Box Turtle Bulletin

Argentina’s Senate begins consideration of marriage equality bill

The General Law Committee of Argentina’s Senate began debate on the marriage equality bill passed by the House earlier this month. The committee room was too small for the crowd. Mostly, today’s agenda included administrative and planning issues. (Parlamentario.com google translation).

Shortly before 17 on Tuesday began the session of the General Law Committee chaired by the San Luis Liliana Negre de Alonso, remembering login to set a timetable for discussion of the project.

In this context, the holder of the official bank, Miguel Angel Pichetto, found that one month and ten days of debate “right.” This was marked the first half of July as the date for the treatment of the topic in the campus. That is, as is anticipated Parlamentario.com, it would be trying to last the World Cup in South Africa.

The meeting of the commission had perfect attendance of all members, as well as senators who are members and not the general public, whereupon it was decided that the next meetings are conducted not in the Hall Eva Peron, but in places wider.

And Portugal makes eight!!

Anibal Cavaco Silva, the conservative President of Portugal, has announced that he is ratifying the nation’s marriage equality bill. (AP)

Vetoing the bill would only send it back to Parliament where lawmakers would overturn his decision, he said, adding that the country needed to focus on overcoming an economic crisis that has increased unemployment and deepened poverty.

The Socialist government’s bill was backed by all of Portugal’s left-of-center parties, who together have a majority in Parliament. Right-of-center parties opposed the measure and demanded a national referendum.

“Given that fact, I feel I should not contribute to a pointless extension of this debate, which would only serve to deepen the divisions between the Portuguese and divert the attention of politicians away from the grave problems affecting us,” Cavaco Silva said.

Portugal now becomes the eigth nation (the sixth in Europe) to recognize same-sex marriage.

Green = marriage; Red = civil unions or other recognition

Dear insidious and dangerous threat to the common good,

The Pope isn’t so fond of you.

His Holiness is in Portugal to observe the 93rd anniversary of the Virgin Mary appearing to poor shepherd children in Fatima. And he’s using this opportunity to rail at the Portuguese for allowing civil marriages to include those of which his church disapproves. (NYTimes)

In a speech here to Catholic social service groups, Benedict called for initiatives aimed at protecting “the family based on the indissoluble marriage between a man and a woman, help to respond to some of today’s most insidious and dangerous threats to the common good.”

This was addressed not only at same-sex marriage, but Papa Razti was also objecting to recent divorce laws.

But purely from a pragmatic perspective, it might do the Pope more benefit to focus on people’s spiritual condition rather than the extent to which European nations allow him to have veto power over their laws. His political campaign isn’t working out so well.

Although it is 90 percent Catholic, Portugal has seen a notable shift away from Catholic teaching in recent years. The country legalized abortion in 2008 and its Parliament recently approved a bill permitting same-sex marriage. President Aníbal Cavaco Silva is expected to sign the bill into law in the coming weeks.

The Church has opposed the measure, but Portuguese society appears to be largely supportive of it. Portugal would be the sixth country in Europe to legalize same-sex marriage, after the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Norway and Sweden.

Same-sex marriage delayed in Nepal

Nepal was scheduled to implement their new constitution no later than May 28, 2010, a document that guaranteed marriage equality. It appears that this deadline will not be met. (hindustan times)

A specially elected constituent assembly has until May 28 to complete the draft of the nascent Himalayan republic’s first constitution, two years after it got rid of the monarchy.

But assembly chairman Subas Nemwang said the panel, dominated by the Maoist former rebels, still had a long list of chores and could take at least four months to complete the task.

“There are difficulties to meet the May 28 deadline. We don’t have enough time to follow the procedures and rules,” Nemwang said.

The delay could be destabilizing, and violence could resume. Should this process not go smoothly, this will reduce the likelihood of Nepal becoming Asia’s first nation to institute marriage equality.

