Editorial Of The Day

From the editorial board of the New York Times:

Some same-sex marriage opponents argue that under state religious-freedom laws, a government employee’s beliefs should be accommodated so long as another official is available to carry out the task. But government employees do not have a constitutionally protected right to pick and choose which members of the public they will serve, no matter their religious beliefs. Not so long ago, of course, government officials invoked religious beliefs to justify all manner of racial segregation and discrimination, including laws banning interracial marriage. The Supreme Court struck down that marriage ban in 1967 in Loving v. Virginia. It is impossible to imagine any county clerk or judge now claiming a right not to marry an interracial couple based on religious beliefs. And yet, that would be analogous to what these public employees are doing in refusing to serve same-sex couples. The Constitution’s protection of religious freedom simply does not include the right to discriminate against others in the public sphere.

Photo is mine.

Editoral Of The Day

From the editorial board of the Sacramento Bee:

Delusional causes are no strangers to California’s initiative process. Outlawing divorce, criminalizing campaign lies, mandating Christmas caroling for public school children — all of these have been tried. Right now, anyone with $200 can submit an idea to the attorney general, who then must draft a title and summary for the measure.

It’s an unnecessarily low first hurdle. Intended to cover the costs of analyzing and verifying petitions, the fee hasn’t changed since 1943. The idea has been to preserve access for ordinary Californians. But $200 today is the equivalent of $14.80 in 1943 dollars. No group with plans to affect 39 million people needs that kind of steep discount.

If lawmakers had done no more than insist on constant dollars, the fee would by now be about $2,700, which still is only about a third of the administrative cost of preparing a title and summary. The fee should be raised. Meanwhile, Californians should channel their outrage. McLaughlin still needs 365,880 signatures to get this hate crime on the ballot, so don’t sign.

Then, next November, take a step that no one will regret: Show up at the polls. These signature thresholds for initiatives are calculated according to turnout; the higher the participation, the harder it is for kooks and sociopaths to get traction. Maybe this “Sodomite Suppression Act” would have stayed where it belongs, in the realm of delusion, if more of us had voted last time.

Editorial Of The Day

From the editorial board of AL.com:

History is often not kind to the state of Alabama when it judges our performance on the national stage. On Monday, we all have the chance to get one right. The history of Feb. 9, 2015, in Alabama has yet to be written, but this we know: on this day, same-sex marriage becomes legal in Alabama. Same-sex couples, no doubt, will arrive at courthouses statewide to apply for marriage licenses. It will be a day of celebration for some, a disappointing, even fearful day for others. Monday will also be a day to show patience. This process is new for all involved and employees in counties throughout the state are being asked to do things they've not done before. There will be bumps in the road and mistakes will be made. How we handle those mistakes will be what ultimately ensures fairness for all. It is unreasonable to ask people to turn their back on deeply-held beliefs regarding marriage. This does not give us an excuse, however, to abandon other deeply-held convictions regarding how we treat our neighbors.

Editorial Of The Day

From the editorial board of the Birmingham News:

Some argue that when the Declaration and Constitution were written, the framers did not conceive that their notion of rights extended to gay men and women, and marriage. No doubt true. For many at that time, such thinking did not even extend to equality for America's black citizens. But when America moved to right that wrong, Alabama stayed on the wrong side of history for too long (and our own 1901 state constitution purported to forbid interracial marriage until 2000, long after that had been rendered unenforceable by the Supreme Court.) Alabama should consider whether it wishes to be in that place again. Times change, and the notion that laws should be interpreted within the nature of those times is also part of America's Constitution. The first words of the Declaration of Independence are: "When in the course of human events..." In the course of human events, it is time for gay men and women in America to stand equal. Laws that impede this are not in line with our Constitution, and must fall.

Some commenters at the above link are vowing to cancel their subscriptions.

Editorial Of The Day

From the editorial board of the New York Times:

Justice Antonin Scalia, who has voted against constitutional protections for gays and lesbians at every opportunity, foresaw this moment more than a decade ago, when the court reversed its own precedent and banned state anti-sodomy laws.

