LGBT Lives Net Yet Free, Equal or Secure

The question of what comes after the marriage cases ignores the reality that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people’s lives are not yet free, equal, secure even with the positive outcome of the Supreme Court decisions.

So what should we do now? First, reframe the LGBT political and legal agenda to positively address the life chances and lived experience of every queer person. Second, build infrastructure, coalitions and political strategy to advance LGBT people’s interests in the Southern and Midwestern US. Third, create a political strategy with allies (labor, POC, women) to win and secure progressive outcomes in key states over the next two decades. Fourth, put massive amounts of funds into developing the leadership of young progressives—queer and straight. Fifth, create a specific anti-fascist infrastructure of social media, legal, research and watchdog groups to expose and defeat the right wing culturally and politically.

In sum, the work ahead for queers is to be transformative, not transfixed.

Confused? Spinning around from outrage to glee to WTF? Progressive Supreme Court watchers have good reason to be perplexed. During the past few days we have been stunned, if not surprised, by the stream of awful decisions flowing forth from SCOTUS including the erosion of the right to remain to silent, a further weakening of affirmative action and the evisceration of the Voting Rights Act. Then we greet two happier decisions eroding legal discrimination against same-sex couples in the DOMA and Proposition 8 cases. What’s going on?

It’s tempting to chalk up these split decisions to a divided court in general, and the quirks of one Justice Anthony Kennedy in particular, or to understand these results as the uneven ups and downs of overlapping social movements. Neither of these assessments is wrong. But there is a broader context that we must consider if we want to create a broad and effective movement for social and economic justice.

Since the 1980s, US public policy has moved in a more or less coherent direction—toward the deregulation of corporations, the privatization of social welfare, the strengthening of the security and surveillance functions of the state. While maintaining the formal legal equality won by social movements during the 1960s and ’70s, policy-makers have undercut the substantive, though limited, redistribution of political and economic power accomplished in the US since the 1930s. For instance, rather than continue affirmative steps to democratize public education from pre-school through college, governments at all levels have eroded access in myriad ways, by raising tuition, narrowing curricula and privatizing schools. We still have a public education system open to all, but the experience of schooling is increasingly unequal across divides of race and class. We are barely maintaining the basic right to early-term abortion, but this and other reproductive rights are also increasingly eroding via differential access to reproductive healthcare.

This is the context within which to grasp the logic of the recent Supreme Court decisions. The undermining of affirmative action and the frontal attack on voting rights are based on the formal legal neutrality of supposedly color-blind policy. Such formal equality leaves the history of racism and the current reality of persistent wide racial disparities out of the frame. The decisions on DOMA and California’s Proposition 8 move haltingly toward very limited formal legal equality for same-sex conjugal couples. Marital privilege in general is maintained. Myriad historical and current sources of queer social and economic misery are not addressed—homeless queer youth, elder poverty and isolation, transgender healthcare. Looked at this way, this stream of decisions is basically consistent despite the flip-flopping role of Justice Kennedy.

The implications for the future of LGBT social movements are clear. Sure, when legal inequalities are eroded (the two same-sex marriage cases did not fully eliminate formal inequality) there is cause for celebration. But the history of civil rights struggles in the United States shows us that formal legal equality does not provide more resources, greater political power or better lives. Too often, legal equality is an empty shell that hides expanded substantive inequalities. To move forward toward a better world for queers we need to form broad alliances for the achievement of real social justice: Get money out of politics, fight for universal social benefits (healthcare, child care, retirement) not tied to marriage or employers, expand the power of working people, demand government transparency, go to the root causes of persistent racial inequalities, endorse sexual and gender freedom. Queer people are affected by all of these issues, not only the last ones. We can’t be the mostly single-issue movement that our major organizations have been. We don’t lead single-issue lives.

Respect for All Married Couples -- Repealing Section 3 of DOMA

The Supreme Court’s recent decision to repeal part of DOMA has brought about a great relief to LGBTs. It is important to understand more about the different parts of DOMA and how each affects us.

In 1996, to help defend one-man, one-woman marriage from efforts to redefine it, the United States Congress overwhelmingly passed- and President Bill Clinton signed – the “Defense of Marriage Act.” It defined marriage in federal law and enabled states to decline to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.

DOMA defined marriage in federal law as follows:

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

The Defense of Marriage also affirms the power of each state to make its own decision as to whether it will accept or reject same-sex marriages created in other jurisdictions.

