Box Turtle Bulletin

Cleveland Enacts Domestic Partnership Registry

Cleveland’s city council voted 13-7 to provide a domestic partnership registry. The legislation goes to mayor Frank Jackson, who plans to sign the registry into law. It will go into effect 120 days after the mayor signs the bill. According to the Cleveland Plain-Dealer, the vote wasn’t an easy one for several council members:

But several council members reported intense pressure from local pastors, who oppose domestic partner benefits on religious grounds. At one point Monday afternoon, a rattled Kevin Conwell, a co-sponsor of the legislation, seemed ready to change his position. “I had more than 70 calls over the weekend,” Conwell said. Conwell ultimately voted with the majority.

…Councilman Zack Reed, who voted against the registry, said he was lobbied by his pastor, the Rev. Marvin McMickle. Also voting against the registry were Councilwoman Sabra Pierce Scott, Councilman Roosevelt Coats. Pierce Scott said prior to the vote that she had concerns about how the legislation was worded. At a committee hearing, Coats cited biblical passages that he said denounce homosexuality. “Many of you may disagree,” he said. “That’s fine. These aren’t my words. These words are in the Bible.”

Cleveland’s domestic partnership registry seeks to steer clear of Ohio’s draconian constitutional amendment banning all forms of recognition for same-sex couples by being open to same-sex and opposite-sex couples.

Iowa Supremes Hearing Marriage Case

In August of last year, Judge Robert Hanson ruled that Iowa’s prohibition on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. Although he put a stay on the decision the next day pending a Supreme Court hearing, one couple – Tim McQuillan and Sean Fritz – were married.

Today the Iowa Supreme Court heard opening oral arguments on the case (Boston Herald)

Attorneys involved in the case said it could take a year or more for a ruling.

If the Iowa court rules in favor of the couples, it would be the fourth state behind Massachusetts, California and Connecticut to uphold the right for same-sex couples to legally marry.

Our Place in the Democratic Party Minority Coalition

One of the strategies of the Democratic Party has been to bring together otherwise powerless minorities into a coalition of bodies that can work together to collectively protect their individual interests. And gays and lesbians, as sexual minorities, have been welcomed as part of the coalition.

However, while that initiative has served the gay community well in some states, in other places it appears that gay and lesbians are the ugly red-headed stepchildren in the Democratic family. While they are asked to be supportive of the agenda of other members of the family, the needs of gay citizens can be subject to the whims of anyone who might object.

We see this in Maryland where one legislator, who is undoubtedly a valuable advocate for his constituency, also was unyielding in his efforts to block any measure of protection for same-sex couples. Due in great part to the efforts of Sen. Muse – and the absolute unwillingness of the Party to call him on his championing of discrimination – gay Maryland couples have but the barest of almost-inconsequential rights, far less than is supported by Maryland’s population at large.

And now it appears that a similar situation has evolved in New York.

The voters in New York State support rights for same-sex couples. The Assembly in the State has voted for marriage equality, the Governor is an advocate, and it was a common belief that if only the Senate were in Democratic hands then gay people would have their place at the table as equals.

And it was this belief that led to substatial contributions to Democratic Senate candidates from gay men and women.

And the Democrats won a majority. Which should have been good news.

But Senator Rubén Díaz Sr., a Democrat from the Bronx, led a rebellion of three Senators and refused to support the leadership unless his conditions were met. He demanded, among other things, that there be no vote allowed to be brought to the floor that could advance marriage equality:

Diaz, a staunch opponent of same-sex marriage, has said he won’t back anyone for majority leader unless that person pledges in writing not to put marriage legislation up for a vote.

Well now the Democratic leadership has reached an agreement with Diaz, Pedro Espada, and Carl Kruger. Guess who wins and guess who loses.

