Homosexuality immoral, but not criminal: Religious leaders
In the first flurry of reactions, religious leaders appeared to be slamming the de-criminalization of gay sex. But while most conservative scholars and clerics remain opposed to homosexuality as an article of faith, many say that they aren’t advocating making it a criminal act as Section 377 of IPC did.
Writer and philosopher Deepak Chopra told TOI from his home in New York, ‘‘A new morality must evolve that is based on a true understanding of human nature, that is also consistent with its biology. Homosexuality has been part of the human condition for as long as human beings have existed. The Delhi High Court should be congratulated for making a decision that finally catches up with our times.’’
Then, while Delhi Catholic Archdiocese has described homosexuality as ‘‘unnatural’’, it says it has nothing against its de-criminalization. Spokesperson of Delhi Catholic Archdiocese, Father Dominic Emmanuel, told TOI,‘‘Homosexuality is a sin — as opposed to a crime. But we believe that those who indulge in it should be treated with respect and compassion.’’
In a newspaper article, Father Dominic was even more forthright. ‘‘It needs to be made clear that the Christian community does not (repeat it does not) treat people with homosexual tendencies as criminals. Nor does it believe that they can be regarded on par with criminals. Therefore, the church has no serious objection to the repealing of Section 377.
‘‘The Vatican’s stand on this is quite clear: Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided’,’’ wrote Father Dominic.
Similarly, some Muslim clerics and scholars, too, favour de-criminalization of homosexuality, saying that while Islam does not permit homosexuality, this doesn’t mean it should be equated with criminality.
‘‘The Quran condemns homosexuality, but doesn’t prescribe any punishment for it. It’s a sin, not a crime. Sin is between Allah and the sinner, but crime concerns the entire society. So, sexual minorities should be left to their conscience. They are answerable to Allah for their act and should not be treated as criminals,’’ said Islamic scholar Asghar Ali Engineer.
Maulana Abu Zafar Hassan Nadvi, a cleric, too accepts that since the Quran is silent on the punishment for homosexuality, it should be treated as an irreligious, immoral act. ‘‘Every non-religious act is not liable to be punished. Just as we don’t pronounce death for atheists, homosexuals should be left alone until they get reformed,” said Maulana Nadvi. See Homosexuality immoral, but not criminal: Religious leaders
Times of India
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
 |
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/07/homosexuality…
Study: Gays not ‘godless Christian bashers’
This breaking news in from The Barna Group — a chronicler of religious life and habits, particularly of the Christian variety: Gay folks’ attitudes about spirituality aren’t much different from straight folks. These and other “surprising insights” were in Barna’s spiritual profile of gays released Monday. In it was a bit of a political heeding for gay-bashers:
“People who portray gay adults as godless, hedonistic, Christian bashers are not working with the facts,” wrote George Barna Monday. “A substantial majority of gays cite their faith as a central facet of their life, consider themselves to be Christian, and claim to have some type of meaningful personal commitment to Jesus Christ active in their life today.”
“It is interesting to see that most homosexuals, who have some history within the Christian Church, have rejected orthodox biblical teachings and principles — but, in many cases, to nearly the same degree that the heterosexual Christian population has rejected those same teachings and principles,” Barna said. “Although there are clearly some substantial differences in the religious beliefs and practices of the straight and gay populations, there may be less of a spiritual gap between straights and gays than many Americans would assume.”
Now there will be some quibbling with a couple of Barna’s assumptions. Like how Barna pegs the LGBT population at about 3 percent of the adult population. No, he doesn’t believe in the 1-in-10 stat, but then again, LGBT population scholar Gary Gates says it’s more like 5 percent, depending how you count.
That aside, the Barnanians found that “out of the 20 faith-oriented attributes examined in the Barna study, there were just a few in which there were no significant differences between the heterosexual and homosexual populations.”
Hmm. “No significant differences between the heterosexual and homosexual”(s)? Does Donald Wildmon know about this?
One big diff, according to the study: “While seven out of every ten heterosexuals (71 percent) have an orthodox, biblical perception of God, just 43 percent of homosexuals do. In fact, an equal percentage possesses a pantheistic view about deity — i.e., that ‘God’ refers to any of a variety of perspectives, such as personally achieving a state of higher consciousness or maximized personal potential, or that there are multiple gods that exist, or even that everyone is god.”
Another diff: “Heterosexuals were twice as likely as homosexuals to strongly agree that the Bible is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches.”
