Box Turtle Bulletin

Argentine Senate votes on marriage equality today

Today the Argentine Senate is scheduled to vote on the marriage equality bill. The bill passed the house in May by a vote of 125 to 109, but the passage in the Senate is expected to be more difficult.

In lead up to today’s vote, advocates for the bill and activists against it have been trying to pressure Senators to vote according to their wishes. And, of course, the international leaders in the battle to deny rights to gay people – the Catholic Church and the Mormon Church – have weighed in.

Oddly, the Mormons seem to have made but a perfunctory effort. The President of the LDS sent a letter to the Mormons in Argentina, but it was starkly different from that which was sent during California’s Proposition 8 battle. (SL Tribune)

It definitely reaffirms the church’s commitment to traditional marriage, says Brigham Young University law professor Fred Gedicks. “But it doesn’t take as strong a position on the legal question [of same-sex marriage] in Argentina.”

Nor does it ask members to contact their lawmakers or give their all to the opposition cause, adds University of Utah law professor Clifford Rosky, who serves on a legal panel for the gay-rights group Equality Utah. “And that’s significant.”

In fact, according to a spokesman, the LDS Church “has taken no official position on the legislation being considered.”

The Catholic Church’s approach has been loud, shrill and bizarre. But ascribing demonic motivations may not have served in the Church’s best interests. In response, the nation’s president became more vocal in support.

However, Argentinian president Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, who supports the legislation, said the church’s tone was reminiscent of “medieval times and the Inquisition.”

“It is disturbing to hear phrases like war of God or the devil’s projects, which are things that take us back to medieval times and the Inquisition,” she told reporters during an official visit to China.

In addition to ranting about Satan, the Catholics have joined with Evangelical groups in leading marches and holding rallies. The even let out students from Catholic schools to pump up the number of protesters.

Taking a cue from the pre-wackadoodle NOM, they were careful with their rhetoric and made sure that message appeared not to be anti-gay but pro-everyone-else. (Buenos Aires Herald)

Catholic and Evangelic organizations protested the same-sex marriage bill in a demonstration held at the Congress square under the motto “Kids have the right to have a mother and father.”

The demonstration was organized by the Lay Department of the Argentine Episcopal Conference (DEPLAI), the Christian Alliance of Evangelic Churches (ACIERA), the Pentecostal Evangelic Confraternity Federation (FECEP), and self-convened families, that were joined by representatives of the Muslim and Jewish communities.

“We’re not against any community, but we want to be clear: marriage is between a man and a woman, and children’s rights -to have a mother and a father- cannot be violated,” one of the organizers explained to media.

In response, students who support marriage engaged in a counter-demonstration (I’m not sure whether the methods are the wisest choice. In the US this would be counter-productive but it may be different in Buenos Aires)

A large group of university students along with representatives of the homosexual community are blocking the corner of Rivadavia and Callao avenues showing their support to the same-sex marriage bill after last night thousands of demonstrators along with Catholic and Evangelic organizations protested against the bill when they gathered at the Congress square under the motto “Kids have the right to have a mother and father.”

The debate is livestreamed here and Blabbeando is tweeting in English for those who do not speak Spanish.

UPDATE: It is 11:00 pm in Los Angeles and 3:00 am in Buenos Aires. The Senators are still talking and I don’t know that a vote will occur before I go to bed.

Currently, those counting votes believe that this bill will pass 33 to 31, but nothing is certain until the vote is taken.

What does one wear to a machination of the Father of Lies?

From the increasingly histrionic Catholic news site, LiveSiteNews:

Argentina’s number one Catholic prelate, Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, is calling upon the priests of the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires to bring their flocks to an upcoming protest against homosexual “marriage,” which is currently under consideration by the nation’s senate.

“Let’s not be naive, we’re not talking about a simple political battle; it is a destructive pretension against the plan of God,” writes Bergoglio in a letter sent to the monasteries of Buenos Aires, where he is archbishop. “We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.”

Which makes me think, if I’m ever invited to something so important as to require the direct coordination of Old Scratch himself, I should dress up. Do you think red Prada slippers are appropriate for a gay wedding? After all, the Pope wears them to all his formal functions.

Why the Obama Administration Must Appeal DOMA Rulings

I know. That headline is heresy. But there’s the thing: the two rulings declaring the “Defense of Marriage Act” unconstitutional only apply to Massachusetts. It’s a great win for LGBT couples living in the Bay State, but it’s meaningless everywhere else.