Yesterday Elizabeth Benjamin reported in the Daily News

• The positions of Senate majority leader and president pro tempore, which were both held by former Majority Leader Joe Bruno, have now been bifurcated. Senator-elect Pedro Espada Jr. will be the majority leader while Smith is president pro tempore.
• Sen. Carl Kruger will … chair a pumped-up Senate Finance Committee.
• Sen. Ruben Diaz Sr. will chair the Aging Committee.
• A bill to legalize same-sex marriage will not be brought to the floor of the Senate for a vote this year.

Today she clarifies:

It now appears fairly certain that legislation to legalize gay marriage is on indefinite hold in the Senate as the result of the deal brokered by Senate Majority Leader-in-waiting Malcolm Smith and the Gang of Three.

A source close to the gang said the plan is to have the same-sex marriage bill introduced, determined to have fiscal implications (although I’m not exactly certain what those might be) and referred to the Finance Committee, which, assuming the agreement between the gang and Smith sticks, will be headed by Sen. Carl Kruger, who could stop the measure in its tracks.

And in addition to this sell-out of the gay community by the Senate leadership, the Governor seems to be back-pedaling as well.

“I supported same-sex marriage legislation when I was running for lieutenant governor with Governor Spitzer, and we had advocated for its passage and we are ready to have it passed at any time. But now my role is not as a legislator but is to sign the bill when and if the Legislature ever passes it, which I will do.”

As Benjamin notes, this is far less supportive than Gov. Spitzer who presented a “program bill” and proactively sought marriage equality. And it is also far less than the promises that Paterson has made in the past.

I recognize the difficulty that faced Malcolm Smith (top right) in his efforts to wrest control of the New York State Senate from the Republicans. But I am convinced that no other minority group’s rights would have ever been allowed to even be considered as a bargaining tool.

So the Democratic Party leadership has made clear the position of the gay community in the coalition family. We may attend the celebration feast, but our place is at the kiddies table. And we are welcome to campaign and contribute funds but we should know that our rights are not of equal importance and will be considered last.

And while some minority groups have increased their influence through the empowerment of the Democratic Party coalition, our minority status has ensured that we will get “special treatment” – a very special promise that our equality will not even be considered.

California Legislature to Request Prop 8 Rejection

Legislators in the California Senate and in the Assembly jointly issued bills to have the legislature in official opposition to the proposition (PolitickerCA):

On Tuesday, the second day of the 2009-10 legislative session, Sen. Mark Leno and Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (both D-San Francisco) launched Senate Resolution 7 and HR 5 in the Assembly. If approved, the bills would place both houses of the California Legislature on record as opposing the controversial initiative and declaring it an illegal revision to the state constitution.

“Prop. 8’s revision to the California Constitution violates key structural checks and balances built into our legal system,” Leno said. “Overnight, the constitutional protections of thousands of tax-paying, law-abiding California citizens were stripped from them by a simple majority vote, without a prior two-thirds vote by both houses of the legislature, thereby trampling on their fundamental right to equal protection.”

I predict that this will pass easily.

Mormon Times: CA Gays are “Sore Losers”

The Mormon Church has been as some effort to tell the world that the tens of millions of dollars and nearly endless manhours which they dedicated to banning marriage equality for gay citizens in California and Arizona was not based on malice. They aren’t haters, you know. They are full of love love love.

But when talking amongst themselves, another picture emerges. And in tone it seems to have less love than is promised. Take, for example, an article by Lee Benson in the Mormon Times. Benson chats merrily away about “winning streaks” and percentages, all as though this is nothing more than a game.

In all, 58,911,741 Americans over the past decade have cast votes on the issue.

The overall score is 37,662,846 to 21,248.894.

If it were a football game, you’d change the channel in the third quarter and watch something else.

And by now, we should just accept the actions of his church. They’ve won, you know. And from the astonishingly arrogant position of Benson and – from everything I’ve seen – the leaders of his church, that’s all that matters. We won – you lost – so shut up and take it.

But California won’t let it go. The whining is enough to make a soccer player envious. Lawyers are headed to court to block the proposition. Others are demanding that the vote go back on the ballot in 2010. Proponents of Prop. 8 are being singled out for abuse by opponents.