And in the timeliness is next to godliness (OK, and cleanliness) dept: On Monday a crew of organizations supporting same sex marriage are launching their Get Engaged Tour of California — a pump-priming tour of the state in advance of an expected 2010 ballot measure campaign expected later this year. We told you about it a while back. Faith leaders will be prominently featured on this tour, as opposed to last year’s anti-Proposition 8 campaign, when they were largely invisible.
“Our faith-based values require us to love our neighbor as ourselves,” said Pastor Samuel Chu, of California Faith for Equality. “Gay and lesbian people are our neighbors and they should be able to enjoy the dignity, respect and commitment that come with marriage.”
| June 22 2009 at 12:25 PM
See Study: Gays not ‘godless Christian bashers’ 5:12 PM
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/study-gays-no…
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
Los Angeles Times -
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/la-times-edit…
Gay Muslims in the UK
Dominic James from www.tomdickandsally.com – takes a look at the lives of gay muslims in the UK.
With the advent of civil partnerships it is easy to forget that significant sections of the gay community in the UK live in fear. There are approximately 125,000 gay Muslims in the UK and most live with feelings of shame and guilt.
Although, leading clerics assert homosexuality to be against the teaching of The Quran, there are tentative signs of the beginnings of an acceptance within the Muslim establishment and the internet provides an important forum for gay Muslims to connect and support each other.
Most Muslims could never imagine that someone praying beside them at their local Mosque could possibly be gay. Islam teaches that homosexuality is evil, and as a result most gay men and lesbians will remain in the closet or choose not to follow their natural instincts. With around 1.25 million Muslims in the UK, it is estimated that the challenge of being homosexual in this community affects around 125,000 individuals every day.
This significant minority is likely to be living with feelings of shame, guilt and fear; aware of how their community will judge them and even ostracise them. Iftekhar Hai, Director of Interfaith Relations for the United Muslims of America, says that homosexuality is unnatural. He points to a verse in the Quoran where the prophet Lut says “For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing.”
“According to the scripture, there’s no doubt,” Hai said. “It’s not right and proper.”
However, there are now alternative views being expressed. A number of Muslim scholars are arguing that in the Quoran men are punished for raping and abusing other men, not for engaging in consensual gay sex. Indeed, it is argued that the traditional interpretations were made by heterosexual men, whereas there are now some gay Muslim writers coming out of the closet to redress the balance.
In the context of this oppressive environment, gay Muslims seek alternative means of support in the community. An example I came across recently is the website forum Al-Fatiha, a support group for gay Muslims. A short visit to this site reveals just how deep and complex the issues are. One posting reads:
“I feel like a rag doll in the middle of a tug of war, and for all of you who are in the same boat, you know what a difficult position this puts us in…I’ve come to realize that I cannot be the only one in the world in this predicament. So if you are a lesbian Muslim in a similar situation, I’d love to talk to you, and maybe we could help each other out.”
Sir Iqbal Sacranie, Britain’s most senior Muslim, described homosexuality as a harmful, immoral vehicle for spreading disease, so it is no surprise that the internet remains the only place where many gay or bisexual Muslims can reveal their true selves.
As part of a piece on gay Muslim life, The Times contacted members of this community and described it as “underground”. The article reveals a world where thousands of lives have been wrecked by sham marriages, lying, unacknowledged HIV and crippling isolation.
Among a number of powerfully descriptive stories, “Zac”, 24, tells how he has been prevented from living as a gay man. He describes how his parents had forced him into an arranged marriage with his Pakistani cousin in the hope that it would “make me straight”. He is now “trapped” at home with his pregnant wife, overwhelmed by feelings of frustration and resentment towards his parents.
But what about your experience?
The gay support group Al-Fatiha are embarking on a historic survey of Muslims who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer, and questioning or exploring their gender identity and/or sexual orientation (LGBTIQQ).
The results of the survey will tell Al-Fatiha about the muslim community, people’s experiences and concerns. The results will guide Al-Fatiha’s educational and advocacy work on behalf of LGBTIQQ Muslims, and will be shared with the entire community. To fill out the survey, click here.
It can be difficlt and confusing to come out in a faith which doesn’t allow you the freedom to be who you are, but in terms of the muslim faith, there are number of support groups who offer help and advice, including Imaan and Al-Fatiha.
