Gay rights update

Senate set to vote on repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell':

The Senate is expected to vote Wednesday to consider legislation to repeal the ban on gay personnel in the military -- possibly the last chance in the foreseeable future to end the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the face of GOP opposition.

Democratic leaders are working to reach an agreement with Senate Republicans to allow more time to debate the broader defense authorization bill that would include repeal of the ban. Several GOP senators have indicated that they support the repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, but need ample time for debate on the underlying defense legislation.

A chief sponsor of repealing the ban, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) has said the Senate should remain in session through the holiday season to pass the bill, which he calls the key civil rights issue of this era.

Listen to McCain (Mrs.):

In two days of “don’t ask, don’t tell” hearings, senators discussed the knotty issue of whether gays and straights in the military could shower together without losing battles. Once again, the Democrats waited too long to close the deal, the president showed no leadership, and a campaign promise that was seen as a fait accompli now seems a casualty.

Even after a Pentagon report showing that most troops and their families think that allowing gays and lesbians to be themselves would not be a big deal, even after the defense secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff urged the Senate to repeal the law that demands dishonesty, Democrats were still fending off a snarling John McCain and a few unreconstructed Southerners.

Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the committee, was eager to show that a gay soldier could be just as lethal as a straight one. He read a quote from the Pentagon report: “As one Special Operations force warfighter told us, ‘We have a gay guy [in the unit]. He’s big, he’s mean, and he kills lots of bad guys. No one cared that he was gay.’ ”

...

In yet another ludicrous bit of goal-post shifting, McCain said it wasn’t enough that the top two leaders of the military, and many of the troops, favored repeal. Now he wants to hold 13 hearings and solicit the views of senior enlisted personnel around the world, even though, as the Army chief, Gen. George Casey Jr., dryly informed the panel, the military is not a democracy. The five service chiefs agreed that, if asked, they could successfully carry out the changes.

It’s unclear why McCain is being so stubborn and stalling, particularly when those closest to him — his wife, his daughter and his cloakroom buddy Joe Lieberman — have all boldly spoken out on behalf of gays in the military.

It seems a sore point at home: Meghan McCain said the topic would be off-limits at Thanksgiving. And Lieberman, following an indignant McCain on the panel Thursday, asserted, “It’s just wrong and un-American to discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation.”

Marriage and the court of public opinion:

In 1948, the idea of interracial marriage in the United States was almost unimaginable. The few polls on this topic at the time showed that Americans were nearly unanimous in their disapproval of it.

There is little evidence that Californians felt any different. Yet that year saw the legalization of interracial marriage in California — not because voters approved it or because legislators supported it but because California's courts ruled that banning it violated the U.S. Constitution.

...

In Perez vs. Sharp, the California Supreme Court ushered in a change that feels absolutely normal today. But at the time, the decision was unpopular. Nevertheless, it was soon followed by legal actions in more than a dozen states that ultimately rejected laws prohibiting interracial marriage.

Eventually — nearly 20 years later — the U.S. Supreme Court also refused to bow to public opinion and, in its landmark Loving vs. Virginia decision, invalidated all remaining race-based marriage laws, most of them in Southern states. As in California, the ruling preceded public sentiment. Even in 1967, when the court issued its decision, only one-fifth of Americans approved of interracial marriage. Yet public opinion soon changed, in large part as a result of the court decision.

It is fitting that the most anticipated present-day court case on marriage equality is again taking place in California. On Tuesday, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will hear Perry vs. Schwarzenegger. As has been widely reported and debated, this time the question of marriage equality is whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

Prop 8 Hearing Adjourned. What's Next for Same-Sex Marriage?

What is next for the state of same-sex marriage in California? It is likely the case will move ahead, possibly all the way to the Supreme Court. "Legal experts say a decision could be at least a month away, if not longer,"notes KTLA. "The ruling could then be appealed to a larger panel of the 9th Circuit and up to the U.S. Supreme Court."