Violence feared over Moscow gay march

Gay rights activists have warned there could be violence on the streets of the Russian capital Moscow on Saturday as the city stages the Eurovision Song Contest final.

Irina Shipitko (l) and Irina Fedotova’s marriage attempt was rejected

The competition traditionally has a large gay following and Russian activists are trying to hold the country’s first ever gay pride march while thousands of Eurovision fans are in Moscow.

But the city council has refused to give official permission for the march, while allowing hardcore nationalists and religious groups to stage a counter-demonstration on the same day.

Gay activists have come under attack from such groups in the past.

“We will still go ahead”, says Nikolai Alekseev, leader of Russia’s gay rights movement.

“There will be outrage around the world… if on the 16 May people are being arrested and beaten on the streets of Moscow hours before the Eurovision Song Contest final.

“It will be a disgrace for Russia.”

See Violence feared over Moscow gay march BBC News

* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual

Published by

Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/05/violence-fear…

Mainline Clergy Survey shows high support for activist government, growing support for LGBT equality

Leading researchers on religion and politics today released the results of an in‐depth survey of

Mainline Protestant clergy political engagement during the 2008 election season, attitudes on social and economic issues, and the public role of the church. The Mainline Protestant Clergy Voices Survey (CVS), conducted by Public Religion Research, is the largest survey of mainline clergy in seven years, and the broadest ever in scope. Mainline Protestants, who make up 18 percent of all Americans and nearly a quarter of all voters, have been trending Democratic in recent years, but remain fairly evenly divided in their political behavior.

“Mainline Protestants are probably the most under‐examined major religious group in the United States,” said Dr. Robert P. Jones, President of Public Religion Research. “That’s especially surprising when you consider that they occupy so much of the vital middle ground in American politics.” Jones said that Mainline Protestants, once the religious bedrock of the Republican Party, are now an important swing constituency that has been moving slowly but steadily away from the GOP since the early 1990s. He said the new survey will be invaluable in helping us understand Mainline Protestants’ role in the American religious landscape by shedding light on the attitudes and political engagement of mainline clergy.

“Mainline clergy are highly educated, political interested, and socially engaged,” said Jones. “They are strong supporters of church‐state separation, but they are also interested in being more personally involved on social and political issues.”

The CVS surveyed senior clergy from the seven largest mainline denominations: United Methodist Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, American Baptist Churches USA, Presbyterian Church USA, Episcopal Church, United Church of Christ, and Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). The survey found significant differences across the denominations on religious and political measures.

Among its findings on social and political issues:

Mainline clergy are much more likely to identify as liberal and Democratic than conservative or Republican. Almost half (48%) of all mainline clergy identify as liberal, compared to about one‐third (34%) who say they are conservative. A majority (56%) of mainline clergy identify with or lean towards the Democratic Party, compared to roughly one‐third (34%) who claim a Republican affiliation, a 22‐point gap. Clergy political leanings vary considerably by denomination. Three quarters (74%) of UCC clergy identify as liberal, compared to less than a third (32%) of ABCUSA clergy.

Mainline Protestant clergy are broadly supportive of government’s role in addressing social problems such as unemployment, poverty and poor housing. More than three‐quarters (78%) agree that the federal government should do more to solve social problems, and more than 4‐in‐10 strongly agree.

Mainline clergy are strongly supportive of government action in the areas of health care and the environment. More than two‐thirds (67%) of clergy agree that government should guarantee health insurance for all citizens, even if it means raising taxes. And nearly 7‐in‐10 (69%) clergy say that more environmental protection is needed, even if it raises prices or costs jobs.

On a broad range of issues, mainline clergy affirm equality for gay and lesbian Americans. Roughly two‐thirds of mainline clergy support some legal recognition for same‐sex couples (65%), passing hate crime laws (67%), and employment nondiscrimination protections for gay and lesbian people (66%). A majority (55%) of mainline clergy support adoption rights for gay and lesbian people.