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/gay-muslims-i…
ACLU Sues To Stop Tennessee Schools From Censoring Gay Educational Web Sites; Filtering Software Allows Anti-Gay Sites
NASHVILLE, TN – The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Tennessee sued two Tennessee school districts in federal court today, charging the schools are unconstitutionally blocking students from accessing online information about lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues. Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools, Knox County Schools and as many as 105 other school districts in Tennessee use Internet filtering software to block Web sites containing pro-LGBT speech, but not Web sites touting so-called “reparative therapy” and “ex-gay” ministries. The “LGBT” filter is not used to block sites containing pornography, which are filtered under a different category, but it does block the sites of many well-known LGBT organizations including Parents, Families, And Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG), the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network (GLSEN) and Human Rights Campaign (HRC).
“Allowing access to Web sites that present one side of an issue while blocking sites that present the other side is illegal viewpoint discrimination,” said Catherine Crump, a staff attorney with the ACLU First Amendment Working Group and lead attorney on the case. “This discriminatory censorship does nothing to make students safe from material that may actually be harmful, but only hurts them by making it impossible to access important educational material.”
The school districts block the Internet filtering category designated “LGBT,” which includes sites that “provide information regarding, support, promote, or cater to one’s sexual orientation or gender identity.” They do not, however, block sites that condemn homosexuality or promote “reparative therapy,” a practice purporting to “cure” LGBT people that is denounced as dangerous and harmful to young people by such groups as the American Psychological Association and the American Medical Association.
The ACLU filed the case in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee against Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools and Knox County Schools on behalf of two high school students in Nashville, one student in Knoxville and a high school librarian in Knoxville who is also the advisor of the school’s Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA).
“Students need to be able to access information about their legal rights or what to do if they’re being harassed at school,” said Keila Franks, a 17-year-old student at Hume-Fogg High School in Nashville and a plaintiff on the case. “It’s completely unfair for schools to keep students in the dark about such important issues and treat Web sites that just offer information like they’re something dirty.”
The lawsuit charges that blocking LGBT sites violates students’ First Amendment rights by only allowing access to sites that present an anti-gay point of view on the rights of LGBT persons on issues such as anti-gay harassment, marriage, employment discrimination and the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy while blocking access to sites that support LGBT rights. Further, the filtering hinders the ability of GSAs and their members to facilitate club activities and keeps students from accessing important information about scholarships for LGBT students or doing research for school-related assignments.
The ACLU first learned about the discriminatory filtering from Andrew Emitt, a Knoxville high school student who discovered the problem while trying to search for LGBT scholarships. Internet filtering software is mandated in public schools by Tennessee law, which requires schools to implement software to restrict information that is obscene or harmful to minors. However, the “LGBT” filter category does not include material which is sexually gratuitous and already included in the “pornography” filtering category.
“While schools may have an interest in using filters to block material that could be harmful to minors, blocking access to information about LGBT issues while allowing anti-gay information is unlawful and potentially dangerous,” said Tricia Herzfeld, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Tennessee. “There is no place for this kind of unconstitutional censorship in our public schools.”
In addition to Crump and Herzfeld, attorneys on the case are Chris Hansen of the ACLU First Amendment Working Group and Christine Sun of the ACLU LGBT Project.
The plaintiffs are Nashville students Keila Franks and Emily Logan, Knoxville student Bryanna Shelton, and Karyn Storts-Brinks, a Knoxville high school librarian and faculty sponsor for her school’s GSA.
More information about the case, including the ACLU’s complaint and a video featuring one of the student plaintiffs, is available online at: www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/39346res20090413.html.
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/05/aclu-sues-to-…
White House Sets Record Straight on Gay Ban
SANTA BARBARA, Calif — The following was released today by the Michael D. Palm Center:
Asked today if the White House would consider halting gay discharges by presidential authority, press secretary Robert Gibbs said it would not stop the firing of gay troops. That said, Gibbs insisted that the President believes that the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy “isn’t working for our national interests” and that he “will work with the Joints Chiefs of Staff, the administration and with Congress” to change the policy.
In recent weeks, the President’s national security team has sent mixed messages. Defense Secretary Robert Gates spoke of what action would occur “if” the policy were repealed, suggesting it may not be; and national security advisor James Jones said this weekend he was not sure if the ban would be lifted.
Scholars said that Gibbs’ comments today indicate new leadership from the White House in reassuring the public that “don’t ask, don’t tell” will be repealed. Nathaniel Frank, senior research fellow at the Palm Center, said that “today’s remarks appear to send a signal to any member of the administration who questions the President’s resolve.”
At the same time, Gibbs’ statement raised questions by gay rights experts about why President Obama, who continues to say he wants the ban terminated, would preside over ongoing discharges when he has authority to end them by executive order. The Palm Center yesterday released a report by a team of scholars and legal experts showing that the president has statutory authority to halt discharges immediately.
