Fidelity for Gay Marriage? Ask Ken Starr and Bill Clinton

California's Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on 5 March on two questions about same-sex marriage:

1. Is Prop. 8, which passed by a slim majority in November, an amendment to the constitution or is it a revision? Our friends at Lambda Legal, ACLU and other great legal organizations have laid out a clear case that taking away the rights of a minority by a majority in such a fundamental area as marriage is a revision of the essential nature of the constitution, not something that can be imposed by a majority on a minority. James Madison worried greatly about the tyranny of the majority in the Federalist papers, concerned that the American system not allow such.

2. Shall the 18,000 same sex marriages conducted between May and November of 2008 remain valid? The court ruled eloquently in May that same-sex marriage is legal. Marriages took place. Family unions were legally recognized. Then came Prop. 8. And no other than Ken Starr argues that those marriages shall be destroyed.

The court will decide both questions by 5 June 2009.

After Mr. Starr wrote his argument on 19 December, the Courage Campaign asked our members to send in photographs of themselves with signs that said, "Please don't divorce us" or "please don't divorce our friends/co-workers."

"Fidelity": Don't Divorce... from Courage Campaign on Vimeo.

We were inundated with 1,500 outstanding photos of human souls that represent every minority under threat if this revision is allowed to stand. They were so touching that Paul Delehanty, aka kid oakland on Daily Kos, suggested that we set them to the music of Regina Spektor's hit song "Fidelity." With her permission and that of EMI and Warner Brothers, courtesy of producer/director Shaun Kadlec, is the new Fidelity. With over 800,000 views (Vimeo and YouTube) and 280,000 signers to our letter in twelve days, it has become a sort of pop culture phenomenon.

Sadly, one person it did not affect was Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton happily took a six figure fee to undermine a boycott of Doug Manchester's San Diego Hyatt on Sunday. Mr. Manchester gave $125,000 to the Yes on 8 Campaign, so the LGBT and progressive communities, led by Cleve Jones and our friends at UNITE HERE, have been boycotting the hotel since July. But not Bill Clinton. He spoke yesterday even as we protested outside, trying to present him with the signatures of 30,000 Courage members who, in only forty hours, signed to ask Mr. Clinton not to speak at Mr. Manchester's hotel. Irony of ironies that Bill Clinton would actually support Ken Starr by helping to put money in the pocket of Mr. Starr's funders. But then again, Bill Clinton always had a different view of Fidelity than the rest of us.

Comments

[annieR]

I'm not gay. Some of my friends are. Sexual orientation is irrelevant to my relationship with them. The US Constitution guarantees "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Proposition 8 tries to delete the third.

[Wake-up]

Wrong... pursuit of happiness does not refer to the definition of marriage at all... that is, we should defer to the will of the people (citizens) as to what the phrase "pursuit of happiness" actually means... Yes?

No one in America (really) wants to deny anyone any rights... it's about the word (and traditional meaning) of the word "marriage"... so pick another a word...

[LeftRight]

Wrong! Marriage is DEFINITELY a subset of the "pursuit of happiness"!!!!

And Prop 8 is NOT the will of the people, it's the will of the MAJORITY!!!! Perhaps you've heard the term, "tyranny of the majority?? When the majority tries to remove the rights of a minority, it's time to step in and STOP the normal majority rule in teh USA!

And yes, those who are against Gay Marriage ARE trying to deny rights to gay people!!! Otherwise they'd be accepting of the idea that we should get rid of the word "marriage" on ALL govt documents, and EVERYONE will have a civil union, whether gay or straight, and if you want a "marriage" then you can go to a church. However, under that theory you would have ZERO legal rights granted until you had the civil union!

