Mary Bonauto Wins 2014 MacArthur "Genius" Grant Of $625K

Mary Bonauto, one of the primary architects of the LGBT equality revolution in the courts for the last two decades in her long association with Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, has been awarded a prestigious MacArthur Foundation "Genius" grant.

Bonauto is a civil rights lawyer whose powerful arguments and long-term legal strategies have led to historic strides in the effort to achieve marriage equality for same-sex couples across the United States. The Civil Rights Project Director at Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) since 1990, much of her early work focused on adoption and parenting, censorship, hate crimes, and discrimination in jobs and public accommodations. 

Mindful of the risks of loss and political backlash when social reform litigation advances ahead of public understanding, Bonauto and her GLAD colleagues initially pursued an incremental, state-based strategy to secure government marriage licenses for same-sex couples in the New England states. Bonauto and Vermont colleagues formed a critical partnership in 1997, which is widely acknowledged as a pivotal time and place to challenge a state's exclusion of gay and lesbian couples from marriage. The Vermont Supreme Court's ruling in Baker v. Vermont (1999) was the first to hold that same-sex couples must be provided all of the same protections and obligations provided to married couples, and the state legislature established the first civil union law in the nation in 2000 to comply with that ruling. GLAD's subsequent filing of Goodridge v. Department of Public Health in Massachusetts, relying again on state constitutional guarantees of equality and liberty, resulted in the 2003 landmark decision that made that state the first to extend marriage equality to same-sex couples. Bonauto's constitutional arguments in Goodridge articulated the breadth of the practical and social harms imposed by the state's exclusion on real families and their children. In defending the marriage ruling from attempts to substitute civil unions, she drew on painful lessons from our nation's past, most notably the history of unjust "separate but equal" doctrines as substitutes for racial and gender equality, and the Massachusetts high court was the first to reject civil unions as a substitute for marriage. The Goodridge ruling, the transformative effect of same-sex couples marrying on the public's views, and subsequent legal (in Connecticut), legislative (in Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire), and ballot-based (in Maine) victories all provided a solid foundation and roadmap for future strategies across the nation, including at the federal level. 

In 2009, Bonauto led a team from GLAD and private law firms in the first strategic challenge to section three of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and argued that the federal government's non-recognition of the lawful and rapidly growing number of marriages unconstitutionally denied same-sex couples more than 1,000 federal protections and obligations usually available to married persons. Her case--Gill v. Office of Personnel Management--provided the first federal court wins in challenges to DOMA (in 2010 and 2012 rulings), and served as an important model for United States v. Windsor, the landmark case that ultimately resulted in the U.S. Supreme Court striking down DOMA in 2013 and on which she served as a strategist and external coordinator of friend-of-the-court briefs. In the name of equal treatment and dignity for all people, and in concert with other litigators and advocates across the country, Bonauto is breaking down legal barriers based on sexual orientation and influencing debates about the relationship between the law and momentous social change more broadly. 

Mary L. Bonauto received a B.A. (1983) from Hamilton College and a J.D. (1987) from Northeastern University School of Law. She has been the Civil Rights Project Director at the Boston-based Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) since 1990. Since 2013, she has been the Shikes Fellow in Civil Liberties and Civil Rights and Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School.

This is amazing news. Two other openly LGBT people also won MacArthur Genius grants this year: Alison Bechdel, the creator of the comic strip "Dykes To Watch Out For" and Samuel Hunter, a playwright.

Massachusetts May Elect Two Openly Gay Statewide Candidates In November

Maura Healey and Steve Kerrigan won the Democratic nominations for Attorney General  and Lieutenant Governor in Massachusetts on Tuesday. Both Healey and Kerrigan are openly gay, and if both are elected in this dark blue state, they would make history as the first time two openly gay politicians are elected statewide simultaneously.

