Things that don't help: Divorce Bans

I meet a lot of people. Specifically in my work, I meet a lot of pro-equality people who are understandably frustrated at the number of anti-marriage equality amendments and statutes around the country, including right here in South Dakota. They don't understand how people can profess to believe in "the sanctity of marriage," (read: anti-marriage equality), while simultaneously believing in divorce.

"I know!" they say. "We should ban divorce! That'll really show them." Most of the time, these tongue-in-cheek remarks don't make it any farther than the dinner table.

Once in a while, though, it gets taken too far, and people try to actually ban divorce. I heard grumblings a few years ago about doing something similar in Washington state, and more recently in Michigan. Annoyingly, however, the most recent attempt in California seems to have gotten a little traction.

As a pro-equality person, here's why divorce bans drive me crazy:
1. It's a no-win situation. Whether you win or lose, you still don't change the number of gay people who can get married. All you've done is point out anti-equality hypocrisy, which while it feels good for you, doesn't get the movement anywhere.

2. It takes resources away from things that actually help. There's a pretty sizeable debate in Gay Land about whether to push to repeal California's Prop 8 in 2010 or 2012. I can see benefit to both strategies, and at the end of the day, both efforts move things forward. A so-called "divorce ban" in California not only wouldn't move things forward, but take away money and volunteers from things that actually help.

3. Sometimes, even people who are anti-equality really should get divorced. Maybe they're in abusive situations. Maybe their spouse has a gambling problem. Whatever the case, discouraging people from getting out of these already terrible situations is seriously unhelpful. My very Catholic, not-yet-pro-equality mother spent two decades in an abusive marriage, and I'm thankful she was able to get divorced, which she didn't take lightly. Making it harder for people to get out of bad situations just seems dumb.


Number of gay people who can get married in California today: 0
Number of gay people who can get married if they ban divorce in CA: 0

*headdesk*

Tiffany Campbell: My Baby Would Have Died Under the Stupak Amendment

I saw yesterday that Tiffany Campbell, who you'll remember shared her story during both the 2006 and 2008 abortion ban fights, had a great diary yesterday at RH Reality Check talking about how the Stupak Amendment would have caused her to bury two babies instead of one.

Tiffany's story is a great example of the fact that the Stupak amendment in the health care bill does not simply prevent federal money being used for abortions, but ultimately prevents any insurance plan from covering abortion. Considering the Campbell's medical bills hit $500,000 for the full pregnancy, including $220,000 for the specialist she visited, who ultimately performed the selective termination, under the Stupak Amendment, the Campbells would have lost two babies instead of one.

Thanks, Tiffany, for being brave enough to share your story.

Coming to a Barnes and Noble near you

I'm going to be out of town for Sarah Palin's pop in to Sioux Falls, which doesn't particularly break my heart. I think there'll be a lot of this:

Everybody Loves a Robocall

Either these calls went to everyone, or I've been put on a list as some kind of practical joke.



I don't know who the Traditional Values Coalition is (they appear to be totally DC-based), but I will agree with Andrea about a couple of things: you should call Sen. Johnson at the number provided, tell him to do the right thing, and urge him to vote.

As for all the fear mongering about tax-payer funded abortions (which I am all for, by the way, but I realize it's not going to happen through health care reform), check out this chart put together by the Center for American Progress which breaks down the differences between the status quo (the Hyde amendment) and various proposals for the health care bill.

Thune's explanation of Franken Amendment vote: Not any better than the actual vote!

Six-ish weeks ago, I posted that Sen. John Thune voted against the interests of rape victims.

Before I ever posted, I contacted Thune's office to express my disappointment outrage and ask for an explanation. It took a while, and a little prodding, but I finally got an answer. It's a little less than satisfactory:

Dear Angie:

Thank you for contacting me about a recent Franken amendment to the 2010 Department of Defense (DOD) Appropriations bill. As you may know, I voted against the amendment, and the Obama Administration also opposed it. I appreciate having the opportunity to explain why.

The Senate recently debated and passed the 2010 DOD Appropriations bill by a vote of 89 to 7. I voted in favor of the bill.

While the Senate was considering the bill, Senator Al Franken (D-MN) offered an amendment that he stated was prompted by a tragic event in which a woman named Jamie Leigh Jones was sexually assaulted while working for a U.S. defense contractor in Iraq. Such assaults are reprehensible, and I have the utmost sympathy for Ms. Jones and other individuals who have ben the victims of sexual assault.

However, the Franken amendment had less to do with protecting victims than it did with limiting the use of arbitration in a wide variety of employment contracts. This overbroad and politically charged amendment would have turned defense contracting upside-down by effectively prohibiting most employer-employee arbitration agreements, which are a common and accepted part of contract law. This would have a significant impact on our military and its personnel.

We can all agree that people who commit these kinds of crimes should be punished, and victims like Ms. Jones should have their day in court. But the Franken amendment would not affect either of these goals in this case.

First, arbitration agreements do not in any way prevent prosecutors from bringing criminal charges against those who commit crimes, such as sexual assault or rape. Civil lawsuits brought by private citizens asking for monetary damages are completely different than criminal prosecutions brought by the government against those who break the law. Those guilty of sexual assault should be punished to the fullest extent of the law, and the Franken amendment had nothing to do with offenders being criminally prosecuted.

Second, some have argued that a victim such as Ms. Jones should not be denied her day in court. In fact, Ms. Jones' civil case to recover monetary damages from her attackers is proceeding in the federal court system. Current law has not prevented Ms. Jones from having her day in court.

Finally, and significantly, even the Obama Administration opposed the poorly worded Franken amendment. Before the vote, the Obama Defense Department sent a statement to senators that it opposed the amendment because of its overly broad application and the problems involved in enforcing it. In other words, the Obama Administration supported the way I voted.