[nightwind928]

How interesting that the same element of society that rails against gay marriage also rails against things that we consider basic human concepts. Darwinism recently came to the front yet again with the argument against teaching it in schools in some states. A womans right to choice is also challenged almost weekly. Religious fundamentalism is a guaranteed right in our country, no matter how abstract the belief is observed. Yet the same rights can't be guaranteed someone with what the religious right considers a diverse lifestyle. They aquiese that it's O K to use poisonous vipers in some religious ceremonies yet two same sex couples, wishing to commit to each other, is not? They say it's humane to bomb abortion clinics and execute people on death row but don't harm a fetus? It's hard to take the opinion of people who's idealism is so contradictory and whos beliefs include men riding around on dinosaurs. One can see why they feel so threatened by ideas that threaten modern conventional wisdom

[CelestialOtter]

Today I am particularly happy that we live in a 'constitutional' democracy. Apparently we really are in danger of 'the tyranny of the majority' as evidenced here. I humbly submit that, at first glance, this looks like a separation of Church and State issue. But the separation may be already inherent and simple. 'Marriage' is undoubtedly a sacrament (sacred) to a number of religions. It is also undoubtedly a legal union of two people with tangible consequences under the laws of the state. So are we really getting this bent out of shape over semantics? Can the word marriage enjoy two definitions? I submit that it already does. I was married first in courthouse, then a church -- two different things. Or must the opponents of gay marriage admit to themselves (and the courts) that they believe their religious assertions should, in this case at least, be the law of the land? The court should have no problem with this one -- it is cut and dried. Religious and legal concerns are wholly separate in the United States, and God willing, they will remain that way.

[LeftRight]

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!! The only quasi-reasonable argument that I've seen regarding gay marriage is the religious one, which has NOTHING to do with the legal arguments!

[Wake-up]

That video add is sick because it's a lie... completely wrong and meant to "make us feel bad". Once someone is married in the State of CA or any state, it's the law and can not be un-done. And using this cute little girl for political purposes is as low as it gets... truly the left will stop at nothing...

Marriage means 1-man and 1-woman... just pick another word already! But it's not about marriage... it's about a politics agenda...

There's no discrimination here, I can marry a woman and a gay man can marry a woman... because he does not want to does not mean the history of the greatest institution we have should be flipped upside down...

The people said no (pick another word) and the court is trying to force an agenda which means, here we go again the left taking away our rights...

[RichJ]

The video is not a lie. Ken Starr is probably right this moment preparing his arguments to present to the Justices to support the briefs filed to nullify the over 18,000 same-sex marriages performed between June and November 2008.
This is a somewhat different issue of upholding Prop H8. Those 18,000+ couples were already legally married. Mr. Starr is going to argue that the gov't should just unilaterally dissolve those unions.
So you are completely wrong and I really don't care if you feel bad or not.
From what you are writing I am not going to change your heart and mind on this issue in one blog comment.
Also, the proposition as written into law does not state ONE man and ONE woman as you claim marriage is. It says " a " man and " a " woman. A little less definite than using "one". (See my other posting a bit further down)
As far as not wanting the use of the word "marriage" for same-sex couples ... um...get over it.
If two drunk opposite sex people can hook up in Vegas and go before "Elvis" to get married then spare me any sanctity or ownership for the word "marriage" that you are claiming.

[Wake-up]

"a" = "one"

To most in this country, Marriage is sacred and to make the generalization about Vegas... please... No to Prop 8 means I can marry anyone... like my Mom, Dad, brother... makes the most succesful and important institution in America void...

And no, the word is important, why can't you get over it? There's Civil Union for the other side... you don't like the words, pick a new one.

The main issue here I think is Children (have to put the politics aside for the kids!) and say what's best for raising children - man and woman or 2 same sex? Men and Women have different natures and that has more value for kids.

If Marriage = anything goes then kids suffer and our future suffers... that is, institutions should not be forced by Gov. to decide who gets the kids.

[RichJ]

Also, most of what you said are just a few stale talking points.

I already addressed the first two paragraphs. The third is just ridiculous.
No one is flipping anything upside down.

Your last sentence " The people said no..., here we go again the left taking away our rights.."
Name one right that was taken away from you when the CA Supreme Court gave its May 15, 2008 decision ?
Spare me the will of the people argument please. That was wrongly exercised by a very small majority some 5 1/2 months later. If Prop 8 is overturned you still have not lost a single identifiable right that I am aware of. That is one of the functions of the Supreme Court as laid out in both the State and U.S. Constitutions.

