Box Turtle Bulletin

Texas Mayor Resigns For The Man He Loves

J.W. Lown, mayor of the west Texas city of San Angelo, has resigned in order to be with his partner, a Mexican national who does not currently have legal status in the United States. According to the San Angelo Standard-Times:

Lown said in a telephone call late Wednesday afternoon from Mexico that he has started a relationship with someone who does not have legal status in the United States. Lown said he did not want to take the oath of office knowing he was “aiding and assisting” someone who was not a citizen. “I made the final decision when I knew it was the right decision to make for me and my partner and our future – and for the community,” he said.

The mayor was about to take the oath of office for the start of his fourth term, which he won earlier this month in a landslide election. If he had completed his fourth two-year term, he would have tied for being the longest serving mayor of San Angelo.

Lown and his partner are in Mexico awaiting a visa to come back legally. Their wait may be a very long one.

This is not an unusual problem. Under current U.S. law, American citizens can legally bring their foreign spouses and other immediate family members into the United States.  But same-sex partners of U.S. citizens and permanent residents are not considered spouses — even if they are married in a state or country which allows same-sex marriage. That means countless gay and lesbian, bi-national couples are forced to remain apart unless the American partner decides to move in order to join his or her partner.

The Uniting American Families Act is intended to address the problem by allowing U.S. citizens and permanent residents to sponsor their same-sex partners for family-based immigration purposes. UAFA was introduced in Congress by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY).

Lown has dual American and Mexican citizenship. In a statement to the city council, Lown said he and his partner will come back to San Angelo once his partner obtains a visa and if “the people of San Angelo will welcome me back.” If the comments to the San Angelo Standard-Times are any indication, it appears that a very large number of San Angelinos are willing to welcome the popular mayor back with open arms.

Trouble in New Hampshire – Amendments Voted Down

Governor John Lynch stated that he would sign the marriage bill if it were revised to include specific protections for churches and religious groups. The New Hampshire Senate voted today 14-10 to accept the Governor’s changes. However, Reuters is reporting that the House rejected the changes.

The state’s Democrat-controlled House of Representatives voted down the bill in a 188-186 vote, hours after its Senate approved the legislation 14-10 along party lines.

State Representative Steve Vaillancourt, a gay Republican from Manchester, was a leading voice against the amendment securing religious liberties, saying that the House should not be “bullied” by the governor.

Vaillancourt said an earlier bill that did not provide protections to clerics or religious groups was the one that should have been passed, adding that the amended bill would allow discrimination to be written into state law.

The earlier bill passed both chambers.

Other House Republicans said they voted against the current bill because the process did not fairly give a voice to every citizen who wanted to speak on the issue.

This is an entirely unexpected turn of events. The fate of marriage equality in New Hampshire is uncertain.

The House vote against the governor’s amendment means the bill will be sent to a committee that will try to resolve the differences between the two chambers. It remains unclear how the governor would respond to any changes to his wording.

UPDATE:

The Wall Street Journal clarifies:

Opponents tried to kill the bill, but failed. The House then voted 207-168 to ask the Senate to negotiate a compromise.

Will CA Supreme Court Announce Decision on Prop 8 Tomorrow?

Rumor is going around that the San Francisco Police Department has been warned to be prepared tomorrow for public response to the California Supreme Court’s decision on the constitutionality of Proposition 8. However, the Court’s website currently says:

Forthcoming Opinion Filings

There is no pending notice of forthcoming opinion filings. When opinions are expected to file, notices are generally posted the day before. Opinions are normally filed Mondays and Thursdays at 10:00 a.m.

It is rather likely that if an Opinion is to be announced tomorrow that the notice would be posted by now. And I’m not familiar with a history of the Court notifying police departments prior to posting a ruling. So it’s likely that this rumor is little more than a rumor.

