Democracy for Utah - Equality Under the Law

Blogging the FLDS

Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:49:52 -0600

Sara Robinson at Orcinus is starting a series about the FLDS that includes reporting from Jon Krakauer's Under the Banner of Heaven and the new book The Secret Lives of Saints by Daphne Bramham. Here's Sara's series so far; check back at Orcinus periodically for more.

One of the things we need to understand is just how the FLDS managed to stay so far under the radar for so long — and what twisted consequences were allowed to follow from that lack of oversight. Bramham shows that they did a stunningly effective job of building their own self-sufficient infrastructure of community institutions — hospitals, police forces, courts, financial trusts, schools, and employers — that allowed the church to function without interacting with the outside world any more than necessary. Most of the group's institutions were designed to mimic and supplant outside authority well enough to keep the group (and especially its treatment of women and children) hidden from the prying eyes of outsiders. And, for 60 years, those who were responsible for providing higher-level oversight for all these institutions have almost always been somehow induced to look the other way. [...]

Like African-Americans in the slavery era, women who tried to run were captured by these police and returned to their husbands for punishment — or taken to the hospital for the dreaded mental health evaluation. The police force's main job is to be the muscle that enforces the Prophet's control of the entire community. When the Prophet decides that a man no longer deserves his home, these are the cops who enforce the eviction. Appealing to the FLDS judges has been useless: due process as we understand it doesn't even enter into the conversation.

There is progress on this front. The state of Utah began to move against the Hildale police force in 2005, revoking the certification of its polygamous chief. Sam Roundy admitted that he'd investigated over 25 sexual abuse cases in the past decade — including one that involved the rape of an eight-year-old — and never reported it to child protection authorities. (He pleaded ignorance of all mandated reporter laws.) However, Roundy was replaced with another polygamous officer who immediately sent Warren Jeffs a letter pledging his loyalty, and I found no word that he's left office since. Later that year, the Utah Supreme Court also disbarred the local polygamous judge, which paved the way for reform of the local courts.

But the Saints are now in many places besides Utah; and officials in these other states shouldn't be surprised if they try to hijack cops and courts and replicate this system wherever they go. In Utah, decades of failure to attend to this effectively deprived tens of thousands of people of their civil rights. It can't be allowed to happen again.

Unlike liberals, conservatives will accept a partial victory now

Mon, 08 Oct 2007 11:35:37 -0600

There's been a lot of debate going on at AMERICAblog over whether transsexuals should be included in the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) along with gays and lesbians (the votes are there to pass an LGB bill, but not an LGBT bill). And while that subject itself is somewhat off-topic for this blog, John Aravosis at AMERICAblog has some interesting things to say about how liberals and conservatives approach the challenge of getting difficult legislation passed (Salon.com):

Conservatives understand that cultural change is a long, gradual process of small but cumulatively deadly victories. Liberals want it all now. And that's why, in the culture wars, conservatives often win and we often lose. While conservatives spend years, if not decades, trying to convince Americans that certain judges are "activists," that gays "recruit" children, and that Democrats never saw an abortion they didn't like, we often come up with last-minute ideas and expect everyone to vote for them simply because we're right. Conservatives are happy with piecemeal victory, liberals with noble failure. We rarely make the necessary investment in convincing people that we're right because we consider it offensive to have to explain an obvious truth. [...]

Civil rights legislation — hell, all legislation — is a series of compromises. You rarely get everything you want, nor do you get it all at once. Blacks, for example, won the right to vote in 1870. Women didn't get that same right until 1920. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 provided a large umbrella of rights based on race, religion, sex and national origin, but failed to mention gays or people with disabilities. People with disabilities were finally given specific rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, but gays as a class have still to be granted a single civil right at the federal level. If we waited until society was ready to accept each and every member of the civil rights community before passing any civil rights legislation, we'd have no civil rights laws at all. Someone is always left behind, at least temporarily. It stinks, but it's the way it's always worked, and it's the way you win.

