Eyes On The CA Supremes Tomorrow

The CA Supreme Court hears arguments on marriage equality cases tomorrow and will issue a ruling within 90 days:

The court has scheduled three hours for oral arguments. The justices then have 90 days to issue a ruling. That could mean a rush to marry in June, the traditional wedding month.

The case dates back to 2004 when San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Some 8,000 couples exchanged vows before the state Supreme Court ruled Newsom had acted illegally.

The court nullified the marriages but said its ruling dealt only with Newsom's actions. The justices said at the time the question of whether barring same-sex couples from marrying violated the state's equal protection clause of its constitution was a separate matter.

Legal challenges on the constitutional question were begun almost immediately. Three separate suits ultimately were wrapped together into a single case.

In March 2005 a Superior Court judge in San Francisco ruled that the law denying same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.

After NY and NJ, I'm too cynical to bother crossing my fingers.

Who's A Homophobe?

Did you sign a petition to get a gay-marriage amendment on the ballot in FL or MA? If so your friends and neighbors can find you via KnowThyNeighbor.org.

A bit more from Brendan McLaughlin:

Type in your county and street and you can find out in a second which, if any of your neighbors believe they can protect heterosexual unions by forbidding committed gay couples from enjoying the legal and societal benefits of marriage. Never mind that gay marriage is already illegal under Florida law. You can search by name, too, which has allowed inquiring minds to find out which public officials have signed the petition.

Supporters of the amendment accuse KnowThyNeighbor.Org of intimidation. Not an unfair claim if you believe that the confidentiality of one's vote contributes to a healthy democracy. But signing a petition on an issue of public policy is not the same as pulling the lever against Saddam Hussein or Fidel Castro. Signing your name in the middle of a crowded parking lot does imply a public show of support for the issue at hand.

One reason the benefits of transparency in these matters may outweigh the drawbacks is fraud. It's not unheard of for paid signature gatherers to misrepresent what the petition actually calls for. One freelance signature gatherer in Massachusetts admitted to lying... telling voters they were signing a petition to allow the sale of wine at grocery stores statewide, when in fact they were signing a petition banning gay marriage.

Marriage Equality, Eh?

WhooHoo! A NY court has unanimously ruled that New York should honor Canadian same-sex marriages:

(Rochester, New York) An appeals court has ruled that a gay couple's marriage in Canada should be recognized in New York.

The Appellate Division of state Supreme Court on Friday reversed a judge's ruling in 2006 that Monroe Community College did not have to extend health benefits to an employee's lesbian partner.

Of course the state legislature could be whipped into a "marriage sanctity" frenzy:

The state legislature ``may decide to prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriages solemnized abroad,'' the ruling said. ``Until it does so, however, such marriages are entitled to recognition in New York.''

Still, this is aboot the coolest news I've heard lately.

Anyone want to make a guess about how this will change rhetoric coming from the presidential campaigns? I'm betting on a bunch of nods to "one man, one woman" from both sides of the aisle.

Friday Roundup

Some things I read this morning:

- Very stupid people in Texas are playing tug of war with lions and tigers in a zoo-sponsored event that places people on one end of a rope and raw meat for the giant cats on the other end. Video is here.

- The law student who filed a federal lawsuit against the MA Board of Bar Examiners over a gay marriage question on the bar exam (and eventually withdrew the suit) has issued an apology to the LGBT community. Good for him if it's earnest, but I wouldn't recommend going to him for advice on matters LGBT (once he passes the bar exam). He did call marriage for us, "patently offensive and morally repugnant."

- The Gay City News warns that we should fear the distinct possibility of a Huckabee presidency. I wouldn't dispute that Huckabee and that prospect are frightening. However, given that some pillars of the fundamentalist community aren't exactly with him and that the GOP beltway crowd sees him as a member of base that they want votes from but not in their country clubs, he has a real fight ahead if he's going to mobilize the base responsible for putting Bush in the White House.

- The National Academy of Sciences has released an 88-page booklet (under the 'read the book' link, or directly here) explaining why evolution is science and creationism isn't. Yes!

