Governor vetoes Arizona's 'license to discriminate' bill

Wednesday, February 26, 2014

Governor Jan Brewer a few hours ago vetoed Arizona's Senate Bill 1062, which would have ostensibly protected religious liberty by allowing business owners to deny service to anyone based on their religious reasons. 

The bill was seen as a thinly veiled pretext to discriminate against LGBT individuals, but the legislation was even worse than that. It was so poorly crafted and overly broad that it could have caused enormous dischief in a wide array of situations. 

Governor Brewer announcing the veto

In announcing her veto of Senate Bill 1062, Governor Brewer made no mention whatsoever of LGBT objections to the law.

She did say the legislation "does not address a specific and present concern related to religious liberty in Arizona. I have not heard of one example in Arizona where a business owner's religious liberty has been violated." She also warned of "unintended and negative consequences" had the bill become law. 

Indeed, that could have been the case. Free-floating religious-based discrimination could have pitted the beliefs of a Christian fundamentalist innkeeper against a Mormon seeking a motel room, or, for that matter, a gentile against a Jew. One of the qualms floating quietly among Christian fundamentalists was the fear that the bill could have allowed a faithful Muslim shopkeeper to deny service to women who failed to wear a hijab into the store.

In short, putting the shoe on the other foot hurt too much.

(By the way, this Muslim "threat" is fresh in the minds of Arizonans, because the Legislature only two years ago banned the application of Sharia law— as well as halacha and karma— in any jurisprudence. Just in case.)

In her speech, Governor Brewer mentioned that Arizona has a record as one of the best states to grow or start a business, an allusion perhaps to the dozens of major corporations objecting to the passage of Senate Bill 1062. The bill was too homophobic even for the National Football League.

It seems clear that Senate Bill 1062, had it become law, would have failed to pass muster under precedents of the United States Supreme Court. In United States versus Lee, the court ruled against an Amish employer's objections to paying Social Security taxes on religious grounds. 

Writing for the court in 1982, Chief Justice Warren Burger explained, "When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding to others in that activity."

In other words, once a person engages in commercial enterprises, he or she cannot decide that a law doesn't apply to them because of their religious tells them otherwise.

That precedent may not last long, however. The precise issue is being revisited shortly under the current Supreme Court, which is comprised of justices far more conservative than those from the Warren court. This time the issue is an employer's religious objections to providing contraceptive coverage for employees. That mandate is part of Obamacare. 

One final note on Senate Bill 1062: The notion that Arizona should be allowed to discriminate against LGBT people based on an individual's religious beliefs now seems dead. But will Arizona do anything about eliminating state-sanctioned discrimination against LGBT individuals? 

Arizona still allows employers in the private sector to fire or refuse to hire gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender individuals. Arizona bans second-parent adoptions, such as those involving a gay or lesbian couple. Arizona has a law against bullying in schools, but it doesn't specifically address the problems faced by LGBT youths. And, of course, Arizona forbids gay and lesbian couples from marrying. And it refuses to recognize the legitimacy of marriages legally performed in other jurisdictions.

Governor Jan Brewer's veto of the obnoxious Senate Bill 1062 is a victory, at least insofar as free-floating individual discrimination against the LGBT community is concerned. But if the same religious concepts are set in law by the state itself, well, that's just fine for Arizona.

2013 wasn't all that bad; 2014 may be even better

Wednesday, January 1, 2014

In my view, 2013 had more gains than loses. One wouldn't think that was the case in the United States, where irrational Republicans in the House of Representatives forced a shutdown of the federal government and refused to act on anything President Obama proposed. But there was progress in the other two branches of government, and in the states, bypassing the obstructionists.

The Unites States Supreme Court declared the Defense of Marriage Act invalid.  The number of states recognizing lesbian and gay marriage doubled to 18, with the addition of California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico and (surprise!) conservative Utah. Today nearly 39 percent Americans live in states where marriage equality is the law.

United States Supreme Court building

Thanks to the Obama Administration, numerous benefits that were denied to LBGT couples were extended in 2013 to LGBT married couples. President Obama took these actions by administrative rules, circumventing the hostile Republican Congress.

