Box Turtle Bulletin

Couple rights advance in Germany

On Wednesday, Germany’s high court found that a tax which targeted same-sex couples cannot be enforced. (CNN)

The court ruled that gay couples who have entered into a “registered partnership,” the German legal phrase for relationships similar to marriage, must be exempted from the country’s land transfer tax just like straight married couples, according to a court news release.

Interestingly, this is similar to (and illustrative of) a position taken recently by 13 members of Angela Merkel’s conservative Christian Democratic Union party. They find it unacceptable that the nation must repeatedly be told by courts to treat its gay citizens fairly and have called for tax parity. Kristina Schroder, Germany’s minister for family affairs, took a page from UK’s David Cameron and declared that by registering their partnerships and taking long-term responsibility for each other, gay couples “are living conservative values”.

With this respectable number of conservatives now joining the Liberal Democrats in calling for equal tax treatment, the issue breaks the partisan barrier. There is hope that Germany may soon move in the direction of greater equality.

Marriage loss in Hawaii

Recently we have become accustomed to hearing good news on the legal front. With the quite obviously unconstitutional federal Defense of Marriage Act (section 3) being litigated in several courts, there have been half a dozen back-to-back victories to report.

However, the constitutionality of state laws is less legally certain, and occasional setbacks, though disappointing, are not surprising. One such setback occurred yesterday. (AP)

U.S. District Court Judge Alan C. Kay’s ruling sides with Hawaii Health Director Loretta Fuddy and Hawaii Family Forum, a Christian group that was allowed to intervene in the case.
“Accordingly, Hawaii’s marriage laws are not unconstitutional,” the ruling states. “Nationwide, citizens are engaged in a robust debate over this divisive social issue. If the traditional institution of marriage is to be reconstructed, as sought by the plaintiffs, it should be done by a democratically elected legislature or the people through a constitutional amendment,” and not through the courts.

Hawaii’s laws are unique. It was in this state that the first “marriage protection” constitutional amendment was passed, and rather than prohibit marriage equality outright, it gives the state legislature the power to do so.

Until last year, when the legislature enacted a civil unions law, Hawaii had a meaningless and insulting reciprocal benefits program (which offered very few benefits and did not recognize relationships). Although the state has a virtual one-party government, the state’s vocal social conservatives have been effective in quashing equality. However, the current governor is an advocate for marriage and I predict that Hawaii will join the ranks of equality states in fairly short time.

Judge Kay was appointed to the federal bench in the 80’s by President Reagan.

The decision will be appealed to the Ninth Circuit. It will be interesting to see where that court falls in that its decision on California’s Proposition 8 was narrowed to address just the unique circumstances of that state and did not speak to the constitutionality of anti-gay bans in general.

$325K gift to Minnesota’s marriage efforts

From Pioneer Press:

A Michigan philanthropist has donated $325,000 to a group opposing a proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage in Minnesota.

Jon Stryker of Kalamazoo, Mich., gave the money to Freedom to Marry Minnesota’s political action committee on Tuesday, Aug. 7. according to state campaign finance records.

The numbers are starting to get big. I think that reflects an awareness that this time, we have a good chance at success.

NZ Prime Minister supports equality

Pinknews

New Zealand’s prime minister, John Key, has said he will support a member’s bill selected for a vote in the House of Representatives that would legalise marriages between two people of the same sex.

Key will allow a conscience vote, a move which will allow members of his center-right National Party to join Green, Mauri, Mana, United Future, and most of Labour in supporting the bill and which increases the odds of passage.

Catholic diocese: Pedophile Mansion must be protected from gay marriage

At some point in the last century, the Catholic Church came up with an idea: since priests are scarce, rather than toss out those who molest children, why not refurbish them (and their reputation) instead and send them to a new place where no one knew about their pedophile tendencies. And if a few more kids get raped (or a few hundred thousand), well at least they didn’t lose any priests.

Towards that effort, in 1973 Worcester, MA, priest Rev. Thomas A. Kane opened House of Affirmation at Oakhurst, a beautiful old mansion. As he had already been molesting a boy for five years, Kane was an ideal choice to head up the treatment of pedophile priests. And it gave Kane a convenient place to rape the kid and share him with other priests. Win-win (except, of course, for his victim).

But unfortunately for the diocese, Kane also committed a sin which the Church takes far more seriously and for which reconciliation is not offered: he engaged in financial improprieties with the Church’s money. And so, in 1990, Pedophile Mansion was closed and the Church (without the slightest hint of irony) reassigned the space to the Office for Youth Ministry.

Well now the Church has a need to get some ready cash; those busy-body courts keep awarding the victims of the pedophile priests with settlements. And there are only so many nunneries to empty or social services they can cut so now they have to look at the disagreeable task of selling mansions. And beautiful old Pedophile Mansion was put on the market.

James Fairbanks and Alain Beret were interested. The two had refurbished rundown grand spaces before and wanted to turn the mansion into a beautiful banquet facility. And as they had the support of various planning committees – who were delighted that the building would be restored rather than razed – they put in an offer and a $75,000 deposit.

But then there was a hickup. It was determined that a $240,000 sprinkler system would need to be installed.

And at that point, the Church decided to pull a fast one. Rather than renegotiate revisions to the standing contract, the Church’s broker suggested a new offer – one for only a portion of the 24 acres. And when Fairbanks and Beret retracted their previous offer and submitted the suggested smaller bid, the Church declined the offer, thus leaving them without a legal contract.

They had decided to pursue “other plans” for the property.

But as their intent had been to raise funds and divest the diocese of the costly overhead of maintaining the building, it seemed odd that the Church would make this move. Why could it be?

The “why” of their decision is shocking, but not surprising. At some point in the process the Church discovered that Fairbanks and Beret are not only gay but a legally married couple. And Worcester diocese of the Roman Catholic Church did not want to sell property to a gay couple.

Now it may seem extreme to speculate on something like that. And, of course, the church gave entirely different reasons. (Worcester Telegram)

This week, Monsignor Thomas Sullivan, who oversees the sale of diocesan property, told me the deal fell through because of financing.

“They couldn’t come up with the money,” he said. “This happens all the time.”

I told him the potential buyers believed that he rejected the deal because of their sexual orientation, or the prospect of gay marriages someday being performed at Oakhurst. Was that an issue?

“No, it wasn’t,” Msgr. Sullivan said. “It was an issue of them not having the financing. That was all.”

But, as it turns out, it’s really not a matter of guesswork or differing perspectives. The Church was kind enough to put in words exactly the reasons for their chicanery and bigotry and their agent was stupid enough to include it in an email chain to Beret. And – as seems to be the chief role of Catholic hierarchy – Monsignor Sullivan was lying:

I just went down the hall and discussed it with the bishop. Because of the potentiality of gay marriages there, something you shared with us yesterday, we are not interested in going forward with these buyers. I think they’re shaky anyway. So, just tell them that we will not accept their revised plan and the Diocese is making new plans for the property. You find the language.

No no no no no no no. Not gay marriage. Pedophile Mansion is perfectly fine for molesting children in, but not gay marriage.

Of course, no matter who owned the building, if it was refurbished to be a banquet facility then it could not deny gay couples the same wedding services it offered to opposite-sex couples. But amongst anti-gays these days, the existence of a gay person raises the immediate threat of a gay marriage and then their brain shuts down (… click). There is exactly zero chance that the Church had any reason for denying the sale other than that the purchasers were gay (GAY? But Gay Marriage!!!… click)

The diocese is soon going to discover something fascinating. It’s illegal in the state of Massachusetts to discriminate in the conduct of business. You can’t refuse to sell to customers simply because they happen to be gay. You can’t even refuse to sell to customers because you fear that the gay customers might use what you’re selling in some way that involves gay marriage (…click). And if you are so amazingly stupid as to document your bigotry and then lie to a reporter about it… well, it’s not going to go over well either in the news or in a courtroom.

Next marriage nation: New Zealand a contender

It’s a fairly good bet that this year will see at least one additional country join the nations that fully respect the relationships of their gay citizens. But who it will be still remains a mystery.

One dark horse that has come up from behind is New Zealand. Somewhat unexpectedly, the island nation off of Australia, will be addressing the issue as the result of the whims of fate.

New Zealand lawmakers will hold a vote on allowing gay marriage after a proposal to change the law was listed on parliament’s agenda on Thursday.

The plan, which was drawn at random from a ballot of proposals submitted by lawmakers, would alter the 1955 Marriage Act to say marriage is a union of two people regardless of their sex, sexual orientation or gender identity.

The exact timing of the vote has not been determined but it is likely to be within the next two months.

And while a high degree of “barefaced weaselling” is to be expected, the current vote count looks promising. The population is supportive and the bill is nearly certain to at least pass the first vote and get debate though the Catholic Church is, unsurprisingly, opposed. (Interesting longblog here)

Maine poll shows strong support for marriage

The Portland Press Herald has conducted a poll of Maine voters to determine their position on the upcoming vote on marriage. The paper used the same language that is on the ballot:

In the upcoming November election, there will be a question on the ballot that reads: “Do you want to allow same-sex couples to marry?” If the election were tomorrow, how would you vote on this ballot initiative?

