Box Turtle Bulletin

Court OKs NY out-of-state marriage recognition

When the executive branch of the State of New York determined that same-sex marriages conducted legally outside of the state would be recognized, anti-gay activists sued. Today the Court of Appeals backed the State. (A/P)

New York’s top court on Thursday rejected a Christian legal group’s challenge to some government benefits provided to gay couples legally married elsewhere and now living in New York.

The court rejected an argument that same-sex marriage was akin to incest and polygamy but avoided declaring that gay couples are entitled to all the rights of other married couples.

In a 4-3 decision on the narrow question of benefits, the Court of Appeals did not address whether the state must recognize same-sex marriage but encouraged the Legislature to settle the issue. The case was pushed by the Alliance Defense Fund of Scottsdale, Ariz.

Tenners officially seeking to reverse Prop 8

As of today, Californians can begin the process of collecting signatures to get a proposition on the ballot to reverse Prop 8 in November 2010.

Actually, there are five separate propositions for which signatures can be collected. Each reverses the language of Proposition 8 and provides clarity that no clergy person will be required to perform marriages contrary to the teachings of their faith.

It is difficult to state at the moment whether these are competing propositions due to disorganization or if perhaps (knowing their lack of ethics) anti-gays are trying to sabotage the process.

In any case, Love Honor Cherish has a new website, Sign For Equality, with petitions which can be downloaded and printed. So those of you who support bringing this challenge back to the ballot next year can start collecting signatures now. Love Honor Cherish is trying to do this without spending money for signature collectors, so they can use your help.

While I respect the opinions of those who favor waiting until 2012 or later, my personal opinion is that we bring this to the ballot every general election, every two years, until the voters get it right.

What’s less “Republican”, making a sex tape or supporting marriage equality?

That’s the question that Meghan McCain, daughter of Sen. John McCain, has for the Republican Party.

Meghan has been feeling the ire of those within the Party who think that her ideological support for equality disqualifies her as a Republican. So she’s a bit pissed about the priorities of some of the stalwart conservatives who don’t like her but welcome Carrie Prejean with open arms.

After watching several of Prejean\’s media appearances this week, it was not her incredibly uncomfortable threat to walk out on Larry King that had me most unnerved; it was actually her appearance on Sean Hannity’s show. This was Prejean\’s first stop on her book publicity tour, and when the sex tape came up, he proceeded to ask her if she was “in love with her boyfriend at the time that she made [it].” I\’m sorry, why would being in love matter when it comes to filming yourself in a sexual context?

Meghan notes the hypocrisy of those who are quick to forgive you of anything if you are adequately anti-gay.

The problem I have with my fellow Republicans is why gay marriage is the trump card in any situation. It seems that as long as you are against gay marriage, any scandal in your life can be overlooked or overcome. When you are in favor of it, however—and I have been very vocal about my support—that position defines you.

Sometimes I wonder if I were against marriage equality, whether it would make it easier for some Republicans to accept my place within this party. I have to constantly remind people of my pro-life, pro-small government stance because the only view that seems to matter is the fact that I believe my gay friends should have the same right to one of our founding ideals—that all men are created equal with certain inalienable rights. I think if Republicans truly believe in keeping government out of our lives—that should include not dictating who one can marry.

Many believe that it was Carrie Prejean\’s anti-gay marriage views that cost her the Miss USA pageant earlier this year. My question is: When it comes to Republicans, is your position on gay marriage what determines your fate within the party?

Personally, I think the party needs to ask itself whether it wants to be a party that the Meghan McCains of the country can join or whether it wishes to only appeal to those with the perception, character, and intellect of Carrie Prejean.

Same-Sex Marriage now legal in Buenos Aires

We reported on Friday that a judge in Buenos Aires, Argentina, had found in favor of a same-sex couple seeking to marry. It now appears that this decision will stand and that Buenos Aires will have marriage equality.

Buenos Aires Mayor Mauricio Macri has decided not to appeal the ruling. (CNN)

His decision was not easy, Macri said. Many people wanted him to appeal.

“I had an important internal debate, weighing my upbringing with my search for the best customs and best liberties for society,” he said in a videotaped message on his Facebook page.

