Constitutional Rights Should NEVER be a popularity contest

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Today in Gay History

BREAKING NEWS ~~

The U S District Court for the northern district of California, ruled today that California's Proposition 8 violates both the Due Process and the Equal Protection principles of the U S Constitution. The full text of the decision can be found HERE.

This L A N D M A R K decision will now wind its way through the appeals process. Pray that at least one activist Republican S Ct Justice (Kennedy?) will do the right thing by the law in favor of freedom. Otherwise the case will end in a year or so with the ROBERTS COURT 5-4 repeating the Plessy v Ferguson canard of equality.

One of those rare days where my people cry many happy tears.

Today in Gay History

On April 29, 1997

The State of Hawaii created

a "domestic partners registry."

This was in response to the May 1993 ruling of Hawaii's Supreme Court that the state must show a compelling reason to ban same-sex marriage and orders a lower court to hear a case seeking the right of same-sex couples to marry. By November 1998, the voters of Hawaii approved a state constitutional amendment reserving the right to define marriage to the Legislature, barring further judicial action.

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Today in Gay History

April 21, 2005

Connecticut Governor signs Civil Unions law, becoming only the second state to do so legislatively without being compelled by the courts. While affirming that marriage was only to be between one man and one woman, the key provisions of the new Civil Unions law were:

Sec. 2. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2005) A person is eligible to enter into a civil union if such person is:

(1) Not a party to another civil union or a marriage;

(2) Of the same sex as the other party to the civil union;

(3) Except as provided in section 10 of this act, at least eighteen years of age; and

(4) Not prohibited from entering into a civil union pursuant to section 3 of this act.

Sec. 14. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2005) Parties to a civil union shall have all the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under law, whether derived from the general statutes, administrative regulations or court rules, policy, common law or any other source of civil law, as are granted to spouses in a marriage, which is defined as the union of one man and one woman.

Sec. 15. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2005) Wherever in the general statutes the terms "spouse", "family", "immediate family", "dependent", "next of kin" or any other term that denotes the spousal relationship are used or defined, a party to a civil union shall be included in such use or definition, and wherever in the general statutes, except sections 7-45 and 17b-137a of the general statutes, as amended by this act, subdivision (4) of section 45a-727a, sections 46b-20 to 46b-34, inclusive, section 46b-150d of the general statutes, as amended by this act, and section 14 of this act, the term "marriage" is used or defined, a civil union shall be included in such use or definition.

Meanwhile, a year or so later, the Supreme Court of Connecticut ruled that legal Marriage constitutionally could not be denied to same sex couples. The separate establishment of mere Civil Unions did not meet constitutional muster.

On April 23, 2009 lawmakers of Connecticut both in the House (vote 100-44) and in the Senate (vote 28-7) agreed to repeal all the old marriage laws and fully replace them with genderless quotes and all references to marriage will be fully gender -neutral. Governor Jodi Rell, a Republican, signed the law. On October 1, 2010, civil unions will cease to be provided and existing civil unions will be automatically converted to marriages. Until then, existing civil unions will be kept and couples may "upgrade" to marriage voluntarily. Same-sex marriages, civil unions and broad domestic partnerships from other jurisdictions will be legally treated as marriages in Connecticut.

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

We Need a New Covenant

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Mid Week Bestirring for Equality

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

86 year old veteran Phillip Spooner of Maine testifies in April, 2009 before the Maine legislature. Tip o the Hat to Tétard and Huffington Po:

Lifted whole grain

from the much-admired Band of Thebes blog:

Cambridge Mayor & Her Wife:

Nation's First Black Church Gay Wedding

Exactly eight blocks down Harvard Street from Skip Gates' house is St. Bartholomew's Episcopal Church, where this Sunday the nation's first lesbian black mayor will marry her partner in America's first same sex wedding in a black church. In terms of actual historical significance, the legal union of Cambridge Mayor Denise Simmons and Mattie Hayes by a black minister in a black church is more important than the wrongful arrest of a black professor in his own house by a white police officer. Monday morning, for the first time ever, lgbt members of black churches nationwide will wake up with the leverage of being able to say to their pastors, "St. Barts will marry us, why won't you?" and conscientious black leaders will have to begin shifting their thinking from "if" to "when." As all houses of worship grapple with degrees of lgbt acceptance and as religious organizations play an increasing decisive role in US politics, this first minority foothold marks a monumental step forward in the march toward equality. It should be a national story, yet it hasn't even appeared in the Boston Globe five days after Simmons sent out her press release. You might ask why the black preachers who speak against homosexuality get so much coverage in the mainstream media while this good news is ignored by everyone: NYT, LAT, WashPo, CNN, even Towleroad and Pam's House Blend haven't mentioned it. Possibly they're waiting until after the nuptials, but it's already big news online in the UK and France.

