It's the first time the rainbow flag has ever flown over the iconic landmark in Seattle.But the pride doesn't stop there. You can also sip a "pride" latte at the Starbucks in the Seattle Center, where the Space Needle is located.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Seattle Pride
It's the first time the rainbow flag has ever flown over the iconic landmark in Seattle.But the pride doesn't stop there. You can also sip a "pride" latte at the Starbucks in the Seattle Center, where the Space Needle is located.
ILLINOIS SENATE CANDIDATE ALEXI GIANNOULIAS ON EQUALITY
Last week, the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate from Illinois, Alexi Giannoulias, spoke at a grassroots event about his support for full equality for all Americans.
"We are going to look back at this issue and be embarrassed and disgusted at the fact that we didn't let two people who love each other get married. It's as simple as that, folks."
"We are going to look back at this issue and be embarrassed and disgusted at the fact that we didn't let two people who love each other get married. It's as simple as that, folks."
GAY-WELCOMING CATHOLIC CHURCH MARCHES WITH BLANK BANNER IN NYC PRIDE PARADE AFTER ARCHBISHOP FORBIDS CHURCH NAME ON IT
Marchers from St. Francis Xavier, a gay-welcoming Catholic church in NYC which has appeared in New York's Gay Pride parade for years, were forbidden by NY Archbishop Timothy Dolan from marching with a banner bearing the Church's name in yesterday's parade, so they marched with a blank one.
ICELAND PRIME MINISTER JOHANNA SIGURDARDOTTIR WELCOMES LEGALIZATION OF GAY MARRIAGE BY MARRYING HER PARTNER
Iceland's marriage equality law came into effect yesterday. To mark its enactment, the country's lesbian Prime Minister, Johanna Sigurdardottir, married her partner, writer Jonina Leosdottir:"Iceland's parliament on June 12 unanimously adopted legislation allowing gay marriage, in a law that came into force on Sunday. Homosexual couples could previously enter into a civil partnership and benefit from the same rights as heterosexual couples, but this had not been considered a formal marriage. Miss Sigurdardottir, born in 1942, took power in February 2009. She has lived with Miss Ledsdottir, who is in her fifties, for several years and the couple entered a civil union in 2002. She is the world's first openly gay head of government."
Talk about leading by example.
Parliament's vote on June 11 to legalize same-sex marriage was unanimous — 49-0.
Italy Installing More Solar Power in Two Months Than California Does in a Year
We already knew that Italy was the world's second-largest solar power market in 2009 (the United States was fourth, by the way), but according to a new piece in Wind-works Italy is installing more solar power in two months than California does in a year. By the end of this year they are expected to have one and a half times the total installed capacity of the entire US.
Supreme Court Rejects Vatican Appeal
On the last day of its term Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined review of a Vatican appeal to dismiss a lawsuit that accuses the Holy See of covering up alleged sexual abuse by a Roman Catholic priest.According to The Wall Street Journal, the Vatican had petitioned the high court to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds that the Vatican, as a sovereign state, enjoys immunity from the laws of another country.
“The lawsuit, filed by one of the priest's alleged victims in 2002, accuses the Vatican and U.S. church officials of shielding the Rev. Andrew Ronan from allegations of sexual abuse by transferring the priest from one diocese to another—a practice that the complaint says allowed the priest to dodge his accusers and abuse more children,” reports the Journal. “The lawsuit contends the Vatican is liable because it acted as the priest's employer.”
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Queen Latifah
"I don’t have to explain anything. I don’t have to confirm anything. Look, I need my time. I need my life. You know, I was looking at something the other day. A magazine with Jennifer Aniston on the cover. That’s a strong woman right there. All of these people in her business-who is she dating? Angie this. Brad that. They come up with so much stuff. That’s a tough situation to be in."My situation is small compared to that. But still, I don’t feel like I need to explain. I’m the one living it. You write about it. You go ahead and speculate. I’ll just live it. I don’t feel like I need to explain things to a perfect stranger. The people who matter know. And they love me for Dana. I don’t have to tell Joe Blow. Joe, you worry about who YOU sleeping with." - Queen Latifah, speaking to Upscale Magazine.
Immigrant Farm Workers Challenge Pundits And Unemployed To 'Take Our Jobs'
In a tongue-in-cheek call for immigration reform, farm workers are teaming up with comedian Stephen Colbert to challenge unemployed Americans: Come on, take our jobs.Farm workers are tired of being blamed by politicians and anti-immigrant activists for taking work that should go to Americans and dragging down the economy, said Arturo Rodriguez, the president of the United Farm Workers of America.
So the group is encouraging the unemployed – and any Washington pundits or anti-immigrant activists who want to join them – to apply for the some of thousands of agricultural jobs being posted with state agencies as harvest season begins.
All applicants need to do is fill out an online form under the banner "I want to be a farm worker" at , and experienced field hands will train them and connect them to farms. http://www.takeourjobs.org
According to the Labor Department, three out of four farm workers were born abroad, and more than half are illegal immigrants.
Proponents of tougher immigration laws have argued that farmers have become used to cheap labor and don't want to raise wages enough to draw in other workers.
Those who have done the job have some words of advice for applicants: First, dress appropriately.
During summer, when the harvest of fruits and vegetables is in full swing in California's Central Valley, temperatures hover in the triple digits. Heat exhaustion is one of the reasons farm labor consistently makes the Bureau of Labor Statistics' top ten list of the nation's most dangerous jobs.
Second, expect long days. Growers have a small window to pick fruit before it is overripe.
And don't count on a big paycheck. Farm workers are excluded from federal overtime provisions, and small farms don't even have to pay the minimum wage. Fifteen states don't require farm labor to be covered by workers compensation laws.
Any takers?
"The reality is farmworkers who are here today aren't taking any American jobs away. They work in often unbearable situations," Rodriguez said. "I don't think there will be many takers, but the offer is being made. Let's see what happens."
To highlight how unlikely the prospect of Americans lining up to pick strawberries or grapes, Comedy Central's "Colbert Report" plans to feature the "Take Our Jobs" campaign on July 8.
The Spiritual Significance of Pride
What is the spiritual significance of pride?
June is Pride Month for millions of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people across the country. During this time each year, we commemorate the weekend of June 27-29, 1969, when the patrons of the Stonewall Inn bar in Greenwich Village, fed up with police brutality and harassment towards the LGBT community, resolved to fight back. This turning point represented the birth of the modern LGBT-rights movement.
Many LGBT-affirming churches and other religious communities hold special events during the month of June, including LGBT-themed prayer services and liturgical celebrations. In fact, many of these congregations send contingents to walk in the various pride marches that occur across the country in June. Pride Month is a time for spiritual communities to give thanks for a loving God who has created LGBT people in God's image and likeness and for the intrinsic goodness of our bodies and sexualities.
Pride Month is also a time to honor our LGBT saints and ancestors, including the drag queens at the Stonewall Inn who courageously liberated us by starting the Stonewall riots, as well as all those known and unknown people before us who died of HIV/AIDS or were felled by anti-LGBT violence. Indeed, Pride Month is a sacred time for many of my fellow lay and ordained ministers in the Metropolitan Community Churches, a denomination that was founded by and for LGBT people but that is open to all.
Unfortunately, many anti-LGBT Christians have condemned Pride Month as a sinful celebration of debauchery and perversion. They have pointed to the scantily-clad and outrageously-dressed individuals in pride marches as evidence of our nation's moral decay. Fundamentalist Christian protesters have lined the streets holding signs with biblical warnings of how LGBT people will burn in hell for all eternity.
Even those mainline Christians who are not overtly hostile to LGBT people often fail to understand the spiritual significance of Pride Month. "Why do they need to wear their sexualities on their sleeves?" many of them ask. Many churches that line the routes of pride marches keep their doors conspicuously shut and their parishioners far away, as if somehow all the joyous celebration outside would contaminate the holy spaces inside.
This resistance to Pride Month is not surprising from a theological perspective. Traditionally, pride has been understood by Christians as the first, and thus most serious, of the seven deadly sins. Indeed, pride -- defined as the inordinate love of oneself -- was the sin that brought down Satan and the other rebellious angels. Pride was also responsible for the fall of humanity, which resulted from Adam and Eve's wanting to be like God and thus eating from the forbidden tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the Garden of Eden.
Given the long-standing historical condemnation of pride as the root of all sin in the Christian tradition, how can we understand LGBT pride to be a blessing and not a sin? As an openly-gay theologian, teacher of theology, and ordained minister, I believe that sin is not just limited to pride or inordinate self-love. Rather, sin -- defined as the way in which, despite our best intentions, we inevitably turn our backs on who God has created us to be -- can also take the opposite form of inordinate self-hate or shame, something that many LGBT people experience from a very early age.
In other words, sin is not just a matter of lifting oneself up too high (as in the case of Satan, the rebellious angels, or Adam and Eve), but it is also a matter of failing to lift oneself up high enough. Many LGBT people have been taught to hide in the shadows as a result of being taunted and tormented by our peers from an early age. We are constantly told that what we do is unnatural and that God hates us. Is it any wonder, then, that so many LGBT people suffer from a toxic degree of self-hate and shame?
Even those of us who have been out for decades and who deal with LGBT issues on a daily basis in our jobs ("professional gays," as one of my friends put it) are not immune to shame. For example,even though my partner and I have been together for nearly 19 years we still feel self-conscious when we hold hands or kiss each other in certain public situations. We have been programmed (wrongly) to believe that these acts are somehow less meaningful in the eyes of God than the exact same acts performed by an opposite-sex couple.
Indeed, feminist Christian theologians going back to Valerie Saiving in the early 1960s have characterized self-hate and shame -- as opposed to pride -- as the kind of sin that is most often experienced by women and LGBT people. According to such theologians, elevated self-hate and shame is sinful because we fail to recognize how God has lifted up all of humanity through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and we therefore fail to live our lives in accordance with this good news.
Thus, it is not surprising that pride is an important positive spiritual value for LGBT people. Because of the ways in which many LGBT people have been taught to hate ourselves from an early age, pride is an important act of spiritual healing and witness that allows us to develop a healthy sense of ourselves, our communities, and those who we love. The problem is often not that we are too proud, but rather that we are not proud enough.
This is not to say, however, that the notion of pride as sin has no place in the spiritual lives of LGBT people. One of the things that I find particularly compelling about the doctrine of original sin is its radical equality. That is, no human being -- not even the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, or the Ecumenical Patriarch -- is intrinsically less sinful than anyone else. Thus, the LGBT community, like all other communities, must always be vigilant against hurting others through the abuse of power or through various structural sins such as racism, ageism, sexism, transphobia, classism, and ableism.
Quite frankly, Pride Month celebrations can often seem like advertisements for alcohol, porn, dance parties, and exotic travel destinations. There is often a great premium placed on external beauty and material wealth -- particularly in the white gay male community -- that results in many people of color feeling left out and inferior. Also, people in the LGBT community often fail to treat others, particularly in sexual situations, with the compassion and respect that we would have others do unto us. These are all reminders that no community, including an oppressed one, is free from the human condition of sin.
In the end, however, I believe that LGBT Pride Month is more than just a celebration of secular values of equality, justice, human rights, and freedom. Pride Month is also a profoundly spiritual celebration of seeing ourselves as beloved children of God. Sometimes we may fall short of the mark, but who doesn't? In the end, we are made in the image and likeness of a God who loves us for who we are. Period. And that is truly a cause for celebration!
