Congressman Wolf hasn’t published a statement on the legislation, but we can easily derive his position from that of his co-haters such as Loudoun’s Sterling Supervisor Eugene Delgaudio, who calls this bill the “Thought Control” bill. Delgaudio’s outlandish and comical language is not really very different from the more mainstream anti-gay spokespeople. Here’s Delgaudio:

This bill, also called the “Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act,” would grant special rights to homosexuals, cross dressers, and transgender individuals. The bill would enshrine freakish and strange perversions under federal law by adding sexual orientation and bizarre practices to federal hate crimes statutes. Public Advocate has informed its members and the public that you are about to vote on this bill and, if you were in the Senate, how you voted previously. Our group is asking you to vote “no”. This bill is “anti-Christian” and a vote for it is considered an attack on all Christians.

And here is the FRC description:

The enactment of so-called “hate crimes” legislation is a long stated objective of the homosexual agenda. What “hate crimes” legislation does is lay the legal foundation and framework for investigating, prosecuting and persecuting pastors, business owners, and anyone else whose actions reflect their faith….Adding “sexual orientation” to thought crimes legislation gives one set of crime victims a higher level of protection than it gives to people like you and me.

Ok, we can understand why uneducated anti-gays would fall for this. This sort of language is what gives them their identity; but why would our Congressman Wolf, who has a law degree from Georgetown University support this nonsense? He’s now joined the idiocy of fellow Virginia Congressman Randy Forbes, who apparently doesn’t know a thing about the legislation but isn’t shy about spouting off anyway. Unlike Forbes, Wolf must surely be able to comprehend the language of the bill. He knows that a pastor can quote verses from Leviticus as much as he likes.

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
Lev 20:13 NIV

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Lev 20:13 KJV

There, see? We just did it twice. Reciting Bible verses isn’t a crime. It isn’t a physical crime and it isn’t a thought crime. The following verse can be found just 17 verses before Lev 20:13.

When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.
Lev 19:33-34 NIV

We suspect that Congressman Wolf’s anti-gay backers don’t take that one seriously; Mr. Delgaudio certainly doesn’t. It’s also likely that some of them are gardeners who plant tomatoes, peppers and basil in the same bed, or they may wear cotton-poly blends, or they may think that mules are ok.

My statutes shall ye observe. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with another sort; thou shalt not sow thy field with seed of two sorts; and a garment woven of two materials shall not come upon thee.
Lev 19:19 NIv

These admonitions are not taken literally, so why would the preaching of Leviticus 20:13 be taken as an actionable instruction to “kill the gays“? We may question the priorities or sanity of the preacher who gets worked up about this, but said preaching certainly isn’t a crime.

Hate crimes are acts of terrorism. Their intention is to strike fear into entire communities. Hate crimes legislation provides a vehicle for the Federal government to assist in the investigation and prosecution of such bias crimes. This is common sense legislation, and it’s sad to see that our Congressman, who purports to be a leading advocate for human rights turn his back on the GLBT community in his own district. We’ve tried to speak to him over the last six years. As a matter of fact, he personally witnessed the anti-gay frenzy at the June 30, 2003 Loudoun County Republican Committee meeting and remained silent. He’s deaf and blind to our community. After six years of interactions, I get the feeling that he would rather we didn’t exist.

A special note for poor, truth-challenged Maggie: I know, it’s really not fair for us to talk about our own lives. You and your anti-equality colleagues would be able to get away with so much more confabulation if we would just be quiet and let you do all the talking about our lives instead. That’s what anti-gay bullying, discrimination and violence is all about; it’s intended to make it too costly for us to speak up and live our lives with integrity. That did work, for a time. You will no doubt cling for hope to those instances in which it still works, where for example eleven year old children hang themselves with electrical cords, or perhaps look to other parts of the world, like Iraq or Uganda, for inspiration. I feel very sorry for you, as you turn in tighter and tighter circles trying to justify these things.

