Pope calls abortion, gay marriage insidious threat
(Fatima, Portugal) Pope Benedict XVI has called abortion and same-sex marriage two of the most “insidious and dangerous” threats facing the world today.
Benedict made the comments Thursday to Catholic educators, social workers and others after celebrating Mass before an estimated 400,000 people in Fatima, one of the most important shrines in Christianity. He was interrupted by applause several times.
Benedict’s visit to Fatima was the spiritual centerpiece of his four-day visit to Portugal. It was cast by Vatican officials as evidence that Benedict had turned a page in weathering the clerical sex abuse scandal that has dogged him for months.
The pope returns to the Vatican on Friday after celebrating Mass in Porto, the country’s second-largest city.
Rep. Deb Mell: ‘You can’t legislate who you love’
Rep. Deb Mell, a state legislator in Illinois (and, full disclosure, a friend of my partner) said Tuesday on a local Chicago TV news show that she would be announcing her engagement to her partner Christin Baker on the floor of the Illinois House of Representatives.
Mell and Baker were engaged April 10; but at the moment, they would not be able to marry in Illinois.
[1]
“I want to spend the rest of my life with her, and I want to get married in Illinois,” Mell said on Chicago Tonight on Tuesday evening. “I mean, we could go to Iowa and Iowa’s great… I went to school in Iowa. But you know what? It’s not the state where I represent, and it’s not the state where I grew up in.”
She plans to tell her fellow legislators, “That you can’t legislate who you love and can’t punish people for it,” she said. “That we are a regular couple, pay taxes, own a home, have a great belief in God.”
Wrote Carol Marin, a local legend among Chicago journalists, in the Chicago Sun-Times [2]:
“What will make this moment historic in the annals of Illinois politics is that Mell’s fiancee, Christin Baker, is a woman.
“Unlike only five states, Illinois has never come close to approving civil unions, much less same-sex marriage.
“Bills to change that are buried in committee with no prayer of being passed this session. They wouldn’t even if this weren’t an election year.”
Marin noted that Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn his Republican rival Sen. Bill Brady are both opposed to same-sex marriage (as is former Illinois legislator Barack Obama).
Mell said that she hopes to start a conversation in Illinois about gay marriage – but most likely, she and Baker will be marrying in Iowa in 2011.
[1] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/news-deb-mell-christin-baker-top.jpg
[2] http://www.suntimes.com/news/marin/2207618,carol-marin-mell-same-sex-marriage-042810.article
Neff: In Texas, only gay marriage is til death do they part
Spouses can’t always take that bit about “till death do us part” literally.
And judges and lawyers don’t always take that bit about “till death do us part” literally either. Some dedicate their workdays dissolving such vows.
Yet in some states that don’t recognize same-sex marriages, same-sex marriages could last till death do they part.
Oh, these funny times.
A Dallas man, identified only as J.B. in court papers and the press, is trying to divorce a man he married four years ago in Massachusetts and separated from — amicably enough — two years ago.
J.B. was winning his case for divorce before District Judge Tena Callahan, when the Texas Attorney General tried to intervene and stop the process. It seems that because the state of Texas does not recognize same-sex marriages, the court shouldn’t divorce the two men, according to the AG.
Callahan ruled against the AG, which appealed her decision.
“My client is a married man and he needs a divorce. But for the actions of the attorney general, there would already be one less same-sex marriage in Texas,” attorney Jody Scheske told a three-judge appeals court panel in a hearing last week.
Oh, these funny times.
“The parties lack standing to file a divorce because they are not married. If you are not party to a marriage, you cannot file for a divorce,” an assistant Texas solicitor general argued last week before the federal appeals court.
The assistant Texas solicitor general said, the court should “void” the union not divorce the men.
An annulment, then, is Texas’ preferred alternative to a gay couple’s divorce.
Oh, these funny times.
The stakes in this Texas case are considerable, because in finding that she has standing to hear the gay man’s request for a divorce, Callahan also found that Texas’ 2005 constitutional amendment that defines marriage exclusively as a union between a man and a woman violates the right to equal protection and therefore violates the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Had the Texas Attorney General not tried to intervene and block the court from hearing the divorce case, the district court judge might not have deemed the anti-gay amendment unconstitutional. We don’t know really. Callahan might have taken up the constitutional issue, or she simply might have granted the divorce.
Attorneys for J.B. say they didn’t want a constitutional fight or a federal case — just a divorce for their client.
“My client’s very private matter has become a public spectacle,” Scheske told the court last week.
Oh, these funny times.
J.B., seeking to end his marriage, is at the forefront of a legal dispute that could tear down a ban against gay marriage in Texas.
And opponents of gay marriage are worried, which is why the Plano-based right-wing Liberty Institute argued alongside the attorney general against what it called “judicial activism at it’s worst.”
Opposing J.B.’s divorce, Liberty Institute attorney Hiram Sasser said a gay divorce is an attack on same-sex marriage.
Oh, these funny times.
And Sasser, who said he represented the two authors of the anti-gay amendment that 76 percent of Texas voters supported in 2005, cited Bill Clinton in his defense of the Texas ban and his opposition to the gay couple’s divorce.
Clinton signed the federal Defense of Marriage Act that allowed states to refuse to honor another state’s same-sex marriage and defined marriage at the federal level as the union of one man and one woman.
“I think President Clinton said it best when he said we have to honor the decisions of the states,” Sasser said.
The former president, however, has said that his position on same-sex marriage is evolved and he “didn’t like signing DOMA.”