Sore losing is having a field day.

I’ll admit that at times I may wonder if perhaps the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is getting too much of the burden of anger for their efforts. But it’s articles like this one that remind me that not only are they confident in their power and arrogant in their self-justification, but when they think no one’s listening they are contemptious towards those they’ve hurt.

Vigil At Mesa, AZ Temple Tonight

I wish I had found out about this earlier:

When Mormons light their massive and colorful Christmas displays tonight on the Mesa Arizona Temple grounds, thousands of candles may burn across the street in a vigil in Pioneer Park.

Vigil organizers call it a demonstration of solidarity for gays and lesbians seeking full civil rights. They say their vigil was precipitated by Mormons’ staunch opposition to same-sex marriage with passage of amendments to constitutions in Arizona, California and Florida in the Nov. 4 general election.

“We are not going to march. It is not a protest. We will have our candles,” said an organizer, Robert Parker, an outspoken gay Mormon from Mesa. Parker hopes to get 5,000 people to assemble in the park “to stand in solidarity with gay Mormons who are stuck in the closet and need to know that we are working to help secure their civil rights.”

Mormons in Arizona contributed at a minimum 40% — some say as much as 80% — of the $8 million raised to pass Prop 102 in Arizona. Prominent Mormons were also at the head of the official “Yes” campaign in support of Prop 102. But for all of that, Don Evans, spokesman for LDS church in Arizona, continues to express surprise at being “singled out”

This constitutional amendment was supported by the Catholic Church, which is far and away the largest church in Arizona, and it was also supported by the various evangelical congregations.” All of those churches consistently opposed same-sex marriages, but “our church has taken the lion’s share of the protest,” Evans said.

The LDS church has taken a lion’s share of the protest because the church took on a lion’s share of the work — running the campaigns as well as using LDS tithing rolls as a fundraising tool among church members. Evangelicals and Catholics, while supportive of the amendments, did not take nearly as prominent a role as the LDS church chose to take.

And when anyone chooses to insert themselves in the rough-and-tumble world of politics, they can expect to experience the political consequences and criticisms of their actions, be they a political party, James Dobson, Swift Boat Veterans, or the Mormon church.

And if any other group had gone in as deeply and as enthusiastically into this political fight as the Mormon church has, they’d be fair game for protests. We could just as easily be targeting General Motors if GM had played the role that the LDS leadership did. But GM didn’t put their reputations on the line and fight to strip people of rights that they already enjoyed. The LDS church did.

And they did it with Big Mormon Money and Big Mormon Organization. In Arizona’s example, they out-spent anti-102 forces by nearly 12-1. They are also under investigation in California for making unreported in-kind donations — providing for free the sort of services that campaigns typically have to pay for. The LDS Church provided free phone-banking, satellite broadcasts, travel, a web site, commercials, and so forth — all of which are reportable under California and Arizona law.

So because of all that, the LDS leaders are now political figures just like anyone else who organizes and executes a political campaign. And because they chose to exercise their rights to do that — and as citizens and under current IRS regulations, it is their right to do so — they are now subject to the same scrutiny and criticisms as any other political figures or organizations.

They have given up their right to be “puzzled” and pretend that they are just another church. They’re not. They are now political activists just like the rest of us. Welcome to our world.

See also:
LDS Church Can’t Hide Behind A Temple

What Defines a Community Organization?

Tonight there will be a “townhall meeting“, a 90 minute online forum to address “Prop. 8: The Facts and the Future”. It is hosted by the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center and will feature its CEO, Lorri Jean.

At first glace this seems like a reasonable organization and individual to take charge and really address this situation. After all, what could be more representative of the gay community than “the world’s largest LGBT organization”?

But is this really the world’s largest LGBT community organization? And what makes an organization “community”?

I would argue that for an organization to be “community” it has to fit some criteria: it must be where the community is, provide services to the community, be welcoming to all members of the community, and be a home, a place of security and warmth, a shelter.

Sadly, the LA Gay and Lesbian Center fails on nearly all accounts.