Washington State activists want marriage to require children

Wed, 07 Feb 2007 13:33:33 -0700

But it's not what you think. The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance, a progressive group, is pushing a bill that would take the religious right's attitudes about marriage to their logical conclusion:

The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance seeks to defend equal marriage in this state by challenging the Washington Supreme Court's ruling on Andersen v. King County. This decision, given in July 2006, declared that a "legitimate state interest" allows the Legislature to limit marriage to those couples able to have and raise children together. Because of this "legitimate state interest," it is permissible to bar same-sex couples from legal marriage.

The way we are challenging Andersen is unusual: using the initiative, we are working to put the Court’s ruling into law. We will do this through three initiatives. The first would make procreation a requirement for legal marriage. The second would prohibit divorce or legal separation when there are children. The third would make the act of having a child together the legal equivalent of a marriage ceremony.

Salt Lake City Liberal Social Club and Catchall for Noncatchables

Thu, 18 Jan 2007 19:59:48 -0700

Alllllllllll right!

The Liberal Social Club that's been rocking Salt Lake City for a matter of weeks now is planning another get-together open to all, any and whatever else may be applicable.

The Day after next Sunday Sunday Sunday (Monday the 29th of January) we will be getting together at a place TO BE DETERMINED. We run with secrecy and danger in the name of political transparency and peace.

VP, Mrs. Cheney 'eagerly anticipating' lesbian daughter's baby

Wed, 06 Dec 2006 10:03:43 -0700

Washington Post:

Mary Cheney, the vice president's openly gay daughter, is pregnant. She and her partner of 15 years, Heather Poe, are "ecstatic" about the baby, due in late spring, said a source close to the couple.

[...] "The vice president and Mrs. Cheney are looking forward with eager anticipation to the arrival of their sixth grandchild," spokesman [sic] Lea Anne McBride said last night.

Yet another member of the Republican leadership who doesn't have a problem with gay people.

Fundies freak out over Condi's pro-gay comment

Wed, 18 Oct 2006 11:20:14 -0600

From the American Family Association website:

The ceremony involved Secretary of State Rice and the swearing in of Mark Dybul, an open homosexual, as the nation's new global AIDS coordinator — a position that carries the rank of ambassador. An Associated Press photo of the ceremony also shows a smiling First Lady Laura Bush and Dybul's homosexual "partner," Jason Claire. During her comments, Rice referred to the presence of Claire's mother and called her Dybul's "mother-in-law," a term normally reserved for the heterosexuals who have been legally married. [...]

Sprigg says in light of the Foley scandal, "it's inexplicable that a conservative administration would do such things." He also notes that Rice's comments defy an existing law on the books protecting traditional marriage. "So, for her to treat his partner like a spouse and treat the partner's mother as a mother-in-law, which implies a marriage between the two partners, is a violation of the spirit if not the letter of the Defense of Marriage Act," the FRC spokesman states. [...]

Dybul, who was confirmed by the Senate two months ago but was just sworn in due to scheduling conflicts with Secretary Rice and Mrs. Bush, is the nation's third openly homosexual ambassador. The other two no longer hold their positions. According to news reports, in all three cases the men's homosexual partners held the Bible on which the oath of office was sworn.

It's hard to tell what they're more upset about: the "mother-in-law" comment or letting gay people touch the Bible.

A logical approach to 'protecting marriage'

Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:06:23 -0600

Yesterday the Federal Marriage Amendment was defeated, again. But I don't think the GOP was ready for Rep. Lincoln Davis (D-TN) to be even more serious than they are about "protecting marriage" (ThinkProgress):

Marriage is for life, and this amendment needs to include that basic tenet. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think we should expand the scope of the amendment to outlaw divorce in this country. Going further, Mr. Speaker, I believe in fidelity. Adultery is an evil that threatens the marriage and the heart of every marriage, which is commitment. [...]

Additionally, Mr. Speaker, we must address spousal abuse and child abuse. Think of how many marriages end in a divorce or permanent separation because one spouse is abusive. [...]

