Thursday, January 28, 2010

Feds seek to overturn Mexico City gay marriage law - washingtonpost.com

Feds seek to overturn Mexico City gay marriage law - washingtonpost.com

MEXICO CITY -- Mexican federal prosecutors announced Wednesday that they will try to overturn Mexico City's gay marriage law, which allows same-sex couples to adopt children, on the grounds it violates the constitution.

The Mexico City law, approved in December and due to take effect in March, is the first of its kind in Latin America.

The federal Attorney General's Office said in a statement that it believes the law "violates the principle of legality, because it strays from the constitutional principle of protecting the family."

It cited an article in Mexico's constitution that suggests - but does not state - that the framers envisioned families constituted by men, women and children. The article states: "Men and women are equal before the law. This protects the organization and development of the family."
ad_icon

The office said it filed an appeal with the country's Supreme Court asking it to void the law, arguing it also "strays from the responsibility of the government to place a priority on safeguarding the interests of children."

The Roman Catholic Church in Mexico has harshly criticized the law, and President Felipe Calderon's conservative National Action Party has mounted a campaign against the measure.

Mexico City legislators argued the law simply gives same-sex couples the rights that heterosexual couples have regarding social security and other benefits.

Legislators said there is no evidence children adopted by same-sex couples suffer any disadvantages.

The federal prosecutor's office previously challenged a Mexico City law legalizing abortion, but the Supreme Court upheld the measure in 2008.

An Argentine couple participated in Latin America's first gay wedding in December, but interpretations vary on whether the law allows same-sex unions in Argentina and the question is now before that country's supreme court.

Argentina's constitution is silent on whether marriage must be between a man and a woman, effectively leaving the matter to provincial officials, who approved the wedding. But a law specifically legalizing gay marriage has been stalled in its Congress since October.

Saturday, January 23, 2010

Washington State Lawmakers Look To Recognize Same-Sex Marriages from Other States - Lez Get Real

Washington State Lawmakers Look To Recognize Same-Sex Marriages from Other States - Lez Get Real

1/22/10-by Paula Brooks
This week a bill that would recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions as equivalent to Washington’s state-registered domestic partnerships passed Washington’s House Judiciary Committee and has been forwarded on to that states House Rules Committee, which will decide whether the bill with be placed on the state house floor calendar for a second reading.

While same-sex marriage is still not recognized or valid in Washington, and state statute forbids marriage except between one man and one woman, Washington’s voters overwhelmingly approved an Everything but Marriage domestic partnerships law in the last years General Election, which gave all domestic partners the same rights as marriage, except the title of marriage.

That law went into effect last month.

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Prop. 8 opponents seek to show link between religion, anti-gay discrimination [Updated] | L.A. NOW | Los Angeles Times

Prop. 8 opponents seek to show link between religion, anti-gay discrimination [Updated] | L.A. NOW | Los Angeles Times

January 20, 2010 | 1:03 pm

Challengers of California's ban on same-sex marriage are trying to show at trial today that discrimination against gays and lesbians is rooted in religion and that churches have contributed to anti-gay violence.

Opponents of Proposition 8 called to the stand Ryan Kendall, who grew up in an evangelical Christian family in Colorado and was forced to submit to Christian therapy as a teenager to change his sexual orientation.

"I was just as gay as when I started, " Kendall testified.

U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who is presiding over the marriage trial, permitted Kendall to testify over objections by Proposition 8's defenders, on the grounds they had argued sexual orientation was changeable.

Kendall, now a resident of Denver, testified tearfully about how his mother abused him after learning of his sexuality from reading his journal. He said he was called slurs and that his glasses were smashed while attending an evangelical school.

The therapy and his parents' reaction to his sexuality led him to contemplate suicide, and at 16 he went to a Colorado social service agency to ask for protection, he testified. His parents' custody was revoked.

Attorneys challenging Proposition 8 also presented videotaped testimony from two experts on religion who had been retained by the measure's defenders. They have since withdrawn from the case.

The experts agreed under questioning that gays and lesbians have experienced discrimination and that some religions have contributed to that discrimination. They also acknowledged that religion has been used to justify discrimination against African Americans and women.

[Updated at 2:09 p.m.: Challengers of the Proposition 8 presented documents this afternoon that the Catholic and Mormon churches were closely tied to the campaign to pass the measure.]

Saturday, January 16, 2010

Think Progress » Justice Department Intervenes In Gay Rights Suit For The First Time In A Decade

could this be progress?/

Think Progress » Justice Department Intervenes In Gay Rights Suit For The First Time In A Decade

Justice Department Intervenes In Gay Rights Suit For The First Time In A Decade

Jacob Yesterday, for the first time in a decade, the Justice Department intervened in a gay rights suit. In August, an openly gay 14-year-old student named Jacob — with the help of the ACLU — sued the Mohawk Central School District in upstate New York because officials “did not appropriately respond to relentless harassment, physical abuse and threats of violence” that Jacob received because of his sexual orientation. NPR reported on some of the harassment to which Jacob alleges he was subjected:

Long before Jacob came out of the closet at age 14, he was harassed for being effeminate. According to court papers, kids threw food at him and told him to get a sex change. One student pulled out a knife and threatened to string Jacob up the flagpole. A teacher allegedly told Jacob to “hate himself every day until he changed.”

