Doctor Science reacts to a proposal “giving all couples a civil union and leaving marriage up to churches and other religious institutions.”

 I have been civilly married for almost 25 years. In what respect is my marriage not “marriage” enough to keep the name — and the protection of a very large and well-established system of law? I haven’t been able to find good numbers, but I saw a vague estimate that 1/4 to 1/3 of US marriages are civil ceremonies. Have the people saying “government should get out of the marriage business and leave it up to the religions” completely forgotten about secular, civil marriages? Or do they really, in their hearts, believe that my marriage isn’t important, that I wouldn’t lose anything if it was defined away?

My late wife and I were married in a civil ceremony as well and, naturally, considered ourselves to be “married.”

As I understand such proposals, however, all that would change is the label. That is, all of the legal rights that currently go along with “marriage,” whether performed in a civil or religious ceremony, would continue to exist–we’d just call them “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships” or something other than “marriage.”

The rationale for this is that, for some very large segment of the society–likely an overwhelming majority, although it’s inexorably shifting in the other direction–have religious or moral objections to same-sex marriages and strongly believe that “marriage” is an institution that should consist of “one man and one woman.” Referenda on this question inevitably pass overwhelmingly, even in relatively liberal states like California. So, libertarians argue, we solve the problem by giving equal civil rights to all unions, whether same- or opposite-sex, and use the more religious label “marriage” within the confines of various churches.

When this notion started being bandied about eight or nine years ago in response to the first states legalizing same-sex unions, this struck me as a sensible solution to the problem. The more I’ve thought about it, though, the sillier it seems.

First, as Doctor Science makes clear, some very large number of people would be outraged at being told that they’re no longer “married” but in an identical relationship with a less hallowed name. The notion of “marriage” is simply too ingrained into our culture at this point to strip it away at this point.

Second, it’s a hell of a big change to go through to make a few people feel better about themselves. While I’ve long since stopped giving a damn about whether a couple of dudes got married, I get that it’s an issue that others have incredibly strong feelings about. But so what?

Third, it’s a transparently silly notion. People who feel strongly that people of the same sex shouldn’t be allowed to marry one another aren’t going to be fooled by being patted on the head and told, “No, no–they’re not “marrying” one another, they’re just getting married. I mean, civil unioned.” The underlying prejudice, revulsion, or moral outrage isn’t going to disappear.

Via Patrick Appel. Gay marriage image by Shutterstock.

Upholding a decision by Federal District Court Judge appointed by Ronald Reagan, a three judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court Of Appeals held today that California’s Proposition 8, which rescinded the State Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage, is unconstitutional:

LOS ANGELES – A federal appeals court panel ruled on Tuesday that a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage in California violated the Constitution, all but ensuring that the case will proceed to the United States Supreme Court.

The three-judge panel issued its ruling Tuesday morning in San Francisco, upholding a decision by Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who had been the chief judge of the Federal District Court of the Northern District of California but has since retired. Like Judge Walker, the panel found that Proposition 8 – passed by California voters in November 2008 by a margin of 52 percent to 48 percent — violated the equal protection rights of two same-sex couples that brought he suit. The proposition placed a specific prohibition in the State Constitution against marriage between two people of the same sex.

The court ruled that Proposition 8 violated the 14th Amendment of the Constitution by discriminating against a group of people, gay men and lesbians.

“Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different people differently,” Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote in the decision. “There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted.”

“All that Proposition 8 accomplished was to take away from same sex-couples the right to be granted marriage licenses and thus legally to use the designation ‘marriage,” the judge wrote, adding: “Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gay men and lesbians in California.”

Supporters of Proposition 8 can now ask for a larger panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to take up the case. But they could also chose instead to appeal the case directly to the Supreme Court, setting the stage for a decision by the nation’s highest court on an issue that has roiled legal, political and cultural circles here and across the country.

The decision was the latest victory by same-sex marriage proponents here since losing at the polls four years ago and sets the stage for what backers of same-sex marriage said they were seeking: a fight before the Supreme Court.

Lyle Denniston summarizes the Court’s decision:

The majority summed up its ruling this way: “By using their initiative power to target a minority group and withdraw a right that it possessed, without a legitimate reason for doing so, the people of California violated the Equal Protection Clause [of the federal Constitution].  We hold Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional on this ground.”

It added: “We do not doubt the importance of the more general questions presented to us concerning the rights of same-sex couples to marry nor do we doubt that these questions will likely be resolved in other states, and for the nation as a whole, by other courts.  For now, it suffices to conclude that the people of California may not, consistent with the federal Constitution, add to their state constitution a provision that has no more practical effect than to strip gays and lesbians of their right to use the official designation that the state and society give to committed relationships, thereby adversely affecting the status and dignity of the members of a disfavored class. The judgement of the district court is confirmed.”

Perhaps the most significant thing about the Court of Appeals decision here, both legally and politically, is the manner in which it is narrowly tailored. To a large degree, the Court’s decision is limited to the specific situation of Proposition 8 itself and the issue of the Constitutionality of taking away a right that had been previously been granted. The decision also relies heavily on the fact that California law already grants same-sex couples and individuals a number of legal rights such as the right to adopt children that mirror a family but that Proposition 8 was enacted for the specific purpose of denying those same couples the right to obtain a marriage license and call themselves married under state law. As the Court held, there is no rational basis for this distinction

Prior to November 4, 2008, the California Constitution guaranteed the right to marry to opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples alike. On that day, the People of California adopted Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. We consider whether that amendment violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We conclude that it does.

Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted. Because under California statutory law, samesex couples had all the rights of opposite-sex couples, regardless of their marital status~ all parties agree that Proposition 8 had one effect only. It stripped same-sex couples of the ability they previously possessed to obtain from the State or any other authorized party, an important right — the right to obtain and use the designation of ‘marriage’ to describe their relationships. Nothing more, nothing less. Proposition 8 therefore could not have been enacted to advance California’s interests in childrearing or responsible procreation~ for it had no effect on the rights of same-sex couples to raise children or on the procreative practices of other couples. Nor did Proposition 8 have any effect on religious freedom or on parents’ rights to control their children’s education; it could not have been enacted to safeguard these liberties.

All that Proposition 8 accomplished was to take away from same-sex couples the right to be granted marriage licenses and thus legally to use the designation of ‘marriage,’ which symbolizes state legitimization and societal recognition of their committed relationships. Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow for “laws of this sort.” Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 633 (1996).

