Box Turtle Bulletin

Florida Republican Gov. Crist Won’t Push Anti-Marriage Amendment

The signatures are in and the campaign is on. Florida will be voting on a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages — marriages which are already banned under state law. The Florida Republican Party put up nearly three-fourths of the funding to gather signatures, funding which abruptly ended when Gov. Charlie Crist took office and instructed the state GOP to not contribute any further. And now that the proposal has been certified to appear on the ballot, Gov. Crist has declined to offer his endorsement:

And even though he signed a petition to support the same-sex-marriage ban while he was running for office, he says he’s not interested in pushing the issue anymore.

“It’s not something that moves me,” he said last week.

Uruguay Approves Civil Unions

It’s a good day for same-sex couples. Following up on Hungary, Reuters reports that Uruguay is also now offering its gay couples protection under the law.

Uruguay’s Congress legalized civil unions for homosexual couples on Tuesday in the first nationwide law of its kind in Latin America.

Under the new law, gay and straight couples will be eligible to form civil unions after living together for five years. They will have rights similar to those granted to married couples on such matters as inheritance, pensions and child custody.

Uruguay’s Senate passed the bill unanimously after the lower house approved it last month, a congressional spokesman said. The country’s center-left president is expected to sign it into law.

Although this was expected, its nice to se unanimous Senate support.

See also:
Civil Union In Uruguay
Uruguay Approves Civil Unions
Uruguay To Offer Civil Unions

Hungary Adopts Registered Partnerships

We told you last month that Hungary was to consider a bill that would allow same-sex couples to register their partnerships and receive many of the same rights and obligations as married couples.

Reuters is reporting that the effort was successful

The law passed with 185 votes in favor, 154 against and 9 abstentions. It will take effect as of January 2009.

Benedict XVI: Gay Marriage “Obstacle On the Road to Peace”

Pope Benedict XVI has issued his Message for the Celebration of World Peace Day, titled “The Human Family, A Community of Peace.” In this traditional January 1 message (issued in advance of 2008), he discusses “the one human family’s” importance for world peace:

6. The social community, if it is to live in peace, is also called to draw inspiration from the values on which the family community is based. This is as true for local communities as it is for national communities; it is also true for the international community itself, for the human family which dwells in that common house which is the earth. [All emphasis in the original]

There is so much to appreciate in this statement:

• A call for people to treat each other as family (“We do not live alongside one another purely by chance; all of us are progressing along a common path as men and women, and thus as brothers and sisters.”),
• responsible stewardship of the earth’s energy resources and the environment (“sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balance”),
• the “prudent use of resources and an equitable distribution of wealth,”
• laws “which would foster true freedom rather than blind caprice, and protect the weak from oppression by the strong,”
• concerns over wars and conflicts in Africa and the Middle East, and continuing arms races in countries all over the world.

In many ways, it is a beautiful and well-considered document. It’s the sort of document I often appreciated during my Catholic days. Except this time, there’s this that’s buried in the text:

…[E]verything that serves to weaken the family based on the marriage of a man and a woman, everything that directly or indirectly stands in the way of its openness to the responsible acceptance of a new life, everything that obstructs its right to be primarily responsible for the education of its children, constitutes an objective obstacle on the road to peace.

If I were in a flippant mood, I might say that he’s not talking about same-sex marriage because the ability for gays and lesbians to enter into marriages does nothing to weaken anyone else’s family. But of course we all know better; we know exactly what he’s talking about.

Arms races, Conflicting economic interests, dwindling resources, not being able to see each other as brothers and sisters in the “one human family” — these are all serious impediments to world peace, no question about it. And framing these conflicts as disruptions inside the human family is a useful way of looking at things.

But gay marriage? An objective obstacle on the road to peace?

I think Benedict missed another important obstacle to peace: efforts by some world leaders to scapegoat a few members of that one human family for the problems suffered by other members of that family. I’m sure it’s just an oversight. Maybe he’ll pick up that theme for 2009.

Church of Sweden Endorses Gay Marriage Law

As we reported earlier, Sweden is committed to converting from its provisions for Civil Unions to gender-less marriage. The Church of Sweden, which represents the faith community of about 80% of the nation’s citizens, had previously decided that they would continue to provide legal officiation of wedding ceremonies if the law changed.

According to The Local, the Church has now announced that it supports the legal change in status

“Marriage and (same-sex) partnerships are equivalent forms of unions. Therefore the Church of Sweden’s central board says yes to the proposal to join the legislation for marriages and partnerships into a single law,” the Church said in a statement.

The church, which has performed blessings of same-sex unions since earlier this year, is in agreement with granting the civil and religious recognition simultaneously. Currently civil unions cannot be conducted in a religious ceremony.

However, it wishes to hold the term “marriage” in reserve for only opposite-sex couples.

