Good morning, everybody.  I’m drinking my coffee, listening to some Hot Recordz and glancing through my Google Reader and what do I find?  Oh it’s one of the wingnuttiest writers, Ed Whelan, from one of America’s saddest websites, getting his panties in a wad over the fact that there are gay lawyers at the Justice Department, presumably being gay throughout the entire workday and even at lunch, and even working on cases that involve discrimination, and thus mucking up the wingnut’s sadly tenuous sense of security and warmth:

One of the attorneys on the DOJ brief is Aaron D. Schuham…A reader passes along that Schuham’s same-sex partner is (or, at least as of the 2009 White House Easter Egg Roll, was) Chris Anders, federal policy director for the ACLU’s LGBT Rights project.

Another of the attorneys on the DOJ brief is Sharon M. McGowan. As another reader calls to my attention, McGowan was also a staffer on the ACLU’s LGBT Rights project, and the New York Times announced last year her same-sex marriage to the Family Equality Council’s “federal lobbyist on gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender family issues.”

Run away, it’s GAYS! Perhaps realizing what a sissy he sounded like in the above section, Ed quickly added at the end:

I will note that Schuham and McGowan are only two of seven DOJ attorneys on the brief—and apparently the two most junior—so I don’t want to overstate their possible influence. That said, I’ll also note…

Blah blah blah blah blah. Mission accomplished. The National Review readers who are most likely to lose their marbles over gays being anywhere at any time [likely, Ed's fellow writers, Kathryn Lopez and Maggie Gallagher] had already received the ‘fraidy message: teh gayz are a-comin’ to git yer!

The case in question involves a religious school and whether or not they are exempted from anti-discrimination laws.  Adam Serwer asks the relevant questions:

What does this have to do with the merits of the case? Unclear, except that gay people, wanting all those special rights and whatnot, don’t really belong in a case involving a religious organization, since gay rights infringe on the rights of religious people to discriminate against gays, even though that’s not what the case is about. It’s about a teacher who claims she was fired because of her narcolepsy, and whether or not the so-called “ministerial exception” to federal anti-discrimination laws applies in this context. But you let gays near religious freedom cases, and pretty soon they’ll be…something terrible.

Something so terrible that we can’t even imagine it, much less talk about it.  And we all know about the dangers of the homo-narcoleptic movement in this country.  Or at least Ed Whelan knows about them.  You’re getting very, very sleepy, Ed!

Adam, with the conclusions:

Part of Whelan’s problem is that since both Schuham and McGowan have backgrounds in civil rights law, they have no business um, working on civil rights cases.

Heh, yeah, that’s part of what passes on “thinking” for right wing morons these days. More conclusions:

But Whelan’s bigger problem, judging by his value-added, is that only straight people should be allowed near the law, lest it get all gayified. In April Whelan complained that the judge in the California Prop 8 case, Vaughn Walker, should have recused himself because he was in a same-sex relationship and so he stood to benefit directly from overturning the law. Of course by the logic of anti-gay rights advocates like Whelan, a straight judge trying to preserve his “traditional marriage” would also benefit directly, and should also recuse themselves. But since the latter wouldn’t have “trumped” the right of conservatives like Whelan to define and limit the civil rights of same-sex couples that wouldn’t have been so terrible.

Yep! Which brings us back to the headline of my piece! Heterosexual Conservative Christian Supremacists are so convinced of their own stupid lies, the ones they have been telling themselves for generations, at bedtime and on Sunday mornings, about how they and only they are the normal, real Americans, and how the rest of us are somehow lesser, that they view it as self-evident that only they should be the arbiters of what’s fair and just in this country.  Of course, as the rest of society passes them by leaps and bounds in almost every area [but let's start with shoe-tying ability], their only psychological choice is to double down on the lies, if only in their own heads.  So it is that they become more and more hysterical at the prospect of people who are different from them possibly having a real say in how things go in ‘Murka, and they forget to use their euphemisms, openly arguing for their own supremacist beliefs.

It’s weird and kinda sad to look at.

Now, the question is whether Ed Whelan actually believes this stuff or not.  Meh, who knows?  Thers brought up an important point  last night, which we should always remember when we’re dealing with wingnuts of the National Review variety:

But please let’s not forget that the reason we have wingnuts is that wingnuttery is a heavily subsidized industry. Thar’s gold in that thar dumb. NRO is paid for propaganda, not a free market success. Townhall etc.

‘Zactly. As I said above, mission accomplished. There are still sadly those in our midst for whom the message, “It’s bees, bees, everywhere! GAYS, GAYS, EVERYWHERE!,” resonates, and folks like Ed are more than willing to take home a paycheck for the purpose of scaring them.