Mainline Protestant clergy are strong advocates of church‐state separation. A majority (65%) of mainline clergy agree that the U.S. should “maintain a strict separation of church and state.” Mainline clergy are more worried about public officials who are too close to religious leaders (59%) than about public officials who do not pay enough attention to religion (41%).\

Mainline clergy are more likely to publicly address hunger and poverty and family issues than controversial social issues. More than 8‐in‐10 clergy say they publicly expressed their views about hunger and poverty often in the last year, and three‐quarters say they addressed marriage and family issues often. Only about one‐quarter (26%) say they often discussed the issues of abortion and capital punishment.

The survey also includes findings on religious measures, including clergy religious self‐identification (mainline, evangelical, born‐again), their views on the interpretation of scripture, and the relative importance of evangelism and social action.

Dr. John Green, Director of the Bliss Institute for Applied Politics at the University of Akron, served as advisor to the project and supervised its data collection. Green also participated in two of the earlier studies of mainline clergy in 1989 and 2001 upon which this new survey builds.

“This survey adds significantly to our knowledge and understanding of mainline clergy,” said Green. “Scholars of religion as well as journalists and interested activists will benefit from the information and insights it offers.”

The survey, which was conducted by mail, contained over 250 separate questions and generated

2,658 respondents with a response rate of 44%. The Mainline Protestant Clergy Voices Survey was funded by the Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund.

Published by

Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/03/mainline-cler…

Support for Hawaii civil union vote wavering – as usual (why do we keep traveling there?)

The drive to make Hawaii the fifth state in the country to allow same-sex civil unions is on the verge of failing, despite support from most state lawmakers.

Senate leaders had planned a vote before the full Senate as early as Tuesday, but deep divisions have emerged over whether Democrats should take an extraordinary legislative step to revive the measure after a tie committee vote.

A tie vote in committee usually is enough to kill a measure, but the bill could advance under a rarely used provision of the Hawaii Constitution if more than one-third of senators approve.

The Democratic leadership wants more than half the Senate to agree to put the bill before the full Senate. Some rank-and-file senators who support the bill, however, are unwilling to circumvent the normal legislative process.

The measure already has passed the Hawaii House.

Lawmakers’ hesitation comes after more than 6,000 opponents, most of them from religious groups, rallied against the legislation Feb. 22 at the state Capitol. Civil union supporters planned their own event at the Capitol on Saturday.

See Support for Hawaii civil union vote wavering

The Associated Press -

Published by

Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/03/support-for-h…

Attorneys Urge California Supreme Court To Invalidate Prop 8

Case Raises Important Legal Issues Affecting All Minority Groups

(San Francisco, CA, March 5, 2009) Attorneys for same-sex couples, civil rights organizations and the state Attorney General’s office appeared before the California Supreme Court today to urge the court to strike down Proposition 8, which took away the right of same-sex couples the right to marry. At issue in the case is whether the ballot initiative process can be used to take away a fundamental right only for one group of Californians based on a trait – in this case sexual orientation – that has no relevance to the group’s ability to participate in or contribute to society. Because the case has serious implications for the constitutional rights of all Californians, it has generated unprecedented support from many national and state civil rights groups as well as California legislators, local governments, bar associations, business interests, labor unions, and religious groups. The California Supreme Court, which has struck down several other initiatives in the past, is expected to issue a decision within 90 days.

“Proposition 8 jeopardizes not just the right of same-sex couples to marry, but the rights of all Californians to be treated as free and equal citizens of this state,” said Shannon P. Minter, Legal Director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), who argued the case before the Court. “Our Constitution is based on the principle that majorities must respect minority rights. But if a majority can change the Constitution to take away a fundamental right from one group, then it can take away fundamental rights from any group. Our government will have changed from one that respects minority rights to one in which the power of the majority is unlimited.”

NCLR, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU filed the legal challenge on November 5, after Proposition 8 was approved by just 52 percent of the voters on Election Day. In court today, the groups argued that it was improper for the proponents of Proposition 8 to use the ballot initiative process to strip same-sex couples of the fundamental right to marry. The groups contend that changes to the Constitution that alter its core requirement of equal protection by selectively depriving minorities of fundamental constitutional rights cannot be accomplished through a simple majority vote. Such major changes of core structural principles are revisions to the Constitution that can only be put on the ballot by a two-thirds vote of both houses of the legislature.