- And finally, it seems that gay people are just fine with the military when bodies are needed for war.

Suddenly, I Don't Hate Australia (As Much)

It was nice to read this lead paragraph this morning:

SYDNEY, Australia (AP) — Conservative Prime Minister John Howard suffered a humiliating defeat Saturday at the hands of the left-leaning opposition, whose leader has promised to immediately sign the Kyoto Protocol on global warming and withdraw Australia's combat troops from Iraq.

Sadly, Rudd is not in favor of marriage equality for everyone. However, he's an improvement over homophobic John Howard and favors laws that give same-sex couples the same rights as heterosexual couples (although, as we know, that tactic has been a failure in NJ).

PostBlog: Be sure to check out Jonathan's review of John Howard's deceptive cheerleading for the Iraq debacle.

Abby Likes Teh Gays

Dear Abby has come out in support of LGBT people and marriage equality. Good for her. I've never really read her column (but will now), but she sounds like a really nice person:

"I believe if two people want to commit to each other, God bless 'em," the syndicated advice columnist told The Associated Press. "That is the highest form of commitment, for heaven's sake." ...

"I'm trying to tell kids if they are gay, it's OK to be gay. I've tried to tell families if they have a gay family member to accept them and love them as they always have," she said Friday.

The professional ex-gay and founder of The Parents Group was quick to condemn Abby in a press release featuring an interview, apparently, with himself:

Bennett, a former homosexual himself, now married almost 15 years to his wife and the father of his two children, said, "Sorry 'Dear Abby' - You are WRONG on this one!" ...

Bennett ended, "'Dear Abby,' stick to what little you know -- and forget about that which you don't. Encouraging young 'gay' men to accept themselves as such can lead to an early death. I wonder how you would respond to several of our Parents Group members, whose sons have died excruciating and painful deaths due to HIV/AIDS. Try comforting these inconsolable parents. What, I wonder, would you say to these distraught parents, 'Dear Abby'? Maybe, 'That's just life! You can do it! Get up now and move on!'

By the tone of his press release, I can imagine Bennett saying something like that last line in bold, but certainly not Abby. Thanks Abby!

Marriage Equality Further Along In Colombia Than in US

In Colombia, if you're gay you can not only serve in the military, you'll experience an expanding array of rights we can only dream of here in America. The supreme court just ruled that same-sex partners must be given the same health benefits as their hetero counterparts:

(Bogota) Colombia's highest court has ordered the government to provide same-sex couples with the same rights as married opposite-sex couples.

The Constitutional Court did not go so far as ordering the government to legalize gay marriage, or offer pension or inheritance rights, but it must provide the same health benefits as married couples have the court ruled on Friday.

LGBT rights groups said they will file another lawsuit to gain pension and inheritance rights.

Last year the court ruled that partners in same-sex relationships must have property rights.

In June Colombia's Congress passed a law that would create domestic partnerships, but opposition senators at the last minute scuttled the bill.

Under the legislation same-sex couples would have been able to register as partners. They would have to have lived together for more than two years and be of legal age.

In return they would have will received the same social security and inheritance rights as married couples.

President Alvaro Uribe has said he will sign the bill into law.

Supporters of the bill had tried four times since 1999 to pass the legislation, but each time it failed after opposition from the Roman Catholic Church.

How nice is it that America is behind Colombia on LGBT civil rights?

Feel like telling me to go live there if I like it so much? Sorry, don't have to. I can stay right here complaining and fighting for marriage equality. That's the American thing to do.

BBC Marriage Map

I've been so busy that it's been tough to find a block of time in the am or pm to blog.

I've been wanting to post about this page on marriage equality from the BBC. It's an interesting place with highlights on each US state and marriage equality.

At the page is the map below. In light green are states that have taken the extra effort to change their laws to discriminate against my being with the person I love.

Religion Sucking

Imagine having a life with your significant other for twenty-five years and suddenly being kept from them in their greatest hour of need. That's what happens in places where LGBT people are legislated second class citizens.

