Recently, conservative Christians have been bristling once again at the description of marriage equality bans as "hatred." I believe the recent bristling has a lot to do with the success of things like the NOH8 Campaign, which not too long ago got Cindy McCain, the wife of Arizona Senator John McCain who ran on an anti-gay platform for President in 2008, to pose for a pro-equality photo shoot.

The bristling usually takes the form of some hack writer accusing people like Cindy McCain of "calling all Christians haters" (as if there was a consensus in the Christian community about marriage equality) or taking it more personally and saying something like "I supported Proposition 8 [which banned marriage equality in California], but I don't hate anyone."

So, now I'm going to explain in simple, right-wing terms, why bans on same-sex marriage do, in fact, constitute hatred.

But first, I'm going to start by defining a term. If someone does violence against a member of the LGBT community simply because they're a member of that community, that constitutes hatred.

Anyone disagree?

OK, those of you who say, "I disagree. Gays and lesbians deserve to be the victims of violence," you don't get to say that you don't hate anyone. You're exactly the sort of person that hate-crime legislation was was created to protect society from.

The rest of you, are we OK with that definition? Violence against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered individuals simply because of who they are, that's "hatred," right?

And can we all agree that threatened violence, whether carried out or not, is still a form of violence? We consider armed robbery a violent crime, even if the weapon is never used. Can we all accept this?

Great! Now, can we all agree that bans on same-sex marriage are laws? Some of them are constitutional, some are mere statutes, but they're all laws, right?

Well, what is a law? Can we all agree that a law is when the government dictates how something is going to be?

But, what happens if people don't obey the law? If nothing happens, then the law is unenforceable, and we wouldn't really consider it a law, would we? No, the law has to have some teeth backing it up.

Those "teeth" backing up the law are violence. We give government -- for the sake of a peaceful and orderly society -- the monopoly on using violence against us. Minor offenses start out with fines -- that's the government taking our money (what would be called robbery or extortion if you or I tried it). If we don't pay the fines, we can go to jail (what would be called kidnapping if your or I tried it). If we refuse to go to jail and run from the police we can be gunned down. Legally. It doesn't matter if we're talking about 1st degree murder or a jaywalking citation, breaking the law results in the government using violence (or at the very least the threat of it) against you.

Same-sex marriage bans are laws, right? Well, who do those laws affect?

Laws like Proposition 8 which bar same-sex couples from getting married directly affect members of the gay and lesbian community. These people haven't done anything wrong. Rather, these bans target them exclusively because they are gay and lesbian.

Remember when we all agreed that using violence against members of the GTBL community simply because of who they are constituted hatred? Well, law = violence. Passing a law that targets this community is hatred.*

So, yes, if you support bans on same-sex marriage, you support hatred.

Period. End of story.

If you don't like being called a "hater," rethink your desire to enshrine your personal beliefs into the law. I can accept that you didn't mean to hate anyone, but don't let that justify continuing to make the same mistake going forward.

---

* Now, before any crackpot makes this point, allowing marriage equality does not constitute hatred because it does not force any church, minister, or religious organization to recognize or perform same-sex marriages. If an individual does not believe in same-sex marriage, they remain free to select a mate exclusively from the population that is differently sexed. Any attempt to pass a law to force, say, the Catholic church to recognize same-sex marriage or to force heterosexuals to marry members of their own sex would constitute hatred against Catholics or heterosexuals, but since that's not ever going to happen, we can dismiss this silly counter-argument as the balderdash it is.

The two lawyers challenging Proposition 8 (which suppressed the right of gays and lesbians to marry in California) were on The Journal with Bill Moyers on Friday. The episode is available online, and is well worth your time if you're trying to understand the case and where they're coming from. Moyers asks some very tough questions, and even if you end up still disagreeing with them, you will, at least, understand their legal perspectives and motivations.

This is a plea to all California voters:

Please go to the Sign for Equality website, click on the "Download Petition" button on the right, download and print the .PDF, then sign it, fill out the required sections, and send it in. It's significantly easier than filing your taxes, relatively self-explanatory, and only takes a few minutes.