In the 2003 case of Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Kennedy wrote that the Constitution protects “adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex.” The opinion said it was not deciding the question of same-sex marriage, but Mr. Scalia begged to differ. If states may not use laws to express moral disapproval of homosexual conduct, he wrote in dissent, “what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising the liberty protected by the Constitution?”

Precisely.

The 12 years since 2003 have seen enormous social change on this issue. Before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court legalized same-sex marriage in November 2003, no state permitted such marriages. Today, 36 states do, along with the District of Columbia — representing more than 70 percent of all Americans. A solid and growing majority now believes in marriage equality; among those 18 to 29, support is at nearly 80 percent.

For same-sex couples and their families, friends and communities, this moment has been a long time coming. The justices have the power and the responsibility to give meaning to the promises embedded in the Constitution, and end the exclusion and inequality of gays and lesbians in America.

Editorial Of The Day

From the editorial board of the New York Times:

Until last week, Kelvin Cochran was the chief of the Atlanta fire department, where he oversaw a work force of more than 1,000 firefighters and staff. He was fired on Jan. 6 by Atlanta’s mayor, Kasim Reed, for homophobic language in the book, “Who Told You That You Were Naked?” Among other things, he called homosexuality a “perversion,” compared it to bestiality and pedophilia, and said homosexual acts are “vile, vulgar and inappropriate.”

Mr. Cochran had already been suspended for a month in November for distributing the book to staff members. Following an internal investigation, the mayor did the right thing and dismissed Mr. Cochran for what he called poor judgment: specifically, for failing to get approval for the book’s publication, for commenting publicly on his suspension after being told not to, and for exposing the city to possible discrimination lawsuits.

It should not matter that the investigation found no evidence that Mr. Cochran had mistreated gays or lesbians. His position as a high-level public servant makes his remarks especially problematic, and requires that he be held to a different standard. The First Amendment already protects religious freedom. Nobody can tell Mr. Cochran what he can or cannot believe. If he wants to work as a public official, however, he may not foist his religious views on other city employees who have the right to a boss who does not speak of them as second-class citizens.

Hate groups will rally at the Georgia Capitol Building this afternoon in support of Cochran's alleged right to proselytize at the workplace and hand out anti-gay rants to his subordinates.

Editorial Of The Day

From the editorial board of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

Just like that, Missouri became the 33rd state in the nation (along with the District of Columbia) to recognize the fundamental right of marriage equality, regardless of sexual orientation. This is a victory for freedom that should be celebrated. So, too, should the fact that [Attorney General] Koster appealed the ruling.

It’s not because he disagrees with the judge — he does not. Mr. Koster has made it clear he supports constitutional protections for gay and lesbian couples to have the same access to marriage, and the civil benefits allowed in the law, as heterosexual couples. But in the aftermath of Judge Burlison’s ruling, only the city of St. Louis, and St. Louis County, began immediately processing marriage licenses for gay couples. Most other counties in the state are taking a “wait-and-see” approach.

Therefore, the appeal to the Missouri Supreme Court is necessary so that the freedoms taken in by four St. Louis couples in June, and numerous others on Wednesday and Thursday in the city of St. Louis, can be shared by gay couples who live elsewhere in Missouri. The hope here is that the Supreme Court takes up the case quickly. Its conclusion is not in doubt.

Editorial Of The Day

From Montana's Great Falls Tribune:

One after another, federal appeals courts, including the 9th Circuit that covers Montana, have thrown out gay marriage bans in other states, and Montana’s position will be overturned. Why? Because that stance discriminates against gays, lesbians and others. It is unfair to these folks, regardless of some Americans who disapprove of their sexual orientation. The issue of homosexuality and marriage was easier to deal with when some researchers and, frankly, charlatans tried to prove that people could be cured of their gay nature. In recent decades, science indicates that sexual orientation is more likely to be based in a person’s genetic makeup.

