We confess that ballot iniatives are enticing. If something is important, let the voters decide, right? Didn't we learn that in elementary school and our first civics classes?
In various forms, 24 states permit citizen ballot initiatives leading to referenda or amendments to state constitutions. You can see specifics at the Initiative and Referendum Institute.
At its worst, we can look at what this has meant in California. The short of it is that citizens first limited their property taxes and then mandated that 40% of the budget go to education. That kind of worked when the state had a $3 billion surplus and does not work at all now.
The governor and legislature, as well as various agencies and school districts try to figure out how to align such goals. It is much like the fantasy of Reaganomics, guns AND butter. We want more and we want it to cost less. It is a wonderful hope, but alas, this is not a Disney or Dreamworks production.
The desire is too often emotionally based.
This type of situation is where representative democracy is supposed to work for citizens. Interest groups, citizens alliances and so forth make their wants known – lower taxes, smaller classes and so forth. Then the lawmakers are supposed to hammer out the relief of what is possible. There will be fine-tuning and enabling legislation appears.
This takes more time than an initiative, but far less than trying to fix a crippled state budget after a series of incompatible and irrationally conflicting laws have been voted referendum.
This is part two of five. The next part is here. Part one is here.
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
Devil in DoMA 2
The summary of the California DoMA initiative appears at the bottom. Also, the anti folk, VoteYesMarriage, says it will sue to get a summary more to its liking.
The only error the group could find in the Attorney General's summary was that hospital visitation may not be affected. However, it is unhappy that Lockyer stresses the collateral damage.
Lockyer's summary:
The only error the group could find in the Attorney General's summary was that hospital visitation may not be affected. However, it is unhappy that Lockyer stresses the collateral damage.
Lockyer's summary:
MARRIAGE. ELIMINATION OF DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP RIGHTS. INITIATIVE
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between one man and one woman is valid or recognized in California, whether contracted in this state or elsewhere. Voids and restricts registered domestic partner rights and obligations, for certain same-sex and heterosexual couples, in areas such as: ownership and transfer of property, inheritance, adoption, medical decisions, child custody and child support, health and death benefits, insurance benefits, hospital visitation, employment benefits, and recovery for wrongful death and other tort remedies. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Unknown, but probably not significant, fiscal effect on state and local governments. The impact would depend in large part on future court interpretations.
Devil in DoMA Details
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer released the official summary of the proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. While this triggers signature gathering, the anti folk are not happy. It seems the summary is a bit too plain spoken for them.
"True to his liberal bias, but untrue to his constitutional duty, Bill Lockyer has dumped on us an inaccurate and prejudicial paragraph that is anything but impartial and fair as the law requires," carped one of the amendment's official sponsors. Randy Thomasson of the Campaign for Children and Families particularly objected to the summary noting that the amendment would strip rights from registered domestic partners of any type.
We have not seen the whole 100-word summary yet and shall post it when it is available.
The news report is mostly the whining from the proposers. It is true that the differences start at the title – Marriage. Elimination of Domestic Partnership Rights, instead of The Voters' Right to Protect Marriage Initiative. It the issue was less serious, that form of PR bluster would be amusing.
The summary does note that the amendment for the 2006 election would restrict marriage to one man and one woman in the state. However, it also notes that the amendment would void and restrict registered domestic partner rights and obligations, including inheritance, adoption, hospital visitation and insurance benefits.
The anti folk have 598,105 signatures to gather. They would very much like voters to think DoMA and ignore the man behind the curtain.
"True to his liberal bias, but untrue to his constitutional duty, Bill Lockyer has dumped on us an inaccurate and prejudicial paragraph that is anything but impartial and fair as the law requires," carped one of the amendment's official sponsors. Randy Thomasson of the Campaign for Children and Families particularly objected to the summary noting that the amendment would strip rights from registered domestic partners of any type.
We have not seen the whole 100-word summary yet and shall post it when it is available.
The news report is mostly the whining from the proposers. It is true that the differences start at the title – Marriage. Elimination of Domestic Partnership Rights, instead of The Voters' Right to Protect Marriage Initiative. It the issue was less serious, that form of PR bluster would be amusing.