Follow Rev. Patrick S. Cheng, Ph.D.
June is Pride Month for millions of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people across the country. During this time each year, we commemorate the weekend of June 27-29, 1969, when the patrons of the Stonewall Inn bar in Greenwich Village, fed up with police brutality and harassment towards the LGBT community, resolved to fight back. This turning point represented the birth of the modern LGBT-rights movement.
Many LGBT-affirming churches and other religious communities hold special events during the month of June, including LGBT-themed prayer services and liturgical celebrations. In fact, many of these congregations send contingents to walk in the various pride marches that occur across the country in June. Pride Month is a time for spiritual communities to give thanks for a loving God who has created LGBT people in God's image and likeness and for the intrinsic goodness of our bodies and sexualities.
Pride Month is also a time to honor our LGBT saints and ancestors, including the drag queens at the Stonewall Inn who courageously liberated us by starting the Stonewall riots, as well as all those known and unknown people before us who died of HIV/AIDS or were felled by anti-LGBT violence. Indeed, Pride Month is a sacred time for many of my fellow lay and ordained ministers in the Metropolitan Community Churches, a denomination that was founded by and for LGBT people but that is open to all.
Unfortunately, many anti-LGBT Christians have condemned Pride Month as a sinful celebration of debauchery and perversion. They have pointed to the scantily-clad and outrageously-dressed individuals in pride marches as evidence of our nation's moral decay. Fundamentalist Christian protesters have lined the streets holding signs with biblical warnings of how LGBT people will burn in hell for all eternity.
Even those mainline Christians who are not overtly hostile to LGBT people often fail to understand the spiritual significance of Pride Month. "Why do they need to wear their sexualities on their sleeves?" many of them ask. Many churches that line the routes of pride marches keep their doors conspicuously shut and their parishioners far away, as if somehow all the joyous celebration outside would contaminate the holy spaces inside.
This resistance to Pride Month is not surprising from a theological perspective. Traditionally, pride has been understood by Christians as the first, and thus most serious, of the seven deadly sins. Indeed, pride -- defined as the inordinate love of oneself -- was the sin that brought down Satan and the other rebellious angels. Pride was also responsible for the fall of humanity, which resulted from Adam and Eve's wanting to be like God and thus eating from the forbidden tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the Garden of Eden.
Given the long-standing historical condemnation of pride as the root of all sin in the Christian tradition, how can we understand LGBT pride to be a blessing and not a sin? As an openly-gay theologian, teacher of theology, and ordained minister, I believe that sin is not just limited to pride or inordinate self-love. Rather, sin -- defined as the way in which, despite our best intentions, we inevitably turn our backs on who God has created us to be -- can also take the opposite form of inordinate self-hate or shame, something that many LGBT people experience from a very early age.
In other words, sin is not just a matter of lifting oneself up too high (as in the case of Satan, the rebellious angels, or Adam and Eve), but it is also a matter of failing to lift oneself up high enough. Many LGBT people have been taught to hide in the shadows as a result of being taunted and tormented by our peers from an early age. We are constantly told that what we do is unnatural and that God hates us. Is it any wonder, then, that so many LGBT people suffer from a toxic degree of self-hate and shame?
Even those of us who have been out for decades and who deal with LGBT issues on a daily basis in our jobs ("professional gays," as one of my friends put it) are not immune to shame. For example,even though my partner and I have been together for nearly 19 years we still feel self-conscious when we hold hands or kiss each other in certain public situations. We have been programmed (wrongly) to believe that these acts are somehow less meaningful in the eyes of God than the exact same acts performed by an opposite-sex couple.
Indeed, feminist Christian theologians going back to Valerie Saiving in the early 1960s have characterized self-hate and shame -- as opposed to pride -- as the kind of sin that is most often experienced by women and LGBT people. According to such theologians, elevated self-hate and shame is sinful because we fail to recognize how God has lifted up all of humanity through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and we therefore fail to live our lives in accordance with this good news.
Thus, it is not surprising that pride is an important positive spiritual value for LGBT people. Because of the ways in which many LGBT people have been taught to hate ourselves from an early age, pride is an important act of spiritual healing and witness that allows us to develop a healthy sense of ourselves, our communities, and those who we love. The problem is often not that we are too proud, but rather that we are not proud enough.
This is not to say, however, that the notion of pride as sin has no place in the spiritual lives of LGBT people. One of the things that I find particularly compelling about the doctrine of original sin is its radical equality. That is, no human being -- not even the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, or the Ecumenical Patriarch -- is intrinsically less sinful than anyone else. Thus, the LGBT community, like all other communities, must always be vigilant against hurting others through the abuse of power or through various structural sins such as racism, ageism, sexism, transphobia, classism, and ableism.
Quite frankly, Pride Month celebrations can often seem like advertisements for alcohol, porn, dance parties, and exotic travel destinations. There is often a great premium placed on external beauty and material wealth -- particularly in the white gay male community -- that results in many people of color feeling left out and inferior. Also, people in the LGBT community often fail to treat others, particularly in sexual situations, with the compassion and respect that we would have others do unto us. These are all reminders that no community, including an oppressed one, is free from the human condition of sin.
In the end, however, I believe that LGBT Pride Month is more than just a celebration of secular values of equality, justice, human rights, and freedom. Pride Month is also a profoundly spiritual celebration of seeing ourselves as beloved children of God. Sometimes we may fall short of the mark, but who doesn't? In the end, we are made in the image and likeness of a God who loves us for who we are. Period. And that is truly a cause for celebration!
Follow Rev. Patrick S. Cheng, Ph.D.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Gay marriage is not universal right
The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that countries are not obliged to allow gay marriage, rejecting a bid by an Austrian couple to force the state to let them wed.The court said the rights of Horst Michael Schalk and Johann Franz Kopf had not been violated by their inability to get married.
In Austria, same-sex couples can enter into legally recognized partnerships, similar to marriage but different in some ways.
A panel of seven judges ruled unanimously Thursday that the couple was not covered by the guarantee of the right to marry in Europe’s human rights convention.
The judges said there was “an emerging European consensus towards legal recognition of same-sex couples,” but left it to individual states to decide what form that should take.
Maine: NOM Investigation Must Go On
The Maine Ethics Commission has rejected the latest attempt by the antigay National Organization for Marriage to stop the investigation into the group’s fund-raising for Question 1, the ballot measure that repealed the state’s marriage equality law last November.According to the Bangor Daily News, which reported on the commission proceedings Thursday, “The four members of the Ethics Commission voted unanimously to dismiss NOM’s argument that the commission lacked the authority to conduct an investigation into whether the organization should have registered as a ‘ballot question committee.’”
NOM contributed more than $1.9 million to the PAC Stand for Marriage Maine, but the group contends that the money supported its national activities, and not the Maine campaign in particular, which it argues should exempt it from state campaign finance laws.
At the heart of the matter lies NOM’s desire to keep secret the identities of its donors.
According to the Bangor Daily News, “NOM’s attorney, Barry Bostrum, also repeated the organization’s claims that such an investigation could have a chilling effect on potential donors who would be reticent to contribute out of fear of possible backlash or retribution if their names became public.”
European Union Plans for Huge Solar Farm in Sahara Desert to Power Europe
Here’s a statistic you may be interested in knowing: If only 1% of the Sahara Desert was covered in solar panels, it would generate enough energy to power the entire world. So, we’ve got to ask: why hasn’t something like this been thought of before?
If the European Union has its way, then in the next five years, a giant solar panel farm is going to be constructed within the desert in question, and will be expanded gradually throughout the decades that follow.
The beginning stages will prove troublesome, as the EU needs to figure out means to get the energy from the desert to homes in Europe. While they do that, it sounds like they’re only going to be able to move a minimal amount, or a smaller proportion to what is actually needed for the countries therein. But, as methods get better, and it becomes easier to transport the energy, then it’s estimated that by 2050 (when the project is estimated to last until), that all of Europe could be powered by the solar panels in the Sahara Desert. The problem could be the estimated $400 billion Euros the project is estimated to cost just to start, but we’re sure if there’s any reason to earn some money for something, this could be it. And, how much of the desert do they need to cover with solar panels to power the entire European continent? .3%
If the European Union has its way, then in the next five years, a giant solar panel farm is going to be constructed within the desert in question, and will be expanded gradually throughout the decades that follow.
The beginning stages will prove troublesome, as the EU needs to figure out means to get the energy from the desert to homes in Europe. While they do that, it sounds like they’re only going to be able to move a minimal amount, or a smaller proportion to what is actually needed for the countries therein. But, as methods get better, and it becomes easier to transport the energy, then it’s estimated that by 2050 (when the project is estimated to last until), that all of Europe could be powered by the solar panels in the Sahara Desert. The problem could be the estimated $400 billion Euros the project is estimated to cost just to start, but we’re sure if there’s any reason to earn some money for something, this could be it. And, how much of the desert do they need to cover with solar panels to power the entire European continent? .3%
Friday, June 25, 2010
New Aussie PM: No to Gay Marriage
Australia has its first female prime minister, Julia Gillard, but it doesn’t look like she will be pushing for any changes as far as marriage equality Down Under goes.Gillard became prime minister Wednesday (Thursday in Australia) after Kevin Rudd stepped down in response to falling support in the Labor Party, which itself has been losing favor in opinion polls.Rudd, who had been prime minister since 2007, was an opponent of marriage equality, telling Australia’s ABC Radio in 2009 that marriage should be between a man and a woman. “[The Labor Party] is consistent with the policy that we took to last election,” he said, that the party "fully respects the integrity of same-sex relationships.”
Hawaii gov. buys more time on civil unions bill
Gov. Linda Lingle on Monday bought herself two more weeks to make a decision on contentious legislation that would allow same-gender couples to form civil unions.
At a press conference at the state Capitol, Lingle announced the bill is one of 39 measures on a list of potential vetoes she was required to unveil by Monday.
She stressed that its appearance on the list doesn’t necessarily mean it will be vetoed - although she said historically, that’s what happens to most bills on the list.
The Republican governor said she is "still considering everyone’s point of view" on the civil unions issue, which she called the most difficult of the measures still before her.
"What makes it the most difficult is the intensity of the feeling on the part of the public. I don’t know of another bill that comes close to that," she said.
"I can tell you that throughout this process, I’ve gone back and forth" on whether to sign the bill, she added.
Lingle now has until July 6, when by law she must sign or veto the 39 measures, or allow them to become law without her signature. She said she will take until then to decide the fate of the civil unions legislation.
The bill would allow same- and opposite-gender couples to form civil unions, with almost all the rights and responsibilities of marriage.
Lingle’s office has been deluged with almost 20,000 letters, faxes, e-mails and phone calls - the majority opposed to HB 444, according to the governor’s staff.
Those opinions will be an important consideration, Lingle said. The governor didn’t elaborate on why she needs two more weeks, but previously said she wants as much time as possible to weigh the bill and figure out how to communicate her decision to the public. The bill has been on her desk since May 3.
At a press conference at the state Capitol, Lingle announced the bill is one of 39 measures on a list of potential vetoes she was required to unveil by Monday.
She stressed that its appearance on the list doesn’t necessarily mean it will be vetoed - although she said historically, that’s what happens to most bills on the list.
The Republican governor said she is "still considering everyone’s point of view" on the civil unions issue, which she called the most difficult of the measures still before her.