“It is simply wrong—legally and socially—to short-circuit the California Constitution and its equal protection guarantees,” said Jennifer C. Pizer, Marriage Project Director for Lambda Legal and co-counsel in the legal challenge to Proposition 8. “Proposition 8 is no ‘garden variety’ amendment that changes a tax or zoning or safety rule in a way that affects everyone equally. This is a radical attempt to strip a cherished constitutional right from just one targeted minority group and then to stop the courts from doing their most basic job of upholding the constitutional promise of ‘liberty and justice for all’.”

The case before the court is unprecedented because no other initiative-amendment has successfully taken away a fundamental right only for a particular minority. Because Proposition 8 would, for the first time, change the Constitution in a way that strips a minority group of its constitutional right to equal treatment under the law, California Attorney General Jerry Brown agrees that Proposition 8 should be struck down. The Attorney General’s office argued that the right to marry is an “inalienable right” that can not be selectively eliminated from one group without compelling reasons.
“The Court has a solemn responsibility to enforce our state constitution and to protect the rights of all people, regardless of popular opinion,” said Elizabeth Gill, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California. “This case isn’t just about marriage, and it’s certainly not just about gay and lesbian couples. If the Court strikes down Proposition 8, it will be protecting the civil rights of all Californians.”

An unprecedented 43 friend-of-the-court briefs, representing hundreds of religious organizations, civil rights groups, and labor unions, and numerous California municipal governments, bar associations, and leading legal scholars, were filed in the case, urging the court to strike down the initiative. Because the issues at stake have such important implications for other minority groups, Raymond Marshall of Bingham McCutchen, who represents the Asian Pacific American Legal Center, the California State Conference of the NAACP, the Equal Justice Society, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, asked and was given permission to appear in court today. He argued that allowing Proposition 8 to stand could be detrimental to other minority groups who could easily become the targets of initiative campaigns seeking to take away their rights.

“Our state Constitution was created to ensure equal treatment under the law for every Californian,” said Geoff Kors, Executive Director of Equality California. “Prop 8 changes that fact by taking away a fundamental freedom from one particular group and mandating government discrimination against a minority. We hope the court upholds the Constitution’s promise of equality.”

The National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU are representing Equality California, whose members include many same-sex couples who married between June 16 and November 4, 2008, and six same-sex couples who want to marry in California. The arguments today also included two other challenges filed on the same day: one filed by the City and County of San Francisco (joined by Santa Clara County and the City of Los Angeles, and subsequently by Los Angeles County and other local governments); and another filed by a private attorney.

Serving as co-counsel on the case with NCLR, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU are the Law Office of David C. Codell, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.

The case is Strauss et al. v. Horton et al. (#S168047). For more information, go to: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/prop8.htm
The California Supreme Court must issue its decisions within 90 days of oral argument.
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual

Published by

Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/03/attorneys-urg…

Legal Groups, City of West Hollywood to Host Viewing of Oral Arguments in Proposition 8 Challenge

(West Hollywood, March 2, 2008) — Lambda Legal, the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Center for Lesbian Rights and the City of West Hollywood will host a viewing of oral arguments in the Proposition 8 legal challenge on Thursday, March 5, 2009 at West Hollywood Auditorium, followed by a press conference…

Attorneys for same-sex couples, civil rights organizations and the state Attorney General’s office will appear before the California Supreme Court on March 5 to urge the court to strike down Proposition 8. At issue in the case is whether the initiative process can be used to strip lesbian and gay couples of equal treatment under the law by taking away their fundamental right to marry. Because the case has serious implications for any minority group, it has generated unprecedented support from many national and state civil rights groups as well as California legislators, local governments, bar associations, business interests, labor unions, and religious groups.

Community leaders and other members of the public, along with attorneys for the groups challenging Proposition 8, will be available for interview at the viewing of the oral arguments, which will be televised live. Following oral arguments, attorneys as well as representatives of friends of the court groups will hold a news conference at the auditorium to give their reaction to the day’s events and put them into perspective.

