Box Turtle Bulletin

Utah update

As you know, Judge Shelby refused to issue a stay to his ruling. And while he didn’t exactly call the state officials idiots, he did politely point out that is was their own fault that no stay was considered on Friday. (QSaltLake)

[State’s attorney] Lott gave the example of then-District Judge Vaughn Richard Walker deciding to stay his ruling at the same time he ruled against California’s Proposition 8.

Shelby explained the difference between what happened in that court and why it didn’t happen in this court.

“There was no motion for a stay pending when I made my ruling,” he said. “When Judge Walker ruled, the plaintiffs had filed a motion to stay the ruling in case it didn’t come down their way.”

There was no such motion filed by the State of Utah before Shelby made his ruling.

“I had no authority to rule on a temporary stay,” he explained.

By the time that the state came in to ask for a stay, they were no longer protecting the status quo. Now the rules of the game had shifted and marriage was the status quo.

So the state has now requested that the Tenth Circuit issue a stay, and the courts gave the plaintiffs (our side) until 5:00 to file a brief as to why no stay should be granted. Unlike the DA’s office, it is highly likely that the arguments were prepared long ago and only needed to me amended to take on the ‘status quo’ arguments.

Meanwhile, today is the day that Governor Herbert decided to appoint a new State Attorney General. The previous Attorney General resigned in November in a corruption scandal and the marriage filings were conducted by acting Attorney General Brian Tarbut.

Interesting side note, acting Attorney General Brian Tarbut had been the commander of the Utah State National Guard having worked his way up the rank. Also in the Utah State National Guard for eight years, leaving about the time that Tarbut assumed control, was Robert Shelby, the judge in this case.

It is impossible to predict whether the Tenth Circuit will now grant the state a stay. Nor do we know when it is that they will decide.

However, we do know that they will be considering “the factors that must be established to be entitled to a stay pending appeal.” In other words “this is controversial and we don’t like it” will not be sufficient for these judges. It is expected that they will need to be convinced that the state has a good chance of winning and that if no stay is granted that the state will be harmed.

But irrespective of the stay or whether the ruling is reversed, It is estimated that around 800 couples have married on Friday and today.

And those who refused to issue licenses may find that obstinance is not always a winning trait. After being denied a license by a lesbian couple, the County Clerk of Utah County has been sued. Should a stay be granted and this couple were unable to get a license elsewhere, he may find himself with a rather serious civil rights lawsuit on his hands; there is no confusion whatsoever about whether an un-stayed ruling by a federal judge should be followed.

Shelby denies stay

Judge Shelby has denied a stay of his ruling on marriage equality. Marriages can continue.

The state will now go back to the Tenth Circuit and ask them to stay the ruling pending appeal. They have said “no” twice, but those denials were based on procedure (a court can issue an emergency stay outside of ordinary procedure – they chose not to). It is difficult to know how the Appellate Court will respond to the third request.

Ohio cannot summarily divorce dead people

A federal judge has issued a ruling that finds Ohio’s ban on gay marriages to be unconstitutional. If you married elsewhere. And are now dead. (AP)

A federal judge has declared in a ruling that applies only to death certificates that Ohio’s ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional.

In his decision Monday, Judge Timothy Black orders state officials to recognize such unions on death certificates. Although his ruling applies narrowly, his statements about Ohio’s gay-marriage ban are sweeping and expected to incite further litigation challenging the law.

I know that jurists prefer to issue the least broad ruling possible, one which directly addresses the case before them but not much further, but wow is this one a narrow ruling.

Utah asks pretty please, 10th again says no

It appears that the state of Utah again asked the Tenth Circuit to stay the ruling of Judge Shelby until Judge Shelby rules on the stay. And the Tenth Circuit said, “ahem, perhaps you aren’t listening closely enough.”

Long line at Salt Lake County building

When the county clerks prepared to open across Utah, lines of same-sex couples seeking marriage licenses were waiting. In Salt Lake City the line runs around two floors. (Equality Utah)

In a few minutes, Judge Shelby will hear argument for staying his ruling.

