New group wants march on DC

The Bay Area Reporter Online | New group wants march on DC

by Seth Hemmelgarn

s.hemmelgarn@ebar.com


Since Prop 8 passed November 4, several groups have sprung up and organized marches and rallies around California.

Now, at least one new group wants another march on Washington, D.C. But others are expressing doubt as to how successful Yes on Gay Marriage, the new group, can be.

Kelley Moran, an organizer with Yes on Gay Marriage, said it was formed to work for marriage in all 50 states and recognition by the federal government.

It's "imperative as a community that we stand up for our civil rights and go to Washington, D.C. and ask for [the Defense of Marriage Act] to be overturned," said Moran, who's openly gay and president of Moran and Associates, a Sacramento-based agency that works in political consulting, public affairs, and other areas.

Moran said Yes on Gay Marriage has a list of several hundred LGBT groups that they're contacting and his organization will be meeting with others in January to discuss a strategic plan.

After some reluctance to be specific, he said the groups include organizations such as the Denver-based Gill Foundation, which on its Web site describes itself as one of the nation's largest private foundations focused on LGBT civil rights.

In a December 29 interview, Moran said communications with the Gill Foundation indicate the foundation is "very interested in hearing more about our organization and our plans."

He said that Patrick Flaherty, Gill's deputy national director, has corresponded with him via e-mail and left him a voice message before Christmas.

Flaherty did not respond to an e-mail from the Bay Area Reporter by press time.

However, in a December 23 interview, Fred Sainz, Gill's vice president for communications, seemed unenthusiastic about meeting with the group.

"Last week, probably three-fourths of the people in our office got an e-mail" introducing Yes on Gay Marriage, Sainz said, adding they learned that people at other organizations had received the same e-mail.

"We merely wrote them back to see who they were, and that is basically the extent of our conversation with them," said Sainz.

On December 30, Sainz called the B.A.R. to discuss the paper's e-mail to Flaherty. He said that Yes on Gay Marriage had contacted Flaherty and told him they would be in Denver for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force's Creating Change conference, which starts January 28, and wanted to have a meeting. Sainz said that Flaherty had left them a voice mail saying he would welcome such a meeting.

"More than likely we will be entertaining that meeting, but we will entertain that meeting with a very suspicious eye, because given the nature of the organizations that already exist within the movement that are dedicated to marriage and the state of the nation's economy right now, we're going to be looking for how this organization is unique," said Sainz. "That's something that every organization is having to do right now, in an era in which mergers and consolidations is more than anything really the name of the game for all nonprofit organizations," LGBT or otherwise.

Another 'hole in the head'

Steven Goldstein, chairman of the New Jersey group Garden State Equality, said he had no idea who the people behind Yes on Gay Marriage are, but questioned why the new group is necessary.

"The fact is we need another national marriage equality organization like we need a hole in the head," said Goldstein.

Moran said that what sets Yes on Gay Marriage apart from other groups is that "we're leading the charge" in calling for a march. No major group has advocated for a national march, said Moran.

But Robin Tyler, who Moran wasn't familiar with, has been calling for a march for weeks. Tyler, who along with her wife, Diane Olson, recently filed suit against Prop 8 with the state Supreme Court and has called for a national march on Washington in 2010, noted it takes time, money, and permits to organize a march.

Tyler said she hadn't heard of Yes on Gay Marriage until the B.A.R. asked about the group.

"A lot of people are calling for a lot of things, but unless we focus and plan what we are going to do, the newly found energy of our community will dissipate," Tyler wrote in an e-mail.

"... For the people that are calling [for] a national march, and may not have worked on one previously, it is not that easy," Tyler added.

Tyler said she's worked on all four previous marches – which were in 1979, 1987, 1993, and 2000 – and said she's "communicating with activists all over the country, to see the kind of support a march will get. So far, there is great interest."