"What makes it the most difficult is the intensity of the feeling on the part of the public. I don’t know of another bill that comes close to that," she said.
"I can tell you that throughout this process, I’ve gone back and forth" on whether to sign the bill, she added.
Lingle now has until July 6, when by law she must sign or veto the 39 measures, or allow them to become law without her signature. She said she will take until then to decide the fate of the civil unions legislation.
The bill would allow same- and opposite-gender couples to form civil unions, with almost all the rights and responsibilities of marriage.
Lingle’s office has been deluged with almost 20,000 letters, faxes, e-mails and phone calls - the majority opposed to HB 444, according to the governor’s staff.
Those opinions will be an important consideration, Lingle said. The governor didn’t elaborate on why she needs two more weeks, but previously said she wants as much time as possible to weigh the bill and figure out how to communicate her decision to the public. The bill has been on her desk since May 3.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Supreme Court Rules for Petition Disclosure
In a Thursday decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of disclosing the names of petitioners who called for a ballot measure that could have repealed an expanded domestic partnership rights law in Washington State last year.The 8-1 ruling, considered in the heated context of the nationwide marriage equality debate, could hold far-reaching implications for public disclosure, including the right to know who contributes to political campaigns against gay rights, and how much they spend.
The case, Doe v. Reed, centered on Referendum 71, a ballot initiative that asked voters whether they wanted to approve or reject a 2009 “everything but marriage law” for same-sex couples. Washington voters affirmed the law by a margin of 53% to 47% in November, but the question of whether to release the names and addresses of petitioners who called for the referendum became the subject of a protracted legal battle.
At issue for the high court was whether petition signers’ private information should be protected under the First Amendment as an expression of political speech. During oral arguments in April plaintiffs sought to portray public disclosure as having a chilling effect on free speech, appealing to isolated reports of vandalism and harassment following the passage of the anti-gay-marriage measure Proposition 8 in California. Washington attorney general Rob McKenna argued that signing a petition qualified as a legislative act, which is not entitled to anonymity, and that the public interest warranted disclosure. Retaliation against petition signers were highly infrequent, he argued.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John G. Roberts ruled that plaintiffs’ arguments about potential harm were ancillary to the fundamental question before the court of whether such disclosure violates the First Amendment. "Faced with the State’s unrebutted arguments that only modest burdens attend the disclosure of a typical petition, plaintiffs’ broad challenge to the [Washington Public Records Act] must be rejected."
Roberts further noted the civic benefits of such disclosure, writing that it "helps prevent difficult-to-detect fraud such as outright forgery and 'bait and switch' fraud, in which an individual signs the petition based on a misrepresentation of the underlying issue."
Justice Clarence Thomas was the sole dissenting justice in the case
The Day When IBM Allowed Women To Work After Marriage
According to this memo, it was January 10, 1951. Granted, it was a "temporary modification" of the policy of "non-employment on the regular payroll of married women unless they are in support of their family."
The View Tackles Gay Blood Ban
It's been more than a week since the Department of Health and Human Services's Advisory Committee on Blood Safety ruled that gay men still can't donate blood, but that hasn't silenced debate on the issue.
On a Tuesday segment of The View, guests D.L. Hughley and journalist Thomas Roberts (host of The Advocate On Air) joined regular hosts Joy Behar, Elisabeth Hasselbeck, and Sherri Shepard in discussing the ruling in light of a recent Slate.com article.
The Slate piece questioned whether other groups with higher incidences of HIV infection should also be banned, citing, for example, that African-American women have an HIV rate nearly 18 times higher than white women, according to the Centers for Disease Control (the FDA, a subagency of HHS, already bars persons born in sub-Saharan Africa from donating blood).
In a unanimous vote, the blood safety advisory committee also called the policy for men who have sex with men (MSM) "suboptimal," however, and recommended that distinctions be made between low- and high-risk potential gay donors in an upcoming report to the assistant secretary of HHS.
[I think this is an important topic. Unfortunately, there is so much inaccurate information in this video. I almost didn’t post it]
On a Tuesday segment of The View, guests D.L. Hughley and journalist Thomas Roberts (host of The Advocate On Air) joined regular hosts Joy Behar, Elisabeth Hasselbeck, and Sherri Shepard in discussing the ruling in light of a recent Slate.com article.
The Slate piece questioned whether other groups with higher incidences of HIV infection should also be banned, citing, for example, that African-American women have an HIV rate nearly 18 times higher than white women, according to the Centers for Disease Control (the FDA, a subagency of HHS, already bars persons born in sub-Saharan Africa from donating blood).
In a unanimous vote, the blood safety advisory committee also called the policy for men who have sex with men (MSM) "suboptimal," however, and recommended that distinctions be made between low- and high-risk potential gay donors in an upcoming report to the assistant secretary of HHS.
[I think this is an important topic. Unfortunately, there is so much inaccurate information in this video. I almost didn’t post it]
Pa. jury: City can’t evict scouts for no-gays rule
A jury says the city of Philadelphia cannot evict a local Boy Scouts chapter from a city-owned building for refusing to admit gays.The city insisted that nonprofits given free use of its property must abide by local anti-discrimination laws.
The scouts said they can legally limit their membership because of a 2000 Supreme Court decision. They had sued in federal court to stop the eviction.
Cradle of Liberty Council leaders have tried to walk a fine line to retain city support without losing their national Boy Scouts charter. The national organization bans gays.
Scouts lawyer Jason Gosselin says he hopes the two sides can work out their differences in negotiations.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Baltimore Sun: Strike Down Prop. 8
Maryland's largest newspaper published an editorial Saturday that calls for all bans on same-sex marriage to be struck down.Writing about the U.S. District Court case that will decide if California's antigay Prop. 8 will stand, the newspaper indicated it believed Judge Vaughn Walker should throw out the ban on same-sex marriage, and that the Supreme Court should do the same. The Sun also pointed out the apparent weakness in the arguments made by defendants of the gay marriage ban:
"Robbed of religious arguments, opponents were forced into positions that were ridiculous when taken to their logical conclusion. If marriage is for procreation, why do we let the elderly marry? Why not let lesbians marry, since they can procreate just as easily as heterosexual couples in which the man is infertile?
The claims that a ban on same-sex marriage is somehow for the benefit of society are just window dressing on deep-seated — and unconstitutional — prejudice. The time has come to recognize these unions as just as committed as their heterosexual counterparts to the purposes marriage was invented to serve and as equally beneficial to society."
The claims that a ban on same-sex marriage is somehow for the benefit of society are just window dressing on deep-seated — and unconstitutional — prejudice. The time has come to recognize these unions as just as committed as their heterosexual counterparts to the purposes marriage was invented to serve and as equally beneficial to society."
Big Biz Pushes Lingle on Civil Unions
Hawaii governor Linda Lingle is expected to include the state’s civil unions bill — passed by the legislature in April — on a potential veto list today. The list doesn’t mean she’s decided to veto the bill, just that she’s considering doing so.Lingle has until July 6 for her final decision. If she does not act, civil unions will then become law.
With the deadline just two weeks away, a number of big corporations are urging the governor to sign the bill, which would open civil unions to both same- and opposite-sex couples. Those businesses include the Hawaii Medical Service Association (the state’s largest health insurer), Time Warner Cable, Marriott International, Starwood Hotels & Resorts, March & McLennan Companies, and Aon Corp.
Their show of support, organized by the Human Rights Campaign, comes after The Hawaii Business Roundtable, made up of executiveswho hope to promote economic vitality and “social health,” urged Lingle to veto the bill.
"Time Warner Cable specifically prohibits all forms of discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered employees and offers full equality to all our employees," Time Warner's statement read. "While we are active members of the Business Roundtable [through local Oceanic Cable] and believe it to be a beneficial organization for the people of Hawaii, we do not agree with every decision that the Roundtable makes. This letter to Governor Lingle urging her not to support House Bill 444 is one such instance."
Time Warner Cable, Marriott International, Starwood Hotels & Resorts, and Aon Corp. all have a 100 percent rating from HRC's Corporate Equality Index.
"America's most successful business have been leaders in treating same-sex headed families with fairness and respect, so it's no surprise that they're speaking out loudly for civil unions in Hawaii," said HRC president Joe Solmonese.
GLAD to honor bishop with Spirit of Justice Award
Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) announced Monday, June 14, that Bishop Gene Robinson will be the recipient of the 2010 Spirit of Justice Award."Bishop Robinson’s fearless advocacy for LGBT civil rights is an inspiration to all of us working toward the day when each and every member of our community is recognized as a full and equal member of society," said Lee Swislow, GLAD’s Executive Director. "We are so pleased to honor him this year."
The Spirit of Justice Award is given annually to recognize an individual for work and achievements that reflect a profound dedication to GLAD’s ideal of a just society. The first openly gay person to be elected bishop in the Episcopal Church, Robinson is the leader of the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire. In the years since his 2003 consecration, Robinson has become a loyal and eloquent advocate for LGBT rights both nationally and around the world, despite the continued right wing Episcopal opposition to his ordination on the basis that he is an openly gay man.
"Though I once resisted being known as ’the gay bishop,’ I realize that it’s given me an opportunity to speak out for LGBT people around the world, and I embrace that opportunity," Robinson said. "I’m proud that GLAD, an organization that has successfully taken on some of the toughest battles in the LGBT movement, will recognize my work."
Singer Vanessa Carlton Tells Nashville Pride: 'I Am A Proud Bisexual Woman'
Carlton made the announcement during a performance at Nashville Pride yesterday. Said the singer, "I've never said this before, but I am a proud bisexual woman." Just a few months ago, Anna Paquin also came out as bisexual.Good for Carlton for not only bravely coming out but for choosing to do so in front of her fans during Pride month.
After 71 Years, Nation's Oldest Gay Bar Shuts Down
The country's oldest gay bar is closing!
Though a dozen bars in the U.S. claim to be the nation's most senior, the Cedar Brook Café in Westport, Connecticut, is shutting down on June 26 after 71 years of serving scotches and cosmos to the moneyed classes, and that seems like a long enough time to take the title. (It opened in 1939? As a gay bar?)
Clem Bellairs, who's owned the place for a dozen years, explains the shuttering: "The landlord died and the people who bought it doubled my rent. I can't afford it anymore." It'll probably become a Starbucks.
Though a dozen bars in the U.S. claim to be the nation's most senior, the Cedar Brook Café in Westport, Connecticut, is shutting down on June 26 after 71 years of serving scotches and cosmos to the moneyed classes, and that seems like a long enough time to take the title. (It opened in 1939? As a gay bar?)
Clem Bellairs, who's owned the place for a dozen years, explains the shuttering: "The landlord died and the people who bought it doubled my rent. I can't afford it anymore." It'll probably become a Starbucks.
German Bishop: Gays ’Condemned to Hell’
The bishop of Essen, Germany--an epicenter of the clerical sexual abuse scandal now rocking Europe--has targeted gays with a declaration that homosexuals are headed to Hell.
Blog The Eponymous Flower posted a German news item on June 15 about the words of Bishop Franz-Josef Overbeck. The original June 10 article appeared at German Catholic news site Kreuz.net ("Cross.net") reported the Overbeck had appeared on a televised talk program in April, where he declared, "Homosexuality is a sin. We know this very clearly and unambiguously, and that’s that. It contradicts nature." Added the bishop, "Human nature is fulfilled in the conjoining of man and woman."
