheld today by the Supreme Court) overturning Indiana's and Wisconsin's bans on marriage equality.

Woo hoo!

SCOTUS TO Consider 7(!) Marriage Equality Appeals On Friday September 29

There are now seven(!) marriage equality cases from four different states pending before the United States Supreme Court. On September 29th the Court will likely consider how to dispose of thousands of writs of certiorari that include appeals from the 10th Circuit (Utah and Oklahoma), the 4th Circuit (Virginia) and the 7th Circuit (Indiana and Wisconsin). There currently is no circuit split, because every appellate court decision released since last year's landmark United States v Windsor decision has resulted in a win for the cause of marriage equality.

The 9th Circuit heard oral arguments in two cases on Monday (from Nevada and Idaho) and the 6th Circuit has already heard oral arguments earlier this summer and a decision from either court could be issued at any time. It is thought likely that the Supreme Court may hold over deciding any of the pending certs until the 6th and or 9th circuits release their decisions.

However, regardless it is unlikely the Court will be able to escape resolving the fundamental question of whether marriage equality is part of the United States constitution beyond the end of the 2014-15 term which ends in June.

7th U.S. Circuit Strikes Down WISCONSIN & INDIANA Bans On Marriage Equality

Less than two weeks after hearing oral arguments in the marriage equality cases involving Indiana and Wisconsin a 3-judge panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit unanimously upheld the lower court rulings in Wolf v. Walker (Wisconsin) and Baskin v. Bogan (Indiana), in a scathing opinion written by Judge Richard Posner striking down state marriage bans as violating the federal constitution. The 7th becomes the third federal appellate court, after the 10th in Denver, CO (June 25 and July 18)and the 4th in Richmond, VA (July 28)  to rule in favor of marriage equality this year.

QUEER QUOTE: 7th Circuit Panel Eviscerates IND. & WIS. Arguments Against Marriage Equality

Today's Queer Quote comes from Tuesday's oral arguments before the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in marriage equality cases from Wisconsin (Wolf v. Walker) and Indiana (Baskin v. Bogan) where the three judge panel, which included the eminent jurist Richard Posner, completely demolished the states' arguments for their bans on marriage equality.

Posmer is a conservative judge and the intellectual lodestar of a form of jurisprudence that combines economics and conservative legal principles. He does not countenance fools lightly, and he savaged the lawyers making post hoc arguments to defend their states' marriage bans (when everyone knows that it was animus against gender-variant behavior that is at the root of these laws).

These excerpts, provided by Professor Josh Blackman, are today's Queer Quote:

Posner: What concrete factual arguments do you have against homosexual marriage?
Samuelson: Well, we have, uh, the Burkean argument, that it’s reasonable and rational to proceed slowly.
Posner: That’s the tradition argument. It’s feeble! Look, they could have trotted out Edmund Burke in the Loving case. What’s the difference? [Note: Loving v. Virginia was a 1967 decision striking down bans on interracial marriage] . . . There was a tradition of not allowing black and whites, and, actually, other interracial couples from marrying. It was a tradition. It got swept aside. Why is this tradition better?Samuelson: The tradition is based on experience. And it’s the tradition of western culture.
Posner: What experience! It’s based on hate, isn’t it?Samuelson: No, not at all, your honor.
Posner: You don’t think there’s a history of rather savage discrimination against homosexuals?

Ouch! But, wait, there's more!

• “These people and their adopted children are harmed by your law,” Judge Richard Posner said of gay and lesbian couples who are barred from getting married. “The question is what is the offsetting benefit of your law. Who is being helped?”

• Wisconsin Assistant Attorney General Timothy Samuelson responded that society as a whole benefited by preserving marriage as it has long been defined. Posner pressed on, asking if anyone would be harmed if same-sex couples were allowed to be married.

• But Posner expressed skepticism of the idea that the states were trying to promote procreation. “You allow all these sterile couples to get married,” he said. “Why are you doing that if you’re so interested in procreation?”

• Posner, who at times appeared to lecture the attorneys defending the bans, focused on the ability of same-sex couples to adopt children. He noted adopted children would benefit if their parents could claim the tax breaks and other perks of being married.

• “These children would be better off if their parents could marry, no? It’s obvious,” Posner said.

• “Why do you prefer heterosexual adoption to homosexual adoption?” Judge Posner, appointed to the bench by President Reagan, asked. When Fisher began responding that the marriage laws were unrelated to adoption, Posner was almost vitriolic in his response, saying of the state’s treatment of the children of same-sex couples, “You want them to be worse off.”