The Court then concluded:

When directly enacted legislation “singl[es] out a certain class of citizens for disfavored legal status,” we must “insist on knowing the relation between the classification adopted and the object to be attained,” so that we may ensure that the law exists “to further a proper legislative end” rather than “to make[ ] [class] unequal to everyone else.” Romer, 517 U.S. at 632-33, 635. Proposition 8 fails this test. Its sole purpose is “to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California” – to dishonor a disfavored group by taking away the official designation of approval of their committed relationships and the accompanying societal status, and nothing more. Voter Information Guide at 54. “It is at once too narrow and too broad.,” for it changes the law far too little to have any of the effects it purportedly was intended to yield, yet it dramatically reduces the society standing of gays and lesbians and diminishes their dignity. Romer, 517 U.S. at 633. Proposition 8 did not result from a legitimate “Kulturekampf” concerning the structure of families in California, because it had on effect on family structure, but in order to strike it down, we need not go so far as to find it was enacted in a “fit of spite.” Id. at 636 (Scalia, J.R, dissenting). It is enough to say that Proposition 8 operates with no apparent purpose but to impose on gays and lesbians, through the public law, a majority’s private disapproval of them and their relationships, by taking away from them the official designation of “marriage,” with its societally recognized status. Proposition 8 therefore violates the Equal Protection Clause.

This is a somewhat narrower ruling than Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling back in 2010, though not by much. However, because of the manner in which it is based on the specific facts that led to the passage of Proposition 8 and the rights already granted to gays and lesbians under California law, it’s the kind of decision that is unlikely to lead to a nationwide ruling the same-sex marriage even if it were to be ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court. At the most, it would appear that it would have the most immediate impact in states where civil unions are already recognized but same-sex marriage is not. In those states, the Court’s argument that there is no rational basis to withhold the label of “marriage” when state law already effectively grants homosexuals many of the legal rights of marriage but denies them the legal and social status of marriage itself. As the Court found in this case,  and there is of course much more to the ruling than the portion quoted above, there is no rational basis for what Proposition 8 did under any of the theories put forward by the proponents, partly because all it did was say that gays and lesbians couldn’t “marry” while preserving all the rights that California law grants to them many of which undercut the very arguments that the proponents were making.

When it comes to the many states where same-sex marriage is banned, largely be Constitutional Amendment at this point, and there are no same-sex civil unions though, this decision provides at most only half the argument a Plaintiff would need to strike such provisions down. The Court’s ruling that there is no rational basis to restrict the rights of marriage to only opposite-sex couples will be powerful ammunition for Plaintiff’s in those cases, of course. However it’s going to take a little more legal legerdemain to convince a Court to hold that same-sex marriage should be recognized as a right in states that have never recognized it or granted marriage-like rights to same-sex couples. Personally, I’m convinced that argument will be made and will succeed sooner rather than later, but it’s going to take more work than just relying on the decision in this case.

There are several paths forward from here. For practical purposes, it’s unlikely that the injunction on Judge Walker’s ruling allowing same-sex marriages in California will be lifted until all appeals have been exhausted so it will still be awhile before same-sex couples will again be allowed to marry in California. On the legal side of ledger, the proponents have two choices from here. They can appeal directly to the Supreme Court, or they could ask for an en banc hearing before the entire 9th Circuit on the hope that the full Court would reverse or limit the scope of the panel’s ruling. Both of those are within the discretion of the respective Courts, of course, so there’s no guarantee either request would be granted. In the case of the Supreme Court, for example, there may be a desire to avoid this topic given the other high profile cases the Court has accepted this term, and the manner in which this decision is limited largely to California may be one factor that allows them to do decline to hear the case. This issue will make it to the Supreme Court some day, of course, but that doesn’t necessarily have to happen immediately.

On the whole, it seems to me that the Court got this mostly right. Whether it holds up on appeal is something we’ll have to wait and see.

Here’s the decision:

Perry et al v. Brown et al

In a move that is likely to only drag it further into the culture wars, the Susan G. Komen Foundation has reversed its decision from earlier this week to cut off grants to Planned Parenthood:

(Reuters) – Susan G. Komen for the Cure said on Friday it was retreating from a decision to cut funding to Planned Parenthood, which provides abortion and birth control services, and apologized for a move that thrust the world’s largest breast cancer charity into a deeply politicized controversy.

Here’s the statement from Komen President Nancy Brinker:

We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives.The events of this week have been deeply unsettling for our supporters, partners and friends and all of us at Susan G. Komen. We have been distressed at the presumption that the changes made to our funding criteria were done for political reasons or to specifically penalize Planned Parenthood. They were not.

Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation. We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That is what is right and fair.

Our only goal for our granting process is to support women and families in the fight against breast cancer. Amending our criteria will ensure that politics has no place in our grant process. We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities.

It is our hope and we believe it is time for everyone involved to pause, slow down and reflect on how grants can most effectively and directly be administered without controversies that hurt the cause of women. We urge everyone who has participated in this conversation across the country over the last few days to help us move past this issue. We do not want our mission marred or affected by politics – anyone’s politics.

Starting this afternoon, we will have calls with our network and key supporters to refocus our attention on our mission and get back to doing our work. We ask for the public’s understanding and patience as we gather our Komen affiliates from around the country to determine how to move forward in the best interests of the women and people we serve.

We extend our deepest thanks for the outpouring of support we have received from so many in the past few days and we sincerely hope that these changes will be welcomed by those who have expressed their concern.

In the end, this strikes me as the wisest choice for Komen considering the amount of ire its decision hard garnered from longtime supporters and women’s health groups that have traditionally been Komen allies. At the same time, just as the decision earlier this week provoked an uprour on the left, I am betting that this decision will provoke an uproar on the right.

Update: Greg Sargent read the press release and questioned how much it actually committed to future Planned Parenthood funding, so he talked to a member of the Komen Board:

I just got off the phone with a Komen board member, and he confirmed that the announcement does not mean that Planned Parenthood is guaranteed future grants — a demand he said would be “unfair” to impose on Komen. He also said the job of the group’s controversial director, Nancy Brinker, is safe, as far as the board is concerned.

As some were quick to point out, the statement put out by Komen doesn’t really clarify whether Planned Parenthood will actually continue to get money from the group. The original rationale for barring Planned Parenthood was that it was under investigation (a witch-hunt probe undertaken by GOP Rep Cliff Stearns). Komen said today that the group would “amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political.”

Does that mean Planned Parenthood will get Komen grants in the future?