Simmons' press release concludes with:

“I believe this may be the very first African-American church to hold a same gender wedding, and that’s something that just wouldn’t have happened years ago. But times are changing, people are becoming more accepting of their fellow citizens, and we are slowly arriving at more of a ‘live-and-let-live’ kind of world. It’s not an easy process, and there have certainly been some detours along the way, but I think all the kind words I’ve received about this ceremony suggest we’re living in a friendlier, more open society. Our society is definitely making progress.”

Really, Simmons and Hayes should be the Cambridge-ites invited to the White House for a beer. Or champagne.

TODAY in Gay History

h/t to Joe.My.God

Today: DC Recognizes Marriage Euality

At 12:01am this morning, Washington DC began recognizing the validity of same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. Here's what that gets you if you are married elsewhere and move to the District:

Gay couples residing in DC but legally married elsewhere are now entitled to more than 200 legal rights extended to all married couples. The rights include: inheritance, benefits for spouses of employees at private companies and in the District's government and spousal immunity from testifying against each other.

The DC City Council is expected to move to allow local same-sex marriages in the fall.

§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§

Today in Gay History

June 19, 2007

Legislation passed in the New York state Assembly to allow issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Assembly Member Daniel O'Donnell, was the prime sponsor of the Act. This was historic, but alas, the measure could never muster enough support in the upper House. This year (2 years later) things have heated up considerably, and the New York Senate is within 1 vote of finally passing legislation providing for marriage equality in that state. Baby steps, added together, become giant leaps.

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Candor and The Covenant

from an interview by Jennifer Skalka

of the HotLine Online section of the National Journal

Bishop Robinson: ON OBAMA~~

"...a number of us are beginning to be impatient with him."

Excerpts:

. . . JS: You testified before New Hampshire lawmakers to advocate for the gay marriage bill that was passed last week by the state House and Senate, and I'm curious, broadly to start, what you think of New Hampshire's decision to become the sixth state to allow gay marriage.

GR: It's very exciting to have walked this bill all the way through. To a lot of people it seemed a bit of a tortuous journey. But in the end, I think we took a really good tact -- and that was true of the House, the Senate and the governor -- which was to restate what was already true in the law, but people needed to be reassured about it. Which was to restate the protections for religious institutions not to have to participate in same-gender marriages if they didn't want to and if it went against their beliefs. And I believe that that freed a lot of people, who are not even necessarily at all comfortable with the notion of gay marriage, to support this bill for what it is, which is an action of the state, not of the church.

And I argued that indeed for religious institutions to impose their will against the secular state was an imposition of the church on the state. We're normally worried about the state impinging on the rights of religion, but in this case I believe it was religion impinging on the rights of the state. And that seemed to win the day. And I couldn't be more delighted. . . .

JS: Let me ask you about Pres. Obama. There's much consternation bubbling up in the gay community that he's not visible on issues of interest to the community. Many say, for example, they'd like him to do more in trying to retract the military's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy. And yet he's been awfully quiet since taking office on this and other issues. Do you feel like he's losing some goodwill among gays and lesbians?

GR: I think that a number of us are beginning to be impatient with him. The argument that he's got other things on his plate really doesn't hold water since he has certainly demonstrated an ability to multitask and to tackle very, very important issues at the same time. Also, I just saw a poll -- I think it was yesterday or the day before -- showing enormous support for an end to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' even amongst the military, even amongst conservatives, amongst Republicans, not to mention the general public. I still believe that he is going to move forward on that and on the Defense of Marriage Act and so on, but I do think patience is wearing thin, and I think it's time for him to begin to give this some of his time and energy.

I know that he's put together a study committee around 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' and I don't think he would have done that if he hadn't been assured of what the verdict would be. I don't know when they are due to report, but certainly when they do would be an opportune time for him to act. I think he did that so as not to fall within the same danger zone that Bill Clinton did when he tried to do it by fiat.

JS: But politically, what's holding him back at this point. He has such an enormous mandate for his agenda and the Democrats so dominate Washington. Why do you think he's holding back?

GR: I have no idea. I don't think there is anything politically to be lost here. And I think it would only solidify his base of support in the gay and lesbian community. ... We're not asking him at this point to be open in his support of gay marriage. We're talking about a couple policies whose time really has come to be over. . .

JS: And just finally for those in Red State America who might be watching what is happening in several New England states and Iowa, what would your message to them be on this issue?

GR: I think my message would be that religious people who oppose this idea have nothing to fear from same-gender marriage equality. That no one will be asked to do anything that is against their conscience. On the other hand, let's remember that marriage is a civil act. That becomes quite clear when a marriage, let's say, that was performed in a church or a synagogue or a mosque comes apart. And the couple seeks a divorce. They don't go back to the church or synagogue or mosque. They go to the courts. Because it is a legal and civil action that was done.