She wrote, "I truly believe, with the right planning and national input, this could be the largest March on Washington for our community so far. If someone else decides to do it earlier, good luck to them. This is not a competition, it is a movement."

The last march, in 2000, was controversial. The board of directors of the 2000 Millennium March on Washington had refused to release a financial statement, and at the time speculation was that as much as $1 million eventually had gone missing.

Amy Balliett, an out lesbian from Seattle and creator of Join the Impact, a group that's used the Internet to organize events like the numerous anti-Prop 8 protests that took place across the country November 15, expressed the need for caution when planning a march.

Balliett wrote in an e-mail that Join the Impact is not organizing a march, but "will be happy to help once all the groups have decided on a unified date."

"The problem is that there are many groups planning a march on Washington, and unfortunately, until they all come together and unite under one date and banner, this event will only be splintered and attendance will be slim," Balliett wrote.

"We have millions of eyes and ears on this movement and we need to all move together as one. Most of the groups planning a march are doing it for the movement. Unfortunately, some are doing it for the credit of planning the march ...," she wrote, without naming anyone specifically.

Asked if his organization is just trying to make money and get publicity, Moran said, "Absolutely not," and said the group hasn't even asked for contributions.

Moran said the group's forming 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) organizations so it can engage in both education and lobbying activities. He said though they are not currently soliciting funds, "we certainly hope to sit down and talk about what's needed in terms of putting together a march on Washington, D.C."

Moran said the group welcomes debate. But since it's been so long since the last march, and especially with the inclusion of anti-gay evangelist Rick Warren in President-elect Barack Obama's inauguration, "It couldn't be more evident we need to make sure our voices are heard" and there's no better forum than the march.

Moran, who said he didn't want to name a date for the march until more work has been done, said it's important to create more activists, and the community's voice should be heard within the first year of the administration taking office.

"We don't want our agenda to be pushed aside," said Moran, who married Gabriel Gendron, his partner of 16 years, in July.

Goldstein, the New Jersey equality official who questioned why Yes on Gay Marriage is needed, also said the term "'gay marriage' is one of the dumbest monikers I've ever heard people curse a new group with."

He said the term implies same-sex couple's marriages are different from other marriages.

Moran said his group is unapologetic for the name.

"What we are seeking is our civil rights as gays to marry," said Moran.

Impact of movement questioned

Meanwhile, despite all the protests and rallies that have occurred since November 4, CNN recently reported that public opinion on same-sex marriage hasn't changed.

In June, 44 percent of those surveyed said that same-sex marriages should be recognized as legally valid, while 53 percent said they should not be recognized, the network reported.

Six months later, the numbers are virtually unchanged. Support for same-sex marriages is still at 44 percent, while opposition is at 55 percent, according to the network, which noted the change is not statistically significant.

The telephone poll of 1,013 adult Americans was conducted by Opinion Research Corporation on December 19-21. The margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Balliett, of Join the Impact, wrote, "I think it's too early to tell how the protests are truly affecting people's views on same-sex marriage. Our movement needs to continue visibility and prove that this isn't just a flash in the pan. If we can prove that and continue our outreach and demonstrations, then the public opinion will change."

Kip Williams is working with the group One Struggle, One Fight to plan a march to Sacramento in March [See story, page 3.] and said that on November 15 he and 14 others were arrested in connection with their peaceful, 20-minute blockade of the Highway 101 southbound off-ramp at Market and Octavia streets.

Williams questioned the accuracy of the poll, and said, "This issue doesn't really rest with voters anymore. It rests with the Supreme Court," and it's more important for the court to see the civil unrest than it is for voters.

Besides Tyler and Olson, civil rights groups, and San Francisco and several other local governments have filed lawsuits with the state Supreme Court claiming that Prop 8 is a constitutional revision, rather than merely an amendment, and should have to go through the state Legislature for approval.

State Attorney General Jerry Brown also filed a brief urging the court to throw out Prop 8. But his reasoning finds that the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification.