UPDATE:

At the moment Judge Shelby has heard argument why his ruling should be stayed until appeal and is taking a little break to ponder the matter. In the meanwhile, marriages continue.

The Daily Agenda for Monday, December 23

The Arrow’s front page for December 23, 1931. (Click to enlarge.)

TODAY IN HISTORY:
“Organized Male Depravity in Sydney”: 1931. The Arrow, published in Sydney, New South Wales between 1906 and 1933, was the successor paper to two earlier broadsheets, The Dean Bird and Bird O’Freedom. The sporting weekly often augmented its sports and racing coverage with attention-grabbing stories of a scandalous nature. And as one headline from 1931 demonstrates, there was nothing more scandalous and attention-grabbing than examples of “perversion becoming rampant.” On December 23, 1931, Sydney readers were regaled by an allegedly eyewitness account of the annual crowning of the queen of a “kamp kult:”

At a recent gathering held a few nights ago, at which a representative of “The Arrow” had the singular experience of being present, apologies for unavoidable absence were received from “he-shes” and “she-he’s” from all over Australia.

The occasion was a very important one in the annals of organised male depravity in the city of Sydney. It was no less than the ceremony of crowning the Queen of the “Kamp-Kult,” as this body of male flappers describes itself. The ceremonial takes place once a year, and the queen, curiously enough in this assemblage of inverted males, is a buxom and rather impressive-looking woman. The “Kamp Kult” holds high revel, not, as might be assumed, in the vicinity of its members’ nightly perambulations, amid the bright lights of King’s Cross, but in a western suburb, far removed. This, no doubt, for the sake of safety.

The Arrow’s intrepid reporter then sidetracked into an exercise of protesting-too-much before going on to describe the “legendary revels”:

The visitor had gained his invitation by devious means, through a relative. He confesses that, much as the performance that he witnessed appealed to his sense of the bizarre, and astonishing as he found the spectacle of sixty or more devotees of this most ancient and decadent of vices, he did not feel entirely at ease until he had left the scene far behind. For, aside from the dread of personal familiarities which he experienced, and the physical nausea which the spectacle caused within him, was a fear of a massed attack by these Saturnalian revellers if the object of his visit had been even remotely guessed.

The reporter then got back to the proceedings:

Presently amid much excitement the Princess Royal, elect of the Kamp Kultur boys, was announced. An attractive, smartly-gowned brunette was she, immediately recognisable as a young gentleman from the city. Cheers from the assemblage of frocked he-maidens greeted the arrival or the Princess, who was welcomed with showers of kisses. To the astonishment of at least one visitor the Princess disrobed in full view of the guests, and changed into her ceremonial garments. A page in velvet knee breeches and a “Royal” (as the ultra male perverts are called) in the full canonicals of a bishop, completed the ensemble.

The weird gathering was marshalled into the assembly room by the bishop, who played the part of M.C. in the ceremony. A dignified figure, his expression denoting a full sense of the importance of the occasion, he arranged the principals in their places before an altar draped and bedecked with flowers, keeping the guests in the background. They, chattering like magpies, giggling in the manner of schoolgirls, and adopting various feminine poses, and calling each other by endearing names, indulged in the small talk of a hens’ convention. Some walked arm-in-arm, embracing lovingly and examining with interest one another’s beautiful frocks fitting so closely to the figure. Cigarettes were held between manicured fingers or puffed between carmined lips. Some wore false hair, with marcel waves, others the boyish Eton crop. They addressed one another as “Marie” or “Sibyl.” Their talk was mingled with strange expressions, and there were frequent references as to how “trading” was going.

…The Bishop and attendants, the Princess and ladies(?)-in-waiting, took their places. The bishop opened the proceedings by reading apologies from those unable to be present. Descending from the dais, the bishop read from a large book, the cover of which sported a huge “K,” the vows which the Princess was required to take. As a specimen of Rabelaisian ordure, the contents of that book were enough to make a hardened sinner blush. This part of the ceremony was carried out amid a babel of chatter in the mincing tones that inverts adopt in familiar conversation. There were frequent retirements outside, presumably for a little love-making.

