he amens in full force, the choir in full throated glory, Rev. Wilfredo De Jesus takes the pulpit at New Life Covenant Church to urge his congregation to dream big.
“Because we can change a life, we can change a community,” he preaches. “Because we can change a community, we can change a city.”
The sermon sounds like a campaign speech, fitting because De Jesus, one of Chicago’s most influential Latino pastors, is making a controversial leap into politics as the choice of outgoing Ald. Billy Ocasio (26th) to be his replacement on the City Council.
But, in a complicated blending of morality and politics, the pastor’s possible appointment has drawn protests from gay activists who object to other rhetoric used in De Jesus’ church that they say is not as uplifting — messages equating homosexuality with drug addiction and other social ills.
The activists call De Jesus “homophobic.” They worry that his appointment would give him the ability to control funds for agencies that serve gay clients and a platform to shape broader debates such as same-sex marriage.
De Jesus says that he has never preached hatred of gay people and that his church’s opposition to homosexuality is rooted in a literal interpretation of the Bible.
See Pastor who opposes homosexuality may get Chicago City Council seat …
Chicago Tribune
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
Religious groups in India have warned they will oppose any move to legalize homosexuality as the federal government prepares to hold talks on a law that classifies same-sex acts as crimes.
India’s Hindu nationalist main opposition has in the meantime called for a national debate on the legislation that law minister M. Veerappa Moily last week said would come up for a discussion within the government.
“This is a sensitive issue and warrants a debate within the Indian society at large before arriving at any decision,” said Sidharth Nath Singh, spokesman for the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party.
An Indian court is due to give its judgment on a petition filed by a nonprofit group that has challenged the anti-gay provision of the penal code.
In a news conference last week, Moily refused to spell out his government’s stand on it because it awaits judicial determination. But his comments that the federal home minister was “contemplating” a meeting with his Cabinet colleagues on the law drew widespread coverage in the largely conservative country.
“Hope floats at rainbow parades,” read a caption on a front-page picture from a gay parade in New Delhi in Monday’s Times of India newspaper.
Participants in that march demanded repeal of Section 377 of the penal code, which criminalizes private consensual sex between adults of the same gender in the country. 
Watch a New Delhi march in support of gay rights »
Religious leaders, however, oppose any suggestion to scrap 377, describing homosexuality as “unnatural.”
“We are against calling homosexuality a criminal activity, but we are certainly in principle against legalizing it, because that would mean the state endorsing same-sex relationships,” said Babu Joseph, spokesman for the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India.
Homosexuality “violates fundamental norms of a family,” he said.
See India faith leaders: Anti-gay law must stay CNN International
ast month Texas Lyceum, a non-partisan, business-oriented group, released one of its periodic polls on current issues, and the results for the most part were what one would expect in a conservative state. By margins of about 2-to-1, Texas opposed any further bailouts for automakers or banks. An even bigger margin – including a majority of whites, blacks and Hispanics – supported the concept of a voter ID requirement.
But on one issue, the poll did raise some eyebrows. According to the survey, a majority of Texans would permit some form of same-sex union to be recognized: 25 percent favor same-sex marriage and 32 percent would allow civil unions, while 36 percent oppose either arrangement. Although Democrats and independents were more liberal on this issue than Republicans, a thin Republican majority – 14 percent for same-sex marriage, 37 percent for civil unions – now favor one arrangement or the other.
That indicates that Texans are more conservative than the rest of the country on this issue, but not dramatically so. A CBS News/New York Times poll conducted at about the same time showed that 33 percent of Americans favor same-sex marriage, 30 percent would permit civil unions and 32 percent oppose any legal recognition of same-sex or lesbian couples.
This national poll also showed opinions on the issue are shifting back and forth: In a CBS News/New York Times poll conducted in April, support for same-sex marriage was at 42 percent. That decrease in support could be a result of the rising visibility of the issue: In June, New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch signed a bill which made his state the sixth in the country to allow same-sex marriage.
The fact that attitudes in Texas aren’t greatly out of line with the rest of the country doesn’t portend any big changes in the law in this region of the country, any time soon. If same-sex marriage/civil unions had been polled last month in Tennessee or Alabama, opposition to either one would probably have been significantly higher. But it may be an indication that as a political issue which can easily get traction, the air is slowly leaking out of the tire.
Most of the states, and all the Southern states, have passed some form of Defense of Marriage Act, and all the Southern states except North Carolina have passed constitutional bans on same-sex marriage. This makes it less, not more likely that conservative candidates in these states will get much mileage out of the issue than they have in recent years. It’s much more likely that opposition to same-sex unions will galvanize votes in states like New Jersey or Pennsylvania, where changes in current laws are a greater possibility.
