Box Turtle Bulletin
News and commentary about the anti-gay lobby“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
News and commentary about the anti-gay lobbyPosts Tagged As: Marriage
May 25th, 2009
As expected Governor Jim Gibbons has vetoed the Domestic Partnership bill passed by the legislature. (Mercury News)
Gibbons said in a statement released during the Memorial Day holiday that Senate Bill 283 conflicts with a state constitutional amendment approved by Nevada voters in 2002 supporting marriage between a man and a woman.
“Only the voters should have the right to undo or amend constitutional mandates,” he said.
The Nevada amendment was one that only assigned the name ‘marriage’ to heterosexual unions and did not seek to ban all comparable forms of domestic union. Gibbons is creating a mandate where none previously existed.
It is unclear whether the legislature will override Gibbons’ veto. An additional two votes are needed in each house, a not insignificant hurdle to overcome. However, the Nevada Resort Association – a very powerful lobby in the state – is calling for Domestic Partnerships to be passed and for the veto to be overturned.
It is worth noting that Gibbons vetoed the bill on a holiday, when the decision will receive the least notice from his constituents. And Gibbons made certain to note that on Friday he had signed a bill that banned discrimination in the state on the basis of orientation.
May 22nd, 2009
In 2006, Wisonsin voters passed the following amendments by a margin of 59%-41%:
“Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state.”
Now the legislature is seeking to find a place short of “substantially similar” to allow recognition for same-sex couples. (Chicago Tribune)
The Legislature’s budget committee voted 12-4 Friday for a plan allowing gay and lesbian couples who live together to form domestic partnerships and receive some of the same benefits as married couples.
The Wisconsin plan would allow couples who register with their county register of deeds to jointly own property, inherit each other’s assets and visit each other in the hospital, among other things.
May 22nd, 2009
In Nevada, Harrah’s Casinos operates
So it is fair to say that Harrah’s is no small player in the Nevada business community.
Harrah’s makes an effort to target the gay community in it’s marketing, particularly for Paris Las Vegas. And now Harrah’s is adding its power to the fight for rights in Nevada.
The State’s legislature has approved a Domestic Partnership bill providing many of the rights, priveleges and obligations of marriage to same-sex couples. However, anticipating a veto from Governor Jim Doyle Gibbons, supporters are hoping to marshall the votes needed to override the veto. It appears that they will need two more votes in each of the House and the Senate.
So Harrah’s Senior Vice President Jan Jones has written a letter to legislators encouraging them to consider the impact that their vote can have on the state’s ecomony. (Trading Markets)
“Our state cannot afford to lose any more revenue to other destinations because of a reputation as a place which is not socially or politically the right place to do business or to vacation,” Jones stated in the letter, dated Tuesday.
Gays and lesbians have the highest disposable income of any segment of the population, according to Jones.
“Our company does aggressive marketing to this community,” Jones said Wednesday. “How can we say to them ‘we want your business, but we don’t care about your rights.'”
Jones’ concern is not without basis. Gay couples may decide that Atlantic City is their better gambling choice; in case something happens to one of them, New Jersey’s domestic partnership laws provide protection and access to medical facilities.
But in either city, I think I’ll choose Harrah’s for my lodging and gaming.
UPDATE:
Although Harrah’s was the most proactive, they are not alone in their support for Domestic Partnerships (Forbes)
The powerful Nevada Resort Association, representing the state’s biggest hotel-casinos, joined Friday in support of a domestic partnership bill that may be vetoed by Gov. Jim Gibbons.
Bill Bible, head of the association, said the bill would help to ensure the resort industry’s thousands of employees have “the fundamental right to the same benefits enjoyed by other Nevadans.”
Although there is no word yet on whether this has yet changed the vote of any legislator, no Nevada politician wants to be on the wrong side of the largest, most powerful economic and political force in the state.
May 22nd, 2009
The California Supreme Court has just posted a notice on its web site announcing that they will issue their ruling on the Prop 8 case at 10:00 a.m. PST on Tuesday, May 26. The court was asked to rule whether Proposition 8, which was passed as a Constitutional amendment, went too far and should have been handled as a Constitutional revision, which would have required a much more extensive and difficult process.
Day of Decision has more details on whether we will be protesting or celebrating.
May 22nd, 2009
The website of the California State Supreme Court has the following announcement:
Forthcoming Opinion Filings
Date Posted Filename Description
May 22 2009 SF052609
Supreme Court filing for Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Case SF052609 (pdf) is:
STRAUSS et al. v. HORTON (HOLLINGSWORTH et al, Interveners) S168047
TYLER et al. v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al. (HOLLINGSWORTH et al, Interveners) S168066
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO et al. v. HORTON (HOLLINGSWORTH et al. , Interveners) S168078
Argued in San Francisco 3-05-09The court issued an order to show cause in Strauss, Tyler, and City and County of San Francisco directing the parties to brief and argue the following issues: (1) Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution? (See Cal. Const., art. XVIII, §§ 1–4.) (2) Does Proposition 8 violate the separation of powers doctrine under the California Constitution? (3) If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?
Opinions in the above cases will be filed on: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 at 10:00 a.m.