When the crowning of the Princess Royal was over, she addressed the assembly. In well-modulated tones she told them how happy she was to be with them, and how she regretted the lost years before she became a Kamp member. … Then the beer flowed, and the fun started. It was surprising to discover what musical talent was there. Many of those present gave evidence of refinement and education. The dancing of some of the “she-he’s” was delightful.

However ” delightful” the dancing may have been, the Arrow of course wasn’t above tisk-tisking the whole thing on behalf of its titillated readers:

This is the answer to those who would say, “These people are different. They cannot help what they are. Let them live their own life.” That is just what we cannot do. For the pervert is like the drug fiend in this, that he would corrupt the world and drag everyone to his own level. The Queen is the occupant of the house where these obscene revels are held. It is stated that homosexual marriages and divorces are held in this house, with as much ceremony as the performance here described.

Said a convicted homo-sexual on one occasion to “The Arrow”: “I have been in gaol and have just been released. But I know I shall do it again. I cannot help myself. What should I do?” The advice given him was: “Go and live in some country where they do not mind these things. But get out of Ausralia. You are not wanted here.”

It is time the police took a hand with these social pests. There is plenty of work in this direction for idle policemen. Instead of being placed on duty guarding either Nellie Cameron or Parliament House. A clean up of Sydney’s perverts is overdue.

[Source: “Organized Male Depravity in Sydney. Perversion Becoming Rampant — Sodom and Gomorrah Revels Shock Community. Man ‘Married’ to a Man.” The Arrow (Sydney, NSW, December 23, 1931): 1, 4. Available online here.]

Wild Bill Dannemeyer’s Op-Ed on Gays in the Military: 1991.The debate was well underway over whether the Defense Department should rescind its policy barring gays in the military. In the pre-DADT era, the ban was a matter of DoD policy, not the law. Conservatives, joined by a large number of fearful moderates and even a few liberals, wanted to keep the ban in place. But few were more hard core about it — or more obnoxious — than Rep. William Dannemeyer (R-CA). On December 23, 1991, he was true to form in his op-ed lambasting gay people with his usual class:

A very poor joke asks: What is meaner than a pit bull with AIDS? The guy who gave the dog AIDS, of course. This could be the fightingest son-of-a-gun in the whole Army. But should he be?

I have seen how aggressive the lunatics of ACT-UP can be-rioting in the streets, smashing windows, fighting with anyone in disagreement-and have often thought how effective they might be on the front lines of combat. But does this prowess and compunction for destruction automatically certify the few and the proud?

…Many people still believe that homosexual sodomy is a perverse behavior, that someone choosing to do so isn’t playing with a full deck. Survey after survey of military personnel supports this belief. …For homosexuals to blame others for reacting adversely to their chosen lifestyle is absurd. The notion of punishing “homophobes” (the label applied to people who find homosexual sodomy repugnant) in the military as perverts rather than those persons who define their very existence by a sex act is itself perverse…

Those were the arguments against gays in the military in the early 1990s. When Bill Clinton ran for President, he promised to overturn the ban. But as soon as he was sworn into office, he ran into a buzz saw of opposition led by fellow Democratic Sen. Sam Nunn of Georgia. In 1993, Congress shifted the ban from administrative policy to legal imperative with the passage of that year’s Defense Authorization Bill, which included the codification of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” into law. According to Servicemembers United, 14,346 soldiers, sailors and airmen/women would be discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” over the next eighteen years before its repeal finally went into effect in 2011 (see Sep 20).

If you know of something that belongs on the agenda, please send it here. Don’t forget to include the basics: who, what, when, where, and URL (if available).

And feel free to consider this your open thread for the day. What’s happening in your world?

Utah marriages are on for Monday morning

As we mentioned in our Utah update, the state had requested that the Tenth Circuit stay Judge Shelby’s ruling on marriage equality until such time as they could ask the judge to stay his own ruling.

The Tenth Circuit said, “no”. (Buzzfeed)

“Defendants-Appellants acknowledge that they have not addressed, let alone satisfied, the factors that must be established to be entitled to a stay pending appeal,” the court held. The factors include a showing by the party asking for a stay that they are likely to succeed on appeal, that they would suffer “irreparable injury” if they do not get a stay, that other parties would not injure other parties, and an assessment of where the “public interest” lies.