“What we have to learn is to live in liberty without violating the rights of others,” he said.

All of which breaths new life into the lyrics

What’s new Buenos Aires?
I’m new, I wanna say I’m just a little stuck on you
You’ll be on me too

(hat tip Burr)

Same-Sex Marriage in Argentina

A judge in Argentina has decided that a Buenos Aires same-sex couple are allowed to marry (Reuters)

An Argentine judge has granted a homosexual couple permission to get married, setting a precedent that could pave the way for the Catholic country to become the first in Latin America to allow same-sex marriage.

This week’s ruling by Judge Gabriela Seijas in Buenos Aires, which became the region’s first city to approve civil unions between same sex couples in 2002, may increase pressure on lawmakers to debate a gay marriage bill currently deadlocked in Congress.

Whether this will be an isolated incident, lead to change, or be overturned is as yet undetermined (Pink News)

Her decision can still be overturned by city authorities.

Although Argentina is a leader in couple rights in Latin America, civil unions are not universally available.

Only a few areas of Argentina recognise civil unions between same-sex couples: Buenos Aires itself, the province of Río Negro in Patagonia, and the city of Villa Carlos Paz in Córdoba province.

Catholic Church Threatens D.C.

Washington, D.C. City Council is expected to take up a same-sex marriage bill in the coming weeks. The bill would not require religious institutions to perform or accommodate same-sex marriages, but they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against LGBT people. It’s that point — that religious organizations providing social services under contract with the city would be prohibited from discriminating — that has the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington threatening to take all their cards and go home:

The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it will be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city doesn’t change a proposed same-sex marriage law, a threat that could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and health care.

…Catholic Charities, the church’s social services arm, is one of dozens of nonprofit organizations that partner with the District. It serves 68,000 people in the city, including the one-third of Washington’s homeless people who go to city-owned shelters managed by the church. City leaders said the church is not the dominant provider of any particular social service, but the church pointed out that it supplements funding for city programs with $10 million from its own coffers.

Which means that the Catholic Church feels it is more important to discriminate against LGBT people than follow Jesus’ mandate to serve the poor. Go figure. City Council members appear unimpressed with that threat:

“If they find living under our laws so oppressive that they can no longer take city resources, the city will have to find an alternative partner to step in to fill the shoes,” [City Council Member David] Catania said. He also said Catholic Charities was involved in only six of the 102 city-sponsored adoptions last year.

Ohio Episcopalians to Bless Same-Sex Unions

From Cincinnati.com

The Rev. Thomas Breidenthal, in an address Friday to the 135th convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Southern Ohio, made the announcement that he said should surprise no one.

He said his position on his support for the blessing of “same-sex unions” was clear in his writings prior to his election as bishop of the 80-church, 25,000-member diocese in 2006,

He said he was lifting the “prohibition on the blessing of same-sex unions, effective Easter 2010.”

Recognizing the risk of empowering anti-gay activists through incautious or flippant actions designed more for political grandstanding rather than the pastoral needs of the community, the Bishop is stepping carefully.

No individual ministers will be forced to bless unions against their will. Further, at least one half of the couple to be blessed had to be Episcopalian, it must be “the union of the two persons who have vowed lifelong fidelity to one another, and accept accountability to the faith community as a faithful household”, and the Bishop will review each application for blessing personally.

Catholic Cardinals around the country funded Maine’s Yes on 1 Campaign

From the St. Lewis Post Dispatch

Campaign finance records for a ballot measure that last week defeated a law legalizing gay marriage in Maine show that the St. Louis Archdiocese contributed $10,000 toward that effort.

Only two other dioceses in the country – Phoenix and Philadelphia – contributed more ($50,000). The dioceses of Newark, NJ and Youngstown, Ohio also contributed $10,000.
…
The Catholic church led the charge to reject the new law. In the quarter leading up to the vote, 45 dioceses around the country contributed a total of $180, 550 to the effort, according to the campaign finance records.

You have to wonder whether the poor Catholic widow in St. Lewis who sacrificed to give to her church knew that her money was going to pay for a political campaign in Maine. Or if the Methodist Maine voter knew that the campaign of lies being fed to him was funded by out-of-state Catholic diocese.