The heart of Los Angeles’ gay community can be found in West Hollywood on the corner of San Vicente and Santa Monica. Although today that portion of West Hollywood plays social host to a mostly white male gay crowd of a certain age and dynamic, it is to that location that our community gravitates in time of protest. Yes, there are other parts of the city that play host to various subsets of our community, but West Hollywood is ours. It is our safe spot.

Hollywood is not.

A lone gay man or woman would not feel completely safe at night on Hollywood Boulevard towards the eastern end of the cruise strip. This is straightsville, and not a very safe part of it at that. Yet it is on a side street off Hollywood, three miles from the community, that the LAGLC’s chose to purchase a four story office building. And while it may be safe to wander around the neighborhood streets during the day, parking is only available for a hefty price.

If there is one thing obviously missing from the neighborhood in which the Center is located, it would be gay people.

But they also have another site – used mostly for fundraising. It has an art gallery, a theater, and rooms your organization can rent for occasions. It’s also in Hollywood and has no parking and I’ve yet to meet the person who wanders over to spend the afternoon.

But one might overlook the location if the draw was adequate. If they offered a service that was communal, that drew people together, that created a bond, a common meeting space, a feeling of unity.

Well, perhaps a glance at the Center’s revenues and expenditures can give us some sense as to whether LAGLC has the unification of the community as their primary goal.

According to LAGLC’s Form 990 for the year ended 6/30/07, the Center allocated their program service expenditures as follows: 77.0% as a pharmacy, 5.8% as an AIDS information clearinghouse, 5.7% for health education, for combined health services of 88.5% of their overall expenditures. Perhaps that’s why health care is featured so prominently on their website.

But healthcare is not their only function. They also provide care for homeless youth, free internet access, programs for seniors, and legal advice. All told they spent $32,895,161 doing good deeds.

For which they received reimbursement of $36,711,446 by the state, insurance companies, and fees.

Even after paying all administrative and fundraising expenses, the Center was in the enviable position of being able to reserve 43% of their direct public support away for a rainy day.

As for the average Joe or Jane gay person, for you there is not so very much.

Now you may be new in town and wander down Rand Shrader Place wondering what that brightly colored building is. And you may even go inside thinking it would be cool to maybe meet other gay people. But unless you are here for medical services (what’s your insurance?) or have an appointment, there’s no seating provided in the marble lobby and loitering isn’t allowed. (While once waiting for a friend who was receiving “legal advice” I was informed that there was a bench outside).

If you’re new in town and want to hang out with other gays, try either Starbucks on Santa Monica across from the gym or the new coffee place on the corner of Robertson. Or visit a church, join a club, or have a cocktail in any of dozens of bars scattered throughout the city. But don’t go near the Center.

Now don’t get me wrong. I very much appreciate the medical services they provide to those who are indigent or uncomfortable with another health care provider. And it’s awfully nice that someone is caring for youth and seniors. Truly. We need to better address the issue of homeless gay youth.

But I’m not sure why an adjunct of the State Health Department thinks that it is qualified to speak for me on issues of civil equality or why Lorri Jean has anything to say about the passage of Proposition 8.

Protests May Be Changing Minds

I’m not a big fan of SurveyUSA. I’ll give them credit for being the only survey firm to give consistently gloomy projections about Prop 8, but I’m not convinced that this is indicative of their greater polling abilities. Nevertheless,

SurveyUSA has released a new poll with some interesting results.

One: By a nearly 2 to 1 ratio, Californians want the existing same-sex marriages that occurred prior to Prop 8 passing to remain recognized. I think that we can expect to hear anti-gay activists tell the Court exactly the opposite – but they’re not really known for their honesty anyway.

Two: Those surveyed are split on whether protests will help or hurt the cause, with 28% responding each way. The rest either don’t know, don’t care, or think it won’t at all matter.

I’ll come back to Three.

Four: About 8% of voters who say that they voted for Proposition 8 now say that the protests have changed their opinion. Were 8% of Yes voters now able to change their vote, this amendment would not pass.

