Originally posted by me in the GW Discourse blog.

“God’s war has just started. Shame on them. We’re going to get to the ballot box through either the courts or the Congress. So tell everyone: Don’t let the marriage licenses start flowing.” – Bob King, community activist against same-sex marriage in DC, as quoted in the Washington Post.

After a year of debate in the DC City Council, Mayor Fenty signed DC’s same-sex marriage bill on December 18, 2009. The bill needs to pass a 30-day Congressional review period before becoming law, but despite strong opposition from the religious community, the bill is expected to survive the review period and legalize same-sex marriage in DC in the coming months.

The biggest threat to this bill originally came from the Catholic Church. The Archdiocese of Washington announced on November 11 that they would refuse to continue their social service programs in the District if this bill passed. Although DC’s marriage bill does not require religious organizations to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies, it would require religious groups to follow DC’s anti-discrimination laws. In a highly controversial move, the Archdiocese argued that they would rather pull Catholic Charities from DC than pay employee benefits to same-sex spouses.

A month later, the Church seemed less willing to take such an extreme position. Recently, the Archdiocese’s officials have announced that they will be continuing their social service contracts in the nation’s capital. It is unclear in what capacity Catholic Charities will remain in the District, and whether they intend to abide by anti-discrimination laws. Some claim this announcement is merely a political maneuver, and that the Church will keep charities in DC in order to ignore anti-discrimination laws and be challenged by the DC City Council. This way, removal of Catholic Charities will be blamed on the government instead of on the church.

The other major concern is whether this bill could survive a ballot initiative. Opponents of the bill have sued the city in order to get a ban on same-sex marriage on the ballot, but city lawyers and officials are urging judges to throw out this case. According to the Washington Post, lawyers in the District believe a ballot initiative would be illegal, violating DC’s Human Rights Act by discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. Proponents of same-sex marriage are fearful of this bill reaching the ballot, since attempts to pass marriage via ballot initiative have failed 31 out of 31 times. Whether or not this debate ends up on the ballot, religious groups in Washington will certainly continue their standoff against the government in order to prevent same-sex marriage.

Originally posted by me in the GW Discourse blog.

Earlier this year, Maine’s legislature passed same-sex marriage, and the law was signed by Governor Baldacci. Six months later, Maine’s ballot initiative (Prop 1) banning same-sex marriage was approved by 53% of voters.

Attempting to legalize same-sex marriage through public vote is essentially fighting a losing battle. 31 out of 31 states that have put this issue the ballot have succeeded in banning same-sex marriage. But, to put it simply, Maine was supposed to be different. Maine is a libertarian state, geographically close to states that have legalized same-sex marriage through their legislatures. More importantly, proponents of same-sex marriage fought an excellent fight. They learned from the mistakes they made last year, when California passed Prop 8, and invested an incredible amount of money, time, and effort into the Maine campaign.

Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage,the leading conservative Christian group against same-sex marriage, released the following comments about Maine:

Maine is one of the most secular states in the nation. It’s socially liberal. They had a three-year head start to build their organization, and they outspent us two to one. If they can’t win there, it really does tell you the majority of Americans are not on board with this gay marriage thing.

Gallagher has a point. If the LGBT community lost the battle in a place like Maine, how can they hope to win anywhere?

But the failure in Maine may not be as telling as it seems. First of all, voter turnout in Maine for this election was nearly 50%. This was extraordinarily high for a non-presidential election, but it still means that the views less than half of Maine’s electorate were accounted for. More importantly, only the views of certain groups were accounted for.

As young, politically minded individuals, we are unhappily aware of the fact that our fellow young people are highly unlikely to vote. A Gallup poll from May 2009 shows that the 18-29 age group is by far the most likely to support same-sex marriage. 59% of America’s youth believe in recognizing same-sex marriage. This is the only age group that has majority support for same-sex marriage, and it is the least represented in the government. Perhaps if youth voter turnout was higher, same-sex marriage would have a shot at passing. But until we can convince our peers to participate in politics, same-sex marriage doesn’t have much of a chance of winning over the public vote.

(Originally posted by me in the GW Discourse blog.)

Ever since Matthew Shepard was brutally murdered in Wyoming in 1998 because of his homosexuality, LGBT rights groups have worked towards passing a federal Hate Crimes Prevention Act. 2009 saw the passage of this groundbreaking piece of legislation, named for Shepard and James Byrd, an African-American man who was murdered in 2005 because of his race. The Hate Crimes Prevention Act allows the federal government to provide money and resources to states that are not equipped to adequately prosecute hate crimes. It also allows the Department of Justice and the FBI to take over hate crimes investigations if states refuse to prosecute these crimes. Sexual orientation and gender identity (in addition to many other classes, such as race and gender) are both protected by this act.