May 21st, 2009
I am beginning to think that when the New Hampshire House voted down the marriage bill revisions requested by the Governor that it was not a vote about marriage at all. I think that those Republicans – and perhaps some Democrats – that are supportive of marriage are indignant that Governor Lynch, a Democrat, gets to have it both ways.
The Boston Globe carried a few quotes today which I found interesting
Key Republicans who switched sides indicated Thursday they’re open to supporting a compromise.
“I think the votes are there to pass it and put it on Governor Lynch’s desk,” said Rep. Anthony DiFruscia, a Windham Republican who lead the fight for negotiations.
Amherst Republican Cynthia Dokmo, who also voted against passage, said she would like to see the bill tweaked.
“I would like to see this bill pass,” she said. “It just seems to me it really doesn’t hurt anyone and it helps some people. It’s not going to affect my marriage.”
Rep. Steve Vaillancourt, a Manchester Republican who also switched, argued Lynch’s proposed language provides churches broader ability to discriminate than do laws in Connecticut and Vermont.
“I need something that does not send a signal to the rest of the country that New Hampshire has gone farther than any other state,” said Vaillancourt.
It may well be that they objected to what they saw as partisan support for protecting a Democratic Governor from risk while they shouldered threats from within their party. They too may be chaffing at being handed wording from the executive office and told to rubber stamp it.
But from the words of these “no” votes, it seems likely to me that wording can be achieved that meets Gov. Lynch’s requirements but also can be seen as originating in the legislature. I think that the delay is simply that – a brief delay in passage.
May 21st, 2009
The US Constitution’s Freedom of Religion Clause protects churches from having to conduct sacraments that are contrary to their beliefs. So no minister need fear that he or his church will be forced against his will to conduct a marriage ceremony between a same-sex couple.
But the peculiar practice in this country of having ministers vested with power by the State to make civil pronouncements of marriage have led to confusion. Most people, ministers included, know that Catholics don’t have to officiate at the marriage of non-Catholics, or Rabbis for non-Jews, but the battles over gay rights in recent years have caused a great many people to fear that denying gay couples religious recognition might fall under the category of illegal discrimination.
The 2008 Clergy Voices Survey (pdf) provides illustration of the importance of reassuring the population that religious freedoms will be protected.
The Clergy Voices Survey measures the views of “Mainline” Christian denominations, those six Christian churches that embrace a more liberal theology and whose parishoners make up about 18% of the population.
When asked about civil recognition for same-sex couples, Mainline clergy replied as follows:
But then the survey noted something interesting
Among clergy who initially did not support allowing gay couples to marry, support increased significantly when they were provided with an assurance that no church or congregation would be required to perform same-sex marriage services. With this religious liberty assurance, support among clergy jumped from one-third support to nearly half (46%), a movement of 13 points. Nearly all of this movement occurred among clergy who initially supported civil unions.
One would assume that clergy are aware that their religious rights are protected, moreso than anyone. But 13% of Mainline clergy who would otherwise support marriage equality needed assurance that this would not impose on churches or ministers.
If all it takes to get a 13% shift in the position of Mainline ministers – who wield great community influence due to their position – is reassurance of a respect for the rights they already have protected by the Constitution, then by all means let’s reassure them.
May 21st, 2009
Gov. Bill Ritter this week quietly signed into law a bill that will allow gay and lesbian state employees to share benefits with their partners in the way married couples already can.
No wonder Dr. James Dobson is so discouraged. Right in his own (adopted) home state.
May 20th, 2009
Governor John Lynch stated that he would sign the marriage bill if it were revised to include specific protections for churches and religious groups. The New Hampshire Senate voted today 14-10 to accept the Governor’s changes. However, Reuters is reporting that the House rejected the changes.
The state’s Democrat-controlled House of Representatives voted down the bill in a 188-186 vote, hours after its Senate approved the legislation 14-10 along party lines.
State Representative Steve Vaillancourt, a gay Republican from Manchester, was a leading voice against the amendment securing religious liberties, saying that the House should not be “bullied” by the governor.
Vaillancourt said an earlier bill that did not provide protections to clerics or religious groups was the one that should have been passed, adding that the amended bill would allow discrimination to be written into state law.
The earlier bill passed both chambers.
Other House Republicans said they voted against the current bill because the process did not fairly give a voice to every citizen who wanted to speak on the issue.
This is an entirely unexpected turn of events. The fate of marriage equality in New Hampshire is uncertain.
The House vote against the governor’s amendment means the bill will be sent to a committee that will try to resolve the differences between the two chambers. It remains unclear how the governor would respond to any changes to his wording.
UPDATE:
The Wall Street Journal clarifies:
Opponents tried to kill the bill, but failed. The House then voted 207-168 to ask the Senate to negotiate a compromise.
May 20th, 2009
Rumor is going around that the San Francisco Police Department has been warned to be prepared tomorrow for public response to the California Supreme Court’s decision on the constitutionality of Proposition 8. However, the Court’s website currently says:
Forthcoming Opinion Filings
There is no pending notice of forthcoming opinion filings. When opinions are expected to file, notices are generally posted the day before. Opinions are normally filed Mondays and Thursdays at 10:00 a.m.