Huckabee’s Strange Theology

When asked questions about his hostile comments on homosexuality, Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee responded:

“Let’s understand what sin means — sin means missing the mark,” he responded. “Missing the mark can mean missing the mark in any area. We’ve all missed the mark. … How we miss the mark is less important than we all miss the mark. The mark is that we have marriage — men and women, they marry, they create children, and they train their replacements and you have a future generation then that creates their replacements and trains them. That’s the mark. If we didn’t have that as the ideal, we wouldn’t have a civilization that was able to perpetuate.”

Now the way I read that, Huckabee is saying that sin is missing the mark and that the mark is heterosexual marriage and children. Huckabee is literally saying that not to marry and have children is sin.

This is nonsense and not the teaching of ANY known Christian denomination, even Huckabee’s Southern Baptists. This is, in fact, in clear contradiction to the teachings of the Apostle Paul who set celibacy as a Christian’s goal and marriage as a lesser option for those unable to control their lust.

It would appear to me that Rev. Huckabee might place his animosity to his gay neighbors at a higher premium than he does his doctrinal beliefs.

Wisconsin’s “Anti-Family” Activist

Anti-gay activists know that public opposition to gay marriage seldom includes opposition to some other method of recognition for gay couples. So naturally they try to lump marriage in with civil unions or other vehicles when they prepare their amendments to ban recognition.

As lumping is not allowable under some states’ constitutions, these all inclusive amendments are often challenged. Leading the charge in Wisconsin is a relatively unknown University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh political science instructor, Bill McConkey, who thinks that Wisconsonites would never have voted to ban civil unions and that the amendment is thus unconstitutional.

Anti-gay activists often wail and moan about secular progressive, anti-Christian, anti-family homosexuals trying to overturn the will of the people. But according the the Star Tribune, Bill doesn’t meet their stereotype.

Q: You’ve described yourself as a Christian, straight, married, father of seven. You’re kind of an unlikely figure to be leading the charge on gay rights.

A: I’ve also been a Republican all my life, and people have said, that’s certainly a conflict but I don’t think so. The reason I don’t is because it’s consistent with my view of human dignity and human rights as opposed to government and the power of government. This is really an overreaching amendment.

Q: What was your motivation to file suit?

A: I thought it was horrible when it first came out, because of the implication of the precedent that it sets. If you don’t like gay people, who’s next? Short people? Or maybe we can go back to black people or to Jews or something. As a student of history and as an educated person, I know the history and the implications of that mind-set. It began with that. I also have a gay daughter. People have asked me, would you have filed this suit if it wasn’t for your daughter? To be real honest, maybe not. Maybe I would have just ranted and raved in my classrooms and written letters to the editor and fumed off to the side. But because of her, it also became a personal issue and I feel like I’m fighting for my kid. I’m a family man above all.

Although anti-gay activists like to hide behind the term “pro-family”, I think Bill McConkey illustrates what being pro-family is all about. Oh, and he doesn’t do a half-bad job of showing what “Republican principles” of governmental non-interference really look like.

Australian Capital Territory to Consider Civil Unions

UPDATED: See Below

The Australian Capital Territory is that area in which the federal Austrailian government is conducted. Like the District of Columbia, it has self-governance but its decisions can be overruled by federal authority.

In 2006 the ACT legislated for civil unions for gay couples. This action was overturned by the federal government. Overturning ACT decisions is not a common practice.

A new government has been voted into power, and part of their campaign was on providing some form of recognition to same-sex couples. However, the Rudd government is not in favor of marriage or of civil unions. They propose that states offer registration of couples and provide benefits similar to de-facto relationships.

The ACT government does not view relationship registers as an adequate response to either the commitment or the needs of same-sex couples. They are proposing a slightly watered down version of their previous efforts of enacting civil unions. From ABC News (not the US one)

The ACT’s Attorney-General, Simon Corbell, plans to re-introduce a Civil Partnerships Bill, which would grant legal recognition to same-sex unions. He will push the case at a meeting with the new federal Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, on Friday.

“I think that’s an important courtesy to extend to the Federal Government, given there has been a change of government, and the opportunity now to progress an important piece of law reform for people in the ACT,” he said.

Anti-gay factions have already voiced threats over the action. It will be interesting to see if quashing gay recognition is a priority of the new government.

UPDATE

The Age is reporting that the federal government will not override the ACT’s decision to provide civil unions.

A Conservative Supports Marriage

Howard Lurie is an old-fashioned conservative who writes occasionally for the Philadelphia Daily News. And being opposed to governmental interference, he finds himself logically on the side of same-sex marriage.

To let government restrict the selection of a spouse on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation is to let government intrude on one of the most intimate decisions we can make. Conservatives should be the first to deny government that authority.

Sometimes the only ones who can speak to conservatives are those who know their language.

Uruguay To Offer Civil Unions

Reuters is reporting that Civil Unions are coming to tiny South American country Uruguay.

Uruguay will legalize civil unions for homosexuals and heterosexuals next month, making it the first Latin American nation to treat gay and straight couples alike, a lawmaker said Thursday.

Deputies in the early hours of Thursday passed legislation allowing gay and straight couples to form civil unions after living together for at least five years.