The judges wrote that the state could refile a similar motion at a later point so long as it complied with the court’s rules. Holmes was appointed to the appellate court by President George W. Bush; Bacharach was appointed by President Obama.

Which means that at 8:00 am, marriage licenses will again be handed out and marriages will occur at least until such time at Judge Shelby rules on whether the state is likely to succeed on appeal. And, considering that he issued his ruling in summary judgement (a sort of “you’re obviously right” ruling), I doubt that he’ll think they have much of a chance.

And, because I’m sure that Governor Herbert will be ranting some more about activist federal judges, let’s meet them:

Above the Law described Judge Jerome Holmes this way when he was appointed to the bench:

Holmes is a highly respected, exceptionally well-credentialed attorney. Who happens to be extremely conservative. Who happens to be African-American. And who happens to be quite outspoken on a number of issues, including affirmative action — which he strongly opposes.

One of our Hill sources describes Holmes as “the next Clarence Thomas,” who has liberals running scared.

And Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma), who has a 0% support record from HRC, said this about Bacharach (NewsOK)

“You cannot find a blemish on this man in terms of his personal integrity,” Coburn said, adding that Bacharach had “one of the greatest intellects” he had come across.

“I have never met anybody who knows the Constitution — its limitations, its intent — better than Judge Bacharach,” Coburn said.

These gentlemen, or others on the Tenth Circuit, may eventually issue stay. They may even overturn the ruling. But for now hundreds of same-sex couples can thank them for making their marriage possible.

A ducking stupid controversy

So if you ask the long-haired wild-bearded Southern hillbilly redneck biker-wannabe Jesus freak from the reality show about long-haired wild-bearded Southern hillbilly redneck biker-wannabe Jesus freaks about gays, it turns out he has long-haired wild-bearded Southern hillbilly redneck biker-wannabe Jesus freak opinions. Who’d a thunk it?

In the past week we’ve added two new equality states to the total, the Ugandan parliament has passed their odious Anti-Homosexuality Bill, and three world leaders have announced that they will not be attending Russia’s Olympics due to its homophobic laws. Anyone care?

Not much. Instead the media and blogosphere is obsessed with Phil Robertson. Does he have free speech rights? Should A&E have fired him? What other things has he said? Will Cracker Barrel carry his merchandise?

I couldn’t ducking care less!

But as this thing doesn’t appear to be going away, here are my two cents. Don’t spend them all at once.

For those of you who have blissfully missed the controversy, Phil Robertson is the patriarch of a family that operates a duck-call manufacturing business and which is the subject of a reality television show called Duck Dynasty. He was a hard drinking, pill popping, bar fighting kind of guy who found Jesus and settled down to hunt ducks and raise a family.

Duck Dynasty is the highest rated show on the A&E Channel.

This year the hype caught up to me so I recorded and watched a few episodes of the show. It’s bilge, reality television at its worst.

Reality television, that genre in which artificially contrived plot lines and scripted scenarios are acted out by ‘non-actors’ who generally use their own names, is pretty light-weight entertainment to begin with. This show, however, takes artifice and banality to all new highs. Not only are the self-promoting family members (this is their third reality show after creating a youtube series) completely artificial roles, but the antics they get up to are absurdly unrealistic. Even their trademark beards used to be shaved after duck season; now they are part of the show’s contract.

The program is supposed to be about Phil Robertson, his wife Miss Kay, three of his four sons Willie, Jase, and Jep, as they live a hunter’s life and run a multi-million dollar business. But very little business appears to get done, or duck-calls made, and we are treated to the family drama of a family without drama. Basically Leave it to Beaver plotlines, but without the charm or the convincing acting.

In one of the episodes I watched, Jase wanted an office so he built one right off the outside door of Willie’s office. In one afternoon. Without anyone noticing. And when Willie found out, he attached a rope to the office and drug it to Miss Kay’s so it could be a goat shed. Supposedly down a public road. Without wheels. And it arrived intact.