Any attempt to repeal either of the two DOMA sections will have significant implications. Repeal of the first section would eliminate the uniform definition of marriage across federal statutes and programs. Repeal of the second component would make it much more difficult for a State to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages from other States.

The Supreme Court’s resent historic ruling striking down Section 3 of the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is an enormous victory for loving, married couples and their families, and affirms that they deserve equal treatment under the law. This victory demonstrates the importance of access to marriage, and gives married same-sex couples access to the tangible benefits of the federal safety net, allowing them to better protect one another and their children.

Ending DOMA lifts up all LGBT people, even if it does not end our work. DOMA was an official federal policy disapproving of gay people and same-sex relationships, often imitated by states and imposed a second-class status on our lawful marriages by negating them for all federal purposes. The Court has now affirmed that equal protection guarantees apply to the relationships of LGBY people and has replaced federal disrespect with federal respect for our lawful marriages. This victory will energize our work moving forward so that we can achieve a reality in which every single same-sex couple enjoys full and equal protections under the law, regardless of where they live.

For legally married couples living outside of a marriage state of the District of Columbia, there are still many questions about when they will be equally able to share in federal protections, responsibilities, and programs. This is because the federal government typically defers to the states in determining whether a couple’s marriage is valid. There is no one rule across all federal agencies. Some agencies look to the law of the state where a couple married regardless of the law of the state where the couple now lives, while others look to the law of the state where the couple is living now.

I think the federal government can and should take action, where necessary, to ensure that married couples in all states have access to the largest number of federal programs. The federal government is already looking at how federal agencies can ensure fair and equal treatment of all married couples where possible. However, at this time, there are a number of important federal benefits that depend on whether your marriage is recognized where you live, so couples who live in states with bans on marriage by same-sex couples should proceed with caution before making the decision to marry.

One question that comes up frequently now has to do with wondering if all of DOMA is now completely repealed? The answer is no.

The Windsor case challenged the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA, the part that discriminatorily excluded married same-sex couples from federal protections, responsibilities, and programs. Section 2 of DOMA, which says that states may discriminate against gay couples legally married in other states, still stands. Legislative action will be needed to remove it, although getting rid of Section 2 will not eliminate discriminatory state marriage laws.

The Respect for Marriage Act, a bill pending in Congress that enjoys bipartisan support and the backing of President Obama, would fully repeal all of DOMA. It would also ensure that all married couples – including same-sex couples – enjoy equal rights under federal law. It would not tell states what to do, but would ensure that the federal government treats all marriages with respect.

Gay marriage quotes: Reaction to 2013 Supreme Court rulings

The United States Supreme Court delivered a landmark victory for gay rights on June 26, 2013 by forcing the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages in states where it is legal and paving the way for it in California, the most populous state. The two cases, both decided on 5-4 votes, concerned the constitutionality of a key part of a federal law, the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), that denied benefits to same-sex married couples, and a voter-approved California state law enacted in 2008, called Proposition 8, that banned gay marriage.

The following are reaction quotes to the Supreme Court’s decisions in the two gay marriage cases gathered by Associated Press Politico.com:

“The laws of our land are catching up to the fundamental truth that millions of Americans hold in our hearts: when all Americans are treated as equal, no matter who they are or whom they love, we are all more free.” – President Barack Obama.

“While I am obviously disappointed in the ruling, it is always critical that we protect our system of checks and balances. A robust national debate over marriage will continue in the public square, and it is my hope that states will define marriage as the union between one man and one woman.” – House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio.

“The Supreme Court’s decision affirms that all couples, regardless of their sexual orientation, deserve the same rights and opportunities under the law that my wife and I enjoy. The Defense of Marriage Act was a discriminatory law that unfairly treated LGBT couples differently, and has rightly been relegated to the dust bin of history.” – Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo.

“While we are disappointed in the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, the court today did not impose the sweeping nationwide redefinition of natural marriage that was sought. Time is not on the side of those seeking to create same-sex ‘marriage.’ As the American people are given time to experience the actual consequences of redefining marriage, the public debate and opposition to the redefinition of natural marriage will undoubtedly intensify.” – Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council.

“This is a watershed moment for equality and a clear statement from the highest court in the land that discrimination and hatred have no place in a country founded on the principles of liberty, justice and equality.” – Rick Jacobs, chair of the California-based CourageCampaign.org.