• At different times, Posner referred to Fisher’s arguments as “pathetic,” “ridiculous,” and “absurd.”

• “How can tradition be the reason?” he asked, mocking the answer by responding that saying “we’ve been doing a stupid thing” for a long time certainly wouldn’t be enough of a justification to uphold a law or practice.

 And this basically encapsulates why so many federal judges are ruling against state bans on marriage equality. There's no benefit to heterosexuals and there is clearly defined harm to same-sex couples (and their children).

Posner is described as the most cited legal theorist of the 20th century. Most observers expect a unanimous ruling from the 7th circuit upholding the lower court's judgments that state bans on marriage equality are unconstitutional under the federal constitution.

7th Circuit Sets Auugust 26 For Oral Arguments in WISCONSIN & INDIANA Marriage Equality cases

The 7th U.S. Circuit has announced the date of the oral arguments in marriage equality cases for Indiana and Wisconsin. On June 25th, Indiana's ban on same-sex marriage as struck down by a  judge and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals later issued a stay on the judge's ruling (when the judge refused to). Similarly, in Wisconsin a federal judge struck down the same-sex marriage ban on June 7 but the judge later stayed her own ruling.

Now comes word that a 3-judge panel of the 7th Circuit will hear oral arguments before the end of the summer:

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals announced Friday on its online docket that it has rescheduled oral arguments for both states' appeals of federal court decisions for Aug. 26. 

Federal judges in Indiana and Wisconsin overturned each state's gay marriage ban in separate rulings. When both states appealed, the 7th Circuit Court combined the cases and set aside the previous hearing date. 

The 7th Circuit also denied requests that the states' appeals be heard before the full 10-member court instead of a three-judge panel, as is customary.

hat/tip to Joe Jervis

7th Circuit Grants Stay To Suspend Marriage Equality In Indiana

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has granted Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller's request for a stay of Wednesday's district court ruling that had brought marriage equality to the Hoosier State. The action means that the number of states where same-sex couples can get legally married returns to 19. In the most recent cases, federal judges have not issued stays on their ruling but thanks to the Supreme Court precedent in the Utah case of Kitchen v Herbert where the High Court did issue a stay in the lower court ruling from going into effect during the appeals process, many judges are placing stays on their orders after a brief period in which couples can get married. This happened in Wisconsin just a few weeks ago.

That being said, the states of Indiana, Oklahoma, Idaho, Utah, Wisconsin, Virginia, Texas, Arkansas and Kansas all have had their bans on marriage equality struck down and those ruling are not going into effect due to judicially ordered stays. If the Supreme Court upholds or decides not to rule on the pending appellate cases that are in our favor, there's gonna be a whole bunch of jurisdictions where same-sex couples can suddenly get married when those stays are suddenly dissolved!

Already some jurisdictions are using the fact that the 10th U.S. Circuit has ruled in favor of marriage equality to issue marriage licenses even though that appellate ruling is officially stayed pending appeal.

Hat/tip to Joe Jervis

We Have #20! Indiana Ban On Marriage Equality Struck Down; Couples Getting Married Now

In what has become a regular occurrence for the last 12 months, a federal judge has struck down a state ban on marriage equality. This is the 21st consecutive time it has happened, and the setting was Indiana, where federal judge Richard L. Young ruled that:

The court has never witnessed a phenomenon throughout the federal court system as is presented with this issue. In less than a year, every federal district court to consider the issue has reached the same conclusion in thoughtful and thorough opinions – laws prohibiting the celebration and recognition of same-sex marriages are unconstitutional. It is clear that the fundamental right to marry shall not be deprived to some individuals based solely on the person they choose to love. In time, Americans will look at the marriage of couples such as Plaintiffs, and refer to it simply as a marriage – not a same-sex marriage. These couples, when gender and sexual orientation are taken away, are in all respects like the family down the street. The Constitution demands that we treat them as such.

The judge refused to issue a stay on his ruling and same-sex couples have already been married in the Hoosier state.

Indiana becomes the 20th state where same-sex couples can get married right now. However, since it is a red state like Wisconsin, one would expect the attorney general and the governor to file emergency appeals to place the effect of the ruling on hold until an appellate court and/or the Supreme Court can decide this question once and for all.

Indiana Anti-Gay Marriage Measure Blocked From 2014 Ballot!