One day, Jacob came home from school limping. That evening, he called his father from a party and said he had sprained his ankle at the party.

Sullivan described taking his son to the hospital: “It was a really bad sprain. They put a cast on it, gave him crutches. And shortly after that, I found out that it didn’t happen at the party. It happened at the school, because somebody had pushed him down the stairs.”

Over two years, Sullivan went to his son’s school three or four times a week to talk with the principal. According to court papers, officials did nothing.

The Justice Department is citing Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — which protects people against gender discrimination — in its Motion to Intervene. However, the Obama administration is relying on a “broad reading” of Title IX, arguing that “the law also covers discrimination based on gender stereotypes.” In the Motion, the Justice Department argues that the Mohawk District officials also violated the Equal Protection Clause. On Jan. 7, the Assistant Attorney General authorized the federal government’s invention “by certifying that this is a case of general public importance.” Conservative lawyers are arguing against the Obama administration’s approach, saying that it is “making up a legal violation where there hasn’t been one.”

Under Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder, the Justice Department has had a dramatically different focus than it did during President Bush’s terms. While the Bush Justice Department was focused on installing political cronies, going after mythical voter fraud cases, and the suppression of minority voters while looking out for the voter disenfranchisement of whites. The Obama Justice Department, by contrast, recently announced that it would also start aggressively going after “banks and mortgage brokers suspected of discriminating against minority applicants in lending.”

Monday, January 11, 2010

The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage | Print Article | Newsweek.com

The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage | Print Article | Newsweek.com: "The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage
Why same-sex marriage is an American value.

By Theodore B. Olson | NEWSWEEK

Published Jan 9, 2010

From the magazine issue dated Jan 18, 2010

Together with my good friend and occasional courtroom adversary David Boies, I am attempting to persuade a federal court to invalidate California's Proposition 8—the voter-approved measure that overturned California's constitutional right to marry a person of the same sex.

My involvement in this case has generated a certain degree of consternation among conservatives. How could a politically active, lifelong Republican, a veteran of the Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush administrations, challenge the 'traditional' definition of marriage and press for an 'activist' interpretation of the Constitution to create another 'new' constitutional right?

My answer to this seeming conundrum rests on a lifetime of exposure to persons of different backgrounds, histories, viewpoints, and intrinsic characteristics, and on my rejection of what I see as superficially appealing but ultimately false perceptions about our Constitution and its protection of equality and fundamental rights.

Many of my fellow conservatives have an almost knee-jerk hostility toward gay marriage. This does not make sense, because same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize. Marriage is one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and our nation. At its best, it is a stable bond between two individuals who work to create a loving household and a social and economic partnership. We encourage couples to marry because the commitments they make to one another provide benefits not only to themselves but also to their families and communities. Marriage requires thinking beyond one's own needs. It transforms two individuals into a union based on shared aspirations, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the well-being of society. The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance. Conservatives should celebrate this, rather than lament it.

Legalizing same-sex marriage would also be a recognition of basic American principles, and would represent the culmination of our nation's commitment to equal rights. It is, some have said, the last major civil-rights milestone yet to be surpassed in our two-century struggle to attain the goals we set for this nation at its formation.

This bedrock American principle of equality is central to the political and legal convictions of Republicans, Democrats, liberals, and conservatives alike. The dream that became America began with the revolutionary concept expressed in the Declaration of Independence in words that are among the most noble and elegant ever written: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.'

Sadly, our nation has taken a long time to live up to the promise of equality. In 1857, the Supreme Court held that an African-American could not be a citizen. During the ensuing Civil War, Abraham Lincoln eloquently reminded the nation of its found-ing principle: 'our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.'

At the end of the Civil War, to make the elusive promise of equality a reality, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution added the command that 'no State É shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person É the equal protection of the laws.'

Subsequent laws and court decisions have made clear that equality under the law extends to persons of all races, religions, and places of origin. What better way to make this national aspiration complete than to apply the same protection to men and women who differ from others only on the basis of their sexual orientation? I cannot think of a single reason—and have not heard one since I undertook this venture—for continued discrimination against decent, hardworking members of our society on that basis.

Various federal and state laws have accorded certain rights and privileges to gay and lesbian couples, but these protections vary dramatically at the state level, and nearly universally deny true equality to gays and lesbians who wish to marry. The very idea of marriage is basic to recognition as equals in our society; any status short of that is inferior, unjust, and unconstitutional.

The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that marriage is one of the most fundamental rights that we have as Americans under our Constitution. It is an expression of our desire to create a social partnership, to live and share life's joys and burdens with the person we love, and to form a lasting bond and a social identity. The Supreme Court has said that marriage is a part of the Constitution's protections of liberty, privacy, freedom of association, and spiritual identification. In short, the right to marry helps us to define ourselves and our place in a community. Without it, there can be no true equality under the law.

It is true that marriage in this nation traditionally has been regarded as a relationship exclusively between a man and a woman, and many of our nation's multiple religions define marriage in precisely those terms. But while the Supreme Court has always previously considered marriage in that context, the underlying rights and liberties that marriage embodies are not in any way confined to heterosexuals.

