Voices Do Not Fall On Deaf Ears

So a while back I signed a petition regarding that comprehensive immigration reform should include a measure to allow Americans to sponsor same-sex partners for immigration purposes. If you have been following my blog for any amount of time, you know that my partner is from Sweden, so this issue really strikes home for me. When I signed the petition, I, like many others do, simply felt I was a name among many that would get lost among the lists. I was quite shocked to receive an email from Senator Dianne Feinstein! Now I know it is simply a form letter, but none the less, I appreciate the effort that I received any kind of response at all. Unfortunately, The news was not great and the letter explained how the same sex sponsorship was shot down by the republicans threats of not passing the reform bill if it was included, but I am happy that it is an issue that is being taken seriously by my Senator. So when you see the requests to sign a petition an you think, "what will my say really do", unless you use your voice, of course, no one can hear. Love to all.

Burly Bear Chris

Gay Marriage and Binational Relationships

I keep getting asked why is it so important for federal recognition of gay marriage and not just on the state level? There are over a thousand reasons. The number of benefits denied by not having federally recognized marriage is more accurately 1,138. I obviously cannot address each of these, but one of them that effects, or will effect, me the most is the failure to recognize binational marriages.  It is no secret that my partner (And future husband) is not a citizen of the US. In his country, gay marriage is already legal. We have talked about getting married, and where we will live after. At this point, the only option would be for me to live there. He could not come here unless we went back and forth as his visas expired. If our marriage was federally recognized, then that would not be necessary. I think there is this huge misconception that binational couples only get married so one could get a US citizenship. There are, in fact, a few who do marry for this reason, but the majority of them do so for love, and that would no different in a gay marriage than a straight one. Although a handful of same sex couples have been given a reprieve from deportation, without federally recognized marriage, there is no guarantee as, for now at least, it simply depends on who is assigned the case and their personal view on the matter. Regardless of which country we decide to build our lives together in, it is a given that we will travel back and forth from time to time to visit family, and it is important to know that if something happens, our rights will be protected no matter where we are. At least in his country we will be. Should it be the same here? Love to all.

Burly Bear Chris

Gay Marriage And The Economy

I have long touted the economic benefits of gay marriage. Now it seems, the news is finally chiming in on the subject. A recent study has suggested that wedding and marriage industry alone could get a boost well over the $9 billion range. That is just lawyers and wedding planners. Lets factor in the increased revenue from wedding license fees. NYC estimates it received a boost of $250 million since lifting the ban on gay marriage. Then you can add in the boost to the tourism dollar as more couples take their honeymoons. Housing would go up as more couples would feel more secure in purchasing a home together. Corporate America realized these benefits long before this. Why do you think you have been seeing more and more advertising with a more gay friendly approach? The most recent being the Amazon Kindle ad. Are the trying to tout their acceptance of all sexual orientations? No, they are simply wooing the all mighty dollar. There has much discussion, and misinterpretation, of a question posed to the CEO of Starbucks at a recent shareholders meeting regarding their support for gay marriage was good for the company's image. His reply? “If you feel, respectfully, that you can get a higher return than the 38% you got last year, it’s a free country,” Shultz replied. “You can sell your shares of Starbucks and buy shares in another company. Thank you very much.” The CEO of Goldman Sachs also put his money behind the Gay Marriage movement when he recorded a commercial stating, "America's corporations learned long ago that equality is just good business and is the right thing to do,” at least he added that it was the right thing to do. And these gentleman are right. I know I will pay close attention when I am making a decision on where to spend my money and I will not spend it in locations that use a part of it to take away or block my rights and civil liberties. So how about you? Will whether or not a company supports gay marriage effect your choice? Let me know in the comments section. Love to all.

Burly Bear Chris

A Sea of Red

Looking at my social media sites today, I can't begin to describe the awesome feeling I get seeing all those who changed their profile pictures to red today. If you have ever been to Gay Days at Disneyland and walked in seeing all the people in their red shirts, it is much the same feeling. Its a feeling of community. A feeling of support. A feeling of knowing you are not alone. I know change is scary. I know change takes time. All I ask is that we be open to change. And by the looks of my Facebook wall, so many of you all are. I have had a few people actually send me messages asking me what all the red was about. I explained to them what was happening at the Supreme Court and why it was so important. A few proceeded to change theirs too. Equality is not just a gay issue. Equality is a human issue. The purpose of the icon changes is not only to show support, but to open dialog and educate. So instead of asking for comments today, I ask you all to show your support and go red! Love to all.