In a quite surprising result, the Indiana Senate voted to advance a version of an anti-gay constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage that means the measure will not appear on the November 2014 ballot. What happened was that both houses of the legislature have passed in this session a version of the proposed ballot language that is different from the language previously passed so that this newer version has to pass through another legislative session before it can be sent to the 2016 ballot. The difference in the language removed the "second sentence" that would have banned any kind of legal recognition for same-sex couples in Indiana, including domestic partnerships.

The deeply flawed second sentence would have permanently prohibited civil unions, domestic partnerships and other legal protections for same-sex couples and families. The Indiana House removed it earlier in the session, and the Senate today did not offer any amendments to the House version of the amendment.

“Six months ago, if you’d said lawmakers would refuse to put this issue on the ballot in 2014 by stripping out the deeply flawed second sentence, I’d have said there’s no way.

“What happened today at the Statehouse is a testament to the tens of thousands of Hoosiers who have shared their stories with lawmakers and with the public to show the harm this amendment would do to their families and our state. It’s clear that lawmakers listened.

“We continue to oppose the amendment in any form, but make no mistake: This is a huge victory.

“We are grateful to lawmakers for their openness and transparency during this process, and we thank them for conducting the discourse in a civil, respectful manner. We also owe an incredible debt of gratitude to our coalition partners who believed in our mission from the outset and to the Hoosiers who selflessly gave their time, effort and resources to the campaign.

“Today will go down in Indiana history as a win for freedom.”

I wouldn't have thought that today's event had a 10% probability of occurring when Freedom Indiana was announced less than six months ago.

Congratulations, Indiana!

EYE CANDY: Daniel Adongo

Daniel Adongo is a former rugby player who has been signed by the Indianapolis Colts to play American football. The 6-foot-6, 260-pound, 24-year-old was born in Nairobi, Kenya but even though he had never even touched a football, the Colts signed him and added him to the roster.

I think these pictures give you an indication of why. Hot damn! Too bad this year's football season is over!

Hat/tip to Rod 2.0

Indiana States House Passes Anti-Gay Marriage Ballot Measure

It has long been thought inevitable that Indiana would vote on (and presumably pass) a state constitutional amendment to ban the legalization and recognition of same-sex marriage in 2014. However, in order for the voters to get the ballot measure, it has to pass the legislature in two consecutive legislative sessions, in identical form.

The bill has already passed the state legislature once, but last summer a coalition called Freedom Indiana was created to stop the passage of the measure that would discriminate against Indiana's families headed by same-sex couples.

The full text of the measure, which is known as "House Joint Resolution 3" (HJR-3), is:

“Only a marriage between one (1) man and one (1) woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Indiana.

“A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.”

The bad news from Indiana today is that the measure passed the state House by a vote of 57-40 on Tuesday. However, the good news is that the second sentence has been removed. This is good news because the second sentence is really just evil since it also purports to ban civil unions or domestic partnerships in addition to excluding same-sex couples from civil marriage. This is also good news because if the Senate passes the amended measure as well then there is no way that the measure could go to the voters in 2014, instead the same measure would have to pass in the next legislative session and then it could go to voters in 2016.

The State Senate could pass the original measure anyway and force a conference committee between two chambers which would then have to accept the original version and that version would have to pass both houses in order for the measure to go before voters this year.

Since popular opinion is evolving in the direction of support for marriage equality, the more delay there is in voters seeing an anti-gay marriage amendment the greater likelihood the measure can be defeated in the future.

Coalition Launched To Fight Indiana Marriage Equality Ban

A bipartisan coalition of individuals and organizations called Freedom Indiana was launched this week to defeat a proposed state constitutional amendment (or min-DOMA) to prohibit marriage equality in the Hoosier state. The Republican-controlled legislature has passed the measure once and needs to do so again in order to get the discriminatory amendment on the November 2014 statewide ballot.

From the press release:

Freedom Indiana campaign to oppose marriage amendment

Bipartisan statewide organization to support the integrity of the Indiana Constitution, promote liberty and fairness for all Hoosiers 

INDIANAPOLIS -- A coalition of Indiana businesses and groups today announced the formation of Freedom Indiana, a bipartisan statewide organization that opposes the amendment that would permanently alter the Indiana Constitution to define marriage and could potentially affect hundreds of rights under current Indiana law. 

Marriage already is strictly defined as between a man and woman under Indiana law.

Freedom Indiana will immediately undertake a grassroots campaign focused on the 2014 legislative session, where Indiana lawmakers can choose either to table or vote down the amendment or send it to voters for a statewide referendum next November. Freedom Indiana is committed to protecting the Indiana Constitution by defeating the amendment should it appear on the ballot.