Marriage is a civil bond in this country as well as, in some (but hardly all) cases, a religious sacrament. It is a relationship recognized by governments as providing a privileged and respected status, entitled to the state's support and benefits. The California Supreme Court described marriage as a 'union unreservedly approved and favored by the community.' Where the state has accorded official sanction to a relationship and provided special benefits to those who enter into that relationship, our courts have insisted that withholding that status requires powerful justifications and may not be arbitrarily denied.

What, then, are the justifications for California's decision in Proposition 8 to withdraw access to the institution of marriage for some of its citizens on the basis of their sexual orientation? The reasons I have heard are not very persuasive.

The explanation mentioned most often is tradition. But simply because something has always been done a certain way does not mean that it must always remain that way. Otherwise we would still have segregated schools and debtors' prisons. Gays and lesbians have always been among us, forming a part of our society, and they have lived as couples in our neighborhoods and communities. For a long time, they have experienced discrimination and even persecution; but we, as a society, are starting to become more tolerant, accepting, and understanding. California and many other states have allowed gays and lesbians to form domestic partnerships (or civil unions) with most of the rights of married heterosexuals. Thus, gay and lesbian individuals are now permitted to live together in state-sanctioned relationships. It therefore seems anomalous to cite 'tradition' as a justification for withholding the status of marriage and thus to continue to label those relationships as less worthy, less sanctioned, or less legitimate.

The second argument I often hear is that traditional marriage furthers the state's interest in procreation—and that opening marriage to same-sex couples would dilute, diminish, and devalue this goal. But that is plainly not the case. Preventing lesbians and gays from marrying does not cause more heterosexuals to marry and conceive more children. Likewise, allowing gays and lesbians to marry someone of the same sex will not discourage heterosexuals from marrying a person of the opposite sex. How, then, would allowing same-sex marriages reduce the number of children that heterosexual couples conceive?

This procreation argument cannot be taken seriously. We do not inquire whether heterosexual couples intend to bear children, or have the capacity to have children, before we allow them to marry. We permit marriage by the elderly, by prison inmates, and by persons who have no intention of having children. What's more, it is pernicious to think marriage should be limited to heterosexuals because of the state's desire to promote procreation. We would surely not accept as constitutional a ban on marriage if a state were to decide, as China has done, to discourage procreation.

Another argument, vaguer and even less persuasive, is that gay marriage somehow does harm to heterosexual marriage. I have yet to meet anyone who can explain to me what this means. In what way would allowing same-sex partners to marry diminish the marriages of heterosexual couples? Tellingly, when the judge in our case asked our opponent to identify the ways in which same-sex marriage would harm heterosexual marriage, to his credit he answered honestly: he could not think of any.

The simple fact is that there is no good reason why we should deny marriage to same-sex partners. On the other hand, there are many reasons why we should formally recognize these relationships and embrace the rights of gays and lesbians to marry and become full and equal members of our society.

No matter what you think of homosexuality, it is a fact that gays and lesbians are members of our families, clubs, and workplaces. They are our doctors, our teachers, our soldiers (whether we admit it or not), and our friends. They yearn for acceptance, stable relationships, and success in their lives, just like the rest of us.

Conservatives and liberals alike need to come together on principles that surely unite us. Certainly, we can agree on the value of strong families, lasting domestic relationships, and communities populated by persons with recognized and sanctioned bonds to one another. Confining some of our neighbors and friends who share these same values to an outlaw or second-class status undermines their sense of belonging and weakens their ties with the rest of us and what should be our common aspirations. Even those whose religious convictions preclude endorsement of what they may perceive as an unacceptable 'lifestyle' should recognize that disapproval should not warrant stigmatization and unequal treatment.

When we refuse to accord this status to gays and lesbians, we discourage them from forming the same relationships we encourage for others. And we are also telling them, those who love them, and society as a whole that their relationships are less worthy, less legitimate, less permanent, and less valued. We demean their relationships and we demean them as individuals. I cannot imagine how we benefit as a society by doing so.

I understand, but reject, certain religious teachings that denounce homosexuality as morally wrong, illegitimate, or unnatural; and I take strong exception to those who argue that same-sex relationships should be discouraged by society and law. Science has taught us, even if history has not, that gays and lesbians do not choose to be homosexual any more than the rest of us choose to be heterosexual. To a very large extent, these characteristics are immutable, like being left-handed. And, while our Constitution guarantees the freedom to exercise our individual religious convictions, it equally prohibits us from forcing our beliefs on others. I do not believe that our society can ever live up to the promise of equality, and the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, until we stop invidious discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

If we are born heterosexual, it is not unusual for us to perceive those who are born homosexual as aberrational and threatening. Many religions and much of our social culture have reinforced those impulses. Too often, that has led to prejudice, hostility, and discrimination. The antidote is understanding, and reason. We once tolerated laws throughout this nation that prohibited marriage between persons of different races. California's Supreme Court was the first to find that discrimination unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously agreed 20 years later, in 1967, in a case called Loving v. Virginia. It seems inconceivable today that only 40 years ago there were places in this country where a black woman could not legally marry a white man. And it was only 50 years ago that 17 states mandated segregated public education—until the Supreme Court unanimously struck down that practice in Brown v. Board of Education. Most Americans are proud of these decisions and the fact that the discriminatory state laws that spawned them have been discredited. I am convinced that Americans will be equally proud when we no longer discriminate against gays and lesbians and welcome them into our society.