Minnesota to recognize same-sex couples unless Pawlenty vetoes

Today the Minnesota legislature took a very small step and crossed a very great divide: they went from being a state that sees same-sex couples as two distinct individuals who are legal strangers without any formal relationship to being a state that recognizes, in at least some small way, that same-sex couples are a unit, two people who have emotional, financial, and legal connections. (Star Tribune)

Domestic partners would have the right to determine what happens with the remains of a deceased partner under a bill passed by the Minnesota House on Tuesday.

The “Final Wishes” bill defines domestic partners and gives them decision-making power ahead of children, siblings and parents after a partner’s death.

The measure would also give domestic partners the right to sue for damages in cases of wrongful death.

This may seem like a small portion of equality, hardly worth getting excited over. But this is a tremendous step, one that impacts far more than those couples who can now breath a sigh of relief that the decisions surrounding their final rest can be made by the one who knows and loves them best. Because this bill defines domestic partners.

The real battle for equality is over whether gay people and gay couples exist.

You’d think that would be a given. Everyone knows – on some level – that gay folks exist and that some of them form couples. Yet that is the point most hotly debated by anti-gay activists and most ardently denied by anti-gay politicians.

All of the anti-gay rhetoric that we hear about “there is no gay gene” and “no one is born gay” and “there is no such thing as sexual orientation” and “change is possible” all seek to deny the existence of gay people. These claims all seek to advance the notion that those who identify as gay are just “heterosexuals with a homosexual problem” or are “heterosexuals who struggle with same-sex attractions.”

Because once you acknowledge that gay people exist – real gay people and not just flawed heterosexuals who engage in homosexual behavior – then you have changed the power dynamic in the debate. If gay people exist, the question is no longer over what will be allowed for people who do, but becomes a debate over what rights exist for people who are. No longer can discrimination be dismissed by, “well if they just wouldn’t do that”; and now rights are presumed to exist and any denial must be justified and explained.

And the same is true of couples. Once you acknowledge that same-sex couples exist, then each denied right demands an explanation.

Instead of needing to justify each additional equality, the question is why it should not be provided. Once a state has defined what a domestic partnership is, then it must explain why such a unit should be treated differently from other units.

Why should gay couples not be treated like straight couples when using a state park? Why should they be denied hospital visitation? Why should they pay different taxes?

And this is why anti-gay Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty is expected to veto the bill. He probably doesn’t much care who makes cremation decisions. I doubt he is concerned over who gets to sue for wrongful death. But he very much fears the idea that the State of Minnesota could acknowledge that same-sex couples, families, domestic partners exist.

The bill faces a likely veto by Gov. Tim Pawlenty, however. Pawlenty spokesman Brian McClung said it is unnecessary because people can already designate whomever they want to make such decisions. It “seems to be a political exercise to get the term ‘domestic partner’ into state law,” McClung added.

Unfortunately for Gov. Pawlenty, the culture has already accepted the existence of gay couples. And in time, if not already, Minnesotans will see the denial of small personal dignities like death decisions to be cruel, bigoted and hateful.

Argentine priest endorses marriage equality

Any week now the Senate in Argentina will debate and vote on the law passed by the House which authorizes same-sex marriages. One of the principal opponents to marriage equality in Argentina is the Roman Catholic Church, the nation’s dominant faith.

However, a prominent priest in Mendoza appears to have provided the tool necessary for separating the religious position of Catholics from their civil law. (Los Andes – google translation)

A priest caused a stir within the Catholic Church after he declared on television that is in favor of the bill allowing gay marriage and that these days being debated in Congress.

It is the father Vicente Reale, who has an opinion column in the Channel 9 news. In that TV spot, the priest explained, referring to unions between persons of the same sex is right that the State legislate for a situation that is undeniable and proclaimed himself in favor of equal rights.

Laura Bush on Marriage Equality

I may be parsing words a bit too closely, but what I hear is that she recognizes the need for partnership rights. However, she is speaking overall about same-sex marriage and that the opposition to it is a “generational thing” for people who have difficulty adjusting their religious views to meet the real world. It’s too bad no one listened to her or the Cheneys in 2004. It’s also too bad she and the Cheneys weren’t more vocal about this in 2004.