Coalition partners include Eli Lilly and Company, Cummins, Indiana Equality Action, Freedom to Marry, Gill Action, American Unity Fund, American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana and Human Rights Campaign.

“The goals of Freedom Indiana are aligned with Lilly’s long-held position that HJR6 is bad for business and bad for our state,” said Robert Smith, director of corporate responsibility for Eli Lilly and Company. “As a global biopharmaceutical company that must retain and attract the very best talent in the world, embedding this proposed amendment into Indiana’s constitution will produce difficult and unnecessary challenges. We’re happy to partner with Cummins and several other important organizations to address our common goal of keeping Indiana a welcoming state for everyone.”

"Cummins has a long history of commitment to diversity and treating all people with dignity and respect," stated Marya Rose, Chief Administrative Officer for Cummins.  "We feel strongly that this amendment, which is unnecessary given Indiana law today, will enshrine inequality into the Indiana Constitution and negatively impact the thousands of Cummins employees who live and work in Indiana as well as harm our efforts to retain and attract the best talent here. Diversity is a core company value at Cummins and we are pleased to join the other partners of Freedom Indiana to ensure that we treat all people in Indiana with dignity and respect."

A study earlier this year by students at the IU Maurer School of Law found a significant number of rights and obligations related to marriage that could be permanently denied under the proposed amendment.

"We will make sure lawmakers and voters know that we shouldn't be tinkering with the Indiana Constitution to deny freedoms to certain individuals," said Indiana Equality Action president Chris Paulsen. "We're Hoosiers, and our core values include liberty and fairness. This amendment runs counter to both and may also create a litany of unintended legal consequences."

Freedom Indiana is run by an independent board of directors headed by Indiana Equality Action executive director Rick Sutton. The coalition includes Indiana businesses, community, civil rights and faith leaders, advocates for fairness, former and current lawmakers and Hoosiers who believe we must take a strong stand for freedom if we want our state and its residents to prosper.

The Indiana Freedom campaign is managed by veteran political operative Megan Robertson, who has worked for the Indiana Republican Party, Marion County Republican Party and on two GOP presidential campaigns. She managed Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard's successful 2011 campaign.

“Indiana has always been a welcoming community known for our ‘Hoosier Hospitality’,” Robertson said.  “This amendment directly contradicts the reputation that has helped us recruit jobs and economic investment for our state.  The Freedom Indiana campaign brings together those who have an interest in preserving our freedoms and moving our state forward regardless of political affiliation.”

The campaign currently is headquartered in Indianapolis with plans to establish regional headquarters in the coming months. 

Freedom Indiana is a bipartisan statewide organization that champions liberty for all Hoosiers. The organization is opposed to an amendment that would permanently alter the Indiana Constitution to define marriage and could potentially affect hundreds of rights related to marriage under current Indiana law. Freedom Indiana launched in August 2013.

If the good guys can stop an anti-gay marriage amendment in Indiana that would probably mean the demise of the anti-gay marriage movement and would signal that all future action in this area would most likely be positive, which would be somewhat of a surprise and perhaps increase momentum towards the day when marriage equality is a nationwide reality.

Now There Are 4: 2 Red-State Senators Embrace Marriage Equality

Sen. Heitkamp (D-ND)	Sen. Donnelly (D-IN)

The rate at which Senators are endorsing marriage equality for same-sex couples is a bit dizzying. Last Saturday I blogged about the 9 Democratic Senators who had not endorsed marriage equality, and primarily paid my attention to the Senators from blue states who had not taken the plunge, reserving my most scorn for Delaware's Tom Carper, noting that majority of his constituents supported marriage equality, according to recent polls.

In the last 7 days, 6 Senators have issued statements supporting marriage equality, and many of these have not been from the "easy-to-get" categories. Carper joined the "equality caucus" on Tuesday April 2nd, the same day that Republican Senator Mark Kirk from Illinois did. But, amazingly, this was two days after Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, generally considered one of the most socially conservative members of the Democratic caucus, had announced his support for marriage.

Just yesterday, I tried to predict who would the next Senators to endorse marriage equality, noting there were still 6 Democratic Senators who had not done so at that time, but that they were all from red states. Since then, two of those Red-State Democratic Senators have endorsed marriage equality with public statements.