MassEquality, the state's LGBT political advocacy organization, said:

“Each of our endorsed candidates is a champion of LGBTQ equality and we are so proud of their hard work over these last weeks and months that led up to yesterday’s election. Martha Coakley and Maura Healey’s records of game-changing action and accomplishment across the full range of issues impacting LGBTQ people offer hope for the challenges that remain to be tackled, and their triumphs are victories for full LGBTQ equality. They stand poised to make history as the Commonwealth’s first elected female Governor and the country’s first openly gay Attorney General, and MassEquality’s tens of thousands of members will be working hard over the next eight weeks to drive Massachusetts toward these historic milestones whose time has come.”

Congratulations to Kerrigan and Healey!

CELEBRITY FRIDAY: Biddy Martin, Out Lesbian President of Amherst College

I have been covering the phenomenon of openly LGBT college presidents for quite awhile, but somehow I missed the news that the president of Amherst College, one of the preeminent liberal arts colleges in the United States, is an out lesbian, and has been leading that institution since 2011!

I guess LGTQ Presidents in Higher Education needs to update their website!

November 18, 2003: Marriage Equality Decision Announced in Massachusetts

Mary Bonauto of GLAD is viewed by some as the lawyer most
responsible for the current state of marriage equality in America

Today is the tenth anniversary of the release of Goodridge v. Department of Public Health by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, the first decision in the United States in which a state's highest court ruled that traditional marriage laws were discriminatory and decided that marriage equality is the appropriate remedy. In Goodridge, the court gave the state 180 days to implement the ruling, issuing an order that caused marriage equality to go into effect on May 17, 2004, so that became the first date that same-sex couples could get married in the United States. The decision was released in response to a lawsuit filed by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), an LGBT legal advocacy organization, and argued by Mary Bonauto, its Legal Director.

Chris Geidner of Buzzfeed conducted an extensive interview with Bonauto about her role in marriage equality on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the historic decision.

Ten years after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ordered that the state become the first in the country to allow same-sex couples to marry, the once-feared concept has gained mainstream popular support, is recognized by the federal government, and is now the reality in 15 states and Washington, D.C. 

Without Mary Bonauto, however, marriage equality might never have happened. 

The lawyer brought marriage equality cases in Vermont, Massachusetts, and Connecticut. She argued the case to the justices in Massachusetts who brought marriage equality to the United States. She won the first decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act’s federal definition of marriage, and the first appellate decision too — a ruling that forced the issue before the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year. If there’s been a big moment in marriage equality’s long march to reality, Bonauto was probably there. 

And it’s no secret either: The movement’s other leading lawyers openly credit Bonauto for making the success possible. 

[...] 

After losing at trial, the case advanced to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, where Bonauto argued for legal marriage equality on March 4, 2003. 

“Before the argument, I went up to this … law library that I used to go to all the time,” she says. “I just went in there and I was just trying to steel myself, thinking, Mary, you know, you are right. You’re right. This is correct. You are on the right side here.” 

Bonauto had just 15 minutes before the court. 

“I think the first question was, ‘Why should we do something no one else has ever done?’ — which is a fair question, and I said, ‘Because marriage is a fundamental right, [this is] sexual orientation [discrimination], and this is the right thing to do.’” 

The court agreed. 

“The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals,” Chief Justice Margaret Marshall wrote in the court’s landmark decision, issued on Nov. 18, 2003. “It forbids the creation of second-class citizens.” The government, the court held, “has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples.”

Happy Anniversary, Massachusetts!

33% Of U.S. Population (100+ Million People) Living With Marriage Equality

One decade ago there were exactly zero states that had marriage equality, even though the Defense of Marriage Act had been federal law for seven years. In November 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the state constitution required equal marriage rights for same-sex couples under the law and issued an order to go in effect on May 17, 2004. Note that the second state, Connecticut did not have marriage equality until November 2008 (and for a brief 173 days starting in June 2008 Californians had access to same-sex marriage prior to the passage of Proposition 8). So, really in a little over 5 years marriage equality has increased from roughly 10 million to another order of magnitude.