I asked Komen board member John Raffaelli to respond to those who are now saying that the announcement doesn’t necessarily constitute a reversal until Planned Parenthood actually sees more funding. He insisted it would be unfair to expect the group to commit to future grants.

“It would be highly unfair to ask us to commit to any organization that doesn’t go through a grant process that shows that the money we raise is used to carry out our mission,” Raffaelli told me. “We’re a humaniatrian organization. We have a mission. Tell me you can help carry out our mission and we will sit down at the table.”

Pushed on whether this means the new announcement wasn’t really a reversal, Raffaelli pushed back, arguing that Komen, in response to all the criticism, had removed politics from the grant-making process. “Is it really unclear that we’re changing the policy to address criticism?” he said.

So is it really a reversal? I suppose time will tell.

Outside of the Presidential campaign, the biggest controversy this week has erupted surrounding the decision of the Susan G. Komen Foundation to end certain funding for Planned Parenthood. The result has been that a charity that has built its brand on fighting breast cancer, something that everyone can agree on regardless of their political opinions, into the middle of the culture wars. The reaction has been about what you’d expect. On the right, the decision is being praised by pro-life advocates many of whom have called on supporters to increase donations to the Foundation as a sign of support. Among pro-choice advocates and supporters of Planned Parenthood, the reaction has been quite different, of course. Koman affiliates on the West Coast have openly opposed the decision, and one board member stepped down as a result of the decision. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has pledged to donate a quarter million dollars of his own money to Planned Parenthood. Two dozen Members of Congress signed a letter urging Komen to restore funding, and, this morning, The New York Times published an editorial describing the decision as “a painful betrayal.”

In attempting to justify the decision, one has to say that the spokesmen for Komen have been all over the place. Initially, they said that the decision was made as a result of Foundation policy that money would not be given to any organization under investigation. As it turns out, Planned Parenthood is under investigation by Republican Congressman Cliff Sterns over allegations by pro-life groups that it used government funds for abortions, which is forbidden by Federal law. There’s little evidence that the investigation has any merit, though, and it’s worth noting that this policy didn’t exist until very recently and is only being applied to Planned Parenthood. As several people noted online yesterday, Komen gives research funding to Penn State University, which is itself under investigation by two Federal agencies related to the Jerry Sandusky scandal. Those funds are apparently not going to be cut off, so the “under investigation” rule seems to be very flexible or very specifically directed.  Komen spokespeople have also claimed that part of the motivation for the decision was that Planned Parenthood doesn’t provide mammograms at its facilities, but instead refers patients to facilities where they can be obtained. Of course, that’s true for pretty much every doctor practicing medicine in the United States, very few of whom have the equipment to perform mammograms on-site.

Through all the explanations, though, there’s been the denial that Komen was specifically looking for a way to target Planned Parenthood. Jeffery Goldberg at The Atlantic, though, seems to suggest that the facts say otherwise:

Komen, the marketing juggernaut that brought the world the ubiquitous pink-ribbon campaign, says it cut off Planned Parenthood because of a newly adopted foundation rule prohibiting it from funding any group that is under formal investigation by a government body. (Planned Parenthood is being investigated by Representative Cliff Stearns, an anti-abortion Florida Republican, who says he is trying to learn if the group spent public money to provide abortions.)

But three sources with direct knowledge of the Komen decision-making process told me that the rule was adopted in order to create an excuse to cut off Planned Parenthood. (Komen gives out grants to roughly 2,000 organizations, and the new “no investigations” rule applies to only one so far.) The decision to create a rule that would cut funding to Planned Parenthood, according to these sources, was driven by the organization’s new senior vice president for public policy, Karen Handel, a former gubernatorial candidate from Georgia who is staunchly anti-abortion and who has said that since she is “pro-life, I do not support the mission of Planned Parenthood.” (The Komen grants to Planned Parenthood did not pay for abortion or contraception services, only cancer detection, according to all parties involved.) I’ve tried to reach Handel for comment, and will update this post if I speak with her.

If this is true, it is entirely inexplicable to me. I don’t understand why a charity like Komen would willingly inject itself into one of the most hotly contested and impossible to resolve issues in American history. One of the main reasons that the Foundation and its ubiquitous pink ribbon campaign (so ubiquitous that it was featured prominently in every NFL game in the month of October) has been so successful is because of universal appeal. Deliberately pissing off at least half the population by making a decision like this that was so obviously directed at Planned Parenthood specifically and then handling the PR part of it in such and ham-handed manner is a striking departure from what has been a finely-tuned operation. Was it Handel’s appointment as VP that led them down this road? Janice Brinker, who founded and still heads the foundation, denies that she played a role in the decision but the coincidence seems far too convenient to ignore. I’m not saying it was wrong to hire Handel, but why they would listen to advice that was so obviously political I don’t understand at all.

Megan McArdle defends the decision as being in the long term interest of the Foundation:

Goldberg clearly disapproves of the decision.  Though I’m pro-choice, I don’t share the outrage that was roiling my Twitter feed this morning.  It is, as Josh Barro noted, absurd to pretend that abortion is somehow incidental to Planned Parenthood’s services, and since money is fungible, giving them money is probably helping to fund abortion provision.  Since I think this is a very tough issue on which reasonable people can disagree, I can see why the federal government, and private foundations, would decline to fund their operations.

(…)

Susan G. Komen is part of the broad constellation of “women’s groups” that tend to hand together on various issues, including (maybe especially) abortion.  Why would they cut ties to a group that in past decades would have been a natural ally?

I’m tempted to credit shifting public opinion, but polling about abortion has been pretty stable over the last 15 years.  It could be a shift in the donor base, or the board itself.  Or perhaps it’s a more subtle shift in opinion.  While most people think that abortion should be legal, most people don’t support the current state of abortion law; polling seems to suggest that the majority either wants abortion to be illegal in all cases, or legal only in the first trimester–and even then, possibly only in the case of rape, incest, and the life of the mother.  A majority of people polled say that abortion is morally wrong.  And pro-life identification runs neck-in-neck with pro choice.

In that environment, you can see why an organization that does not itself have a mission to support abortion access would want to pull back from funding Planned Parenthood, even for related services.

I guess so, although again abortion is such a polarizing issue on both sides of the ball, something that seems to be becoming true about Planned Parenthood thanks to what can only be called a very effective attack campaign from the right. Wouldn’t it be better for a charity to simply take no position on an issue like this at all and only act in a manner that advances the cause it exists for?