However, the dates on which the court can announce the Opinion on Prop 8 are rapidly diminishing. They are:

• 5/21/09
• 5/25/09 5/26/09 (5/25 is Memorial Day)
• 5/28/09
• 6/1/09

Decisions of this magnitude tend to be given on Thursdays. So I’m speculating that the announcement will be next Thursday, May 28.

Update: The Supreme Court website has been updated to say:

Forthcoming Opinion Filings

May 20 2009 — No opinions were announced for filing on Thursday, May 21, 2009.

So it seems that tomorrow will not be the announcement date for the Court’s decision.

Another DADT Discharge

This time, it’s a highly decorated 18-year veteran fighter pilot, Lt. Colonel Victor Fehrenbach. Meanwhile, the Pentagon says they are not drawing up any plans for dismantling “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

California Prop 8 Decision Thursday?

We’re hearing rumors. Joe.My.God says baracades have been spotted in the Castro. The Supreme Court releases decisions on Monday and Thursday. Due to the emotional stake so many people have in the decision, it stands to reason that the Court would give law enforcement advance notice of a pending decision. Are San Francisco police acting on a heads up?

Update: Equality Network is passing around an email saying they have it from “reliable sources” that the decision will come down Thursday. All speculation on what that decision would be is just that: speculation. The Court will give twenty-four hours notice of their announcement of the decision on its web site at 10:00 a.m. PST.

Regardless of the decision, good or bad, there are Day of Decision rallies planned across the country for Thursday. Please check here for details.

NOM’s Childish New Video

The National Organization for Marriage first brought us a Gathering Storm of oookie spookie actors being scared by a downpour of gay marriages. Then they set up a topless posing, fake-boobed, beauty pageant queen runner up as the “face of the marriage movement“.

Now NOM has a new ad that they are running. Check it out.

Awwww. Cute kids. Makes you want to give them a cookie.

But as for changing minds, I’m not too worried about the impact of this one. Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t take my political advice from toddlers.

Gibbs Ducks DOMA Question

When Barack Obama was running to capture the democratic nomination, he separated himself from the rest of the pack on gay rights with his stance on supporting the full repeal of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act.” His main rival, then Sen. Hillary Clinton, only supported a partial repeal. She wanted to keep the provision that allowed states to refuse to recognize marriages performed in other states. Obama’s position, in contrast, was the clearest and most straightforward: repeal the whole thing.

What a difference a year makes. When asked by Advocate reporter Kerry Eleveld about the administrations plans to repeal DOMA, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs essentially refused to answer.

When Obama took office, the new White House web site included Obama’s pledge to fully repeal DOMA as one of his eight principal components to his LGBT Civil Rights agenda. His web site today contains no mention of DOMA whatsoever. Meanwhile four (and soon five) states have made marriage equality a part of their laws. These historic events continue to go virtually unnoticed by this White House.

LGBT Russians Peacefully March in St. Petersburg, other cities

Rainbow Flash Mob in St. Petersburg (Valentin Ilyushin/Fontanka.ru)

In sharp contrast to yesterday’s aggressive breakup of a peaceful Slavic Pride march in Moscow by riot police, a “Rainbow flash mob” of between 100 and 250 LGBT people and supporters marched peacefully today in St. Petersburg.

The flash mob gathered at Ligovsky Avenue and walked from there to Nevsky Prospect, remaining on the sidewalk and off of the street. Police reportedly gathered to monitor the situation but made no moves to hinder the march. Once the group reached Nevsky Prospect, they released hundreds of balloons into the air with notes attached.

Balloon release in Chelyabinsk (Anti-Dogma)

There were much smaller balloon releases in other cities and towns across Russia, all coordinated to take place at 2:00 p.m. local time. In the southern Ural mountains city of Chelyabinsk, a man holding a half dozen colorful balloons walked down the rain-soaked streets of the main commercial district. His balloons stood out on the drab gray afternoon and attracted the attention of a couple of women. Impressed with the “positive energy” of the colorful balloons and the message of equality and freedom for LGBT people they represented, the two agreed to lend their support and helped to release the balloons.