U.S. Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-North Dakota) said:

“In speaking with North Dakotans from every corner of our great state, and much personal reflection, I have concluded the federal government should no longer discriminate against people who want to make lifelong, loving commitments to each other or interfere in personal, private, and intimate relationships.  I view the ability of anyone to marry as a logical extension of this belief. The makeup of families is changing, but the importance of family is enduring.” 

U.S. Sen. Joe Donnelly said:

“In recent years, our country has been involved in an important discussion on the issue of marriage equality. While serving in the House of Representatives, I had the opportunity to act on a core belief of mine: we are a stronger country when we draw on the strengths of all Americans. I voted to repeal ‘don't ask, don't tell’ and was an original supporter of the bill that would make it illegal to discriminate against someone in the workplace because of their sexual orientation. It is also for that reason that I oppose amending either Indiana’s or our nation’s constitution to enshrine in those documents an ‘us’ and a ‘them,’ instead of a ‘we.’ With the recent Supreme Court arguments and accompanying public discussion of same-sex marriage, I have been thinking about my past positions and votes. In doing so, I have concluded that the right thing to do is to support marriage equality for all.”

Both Donnelly and Heitkamp are freshman Senators from conservative states who are not up for re-election until 2018. The four remaining Democratic Senators who have not (yet) endorsed marriage equality are Tim Johnson of South Dakota, who has announced that he will not face the voters again (and thus has nothing to lose if he wants to support marriage equality); Joe Manchin of West Virginia (who just got re-elected to a full 6-year term in November 2012); Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Mark Pryor of Arkansas (who are both running for re-election in 2014).

The most interesting question now is which members of the Republican caucus will join the marriage equality caucus. According to the Washington Post's The Fix blog, there are a number of Republicans who represent blue states who may consider endorsing marriage equality soon:

1. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) 
2. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) 
3. Sen. Richard Burr (R-North Carolina) 
4. Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-New Hampshire) 
5. Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pennsylvania) 
6. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin) 
7. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) 
8. Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nevada) 
9. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)

In addition to these nine Blue-state Republican Senators, the most likely red-state Republican senator to endorse marriage equality is Deb Fisher (R-Nebraska) (because she's female and because she was just elected to a full term in November 2012).

Currently there are only two Republican Senators who support marriage equality, Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Mark Kirk (R-Illinois), who (not coincidentally) both represent blue states.

Interestingly, former U.S. Senator Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) announced on Friday that she supports marriage equality. I wonder whether her "Maine twin" will follow suit someday soon?

Expelled Bullied Black Gay Teen Sues School District

Darnell Young, his mother Chelisa Grimes, and twin brother Darrell

We have been covering the saga of Darnell "Dynasty" Young, a Black gay teen who was expelled from his Indianapolis area high school after he took a weapon to school after being repeatedly bullied. Recently, Dynasty had his suspension suspended and was reinstated and allowed to attend school again (although not at his original school).

The latest news is that Dynasty has had a federal lawsuit filed on his behalf by the National Center for Lesbian Rights against Indianapolis Pubic Schools for failing to protect Dynasty while he attended school despite repeated pleas by his mother, Chelisa Grimes.

NCLR issued a press release about its lawsuit:

As the 2011-2012 school year progressed, the harassment worsened, and Dynasty fell into depression. He was unable to eat properly, lost a great deal of weight, and dreaded going to school. Increasingly fearful for her son’s safety, Grimes gave her son a self-protection flashlight, a small device that emits a loud noise, a light, and a weak electric charge. On April 16, 2012, six students surrounded Dynasty to attack him. He held the device in the air and activated it. The noise caused the aggressors to leave without assaulting him. But instead of locating the students who had threatened to attack Dynasty, Tech administrators suspended Dynasty for trying to prevent the attack and later expelled him.

In addition to the physical and emotional harm he experienced as a result of the bullying and the discrimination he experienced from IPS administrators who refused to take any meaningful steps to protect him, Dynasty was unable to complete the spring semester of his 11th-grade year at Tech High School, and will need to make up any necessary credits to graduate on time in 2013. He has recently enrolled in Indianapolis Metropolitan High School, a charter school not affiliated with IPS, where he is taking extra classes in an effort to try graduate on schedule.

“All students should be able to get an education without fearing for their physical safety, and they should be able to rely on school administrators to protect them when abuse does occur,” said NCLR Senior Staff Attorney Christopher F. Stoll, one of the attorneys representing Dynasty and his mother. “It is outrageous that school officials who were entrusted with their students’ safety and education blamed Dynasty for the abuse he suffered, and eventually expelled him from school, instead of accepting their responsibility to protect him from harm.”