This would be a pretty good description of the current state of the anti-gay industry, as it pulls out all the stops in its effort to stop the march of history toward justice. Unfortunately, the quote is from Maggie Gallagher (most recently known for the widely ridiculed National Organization for Marriage advertisement, not to mention for cluelessly and hilariously naming her new anti-gay campaign “2M4M”). Instead, she is apparently referring to the “lie” that systematically dehumanizing a group of people and demanding the right to discriminate against them makes one a “bigot.” Accusations of bigotry are indeed strong words - it could be that Maggie has just carelessly overlooked the fact that her GLBT neighbors, co-workers and relatives are flesh-and-blood human beings like herself. I really don’t know. But I do know that she is having an embarrassing public meltdown.

Having already used the hyperbolic “Armageddon” to describe a potential loss of Prop 8 in California, what can activists like Maggie possibly call Iowa, Vermont, and all the other states lining up to enact marriage equality? What name do they have for the yawning chasm that now separates their denial of variability in sexual orientation from the views of the generation that will be running things in a few short years? James Dobson made an attempt, and it contained the words “we” and “lost.”

Not Maggie. She still believes that she can and should have her viewpoint protected, not from censorship, but from marginalization. She won’t, she can’t, admit that she is just on the wrong side of history. In order to convince herself otherwise, she plays the victim, the brave freedom fighter speaking up for all those who are “enormous untapped energies” for her cause but don’t know it yet. The fact that her behavior has made her a laughingstock then becomes evidence that her fantasy is reality: It’s not that public opinion has changed, she explains; “what’s changed is the punishment the gay marriage movement is inflicting on dissenters, which is narrowing the circle of people willing to speak. This is a very powerful movement, no question. Nobody understands that better than I do.” And when playing the victim isn’t adequate to the task, she seems to have no problem with just making up her own conclusions; the battle isn’t lost, she says, because “in the March 12 CBS News poll two-thirds of Americans agree with us.”

Does she mean this poll?

Although six in 10 Americans think some form of legal recognition is appropriate for same-sex couples, only a third of Americans think those couples should be allowed to marry.

Another 27 percent of Americans support civil unions for same-sex couples, while 35 percent thinks there should be no legal recognition of same-sex relationships at all.

Since Maggie doesn’t support any civil status for the life partnerships of same sex couples to the extent that they “intend to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effects of marriage,” it appears that only a shrinking 35 percent fringe of Americans actually agrees with her. That inconvenient fact didn’t fit the argument she was making, though - so never mind. More poll results:

Americans are somewhat more supporting of gay marriage or civil unions than they were in 2004. Then just 22 percent supported gay marriage and 40 percent said there should be no legal recognition of same-sex relationships.

An eleven point shift in support of marriage equality since 2004 represents no change in public opinion? In what universe? But my favorite line has to be this:

Really, this marriage idea has been around for a long time. I think it has legs.

Well, yes. We think so, too. The public declaration that two people are now a family, and are from now on to be treated as such rather than as two unrelated individuals, and to have that declaration celebrated with reverence by one’s community, family, and government is very powerful. It’s precisely because the idea “has legs” that equality in marriage will do nothing but strengthen it. That will prove to be true regardless of the energy wasted on kicking and screaming about it.

“Shatter the Silence 2009”

First Annual Gay-Friendly Prince William County Prom

Manassas, VA, April 13, 2009: The Gay Straight Alliance of Prince William, Bull Run Unitarian Universalist Church, Equality Prince William, and the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) are proud to jointly announce that “Shatter the Silence 2009,” the first gay-friendly prom to be hosted in Prince William County, is now selling tickets to the event online through PayPal and by mail!

Equality Virginia has generously donated 10 tickets to youth who are financially or otherwise unable to afford admission to the event. If you or someone you know is in this situation, please email Gail Dickert at dre@bruu.org for arrangements.