The Eponymous Flower elaborated on the bishop’s anti-gay message. "Whoever dies as an unrepentant homosexual, goes to Hell," the posting’s framing comments read. "The Bishop of Essen can not abolish the 10 Commandments: homosexual perversion is a mortal sin."
The Kreuz.net article was similarly floral in its prose, with one sub-headline reading, "The Horror of Gay Perversion is a Deadly Sin."
The article said that on June 9, during a public discussion at the Essen Cathedral, the bishop "clarified" his stance, saying that "expressed homosexuality"--i.e., sexual contact between members of the same gender--was a mortal sin. Catholic believe that there are different classifications of sin. Venal sins do not condemn a person’s soul to damnation if they are unforgiven at the time of death; mortal sins, however, consign one to Hell if not forgiven through absolution and penance. The article said that the bishop’s comments were grounded in the tenets of the "Catechism of the Catholic Church."
Furthermore, Kreuz.net reported, the bishop viewed a "tension" as existing between the Catholic church and Western culture, which the article referred to as "degenerate."
The article went on to claim that "anti-democratic gays" had staged a riot in the Cathedral, seeking to drown out the bishop’s words as he spoke so as to "rob him of his freedom of speech." The article referred to those who gave voice to their protest as "gay fornicators."
Blog The Eponymous Flower posted a German news item on June 15 about the words of Bishop Franz-Josef Overbeck. The original June 10 article appeared at German Catholic news site Kreuz.net ("Cross.net") reported the Overbeck had appeared on a televised talk program in April, where he declared, "Homosexuality is a sin. We know this very clearly and unambiguously, and that’s that. It contradicts nature." Added the bishop, "Human nature is fulfilled in the conjoining of man and woman."
The Eponymous Flower elaborated on the bishop’s anti-gay message. "Whoever dies as an unrepentant homosexual, goes to Hell," the posting’s framing comments read. "The Bishop of Essen can not abolish the 10 Commandments: homosexual perversion is a mortal sin."
The Kreuz.net article was similarly floral in its prose, with one sub-headline reading, "The Horror of Gay Perversion is a Deadly Sin."
The article said that on June 9, during a public discussion at the Essen Cathedral, the bishop "clarified" his stance, saying that "expressed homosexuality"--i.e., sexual contact between members of the same gender--was a mortal sin. Catholic believe that there are different classifications of sin. Venal sins do not condemn a person’s soul to damnation if they are unforgiven at the time of death; mortal sins, however, consign one to Hell if not forgiven through absolution and penance. The article said that the bishop’s comments were grounded in the tenets of the "Catechism of the Catholic Church."
Furthermore, Kreuz.net reported, the bishop viewed a "tension" as existing between the Catholic church and Western culture, which the article referred to as "degenerate."
The article went on to claim that "anti-democratic gays" had staged a riot in the Cathedral, seeking to drown out the bishop’s words as he spoke so as to "rob him of his freedom of speech." The article referred to those who gave voice to their protest as "gay fornicators."
Monday, June 21, 2010
Texas GOP: Performing Gay Ceremonies Should Be Felony
Most would not expect the Texas GOP platform to be liberal, but many might be surprised that their agenda includes charging people who perform same-sex marriage ceremonies with a felony.The Republican Party of the Lone Star State has released its platform, and it takes a hard line on illegal immigrants, gay people, and abortion. Aside from making the officiating of gay ceremonies a serious crime, Texas Republicans hope to repeal the health care bill, make English the official language of the United States, urge the state legislature to require voter identification (ostensibly at polls), ban stem-cell research, and require sonograms for women seeking abortions.
25,000 barrels of oil.
BP is leaking 25,000 to 40,000 barrels of oil a day into the gulf. This is what 25,000 barrels looks like.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Christian Group Can't Bar Gays, Get Funding At Hastings College, Court Says
An ideologically split Supreme Court ruled Monday that a law school can legally deny recognition to a Christian student group that won't let gays join, with one justice saying that the First Amendment does not require a public university to validate or support the group's "discriminatory practices."
The court turned away an appeal from the Christian Legal Society, which sued to get funding and recognition from the University of California's Hastings College of the Law. The CLS requires that voting members sign a statement of faith and regards "unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle" as being inconsistent with that faith.
But Hastings, which is in San Francisco, said no recognized campus groups may exclude people due to religious belief or sexual orientation.
The court on a 5-4 judgment upheld the lower court rulings saying the Christian group's First Amendment rights of association, free speech and free exercise were not violated by the college's nondiscrimination policy.
"In requiring CLS – in common with all other student organizations – to choose between welcoming all students and forgoing the benefits of official recognition, we hold, Hastings did not transgress constitutional limitations," said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who wrote the 5-4 majority opinion for the court's liberals and moderate Anthony Kennedy. "CLS, it bears emphasis, seeks not parity with other organizations, but a preferential exemption from Hastings' policy."
Justice Samuel Alito wrote a strong dissent for the court's conservatives, saying the opinion was "a serious setback for freedom of expression in this country."
"Our proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express 'the thought that we hate,'" Alito said, quoting a previous court decision. "Today's decision rests on a very different principle: no freedom for expression that offends prevailing standards of political correctness in our country's institutions of higher learning."
Leo Martinez, Hastings College of the Law's acting chancellor and dean, said the ruling "validates our policy, which is rooted in equity and fairness."
But the decision is a large setback for the Christian Legal Society, which has chapters at universities nationwide and has won similar lawsuits in other courts.
The court turned away an appeal from the Christian Legal Society, which sued to get funding and recognition from the University of California's Hastings College of the Law. The CLS requires that voting members sign a statement of faith and regards "unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle" as being inconsistent with that faith.
But Hastings, which is in San Francisco, said no recognized campus groups may exclude people due to religious belief or sexual orientation.
The court on a 5-4 judgment upheld the lower court rulings saying the Christian group's First Amendment rights of association, free speech and free exercise were not violated by the college's nondiscrimination policy.
"In requiring CLS – in common with all other student organizations – to choose between welcoming all students and forgoing the benefits of official recognition, we hold, Hastings did not transgress constitutional limitations," said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who wrote the 5-4 majority opinion for the court's liberals and moderate Anthony Kennedy. "CLS, it bears emphasis, seeks not parity with other organizations, but a preferential exemption from Hastings' policy."
Justice Samuel Alito wrote a strong dissent for the court's conservatives, saying the opinion was "a serious setback for freedom of expression in this country."
"Our proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express 'the thought that we hate,'" Alito said, quoting a previous court decision. "Today's decision rests on a very different principle: no freedom for expression that offends prevailing standards of political correctness in our country's institutions of higher learning."
Leo Martinez, Hastings College of the Law's acting chancellor and dean, said the ruling "validates our policy, which is rooted in equity and fairness."
But the decision is a large setback for the Christian Legal Society, which has chapters at universities nationwide and has won similar lawsuits in other courts.
Denny's Under Fire for Trans Discrimination
A transgender woman is suing a Denny's restaurant in Maine, saying she was barred from using its restroom in October 2007.
Brianna Freeman, 45, said she is not suing for monetary compensation but simply the right to use the bathroom, according to Maine Public Broadcasting Network.
Freeman said she had been using the women's bathroom for about a year until a restaurant manager told her that she had to stop using it. Her attorney, Jennifer Levi, said that most other restaurants have been accommodating toward her client. An attorney representing Realty Resources Hospitality, the company that owns the Denny's franchise in Auburn, said that some women had complained that Freeman was using the bathroom.
"The obvious concern with a business like Denny's is the safety of its patrons," attorney Patrick Mellor told MPBN. "And we're not suggesting the plaintiff would take any inappropriate actions when using the woman's restroom, and have never suggested that this plaintiff has done anything inappropriate. The problem is that another individual with inappropriate motives could abuse the policy that permitted a male to use the woman's restroom."
Brianna Freeman, 45, said she is not suing for monetary compensation but simply the right to use the bathroom, according to Maine Public Broadcasting Network.
Freeman said she had been using the women's bathroom for about a year until a restaurant manager told her that she had to stop using it. Her attorney, Jennifer Levi, said that most other restaurants have been accommodating toward her client. An attorney representing Realty Resources Hospitality, the company that owns the Denny's franchise in Auburn, said that some women had complained that Freeman was using the bathroom.
"The obvious concern with a business like Denny's is the safety of its patrons," attorney Patrick Mellor told MPBN. "And we're not suggesting the plaintiff would take any inappropriate actions when using the woman's restroom, and have never suggested that this plaintiff has done anything inappropriate. The problem is that another individual with inappropriate motives could abuse the policy that permitted a male to use the woman's restroom."
Saturday, June 19, 2010
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Day 59 - Judgment Day - The Strife Aquatic | ||||
| ||||
What's Next with Prop 8?
Winding up a historic trial over same-sex marriage in California, the lawyer for Proposition 8's sponsors told a federal judge Wednesday that allowing only a man and a woman to wed promotes responsible sex and child rearing, and ultimately ensures the future of humanity.
During more than two hours of intense and sometimes skeptical questioning by Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, attorney Charles Cooper maintained that society is entitled to reserve its approval of marriage for those who can naturally conceive children.
"The marital relationship is fundamental to the existence and survival of the race," Cooper said in closing arguments before a packed San Francisco courtroom. The reason the state regulates marriage, he said, is to steer "procreative sexual relationships" into a stable family environment so that children can be raised by their biological parents.
[okay, so I guess I fail to see how allowing same-sex marriage prevents hetrosexuals from procreating...]
Other federal courts have relied on that argument to uphold measures such as Prop. 8, a November 2008 initiative that prohibited same-sex marriages in California less than six months after the state Supreme Court had legalized them.
Judge skeptical
But Walker, who presided over the nation's first federal trial on the issue, sounded dubious. He noted that the state allows couples unable or unwilling to have children to marry, suggesting that the institution has a broader purpose that same-sex partners might equally fulfill.
"Marriage is a right which extends fundamentally to all persons, whether they're capable of producing children, incarcerated or behind in their child-support payments," Walker said, citing Supreme Court rulings that allow people in all those situations to marry.
People marry not to benefit the state, but because they believe that "I'm going to get a life partner, who I'm going to share my life with and maybe have children," the judge said. "Why don't those same values apply to gay couples and lesbian couples loving one another?"
Cooper replied that same-sex couples are incapable of "irresponsible procreation," which he said marriage laws are designed to discourage.
Bias would be OK
He also said California has provided equal treatment for all couples in its domestic-partner laws. But even a discriminatory marriage law would be valid, Cooper said, because the U.S. Constitution offers no special protection to gays and lesbians and "we don't have to submit evidence" to justify treating them differently.
Theodore Olson, lawyer for two same-sex couples who sued for the right to marry, responded indignantly. Prop. 8, he said, "takes a group of people who have been victims of discrimination" historically and prevents them from "participating in the most fundamental relationship in life."
Gays and lesbians, Olson said, seek to wed for the same reasons as everyone else, to be in a committed, socially accepted family relationship with the one they love. "Tell me how it helps the rest of the citizens of California to keep them out of the club," he said.
Walker did not say when he would rule. His decision is certain to be appealed and could reach the Supreme Court within two years.
Evolving institution
The arguments followed 12 days of testimony in January, almost entirely on the plaintiffs' side - from the gay and lesbian couples, who spoke of their longing for full acceptance, and from eight academic witnesses who described marriage as an evolving institution that once contained racial restrictions and would be strengthened if it became more inclusive.