With New Jersey becoming the 14th state to enact marriage equality this week there are now well over 100 million people who live in states with marriage equality, about 33% of the entire U.S. population.

The American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) summaries the astonishingly rapid progress:

State	Date Effective	Population	Percent
Massachusetts	May 2004	6,547,629	2.12%
Connecticut	Nov. 2008	3,574,097	1.16%
Iowa	Apr. 2009	3,046,355	0.99%
Vermont	Jun. 2009	625,741	0.20%
New Hampshire	Jan. 2010	1,316,470	0.43%
Washington, D.C.	Mar. 2010	601,723	0.19%
New York	Jun. 2011	19,378,361	6.28%
Washington	Dec. 2012	6,724,540	2.18%
Maine	Dec. 2012	1,328,361	0.43%
Maryland	Jan. 2013	5,773,552	1.87%
Delaware	Jun. 2013	897,934	0.29%
California	Jun. 2013	37,253,956	12.07%
Minnesota	Aug. 2013	5,303,925	1.72%
Rhode Island	Aug. 2013	1,052,567	0.34%
New Jersey	Oct. 2013	8,791,894	2.84%
	Total	102,216,846	33.11%

Any predictions for when the United States will hit 50%? Remember Illinois, Hawaii, New Mexico and Oregon are widely expected to legalize civil marriage for same-sex couples sooner rather than later.

New Mexico AG Announces He Won't Defend State's Marriage law

Interesting news out of New Mexico today. Democratic Attorney General Gary King has announced that he is not going to defend the state against a lawsuit that seeks to declare that same-sex couples have a right to marry in New Mexico (because he believes that the state's equal protection guarantees demand marriage equality), but he is also arguing that the particular lawsuit be thrown out on procedural grounds.

The Santa Fe New Mexican reports:

In written arguments filed with the court, King said the justices should invalidate the state’s ban on gay marriage if they agree to resolve the issue in a lawsuit filed by two Santa Fe men who were denied a marriage license. 

King, a Democrat who plans to run for governor next year against Republican Gov. Susana Martinez, said New Mexico law effectively doesn’t allow gay marriages although there’s no statutory provision that specifically prohibits, or authorizes, gay couples to be married. 

“New Mexico’s guarantee of equal protection to its citizens demands that same-sex couples be permitted to enjoy the benefits of marriage in the same way and to the same extent as other New Mexico citizens,” King said in the filing. 

The five-member court had asked King’s office to respond to the lawsuit. No hearing has been scheduled in the case so far, and it’s uncertain whether the Supreme Court will issue a decision resolving the same-sex marriage dispute. 

The lawsuit was filed directly with the justices to try to get a speedy decision. However, the court could decide that the case should be handled differently and has to work its way through the legal system as an appeal from a lower court ruling.

New Mexico is an interesting locus for battles around marriage equality because it is one of the very few states in the Union which does not have explicit statutory or constitutional language barring same-sex marriage.

It will be interesting to see what steps the New Mexico Supreme Court takes to resolve this issue. The last state Supreme Court to enact marriage equality was Iowa, which did it by a unanimous vote in 2009 in Varnus v Brien. Other state courts which have ruled in favor of marriage equality are California, Massachusetts, and Connecticut

WATCH: History Of Marriage Equality Laws In United States

With Delaware's dramatic movement yesterday to become the 11th state to enact marriage equality since 2003 (and the second state this year after Rhode Island) it's a good time to look back at how far the issue of marriage equality has come in the last four decades. The cool graphic created by The Atlantic (shown above) does just that.

For the record these are the years and states that have enacted marriage equality:

• 2013: Delaware, Rhode Island
• 2012: Maine, Maryland, Washington
• 2011: New York
• 2009: New Hampshire, Vermont, Iowa, District of Columbia
• 2008: Connecticut (and California*)
• 2003: Massachusetts

*California had marriage equality from June 15, 2008 to November 5, 2008. California is the only state where same-sex couples have had the right to marry and then have had that right revoked by the passage of Proposition 8. Whether Proposition 8 is constitutional is a question the United States Supreme Court is currently considering, in the case Hollingsworth v Perry. 