Reactions to our lawsuit have reinforced for me these essential truths. I have certainly heard anger, resentment, and hostility, and words like 'betrayal' and other pointedly graphic criticism. But mostly I have been overwhelmed by expressions of gratitude and good will from persons in all walks of life, including, I might add, from many conservatives and libertarians whose names might surprise. I have been particularly moved by many personal renditions of how lonely and personally destructive it is to be treated as an outcast and how meaningful it will be to be respected by our laws and civil institutions as an American, entitled to equality and dignity. I have no doubt that we are on the right side of this battle, the right side of the law, and the right side of history.

Some have suggested that we have brought this case too soon, and that neither the country nor the courts are 'ready' to tackle this issue and remove this stigma. We disagree. We represent real clients—two wonderful couples in California who have longtime relationships. Our lesbian clients are raising four fine children who could not ask for better parents. Our clients wish to be married. They believe that they have that constitutional right. They wish to be represented in court to seek vindication of that right by mounting a challenge under the United States Constitution to the validity of Proposition 8 under the equal-protection and due-process clauses of the 14th Amendment. In fact, the California attorney general has conceded the unconstitutionality of Proposition 8, and the city of San Francisco has joined our case to defend the rights of gays and lesbians to be married. We do not tell persons who have a legitimate claim to wait until the time is 'right' and the populace is 'ready' to recognize their equality and equal dignity under the law.

Citizens who have been denied equality are invariably told to 'wait their turn' and to 'be patient.' Yet veterans of past civil-rights battles found that it was the act of insisting on equal rights that ultimately sped acceptance of those rights. As to whether the courts are 'ready' for this case, just a few years ago, in Romer v. Evans, the United States Supreme Court struck down a popularly adopted Colorado constitutional amendment that withdrew the rights of gays and lesbians in that state to the protection of anti-discrimination laws. And seven years ago, in Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court struck down, as lacking any rational basis, Texas laws prohibiting private, intimate sexual practices between persons of the same sex, overruling a contrary decision just 20 years earlier.

These decisions have generated controversy, of course, but they are decisions of the nation's highest court on which our clients are entitled to rely. If all citizens have a constitutional right to marry, if state laws that withdraw legal protections of gays and lesbians as a class are unconstitutional, and if private, intimate sexual conduct between persons of the same sex is protected by the Constitution, there is very little left on which opponents of same-sex marriage can rely. As Justice Antonin Scalia, who dissented in the Lawrence case, pointed out, '[W]hat [remaining] justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising '[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution'?' He is right, of course. One might agree or not with these decisions, but even Justice Scalia has acknowledged that they lead in only one direction.

California's Proposition 8 is particularly vulnerable to constitutional challenge, because that state has now enacted a crazy-quilt of marriage regulation that makes no sense to anyone. California recognizes marriage between men and women, including persons on death row, child abusers, and wife beaters. At the same time, California prohibits marriage by loving, caring, stable partners of the same sex, but tries to make up for it by giving them the alternative of 'domestic partnerships' with virtually all of the rights of married persons except the official, state-approved status of marriage. Finally, California recognizes 18,000 same-sex marriages that took place in the months between the state Supreme Court's ruling that upheld gay-marriage rights and the decision of California's citizens to withdraw those rights by enacting Proposition 8.

So there are now three classes of Californians: heterosexual couples who can get married, divorced, and remarried, if they wish; same-sex couples who cannot get married but can live together in domestic partnerships; and same-sex couples who are now married but who, if they divorce, cannot remarry. This is an irrational system, it is discriminatory, and it cannot stand.

Americans who believe in the words of the Declaration of Independence, in Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, in the 14th Amendment, and in the Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and equal dignity before the law cannot sit by while this wrong continues. This is not a conservative or liberal issue; it is an American one, and it is time that we, as Americans, embraced it.

Find this article at http://www.newsweek.com/id/229957"

Thursday, January 7, 2010

NJ gay marriage fight headed back to court

NJ gay marriage fight headed back to court

Associated Press - January 7, 2010 5:04 PM ET

TRENTON, N.J. (AP) - Gay rights advocates say they'll take their case back to court after the New Jersey Senate on Thursday vote down a proposal to legalize gay marriage.

In 2006, the state Supreme Court ordered the Legislature to give committed same-sex couples all the rights and benefits of marriage. But by a 4-3 vote, the court said the state didn't have to call it marriage.

Lawmakers responded by creating a civil unions law.

Garden State Equality, the state's main gay rights group, says the civil unions amount to second-class status that falls short of true equality.

Some gay couples say they've been denied health benefits and hospital visitation rights.

Garden State Equality says a new lawsuit would claim the Legislature has not met the court's mandate.

The moral and constitutional case for a right to gay marriage

The moral and constitutional case for a right to gay marriage

BY Robert A. Levy

Thursday, January 7th 2010, 4:00 AM

Following bitter defeats in California, Maine, and New York, the gay and lesbian community has a New Year's victory to celebrate. New Hampshire joins four other states - Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts and Vermont - in legalizing gay marriage. And the nation's capital is also onboard. Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty put it this way: "Marriage inequality is a civil rights, political, social, moral and religious issue."