Perhaps the most impressive accomplishment these balloon releases achieved was the widespread favorable coverage in the Russian press. The balloon releases were organized as part of the International Day Against Homophobia (IDAHO).

Meanwhile back in Moscow, all of the participants arrested in yesterday’s march have been released. Six, including march organizer Nikolai Alekseev, were held overnight and released at noon today.

[Hat tip: Anti-Dogma]

Steele’s OBVIOUSLY Stupid Argument Against Marriage

Michael Steele, the Chairman of the GOP, is trying to repackage the party’s social conservatism in a less abrasive wrap. He’s not wanting to give up opposition to gay marriage, for example, but come up with arguments that are not based on outright hostility, bigotry, and animus.

Republicans can reach a broader base by recasting gay marriage as an issue that could dent pocketbooks as small businesses spend more on health care and other benefits, GOP Chairman Michael Steele said Saturday.

Steele said that was just an example of how the party can retool its message to appeal to young voters and minorities without sacrificing core conservative principles. Steele said he used the argument weeks ago while chatting on a flight with a college student who described herself as fiscally conservative but socially liberal on issues like gay marriage.

“Now all of a sudden I’ve got someone who wasn’t a spouse before, that I had no responsibility for, who is now getting claimed as a spouse that I now have financial responsibility for,” Steele told Republicans at the state convention in traditionally conservative Georgia. “So how do I pay for that? Who pays for that? You just cost me money.”

To which any thinking person would say, “doesn’t heterosexual marriage also increase costs to small businesses?” Or is Steele suggesting that small businesses in states where marriage is already banned should save money by hiring gay people instead of straight people so they can avoid spousal costs?

OK, I’ll give Steele some points for trying to get the party away from outright bald-faced bigotry. But that’s just stupid.

The problem with anti-gay-marriage arguments that look for basis other than anti-gay animus is that they just don’t seem to hold up to even the most casual inspection.

Robert Gibbs on DADT: Then and Now

This is White House press secretary Robert Gibbs’s response back last January in answer to a question submitted via email about “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the ban on gays serving in the military:

A one word answer on getting rid of the policy: yes. That seemed pretty clear and straightforward to me.

But this is what Gibbs looked like when he tried to answer a similar question this week:

John Avarosis wonders if this hemming and hawing is “because he secretly knows that we’re on the path to getting screwed.” To be honest, I’m wondering the same thing.

Russian Riot Police Break Up Slavic Pride

Nikolai Alekseev being arrested by OMON riot police.

Police in riot gear swept in and forcibly broke up an attempted Slavic Pride march near Moscow State University shortly after noon today just as the march was getting underway. Between twenty and forty people were arrested in all.

The march had only been underway for about a minute when OMON rushed in and began hauling off marchers to waiting buses. Riot police then began detaining other gay activists who appeared shortly after and were speaking with media. They were arrested even though they hadn’t participated in the march itself. There are reports that as police hauled away Ksenia Prilebskaya, they ripped off her shirt and bra and roughly pushed her into a police bus.

Moscow authorities had earlier denied permission to hold the march, and they vowed to break up any attempt by activists to march without permission. Moscow mayor Yuri Luzhkov has described Pride marches as “satanic,” and his spokesman yesterday said the march sought to “destroy the moral foundations of our society.”

Among those in custody are Slavic Pride organizer Nikolai Alekseev and Chicago LGBT activist Andy Theyer. Alekseev and another activist were were at an adjacent park popular with newlyweds dressed as a groom and bride while giving interviews with media when police spotted and arrested them. Alekseev was held down by five riot police as he was arrested. British activist Peter Tatchell was arrested but has since been released. One activist has already been taken before a judge who pronounced him innocent, but he still remains in police custody.

There is currently no word from Alekseev since his arrest. He has reportedly been segregated from the other arrested activists and his cell phone has been confiscated.