It's happening right now in Indiana. Jeanne Atkins, fundy and owner of Atkins Cheesecake, is denying her ill son's partner of twenty-five year access to her son. Bilerico has also been on this story. I hope it gets some major media attention.

This sad case is another example of why marriage equality is needed for LGBT people (and civil unions are not an equivalent of marriage).

Laugh Over Me

I've sat through the trailer for I Now Pronounce You Larry And Chuck several times now. Don't worry, I'm not going to tirade about a movie I haven't seen and don't intend to see. However, the trailer is very interesting. It's especially noteworthy given that the filmmakers asked The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) to pre-screenings and GLAAD has tepidly endorsed the film.

The trailer presents a theme that made my heart sink with every viewing. The theme is that violence toward gay men, or men perceived as gay, is acceptable. Note that I am talking about the trailer. I have the advantage of not having seen the movie. I've only seen the synopsis of the film designed to get audiences into theaters. As Sandler and James hit and berated each other over near-intimate incidents, I sat stunned and people around me laughed hysterically.

Do these people really think violence is an appropriate response to intimacy between men? Should someone get hit for not fitting some unrealizable standard of masculinity?

I honestly don't know the answer to the former question and I want to think that my fellow movie-goers would never seriously be OK with violence against LGBT people. Yet, there we sat in the theater, with me feeling like an alien visitor and them rolling with laughter, as Larry punched Chuck in the face after the famous racially insensitively delivered "you may now kiss the husband" line.

The obvious answer to the latter question is, "um, no dumbass" (Answered in the voice of Red from That Seventies Show.).

That said, GLAAD is saying that the movie itself is carrying a message of tolerance to young homophobic males everywhere:

"The movie's ultimate offenses have more to do with bad writing and directing than with homophobia," wrote AfterElton.com's Alonso Duralde, author of 101 Must-See Movies for Gay Men. "Red-staters of every stripe who wouldn't watch a Logo documentary on a bet might very well rush out to see this movie, based on the comic appeal of Sandler and co-star Kevin James alone…If these two guys' guys are able to see gay folks as just folks who deserve the same rights as everyone else, then just maybe the hordes of twenty-something straight boys who flock to Sandler's movies might be able to do the same."

I've gotta ask, "Is the man who delivered juggernaut dramatic performances (chuckle, snort) in Spanglish, Reign Over Me, Click, and Punch-Drunk Love going to be an effective agent for promoting marriage equality?" I'm betting all the twenty-something homophobes flocking to Sandler's movies, hoping for a Hanukkah song, oh-so-funny shots to the groin, and the occasional breast sighting, will miss any message of tolerance, overt or subtle (Subtle? As if, this is an Adam Sandler film).

I can, however, believe that bad writing is present in an Adam Sandler movie. There's an admiration for Sandler that I just don't get. A GLAAD Media Director nearly gushes over Sandler in this interview. It's wonderful that Adam is supportive of a gay relative in a long-term relationship. But, isn't having PR that points to this relative an equivalent of a wealthy white suburbanite guiltily crying "I have many black friends"?

Why would we be eager to have Sandler as an ally? Is he the man to reach out to young male homophobes and court them to tolerance? Has anyone seen his movies? They're full of sexism, racial stereotypes, bad writing, and bad acting. Why would I, as a minority, want him acting as my emissary in any capacity? Let him go back to Saturday Night Live. He was sometimes funny in two-minute sketches on the news.

A trailer that promotes violence toward gay people for a movie delivering a message of tolerance is still a trailer that promotes violence toward gay people.

Homophobes aren't going to be tricked into being tolerant and I'm not here to suffer through a homophobic demographic's learning experience. Seriously, F#CK that SH!T. My orientation isn't here for a laugh or a learning experience. I'm also not here to style your house or hair, cook you a fabulous meal, or pick you out an outfit. Go embrace your stereotypes by yourself thanks.

An MST3K inspired poll:

Missouri Skies

It's hard to believe that people living under such beautiful skies (click on the photos in the link, some of the galleries are amazing) were homophobic enough to amend their state's constitution to ban gay marriage. At least they voted Democrat Claire McCaskill into the senate in 2006.