It is rather likely that if an Opinion is to be announced tomorrow that the notice would be posted by now. And I’m not familiar with a history of the Court notifying police departments prior to posting a ruling. So it’s likely that this rumor is little more than a rumor.
However, the dates on which the court can announce the Opinion on Prop 8 are rapidly diminishing. They are:
Decisions of this magnitude tend to be given on Thursdays. So I’m speculating that the announcement will be next Thursday, May 28.
Update: The Supreme Court website has been updated to say:
Forthcoming Opinion Filings
May 20 2009 — No opinions were announced for filing on Thursday, May 21, 2009.
So it seems that tomorrow will not be the announcement date for the Court’s decision.
May 19th, 2009
The National Organization for Marriage first brought us a Gathering Storm of oookie spookie actors being scared by a downpour of gay marriages. Then they set up a topless posing, fake-boobed, beauty pageant queen runner up as the “face of the marriage movement“.
Now NOM has a new ad that they are running. Check it out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpjPzhSjPqQAwwww. Cute kids. Makes you want to give them a cookie.
But as for changing minds, I’m not too worried about the impact of this one. Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t take my political advice from toddlers.
May 19th, 2009
When Barack Obama was running to capture the democratic nomination, he separated himself from the rest of the pack on gay rights with his stance on supporting the full repeal of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act.” His main rival, then Sen. Hillary Clinton, only supported a partial repeal. She wanted to keep the provision that allowed states to refuse to recognize marriages performed in other states. Obama’s position, in contrast, was the clearest and most straightforward: repeal the whole thing.
What a difference a year makes. When asked by Advocate reporter Kerry Eleveld about the administrations plans to repeal DOMA, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs essentially refused to answer.
When Obama took office, the new White House web site included Obama’s pledge to fully repeal DOMA as one of his eight principal components to his LGBT Civil Rights agenda. His web site today contains no mention of DOMA whatsoever. Meanwhile four (and soon five) states have made marriage equality a part of their laws. These historic events continue to go virtually unnoticed by this White House.
May 16th, 2009
Michael Steele, the Chairman of the GOP, is trying to repackage the party’s social conservatism in a less abrasive wrap. He’s not wanting to give up opposition to gay marriage, for example, but come up with arguments that are not based on outright hostility, bigotry, and animus.
Republicans can reach a broader base by recasting gay marriage as an issue that could dent pocketbooks as small businesses spend more on health care and other benefits, GOP Chairman Michael Steele said Saturday.
Steele said that was just an example of how the party can retool its message to appeal to young voters and minorities without sacrificing core conservative principles. Steele said he used the argument weeks ago while chatting on a flight with a college student who described herself as fiscally conservative but socially liberal on issues like gay marriage.
“Now all of a sudden I’ve got someone who wasn’t a spouse before, that I had no responsibility for, who is now getting claimed as a spouse that I now have financial responsibility for,” Steele told Republicans at the state convention in traditionally conservative Georgia. “So how do I pay for that? Who pays for that? You just cost me money.”
To which any thinking person would say, “doesn’t heterosexual marriage also increase costs to small businesses?” Or is Steele suggesting that small businesses in states where marriage is already banned should save money by hiring gay people instead of straight people so they can avoid spousal costs?
OK, I’ll give Steele some points for trying to get the party away from outright bald-faced bigotry. But that’s just stupid.
The problem with anti-gay-marriage arguments that look for basis other than anti-gay animus is that they just don’t seem to hold up to even the most casual inspection.
May 15th, 2009
In April, the Nevada Senate voted in favor of a domestic partnership bill that would allow Nevadans most of the rights and responsibilities of marriage but not the dignity of the institution, which was banned by Constitutional amendment.
The Tahoe Daily Tribune is reporting that the bill has now passed the Senate.
The Assembly Friday gave final legislative approval to legislation creating domestic partnerships in Nevada.
The bill goes to Gov. Jim Gibbons who has said he will veto it.
…
The vote was 26-14 with Democrats Mo Denis and Marilyn Kirkpatrick of Las Vegas joining the Republicans in opposing the measure. Republican Ed Goedhart of Amargosa Valley voted for it and John Carpenter of Elko was absent Friday.
May 15th, 2009
A year ago today the California Supreme Court determined that denying marriage to same-sex couples was a violation of the state Constitution. Six months later the voters of the state reversed that decision and, pending the results of a legal challenge, gay Californians have the same rights as they did before the decision.
But the nation has changed significantly in that year. For the difference between today and a year ago, see the above graphic.
Dark blue = marriage
Light blue = all the rights and responsibilities of marriage but not the name
Yellow = specific limited rights and recognition
Based on statement by the Governor and Legislature of New Hampshire, I’ve included that state as marriage.
Featured Reports
In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.
When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.
In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.
On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.
Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"
At last, the truth can now be told.
Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!
And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.
Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.
Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.
Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.
The FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.
“Google” is a trademark of Google Inc.
© Box Turtle Bulletin. All Rights Reserved.
Posts 
Posts via daily email: