In Respect to Defense

With the passage and signing into law of the Respect for Marriage Act, the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act outlawing same-sex marriage has been overturned. I would like to have looked back at the passage of that earlier antigay legislation, but I didn't start drawing for the LGBTQ+ press until shortly after it was passed.

in InStep Magazine, Milwaukee Wis. Dec. 11, 1996

DOMA was passed in anticipation of a gay-friendly ruling by the Hawai'ian Supreme Court. Three same-sex couples had sued the state of Hawai'i in 1990 to respect their weddings in a case that became Baehr v. Miike. The court sent the case back to trial court with the state bearing the burden of proof that prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying "furthers compelling state interests and is narrowly drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgments of constitutional rights." In December of 1996, Hawai'ian Judge Kevin S.C. Chang ruled in favor of plaintiffs, but stayed his ruling in case it were reversed on appeal.

in InStep Magazine, Milwaukee, Wis., Sept. 18, 1996. My first cartoon for the LGBTQ press before I started drawing for them on a regular basis.

The U.S. Congress had already passed, and President Bill Clinton had signed, DOMA in September, guaranteeing that if same-sex marriage were legal in Hawai'i, it would not be recognized by the federal government or any state on the mainland. Then, in 1998, Hawai'i voters approved a constitutional amendment barring same-sex couples from marrying.

in InStep Magazine, Milwaukee Wis., January 8, 1998

The religious right pushed similar "Definition/Defense of Marriage Amendments" in state after state, a crusade supported enthusiastically by Republicans and acquiesced to by not a few Democrats.

A flyer I put together as Wisconsin legislature passed its DOMA in 1997

As a consolation prize, some people suggested that same-sex couples settle for "domestic partnerships." 

for Q Syndicate, April/August, 1998

But even that was anathema to the religious right. In Wisconsin and elsewhere, state legislatures passed laws to prevent municipalities (and in some cases, even private corporations) from offering domestic partnership benefits to same-sex couples.

for Q Syndicate, April/December, 1998

These last three cartoons are examples of ideas I originally drew for InStep Magazine of Milwaukee, but redrew when brought on to Q Syndicate for national distribution. The then-owner of the syndicate, David (Bianco) Benkof, wanted a portfolio of six cartoons he could show to potential customers; most of them were released for publication later on.

"And They Say We Threaten Their Families" above is my original version for InStep; the other two are the retreads. The "Special Rights" cartoon recast a local TV newsman and a fictional politician as ABC "Nightline" host Ted Koppel and Family Research Council head Gary Bauer.

for Q Syndicate, August, 1999

At weeks such as this one, when there doesn't seem to be enough time to handle all the tasks that pile up on top of each other, it would be nice to have a half dozen cartoons in reserve. But now more than ever before, it's hard to imagine what I could possibly draw in April that would still be fresh and relevant in August, let alone December.

Q Toon: All He Wants for Christmas

The Respect for Marriage Act passed the U.S. Senate on Tuesday by a vote of  61 to 36. The Act, protecting same-sex and interracial marriages from being nullified by today's activist Supreme Court, won the support of twelve Republicans and all 49 of the Democrats present. (Sen. Rafael Warnock was home in Georgia campaigning in next week's run-off election. Two Republicans also did not vote.)

The bill now returns to the House, which passed it months ago but will need to reconcile with some differences between their version of the bill and the Senate's.

You may have thought that marriage equality was a settled issue. But you're not Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

“In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” Thomas wrote. “Because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous’ … we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents.”

Thomas’s opinion set off alarm bells among proponents of marriage equality, who pointed out that if the Supreme Court were to overturn Obergefell, as it did Roe, then the right to same-sex marriage would similarly fall to the states. Currently 35 states have statutes or constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage that would go into effect if Obergefell were overturned, according to the Movement Advancement Project, a nonprofit that advocates for LGBTQ equality.

So Senator Tammy Baldwin put together a bill that will require that even if the Supremes reverse Obergefell, if a same-sex or interracial couple were legally married in one state, their marriage doesn't magically disappear any time they happen to be in one of those 35 states.

In order to garner bipartisan support, the Senate version of the bill already had religious liberty guarantees. Baptist homeless shelters can still put lesbian couples back out on the street. Islamic food pantries can still refuse to admit gay couples. Ku Klux Kathedrals can still preach against miscegenation. Heck, if they want to, Catholic adoption agencies can still discriminate against legally married couples when one of them has been divorced.

But that wasn't enough for the 38 Senate Republicans who voted against the bill. Utah's Mike Lee was one of several Republicans arguing that antigay laypersons ought to be able to discriminate against same-sex and interracial couples, too, even in a completely secular capacity.

Who else is going to stand up for the rights of the Kim Davises of the world who think God is telling them to treat someone else's marriage as if it doesn't exist?

Requiring the state to recognize your marriage doesn't mean much if the people in charge can just make a cross with their fingers at you and now pronounce you single and stranger.

Fortunately, Lee's amendment, and the other poison pills were voted down. Yet I suspect they signal to Clarence Thomas and the others of his ilk how to argue that the Respect for Marriage Act is unconstitutional.

Stay tuned.