[h/t John Cole]

Check out this interactive world map on the home page of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, and Intersex Association. It allows you to choose various situations from a drop-down list to see where sexual minority status is and isn’t legal and/or protected. “Female to Female Relationships,” for example, or  ”Second Parent Adoption,” or “Incitement to hatred based on sexual orientation prohibited.” You can mouse over individual countries for more information. The data aren’t complete, but they make a nice starting point if you’re trying to learn more about legal situations around the world.

And by clicking here (PDF), you can read ILGA’s May 2011 report on state-sponsored homophobia, which lists all 76 countries where homosexuality is illegal. Here, from that report, are the countries where homosexual acts are not only illegal but also punishable by the death penalty: Mauritania, Sudan, 12 northern states in Nigeria, the southern part of Somalia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen.

Ari Ezra Waldman has a good piece up at Towleroad this morning which explains the likely reason why the bigots are appealing Ware’s ruling on their ridiculous notion that Walker should have recused himself because he’s gay.  Pointing out that Ware’s decision was a “wholehearted beat down,” Waldman explains the obvious — they have no chance on appeal.  But Charles Cooper, attorney to the bigots, likely knows this:

Appeal such a wholehearted beat down? Does he think he will get any more sympathy from a panel of Ninth Circuit judges who have known Judge Walker for years and have, in any event, already invested their court’s own time and effort into this case?

It is hard to imagine Mr. Cooper really thinks he can win. If he does think so, he is simply a bad attorney. But, by filing an appeal, he may be a master strategist. The Prop 8 proponents know that they are fighting a losing battle — their attorneys were inept at trial, failing to offer evidence; they have no real arguments on their side; all three judges on the Ninth Circuit panel to hear the standing and merits were skeptical. The only hope is to delay, to delay same-sex marriage for so long, to frustrate the gay community so much, that we make the first mistake.

Aha! Well then, let’s just not make the first mistake. I mean, we’ve shown over the last few years that pretty much all the brains in this battle are on our side. We can do this! Read Waldman’s whole piece, please.

Joe Sudbay points to a post from immigration lawyer Lavi Soloway, explaining the news that cases involving binational gay couples have been put in abeyance while DOMA’s status is being resolved, and hopefully, eliminated:

Some married gay and lesbian binational couples will now have an opportunity to take a major leap toward full equality under our nation’s immigration laws. However, it is important to remember that DOMA is still the law of the land and despite this tremendous news, filing green card applications in this uncertain environment could result in a foreign spouse being placed in removal (deportation) proceedings. For that reason, no couple should make a move toward marrying or filing on the basis of the marriage without first consulting an immigration attorney with specific expertise in both LGBT immigration issues and the developing landscape of DOMA.

[...]

This development will have the greatest impact on two groups of couples:

1. Married gay and lesbian couples where the foreign spouse lawfully entered the United States but is now an “overstay” and without lawful status. For these couples, the filing of an alien relative petition and application for adjustment of status to permanent resident should automatically give temporary lawful status to the foreign spouse for the duration of the period that the case is pending. If these applications are in fact held in abeyance until DOMA’s final demise, this could mean that couples who have wrestled for years with the nightmare of deportation, separation and instability caused by a lack of lawful status may now be on the verge of a new reality. The foreign spouse will not only receive (temporary) lawful status, but also employment authorization and potentially other benefits, as long as they have a pending green card application. Unfortunately, despite the temptation that this will present to many couples, for many it will be better to wait until there is greater certainty about this policy and the future of DOMA.

2. Married gay and lesbian couples who are already facing removal (deportation) proceedings. It is now likely that we will be able to stop virtually all deportation proceedings involving married gay and lesbian couples who have filed green card petitions/applications and who are, but for DOMA, otherwise eligible to receive a green card based on their marriage. Even couples in removal (deportation) proceedings must proceed cautiously when considering whether to marry and file a green card petition/application based on that marriage. However, unlike those who are not in proceedings, the risk of deportation is very real, and the likelihood is that this new development will provide protection to almost every couple facing deportation, if they are currently in proceedings.

There is light at the end of the tunnel for binational couples. The individual stories of binational couples suffering separation, exile or the threat of deportation continue to be our most important weapon in the fight against DOMA. There is still a long road ahead before we achieve full equality and we cannot be complacent.

Just one of the many, many issues that even many of our straight allies don’t realize gay couples confront under DOMA, and another reason it’s so crucial that DOMA be relegated to a stain in our history books.

Read Soloway’s entire piece.

WOW.