In another, the family goes to Hawaii where the drama was whether the family would go along with Willie’s itinerary. Oh, and will Phil sleep all day? I found that last question to be so inspiring that I turned it off, deleted all the episodes, and went to bed.

But the show has a huge following, and I think that is for a simple reason. Most television is designed to appeal to the largest television markets, urban centers. And those who live outside cities seldom find television shows that reflect their lives, issues, and interests.

And this is especially true when it comes to faith. More than 40% of Americans claim to attend church weekly (and at least half of them actually do), but almost no one on television goes. None of the big network lineups seem to have even a passing acquaintance with church attendance and certainly you don’t see anyone praying. In fact, the only shows I can think of in which the family regularly attends church are animations.

So Duck Dynasty with it’s praying, church going, rural living good ol’ boys who spend a lot of time loving and caring for their family has an appeal to people who seem themselves as similar. And having sat through more than a few dreadful gay movies, I can see how something even as craptastic as Duck Dynasty could have the appeal of familiarity to a huge chunk of this country, even if it is an entirely fictitious presentation.

But now there’s a huge huge big dramatic oh my god clutch your pearls controversy. In an interview with GQ Magazine, Phil decided to evangelize.

“We’re Bible-thumpers who just happened to end up on television,” he tells me. “You put in your article that the Robertson family really believes strongly that if the human race loved each other and they loved God, we would just be better off. We ought to just be repentant, turn to God, and let’s get on with it, and everything will turn around.”

What does repentance entail? Well, in Robertson’s worldview, America was a country founded upon Christian values (Thou shalt not kill, etc.), and he believes that the gradual removal of Christian symbolism from public spaces has diluted those founding principles. (He and Si take turns going on about why the Ten Commandments ought to be displayed outside courthouses.) He sees the popularity of Duck Dynasty as a small corrective to all that we have lost.

“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong,” he says. “Sin becomes fine.”

What, in your mind, is sinful?

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

And in case that wasn’t enough, he later expounds on his religious conversion.

As far as Phil is concerned, he was literally born again. Old Phil—the guy with the booze and the pills—died a long time ago, and New Phil sees no need to apologize for him: “We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?”

And he expounded a bit more on what seems to be a real concern of his

“It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”

The significant number of gay employees at A&E didn’t much like being thrown in the same category as terrorist or goat aficionados. And that he threw his former drunk self in the mix wasn’t much solace.

So A&E put him on “indefinite suspension”. And the duck hit the fan.

People were furious that a good Christian man could be fired just for saying what the Bible says. Those little parts about terrorist and goat aficionados were irrelevant, this was an attack on free speech and religious freedom.

Conservatives and religious, family, and anti-gay groups squawked and quacked. NOM (having decided that anything anti-gay is now ‘defending marriage’) launched their most successful petition to date, demanding Robertson’s reinstatement and getting more signatures in a few days than either their Dump Starbucks or Dump General Mills efforts did in months.

A&E is continuing to air episodes shot before the kerfuffle and it remains to be seen how long (or if) Robertson’s shooting schedule will be limited to ducks. The family has announced that if he’s banned, they won’t perform.

So that’s the story and now on to the questions.

Is Robertson a bigot?

Yeah, that’s probably a good term. If you think that immorality starts with homosexuality and then spreads to bestiality and terrorism, you aren’t really basing your views on logic, thoughtful discourse, or even the bible.

Is Robertson entitled to spout his nonsense?

Yep. Just like I’m entitled to call him an ignoramus.

Should he have been suspended by A&E?

That’s really up to A&E. If they believed that he offended their employees or that sponsors would pull out or that he had poorly represented the network, then they are entitled to boot his vagina-loving ass.

But, we probably also should be aware that they had to know that the controversy would fire up the crazies and that their ratings are going to go through the roof.

And, as a bonus, now they have a new plotline to write about that isn’t completely and entirely contrived.

Is the show going to downplay religion?

Nope. In fact, Alan Robertson, son number four, joined the cast for their fourth season. Before joining, Alan had been the pastor of a church for 20 years and he sees the show as a way to preach his beliefs.