That’s why I agree with Jazz Shaw when he calls this entire affair a tragedy:

We’ve taken a group which was singly and purely focused on preventing breast cancer – a malady which affects both “bad girls” and “good girls” alike – and dragged them into the political battlefield on a subject which they never sought to engage. The final result – no matter how you feel about abortion, Planned Parenthood, or any of the myriad soldiers involved – is that less money winds up going to fight a fully preventable disease afflicting women who cut across all political and ideological lines.

So for those who are doing an end zone dance this week over the decision made by Komen… I hope you’re proud of yourselves. I see no reason to celebrate.

I’d argue that the same thing has happened to Planned Parenthood, an organization that does far more than provide abortions. In fact, according to most reports abortion accounts for no more than 10% of the business that the organization does, the rest of it involves education and providing contraceptives and preventive heath care services (including early breast exams) to poor women in cities and rural areas. Thanks to the eternal culture war over abortion, though, they’ve been demonized and now Komen has too. That’s just sad all around.

Update: Komen is announcing this morning that it is reversing its decision and will restore all funding to Planned Parenthood. Prepare for a backlash from the pro-life crowd.

Photo via Pegasus News

During the lead up to the South Carolina Primary, there was some evidence of a growing problem for Newt Gingrich with female voters in the wake of the new allegations made by one of his ex-wives. As it turned out, no gender gap materialized in the South Carolina Exit Polls. That wasn’t true last night in Florida:

For the first time in the campaign, exit polls showed a gender gap, and it worked to Romney’s advantage.

He was leading Gingrich 51-28 among women voters and was winning men by a far smaller margin of 41-35.

Ominously for the thrice-married Gingrich, only about half of women voters said they had a favorable view of him as a person, compared to about eight in 10 for Romney.

If that continues in future contests, it’s hard to see how Gingrich would ever be able to pass Romney.

Barney Frank is marrying a dude, further proving just how gay he is.

The Hill (“Barney Frank to marry longtime partner“):

Retiring congressman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) will marry his longtime partner, Jim Ready.

Frank and Ready plan to wed in Massachusetts. Frank’s home state is one of six states, in addition to the District of Columbia, that permits gay marriage.

Frank announced in November that he would be retiring from Congress after 16 terms to pursue other opportunities. In 1987, Frank disclosed that he was gay, becoming the first openly gay member of Congress.

Ready and Frank have known each other since they met in 2005 at a fundraiser in Maine, and began a relationship in January of 2007 after Ready’s partner died. Ready works as a photographer and has a small buisness doing custom awnings, carpentry, painting, and welding according to Frank’s office.

Frank’s coming out of the closet in 1987 created a huge firestorm. At this point, though, this is really noteworthy only as a human interest story. Good luck to the happy couple.

Diana Wueger passes along word that, “Drinking water from a water bottle is among the lesser known challenges that come along with double-X chromosomes.”

I had been unaware but she provides substantial anecdotal evidence.

The Week (“Why gay men don’t get job interviews“):

Harvard researcher András Tilcsik wanted to know if employers discriminated against gay applicants, so he and his colleagues sent out two sets of fake résumés for 1,769 office or managerial job openings in seven states. One version of the résumé suggested that the applicant was gay. The other did not. Otherwise, they were all but identical. The results? The gay “applicant” was 40 percent less likely to get called in for an interview. The study, the first of its kind, appears in The American Journal of Sociology. Here’s what you should know:

How did Tilcsik indicate that one applicant was gay?
The “gay” résumé listed a stint as treasurer of a collegiate gay organization. To separate any “gay penalty” from general anti-liberal political bias on the employers’ part, Tilcsik listed involvement with a “progressive and socialist alliance” on the other set of résumés in place of the gay group. The apparently heterosexual lefty was contacted 11.5 percent of the time; the gay treasurer was called back only 7.2 percent of the time — a 40 percent hit.

What’s behind this double standard?

Geography played a pretty big role. Callback rates for the two résumés differed widely in Southern and Midwestern states — Texas, Florida, and Ohio — but were more equal in Western and Northeastern states: California, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and New York. “This doesn’t necessarily mean that there is no discrimination in those states,” Tilcsik says. “What this does show is that discrimination in white-collar employment is substantially stronger for the Southern and Midwestern states in the sample.”

This isn’t exactly shocking. Indeed, I’m shocked at the number of résumés I get that list affiliations with political activist groups of any stripe on them: it’s just asking to be put in the “REJECT” pile unless the position is with a similarly-aligned organization.

Then again, with so many people disclosing all manner of things that used to be intensely personal via social media, this may just be a fact of modern life:

But the study does suggest that it’s tough being “a proud gay man looking for a white-collar job in America,” says Jonathan Higbee in Instinct. Maybe gay men “need a bit of affirmative action.” Besides, given the ubiquitous use of social media by prospective employers and head-hunters, “being out and proud on a candidate’s Facebook profile” could negate any attempt to remove gay references from your résumé. Maybe this double standard is actually a “blessing in disguise,” says Daniel Villarreal at Queerty. Being preemptively rejected might at least protect gays from entering “a homophobic work environment.”

Despite the fact that I’ve been writing a political blog for going on nine years and sharing my thoughts on Twitter for nearly five, I’m still cognizant that everything I put up is subject to scrutiny. If you’re searching for a job, you should probably make sure your Facebook presence doesn’t raise any flags.  If you’re looking for a job in corporate America, you probably shouldn’t be dressed like South Park’s Mr. Slave in your profile picture.

While prudence is advisable in shaping your public image, you shouldn’t have to hide fundamental aspects of who you are. G-rated pictures of you and your significant other, for example, are not something that should hurt your chances of landing a job. Then again, most people make their accounts visible only to “friends,” anyway.

You think you’ve got it bad at work? Meet Trudy Nycole Anderson.

New York Daily News (“Woman sues boss for ‘Mini-skirt Monday’ dress code, claims she was sexually harassed for years“):

While many offices have dress codes, one Utah County woman claims her former employer crossed the line by trying to force her to follow a sexist schedule of attire including “Mini-skirt Monday.”

In a civil complaint filed last week in U.S. District Court, Trudy Nycole Anderson, 44, says her ex-supervisor Derek Wright sexually harassed her for years, even giving her a provocative memo dictating what she should wear for the week.

On top of “Mini-skirt Monday,” the schedule called for “Tube-top Tuesday,” “Wet T-shirt Wednesday,” “No bra Thursday” and “Bikini top Friday,” according to the Salt-Lake Tribune which obtained a copy of the complaint.