As it stands, there are only three ways to get rid of DOMA nationwide. Barring appeals by Obama’s Department of Justice, the first option is to get another forty-nine sets of similar rulings by federal judges in forty-nine more states. While it’s true that these Massachusetts rulings would serve as a precedent for subsequent rulings by other federal judges, those judges aren’t bound by them in the same way they would be a Supreme Court ruling. So the practical message the Obama administration would be sending if they chose not to appeal this case would be, “Congratulations, now go win 49 more. (And keep going if you want D.C., Puerto Rico and the other territories.)” I just don’t see that happening.

The second option is to overturn DOMA in Congress. I think that would be the preferable solution, but we know how controversial that would be. As archaic as everyone thought anti-sodomy laws were, they were still in force in 14 states just seven years ago before Lawrence v. Texas finally struck them down. Hate crimes legislation and repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” are also non-controversial according to public opinion polls, but we still see how difficult that has proven to be in the most LGBT-friendly Congress in history. We hardly need to remind ourselves that same-sex marriage is in a whole different league of contentiousness, as every single public referendum on the issue has painfully shown us time and time again. With the next Congress likely to be much more hostile to LGBT issues as this Congress, I’ve got lottery tickets with better odds than Congress repealing DOMA.

So that leaves the U.S. Supreme Court as the best option. Not a great option, but the best one. The path is still tricky, and it’s unclear how a majority might be put together to support these decisions. But these decisions are the marker against which future appeals will be decided, and that will happen only if those appeals are heard. The next step is the 1st Court of Appeals, then the Supreme Court, with the hope that the Supreme Court agrees to hear the cases should the Appeals Court overturn the lower court’s decisions. This could be Bowers vs. Harwick all over again, or it could be another Lawrence. But wherever it goes, the train has left the station. We’re either on board or not.

Update (Jul 11): Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), the folks behind Gill v OPM has released a thorough set of FAQs (PDF: 264KB/8 pages) answering many of the questions asked by BTB readers in comments.

Tea Partiers support overturn of DOMA

The Tea Party movement can be difficult to understand. On the one hand, they are not supportive of gay equality, but on the other they truly dislike and distrust a large centralized government.

And the New York Times found that, for the most part, the Tea Party leaders supported the decision to overturn the federal Defense of Marriage Act as a victory for states’ rights, even if they don’t much like the consequences.

Some people involved in the campaigns to limit Washington’s reach cheered what they said was a states’ rights victory.

“The Constitution isn’t about political ideology,” said Michael Boldin, the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center, a group based in Los Angeles. “It’s about liberty, and limiting the government to certain divisive issues — I applaud what I consider a very rare ruling form the judiciary.”

Others, like Steve V. Moon, a software programmer and founder of States-rights.org, a group founded in Utah in 2008, said the judge’s decision was both right and wrong.

“It’s unconstitutional for the federal government to pass laws superseding state authority — and the judge did affirm states’ rights in this area,” he said. “But I personally believe in the sanctity of marriage between a man and woman and support any state passing laws affirming the sanctity of marriage.”

Mr. Moon said he feared that what might look like a states’ rights victory could backfire. If judges in other states, drawing on Judge Tauro’s reasoning, start throwing out marriage definition laws that were passed by residents or legislatures, “that could be detrimental to states’ rights.”

A spokeswoman for one of the biggest Tea Party umbrella organizations, Tea Party Patriots, said that social questions were not part of their mission.

“As far as an assertion of states’ rights goes, I believe it’s a good thing,” said Shelby Blakely, executive director of The New Patriot Journal, the group’s online publication. “The Constitution does not allow federal regulation of gay marriage just as it doesn’t allow for federal regulation of health care.”

“But I don’t want to come off saying I support gay marriage,” she added.

Meanwhile, the white house continues to stay silent on the decision.

Presbyterian Church does not amend their definition of marriage

By narrow margins and by use of some strategic procedural methods, the committee recommendation to change the Presbyterian Church (USA)’s definition of marriage from “one man and one woman” to “two people” were not adopted by the general convention.

The committee report, which recommended the change, was instead sent to the larger church for continued study (along with a minority report calling for keeping the exclusive language). Then a procedural move allowed conservatives to block the convention from considering whether individual churches or ministers could have discretion in their own blessing of marriages.

