Rich Mintz  

America’s retrograde fringe (led by Maggie Gallagher and her vocal hate group National Organization for Marriage) likes to characterize the movement toward marriage equality as a hijacking of America by left-wing extremists who don’t represent the majority of Americans. But nothing could be further from the truth, as recent polling has shown — and as you’ll learn by talking to almost any actual gay person you can find, of any political alignment in any city, town, or rural hamlet in America.

It’s nice to see this common-sense truth reinforced by Freedom to Marry’s new Mayors for the Freedom to Marry initiative, representing dozens of mayors of all political alignments who, on behalf of their diverse cities and communities, are calling on America to stop treating a big wedge of its citizens as second class.

Chaired by the mayors of New York, Los Angeles, Boston, San Diego, and Houston — and including the mayors of Chicago, Kansas City, Philadelphia, Minneapolis, Providence, and dozens more places large and small — this campaign makes clear that people from all across America are getting behind this basic issue of civil rights and fundamental fairness.

If your mayor isn’t on the list, please call him or her and ask why. I’m sure Jo Deutsch at Freedom to Marry would be delighted to add your city to the list — there’s a signup form for your mayor’s chief of staff right on the page.

In particular, if you live in the city of Atlanta, please call Mayor Kasim Reed. His absence from the list is troubling, given that gay people are disproportionate contributors to the economic health and vibrancy of Atlanta’s intown neighborhoods, and have helped elect him to every office he’s ever held. If I still lived in Atlanta, I’d be sitting outside his office in City Hall waiting to see him personally right now.

It is a moral stain on the United States of America that there is a law on the books at the federal level that treats families like mine as though we are less worthy than others. We are taxed disproportionately and unjustly; we are excluded from basic rights of family and inheritance; we risk losing our children. Over a thousand protections, rights, and benefits are denied to us, with no public policy justification, no justification at all other than tribal panic on the part of a mostly elderly minority of Americans; and in an increasing number of states, they are denied to us over the objections of the people in our own communities.

And, in this Republican primary season, the candidates are competing to out-pander each other by saying things about families like mine that most of them (excepting Rick Santorum) probably don’t even believe.

DOMA will not be law in ten years; demographics will see to that. But in the meantime, it is a disgusting shame, the worst kind of political pandering codified into statute.

For more information about the damage done by DOMA and the families who are hurt, visit Why Marriage Matters, a project of Freedom to Marry. The Legal Stranger Project is attempting to document the ways in which DOMA damages families and betrays the so-called ideals of its supporters. Please learn, then fight back: tell your legislators that you support DOMA repeal, follow the campaign, speak up in your own community, put your money where your mouth is. Your voice matters.

Michael and I went down to the City Clerk’s office today, the first day of marriage equality in New York, to see what we could see. And boy, could we see plenty! Hundreds of couples in a block-long line to get in the building; hundreds of people outside on the sidewalks around the Lefkowitz Building. Except for a handful of protesters (I only saw about a dozen in an hour and a half, mostly preachers, mostly with glitter and confetti in their hair), a really festive atmosphere. And that extended to the city officials (who worked overtime issuing marriage licenses, performing marriages, and handling crowd logistics) and the police — I saw more than one NYPD officer calling out cheerful “Congratulations!” to newly married couples.

It was fun being part of something so big, and terrific that the city took it so seriously (Sunday hours, crowd control infrastructure, policing to keep everyone safe). The best part was the crowd of onlookers across Worth Street from the Lefkowitz Building exit, who cheered each newly married couple coming out of the doors.

Photos below:

It was a nail-biter for sure; 50,000 New Yorkers gathered around their streaming video players late into the night on Friday watching the proceedings in the Senate live, and hundreds of thousands more compulsively reloaded their browsers, and another million or two watched NY1 and CNN. But at the end of the evening, something amazing had occurred: a Republican-led State Senate, in a close vote that turned on the decisions of a handful of Republicans, voted to extend the social sanction of marriage to New York’s gay and lesbian citizens, bringing us a little closer to equal treatment under the law.

“Activist judges” didn’t have anything to do with it, and this wasn’t a matter of Democratic political horse-trading, either. Most of the money in this fight came from Republicans, as did a good portion of the back-room lobbying (notably from Mike Bloomberg, who had no problem at all putting himself on the line for equality, and has proven himself yet again to be a mensch).

It’s clear from Michael Barbaro’s post-mortem in the Times that even back in 2009, there were Republican legislators who had no problem with gay marriage, but who voted against it out of political expediency. This isn’t news, but it’s nice to see it stated so unequivocally. It’s also clear that among the many people who helped make this happen, three people played an outsized role.