Optimism in Iowa

GayCityNews - Optimism in Iowa

By: ARTHUR S. LEONARD
12/18/2008
email this storyEmail to a friendpost a commentPost a Commentprinter friendlyPrinter-friendly
After watching oral arguments before the seven members of the Iowa Supreme Court December 9 in Varnum v. Brien, the case brought by Lambda Legal on behalf of six same-sex couples seeking marriage licenses in Polk County, which encompasses Des Moines, there are grounds for cautious optimism.

Polk County Recorder Timothy J. Brien, the defendant in the marriage suit, was represented by attorney Roger J. Kuhle, who argued for reversal of a county trial judge who had ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry in Iowa. Dennis Johnson, an Iowa attorney appearing as a cooperating attorney for Lambda Legal, defended the trial court's decision.

The Supreme Court had accepted review on two questions - whether the existing law defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman stands up under the Iowa Constitution, and whether the trial judge erred by excluding from evidence some affidavits that Polk County had offered as expert testimony. The trial judge, in ruling on the paper record and oral arguments, decided without considering affidavits from individuals not expert in psychology or sociology who supported the state's argument that the optimal home for raising children is one that includes a parent of each sex.

In defending the trial judge's decision to exclude these affidavits, Johnson argued that they were merely statements of opinion by people without relevant expertise, and that many, many amicus briefs were filed by national organizations on both sides of the issues in this case, so the trial judge and the Supreme Court are not deprived of any information relevant to making this decision. Johnson also argued that even if one hypothesizes that there is an optimal family constellation for raising children, that does not provide a logical basis for excluding same-sex couples from getting married, and providing the benefits of marriage to their children.

Handicapping a court's reaction to oral arguments is always tricky business. The only woman on the court is Chief Justice Marsha Ternus, who asked few questions, but at one prominent point implicitly questioned the logic of Kuhle's argument during his rebuttal. All the other members are white males, making Iowa's among the least diverse state supreme courts in terms of gender and race, though that may be a fair reflection of the legal profession in the state.

I have no real familiarity with the court's track record, other than the claims of the attorneys in this case, particularly Johnson, that Iowa has been in the forefront of defining constitutional rights in advance of the US Supreme Court. That is certainly true in the case of gay rights, where the Iowa high court found state constitutional protection for private, consensual adult sex two generations before the US Supreme Court, back in the 1970s.

The only way I am comfortable "reading" the court in this case is assessing the questioning and back-and-forth between the justices and the attorneys, an analysis that holds out hope that a majority may rule to uphold the trial court in favor of same-sex marriage. That is based, in part, on the quality of the arguments. Kuhle did his best to be persuasive, but could not really get beyond the basic illogic and speculative nature of his argument, while Johnson did an excellent job of making an affirmative argument, using Iowa precedents, to bolster the claim that the Iowa Constitution should be construed to confer the same right to marry on same-sex couples already enjoyed by different-sex couples. It didn't hurt that Johnson pointed out that the very opening of the State Constitution contains a guarantee of freedom and equality to all Iowans.

The most active questioners on the bench were Justices Brent R. Appel, Michael J. Streit, and Mark S. Cady. Less active were David L. Baker, Daryl L. Hecht, and David S. Wiggins. But all asked some questions. The most engaged questioners seemed dubious about Kuhle's arguments.

One advantage in the recent California and Connecticut marriage cases, where same-sex marriage prevailed, is that the procreation issue - the argument that marriage most importantly functions to channel childbirth by heterosexual couples into stable family structures - was pretty much off the table; those states had already legislatively adopted a "separate but equal" status for same-sex couples that conferred all parental rights and responsibilities that marriage would offer, so the state could hardly argue in either case that different-sex couples had some unique claim on such benefits.

The argument is illogical on its face, but has been accepted by quite a few state courts, including - to the utter shame of my home state - in the abysmally reasoned decision by the New York Court of Appeals from two years ago.

