Sounds like an insult, doesn’t it? You are a member of a suspect class.  We’re taking your passport.  Don’t leave the state without telling the police.

Except that’s not right at all.  I researched the term because lawyers on our side of the Prop 8 trial kept asking about historical discrimination against gays.  Does [...]]]> “Suspect class.”

Sounds like an insult, doesn’t it? You are a member of a suspect class.  We’re taking your passport.  Don’t leave the state without telling the police.

Except that’s not right at all.  I researched the term because lawyers on our side of the Prop 8 trial kept asking about historical discrimination against gays.  Does that matter to the verdict?  Quite a bit, it turns out.  Judges can choose from a number of standards when deciding whether a law is unconstitutional.  Some standards are harder to meet than others, and no one can be sure which standard the judge – or the Supreme Court – will use when evaluating Prop 8.  That’s the subtext of what’s going on now.

So let’s back up and look at “suspect class” again (disclosure:  I’ll be plagiarizing Wikipedia in much of what follows). A “suspect class” is a group of people who:

• are a “discrete” or “insular” minority
• possess an immutable trait (except in the case of religion, for some reason)
• share a history of discrimination, and
• are powerless to protect themselves via the political process.

Race, national origin, and religion are suspect classes in US federal court.  Age, disability, political preference, and sexual orientation are not.

When it comes to civil rights law, it’s great to be a suspect class.  Because judges will use a stricter standard when scrutinizing laws that affect you.  Basically, there are three standards for evaluating laws that discriminate against minorities.

• Strict scrutiny
• Intermediate scrutiny
• Rational basis scrutiny

When judges use rational basis scrutiny, they aren’t scrutinizing very hard.  It’s easy for a law to stay in effect.  Basically, under rational basis scrutiny, the supporters of a law only need to show that it’s a reasonable means of achieving a legitimate goal.  It doesn’t matter whether the proponents were secretly motivated by bigotry and hatred; as long as the law is a reasonable means to a legitimate end, it’s okay.

But when the law discriminates against a suspect class, judges don’t use rational basis scrutiny.  No, with suspect classes, they use strict scrutiny, and strict scrutiny is a much tougher standard.

1. First, the law under consideration must be justified by a compelling governmental interest, something necessary or vital, as opposed to something merely preferred.  Things like national security.
2. Second, the law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieving that goal.  It has to operate like a scalpel rather than a machete.
3. Finally, the law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest.  In other words, if there’s a different law that would be less discriminatory but still effective, then you’ve got to nix the current law.

For minorities, strict scrutiny rocks.  Think about our opponents’ favorite argument:  We have to keep marriage unchanged in order to provide a stable and healthy environment for raising kids. Stop screaming for a moment, and pretend that banning gay marriage would contribute to that (stop screaming!).  Obviously, promoting a stable environment for children is a compelling government interest.  But is banning gay marriage a narrowly tailored way of doing that, or is it a strange, bizarre, and indirect method, with very direct harm to gays and lesbians?  And is it the least restrictive means of providing that environment, or could we find solutions that don’t quite so heavily penalize the LGBT community?

Unfortunately, sexual orientation is not a suspect class in federal court.  Though maybe it should be.  And maybe we can use this case to make that happen.  Or maybe we can’t, and we have to get the courts to toss out Prop 8 based on rational basis scrutiny – which is tough to do, because then judges will simply be looking to see if banning gay marriage might possibly work in the way that bigots say it will.

And just to make things more complicated, you’ve also got intermediate scrutiny, which is a sort of in-between scrutiny:  yeah, you can discriminate, but you better have a really good reason.

Basically, then, we can sum up the constitutional strategies of each side like this:

• The good guys: Gays qualify as a suspect class, and Prop 8 fails the strict scrutiny standard.  And even if they aren’t a suspect class, Prop 8 isn’t a reasonable means of protecting marriage and kids – in fact, it actually harms them.
• The bad guys: No way are gays a suspect class!  All we need is rational basis scrutiny, and we’ll show that unbigoted people have perfectly sensible reasons for denying basic human rights to those awful homosexuals.

So, hopefully, the following things will now make more sense:

• The attempts by our side to show that:
  • Homosexuality is a state of being, and not just behavior.
  • Being gay is not a choice.
  • Gays have a history of discrimination.
  • Prop 8 is being pushed by — and was voted in by — people who think gays are yucky.
  • Gays can’t win their rights at the ballot box.
  • Gays suffer from the ban on marriage, and so do their kids.

• The attempts by the other side to show that
  • The whole idea of being a homosexual – as opposed to someone who occasionally dabbles in homosexual acts – is a new concept, and not even a universal one.
  • Being gay is a choice.
  • Gays never really had it so bad, and if they did once, they don’t anymore.  I mean, look at the popularity of Brokeback and Will & Grace.
  • Gays have tons of political power.  Nancy Pelosi can’t get enough of ‘em.  And look at all those anti-discrimination laws.
  • Gay marriage will trash the whole institution and hurt children.

