Same-Sex Marriage Update

[Soon]

Do you see my love, NOM? A beautiful “Gathering Storm” rains on NOM’s parade in New York

By Eden James

Wow. You’ve got to hand it to the equality movement.

Our collective response to the NOM Tour just keeps getting better and better with each tour stop.

First, the Equality Maine and GLAD organizers of the Maine counter-rally to NOM actually attracted more people to their event than NOM’s kickoff event on Wednesday (102 to 76 by our hand-count). Then the New Hampshire counter-rally organizers held a brilliant “silent witness” event across the street from the Manchester event on Thursday.

And now the amazing Albany organizers, led by several wonderful organizations, have taken counter-protesting to a whole new level, surrounding the NOM event with one of the most brilliant actions I have ever seen.

Check out the gathering storm of rainbow umbrellas held aloft by equality movement activists silenting protesting NOM while asking a simple question adorned to their t-shirt:

“Do you see my love?”

NOM Executive Director Brian Brown (above) doesn’t look too happy, does he?
How could he? It’s fair to say that Albany turned into yet another NOM FAIL, due to the beauty of creative counter-protest and the paltry NOM attendance (Danny hand-counted 57 attendees).

Courage staffers Danny and Robert will be writing up their reports later, but for now, take note of this Albany protest. One thing is for sure — local organizers at subsequent counter-protests are going to have a hard time topping this poignant and powerful action. Can’t wait to see what they can do.

Again, here are the amazing organizations that made this counter-protest possible today (from a press release):

Marriage Equality New York
In Our Own Voices
Capital District Gay & Lesbian Community Council
Albany Queer Rising
HomoRadio on WRPI 91.5fm
Empire State Pride Agenda
Freedom to Marry
Courage Campaign
Social Responsibilities Council of the First Unitarian Universalist Society of Albany
Upper Hudson Planned Parenthood
Eleanor Roosevelt Democratic Club (ERDC)
New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) Capital Region Chapter
Albany Law School Civil Liberties Union
Choices Counseling & Consulting/The Institute for Gender, Relationships, Identity & Sexuality
GAES Magazine: Gay Arts, Entertainment & Lifestyle
The Women’s Building
Christians Responding with Equality, Diversity and Openness (CREDO) of the Capital District
National Organization for Women (NOW) Albany Area Chapter
Capital District Area Labor Federation

[Soon]

To begin with, I am a bit surprised about the tone, the tenor, and the content the dialogue has taken. The truth is that it's worrisome to listen to expressions such as 'God's Battle', 'The Work of the Devil', things which actually bring us back to the times of the Inquisition, to Medieval times, it seems to me. Particularly coming from those who should promote peace, tolerance, diversity and dialogue. Or at least that's what they've always said in their statements. And all of a sudden [we have] this aggressive language, this dismissive language invoking 'natural law' arguments...
...and to bring it back to our own history, when the civil code was approved, Velez Sarsfield takes - just as he took from the Roman and French civil codes in his notes about different laws - he takes 'marriage' from Canon law. That's why they could only get married through the church! There was no possibility, in Argentina, for people to get married in a civil registry.

When immigration began - there are many people who are not Catholic, who are not affiliated with any religion, or are anarchists, or Communists, or are Jewish ot Muslim - and it turns out that the only way they could get married was through Catholic rites. And so, a reform to the civil code was proposed, which was incorporated in 1888, through which 'civil marriages' were created. [EDIT]

I sincerely believe what's being presented before the current norm is something that the community already has. I believe it's fair - it's fair - to recognize this right for minorities. And I believe it would be a terrible distortion of democracy if the majorities - the actions of those majorities - denied rights to those minorities...

But what worries me the most is the tone in which these issues are being discussed, invoking questions such as the Devil, or the war...I heard someone talk about 'God's War'! As if we were still in the time of the Crusades! I can just imagine Roland going to conquer the Holy Sepulcher! Th truth is I don't believe this is good...