This is why if we are truly serious about protecting marriage to the point we will amend the Constitution, we should extend the punishment of abuse to prevent those who do such a hideous act from ever running for an elected position anywhere.

We should also prevent those who commit adultery, or get a divorce, from running for office. Mr. Speaker, this House must lead by example. If we want those watching on C-SPAN to actually believe we are serious about protecting marriage, then we should go after the other major threats to the institution. Not just the threat that homosexuals may some day be allowed to marry in a state other than Massachusetts.

I wonder how many Republicans turned white (or rather, more white) listening to that speech.

Talking about same-sex marriage

Thu, 13 Jul 2006 11:00:25 -0600

Guest poster Peterr at firedoglake:

The TheoCon view of marriage is built around power and gender roles. Their chief problem with same-sex marriage is that they can't figure out who wears the pants in the family. Someone's got to be in charge — and (by their theological lights) that's the job of the man of the house. This is why TheoCons (especially the male variety) are rightly threatened by same-sex marriage. If Larry and Barry can marry, then marriage isn't about preserving gender roles, with manly men providing for the family and meek women being the submissive nurturers at home, barefoot and pregnant. "Horrors!" thinks the TheoCon man. "What if my wife finds out about that? How will I keep her in line?" It gets even worse, if he thinks about himself: "What if they're right? What then is my role in a marriage?"

The greatest gift of the GLBT community to the straight community in this debate around same-sex marriage is the focus on partnership. The whole Genesis 2 story of creation, around which so many on the right build their odd view of marriage, is not at all about gender and gender roles. It's really about the difference between companions and partners. A dog is a companion. A cat is a companion. A giraffe is a companion. According to the story, God made all the animals, brought them all to the man to deal with his loneliness, but none of them sufficed. But another human being ... that's a partner!

Interestingly, the history of English translations of this story mirrors the TheoCon/Progressive debates here. Older translations like the King James Version of Genesis 2 says the woman is to be a "helper" (or some similar word) for the man; the New Revised Standard Version more properly translates the Hebrew of this passage as "partner."

NY court rules against civil marriage rights for all

Thu, 06 Jul 2006 11:15:05 -0600

WaPo:

New York's highest court ruled Thursday that gay marriage is not allowed under state law, rejecting arguments by same-sex couples who said the law violates their constitutional rights.

The Court of Appeals, in a 4-2 decision, said New York's marriage law is constitutional and clearly limits marriage to between a man and a woman.

Any change in the law would have to come from the state Legislature, Judge Robert Smith said. [...]

Plaintiff Regina Cicchetti said she was "devastated" by the ruling. But the Port Jervis resident said she and her partner of 36 years, Susan Zimmer, would fight on, probably by lobbying the Legislature for a change in the law.

"We haven't given up," she said. "We're in this for the long haul. If we can't get it done for us, we'll get it done for the people behind us."

Update 1: Gov. Dean weighs in (Raw Story):

Coverage of Utah Pride 2006

Mon, 05 Jun 2006 12:02:06 -0600

Deseret News and Salt Lake Tribune:

The political awakening of Utah's LGBT community started, [Sen. Scott] McCoy said, with the 2004 passage of Amendment 3, which placed a ban on same-sex civil marriage in the Utah Constitution.

"That was the point at which the gay community said, 'That's it, that's enough,'" McCoy said. With groups like Equality Utah organizing to fight Amendment 3, "it allowed us to have meaningful conversations with our straight neighbors. ... And all that is now focused on the political process."

Much of that focus Sunday was on President George W. Bush's drive, including a White House event today, to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage.

Patrick Guerriero, national president of the Log Cabin Republicans, a group of gay members of the GOP, urged festival attendees to call the White House switchboard and their senators to tell them to "stop wasting time in Washington, and messing with my family and my Constitution."

Religious right on Bush's FMA speech: 'We're not buying it'

Sat, 03 Jun 2006 22:33:25 -0600

Los Angeles Times:

The campaign against gay marriage is scheduled to get the full White House treatment on Monday — words from President Bush in front of assembled VIPs and a bank of television cameras.