“At the heart of the gay marriage argument is an untruth: unions of two men or women are not the same as unions of husband and wife. The law cannot make it so, it can only require us to paint pretty pictures to cover up deep truths embedded in human nature.” – Maggie Gallagher, fellow at the American Principles Project and co-founder of the National Organization for Marriage.

“Today’s ruling affirms what we stand for as Americans – the guarantee that every person and every family is given equal respect under the law. It means that married same-sex couples can participate fully in federal programs that provide much-needed security for American families.” –Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y.

“We are devastated that the Supreme Court succumbed to political pressure by voting to weaken the sacred institution. They neglected our most precious children who need a mother and a father united in marriage for healthy development.” – Rev. William Owens, president of Coalition of African-American Pastors.

“Marriage is the true foundation for strong families. Every loving, committed couple deserves the basic human right to get married, start a family, and be treated equally under the law. No politician from this day forward should try to stand in the way of this fact.” – Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y.

“The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision today puts the court on the right side of history. DOMA is unjust, un-American, and out of step with the values of our country.” – Rep. Jim Moran, D-VA.

“The Supreme Court bent the arc of history once again toward justice. The court placed itself on the right side of history by discarding Section 3 of the defenseless Defense of Marriage Act and by allowing marriage equality for all families in California. The highest court in the land reaffirmed the promise inscribed into its walls: ‘equal justice under law.” – House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

“Today’s rulings advance civil marriage equality, but they should also serve as a call for Christians to embrace religious marriage equality. Countless faithful Christians have lived out their lives in committed same-sex relationships, and we have seen the fruits of their fidelity in our families, our congregations and our communities. If we use this historic moment to see more clearly how their faithfulness contributes to the common good, we will better be able to walk with our LGBT sisters and brothers as an act of Christian faith.” – Rev. Gary Hall, dean of Washington National Cathedral.

U.S. Supreme Court To Hear Historic DOMA and Proposition 8 Cases

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments of the two prominent cases that could test the bounds of laws restricting gay marriage next month. No matter the outcome, two facts alone make these cases historic: never before has the Supreme Court heard such comprehensive, sweeping advocacy in favor of LGBT people, and never before has the federal government been the advocate.

The first case will be argued March 26, involving a dispute over California’s constitutional ban on gay marriage known as Proposition 8. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals earlier struck down that rule. The second case is expected to be argued the following day. It is a challenge to part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Lower courts have declared both DOMA and Proposition 8 unconstitutional.

The Obama Administration’s argument is that the 1996 “Defense of Marriage Act” violates the U.S. Constitution in defining marriage as the legal union between one man and one woman—specifically Section 3 of DOMA, which bars recognition of same-sex marriages in the granting of federal benefits including Social Security survivors’ benefits, immigration, insurance benefits for government employees, and filing joint tax returns.

The law was passed by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate and signed by President Bill Clinton. The Obama Administration broke with its predecessors when it announced last year that it would no longer defend the provision. Republicans in the House of Representatives directed by Speaker John Boehner, stepped in to take up the defense of the law in court.

The Proposition 8 case could have the broadest implications. A decision in favor of gay marriage could set a national rule and overturn every state constitutional provision and law banning same-sex marriages. A ruling that upholds California’s ban would be a setback for gay marriage proponents in the nations largest state, although it would leave open the state-by-state effort to allow gays and lesbians to marry.

President Obama’s position on gay marriage has “evolved” in its favor. In his inaugural address last month, he said, “Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law—for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.” His Administration will weigh in against Proposition 8 as it has with DOMA.

Homosexual conduct has a history of being prosecuted as criminal in the United States. Although same-sex marriages now are legally recognized in nine states and the District of Columbia, many more states still have laws aimed at gays and lesbians—including restrictions on the adoption of children, banning gay marriage, and refusing legal benefits to same-sex couples.

Polls show a clear shift in public acceptance of same-sex marriage, especially among under-30 Americans. 65-35% approve, according to a Quinnipiac University Poll in December. For all age groups, Gallup puts the number at 53-46 % approval.

We will be watching anxiously while these cases’ arguments are being heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. The fact alone that the Court will hear them at this time is momentous and we can hope that the shifting attitudes about same-sex marriage will be reflected in their opinions.