WHY DID BARNEY FRANK CALL JUSTICE SCALIA A HOMOPHOBE

During a video taped interview with 365gay.com (see full interview below), openly gay Representative Barney Frank referred to Justice Antonin Scalia as "that homophobe" in response to a question about the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA).

Frank was discussing gay marriage and his expectation that the high court would some day be called upon to decide whether the Constitution allows the federal government to deny recognition to same-sex marriages. He commented, "I wouldn't want it to go to the United States Supreme Court now because that homophobe Antonin Scalia has too many votes on this current court.

In his posting at The Hill's Congress Blog, Frank said:

"While responding to questions from journalists about my characterization of Justice Antonin Scalia as a homophobe, I realized that the fact that I made that comment in conjunction with a potential lawsuit about the Defense of Marriage Act created some confusion as to my basis for that characterization.

My view that Justice Scalia is prejudiced against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people is based, not on his position on marriage, but entirely on the angry minority opinions he wrote in two Supreme Court cases in which the majority held that gay and lesbian people had certain rights against discrimination regarding private consensual sex and political activity. In those two virulent dissents, Justice Scalia denounced the court majorities not simply for finding that it was unconstitutional to discriminate based on sexual orientation in cases involving political rights and the right to private consensual sex, but he also made it clear that in his view sex discrimination is not only permitted by the Constitution but is very much in society’s interest because homosexuality deserves to be treated with not only disapproval, but legal disability.

This comes out most clearly in his very vigorous abjection to the court’s decision to block a criminal prosecution against two men who had consensual sex in the privacy of their bedroom. And it is made very vivid in the passage in which he affirms society’s right to treat homosexuals unequally by citing other categories which deserves such treatment — beginning with murder."

The actual written, astoundingly homophobic, comments made by Scalia in those cases is, to say the least, very disturbing. You can read the full text of Scalia's opinions at the Congress Blog. They're at the end of Barney's comments.

If this man (and I use that term very loosely) doesn't recuse himself from future cases involving any GLBT issue, there is something fundamentally wrong with our Supreme Court Structure.

Below is Barney Frank's full interview with 365gay.com.

IT'S TIME FOR OBAMA TO STAND UP AND BE COUNTED

Gays rights legal issues are beginning to bubble-up to the top of public agendas much faster than I'm sure the Obama administration would have liked.

In at least two cases fermenting within the Justice Department, the President is being pushed into a position that he either stands behind his many promises to the GLBT community of equal rights, protections and treatment or he doesn't.

One case involves health benefits for same-sex partners in the California court system. The other involves the discharge of a 18 year Air Force veteran who is being forcibly discharged just two years before her retirement under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy because she was "discovered" to be a lesbian. In both cases, the Obama administration (via the Justice Department) will be forced to take a stand.

A New York Times article said of the California case:

In separate, strongly worded orders, two judges of the federal appeals court in California said that employees of their court were entitled to health benefits for their same-sex partners under the program that insures millions of federal workers.

But the federal Office of Personnel Management has instructed insurers not to provide the benefits ordered by the judges, citing a 1996 law, the Defense of Marriage Act.

Now, Mr. Obama is in a tough spot. If he supports the personnel office on denying benefits to the San Francisco court employees, he risks agitating liberal groups that helped him win election. If he supports the judges and challenges the marriage act, he risks alienating Republicans with whom he is seeking to work on economic, health care and numerous other matters.

In the DADT case, Major Margaret Witt took the podium in front of the nation's capitol at a rally to repeal DADT and said:

“For 18 years I served in the military, before the Air Force discharged me because they found out I was a lesbian. But I don’t want to leave, and I’m challenging the government’s attempt to discharge me.”

This case is a little more complicated because the ninth circuit appelate court's decision narrowly focused on Maj. Witt's case specifically and doesn't necessarily challenge DADT directly.

As The Advocate reported:

When her [Maj. Witt] attempt to fight the dismissal was denied a hearing by a federal judge, her lawyers appealed the decision and the ninth circuit ultimately ruled that Witt had a right to her day in court. The decision concluded that, although the government had previously been able to discharge any LGB person under the policy, new protections provided by the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas ruling now required the government to actually prove that an individual’s presence was indeed harming unit cohesion. The ruling was also carefully constructed to only apply to Major Witt’s case.

The court did not rule on the constitutionality of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ but it said because of a new precedent, ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ has a higher burden to meet in order for an individual to be kicked out.”

C. Dixon Osburn, CEO of Osburn Management Consulting Company and former executive director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a group that advocates for repeal of the policy, said:

"...the movement has always argued that the government had no evidence demonstrating that letting LGBs serve openly in the military would hurt unit morale or military preparedness.

We have tried for the last 15 years to get the government to defend themselves and the courts have just looked the other way. This case is saying, ‘No, we won’t turn a blind eye to this, you need to give us evidence that the law is sensible on a case-by-case basis.’”

The narrowness of this case's decision may allow the DOJ to let the ruling stand, without any action by them, which would send the case back to the lower court to be argued. This would give the Obama administration a little more time to finish what they already started doing - working with the Pentagon to figure out the best way to end DADT.

Although I currently support Obama's approach, I, of course, also support Maj Witt's right not to be discharged for nothing more than simply being gay.