Wright, the owner of Lone Peak Controls and D&L Electric Control Company, was Anderson’s supervisor for nearly four years.

During that time, according to the complaint, he “repeatedly asked Ms. Anderson about her breast size and talked about her breasts in front of other employees.” She also claims he slapped her on the buttocks, asked her to expose her breasts, and taunted her about whether she shaved her pubic area, according to the Tribune. Wright regularly harassed her coworkers as well, Anderson says, and watched pornography in his office.

While I approve of his alliterative scheduling, this seems a bit over-the-top.

(I realize the story is somewhat old. A different version of it was inexplicably promoted beneath a Daily Beast report on Middle East policy that I was reading.)

Marcia Anderson has become the first African American woman to be promoted to a two star general in the US Army.

AP (“US Army selects 1st black female 2-star general“):

For Marcia Anderson, the promotion from brigadier general to major general validates the work of everyone who came before her.

Anderson on Thursday became the first African-American woman given a second star as a general in the U.S. Army during a ceremony at Fort Knox. It’s a day, Anderson said, that black soldiers who fought during the Civil War or the Tuskegee Airmen could never have imagined.

“But, they still signed up and served,” said Anderson, who lives in Verona, Wis., when not on active duty.

Anderson, who will leave her post as deputy commanding general of the Human Resources Command at Fort Knox on Friday, received the promotion after a three-decade long military career. She is moving to the office of the chief of the U.S. Army Reserve in Washington, D.C.

Anderson’s father, Rudy Mahan of Beloit, Wis., served in the U.S. Army Air Force during World War II, but never got to fulfill his dream of flying bombers. He drove trucks instead. It’s something Anderson attributes to the narrow options available to blacks at the time.

“There were just limited opportunities,” Anderson said in an interview after her promotion.

Her military career started almost by accident. When she was a student at Creighton University in Omaha, Neb., Anderson signed up for ROTC after being told the “military science” course would fill her science requirement.

“I pretty quickly found out it was much more than a substitute for gym class,” Anderson said.

Ahe stayed with the military, fulfilling her eight year commitment before deciding to re-enlist in the reserves. Anderson, an East St. Louis, Ill., native, said she was a captain, working on training soldiers “just off the street,” when it occurred to her it was a job she enjoyed and wanted to keep doing.

“Before there is a war fighter, there is a trainer,” Anderson said. “I get really excited about training soldiers. I think it’s the best job in the Army.”

What’s most interesting about this story is that we’ve come to the point where milestones like this are hardly newsworthy. (Indeed, only a handful of outlets have plucked this story off the AP wire as newsworthy as of this writing.)  We’ve had plenty of black generals; Colin Powell achieved the highest possible position in the United States armed forces, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, way back in 1989. We’ve also had plenty of women generals since Anna Mae Hays, chief of the Army Nurse Corps, broke the ceiling in 1970. Ann Dunwoody became the American military’s first female four-star in 2008. So, we’re now at the point of crossover milestones.

None of this diminishes Anderson’s personal achievement or diminishes the power of her family’s story. It’s just been a while since a black woman had reason to think that her gender or race were barriers to success in the American military.

The Army’s press release has more on her background:

Those who attended today’s proceedings were each “a witness to history,” said Lt. Gen. Benjamin Freakley, commanding general of the U.S. Army Accessions Command and Fort Knox, who co-hosted the ceremony with HRC commander Maj. Gen. Gina Farrisee.  ”We honor a leader, an officer, a lawyer, a wife, a mother and a grandmother — summed up, a great American,” Freakley said.

[...]

Anderson’s journey to becoming the Army’s first female African-American major general was made up of things that were largely unplanned. ”I firmly believe that we are never in control of very much,” she said. “The most we can do is have a set of values and beliefs, and adhere to them as closely as possible.” Anderson said she valued curiosity, tolerance and striving for excellence. ”Be a lifelong learner. Accept people for who they are. Accept change because it is inevitable,” she said. “Do not expect to be rewarded just because you show up on time, do what is expected of you and leave at the same time every day, because that is merely C-grade work.”

Anderson said she learned from peers and senior officers what it means to be a good leader, and she incorporated their advice into her personal leadership style: ”Good leadership is not about telling people what to do or how to do it — it is knowing how to listen, when to delegate, how to provide space and resources to your staff, making sure they get the praise for a job well done,” she said, “and that YOU take the responsibility when a plan fails.”

[...]
Anderson’s background sculpted her into the personable, successful woman she is today.

Anderson attended an all-girl Catholic school in East St. Louis, Ill. It fostered excellence in young women that might be otherwise masked in a co-ed educational environment. ”Going to an all-girl high school definitely formed part of who I am today. You weren’t trying to impress any boys. Excellence was valued. You were just doing what everybody else was doing. You were trying to excel,” she said. “The faculty every day encouraged you to excel, and you just did. There were a lot of great role models among the faculty — all very accomplished. They spent a lot of personal time with you.” Anderson said that experiencing that type of support leads to fulfilling your role models’ expectations. ”You want to validate their faith and confidence in you, and it makes you excel,” she said.

Family life, too, enhanced her search for knowledge. ”You were encouraged to be more aware of the world around you and curious. I never grew out of asking, ‘Why?’ The news was part of my house every evening. My mother took me to the library every Saturday,” Anderson said. Asking “Why are we doing that?” is still a big part of the way she does business, Anderson said.

As a child, Anderson was very shy. It was the Army that changed her. In her Reserve Officer Training Corps, or ROTC, course (which she only took to fulfill a science requirement), she was told, “Today, you’re the platoon leader,” and she had to starting talking to people. ”You couldn’t sit in the corner anymore and observe,” Anderson said.

A milestone in her personal development — going from shy to outgoing — was when a professor of hers told Anderson that if you’re giving the speech, you’re the subject-matter expert. ”You know more (about that subject) than anyone else in the room so don’t worry about it,” he said.  One by one, your life experiences make you who you are. ”You just get better and better,” Anderson said. “It’s not about the grades you get in school. It’s what you do with it AFTERWARD that counts.”

So far, so good.

Stephen Hill, a US soldier serving in Iraq, was booed by some members of the audience at last night’s Republican debate.

The Hill (“Gay soldier booed at GOP debate, candidates stay mum“):

Some members of the GOP debate audience booed a gay soldier who asked via video whether the Republican candidates would reinstitute the recently repealed “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy of banning openly gay soldiers.

After Stephen Hill, who is serving in the army in Iraq, asked his question, a handful members of the audience booed loudly. None of the Republican candidates responded to the audience’s reaction.

Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) answered that “Any type of sexual activity has no place in the military” and that he would return to the policy of requiring gays and lesbians to stay silent on their sexuality or get thrown out of the military. His response garnered loud applause.

When pressed with what he would do with soldiers who have now come out, he said “What we’re doing is playing social experimentation with our country right now and that’s tragic” but said that he would not throw out soldiers who have recently come out because of the policy’s end.

This is not the first time the Republican audience has had a controversial reaction during a GOP debate and the candidates have avoided addressing their reactions. At the last debate, when asked if a dying man who had not bought health insurance should be allowed to die, many in the audience clapped, cheered and shouted “yes.”

Mediaite (“Republican Debate Crowd Boos Steven Hill, Gay Soldier Serving In Iraq“):

At Thursday night’s Fox News/Google Republican Presidential Debate, the crowd was once again the star of an ugly moment. Moderator Megyn Kellyintroduced a question via Youtube from Stephen Hill, a soldier who’s currently serving in Iraq. When the man asked what the candidates would do about the US policy on gays in the military, like himself, several in the crowd booed loudly. When candidateRick Santorum replied that he would reinstate DADT, a thunderous ovation followed.

“Do you plan to circumvent the progress that has been made for gay and lesbian soldiers in the military?” Hill asked, to several loud boos, and silence from the rest of the crowd. There was no applause when his service to our nation was mentioned, and the crowd thunderously approved of Santorum’s answer, that he would reinstate “Don’t ask, don’t tell.”

It’s difficult to tell from the video how isolated the booing was:

Mediatite’s Tommy Christopher passes along Sarah Rumpf‘s first-hand account that “Only a few booed. Many shushed & hissed at booing.” There was indeed some stirring after the boos, so I’ll take her report as valid.

At any rate, I’m less concerned about the horrible reaction of a few yahoos than I am about the people vying to be the next commander-in-chief. One would hope that, regardless of their policy position on gays in the military, that they would at least have some respect for a soldier in a war zone and condemn the outrage of booing him. Then again, I don’t know what the acoustics of the room are; something audible on television, which relies on microphones throughout the room and careful processing by a production team, may not be audible on the stage.

Rick Santorum once again proved what a weird human being he is. Aside from the Mike Dukakis-like tone deafness of his response to the question being humanized rather than theoretical, the notion that  ”Any type of sexual activity has no place in the military” is simply bizarre.

GOProud says Santorum owes Hill an apology:

That brave gay soldier is doing something Rick Santorum has never done – put his life on the line to defend our freedoms and our way of life.  It is telling that Rick Santorum is so blinded by his anti-gay bigotry that he couldn’t even bring himself to thank that gay soldier for his service.

Stephen Hill is serving our country in Iraq, fighting a war Senator Santorum says he supports.  How can Senator Santorum claim to support this war if he doesn’t support the brave men and women who are fighting it?

As a tweet that’s making the rounds this morning puts it, “That wasn’t a “gay soldier” you booed last night; it was an AMERICAN SOLDIER.”

UPDATE: Dave Weigel, who also was reminded of Dukakis’ painful response to the “What if your wife were raped” question, has more background on this and says “A boo is not ‘a crowd booing.’” I think that’s right.

The more I think about this, the less it’s about a couple people booing a soldier asking a respectful question from a war zone than it is about Santorum and the crowd’s reaction to him. While those in attendance mostly reacted negatively to the despicable jerk(s) who booed Hill, they enthusiastically applauded Santorum’s nonsensical answer.

I’m repeatedly asked by commenters how it is I can continue to align myself with a party where such sentiments are so prevalent. I’ll likely write a longer piece on that at some point. The short answer is that, while I’ve grown further isolated from the rural, evangelical base of the party, I’m still closer to the party elites on policy issues than I am to the Democrats. We may have reached a turning point on that with the 2010 elections. Thus far, though, Republicans have nominated much more moderate figures for the presidency. My money is still on Mitt Romney, who I would likely support over President Obama, for 2012. (My preference would be Jon Huntsman, but that ain’t gonna happen.) If it’s Rick Perry, I’ll have a decision to make. Thankfully, Bachmann and Santorum appear to still be fringe candidates.

Ever since Steve Jobs’ decision to step down as CEO of Apple was announced, there’s been an undercurrent of discussion in some sectors of the media about whether certain facts about the private life of his successor are newsworthy. Within hours after it was announced that Tim Cook would succeed Jobs at the head of Apple, Felix Salmon was arguing that the media should not ignore the fact that he is, apparently, a homosexual:

Tim Cook is now the most powerful gay man in the world. This is newsworthy, no? But you won’t find it reported in any legacy/mainstream outlet. And when the FT’s Tim Bradshaw did no more than broach the subject in a single tweet, he instantly found himself fielding a barrage of responses criticizing him from so much as mentioning the subject. Similarly, when Gawker first reported Cook’s sexuality in January, MacDailyNews called their actions “petty, vindictive, and just plain sad.”

But surely this is something we can and should be celebrating, if only in the name of diversity — that a company which by some measures the largest and most important in the world is now being run by a gay man. Certainly when it comes to gay role models, Cook is great: he’s the boring systems-and-processes guy, not the flashy design guru, and as such he cuts sharply against stereotype. He’s like Barney Frank in that sense: a super-smart, powerful and non-effeminate man who shows that being gay is no obstacle to any career you might want.

One of the issues here is that most news outlets cover Cook as part of their Apple story, and Cook’s sexuality is irrelevant to his role at Apple. And so the other story — the fact that the ranks of big-company CEOs have just become significantly more diverse — is being overlooked and ignored. And that’s bad for the gay and lesbian community more broadly.

Salmon’s post generated much commentary from his readers, much of it negative, and Salmon defended his argument in a later post:0

There is nothing salacious about someone being straight, or being gay. Insofar as you think it’s salacious, that’s because you think that being gay is somehow naughty, or shameful. Is this an invasion of privacy? To a certain extent, yes. More people know more things about Tim Cook now than they did a few weeks ago. That’s what happens when you become the CEO of Apple.