Still, Kuhle tried to make this argument a centerpiece of his case, since Iowa has not adopted anything like a civil union law. Johnson called him out on this point by observing that Iowa has gone a long way toward recognizing the parental qualifications of gay people, allowing same-sex couples to be foster and adoptive parents and mandating that sexual orientation not be a factor in custody and visitation disputes. As a matter of public policy, then, Iowa already considers sexual orientation irrelevant to parenting, and is happy to place children who need a home with same-sex couples. That makes mounting the argument that the state has a strong policy interest in making sure that children have parental role models of both sexes more difficult.

Kuhle's argument is not primarily a sexual orientation argument, but more akin to the case accepted by the Florida Supreme Court and the federal 11th Circuit in upholding that state's ban on gay people adopting children - that children benefit in their psychological development by having a parental role model from each sex, and are deprived by having parental role models of only one sex. Politicians refer to "studies" supporting this assertion - of which there is none in any reputable peer-reviewed journal in a relevant discipline - but the judges in the Florida cases have at least been moderately upfront in admitting that they are adopting this view based on "common sense." That's really the same as saying this conclusion is nothing more than their personal opinions based on whatever biases and stereotypes they carry around in their heads.

Kuhle argued that parenting by same-sex couples hasn't been around long enough to know whether children will turn out alright, but that's nonsense. Same-sex couples in large numbers have been jointly parenting children for decades. There are plenty of middle-aged men and women walking around today who grew up in households headed by same-sex couples. At this late date, it is bizarre to assert as a matter of "common sense" that there is some systematic psychological deprivation resulting in gender identity crises for such children, when there is no evidence of that.

Justice Appel, one of the most persistent questioners, got to the heart of the political question before the court - whether it is appropriate for the judiciary to constitutionalize this issue rather than leave it to the political process to play out. He referred to the US Supreme Court's assisted-suicide case, in which great caution was expressed about courts recognizing "new" constitutional rights in matters subject to intense political debate and sharp divisions in the electorate. Some academic critics of the Roe v. Wade abortion ruling point out that it has "poisoned" the Supreme Court judicial confirmation process by making abortion a litmus test for nominees among interest groups on both sides of the question.

And Appel also referred to the judicial "minimalism" concept advanced by various legal scholars, perhaps most prominently Cass Sunstein of Harvard, which argues that courts should avoid making decisions that go beyond incremental change, leaving major policy changes to the political process. Appel noted that respondents had identified hundreds of statutes and policies affected by the right to marry, and asked whether a decision that could affect so broad a range of laws would make ruling in favor of same-sex marriage "too big a move?"

Johnson handled these questions very persuasively, pointing out that Iowa has already taken the process of adopting gender-neutral statutes quite far, meaning that changing the law to allow same-sex couples to marry would not require much in the way of adjustments. He emphasized that the plaintiffs sought to be admitted to the existing institution of marriage, not to redefine or change it regarding any of its legal implications.

Johnson's main theme, thrust home several times during his argument, was that the case is not about same-sex marriage, but rather about whether the right to marry, a long-established and venerable right, is accessible to all Iowans, regardless of their sex or sexual orientation. He argued several times that in evaluating rights claims, the court has never premised the existence of the right on the identity of those claiming it, and that traditional exclusion of a particular group from enjoying a right otherwise freely available has never been accepted as a justification for continuing the exclusion.

Kuhle's major theme, which he came back to repeatedly, was the speculation that if the state were to "promote" same-sex marriages, thus decoupling marriage from procreation, sometime down the line, perhaps 20 years or more in the future, different-sex couples would feel less inclined to marry because the state would have signaled that the institution was not deemed important or necessary as a component of procreation. This would lead, in his view, to an erosion of the traditional marital family as society's central institution, and, he argued, was a "compelling" concern for the state.