The detentions come as Moscow prepares to host the final round of the Eurovision Song Contest, Europe’s most prestigious pop music event. Russia had reportedly spent some 24 million euros on the contest in an attempt to bolster its international image. Some singers had threatened to boycott the wildly popular world event if the Slavic Pride march was broken up. Today’s arrests are highly embarrassing for the Eurovision organizers, which has a big gay following across Europe. According to the U.K.’s Telegraph:

Advance questions about the march drew embarrassed silence from Graham Norton, the BBC’s commentator for the competition, and Andrew Lloyd Weber, who co-wrote the song for Britain’s contestant, Jade Ewen. Both men claimed not to have heard of the protest, while Lord Lloyd Weber suggested that it might have been banned to avoid traffic congestion.

A few hours earlier, Russian Orthodox nationalists held a counterdemonstration against Slavic Pride. That counterdemonstration was held with the approval of Moscow city authorities. Demonstrators there chanted “Glory to Christ! Death to the Antichrist!.”

UK Gay News continues to provide hour-by-hour updates on the situation.

Russian Police Vow To Break Up Tommorow’s Slavic Pride March

Moscow authorities have vowed to clamp down on any gay pride march which LGBT advocates try to hold on Saturday. Organizers of Slavic Gay Pride had planned on holding a march on Saturday to coincide with the high visibility of this year’s Eurovision Song Contest, which is being held in Moscow. The Dutch contestants have already threatened to boycott the Eurovision Finals if the Gay Pride march is not allowed to go ahead. the French Eurovision delegation have announced their intent to join the march while displaying their Eurovision credentials. U.K. LGBT activist Peter Tatchell has also arrived in Moscow to participate in Pride activities.

According to continually-updated reports at UK Gay News, Slavic Gay Pride organizers have gone into hiding as police try to track them down and arrest them. One Moscow daily has reported that police are planning to arrest Moscow Pride leader Nikolai Alekseev. For his part, Alekseev isn’t deterred. Speaking from his secret location, he declared:

Nikolai Alekseev

“Everyone is very excited about tomorrow and more than ever ready to go in the street despite the threats reported by the Moscow police tonight. It is just hard to believe that despite we are organizing the action for the 4th time, we have this year 55 activists from several regions of Russia and Belarus who checked in for the event and who since Thursday are just working on it and who more than everything want to march tomorrow.  For the forth time, we are just showing to Russian that gays and lesbians are not cowards and that they are not scared to march for their rights. And looking at the high number of reports in the Russian media, the message is delivered!”

The situation is getting very tense. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office in UK has issued a “travel advisory” for LGBT visitors in Moscow. Russian Nationalists have already announced their own brand of an “ex-gay cure”:

Russian nationists are threatening to “cure” anyone who takes part in Saturday’s Slavic Gay Pride Parade in Moscow. “We will cure them for sure. We will help them to the hospital to be treated by the doctors. They are ill people,” Alexei Samsonov, a right-wing activist, told Reuters.

Last year’s Moscow Pride was conducted in a similarly clandestine manner, as Alekseev and other activists pulled off several different Pride activities while Moscow police scampered like Keystone cops. In 2007, an unauthorized march ended in violence and massive arrests.

Nevada Legislature Passes Domestic Partners Bill

In April, the Nevada Senate voted in favor of a domestic partnership bill that would allow Nevadans most of the rights and responsibilities of marriage but not the dignity of the institution, which was banned by Constitutional amendment.

The Tahoe Daily Tribune is reporting that the bill has now passed the Senate.

The Assembly Friday gave final legislative approval to legislation creating domestic partnerships in Nevada.

The bill goes to Gov. Jim Gibbons who has said he will veto it.
…
The vote was 26-14 with Democrats Mo Denis and Marilyn Kirkpatrick of Las Vegas joining the Republicans in opposing the measure. Republican Ed Goedhart of Amargosa Valley voted for it and John Carpenter of Elko was absent Friday.