You see, the drive to repeal Prop 8 (which suppressed the rights of gays and lesbians to marry in California) in 2010 is being done without paid signature gatherers. This is being done for two reasons: 1) Prop 8 was put on the ballot without signature gatherers (thanks, in a large part, to various religious organizations putting the petitions in their churches and telling their members that they couldn't get into heaven if they didn't sign it), and therefore it's important symbolically that we qualify the repeal without paying for signatures. 2) Paid signature gatherers cost a lot of money, and that money would be better spent on advertising and education so voters understand the issues in November.

However, since there are no paid signature gatherers, we face an uphill battle. There's no guarantee that everyone who supports marriage equality will see a petitioner next time they're at Target. Entire cities are going to be missed by the petition drive. Peak signature-gathering times and locations will be under-served because of the reliance on volunteers. In other words, you can't wait for the petition to come to you. You need to come to it.

Yes, you can submit a petition with only one signature on it. Just follow the step-by-step instructions on the petition itself. You submit it as both the circulator and the signer, which is not only legal, it's encouraged. It costs you a piece of paper, a little ink or toner, an envelope, and a stamp. And if everyone who supports us will do this, we'll have a million signatures in the Secretary of State's office well before the April 5 deadline.

If you can also take a few moments to get other members of your household or your coworkers to also sign the petition, that's a bonus.

If you want to join a team and go out soliciting signatures from strangers, by all means, watch the training videos, sign up for a team, and otherwise take advantage of the wonderful resources available on the Sign for Equality website. The people doing that are true heroes of the marriage equality movement.

But for the rest of us, who only have a limited amount of time to dedicate to causes -- even causes we think are vitally important -- simply making sure your signature is on one of the forms will go a long way.

Please spread the word.

I've been saying it since 2008, but of course I have no standing to sway the courts. However, a group of churches (including mine, I'm proud to say) has filed an amicus brief (.pdf) in the Federal challenge to Proposition 8 (which suppressed the right of gays and lesbians to marry in California) which includes the argument that Prop 8 violates religious freedom.

The brief, which isn't flawless in a legal sense (it uses California Supreme Court rulings illustratively, but inadvertently implies that state holdings are precedent in Federal cases, which they are not), is primarily a response to pro-Prop 8 witness Professor Kenneth P. Miller's assertion that gays and lesbians have political power, in part because several churches opposed Prop 8 (including those filing the brief). The brief clarifies the level of support actually given by these churches to opposing Prop 8 (which is, statistically speaking, zero), clarifies that only one denomination (mine) took an official stance against it, and reiterates that those churches which supported Prop 8 have memberships nearly 20 times the size of those churches that opposed it.

That point alone would have been worth an amicus brief, since Professor Miller so badly mischaracterized these churches' activities in his testimony. But, the brief goes on to the next step of outlining the lack of rational basis to the claim that Prop 8 supports separation of church and state. It then outlines how the passage of Prop 8 actually does the opposite, harming the religious freedom of denominations that support the right of gays and lesbians to be married in the eyes of God.

Here's a representative quote from the introduction:

Though Proposition 8’s Proponents suggest that their initiative’s demolition of same-sex couples’ civil right was designed to protect Californians’ religious liberty, quite the opposite is true. Allowing same-sex couples the right to marry threatens religious liberty of Catholics no more than does allowing civilly divorced citizens to marry in contravention of Catholic doctrine. Allowing same-sex couples to marry no more threatens religious liberty of those who oppose such unions in their churches and synagogues than permitting interfaith marriage threatens the religious liberty of synagogues and rabbis who interpret their scripture and tradition to prohibit such unions. No one can force clergy of any denomination to solemnize any wedding that conflicts with his or her faith tradition, and no church synagogue, or other place of worship loses its tax exempt status for refusing religious rites of marriage to citizens possessing a civil right to marry.