Just prior to the Assembly’s action, the body accepted the recommendation of the General Assembly Civil Union and Marriage Issues Committee to approve the report of the Special Committee to Study Issues of Civil Union and Christian Marriage by a vote of 439-208. The Assembly decided to send both the special committee report and the minority report generated by three members of the special committee to the larger church for study after a motion to replace the final report with the minority report was defeated, 358-311.

Following that action was a parliamentary maneuver that resulted in the Assembly voting to let the approval of the special committee report “answer all pending items” on the remaining Assembly committee’s list of overtures that included changing the definition of marriage to “two people,” giving pastors and sessions discretion in deciding who may marry and whether they may use church property for the ceremony.

The vote was 348-324, with six commissioners abstaining.

So marriage will stay status quo for another two years in the PC(USA).

However, this convention did advance equality for gay Presbyterians. Provided that the presbyteries sanction the decision, the church will now let gay men and women who are in relationships serve in the church.

Ireland civil unions update

The civil unions bill in Ireland has now passed the upper house.

From Pink News

The bill, which grants almost all of the rights of marriage, passed in the Dail last week and was approved in the Seanad last night after two days of debate.

It passed with the support of 48 senators, with just four voting against, and will be sent to President Mary McAleese, who can approve it or refer it to the Supreme Court if she believes it may be unconstitutional.

Presbyterian update

The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) voted 373 to 323 on the following wording change:

“b. Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness. Persons refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons, elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament. Standards for ordained service reflect the church’s desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life (G-1.0000). The governing body responsible for ordination and/or installation (G.14.0240; G-14.0450) shall examine each candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for the responsibilities of office. The examination shall include, but not be limited to, a determination of the candidate’s ability and commitment to fulfill all requirements as expressed in the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003). Governing bodies shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to individual candidates.”

This means that, if this change is approved by the various presbyteries, the Presbyterian Church (USA) will allow the ordination of gay and lesbian ministers who are in relationships (celibate singles are already allowed).

Tomorrow the convention will probably vote tomorrow on whether to change their definition of marriage to include same-sex couples.

NBC’s Today Show reverses: gay couples can enter marriage contest

The ‘gotta be hetero‘ rules for Today Show’s “Modern Wedding” have been lifted.

From GLAAD

This afternoon NBC and the Today Show did just that. Following a meeting between GLAAD and NBC executives, NBC announced that after listening to community concerns it will open the contest to same-sex couples and extend the submission deadline until Monday, July 12. Couples now have until then to apply. Finalists will be announced later this year and the wedding takes place live on the Today Show this October.

Defense of Marriage Act Declared Unconstitutional

We have just received word that a Federal Court Judge has ruled the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional.

According to a press release issued by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD):

This afternoon, a federal court judge issued a decision in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders’ lawsuit challenging Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

The judge also issued a decision in Commonwealth v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, Attorney General Martha Coakley’s lawsuit challenging Section 3 of DOMA, which is separate from GLAD’s lawsuit and based on a different legal theory.

 One Tweet has it that GLAD’s case was decided on “equal protection principles.” Of course, we eagerly await the text of the ruling itself, which I presume will not be in the form of thousands of tweets.

This is an important first step in the long slog to the Supreme Court. Given that the U.S. Justice Department is likely to appeal the ruling, it’s unclear what immediate affect this ruling might have.

Update 1: Bay Windows has more information:

In one challenge brought by the state of Massachusetts, Judge Joseph Tauro ruled that Congress violated the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when it passed DOMA and took from the states decisions concerning which couples can be considered married. In the other, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, he ruled DOMA violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Both cases were argued separately last May, although both decisions were handed down simultaneously today. Bay Windows notes that this is an extremely quick turn for a decision like this.

Update 2: Reporter Rex Wocknoer sent out this key snippet from the Commonwealth vs US HHS decision:

This court has determined that it is clearly within the authority of the Commonwealth to recognize same-sex marriages among its residents, and to afford those individuals in same-sex marriages any benefits, rights, and privileges to which they are entitled by virtue of their marital status. The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state, and, in doing so, offends the Tenth Amendment. For that reason, the statute is invalid.