He covered all the bases, except one: It's a constitutional issue as well.

Thomas Jefferson set the stage in the Declaration of Independence: "[T]o secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men." The primary purpose of government is to safeguard individual rights and prevent some persons from harming others. Heterosexuals should not be treated preferentially when the state carries out that role. And no one is harmed by the union of two consenting gay people.

For most of Western history, marriage was a matter of private contract between the betrothed parties and perhaps their families. Following that tradition, marriage today should be a private arrangement, requiring minimal or no state intervention. Some religious or secular institutions would recognize gay marriages; others would not; still others would call them domestic partnerships or assign another label. Join whichever group you wish. The rights and responsibilities of partners would be governed by personally tailored contracts - consensual bargains like those that control most other interactions in a free society.

Regrettably, government has interceded, enacting more than 1,000 federal laws dealing mostly with taxes or transfer payments, and an untold number of state laws dealing with such questions as child custody, inheritance and property rights. Whenever government imposes obligations or dispenses benefits, it may not "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." That provision is explicit in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, applicable to the states, and implicit in the Fifth Amendment, applicable to the federal government.

Of course, government discriminates among its citizens all the time. By the 1920s, 38 states prohibited whites from marrying blacks and certain Asians. Until 1954, all states were allowed to operate segregated schools. Thankfully, the Supreme Court invalidated both interracial marital restrictions and school segregation. The court applied the plain text of the Equal Protection Clause despite contrary practices by the states for many years even after the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868.

To pass constitutional muster, racial discrimination had to survive "strict scrutiny" by the courts. Government had to demonstrate a compelling need for its regulations, show they would be effective and narrowly craft the rules so they didn't sweep more broadly than necessary. That same regime should apply when government discriminates based on gender preference.

No compelling reason has been proffered for sanctioning heterosexual but not homosexual marriages. Nor is a ban on gay marriage a close fit for attaining the goals cited by proponents of such bans. If the goal, for example, is to strengthen the institution of marriage, a more effective step might be to bar no-fault divorce and premarital cohabitation. If the goal is to ensure procreation, then infertile and aged couples should be precluded from marriage.

Instead, most states have implemented an irrational and unjust system that provides significant benefits to just-married heterosexuals while denying benefits to a male or female couple who have enjoyed a loving, committed, faithful and mutually reinforcing relationship over several decades. That's not the way it has to be. Government benefits triggered by marriage could just as easily be triggered by other objective criteria, leaving the definition of marriage in the hands of private institutions.

For instance, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee recently voted to extend employee benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees. The qualifying criterion, which could also apply to heterosexual couples, is an affidavit identifying the domestic partner and certifying that the partnership is intended to be exclusive and permanent, within a common residence, with shared responsibilities.

Similarly, some states dispense benefits to qualifying gay couples joined in predefined civil unions. Even private-sector employers are increasingly offering same-sex "marital" benefits. According to the federal Office of Personnel Management, nearly 60% of Fortune 500 companies confer employment benefits on domestic partners.

Yet our politicians, unwilling to privatize marriage, seem congenitally unable to extricate themselves from our most intimate relationships. One would hope, in the coming months and years, that more enlightened federal and state legislators will have the courage and decency to resist morally abhorrent and constitutionally suspect restrictions based on sexual orientation. Gay couples are entitled to the same legal rights and the same respect and dignity accorded to all Americans.

Robert A. Levy is chairman of the Cato Institute.

D.C. Wire - GOP Congress members wade into same-sex marriage debate

DC touble??? Time will tell
D.C. Wire - GOP Congress members wade into same-sex marriage debate

Thirty-nine congressional Republicans, including House Minority Leader John Boehner (Ohio) and Minority Whip Eric Cantor (Va.), have filed an amicus brief in D.C. Superior Court calling for a voter referendum on whether to legalize same-sex marriage in the District.

In the filing, U.S. senators James Inhofe (Okla.) and Roger Wicker (Miss.) and 37 House Republicans align with Bishop Harry Jackson, pastor of Hope Christian Church, in asking the court to reverse a D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics decision prohibiting the same-sex marriage question to be put before voters.

"Under the United States Constitution, they serve as members of the ultimate legislative authority for the District of Columbia and the very body which delegated to the District its limited legislative power under home rule," the filing states. "As members of the District's ultimate legislative body, amici are concerned about the extent of the District's delegated legislative authority, the preservation of Congress's constitutional authority, and the interpretation of home rule."

The filing comes as Jackson and his attorneys appeared in Superior Court today for a hearing on whether a referendum should be held. In two separate rulings since June, the elections board has stated that a public vote on same-sex marriage would be discriminatory against gay men and lesbians. Jackson is vowing an exhaustive court fight to challenge those decisions.

Last month, the D.C. Council voted 11 to 2 to legalize same-sex marriage in the District. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) signed the bill shortly before Christmas, but it is undergoing a 30-day legislative review. Under Home Rule, Congress can block any law passed by the council.

But same-sex marriage supporters are optimistic that Congress will not intervene because the Democrats control the House and Senate.