This is rank speculation, of course, since there is no way of proving that opening up marriage to same-sex couples will have any effect on the decision-making of different-sex couples about whether to marry. There is no credible evidence that opening up marriage to same-sex couples in the Netherlands or Canada, where same-sex marriage has now been available for several years, has had any demonstrable effect on marriage rates of different-sex couples. Kuhle finessed the point by arguing that the effect may not be discernible for many years. Johnson came back by pointing out that in its constitutional jurisprudence the Iowa court has rejected basing constitutional decisions on speculation not rooted in demonstrable fact.

There was some troubling back and forth about the burden of proof in the case. Johnson conceded that if the court decides this is a "rational basis" case, the burden is on the plaintiffs to show the irrationality of the existing policy, and he got into some argument with a few of the justices about whether the case's record includes such evidence. Johnson insisted that the plaintiffs could meet their burden by showing the illogic of the defendant's arguments, thus leaving no rational explanation in place for the continued exclusion of gay people. He confidently asserted that the record contained no evidence that would justify the ban.

Kuhle argued that there is no "ban," because gay men can marry women and lesbians can marry men. Sandra Day O'Connor disposed of the analogous argument - which will strike many as facetious in any event - in her concurring opinion to strike down the Texas sodomy law in the 2003 Lawrence case.

Justice Cady raised the question whether civil unions would suffice to remedy any potential constitutional inequality. This question was not posed to Kuhle, and he never mentioned the issue of civil unions as an alternative, either in his direct argument or his rebuttal. The question was instead put to Johnson, who insisted that civil unions would be inadequate, pointing to the well-established social meaning of marriage, and to the fact that civil unions would impose a mark of second-class citizenship. He drew a very effective analogy to Brown v. Board of Education, in which Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote that providing "separate but equal" schools did not satisfy the equal protection requirement of the 14th Amendment because of the signal of inferiority that it sent to black school children, causing hurt to their "hearts and minds" unlikely to be remedied. Lack of equal respect is a real harm, Johnson argued, and only full marriage equality would suffice.

The justices seemed to take Johnson's arguments quite seriously, and they raised serious logical objections in their questioning of Kuhle. Whether they were just playing devil's advocate, as judges sometimes will do in an oral argument, was unclear. I was able to forecast exactly the outcome in Hernandez v. Robles, the New York marriage case, after watching the oral argument, but the win in Connecticut came as a complete surprise to me. I thought the same-sex marriage forces were likely to win New Jersey after viewing that argument, but I was less certain after viewing California, though attorneys more familiar with the Supreme Court there were more optimistic.

So I will not make a prediction here, but I am upbeat about the prospect that the same-sex marriage argument will get a fair consideration from this court, and I am reasonably hopeful that if it receives a fair consideration, a Connecticut-like decision will result.

Arroyo vs Diaz on gay marriage

The Daily Politics - NY Daily News


December 30, 2008

To the list of outside interests pressuring Sen. Ruben Diaz Sr. on the issue of same-sex marriage add NYCLU, which has posted a YouTube video featuring footage of a recent event in his district at which members of the LGBT community talked about their coming out experiences.

At the end of the clip, Diaz's fellow Bronx Democrat, Assemblywoman Carmen Arroyo, explains why she voted "yes" on gay marriage in 2007 and also questions the senator's staunch opposition to the measure.

Diaz, a Pentecostal minister, has always said he opposes same-sex marriage for religious reasons, but Arroyo says:

"I don't think that he believes. He talks. He talks against same-sex marriage. I'm going to vote for what I believe is the right thing to do. When I voted for that bill, I did it because I knew that I am protecting members of my family and I'm protecting the majority of the people....This government is for the people and by the people, by the ones that pay taxes. If everybody pay taxes, everybody should have the same rights."


According to NYCLU, the Bronx has more LGBT families than any other borough.

But given the senator's re-affirmation this week of his opposition to gay marriage, it seems unlikely that he will change his position on this issue any time soon, nor does he seem overly concerned about the pressure being brought to bear on him by allies of Senate Democratic Leader Malcolm Smith.