Burly Bear Chris

A Sudden Shift Not What It Seems

The waves of change are happening. There has been a major shift the the support for marriage equality. I shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth, but one has to wonder why the sudden change in Republican leaders stance on this issue. I wish I could say it was just a sudden awakening and doing what is right, however the truth may be a bit more sinister than that. Immediately after the last presidential election, Republican leaders went on record as saying they needed to bridge the gap and bring back followers that had been alienated by the parties views. In the past few months since the election, more then 100 republican leaders have shifted their stance on the issue. Here is a recent article from dot429.com:

Republicans crossing aisle on marriage equality
More Republicans are crossing the aisle in regards to marriage equality, increasing the possibility that LGBT rights may become a bipartisan issue supported by both Democrats and GOPers.

The new year has seen a wave of prominent GOP members lending their voices to the marriage equality cause, including former governor of Utah and 2012 Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman, former Republican candidate for governor of California, Meg Whitman, and high-ranking officials from both the Reagan and Bush administrations.

On February 26, more than 100 Republicans signed a “Friend of the Court” brief in opposition to Proposition 8, a California law banning same-sex marriage. The brief, organized by the former chair of the Republican National Committee, Ken Mehlman, offered information and legal opinion about why same-sex couples should have the right to marry.

A broad swath of Republican Party members signed on, including those not normally associated with LGBT rights, have never spoken out on this issue before, or who even changed positions, such as Huntsman and Whitman.

As governor of Utah, Huntsman only supported civil unions in the past, but in an op-ed written for The American Conservative he argued that supporting same-sex marriage is consistent with conservative principles.

“All Americans should be treated equally under the law whether they marry in a church, another religious institution, or a town hall,” he wrote. “Civil equality is compatible with, and indeed promotes, freedom of conscience.”

Meg Whitman supported Proposition 8 while running for governor in 2009, but said in a LinkedIn blog “that there is no legitimate, fact-based reason for providing different legal treatment of committed relationships between same-sex couples. Laws like California’s Proposition 8 do not fortify traditional marriage; they merely prevent hundreds of thousands of children of same-sex couples from enjoying the benefits that accrue from marriage.”

Huntsman, Whitman, and other Republicans who support marriage equality are representative of a sudden shift in GOP ideology and rhetoric that has depicted same-sex marriage as an adversary to religious freedom and traditional marriage, and harmful to children.

Michael Klarman, a Harvard Law School Professor and author of “From the Closet to the Altar: Courts, Backlash, and the Struggle for Same-Sex Marriage” told NBC News that Republicans supporting marriage equality was “inconceivable” just two years ago, calling the recent shift an “incredibly important development.”

“The shift is pretty fast,” Political Science Professor at University of California, Berkely, Eric Schickler, told 429Magazine, “but it follows a pretty fast shift in public opinion. When Republicans were firmly against same-sex marriage, the public was as well.”

Americans are becoming increasingly accepting of same-sex marriage. The latest Gallup Poll conducted in December 2012 reported that 53 percent of people favor legalizing marriage for gay and lesbian couples, up from 42 percent in 2004.

Another 2013 poll conducted by Anzalone Liszt Grove Research reported that 75 percent of voters believe that the freedom to marry is a constitutional right, and 83 percent believe that marriage for same-sex couples will become legal nationwide in the next decade, a double-digit increase in voters’ opinions on this issue in just two years.

Schickler adds that thanks to growing bipartisan support of marriage equality, Republicans who may have privately supported marriage equality are now “politically free” to support it openly.

Republican LGBT organizations have embraced their party’s newfound support of marriage equality.

“Republicans who support freedom to marry for gays and lesbian couples can no longer be dismissed as a small fringe group of the party,” Executive Director of the Log Cabin Republicans, Gregory T. Angelo told 429Magazine.

“This is one more example of how conservatives are thinking about this issue differently,” Executive Director of GOProud Jimmy LaSalvia told 429Magazine.

“Their conservative principles and values are leading more and more conservatives to support civil marriage for gay couples.”

The surge in mainstream Republican support and public opinion polls concerning same-sex marriage has energized marriage equality advocates, especially those who politically identify as conservative. But many congressional Republicans, still committed to the status quo, remain in opposition to the idea of marriage outside of a heterosexual relationship.

In January, House GOP leadership authorized $3 million to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, a federal law which defines marriage as between a man and woman.

John Feehery, a Republican Strategist and former House leadership aide, said of House Speaker John Boehner’s anti-marriage equality stance, “I doubt very seriously he is going to change his position.”