In any public corporation, there’s a small number of people whose jobs are outward-facing, and at the top of the list is always the CEO. He’s the public face of the company; if you see a corporate profile on the cover of a glossy magazine, chances are it will be illustrated with a big picture of the CEO. If you don’t want your face splashed across the world’s media, then you shouldn’t be CEO of a massively valuable company which touches millions of people. Sometimes, as in the case of Mark Zuckerberg, entire movies — and not particularly accurate ones, either — are made about you and your personal life. Reporting that Tim Cook is gay is absolutely nothing, in the invasion-of-privacy stakes, compared to The Social Network. But CEOs, especially CEOs of public companies, are public figures. Their salaries are a matter of public knowledge. When you’re a public figure, you lose a certain amount of privacy. And the higher your profile rises, the more privacy you lose. Tim Cook knows that; he knows that it’s silly to expect to be the CEO of Apple without the world knowing that he’s gay. So let’s stop pretending that we’re not talking about this subject for his sake.

Regardless of why the media isn’t talking about it, it seems rather clear that Cook isn’t talking about it. It certainly can’t be because he’s feared for his job. California outlaws discrimination in the workplace based on sexual orientation, and Apple has a reputation for being among the most gay-friendly employers in the California technology community. Even though it isn’t something that he broadcasts, Cook’s sexual orientation is apparently common knowledge in that community. More importantly, it clearly hasn’t hurt his rise at Apple to the top position, an appointment filled with tremendous responsibility and symbolism simply because of who he is replacing.

Why should it matter, then, who, if anyone, he sleeps with when he goes home at night?

Steve Jobs has been a part of the business and technology world since the 1980s, and I didn’t know until I looked it up on Wikipedia that he was married and had four children, including one from a previous relationship. Outside of Melinda Gates, who has taken a public role as the head of her husband’s foundation, I couldn’t name a single family member of a prominent CEO, and I consider myself someone who is fairly well informed when it comes to business news and news in general. Clearly, the media doesn’t pay significant attention to the personal lives of these people. Why? Because it isn’t really relevant to their jobs. Why should Tim Cook be treated any differently simply because the gay community wants to force him to play the part of a role model, a role that he may not want to play?

I understand Salmon’s argument, but if Tim Cook choose to keep this part of his life private, then why is it any of our damn business?

Texas Governor Rick Perry, who will likely be announcing his candidacy for the Presidency within a month or so, is making news today for comments he made in an interview with the Manchester Union-Leader regarding same-sex marriage and its recent legalization in New York:

In a telephone interview, Perry, who chairs the Republican Governors Association, described himself as “a full-throated unapologetic fiscal conservative” and “an unapologetic social conservative” who is “pro-life” and “pro-traditional marriage.”

But while Texas has written into its constitution that marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman, he said New York’s recent decision to implement same-sex marriage “is New York’s prerogative.”

Perry made essentially the same statement in an interview with the Des Moines Register (noticing a pattern?):

Perry, who is considering running for president, at a forum in Colorado on Friday called himself an “unapologetic social conservative” and said he opposes gay marriage — but that he’s also a firm believer in the 10th Amendment, the Associated Press reported.

“Our friends in New York six weeks ago passed a statute that said marriage can be between two people of the same sex. And you know what? That’s New York, and that’s their business, and that’s fine with me,” he said to applause from several hundred GOP donors in Aspen, the AP reported.

“That is their call. If you believe in the 10th Amendment, stay out of their business.”

There is a certain appeal in this position for advocates of same-sex marriage in that, unlike many of the other Republican candidates for President, Perry doesn’t appear to favor a Federal Marriage Amendment that would place the definition of marriage in the Constitution, thus making it impossible for any state to permit same-sex couples to marry. Given the fact that Perry is poised to become a top tier candidate the moment he enters the race, and that he has credibility among the social conservative wing of the GOP that someone like Mitt Romney does not, it’s also easy to see this as what one blogger calls a “watershed moment” for the GOP, and what Adam Serwer calls a recognition of the fact that blanket opposition to same-sex marriage is no longer a viable issue for the GOP:

If Perry gets into the race, this kind of positioning could blunt the growing distaste for anti-gay discrimination among American voters. In a general election, it could make him more palatable to those with conservative views who aren’t willing to countenance anti-gay bigotry. One could argue that, although President Barack Obama’s position on same-sex marriage is “evolving,” that absent the Tenth Amendment argument, Obama’s stated position on marriage equality is only somewhat to the left of Perry’s. In the aftermath of the passage of New York’s marriage equality law, Obama said that “Each community is going to be different and each state’s going to be different.”

On the right, Jennifer Rubin and Alana Goodman see a position like Perry’s as something that could potentially be palatable to both social conservatives and the more socially liberal elements of the GOP. It’s also a position that could potentially appeal to younger voters for whom the GOP’s stance on issues like homosexual rights is pretty alien.

At the same time, though, there’s something about this 10th Amendment approach to same-sex marriage that’s incomplete.

For one thing, it ignores the issues of how the law ought to handle American citizens who are legally married in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage and then move (or travel) to a state where same-sex marriage is illegal. Under current law, specially Section Two of the Defense of Marriage Act, their marriage is invalid as soon as they cross the state line, and whatever rights they might have as a marriage couple (including rights related to hospital visitation, or the right to make medical decisions when the other partner is incapacitated) no longer exist. Would Perry agree that this is an impermissible intrusion on both individual liberty and the Full Faith and Credit Clause? Even if one agrees that the 10th Amendment means that a state does not have to license same-sex marriages, that should not mean that it would be permitted to refuse to recognize a validly performed marriage from a sister state.

Another issue the 10th Amendment argument ignores the Supreme Court’s clear holding in Loving v. Virginia 388 U.S. 1 (1967):

The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888)

If marriage is a fundamental personal right, then clearly the 10th Amendment does not give the individual states the right to violate the same without reason. As Judge Vaughn Walker noted in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, there simply is no rational basis for prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying:

Proponents’ argument that tradition prefers opposite-sex couples to same-sex couples equates to the notion that opposite-sex relationships are simply better than same-sex relationships. Tradition alone cannot legitimate this purported interest. Plaintiffs presented evidence showing conclusively that the state has no interest in preferring opposite-sex couples to same-sex couples or in preferring heterosexuality to homosexuality. See FF 48-50. Moreover, the state cannot have an interest in disadvantaging an unpopular minority group simply because the group is unpopular. Moreno, 413 US at 534.

(…)

In the absence of a rational basis, what remains of  proponents’ case is an inference, amply supported by evidence in the record, that Proposition 8 was premised on the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples. FF 78-80. Whether that belief is based on moral disapproval of homosexuality, animus towards gays and  lesbians or simply a belief that a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women, this belief is not a proper basis on which to legislate. See Romer, 517 US at633; Moreno, 413 US at 534; Palmore v Sidoti, 466 US 429, 433 (1984) (“[T]he Constitution cannot control [private biases] but neither can it tolerate them.”).