Still, the court brief underscores the challenge same-sex marriage supporters face in trying to protect the new law in both the current and future Congresses, particularly if the GOP retakes control.

In addition to the two senators and Boehner and Cantor, the brief was signed by U.S. Reps. Robert Aderholt (Ala.), Todd Akin (Mo.), Michele Bachmann (Minn.), J. Gresham Barrett (S.C.), Roscoe Bartlett (Md.), Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.), John Boozman (Ark.), Jason Chaffetz (Utah), John Fleming (La.), J. Randy Forbes (Va.), Virginia Foxx (N.C.), Scott Garrett (N.J.), Phil Gingrey (Ga.), Louie Gohmert (Tex.), Jeb Hensarling (Tex.), Wally Herger (Calif.), Walter Jones (N.C.), Jim Jordan (Ohio), Steve King (Iowa), Jack Kingston (Ga.), John Kline (Minn.) Doug Lamborn (Colo.), Robert Latta (Ohio), Don Manzullo (Ill.), Michael McCaul (Tex.), Thaddeus McCotter (Mich.), Patrick McHenry (N.C.), Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.), Jeff Miller (Fla.), Jerry Moran (Kan.), Randy Neugebauer (Tex.), Mike Pence (Ind.), Joe Pitts (Pa.), Mark Souder (Ind.) and Todd Tiahrt (Kan.)

D.C. Wire - GOP Congress members wade into same-sex marriage debate

DC touble??? Time will tell
D.C. Wire - GOP Congress members wade into same-sex marriage debate

Thirty-nine congressional Republicans, including House Minority Leader John Boehner (Ohio) and Minority Whip Eric Cantor (Va.), have filed an amicus brief in D.C. Superior Court calling for a voter referendum on whether to legalize same-sex marriage in the District.

In the filing, U.S. senators James Inhofe (Okla.) and Roger Wicker (Miss.) and 37 House Republicans align with Bishop Harry Jackson, pastor of Hope Christian Church, in asking the court to reverse a D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics decision prohibiting the same-sex marriage question to be put before voters.

"Under the United States Constitution, they serve as members of the ultimate legislative authority for the District of Columbia and the very body which delegated to the District its limited legislative power under home rule," the filing states. "As members of the District's ultimate legislative body, amici are concerned about the extent of the District's delegated legislative authority, the preservation of Congress's constitutional authority, and the interpretation of home rule."

The filing comes as Jackson and his attorneys appeared in Superior Court today for a hearing on whether a referendum should be held. In two separate rulings since June, the elections board has stated that a public vote on same-sex marriage would be discriminatory against gay men and lesbians. Jackson is vowing an exhaustive court fight to challenge those decisions.

Last month, the D.C. Council voted 11 to 2 to legalize same-sex marriage in the District. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) signed the bill shortly before Christmas, but it is undergoing a 30-day legislative review. Under Home Rule, Congress can block any law passed by the council.

But same-sex marriage supporters are optimistic that Congress will not intervene because the Democrats control the House and Senate.

Still, the court brief underscores the challenge same-sex marriage supporters face in trying to protect the new law in both the current and future Congresses, particularly if the GOP retakes control.

In addition to the two senators and Boehner and Cantor, the brief was signed by U.S. Reps. Robert Aderholt (Ala.), Todd Akin (Mo.), Michele Bachmann (Minn.), J. Gresham Barrett (S.C.), Roscoe Bartlett (Md.), Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.), John Boozman (Ark.), Jason Chaffetz (Utah), John Fleming (La.), J. Randy Forbes (Va.), Virginia Foxx (N.C.), Scott Garrett (N.J.), Phil Gingrey (Ga.), Louie Gohmert (Tex.), Jeb Hensarling (Tex.), Wally Herger (Calif.), Walter Jones (N.C.), Jim Jordan (Ohio), Steve King (Iowa), Jack Kingston (Ga.), John Kline (Minn.) Doug Lamborn (Colo.), Robert Latta (Ohio), Don Manzullo (Ill.), Michael McCaul (Tex.), Thaddeus McCotter (Mich.), Patrick McHenry (N.C.), Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.), Jeff Miller (Fla.), Jerry Moran (Kan.), Randy Neugebauer (Tex.), Mike Pence (Ind.), Joe Pitts (Pa.), Mark Souder (Ind.) and Todd Tiahrt (Kan.)

Gay partners in Rhode Island granted right to make funeral arrangements | San Diego Gay & Lesbian News

Gay partners in Rhode Island granted right to make funeral arrangements | San Diego Gay & Lesbian News

(RHODE ISLAND) Yesterday lawmakers and members of the General Assembly in the state of Rhode Island overrode a veto by Governor Don Carcieri and passed into law legislation that allows domestic partners the right to make funeral arrangements for their deceased partners.

Although Rhode Island opposes same-sex marriage, many legislators and activists see this as a vital step towards equality.

In November of 2009, Governor Carcieri vetoed the bill although it was overwhelming approved by the House in a vote of 67-3 and in the Senate by 31-3.

“This bill represents a disturbing trend over the past few years of the incremental erosion of the principles surrounding traditional marriage, which is not the preferred way to approach this issue. If the General Assembly believes it would like to address the issue of domestic partnership, it should place the issue on the ballot and let the people of the State of Rhode Island decide,” said Gov. Carcieri.