Richard Socarides, who worked in the Clinton administration as special assistant to the president on LGBT issues, said that the current president should exercise the short-term options he has to end the ban. “I have long supported and advocated a moratorium on further discharges,” he said today, “and I think it’s well within the president’s discretionary authority to do that immediately.” Socarides said an executive order halting discharges would be consistent with Obama’s stated belief that the policy should end.
The Palm Center is a research institute at the University of California, Santa Barbara. The Center uses rigorous social science to inform public discussions of controversial social issues, enabling policy outcomes to be informed more by evidence than by emotion. Its data-driven approach is premised on the notion that the public makes wise choices on social issues when high-quality information is available. For more information, visit www.palmcenter.ucsb.edu.
Website: http://www.palmcenter.ucsb.edu
Website: http://www.palmcenter.org
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/05/white-house-s…
A Gay Justice?
Former Stanford Law School dean Kathleen Sullivan is, according to the National Law Journal, one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America. She’s a nationally prominent scholar and teacher of constitutional law, and author of the nation’s leading casebook in constitutional law.
Stanford Law School professor Pamela Karlan clerked for former Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun, is founding director of Stanford’s Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, and is a leading expert on voting and the political process.
Sullivan and Karlan are both frequently mentioned as possible Supreme Court nominees for President Obama.
Both women also happen to be openly lesbian. … Peter Sprigg, a senior fellow at the conservative Family Research Council, says that “the real issue would not be the person’s private life but the issue would be would they be imposing their personal ideology upon the court. In this case would they be imposing a pro homosexual ideology, a pro-same sex marriage ideology.”
Sullivan, for instance, joined a friend of the court brief arguing that same sex marriage should be legal even if the “equal protection” clause “would not always have been interpreted by the courts to forbid discrimination against gay people.” Not allowing same sex marriage is a violation of “both due process and equal protection; the former because the right to marry is a form of liberty and the latter because the restriction treats lesbians and gay men differently from straight individuals.”
That she believes that because she’s lesbian, and not because she believes the refusal to allow same sex marriage constitutes unconstitutional discrimination, is another matter.
Either way, discussion about a Justice Sullivan or a Justice Karlan comes at a time when the Obama administration is hearing some impatience voiced by gay and lesbian activists on other issues.
“I think there is some disappointment in the gay community that (President Obama) hasn’t in this initial period spoken more directly and more forcefully about some of the issues he spoke about on the campaign,” Richard Socarides, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton on gay and lesbian issues, told us for Good Morning America today. “Specifically the ‘Don’t ask/Don’t tell’ policy in the military.” See Gay Justice?
ABC News * Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/05/gay-justice.h…
Where? Adair County supervisors demand Iowa gay marriage ban! Where?
The Adair County Board of Supervisors has passed a resolution demanding that the Iowa Legislature take action to either end same-sex marriage in Iowa, or let the public vote on the matter.
Chairman Clifford Sheriff read the resolution before the board’s vote this morning.
“Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Adair County Board of Supervisors demand that the Iowa (Legislature) resolve this issue by either passing legislation that will lead to a public vote to amend the Iowa Constitution or by passing legislation to confirm Iowa Code Section 595.2 to the Iowa Supreme Court (decision) in Varnum and Brien,” Chairman Sheriff read aloud.
The section of law Sheriff referenced is the 1998 “Defense of Marriage Act” which most legal scholars argue has been voided by the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision. The five-member Adair County Board of Supervisors passed their resolution, without debate.
“I’ll move we approve the resolution for review of the Defense of Marriage Act,” one of the supervisors said.
Another quickly added his “second” to move the process forward.
“We have a first and a second to approve the resolution,” Chairman Sheriff announced. “All in favor signify by saying, ‘Aye,’” Sheriff advised and all five replied in the affirmative.
The supervisors then continued with their board meeting.
A few Iowa city councils and county boards of supervisors have pondered similar resolutions against gay marriage. In February — two months before the Iowa Supreme Court ruling legalized gay marriage — the Sioux City City Council passed a resolution urging state legislators to set the date for a statewide vote on a constitutional amendment which would ban gay marriage.
