Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has been an outspoken opponent of marriage equality for years. She’s campaigned on traditional marriage and supported it at both the state and federal levels. In an interview after yesterday’s Values Voter Summit however, Bachmann responded to a question about gay marriage by calling it “boring” and “not an issue.” Oh really? That’s interesting news considering the source. Just for giggles (or let’s be honest, groans), let’s take a look at some of Bachmann’s greatest hits on gay marriage and what she so sweetly terms the “gay lifestyle” and cross our fingers that she’s actually going to give this topic a rest during future diatribes to her hometown paper after leaving congress this year.

1. In response to the Supreme Court’s DOMA ruling:

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to join the trend, despite the clear will of the people’s representatives through DOMA. What the court has done will undermine the best interest of children and the best interests of the United States.

This, of course, is the statement that garnered the very best Nancy Pelosi response of all time: “Who cares?”

2. In response to Arizona’s vetoed ‘Right to Discriminate’ bill:

The thing that I think is getting a little tiresome is the gay community have so bullied the American people and they have so intimidated politicians that politicians fear them and they think they get to dictate the agenda everywhere.

3. In response to Minnesota legalizing gay marriage:

I’m proud to have introduced the original traditional marriage amendment, and I thank all Minnesotans who have worked so hard on this issue.

4. In response to the question, ‘Why can’t same-sex couples get married?:

They can get married, but they abide by the same law as everyone else. They can marry a man if they’re a woman. Or they can marry a woman if they’re a man.

5. Ahead of Minnesota’s legalization of gay marriage:

The Bible is very clear on this issue. Homosexuality is a sin, and God will punish communities that support it. Sodom and Gomorrah thought they could defy the will of God, and we all know what happened to them. If the governor signs this legislation into law the Minneapolis-St. Paul region will be next…These are very scary times. I don’t want my family to be the last ones out.

6. On the ‘deviancy’ of the gay community:

(The gay community will) abolish age of consent laws, which means we will do away with statutory rape laws so that adults will be able to freely prey on little children sexually. That’s the deviance that we’re seeing embraced in our culture today.

7. On the possibility of gay marriage in Minnesota:

We will have the immediate loss of civil liberties for five million Minnesotans. In our public schools, whether they want to or not, they’ll be forced to start teaching that same-sex marriage is equal, that it is normal and that children should try it.

8. In response to President Obama’s support of same-sex marriage:

The President’s announcement today shows how out of touch he is with the values of American families…Americans know better and support traditional marriage…I will do everything in my power to support and preserve traditional marriage and to protect American families…despite our president’s decision to thumb his nose at the traditional institution of marriage.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Michele Bachmann Calls Gay Marriage Boring, But Her History Says Otherwise appeared first on Law Street.

Good morning folks! Who’s enjoying this polar vortex 2.0? Not me!

To all of you in the Law Street D.C. office, is this really what you all do on a snow day? Inquiring minds want to know.

Thanks matthewstasoff.com!

Anyway! A bit south of D.C., exciting things are happening for the gays. At least, the gays who want to get married. Newly elected Virginia Attorney General Mark R. Herring is announcing that he finds the state’s ban on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional. As a result, Virginia will ask a federal court to strike it down, alongside two same-sex couples.

Am I the only one who finds it a tad bit amusing that Virginia is going to court against itself? Anyway.

This is very exciting news! If the ban on same-sex marriage in Virginia is lifted, gay couples all across the state will gain access to the gazillion benefits afforded to legally married couples. Not to mention, they can stop navigating the legal minefield that results from having your marriage recognized by the federal government, but not by the state government. That shit’s a mess.

In order to win his case, Herring will base his argument on the Supreme Court’s 1967 ruling in Loving vs. Virginia, which struck down parallel laws banning interracial marriage. According to Herring, Loving didn’t just open doors for interracial couples, but for couples of all types. In his view, Loving found that couples have a fundamental right to marriage itself, and that right cannot be withheld based on a couple’s race, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

Pretty exciting stuff.

But I’m not just excited because, obviously, yay for civil rights and an end to marriage discrimination. (Also, let’s not forget that marriage is a pretty problematic institution all to itself. Grain of salt here, people.)

I’m also super pumped because this law affects two of my dear friends—Emilia Jones and Hannah Martin.

Aren’t they the cutest? They’re the cutest. Courtesy of Hannah R. Winsten.