Many legislators and community activists who were appalled by Gov. Carcieri’s veto are today praising the decision to override his choice.

“I opposed the veto from the moment it left the Governor’s desk. In November, I wrote the House and Senate leadership, urging their override of the veto. Later that month, I attended and addressed the candlelight vigil at the State House protesting the veto," said Lt. Gov. Elizabeth H. Roberts. "Today I thank the assembly for reversing the decision to undo this legislation.

“Although I have long been a supporter of the right of same-sex couples to marry, this legislation is not about the issue of gay marriage. This legislation honors the fundamental right in our society to grieve for the loss of a loved one in a way that matches personal beliefs and honors the deceased.”

The sentiment was echoed by Kathy J. Kushnir, executive director of Marriage Equality Rhode Island. “On behalf of the board and tens of thousands of statewide supporters of equal civil marriage rights, we are thrilled that the legislature overrode the governor’s mean-spirited veto of the funeral arrangements legislation and restored some measure of dignity and respect to LGBT Rhode Islanders," she said.

“Now, at the worst time of their lives, people won’t have to fight simply to lay their loved ones to rest. We urge the legislature to embrace full equality for all Rhode Islanders by passing marriage equality legislation this year, unafraid of another gubernatorial veto. It’s what our citizens need and deserve.”

Wednesday, January 6, 2010

The AFA Blog: When Same-Sex Marriage Was A Christian Rite

The AFA Blog: When Same-Sex Marriage Was A Christian Rite

y Kelvin Lynch
A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St. Catherine's Monastery on Mt. Sinai in Egypt.Sergius and Bacchus (7th Century)

It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman ‘pronubus’ (a best man), overseeing a wedding. The pronubus is Christ. The married couple are both men.

Is the icon suggesting that a gay "wedding" is being sanctified by Christ himself? The idea seems shocking. But the full answer comes from other early Christian sources about the two men featured in the icon, St. Sergius and St. Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who were Christian martyrs. These two officers in the Roman army incurred the anger of Emperor Maximian when they were exposed as ‘secret Christians’ by refusing to enter a pagan temple. Both were sent to Syria circa 303 CE where Bacchus is thought to have died while being flogged. Sergius survived torture but was later beheaded. Legend says that Bacchus appeared to the dying Sergius as an angel, telling him to be brave because they would soon be reunited in heaven.

While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early Christian church, was not unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly intimate. Severus, the Patriarch of Antioch (AD 512 - 518) explained that, "we should not separate in speech they [Sergius and Bacchus] who were joined in life". This is not a case of simple "adelphopoiia." In the definitive 10th century account of their lives, St. Sergius is openly celebrated as the "sweet companion and lover" of St. Bacchus. Sergius and Bacchus's close relationship has led many modern scholars to believe they were lovers. But the most compelling evidence for this view is that the oldest text of their martyrology, written in New Testament Greek describes them as "erastai,” or "lovers". In other words, they were a male homosexual couple. Their orientation and relationship was not only acknowledged, but it was fully accepted and celebrated by the early Christian church, which was far more tolerant than it is today.

Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual.

Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.

Such same gender Christian sanctified unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12thand/ early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (‘Geraldus Cambrensis’) recorded.

Same-sex unions in pre-modern Europe list in great detail some same gender ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century rite, "Order for Solemn Same-Sex Union", invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus, and called on God to "vouchsafe unto these, Thy servants [N and N], the grace to love one another and to abide without hate and not be the cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God, and all Thy saints". The ceremony concludes: "And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded".

Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic "Office of the Same Sex Union", uniting two men or two women, had the couple lay their right hands on the Gospel while having a crucifix placed in their left hands. After kissing the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.

Records of Christian same sex unions have been discovered in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, in Istanbul and in the Sinai, covering a thousand-years from the 8th to the 18th century.

The Dominican missionary and Prior, Jacques Goar (1601-1653), includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek Orthodox prayer books, “Euchologion Sive Rituale Graecorum Complectens Ritus Et Ordines Divinae Liturgiae” (Paris, 1667).

While homosexuality was technically illegal from late Roman times, homophobic writings didn’t appear in Western Europe until the late 14th century. Even then, church-consecrated same sex unions continued to take place.

At St. John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope's parish church) in 1578, as many as thirteen same-gender couples were joined during a high Mass and with the cooperation of the Vatican clergy, "taking communion together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together" according to a contemporary report. Another woman to woman union is recorded in Dalmatia in the 18th century.

Prof. Boswell's academic study is so well researched and documented that it poses fundamental questions for both modern church leaders and heterosexual Christians about their own modern attitudes towards homosexuality.

For the Church to ignore the evidence in its own archives would be cowardly and deceptive. The evidence convincingly shows that what the modern church claims has always been its unchanging attitude towards homosexuality is, in fact, nothing of the sort.

It proves that for the last two millennia, in parish churches and cathedrals throughout Christendom, from Ireland to Istanbul and even in the heart of Rome itself, homosexual relationships were accepted as valid expressions of a God-given love and committment to another person, a love that could be celebrated, honored and blessed, through the Eucharist in the name of, and in the presence of, Jesus Christ.