It's not good because it establishes, as a society, a place which I don't think any of us wants to have. We are all willing to debate, discuss, dissent, but do it with a rational frame, without stigmatizing others because they think differently, and, fundamentally, also without violating the constitution [EDIT]

...eh, but in reality I don't think it's a question that should be taken lightly. We are talking about whether we are going to be a society which recognizes the rights of minorities. This is the axis. Or if we are going to require that when someone signs official paperwork, instead of writing an ID, they should write "gay" or "lesbian" so some public official can say "Yes, I will see you", "I won't see you", "You have the right to in-vitro fertilization", "No, you don't have the rights"...

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/...riage-equality

[Soon]

A Summer for Gay Rights

This is shaping up as the summer of gay rights in the courts. The twin victories last week from the US District Court in Massachusetts striking down as unconstitutional key portions of the anti-gay "Defense of Marriage Act" and the eagerly anticipated decision in the federal Proposition 8 case in California have made for enormous excitement in the legal and civil rights communities.

We are at a tipping point in which the federal courts appear finally willing to recognize and more aggressively enforce civil rights for gay and lesbian Americans. Much as they did for African Americans a generation ago.

In the Proposition 8 gay marriage case especially (Perry v. Schwarzenegger), lawyers Ted Olson and David Boies have made a comprehensive and overwhelming case for basic fairness and full equality. Their opponents, on the other hand, presented no credible expert testimony and made arguments so flimsy -- and at times even patently false - that a ruling in their favor appears highly unlikely. The decision is expected soon.

Despite all this, there remains some marginalized skepticism from some unusual critics.

The Brookings Institution's Jonathan Rauch recently wrote in The New York Times that while he personally supports equal marriage rights (and is, in fact a married gay man), he nonetheless thinks it is bad public policy for the courts to enforce such rights, suggesting that we should instead let the political process bring about equality, as and when the country is ready for it.

Rauch's argument stems from a comment (which he completely misappropriates) by Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, who said, "The Supreme Court, of course, has the responsibility of ensuring that our government never oversteps its proper bounds or violates the rights of individuals. But the court must also recognize the limits on itself and respect the choices made by the American people."

Rauch himself admits that the comment was not in any way a reference to gay marriage - in fact it had nothing to do with the issue. Kagan was speaking broadly about the role of the Supreme Court, historically and today - a role which led to such landmark civil rights victories as Brown v. Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia.

The Washington Post's Jonathan Capehart also has a piece in which he argues that the political environment is not yet ripe for full equality and that the potential backlash against any pro-equality court decision could be so great that the gay-rights movement might be set back by years, even decades.

Capehart's position is that since 30 states currently outlaw gay marriage, the Supreme Court would never stick its neck out to overrule what he claims is the popular view.

But here's another statistic: at the time that the Supreme Court struck down the remaining state laws banning interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia, the Gallup Poll found that some 72% of Americans were opposed to interracial marriage. At one time or another, 37 states had passed anti-miscegenation laws. When civil rights are being infringed, "sticking out its neck" to protect minority rights is not only something the Supreme Court does, it is one of the primary reasons for the Court's existence.

Both Rauch and Capehart are ignoring not only our political history, but the history of civil rights advances through court rulings. Importantly, there is now an emerging consensus among gay rights advocates that these cases, including the one brought by Olson and Boies on behalf of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, can succeed and that the timing is right.

In the two Massachusetts cases, U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Tauro (a Republican appointee) concluded that the anti-gay marriage law was so blatantly unconstitutional that he issued summary judgments in favor of the plaintiffs.

While the scope of those cases was somewhat narrow - having to do with the denial of federal benefits for gay couples whose marriages had been fully recognized in the states where they live - the rulings were broad in their implications.

The court cited Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan's famous words (in dissent at the time) that our constitution "neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens," and though the decision does not say, in so many words, that states should be required to recognize same-sex marriage, it systematically undercuts all the arguments that anti-equality groups have used to date - including "harm to the children," "procreation as the goal of marriage," and preservation of the status quo - concluding that "the constitution
will not abide a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group."

These words make for trailblazing precedent, even if they are not now binding.

Let's be clear: this is not an argument about public opinion polls, political environments, or even what motivates the anti-gay movement - we're talking about a basic civil right.