The division between Republicans who support marriage equality and the traditional party platform, which officially denounces same-sex marriage, may lead to an internal gridlock among party members.

However, experts believe that marriage equality is an impending reality, and even add that GOP members should embrace it as a conservative notion for the sake of the party’s own survival.

Huntsman communicated this message in his op-ed, pointing out that changing demographics in America means that Republicans can no longer afford to isolate minority groups with non-inclusive political stances.

“Republicans in the last election did more poorly among Latinos than they have in the past,” said Schickler in concurrance. “They already lost the African-American vote a long time ago. Gays and lesbians are another block of voters and Republicans are asking themselves, do we want to write them off?

“This is where the future is heading. Even if right now you can still win an election with an anti-same-sex marriage stance, over time there are going to be fewer and fewer places where this is an appealing position.”

429Magazine

So as the old adage says, beware of strangers with candy. Love to all.

Burly Bear Chris

An Important Week Ahead

This is an incredibly important week coming. This week the US Supreme Court will begin hearing the arguments regarding the constitutionality of not one, but two issues that seek out to limit the rights of the LGBT community. California's Prop 8 and the DOMA act. I think the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) outlines the cases best:

The Cases

The U.S. Supreme Court is considering two cases that deal with marriage equality for gay and lesbian Americans.

On Tuesday, March 26, the Court will hear oral argument in Hollingsworth v. Perry, AFER’s federal constitutional challenge to California’s Proposition 8. Two couples, Kris Perry & Sandy Stier and Paul Katami & Jeff Zarrillo, are represented by Ted Olson and David Boies, who argue that Prop. 8 violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.Learn more about the Perry case >

On Wednesday, March 27, the Court will hear oral argument in United States v. Windsor, a challenge to the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the 1996 law that prevents the federal government from recognizing the legal marriages of gay and lesbian couples in states with marriage equality. The case involves Edie Windsor, an 83-year-old widow who was forced to pay $363,000 in estate taxes after her wife died, a tax she would not have to pay if she was married to a man. Represented by the ACLU, Ms. Windsor claims that DOMA violates her right to equal protection of the laws.

The Court

The building that houses the U.S. Supreme Court was erected between 1932 and 1935. Prior, the Court was housed in various buildings including the U.S. Capitol. The building was designed by architect Cass Gilbert (1859 –1934), who also created numerous skyscrapers, museums (Saint Louis Art Museum) and libraries (Saint Louis Public Library), state capitol buildings (the Minnesota, Arkansas and West Virginia State Capitols).

The nine Justices are seated by seniority. The Chief Justice occupies the center chair, the senior Associate Justice sits to his right, the second senior to his left, and so on, alternating right and left by seniority.

Following Along

While cameras and live updates are prohibited inside the courtroom, audio of the proceedings will be made available shortly after oral argument concludes on each day. The Supreme Court has said that audio will be released by 1 p.m. EDT on Tuesday and 2 p.m. EDT on Wednesday. Seating inside the Court is extremely limited and on a first come basis.

Sign up for breaking news updates to receive an audio recording >

Proceedings

Shortly before 10:00 a.m., the Justices will meet in the Robing Room where they will all shake hands and don their robes.

At 10:00 a.m., oral argument will begin.  As the Justices enter the courtroom, the Marshal of the Court will intone:

The Honorable, the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.  Oyez!  Oyez!  Oyez!  All persons having business before the Honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States, are admonished to draw near and give their attention, for the Court is now sitting.  God save the United States and this Honorable Court!

The Chief Justice will call our case and invite Charles J. Cooper, attorney for the Proponents of Proposition 8, to the lectern.  He has 30 minutes to make his argument.

Once Mr. Cooper has concluded, the Chief Justice will invite AFER lead co-counsel Ted Olson to the lectern.  He has twenty minutes to make his argument.

After Mr. Olson has completed his argument, the Chief Justice will invite Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. to the lectern.  The Solicitor General has 10 minutes to make his argument for the United States as amicus curiae, or “friend of the Court,” in support of AFER’s Plaintiffs.

If he has reserved time for rebuttal, Mr. Cooper will then have a few minutes to address the Court.

Once oral argument is concluded, the case is submitted for consideration.  The Justices will vote at their private Conference on Friday, March 29.  A final decision is expected by the end of June.

The eyes of not only our nation, but the world are upon this court. Will we continue to be the champions of freedom and human rights? Or are we giving up progression for burying our heads in the sand while the rest of the world continues to surpass us? I truly hope the Supreme Court agrees with me in saying, Love to all.

Burly Bear Chris