Natoli-Lomanaco Wedding

As promised, here is a picture of many Natoli family members at Saturday's wedding.







The picture includes: Front row: Marie (Natoli) Jahelka, Susan (Natoli) Ruth, Toni Natoli, Laura Natoli and Rebecca LoManaco the happy couple, Jeanette Natoli, Joan Natoli.  Second Row: Robert Jahelka, Katy Ruth, Kevin Ruth, Gina Natoli, Mark Natoli, Eric Ruth, Steve Natoli.  Not pictured: Laura's sisters Maria and Diana, and mother Mary Jane Natoli.







Here is the happy couple exchanging vows.

Cousin Laura Getting Married Today

Today's news is that Joan and I will be heading to Simi Valley for my cousin Laura Natoli's wedding.  She and her loving partner Rebecca LoMonaco will be tying the knot this afternoon at their home.  It promises to be a happy occasion attended by Natolis and friends from all over.  My sister Toni is flying in from Seattle, and Aunt Mary Jane, Laura's mom, will be getting up from her recent bout of pneumonia to be there.  Joan and I will be meeting with daughters Marie and Jeanette and Marie's husband Robert beforehand for a little Mother's Day festivity.

This is our first official family same sex wedding.  It's great to see our state, California, embracing and recognizing people's love without discrimination any more, and it's wonderful to see the acceptance and good wishes of family members old and young.  I hope to have a follow up entry with some pictures. 

Two Momentous Wins for Equal Rights Today!

June 26, 2013 will forever stand as a momentous day for equality in America.  I grew up watching network news film of black and Latino Americans getting beaten and killed for attempting to claim their constitutional rights.  Gay, lesbian and transgender Americans were publicly reviled, bullied and denigrated.  Today's Supreme Court rulings overturning the federal Defense of Marriage Act and California's Proposition 8 denial of same-sex marriage rights are the latest crowning achievements in the nation's long struggle to fully embody its own founding credo: "we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal..." The progress I have seen over time has seemed long in coming, but is perhaps for that very reason all the more inspiring and breathtaking.  What a glorious day in American history.

Here is part of the statement released by President Barack Obama on the DOMA ruling. 

"I applaud the Supreme Court's decision to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act. This was discrimination enshrined in law. It treated loving, committed gay and lesbian couples as a separate and lesser class of people. The Supreme Court has righted that wrong, and our country is better off for it. We are a people who declared that we are all created equal -- and the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.

And here is part of the announcement on the California Proposition 8 decision from the office of Governor Edmund G. (Jerry) Brown, Jr.

From The Office of the Governor
6-26-2013

SACRAMENTO – Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. today issued the following statement on the United States Supreme Court ruling on Proposition 8 (Hollingsworth v. Perry):

“After years of struggle, the U.S. Supreme Court today has made same-sex marriage a reality in California. In light of the decision, I have directed the California Department of Public Health to advise the state’s counties that they must begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in California as soon as the Ninth Circuit confirms the stay is lifted,” said Governor Brown.

 

What the Portman Effect Says About Liberals and Conservatives

There was some interesting reaction in mid-March when Ohio Republican Senator Rob Portman announced his support for marriage equality.  The former George W. Bush Budget Director had been a co-sponsor of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman and prohibits any federal benefits to same-sex spouses.  In 1999 he helped campaign for a Washington State law prohibiting gays from adopting.  In 2011 his speech at the University of Michigan graduation ceremony was protested by hundreds of students due to what they called his "openly hostile" record on LGBT rights.  So it was quite a surprise when he told CNN Chief Congressional Reporter Dana Bash that he had changed his position and now supports the right of same-sex couples to marry.  The reason?  Two years ago, Portman's son Will came out to him as gay.  See Rob Portman's statement here. 

What's interesting to me in the reaction were those, usually supporters of marriage equality, who seemed to regard his new position as tainted because he had only changed his view after having been personally affected.  At first I thought, why should that be a surprise, having observed over time that Harvey Milk was right; the path to equality would be opened most through as many LGBT folks coming out as possible.  When people actually learn they have friends, relatives and co-workers whom they have known and liked for years, who happen to be gay, it becomes very difficult to fear and ostracize them.  In fact, it starts to become nonsensical.  Some are even starting to call the process the "Portman Effect," though you might recall it may earlier have applied to the extremely conservative Dick Cheney with regards to his lesbian daughter.  And a CNN poll finds a correlation between the percentage of people who know someone who is gay and the percentage who support gay rights.  As more people over time have reported knowing someone who is gay, the percentage in favor of gay rights has tracked that increase closely. 