The only witnesses for Prop. 8's sponsors were political scientist Kenneth Miller, who said gays and lesbians can protect their political interests without judicial protection, and David Blankenhorn, an author and advocate who said allowing same-sex marriages could lead to more divorces and fewer weddings for men and women.
At Wednesday's hearing, Walker asked Cooper whether Blankenhorn, who heads the Institute for American Values but lacks academic credentials, qualified as an expert witness. Cooper said Blankenhorn was a recognized expert in his field, and Olson hastened to endorse him, saying Blankenhorn's testimony helped to discredit Prop. 8.
He cited Blankenhorn's statements that marriage would benefit gay and lesbian couples and their children, and that "we would be more American on the day we permitted same-sex marriage than we were the day before."
'Slur' on voters
But Cooper said the male-female definition of marriage has been accepted "across cultures, across time" and that the plaintiffs' claim that Prop. 8 was rooted in prejudice is "a slur on 7 million Californians" who voted for the measure.
The plaintiffs were joined by the city of San Francisco, which argued that Prop. 8 promotes discrimination that leads to higher municipal health and welfare costs. Therese Stewart, the chief deputy city attorney, also told Walker that the ban on same-sex marriage reduces the city's revenue from tourism.
"It's long been the city of love, where people leave their hearts," she said - drawing a broad smile from Mayor Gavin Newsom in the front row.
What's to come
What's next in the Proposition 8 case:
Ruling: By Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, probably in July, on whether the ban on same-sex marriage violates the constitutional guarantee of equality.
Possible stay: If Walker overturns Prop. 8, its sponsors will seek a stay from the judge or from the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco to keep the ban in effect.
Appeal: The losing side in Walker's court will appeal to the Ninth Circuit, which might issue a ruling by this time next year.
High court: The loser at the appeals court could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. If the court accepts the case, it could issue a ruling in 2012 on either the constitutionality of the California ballot measure or the overall right of same-sex couples to marry.
During more than two hours of intense and sometimes skeptical questioning by Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, attorney Charles Cooper maintained that society is entitled to reserve its approval of marriage for those who can naturally conceive children.
"The marital relationship is fundamental to the existence and survival of the race," Cooper said in closing arguments before a packed San Francisco courtroom. The reason the state regulates marriage, he said, is to steer "procreative sexual relationships" into a stable family environment so that children can be raised by their biological parents.
[okay, so I guess I fail to see how allowing same-sex marriage prevents hetrosexuals from procreating...]
Other federal courts have relied on that argument to uphold measures such as Prop. 8, a November 2008 initiative that prohibited same-sex marriages in California less than six months after the state Supreme Court had legalized them.
Judge skeptical
But Walker, who presided over the nation's first federal trial on the issue, sounded dubious. He noted that the state allows couples unable or unwilling to have children to marry, suggesting that the institution has a broader purpose that same-sex partners might equally fulfill.
"Marriage is a right which extends fundamentally to all persons, whether they're capable of producing children, incarcerated or behind in their child-support payments," Walker said, citing Supreme Court rulings that allow people in all those situations to marry.
People marry not to benefit the state, but because they believe that "I'm going to get a life partner, who I'm going to share my life with and maybe have children," the judge said. "Why don't those same values apply to gay couples and lesbian couples loving one another?"
Cooper replied that same-sex couples are incapable of "irresponsible procreation," which he said marriage laws are designed to discourage.
Bias would be OK
He also said California has provided equal treatment for all couples in its domestic-partner laws. But even a discriminatory marriage law would be valid, Cooper said, because the U.S. Constitution offers no special protection to gays and lesbians and "we don't have to submit evidence" to justify treating them differently.
Theodore Olson, lawyer for two same-sex couples who sued for the right to marry, responded indignantly. Prop. 8, he said, "takes a group of people who have been victims of discrimination" historically and prevents them from "participating in the most fundamental relationship in life."
Gays and lesbians, Olson said, seek to wed for the same reasons as everyone else, to be in a committed, socially accepted family relationship with the one they love. "Tell me how it helps the rest of the citizens of California to keep them out of the club," he said.
Walker did not say when he would rule. His decision is certain to be appealed and could reach the Supreme Court within two years.
Evolving institution
The arguments followed 12 days of testimony in January, almost entirely on the plaintiffs' side - from the gay and lesbian couples, who spoke of their longing for full acceptance, and from eight academic witnesses who described marriage as an evolving institution that once contained racial restrictions and would be strengthened if it became more inclusive.
The only witnesses for Prop. 8's sponsors were political scientist Kenneth Miller, who said gays and lesbians can protect their political interests without judicial protection, and David Blankenhorn, an author and advocate who said allowing same-sex marriages could lead to more divorces and fewer weddings for men and women.
At Wednesday's hearing, Walker asked Cooper whether Blankenhorn, who heads the Institute for American Values but lacks academic credentials, qualified as an expert witness. Cooper said Blankenhorn was a recognized expert in his field, and Olson hastened to endorse him, saying Blankenhorn's testimony helped to discredit Prop. 8.
He cited Blankenhorn's statements that marriage would benefit gay and lesbian couples and their children, and that "we would be more American on the day we permitted same-sex marriage than we were the day before."
'Slur' on voters
But Cooper said the male-female definition of marriage has been accepted "across cultures, across time" and that the plaintiffs' claim that Prop. 8 was rooted in prejudice is "a slur on 7 million Californians" who voted for the measure.
The plaintiffs were joined by the city of San Francisco, which argued that Prop. 8 promotes discrimination that leads to higher municipal health and welfare costs. Therese Stewart, the chief deputy city attorney, also told Walker that the ban on same-sex marriage reduces the city's revenue from tourism.
"It's long been the city of love, where people leave their hearts," she said - drawing a broad smile from Mayor Gavin Newsom in the front row.
What's to come
What's next in the Proposition 8 case:
Ruling: By Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, probably in July, on whether the ban on same-sex marriage violates the constitutional guarantee of equality.
Possible stay: If Walker overturns Prop. 8, its sponsors will seek a stay from the judge or from the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco to keep the ban in effect.
Appeal: The losing side in Walker's court will appeal to the Ninth Circuit, which might issue a ruling by this time next year.
High court: The loser at the appeals court could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. If the court accepts the case, it could issue a ruling in 2012 on either the constitutionality of the California ballot measure or the overall right of same-sex couples to marry.
Perez Talks Cyrus Controversy With Behar
Blogger Perez Hilton appeared on the Joy Behar Show to defend his posting of a provocative photo of Miley Cyrus.
Perez Hilton addressed his latest controversy in an interview for the first time Thursday on the Joy Behar Show. The blogger defend himself against accusations of child pornography for posting a racy photo of Miley Cryus.
The scandal erupted this week when Hilton tweeted a photo that appeared to show Cyrus, who is 17, exiting a car without underwear. It was later revealed that the star was not exposed, however, and critics have questioned whether the blogger altered the image to make it more provocative.
In the exclusive interview Perez denied editing the photo and deflected Behar's mention of child pornography.
“I can’t help it, Joy, if America has a very dirty imagination,” Hilton said. "I would do the same thing again."
Perez Hilton addressed his latest controversy in an interview for the first time Thursday on the Joy Behar Show. The blogger defend himself against accusations of child pornography for posting a racy photo of Miley Cryus.
The scandal erupted this week when Hilton tweeted a photo that appeared to show Cyrus, who is 17, exiting a car without underwear. It was later revealed that the star was not exposed, however, and critics have questioned whether the blogger altered the image to make it more provocative.
In the exclusive interview Perez denied editing the photo and deflected Behar's mention of child pornography.
“I can’t help it, Joy, if America has a very dirty imagination,” Hilton said. "I would do the same thing again."
Friday, June 18, 2010
Mormon Prop 8 documentary opens today
Before researching a documentary on something else entirely, Reed Cowan had no idea how influential the Mormon Church was in the Prop 8 elections.
But while speaking to homeless teens in Salt Lake City, he learned that most of them had been kicked out of their homes for being gay because the Church of Latter Day Saints preached to their families that homosexuality was wrong.
And when Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage, was voted into law, Cowan realized that the church was not only affecting the lives of the thousands of homeless youth in Utah, but also millions of voters in California.
He decided to shift his focus and concentrate on Prop 8, which according to Cowan was a symptom of the same “hatred spilling out from the pulpit” that was leading to gay youth homelessness in Utah. In an interview with 365gay.com last week, he made it clear that his film was a comment on the organization and leadership of the Mormon Church, not necessarily the individuals who are a part of it.
Cowan and his team uncovered hundreds of documents from the leadership of the church, exposing its influence on the proposition debate. Letters from Mormon leaders explained that because the national public had a very negative impression of the Mormon Church, they would have to run their campaign through front groups, such as The National Organization for Marriage.
The Church flooded these front groups with funding and volunteers, sending mailings and canvassers all over California to persuade voters to vote for Proposition 8, the ballot measure that would amend the California constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Prop 8 passed in the November 2008 election – in large part, says Cowan, because of the behind-the-scenes contributions from the Mormon Church.
“Only 3 percent of Californians are Mormon, yet three-quarters of the money put into Prop 8 came from Mormons,” said Cowan. “Proposition 8 was the most expensive ballot measure in the history of the United States. Voters have a right to know who is behind a measure when it picks up uncommon speed and heat and money three months before they cast that sacred, sacred vote, not three months after.”
In the film, Cowan interviews ex-Mormons who explain how the church pressured them and their families to donate to the campaign for Prop 8. He found that gathering Mormons and ex-Mormons for interviews was easy.
“They came out of the woodwork. They lined up around the corner, people coming in crying telling their stories. They wanted to go on the record that they were hurt and they were hurting,” Cowan said.
Getting them to leave was the hard part.
“About halfway through the day, people wouldn’t leave after their interview. They wanted to pull up a chair and listen to the other interviews. It was like a family was born that day. There was a commonality that was quite remarkable.”
But while speaking to homeless teens in Salt Lake City, he learned that most of them had been kicked out of their homes for being gay because the Church of Latter Day Saints preached to their families that homosexuality was wrong.
And when Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage, was voted into law, Cowan realized that the church was not only affecting the lives of the thousands of homeless youth in Utah, but also millions of voters in California.
He decided to shift his focus and concentrate on Prop 8, which according to Cowan was a symptom of the same “hatred spilling out from the pulpit” that was leading to gay youth homelessness in Utah. In an interview with 365gay.com last week, he made it clear that his film was a comment on the organization and leadership of the Mormon Church, not necessarily the individuals who are a part of it.
Cowan and his team uncovered hundreds of documents from the leadership of the church, exposing its influence on the proposition debate. Letters from Mormon leaders explained that because the national public had a very negative impression of the Mormon Church, they would have to run their campaign through front groups, such as The National Organization for Marriage.
The Church flooded these front groups with funding and volunteers, sending mailings and canvassers all over California to persuade voters to vote for Proposition 8, the ballot measure that would amend the California constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Prop 8 passed in the November 2008 election – in large part, says Cowan, because of the behind-the-scenes contributions from the Mormon Church.
“Only 3 percent of Californians are Mormon, yet three-quarters of the money put into Prop 8 came from Mormons,” said Cowan. “Proposition 8 was the most expensive ballot measure in the history of the United States. Voters have a right to know who is behind a measure when it picks up uncommon speed and heat and money three months before they cast that sacred, sacred vote, not three months after.”