In time, American opinion on the civil rights and freedoms of gay citizens will become strongly supportive. I cannot imagine that it will reflect well on the Catholic Church that it spent church funds to fund campaigns designed to deny rights to some Americans.

Although today many “conservatives” can hide behind popular opinion or social status quo, in 20 years it will be very difficult for the Catholic Church to explain how its actions taken this year can be viewed in any context other than religious oppression and bigotry.

And even today, some may find themselves questioning the priorities of the church.

The contribution from the St. Louis Archdiocese was received by the Portland diocese on July 16.

Less than a month earlier, on June 22, the archdiocese eliminated four positions at Catholic Charities, the largest private provider of social services in Missouri. Catholic Charities president, Monsignor Mark Ullrich, said at the time that the job cuts were “due to our need to economically downsize.”

Choosing exclusionary politics over care for the poor does not yield itself to many PR successes. And if that religious institution wasn’t so dedicated to causing harm to my life, I would feel pity.

NY Senate marriage vote within 50 days

Governor Paterson is telling media that the Democratic Senate leadership has promised a vote on marriage equality in the NY Senate before the end of the year. (Daily News)

Flanked by four rank-and-file Senate Democrats and ESPA Executive Director Alan Van Capelle, Gov. David Paterson this evening announced there will be a gay marriage vote at “a date not certain between now and the end of the year.”

“This is the first time that the Senate leadership has indicated that it will support a vote on marriage equality,” Paterson said during Red Room press conference that followed a meeting at which the question of bringing the bill to the floor to fail tonight was yet again discussed – and apparently rejected.

“This is a stunning and very happy development in this process,” the governor continued. “…I will continue to place marriage equality on any special sessions that I call on Monday and Tuesday because I feel that the bill should be debated immediately. However, I have profound respect for the leadership of the Senate and the process that they took to bring us to this vote.”

To the extent that the promises of the NY Senate leadership have any credibility whatsoever, this is very good news. Even if we do not win this vote, we will know the names of those individuals who are unwilling to treat all New Yorkers with dignity and equality.

And the Senate leadership will also get a valuable opportunity to explain to the community exactly how the community benefited from working so hard and spending so much money to achieve a Democratic majority in the Senate. Considering the willingness of New York gays to see the advancement of the community as more important than partisan power games or the career advancement of politicians, this should be a fascinating conversation.

Dan Savage On Defining the Institution of Marriage

Thanks, Doc

You have a new ally for your health, physically and mentally. It’s your doctor.

From the A/P

The nation’s largest doctors’ group has agreed to join efforts to repeal the military’s ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy.

The American Medical Association also voted to declare that gay marriage bans contribute to health disparities for gay couples and their children.

They base their decision on the difficulties caused to both doctors and patients by these illogical policies and laws.

Already, I can hear anti-gay activists thinking:

Those wacky activist doctors trying to legislate from the, um, surgery room. What do they know about health, anyway? Vote, I say, let “the people” vote on what causes health disparities just like we vote on who gets civil rights.

Update: No NY Marriage Vote Today

News sources are starting to report that gay marriage won’t come to a vote in New York today. Gov. David Patterson had called an extraordinary session of the legislature to deal with the state’s budget crisis; a gay-marriage vote during the session was widely expected. A few things have stalled the bill, including the uncertainty of passage and the fact that its lead sponsor in the legislature, Tom Duane, has been out the past few days (his mother passed away).

New York Today?

Governor Paterson has called the New York State Senate into a special session to resolve budget issues and pass marriage equality. Paterson has said that at this point he’d rather have a “no” vote – and find out who the opponents of equality are – than have no vote at all.

And I agree.

It is time for the Democratic leadership to stop protecting those who cannot commit to equality and stop hiding behind “a vote count”. For too long our community has been willing to give an out to “our friends” who are “in a tough district”.

But, as of yet, leadership is still playing the game of no commitment and no accountability.

Lets vote, Senators. Today.