Published by

Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/03/legal-groups-…

Groundswell of Support in California

On January 21, Lambda Legal and our sister legal organizations filed our answer to roughly 20 friend–of–the–court briefs submitted to the California Supreme Court by far-right legal and religious groups supporting Prop 8. Filed on behalf of petitioners, our brief debunks the arguments supporting Prop 8 and highlights the new consensus that Prop 8 was not valid and, if upheld, would threaten legal protections for all minorities. More than 40 amicus briefs support our position and speak for nearly a thousand religious organizations and faith leaders, scores of civil rights and community groups, many California municipalities and leading legal scholars. Also included were more than 50 California labor organizations — representing nearly 6 million working men and women, two current and former California legislators, 66 bar associations and many others. California businesses — including Google, Levi Strauss & Co. and the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce — representing thousands of businesses employing millions of workers, also submitted a brief. They argue that allowing minority groups to be targeted using a simple majority vote is bad for business.

Published by

Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/02/groundswell-o…

California Supreme Court to Hear Oral Arguments in Prop 8 Legal Challenge on March 5

Attorney General, Governor, and nation’s top civil rights groups agree: Invalidate Prop 8

(San Francisco, CA, February 3, 2009) The California Supreme Court announced today that it will hear oral arguments on Thursday, March 5, 2009 in the Proposition 8 legal challenge. The National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU—with support from civil rights groups, religious organizations, labor unions, and legal scholars—argue that Proposition 8 is invalid because the people of California have established strict safeguards that prohibit the underlying principles of the California Constitution from being changed by a simple majority vote. By taking away a right only from one group, Proposition 8 violates the most basic principle of our government: that all people are entitled to equal treatment under the law.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown is also asking the Court to invalidate Proposition 8 on the ground that certain fundamental rights, including the right to marry, are inalienable and can not be put up for a popular vote.

On November 10, 2008, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger stated that he hoped the Court would overturn Proposition 8. On CNN, he said of Proposition 8′s passage, “It’s unfortunate, obviously, but it’s not the end, I think that we will again maybe undo that, if the court is willing to do that, and then move forward from there and again lead in that area.”

On November 19, 2008, the California Supreme Court agreed to hear the legal challenges to Proposition 8 and set an expedited schedule. Briefing in the case was completed on January 21, 2009.
The California Supreme Court must issue its decisions within 90 days of oral argument.

On January 15, 2009, 43 friend-of-the-court briefs urging the Court to invalidate Prop 8 were filed, arguing that Proposition 8 drastically alters the equal protection guarantee in California’s Constitution and that the rights of a minority cannot be eliminated by a simple majority vote. The supporters represent the full gamut of California’s and the nation’s civil rights organizations and legal scholars, as well as California legislators, local governments, bar associations, business interests, labor unions, and religious groups.

In May of 2008, the California Supreme Court held that laws that treat people differently based on their sexual orientation violate the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and that same-sex couples have the same fundamental right to marry as other Californians. Proposition 8 eliminated this fundamental right only for same-sex couples. No other initiative has ever successfully changed the California Constitution to take away a right only from a targeted minority group. Proposition 8 passed by a bare majority of 52 percent on November 4.

The National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU filed this challenge on November 5, representing Equality California, whose members include many same-sex couples who married between June 16 and November 4, 2008, and six same-sex couples who want to marry in California. The California Supreme Court has also agreed to hear two other challenges filed on the same day: one filed by the City and County of San Francisco (joined by Santa Clara County and the City of Los Angeles, and subsequently by Los Angeles County and other local governments); and another filed by a private attorney.

Serving as co-counsel on the case with NCLR, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU are the Law Office of David C. Codell, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.

The case is Strauss et al. v. Horton et al. (#S168047). For more information, go to: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/prop8.htm

EQCA works to achieve equality and secure legal protections for LGBT people. To improve the lives of LGBT Californians, EQCA sponsors legislation and coordinates efforts to ensure its passage, lobbies legislators and other policy makers, builds coalitions, develops community strength and empowers individuals and other organizations to engage in the political process. www.eqca.org

The National Center for Lesbian Rights is a national legal organization committed to advancing the civil and human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people and their families through litigation, public policy advocacy, and public education. www.nclrights.org/overturn8

Lambda Legal is a national organization committed to achieving full recognition of the civil rights of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgender people and those with HIV through impact litigation, education and public policy work. www.lambdalegal.org

The American Civil Liberties Union is America’s foremost advocate of individual rights. It fights discrimination and moves public opinion on LGBT rights through the courts, legislatures and public education. www.aclu.org

Published by

Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/02/california-su…

Hawaii lawmakers to consider gaming, gay marriage

Civil union proposals would be designed to give gay couples the same rights as married couples, said Majority Leader Rep. Blake Oshiro, D-Aiea-Halawaii.