Massachusetts Amendment Dead

An update to my earlier post.

It's done. The fundies didn't get the votes they needed for tyranny of the majority:

(Boston, Massachusetts) Massachusetts lawmakers on Thursday took less than a half hour to kill bid to amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage.

"The vote today was the triumph of time, experience, and understanding over fear and prejudice," said Lee Swislow, the executive director of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, in a statement.

GLAD was the legal group that won the 2003 landmark ruling making Massachusetts the first state to legalize same-sex marriage.

"Today, the legislature made a powerful statement that it’s wrong to vote on rights," said Marc Solomon, Campaign Director for MassEquality.

Because the marriage amendment was citizen-based it required only 50 votes. The final vote was 151 - 45. That means the issue cannot be put to voters in 2008, and will force supporters of the measure to begin collecting signatures all over again.

If proponents of the amendment do gain the signatures needed the measure would again have to go to two consecutive sessions of the legislature.

The earliest it could be put to voters would be 2012 [Yes!!!]. With public opinion polls showing Massachusetts voters becoming increasingly comfortable with same-sex marriage it is considered unlikely any amendment would be approved.

TTags:marriage equality

Massachusetts

Today is a big day for marriage equality in Massachusetts. State legislators vote on sending a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage to the people for a vote:

Supporters of gay marriage appeared to be gaining ground, with a handful of lawmakers who previously supported the constitutional amendment saying they were rethinking their votes. Massachusetts legalized gay marriage in 2003.

To reach voters in a statewide ballot in 2008, the proposal needs the backing of a quarter of the state's legislators — 50 lawmakers — in two successive sittings of the Legislature. It won approval in January on the final day of the last session.

Supporters and opponents agree that eight lawmakers who supported the measure then must change their votes Thursday to keep the question from going to voters.

This could reverse the state's supreme court decision that currently provides marriage equality.

"Let the people decide," sounds like such a pro-democracy talking point doesn't it?

What would America look like today if the following had been put to a national thumbs up or down vote: slavery, whites only schools, and interracial marriage.

It was only forty years ago that the Supreme Court of the United States ruled against marriage discrimination based on race. Now that racial marriage equality has been in place for decades, what percentage of us would favor reversing the Supreme Court's ruling?

The tyranny of the majority is an ugly thing, never good for personal liberties, and doesn't move society forward. Even Michelle Malkin doesn't like mob rule.

Marriage equality, at least as far as a state can take it, has been in place since 2004 in Massachusetts. The sky has not fallen. Heterosexuals are still marrying and un-marrying unfettered.

I feel like a broken record (again), but as I've written before and before, "separate but equal wasn't good enough for schools or drinking fountains; it's not good enough for nuptials." Civil Unions are not an equivalent of marriage.

TTags:civil rights,marriage equality

Connecticut Supremes Hear Marriage Equality Case Today

The Connecticut Supreme court is going to hear arguments in a case brought by same-sex couples seeking marriage equality:

(Hartford, Connecticut) The Connecticut Supreme Court hears arguments today in a case involving 8 same-sex couples seeking the right to marry.

Last July a lower court ruled that said same-sex couples do not need marriage because they already are entitled to civil unions.

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, the Boston-based legal group that won same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, is handing the case.

It argues that denying same-sex couples access to marriage violates the state constitution in two ways: gay and lesbian citizens are denied both equal protection and
due process.

Connecticut allows civil unions. GLAD says that when lawmakers debated and enacted the civil union statute, they recognized that same-sex couples have the same capacity for love and commitment and the same need for protections under marriage laws as heterosexual couples.

By calling it a civil union rather than a marriage the state is creating a separate but equal entity, GLAD says.

The case isn't likely to be decided until later this year though:

A decision is not likely until later this year.

I'll keep saying it: if separate but equal isn't good enough for education, it's not good enough for nuptials.