It's gotten confused in this country because we have deputized clergy of all kinds to be and act as agents of the state in marriage. And so people don't know when the civil action begins and ends and when the religious part begins and ends. So I think this is a very helpful division between what the state does and what religious organizations do. And when once you understand that, you understand that allowing gay and lesbian people to have access to civil marriage has absolutely no affect on religious groups. And they have nothing to fear from this movement.

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Freedom to Marry
~ As much about Justice as about Love

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Bloggers Celebrate LGBT Families Day 2009

One of Crapaud's favorite gay bloggers, Waymon Hudson of Bilerico Project, posted this on June 1, 2009. Something worth pondering.

I often tire of the labels that those against LGBT people put on our families. They say they fight for "traditional marriage" and preserving "traditional families", as if there is such a thing. Their close-mindedness extends beyond just our community and hits any family that doesn't have some idyllic 1950's "Leave it to Beaver" scenario with mom, pop, kids, and a picket fence.

Whether it be our loving LGBT relationships, our chosen family of friends and support network, children raised by someone other than their biological parents, or single parent homes, we all get stuck with the same label by the fundamentalist crowd:

"Non-Traditional Family."

As someone who grew up with what they would view as the perfect scenario for a family- 2 parents for the three kids- I can say I much prefer the stability and love of the family I have built now.

As much as I dislike labels, I often refer to the circle of love and support as my chosen family. It includes not only my husband and our son, but also our close friends, extended family, and others. As they say, "It takes a village"- and we have built our little tribe up to withstand just about anything life could throw at us.

I sometimes wonder how people can put their lives and families into such a little, constricting definition. By expanding my view of what family is beyond just what I was raised with, I have gained strength, support, and joy. In fact, when I started to deal with some of the difficulties part of my "traditional" family caused me, it was my real, chosen family that got me through it.

That's why I think that our greatest strength as a community are our families, however you choose to personally define it (or rather, not define it all). We show others that even through discrimination, adversity, and not being recognized in the eyes of the law, we thrive.

There's an old saying that "you can pick your nose, but you can't pick your family." Thankfully, our community is leading the way in breaking that stereotype. We know that family isn't in the genes, it's in the love you surround yourself with.

For more "Blogging for LGBT Families Day 2009" blogs, visit Mombian.com

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Today in Gay History

June 1, 2007

A Domestic Partnership law

went into effect in Washington State

By registering, unmarried gay couples and unmarried straight couples could have their relationships recognized by the state, and thereby be accorded automatic rights formerly only existing in favor of married spouses: hospital visitation rights, the ability to authorize autopsies and organ donations, and inheritance rights when there is no will.

After almost 2 years without the earth coming to an end, that state's legislature recently passed a bill that extends all the 170+ state-given benefits and obligations of being married to same-sex or opposite-sex couples who register as domestic partners.

It's dubbed the "everything but marriage" law. Its point is: Marriage Equality may still be technically in the future, but in the meantime gay and lesbian couples in Washington state should have the same legal protections as everyone else there.

The measure adds domestic partners to sections of laws where previously only spouses were mentioned, including areas referring to probate and trusts, community property and homestead exemptions, and guardianship and powers of attorney.

Opponents argued that expanding the current law dilutes traditional marriage.

"This measure will have a negative impact on our families, it will have a negative impact on the Defense of Marriage Act and a negative impact on society," said Rep. Bob Sump, R-Republic. He cited no examples of how this sudden evil effect would come about.

Giving lie to the convention that its only "marriage" that the right wing-nuts oppose, the dark force powers of hatred and bigotry have invaded Washington with $$ and €€ and ++ BS ++ to try to gather signatures to overturn all this progress by placing "Referendum 71" on the fall ballot.

Referendum 71 seeks to overturn the latest expansion of Washington's domestic partner law, which gives registered partners the same state rights as married couples. It doesn't apply under federal law. The umbrella groups sponsoring this referendum, Protect Marriage Washington, and Washington Values Alliance need to gather 121,000 valid signatures of Washington voters on a petition by July 25 to legally compel the issue to referendum.

A pox on their houses I say!!

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

The Big Gay Chip on My (Straight) Shoulder

Rob Thomas ~ Singer, Activist
Writing recently on the Huffington Post

. . . I'm writing about basic civil rights. We've been here before, fighting for the rights of African Americans or women to vote, or the rights of Jewish Americans to worship as they see fit. And, just as whites fought for African Americans or Christians for Jewish Americans, straight people must stand up and be a voice for gay people.

I've heard it said before, many times, that if two men or two women are allowed to join into a civil union together, why can't they be happy with that and why is it so important that they call it marriage? In essence, what's in a name?

A civil union has to do with death. It's essentially a document that gives you lower taxes and the right to let your faux spouse collect your insurance when you pass away. A marriage is about life. It's about a commitment. And this argument is about allowing people to have the right to make that commitment, even if it doesn't make sense to you. Anything else falls under the category of "separate but equal" and we know how that works out.