On the other hand, you are making lame arguments using stale talking points to try to justify having taken away mine on Nov 4, 2008

[Wake-up]

Yes, the "CA Supreme Court gave its May 15, 2008 decision" did not take any rights... it was a political decision though. My point is the People said "Yes on 8" and now the Left is trying to over-turn the will of the people... I'm sure you agree that that's a bad thing - Right or Left.

The People voted Sir... "wrongly exercised"? Excuse me, voting is wrong?

Talk about lame... the court overturning the will of the people is what leads to revolution. Do G&L deserve the same rights as straight? ABSOLUTELY, ya just can't use the word... you can't re-write history.

[professor]

The worst part is the treacly sentimentality with which this issue is promulgated.

[ChelseaC]

I think that Clinton speaking at this hotel was the wrong move--it sends an "it's ok" to be a bigot message.Why would he do that? I thought he was for gay rights?
What's more important--a speaking engagement or standing up against bigots and lining their wallets?

[tbearcandy]

I believe Clinton is for gay rights... I'm not gay, however I totally support the right for homosexual people to have all the benefits that the government extends to heterosexual people.. The church institution has defined marriage as 1 man (a man) and 1 woman (a woman) and the government has chosen to go along with it. The current administration follows the same belief. Therefore, stick with civil union language until this blows over...
After all, it is the recognition you want, right? The words are immaterial, I'm sure!...

[mredder4]

Your attempt to malign former President Bill Clinton with the "anti-gay" brush is disingenuous at best, if not openly and outright shameful. What you fail to mention in your holier-than-thou diatribe is that Pres. Clinton was invited to the hotel as a speaker to a group that booked the hotel years in advance for their event, a group that is nothing more than a customer of the hotel, the same as thousands of other people and groups that require lodging. As outrageous and inhumane as the vote on Prop 8 turned out to be( if I lived in CA, I would have voted No), it is a mistake to think that taking a blacklist approach to Yes on 8 supporters earns those fighting for equal rights any position on the moral high ground. Quite the opposite. These tactics are no less than blatantly overzealous and self-destructive. Your goal now seems to have diverged from fighting for equal rights to driving certain companies out of business because of the activities of their owners or prominent contributors. In this difficult economic time, your message has become "Our rights trump all, even the jobs and livelihoods of innocent workers whose only 'crime' has been to work for people that we disagree with." My support for marriage rights for all people across the nation remains, but my support for No on Prop 8 is now decreased by its supporters' inability to act in a moral and mature manner.

[evaesthetic]

How is this boycott different than any other boycott? Seems to me, this is a legitimate response. If people don't want to support my rights, why should I support their businesses when there are other, equally good businesses that chose NOT to support these bigoted policies? How does that make them "immoral"?

If your favorite ice cream purveyor decided to massively fund a campaign against YOUR rights, would it be "moral" to continue your support for their company, even though you know some portion of your purchase money would go to fund activities you disapprove of? How about if that ice cream seller was supporting genocide in some far away country?

Why should gay people be expected to just calmly allow their rights to be stripped, without protest? Seems to me you are toeing the LDS/Yes on Prop 8 party line.

[ChelseaC]

Eva,
Well said.

[mredder4]

Yeah, I wrote in my post that I would have voted No on Prop 8, so I'm really towing the LDS line. So stupid.

The difference between a boycott and a picket line is pretty obvious, to anyone of reason. A boycott would involve gays not booking rooms at the hotel. A boycott would involve gays encouraging their friends and other supporters not to book rooms at the hotel. A boycott would NOT involve picketing outside the hotel, frightening away other potential customers of the hotel. A boycott would NOT involve risking the jobs and livelihoods of the innocent hotel workers who's only "crime" is who owns their jobs.

You missed the point of my post entirely because you are so selfishly wrapped up in "Me Me Me Me". Get over yourselves and stop insulting people who want to support you but are having trouble reconciling your detrimental behavior with your supposedly peaceful and inclusive message. You're your own worst enemy, at this point.

