equality

by Jeremy Leaming

Putting aside the North Carolina vote embracing discrimination against lesbians and gay men, the struggle for marriage equality has seen more victories of late than defeats. Today, for example, Maryland’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, ruled that same-sex marriages recognized in other states, such as New York or Connecticut, will be lawfully recognized in Maryland. The case is Port v. Virginia Anne Cowan. The Maryland legislature earlier this year also passed a same-sex marriage law.

But marriage equality, while an important component to equality, is hardly the pinnacle. As Andy Birkey notes for us in an extensive piece for The American Independent, it is still legal for public officials in the vast majority of states to exclude members of the LGBT community from jury service.

The Constitution, Birkey notes, says criminal defendants are entitled to an “impartial jury,” and the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that jurors cannot be excluded because of gender or race. Sexual orientation and gender identity, however, remain open to discrimination.

“Federal courts,” he writes, “have consistently declined to prohibit attorneys from openly discriminating against LGBT people during jury selection. And as recently as last year, the U.S. Department of Justice told a panel of judges that it ‘takes no position’ on whether the case law that prohibits attorneys from removing jurors based on race or sex should be extended to cover sexual orientation.”

Only a few states have taken action to prevent government officials from yanking prospective jurors because of beliefs they are gay or transgender. California is the exception. When former Calif. Gov. Gray Davis enacted a law barring such discrimination, he said “No Californian should be deprived of the opportunity to share in our system of justices simply because they are gay or lesbian.”

"We are on the brink of making history," said Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "An end to ‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' cannot happen soon enough. This arcane and costly policy has destroyed thousands of careers, wasted much-needed dollars, and failed to enhance our nation's security."

The Senate passed the repeal bill by a vote of 65 to 31 earlier today. TPM reports, "It's all quite anticlimactic to the drama fans, but for the proponents of DADT repeal, this afternoon's vote is one that really matters."

TPM also reported that Sen. Joe Manchin, the only Democrat to join with Republicans last week to defeat an effort to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," remained opposed to ending the law. He skipped the vote altogether, TPM reports, to attend a Christmas Party.

The bill now goes to President Obama, who urged the Senate to pass the repeal measure, and has promised to sign it. TPM says that's likely to happen next week. 

Obama applauded the vote, saying in a press statement, "the Senate has taken an historic step toward ending a policy that undermines our national security while violating the very ideals that our brave men and women in uniform risk their lives to defend."

The Atlantic blogger Andrew Sullivan, a longtime opponent of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," which was signed into law by former President Bill Clinton, lauded Obama's deliberate efforts to ensure that the repeal came out of Congress.

"Without the Pentagon study, it wouldn't have passed," Sullivan, wrote. "Without keeping Lieberman [Sen. Joe Lieberman] inside the tent, it wouldn't have passed. Without the critical relationship between Bob Gates and Obama, it wouldn't have happened. It worked our last nerve; we faced at one point a true nightmare of nothing ... for years. And then we pulled behind this president, making it his victory and the country's victory, as well as ours."