The prom will be held on April 18th from 5:30 pm to 11:00 pm at Bull Run Unitarian Universalists, at 9350 Main Street, Manassas, VA. Tickets are $20 per youth and are available for purchase here:

Register and get tickets.

PayPal ticket sales are LIVE! We are encouraging youth to purchase tickets in advance to avoid lines or confusion at the door.

Please visit the following event pages for more information:

http://shatterthesilence2009.blogspot.com/
Shatter the Silence on Facebook
Shatter the Silence on Myspace

To learn more about the important work of our partners please visit: www.glsen.org and www.bruu.org. All media inquiries should be directed to Bruce Roemmelt at coco@bruu.org.

Equality Prince William is a non-partisan organization formed to address equal rights issues for gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered individuals (GLBT) from a local, Greater Prince William County perspective. We are committed to creating an organization that reflects the diversity of the Greater Prince William community and building relationships with business and civic groups, community leaders, and our elected leadership.

For those poor souls who feel that marriage equality is their “Armageddon,” things must seem grim indeed today. Their November Prop 8 victory in California doesn’t offer much comfort when in the space of a few days we have seen: The first unanimous court ruling that affirms marriage as a civil right that must be granted to same sex couples on the basis of equal protection - in the heartland state of Iowa, no less; the override of Vermont Governor Jim Douglas’ veto of the marriage equality bill; and the unanimous vote by the DC City Council to recognize same sex marriages performed in other states.

There’s also the statistical analysis by Nate Silver showing that states are losing support for anti-marriage equality amendments at the rate of about 2% per year. His model predicts that by 2012, about half of the states would reject such an amendment by voter referendum, including several that have previously voted to adopt them. Virginia reaches that point in 2015. By 2016, “only a handful of states in the Deep South would vote to ban gay marriage, with Mississippi being the last one to come around in 2024.”

This part will be disappointing to the lazy politicians who have been using our community, our families and our lives as a convenient political wedge:

Overall…marriage bans appear unlikely to be an electoral winner for very much longer, and soon the opposite may prove to be true.

That’s certainly already true of Vermont; as pointed out earlier, the most recent polling shows anti-equality votes to be a losing bet for officeholders.

Here’s a bit of the scene at the Vermont Statehouse this morning:

Among the celebrants in the lobby were former Rep. Robert Dostis, D-Waterbury, and his longtime partner, Chuck Kletecka. Dostis recalled efforts to expand gay rights dating to an anti-discrimination law passed in 1992.

“It’s been a very long battle. It’s been almost 20 years to get to this point,” Dostis said. “I think finally, most people in Vermont understand that we’re a couple like any other couple. We’re as good and as bad as any other group of people. And now I think we have a chance to prove ourselves here on forward that we’re good members of our community.”

Dostis said he and Kletecka will celebrate their 25th year together in September.

“Is that a proposal?” Kletecka asked.

“Yeah,” Dostis replied. “Twenty-five years together, I think it’s time we finally got married.”

Although some will continue to try, it’s becoming very difficult to pretend that these loving, ridiculously normal couples are part of some radical movement to dismantle civilization. That’s why the anti-gay activist front is now spending so much of its energy facilitating pogroms in other parts of the world. The savagery to which anti-gay extremist groups like Exodus are enthusiastically contributing will not be forgotten.

From the abstracts and summaries, it’s clear that the actual arguments for limiting marriage to 97 percent of the population, while denying it to 3 percent, no longer hold in reasonable minds. Once you have accepted sexual orientation as a fixed and profound part of someone’s identity, and once civil marriage is not restricted to those with children, it is simply very, very hard to find a secular argument for denying critical civil rights under constitutions that guarantee formal equality.

It’s so hard to find viable secular arguments, in fact, that Peter LaBarbera of the anti-gay activist group “Americans for Truth About Homosexuality” agrees; he says in his press release that anti-gay activists should give up on that approach entirely.