I met Emi and Hannah back in 2010. We all went to NYU together, and we were all big lezzies. Naturally, we ran in the same circles.

Not really. I actually met Emi once at an LGBT club meeting in September 2009, and thought she seemed cool but was too shy to talk to her. (Socially awkward lesbian moment, over here.) The following semester, we wound up having two classes together and seeing each other literally every single day of the week, so we became fast friends.

Guys, Emi was awesome. She was my college bestie that year, and I was totally bummed when she graduated.

But! Emi’s life got all kinds of fabulous when she graduated from NYU. The state of New York legalized gay marriage in June 2011 — just in time for Gay Pride — and in July, she married her longtime lady love, Hannah.

They are so cute I can’t even handle it. Courtesy of Hannah R. Winsten.

Anyway, they got married, I babysat their awesome cat in Brooklyn during their honeymoon, and then a few months later, they randomly moved to a farm in Virginia.

When I say randomly, I mean RANDOMLY. It literally felt like they were here one day, and gone the next. I secretly wondered if they were running from the CIA or something. Probably not. Anyway, they run Heart Moss Farm now, and they’re super happy, and they’re super cute.

With their adorable dog, Zach. Courtesy of Hannah R. Winsten.

But! Being married in Virginia is complicated business, as Emi told me this morning.

“We recently re-filed our 2011 taxes — after my lawyer aunt who works for the IRS suggested it — when we were forced to file as married for NYC and NY state taxes but single federally. When we got our refund, it was A LOT of money,” Emi said. “If Va. doesn’t at least recognize gay marriage, we’ll have to file separate for Va. but joint federally, which essentially means you pay tons and tons of extra taxes. It is nasty business, especially when we are not making a lot as it is.”

So, basically, if Herring succeeds in his quest to get Virginia to recognize gay marriages, Emi and Hannah will be in a much better financial situation. And that’s awesome.

Courtesy of Hannah R. Winsten.

But there are other benefits to be had as well. Most of these run along the lines of basic respect for an individual’s safety and well being–like being allowed to visit each other and make decisions if one of them lands in the hospital. That shit’s a whole lot easier when there aren’t a bunch of contradictory, inconsistent laws arguing over whether you’re legally married or not.

So basically, we’re all rooting for Attorney General Herring over here, and also for Hannah and Emi. We’ll check back in with them once the ruling goes through.

In the mean time, all you Virginians should check out Heart Moss Farm’s pasture-raised chickens at your local farmer’s market. Yay for supporting queer businesses!

What do you think about Herring’s actions and Virginia’s gay marriage ban? Tell us in the comments!

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [Hannah R. Winsten]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Look at This Adorable Couple Who Will Be Super Pumped if Virginia’s Gay Marriage Ban is Lifted appeared first on Law Street.

Wednesday night, the Republican Party was given an interesting task.

Stop being so judgmental.

That’s what former GOP politician Tom Ridge told the Log Cabin Republicans when he spoke at their Spirit of Lincoln dinner this week.

Folks, this is a pretty interesting development, so let’s delve into this story a little bit, mmkay?

Let’s start with the characters. First, we’ve got the sensible, yet colorful, Log Cabin Republicans. Picture an entire room filled with variations of Will and Grace’s two leading men. Jack McFarland and Will Truman ALL THE WAY. Get it, girl.

Then, we’ve got the esteemed Tom Ridge—a former Congressman, Pennsylvania Governor, and Secretary of Homeland Security. He’s a pretty stand-up guy, and back in the ’90s he signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law in Pennsylvania.

He arrived at the Spirit of Lincoln dinner a bit apprehensively—he doesn’t have a great track record with the LGBT community. Now is his time to prove himself. Now is his time to shine. As he prepares for the big moment, he wonders if he should open his speech with a musical number? Maybe sprinkle his speech with some Bette Midler or Cher references?

Nah, he decides. Let’s keep it professional. He goes in for the kill, rocking a nice suit and a well-prepared speech. Let’s revamp this disgraced party, he thinks to himself, determined to cobble together a conservatism that doesn’t reek of Ted Cruz and Boehner/boner jokes.

So Ridge gets up there, and delivers a message that could redefine conservatism.

He tells the Republican Party to stop being so judgmental. Stop ignoring the separation of church and state and attempting to govern based on your church’s teachings. Stop discriminating against the gays. Stop being a bunch of unreasonable, out-of-touch assholes who throw tantrums and shut down governments.