“It’s always been about equality and equal rights,” Oshiro said.

Civil unions have broader support from labor unions and some religious groups this year than in the past, said Rep. Jon Riki Karamatsu, D-Waipahu-Waikele, the new House Judiciary Committee chairman who will hear the bill.

See Hawaii lawmakers to consider gaming, gay marriage
Forbes – NY,USA

Published by

Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/01/hawaii-lawmak…

America’s top civil rights groups and legal scholars agree: Invalidate Prop 8

(San Francisco, CA, January 21, 2009) In the last round of an expedited briefing schedule, final briefs were filed today by both petitioners and respondents in the lawsuits challenging Proposition 8. The briefs filed today by the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU responded to the more than 60 amicus curiae, or “friend of the court,” briefs filed in the case last week.

Those amicus briefs highlight the extraordinary breadth of support for Petitioners’ argument that Proposition 8 is invalid. The supporters represent the full gamut of California’s and the nation’s civil rights organizations and legal scholars, as well as California legislators, local governments, bar associations, business interests, labor unions, and religious groups.

In amicus briefs filed last Thursday, the nation’s leading legal scholars argued that Proposition 8 is invalid because it seeks to eliminate a fundamental right only for a targeted minority, which cannot be done through the initiative process. Professors from the most prominent universities and law schools in California and the country authored briefs urging the Court to invalidate Proposition 8, including scholars from Harvard University, Stanford University, Yale University, University of California (Berkeley, Los Angeles, Hastings, Davis, Irvine), University of Southern California, University of Pennsylvania, Rutgers University, University of San Francisco, Loyola Law School, Santa Clara Law School, Chapman University, and Pepperdine University.

A brief authored by Hastings Law Professor Donna Ryu and joined by 20 constitutional law experts, argued: “Proposition 8 represents the first time that the California initiative process has been wielded to abolish a fundamental freedom for an unpopular minority group and to alter the Constitution so as to mandate governmental discrimination against that group. In this way, Proposition 8 attempts to breach some of the most elemental textual and structural promises of our state Constitution. It revokes a fundamental right that, in the words of the Constitution, is “inalienable.” It dismantles constitutional equality for a single group of Californians – a group that, because of its history of oppression and stigma, is entitled to the highest level of constitutional protection against discrimination.”

Another brief authored by Professor Karl Manheim, one of the foremost authorities on California’s initiative process, stated: “Proposition 8 . . . improperly attempts to revise the Constitution by taking the unprecedented step of singling out a suspect class and depriving that class – and only that class – of a fundamental right.”

Other briefs supporting the legal challenge to Prop 8 were filed on behalf of 652 current and former California legislators; dozens of bar associations, legal aid organizations; and numerous California municipal governments.

Serving as co-counsel on the case with NCLR, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU are the Law Office of David C. Codell, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.

On November 19, 2008, the California Supreme Court granted review in the legal challenges to Proposition 8, and established an expedited briefing schedule, under which briefing was completed on January 21, 2009. The California Supreme Court has stated that it may schedule oral argument as early as March 2009.

The case is Strauss et al. v. Horton et al. (

S168047).

Published by

Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/01/americas-top-…

Religious group attempts to halt leather ‘play party’

A religious group that believes homosexuality is “evil” is trying to keep a leather S&M party from happening this weekend at Doubletree Hotel near Washington in Arlington, Va.

Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, a group “dedicated to exposing the homosexual activist agenda,” sent an action alert to its members today urging them to call the Doubletree and its owner Hilton to halt the event. Americans for Truth President Peter LaBarbera said a gay man forwarded his group an invitation to the event, supposedly hosted by a group called Fort Troff which dubbed it, according to Truth, a “pig sex” event called “MAL Maneuvers — for the purpose of pulling together hard-core pig players who want to fuck our brains out.”

LaBarbera told the Blade he’s trying to stop the event because in addition to his moral opposition to any gay activity, such an event in a hotel conference room is “illegal and a public health concern.” See Religious group attempts to halt leather ‘play party’ Southern Voice