As I reviewed the 11 states that have enacted marriage equality I noticed that the only Republican governor to sign a marriage equality bill into law was Jodi Rell of Connecticut, and she did so after the state Supreme Court had already enacted marriage equality and the legislature passed a bill codifying the Kerrigan decision. Republican governors in California (2005 and 2007), New Jersey (2011) and Vermont (2009) have all vetoed marriage equality bills. Only Governor Jim Douglas's veto has been over-ridden. Chris Christie's veto is subject to override until January 2014 and may happen.

All 11 states that have passed marriage equality are "blue states," i.e. states that consistently vote for Democratic candidates for president. Iowa is probably the least blue of these states, and is primarily a red state at the state level. New Hampshire is probably purplish-blue, and has had a Republican legislature since marriage equality was enacted. These are probably the two states where marriage equality is the most vulnerable to repeal efforts. However, in the last few years the movement has been in the direction of more marriage equality. In fact, since 2004 every year has ended with more people living in jurisdictions that allow same-sex couples than the year before. Does anyone think that process is going to be reversed? Only bigoted heterosexual supremacists, but they are quickly receding into a vortex of delusion, denial and demagoguery.

All eyes are now looking at Illinois and Minnesota where there are Democratic majorities in the legislature and Democratic governors eager to sign marriage equality bills into law. And California may have marriage equality after June's Supreme Court decision. In 2014, there will be ballot measures on marriage equality in Oregon, Nevada (and possibly California).

New sources say that Minnesota may enact marriage equality as soon as next week!

Hat/tip to Joe.My.God

Saturday Politics: Majorities In 12 States Support Marriage

In 2012, there was majority support for marriage equality in 12 states and the District of Columbia, according to a recent report released by UCLA's Williams Institute. Those states were Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, Hawaii, Oregon, New York, Maine, Washington, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Colorado and California. (The District of Columbia had the largest support, at 62%.) The seven jurisdictions in bold already have marriage equality, while Hawaii (54%), Oregon (54%), New Jersey (51%), Rhode Island (50%), Colorado (50%) and California (50%) all have either civil unions or comprehensive domestic partnerships. Hawaii, Oregon, Colorado and California all have voter-approved state constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. However, Oregon and possibly California and New Jersey may be voting to enact marriage equality at the ballot box in the near future.

The Williams Institute report's analysis indicates that ballot measures in several states (including Oregon, California and New Jersey) may be successful in the very near future.

This research brief identi ed that there 12 states plus the District ofColumbia presently with a majority (50% or above) in support of same-sex marriage. And, given current trends in public opinion on this issue, an additional 8 states will join this group by 2014. 

[...] 

Finally, there are 10 states that have previously passed constitutionalamendments to not introduce same-sex marriages that now have a majority or are within five percentage points of a majority in favor same-sex marriage (Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Montana, Nevada, South Dakota, and Wisconsin). These states may be the future political arenas where existing constitutional amendments may be repealed in order to perform marriages for same-sex couples in those states.

This does put the poll question I previously asked back on the table: now that majority support is indicated for marriage equality, should those in favor of it use the ballot box to enact our public policy aims of enacting the civil right to civil marriages in those states? The dilemma is that it has long been a policy position of civil rights activists that "civil rights should never be subject to the tyranny of the majority." So, to now say that we will use the majority now that it is in our favor could be perceived as hypocritical. However, there are clear real and tangible harms to LGBT citizens by sticking to principle and not using every available means to end discrimination against same-sex couples as soon as possible. What do you think? Vote now:

Should New Jersey LGBT activists agree to allow a referendum on marriage equality in November 2013?
	Yes, since polls indicate a wide majority support marriage equality, the measure would pass easily.
	No,because allowing a vote on marriage equality violates a core principle of civil rights.
	Unsure, this is a tough question!
pollcode.com free polls