Update2  3 and 4: The Gill decision has been uploaded here. The Commonwealth decision is here. I’m pretty busy right now, so feel free to discuss them in the comments.

Lingle’s veto justified by an argument based in a sense of entitlement and superiority

I do not believe that Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle is a bigot. I have not witnessed overt hostility towards gay Hawaiians or a pattern of anti-gay activism on her part. I think that she perceives herself as respectful and that she genuinely did feel some measure of compassion for the gay men and women who met with her on this issue.

However, one need not personally be a bigot to be motivated by disreputable intentions. And the argument that eventually compelled Lingle to veto this legislation was based in a sense of entitlement and superiority, the same emotion that drives racism, sexism, and other forms of bigoted expression.

From the text of Lingle’s veto speech:

I am vetoing this bill because I have become convinced that this issue is of such significant societal importance that it deserves to be decided directly by all the people of Hawaii.
…
After listening to those both for and against HB 444 I have gained a new appreciation for just how deeply people of all ages and backgrounds feel on this matter, and how significantly they believe the issue will affect their lives.

Few could be unmoved by the poignant story told to me in my office by a young, Big Island man who recounted the journey he had taken to bring himself to tell his very traditional parents that he was gay. I was similarly touched by the mother who in the same office expressed anguish at the prospect of the public schools teaching her children that a same gender marriage was equivalent to their mother and father’s marriage.
…
But in the end, it wasn’t the persuasiveness of public debates, the soundness of legal arguments, or the volume of letters and emails that convinced me to reach this decision. It was the depth of emotion felt by those on both sides of the issue that revealed to me how fundamental the institution of marriage is to our community.

Lingle’s examples – those which best illustrated the “depth of emotion” which she observed – consisted of two individual stories.

In the first, Lingle ignored entirely the real concerns and needs of same-sex couples. She dismissed rights, obligations, and benefits to focus instead on a coming out story. We don’t know if this man was denied hospital visitation or if he paid higher taxes or even if he was part of a couple; we only know that his parents were traditional (with the assumption that all traditional parents are, by default, homophobic).

That is how Lingle characterized the entire quest for couples equality: the emotional difficulty of coming out.

Her second example was more accurate; it correctly expressed the motivations of those who object to civil equality.

This woman wished for her children to believe in the superiority of heterosexuals. She wished them to believe that heterosexuals are due privileges and benefits solely for being heterosexual. And she opposed any public impressions that would suggest that all citizens of Hawaii are equal. The idea that a school might teach that those same-sex people in a civil union were equivalent to her and her husband brought her anguish.

And this is at the heart of Lingle’s decision. This was the argument which she found compelling. Indeed, it wasn’t even a matter of some religion or other owning the word “marriage” but because she found civil unions to be “essentially marriage by another name.”

In her follow up comments, Lingle clarified that her objection was that HB 444 “has all the same rights, responsibilities, benefits and protections” as marriage. It just didn’t leave heterosexual as adequately “better” than gays and lesbians.

Lingle begs her constituents to recognize that she gave the decision making process the dignity that it deserves. But I am not so generous as to assume dignity or a fair consideration.

Because Governor Linda Lingle, like the woman whose anguish justified Lingle’s veto, wants to keep heterosexuals as privileged, superior, and entitled. And that is a most disreputable motivation.

Hawaii Civil Unions Vetoed

Republican Governor Linda Lingle vetoed Civil Unions in Hawaii because “it deserves to be decided by all the people”. In other words, minority rights should be put up to the whims of the majority.

Argentina Senate committee opposes marriage bill

An influential senate committee did not recommend that the full Senate approve the marriage equality bill. (On-Top Magazine)

Eight members of the Senate General Law Committee joined its chairwoman, Senator Liliana Negre de Alonso, in recommending that a gay marriage bill approved in May by Argentina’s lower house, the Chamber of Deputies (la Camara de Diputados), be rejected in the Senate.

Six committee members voted to recommend the bill’s approval. Another five members advised senators to reconsider a bill rejected in May by the lower house that would recognize gay and lesbian couples with civil unions. That legislation, however, bans gay couples from adopting.

While supporters are still expressing confidence, this committee vote is believed to be influential. The full Senate will vote next Wednesday.