In real life, I’m an educator, not a lawyer.  This is just my attempt to get the basics clear – not the nuances – so that people like me can better understand the Prop 8 proceedings.  If you’re an expert and have a correction to make, please chime in.

This is Mecklenberg County Commissioner Bill James.  During a a debate on whether to offer domestic partner benefits to county employees Commissioner Vilma Leake spoke of her son, who died of AIDS in [...]]]> Opponents of marriage equality love to position themselves as defenders of morality.  Why, then, are their actions so often despicable?

This is Mecklenberg County Commissioner Bill James.  During a a debate on whether to offer domestic partner benefits to county employees Commissioner Vilma Leake spoke of her son, who died of AIDS in 1993.  Bill’s response to this tragic, personal story was to lean over to her and say,

So he was a homo?  Really?

Having displayed his Christian virtues of kindness and compassion, Bill might have stopped there.  But no.  The next morning, he lied about the incident on radio station WBT. He told radio host Keith Larson he was simply asking Vilma for clarification, and claimed:

Before I could get completely through it, she reacted and made some sort of comment to the effect that somebody needed to hurt me.

Ah, so he didn’t mean to say “homo.”  She cut him off!  It was all Vilma’s fault! Except at this point the host played the clip of Bill saying,

So he was a homo?  Really?

Bill’s first response was to say, “What the heck was that?” And when the host told him exactly what the heck it was, Bill paused long and hard before answering, “If you say so.”

Next, caught in a clear and stark lie, Bill changed tactics and said he didn’t know “homo” was a derogatory term.  And since then, he’s gone on a two-prong attack. He’s called Vilma a hypocrite, because decades ago she married a clergyman in a church that opposed homosexuality.   And he’s shocked – shocked! – that this woman has threatened him with violence (actually, she said, “You’re going to make me hurt you.  Don’t do that to me.  Don’t talk about my son.”).

Let’s recap Bill’s strategy in the civil equality debate:

1. Degrade
2. Lie
3. Attack

Even if Bill genuinely didn’t know “homo” was derogatory, it’s still true that his first defense was to lie about saying it.  We see this constantly from anti-equality forces: they toss out deceit after deceit, and see which ones they can get away with.  Meanwhile, we spend the bulk of our time on the defensive, debunking their falsehoods even though the news cycle has moved on to the next deception, leaving the truth unheard.

The pattern is clear:  Our opponents abandon their moral principles in the course of their moral crusade.  Either they know they’re doing this, and it’s a failure of character, or they suffer a kind of unreasoning moral blindness when it comes to homosexuality.  That’s the mark of homophobia — which they claim doesn’t exist.  Even as they prove themselves wrong, again and again.

PS:  Bill James made one comment on WBT that hasn’t gotten much attention:

If she’s going to use her dead son’s tragic death as justification for allowing the behavior to go on – you know, more of that behavior to go on – I don’t think that she’s honoring her son’s memory.

“Allowing the behavior to go on.”  Let that sink in and give you a chill.

Don’t flip-flop on DOMA.

In Fresno.

Yep, not in West Hollywood or Silverlake or the Castro, but in the heart of Yes on 8 territory. This [...]]]> My friend Phillip Minton asked be to pass on information about “Meet in the Middle,” a rally to occur on the first Saturday after the State Supreme Court passes down its Prop 8 decision.

In Fresno.

Yep, not in West Hollywood or Silverlake or the Castro, but in the heart of Yes on 8 territory. This is where we need to make our voices heard. And this will be a great way to do it. There will be transportation assistance and other logistical help to make sure everyone can part of this gutsy state-wide event.

Here’s a video on the event. Share!

Congress will soon vote on H.R. 1913, which adds “sexual orientation” to existing hate crime legislation. Naturally, the religious right — and TVC in particular — is fighting it with lies. They claim:

H.R. 1913 broadly defines “intimidation,” thus a pastor’s sermon could be considered “hate [...]]]> Don’t believe anything you hear from the Traditional Values Coalition.

Congress will soon vote on H.R. 1913, which adds “sexual orientation” to existing hate crime legislation. Naturally, the religious right — and TVC in particular — is fighting it with lies. They claim:

H.R. 1913 broadly defines “intimidation,” thus a pastor’s sermon could be considered “hate speech” under this legislation if heard by an individual who then acts aggressively against persons based on any “sexual orientation.” The pastor could be prosecuted for “conspiracy to commit a hate crime.”

