A New York City cab driver was attacked Tuesday evening just after 6 p.m. by a passenger who asked him if he was Muslim, says the NYPD. A spokesman for a New York City cabbie group blamed the attack on the proposed construction of an Islamic center near Ground Zero, the site of the 9/11 World Trade Center terrorist attack, but police said they were not aware of any link.

According to police, passenger Michael Enright, a 21-year-old from Brewster, New York, hailed a taxi at 24th Street and Second Avenue in Manhattan driven by Ahmed Sharif, a resident of Queens.

In addition to any issues appellants wish to raise on appeal, appellants are directed to include in their opening brief a discussion of why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing.

I haven’t covered this yet, but it is possible that because the state of California refused to defend Prop 8 in court, and the defense was mounted by an outside party, that the 9th circuit might not hear an appeal (which would make Judge Walker final).  This stems from an issue of who has standing to challenge a ruling (the “Article III” reference).  It’s significant that the Court specifically requested a rebuttal to this issue from Prop 8 supporters, as it implies that they consider this to be a real issue.

A good explanation of the issue of standing is available at SCOTUSblog.

As Gates and I have pointed out elsewhere, the presence of LGBT people isn’t a sufficient condition for wealth creation in and of itself; gay men and lesbians are no more sophisticated, economically productive, innovative, or entrepreneurial than any other group on average. But places that attract gay people and lesbians tend to have the same open-minded attitudes and business styles that foster innovation. A visible LGBT community is the proverbial “canary in the coal mine,” signaling openness to new ideas, new business models, and diverse and different thinking kinds of people—precisely the characteristics of a local ecosystem that can attract cutting-edge entrepreneurs and mobilize new companies.

It’s not a perfect study, but it’s still interesting.

Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, pointed out that the Pentagon has never been in the habit of surveying service members about personnel policies. He noted that President Harry Truman conducted no inquiries before racially integrating the military in 1948, nor were troops consulted in the 1970s when the service academies began accepting women or even as recently as within the past few years when the Navy decided to allow women to serve on submarines.

Having reviewed the survey, one question strikes me as way more ridiculous than most (including questions about “open bay showers”).

If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed, how, if at all, would the way your family feels about your military service be affected?

I’m a firm believer that 99% of the men and women who are serving would not waver in their commitment to fight for the US because they found out which of their colleagues are gay.  (Keeping in mind, the gay soldiers are already there.  DADT just operates on the premise that ignorance is bliss–if I don’t know for sure someone is gay, I won’t mind serving with them.)  While I think surveying on this is 100% wrong, I can concede that if you think this survey is a good idea, an obvious question to ask outright is if serving with openly gay soldiers would affect the likelihood one would re-enlist.  But are we really considering what the family of people who are serving with these men and women think?  I get the incredible burden that the families of soldiers face, but I don’t believe the thought of serving with gay people is one of them.

This is beyond ridiculous.  Without putting a hold on discharges under DADT, this process has seemingly offered no way for closeted soldiers to safely provide input on the policy, their service, their likelihood of re-enlisting, or the impact on their families.  But it does take into consideration speculation on how family members of straight soldiers might feel.

In a statement to the press, Alexander Nicholson, the executive director of Servicemembers United described a few of the other flaws.

“Flawed aspects of the survey include the unnecessary use of terms that are known to be inflammatory and bias-inducing in social science research, such as the clinical term ‘homosexual;’ an overwhelming focus on the potential negative aspects of repeal and little or no inclusion of the potential positive aspects of repeal or the negative aspects of the current policy; the repeated and unusual suggestion that a co-worker or leader might need to ‘discuss’ appropriate behavior and conduct with gay and lesbian troops; and more.”

BREAKING NEWS: Boston Federal Judge Strikes Down DOMA!

Better yet?  This judge, who will undoubtedly be called an activist liberal, was appointed by Richard Nixon.

For once, Brown is remotely accurate.  For those who are legally inclined, the ruling is here [.pdf].  For the rest of us, Lisa Keen’s recap is here.

In one challenge brought by the state of Massachusetts, Judge Joseph Tauro ruled that Congress violated the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when it passed DOMA and took from the states decisions concerning which couples can be considered married. In the other, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, he ruled DOMA violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

In Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Health and Human Services, Tauro considered whether the federal law’s definition of marriage — one man and one woman — violates state sovereignty by treating some couples with Massachusetts’ marriage licenses differently than others. In Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), a gay legal group, asked Tauro to consider whether DOMA violates the right of eight same-sex couples to equal protection of the law…

You may recall a bit of buzz when Senator Kerry supported the challenge from Attorney General Coakley.  The background on the GLAD case is here.  This effort was led by Mary Bonauto, who I’ve praised before.  Here’s the key point fo the challenge:

Section 3 of DOMA applies to the federal government only. It overrides a state’s determination that a same-sex couple is married and says that they are not married for purposes of all federal laws and programs, even though the federal government has always deferred to state determinations of marital status. Under this law, “the word ‘marriage’ means only the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.” This law requires all federal departments and agencies to disrespect the valid state-licensed marriages of same-sex couples but not other married couples. As a result, only married same-sex couples are denied all rights, protections and responsibilities associated with marriage at the federal level [my note: i.e. tax benefits].

And as a slight digression from the excitement here, check out my favorite line from Brown’s email:

Despite the explicit language in DOMA that the law was designed to protect children’s right to their mothers and fathers, the judge disavowed that DOMA has anything to do with responsible procreation.