Interesting Cases in Iowa and Connecticut

Marriage equality is going to court in Iowa and Connecticut.

In Connecticut:

(Hartford, Connecticut) The Connecticut Supreme Court announced Friday that it will hear arguments May 14 challenging the state's ban on same-sex marriage.

The case began two and a half years ago, after eight same-sex couples were refused marriage licenses.

Last July a lower court ruled that said same-sex couples do not need marriage because they already are entitled to civil unions. (story)

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, the Boston-based legal group that won same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, is handing the case.

It argues that denying same-sex couples access to marriage violates the state constitution in two ways: gay and lesbian citizens are denied both equal protection and
due process.

GLAD says that when lawmakers debated and enacted the civil union statute, they recognized that same-sex couples have the same capacity for love and commitment and the same need for protections under marriage laws as heterosexual couples. By calling it a civil union rather than a marriage the state is creating a separate but equal entity.

In Iowa:

(Des Moines, Iowa) A Des Moines judge was told Friday that preventing same-sex couples from marrying violates the Iowa state constitution.

Attorneys for six same-sex couples are seeking a summary judgment striking down the state's so-called Defense of Marriage Act. A summary judgment is ruling issued without a trial because the facts are overwhelming. ...

Papers filed with the court in January included affidavits from the same-sex couples in the lawsuit explaining first-hand to the court why they want to marry and the harms they suffer from being denied this right.

Also included were friend of the court briefs by faith leaders and religious groups from across the state which support of the right for same-sex couples to marry.

In one amicus brief Dr. Michael Lamb, a world-renowned child developmental psychologist said that "children raised by gay and lesbian parents are as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents."

Lamb has more than 30 years of research in the field of child development and is the former head of the Section on Social and Emotional Development of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development within the National Institutes of Health. He held that position for 17 years.

"There is nothing about the sex or sexual orientation of a parent that affects that parent's capacity to be a good parent or that affects a child's healthy development," he said in the brief.

NY Marriage

The article's right, it's not likely to go far in Sheldon Silver's assembly or "Pony" Joe Bruno's senate. If nothing else, it will get marriage equality on the minds of New Yorkers. Maybe some pundit will be bright enough to ask why a supposedly progressive state like NY is having trouble moving forward on a civil right. From the article:

Gov. Eliot Spitzer will introduce a bill in the coming weeks to legalize same-sex marriage in New York, his spokeswoman said Friday, a move that would propel New York to the forefront of one of the most contentious issues in politics.

Though he has long voiced support for same-sex marriage and promised during his campaign last year to introduce legislation to legalize it, Mr. Spitzer did not mention the issue in his State of the State speech in January or in remarks a week ago outlining his priorities for the remainder of the legislative session, which ends June 21.

But the spokeswoman, Christine Anderson, said that Mr. Spitzer would not back away from his campaign pledge.

“The governor made a commitment to advance a program bill, and he will fulfill that commitment during this legislative session,” Ms. Anderson said, using the term that refers to legislation introduced directly by the governor rather than through a state agency or by the Legislature.

The cynical part of me reads the above paragraphs and thinks of a face-saving, half-hearted attempt at keeping a campaign promise. Time will tell. The proposed legislation faces an uphill battle:

Any legislation to make New York the second such state would face a steep climb in Albany, a fact that Mr. Spitzer has acknowledged. Explaining why he did not include the gay-marriage bill among his post-budget legislative priorities, Mr. Spitzer said last week that he “was listing bills that I think we can and should get passed by the Legislature in the next few weeks. And so I am focusing now on politics as the art of the possible.

“I think most who are close to the issue would agree with me that it’s not likely to be passed in the next nine and a half weeks,” Mr. Spitzer added.

Legislation to allow same-sex marriage has never made it to a floor vote in either the Assembly, which has a Democratic majority, or the Republican-controlled State Senate. Sheldon Silver, the Assembly speaker, has declined to take a stand on the issue. Joseph L. Bruno, the Senate majority leader, has supported legislation to outlaw hate crimes and workplace discrimination against gays, but he remains opposed to same-sex marriage. ...