As lead counsel Ted Olson said in his summation, "This case is about marriage and equality. The fundamental constitutional right to marry has been taken away from the plaintiffs, and tens of (if not hundreds of) thousands of similarly situated Californians. Their state has rewritten its constitution in order to place them into a special disfavored category where their most intimate personal relationships are not valid, not recognized and second rate."

In cases like this, our history tells us that the courts are the most appropriate, effective and productive battlefields.

Richard Socarides, an attorney, was White House Special Assistant during the Clinton Administration and senior advisor on gay rights.

[Soon]

Civil Partnership Bill signed into law

CHARLIE TAYLOR

Mon, Jul 19, 2010

The Civil Partnership Bill, which provides legal recognition for same-sex couples in Ireland for the first time, has today been signed into law.

The Bill was signed into law by President Mary McAleese at Áras an Uachtaráin this morning

It extends marriage-like benefits to gay and lesbian couples in the areas of property, social welfare, succession, maintenance, pensions and tax.

The act also offers additional rights and protections for other cohabiting couples including a redress scheme for financially dependent long-term cohabitants on the end of a relationship.

Announcing the signing of the Bill today, Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern described it as "one of the most important pieces of civil rights legislation to be enacted since independence."

"This Act provides enhanced rights and protections for many thousands of Irish men and women. Ireland will be a better place for its enactment," he said.

"It is of tremendous social significance, for the couples who can now register as partners, for their friends and families - ultimately, for all of us," Mr Ahern added.

Changes to the tax and social welfare code will be made in the next finance and social welfare Bills. The Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010 is expected to be commenced when those changes take effect. The first civil registrations for same-sex couples are likely to take place early next year.

The Bill was approved by the Seanad by 48 votes to 4 at 6.30pm on Friday July 9th, having completed its passage though the Dáil the previous week.The legislation was widely supported in both the Dáil and Seanad.

The Green Party this afternoon welcomed the singing into law of the Bill.

"Today is a good day for all Irish citizines. This Act is a significant step forward and a stepping stone towards greater equality in our society, said the party's justice spokesman Trevor Sargent.

"I look forward to the first ceremonies that will be held under this Act from next January. They mark an important venture for our society for which we have waited far too long,” he added.

© 2010 irishtimes.com

[blackboot]

BATTLEGROUND IN HAWAII

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/7/15/17291/6252

[Soon]

Deputy Lib Dem leader Simon Hughes says government will allow gay couples to marry

By Jessica Geen • July 19, 2010 - 18:00


Simon Hughes, the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats, has said that the government will give gay couples the right to civil marriage.

He predicted that the change would be made before the next general election.

Mr Hughes said a consultation would take place in the coalition government on taking civil partnership to the next level.

Speaking in a video interview, he said: "It would be appropriate in Britain in 2010, 2011, for there to be the ability for civil marriage for straight people and gay people equally.

"That's different of course from faith ceremonies which are matters for the faith communities… they have to decide what recognition to give.

“The state ought to give equality. We’re halfway there. I think we ought to be able to get there in this parliament.”

Currently, gay couples in the UK can have a civil partnership, which is not called marriage. They may not have a religious ceremony.

However, the coalition government is coming under increasing pressure to provide full marriage equality as other countries around the world make the step.

Prime minister David Cameron is on record saying that he will consider the change, while the most senior gay Tory, Nick Herbert, told PinkNews.co.uk on Saturday: “Well as you know, what David Cameron and George Osborne said just before the election was that gay marriage is something that we should look at, in time.”

“It's not something we've got immediate plans to change, but we recognise that there are views that say that the name is important.”

[blackboot]

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BDOOvu5luk"]YouTube- July 15, 2010 (English-language subtitles)[/nomedia]

[Soon]

Originally Posted by blackboot

YouTube- July 15, 2010 (English-language subtitles)

Wow--amazing commercial...my heart is all squeezed up with love.

Why can't those types be produced in the USA when challenges and cases begin?