[Wake-up]

It's not your right and I think that's pretty clear... that is, for what... thousands of years, the word "Marriage" meant one man and one woman. So, you should have all the same rights, just pick a different word... not good (right or left) to re-write history, like this.

Just pick another word... why id that so hard to do? Using words like 'bigot' is a hasty generalization and when emotions are involved, there's always one side that likes to start calling people names.

The people voted and they voted one man and one woman = marriage... this is what we do in a democracy, we vote. When courts get involved, it dangerous stuff...

[maurice55]

What is the outrage about gay marriage? How will it change our lives if gay people marry? Does this give them some type of unfair economic advantage? Are we Americans so obsessed with our Puritan ethic that we won't be able to function if gays marry? I wonder how many of these rightous holy-people have ever met a gay person. Can we ever put our fears and insecurities behind us and focus on problems that have a direct effect on the health of our country? I will be willing to prioritize these issues for any of you, on demand.

[MarilynBB]

Unhappy people hate to see others who are happy so they must find a way to criticize and block their joy. Somehow they wrongly feel that they will be bigger by standing on top of others instead of being seen as abusers. Many people who are unhappy in their marriage and who did not feel they had the choice to share their life with someone of the same sex are jealous. Jealousy brings out evil deeds.
It is often those who want to hide their own feelings and desires for someone of the same sex who are most vocal and negative toward homosexuals. Perhaps the angriest are the ones who are most afraid of exposure. These people do a lot more harm lying about their orientation to an unsuspecting spouse than those who openly admit their desires and share their love.
To the best of my knowledge The American Psychiatric Association took homosexuality out of its definition of a mental illness once many of the voting psychiatrists revealed themselves as homosexuals whether they were in or out of the closet.
If people would spend more time learning about acceptance, caring and sharing than on pointing fingers we would be a lot closer to peace on earth. There are some lovely images in that video.

[AlKhateeb]

Of course there are lovely images in the in the video, why would the advocates have it otherwise? Far from being unhappy I am simply offering some very (at least I think) profound and (I know) provocative questions. I made no claim that would even suggest anything about the APA and their findings or lack thereof. My is simply my own understanding of the sociological and cultural anthropological imperatives that militate against homosexual marriage. If for some reason now unknown to me I have been unhappy in 27 years of marriage the revelation thereof is still in the somewhere in my future. Suffice to say that not everyone that advocates against homosexual marriage is a raving lunatic and yes I daresay such was also the case for those advocating against interracial marriage. The profound difference is that race such as it is understood is purely and artificial and political construct. Gender is not. And the urge for self preservation couched in the imperative to proscribe homosexual as an affront to community preservation is very real.

[JudgeMoonbox]

"And the urge for self preservation couched in the imperative to proscribe homosexual as an affront to community preservation is very real."

More likely "very insane." Exactly how does allowing SOME people to express their gay orientation threaten the self-preservation of others? What you appear to be saying is that everyone is gay; therefore the species's survival depends on denying gayness. That is totally illogical--whatever theory you have as to why some are gay will hold that enough others are hetero that the community will survive acceptance.

I've been watching the gay rights debate for 3 decades now, and I haven't seen any opponent state a moral principle that gays violate; nor any scientific evidence that their acceptance poses one bit of danger.

"I am simply offering some very (at least I think) profound and (I know) provocative questions."

Where? Where? All I've seen are banal and easily dispatched.

[AlKhateeb]

1. No human can biologically have either two fathers or two mothers. That is why the advert is so cleverly worded to address "Dad's" and not Father's. (except of course by the intervention of genetic manipulation. Multiple fathered and certainly multiple mothered offspring do not occur in nature.)
2. The “ Loving” case addressed itself to a matter of the contrived issue of race. There is no such contrivance among the genders or as it is more commonly called sexes.
3. If this is a matter to be determined between consenting adults, marriage or any kind of conjugal partnership why then advocate for the most liberal application? Why only for monogamous couples, why not advocate for plural marriage, why have a prohibition against blood relations getting married as long as they attain the age of majority and are legal sane?
4. The answer to #3 :At some level you all accept that there is a community interest in proscribing certain exercises of certain "rights". That is why marriage is characterized as a civil right rather than a human right. The cultural manifestation of these conjugal relationships is marriage, and value is placed of the growth of the community. There is no inherent community growth to be had from homosexual marriage such as it is. Those interests as exercised in sanctions of folkways and mores have been codified as prohibition against homosexual marriage. The same logical can apply as to why most cultures that accept polygyny have sanctions against polyandry.