U.S. District Judge Brian Morris will hear arguments Nov. 20 on a motion for summary judgment in a case filed this spring by four gay couples. We’d like to see [AG Tim] Fox at that hearing accept the inevitable and agree with the motion. It’s time for the state of Montana to quit wasting taxpayers’ money and to accept gay marriage in Montana, even if churches can go their own way on this matter. Some people still want to make political points with this issue, but we say, it’s too late for that. It’s all over. Montana law should allow people committed to each other, whether straight or gay, to make their relationship legal and lasting.

(Tipped by JMG reader Sarah)

Editorial Of The Day

The Charlotte News-Observer has taken a swipe at North Carolina House Speaker Thom Tillis over his opposition to enacting same-sex marriage. Tillis is attempting to unseat US Sen. Kay Hagan.

Write the check, Mr. Tillis. If you want to continue North Carolina’s defense of its same-sex marriage ban, even after the U.S. Supreme Court implicitly rejected it and other bans Monday, have at it. If you want to keep fighting a fight that for all practical and legal purposes has been decided, go for it. But pay for it. Don’t spend North Carolina’s money doing so. Don’t waste tax dollars on outside attorneys that N.C. lawmakers have said you can use to intervene “on behalf of the General Assembly” in legal challenges of state laws. That’s apparently what you’re planning, given your reaction Monday to the Supreme Court’s decision to let stand lower court rulings striking down same-sex marriage bans. One of those rulings, on a Virginia law, came from the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. That decision applies to North Carolina, too.

In other words, Mr. Tillis: It’s over. You can disagree with the Supreme Court, but you should follow the lead of your attorney general Roy Cooper, who recognizes the legal futility of fighting. Better yet, look to your governor, Pat McCrory, who told reporters Monday that while he didn’t like the justices’ decision, he believes he must respect it. Any other course is a waste of time. It’s an irresponsible use of state resources. It’s a cynical play for conservative votes in your U.S. Senate race. It’s one last slap at homosexuals in North Carolina. It’s not, however, something that N.C. taxpayers should sponsor. If you want to keep up the battle, feel free. But write the check yourself. Or maybe your campaign can pick up the tab.

The above editorial has given local anti-gay activist Michael Brown an enormous case of the sadz.

In what sounded more like a gay activist screed in a high-school publication than a serious editorial in a major newspaper, the Charlotte Observer has officially declared war on people of faith and conservative moral values, mocking those who believe there is the slightest rational reason to resist the radical redefinition of marriage. Making no attempt to hide its disdain for the conservative, historic position, and gleefully mocking the views of the majority of North Carolinians, the editorial begins with three sentences ending in exclamation points – when is the last time you have seen that in a major editorial? – deriding the idea that there could be any negative consequences to redefining marriage.

Brown is infamous for leading hundreds of red-shirted Christians in their annual disruption of Charlotte Pride.

Editorial Of The Day

From the Des Moines Register editorial board:

At a press conference last week, Gov. Terry Branstad reiterated his long-held belief that Iowans should be allowed to vote on a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages. "It has been blocked in the Senate by the Senate leader," the governor observed. "It's up to the people to decide who they want to send to the Legislature, and if they want (leaders) who are going to give the people of Iowa a chance to vote on this issue. ... I think the people of Iowa should have a chance to vote on this." At first blush, the governor's stance seems reasonable. After all, what's the harm in letting people decide an issue for themselves? But consider the implications of his suggestion. If Branstad were to have his way, a majority of Iowans could simply go the polls and, with the stroke of their pen, deny certain constitutional rights now afforded a specific class of citizens. That is a fundamentally un-American concept. If that flag on Branstad's lapel stands for anything, it stands for the freedom and rights that are guaranteed to all Americans — gays and lesbians included — and not just to the Americans we happen to like.

The editorial closes with photos of the lesbian couple who married in Iowa earlier this month after 72 years together.