None of this is to say conservative candidates won’t be able to raise money and garner endorsements on the issue well into the next decade. But it’s noteworthy that the strongest opposition to gay marriage in nearly every poll comes from African-Americans, who aren’t likely to swing behind candidates who are conservative on other issues.
See On same-sex marriage/civil unions, the air is leaking out of the tire
Southern Political Report -
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
A King County judge has temporarily barred the release of the names of Seattle city employees involved in a city-sponsored group for gay and lesbian workers to an anti-gay rights activist.
Superior Court Judge John Erlick ordered that some requested documents be released Monday, with the names of meeting attendees redacted. The identities of city employees who received a “public benefit” through the group — likely wages on other compensation — may be released following a hearing later this year.
At issue Thursday was a request made by Seattle City Light employee and self-described “civil rights leader” Philip Irvin, who had filed a public-disclosure request for the membership list and meeting minutes for the department’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered, Questioning and Friends Club. Irvin, who says he wants to start a similar group for formerly gay employees, asserts that the club has discriminated against him for his opposition to gay rights.
In issuing his order, Erlick acknowledged that releasing the employees’ identities could discourage others from joining the LGBTQF group. But, he said there remains a clear public interest in knowing who is receiving state benefits, and payment for meeting attendance or other compensation to group members, Erlick said, “is a public benfit.”
See Judge: Gay city workers names don’t have to be released, for now
Seattle Post Intelligencer
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
The state Senate next week will debate a bill adding sexual orientation to Delaware’s anti-discrimination laws.
Newark-area Democrat David Sokola says he’s grateful Senate leaders let him offer his own version of the bill.
Audio Here
During the past 10 years, similar bills have reached the Senate only to die in committee or as the result of a so-called “desk-drawer veto”, but Senate Insurance Committee members Wednesday voted 5-0 to send Sokola’s measure, which has the support of Governor Markell and key House leaders, to the full Senate.
Sokola says he expects spirited opposition from the bill’s opponents, but is confident the measure will pass. See Gay rights bill heads to full state Senate
WDEL 1150AM -
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
The Supreme Court’s ruling last week in the case of a grandiosely unethical West Virginia justice opened a new field of constitutional review — the high court may now consider when an elected state court jurist has been so tainted by politics that due process requires him to recuse himself from a case.
In West Virginia, a coal executive spent more than $3 million to unseat a sitting state Supreme Court justice; it was money well spent, as the justice was defeated by voters and replaced by Brent Benjamin. Benjamin then did what was expected of him and cast a deciding vote in overturning a $50-million jury award against the executive’s coal company.
Benjamin’s participation in the case assured him a place in the judiciary’s annals of shame, and his corruption was so blatant that the U.S. Supreme Court majority that rebuked him argued that it was not opening the door to many future challenges. Surely, it reasoned, no justice will behave this badly again. That may or may not prove to be true — the court offered little in the way of guidance as to what constitutes impermissible political influence — yet Benjamin’s case sadly but surely will not be the last in which big-money politics and judicial independence collide.
Indeed, California has wrestled with this problem before — and quite possibly could again.
California’s system for selecting Supreme Court justices is much better than West Virginia’s. Candidates for the court here are nominated by the governor, confirmed by a state commission and then placed on the bench. They must periodically stand for retention, but they are not, as they are in West Virginia, subject to direct challenge by rival candidates. A retention election can cost a justice his or her seat, but it does not let voters kick out one justice and install their own replacement.
California’s rules have helped balance the judiciary’s independence with the public’s fair insistence on accountability, but even this state’s reasonable retention process has been subject to tilt. Most notable was the 1986 retention election that removed Chief Justice Rose Bird and two associate justices, Cruz Reynoso and Joseph Grodin. Much reflection has gone into that race in the decades since, and opinions differ on its merits. Two truths, however, stand the test of deep inquiry: The forces arrayed against Bird were not motivated solely by her opposition to the death penalty — that was cover for a second complaint, which was her defense of consumer rights against corporate power — and Reynoso and Grodin were victims of a special-interest crusade against a vulnerable chief.
Would that we could relegate that episode to California’s history. In fact, the state rumbles with discontent over its high court and chief, and those stirrings contain alarming echoes of the battle of 1986.
At issue are the court’s rulings on same-sex marriage and Proposition 8, and its chief justice, Ronald M. George. In May 2008, the court overturned the state’s ban on gay marriage, striking a victory for civil rights in the grandest tradition of constitutional protection of minorities. A few months later, after voters approved Proposition 8 and amended the state Constitution to ban the same institution that the court had upheld, George and his colleagues upheld the amendment. Both times, George wrote for the majority. He thus angered opponents of gay marriage in 2008 and supporters of it in 2009.