One was Governor Andrew Cuomo, who threw his considerable political weight behind the issue and was willing to invest himself personally in legislative advocacy of both the institutional and personal varieties. In contrast to 2009, he insisted on a tight coalition, and a tight coalition was what he got, and that made much of the difference. (We learn yet again: old-fashioned political organizing matters.) Far from hurting Andrew Cuomo, strong advocacy on this issue will only prove to have helped him politically, and not just with gay people; he’s demonstrated a willingness to cross the aisle, to insist on the issues that matter, and to use his political power to ensure they get considered.

The second was Mike Bloomberg, in this context quite a bit more than nominally a Republican (he’s the single biggest donor to Republican State Senators), who was blunt and eloquent by turns, spending more time in Albany this year than we had any right to expect him to, despite having nothing personally or politically to gain here, at least in the short term. The definition of a mensch.

And the third was Brian Ellner, head of HRC’s New York marriage task force. Ellner ran what by all accounts was an extremely professional two-pronged campaign. On the one hand, he did a better job in six months of mobilizing public figures (from all over the political and cultural spectrum) to voice their support for marriage equality than any other group had managed to do in ten years. And on the other, he was responsive and effective in the field. Barbaro credits Ellner personally, and the field campaign he ran, with turning Joseph Addabbo from a “nay” into a “yea”; it’s not inconceivable that without that piece, the whole puzzle might have fallen apart. So thanks, Brian, for what you’ve done for New Yorkers.

The true heroes here, though, are the Republican Senators who cast off the demands of politics and voted their consciences. A special thanks to Senators Kruger, McDonald, Alesi, Addabbo, Grisanti, and Saland, who might easily have come down on the other side, but weighed the issues against their personal vanity and voted the right way. Senators Grisanti and Saland, each in his own way, did New York proud with their speeches on the floor Friday night, and they in particular should be remembered.

The “religious protection” issue has raised its head with regard to the New York marriage equality bill at the eleventh hour (it’s more like 11:58 at this point). And, with all due respect to religious institutions (and respect is due them), it’s a manufactured objection. It’s a red herring. Marriage equality is about civil marriage, and about religious marriage in the context of any religious denomination who wants to go there. Period.

No member of the clergy, or denomination, has ever been obligated to perform a religious wedding under any circumstances in this country; as just the most obvious example, Catholic churches routinely decline to perform religious marriages for couples whom they believe are not worthy of the Catholic sacrament of marriage. As they should! (Or, rather, in my opinion, of course they shouldn’t. But that’s a doctrinal argument to be had within the church, not in the statehouse, and I certainly shouldn’t be able to make them.)

As a person who contributes to society and pays taxes and etc. etc., I’m tired of having my basic rights held up by the irrational fears of the most fearful, “other”-averse people in New York. Let them live as tribally and narrowly as they like in their houses and in their churches, but when they come out into the public square, equality should be the rule. And thankfully, increasingly it is.

Just wanted to speak up yet again (as I have on Twitter) on behalf of New York State Senators Jim Alesi and Roy McDonald, the Republicans who have come out in favor of marriage equality in New York State.

Say what you will about political motives, these two are the only Senate Republicans (so far) who won’t be looked back on with shame in 25 years. (And what’s wrong with politics as a motivating factor?) On marriage equality, unlike many other issues, there’s a right side and a wrong side.

Interracial marriage was illegal across much of the United States during my lifetime (though thankfully not in California, where I lived). That prohibition and the arguments made to protect it seem as ridiculous now as the ravings of the anti-gay lobby will sound in 25 years (indeed, sound now to most people under 50).

But all the culture panic in the world won’t stop the right thing from happening. We already know how this story will end, in a country founded on equality and on freedom of worship, in a state with 300 years of history as a multicultural refuge; we just don’t know exactly when. I’m betting on “soon.”

I don’t know what possesses someone like Brooklyn’s State Senator Marty Golden to undertake to curtail the civil rights of hundreds or thousands of New Yorkers, by introducing a bill to enjoin the state from treating a certain class of legally married New Yorkers as married under the law.

It’s not like he said “gosh, you know, I have mixed feelings about marriage equality, so I’m going to arrange to be out of town when we vote on this or that.”  It’s not even like he said “you know, I don’t like gay people, so I’m going to lobby my colleagues to vote in this way or that.”  No. He spent staff time and state money to conceive of, draft, and introduce a bill whose sole purpose is to use the power of the state to take de facto protections away from people who currently have them.  He took an affirmative action whose only purpose and only outcome is to hurt actual families — not theoretical members of a theoretical class, but actual New York families.  (Hey, Marty, try getting out of the house sometime. There are gay people in Bay Ridge now and everything.)