[Stearns]

Freedom to Marry is "the leading campaign working to win marriage nationwide." They "partner with a diverse range of organizations and supporters across the country to end the exclusion of same-sex couples from the responsibilities, protections, and commitment of marriage." The founder, Evan Wolfson, was co-counsel in the historic Hawaii marriage case, argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, served in the Peace Corps in West Africa, and is the author of Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality and Gay People's Right to Marry.

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/ has articles from all over the world and an interactive US map, where you can click on a state and be shown the status of equal marriage, what organizations are actively working on equal marriage, and related blogs and resources.

[Soon]

I don't get why he was asked to move--is this not a violation of his (the videographer's) rights to be there in the public space?

[Soon]

ACLU: Donaldson and Guggenheim v. Montana

Seven committed same-sex couples have sued the state of Montana for failing to offer legal protections to same-sex couples and their families in violation of the Montana Constitution’s rights of privacy, dignity and the pursuit of life’s basic necessities and its guarantees of equal protection and due process. The goal of this lawsuit is to see that same-sex couples are able to protect their families with the same kind of legal protections that the State offers to different-sex couples through marriage.

Because there is a constitutional amendment in Montana barring marriage for same-sex couples, this lawsuit is not seeking marriage. The couples in the suit are seeking the protection of state-recognized domestic partnerships.

[Cyclopea]

A Russian lesbian couple appealed to the European Court of Human Rights on Wednesday after a registry office in Moscow declined to register their same-sex marriage.

When Irina Fet and Irina Shipitko, who have tried to get married since 2009, were turned away, it hardly came as a surprise in a country where the crime of homosexuality was removed from the books in 1993, and where homophobia remains high and often turns to violence.

"A complaint [on same-sex marriage] was lodged against Russia," gay activist Nikolai Alexeyev said.

"We admit that the Russian law system [currently] forbids same-sex marriage but we hope that after the European Court's ruling, our country will be obliged to change its laws," he said.

Alexeyev said that in rejecting to register the marriage, the Tverskoi registry office in Moscow violated Articles 8 and 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

He said he was confident of a positive outcome and referred to a recent Strasbourg Court ruling over a complaint from an Austrian same-sex couple.
"The Court acknowledged that same-sex marriages are protected under Article 8 of the European Convention and Article 12 doesn't cover just heterosexual marriages," he said.

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20100721/159899084.html

[Cyclopea]

[Soon]

Judge Blocks Arizona Law That Would Eliminate Domestic Partner Benefits For Gay State Workers

PHOENIX — A federal judge is blocking Arizona from implementing a state law that eliminates domestic partner benefits for gay and lesbian state employees.

U.S. District Judge John Sedwick on Friday issued a preliminary injunction that requires the state to still make family health insurance available to gay and lesbian state employees who have established relationships that meet standards set under state administration rules.

The judge also dismissed part of a lawsuit challenging the prohibition but left another part intact, allowing the suit to continue.

The Legislature included the prohibition in a budget law enacted last September.

[Jess]

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/page/s/nomstopthehate

[Jess]

http://www.keennewsservice.com/2010/...ss-still-loom/

[christie]

Originally Posted by Jess

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/page/s/nomstopthehate

Just to add - NOM's last stop on their hate tour is Aug 15th in DC. I hope with the start of school for Bratboy, we are able to attend - these ppl make my head (and heart) want to explode.

[blackboot]

By MARK NIESSE
Associated Press Writer
HONOLULU -- Six gay couples in Hawaii are filing a lawsuit Thursday asking for the same rights as married couples, three weeks after Gov. Linda Lingle vetoed a same-sex civil unions measure.

The lawsuit doesn't seek the titles of "marriage" or "civil unions" for gay partners. Instead, it requests that the court system extend them the benefits and responsibilities of marriage based on the Hawaii Constitution's prohibition against sex discrimination.

"We continue to be discriminated against," said plaintiff Suzanne King, who has been in a relationship with her partner for 29 years. "We're a family unit, and we live our lives just like everyone else, but we aren't treated the same."

The legal action in state court comes as a response to the Republican governor's veto July 6, when she said voters should decide whether to reserve marriage for couples of a man and a woman.

Five other states and the District of Columbia permit same-sex marriage. Five more states essentially grant the rights of marriage to same-sex couples without authorizing marriage itself.