The lawsuit asserts claims for violations of federal civil rights law and the U.S. Constitution based on IPS’s deliberate indifference to the harassment and abuse Dynasty experienced and its discriminatory treatment of him based on his gender and sexual orientation.  The suit further alleges that IPS punished Dynasty and failed to address the harassment in part due to his failure to comply with Tech officials’ demands that he change his appearance and style of dress, in violation of his rights to freedom of expression and liberty under the First Amendment and the federal Due Process Clause.  The suit also challenges IPS’s failure to consider Dynasty’s appeal of his expulsion as required by its own internal procedures and the Constitution.

“I want to make sure no other student in the Indianapolis Public Schools ever has to go through the kind of abuse that I went through,” said Dynasty. “I am hoping this will get IPS to start treating kids like me with respect and really do something to protect their students.”

We will continue to follow the details of this case at MadProfessah.com and get the word about the prevalence and impact of bullying on LGBT teens around the country.

Hat/tip to LGBT Think Progress.

UPDATE: Suspended Black Gay Teen Reinstated

Darnell "Dynasty" Young is a Black gay youth who says he was bullied at his school in Indianapolis, IN> When he brought a weapon to school to defend himself since the school officials refused to take any action despite multiple pleas and notices from Darnell and his family, he was suspended.

However, now it looks like this sad tale may actually have taken a more positive turn. Darnell has had his expulsion from Indiana schools overturned.

The Indianapolis Star reports:

[Indianapolis Public Schools] spokeswoman Kim Hooper said the district had no comment on the decision to end Young’s expulsion, which would’ve expired in January.

The decision came after Young and his attorneys met with the district one week ago to review his expulsion.

[National Center for Lesbian Rights senior staff attorney Chris] Stoll received a letter announcing that IPS would reinstate Young on Monday.

The letter says the district overturned Young’s expulsion based on letters from Young and his mother, Chelisa Grimes, as well as “character statements regarding Darnell’s conduct since expulsion.

[...]

Young’s expulsion sparked national attention and a local protest outside an IPS School Board meeting in May. The board voted to hire an outside firm to investigate the alleged bullying.

[...]

Young and his family are still critical of the way the district handled the incident.

“I don’t understand why adults would stand back and let any student be threatened,” Young said in a prepared statement after IPS ended his expulsion. “This problem would stop if school officials took action. By doing nothing to stop the harassment, they send the message that it is okay to harass and attack gay students, and nothing will happen if you do.”

Grimes also expressed her continued disappointment with IPS.

“This school district needs to make some real changes to make sure that every student can attend school safely and with dignity,” Grimes said in a statement. “I hope this will be a wake-up call to other parents to find out what is going on at your child’s school and demand that school officials take this issue seriously. If we don’t stand up for our children, no one else will.”

Well, well, well! Sometimes good things can happen!

hat/tip to Wonder Man

The 7 Most Anti-Gay Republican Congressmembers

LGBT Think Progress has produced a list of the seven most anti-gay Republican Members of Congress by noting which of them have sponsored multiple pieces of anti-gay legislation from the following list:

H.R. 337, the Restore Military Readiness Act

H.R. 875, the Marriage Protection Act of 2011

H.R. 958, the We the People Act

H.R. 3828, the Military Religious Freedom Protection Act

H.J.RES. 45, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage

H.RES. 143, directing the Speaker, or his designee, to take any and all actions necessary to assert the standing of the House to defend the Defense of Marriage Act

H.CON.RES. 25, expressing the sense of Congress with respect to the Obama administration’s discontinuing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act

H.AMDT. 573 to H.R.2219, to prohibit the use of funds to enforce the directive of allowing chaplains to perform same-sex marriages on Navy bases regardless of any applicable State law requirements

H.AMDT. 546 to H.R. 2219, to prohibit the use of funds in contravention of section 7 of title 1, United States Code (the Defense of Marriage Act)

and H.AMDT.1096 to H.R.5326, to prohibit the use of funds to be used in contravention of the Defense of Marriage Act

The most anti-gay members of Congress is Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) who sponsored 6 of the above pieces of legislation (while authoring 3 of them). There are six Republicans who have co-sponsored 5 of the anti-gay bills and resolutions: Dan Burton (R-IN), Phil Gingrey (R-GA), W. Todd Akin (R-MO), Vicky Harzler (R-MO), Doug Lamborn (R-CO) and Donald Manzullo (R-IL). There are fourteen other Republican congressmembers who sponsored at least 4 of the pieces of legislation from the list.