On a personal note, the Times' logic about Obama's risk of "...alienating Republicans with whom he is seeking to work on economic, health care and numerous other matters" should he side with the California federal appeals court seems extraordinarily childish and naive for such a prestigious publication.

In case the article's author, Robert Pear, hadn't noticed, the Republicans have made it their party's policy to disagree with and belligerently fight every proposal the President has introduced to turn the country's immediate financial crisis and long-term solvency around. Even going as far as standing silently by when their self-proclaimed, de facto "leader," Rush Limbaugh, publicly and proudly proclaimed that he "hoped Obama would fail" which, in effect, is saying that he hopes the country fails. I don't think you can get much more alienated than that!

Apparently, in the minds of Republicans, having the country continue to experience poverty, mayhem and misery for a few more years would give them a better chance to regain power in 2010. How sick is that?

WASHINGTON STATE'S "EVERYTHING BUT MARRIAGE" BILL

Tuesday evening the Washington State Senate passed Senate Bill 5688 by a vote of 30 to 18. Dubbed the "everything but marriage" bill, this legislation would bestow on same-sex domestic partners all of the state rights and benefits afforded to straight married couples. The House is also expected to pass this and Governor Chris Gregoire, a Democrat, has said she supports the measure and will sign it.

In 2007, Washington approved a Domestic Partnership bill introduced by Seattle Democratic Sen. Ed Murra and last year the state amended that bill to include additional coverages. With those two actions, same-sex partners were granted hospital visitation rights, the ability to authorize autopsies and organ donations and inheritance rights when there is no will.

Now, with passage of this most recent upgrade amendment, spearheaded by gay state senator Ed Murray, a Seattle Democrat, same-sex partners will have all of the benefits of heterosexual married couples. The bill adds domestic partners to all remaining areas of state law where currently only married couples are addressed. This includes statutes ranging from labor and employment to pensions and other public employee benefits.

Washington state now joins California and Oregon as the only three states that endow Domestic Partnerships with the identitical state rights and responsibilities that straight marriages have had all along.

Unfortunately, this does not include any federal rights. However, with the anticipated repeal of DOMA by our current congress and the promised equality of all federal partnership rights by President Obama, this remaining inequity should be resolved. Hopefully sooner rather than later.

Sources for this article were: The Seattle Times, The Advocate and Box Turtle Bulletin

UPDATE 3/14...
As an interesting side note, Republican State Senator Dale Brandland, who voted for passage of the above bill and was also the former Whatcom County sheriff, said in an interview in the Bellingham Herald:

"I guess from my perspective, I've come to the conclusion that people are born gay. I don't think this is something that they just pick up along the way. Once I came up with that kind of conclusion, it wasn't difficult for me to understand that gay people are going to develop feelings for people of the same sex and will want to get into meaningful relationships.

"I thought it was inappropriate to deny them some of the basic rights that relationship entails."

Senator Brandland and two other Republicans defied a feverish blog and email campaign mounted by Gary Randall, President of the statewide Faith and Freedom Network whose promotional tag is "Advancing Judeo-Christian Values."

To counter Randall's campaign, a prominent Seattle liberal weekly newspaper, The Stranger, began waging war in favor of the bill on its blog. Locals also took to the social networking site Facebook to advocate support of the bill.

Let's hope this is a trend that takes hold across the country and ultimately buries the religious, right wing fanatics under the bile of their own lies and hatreds.


ALSO...KUDOS TO ASHTON KUTCHER
The Advocate also reported the following exchange between Ashton Kutcher and another user on Twitter:

Actor Ashton Kutcher, in a heated conversation with another user on Twitter, used the micro-blogging site to urge people to stop using the word "gay" as an insult. "can we just get clear, calling some one 'gay' or 'fag' is as derogatory as calling someone a 'ni**er'. U look like an idiot when you do it," he wrote on Wednesday. Another user had told him to "stop being so gay." After Kutcher's reply, the other user replied, "just jokin, no disrespect bro."

Thanks Ashton. You always were one of the good guys!

NATIONAL EQUALITY RALLY SET FOR MAY 3RD IN PHILADELPHIA

The pioneering GLBT magazine The Advocate reported today that the organizers of the upcoming National Equality Rally lauched a video on YouTube yesterday to promote the event.

The video is absolutely awesome. It's set to the music of Five for Fighting’s "What Kind of World Do You Want?" and begins with the image of Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech then segues into images of gay rights rallies and marches from the first Philadelphia demonstrations in 1965 all the way through to today's fight for marriage equality. It really is an awesome video presentation and the music is just plain dynamite. Check it out...

The Rally is scheduled for May 3rd at Independence Hall in Philadelphia. I just wish may partner and I could afford to go because it looks like its going to be one of those incredibly memorable moments that you'll take with you for the rest of your life. What better setting could there be? The site our movement's first public demonstration and the birthplace of a country that dedicated itself to equality for all of its citizens.

According to National Equality Rally's website, the rally would serve as a call on Congress and our new president for:

• Passage of trans-inclusive hate crimes legislation

• Passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)

• Repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)

• Support for GLBT health issues

• Equal benefits for same-sex families

• Same-sex marriage Equality

If you do plan to attend, I would strongly suggest that you call one of the downtown hotels as soon as you finish reading this. I have a feeling that they're going to get booked up pretty quick.