But with a little more thought, I became intrigued.  What about all those who had moved much earlier on the issue without necessarily having known someone who was gay?  I wonder if that might say something about differences between intrinsic liberals and conservatives.  Most people who are not very young grew up in a society with intolerant attitudes toward LGBT people.  Yet those who are generally liberal in their views--pro-immigrant, pro-environmental, pro-social programs, anti-corporate, anti-war, anti-gun--seem to have often been early in supporting the gay rights movement.  Many conservatives remain opposed to allowing people of the same sex to marry, but those who know people in that situation seem to be more open to changing their minds. 

Might the difference be empathy?  When confronted directly with injustice affecting someone they know and love, conservatives show capacity to change.  But absent that, they seem reflexively influenced by their background and society's traditional attitudes.  When the injustice does not affect them personally, they are often immune to the appeal to change things.  I wonder if part of the root of having a liberal spirit may consist in large part of having a greater capacity to empathize with those who suffer without having to personally share in the effect.  It would appear to explain a lot in terms of policy positions liberals and conservatives tend to gravitate toward.      

Obama's Historic Statement on Gay Rights

President Obama's announcement this week in an ABC New interview that he personally favors marriage equality is one of the most courageous statements any major politician has made in some time.  It is reminiscent of President Kennedy's statement on civil rights in 1963,  when JFK's introduction of a strong civil rights bill threatened to cost him the votes of a Southern electorate that was still voting Democratic at the time. 

This week's lopsided vote in favor of marriage restrictions in North Carolina underscores the political risk President Obama is taking.  While current Gallup polling shows support for marriage equality is now nationally in the majority for the first time (51% to 48%), it is quite likely to hurt the President in some swing states in the fall.  You can't forget that the presidential election is not a national poll but 51 separate winner-take-all elections held in the states and the District of Columbia.  Obama only won North Carolina by 14,000 votes in 2008, and the margin in favor of the North Carolina measure to ban same-sex marriage was greater than twenty percent.

The President's statement is anything but what a calculating politician would have done.  Such an operator would have stuck with the safe bet and kept his views muddled, not wanting to alienate those opposed to gay rights in battleground states. 

Instead, he staked out a position in keeping with the groundbreaking figure he is: the first African-American President, the exemplar of the nation's progress along the path of overcoming bigotry by race, is now on record as the first to publicly stand against bigotry by sexual orientation.  May 9, 2012 will go down as one of those important dates in American history, when a President took a stand against the last legalized discrimination remaining in the fabric of American society.  As New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg noted, no major extension of rights proposed by any American president has failed to eventually be enacted.  Though it may take some time, I do not expect this to be an exception.

I don't mind admitting my gratitude as a history teacher to have personally seen, as a child, the passage of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, and as an adult the election of our first black president and the first presidential enunciation of true equality for LGBT citizens.  There is no doubt in my mind that the day will come when people will scratch their heads that there ever was a controversy over equality for gays, much as younger people today are perplexed that there ever was a controversy over equality by race. 

I am proud of our president today, regardless of how this plays out electorally.  He has done that which is the right thing to do, and having done so places Barack Obama for all time on the right side of human rights and of history itself on this groundbreaking issue. 

A Tragic Suicide

On Wednesday January 11 one of our College of the Sequoias students, Eric James Borges, killed himself.  Yesterday a memorial in our theater drew about 250 people to celebrate Eric James's life.  Though he was only 19 years old Eric James had an impact beyond his years.  His death was reported by all the major U.S. networks and newspapers, and even around the world.  You can see a sampling of them here.   

You see, Eric was a budding film maker.  He had a lot to deal with in his short life, and he tried to express it in a few short films.  It is reported his films on You Tube have recorded 250,000 hits.  From the time he was in kindergarten, Eric was recognized as different and persecuted for it.  As he said in It Gets Better, "I was physically, mentally, emotionally and verbally assaulted on a day-to-day basis for my perceived sexual orientation," Borges said. "I was stalked, spit on, ostracized and physically assaulted."  After he came out, he decided to try to help others in the same predicament by joining the Trevor Project, the largest organization dedicated to preventing gay youth suicide.  You can watch his heartfelt appeal to other LBGTQ youth in It Gets Better here.  In it, he counsels other gay youth to weather the storms of abuse they may face, because "it does get better."  How ironic and telling that he succumbed himself to the very despondency he warned against.

