Supreme Court Rejects Challenge To “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”
The Supreme Court on Monday agreed with the Obama administration and upheld Pentagon policy barring gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military.
The court said it will not hear an appeal from former Army Capt. James Pietrangelo II, who was dismissed under the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. The federal appeals court in Boston earlier threw out a lawsuit filed by Pietrangelo and 11 other veterans. He was the only member of that group who asked the high court to rule that the Clinton-era policy is unconstitutional.
During last year’s campaign, President Barack Obama indicated he supported the eventual repeal of the policy, but he has made no specific move to do so since taking office in January. Meanwhile, the White House has said it won’t stop gays and lesbians from being dismissed from the military.
In court papers, the administration said the appeals court ruled correctly in this case when it found that “don’t ask, don’t tell” is “rationally related to the government’s legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion.”
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman referred requests for comment to the Justice Department, but said the military policy “implements the law.”
“The law requires the (Defense) Department to separate from the armed services members who engage in or attempt to engage in homosexual acts; state they are homosexual or bisexual; or marry or attempt to marry a person of the same biological sex,” Whitman said in a statement.
A legal advocacy group vowed to press ahead with efforts to reverse the policy despite the legal setback.
“We don’t see that at all as bad news for repeal,” said Kevin Nix, spokesman for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. “What happened today puts the ball back into the court of Congress and the White House to repeal the law, and that’s where we think it should be right now.”
See Supreme Court Rejects Challenge To “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”
| Published by |
 |
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/supreme-court…
What Does the Top-Secret California Marriage Polling Reveal?
At 11:30am PST today, an umbrella group of gay organizations like the Courage Campaign, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Marriage Equality U.S.A., and Equality California will deliver the results from its polling of where California’s voters stand on same-sex marriage. Yes, this is the same data Fresno organizers wanted to keep secret. To those involved, the data is of utmost importance, because it could determine whether to push for a ballot measure overturning Prop 8 in 2010, or whether the analysis shows we should wait until 2012, or even head in another course of action. The results of the poll will be delivered over a conference call (only media are invited to join). But Queerty received a preview of what to expect.
“Opinion on marriage for same-sex couples in California is almost evenly divided, with opponents holding a 1% to 2% edge,” says the data from the Poll4Equality Coalition, which conducted the survey. Depending on how you look at it, that’s either good or bad news. Bad, because it shows we still have more convincing to do. And good, because it shows there’s only a small margin to overcome.
But knowing the state is nearly evenly divided on gay marriage, the important information the poll delivers is: If we’re going to put the issue on the ballot, how do we phrase the wording?
When asked, “Do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose allowing same-sex couples to be legally married?,” the survey found 47 percent saying “favor” and 48 percent saying “oppose.” The data shows “support increases if the language specifically includes a provision that says no clergy will be required to perform a service that goes against their faith,” according to the the document provided to Queerty.
As for the 2010 vs. 2012 issue? “Modeling turnout scenarios for 2010 and 2012 indicate that there is a small advantage to same?sex marriage supporters in a 2012 electorate. This is based on a considerably higher turnout that is expected in 2012 due to the Presidential election. However, the additional voters that will come to the polls in a Presidential election are divided in their view of marriage for same?sex couples. Voters
that will only turn out in a 2012 scenario are divided between younger voters who strongly support same?sex marriage and older Anglo, Latino and African American religious voters who are opposed to marriage for same?sex couples. While our modeling does indicate that 2012 will provide an extra 1?2 points of support for a marriage equality ballot measure, this difference may be impacted by many other factors in the larger political landscape at that time.”
See What Does the Top-Secret California Marriage Polling Reveal? Queerty
See What Does the Top-Secret California Marriage Polling Reveal?
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/what-does-top…
Ruth Gledhill: Sorry bishops, but a diocese is not a church.
Dr Williams wrote: ‘The organ of union with the wider Church is the Bishop and the Diocese rather than the Provincial structure as such. Those who are rushing into separatist solutions are, I think, weakening that basic conviction of Catholic theology and in a sense treating the provincial structure of The Episcopal Church as if it were the most important thing - which is why I continue to hope and pray for the strengthening of the bonds of mutual support among those Episcopal Church Bishops who want to be clearly loyal to Windsor.’
So the Anglican Communion Institute bishops, who along with Fulcrum and the people over at Covenant form a sort of neo-orthodox trinity trying to find a way to be at one and three all at the same time, could be forgiven for believing they are merely being true to Windsor and doing what the Archbishop of Canterbury has wanted all along.
But are they? I’ve got some seriously bad news for them.
Apparently the sands have shifted. That letter to Howe was written in 2007. Now is 2009, nearly two whole years later. The covenant is in its third draft and there can be no doubt, reading it, that when it speaks of ‘church’, as it does many times, it means a national church, or a province.
Ecclesiastical polity is a many-layered complex thing. Even when we imagine we’re still in the land of Richard Hooker it is changing all the time. Yet on one level, that of true polity, it remains exactly the same as it was in Hooker’s day.
I have it on good authority that things are deemed to have moved on rather substantially, but some things cannot change, otherwise we truly will not be a ‘proper church’, not even an ecclesial community, but just a rather drippy federation.
There is absolutely no way the ACI bishops will be enabled to perform some sort of subtle non-schismatic ecclesiological split manoeuvre on The Episcopal Church, leaving their orthodox dioceses at the centre of a covenental Communion along with Cantuar and the conservatives, with the liberal pro-gay majority forced to dance around on the edges in some ‘outer circle’ of recognition.
Whichever side you’re on, either you’re for them or against them, folks. It just will not be possible for either side to have it both ways if the Covenant is to work. It’s called having your communion and eating it too.
See Sorry bishops, but a diocese is not a church. Times Online Blogs
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/05/ruth-gledhill…
