by Adam Amel Rogers, Originally posted on change.org
Despite recent success, the Republican Party is still having a major identity crisis. Tea Party activists want the Party to focus on limiting government and reducing debt, while socially conservative groups are grasping for the power they enjoyed in the Bush Administration. With the Republicans taking over the House and a slew of GOP leaders about to start the two-year boxing match for the Republican presidential nomination, this is a crucial time in defining the future of the Republican Party.

It should now be a priority of the LGBT equality movement to encourage a Republican exodus from social issues. We need to create an environment where Republicans feel more comfortable voting for equality and representing their LGBT constituents.  We need to celebrate and thank the Republicans who cross the aisle for equality and we need to continue fervent opposition to Republicans who have built their careers on anti-gay bigotry.

A more socially moderate GOP will also force the Democrats to stop taking the LGBT voting bloc for granted. It will make full marriage equality a requisite position for any serious Democratic candidate.

So, instead of moping around for the next few years, while we face a hostile House of Representatives, it is imperative that the LGBT movement starts pushing this GOP evolution.

The first step is to stop treating gay Republican groups like the Log Cabin Republicans and GOProud like punchlines and to start realizing their importance in this movement. Log Cabin played an instrumental role in forcing the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. If the last minute repeal wouldn’t have gone through, repeal would have likely been achieved through Log Cabin’s successful DADT lawsuit.  GOProud is right at the front lines of the Republican exodus from social issues. They have again successfully secured attendance at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), which has forced boycotts from fringe anti-gay groups like the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America. This means that at the biggest gathering of the GOP’s most conservative leaders, an LGBT group will be represented while the anti-gay groups will be at home.

Another component of this GOP evolution is to reward good Republican behavior. Every Republican who voted to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is currently under attack by the fringe anti-gay groups. It is vital that LGBT groups be equally as vocal in thanking these Republican Senators in order to make them comfortable voting for equality again in the future.

Perhaps the most important element of encouraging Republicans to leave anti-gay viewpoints behind is taking time to remind them that LGBT rights are not ideologically divergent from conservative principles.  History books will remember Republican Ted Olson as one of the most important players in the journey toward LGBT equality, because in the brilliant destruction of Prop 8 that he and David Boies executed, he eloquently articulated exactly why equality is a conservative value.

There is a long way to go – the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage interviewed all of the candidates to chair the Republican Party and all vehemently stated their opposition to marriage equality. If we start to focus energy on urging the GOP to leave their anti-gay ways, the Republican shift toward equality will begin.

Photo credit: Alicia Rae

by Adam Amel Rogers, Originally posted on change.org
There were elements of the Federal court case on Proposition 8 that seemed like they could only really happen in the movies – perhaps that’s because of the vital role that Hollywood progressives played in the trial.

Since the Prop 8 lawsuit was filed, the headlines have focused on the dramatic legal odd couple that brought forth the suit. Former rivals Ted Olson and David Boies, who argued against each other in the Supreme Court battle for the 2000 Presidency, were now teaming up make the legal case for the freedom to marry.  The unlikely pairing added such a unique component to the story that it served as media catnip throughout the trial.

Perhaps the unlikely origin of the trial is even more interesting though.

Almost two years ago, Hollywood veteran Rob Reiner and several friends were sitting in the Beverly Hills Polo Club when they first discussed bringing forth a federal lawsuit against the constitutionality of Proposition 8.  From that discussion came the suggestion to get Ted Olson involved. Although Olson’s views on many issues were antithetical to those of this progressive crew, he apparently had also demonstrated longstanding support of marriage equality. It was Olson who brought on his former opponent Boies.

The idea of a Federal challenge was met with emphatic resistance by gay, inc. Freedom to Marry, National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal and the ACLU were all against bringing forth a case that could end up in front of an unsympathetic Supreme Court. Their concerns could definitely still be valid. If Vegas were taking bets, they would probably say that the case will almost certainly end up in the Supreme Court and it will more than likely be a 5-4 decision with Justice Anthony Kennedy representing the deciding vote.

With no support from the existing LGBT legal organizations, Reiner and longtime political strategist Chad Griffin created their own organization, the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER), to take the case to court. They raised millions of dollars from Hollywood’s top names and suddenly the case was a reality.