Eric James did not have a good coming out experience.  He reported that his family referred to him as "disgusting" and "perverted," and that his mother subjected him to an exorcism in an attempt to "cure" him.  Two months ago he was finally kicked out of the house.  The Washington Post reports that youth who come out and are rejected by their families are eight times more likely to commit suicide than those who are accepted.  You can see another of his offerings, Invisible Creatures by clicking here.  It underscores the theme of the universality of love and affection. 

In Eric James Borges we have lost a good and gentle soul.  Our society loses far too many by crippling people's spirits with hatred and rejection, simply for being who they are.  This is surely one of the great civil and human rights issues of our time.  While legal and societal progress has certainly been made, Eric James's story reminds us there is still much to do.  Let us each resolve to do our part.     

Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal Caps Memorable "Lame Duck" Session

Today marked a historic day in American history, as another redoubt of prejudice and discrimination was breached. President Obama's signing of the repeal of the 17-year-old "Don't Ask Don't Tell" military policy on gay service members, wherein some 13,000 serving personnel have been expelled after their gay or lesbian sexual orientation was found out, is a further step along the path that has led the nation through the abolition of slavery, the extension of voting rights to women and blacks and the outlawing of racial segregation. As the President said at the signing ceremony, "We are not a nation of don't ask don't tell. We are a nation of e pluribus unum; out of many we are one."

Once the new policy is phased in over the next year America's forces will see the same changes that have happened with the British, Canadian and Australian forces. That is, essentially nothing of any note will happen at all. Years from now people will wonder what all the commotion was about. Either that or they will look at it in the same way they do now when they think of such controversies as thirty years ago over whether women could serve as police officers or sixty years ago about whether blacks could play major league baseball.

In an interesting side note, there was a pronounced regional cast to the 65-31 Senate vote. In the former slave states the vote in favor was 12 out of 30, forty percent. Senators representing the rest of the country voted in favor 53 to 13, eighty-one percent. Those areas that historically denied people their rights continue to have a residual predilection for doing so. In terms of party, all 55 Democrats and the 2 Independents who caucus with them voted yes. 8 Republicans voted yes and 31 voted no, or twenty-one percent. Republicans as a group were thus twice as opposed to gay rights as Southerners as a whole. That is remarkable.


The rest of the "lame duck" congressional session saw stunning action on a number of Obama initiatives that had been given up for dead after the "shellacking" Democrats took in the November election. They passed by such wide margins it is apparent Republican delays were primarily political rather than over any real substantive issue. Once they had the tax bill compromise they wanted in hand they went ahead and let their members vote as they wished. These included approval of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) with Russia. It had been held up 13 times and then passed 71-26.

Another was the First Responders Health Bill that provides $4.2 billion for the police, firefighters, and others who worked ground zero after 9/11 and have developed all manner of cancers and lung diseases. That passed unanimously in the Senate and better than three to one in the House.


A much tougher regimen of inspection, essentially tripling the frequency and giving the FDA authority to order rather than request recalls, was approved in the Food Safety Act. It passed the Senate 73-25.


The lone defeat was over the DREAM Act. It would have provided a path to citizenship for an estimated 1.2 million children whose parents brought them to America illegally if they maintained a clean record and spent two years in college or the armed forces. It narrowly passed the House 216-198 but did better in the Senate, garnering a 55-41 yes vote. Unfortunately, since the GOP filibusters everything in the Senate, it did not get the 60% vote it needed for passage.

Politically, the break in the logjam shows the Republican strategy of obstinately opposing everything Obama and the Democrats have proposed for two years was a smart strategy for them. After yesterday's DADT signing and passage of the other measures, the President's approval rating improved from 41% to 56% in the overnight Opinion Research/CNN poll. Congressional Democrats got 44% approval; congressional Republicans 42%.

Proposition 8 Ruling

The California Supreme Court turned in a disappointing but predictable and legally coherent ruling on Proposition 8, the ballot measure that overruled gay marriage in California last November. The Court, presented with a narrow argument, decided by a 6-1 vote that the State Constitution gives the majority of voters extensive powers to rewrite the Constitution, and that therefore their will should stand. The decision was about a technical or structural issue, not about equality in the broad sense.