California Poll: I support marriage but I don’t want to vote again

The Los Angeles Times has released a new poll with both encouraging and discouraging findings:

The California findings come from a new Los Angeles Times/University of Southern California College of Letters, Arts & Sciences poll. The survey, which interviewed 1,500 registered voters from Oct. 27 through Nov. 3, was conducted for the Times and USC by two nationally prominent polling firms, the Democratic firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, and the Republican firm Public Opinion Strategies. The results have a margin of error of +/-2.6 percentage points.

Overall, 51% of California voters favored marriage rights for same-sex couples and 43% were opposed. Strikingly, however, almost 60% of Californians did not want to revisit the issue in 2010, just one election cycle after it last hit the ballot.

The Times will report details tomorrow.

This poll will encourage the twelvers who will argue that pissing off the electorate will not be a winning strategy. Tenners might counter that unless the electorate wants to vote on this issue every two years forever, they should just do the right thing and be done with it.

Linda Harvey Fears Tolerance

When it comes time for the annual Day of Silence, anti-gay activist Linda Harvey will be once again be calling for children to stay home from school. And Christian media will present her as a mild smiling pro-family advocate.

But don’t be deceived. Linda Harvey is one of the most strident opponents to equality, decency, and civil rights that our community faces.

Some of those who oppose equality do so out of a sense of religious obligation, yet also feel some remorse and can be persuaded to find some measure of accommodation for the difficulties that the put us through. Polls show that many conservative Christians who do not favor marriage equality will still find hospital visitation or inheritance issues to be matters of compassion and mercy. They oppose employment discrimination and favor open military service.

But not Linda.

In an article for WorldNetDaily, Harvey rages about a tactic employed by the organizers of the anti-gay marriage campaign in Maine. She is furious that an ad was run which expressed a message of tolerance.

Abandoning traditional marriage entails real consequences, yet we want to be tolerant of gays. Maine’s Domestic Partnership laws provide substantial legal protection for gay couples. Any problems remaining can be addressed without dismantling traditional marriage. It’s possible to support the civil rights of all citizens and protect traditional marriage at the same time.

Tolerant? Is Linda among those who wish to be tolerant? No, she most certainly is not! And as for “civil rights”, she thinks you should have none.

Are there indeed “rights” that need to be accorded to the behavior of homosexuality? No self-respecting Christian would take this position.

Linda goes on to delight in the lies that the campaign told about schoolchildren and the threat that gay people are to them. And she lists the sad tired (distorted and false) tales of the woe in Massachusetts and California. And then her venom spews:

But the student endangerment message made no sense paired with the last-minute, “We’re really tolerant” positioning of the campaign as cited above. Opponents would easily be able to see through the apparent hypocrisy: Why should parents
worry about their children being indoctrinated into homosexual acceptance, if “gays” ought to be tolerated? If we ought to respect their “rights”? This sudden shift had a desperation tinge to it and leaves pro-family forces vulnerable in the future to accusations of lying through our teeth. Christians do not do well with hypocrisy. We need to tell the truth.

The Catholic Church in Maine made similar foolish accommodations. In reacting to the victory, Bishop Richard Malone said that the church upholds marriage yet “respects and accepts gays.” Really? The Catholic Church accepts homosexual behavior? Two men having sex with one another? Women excluding men from their lives and shacking up as lesbians? This is respectable and acceptable in Catholic teachings? This seems to say there might be truth to the claim of “gay” identity, something homosexualists would love for Christians to embrace.

But amidst Linda’s hateful rantings (and yes, they are hateful), she sees something that we have long noted. The position of much of our opposition in inherently contradictory.

One cannot both tolerate and accept gay people and simultaneously exclude and segregate them. One cannot value the worth of the gay person and also relegate him to second class citizenship. If you “respect and accept” gay people as children of God worthy of His love, then you can’t call for sanctions, penalties, and punishments for the existence of those children.

And I believe that in time, perhaps a very short time, this delusion of “I love you but I want to treat you badly” will fall under its own weight. Ultimately, those who seek our civil exclusion will have to choose to either truly accept us as an equal member of the family of man, or stop pretending that they feel for us anything but contempt.

And I suspect that Linda sees the writing on the wall. I think she fears that she will in time be among but a small minority who selects the latter choice.