Oh, these funny times.
Ruby-Sachs: Supreme Court case pits gay activists v. free speech
[1]
There is a very important case arriving in the Supreme Court tomorrow. Referendum 71 was a ballot initiative in Washington attempting to undo domestic partnership privileges for same-sex couples. Many signed the petition for the law, but ultimately their regressive bid failed. Still, gay rights groups want to release the names from the petition on a searchable website. Under Washington law, that kind of disclosure is mandatory.
But the lawyer for the other side argues that the release of names on the web will lead to the intimidation and harassment of those individuals who signed the petition.
That argument holds little water. Although courts have, in the past, found that harassment did occur against homophobic individuals in the wake of Prop 8, the objective evidence illustrates that there is not one case of harassment or intimidation resulting from the political participation of homophobic individuals. The worst we saw was a highly organized and very legal boycott of certain businesses in California – a political initiative that is the very expression of democracy in the U.S.
However, that doesn’t mean that releasing the names won’t affect free speech in Washington. Individuals who already signed the petition obviously feel that the release of their names will harm their reputation or livliehood (frankly, it should). And that feeling, that fear, results in a chill on free speech. Public petitions might discourage some from signing certain petitions calling for certain laws.
The Supreme Court has to decide if the chill on free speech outweighs the public’s right to access its political process. Is it unconstitutional free speech? If you listen to the presentation tomorrow, you will likely get a feel for how the court is going to decide. The result of this case could seriously affect the political process, certainly around gay marriage, for many years to come.
Transcripts of the oral arguments are available here [2] and the transcripts from this case will be up some time before the end of the day tomorrow.
[1] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/news-supreme-court-top.jpg
[2] http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts.aspx
Ruby-Sachs: Barbara Boxer the wrong Senator to protest
[1]
Yesterday, Obama was heckled at a California fundraiser for Senator Barbara Boxer. Boxer has been holding fundraisers across the country in order to gear up for a heated and difficult race in the upcoming election. If Sarah Palin were in charge of this blog, there’d be a big sign with Senator Boxer’s face in the crosshairs – the conservatives are gunning for her this time around.
The thing is, as much as we dislike Obama and his wishy washy approach to gay rights advocacy, we love Senator Boxer. Boxer has, when it comes to gay rights, been a staunch supporter of equality. She received a 100% rating from the Human Rights Campaign, spoke out about gay rights and actually is one of the few politicians to support gay marriage. She is a liberal activist politician in a landscape of conservative values and inaction on both sides of the aisle. She is exactly the kind of candidate we, as a community, should support.
Instead, we decided that a fundraiser where Obama (read not much of an advocate for gay rights) was doing his best to support Boxer was a perfect opportunity to highlight the President’s inaction of LGBT issues. This when Boxer is praying patrons open their cheque books and cough up a bit more money for her campaign. It doesn’t mean that the hecklers weren’t right in their criticism, Obama is hugely problematic when it comes to equality advocacy, but they needed to choose a different time to engage in that discussion.
The night is over and we can hope that Boxer got some of the funds she needs out of the event. Still, I hope that the people from Get Equal choose a more opportune moment to engage in protest. In the mean time, if they are serious about equality perhaps they should spend time raising a few dollars for Senator Boxer and her progressive agenda.
[1] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/blog-boxer-top.jpg
Poll: California residents support gay marriage
The latest Los Angeles Times/USC [1] poll found more evidence that the majority of Californians support same-sex couples’ right to marry.
The poll found 53 percent of the state’s residents support same-sex marriage, while 40 percent oppose it.
[2]
The results are similar to previous polls. The poll cited divisions along party lines, with Democrats and liberals supporting marriage equality and Republicans and conservatives opposed.
In addition, age appeared to be a factor – most voters younger than 30 voiced support; those older than 64 were opposed to marriage equality.
Does mean this that Proposition 8 would be rejected if voted on now? Not exactly. Older voters are more likely to turn out on Election Day than younger voters, a problem gay rights advocates must contend with.
[1] http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/04/majority-in-california-support-gay-marriage-times-usc-poll-finds.html
[2] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/news-tuxedo-boys-top.jpg
In Mexico, gay couples celebrate historic weddings
(Mexico City) Two glowing brides in matching white gowns and four other same-sex couples made history in Mexico City on Thursday as they wed under Latin America’s first law that explicitly approves gay marriage.
Mayor Marcelo Ebrard was a guest of honor at the weddings of Judith Vazquez and Lol Kin …
Argentina annuls marriage of gay couple
A federal judge annuled the marriage of two gay men that took place in Buenos Aires last week, according to the Catholic News Agency; but gay marriage bills are still moving ahead in Argentina.
Judge Felix Gustavo de Igarzabal of Buenos Aires ruled that marriage is defined by being between a …
Mexico City begins handing out marriage licenses
(MEXICO CITY) Throngs of Mexico City gay and lesbian couples registered for marriage licenses Thursday, the day Latin America’s first gay-marriage law took effect.
The first gay weddings will take place within a week to 10 days, after the paperwork is processed.
Mexico City’s legislature approved the first law explicitly giving gay …
Court won’t halt D.C. same-sex marriages
(WASHINGTON) The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to stop the District of Columbia’s gay marriage law, freeing the city to issue its first marriage licenses to same-sex couples the following day.
Opponents of gay marriage in the nation’s capital had asked Chief Justice John Roberts to stop the city from issuing …