Marriage Equality in One Year Visually

A year ago today the California Supreme Court determined that denying marriage to same-sex couples was a violation of the state Constitution. Six months later the voters of the state reversed that decision and, pending the results of a legal challenge, gay Californians have the same rights as they did before the decision.

But the nation has changed significantly in that year. For the difference between today and a year ago, see the above graphic.

Dark blue = marriage
Light blue = all the rights and responsibilities of marriage but not the name
Yellow = specific limited rights and recognition

Based on statement by the Governor and Legislature of New Hampshire, I’ve included that state as marriage.

Cameronesque Award: The Family “Research” Council

The Family “Research” Council is engaging in some downright Cameronesque “research” in its latest fundraising appeal. In an email blast with “Save America’s Future” in the subject line, the FRC is begging its members to donate online “to help us stop liberal attacks on life, marriage and your religious liberty.” And what is the greatest danger to your religious:

Repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act . . . special rights for homosexuals, lesbians, transvestites, and transsexuals . . . ultimately silencing both pastors in their pulpits and Christian and conservative broadcasters.

And they site a very prestigious name to back up their claim:

Religious freedom? Not for you, if the Harvard International Law Journal is right:

“[S]cholars [are] now suggesting that even core religious practices . . .

can be regulated in the name of equality . . .”

“Regulate” your religious freedom? We can’t let that happen!

But wait a minute, doesn’t the United States still have a First Amendment guaranteeing the free exercise of religion? How did the editors of the Harvard International Law Journal miss that?

It turns out, they didn’t. The article the FRC is quoting from was written by Carolyn Evans and Beth Gaze, scholars at the Centre for Comparative Constitutional Studies, Melbourne Law School, Australia.

That’s right. Australia. The relevant quote — without the ellipses — is this:

On the other side, there is an increasingly powerful movement to subject religions to the full scope of discrimination laws, with some scholars now suggesting that even core religious practices (such as the ordination of clergy) can be regulated in the name of equality.[6] At present, exemptions are given to religious organizations in many non-discrimination laws,[7] but the scope of those exemptions is being reduced in many liberal democracies.[8]

Now most people never bother to look at footnotes. But the relevant footnote are very instructive — as footnotes always are:

[6] See Pru Goward, Address at the Ordination of Catholic Women Annual Conference, Melbourne: Women, Human Rights and Religion (Nov. 5-6, 2005), available at http://www.ocw.webcentral.com.au/ articles.htm; Cass R. Sunstein, On the Tension between Sex Equality and Religious Freedom, Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper No. 167 (2007), available at http://www.ssrn.com/ abstract_id=995325; Cf. Reid Mortensen, Rendering to God and Caesar: Religion in Australian Discrimination Law, 18U. Queensland L. J. 208, 219 (1994-1995).

[7] See, e.g., anti-discrimination laws in the U.S. and the U.K.: Civil Rights Act of 1964 §§ 702 and 703, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-1 and 2000e-2; Equality Act 2006 (U.K.), §§ 50 and 57-60; Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 (U.K.) §§ 7 and 25.

[8] For example, in 2000 a European Directive (Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000) was issued that created quite strict limitations on the ability of EU member states to grant exemptions from anti-discrimination laws to religious employers.

Notice what’s happening. There are three scholars (two in Australia and one in Chicago) who believe that the state ought to regulate “core religious practice.” There are, of course, other scholars not cited who believe the opposite, and can back up their beliefs as well. But that doesn’t mean a court will go along with it.

The authors also cite the European Union in as attempting to impose such regulations. But the authors cite the United States as holding a body of laws which preserve religious freedom.

And when the authors go on to examine “core religious practice” (i.e. “selection and training of clergy, the language and symbolism of ritual, and the determination of membership of the religious community”) they conclude that religion enjoys a special claim to being exempted from the kinds of regulation that the FRC would have us fear.

It’s been a while since we awarded a Cameronesque award to anyone. But it’s been a while since we’ve seen such an outrageous example of misuse of the professional literature. The Family “Research” Council is now a two-time winner.