The summary does note that the amendment for the 2006 election would restrict marriage to one man and one woman in the state. However, it also notes that the amendment would void and restrict registered domestic partner rights and obligations, including inheritance, adoption, hospital visitation and insurance benefits.
The anti folk have 598,105 signatures to gather. They would very much like voters to think DoMA and ignore the man behind the curtain.
Ballot Initiatives, or Not
Who could possibly be against voters voting? Isn’t that democracy in action?
That seems to be the crux of the argument in favor of ballot initiatives. Yet as so many simple ideas, it has pluses and minuses, supporters and detractors, and most of all caveats.
Whether the subject is marriage laws or any other important issue, saying that the registered voters should decide is obvious and tempting. Occasionally it has worked well and often poorly, very poorly.
The principle entered into the United States formally in 1777 in Georgia’s constitution and similarly into Massachusetts law. Even our revered John Adams those centuries ago saw both the importance of a citizen check on legislative excess and that of making an override referendum difficult.
From the beginning, citizens had to get voter signatures on petitions, and then get the legislature to support the ballot question in two successive sessions for an amendment. The idea was that passion and petulence would wane, leaving the resulting vote more sensible.
Perhaps it is not at all odd that extremists on all fronts are wont to scream, “Let the voters decide!” when their issues are at stake.
Living in a country that prides itself as the model of democracy and populism, we should not be surprised when one interest group after another demands a vote on a particular law. Yet, caution should be the guide here, as some of the next few posts will claim.
Among the key considerations are:
That seems to be the crux of the argument in favor of ballot initiatives. Yet as so many simple ideas, it has pluses and minuses, supporters and detractors, and most of all caveats.
Whether the subject is marriage laws or any other important issue, saying that the registered voters should decide is obvious and tempting. Occasionally it has worked well and often poorly, very poorly.
The principle entered into the United States formally in 1777 in Georgia’s constitution and similarly into Massachusetts law. Even our revered John Adams those centuries ago saw both the importance of a citizen check on legislative excess and that of making an override referendum difficult.
From the beginning, citizens had to get voter signatures on petitions, and then get the legislature to support the ballot question in two successive sessions for an amendment. The idea was that passion and petulence would wane, leaving the resulting vote more sensible.
Perhaps it is not at all odd that extremists on all fronts are wont to scream, “Let the voters decide!” when their issues are at stake.
Living in a country that prides itself as the model of democracy and populism, we should not be surprised when one interest group after another demands a vote on a particular law. Yet, caution should be the guide here, as some of the next few posts will claim.
Among the key considerations are:
- Representative democracy. We have legislatures for reasons, not the least of which is that we expect them to consider long-term and interrelated effects of each law.
- Checks and Balances. Loonies can blather about activist judges or excessive lawmakers, but we have learned that they mean they want their way on a given issue regardless of consequences or fairness.
- Ratholes. At their worst, hotheaded referendum drives can bankrupt states, cripple education and social programs, and strip classes of Americans of civil rights.
- Unenlightened Self-Interest. A dangerous trend is for corporate groups and special interest groups to drive initiative that benefit them.
- Bait and Switch. Unscrupulous professional signature gathering firms in Massachusetts and elsewhere have filled their petitions by lying to voters about what the referendum means, short-circuiting the intent of citizen overrides.
Canadians, Don't Go There
Well, we haven't heard it from the U.S. State Department to Massachusetts gay marrieds. However, Foreign Affairs Canada warned same-sex married couples about traveling where their status is frowned upon or illegal.
According to The Globe and Mail, Foreign Affairs Minister Communications Director Sébastien Théberge said that part of his ministry's job is t "tell Canadians what we can't do for them."
The brief statement featuring Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew does detail countries. However, it points to the consular affairs Website for laws and rights in particular countries. One example was Qatar, where "homosexuality is illegal. Convicted offenders may face lengthy jail sentences, lashing and/or deportation."
More probably, according to Pettigrew, a couple would be turned away at customs and not allowed to enter. His statement continued:
According to The Globe and Mail, Foreign Affairs Minister Communications Director Sébastien Théberge said that part of his ministry's job is t "tell Canadians what we can't do for them."