[RichJ]

I have to reply to your lame attempt at intelligent discourse.
1 - I was raised by heterosexual parents but my Mom was unable to have children and I was adopted. Your idea that anyone who supports same-sex marriage wants to genetically manipulate two eggs or two sperm to have a child is absurd. Many children living with two Dads or two Moms are the result of previous opposite sex relationships. Many of them were discarded by straight parents for a variety of reasons. And same-sex couples have to want to become parents. They cannot have a drunken Saturday night and spit out a kid 9 months later as happens way too often in this world.

2 - Not sure what you mean by "contrived issue of race". Your use of the word "contrived" seems like an attempt to minimize race issues. There is nothing contrived about that. Only the arguments that a person might use who believes their race is better or other races should not have the same rights as theirs are contrived. The issue itself is anything but contrived.
3 - Slippery slope argument to scare people who are unsure about same-sex marriage. No basis for supporters of same-sex marriage.
4 - Not every marriage is entered into with the goal of having children. They are also about love, security, sharing, building a life. The ancient idea that my tribe has to grow bigger than yours so you can't overpower mine does not apply anymore.

[evaesthetic]

Well said. I have often thought that we should construct a firm wall between legal and religious marriage to end the argument.

Personally, I don't see why related people, multiple partners, or any other combination of fully informed, consenting adults shouldn't be legal. If it is merely a legal partnershi­p/communit­y binding law that confers certain rights, why can't I enter into it with anyone I choose?

The problem as I see it is the word "marriage". Take away EVERYONE'S marriage (including mine), and strip the word of any legal meaning. Leave it up to churches or whatever to perform religious "marriages". I'd be fine with just a civil union, as long as it conferred the same rights.

[66mustang66]

I just wonder with all the intelligent bloggers out there, is there anyone who really thinks this little girl came home from school one day and said I think I will make a sign that says "don't divorce my daddies?"
She is being led along in this union as a totally innocent child who could care less about the issues of the day, she would much rather go out and play. When "adults" perpetuate a lie involving a small child, just imagine what lengths they will go to to prove a point. Example, all the hate shown those who supported prop 8. We have a car dealer in Utah who sent money supporting prop8 and he is now having his business picketed. Where is the ACLU, if the tables were turned they would be filing one law suit after another. When individuals stop having the right to support or not any action by another we are doomed.

[JudgeMoonbox]

"Example, all the hate shown those who supported prop 8."

Why does that bother you? Do you think that hatred is a privilege of those the Religious RIght think are politically correct?

"We have a car dealer in Utah who sent money supporting prop8 and he is now having his business picketed."

Is that car dealer threatened with divorce by people who don't know him? It's all right with you if Ken Starr tears up thousands of marriages because he hates the people involved as a group, but when a car dealer is picketed, you think that's a bad thing??

"When individuals stop having the right to support or not any action by another we are doomed."

You don't seem to have a problem taking away the picketers' right to express their opinion--and that's just what they're doing, expressing an opinion. If you want to convince us, try showing a touch of consitency.

[evaesthetic]

Newsflash: Picketing is covered under free speech and right to assemble. It is perfectly legal, and should remain so.

And as far as manipulating children, how many kids have I seen dragged outside clinics to march in "pro-life" protests? but I bet that is different, right?

[RichJ]

Excellent point about kids being used in pro-life protests.