Federally sponsored college loans are now easier to obtain. Employees of federal, state and local governments must now provide Family and Medical Leave Act benefits for LGBT married couples. For LBGT married couples making financial decisions, they now can file income taxes and joint bankruptcy petitions on the same basis as heterosexual couples. LGBT married couples will now qualify for benefits under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the federally funded program that provides limited cash assistance to families with low incomes. The ability of LGBT non-citizens to acquire immigration rights has been expanded. (For a full list, consult the Human Rights Campaign's marriage equality benefits site.)

Marriage equality comes to Utah (Associated Press)

On the other hand, private employees need not honor most marriage benefits accorded to LGBT couples. Some benefits granted to married LGBT couples do not extend to individuals. Finally, 32 states have no laws of their own granting full marriage equality to LBGT couples. The states' failure leaves nearly 62 percent of LGBT Americans unprotected. Marriage laws are governed by the states, not the federal government.

One other setback is largely beyond our control: the Russian anti-gay laws that threaten to tarnish this year's Sochi Olympics. I don't favor boycotting Sochi; I want to see our LGBT athletes (throughout the world) beat Russian athletes. 

Turning to other issues, there have been many successes in 2013.

The Obama Administration has begun extending health-care benefits to more than 30 million Americans and is providing subsidies to make insurance more affordable to those who don't have coverage in the private market. In addition, all insurers--whether they provide coverage through employers or through the individual market--must provide a number of vital benefits.

Individuals can no longer bar applicants based on pre-existing medical conditions such as HIV infection or AIDS. (About 30 percent of people with AIDS do not have any health-care coverage, according to the White House.) Insurance companies can no longer impose lifetime limits on care (further benefiting people with HIV). 

Preventive care, such as checkups, mammograms and vaccines, is available at no out-of-pocket charge to the patient. Women can no longer be charged higher than men for insurance (nor denied coverage that defined birth as a pre-existing condition). Dental and vision coverage extends to chldren. Emergency room visits must be covered. All health plans must cover prescription drugs. Insurance companies must provide patients with rehabilitative services. Mental health services must be covered. Low-income individuals are entitled to subsidies to enable them to cover insurance premiums.

Signed into law: the Affordable Care Act

My best friend (and former partner) saved $300 per month through Obamacare by locating a plan that is equal to or better than the one he had. He owns and operates a one-person business that is suffering because of the economy. This savings will enable him to pay down his line of credit or improve inventory. His partner, who recently developed Parkinson's disease, will not be denied coverage because of his pre-existing condition. Moreover, he will save money by using Obamacare to locate an insurance plan that is better than the one he had.


Many of my other friends have benefited from Obamacare. A good friend who just turned 30 will now be able to get health insurance for the first time in her life (she cannot afford private health insurance and has been tested for a medical condition, which under the old regime was a red flag for denial.)

President Obama

A major setback for Obamacare is that many Republican governors have refused to extend Medicaid coverage to low-paid working families in their states. They want nothing to do with President Obama's signature legislative achievement. Obamacare would given states 90 percent of the funding states need to extend Medicaid, but the governors are doing all they can to reject the President even if it means harming millions of their own constituents. Many of these governors are up for re-election in November 2014; we need to develop strong grassroots activism to drive them from office.

Granted, the rollout of Obamacare's online enrollment on October 1 was a disaster, but the administration has worked quickly to resolve the computer problems. My best friend and his partner, for instance, completed their Healthcare.gov enrollment online in an hour or so. (The old system was not nearly as helpful in enabling customers to compare plans among insurers.)

All in all, Obamacare is a winner, and over the years it will join Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in the pantheon of human rights accorded to all Americans.

On other domestic matters, the United States economy is sluggish but growing. Unemployment has fallen to level recorded in early 2009, a few months after the collapse of the Wall Street in 2008 and the onset of the Great Recession.

The next big moral struggle is to extend one-year unemployment benefits to the 1.3 million who lost them at the end of 2013, and to increase the federal minimum wage to at least $10.10 per hour.

Over time, the value of the minimum wage has 
been chipped away by inflation. Increasing the 

minimum wage to $10.10 today would restore the 
minimum to the level that existed in 1968.

(Chart: Democratic Congressional 
Campaign Committee) 

Among those who would benefit most from a higher minimum wage are working women and their families. Women comprise a disproportionately larger share of the country's low-income wage earners. The gender imbalance is greatest among tipped workers, such as waitresses, who are guaranteed only $2.13 per hour, an amount that hasn't changed since 1991.