One problem. The word “intimidation” doesn’t appear in the bill. Anywhere. And this is such an easy lie to catch — so easy I have to wonder if they’ve actually deluded themselves into believing it. As if they have a psychological disorder that clouds their thinking about homosexuality. Hmm, what could we call that?
The right’s primary tactic against H.R. 1913 is to claim it will:

Criminalize so-called “hate speech,” which is any speech that is critical of homosexuality or gender confused behaviors. The suppression of free speech will be justified by the claim that such speech “incites” individuals to commit violence against LGBT persons.

They’re basing this on an exchange between U.S. Representatives Louie Gohmert and Artur Davis:

Mr. Gohmert: [If] somebody within that congregation goes out and does an act of violence, and that person says that that minister counseled or induced him through the sermon to commit that act, are you saying under your amendment that in no way could that ever be introduced against the minister?
Mr. Davis. No.

Which leads TVC to assert:

Ultimately, a pastor’s sermon concerning religious beliefs and teachings on homosexuality and gender confused behaviors could be considered to cause violence and will be punished or at least investigated.

Let’s leave TVC’s fantasy world behind and deal with facts:

FACT: “Hate speech” appears nowhere in the bill.
A hate crime is when someone:

willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person.

Bodily harm. Fire, guns, and bombs.

FACT: If a criminal says someone incited him to violence, the authorities have a duty to investigate.
That’s true whether it’s a hate crime or not. Remember Gohmert’s hypothetical: “[the]minister counseled or induced him through the sermon to commit [violence].”
Here’s a hypothetical of my own, based on Gohmert’s: Suppose a minister says, “Leviticus 20:13 tells us homosexuals shall surely be put to death. Now go kill the faggot running the soup kitchen next door!” TVC is outraged — outraged! — that the minister could be investigated (merely investigated!) if someone ran the faggot over with his car and pinned a note, “Leviticus 20:13” to his body.

FACT: H.R. 1913 has First Amendment protections built in.
It states:

Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution.

FACT: H.R. 1913 amends existing law to extend protections already established for hate crimes based on religion.
Right-wing Christians claim to be victims of hate speech these days — and yet they don’t bring charges in the U.S., even though they’ve been protected by federal hate crime law for forty years. Why? Because hateful speech isn’t illegal.
Their own actions — or lack of action — show they’re just fearmongering when they claim the law will criminalize speech. They’re also hypocritical in denouncing protections offered to gays and lesbians without acknowledging that they themselves already have them.

But we have to do more than counter their lies with the truth. When confronted with this campaign of deceit, point out that our extremist opponents can’t mount an argument without dishonesty and hypocrisy. When you see this from a religious group trying to claim the moral high ground, you know you’re not dealing with devout believers trying to protect our culture, but troubled souls working out their own personal demons.

I don’t even know if you are going to read [...]]]> A few days after I posted the “Bashing” video, I got this message from a girl on Facebook. I showed it to a few friends who found it inspirational and thought it deserved more attention. So here it is, with her permission.

I don’t even know if you are going to read this, but I thought it was worth a try.

I watched your video on Christians and how they use bashing and how gay people truly know what it means, and I have to say I cried. This isn’t a sob story or anything…But I go to a Christian Private School in [location removed], and if you know of that area it’s a very conservative area.

I’m 15 and I’m gay but at my school you are not allowed to be or you can be expelled because “that is not what God intended”. I accidentally came out to most of my class while we were in the midst of a heated discussion of why gay marriage was wrong, me being the only one who thought it was good. My words exactly were “Well I’m sure my girlfriend would agree with me.”

I figured that somehow my parents would find out about it so I began to talk to my mom about what she thought about being gay, and that stuff. She told me she didn’t agree with it, and if I was gay she would not come to my wedding, and she would take me to a therapist. I responded by telling her that I wouldn’t need a therapist, but did not tell her because I was honestly afraid she would hate me or something.

At school, I am constantly being called a faggot, faggot lover, etc, and at first i just ignored it because I thought of it as stupid immature highschool talk and I still had a few good friends who stuck around. I guess I found out who my real friends were. I have also received detentions for calling a guy who was calling me a faggot…during class…an asshole. When having conversations with teachers they tell me how homosexuality is something I may be suffering from or choosing, but I need help, and I need to ask for forgiveness or else I won’t be able to achieve heaven. I don’t understand how a Christian, who says that you should love everybody and care for them, is honestly going to decide who gets to go to heaven. Unless any of them talk to god on a regular basis I don’t think they can tell me that.

Also, since when are they legally allowed to kick someone out of school based on their sexual orientation?

I am just so sick of people’s ignorance and unwillingness to open their eyes and see that people have feelings and something like the gender somebody likes has nothing to do with who they are. We are all people, we all have feelings, and we all love.

It’s rediculous how stupid it’s all becoming. I’m sorry for this long message, but it felt good to type out. I really want to start advocating gay rights, and talk to people who go through what I am now, the parents that don’t understand, losing a lot of friends because of it…but in the end I feel happier, because I’m not hiding myself anymore.

Okay, I’m done…I swear.