What happened to Ms. Jones was horrific, and more needs to be done in our society to prevent this type of unspeakable crime. However, it is unfortunate that some have attempted to politicize this vote. To suggest that I, or any member of the United States Senate of either party, would even indirectly condone what happened to the victim in this case or other rape victims is completely false.

I have always supported efforts to protect victims and punish criminals, and will continue to do so. But attempts by some to score political points based on tragic events like these are not a responsible way to approach a serious issue.

If you would like additional information on my activities in the Senate, please feel free to visit my website, http://thune.senate.gov. Thanks again for contacting me. Please keep in touch.

Kindest regards,
John Thune
United States Senator

I don't have a ton of time to unpack everything that's wrong here, but I'll point out a few things:
1. Saying The Defense Department and The Obama Administration opposed this are two VERY different things. I get that the DoD is under the administration, but the implication seems to be that Obama himself opposed the Franken amendment. Not true.

2. Second, the amendment was much more narrow than Sen. Thune would have me believe. It doesn't remove contractors' ability to regulate any arbitration, just those arising out of sexual assault or harassment. Click on the link and read the amendment for yourself. Apparently Thune didn't.

3. Thune's letter says that nothing in the contract prevented criminal charges from being brought. Unfortunately, that's not true either. The contract actually tried to prevent her from *reporting* the rape at all...not just from bringing civil claims. Rape cases are notoriously hard to prosecute even with the most ideal evidence. Without an accusing witness, they're basically impossible. That doesn't seem to trouble Sen. Thune.


At the end of the day, the status quo is just fine for Sen. Thune. It's not fine for employees of contractors. The United States Government shouldn't do business with contractors who even *try* to brush rape victims under the rug.

Thune's vote is simply unconscionable.

The Big Snip

We've had some interesting discussions at DW on circumcision before, so when I saw this on MSNBC today, I thought it post-worthy. Enjoy.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

News roundup

There's a few things I think are mention-worthy, even as I sit here with what I'm fairly sure is H1N1. Luckily, you can't catch the flu through the interwebs.

From Gay Land:

• 3 ballot measures were voted on around the country last week. The biggest win came from Kalamazoo, Mich, where a whopping 62% of voters approved adding being gay or transgender to the list of things that can't get you fired or evicted. I'm not entirely sure, but I think getting 62% of the vote might make it the most successful LGBT ballot measure we've ever seen. (If I'm missing one somewhere, let me know). I got to spend the last 3 weeks on the ground in Kalamazoo, working with a team of very talented people (including South Dakotan Jon Hoadley, who ran the campaign).

• Voters approved Washington State's domestic partnership law, in spite of completely crazy ads from the opposition. I would post links here, but the videos have all disappeared from YouTube. Suffice to say it used the word "asunder." I know what it means and where it's from, but doesn't exactly speak to a larger audience. Maybe that's why they lost. Snap.

• Sadly, voters also overturned marriage equality in Maine. This was a tough loss, because on face value, everything went right: we had enough money, we had enough people doing the work, and we had enough people turn out. I'm sure much more thorough post-mortem will be done in the coming weeks, but this is going to be an interesting set of lessons learned.

From Choice Land:

• The Stupak Amendment unfortunately passed and was included in the health care bill the House passed Saturday evening. The gist of the amendment, from RH Reality Check, is that "this amendment, if passed and included in a final health reform bill, would block you from getting insurance to cover legal procedures in the United States of America, with premiums paid with your personal funds." Even worse, 23 House Democrats voted for the Stupak amendment, and no on final passage of the bill -- meaning they voted to weaken a bill they had no intention of supporting in the first place. That's inexcusable.

Although Herseth Sandlin ended up voting no on final passage, she does deserve props for voting against this ridiculous amendment. I realize she's self-identified as pro-choice from the beginning, but it's good to know that some things remain a constant. Thanks, Rep. Herseth Sandlin.

• Minnehaha County Circuit Court Judge Kathleen Caldwell ruled today that the $750,000 donor to Vote Yes for Cupcakes in 2006 can remain anonymous. I'll let our in-house legal expert weigh in on the specifics of the ruling, but it still seems pretty obvious that the spirit of the law is being sidestepped, even if Judge Caldwell is correct in saying a civil suit is an inappropriate remedy.

• Scott Roeder, the man accused of shooting Dr. Tiller, gave a 30-minute interview to the AP today in which he confessed to the shooting. He was unapologetic, claiming that the shooting was justified, and that he plans to use that as a defense in his trial. In MSNBC's related poll, they asked whether such a defense is valid. Under the "things that restore my faith in humanity" column, 88% of respondents said no. Fantastic.

Dear Chaz Bono: You're not helping.

Despite disappointing results out of Maine, it looks like the other campaigns listed in the post below have been successful (One Kalamazoo was in fact EXTREMELY successful and the latest out of Washington continues to look positive). While not the resounding victory for LGBT rights we might have hoped for, I do think we are moving forward.

Speaking of moving forward, what do you do when one of the higher profile trans people in the U.S. (at least at the moment) says b.s. like this:

Chaz Bono says his girlfriend of four years, Jennifer Elia, has been completely supportive during his process of becoming a man. Now, he says, his gender reassignment surgery allows the couple to physically have what they've always had emotionally: a heterosexual relationship.
...
"Our relationship always modeled a heterosexual relationship, emotionally and intellectually. So now it does physically as well."

(from People.com)

Can someone please explain to me how exactly heterosexual relationships are 'emotionally and intellectually' different from homosexual or any other kind of relationship? Seriously -- what is that supposed to mean? The article should really read, "Now, he says, his gender reassignment surgery allows the couple to be what they've really always been: blatantly heterosexist."