57% – Yes
35% – No
8% – I don’t know

Every age, sex, and education demographic supports marriage equality. The only group that does not is Republicans, who oppose the initiative 64 to 30.

I was unable to find the poll questions, but the language of the question is very neutral and absent some unknown biasing lead-up questions, I think we can reasonably assume that this is representative of the public positions of the voters. There may be some Bradley Effect and the upcoming election advertising may shift the support, but at present this is very very good news.

Anti-Gays not collecting much cash in Washington

If the anti-gay activists had a dollar for every signature they collected to put Referendum 74 on the ballot, they’d be a hundred thousand richer. Which merely proves that it’s easy to get people to sign petitions about things they care very little about.

We told you that the pro-marriage coalition raked in nearly a million bucks last month and now the numbers are official (Seattle Times)

The campaign seeking to overturn the state’s new gay marriage law raised just over $17,000 in cash in June, much less than the nearly $900,000 in cash donations raised by supporters of the law.

According to Public Disclosure Commission filings that posted Tuesday, Preserve Marriage has raised a total of $139,702 for its campaign. Washington United for Marriage has raised more than $2 million.

Episcopal Church bishops approve new same-sex liturgy

National Cathedral in Washington, DC

After two years of study, input, discussion and careful consideration, the Episcopal Church had crafted the language of liturgy for uniting same-sex couples. The church has in the meanwhile allowed the blessing of marriage in states where it is legal and the blessing of other forms of unions elsewhere, with or without legal standing, but it has not had formal language across the church.

The new liturgy, The Witnessing and Blessing of a Lifelong Covenant, closely follows the church’s marriage liturgy but does not use the word “marriage”. (Though, undoubtedly it will be referred to as marriage and will likely adopt that language in the future). Combined with the ability of a bishop to authorize civil pronouncement of marriage in equality states, this subtle distinction will likely be lost on all but the technical minded.

The Episcopal Church is bicameral in it’s legislature, with liturgical rites requiring the approval of both Bishops and Lay bodies. Today the first step was accomplished. (msnbc)

Episcopal bishops approved a resolution to create a liturgy for same-sex unions Monday during the Church’s 77th General Convention in Indianapolis, with 111 votes in favor and 41 opposing.

The proposal was amended to disallow coercion or penalty to any bishop, priest, deacon or lay person who either supports or opposes the change, thus giving some comfort to more conservative Episcopalians (and to more supportive members of conservative dioceses).

This new liturgy give formal Episcopal blessing – whether in Massachusetts or Alabama – to same-sex couples with all of the pomp and formality that a stain-glassed, hundred-year-old, wood pewed, Episcopal church can bring. And believe me, that is saying quite a lot. Aunt Thelma can’t help but shed a tear or two.

An excerpt:

In the name of God,
I, N., give myself to you, N.
I will support and care for you:
enduring all things, bearing all things.
I will hold and cherish you:
in times of plenty, in times of want.
I will honor and keep you:
forsaking all others,
as long as we both shall live.
This is my solemn vow.

If rings are to be exchanged, they are brought before the Presider, who prays
using the following words

Let us pray.
Bless, O God, these rings
as enduring signs of the covenant
N. and N. have made with each other,
through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The two people place the rings on the fingers of one another, first the one, then
the other, saying

N., receive this ring as a symbol of my abiding love.

If the two have previously given and worn rings as a symbol of their commitment,
the rings may be blessed on the hands of the couple, the Presider saying

Let us pray.
By these rings N. and N. have shown to one another and the world
their love and faithfulness.
Bless these rings, Holy God,
that they may now be signs of the covenant
N. and N. have made this day,
through Christ our Lord. Amen.

Pronouncement
The Presider says

Inasmuch as N. and N. have exchanged vows of love and fidelity
in the presence of God and the Church,
I now pronounce that they are bound to one another
in a holy covenant,
as long as they both shall live. Amen.

You know that you’ve lost the “protect marriage” battle, when…

… the United Methodist Church in Washington votes to endorse the marriage referendum, Referendum 74. (SeattlePI)

The church’s Pacific Northwest Annual Conference passed a resolution worded to “encourage all people to approve Referendum 74 so that the Marriage Equality Act can be put into law.”

You know that you’ve lost the “protect marriage” battle, when…

… the Presbyterian Church (USA) comes just narrowly votes down allowing same-sex marriages (338 to 308) and everyone knows that it will pass in two years. (HuffPo)

After more than three hours of debate at the Presbyterian Church (USA)’s biennial General Assembly in Pittsburgh, voters struck down a proposal to legalize same-sex marriage, 338-308; no voters abstained.
…
The decision at the General Assembly, which is made up of pastors and lay people, means that pro-same sex marriage activists must wait two years until the church’s next national meeting to make marriage-related proposals.