The current minimum wage amounts to $15,080 per year, based on a 40-hour work week. That total is $4,450 below the federal poverty line for a family of three. If that mother were earning $10.10 per hour, she would be earning about $21,000 per year, putting her above the poverty line.

The White House and Senate Democrats intend to introduce legislation in 2014 to increase the minimum wage. According to Think Progress, the $10.10 figure would restore the wage level to what it was in the 1960s. 

A higher minimum wage will be one of the major legislative battles in 2014.

The Supreme Court dealt the nation a major setback by lifting the Justice Department's power to pre-clear voting regulations sought by states with a history of racial segregation. As a result, North Carolina, Texas and a few other Southern states have whittled back voting rights that gave all voters an equal playing field in politics. 

Turning to international affairs, President Obama ended combat involvement in Iraq and adeptly avoided intensive United States combat in Libya, Syria and Iran. Actually the picture in Iran is more hopeful than ever. The deal worked out in a few weeks ago could lead to an Iranian government with no capacity for nuclear weapons. Moreover, the United States is scheduled to leave Afghanistan this year after 12 years of military combat, the longest period in United States history. 

Senator John McCain

Compare President Obama's international achievements to the proposals of John McCain, the chief Republican spokesman on foreign affairs and the 2008 Republican nominee for president. Senator McCain opposed ending military intervention in Iraq; opposes leaving Afghanistan; demands strong military actions in Libya and Syria; and wants (at a minimum) more economic sanctions against Iran. (McCain's sanctions would smash the deal the Obama administration has helped craft with Iran). War, war, war, war. Enough already!

As they say, elections have consequences. If the Republicans won in 2008 and 2012, marriage equality a reality would be stymied; 30 million Americans would be without heath insurance and millions more would be paying high amounts for substandard coverage; the minimum wage would be eliminated or at best left untouched; and we'd be at war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and maybe Iran. That's why I vote Democratic. That's why I campaign for Democratic candidates. I believe in the American dream of equality, freedom, economic justice, compassion and peace.

Illinois to become 16th state with marriage equality law

Tuesday, November 19, 2013

Illinois will become the 16th state today to embrace full marriage equality. Governor Pat Quinn will sign the legislation into law at 3:30 p.m. Central Time during a ceremony at the University of Illinois at Chicago Forum.

Governor Pat Quinn

Governor Quinn called the legislation "a big step forward" in extending marriage  equality to all people of Illinois. The governor is an enthusiastic supporter, according to the group Freedom to Marry.

The state House of Representatives voted 61 to 54 on November 5 to approve the legislation. Three Republicans crossed party lines to vote in favor of the bill. The state Senate quickly concurred on a 32-29 vote. The law would take effect on June 1, 2014.

State Representative Greg Harris, a Democrat who is gay, sponsored the bill following the United States Supreme Court's ruling in June striking down the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Illinois voters have expressed surprisingly strong support for equal marriage. A Crains/Ipsos poll conducted in February 2013 showed 50 percent of voters in favor of marriage equality with only 29 percent opposed.

Illinois approved civil unions in 2011.

Hawaii became the 15th state to enact a marriage equality law with Governor Neil Abercrombie's signature on November 13. The law will take effect on December 2.


MARRIAGE EQUALITY BY STATE
YELLOW: States with laws supporting equal marriage
BLUE: States with no such laws
GRAY: States with legal challenges pending 

ENDA alert: Vote scheduled for Monday. Contact your senators now

Sunday, November 3, 2013

The U.S. Senate will vote Monday, November 4, on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would prohibit discrimination in the workplace based on sexual orientation and gender identity. 

Everyone should be able to realize the American dream of equal opportunity and fair treatment. Unfortunately, 29 states do not have laws prohibiting the firing of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender workers. Some cities do, but most do not. 

Eighty-eight percent of Fortune 500 companies recognize that their productivity and business growth depends on having a broad range of talent. They have adopted job rules on sexual orientation and, to a lesser extent, gender identity. But many smaller companies offer no protection. A person’s employment should be based on his or her credentials, work experience and job performance. The nation already prohibits employment discrimination based on sex, race, religious belief and disability. The same protections should apply to LGBT individuals.

Call your state's two senators now to ask them to vote in favor of ENDA (S. 815). You can find the your senators' phone numbers and e-mail addresses by visiting the Senate members' home page. 

For further details on the legislation, visit the Web site of the Human Rights Campaign.