The Williams Report gives the level of support for marriage equality in every state in 2004 (numbers in green) and 2012 (numbers in blue) and uses that data to conclude that the rate of support is about 1.6 percentage points per year, on average, in every state. (It should be noted that that is the average rate; in some states the rate of increase of support for marriage equality is increasing at a more rapid rate, in some it is doing so at a slower rate. The key point is that support for marriage equality is increasing in every state.) This is shown in the figure below:

I think the proper thing to do is probably wait for the United States Supreme Court to weigh in on the civil rights of LGBT people in the Hollingsworth (California's Proposition 8) and Windsor (Defense of Marriage Act) cases. If the judiciary branch refuses to play its traditional role in our democracy of protecting the civil rights of minorities, then going to the ballot box to enact those rights seems perfectly justifiable.

Queer Quote: Justice Alito Lies About Gay Marriage

Last week the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two very important cases involving marriage equality, Hollingsworth v. Perry and United States v. Windsor. The first case is about the Proposition 8, and the fundamental question at stake is about whether there exists a fundamental right to marry for same-sex couples.

Justice Samuel Alito, widely expected to rule against the rights of same-sex couples, said something during the hearing which is today's Queer Quote.

 JUSTICE ALITO: Traditional marriage has been around for thousands of years. Same-sex marriage is very new. I think it was first adopted in The Netherlands in 2000. So there isn't a lot of data about its effect. And it may turn out to be a -- a good thing; it may turn out not to be a good thing, as the supporters of Proposition 8 apparently believe. But you want us to step in and render a decision based on an assessment of the effects of this institution which is newer than cell phones or the Internet? I mean we -- we are not -- we do not have the ability to see the future.

Ummm, really? "Traditional marriage has been around for thousand of years"? What does that even mean? This notion that "(traditional) marriage" has been around, unchanged, as a particular idea for thousands of year is a pernicious and resilient flat-out lie. Have you ever heard of the concept of coverture? The idea that marriage has been the same for thousands of years is simply laughable.

And notice how Alito uses the ideas of "the Internet" and "cell phones" as proxies for things which have recently been developed, i.e. not been around for very long. The reality is that the Internet has been around since the 1960s, but most Americans, when they think of (or see) the word "internet" generally think about access to the world wide web, which only achieved critical mass in the mid-1990s. Similarly, Alito deliberately uses the term "cell phones" (which have actually been around since at least the mid 1980s) because most Americans when they hear that term are almost certainly thinking of smartphones (or most likely iPhones) which have only been around since June 2007. But, legal same-sex marriage has been around in the United States since May 17, 2004 and since 2000 in Europe. Alito is deliberately trying to give the impression that legal same-sex marriage is something recent and dangerous.

Interracial marriage was legalized in 1967 with the Loving v. Virginia. Same-sex marriage is vastly more popular now then interracial marriage was then. Was that Court trying to see the future also? It's just an infuriatingly stupid argument, which is probably why Alito made it.

Well, we have until the end of June to see on what side of history Justice Alito will place himself.
Any guesses?

FOOD REVIEW: b. good (Boston, MA)

Last month I was at a conference in Boston for a couple days and while I was there I checked out a local burger chain which is getting good reviews: b. good. Happily, there were two locations within a 5-minute walk of my hotel so I went there twice.

On my first visit, I decided to try one of the special suggested burger combinations that b. good offers. The "ADOPTED LUKE"  costs $6.49 and contains mushrooms, caramelized onions, gouda, and homemade bbq sauce. In addition to the burger I also ordered the "real fries for $2.49 (which for some reason it came in a paper bag labeled sweet potato fries). You can have the meat in the burger as either beef, turkey, veggie or chicken. I went with beef, and was somewhat disappointed when I wasn't asked how I wanted my burger cooked.