The real threat to religious liberty comes from enforcing as law religious doctrines of a society’s most powerful sects, to outlaw marriages that others both recognize and sanctify. Clergy and congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association, the Northern and Southern California Conferences of the United Church of Christ, the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches, the Union for Reform Judaism, the Jewish Reconstructionist Federation, and others, proudly solemnized the legal marriages of same-sex couples -- until Proposition 8 adopted other sects’ doctrine to outlaw those marriages.

Today, I am insanely proud of my adopted church, and the church I was raised in should be ashamed of itself.

Note: For legal junkies like me, the full brief (.pdf) has been posted by the Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry of Califoria on their website. My denomination (UCC) is notoriously slow about posting such things, if they do so at all, but the Unitarians are welcome to speak for me on this issue. :)

sophiaserpentia spotted this one. It's a revelation actually. I shall never again enter one of these awkward conversations -- on either side -- without thinking of this:

Derailing for Dummies

For those who haven't heard, Equality California, the group that led the failed fight against Proposition 8, has decided that it won't seek to repeal it until 2012. Their logic seems to be that they need more time to do "outreach" and "fundraising."

Now, I'm of the opinion that the best "outreach" we can do is to capitalize on the momentum that's been building since Prop 8 passed and was upheld by the state supreme court.

Fundraising? Please! It's a recession for everyone, not just supporters of marriage equality.

Sorry, Equality California, but henceforward my donations are going to organizations that actually fight for marriage equality. I don't care if we lose at the ballot box in 2010. Because, frankly, win or lose, it will be on the ballot again in 2012, and 2014, and 2016, and so on until the U.S. Supreme Court finally (and correctly) declares that same-sex marriage bans violate the 14th Amendment.

Rolling over and looking like we accept the "will of the people" will lose, not gain us support.

It's too bad Maine has a ban on donations from out of state. Perhaps my sister will be willing to launder my donation money for me...*

Meanwhile, there are still at least two petitions circulating to quality ballot initiatives that would undo Prop 8. One [1356. (09-0003)] orders the end of civil marriage and opens domestic partnership to everyone, and completed its signature-gathering phase on Aug. 6. No word on whether or not it gathered enough signatures, but given the fact that it was started by an individual and did not enjoy institutional support, it seems unlikely they could have gathered the 694,354 necessary signatures. There are also two versions of a simple repeal being circulated by Yes! on Equality, one of which expires on Aug. 17 (and is presumably abandoned), and the other one which can gather signatures until Nov. 19.

Guess who's getting my money?

---

Meanwhile, the Federal case against Prop 8 moves apace. It is in the U.S. District Court in San Francisco, and is docket #C 09-2292 (Perry v. Schwarzenegger). Many of the same groups that lost the in-state legal battle have now filed petitions to be co-plaintiffs in the case, but the plaintiffs have asked the judge to reject the request.)

---

* For the record, that's a joke.

Once again I'm hearing GOP strategists talk about getting the Republican Party back to "the party of Reagan." Strangely, these same pundits then tend to go forth and spout the same old neocon rhetoric. So, for all the Republicans out there who might be confused, I'd like to point out a few things that Ronald Reagan was:

1. A Union Man. That's right. Ronald Reagan was part of a labor union. And not just because he "had" to join the union back in the days before some "activist judges" made up a bunch of pro-business laws by creating the concepts of "right to work" and "financial core." No, Ronald Reagan was active in his union, serving on the board and as the union president, twice. Under his leadership, the Screen Actors Guild got jurisdiction over the nascent medium of television, dramatically expanding its membership and its jurisdiction. He presided over SAG when anti-trust action brought down the studio system. He led a strike to get actors residuals for movies repurposed to be shown on television. Through-and-through, he was a firm believer in collective bargaining, and a powerhouse negotiator. Those who cite Reagan when taking anti-union stances love to read deeply into his strong stance against an illegal strike by air traffic controllers, but overlook his generally pro-union beliefs. (references: Screen Actors Guild official biography, SAG Timeline: 1940's, SAG Timeline: 1950's, SAG Timeline: 1960's.)