Editorial Of The Day

From the editorial board of the Arizona Republic:

Marriage equality can sound like a political cause. It's been the subject of intense courtroom drama. But to Beverly Sevcik and Mary Baranovich, it's personal. It's about whether the Constitution protects their individual rights. That's why it is welcome news that the U.S. Supreme Court may be preparing to bring down the gavel on discriminatory laws. It's time the Supreme Court provided justice and clarity. Sevcik and Baranovich have been together for 42 years, and they told reporters they'd like a set of matching rings and official recognition of their commitment to each other.

Their wish to have the state give their love the same respect, dignity and legal recognition it gives "traditional" married couples is, as Ninth Circuit Judge Marsha S. Berzon said this week, a train that "has left the station." Eventually laws that define marriage as purely a heterosexual privilege will be swept away. It is wrong to write discrimination into law. But timing matters. Sevcik is 76 and Baranovich is 78. To them — and many, many other couples like them — this is more than a legal or philosophical argument. It's central to their lives. They need the Supreme Court to speak up for their individual constitutional rights.

Editorial Of The Day

From the editorial board of the Shreveport Times:

Last week's decision by a federal judge to uphold Louisiana's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage is disappointing on many levels, but mostly because it means this state will continue to sanction what in the year 2014 is obvious discrimination against a specific segment of the population. U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman's ruling not only supports the state's ban as constitutional but also clarifies that same-sex marriages performed legally in other states will not be recognized here.

Same-sex marriage bans have no reasonable place in today's society because they are based almost solely on traditional or religious prejudices. While the court's failure to acknowledge that in this case is certainly disappointing, it is not the end of the debate. Appeals already have been filed. Also, the ruling has given rise to more discussion on the matter in the court of public opinion. We are certain there will be heated exchanges from both sides of the same-sex marriage debate before this is concluded. But in the end, it's an opportunity to educate and enlighten.

RELATED: The plaintiffs in the Louisiana case have filed their notice of appeal with the Fifth Circuit Court.

Editorial Of The Day

From the editorial board of the New York Times:

As important as the federal appeals court ruling was on Thursday declaring same-sex marriage bans in two states to be unconstitutional, the clarity and blunt reasoning behind the decision was equally momentous. Writing for a unanimous three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Judge Richard Posner put the case for equality starkly. “Homosexuals are among the most stigmatized, misunderstood, and discriminated-against minorities,” he wrote. Denying them the freedom to marry imposes “continuing pain,” he said, and claims that allowing same-sex marriage would harm heterosexual unions or children, or other state interests, were “totally implausible.” “Our pair of cases is rich in detail but ultimately straightforward to decide,” Judge Posner wrote in the decision striking down bans in Wisconsin and Indiana. [snip] Petitions for Supreme Court review of pro-marriage-equality rulings from the Fourth and Tenth Circuits have been filed and are supported by both sides of the issue. There is no reason at this point for the justices to prolong the harm to same-sex couples and their families by waiting for all the remaining state battles to play out.

Editorial Of The Day

From the editorial board of Montana's Billings Gazette:

Is it OK for a good worker to be fired because her employer learned she is lesbian? Is it right for a landlord to refuse to rent to otherwise qualified tenants because they are gay? Should local businesses be allowed to refuse service to people because they appear to be transgender? The answers are: No, no, no! Yet these questions are at the heart of debate on the non-discrimination ordinance up for consideration at the end of Monday’s Billings City Council agenda. And several council members have, so far, refused to take a stand against discrimination. The non-discrimination ordinance is about equal protection under the law. It would recognize that LGBT folks should have the same rights to live and work in Billings as everybody else does.

Everybody benefits with the NDO. Billings will be known as a safer, more welcoming city embracing the diversity that attracts new businesses and families. The LGBT minority will be assured that city law protects them the same as it protects all residents and visitors. People who believe LGBT people are wrong or sinful will continue to be free to think and pray whatever they want. However, no one will be able to discriminate in business transactions, hiring or housing. We ask all 11 council members to open their minds and hearts. If you can’t vote for the NDO out of compassion and concern for your LGBT constituents, vote for it because it will be good for business.

(Tipped by JMG reader Torger)