“Responsible procreation.”  Not sure what that is.  Are two loving individuals who wait to make a conscious effort to have children and raise them engaging in “responsible procreation?”  Or only two people who can produce a child biologically–regardless of their intent to start a family or even see their partner again?  If you want to address “responsible procreation,” don’t come after two people who are making a commitment to each other and jumping through hoops to have children.  Try targeting one night stands or deadbeat dads.

Here’s the quote from the judge’s ruling, via The Family Equality Council, that addresses parenting:

A consensus has developed among the medical, psychological, and social welfare communities that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are just as likely to be well-adjusted as those raised by heterosexual parents. Denying their parents federal benefits of marriage, said the court, “prevent[s] children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of a stable family structure.

Like all this progress?  Sign the Freedom to Marry Pledge here.

Republican Gov. Linda Lingle’s action came on the final day she had to either sign or veto the bill, which the Hawaii Legislature approved in late April.

“There has not been a bill I have contemplated more or an issue I have thought more deeply about during my eight years as governor than House Bill 444 and the institution of marriage,” Lingle said at a news conference. “I have been open and consistent in my opposition to same-sex marriage, and find that House Bill 444 is essentially same sex marriage by another name.”

Here’s the doozy:

“It would be a mistake to allow a decision of this magnitude be made by one individual or a small group of elected officials,” Lingle said.

Because no other important decisions have been made by a small group of representatives.  You know, things like the Declaration of Independence (oh wait, they weren’t even elected representatives).  Or Bush’s decision to go to war in Iraq.  Then again, I guess those only involved life or death–not the institution of marrriage.

Appalling.

The audio of the full presser is here, via Good As You (where it’s rightly noted that her decision to veto the bill is, in fact, one person making a decision that has a huge impact on the lives of many families led by same-sex couples).

“I’m accustomed to discrimination, I suppose, at my age and my experience as a gay woman, but I didn’t expect it against my child.”

Now it appears that the Boston Archdiocese is distancing itself from the school’s position.

Spokesman Terry Donilon said the archdiocese has no prohibition against same-sex couples sending their children to Catholic schools.

Further, it has drawn the attention of state Representative Garrett J. Bradley.  Bradley commented to the Globe:

“These parents thought enough of St. Paul’s to want to send their child there; St. Paul’s thought enough of their child to admit him. For the school to then discriminate against him and withdraw his acceptance because of his parents’ sexual orientation is not only inappropriate, but mind-blowing.  Shame on St. Paul’s, and shame on us as a community if we allow it.”

Here’s hoping that once the Archdiocese has reviewed the case they’ll say not just say it’s not their policy, but they’ll say it’s wrong.

But once we stop laughing, we must remember that culture wars are called wars for a reason. For all the farcical shenanigans they can generate, they do inflict real casualties — both at the micro level, on the lives of ordinary people, and at the national level, where, as we’re seeing right now, a Supreme Court nominee’s entire record can be reduced to a poisonous and distorted debate over her stand on the single culture-war issue of “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

Rekers is no bit player in these wars. Though he’s not a household name, he should be. He’s the Zelig of homophobia, having played a significant role in many of the ugliest assaults on gay people and their civil rights over the last three decades…

Rich goes on to look at the Kagan nomination and the distortions of her history with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

But the rear-guard remnants of the Rekers crowd are not going down without a fight, and their focus on Elena Kagan has been most revealing. There are many grounds to debate Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court, wherever you are on the political spectrum. There are many questions about her views and record that remain unanswered. But from the get-go the preponderance of the debate on the right has been about her handling of military recruitment as dean at Harvard Law School. Here her history is unambiguous.

Despite her critics’ cries, Kagan never banned military recruitment of law students and never denigrated the military in word or deed. She followed Harvard’s existing (and unexceptional) antidiscrimination policy while a court battle played out over a Congressional act denying federal funds to universities barring military recruiters. She was so cautious — too cautious, I’d argue — that she did not join the majority of her own faculty in urging Harvard to sue the government over the funding law, limiting her action instead to the signing of an amicus brief.

Last Wednesday, the Portland Press Herald ran an op-ed by Mark Swann, Preble Street’s executive director, and Chris Bicknell, Preble Street’s Teen Center services coordinator, which brings the issue back to its roots.  The reason that Preble Street supported No on 1.

Lost in all the debate over their decision is the reason Preble Street decided to join the Maine Marriage Equality Coalition in the first place.

Here’s why. As many as 40 percent of unaccompanied homeless youth are forced into homelessness because of their sexual orientation. Shame and abuse from families drive LGBT youth into the streets and shelters.

Two weeks ago we learned of a boy in Georgia who gained permission from his school to take a male date to his prom. The news focused on the school’s decision and the support he received from all over the country. Almost incidentally, the article mentioned that because of the media attention he was kicked out of his house.

Because of his sexual orientation, this high school student was no longer welcome in his own home.

In Maine, at Preble Street, we see young men and women in this tragic and terribly sad and lonely situation all the time.

Many young people at the Teen Center have been forced to flee their homes when their parents find their journals or are confronted by their children with emotional struggles around sexual orientation.

Swann and Bicknell go on highlight a few statistics that should make every parent, aunt, uncle, and grandparent stop in their tracks.

• Suicide is the leading cause of death among gay and lesbian youth.
• Fifty percent of gay and lesbian youth report their parents reject them due to their sexual orientation.
• Twenty-six percent of gay and lesbian youth are forced to leave home because of conflicts over their sexual orientation.
• Approximately 28 percent of gay and lesbian youth drop out of high school because of verbal and physical abuse.