2. A Democrat. That's right, Reagan was a registered Democrat until just a few years before he formally entered politics, and was a strong supporter of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the New Deal. Yes, later in life he came to feel that the Democratic party had become excessively anti-business and excessively socialistic, but his core beliefs remained very true to Democratic ideals, if not Democratic plans for implementation. This was a big part of his cross-party appeal. Despite his pro-business, small-government policies, many Democrats still identified with Reagan, heard him when he reached out to them, and still perceived him as one of their own. (reference: OK, this one is hard to find a primary source on. Common knowledge is like that. Wikipedia is as good a source as any.)


3. A Believer in the Anti-Establishment Clause. The neocons would have us believe that Reagan believed America should be a Christian nation. After all, he led the charge to remove the prohibition on prayer in public schools, he referred to the U.S. as a Judeo-Christian nation. But what these people overlook is the context of Reagan's drive. In the 1970's, there was a popular (though to those schooled in law, relatively unjustified) belief that the government was trying to ban the practice of religion in any sphere touched by government, setting up a de facto state religion of Atheism. That is what Reagan was (correctly, in my opinion) pushing back against. However, "separation of church and state" became a household phrase largely because Reagan repeated it, often, when discussing his views. He was working to correct an imbalance in that separation, not to do away with it. His own views can neatly be summed up in his own words: "We in the United States ... were founded as a nation of openness to people of all beliefs. And so we must remain. Our very unity has been strengthened by our pluralism. We establish no religion in this country, we command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must remain, separate. All are free to believe or not believe, all are free to practice a faith or not, and those who believe are free, and should be free, to speak of and act on their belief. At the same time that our Constitution prohibits state establishment of religion, it protects the free exercise of all religions. And walking this fine line requires government to be strictly neutral." (reference: See Reagan's Speech to Temple Hillel.)


4. A Believer in Equal Rights. Much has been made of Reagan's opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment. But you have to remember that this was a very different time. Many, many women also opposed ERA, fearing it would eliminate laws (and collective bargaining agreements) intended to protect women. A great many people simply felt it was "overly broad," and Reagan was most likely one of these. After all, it was Reagan who appointed the first woman to the U.S. Supreme Court. He had four women in his cabinet, as many as his predecessor and four times as many as any previous President. Much has also been made of Reagan being anti-gay. Yet, he was instrumental in defeating the anti-gay 1978 California Proposition 6. Despite being late to the game (and smug in his morality), it was the Reagan administration that began actively combatting the HIV epidemic sweeping through the gay community, a very progressive move for the era. He had gay friends (Rock Hudson among them). He was the first President to allow an openly gay couple to stay at the White House. Again, a far cry from what we would expect from the leader of the free world today, but for the 1980's, positively radical! (references: Wikipedia has a decent discussion of ERA. Also, Women Cabinet Members. Historical discussion of lesbian/gay military service. An interesting discussion with links on Reagan's pro-gay stance in Hugo Schwyzer's blog, quoted and expanded on by Dan Chmielewski at TheLiberalOC.com.)

Of course, by now you've realized that I'm being selective and deliberately incendiary here. But that's the point. Reagan was a complex individual, a master negotiator, and someone who had the ability to truly make people believe he understood them, and was on their side. He did not do this by adopting a policy of party purity. He did not do this by saying, "You're either with us or you're against us." He did not take a "My way or the highway" approach to governing.

Reagan built bridges, and then wasn't afraid to be the first to cross them.

Reagan was a conservative when it was appropriate, a liberal when it was appropriate, and a centrist much of the time.

If you want to get back to being the "party of Reagan," that can't just mean "the popularity of Reagan." You must look at his leadership style, not his specific platforms. Yes, he was pro-life. But at the time, abortion was legal right up until the moment the baby was born, and his writings are very specifically targeted against late-term abortions. Would he still be pro-life under our current "only in the first trimester" system? I don't think any of us can say. Because his style was to bring people together from across the spectrum, hear them out, and then to move forward in often surprising ways.

Thus far, I have not seen a contemporary successor to Ronald Reagan in the Republican Party.

New Hampshire's governor just signed their marriage equality bill.

Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire. That's all of New England except Rhode Island (which, now that the rest of New England has done so, will only embrace equal protection when the U.S. Supreme Court forces it down their throats -- Rhode Island is typically contrary that way) and one Midwestern state.

State by state, civil rights are coming. States and legislatures can either embrace it or be remembered alongside the Dixiecrats.

Ted Olson and David Boies, the lawyers filing the Federal case against Proposition 8, on Hardball with Chris Matthews:


I must say, I'm impressed with Chris Matthews. While clearly a sympathetic host (this is MSNBC, after all), he really is asking tough questions, has done his homework, and clearly understands the law and the issues. I've generally not tuned into his show because the clips I've seen from him make him seem hostile -- and I don't enjoy watching hostile people -- but if he conducts all his interviews with this level of preparation, he may be one I need to start paying attention to.

Props to Ex-Gay Watch, where I discovered the clip.

OK, American Foundation for Equal Rights seems to have now updated their website to include the Federal case they filed against Proposition 8, and I have now read it. So, to update last night's post:

( More of Jim's legal reporting/pontificating behind the cut. )

The suit requests an injunction to stop the enforcement of Proposition 8. It seems highly unlikely that the court would issue a preliminary injunction, so don't count on marriages resuming anytime soon. And even if they do, don't count on any that are performed continuing to be recognized for very long.

With props to this posting at the L.A. Times blog "L.A. Now" which first alerted me... There's going to be a Federal challenge to Proposition 8.

The California Supreme Court case that was decided today was judged exclusively on whether or not it violated the California Constitution. Since no Federal issues were raised, it cannot be appealed to the Federal courts.

However, according to the news articles I'm seeing (I have not locating a copy of the actual filing yet), this new case is being filed on 14th Amendment grounds, charging that same-sex marriage bans violate equal protection. The suit is being filed by a new organization called the American Foundation for Equal Rights, headed up by the lawyers who argued against each other in the Bush v. Gore case (Theodore B. Olson and David Boies) that selected our 43rd President.

Now, before anyone gets their hopes up, this is a long shot. As interesting as this case would be (especially since the California Supreme Court just deferred to the Federal Constitution on all issues of equal protection), its unlikely that a Federal court will decide it has jurisdiction.

You see, in 1972, in Baker v. Nelson, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a 14th-Amendment challenge to Minnesota's same-sex marriage ban "for want of a Federal question." In other words, they concluded that the 14th Amendment (which was the basis for overturning interracial marriage bans in 1967 in Loving v. Virginia) was intended to protect African Americans, and beyond that marriage law was entirely the purview of the states. (I wish I could make this up.) Though these jurisdictional rulings are generally not supposed to be taken as precedent, Baker has been cited by courts throughout the United States since then as grounds to dismiss equal protection claims brought by gays and lesbians. (Of course, at least one sitting Supreme Court justice also cited Sun Tzu's The Art of War in a ruling that I read. That doesn't make Sun Tzu binding legal precedent. But that's another argument.)

And even if the Federal court takes the case, it will almost certainly have to go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court before anyone will be willing to issue an injunction, and that process will take years. Realistically, we'll have the law changed before then, prompting the court to just dismiss the case as no longer relevant.

And if it does make it all the way to the Supreme Court, at least two of the sitting justices have gone out of their way to write homophobic diatribes every time a gay rights issue has come before the court. The critical swing votes in the landmark Lawrence v. Texas -- the last great victory for gay rights at the Federal level -- were the now-retired O'Connor and the retiring Souter. O'Connor was replaced by the Bush-appointed conservative Alito, who is not generally regarded as sympathetic to gay rights. Obama's choice to replace Souter, should she be confirmed, does not have any real track record on gay rights, and based on the President's segregationist stance we should not hold out hope that she will be sympathetic.

So, in short, it's interesting that someone is willing to mount the challenge. However, I expect it's a waste of time at best, and a recipe for a setback at worst.

Article I of the California Constitution is our state's equivalent of the Bill of Rights. It affirms that we all have equal and fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It then goes on to enumerate several other rights that the government grants and cannot impinge upon.