I’m afraid that the pro-family movement – eager to provide secular, public-policy arguments against ‘gay marriage’ – has failed to convey the monstrous evil of expanding, state-sanctioned homosexualism [sic] in our midst. Our Creator is pure, perfect and holy, and homosexual behavior is diametrically opposed to His will for people’s lives and His purpose for sex within the healthy boundaries of marriage, for the procreation of children.

So there you have it: The way forward for those who are unhappy with civil marriage equality is to argue that it is diametrically opposed to their personal religious belief about the nature of human sexuality; that this religious belief is the only one deserving of special consideration; and that it should be imposed upon everyone else, regardless of whether they share it. Just because.

Sounds like a good plan to me.

The Iowa Supreme Court this morning unanimously upheld gays’ right to marry.

“The Iowa statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution,” the justices said in a summary of their decision.

The Polk County attorney’s office will not be appealing. Couples will be able to apply for marriage licenses in about three weeks. There is no residency requirement for marriage in Iowa.

Richard Socarides, a former senior adviser to President Bill Clinton on gay civil rights, said the decision is especially significant coming from a midwestern state, and could set a precedent for other states to follow. “It’s a big win because, coming from Iowa, it represents the mainstreaming of gay marriage.”

“I think it’s significant because Iowa is considered a Midwest sate in the mainstream of American thought,” Socarides said. “Unlike states on the coasts, there’s nothing more American than Iowa. As they say during the presidential caucuses, ‘As Iowa goes, so goes the nation.’”

Pam’s House Blend has the PDF of the ruling.

We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective. The legislature has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification. [Emphases added]

Anti-gay activists did their best to make a case for violating the civil rights of their fellow citizens, and their heads are now exploding across the nation. As the linked example shows, this will do nothing but make their failed arguments even more sad and ugly. Let’s try to be as kind about it as we can.

Funds raised through the Phelps-A-Thon will be used for the educational mission of the Pride Alliance, countering the lies told by hate groups about LGBT people. And Miss Manners would surely approve:

After the event, we will send Phelps a thank you card, telling him how much money he raised for LGBT equality.

Make a pledge now!

This is, in my view, exactly the right way to deal with this disturbed little family of parasites. They are professional provocateurs; they literally make their living from “damages” awarded them through the courts when they are able to incite someone to violate their first amendment rights. So: Don’t even think about trying to do that. The Phelps are toxic, hateful little goobers, and our Bill of Rights guarantees their freedom to be toxic, hateful little goobers. It’s our Bill of Rights that sets the U.S. apart from the other countries (Sweden, Canada) that are constantly cited by opponents of Hate Crimes law, and the essential difference that renders the arguments of those opponents false and laughable.

The debate has tended to be over whether or not to ignore the Phelps and others like them, but I don’t think anything beats getting them to raise funds for us. It’s a win-win.

The Phelps clan also says it plans to protest at Walt Whitman High School (Why, you ask? Because it’s named after Walt Whitman). I can think of no more appropriate welcome than the news that they are raising money for the Gay/Straight Alliance, followed by a nice thank-you note. If this continues, we’ll start seeing campus groups inviting them to come and “protest.”

See more upcoming Phelps-A-Thons

Here is what Douglas told the media:

“The urgency of our state’s economic and budgetary challenges demands the full focus of every member and every committee of this Legislature.”

Ok, to review:

1) The Vermont Senate voted for marriage equality by an overwhelming, veto-proof margin, 26-4.

2) Douglas has stated outright that he believes the Legislature has the votes to override his veto.

3) There are urgent economic and budgetary challenges that demand the full focus of the Legislature.

So, from his own stated perspective, what the Governor has decided to do is to make busy work for the Legislature, demanding that they divert their attention from the urgent economic challenges faced by his state, and guaranteeing that they spend more time on this bill. Why? Did he even think about this absurdly glaring contradiction?