“I don’t think the governor has dropped the ball on this,” said Alan Van Capelle, executive director of Empire State Pride Agenda, a gay-rights group. “We’ve been talking with the governor’s people about this. At every moment they have brainstormed with us in some very creative ways about how to accomplish this agenda.”

Mr. Van Capelle said he shared Mr. Spitzer’s assessment that the measure was unlikely to pass both chambers of the Legislature this year, but he emphasized that the governor’s proposal would give it strategic and symbolic weight.

And because it's the NYTimes, a paragraph from the genre of fantasy has to be included:

The governor has also had few opportunities to build bridges to constituencies that present the strongest grass-roots opposition to gay marriage, such as Roman Catholic Church officials and other religious leaders. Church leaders already oppose Mr. Spitzer’s support of embryonic stem cell research, and an initiative that might have softened the blow of gay marriage — a tax credit for parents who send children to religious or other private schools — did not make it into the budget this year.

Who really believes that Catholic Church would overlook marriage equality legislation in exchange for a tax credit? Please.

Progress in Washington and Maryland

Two good things from the last few days.
1. Insurance Companies Required to Include Domestic Partners:

(Annapolis, Maryland) The Maryland House of Delegates has passed legislation requiring health insurance companies to write policies inclusive of domestic partners and children up to the age of 25, at the request of an employer.

The 122- 18 vote came with less than an hour before the end of the 2007 session.

The bill has already been approved by the Senate and now goes to the governor for signing.

2. Washington Passes a Domestic Partnership Bill:

(Olympia, Washington) Nearly a year after the state Supreme Court upheld Washington's ban on same-sex marriage, the state Legislature passed a measure to give gay and lesbian couples some of the rights that come with marriage.

The measure passed 65-35 on Tuesday. The state Senate approved the bill last month, and it now heads to Gov. Chris Gregoire, who is expected to sign it into law.

NY Judge Recognizes Foreign Gay Marriage

Wow. I wonder if this will ever get national media attention. The ruling happened back on March 12th. Maybe I missed the media frenzy, but I get only one relevant hit from a search on "Lefkowitz NY" in Google News. From the first article:

In a landmark case, a U.S. court has ruled gay couples who get married in Canada can be treated as legally wed in the state of New York.

Justice Joan Lefkowitz of the New York Supreme Court ruled last week same-sex marriages performed outside the country are valid, even though gay New Yorkers cannot be legally married in their home state. ...

Last summer, the New York Court of Appeal upheld the state's century-old definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

But Lefkowitz found that ruling did not address the issue of marriages performed outside the state.

She then applied the legal test of comity, the principle that countries should recognize each other's laws on marriage and other such issues as long as they don't offend community values or run strongly against public policy. (Polygamy, for example, is accepted in some countries but not in the U.S.).

She noted that, historically, New York has on many occasions recognized foreign marriages that could not have been legally performed in the state.

h/t Stephanie, in Victoria from Pam's.

Trouble Ahead in Massachusetts

The new State Senate President, Therese Murray, will allow a proposed marriage amendment to move forward:

(Boston, Massachusetts) The new President of the Massachusetts Senate has announced she will not try to block a vote on a proposed amendment that would end same-sex marriage in the state.
...
An opponent of the amendment, Murray said she would work with state LGBT civil rights groups to defeat the measure, but said she would not use her power to prevent the issue from coming to a vote.

To amend the state constitution a joint session of the House and Senate must approve a proposed amendment in two consecutive sessions of the Legislature then put the issue to voters. Only 50 votes in the joint session are needed for a proposed amendment
to advance.

Last year, before being procedurally tabled, the proposed amendment got 61 votes. Murray says she'll work with LGBT groups to get the necessary votes, but that she won't block a vote. There may be hope elsewhere though:

State Sen. Jarrett T. Barrios (D), who is openly gay, said that even though Murray favors allowing a vote there could still be a way of derailing it before it could be put to voters.

"There are many ways that things can go forward as we saw with the health care amendment," Barrios told the Associated Press. Lawmakers voted to send that question to a study last year, effectively killing it.

