In UK RC Church rejects gay parents claims
The Roman Catholic Church has reacted angrily to comments endorsing gay parenthood from a charity with strong links to the Church.
Terry Prendergast of Marriage Care, which is partly funded by the Church, said there was no evidence children were harmed by having same-sex parents.
But the organisation representing Catholic bishops said children need parental role models of both genders.
It said Mr Prendergast, a former priest who has since married, was wrong.
Mr Prendergast made his comments to a gathering of gay Roman Catholics in Leicester.
He told the audience at the Quest conference that same-sex families, along with single and cohabiting parents, suffered discrimination and denigration because they fell short of the Vatican’s definition of what constituted a real family.
 |
 The views expressed by Terry Prendergast about the definition of family and marriage are clearly not a reflection of the Church’s teaching, nor those of the Bishops’ Conference  Catholic Bishops’ Conference
 |
Instead, he said, they should be held up as role models and an advert for Catholicism.
Mr Prendergast also claimed that there was no evidence to show that children of same-sex parents suffered in any way, and that the elements that made for successful child-rearing were stable relationships.
But the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales has insisted that Mr Prendergast is wrong.
In a statement, the organisation acknowledged that although it was difficult to define what a family was, the Church still believed that stability for children came from having parents of opposite genders who could provide different role models.
See Church rejects gay parents claims
| Published by |
 |
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/07/in-uk-rc-chur…
Delhi HC verdict on panel provision of gay sex likely Toda
See
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court is likely to pronounce its verdict tomorrow on the controversial penal provision on homosexuality even as the government is grappling with the option to scrap it from the statute.
A bench of Chief Justice A P Shah and Justice S Muralidhar had reserved its order on November 7 last year after marathon proceedings in which the government had vociferously opposed scrapping of section 377 of the Indian Penal Code which prescribes punishment upto life imprisonment for indulging in unnatural sexual acts.
Before the judgement was reserved, the Ministries concerned with the issue in the previous UPA government had unanimously described homosexuality as “the most indecent behaviour” in society.
The Centre had submitted that gay sex is immoral and reflection of a perverse mind and its decriminalisation would lead to moral degradation of society.
“Every citizen has the right to lead a decent and moral life in society and the right would be violated if such behaviour (gay sex) is legalised in the country,” the government had contended adding allowing gay sex would pose a health hazard to society.
The Centre had said that homosexuals comprise only 0.3 per cent of the population and the right of rest 99.7 per cent of the population to lead a decent and moral life in society would be violated if such behaviour (gay sex) is legalised. See Delhi HC verdict on panel provision of gay sex likely tomorrow
SamayLive
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/07/delhi-hc-verd…
India Decriminalizes Gay Sex
n what many are calling “India’s Stonewall”, the New Delhi High Court on Thursday decriminalized homosexual intercourse between consenting adults, by striking down section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. This law labels gay sex to be an “unnatural offense”, punishable with up to ten years in prison.
Drafted in 1860, this Colonial-era law was brought into effect by the British, and was in line with similar anti-homosexuality legislation passed in England at the time. In the past decade, gay rights activists and lawyers have strived hard to abrogate Section 377, calling it “inhuman”, and as the Naz Foundation, which filed the petition to abolition 377 in 2001 argued, a violation of constitutional rights to privacy and equality.
No Rain on Their Parade
In its ruling today, the Delhi High Court affirmed that claim, saying that Section 377 violated basic human rights. The same court, however, had dismissed a similar petition in 2001. It is clear that this latest ruling is a reflection of increased activism by gay rights groups and high profiled supporters like Bollywood actress and Former Miss World Celina Jaitley, along with a more progressive government.
See
India Decriminalizes Gay Sex
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/07/india-decrimi…
Gay Exorcism Mania
Been hearing a lot about the gay exorcism lately?
About a week after Fairfield County Weekly ran a story on Bridgeport’s Manifested Glory Ministries and the almost violent “casting out of spirits” they performed on a teenager (“Losing Grip,” June 18), the story has been picked up by Hartford-based Fox 61, then the AP, then CNN and then, inevitably, everyone else.
(A headline at TheSpoof.com even announced “Michael Jackson Died During Gay Demon Exorcism.”)
Robin McHaelin, executive director of the advocacy group True Colors, says that after viewing the YouTube clip of the event, she confirmed that, months earlier, the teenager seen in it attended True Colors’ Queer Prom in Hartford.
Also, the boy, confirmed to be 16 years old, did not undergo the ritual at the behest of his parents; he sought out Manifested Glory, and his mother was shocked of the footage of him writhing on the floor or being held up by his arms as the church’s “prophet” and “overseer” yelled evocations.
This limits what actions the state Department of Children and Families, whom McHaelin contacted, can do about the matter.
“I think this is a very troubled family and the child needs space for reflection,” says McHaelin. “I am hoping that if we back off, the church will back off, too.”
fairfieldweekly.com -
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/07/gay-exorcism-…
LA Times Editorial: A court battle California doesn’t need
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.
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
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/la-times-edit…
Knowing Someone Gay/Lesbian Affects Views of Gay Issues Gallup.com -
WASHINGTON, D.C. — While 57% of Americans oppose legalizing gay marriage, Americans who personally know someone who is gay or lesbian are almost evenly divided on the matter, with 49% in favor and 47% opposed. Among those who do not personally know anyone who is gay, 72% oppose legalized gay marriage while just 27% favor it.
The results are from a May 7-10, 2009, USA Today/Gallup poll, which asked Americans their views on a number of issues relating to gays and lesbians. Overall, a majority of Americans (58%) say they have a friend, relative, or coworker who is gay or lesbian — basically unchanged since Gallup first asked this question in 2003.
Examining personal experience by ideology, 71% of self-identified liberals say they personally know someone who is gay or lesbian — far more than is true among moderates and conservatives, who align more closely with the national average.
Views of gay marriage are strongly related to ideology. But the increase in support among those who personally know someone who is gay or lesbian is not merely a reflection of the fact that liberals are more likely to know someone of same-sex orientation. Further analysis reveals that, when controlling for ideology, those who know someone who is gay or lesbian are significantly more supportive of gay marriage than are those of the same political persuasion who do not personally know someone who is gay or lesbian.
Americans who know someone who is gay or lesbian are about evenly split between saying legalizing gay marriage will change society for the worse (39%) and that it will have no effect on society (40%). Nearly two-thirds of Americans (63%) who do not personally know a gay or lesbian person believe that legalized gay marriage will change society for the worse — far greater than the 48% of national adults who say the same. Only a small minority of Americans believe legal gay marriage will change society for the better, but those who personally know someone who is gay or lesbian are three times more likely to say this than are those who do not know anyone who is gay or lesbian.
Experience and Acceptance
In addition to the findings on gay marriage, Gallup similarly finds those with personal experience with gay or lesbian individuals more accepting of same-sex relations in general. While a majority of Americans overall (56%) think same-sex relations should be legal, two-thirds (67%) of those who personally know a gay or lesbian individual say this. A majority (57%) of those who do not personally know anyone who is gay say gay or lesbian relations should not be legal.
Of those who say they personally know someone who is gay or lesbian, 88% say they are comfortable around these individuals, compared to 64% of those who do not personally know someone who is gay or lesbian. Among adults overall, fewer than 2 in 10 say they are uncomfortable around someone who is gay or lesbian, but that number increases to 3 in 10 among those who do not personally know anyone who is gay or lesbian.
See Knowing Someone Gay/Lesbian Affects Views of Gay Issues Gallup.com - * Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/05/knowing-someo…