Note: This is a reprint of an article that originally ran in the Colfax Record last year. I stumbled across it and thought my readers might find it interesting.

_____________

Gronstal: No gay marriage vote in 2010 « Iowa Independent

Gronstal: No gay marriage vote in 2010 « Iowa Independent

By Jason Hancock 12/31/09 12:01 AM

There will be no vote on a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage during the 2010 legislative session, Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal said in an interview with The Iowa Independent.
State Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs (file photo)

Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs (file photo)

Republicans may try to force a vote on an amendment, the Democrat from Council Bluffs said, but he will not allow any bill banning same-sex marriage to come to the floor.

“I will not write discrimination into the constitution of the State of Iowa,” Gronstal said. “I’m going to block that at every opportunity. There will be no vote on the constitutional amendment.”

Republican legislative leaders have said repeatedly that they will work to ensure a vote on same-sex marriage takes place during the session. Republican state Sen. Merlin Bartz of Grafton, who garnered headlines earlier this year when he called for local officials to ignore the state Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage, told the Mason City Globe-Gazette that he will sponsor the marriage amendment in the Senate.

In the closing days of the 2009 legislative session, Republicans in both the House and Senate attempted numerous procedural moves in the hopes of forcing a vote on an amendment, including attaching it to a tax proposal and the state’s Health and Human Services budget. Democrats successfully blocked the efforts.

But now Republicans will have an entire legislative session to work with, causing some to fear progress on other issues, such as fixing the state’s ballooning budget deficit, will come to a screeching halt.

Gronstal said he can’t control what his Republican colleagues do. But on this issue and many others the General Assembly will be faced with that could slow down the process, his message remains the same: the session will end in 80 days.

“It doesn’t get any easier to say ‘no’ to people the fourth time,” Gronstal said. “Why not say ‘no’ to them right off the bat, say it once and mean it.”

In order to become a constitutional amendment, a bill must pass two General Assemblies and then be put on the ballot for the public. If Republicans are unable to pass a ban this year, the earliest it could go before the public would likely be 2014.

In 2004, the Senate barely rejected a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage on a 25-24 vote, with four Republicans joining all 21 Democrats to kill the measure. The next year, the Republican controlled Iowa House passed a gay marriage ban, but an evenly divided Senate never took up the bill.

Now, Democrats have a commanding 32-18 edge in the Senate, making the chances of Republicans succeeding in passing a marriage ban very unlikely.

“I think Iowans want us to focus on the budget and what we can do to create good-paying jobs. So that’s what we’re going to focus on,” Gronstal said. “This is one of those issues that is generational. Overall, if you look at the public’s reaction to the decision, if you’re under the age of 35 you probably don’t care that much about the issue. I think people fighting this are on the wrong side of history.”

Gronstal said the issue comes down to whether the state should recognize two people who “simply want to profess their love for each other. It’s hard for me to get worked up about something like that.”

Tracking the legality of same-sex marriage around the world | Worldfocus

Tracking the legality of same-sex marriage around the world | Worldfocus

Tracking the legality of same-sex marriage around the world

* Latin Americans keep politics out of the economy
* As global Internet use swells, piracy concerns also mount
* Gender equality varies wildly in Latin America
* Turning algae, wood and waste into biofuels
* Scandinavian countries close the gender gap
* Unemployment claims reach historic highs
* World watches McCain, Obama debate
* Dubai’s 160-story ’superscraper’ flies in face of debt crisis
* Canadians debate their commitment to war in Afghanistan
* Top 10 Worldfocus Blogwatch Features of 2009

This week, two men in Argentina became the first same-sex married couple in Latin America.

The gay rights activists from Buenos Aires were married in Ushuaia, the capital of Tierra del Fuego state.

Argentina’s constitution does not define marriage as strictly between a man and a woman, allowing local officials some flexibility. A bill to legalize gay marriage nationwide is now stalled in Argentina’s Congress.

Only seven countries in the world permit gay marriage to be performed, although recognition of civil unions exists in some nations. Gay couples still face persecution — and even the death penalty — in many countries:


The Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Spain, Norway, Sweden and South Africa recognize same-sex marriage.

In the United States, there are four states (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts and Vermont) where gay couples can currently marry. In 2010, Washington D.C. and New Hampshire will start allowing same-sex marriage.

Civil unions or registered partnerships offer same-sex couples some of the legal benefits of marriage. Nonetheless, many couples find these insufficient and believe that they are entitled to gender-neutral marriage.

- Michael Ramirez

Gay Marriage: New Jersey To Vote On Same-Sex Marriage On Thursday

Gay Marriage: New Jersey To Vote On Same-Sex Marriage On Thursday



TRENTON, N.J. — New Jersey's state Senate is set to vote on whether to legalize gay marriage.

Sen. President Richard Codey has scheduled the vote for Thursday. Codey said Tuesday that the people of New Jersey "deserve the right to a formal debate on the Senate floor."

Five states now recognize gay marriage. Gay rights advocates have been pushing for New Jersey to join them quickly.

Gov. Jon Corzine supports the measure. But Chris Christie, who will replace him in two weeks, says he would veto it.

A Senate vote was canceled last month because it appeared the measure was going to fail. If it passes the Senate, it would still need the approval of the state Assembly to be sent to the governor's desk.