Hawaii passed the nation's first "defense of marriage" constitutional amendment in 1998, giving the state's legislature the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples. The amendment is silent on civil unions and rights for same-sex couples.

Most Hawaii residents don't want the government to endorse equal rights for gay couples, said Garret Hashimoto, chairman for the Hawaii Christian Coalition.

"I feel insulted. They keep bringing up Martin Luther King, black rights and women's sufferage. This is not about that. This is about two males or two females practicing sex," he said. "It's behavior. It's no different from smokers or drinkers."

The office of Hawaii Attorney General Mark Bennett declined comment Wednesday because it hadn't yet been served with the lawsuit.

The state grants some rights to gay couples through its reciprocal beneficiaries system.

But they lack the same legal priviledges and obligations of adoption, child support, alimony and access to family court, said Jennifer Pizer, senior counsel for Lambda Legal, which is bringing the case along with the American Civil Liberties Union.

"This case is not about marriage. It's about the right of same-sex couples to at least have a system that is understandable and complete," Pizer said. "The state's equality guarantee at least has to mean same-sex couples should have the same rights and responsibilities, even if it's segmented off into a system that isn't as respected, understood and revered as marriage."

The case likely won't be settled until it reaches the Hawaii Supreme Court, or if state lawmakers and the next governor approve a new civil unions bill, Pizer said.





Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/07/2...#ixzz0v4c0d6PM
SIZE]

[christie]

Originally Posted by blackboot

By MARK NIESSE
Associated Press Writer
HONOLULU -- Six gay couples in Hawaii are filing a lawsuit Thursday asking for the same rights as married couples, three weeks after Gov. Linda Lingle vetoed a same-sex civil unions measure.

The lawsuit doesn't seek the titles of "marriage" or "civil unions" for gay partners. Instead, it requests that the court system extend them the benefits and responsibilities of marriage based on the Hawaii Constitution's prohibition against sex discrimination.

"We continue to be discriminated against," said plaintiff Suzanne King, who has been in a relationship with her partner for 29 years. "We're a family unit, and we live our lives just like everyone else, but we aren't treated the same."

The legal action in state court comes as a response to the Republican governor's veto July 6, when she said voters should decide whether to reserve marriage for couples of a man and a woman.

Five other states and the District of Columbia permit same-sex marriage. Five more states essentially grant the rights of marriage to same-sex couples without authorizing marriage itself.

Hawaii passed the nation's first "defense of marriage" constitutional amendment in 1998, giving the state's legislature the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples. The amendment is silent on civil unions and rights for same-sex couples.

Most Hawaii residents don't want the government to endorse equal rights for gay couples, said Garret Hashimoto, chairman for the Hawaii Christian Coalition.

"I feel insulted. They keep bringing up Martin Luther King, black rights and women's sufferage. This is not about that. This is about two males or two females practicing sex," he said. "It's behavior. It's no different from smokers or drinkers."
The office of Hawaii Attorney General Mark Bennett declined comment Wednesday because it hadn't yet been served with the lawsuit.

The state grants some rights to gay couples through its reciprocal beneficiaries system.

But they lack the same legal priviledges and obligations of adoption, child support, alimony and access to family court, said Jennifer Pizer, senior counsel for Lambda Legal, which is bringing the case along with the American Civil Liberties Union.

"This case is not about marriage. It's about the right of same-sex couples to at least have a system that is understandable and complete," Pizer said. "The state's equality guarantee at least has to mean same-sex couples should have the same rights and responsibilities, even if it's segmented off into a system that isn't as respected, understood and revered as marriage."

The case likely won't be settled until it reaches the Hawaii Supreme Court, or if state lawmakers and the next governor approve a new civil unions bill, Pizer said.





Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/07/2...#ixzz0v4c0d6PM
SIZE]

He feels insulted?!?!?!?!?

Diminishing our relationships to how we fuck. Awesome. So evolved. Dickhead.

At times, I am still astonished as to the utter stupidity that rolls out.

[Jess]

Perhaps he should have said " it's no different than heterosexuals... just practicing sex"