(…)

Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to  deny rights to gay men and lesbians. The evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples. FF 76, 79-80; Romer, 517 US at 634 (“[L]aws of the kind now before us raise the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected.”). Because Proposition 8 disadvantages gays and lesbians without any rational justification, Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Finally, there’s the entire concept of “states rights” itself. It’s a concept with a checkered history, mostly associated with racial segregation and secession. It has little support in the law. And, as Stephen Green noted in a post last year, its an idea that is entirely incompatible with individual liberty:

We need to give up this notion of “states’ rights.” First of all, it’s in bad taste. The phrase used to be code for “Jim Crow.” And while I’m certain that’s not true for 99% of us, we can — and should — do better than to emulate vile racists. Secondly, however, “states’ rights” is a misnomer. It’s an impossible thing. It doesn’t exist, and shouldn’t.

Let me explain.

I remember reading once somewhere that:

All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

In other words, individuals have rights, and governments are instituted with powers to protect those rights, and are (or ought to be) restricted from abusing them.

With me so far? Individuals have rights; governments have powers.

As Green goes on to point out, the ongoing tension between the state and Federal governments was instituted to protect individual liberty not to give some amorphous entity called a “state” rights over it’s citizens. In fact, the Constitution specifically provides the Federal Government with the power to step in when the states step over the line:

One of the tensions that exists between Washington and the states is that Washington has the duty — the power — to “guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” And when a particular state government discriminates against 20, 30, 40% of its citizens, then it’s no stretch to argue that that state no longer enjoys a republican form of government. At least not how republicanism is properly understood in this country.

More importantly, we fought a war that pretty much resolved the issue of state’s rights, and afterwords passed an amendment that significantly altered the relationship between the states and the federal government. Whatever the “rights” of the states may have been before the ratification of the 14th Amendment, they were significantly cut back by it’s adoption. So it is pointless to talk about the 10th Amendment in a vacuum as if the 14th Amendment doesn’t exist.

Green closes out with the most important point:

States don’t have rights. Individuals do. It’s time we went about the business of restoring those rights, without alienating a huge constituency which suffered too long without them.

In the end, the states rights appeal on the same-sex marriage issue is a rear-guard action by opponents of the idea who realize that they are losing the battle. By hitching their wagon to the “states rights” mantra, it  seems to me, they hope to turn their anti-gay bigotry into an appeal to democracy despite the fact that, in the end, individual liberty is not defined by majority rule. Politically, this is a way to step away from the same-sex marriage debate without looking like they’re in full retreat. In reality, though, the direction of society is clear.

A rousing debate in the comments section of my post “Al Franken Distorts CDC Study to Claim Distortion of Study” has convinced me that I was uncharitable to Franken. Having been introduced to the exchange by a post about how Franken “absolutely destroyed” Focus on the Family’s Tom Minnery, I focused too narrowly on the factual point in dispute in the video clip rather than on the larger argument being made.

Franken essentially called Minnery a liar for using a CDC report to claim that children are better off living with a married mother and father than any other form when in fact the study in question found that “nuclear families,” not those with a mother and father, were ideal. This struck me as a definitional dispute and I pointed out at some length that, since the CDC definition of “nuclear family” required that the parents be married and, since same-sex marriage was not legally permitted anywhere in the United States during the first half of the study period and permitted only in tiny Massachusetts during the second half, this was a distinction without meaning.

But Franken’s indirectly stated point was that Minnery introduced the study–in a hearing on whether to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act–to demonstrate that opposite-sex families were better at raising children than same-sex families. The study showed no such thing; it didn’t look at that question at all.

While the specific claim that Franken accosted Minnery for making was technically correct as a standalone sentence–which is how I was viewing it here–it was not correct in the context of the testimony.

Further, while an intelligent amateur could reasonably and honestly make the mistake of reading a finding that nuclear families are ideal as saying therefore same-sex families are less than ideal, I’m hard pressed to see how someone who heads up the political wing of a group focusing on the family could do so without being either unintelligent or dishonest.

So, while Franken didn’t frame the argument in the way I would have, he was right both in his analytic point and his characterization of Minnery.

The ban on gays openly serving in the military will end in September, nine months after President Obama signed the repeal into law.

WSJ (“Military Gay Ban to End in 60 Days“):

Top Pentagon leaders will notify Congress as early as Friday that the Defense Department is ready to end the ban on gays serving openly in the military, officials said, a landmark moment after almost two decades of controversy.

The action means the ban will formally disappear in late September. The next step for the military is to resolve lingering questions, such as what benefits same-sex couples will receive.

While the military will be free to provide some services to same-sex spouses, such as family support for spouses of deployed service members, federal law blocks it from providing them the full range of health, housing and education benefits available to opposite-sex couples.

Under a law passed late last year by Congress, the repeal of the 1993 “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law will go into effect 60 days after the secretary of defense and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify that military readiness won’t be harmed by the repeal of the ban. Spokesmen for Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, declined to comment Thursday.

On July 6, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the military to halt enforcement the ban, which has halted discharges under the policy and prevented recruiters from turning away openly gay recruits. On July 15, the court modified its ruling, but prohibited the Defense Department from discharging any gay or lesbian service members. Gay-rights advocates have advised service members not to reveal their sexual identity until the ban is formally repealed.

I never cease to be annoyed that these stories frame the debate as if the ban on gays in the military started with DADT. In fact, DADT was a softening of existing policy. President Bill Clinton intended to lift the ban outright and suffered enormous public backlash and a near-mutiny of the military brass. DADT was a compromise. The “Don’t Ask” part was intended to be the key: Military officials were no longer allowed to inquire about a soldier or prospective soldier’s sexual orientation. Unfortunately, the “Don’t Tell” part became more important, creating witch hunts.

It’s worth noting that I was among those outraged by Clinton’s attempt to end the ban and deeply concerned that the integration of homosexuals into the force would damage unit cohesion and fighting esprit. I was wrong.

It’s possible, though, that an outright lifting of the ban on gays in 1992 would have created upheaval. American attitudes about homosexuality have changed radically in the intervening period; it’s the most rapid shift on fundamental values that I’ve witnessed. Indeed, my own views have changed with, and probably ahead of, those of society at large.

Regardless, while still more conservative than their non-military cohort, young soldiers now regard homosexuality as a simple fact of life and see no reason why gays can’t serve. Indeed, they were well ahead of the brass on this one.