This isn’t about saving money, or clarifying the law; it’s about hurting people to score political points. Don’t stand for it! Call Marty’s office at 718-238-6044 and let him know he’s made a mistake.  More here and here.

I’m annoyed to see professional NYC gay Allen Roskoff attempting to pick holes in the increasingly visible and viable pro-marriage-equality coalition in New York State.  With a coalition of politicians, dozens of celebrities, and now a bunch of rich white people on board, marriage equality is cruising toward real feasibility for the first time.  As an actual gay person in New York who would like to marry someone here (I mean an actual identified someone, not a theoretical one) and can’t, I have as much stake in this issue as Roskoff, and I for one am thrilled to see people like Mike Bloomberg and Andrew Cuomo (and Bill Clinton, a Kentuckian, etc. etc.) come down, out loud, on the right side of history.

This is politics.  It’s hard, and everyone is caught between competing priorities and obligations.  Why dig for reasons to be angry at people?  Accept your victories, and be gracious to those who lend their voices to your cause.  (Incidentally, thanks, Lynne Cheney and Laura Bush.)  Would a stronger pro-marriage-equality stance from Bill Clinton have been better earlier? Sure, but that doesn’t negate his current activities — in fact, I think I appreciate them more.)

The New Yorkers for Marriage Equality campaign, helmed by the able Brian Ellner (seconded from HRC), is racking up public support and mainstream credibility much faster than anything Empire State Pride Agenda ever did on its own. A year ago ESPA was pressured (by Roskoff, as it happened) to drop Ellner from the running for its own executive director position — apparently Ellner didn’t hate Mike Bloomberg enough, or something.  ESPA made a mistake (again: what is the purpose of loyalty oaths that make our coalition smaller?), but it all worked out in the end, as Ellner was quickly picked up by HRC and is now at the front of a strong and effective visibility campaign.  (Also note: the donations I used to give to ESPA are now going to HRC.)

My advice to Roskoff: Get out of the way and let success happen. Or, better yet, turn your anger at people who are actually impeding the cause.  Who cares what Andrew Cuomo or Bill Clinton feels in his heart? What I care about is what they say and what they do.  With demographics inexorably pulling the public in the direction we want to go, this is the moment to welcome and encourage the broadening of the coalition, not to fear it.

I’ll have more to say about Prop 8 (decision here) soon, but in the meantime, take a look at this image, one of a series of photos of Shelly and Ellen shot at the Philip Burton Federal Building in San Francisco yesterday that’s hit the wire services today. (Remember Phil Burton? He’d be celebrating too.)

Ellen (at right) is my cousin, and if you need evidence that marriage matters to gay people, don’t read the blogs or ask a psychologist or a law professor, just ask actual gay people like these. (Click photo to expand.)

(Photo: Same-sex couple Shelly Bailes (L) and Ellen Pontac celebrate the ruling to overturn the ban on gay marriage outside of the Philip Burton Federal building August 4, 2010 in San Francisco, California. By Justin Sullivan/Getty Images. Used without permission; taken from The Daily Dish.)

The arc of the universe bent a little truer today, as U.S. District Court Judge Joseph L. Tauro ruled in two cases touching on the constitutionality of the ill-named Defense of Marriage Act. The Gill case concerned plaintiffs in same-sex marriages who were suing for federal benefits on grounds of, among other things, equal protection; in the Massachusetts case, the Commonwealth sued HHS for an abrogation of rights.

In both cases, he found for the plaintiffs, and in what language! The decisions, with Chris Geidner’s commentary, are here.

I just finished reading Gill, and I can’t remember being so buoyed by a federal court decision since Lawrence v. Texas.. The defendants’ arguments were absolutely demolished; they were pulverized, in language about as blunt and absolute as I can ever remember reading in a court decision (perhaps save the Orly Taitz ruling). Judge Tauro went through every asserted justification for the law (and some that were not asserted) and just knocked them down, concluding that the only possible motivation for the law was “animus” (well, duh — as he quoted, the animus was on display right there on the floor of the House), and that in such a case, the law runs directly counter to elementary Constitutional protections.

This is all just common sense to gay people, but to hear it bluntly and matter-of-factly affirmed by a federal judge, in the impersonal language of a court opinion, is thrilling. Read the decision. It’ll make your day!