The support of legalizing gay marriage is in no way meant to change the ideals of the section of Christians who believe that homosexuality is a sin. But we should refuse to let other people's ideals shape the way we live our lives. Each of us has a short ride on this earth and as long as we stay in our lane, and don't affect someone else's ride, we should be allowed to drive as we see fit.

I am a straight man, with a big gay chip on my shoulder.

Read the Whole Article here

Traditional Marriage Never Changes, Right?

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

P R O G R E S S

and Maine, and New Hampshire? and ?

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

MIA on Gay Marriage

From
The Washington Post Friday, May 8, 2009

Believe it or not, often I can see the other side of an argument. I know that tough gun control laws save lives and make our communities safer, for example, but I also see clarity in the Second Amendment. I support affirmative action, but I realize that providing opportunity to some worthy individuals can mean denying opportunity to others. Thinking about some issues involves discerning among subtly graded shades of gray.

On some issues, though, I really don't see anything but black and white. Among them is the "question" of granting full equal rights to gay and lesbian Americans, which really isn't a question at all. It's a long-overdue imperative, one that the nation is finally beginning to acknowledge.

Before his inauguration, President Obama called himself a "fierce advocate of equality for gay and lesbian Americans." Now, with the same-sex marriage issue percolating in state after state and with the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy ripe for repeal, it's time for Obama to put some of his political capital where his rhetoric is.

On Wednesday, Maine became the fifth state to legalize gay marriage; similar legislation in New Hampshire has been sent to the governor. Politicians in Washington who want to avoid what they see as a dangerous controversy have a convenient escape: They can say that the marriage issue should be left to the states and that the question of whether a legal gay marriage in one state should be recognized everywhere has already been addressed by Congress and ultimately will be settled by the courts.

But that's a dodge, not a stance. It certainly can't be confused with leadership.

Favoring "civil unions" that accord all the rights and benefits of marriage -- but that withhold the word marriage, and with it, I guess, society's approval -- amounts to another dodge. I'm concerned here with the way the law sees the relationship, not the way any particular church or religious leader sees it; that's for worshipers, clergy and the Almighty to work out. Marriage is not just a sacrament but also a contract, and the contractual aspect is a matter of statute, not scripture.

Obama took the "civil unions" route during last year's campaign and has stuck with it. While I see the political calculation -- that was basically the position of all the major Democratic candidates -- I never understood the logic. If semantics are the only difference between a civil union and a marriage, why go to the trouble of drawing a distinction? If there are genuine differences that the law should recognize, what are they?

It seems to me that equality means equality, and either you're for it or you're not. I believe gay marriage should be legal, and it's hard for me to imagine how any "fierce advocate of equality" could think otherwise.

Obama sensibly advocates the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." He should press the case by publicly reminding opponents of letting gays serve openly in the military that their arguments -- it would hurt morale, damage cohesion and readiness, discourage reenlistment -- are often the same, almost word for word, as the arguments made 60 years ago against racial integration in the armed forces. It was bigotry then, and it's bigotry now.

Obama should also make the obvious case that forcibly discharging capable, fully trained servicemen and servicewomen for being gay, at a time when our overstretched military is fighting two big wars, can only be described as insane.

What the president shouldn't do is stay away from the marriage debate on the grounds that it's not a matter for the federal government. For one thing, he's on record as favoring repeal of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act -- a law that blocked federal recognition of same-sex marriages and relieved states of any obligation to recognize out-of-state gay marriages.

Does Obama's stance in favor of repeal mean that he believes the federal government should recognize same-sex marriages? Does he also believe that, say, the state of Alabama should recognize a gay marriage performed in Iowa? If so, what is the practical difference between this position and just saying in plain language that gay marriages ought to be legal and recognized in all 50 states?

I'm not being unrealistic. I know that public acceptance of homosexuality in this country is still far from universal. But attitudes have changed dramatically -- more than enough for a popular, progressive president to speak loudly and clearly about a matter of fundamental human and civil rights.

||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Today in Gay History

April 29, 1997

The State of Hawaii creates
the first statewide "domestic partners registry"
in the U. S.

A-LO--HA !!

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Today in Gay History

April 26, 2000

Vermont's Governor Howard Dean
signs the nation's first civil union bill. That was the state's response to the fact that its state Supreme Court had ruled that to deny legal state recognition to committed same-sex couples was unconstitutional as violative of the principles of equal protection.

In April 2009, the Vermont legislature passed overwhelmingly, and by a single vote to spare overrode the Republican governor's veto of a law phasing out Civil Unions. Commencing September 1, 2009, no further civil unions will be created. Civil unions created prior to this date will retain their status, but these couples will have the option of entering a marriage. Marriage Equality is legislated in America for the first time.

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||