This is our best chance to get ENDA on its way to enactment. All of the Senate's 55 Democrats are expected to vote "yes." They are expected to be joined by four Republicans: co-sponsors Susan Collins of Maine and Mark Kirk of Illinois, plus Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Orrin Hatch of Utah. The Human Rights Campaign is targeting four other Republican senators: Rob Portman of Ohio, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire and Dean Heller of Nevada. A total of 60 "yes" votes are needed to block a possible filibuster by opponents.

A favorable Senate vote will place the bill before the House of Representatives. President Obama has promised to sign the bill as soon as it emerges from Congress.

The beauty of man

Friday, August 2, 2013

Stephane Haffner and Emiliano Simeoni, photo by David Vance

Clauss Castro, photo by Wong Sim

Now before the Supreme Court ...

Wednesday, March 27, 2013

Celebration!

Monday, January 21, 2013

Some people might ascribe President Obama's victory in 2008 as a fluke. An accident it was not. His inauguration for a second term serves as demonstration of what our country truly is about.

"We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths—that all of us are created equal—is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall; just as it guided all those men and women, sung and unsung, who left footprints along this great Mall, to hear a preacher say that we cannot walk alone; to hear a King proclaim that our individual freedom is inextricably bound to the freedom of every soul on Earth.  

"It is now our generation’s task to carry on what those pioneers began. … Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law—for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well."

Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, congratulated the President for his remarks:

"By lifting up the lives of LGBT families for the very first time in an inaugural address, President Obama sent a clear message to LGBT young people from the Gulf Coast to the Rocky Mountains that this country’s leaders will fight for them until equality is the law of the land. As the merits of marriage equality come up for debate from state houses to the halls of the U.S. Supreme Court, and a broad majority of Americans are standing up for liberty and fairness, the President’s unequivocal support for equality is a clarion call that all Americans should receive with celebration."

2012: Kudos to Nate Silver

Monday, December 31, 2012

No wrap-up of the 2012 presidential campaign would be complete without a tribute to Nate Silver of FiveThirtySeven.com. All year, the statistician had been sifting through polling data, applying it to his own statistical model and calmly explaining, to the disgust of Fox News, why President Obama would re-election. 

Silver's confidence was unmatched. Well before Election Day, Silver was forecasting that Obama was an odds-on favorite, even in the wake of the president's poor performance in his initial debate with Mitt Romney. And even as the race seemingly tightened toward Election Day, Silver was forecasting that Obama stood a 90 percent chance of being re-elected. His forecast  correctly called Obama's win in each of 50 states. In the 2008 presidential election, he correctly called 49 states, missing only Indiana, which had not gone Republican since 1964.

Fox and the Republicans howled about his forecasts. Even political pundits on the left said he had gone too far out on a limb with his 2012 forecasts. He rejected the idea that he was biased in favor of Obama and the Democrats. Indeed, in the 2010 mid-term elections, all three Senate seats that Silver misdiagnosed were won by Democrats, not Republicans as he had forecast.

Silver says his "most important distinguishing characteristic" is that he is open-minded. That quality, he adds, is probably encouraged by the fact that he is gay. That open-mindedness makes him skeptical even of parts of the gay culture, he told OUT magazine in its December 18 profile of him.

OUT tells of Silver noticing a series of memorials in Chicago's Boystown to various gay Americans such as Keith Haring. "I was like, Why isn’t he just an American artist? I don’t want to be Nate Silver, gay statistician, any more than I want to be known as a white, half-Jewish statistician who lives in New York," he told the magazine.

Silver says he considers himself "kind of sexually gay but ethnically straight." Until recently he had a boyfriend; they separated but remain close.

So here's to Nate Silver: the nation's premier analyst of election data, a superb statistician and sabermetrician, and a writer and author. Oh, and by the way, he happens to be gay.

Marriage cases head to U.S. Supreme Court

Sunday, December 9, 2012

The U.S. Supreme Court will tackle the issue of same-sex marriage for the first time. The justices will examine two cases, California's Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Nina Totenberg, National Public Radio's legal analyst, said the court "could decide all the basic issues surrounding same-sex marriage in one fell swoop."

The legal background is complex, and the court could reach a number of different outcomes. The only certainty is that the court will decide the cases by late June. Hearings on the cases are expected sometime in March.