I shouldn't have worried. The burger (which came out relatively quickly, with piping hot fries, was quite delicious. The burger was cooked at the "medium" level (I usually like mine cooked medium well but the flavors were very balanced. The bun wasn't great, and so I took off the top half and just ate it as an open-faced burger and it was very satisfying.

In fact, I enjoyed my burger so much that the very next day I went back to b.good and had the "COUSIN OLIVER"  (lettuce, tomato, onions, Chef Tony's homemade pickles) as a turkey burger.

This was the first Turkey Burger I have had as part of my Burger Quest and I was pretty impressed. It wasn't as delicious as a beef burger, but since I have been trying to reduce the amount of beef that I eat on a regular basis, I think that it is a reasonable compromise. Between the Cousin Oliver Turkey Burger and the Adopted Luke Beef Burger I think the beef burger was better.

If I were to go again, I would probably get the Cousin Oliver Beef Burger. If you're in Boston any time soon, I recommend you try a burger at b.good!

Name: b. good.

Location: (Back Bay Location) 131 Dartmouth Street, Boston, MA 02116-5134.

Contact: 617-424-5252.

Visit: March 21-22, 2013.

AMBIANCE: B+.

SERVICE: N/A.

VALUE: A.

FOOD: A. 

OVERALL: A- (3.778/4.0)

In Historic 1st, U.S. Senate Has 2 Black Members

In an historic first, there will be two African-American men serving in the United States Senate simultaneously. William 'Mo' Cowan was selected by a fellow African-American, Deval Patrick, the governor of Massachusetts, to serve as an interim replacement for Senator John Kerry who became Secretary of State on Tuesday. Cowan, 43, served as Gov. Patrick's chief of staff until last November, when he stepped down. Cowan will serve until the winner of a June 25th Special Election is certified and he is not expected to be a candidate in that race. Former U.S. Senator Scott Brown (who was defeated by Elizabeth Warren) is expected to run, despite being a Republican in  a very Democratic state. Whoever wins the special election will have to run for re-election to a full 6-year term in 2014.

The other Black man serving as a United States Senator is former U.S. Representative Tim Scott, who was appointed in December 2012 by South Carolina governor Nikki Haley to fill out the remainder of Jim DeMint's term in the Senate.

Cowan will become only the 8th Black person to ever have served as U.S. Senator. Retired Congressman Barney Frank had openly lobbied to be appointed, which would have meant there would have been two openly gay Senators serving simultaneously, but Gov. Patrick chose instead his good friend and longtime close advisor.

Obama's Vote % of White People and Uneducated

There are some interesting analyses of the presidential vote which illustrate the contours of President Obama's re-election victory and the characteristics of the coalition he brought together to carry him to 332 electoral votes and nearly 51% of the popular vote.

Previously I had blogged about the crucial role of the LGB population (5% of the electorate) voting 76% to 22% for Obama-Biden 2012 but today I want to talk about the people who did NOT vote for the President.

The graphic at the top of this post indicates that all of the top 10 states that have the highest percentages of people with college degrees (MA, MD, CO, CT, VT, NJ, VA, NY, MN) voted for Obama, while 9 of the bottom 10 (WV, MS, AR, KY, LA, AL, IN, TN, OK) voted for Romney-Ryan 2012.

Additionally, Charles Blow in The New York Times noted some other interesting features of the election results:

 This year was the first presidential election in which there were more Asian-American voters (11 percent) in California than African-American ones (8 percent). In 2008, 6 percent were Asian-American and 10 percent were African-American. In fact, there were more Asian-American voters than African-American voters in Washington and Oregon, the other two Pacific Coast states, this year, too. 

[...] 

In fact, Obama won the white vote only in states with small minority voting populations. The others Obama won were Iowa (93 percent white), New Hampshire (93 percent white), Oregon (88 percent white), Connecticut (79 percent white) and Washington State (76 percent white). 

[...] 

 Obama won all four states that begin with “New” (New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico and New York), but he lost all five that begin with a direction (North Carolina, South Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota and West Virginia).