Thus far, the case has read like a triumphant good vs. evil screenplay. The unlikely legal dream team absolutely destroyed the anti-gay villains with truth, logic and reason. The result has been a bulletproof legal decision that will hopefully ensure a happy ending to the movie.

To me, the most exciting component to this entire story is the fact that a majority of the heavy hitters who have put everything on the line to win the freedom to marry… are straight. I deeply admire the significant impact of straight allies on this movement. In the eventual movie depicting this journey, those contributions will be celebrated.

If you would like to thank Mr. Reiner, go see Flipped, which is his adorable new movie that just hit theaters this month.

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons

by Adam Amel Rogers, Originally posted on change.org
I have a new favorite author.

Justice Vaughn Walker and his clerks produced 136 pages of legal genius that can be read as a series of goose bump-inducing poetry.  The decision, which finds Proposition 8 unconstitutional, is a Popeye-strong document that was built to survive.

You would be hard pressed to identify a favorite line in this sea of brilliance, but there is one part that moves me more and more each time I read it. In Walker’s conclusion on page 135, he writes:

“Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.”

Superior.

This word crystallizes why I find opposition to marriage equality so troubling. When people think they are being fair-minded by expressing support for civil unions, because “marriage should be between a man and a woman,” they are most definitely saying that their relationship is superior to others. They deserve something that others cannot have. Their religion tells them that their love is better than mine.

In essence, Proposition 8 and similar ballot initiatives flat out asked voters if they wanted to let the minority into their exclusive marriage club … and for the most part, they said “No.”

The idea of superiority makes it increasingly infuriating that there still are so many so-called progressive leaders who do not support full marriage equality. Even as the White House made a statement yesterday outlining President Obama’s opposition to Proposition 8, an anonymous White House aide reiterated that the President is still not on board with full marriage equality.

Pam Spaulding summed up the ridiculousness by saying, “Yes, we have a biracial constitutional law scholar for a President who still believes that ‘god is in the mix’ and that separate is equal when it comes to marriage.”

Mr. President, I’ve asked you before and I will ask you again: Do you feel that your relationship with Michelle is superior to my relationship with my husband? Does God bless your relationship more than mine? When your heart goes pitter-patter when Michelle enters the room, is it somehow more real or more special than when mine does the same? Is the lifelong commitment of love you made somehow more deserving of respect than the commitment I made?

I don’t mean to single out the President, because obviously from our ballot initiative record, there are a lot of people who feel exactly the same way he does. Many of those minds will change over time and the superiority complex will lessen, but the truly exciting part is that because of yesterday’s ruling, we will hopefully never again have to be subjected to the tyranny of the majority at the ballot box.

Photo credit: vaXzine

by Adam Amel Rogers, Originally posted on change.org
It was a focal point of the Sex and the City 2 trailer and it opened the movie in style: As Charlotte pointed out, her best gay friend (Anthony) and Carrie’s best gay friend (Stanford) were getting married. (Best gay friends are apparently still the hottest accessory this season).

What may seem like a minor plot point to establish the tone of the movie and bring all of the important straight characters together, is actually a big deal — a really big deal. In the battle for LGBT civil rights, there is one irrefutable fact — people are more likely to support equality after they have been exposed to LGBT people. Of course it works best when a personal connection is made via friend or family, but for those who don’t have LGBT people in their lives, the media they consume will help to form many of their opinions. Which means that the Sex and the City gay wedding instantly became a monumental opportunity to show millions of voters why gay and lesbian couples deserve the freedom to marry.

I am devastated to report that they failed miserably.

Now before you all string me up with a vintage Dior noose, please let me clarify that I consider myself a devoted Sex and the City fan boy, which makes this all the more disappointing.

*** The following is one big pile of spoiler alerts ***

Although I was fairly nervous after seeing the stereotype-laden movie trailer, I still went into the movie with a very open mind. I ended up not minding the endless sea of gay wedding jokes and the “could this wedding be any more gay” statements. I ended up liking that Liza Minnelli officiated the wedding and that the gay men’s chorus sang. These are aspects of our culture that should be celebrated.  As someone who walked down the aisle to a song from RENT and had a Broadway-themed reception, I don’t think I am in any position to comment on how stereotypical another wedding is.