Let's make a go at the background, as explained by the Washington Post:

The court was almost obliged to review the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as between a man and a woman and withholds federal benefits from same-sex couples legally married in the states where they live. The law affects things such as health insurance, taxes and medical leave.

[President] Obama announced in 2011 that his administration would no longer defend the law against challenges that it violated the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection. Four district courts and two courts of appeal have declared the law unconstitutional, including in the New York case, and the high court almost always weighs in on such decisions.

But the court took a bold step in agreeing to review a lower court’s ruling overturning Proposition 8, the 2008 measure in which Californians amended their state constitution to ban same-sex marriage. The referendum came after the state Supreme Court had ruled that there was a right to same-sex marriage and 18,000 couples had taken advantage of the move.

NPR's Totenberg examines the specifics of DOMA:

The test case that the Supreme Court said it will review involves a New York couple, Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, who had been together for 42 years prior to their marriage in 2007. When Spyer died, however, the federal government, acting under DOMA, required Windsor to pay $363,000 in estate taxes that she would not have owed if her spouse had been of the opposite sex. 

"I brought my case against the government," Windsor said, "because I couldn't believe that our government would charge me $350,000 because I was married to a woman and not a man." 

Windsor won in the lower courts. Indeed, in the past couple of years, 10 courts, with judges appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents, have ruled that DOMA is unconstitutional. 

Typically, when a court says a federal statute is unconstitutional, the federal government appeals to the Supreme Court to change the outcome. But after initially defending DOMA in the courts, the Obama administration made a highly unusual U-turn, and instead urged the Supreme Court to strike it down. 

At that point, the House Republican leadership hired its own lawyer to defend the law. So when the case is argued, probably in March, it will be that lawyer — former Bush administration Solicitor General Paul Clement — who will be defending DOMA, while the Obama administration will be urging the court to strike down the statute. 

These twists and turns apparently have caused the justices some concern as to whether they have the jurisdiction to decide the case when the federal government is no longer defending the law as constitutional. So the court has ordered the lawyers to also present arguments as to whether the Republican congressional leadership has standing to defend DOMA in place of the Obama administration.

The California issue also hinges on the question of standing, but the possible outcomes are less clear. Here is the background: By a 52 to 48 percent margin, the state's voters in November 2008 amended their constitution to say that marriage was only between a man and a woman. Opponents of the referendum took the matter to federal court. The district court ruled that the Proposition 8 ban violated the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution. The ruling was challenged, and the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that the lower court's ruling was correctly decided. In the meantime, marriage licenses were granted to 18,000 same-sex couples.

Writing in SCOTUSblog, Kenji Yoshino, the Chief Justice Earl Warren Professor of Constitutional Law at NYU School of Law, raised a number of possible outcomes (as summarized):

The procedural one-state solution. Under the procedural one-state solution, the court would find that the proponents of Proposition 8 lack standing to bring suit.

The substantive one-state solution. The court could adopt a substantive one-state solution, which was the rule adopted by the Ninth Circuit panel. The Ninth Circuit held that under the Equal Protection Clause, a state could not grant an entitlement and then take it away without a legitimate reason. 

A limited one-state solution. A ruling that the proponents lacked standing would reinstate the district court’s opinion, given that it would mean that an improper party had appealed that decision. As the Ninth Circuit indicated during oral argument, the impact of a ruling based on standing would be limited to requiring the clerks of Alameda County and Los Angeles County — the only county clerks named in the complaint — to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Plaintiffs’ attorney David Boies predicted that the Governor Jerry Brown would then require other counties in California to operate in a manner that would ensure statewide consistency. He further averred that if the Governor refused to do so, the plaintiffs would sue to secure such uniformity. The upshot of this solution would be that only California would be affected.

Civil unions in eight states. The court could focus on the lack of justification for giving same-sex couples all the rights and responsibilities of marriage but withholding the word "marriage" from them. … What is important is not that California went all the way to same-sex marriage and then retreated, but rather that California went all the way to "everything but marriage." Once it did so, it reached the point of no return. Currently, seven states besides California would be affected by such a civil union ruling: Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon and Rhode Island.

Eight states, but … Giving states beyond the nine option to do as they please. Such a ruling could have perverse effects, given that later legislatures that might otherwise have been willing to compromise at "everything but marriage" unions might switch to endorsing only weaker recognition or no recognition at all.

So we have the legal issues. Now let's delve into a few related matters.