Civil rights are not things to be left to majority rule. What would the south look like today if voters had been allowed to decide the rights of African Americans?

In many places, the tyranny of the majority would have LGBT people in reorientation camps or swinging at the ends of ropes. I often think of the scene in the Borat movie where Cohen interviews an old man at a rodeo. The man was thrilled with the idea of killing us. That's where LGBT people are at in parts of the USA.

PostBlog: OK, this is a tangent, but I had to know. It turns out that the old man I wrote of above is rodeo producer Bobby Rowe. That may have been in the movie, but I wasn't watching with a note pad in hand. I found a Salon piece (it's premium so you have to click through an annoying ad) on the film. It gives Rowe's film quote and his later reaction to being exposed by Cohen:

After Borat declares, "We hang homosexuals in my country!" Rowe smirkingly responds: "That's what we're trying to do here."

Rowe told Salon that he'd agreed to let Borat sing, believing the story that Borat was a Kazakh journalist traveling across the country. Rowe says he requested a sample track, but was sent a blank CD. And what about those anti-gay comments? Rowe, who says he hasn't seen the film, didn't disavow them, but instead offered a curious rationale: "As long as [homosexuals] don't mess with me and get me involved, if that's their choice, just have at it. Just don't come in my household and try to demand, as they're doing now, all sorts of things. All this marriage and this mess. If you want to go live together, go live together, but don't drag everyone else into it. It's, like, before you could just pump your gas, but the thieves ruined it for everyone. Now everyone has to go pay for their gas first. Homosexuals, they want their rights for marriage and all this stuff, and they want respectability. If you want to live that life, live that life, but don't involve the whole rest of the country."

Is Rowe concerned about how he comes off in the film? "I'm not really worried about it," he says. "It can't be so bad that I can't survive. No one's coming and trying to eat me."

Eat you? Hardly. I wouldn't kiss you with lips on a ten foot pole.

It took me a few minutes, but I figured out how having to prepay for gas and the struggle for gay marriage possibly fit together in this bigot's mind. Allowing gays to marry would ruin it for everyone; gays are trying to "steal" marriage, hence the need to pass amendments, or hang us: the equivalents of prepaying for gas. Now I know how evil people logically relate things. It's frightening.

Kiss this Judge
U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf has thrown out a lawsuit by parents trying to stop gay marriage from being mentioned in classrooms:
BOSTON --A federal judge on Friday threw out a lawsuit filed by parents who objected to discussions of gay families in their children's classrooms, ruling the parents do not have the right to dictate curriculum in public schools.

U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf said federal courts have decided in other cases that the constitutional right of parents to raise their children does not include the right to restrict what a public school may teach them. Those earlier rulings also have held that teachings that contradict a parent's religious beliefs do not violate their First Amendment right to exercise their religion, Wolf said.
"In essence under the Constitution public schools are entitled to teach anything that is reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy," he said in his ruling.

"Diversity is a hallmark of our nation. It is increasingly evident that our diversity includes differences in sexual orientation," he wrote.
...
Both couples said they have religious beliefs that homosexuality is immoral and that marriage is a holy union between a man and a woman. They argued that Lexington school officials violated their parental rights to teach their own morals to their children.

"It boils down to this simple thing: the parents have a fundamental right to be the primary directors of their children's upbringing and moral education," David Parker said Friday.

This parent is missing the boat. Parents are already in the driver seat when it comes to the education of their children, but they aren't in control of the education of other children. Judge Wolf points this out:
In his ruling, Wolf said parents have a fundamental right to raise their children and are not required to abandon that responsibility to the state. But he said the Parkers and the Wirthlins have alternatives if they do not approve of the curriculum at public schools, including private schools, home-schooling and working to elect a Lexington school committee that will choose a curriculum more compatible with their beliefs.

"However, the Parkers and Wirthlins have chosen to send their children to the Lexington public schools with its current curriculum. The Constitution does not permit them to prescribe what those children will be taught," Wolf said.