In the film, Cowan interviews ex-Mormons who explain how the church pressured them and their families to donate to the campaign for Prop 8. He found that gathering Mormons and ex-Mormons for interviews was easy.
“They came out of the woodwork. They lined up around the corner, people coming in crying telling their stories. They wanted to go on the record that they were hurt and they were hurting,” Cowan said.
Getting them to leave was the hard part.
“About halfway through the day, people wouldn’t leave after their interview. They wanted to pull up a chair and listen to the other interviews. It was like a family was born that day. There was a commonality that was quite remarkable.”
It's in the Judge's Hands Now
In his closing arguments, Ted Olsen, quoting the Proposition 8 proponents’ chief witness, David Blankenhorn, said “we will be more American the day we permit same-sex marriage.”
Did Olson + Boies Just Secure the Death of Prop 8?
So, that is over. Well, it is minus the little part about Judge Vaughn Walker issuing his ruling. But both sides — AFER's Olson-Boies and ProtectMarriage.com's Charles Cooper — have rested their cases. And even if you're a supporter of Prop 8, you've got to admit: the defense blew it.
In Perry v. Schwarzenegger, it was Olson and Boies, on behalf of their gay couple defendants, who were required to prove their case: That Prop 8 is unconstitutional, was motivated by animus, and must be struck down. They did it. More than adequately. And they didn't just make the legal argument (which we're well aware is the most important), but the logical one — how legalizing same-sex marriage won't keep straight couples from getting married or having kids, and how re-authorizing marriages for gay couples will make more families more stable. And without question, Cooper's roster of "experts" completely annihilated ProtectMarriage.com's core arguments. There's just no way around it; their own witnesses admitted laws like the Defense of Marriage Act, similar in many ways to Prop 8, are discriminatory. And how legalizing same-sex marriage is — wait for it, wait for it — a good thing.
The entire production was an embarrassment for the defense. That is an objective observation. And Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage (which was not a defendant in the case), accidentally confirmed as much in a live chat following Wednesday's closing arguments.
Ah yes, the closing arguments. The final say from Olson-Boies and Cooper, as they worked to answer Judge Walker's last litmus test before he concludes the future of Prop 8, and marriage discrimination in California, in the next few weeks.
In Perry v. Schwarzenegger, it was Olson and Boies, on behalf of their gay couple defendants, who were required to prove their case: That Prop 8 is unconstitutional, was motivated by animus, and must be struck down. They did it. More than adequately. And they didn't just make the legal argument (which we're well aware is the most important), but the logical one — how legalizing same-sex marriage won't keep straight couples from getting married or having kids, and how re-authorizing marriages for gay couples will make more families more stable. And without question, Cooper's roster of "experts" completely annihilated ProtectMarriage.com's core arguments. There's just no way around it; their own witnesses admitted laws like the Defense of Marriage Act, similar in many ways to Prop 8, are discriminatory. And how legalizing same-sex marriage is — wait for it, wait for it — a good thing.
The entire production was an embarrassment for the defense. That is an objective observation. And Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage (which was not a defendant in the case), accidentally confirmed as much in a live chat following Wednesday's closing arguments.
Ah yes, the closing arguments. The final say from Olson-Boies and Cooper, as they worked to answer Judge Walker's last litmus test before he concludes the future of Prop 8, and marriage discrimination in California, in the next few weeks.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Massive 'Touchdown' Jesus Statue Destroyed by Lightning
An "iconic" massive statue of Jesus in Monroe, Ohio was struck down by God's wrath lightning last night, the Dayton Daily News reports:
"The statue was constructed of wood and styrofoam over a steel framework that was anchored in concrete and covered with a fiberglass mat and resin exterior, according to the church. It was slated to undergo renovations this summer. Gathered along Union Road were Franklin twins and storm chasers Levi and Seth Walsh, who said they were out in the thunderstorm when they heard about the fire through a Facebook update. 'It sent goosebumps through my whole body because I am a believer,' said Levi Walsh, 29. 'Of all the things that could have been struck, I just think that that would be protected. ... It’s something that’s not supposed to happen, Jesus burning,' he said. 'I had to see it with my own eyes.' 'I can’t believe Jesus was struck,' said his brother, who noted the giant Hustler Hollywood sign for the adult store across the street was untouched. 'It’s the last thing I expected to happen.'"
"The statue was constructed of wood and styrofoam over a steel framework that was anchored in concrete and covered with a fiberglass mat and resin exterior, according to the church. It was slated to undergo renovations this summer. Gathered along Union Road were Franklin twins and storm chasers Levi and Seth Walsh, who said they were out in the thunderstorm when they heard about the fire through a Facebook update. 'It sent goosebumps through my whole body because I am a believer,' said Levi Walsh, 29. 'Of all the things that could have been struck, I just think that that would be protected. ... It’s something that’s not supposed to happen, Jesus burning,' he said. 'I had to see it with my own eyes.' 'I can’t believe Jesus was struck,' said his brother, who noted the giant Hustler Hollywood sign for the adult store across the street was untouched. 'It’s the last thing I expected to happen.'"
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Gays denied right by Calif marriage ban
The landmark federal trial over the constitutionality of California’s gay marriage ban resumed Wednesday, with a lawyer arguing that supporters of the ban were trying to deprive same-sex couples of a relationship the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized as a fundamental right.
Chief U.S. Judge Vaughn Walker set aside five hours to hear closing arguments in the closely watched case.
Former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson argued for the two same-sex couples who sued to overturn voter-approved Proposition 8, claiming it was a violation of their civil rights.
Olson said the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized marriage as a fundamental right – one afforded to prisoners serving life sentences and child support scofflaws – while refusing to make procreation a precondition of marriage, as evidenced by laws allowing divorces and contraception.
“It is the right of individuals, not an indulgence to be dispensed by the state,” Olson said. “The right to marry, to choose to marry, has never been tied to procreation.”
He said sponsors of the proposition had failed to prove that the ability of heterosexual couples to procreate without reproductive technology provided justification for denying marriage to same-sex couples.
Judge Walker pressed Olson on the point.
“They have identified a difference between opposite-sex and same-sex couples in that opposite-sex couples can procreate without the benefit of a third party. That is a difference,” Walker said. “And why is that difference not one the Legislature or voters could rationally take into account in setting the marriage laws in California?”
The judge heard 12 days of testimony in January and could hand down his decision to uphold or strike down the voter-approved ban in a matter of weeks.
Closing arguments were previously delayed to give Walker time to review the evidence.
“The period of time from the presentation is not anything that I would have wished or hoped for,” Walker said at the start of proceedings. “But it may be appropriate that the case is coming to closing argument right now. June is after all the month for weddings.”
Plaintiff Jeffrey Zarrillo is suing to overturn Proposition 8 with his partner, Paul Katami, and a lesbian couple from Berkeley, Kristin Perry and Sandy Stier.
“All we are asking the court to do is ensure we are protected under our Constitution the way Americans are supposed to be,” Zarrillo said as he entered court.
Last week, the judge gave lawyers on both sides a list of 39 questions he expects them to address during the hearing.
Walker gave lawyers for the plaintiffs the first 90 minutes to present their closing argument, and lawyers for the coalition of religious and conservative groups that sponsored Proposition 8 two hours and 15 minutes to make their presentation.
In between, Walker has set aside time to hear from lawyers for Attorney General Jerry Brown’s office and for the city of San Francisco, which joined the case to argue that denying gays the right to wed has negative economic consequences for local governments.
Walker is being asked to overturn the 2008 ballot measure that outlawed same-sex marriages in California five months after the state Supreme Court legalized it and after an estimated 18,000 couples from around the nation had tied the knot.
The plaintiffs also are seeking an injunction that would prohibit the state from enforcing the measure and immediately allow gay marriage to resume in the state.
Depending on how he rules, Walker could decide the case in a way that leaves the gay marriage bans in 44 other states vulnerable to attacks under the U.S. Constitution.
The plaintiffs are arguing that such bans are based on unlawful bias, not legitimate societal aims, and therefore violate the civil rights of gay men and lesbians by denying them a basic civil right. That’s the same argument that was used to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court in 1967 to strike down state laws prohibiting interracial marriage.
Whatever the judge does likely will be reviewed by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and could well wind up before the Supreme Court.
Chief U.S. Judge Vaughn Walker set aside five hours to hear closing arguments in the closely watched case.
Former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson argued for the two same-sex couples who sued to overturn voter-approved Proposition 8, claiming it was a violation of their civil rights.
Olson said the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized marriage as a fundamental right – one afforded to prisoners serving life sentences and child support scofflaws – while refusing to make procreation a precondition of marriage, as evidenced by laws allowing divorces and contraception.
“It is the right of individuals, not an indulgence to be dispensed by the state,” Olson said. “The right to marry, to choose to marry, has never been tied to procreation.”
He said sponsors of the proposition had failed to prove that the ability of heterosexual couples to procreate without reproductive technology provided justification for denying marriage to same-sex couples.
Judge Walker pressed Olson on the point.
“They have identified a difference between opposite-sex and same-sex couples in that opposite-sex couples can procreate without the benefit of a third party. That is a difference,” Walker said. “And why is that difference not one the Legislature or voters could rationally take into account in setting the marriage laws in California?”
The judge heard 12 days of testimony in January and could hand down his decision to uphold or strike down the voter-approved ban in a matter of weeks.
Closing arguments were previously delayed to give Walker time to review the evidence.
“The period of time from the presentation is not anything that I would have wished or hoped for,” Walker said at the start of proceedings. “But it may be appropriate that the case is coming to closing argument right now. June is after all the month for weddings.”
Plaintiff Jeffrey Zarrillo is suing to overturn Proposition 8 with his partner, Paul Katami, and a lesbian couple from Berkeley, Kristin Perry and Sandy Stier.
“All we are asking the court to do is ensure we are protected under our Constitution the way Americans are supposed to be,” Zarrillo said as he entered court.
Last week, the judge gave lawyers on both sides a list of 39 questions he expects them to address during the hearing.
Walker gave lawyers for the plaintiffs the first 90 minutes to present their closing argument, and lawyers for the coalition of religious and conservative groups that sponsored Proposition 8 two hours and 15 minutes to make their presentation.
In between, Walker has set aside time to hear from lawyers for Attorney General Jerry Brown’s office and for the city of San Francisco, which joined the case to argue that denying gays the right to wed has negative economic consequences for local governments.
Walker is being asked to overturn the 2008 ballot measure that outlawed same-sex marriages in California five months after the state Supreme Court legalized it and after an estimated 18,000 couples from around the nation had tied the knot.
The plaintiffs also are seeking an injunction that would prohibit the state from enforcing the measure and immediately allow gay marriage to resume in the state.
Depending on how he rules, Walker could decide the case in a way that leaves the gay marriage bans in 44 other states vulnerable to attacks under the U.S. Constitution.
The plaintiffs are arguing that such bans are based on unlawful bias, not legitimate societal aims, and therefore violate the civil rights of gay men and lesbians by denying them a basic civil right. That’s the same argument that was used to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court in 1967 to strike down state laws prohibiting interracial marriage.
Whatever the judge does likely will be reviewed by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and could well wind up before the Supreme Court.
Prop 8 to Judge: Invalidate 18,000 Marriages
The supporters of Proposition 8 are urging U.S. district court judge Vaughn Walker to invalidate the 18,000 marriages of same-sex couples who were legally married in California before the ballot initiative barred gay and lesbian couples from marrying in the state. As the trial before the judge winds down Wednesday with closing arguments from both sides, pro-Prop. 8 attorney Andrew Pugno said the move would honor the "expressed will of the people," according to the San Francisco Chronicle. He said that his clients are not asking for a complete nullification of the marriages, but he urged that state agencies, courts, and businesses not have to recognize the unions.