Such a carefully staged production aims to confer the grandeur of the office on the push for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. But even before administration officials announced the event, some invitees denounced it as a sham.

"I'm going to go and hear what he says, but we already know it is a ruse," said Joe Glover, president of the Family Policy Network, which opposes gay marriage. "We're not buying it. We're going to go and watch the dog-and-pony show, [but] it's too little, too late."

Speaking of Bush's anti-marriage campaign, John Aravosis at AMERICAblog promises some interesting phone calls to members of Congress on Monday:

I think we really need to start asking how marriage protection is going in the House and Senate as well. After all, we wouldn't want any Senators or Congressmen who have committed adultery, are committing adultery, or ever will commit adultery voting in favor of "protecting marriage" when they refuse to protect it at home.

The state Dem model: Be low-key and generally inoffensive?

Wed, 31 May 2006 10:36:22 -0600

Reporter Rebecca Walsh in Sunday's Salt Lake Tribune. I suppose the first step to winning over Republican voters is to get them past the idea that Democrats are baby-killing traitors who hate America. Still, I wish we were farther along the negative-neutral-positive scale than this:

Twenty-five years ago, two politicians were the hope of Utah's Democratic Party: Salt Lake City Mayor Ted Wilson and U.S. Rep. Wayne Owens. [...]

Wilson and Owens have been replaced by U.S. Rep. Jim Matheson and Salt Lake County Mayor Peter Corroon. And while it's still too early to say a trend is in the making, the congressman and county executive are being cast as Utah Democrats' future: fiscally and socially conservative, predictable, low-key and generally inoffensive.

"It makes sense if you are a Democrat in a state that's so overwhelmingly Republican to try to lay low, govern effectively and make a better reputation for your party," says Kelly Patterson, director of Brigham Young University's Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy. "That's a good long-term strategy."

I wonder what the state party has to say about that. Anyone out there want to comment?

Most western democracies recognize same-sex unions

Mon, 24 Apr 2006 11:51:58 -0600

Minneapolis Star Tribune:

Although many Americans were surprised when traditionally Catholic Spain opened marriage to gay and lesbian couples last year, the Spanish government was actually following a well-established legal trend in Western Europe. Spain is one of the three European countries, along with Belgium and the Netherlands, that have legalized marriage for gays and lesbians. Eleven other European countries have chosen to recognize same-sex unions through registered partnership, civil unions and/or domestic partnership laws: the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Austria and Portugal. The only Western European countries without such laws in place are Greece, Italy and Ireland; the latter has a civil unions bill pending in its parliament. With the adoption of Canada's Civil Marriage Law last summer, the United States is now one of the few Western democracies that does not recognize relationship rights of gay and lesbian couples at the national level.

More Americans supporting equal marriage rights

Fri, 24 Mar 2006 11:00:26 -0700

Pew Research Center:

After peaking during the 2004 election, opposition to allowing gays and lesbians to marry has faded in recent years. Currently, 51% oppose legalizing gay marriage, down from a recent high of 63% just two years ago in February of 2004. The percent who favor allowing gay marriage has increased from a low of 29% in August of that year to 39% today. [...]

The turnaround over the past two years is particularly distinct in the change among those who say they "strongly oppose" legalizing gay marriage. Just 28% take this position today, down from 42% in February of 2004, and the decline has been sharpest among seniors, Republicans and more moderate religious groups.

Equality Utah Hosts Delegate Training

Fri, 24 Feb 2006 13:22:14 -0700

"From Equality for Utah" I attended their citizen lobby training and was very impressed at the quality and helpfulness of the training. Please consider attending this new training on being a delegate. The information is incredibly useful. ...and it doesn't hurt to have D4U representation at these events.
Sheryl

"Utah's LGBT community is facing an exceptional amount, if not an unprecedented amount, of anti-LGBT legislation this year. As we continue to lobby against hateful and hurtful bills, we need to consider a bigger strategy in influencing change in Utah politics. As we work to effect policy, we much also work to effect the choice of policymakers. Bottom line -- we need to change the faces on The Hill.