Exodus Co-Founder: Inequality Under The Law Is OK As Long As It Persuades People To Go Ex-Gay

Modern day Exodus and president Alan Chambers provide a near non-stop supply of illogical and bizarre statements that keep watchdog sites like Truth Wins Out, Ex-Gay Watch, and BoxTurtleBulletin busy documenting and analyzing them.  My personal favorite is Alan’s claim that he might never have come to Jesus and become straight if gay marriage had been available to him when he was young and gay.

I thought I’d ask Michael Bussee what he thought of Alan’s statement.

Hat tip to Ex-Gay Watch for capturing video of Alan’s appearance at the Prop 8 rally.

(transcript below the jump)

Read the rest of this entry »

Maryland’s exposure to marriage breeds support

Maryland same-sex couples have been able to marry in neighboring District of Columbia for the past two months and have their marriages recognized by their home state. And this change has resulted in much local media and discussion.

A new Washington Post poll suggests that exposure to same-sex marriages has increased familiarity and abated the fears that Maryland residents may have had.

A clear majority of people responding to the poll — 55 percent — also say that if gays get married in another state, those unions should be considered legal in Maryland; 38 percent say the state should not recognize them. Maryland Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler (D) in February told state agencies to begin granting married same-sex couples from elsewhere the same rights as Maryland’s heterosexual couples.

The poll, conducted May 3-6, finds that 46 percent overall favor legal same-sex marriage, 44 percent oppose it, and 10 percent have no opinion. Among registered voters, 48 percent are in favor and 43 percent are opposed.

Mike Huckabee wouldn’t know integrity if it bit him in the butt

Eternal Republican candidate and advocate for having theology dictate legislation Mike Huckabee got together with fellow social conservative Sean Hannity to rag on Rosie O’Donnell and have a good old-fashioned “Christians are victims” jawing. And, it seems, when in friendly company, sometimes Huckabee can just get carried away by victimhood, exaggeration, and hyperbole and say something truly stupid.

Naturally, there was lots of whining about how unfair it is to see his dedication to harming gay people, their lives, their freedoms and their equality and think he must “somehow be bigoted.” (Really! what a notion!) And how it is intolerant to not respect his intolerance.

Poor, pitiful him.

Amusingly, just a moment before he had described his desire to not allow Rosie O’Donnell to adopt as being “not a personal thing.” She should just get over it, he’s already called dibs on the martyr label.

But I digress.

The real moment of surreality, the true wait-there-must-be-a-punchline-coming comment came when he whimpered about how he’s not so bad, or no worse than anyone else.

As I tell people, my position on same-sex marriage is the same that Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the voters in 30 states where it’s been on the ballot —

Really.

Really?

So Huckabee thinks that his ‘position is the same’ as those who support civil unions? His ‘position is the same’ as those who oppose anti-gay amendments? Huckabee’s ‘positions are the same’ as those states which protected the word “marriage” but deliberately chose not to ban relationship recognition.

No, that’s not Mike Huckabee’s position on same-sex marriage. Nope, that would just be a lie. Huckabee’s position on same-sex marriage is:

I can assure you I believe in a constitutional amendment that prohibits same-sex marriages, and I do not believe in civil unions. Never have and never will.

I swear, Mike Huckabee wouldn’t recognize honesty and truthfulness if they sidled up and bit him on the butt to get his attention.

All in all, it’s probably a good thing changed his previous occupation and ran for office. Politicians do, on whole, have even a slightly worse reputation than preachers so he’s right at home.

Court hearing doesn’t go well for Washington anti-gay petition signatories

Last year anti-gay activists in Washington State collected signatures to get a referendum on the ballot challenging the legislature’s domestic partnership laws. The people subsequently voted to keep the laws recognizing gay couples.

But one of the issues that arose from that action was the question as to whether signatures on petitions – specifically anti-gay petitions – were public information or or protected anonymous political speech. Supporters of the petition argued that they were skurrrred of the evil gays who might take their business to a more supportive company or might frown at them in the supermarket.