There doesn’t seem to be any explanation other than that he is trying to influence the outcome in the House before they have even heard the bill. And on whose behalf? He’s certainly not representing the views of Vermont residents, who support full marriage equality 58% to 39% in a recent poll. Oh - and they also say that they’re more likely to vote for a public official who supports equality.

Sullivan: “I love posting about this with no reference to the courts. It’s a turning point, perhaps.” Or a tipping point. I agree. Regardless of the outcome this year in Vermont, the terrain has irreversibly shifted.

Question: Will Virginia be the last state to repeal its anti-marriage amendment - or did we learn something from Massive Resistance?

Barney Frank’s Name-Calling
by Ed Whelan

Barney Frank’s attack on Justice Scalia as a “homophobe” is inane at several levels:

First, the term “homophobe” is an ugly epithet designed to stigmatize (“he’s the sicko”) those who don’t embrace the homosexual agenda. It’s intended to cut off serious discussion, not to promote it. It doesn’t belong in public discourse.

I much prefer the descriptors “anti-gay animus” or “anti-gay prejudice” to the less transparent term “homophobia.” After all, it’s about the behavior. But then you get into unwieldy territory when trying to describe a person who engages in this behavior, such as Justice Scalia. We all knew what Congressman Frank meant. It doesn’t cut off serious discussion at all; it merely requires people with anti-gay animus to explain why, if they have it, they consider it an insult to point out that they have it. To better understand what “those who don’t embrace the homosexual agenda” don’t embrace, see here and here.

Second, Frank uses his epithet in the course of expressing his concern that a Supreme Court that includes Scalia might not strike down the federal Defense of Marriage Act. The Defense of Marriage Act was approved by overwhelming majorities in each House of Congress (85-14 in the Senate, 342-67 in the House) in 1996 and signed into law by President Clinton.

Impressive, if you’re impressed by cowardice. That doesn’t guarantee that the law is constitutional, however. Making that determination is the purview of the judicial branch (you may remember this from junior high civics).

Senators in favor of DOMA included Biden, Bradley, Daschle, Kohl, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, Mikulski, Murray, Reid, Sarbanes, and Wellstone. Millions and millions of voters in state after state have acted to preserve traditional marriage. Does Frank regard all these Americans as “homophobes”?

I suspect that many of these Senators have had time to reflect on their 1996 votes by now. To the extent that they, and “millions and millions” of non-Senatorial Americans, voted to ignore the full faith and credit clause of the federal Constitution, or to write discrimination against a group of citizens into their state Constitutions, they were either acting on anti-gay animus or failing to oppose it. People can be wrong. When they learn and change their minds, we can applaud them for that. Senator Schumer also voted for DOMA.

Third, Scalia’s position is clear: The Constitution does not address the matter of same-sex marriage. Therefore, the political processes are free to decide whether or not to adopt it. He, as a justice, will defer to the political processes, whatever the result.

In other words, on this matter as on so many more, Scalia will not indulge his own policy preferences (whatever they are) and will not write those preferences into the Constitution. Frank wants liberal activist justices who will indulge his and the Left’s own policy preferences on homosexual matters (and so much more). That’s his real beef with Scalia, and he’s masquerading it under the “homophobe” label.

Does this mean that Justice Scalia won’t deploy one argument for states that have voted to prohibit marriage equality, and another for states that have voted to allow marriage equality? That’s good, because it looks like Vermont will be the first state to legislatively affirm marriage for all couples, and it will certainly be followed by others. One can only imagine the silly arguments we will undoubtedly now hear about how the legislature overstepped its authority. That should be fun to watch, but I’m glad to hear that Justice Scalia will not be indulging them.

I’ll leave to others whether Frank’s name-calling is a tactic designed to distract attention from his role in causing the ongoing financial crisis.

That’s a relief. Because if Mr. Whelan were to inadvertently imply such a thing it would be irrelevant at best and an ad hominem at worst – the very same accusation with which he launched this diatribe.

I’m so glad we had this little talk.