And with all the new fine Christian people tuning in to see what it’s all about, you can be sure that there will be a strong religious component to keep them coming back.

Is Robertson being attacked for his religious beliefs?

No, he’s being attacked for being an ignorant idiot who thinks that the height of immorality is two people of the same sex falling in love. If your launching point to Jesus is always from the handful of Scripture that can be read to be anti-gay, your issue has little to do with Scripture or with Jesus.

But he would definitely think that is why he’s being attacked.

Can we all just shut the duck up about this nonsense now?

Yes, please.

The Daily Agenda for Sunday, December 22

TODAY IN HISTORY:
President Obama Signs DADT Repeal Into Law: 2010. It all came down to the wire during the closing days of the 111th Congress. If it hadn’t been for the heroic efforts of Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) when all hope for DADT’s repeal appeared to be dead, President Barack Obama never would have been able to place his signature on the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010. But sign it he did, and that act kicked off a nine month process to implement DADT’s repeal. Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell officially came to an end on September 20. Since then, DADT’s end has been largely considered a non-event within the military. Even Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos, who had been on record as opposing DADT’s repeal, now says he is “very pleased with how it has gone.”

If you know of something that belongs on the agenda, please send it here. Don’t forget to include the basics: who, what, when, where, and URL (if available).

And feel free to consider this your open thread for the day. What’s happening in your world?

Utah update

Yesterday over 100 couples married in Salt Lake City but the doors closed – two hours after schedule – and many couples were turned away. And, it seems, two couples were married in Washington County (population 145,000) yesterday. Most counties refused to issue licenses because “they were waiting for directions from the state”.

Today the Weber County Clerk decided to open his office so as to make things easier on Monday. When word got out, about 1,000 people showed up. Then the Weber County officials told him that opening on Saturday would “violate equal protection provisions” (because you can ban gays for years but opening on Saturday for both gay and straight couples is unfair to the heteros) and for security reasons (cuz of rampaging radical militant homosexuals, I suppose). So he apologized but kept his doors closed.

On Monday, the County Clerk’s office in Salt Lake and other counties will open at 8:00 am. Cache, Salt Lake, Washington and Davis Counties are among those expected to start issuing licenses at that time.

At 9:00 am, Judge Shelby – who issued the ruling – has scheduled a hearing for the state to present its case as to why a stay should be held on the ruling. I think it is unlikely that the judge will issue a stay.

When the Judge says no (as I expect) the state will request that the Tenth Circuit put a stay on the ruling until appeal. This may be more likely.

Meanwhile, the state has asked the Tenth Circuit for an emergency stay just until Shelby hears their request for stay (to cover, I suppose, the hours between 8:00 and 9:30ish). There has been no word yet on the Tenth’s decision.

Unless the Tenth steps in, there will be a window on Monday morning and likely long lines will start before the office opens.

It is possible that the Tenth Circuit will, somewhere down the road, overturn Judge Shelby’s ruling. It is also possible that the marriages conducted on Friday and possibly on Monday morning will be invalidated. However, as these couples will have availed themselves of Federal benefits in the meantime – including tax filings – that is extremely unlikely.

Israeli committee votes tomorrow on partnership rights

Jerusalem Post

The Ministerial Committee on Legislation will vote Sunday on a controversial bill that aims to change how homosexual couples are viewed by family courts.

Family courts deal with adoption, divorce, and the recognition of unmarried couples for benefits from the state.

The bill, sponsored by MK Nitzan Horowitz (Meretz), would require family courts to treat same sex couples the same way they treat a man and woman.

Chile elects pro-equality President

On Top

Voters in Chile on Sunday returned former president Michelle Bachelet to power.

The 62-year-old Bachelet fended off center-right candidate Evelyn Matthei by winning 62 percent of a runoff vote – the highest of any candidate since Chile returned to democratic elections.
…
Bachelet also campaigned on gay marriage, reiterating her supporter in several interviews. However, her center-left New Majority coalition has only a slim majority in both houses and a full plate.

Croatian government proposes partnership registry

Croatia began the month with a But the government is proposing that a parnership registry with many of the rights of marriage be adopted. (GayStarNews)

The government has presented ‘life partnership’ legislation today (12 December), allowing same-sex couples to officially register their relationship, inherit property from one another, and represent each other as next of kin.