Chris Geidner:

The Department of Justice has made a decision that heightened scrutiny applies to sexual orientation classifications such as that involved in the Defense of Marriage Act. In a letter sent to Speaker John Boehner, Attorney General Eric Holder details the decision.

Holder says that the Department will no longer defend Section 3 of DOMA, which defines “marriage” and “spouse” as referring only to opposite-sex marriages. The letter is required by 28 U.S.C. 530(D), which states that such a letter is required when DOJ decides not to defend a federal law.

And here’s the statement from the Department of Justice, via Pam. Pay close attention to paragraph four, because that is the really good part:

Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Statement of the Attorney General on Litigation Involving the Defense of Marriage Act

WASHINGTON – The Attorney General made the following statement today about the Department’s course of action in two lawsuits, Pedersen v. OPM and Windsor v. United States, challenging Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage for federal purposes as only between a man and a woman:

In the two years since this Administration took office, the Department of Justice has defended Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act on several occasions in federal court. Each of those cases evaluating Section 3 was considered in jurisdictions in which binding circuit court precedents hold that laws singling out people based on sexual orientation, as DOMA does, are constitutional if there is a rational basis for their enactment. While the President opposes DOMA and believes it should be repealed, the Department has defended it in court because we were able to advance reasonable arguments under that rational basis standard.

Section 3 of DOMA has now been challenged in the Second Circuit, however, which has no established or binding standard for how laws concerning sexual orientation should be treated. In these cases, the Administration faces for the first time the question of whether laws regarding sexual orientation are subject to the more permissive standard of review or whether a more rigorous standard, under which laws targeting minority groups with a history of discrimination are viewed with suspicion by the courts, should apply.

After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President’s determination.

Consequently, the Department will not defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA as applied to same-sex married couples in the two cases filed in the Second Circuit. We will, however, remain parties to the cases and continue to represent the interests of the United States throughout the litigation. I have informed Members of Congress of this decision, so Members who wish to defend the statute may pursue that option. The Department will also work closely with the courts to ensure that Congress has a full and fair opportunity to participate in pending litigation.

Furthermore, pursuant to the President ‘ s instructions, and upon further notification to Congress, I will instruct Department attorneys to advise courts in other pending DOMA litigation of the President’s and my conclusions that a heightened standard should apply, that Section 3 is unconstitutional under that standard and that the Department will cease defense of Section 3.

The Department has a longstanding practice of defending the constitutionality of duly-enacted statutes if reasonable arguments can be made in their defense. At the same time, the Department in the past has declined to defend statutes despite the availability of professionally responsible arguments, in part because – as here – the Department does not consider every such argument to be a “reasonable” one. Moreover, the Department has declined to defend a statute in cases, like this one, where the President has concluded that the statute is unconstitutional.

Much of the legal landscape has changed in the 15 years since Congress passed DOMA. The Supreme Court has ruled that laws criminalizing homosexual conduct are unconstitutional. Congress has repealed the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. Several lower courts have ruled DOMA itself to be unconstitutional. Section 3 of DOMA will continue to remain in effect unless Congress repeals it or there is a final judicial finding that strikes it down, and the President has informed me that the Executive Branch will continue to enforce the law. But while both the wisdom and the legality of Section 3 of DOMA will continue to be the subject of both extensive litigation and public debate, this Administration will no longer assert its constitutionality in court.

It’s about time, but this is huge progress any way you look at it.

Oklahoma Baptist Pastor Steve Kern, husband of notorious Oklahoma state Rep. Sally Kern, reportedly believes gay Americans should be incarcerated and forcibly “cured.”

“We have to get rid of that and start curing those sinners. It’ past time that this nation stopped placating sin and start putting them in education programs. Courts can force drug offenders into treatment centers and violent people into anger management. There’ no reason our courts can’t do that with homos.”

While he builds support among ex-gay activists for arrest and involuntary quack medical treatments, Kern in the meantime is said by the Gossip Boy blog to be teaming up with Oklahoma City Mayor Mick Cornett to rid the city’s public libraries of accurate health, scientific, and therapeutic information about sexual orientation. According to James Miko and Wayne Fuller, the pair plan a campaign to “rid the library system of all gay and lesbian materials, as well as those their church-based philosophies find objectionable.”

Their goals:

• Win the 2010 governor’s race and gain power at any cost
• Deprive Oklahoma families of any information that might help them accurately and constructively understand gay family members
• Censor information that exposes the persistent failure of ex-gay programs to “change” their participants’ sexual orientation
• Use government power and taxpayer money to enrich corrupt ex-gay quacks from Exodus International and NARTH, the religious-rightist reparative-therapy lobby.

(Read More)