But the climate for a same-sex marriage vote could be on the activists’ side in the future. During deliberations and several votes on different versions of marriage proposals on Thursday, younger members of the church expressed support for same-sex marriage much more strongly than the church’s older members. Church surveys also show an increasingly pro-same-sex marriage stance as the younger Presbyterians gain more leadership positions.

You know that you’ve lost the “protect marriage” battle, when…

… less than 10% of Republicans in Iowa consider overturning gay marriage to be a high priority. And when people who consider themselves “social conservatives” and Rick Perry supporters endorse marriage equality. (CBS)

Conservative lawmakers are watching public opinion move away from them on the gay marriage issue, and now fear that voters might not approve a ban even if the GOP can put one on the ballot by winning control of the Legislature in the November elections.
…
Geddes, who is managing a handful of GOP statehouse campaigns, said internal polls in conservative Iowa districts show that fewer than 10 percent of Republican voters now consider overturning gay marriage a high priority.

GOP Senate leaders no longer list the issue high on their agenda, although they have promised to propose a ban if they control the legislature. A handful of Republican leaders, such as former county Linn County chairwoman Kathy Potts of Cedar Rapids, recently have announced support for gay marriage.

“If it weren’t for the loud voices of a few in our party, I do believe more Republicans would stand up in support” of gay marriage, said Potts, a social conservative who backed Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s presidential bid.

But the HOMOSEXUALS!!! Are getting MARRIED!!! And, and, and… oh, what the hell… where’s the reception and are they serving top shelf?

You know that you’ve lost the “protect marriage” battle, when…

… you sue the State of New York because Republicans conspired to pass marriage equality. (Fox News)

The Appellate Division of state Supreme Court in Rochester ruled against gay marriage opponents who argued that Republican state senators violated New York’s open meeting rules ahead of the law’s passage last year.
…
New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms said Cuomo and another gay marriage supporter, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, met behind closed doors with the Senate’s Republican majority in violation of the open meeting law.

Oh those dastardly Republicans, all meeting up in secret to impose gay marriage on the state!! The vote should be overturned!!

The appeals court noted 5-0 that caucuses can meet in private to discuss issues, even if there is a representative from the Governor’s office present. As of yet, no news source is reporting that any justices burst out laughing or called the New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms a bunch of addled loons. Or, at least, not to their faces.

Prominent Latino civil rights groups endorse marriage equality

The League of United Latino American Citizens, LULAC, the oldest organization in the United States dedicated to the addressing the political needs of The Latino community, voted today to support marriage equality.

“Today the LULAC National Membership reaffirmed its commitment to equality for all by voting in favor of marriage equality,” said Jesse Garcia, LULAC member and co-founder of the organization’s first LGBT Council. “LULAC stands with great Latino leaders like Dolores Huerta, San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro and Labor Secretary Hilda Solis who believe discrimination of same-sex couples should not be tolerated. This is a historic day for LGBT Latinos everywhere, plus this vote is another bond that reaffirms the partnership between the LGBT and Hispanic communities.”

They join the National Council of La Raza who unanimously voted earlier this month to endorse equality. NCLR President Janet Murguía told The Blade,

“NCLR has taken a strong stand on marriage equality and our Board of Directors wanted to affirm and support that decision, which I very much appreciate,” she told the Blade. ” That unanimous vote recognizes that marriage equality and LGBT issues are, and need to be, part of NCLR’s core civil rights agenda.”

Yep, marriage is a certainty

Sometimes it is the throw away comment that tells the story. And sometimes the source is the unexpected.

This morning Rush Limbaugh was ranting about how President Obama is being advised and directed by the very wealthy (which is an odd objection considering Rush’ wealth and the usual Republican fundraising sources, but I digress). And he had three examples.

“The least risky of these is gay marriage”

Wait. What?

The next was contraception funding and he rushed to commercial break do I never heard the third.

I wasn’t sure I could believe my ears. Limbaugh declared that Obama’s marriage evolution was less risky than contraception? But then it got better.

Back from the break, Limbaugh asserted that the President was hoping to hold off endorsing marriage equality until closer to the election so it could be part of a media point but that rich donors forced his hand. I’m not sure whose ass he pulled that out of, but it sounded to me as though Limbaugh thinks that supporting equality is some campaign position that can win elections.

Which puts our readers in the rare position of hoping Rush Limbaugh is right for once.