Three: This is the result that I find most interesting.

The question was “Did you vote for Proposition 8? Did you vote against Proposition 8? Or did you not vote?”

We know that 52.5% of voters did, indeed, vote “yes” on Proposition 8. But those who responded to this survey reported as follows:

40% voted yes
46% voted no
3% can’t recall
12% didn’t vote

Well, obviously this is either a rather unrepresentative sample (which could be the case) or memory has magically changed.

I have a hypothesis about voters’ recollection. I think we forget that we supported positions which we later find shameful.

We know full well that a very large portion of America did not support racial equality. We know that George Wallace was a hero to many and that busing was very unpopular. But those who recall opposing the civil rights efforts are few and far between. When one has moved from a position of intolerance to a position of tolerance, one’s recollection of previous bias seems to disappear.

Now there may be some who – for political correctness reasons – voted yes on Prop 8 but responded in this survey that they voted no. But 6 or 7 percent? That seems unlikely to me.

I think what this may be showing – though this is only speculation on my part – is that there are California voters who selected “Yes” on Proposition 8 out of default or perhaps even a moment of internal bias but who now “recall” being impressed by the arguments for equality. I think that this will continue over time and is rather surprising to show up so early.

The wave of disbelief, anger, and outrage that has resulted from the proposition seems to be resonating with the public. I predict that come ten years, there will be very few people indeed who recall voting in favor of changing the constitution to exclude gay couples.

Australia Provides Couple Rights

We told you in April about efforts by the Australian government to enact some protections for same-sex couples. It now appears that it has done so.

Today the Senate passed changes to a number of laws that would allow same-sex couples the same rights as de-facto couples. Additionally, they revised superannuation laws which allow couples to leave entitlements their partner or children.

“Today is an historic day,” said NSW Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby spokesperson Peter Johnson yesterday. “The Australian Senate has finally and firmly given its nod to equality for our relationships and families. Our partners and our children can look forward to equality in almost all areas of federal law, from taxation to health and aged care, from immigration to family law.

The legislation must now be approved by the lower house, which is considered a formality. The Labor government, however, still remains strongly opposed to marriage and civil unions for same-sex couples or other forms of recognition that include a ceremony.

VT Lawmaker’s Family Threatened Over Same-Sex Marriage Bill

Vermont Senate Majority Leader John Campbell (D-Windsor) announced that when the state legislature convenes in January, he plans to introduce a bill to legalize same-sex marriage. That prompted a St. Albans woman to call the state house and threaten to blow up Sen. Campbell’s home.

Officer Dale Manning, who took the call, says that police do not take threats like this lightly and are investigating. The caller did not identify herself.

Sen. Campbell characterized the call as disturbing, saying, “This wasn’t directed just at me, but at my family, which is quite unfortunate.”

On July 1, 2000, Vermont became the first state in the union to offer civil unions.

Update: Vermont’s Republican Governor Jim Douglas has announced that he will oppose the proposed legislation allowing same-sex marriages. Since Sen. Campbell said the governor’s support is vital to ensure success with fellow lawmakers, this announcement is likely to kill the measure.

Three Questions for the Court

When accepting the challenge to Proposition 8, the California Supreme Court identified three questions that the process will answer:

1. Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution?

This is the question that I believe will drive most of the conversation, speculation, and argument for the next several months. The determination of whether Proposition 8 would revise or amend the constitution determines whether it was properly enacted.

An amendment needs only signatures of 8% of the voters (who voted in the last gubernatorial election) and a majority vote. A revision requires approval by two-thirds of each house and a majority vote of the populace.

As Proposition 8 was not (and would not be) approved by two-thirds of the legislature, a determination that it is a revision effectively kills the effort.

The supporters of Proposition 8 may argue that revisions deal solely with the structure of government itself and not with the rights accorded to citizens.

Those seeking to overturn Proposition 8 may argue that the implementation of such a change would, in essence, dissolve the due process and equal access clauses and thus gut the constitution itself.