A few minutes into the storyline, I was feeling pretty good about how they were handling everything and then it crashed into me like a freight train — when Anthony is asked why he didn’t plan the wedding (he is a highly sought after wedding planner), he replies that they made a deal: Stanford gets the wedding of his dreams and Anthony gets to “cheat.”

I thought, surely he is kidding. He wasn’t. Surely it is a misunderstanding and he will clarify. He didn’t. They try to lessen the shock with him making a joke that he isn’t going to cheat because he is gay, he is going to cheat because he is Italian. The joke doesn’t ease the shock. Carrie goes to Stanford to ask him about it and he confirms the deal’s accuracy, but he justifies it by saying that Anthony is only allowed to cheat in the 45 states where they aren’t legally married. Not funny.

I was heartbroken — I looked across the Orange County movie theater I was in and I looked at the sea of people who will probably be asked at least one more time to vote on whether or not gay and lesbian couples should have the right to marry. They were just delivered a message that said one groom was so consumed with desire to throw an extravagant party that he didn’t mind that the other groom couldn’t wait to get the ceremony over with so he could go hook up with someone else. Suddenly the voice of every anti-gay activist was inside my head screaming “sanctity of marriage.”

I get it. I understand how the cheating deal was meant to help inform the larger movie theme of taking tradition, putting your own stamp on it and making your own rules. In true SATC style, everything is woven together nicely, but I think they could have achieved story cohesion without perpetuating stereotypes of gay promiscuity.

A significant part of my frustration is rooted in the fact that the two creative minds behind this movie are people I deeply respect and admire. Openly gay writer/director Michael Patrick King and super gay ally Sarah Jessica Parker both have gay IQs that are off the charts, so I have absolutely no idea what they were thinking here. Let me be clear that I am not questioning the commitment to equality for anyone in the SATC family, as the cast is fervent in their support in this Towleroad interview. I am simply saddened by the direction of the highly touted wedding.

To be fair, there are other aspects that were handled beautifully. Anthony gives a very nice speech, Stanford’s parents walk him down the aisle and his father refers to Anthony as his son’s husband. Other elements of the story are also very gay and very well done, but I can’t help but be left with the icky feeling that the most visible same-sex wedding ever left audiences thinking about Anthony’s desire to cheat instead of Anthony’s desire to love his husband.

Photo credit: IKEA Boy

by Adam Amel Rogers, Originally posted on change.org
Tax season is an annual reminder of the problems caused by the absence of marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples.

The tax process for gay couples can best be described as a convoluted mess that sheds light on how truly bizarre the current state of relationship-recognition is. If you were legally married in Massachusetts, but you live in New Jersey (which has civil unions), are you able to file your state taxes jointly? If you received a domestic partnership in Washington, but you now live in Connecticut, are you technically married? If you were married in Canada and then weren’t allowed to get married in California (because you were already married), are you still recognized as married in California in the post-Prop 8 world? These various permutations clarify how ridiculous it is to have different marriage laws in different states, and they show the clear need for federal marriage equality.

If you are legally gay married (or some variation on the word), you should check with your state tax laws, but chances are that you and your spouse will be filling out four tax returns. First, you need to pretend that the federal government legally recognizes your love as you fill out your joint federal return. This is literally called a “dummy” return, because you are not going to file this return. Instead, you are going to use it to inform the numbers for your joint state tax return. Then after you fill out your state return, you need to forget that you are married and pretend you are single again as you file individual federal tax returns.

Somewhere in Canada (which has full marriage equality), Avril Lavigne is looking toward America and singing “Why you gotta go and make things so complicated?"

This absurd tax charade is the precise embodiment of how separate is most definitely not equal. It is sickening to think about all of the time, energy and money spent on creating separate systems for gay and lesbian couples. It's almost enough to make you want to join the tea baggers ... though, I'm not sure they would welcome us.

Filling out extra forms is unfortunately the least of the differences between how straight married couples and same-sex married couples fill out their taxes. There are significant differences in how shared property, bank accounts, children and gifts need to be reported. I am not an accountant, so I won’t pretend to be an authority on the details, but The New York Times has a comprehensive look at the nitty-gritty differences that same-sex couples need to be cognizant of. If you have a specific question, The Times has also provided a tax expert to answer questions from same-sex couples.

Photo credit: alancleaver_2000