The law must return to the Senate for revisions but is expected to be in place by mid-December.

See also:
Civil Union In Uruguay
Uruguay Approves Civil Unions
Uruguay To Offer Civil Unions

Americans Support Civil Unions

A new ABC poll shows broad support for recognition of same-sex relationships by means of civil unions.

A random telephone survey of 1,131 American adults asked (among other questions)

Do you think homosexual couples should or should not be allowed to form legally recognized civil unions, giving them the legal rights of married couples in areas such as health insurance, inheritance and pension coverage?

ABC tells us:

Overall, 55 percent favor allowing homosexual couples to form legally recognized civil unions, giving them the same rights as married couples in areas such as health insurance, inheritance and pension coverage. That’s up from 45 percent in an ABC/Post poll in 2006; the previous high was 51 percent in 2004.

While this is an encouraging result, there are specific subsets of the population that suggest that over time equality for gay persons will be readily accepted by the citizenry at large. Saying yes to civil unions were:

In addition to Democrats (66%), civil unions are supported by independants (58%) and even a healthy showing of Republicans (39%). Even those identifying as “Conservatives” and “Conservative Republicans” were about a third supportive (35% and 31%, respectively). Politicians who seek to stir up “the base” of conservative Republicans with an anti-gay attack may want to note that a third of their audience will not be receptive to such a call.

While only 44% of those over 65 were supportive, those 18-29 were two-thirds in favor. This speaks well for future benefits in the private sector as these individuals become the CEOs and small-businessmen of tomorrow.

Ireland to offer Same-Sex Relationship Recognition

Parts of Europe have provided some recognition and protection for same-sex couples for about a decade. Currently three countries (in green) provide marriage equality while many more (in red) offer various secondary protections ranging from civil unions that are identical to marriage down to limited property rights.

As discussed recently, Austria is considering civil union protections. And Sweden will soon be converting their Registered Partnerships to Marriage.

Now from the Belfast Telegraph comes word that Ireland has given a time frame for their long promised legislation on same-sex partner recognition.

The Government is promising to bring in legislation next year recognising civil partnerships among same-sex couples.

The new law will also allow heterosexual couples to form legal arrangements without the requirement of marriage.

There is no word yet as to the extent of the bill but it is likely to be far less than the civil unions bill proposed by the opposition party.

Church of Sweden Tentatively Supports Gay Marriage

It is fairly certain that Sweden will soon replace the Registered Partnership laws they have had in place since 1996 with legalized same-sex marriage. If they do so, then gay citizens will have the same rights to church weddings as heterosexuals.

The Church of Sweden is trying to determine their response. Although the church is decidedly pro-gay, some ministers balk at providing same-sex marriages. One option would be to separate the legal officiation of civil wedding from the blessing of couples.

Although the decision is not final and the question is likely to arise again after the law is changed, the Church voted 161 to 74 to retain it’s legal officiating capacity.

Archbishop Anders Wejryd said he expects the issue to resurface if there is a change in the law.

“Those who voted did so on the basis of current legislation. If the law changes, the issue will return,” he said.

But the Archbishop added that he was not unduly worried by the prevailing differences of opinion.

“I think the type of discussion we have had contributes to our cohesiveness. It has been an honest discussion that shows our great willingness to live together within the church. So it doesn’t worry me.

Austria to Consider Civil Unions

Many of Austria’s neighboring states have some form of recognition for the rights of same-sex couples. German has Life Partnerships, Switzerland, Slovenia, and the Czech Republic have Registered Partnerships, and Hungary has limited inheritance rights recognition. Only Slovakia and Italy have no recognition and most observers believe that Italy will soon join the rest of Western Europe.

Austria will now consider providing recognition for same-sex couples.

SPÖ Justice minister Maria Berger’s proposed new partnerships law will be considered by a bipartisan working group.

The People’s Party announced earlier this month that it would support civil unions similar to those in Switzerland.

It is too early to make predictions but it is encouraging that there is support from within both of the coaltion ruling parties.

CA EQ Preaching To The Choir?

This ad should, but won’t be seen by people in the most backwards cities in California:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5696750115924165098&hl=en

Via the Sac [Town] Bee:

Frustrated in efforts to legalize same-sex marriage through legislation or litigation, proponents will launch a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign this week to “open hearts and minds” in Sacramento and other major cities.

The 60-second ads will run in the capital, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego and Palm Springs as part of a monthslong campaign to prod families to openly discuss same-sex marriage.

“The long-term goal is to have the majority of Californians support the freedom to marry — to change the climate here,” said Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, which is coordinating the campaign.

If CA EQ is interested in changing the climate in my home state why in the world are they only targeting areas which already have the most favorable attitudes towards marriage equality? It’s in the socially backwards central valley cities like Fresno [where Mike Ensley hails from] , Bakersfield, Stockton and Modesto where the most change needs to occur and I’m inclined to believe CA EQ’s ads would receive the most attention.

CA EQ’s website on the Let California Ring campaign gives no explanation.