[RichJ]

What if when you were a kid someone from outside your family that you did not know was trying to force your parents to get divorced ?
You have no information as to how long that girl was with her dads before they were able to legally get married. To say it is a "lie" when she would probably tell you to your face that she loves both her dads is just wrong. She does look like she is being coerced to sit across her daddies' laps and hold the sign.
As far as boycotting the car dealer, that is everyone who opposes bigotry's right. If you support the actions of the car dealer then go buy a car from him. That is your right.
Don't make absurd statements that somehow your rights are violated as long as you either voted or would vote to take my rights away.

[RichJ]

If sarcasm came across better then I would leave it, but I left out the word "not" when I said "She does look like she is being coerced to sit across ...."
It should have said "She does not look like she is being coerced..."

[Yikes10036]

Gay people pay taxes like straight people, they should enjoy the same rights.That's all. All we're asking for the right to enjoy a legally recognized, monogamous relationship. Let me also add that there are many couples in different nations who cannot be together. The federal government does not permit sponsorship for US citizenship for same-sex couples. Prop 8 is just the beginning.

[ente]

The problem here is in part a matter of sanctimoniously framing a political issue as a matter of something called a right and therefore exempting it from the normal political process.No political haggling,no legislative vote.It's a right established by judicial fiat.Such rights always have a legitimacy problem.Do you think that reestablishing that right via judicial slight of hand -and what else is this silly arguement about is it a revision or an ammendment all about-is going to bolster the legitmacy of gay marriage? If you think you don't care , you are badly missing the point.You want gay marriage to be a non controversial social fact,not a political ping pong game.The way you do that is not by avoiding politics,it's by attaining political victory.Having an elite class proclaim rights-which generally have no basis in fact or history-is not a victory.

[JudgeMoonbox]

"The problem here is in part a matter of sanctimoniously framing a political issue as a matter of something called a right "

So where do rights come from? If you were a Briton 233 years ago, wouldn't you have thought Jefferson, Franklin & co the sanctimonious ones?

"Do you think that reestablishing that right via judicial slight of hand -and what else is this silly arguement about is it a revision or an ammendment all about-is going to bolster the legitmacy of gay marriage?"

Exactly how is it "sleight of hand?" You have shown no reason to classify marriage as other than a general right--I mean, we have solid reason to deny it to the incestuous; and we do have new issues to consider should the polygamous present their case; but in 3 decades, I have never seen an honest presentation against gay rights.

"Having an elite class proclaim rights-which generally have no basis in fact or history-is not a victory."

So the elite classes you favor are those which lie from beginning to end, who stick their noses in other people's business; but deceive enough of the people enough of the time that they can claim victory--you have no problem with the Rick Warrens and Ken Starrs tearing up other people's marriages because their lies worked?

You have no problem with elitists--to you the word is just a weapon to fling at people you disagree with.

[evaesthetic]

Loving VS. United States of America. Look it up. It's the marriage case that made interracial marriages legal. Was that also a group of "elites" who should have waited for a political process? Your arguments are ridiculous on their face and based on the assumption that those who's views are similar to yours are, and always will be, in the majority. What if the majority of us decided that Christianity was a force for evil, and voted that all rights be stripped from Christians? Happens in minority-Christian countries all the time. Under your theory, they should just bow their heads and accept either conversion or second-class status. Sound good to you?

[websmith]

The rights of human beings are not subject to majority vote in this country.

Now that we straights enjoy a 50% divorce rate, we want to tell everyone what marriage is.

[pdsimdars]

I never did vote for Clinton ( I loved to hear Perot talk) and wouldn't if he ran again. I wonder how many progressives would vote for him. Hope Obama doesn't make his same mistakes. But look at his man, Geithner. And let's see what he does with that 'enemy combatant' case coming up to the Supreme Court. Those corporate pundits keep saying he needs to stand up to his base -- they're trying to urge him to divide his party so they can conquer. We're still waiting to see how Obama does on those same tests that Clinton failed.

[vladseventysix]

Perhaps heterosexuals should exercise their inherent authority by creating an Institution of Mating. Same sex marriage advocates claim the Institution of Marriage is a human construction, therefore, human beings can construct more than one Institution of Union. Or can they? If not then say bye-bye to same sex marriage!