Rogue Democratic senator stands firm against marriage equality

PageOneQ | Rogue Democratic senator stands firm against marriage equality

Rogue Democratic senator stands firm against marriage equality

by Nick Cargo

New York State Senator Rev. Ruben Diaz has sent out a mailer reiterating his negative stance in his state's ongoing marriage equality battle.



"I am still a Democrat," Diaz said in the missive. "And I will always be a Democrat." The Senator wrote against proposed budget cuts by Governor Paterson and added that he does not "support the matrimony of homosexual couples."

Diaz is part of a coalition of Democratic lawmakers that seek to prevent the issue of same-sex marriage from reaching the floor, even with the support of Gov. Paterson and the state's recognition of same-sex marriages legally performed outside its borders. In November, during an internal struggle for control of the Senate, Diaz said, "Just give it to me in writing that you will not bring the gay marriage to the floor and you got me." Diaz, along with "dissident Democrats" Sen. Carl Kruger and Senator-elect Pedro Espada Jr., threatened what would otherwise be a commanding Democratic Senate majority, the first since 1965.

The mailer comes after a recent print ad was published by the Working Families Party in an appeal to the "Three Amigos" to unite with Senate Democrats to take full advantage of their majority:

Dear Senator Diaz and Senator-elect Espada:

For decades, our community has suffered under the failed leadership of the Republicans in Albany. People across New York voted to change that in November by electing a Democrat/Working Families majority in the State Senate for the first time in 43 years. Now we can finally look forward to a better education for our children, more healthcare, affordable housing and a real focus on all the issues that matter to working families. But only if you join the Democratic majority that we voted for.

Thousands of your constituents have signed petitions urging you to join the Democrats in the State Senate and be part of this new majority. In the past, you've fought for the economic justice Bronx residents deserve. Nothing is more important to that cause now than ensuring a Democratic Senate majority in January.

Other appeals to the breakaways to assure a firm Democratic majority have also been lodged by organizations such as SEIU and the Empire State Pride Agenda, including a multilingual mailing.

- Campbell's Soup

Queers United: Queer Buycott - Campbell's Soup

The anti-gay hate group, the American Family Association has called for a boycott of Campbell's Soup over their recent ads featuring LGBT people and families.

So, in response we are calling for a buycott and are urging pro-equality consumers to praise the company for showing a commitment to diversity. Your calls, letters, and emails are needed in the face of the thousands who have called the company with disapproving words.

I re-worded the call to action sent by the AFA:

* Send an email to the Campbell Soup Company President Douglas Conant. Tell him you want his company to continue their commitment to diversity and support of LGBT people and families.

* After sending your email, please call Campbell Soup Company (800-257-8443) and their Swanson division (1-800-442-7684) and let the company know you will continue to support them because of their gay and lesbian ads.

* Forward this e-mail to your friends and family so they will know about Campbell's support of equality and LGBT issues.

Splaine pushes for gay marriage in N.H. House

Splaine pushes for gay marriage in N.H. House

PORTSMOUTH — When legislators meet in 2009, there will be several bills to consider that deal with civil unions and gay marriage.

State Rep. Jim Splaine, D-Portsmouth, submitted a bill asking that civil unions, which are currently recognized by the state, be changed to allow marriage. State Rep. Paul McEachern, D-Portsmouth, is co-sponsoring the bill.

"The bill would essentially provide for full marriage equality," Splaine said. "I submitted the bill because I think it's important that we keep this dialogue going."

Splaine said the bill will be presented on Jan. 7 along with the other bills introduced for the session. He said then it will be scheduled for a public hearing or sent to a committee.

Splaine said that although civil unions are recognized in New Hampshire, gay marriage is not. He said a bill introduced by state Rep. David Hess, R-Hooksett, would prohibit New Hampshire from recognizing gay marriages performed in other states as civil unions here.