They will be banned from marrying or adopting children.

With the government’s legislative majority, it means the bill is likely to pass.

The ‘protect marriage’ crowd who crowed three weeks ago will conveniently miss this move.

Indian government requests court revisit sodomy law ruling

From BBC

The Indian government has filed a petition in the Supreme Court asking it to review its decision to reinstate a 153-year-old law that criminalises homosexuality.

The government asked the court to review its order saying it believed it “violated the principle of equality”.

Uganda’s President Can’t Veto the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. Here’s What He Can Do.

As we reported yesterday, Uganda’s Parliament has apparently passed the notorious Anti-Homosexuality Bill, which provides for lifetime imprisonment for anyone convicted of homosexuality and provides prison terms for all pro-gay advocacy, for anyone providing services to gay people, and for anyone who performs a same-sex wedding. I say apparently because there is still some question as to whether Parliament had a quorum when the bill was abruptly brought up for a vote. But given that such niceties aren’t always observed in parliament despite the requisite constitutional mandate, this brings us to the question of what happens next.

Uganda’s political stystem has all of the obvious features of a powerful presidency, which has confused a number of rights groups calling on President Yoweri Museveni to veto the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. But the problem with that is that Uganda’s constitution models the manner of passing laws after other Parliamentary democracies, and under this system the head of state typically has no veto power over legislation passed by Parliament. And that is the case in Uganda as well. A lot of LGBT rights groups have failed to do their homework on this, like, for example, Allout.org (a group which all too often gets it terrible wrong but is good at making a name for themselves) which has a petition calling on Museveni to veto the bill, something he cannot do under the constitution.

So what can Museveni do? To find out, let’s turn to the Ugandan Constitution itself (PDF: 159KB/192 pages) at page 68 (Article 91):

91. Exercise of legislative powers.

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the power of Parliament to make laws shall be exercised through bills passed by Parliament and assented to by the President.

(2) A bill passed by Parliament shall, as soon as possible, be presented to the President for assent.

(3) The President shall, within thirty days after a bill is presented to him or her—

(a) assent to the bill;

(b) return the bill to Parliament with a request that the bill or a particular provision of it be reconsidered by Parliament; or

(c) notify the Speaker in writing that he or she refuses to assent to the bill.

(4) Where a bill has been returned to Parliament under clause (3)(b) of this article, Parliament shall reconsider it and if passed again, it shall be presented for a second time to the President for assent.

(5) Where the President returns the same bill twice under clause (3)(b) of this article and the bill is passed for the third time, with the support of at least two-thirds of all members of Parliament, the Speaker shall cause a copy of the bill to be laid before Parliament, and the bill shall become law without the assent of the President.

(6) Where the President—

(a) refuses to assent to a bill under clause (3)(c) of this article, Parliament may reconsider the bill and if passed, the bill shall be presented to the President for assent;

(b) refuses to assent to a bill which has been reconsidered and passed under paragraph (a) or clause (4) of this article, the Speaker shall, upon the refusal, if the bill was so passed with the support of at least two-thirds of all members of Parliament, cause a copy of the bill to be laid before Parliament, and the bill shall become law without the assent of the President.

(7) Where the President fails to do any of the acts specified in clause (3) of this article within the period prescribed in that clause, the President shall be taken to have assented to the bill and at the expiration of that period, the Speaker shall cause a copy of the bill to be laid before Parliament and the bill shall become law without the assent of the President.

So once the bill is presented to Museveni, he has thirty days to give his assent or send it back to Parliament. If he sends it back to Parliament, then it is up to Parliament to pass it again or modify it before passing it again. Notice here that there is no time period specified in which Parliament is required to act. If Parliament sends to back to the President, he again has the option of giving his assent or send it back to Parliament. But this time, Parliament will have to pass it again with a two-thirds vote.

If Museveni sends the bill back to Parliament, it will provide up to two more opportunities for cooler heads to prevail or for the clock to be run out before the current Parliament expires in 2016.