It has been the longstanding understanding -- upheld in numerous California Supreme Court rulings, legislative and gubernatorial actions, and voter initiatives -- that the California Constitution is an independent document and does not depend upon the Federal Constitution as the source of our rights. In fact, a proposal to include language that our rights are based on the U.S. Constitution was, literally, shouted down at the constitutional convention in which our current constitution was originally written.

Today, however, the California Supreme Court held that all rights -- including inalienable, fundamental rights -- exist at the whim of the voters. Any right you have here in California can now be voted away by a simple majority.

( Jim's legal analysis behind the cut. )

The reality is that the court balked because declaring Prop 8 a revision would have been unprecedented. However, declaring it an amendment is also unprecedented. By incorrectly declaring Prop 8 acceptable, the court has gutted a century and half of law and legal precedent that used to protect you and I from the tyranny of the majority.

California just became a much, much scarier place to live.

---

The entirety of the California Supreme Court ruling, including all three filed opinions, can be downloaded from the California Supreme Court recent opinions page. You are looking for Strauss v. Horton, docket number S168047, posted May 26, 2009.

The CA Supreme Court apparently didn't load test their server. According to the L.A. Times, it's a "no new same-sex marriages" ruling.

I'll post a detailed analysis once I get my hands on and read the ruling.

There's going to be a lot of talk in the coming weeks about marriage equality. Since many of you who read this are going to find yourselves in conversations on the subject, I'd like to ask that you observe a couple simple rules of semantics:

• The California Supreme Court, last year in the In Re Marriage Cases ruling, did not grant same-sex couples the right to marry. It acknowledged the right of same-sex couples to marry.
• Proposition 8 did not take away the right of gays and lesbians to marry. It suppressed the right of gays and lesbians to marry.

The reason this is important is because marriage is what in legal terms is called a "fundamental right." A fundamental right isn't granted by the government. It's granted by God, or by virtue of our existence, or whatever language you choose to use. Since humans first appeared on the planet, we've had the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That's why the Declaration of Independence refers to these rights as "unalienable." No government can grant them. No government can take them away. A government can merely seek to oppress its subjects by pretending they don't have these rights. But the rights are there nonetheless.

Marriage is something that humans have always done as part of our pursuit of happiness. It's as natural to us as breathing. The California Supreme Court recognized marriage as a fundamental right in 1948, and the U.S. Supreme Court did the same in 1967. That's why anti-miscegenation laws are unconstitutional. Anti-miscegenation laws don't violate equal protection -- when they were on the books everyone had the same right to marry within their race. They violate a more fundamental, inalienable right to settle down with a mutually consenting partner of your choice. Marriage is a fundamental right.

And that is why gays and lesbians don't just accept "the will of the people." It's an inalienable right that Proposition 8 purports to take away. That is why we turned to the courts when a narrow majority sought to suppress that fundamental right. And if we can't turn to the courts for protection, then we will have to settle this the old-fashioned way, by declaring that the government does not protect us and therefore we are no longer subject to its laws. Since none of us want that, we all want Prop 8 overturned, whether you believe homosexuality and same-sex marriage are acceptable or not.

Because fundamental rights are not just a matter of semantics.

The California Supreme Court just announced that it will hand down its ruling in the three challenges to Proposition 8, the purported constitutional ban on marriage equality, on Tuesday, May 26 by 10:00 AM.

That means that the Meet in the Middle 4 Equality rally in Fresno to celebrate and/or protest will be on Saturday, May 30.

Again, please consider joining us.

Those of you know know me IRL, feel free to ping me or my husband about couch/floor space in Fresno should you need it. Now that reservations can be made, I can also tell you that the local La Quinta is within walking distance of the protest site, and we've stayed there on two occasions and found it quite acceptable both times.

And, whether you can be there or not, please keep your fingers crossed that the California Supreme Court, whatever its specific ruling, will not hold that fundamental rights can be removed by a simple majority vote.