Basically, Ridge told the GOP to cut the Tea Party crap and get it together.

But, that’s actually not as revolutionary as it sounds.

See, Ridge is no progressive. And he doesn’t think the American people are either. (He’s probably right about that one.)

In a statement to Buzzfeed prior to the address, he said, “I truly believe Americans are more conservative than liberal, but I also think they may be conservative, but they are far more practical than ideological and I know, particularly among young people, they are far more tolerant than judgmental.”

What does that mean? It means that Ridge sees LGBT discrimination as a simple issue of tolerance. For him, queer folks’ marginalization isn’t the product of systemic oppression, but rather, of ideological bullies. If we’d all just be nice to each other, he urges, we could fold the LGBT community into the conservative movement, instead of shutting them out.

And really, nothing could be better—or more practical—for the GOP than adding a new chunk of the population to its camp. Not only would welcoming queermos into the fold increase their voting block, but it would also give them some diversity street cred. And that counts for a lot these days, when the Democratic Party is credited as being the political home for everyone who’s not a straight, white, grey-haired man.

It’s important to note that Ridge’s urging to focus on practicality and tolerance, so as to include gays in the conservative platform, doesn’t seek to fundamentally change conservatism itself. That’s a big deal.

It’s also not surprising. I’ve written before about how the Republican agenda is all about conserving privilege for a particular group of people—specifically, straight, white, middle-to-upper class folks. And Ridge is one of them. He’s a straight, white, man, who earns boatloads of money serving as a board member for a few Fortune 500 companies.

So, it makes sense that Ridge isn’t interested in fundamentally changing the conservative platform. It works for him. Conservatism has done nothing but bolster his privilege, and consequently, his earning power. Really, he’s just interested in making that platform more palatable to a greater number of people. In this case, it’s the gays.

And that’s why his speech didn’t say anything about making sure women, queers, and people of color are able to earn a living wage. He didn’t mention making access to quality, affordable healthcare for all people a priority. He didn’t talk about ameliorating the United States’ ridiculous wealth disparity.

These are all problems that disproportionately affect women, people of color, and members of the LGBT community. These are also problems that are exacerbated by conservative policies. And as Ridge stood in front of an LGBT political group, he made no mention of any of them.

And this is exactly why his speech is so fascinating.

It’s relatively revolutionary, because, finally, a high profile Republican is trying to make the party more open and inclusive. Finally, someone on the Right is agitating for a less divided, and more effective, government.

And in the age of the Tea Party, that’s a really big, exciting development.

But at the same time, Ridge’s speech is also sorely disappointing. It’s another example of a conservative politician who’s out of touch, who can’t see past his privilege, who’s only interested in surface level changes. Most queers have nothing to gain by being welcomed into the GOP’s fold, and everything to lose from conservative economic policies that increase the wealth disparity.

So the bottom line? Ridge’s speech was pretty complex–it simultaneously invites positive, political change, while continuing to bolster policies that create inequality.

Ultimately, it’s refreshing to hear a Republican tell his party to stop being a bunch of assholes. But unfortunately, this particular call-to-action is too superficial to get excited about.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Hubert K via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Tom Ridge Tells GOP: Tolerate the Gays, Don’t Make Their Lives Better appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision Wednesday to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act is a monumental victory for advocates of same-sex marriage.

But what happens now that the 1996 federal law that confines marriage to a man and a woman has been declared unconstitutional?

Will federal benefits flow only to same-sex married couples living in states that recognize their unions?

What about same-sex spouses who are legally married but living in states that ban such unions?

And how will federal agencies, already with myriad rules and regulations regarding spousal eligibility for benefits, deal with the court’s edict?

“Striking down DOMA is a great step forward, obviously,” says Ari Ezra Waldman, legal editor at Towleroad, a widely read LGBT-oriented website, “but there will be difficult complications to work out.”

The court’s decision does not embrace a national constitutional right to same-sex marriage, but would make married gay couples living in states where their unions are legal eligible for federal benefits already enjoyed by married heterosexual Americans.

[Full Article]

—

Featured image courtesy of [masterdesigner via Flickr]

Davis Truslow

Davis Truslow is a founding member of Law Street Media and a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Davis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post After DOMA: What’s Next For Gay Married Couples appeared first on Law Street.