German Court Against Gay Marriage
A German court ruled against legalizing gay marriage, saying one German man is limited to a "civil partnership" with his partner of 17 years.
Andreas Boettcher (pictured), who was married in another country, went to court to overturn his single status on a German registration card, therefore bringing the issue of gay marriage to a Berlin court.
Boettcher married his Spanish partner in Montreal in 2006, according to the Associated Press. Gay marriage is legal in both Canada and Spain, where the couple holds a family registry.
German civil partnerships are the equivalent of a civil union in the United States. German couples registered as civil partners can receive some basic rights but do not receive many rights associated with marriage.
Andreas Boettcher (pictured), who was married in another country, went to court to overturn his single status on a German registration card, therefore bringing the issue of gay marriage to a Berlin court.
Boettcher married his Spanish partner in Montreal in 2006, according to the Associated Press. Gay marriage is legal in both Canada and Spain, where the couple holds a family registry.
German civil partnerships are the equivalent of a civil union in the United States. German couples registered as civil partners can receive some basic rights but do not receive many rights associated with marriage.
Cambridge, Mass., Mayor Comes Out
David Maher, the mayor of Cambridge, Mass., acknowledged that he is gay during the city’s annual pride brunch this past Saturday. The acknowledgment makes Maher the third openly gay mayor in a row for Cambridge.According to the Cambridge Chronicle, “In a speech he prepared for the event, honoring all the accomplishments and milestones made toward equality within the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender community, Maher acknowledged that he fits a recent trend: the past two mayors of the city have also been openly gay.”
Maher, 51, has been with his partner for more than 30 years, the Chronicle reports. He took office in February.
As the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund reports, Maher follows former Cambridge mayors Ken Reeves, who was the first African-American openly gay man to serve as a mayor in the United States, and E. Denise Simmons, who became the country’s first out lesbian African-American mayor.
White House Plans Pride Reception
Anonymous sources have confirmed that a reception to commemorate Gay Pride Month will be held at the White House next Tuesday, June 22, at 5 p.m. Eastern.Details of the event — such as how large it will be, who has been invited, and whether President Barack Obama will attend or speak — are not clear. White House officials declined to comment.
"Why do basically people with money have good health care and why do people that live on lower salaries not have good health care? You know, health should be a right for everyone."
—Barbara Bush, former first daughter and current president of Global Health Corps, an organization which "aims to mobilize a global community of young leaders to build a movement for health equity."
—Barbara Bush, former first daughter and current president of Global Health Corps, an organization which "aims to mobilize a global community of young leaders to build a movement for health equity."
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Closing arguments set to begin in federal Proposition 8 trial
A federal trial to determine the constitutionality of Proposition 8, which was passed by California voters in 2008 and ended legal marriage equality in the state, is scheduled to begin its final phase Wednesday, as both sides present their closing arguments. Judge Vaughn Walker asked that those arguments explore the issue of choice and sexual orientation, as well as the intersection of law and personal morality, among other topics. Whatever the outcome, the judge's decision is likely to be appealed, perhaps all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, experts note.
Soccer Star Proud of Gay Rumor
Soccer star Freddie Ljungberg is proud of swirling rumors calling him gay, according to an interview in The New York Times Magazine."
There’s been a gay rumor for a long time," said Ljungberg in the article. "I don’t mind at all. I am proud of that."
Ljungberg, who plays for the Seattle Sounders, says he thinks rumors about his sexual orientation are a "compliment," and he refuses to acknowledge his sexuality when reporters ask
Boy Scouts Face Rent Trial in Philadelphia
A jury trial gets under way Monday in Philadelphia to determine whether the Boy Scouts can continue to occupy a city-owned space without paying rent despite the organization’s antigay policy.According to The Philadelphia Inquirer, while the Supreme Court ruled in 2000 that the Boy Scouts may exclude gays because they are a “membership organization,” the policy of the Cradle of Liberty Council runs afoul of the Philadelphia city charter.
“So the scouts were ordered to vacate the 80-year-old headquarters they had occupied rent-free, or else pay $200,000 a year to lease the building from the Fairmount Park Commission,” reported the Inquirer. “It is one of two offices operated by the council, which runs scout troops in the city and Delaware and Montgomery counties.”
Meanwhile, according to the Inquirer, “the scouts contend the city's move is an unconstitutional ‘coercion’ that violates the organization's rights to free speech and equal protection. The city leases land to other institutions with membership rules, including a Catholic church, and those groups do not face eviction, the scouts say. The city says the comparison is inaccurate.”
Hawaii govenor consults with rabbis on gay civil unions
Rabbis Itchel Krasnjansky and Peter Schaktman hail from different branches of Judaism and hold starkly contrasting views on whether same-sex couples should be permitted to form civil unions in Hawaii.
What they have in common is the ear of Republican Gov. Linda Lingle, who has until June 21 to announce whether she may veto the only pending civil unions legislation in the nation.
Lingle, in the final months of her second and last term, faces a momentous decision that carries political and legal implications. For the rabbis, with whom the governor has consulted on the issue, her choice is about much more.
Krasnjansky, who heads the Orthodox community group Chabad of Hawaii, said the Torah teaches that homosexuality, and by extension same-sex marriage, “is not something that should be condoned or should be legalized,” he said.
But Schaktman, who leads the Reform Temple Emanu-El, insists Judaism teaches that all people regardless of sexual orientation are and should be treated as “children of God,” and thus should not face discrimination.
“Civil unions are a legal arrangement,” he said. “Therefore, anyone who uses religion to oppose civil unions is purely using religion to further homophobia.”
Lingle is Jewish, but has rarely – if ever – publicly discussed her faith in considering an issue. Lingle’s office did not respond to phone or e-mail questions about her religious affiliation.
What they have in common is the ear of Republican Gov. Linda Lingle, who has until June 21 to announce whether she may veto the only pending civil unions legislation in the nation.
Lingle, in the final months of her second and last term, faces a momentous decision that carries political and legal implications. For the rabbis, with whom the governor has consulted on the issue, her choice is about much more.
Krasnjansky, who heads the Orthodox community group Chabad of Hawaii, said the Torah teaches that homosexuality, and by extension same-sex marriage, “is not something that should be condoned or should be legalized,” he said.
But Schaktman, who leads the Reform Temple Emanu-El, insists Judaism teaches that all people regardless of sexual orientation are and should be treated as “children of God,” and thus should not face discrimination.
“Civil unions are a legal arrangement,” he said. “Therefore, anyone who uses religion to oppose civil unions is purely using religion to further homophobia.”
Lingle is Jewish, but has rarely – if ever – publicly discussed her faith in considering an issue. Lingle’s office did not respond to phone or e-mail questions about her religious affiliation.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Perry v. Schwarzenegger
The Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial to determine the unconstitutionality of Proposition 8 is reaching its conclusion. Next Wednesday, June 16, our attorneys will deliver closing arguments in the case, the last step before the court issues its decision.
The New York Times reached its decision tonight. In a hard-hitting editorial that will appear in tomorrow’s paper, the Times states that there is an “overarching denial of equal protection and due process created by prohibiting one segment of society from entering into marriage."
The trial “made abundantly clear that excluding same-sex couples from marriage exacts a grievous toll on gay people and their families. Domestic partnerships are a woefully inadequate substitute.” The editorial continues, “Defenders of Proposition 8 produced no evidence to back up their claim that marriage between same-sex couples would hurt heterosexual marriage.” When asked for an explanation by the judge at a pretrial hearing, defense attorney Charles Cooper said, “I don’t know. I don’t know.”
NY Times Editorial: Marriage, A Basic Civil Right
After a nearly three-week trial in January, and a lengthy hiatus while lawyers fought over documents, closing arguments are scheduled for Wednesday in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8, California’s ban on same-sex marriage.
No one expects the ruling from Judge Vaughn Walker in Federal District Court to be the last word. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, will have its say, and so, eventually, may the Supreme Court.
The testimony made abundantly clear that excluding same-sex couples from marriage exacts a grievous toll on gay people and their families. Domestic partnerships are a woefully inadequate substitute.
On the witness stand, the plaintiffs described the pain and stigma of having their relationships relegated by the state to a lesser category that fails to convey the love and commitment inherent in marriage. “My state is supposed to protect me. It’s not supposed to discriminate against me,” said one of the plaintiffs, Paul Katami.
Defenders of Proposition 8 produced no evidence to back up their claim that marriage between same-sex couples would hurt heterosexual marriage. “I don’t know. I don’t know,” the defense attorney, Charles Cooper, said when asked for an explanation by the judge at a pretrial hearing.
The defense called only two witnesses. The first, Kenneth Miller, a professor at Claremont McKenna College, argued that gay people are a powerful political force, which was meant to support that there is no need for enhanced judicial protection. He ended up admitting that gay men and lesbians suffer discrimination.
The other witness, David Blankenhorn, the president of the Institute for American Values, argued that marriage is being weakened by rising divorce rates and more unmarried people having children, but he could not convincingly explain what the genders of married couples had to do with that.
Upon questioning, he acknowledged that marriage is a “public good” that would benefit same-sex couples and their children, and that to allow same-sex marriage “would be a victory for the worthy ideas of tolerance and inclusion.” The net result was to reinforce the sense that Proposition 8 was driven by animus rather than any evidence of concrete harm to heterosexual marriages or society at large.
It’s not possible to know whether the final ruling in this case will broadly confront the overarching denial of equal protection and due process created by prohibiting one segment of society from entering into marriage. The Supreme Court has, in different cases, called marriage “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men” and a “basic civil right.”
The result, even if a win for gay couples, could be a limited ruling confined to the situation in California, where the state’s highest court granted the freedom to marry and voters later repealed it following an ugly campaign spearheaded by antigay religious interests.
But there are actions that can be taken now. States like New York should not put off acting on legislation to legalize same-sex marriage. Last week, President Obama extended a modest package of benefits — including day care and relocation allowances — to all partners of federal employees. Congress has a duty to extend to same-sex partners the rest of the benefits that are enjoyed by federal workers whose spouses are of a different sex . It also needs to repeal the 1996 law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
The New York Times reached its decision tonight. In a hard-hitting editorial that will appear in tomorrow’s paper, the Times states that there is an “overarching denial of equal protection and due process created by prohibiting one segment of society from entering into marriage."
The trial “made abundantly clear that excluding same-sex couples from marriage exacts a grievous toll on gay people and their families. Domestic partnerships are a woefully inadequate substitute.” The editorial continues, “Defenders of Proposition 8 produced no evidence to back up their claim that marriage between same-sex couples would hurt heterosexual marriage.” When asked for an explanation by the judge at a pretrial hearing, defense attorney Charles Cooper said, “I don’t know. I don’t know.”
NY Times Editorial: Marriage, A Basic Civil Right
After a nearly three-week trial in January, and a lengthy hiatus while lawyers fought over documents, closing arguments are scheduled for Wednesday in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8, California’s ban on same-sex marriage.
No one expects the ruling from Judge Vaughn Walker in Federal District Court to be the last word. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, will have its say, and so, eventually, may the Supreme Court.