The Court showed what it really thinks about marriage equality by ruling in the same decision that the 18,000 same-sex marriages performed between July and November of 2008 will remain valid and recognized by the State of California. So in terms of equal rights, the Court feels same-sex marriage is justified. It also appears to validate an ex post facto concept by ruling that something that was legal when it took place cannot then be made illegal by a law or even a constitutional revision passed after the fact.

If those bringing suit against Prop 8 had based their argument on equal protection they might have gotten a favorable ruling. By instead focusing on the technical issue of whether Prop 8 was a sweeping or narrow change in the California Constitution they instead got a ruling on that narrow and technical issue.

In the long run, though, this may turn out for the benefit of the proponents of gay marriage. If it had been reimposed by court order after losing at the polls it would have sparked extreme anger among the opponents of same-sex marriage, who would have felt the will of the people was being subverted by "judicial activism." Such a development would have strongly energized the religious right and older traditionalists.

Instead, now the equal rights supporters are the ones with the cause and momentum on their side. Gay marriage was opposed by 41 points, 68% to 27% according to Gallup in 1996. In 2000 when Californians voted on Proposition 22, which defined marriage as only between one man and one woman, it passed by 22 points, 61% to 39%. The anti-gay marriage position had already yielded 19 points of its margin. Just seven years later that margin had shrunk by another 18 points, down to 4, as Proposition 8 passed in 2008 by just 52% to 48%.

Both Democratic Senator Feinstein and Republican Governor Schwarzenegger released statements Tuesday saying it was only a matter of time before California legalizes same-sex marriage by the will of the people. Given the trend since 1996 and exit polling that indicates under-30 voters opposed Prop 8 63-37%, these are clear signals that time is on the side of marriage equality for gays and lesbians. When it does come it will almost certainly be by the decision of the voters rather than the judges, and that will confer greater legitimacy to the public at large.

But that still should not, in this view, give the courts a pass for ducking tough questions. Constitutional rights are not at the whim of the voters. If it had been up to the voters alone many states would still be racially segregated to this day. For now, we will have a strange mixture in the Golden State. There are 18,000 same sex-couples with recognized marriages. But many thousands more who might wish to do likewise will not be allowed to. And what will happen when the first of these 18,000 files for divorce? In 2010 or 2012 the question will be on the ballot again. And sooner or later it is going to win.

Gay Relations With Family Key to Health

One of the greatest health risks to gays comes from an unexpected quarter--how well their orientation is accepted by their families. A new study in the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics revealed the distressing results. The research was done at San Francisco State University under the leadership of Caitlin Ryan. You can read Lisa Leff's Associated Press story on it here.

The bottom line is that "teens who experienced negative feedback were eight times as likely to have attempted suicide, nearly six times as vulnerable to severe depression and more than three times at the risk of drug use." It is the sense of rejection that seems to matter, rather than the severity of it. "One of the most startling findings was that being forbidden to associate with gay peers was as damaging as being physically beaten or verbally abused."

Researcher Ryan reported that after sharing the results with parents in "strained relationships with their gay teenagers...many were alarmed enough to make immediate changes in their interactions." That is very much to the good. There are a few enigmatic leads, but we do not know why some people are gay. We do know that attempts to convert them to being straight do not work. Acceptance is the best policy for the gay person, for their family and for society as a whole.

It doesn't take very much. As Ryan sums up, she found that, "Someone can still be uncomfortable with their child's sexual orientation, but if they are somewhat more accepting and do the best they can, they will do the youth a lot of good. That to me is an important message."

Gay Marriage, Again

The California State Supreme Court reopened the gay marriage issue in a 4-3 decision yesterday, ruling that same sex marriages will be legal in the Golden State in 30 days. The delay is to give counties time to get their licensing procedures in line with the mandate.

There are two facets in play here, constitutional and political. Constitutionally, the court is on firm ground. Politically, the action carries the potential to hurt Democrats and help Republicans in this election year.

Constitutionally, the court demolished the arguments against same sex marriage. Chief Justice Ronald George's 30,000-word opinion dealt in detail with each contention raised by the lawyers arguing against the practice. At the heart of the ruling is the constitutional requirement for equal protection under the law. The decision states, "An individual's sexual orientation-like a person's race or gender-does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights." The court specifically cited as precedent the 1948 California Supreme Court decision Perez v. Sharp that overturned laws against interracial marriage, placing gender-based discrimination in the same category. Simply stated, under a constitution that mandates equality, there actually has to be equality. Period.