It's interesting that conservatives have been focussing on how how people of color voted for the first Black president but they haven't noticed how places (in)famous for unapologetic racial prejudice voted overwhelmingly for Mitt Romney. For example, Obama won a mere 10% of the white vote in Mississippi.

Hat/tip to Wonder Man and Sentient Meat.

House GOP Has Wasted $1.5M Defending DOMA

Ever since the President and the Department of Justice made their decision public that the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional in February 2011, the House Republicans, led by Speaker John Boehner have been paying superlawyer Paul Clement to defend the federal statute in federal court. The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House (BLAG) authorized $1.5 million to defend DOMA and today comes word they have basically spent $1,447,996.73 of that amount.

BLAG has not gotten much for spending  nearly $1.5 million of taxpayer funds to defend discrimination, because DOMA has been declared unconstitutional by 5 courts in at least 3 federal circuits (the 9th, 1st and 2nd) with the most prominent loss at the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management (along with the companion case Massachusetts v DHHS) widely expected to be taken up by the United States Supreme Court in its current term.

The Democrats in the U.S. House, led by former Speaker Nancy Pelosi have vociferously opposed the legal actions by BLAG as well as the wasteful spending of federal taxpayers to defend a statute which has been declared unconstitutional by multiple federal judges, is opposed in court by the Attorney General of the United States and whose repeal has been endorsed by the President of the United States.

Hat/tip to Washington Blade.

Celebrity Friday: U.S. Rep. Barney Frank Marries

Barney Frank, 72, the longtime openly gay Democratic Congressman from Massachusetts, married his longtime partner, Jim Ready, 42, last weekend in Newton, MA. Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick officiated the wedding.

The New York Times reported the news:

Mr. Frank, 72, and Mr. Ready, 42, were married in Newton, Mass., part of Mr. Frank’s district, on Saturday in a low-key ceremony on the banks of the Charles River. Gov. Deval L. Patrick of Massachusetts officiated. The guests included Representative Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader, as well as Senator John Kerry and Representatives Dennis J. Kucinich and Steny H. Hoyer. 

Mr. Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, became, in 1987, the first sitting member of Congress to volunteer that he was gay. He is now the first to be married to a partner of the same sex. Both bridegrooms said they recognized the historical significance of the ceremony, which lasted less than five minutes. Governor Patrick told the guests that Mr. Frank had requested that the service “be short and to the point.”

Talking Points Memo has the text of the wedding vows and more photos of the happy couple.

Celebrity Friday: Elizabeth Warren Supports Marriage Equality

Harvard Law Professor and U.S. Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren was at the Netroots Nation conference in Providence, RI last weekend and was asked about marriage equality by Salon magazine:

Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren is thrilled about President Obama’s endorsement of marriage equality, but she wants him and the Democratic Party to go even farther and push for a national law guaranteeing the right to same-sex marriage for all Americans. 

In an interview with Salon at Netroots Nation in Providence, Rhode Island, Warren said she supported a federal marriage equality law, which is farther than others in the party have been willing to go. “Yes, I believe in marriage equality. Done. Game. Set. Match,” she replied.

Way to go, Elizabeth!

Analyzing The Cost Of Banning Same-Sex Marriage

This graphic demonstrates the financial cost to society of the lack of legal recognition for same-sex couples.

 Hat/tip to Joe.My.God

Appellate Court Voids Core of DOMA Unanimously!!

Excellent news out of Boston today! The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the July 8, 2010 trial court decision in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Massachusetts v U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in unanimously ruling that the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" violates the United States constitution. This is the first (but probably not the last!) appellate court to strike down Section 3 of DOMA, the part which purports to establish a federal definition of marriage for the purpose of disbursal of federal benefits, regardless of a state's definition of marriage.

Gay and Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) who in 2003 had previously won the Goodridge case leading to marriage equality in the state of Massachusetts, sued the federal government, along with Massachusetts' Attorney General Martha Coakley that married U.S. citizens were  being denied federal benefits thanks to DOMA.