This was a long-awaited achievement for the LGBT community, but there are problems that this law does not solve. First of all, states still need to be influenced to strengthen their own hate crimes legislation. Regardless of federal law, police officers in states with weak enforcement of state hate crime laws may refuse to report incidents as hate crimes due to their own prejudices, thereby minimizing the punishment that the attacker could receive.

Furthermore, even though gender identity is included in the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, the transgender community still does not have adequate protection, particularly in prisons. When trans-women (persons born male who have transitioned, via hormones, surgery, or both, to female) are placed into male prison facilities, they are obviously at high risk for sexual assault and other types of attacks because of their female appearance. Modern prison systems struggle with how to deal with the trans issue. The government is uncomfortable with recognizing transgendered persons as their “new” gender, as it complicates their normative view of gender as dichotomous and unchanging. But today, trans-women with female genitalia are still legally allowed to be placed in cells with male convicted rapists, and other felons with a history of sexual assault. Some prisons “solve” this problem by isolating trans prisoners, but this is just a different kind of discrimination on the basis of gender identity. Until the prison systems accept transgender persons as the gender they choose to present as, the transgender community will continue to suffer.

But the question still remains: Where should prisons place people who are still in the process of transitioning from one gender to another? If a person has breast implants, female hormones, and male genitalia, should they be placed in a male or female facility, or isolated from their peers? How can we better protect them, and the rest of the transgender community, from vicious hate crimes?

(Originally posted by me in the GW Discourse blog, http://www.gwdiscourse.com).

I’d like to take an in-depth look at what the LGBT community has seen this year, what promises have been fulfilled, what’s gone wrong, and what’s to come in the future. Today I’ll begin with Iowa, but keep your eyes on our blog and look out for more posts on what we’ve seen regarding LGBT rights in 2009. Future posts to come on New York and New Jersey, and other LGBT issues such as hate crimes and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

It’s not completely shocking when socially liberal strongholds like Massachusetts and Vermont legalize same-sex marriage. But in April of 2009, the Iowa Supreme Court surprised America by allowing gays and lesbians in the American Heartland the right to marry.

The question is, how did the LGBT community win the unanimous support of a court with several self-proclaimed conservatives and Republicans, especially on this issue? Lambda Legal argued on behalf of same-sex marriage in Varnum v. Brien (the case which granted marriage in Iowa). Their legal team spent nine years prepping for this case, and chose their plaintiffs carefully. They defended six same-sex couples, three of whom had children, and all of whom were in lengthy, committed relationships. Couples with children can make all the difference in cases like this. It’s much easier to show that same-sex marriage does not destroy families and children, but actually supports them, when the plaintiffs have families. They also mollified conservative fears by including a religious accommodations clause, which stated that religious institutions are not legally required to perform or recognize Iowa’s same-sex marriages.

And although we think of Iowa as a typical midwestern state, it historically has never behaved quite like the rest of the heartland. Iowa was one of the first states to allow women’s suffrage and interracial marriage. Interracial marriage cases are often referenced in same-sex marriage cases, so perhaps it is not so surprising that this year’s biggest same-sex marriage victory took place in Iowa. It has a unique history of civil rights liberalism that should not be ignored.

Will this decision last? Some states, like California and Hawaii, passed same-sex marriage in the courts, but then rescinded it through ballot initiatives or the legislature. Luckily for the gay and lesbian community, this is unlikely to happen in Iowa. Citizens cannot initiate a change in the Iowa constitution. In order to remove same-sex marriage, the Iowa legislature would have to vote for it in two consecutive legislative sessions, and then it would be voted upon by the public. It looks as if Varnum v. Brien is here to stay.

What can we learn from Iowa? First of all, don’t underestimate the importance of the image couples you are representing. Bringing forward families instead of couples speaks volumes to the courts. Second, we need to take another look at social liberalism in this country and figure out where LGBT support really lies. Most of us would never have believed that Iowa would have same-sex marriage while California does not. (We’ll delve further into this issue when we take a look at Maine, NY, and NJ). Finally, although this case is under the Iowa Supreme Court, and therefore other state Supreme Courts are not required to follow this precedent, the Varnum court determined that laws prohibiting same-sex marriage failed at the intermediate scrutiny level. They found that the law was not substantially related to an important government interest, and therefore it violated the Iowa Constitution. Again, other courts are not forced to uphold this, but it will be interesting to see how this precedent affects other courts and challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act.