Another principal justification was the existence of a strong civil union law in the state. By already legally extending the rights and responsibilities of marriage to same sex couples the court held that the state has, in fact, already approved it. But by refusing to use the term and establishing the rights under a separate set of laws, the state evidences a pattern of discrimination. A duck is still a duck. Calling it a goose doesn't change the reality.

The ruling also answered specific objections raised in lawyers' arguments in the case. One contention was that the state has an interest in promoting the propagation of children into families. Since same-sex couples cannot produce children, they can be treated differently than opposite sex couples, the reasoning went. The court's answer: "If that were an accurate and adequate explanation...it would be constitutionally permissible for the state to preclude an individual who is incapable of bearing children from entering into marriage. "

On constitutional principles the ruling is irrefutable. It is noteworthy that six of the seven justices of the court are Republicans appointed by Republican governors. The majority could come to no other conclusion than that it is plain hypocrisy for a society to stand for equality in its foundational constitutional documents and then single out certain groups as exceptions. It is about time this principle, applied by earlier courts to race and gender, was similarly established with respect to sexual orientation.

Politically, however, it is a different ballgame. The latest Gallup national survey on the matter, taken this month, finds 40% of Americans in favor of permitting same sex marriages and 56% opposed. George W. Bush may owe his re-election in 2004 to the legalization of same sex marriage in Massachusetts that year. The resulting furor energized opponents of the practice, particularly evangelicals, who turned out in droves to vote for the President who shared their views. It is possible that could happen again this year, to the overall benefit of Republicans and the detriment of Democrats.

Gallup's findings on the matter found that 16% of respondents consider the issue so important that a candidate must share their position on gay marriage to get their votes. 49% said it was one of many factors, while 33% said it was not an important issue to them. Democrats supported same sex marriage 50% to 45%, independents opposed it narrowly, 47% to 41%, and Republicans opposed it 67% to 26%. Interestingly, all three groups support civil unions: Democrats 46-41, independents 49-37 and Republicans 46-43. What is unclear about these figures is the reasoning of the respondents. We might presume that Republicans who oppose both gay marriage and civil unions do so for the same reason. But how many Democrats of the 41% who were against civil unions did so because they felt they were not enough, that gay marriage should be completely legalized? The poll does not tell us.

Two additional factors come into play are the breakdown by age and time. Younger voters in the 18-24 and 25-39 age groups were more supportive and older ones more opposed. Every succeeding age group was less favorable than the younger group before it. People over 65 were overwhelmingly opposed, to the tune of better than 85%. It could be argued that if this issue assumes major importance in the 2008 election, the record primary turnouts of younger voters might do much to minimize the Republican electoral advantage if they come out again in November.

And by time, I refer to how support for gay marriage has increased over the years. When Gallup first began asking the question in 1996, only 27% were in favor and 68% were opposed. The "pro" side has been growing by about 1% per year. Some supporters feel that as older Americans fade from the scene and successive generations continue to change the demographics, same sex marriage will eventually be accepted by the overwhelming majority. They point to surveys showing that interracial marriage was favored by only 27% at the time of Perez v. Sharp. I tend to think this expectation will be borne out, but certainly have no empirical way of knowing. Time will tell.

In California, opponents of the ruling are working hard to qualify an initiative for the November ballot that would amend the state constitution to forbid same sex marriage. It is expected to get enough signatures to be placed on the ballot, and could spawn similar efforts in other states. Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has twice vetoed bills sent to him by the legislature that would have legalized same sex marriage. But following the court's ruling this time the Governator said he had attended same sex commitment ceremonies and that they were,"no big deal." He said he would follow the court's ruling and will not support the initiative campaign to overturn it.

In terms of the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama has said he opposes same sex marriage but supports civil unions. John McCain supported a same sex marriage ban in Arizona but did not vote for the federal "Defense of Marriage Act," on the grounds that he feels marriage and family law are the purview of the states. Based on the absence of any mention of marriage in the U.S. Constitution I would say he is right about that.

But getting back to its effect on the balloting, I surmise the issue has lost some of its punch compared to 2004. The voters are facing so many more pressing issues that are directly impacting their lives this year. But with the Republicans seemingly headed for desperate straits I expect them sooner or later to try to make it a major rallying cry in this campaign. I feel it will help them some, but not as much as it did four years ago. And if they hang onto it in future years there will come a point at which it begins to hurt them. The times they are a changin' on this one.