The testimony made abundantly clear that excluding same-sex couples from marriage exacts a grievous toll on gay people and their families. Domestic partnerships are a woefully inadequate substitute.
On the witness stand, the plaintiffs described the pain and stigma of having their relationships relegated by the state to a lesser category that fails to convey the love and commitment inherent in marriage. “My state is supposed to protect me. It’s not supposed to discriminate against me,” said one of the plaintiffs, Paul Katami.
Defenders of Proposition 8 produced no evidence to back up their claim that marriage between same-sex couples would hurt heterosexual marriage. “I don’t know. I don’t know,” the defense attorney, Charles Cooper, said when asked for an explanation by the judge at a pretrial hearing.
The defense called only two witnesses. The first, Kenneth Miller, a professor at Claremont McKenna College, argued that gay people are a powerful political force, which was meant to support that there is no need for enhanced judicial protection. He ended up admitting that gay men and lesbians suffer discrimination.
The other witness, David Blankenhorn, the president of the Institute for American Values, argued that marriage is being weakened by rising divorce rates and more unmarried people having children, but he could not convincingly explain what the genders of married couples had to do with that.
Upon questioning, he acknowledged that marriage is a “public good” that would benefit same-sex couples and their children, and that to allow same-sex marriage “would be a victory for the worthy ideas of tolerance and inclusion.” The net result was to reinforce the sense that Proposition 8 was driven by animus rather than any evidence of concrete harm to heterosexual marriages or society at large.
It’s not possible to know whether the final ruling in this case will broadly confront the overarching denial of equal protection and due process created by prohibiting one segment of society from entering into marriage. The Supreme Court has, in different cases, called marriage “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men” and a “basic civil right.”
The result, even if a win for gay couples, could be a limited ruling confined to the situation in California, where the state’s highest court granted the freedom to marry and voters later repealed it following an ugly campaign spearheaded by antigay religious interests.
But there are actions that can be taken now. States like New York should not put off acting on legislation to legalize same-sex marriage. Last week, President Obama extended a modest package of benefits — including day care and relocation allowances — to all partners of federal employees. Congress has a duty to extend to same-sex partners the rest of the benefits that are enjoyed by federal workers whose spouses are of a different sex . It also needs to repeal the 1996 law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Iceland Legalizes Gay Marriage
The nation of Iceland, which is the only country with an openly gay head of state, voted unanimously on Friday to legalize same-sex marriage.The Althingi parliament voted 49-0 to change the wording of its marriage legislation to include same-sex couples.
Gunnar Helgi Kristinsson, a political scientist at the University of Iceland, told Reuters that the country is fairly pragmatic, and that the international press made a bigger deal out of the sexual orientation of lesbian Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir than the domestic news outlets.
"[Gay marriage] has not been a big issue in national politics -- it's not been controversial."
The Protestant church of Iceland has not yet decided whether to allow gay and lesbians to marry in its buildings.
Calif. high court to hear anti-gay church’s property appeal
The California Supreme Court has decided to hear an Orange County church’s appeal to keep its beachfront church property, despite breaking away from the main Episcopal Church.
St. James Anglican Church, a theologically conservative breakaway church, has waged a nearly six-year fight to keep the church property instead of returning it to the Diocese of Los Angeles.
St. James is one of several dozen individual parishes and four dioceses nationwide that voted to split from the national church after the 2003 consecration of the first openly gay Episcopal bishop.
State courts have sided with the Los Angeles diocese throughout the six-year legal case. The church lost its petition to have the case heard in the U.S. Supreme Court last year.
St. James Anglican Church, a theologically conservative breakaway church, has waged a nearly six-year fight to keep the church property instead of returning it to the Diocese of Los Angeles.
St. James is one of several dozen individual parishes and four dioceses nationwide that voted to split from the national church after the 2003 consecration of the first openly gay Episcopal bishop.
State courts have sided with the Los Angeles diocese throughout the six-year legal case. The church lost its petition to have the case heard in the U.S. Supreme Court last year.
Nancy Pelosi: No ENDA Vote Until After 'DADT' is Repealed
A vote on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) will not take place until after legislative action on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal is complete, according to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
The Washington Blade reports:
During her weekly press conference, Pelosi said in response to a Blade inquiry on ENDA’s prospects that lawmakers “still have to finish ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’”
Referencing the successful House vote May 27 to attach repeal to Defense Department budget legislation, she said, “And now, of course, we’ll go — after the bill passes in the Senate — we’ll go to conference. But our work is not finished in that regard, so one thing at a time.”
A Democratic leadership aide, speaking on condition of anonymity, later affirmed that ENDA would not see a vote until work on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is complete.
“It’s very important that we finish ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ before we move on to ENDA,” the source said. “We must ensure the community remains focused on getting ['Don't Ask, Don't Tell'] done and maintaining strong pressure to get the Defense bill done in light of filibuster threats in the Senate. Then we can move on to continuing to assess the votes on ENDA.”
The Washington Blade reports:
During her weekly press conference, Pelosi said in response to a Blade inquiry on ENDA’s prospects that lawmakers “still have to finish ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’”
Referencing the successful House vote May 27 to attach repeal to Defense Department budget legislation, she said, “And now, of course, we’ll go — after the bill passes in the Senate — we’ll go to conference. But our work is not finished in that regard, so one thing at a time.”
A Democratic leadership aide, speaking on condition of anonymity, later affirmed that ENDA would not see a vote until work on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is complete.
“It’s very important that we finish ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ before we move on to ENDA,” the source said. “We must ensure the community remains focused on getting ['Don't Ask, Don't Tell'] done and maintaining strong pressure to get the Defense bill done in light of filibuster threats in the Senate. Then we can move on to continuing to assess the votes on ENDA.”
Saturday, June 12, 2010
HHS Committee Votes to Retain Ban on Gay Blood Donation
After two days of hearings, by a vote of 9-6, the HHS Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability has voted against recommending lifting the FDA ban on blood donation by gay men.Against all science. Outrageous.
The current policy bars any man who has had sex with a man since 1977 from giving blood.
Massachusetts lawmakers sign letter urging end to gay ban on blood donation: "Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, Representative Michael E. Capuano, Democrat of Somerville, and Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Newton -- along with 38 other lawmakers -- signed a letter this week urging the government to discard the policy. 'This is blood that could save lives,' Kerry said in testimony on the first of two days of hearings by the committee at the Department of Health and Human Services that advises the department on blood donation policy."
Friday, June 11, 2010
Attorneys Preview Closing Argument Strategy in Prop. 8 Case
Attorneys challenging California’s Proposition 8 said Wednesday they expect a ruling in the case within weeks of closing arguments, scheduled to take place on Wednesday in a San Francisco federal courtroom.
In a Thursday conference call with reporters, attorneys Ted Olson, David Boies, and Ted Boutrous spoke about closing arguments in light of a lengthy list of questions distributed to both sides earlier this week by U.S. district judge Vaughn R. Walker, who is presiding over the case. (Walker ruled without further comment late Wednesday that the proceedings will not be televised.)
In a Thursday conference call with reporters, attorneys Ted Olson, David Boies, and Ted Boutrous spoke about closing arguments in light of a lengthy list of questions distributed to both sides earlier this week by U.S. district judge Vaughn R. Walker, who is presiding over the case. (Walker ruled without further comment late Wednesday that the proceedings will not be televised.)
Surgery not required to change gender on passports
Transgender travelers no longer will need surgery in order to change their stated genders on U.S. passports, the State Department said Wednesday.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Oklahoma Bigot Sally Kern to Face Transgender Opponent This Fall
Oklahoma Rep. Sally Kern (R-Oklahoma City), who once called gays more dangerous to America than terrorists, will face a challenge from transgender attorney Brittany Novotny this fall. Novotny filed papers on Tuesday, Tulsa World reports:
"Novotny, 30, said the campaign is not about her gender identity. 'For six years, we've had someone who has not represented her district, has been ineffective on problems, and is bad for business,' she said. Novotny said Kern is pushing her personal agenda instead of focusing on issues that are important to House District 84, and because of that, the state and Kern's Oklahoma City district have suffered. 'She focuses on things that aren't critical issues to the district, like education,' Novotny said, adding that that leaves many constituents feeling disconnected."
Kern has promised to focus on the issues:
"Kern, 63, said she does not plan to mention Novotny's gender identity in the campaign. 'There is so much we disagree on policywise that that is enough for us to debate on,' she said. Novotny said she wants people to understand that she is a heterosexual female who was raised as a male. She legally and surgically transitioned into a female three years ago. Kern said Novotny's attacks on her about not paying enough attention to education are campaign rhetoric."
"Novotny, 30, said the campaign is not about her gender identity. 'For six years, we've had someone who has not represented her district, has been ineffective on problems, and is bad for business,' she said. Novotny said Kern is pushing her personal agenda instead of focusing on issues that are important to House District 84, and because of that, the state and Kern's Oklahoma City district have suffered. 'She focuses on things that aren't critical issues to the district, like education,' Novotny said, adding that that leaves many constituents feeling disconnected."
Kern has promised to focus on the issues:
"Kern, 63, said she does not plan to mention Novotny's gender identity in the campaign. 'There is so much we disagree on policywise that that is enough for us to debate on,' she said. Novotny said she wants people to understand that she is a heterosexual female who was raised as a male. She legally and surgically transitioned into a female three years ago. Kern said Novotny's attacks on her about not paying enough attention to education are campaign rhetoric."
Lawsuit: Land O'Lakes Must Pay $25 Million For Massive Egg Price-Fixing Conspiracy
A recent class-action lawsuit against Land O'Lakes alleges that the farmers' co-operative was part of a price-fixing conspiracy within the the ovo-industrial complex to keep egg prices artificially high. According to court documents, conspirators worked toward having fewer total hens laying in the United States, leading to more money per egg for everyone, and a nice violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Mormon Church Gets Slap On The Wrist For Illegally Contributing Tens of Thousands To Prop 8
The Mormon Church has acknowledged not declaring in a timely manner significant sums that it spent in supporting a highly divisive campaign to ban marriage equality in California in 2008.
The church has agreed to pay a fine of $5,538 imposed by The California Fair Political Practices Commission. That sum equals 15% of the total money the church acknowledges not having declared in a timely manner, a sum of $36,928, the Associated Press reported on June 8.
That money took the form of work performed by church staff in bolstering efforts to rescind then-existing marriage rights for gay and lesbian families in California. The battle focused over a ballot initiative, Proposition 8, which put the marriage rights of gays up to a popular vote. The measure narrowly passed, ending marriage equality in the state. A court later ruled that the 18,000 families that had wed during the period when marriage parity was legal would still be legally valid.
"The proposed fine under consideration by the commission addresses all the issues within the complaint," California Fair Political Practices Commission executive director Roman Porter told the press.
The church has agreed to pay a fine of $5,538 imposed by The California Fair Political Practices Commission. That sum equals 15% of the total money the church acknowledges not having declared in a timely manner, a sum of $36,928, the Associated Press reported on June 8.
That money took the form of work performed by church staff in bolstering efforts to rescind then-existing marriage rights for gay and lesbian families in California. The battle focused over a ballot initiative, Proposition 8, which put the marriage rights of gays up to a popular vote. The measure narrowly passed, ending marriage equality in the state. A court later ruled that the 18,000 families that had wed during the period when marriage parity was legal would still be legally valid.
"The proposed fine under consideration by the commission addresses all the issues within the complaint," California Fair Political Practices Commission executive director Roman Porter told the press.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)