I've been keeping my big mouth shut about this, because if the California Supreme Court had decided to issue its ruling in Proposition 8 Cases this week, it would have turned out to be very inconvenient for me. However, since the ruling won't be coming out this week (barring a highly unusual release of a ruling some day other than Monday or Thursday), I can share:

Meet in the Middle 4 Equality

Basically, the Saturday after the California Supreme Court rules (which, at this point, will be either May 30 or June 6), supporters of marriage equality are being asked to descend on Fresno, California -- the middle of the state -- for celebrations or protests in favor of equal protection for everyone. There is a planned march and rally (as well as a food drive). If you can make it to Fresno to stand and be counted, please consider joining us.

Those of you know know me IRL, feel free to ping me or my husband about couch/floor space in Fresno should you need it.

The legislature of Maine has passed a marriage equality bill. The governor has not taken a position on it, but is generally expected not to veto it. (Though, you Maineiacs who read this, please call his office to voice support for equality, as he's not on record either way.)

Maine is a state that has a "voter veto" act, allowing the pro-bigotry crowd to put a referendum on the ballot to undo the law (stopping it from taking effect in advance of the vote), so I'm not counting this as a "win" yet, but it's a positive sign.

Going home to New England looks more tempting all the time.

As an update, the New Hampshire law is scheduled to go back to the house for approval of the senate's changes tomorrow, and is expected to pass without too much trouble, and then it's off to their anti-equality governor to veto, sign, or ignore. If he signs or ignores it, equality becomes the law of the land in New Hampshire. His stated reason for opposing the bill was its lack of protection for churches opposed to same-sex unions -- which is in the text of the senate version of the bill -- and his belief that "separate but equal" works.

OK, I'm the first to admit that the Los Angeles Times is far from the most unbiased newspaper out there, but the quotes don't lie in this article about anti-equality groups decrying even the incremental "separate but equal" legal victories being afforded to gays and lesbians.

"There's a sense people have -- a sense of inevitability -- and a tremendous sense of frustration because of the history of the gay rights fight in Maine," said Michael Heath, executive director of the Maine Family Policy Council.

Heath was talking about a Maine court ruling allowing a lesbian couple to adopt the children they've been caring for since 2001. Maine does not recognize same-sex marriage.

And then there's this:

"These are serious cases of widespread importance, where we see same-sex couples attempting to use the laws of another state to push their agenda in a state that does not recognize their union," said Jim Campbell, litigation counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal organization.

"This is a danger that will spread to all states but will not necessarily result in same-sex marriage in all states," Campbell said, noting that opponents will continue to press their elected officials to reject same-sex marriage initiatives.

Julaine Appling, executive director of Wisconsin Family Action, agrees, saying her group "has always taken the position that these kinds of decisions should be made in the Legislature, where they can be fully vetted and can have public opinion given."

There you have it. Straight (so to speak) from the horse's mouth. Despite the rhetoric that these groups don't want to deny us any right and that we should be happy with segregation, they're even opposed to the segregation, and want us to not have any rights.

Before you accept the argument that "we're just trying to reserve the word," think about where that argument is coming from.

New Hampshire Senate votes for civil marriage equality.

The governor has stated that he opposes marriage equality, believing instead in segregation, and has stated he would veto any bill that could be construed as forcing religious organizations to accept same-sex marriage. The bill as passed by the New Hampshire Senate contains explicit language differentiating civil and religious marriage. No word from the governor's office at press time whether he would veto it or not.

The bill did not pass either house with a veto-proof margin.

If the governor does not veto it (N.H. is one of the states where a non-signature still becomes law in the absence of an express veto), New Hampsire will be the fifth state where I am regarded as an equal in the eyes of the law, following Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and Vermont. The status of marriage equality here in California remains in doubt, with a ruling from the California Supreme Court expected in the next five weeks.

On the subject of Miss California, Carrie Prejean, who spoke out against same-sex marriage in response to a question from a judge during the Miss USA pageant:

"But the tide of public opinion may be turning in Prejean's favor. Her grandmother has blasted her critics..."

Full context here, just in case you think I'm making this up...