By California’s rules, George faces a retention election in 2010, and some predict that he could face challenges from either side — or even both — in this polarizing debate.
That would be a shame for the state’s judiciary, an unfortunate attack on judicial independence and an unfair castigation of one of this state’s most principled and admirable public officials. In the gay-marriage cases, George’s votes demonstrated conscience, professionalismand restraint. He voted to uphold same-sex unions out of the strong conviction — which this page shares — that the Constitution does not allow society to deny the protection of marriage to gay couples any more than it once denied it to those united across race. The ruling was right on the law, and will certainly be validated over the long march of history.
Months later, voters tacked in the other direction, narrowly rejecting gay marriage and amending the Constitution to allow California to recognize only the unions of heterosexual couples. That was challenged, naturally, and the lawsuit offered the court the opportunity to extend its earlier ruling, though on shaky constitutional grounds — advocates for same-sex marriage argued that Proposition 8 was such an affront to the rights of Californians that it revised the Constitution rather than merely amending it. Scholars split on the merits of that argument, and although the strong consensus of legal opinion rejectedit, an opportunistic justice might have seized the chance to solidify his legacy.
Instead, George subordinated his politics — as evidenced by his writing — to the weight of constitutional opinion. He voted to uphold the proposition, even though it undid his own work. Permitted latitude within the strictures of the Constitution in the first case, George was able to vote his conscience; bound by the Constitution in the second case, he yielded.
Such is the lot of a principled judicial officer, but those concerned only with results already have signaled their unhappiness with George. The moneyed interests that supported Proposition 8 last fall are considering whether to finance a campaign against George next year. Supporters of gay marriage, who championed his heroism in 2008, were bitterly disappointed when the court upheld the hateful initiative.
This is not West Virginia. Corporate interests are not knocking off justices who disagree with them and seating more accommodating replacements. But intimidation has no place in our judicial life any more than it does in Appalachia. The 1986 campaign against Bird and her colleagues now stands for many as a reminder that well-intentioned systems of accountability may be hijacked by special interests, a lesson learned too often and at great cost in California. It was misguided in its first iteration; it would be regrettable in its second.
See A court battle California doesn’t need
Los Angeles Times -
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown once again refused to defend Proposition 8′s ban on same-sex marriage Friday, telling a federal judge that it violated the U.S. Constitution and should be struck down.
Brown made his arguments in response to a federal lawsuit against the state by two gay couples who contend the initiative violates federal due process and equal protection guarantees.
Over Brown’s opposition, the California Supreme Court upheld the proposition last month on state, not federal, constitutional grounds, a few days after the federal suit was filed in San Francisco.
Brown’s willingness to fight a state law that has been upheld by the state’s highest court contrasted sharply with President Obama’s decision this week to oppose a federal challenge to the U.S. Defense of Marriage Act brought in Orange County.
In that case, a married gay couple, Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer, has challenged the constitutionality of both Proposition 8 and the 1996 federal law that prohibits extension of federal benefits to same-sex couples.
See AG Brown again says Prop. 8 should be struck down
Los Angeles Times -
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
Poll numbers released last week indicate that Michigan voters, who only five years ago overwhelming supported a constitutional amendment that limits marriage to one man and one woman, may be softening on the question of gay marriage and other rights for same-sex couples.
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090607/NEWS06/906070461&s=d&page=2#pluckcomments”>This story by Free Press reporter Dawson Bell details the results of a May 27-29 survey by Chicago-based http://www.glengariffgroup.com/“>Glengariff Group, which showed support for gay marriage in Michigan at 46%, with opposition at 48%.
The 2004 constitutional amendment was approved 61% to 24%.
The poll also found majority support for hospital visitation rights, benefits for public employees and adoption rights for same-sex couples.
If accurate (and every poll is susceptible to some error) this would mark a pretty dramatic swing in public opinion. And if you think about it, a lot has happened in the past two years to shape public opinion more favorably toward equal rights for same-sex couples.
Michigan passed its constitutional amendment at what seemed like the tail end of the national haste to “protect” marriage through referenda. Since then, several other states have actually embraced gay marriage – New Hampshire and Iowa, hardly bastions of liberalism, being the latest. New Hampshire, with its traditional libertarian leanings, is a particularly notable example, as it suggests that support for gay marriage may be picking up steam on the backs of factions other than traditional left-wing constituencies.