This issue is of enormous significance, and not just to gay Californians. In Re Marriage Cases did more than grant marriage rights; it set sexual orientation as a suspect classification. Regardless of one’s “opinion” or what one “feels” about the history of discrimination against various groups, in the State of California sexual orientation is now treated with the same consideration as race or religion.

Whichever way the Court decides this question, precedent will be set. The answer to this question will determine whether a small selection of signatories can, with a simple majority vote, remove a fundamental right from a suspect class.

In other words, if the Court finds that Proposition 8 can remove from gays the right to marry, then here foreward nothing in the California Constitution bars future amendments from denying, for example, African Americans the right to procreation or Mormons the right to own property. And while such propositions may be unenforceable due to federal constitutional protections, they could sit as a part of our governing document for the state. If fundamental rights can be removed from suspect classes by popular vote, then there really are no minority protections at all coming from the state constitution.

If we may take consolation from history, the California Supreme Court has dealt before with the question of discrimination by means of constitutional amendment. Per the LA Times,

In 1966, the California Supreme Court struck down a 1964 initiative that would have permitted racial discrimination in housing. Voters had approved the measure, a repeal of a fair housing law, by a 2-to-1 margin. Opponents challenged it on equal protection grounds, not as a constitutional revision.

If the court continues to find that gays cannot be denied marriage on equal protection grounds – as they already have – then this may be a foregone conclusion.

2. Does Proposition 8 violate the separation of powers doctrine under the California Constitution?

I’m not absolutely certain what the Court is getting at here. It may be asking if legislation – even legislation by means of constitutional amendment – can be enacted contrary to the findings of the Supreme Court.

The Court may be viewing Proposition 8 as a challenge to the Court’s right to apply equal access and due process to unpopular minorities and pondering whether the role of the courts could be made moot by means of a “government by proposition” in which any popular – but clearly unconstitutional – position could achieve the force of law through public vote.

3. If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?

While this may seem to perhaps be a separate question, I think it may play a great role in driving the answers to the first two questions.

The language of Proposition 8 is as follows:

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

You’ll notice that this doesn’t talk about performing marriages or allowing marriages. I’m not an attorney but it seems to me that if we go by simple language, it says that as of midnight on November 5th, all same-sex marriages ceased to be valid or recognized.

Jerry Brown, the State Attorney General, is arguing that laws cannot be applied retroactively and that this amendment makes no provision for marriages performed before the initiative date. And therefore those who married before the proposition was passed will remain married in the eyes of the state. But, it seems to me that the most straight-forward finding would be that such marriages were valid when performed and any legal action taken accordingly during the interim is binding but that after passage the State of California ceased to recognize them (though other states may continue to do so).

Most – other than those most dedicated to demeaning gay persons – would see this as a cruel decision. Other than true haters, few people want to see those who have already committed to each other stripped of their status. And, in fact, the Yes on 8 Campaign sought to keep that item of their agenda hidden.

And the language of the Court suggests that even some of those who did not side with the majority on In Re Marriage Cases do not seek to engage in cruelty. They are, after all, human and compassionate.

I think that they will recognize that finding Proposition 8 as not unconstitutional would place those citizens who responded to their May decision into a great deal of pain. And I suspect that the justices will feel a sense of responsibility for the consequences of their decisions, both in May and presently. We may even choose to find hope in the fact that the Court refused to put a stay on their decision in May, knowing that the passing of Proposition 8 was a possibility.

While this is not the sort of criterion on which a court case is decided, I cannot help but think that this third question may influence the justices to give strong consideration to the suspect class that is appealing for protection of their fundamental rights. Our cry for justice may be more compelling when the pain of injustice can be all too clearly seen.

CA Supremes to Hear Challenge to Prop 8 – No Stay

Per the LA Times:

The California Supreme Court agreed today to review legal challenges to Prop. 8, the voter initiative that restored a ban on same-sex marriage, but refused to permit gay weddings to resume pending a ruling.