See
Adair County supervisors demand statewide vote on gay marriage
Radio Iowa* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/05/where-adair-c…
Souter proves a gay rights surprise
Deb PriceSouter proves a gay rights surprise
When David Souter was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1990, gay-rights groups quickly lined up to oppose him: Three years earlier, as a state judge he had signed onto an advisory opinion saying nothing prevented New Hampshire from banning gay adoption. But once on the court, Souter stepped into the shoes of civil rights giant William Brennan and quietly grew into them. What a joyful surprise Souter’s nearly two-decade run turned out to be. Using his intellectual gifts and good heart, Souter helped produce a warming trend, enabling the court to begin moving away from four decades of icy treatment of gay men and lesbians. Thanks to Souter, the court turned a major corner in 1995, when a unanimous opinion that he wrote for the court finally used the respectful term “gay.” Souter’s ruling also spoke respectfully of Massachusetts’ gay-rights law, igniting the hope that major breakthroughs would come soon. The first–Romer v. Evans–came the very next year. Souter voted with the majority in ruling gay Americans have a right to equal protection of the laws. He also voted with the majority in the landmark Lawrence v. Texas decision, which in 2003 declared gay Americans have a right to sexual privacy. In between, Souter wrote a gay-friendly dissent to the 2000 ruling allowing the Boy Scouts to ban gay scoutmasters. And, in a 1998 signal that the court was not undercutting Romer, Souter signed onto an unusual statement by Justice John Paul Stevens stressing that the court’s refusal to hear a challenge to a sweeping anti-gay amendment in Cincinnati “is not a ruling on the merits.” Within his own chambers, as my co-author Joyce Murdoch and I documented in “Courting Justice: Gay Men and Lesbians v. the Supreme Court,” Souter reacted respectfully when one of his law clerks came out. Souter hired another clerk who was a gay-rights scholar. Souter, appointed by a Republican president, added a parting gift: By choosing to retire when a gay-supportive Democrat will pick his successor, he likely ensured the court will continue its trend toward reading gay rights into the Constitution’s promises of equality. Obama offered a hint at what Souter’s replacement may look like when he said two years ago that he’d appoint justices with the “empathy to recognize what it’s like to be a young, teenaged mom … to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old.” More recently, Obama vowed to “seek someone who understands that justice” affects whether people feel “welcome in their own nation.” That kind of Souter replacement would maintain what’s now believed to be a 5-4 split in favor of basic gay rights. She — or he — will join the court’s progressive wing amid a sea change in public attitudes and legal rights for those of us who are gay. Knowledge of that “real world” could prove helpful: Unless Congress finally addresses two pressing injustices, the court might hear challenges in the next few years to the bans on openly gay soldiers and on federal benefits for same-sex married couples, notes gay law scholar Arthur Leonard. Souter’s replacement hopefully will feel a special kinship to him, as he did to Brennan. Even when ruling against a specific gay group in 1995 — declaring that forcing organizers of Boston’s St. Patrick’s Day parade to let an Irish-American gay group participate would violate the First Amendment — Souter was careful not to suggest the court agreed with anti-gay prejudices. Thank you, Justice Souter, for making gay Americans feel more welcome in our own nation. dprice@detnews.com (202) 662-8736 |
 |
| Find this article at: http://www.detnews.com/article/20090506/OPINION03/905060314/Souter-proves-a-gay-rights-surprise |
See Souter proves a gay rights surprise The Detroit News
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/05/souter-proves…
A first gay justice?
President Barack Obama is looking to advance diversity with his pick to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter — and early speculation has focused on whether he’ll pick a woman, or perhaps the first Hispanic justice.
But gay rights groups — disappointed that Obama didn’t pick an openly gay man or woman for his Cabinet — are pushing him to put the first openly gay justice on the Supreme Court.
Within hours of word of Souter’s departure, the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund was hailing the candidacy of a First Amendment scholar and former dean of Stanford Law School, Kathleen Sullivan. “Out lesbian a contender for Supreme Court,” one of the group’s web sites declared.
Another Stanford law professor on the “frequently mentioned” lists, Pam Karlan, has been open about being a lesbian, colleagues and former students say. In response to an e-mail from POLITICO, Karlan expressed no reticence about discussing her sexual orientation, though she downplayed talk about being a possible nominee.
“It’s no secret at all that I’m counted among the LGBT crowd,” she wrote, using a common acronym for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered community. As for the possibility she’d be nominated, Karlan said, “Given the landscape, I’m flattered, but not fooled, by having my name tossed around.”
Unrelatedly, a rave for Karlan as “(1) brilliant, (2) broadly knowledgeable — Cass Sunstein aside, I can’t think of anyone who knows so much about so many different legal fields — and (3) a spectacularly gifted writer” from a right-leaning Harvard Law professor, William Stuntz.
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/05/first-gay-jus…