"I introduced — in 2006 — a civil union bill and a lot of people thought it was not a good time, but it passed in 2007," he said. "I offered an amendment to add full equality for marriage, and that didn't pass. This is my second try at getting full marriage equality."

Splaine said he thinks gay marriage will pass in the state eventually.

"It may not be in 2009, but I believe it will," Splaine said. "I put it in to continue the dialogue, because the more we talk about it, I believe people will see the fairness of full equality. Two years ago, civil unions passing opened the door and has been mostly well received. As of this weekend, there are 610 civil unions in New Hampshire."

There are several other bills on the topic of civil unions and gay marriage. Among them is the one Splaine referred to by Hess.

"It leaves civil unions here unchanged," Hess said. "I think there is a significant difference between civil unions and marriage, which is a concept of tradition recognized all over the world. I think same-sex marriage goes beyond and is not needed.

"Civil unions are not marriage, but a legal concept generated in several states. Same-sex marriage is contrary to Christian traditions and every religious concept of marriage between a man and a woman. Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron, because one of the primary functions of marriage is procreating."

Saudi judge refuses to annul marriage of girl, 8 - CNN.com

Saudi judge refuses to annul marriage of girl, 8 - CNN.com

A Saudi judge recently refused to annul a marriage between an 8-year-old girl and a 47-year-old man -- a union apparently arranged by the girl's father to settle his debts -- a lawyer in the case told CNN.

On Saturday, the judge, Sheikh Habib Abdallah al-Habib, dismissed a petition brought by the girl's mother because she "is not the legal guardian of the girl," the woman's lawyer Abdullah al-Jutaili said.

"Therefore, she cannot represent her daughter in these proceedings," al-Jutaili said.

Her parents are separated, he said.
Don't Miss

* Clinton's foundation got millions from Saudis, Gates

According to the lawyer, the girl's father arranged the marriage in order to settle his debts with the man, who is "a close friend" of his.

The judge did ask for a pledge from the husband, who was in court, not to consummate the marriage until the girl reaches puberty, according to al-Jutaili.

The judge ruled that when the girl reaches puberty, she will have the right to request a divorce by filing a petition with the court, the lawyer said.

Christoph Wilcke, a Saudi Arabia researcher for Human Rights Watch, said his organization has heard many other cases of child marriages.

"We've been hearing about these types of cases once every four or five months because the Saudi public is now able to express this kind of anger, especially so when girls are traded off to older men," Wilcke said.

Zuhair al-Harithi, a spokesman for the Human Rights Commission, a Saudi government-run human rights group, said his organization is fighting against child marriages.
advertisement

"The Human Rights Commission opposes child marriages in Saudi Arabia," al-Harithi said. "Child marriages violate international agreements that have been signed by Saudi Arabia and should not be allowed."

The spokesman said he did not have specific details about this case but his organization has been able to stop at least one other child marriage.

| Obama's inaugural benediction pastor Lowery clarifies stance on gay marriage

PageOneQ | Obama's inaugural benediction pastor Lowery clarifies stance on gay marriage

by Nick Cargo

Rev. Dr. Joseph E. Lowery, President-elect Obama's choice to deliver the benediction at the upcoming Inauguration, said on Tuesday that he hesitates to support civil marriage for same-sex couples. He does, however, support civil unions. Lowery will appear with Dr. Rick Warren, Saddleback Church founder and author of The Purpose-Driven Life, who is slated to deliver the invocation.

Warren has faced criticism over statements comparing same-sex relationships to incest and pedophilia. He was also a vocal supporter of California's Proposition 8. The President-elect has defended his inaugural lineup in the spirit of unity with those with whom one does not always agree.

"I differ with [Rick Warren] sharply on his position on this issue," Lowery told MSNBC's David Shuster. "I don't think we ought to put into law any discriminatory action against people because of race, ethnicity or sexual orientation. I oppose that. But that doesn't stop me from being on a program with him."