See A Great Lakes shift on gay rights? Detroit Free Press
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
New Hampshire became the sixth state to legalize gay marriage on Wednesday (June 3) in part because faith leaders testified that the measure would not impinge on religious rights, according to V. Gene Robinson, the state’s openly gay Episcopal bishop.
When credible Christians, Muslims and Jews advocated for same-sex marriage, it “had a lot of sway with legislators in terms of giving them cover,” said Robinson. “Our message was loud and clear: religious organizations have nothing to fear from civil marriage for same-gendered folks.”
Robinson, who was elected bishop of New Hampshire in 2003, joined his longtime partner in a civil union last year. Under the New Hampshire law, their union will automatically be considered a marriage on Jan. 1, 2010.
“I’m still about 30 feet off the ground, hovering somewhere on high,” Robinson said in a conference call with reporters on Thursday.
The legislation signed by Gov. John Lynch on Wednesday contains explicit legal protections for religious groups that object to same-gender relationships and makes Rhode Island the only state in New England that does not allow gay marriage.
Robinson said separating the civil and religious aspects of marriage and making clear that religious groups would not be required to sanction same-gender weddings was key to the effort.
“We made sure that our … bill here stated and overstated and restated the fact that no religious liberties would be abridged in the embrace of civil marriage — that no religious institutions would be required to do anything against its own beliefs,” Robinson said. “It largely undercut the argument from the other side.”
Two separate studies released on Wednesday concluded that anti-gay marriage groups relied heavily on religious language to successfully push for ballot initiatives in Michigan in 2004 and California in 2008 that outlawed gay marriage.
“A religious opposition requires a religious response,” said the Rev. Rebecca Voelkel of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and an author of one of the reports.
Robinson said, “I think it’s about emboldening legislators to see people like them who identify as Roman Catholic or American Baptist or Methodist or Lutheran (and) say `OK, this … is clearly a person of faith, so despite what the denomination says as a whole I’ve got a fairly firm piece of ground to stand on here.”
See Gay bishop says faith groups key to NH gay marriage vote
The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life
By mid-afternoon, authorities reportedly had someone in custody in connection with the murder of Wichita abortion doctor George Tiller at his church on Sunday morning.
So far, we know nothing about the suspect. Though the motive for the crime we can all surmise in light of the vitriolic campaign that has been waged against Tiller for more than two decades by anti-abortion groups.
And if we’re right about that, then we already know the identities of his accomplices.
They include every one who has ever called Tiller’s late term abortion clinic a murder mill.
Who ever called Tiller “Tiller the Killer.”
The groups who spent decades fomenting hate toward a man who simply believed that he was serving a purpose by being one of the few doctors in the country performing late-term abortions.
Hate. Not heated opposition. Not strong disagreement.
But blind hatred.
The kind of hate that would prompt some maniac to take a gun into a church and shoot a man to death in front of friends and family.
His accomplices know they have blood on their hands, which might explain why they were quick to issue statements today expressing disapproval of Tiller’s murder.
Among them, the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue.
“Operation Rescue denounces the killing of abortionist Tiller,” read the headline of a new release posted on that group’s website.
Those words drip with hypocrisy.
After all, it was Operation Rescue that coined the nickname “Tiller the Killer.” It was Operation Rescue that was most responsible for ratcheting up the heated rhetoric toward Tiller over the past two decades.
The group issued the following statement today:
“We are shocked at this morning’s disturbing news that Mr. Tiller was gunned down. Operation Rescue has worked for years through peaceful, legal means, and through the proper channels to see him brought to justice. We denounce vigilantism and the cowardly act that took place this morning. We pray for Mr. Tiller’s family that they will find comfort and healing that can only be found in Jesus Christ.”
Shocked? Are any of us really shocked that it would come to this after the many years of demonizing one man?
Certainly the group’s founder, Randall Terry, didn’t seem shocked when he issued a statement that, I would suggest, provides a truer sense of how the anti-abortion movement saw today’s events:
”George Tiller was a mass-murderer. We grieve for him that he did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God. I am more concerned that the Obama Administration will use Tiller’s killing to intimidate pro-lifers into surrendering our most effective rhetoric and actions. Abortion is still murder. And we still must call abortion by its proper name; murder.
Those men and women who slaughter the unborn are murderers according to the Law of God. We must continue to expose them in our communities and peacefully protest them at their offices and homes, and yes, even their churches.”
I’d suggest that if anyone is in need of salvation right now it’s the anti-abortion movement in Kansas and across the nation.
As Terry’s statement makes clear, the same bullet that killed George Tiller also shattered the moral underpinnings of the movement that inspired its firing.
← Previous Page — Next Page →