Costa Rica’s marriage ban referrendum challenged

An organization opposed to civil equality of gay people in Costa Rica has gathered signatures to place a referendum on the December 2010 ballot which would disallow same-sex civil unions. In a heavily Catholic country, gay rights supporters fear that the Catholic Church – which is becoming increasingly hostile to gay people around the world – would be able to influence the vote.

Last week, the nation’s highest court directed the election board to respond to a challenge to this referendum. (ticotimes)

The Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court (Sala IV) has given the Supreme Elections Tribunal (TSE) three days to address a challenge relating to a referendum on same-sex civil unions.

The challenge was filed by longtime civil servant Esteban Quirós, who questioned the validity of addressing human rights issues enshrined in international treaties in a referendum. He said Costa Rica is bound by international conventions that protect against discrimination based on sexual orientation. In Costa Rica, the provisions of international treaties supersede all national laws except the Constitution.

Same-sex couples have a better chance of recognition for their relationships from legislative efforts as many politicians, including the president, are supportive.

NBC: no gay couples allowed

NBC’s Today Show is hosting a wedding competition which it has titled “Modern Love,” but this competition is anything but modern.

The official eligibility requirements are:

Each applicant must: (1) be part of a couple submitting an application; (2) be at least twenty-one (21) years of age as of July 9th, 2010; (3) have become engaged to be married prior to July 9th, 2010; (4) be a permanent, legal resident of the United States and must have a valid United States passport; (5) not be subject to any travel restrictions and must agree to obtain the requisite immunizations (for the honeymoon), if necessary; (6) be of good moral character; (7) have never been convicted of a crime of any nature (other than moving violations of a misdemeanor type that did not involve personal injury, drugs or alcohol), and (8) have nothing in their background that would be an embarrassment to NBC News or TODAY (as determined by TODAY, in its sole discretion); and (9) not be an elected official or currently running for any political office (local, state or federal).

Oh, and it goes without saying, the couple must be heterosexual.

NBC provided the following fascinating justification for this policy to GLAAD:

“For the TODAY show wedding, the couple must be able to be legally married in New York, which is where the wedding will take place.”

Which has about the same validity as saying that Jews need not apply because they’re using a Catholic Church for the ceremony. If your venue is discriminatory, change the venue.

Or if they absolutely must be in New York, allow the couple to cross the border into Connecticut for a courthouse legality before performing the ceremony and celebration in New York, which would then recognize their out of state legal document. That could even be a fascinating bit of drama for NBC to illustrate the extra burden on gay couples in the Big Apple.

As GLAAD notes, NBC is not in the business of handing out marriage licenses. Their only role in the matter is to provide the ceremony, and that they could do for gay couples as easily as straight.

The Today Show is awarding a wedding celebration, not a marriage license. If a same-sex couple won the contest, producers and the winning couple could easily work together to ensure that the couple properly obtained and complied with the requirements of a marriage license in one of the license-conferring jurisdictions. The full wedding celebration would then take place on the Today Show.

NBC’s explanation rings hollow. A likelier reason is that NBC is afraid that homophobes would protest and call them liberal media activists. So they’ll just exclude gay people to avoid all of the hassle.

And besides, this is all about the celebration of heterosexual wedded bliss and who wants that marred by The Gays?

(hat tip: Jeremy at Good_As_You who first noted the exclusion)

UK civil unions may edge closer to marriage

The distinctions between civil partnerships and marriages in the UK are peculiar to American notions of religious liberty and freedoms of speech. And one of them may soon disappear. (AP)

Britain’s government is considering letting same-sex couples include religious elements in civil partnership ceremonies.

Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone says the government’s review of gay equality rights will consider allowing homosexual couples to include hymn singing and religious readings in their union ceremonies.

Parliament recently removed the ban on same-sex unions in churches and other places of worship.

Yes, you soon may gain permission to sing hymns of rejoice to God (though, oddly enough, some religious ministers object to that).

However, this change could result in an oddity which challenges the distincions between all civil and religious recognition and some think the new conservative government may take a different step. (Times)

Mr Bryant said he believes the Government will eventually have to allow full homosexual marriage rather than creating the unusual situation under which same-sex couples can have religious language in their civil partnerships, but heterosexuals cannot in civil marriage.
…
During the election campaign, the Conservatives were the only main party to suggest that they would consider allowing full homosexual marriage, a move that although contentious would be easier to legislate for than altering existing laws on civil partnership and civil marriage.