"I've never said I support gay marriage," he added. "I support gay rights, and I support civil unions. Like a whole lot of people, I have some difficulty with the term 'gay marriage' because...deeply rooted in my heart and mind, marriage is associated with 'man and woman.' So I have a little cultural shock with that, but I certainly support civil unions, and that gay partners ought to have all the rights that any other citizens have in this country."

Rule change could allow doctors to reject gay patients - Southern Voice Atlanta

Rule change could allow doctors to reject gay patients - Southern Voice Atlanta

At issue is HIV testing, artificial insemination, other treatments

By CHRIS JOHNSON
Dec. 26, 2008
The Bush administration issued a “right of conscience” regulation last week that could enable health care workers to deny treatment to gay patients based on religious beliefs, according to activists.

Issued Dec. 18, the rule allows the federal government to withhold funds from health care facilities if they do not permit workers to opt out of performing medical procedures they find objectionable based on religious or moral grounds.

The 127-page regulation, which is estimated to cost $44 million to implement, is primarily aimed at allowing health workers to opt out of performing abortions. But Lara Schwartz, legal director for the Human Rights Campaign, said the rule could enable health care providers to decline to provide services for gay people — even for treatment of a common cold.

“It’s not clear that that is the intent,” she said, “but it absolutely does not preclude that result, which is one of the reasons that HRC submitted comments asking them to draft it differently.”

Schwartz said refusing to provide artificial-insemination services for a lesbian couple would be one possible procedure in which medical workers could refuse to participate based on the regulation.

In a Dec. 19 statement, HRC said a health care worker might be able to refuse to administer an HIV test to gay patients and even be exempt from telling them where else they could receive the test.

Additionally, pharmacists could refuse to fill a prescription for hormone therapy if they have objections to transgender people, HRC says.

Health & Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt, in a statement Dec. 18, said the rule “protects the right of medical providers to care for their patients in accord with their conscience.”

“Doctors and other health care providers should not be forced to choose between good professional standing and violating their conscience,” he said.

Kevin Schweers, a spokesperson for the Department of Health & Human Services, said the new regulation does not change existing civil rights laws in any way and said “it would be impermissible to decline to provide or participate in a service if the decision is based on an individual’s characteristics that are federally protected.”

There are no protections for sexual orientation under federal law, but HIV-positive people enjoy protections under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Schweers said under the new regulation, an HIV/AIDS clinic funded through the Ryan White Care Act must still “serve its target population.”

The Department of Health & Human Services will review any complaints alleging discrimination under the new regulation on case-by-case basis, Schweers said.

The regulation goes into effect around the time President-elect Barack Obama takes office on Jan. 20. Cristina Finch, senior legal counsel for HRC, said Obama could issue another rule to rescind President Bush’s upon taking office, but undoing the regulation could take several months.

Congress also could take action on the regulation, but there is no indication from lawmakers or from the Obama administration on how they plan on reacting to the rule, Finch said.

The Obama transition team did not respond to a request for comment on how it would respond to Bush’s regulation.

Last month, Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.) introduced legislation to repeal the rule, but the bill will die when the congressional session ends this year.

U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.), the only out lesbian in Congress, condemned the regulations in a Dec. 18 statement and said she is “deeply troubled by the Bush administration's latest attack on patients' rights and the doctor-patient relationship.”

“Medical care must be based on science and the patients’ best interest, not the providers’ religious, political or other philosophical views,” she said.

HRC President Joe Solmonese said in the Dec. 19 statement that the regulations “sacrifice patients’ right to medical care, permitting providers to refuse to do their jobs when they choose.”

“Denying patients legal, safe medical treatments for any reason is simply wrong, and violates the trust that all Americans, regardless of our sexual orientation or gender identity, place in our doctors, nurses and pharmacists,” he said.

Video from Light up the Night Dec 20th

Robert and I marched in this event in NYC. Boy was it cold but it was nice to see a couple of hundred people show up. I remember the days when it used to be a handful of protesters fighting for marriage equality. NYC below above link to others around the nation