The brief statement featuring Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew does detail countries. However, it points to the consular affairs Website for laws and rights in particular countries. One example was Qatar, where "homosexuality is illegal. Convicted offenders may face lengthy jail sentences, lashing and/or deportation."
More probably, according to Pettigrew, a couple would be turned away at customs and not allowed to enter. His statement continued:
"We cannot take for granted that rights that are recognized in Canada will be recognized or accepted abroad," added Minister Pettigrew. "Whether visiting or moving to another country, Canadians should always take the time to learn about the laws of the country for which they are destined before leaving home."
Monday, July 25, 2005
Dittohead Jacoby on Initiatives
We need to kick around ballot initiatives leading to voter referenda. Liberals seem split on the idea, and not only in Massachusetts. Extremists on both left and right absolutely love citizens being able to put any law to a plebiscite.
Predictably, yesterday the Boston Globe's token staff conservative columnist, Jeff Jacoby, mouthed the sensational half-truths of others on the issue. It is certain that he is as lazy as a preacher taking every sermon idea from published homilies. Column after column parrot distortions or outright lies of the likes of Citizens for Limited Taxation (CLT) and MassResistance.
In his case, there is the obvious question about whether he is so ignorant and dull witted that he does not know that he is publishing lies and distortions. More likely, he can just lift sensationalist lies, being inflammatory and getting paid for little work. Of course, like Rush Limbaugh, his lack of respect for his readers' intellects is evident –– twice a week is this case.
For one example, Jacoby's column and the originals he took from claim that if the new limits on ballot initiatives pass, anyone signing or donating would have name, address and phone published on the Net for all to see and for opponents toharasss. Instead, the proposed changes would have identified contributors giving over $5,000, in other words, those with seriously vested interests.
A bit different, no? Why would CLT and Jacoby assume their publics are too dumb to understand? Could it be that they simply take the cheap shot with an emotional appeal, intellect be damned?
You can also check others who note Jacoby's laziness and inaccuracy. For example, Jeff Jacoby Gets It Wrong (Again) by MassResistance Watch.
Posts here in the next few days will muse on the benefits and drawbacks of ballot initiatives.
Meanwhile, re-read Jacoby's column. These are arguments and lies you have seen and will see again. You can also check out the actual proposal. Start with a posting from this blog, which links to the bill.
Many letters to the Globe ask whether the paper can't find a conservative voice that is not so malicious or dishonest. Lord knows it makes an obvious effort to fill the op-ed pages with as much conservative and reactionary material in the name of balance as it can. Among those writers, surely there must be one who could and would turn out one or two thought-provoking, honest columns a week.
Predictably, yesterday the Boston Globe's token staff conservative columnist, Jeff Jacoby, mouthed the sensational half-truths of others on the issue. It is certain that he is as lazy as a preacher taking every sermon idea from published homilies. Column after column parrot distortions or outright lies of the likes of Citizens for Limited Taxation (CLT) and MassResistance.
In his case, there is the obvious question about whether he is so ignorant and dull witted that he does not know that he is publishing lies and distortions. More likely, he can just lift sensationalist lies, being inflammatory and getting paid for little work. Of course, like Rush Limbaugh, his lack of respect for his readers' intellects is evident –– twice a week is this case.
For one example, Jacoby's column and the originals he took from claim that if the new limits on ballot initiatives pass, anyone signing or donating would have name, address and phone published on the Net for all to see and for opponents toharasss. Instead, the proposed changes would have identified contributors giving over $5,000, in other words, those with seriously vested interests.
A bit different, no? Why would CLT and Jacoby assume their publics are too dumb to understand? Could it be that they simply take the cheap shot with an emotional appeal, intellect be damned?
You can also check others who note Jacoby's laziness and inaccuracy. For example, Jeff Jacoby Gets It Wrong (Again) by MassResistance Watch.
Posts here in the next few days will muse on the benefits and drawbacks of ballot initiatives.
Meanwhile, re-read Jacoby's column. These are arguments and lies you have seen and will see again. You can also check out the actual proposal. Start with a posting from this blog, which links to the bill.
Many letters to the Globe ask whether the paper can't find a conservative voice that is not so malicious or dishonest. Lord knows it makes an obvious effort to fill the op-ed pages with as much conservative and reactionary material in the name of balance as it can. Among those writers, surely there must be one who could and would turn out one or two thought-provoking, honest columns a week.