And so a judge blocked the releasing of the info. The Secretary of State appealed the decision arguing that the State had an interest in open air laws. The decision was overturned, appealed again, and now is being argued in front of the Supreme Court of the United States. Anti-gay activists want all public disclosure laws declared to be unconstitutional and to conduct their animus behind the veil of anonymity.

But today did not go well for them. Justices, including at least one who is inclined to be sympathetic to conservative causes, were not much impressed by their arguments. (AP)

Several justices questioned whether people who voluntarily signed a petition asking for a public referendum could then expect privacy. They were concerned that keeping the names of petitioners private might invalidate other vital open records like voter registration rolls or lists of donors to political candidates.

“Running a democracy takes a certain amount of civic courage,” said Justice Antonin Scalia, who also called the arguments to keep the names private “touchy-feely.”

On the other hand, Justice Alito was there to go to bat for the anti-gays.

But Justice Samuel Alito questioned Washington’s attorney general, Robert McKenna, on whether his office was willing to give out the home address of its lawyers so people could show up and have “uncomfortable conversations” with them after-hours.

McKenna said office addresses and telephone numbers of his lawyers were public.

But Alito appeared to be in the minority (Wall Street Journal)

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg questioned the relevance of that precedent. She and Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggested that making public the names of petition signers could allow people to verify whether the signatures were real.

Chief Justice John Roberts suggested the court was unlikely to strike down the law on its face, but might find that in some circumstances names should be withheld if the signers could show they faced a threat.

I would hope that this would be a real threat, not an irrational fear based on imagined concerns.

Date set for closing arguments in Perry v. Schwarzenegger

Prop8trialtracker.com is reporting

So now we finally have a date for Closing Arguments for the Prop 8 trial — Wednesday, June 16th, or 156 days after the start of the Trial. By now, we’ve heard the evidence, we know what’s been said, and there’s been a lot of analysis on this site about what it means for the outcome, our movement, and our lives.

Argentina’s legislature to debate marriage equality next week

Buenos Aires Herald is reporting that the nation’s Lower House will take up marriage equality next week:

As for the same sex marriage debate, Rossi called for a special session to be held next Wednesday in order to discuss the controversial bill which allows it.

“We are calling for a new session to be held next week, on Wednesday at 10:00am with the only purpose of debating the same sex marriage,” Rossi assured.

As regards this bill, the resolution which the Family and General Legislation committees have issued modifies the Civil Code and replaces the terms “man and woman” for general words implying no sex.

Rumors about veto of Portugal’s marriage law

Some news sources are reporting that Portuguese President Anibal Cavaco Silva intends to veto the same-sex marriage bill passed by the legislature. (gayopolis)

Portuguese President Anibal Cavaco Silva will veto a gay marriage bill approved by lawmakers in February, Radio Renascenca reported. Cavaco Silva will veto the bill soon after Pope Benedict’s arrival on May 11.

However, both the President and the legislative leadership are denying that any decision has been announced. As yet, the exact method by which the bill will become law is uncertain. The legislature has adequate votes to overturn a veto and has indicated intention to do so.

Exodus Co-Founder: Getting Married As A Leap Of Faith

Ex-gay Mike Haley showing off pictures of his wife and family while speaking at the Love Won Out ex-gay conference. Love Won Out is primarily attended by Christians who are unable to accept a gay friend of family member and wishes they would enter an ex-gay program. The message Mike's photos send is, "there's still hope for your gay loved one to turn straight and get married."

Some people in the ex-gay movement become so deeply involved they make the drastic step of getting married.  Michael Bussee took that step and talks today about his inner conflict in doing so.  Michael recognized he wasn’t a heterosexual when he got married but chose to anyway because he believed God would reward him with heterosexuality if he truly committed himself to God and took his vows as a leap of faith.

Once married Michael found himself in an uncomfortable position as a role model at Exodus and privately tried to discourage his own clients from marrying.

Lastly Michael talks about the damage caused by using marriage as proof of change and the collateral damage that occurs when mixed orientation (ex-gay) marriages come to an end.

(transcript after the jump)

Read the rest of this entry »