Here's a key excerpt from the decision:

We conclude, without resort to suspect classifications or any impairment of Baker, that the rationales offered do not provide adequate support for section 3 of DOMA.  Several of the reasons given do not match the statute and several others are diminished by specific holdings in Supreme Court decisions more or less directly
on point.  If we are right in thinking that disparate impact on minority interests and federalism concerns both require somewhat more in this case than almost automatic deference to Congress' will, this statute fails that test. 

[..] 

The opponents of section 3 point to selected comments from a few individual legislators; but the motives of a small group cannot taint a statute supported by large majorities in both Houses and signed by President Clinton.  Traditions are the glue that holds society together, and many of our own traditions rest largely on belief and familiarity--not on benefits firmly provable in court. The desire to retain them is strong and can be honestly held. 

For 150 years, this desire to maintain tradition would alone have been justification enough for almost any statute.  This judicial deference has a distinguished lineage, including such figures as Justice Holmes, the second Justice Harlan, and Judges
Learned Hand and Henry Friendly.  But Supreme Court decisions in the last fifty years call for closer scrutiny of government action touching upon minority group interests and of federal action in areas of traditional state concern. 

To conclude, many Americans believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and most Americans live in states where that is the law today.  One virtue of federalism is that it permits this diversity of governance based on local choice, but this applies as well to the states that have chosen to legalize same-sex marriage.  Under current Supreme Court authority, Congress' denial of federal benefits to same-sex couples lawfully married in Massachusetts has not been adequately supported by any permissible federal interest.

The ruling's effect was stayed until the United States Supreme Court could grant certiorari (take up the case). Only the U.S. Supreme Court can strike down a federal law and have it's impact apply to the entire nation, the 1st Circuit's ruling, if it is not appealed, would apply to Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Maine and Puerto Rico (MA and NH already have marriage equality and ME is voting on the question late this year ).

Analysis Of Marriage Equality On Marriage Rates

This above graphic comes from an analysis by Slate magazine of marriage rates in jurisdictions which have legalized marriage equality (Massachusetts, Iowa, Vermont, Connecticut, New Hampshire and District of Columbia) versus the national marriage rate. Do you see a trend or correlation? Me neither!

Neither does Slate, according to "Does Gay Marriage Destroy Marriage?":

Start with Massachusetts, which endorsed gay marriage in May 2004. That year, the state saw a 16 percent increase in marriage. The reason is, obviously, that gay couples who had been waiting for years to get married were finally able to tie the knot. In the years that followed, the marriage rate normalized but remained higher than it was in the years preceding the legalization. So all in all, there’s no reason to worry that gay marriage is destroying  marriage in Massachusetts. 

The other four states that have legalized gay marriage—New York, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire—have done it more recently, somewhere between 2008 and 2011. But from the little data we have, it looks as if the pattern will be more or less the same—a temporary jump in marriage followed by a return to virtually the same marriage rates as before gay marriage became legal. Washington, D.C., which started accepting same-sex marriages in March 2010, saw a huge 61.7 percent increase in marriage that year, though it’s too soon to see where it will settle. Again, no signs of the coming apocalypse.

The piece also goes on to look at divorce rates in the states where same-sex couples can get legally married (and divorced) right now to try to determine if such activity has any impact on the divorce rates of opposite-sex couples. The data just does not indicate that there is any impact of marriage equality on divorce or marriage rates in a state, unsurprisingly. What a shock, another talking point by religious extremists and heterosexual supremacists turns out to be obviously false.

Hat/tip to Americablog

Celebrity Friday (bonus): Barney Frank Engaged To Marry

The longest serving openly LGBT member of Congress, U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), who previously announced he would retire from Congress at the end of this term, has also announced he will be getting married to his longtime partner Jim Ready.

Marriage has been legal in Massachusetts since 2004, what took you so long,Barney? Congratulations!

Elizabeth Warren: "It Gets Better"