While neither of these decisions is a surprise, this is a welcome step in the continued fight for marriage equality.

The court gave no indication as to the way they are leaning. However, it seems likely that at least one of the justices is inclined to overturn Proposition 8.

Some legal challengers also sought an order that would have permitted same-sex couples to marry until the cases were resolved, a position opposed by Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown and Proposition 8 supporters. Only Justice Carlos R. Moreno voted in the private conference to grant such a stay.

The court will hear the arguments in March of 2009 so there may be no clear answer for another year. Should the court decide that Prop 8 was an amendment rather than a revision to the constitution, pro-marriage activists will immediately begin the process of placing another amendment on the ballot to overturn Prop 8 and reinstate marriage rights for same-sex couples.

[To clarify the paragraph above, I’m saying that if the courts upholds Proposition 8, then the gay community and our friends will begin the process of reversing Prop 8 through another initiative. Sorry for the confusion.]

In a manner consistent with their behavior during the campaign, anti-gay activists have issued an ultimatum to the judges.

Supporters of Proposition 8 have threatened to mount a recall of any justice who votes to overturn the measure.

UPDATE:

One negative observation: Judge Kennard was one of the four judges who found for gay couples in May. The motion indicates that Judge Kennard would have denied the petitions of the gay couples to be heard before the court on this matter. That may indicate that she does not think that the case has merit.

Ministers in Maine Support Marriage

On Thursday, a coalition of religious leaders in Maine held new conferences to support marriage equality.

“We are speaking here today in support of civil marriages for same-sex couples because assuring full human rights for all citizens advances the common good,” said the Rev. Marvin Ellison, a Presbyterian minister and professor of ethics at Bangor Theological Seminary. Doty announced that more than 120 religious leaders from 14 different faith traditions across Maine have formed the Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry in Maine. The coalition, he said, is not a political action committee, but a group of clergy acting as individuals to raise awareness about the issue of same-sex marriage.

Today the Roman Catholic Bishop in Maine responded by ordering all churches to read a letter of opposition in Mass.

“To redefine marriage to include same-sex couples is to strip marriage of an essential component, namely the ability and obligation to procreate,” the bishop said in his letter. “To strip marriage of this essential component is to render marriage meaningless and open it up to endless revision and redefinition.”

The unmarried man without children did not specify whether he would be issuing a letter in opposition to infertile couples or elderly couples. However the Bishop did indicate that he will soon be attempting to impose Catholic doctrine by law on those ministers who spoke last week.

Malone’s letter said the church will be launching initiatives in the weeks and months ahead to preserve and support marriage as it is currently defined. It said objections to same-sex marriage are not based strictly on religious principles, but also on what is best for society.

Ex-Mormon Marches Against Prop 8

In the San Diego Reader a straight woman, an “old hippy” and former Mormon, tells of her experience protesting Proposition 8. It’s delightfully full of exploded stereotypes and down-home observations. It made me smile… and tear up a little.

I would have made a great flower child. I didn’t expect to be enthused about turning 50 on November 14, but thanks to Obama and Prop 8, I’ve never felt more energized. As a child, I wished I could march for the rights of blacks and women. But my parents were conservatives in an upper-middle class neighborhood and didn’t have anything to protest. I didn’t even experience music by the Beatles. They listened to Perry Como and Doris Day.

Read more here.

Reconstructionist Jews Sad About Proposition 8

Per JTA:

In a statement adopted in conjunction with its rabbinical association and rabbinical college, the Jewish Reconstructionist Federation voted at its convention in Boston to condemn the passage of Proposition 8, a state ballot initiative that restricted the definition of marriage to a union between a man and a woman. The measure narrowly passed Nov. 4.

“We are saddened and deeply disturbed by the denial of fundamental human rights—to marry, to adopt and care for foster children—to thousands of gay and lesbian citizens across the United States,” the statement said. “We are particularly dismayed by the passage of initiatives that have reversed previously recognized equality for same-sex unions.”