Saturday, July 23, 2005
Marriage Share
As part of its public-relations/lobbying efforts, MassEquality is seeking tales of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. Through the end of this month, Field Organizer Jon Marker is collecting such stories into a book One Year of Marriage Equality.
If you are part of a gay married couple interested in telling your story, go to MassEquality's sharing page. It lets you write up to 250 words and upload up to three digital pictures.
Contributors do it for the greater good. They receive no compensation, but joyful bragging is surely priceless.
MassEquality will not sell the book, but they will distribute a copy to the commonwealth legislators as they consider same-sex marriage issues.
As Marker says in an In Newsweekly article, "We'll make sure they have the books long before the Constitutional Convention starts."
By the bye, there is a long, sweet example story in the article.
If you are part of a gay married couple interested in telling your story, go to MassEquality's sharing page. It lets you write up to 250 words and upload up to three digital pictures.
Contributors do it for the greater good. They receive no compensation, but joyful bragging is surely priceless.
MassEquality will not sell the book, but they will distribute a copy to the commonwealth legislators as they consider same-sex marriage issues.
As Marker says in an In Newsweekly article, "We'll make sure they have the books long before the Constitutional Convention starts."
By the bye, there is a long, sweet example story in the article.
Friday, July 22, 2005
We Don't Need No Stinkin' Birth Certificates
In a display of incompetence and unprofessionalism, Governor Mitt Romney has refused to have the commonwealth update birth certificates to reflect the same-sex marriage laws. The Quincy Patriot Ledger broke the story and the Boston Globe has the followup.
The short of it is that Romney intentionally forces hospitals to scratch out FATHER and write in OTHER PARENT. While this reads like the Monty Python routine of the cat license, the 61 kids already born to lesbian spouses and future ones will end up with altered certificates that may not be acceptable to passport offices and other government or even corporate uses.
The likely outcome is that Romney will force an expensive program of reissuing all of these. His pettiness certainly does not suit someone with national political ambitions.
This is not just an I-forgot case. The Massachusetts Town Clerks Association has repeatedly requested new certificates. As the commonwealth has adjusted marriage licenses to the same-sex reality over the past year, this is a simple matter and a pressing one, according to Plymouth Town Clerk Laurence Pizer. "It's unacceptable to have cross-outs on a vital record. It would be impossible to ensure that the cross-out was authentic. Who's to say someone else didn't alter the birth certificate?''
The Globe reports that as early as February Romney made it plain that he was willing to let the children and their parents suffer on this one. (Insert your own, "Nyah, nyah," here.)
The short of it is that Romney intentionally forces hospitals to scratch out FATHER and write in OTHER PARENT. While this reads like the Monty Python routine of the cat license, the 61 kids already born to lesbian spouses and future ones will end up with altered certificates that may not be acceptable to passport offices and other government or even corporate uses.
The likely outcome is that Romney will force an expensive program of reissuing all of these. His pettiness certainly does not suit someone with national political ambitions.
This is not just an I-forgot case. The Massachusetts Town Clerks Association has repeatedly requested new certificates. As the commonwealth has adjusted marriage licenses to the same-sex reality over the past year, this is a simple matter and a pressing one, according to Plymouth Town Clerk Laurence Pizer. "It's unacceptable to have cross-outs on a vital record. It would be impossible to ensure that the cross-out was authentic. Who's to say someone else didn't alter the birth certificate?''
The Globe reports that as early as February Romney made it plain that he was willing to let the children and their parents suffer on this one. (Insert your own, "Nyah, nyah," here.)
(O)n a political trip to South Carolina, (Romney) told a Republican group that he was dismayed by the clerks' effort to have birth certificates revised for the children of gay couples. ''Some [same-sex couples] are actually having children born to them," Romney said.''It's not right on paper; it's not right in fact," he said. ''Every child has a right to a mother and a father."
That's a wonderful fantasy, Old Ironhair, but for over a year and for the future that is not the law here. Also in a world of unmarried and single parents, widowed parents, divorced and separated parents and on and on, save the Norman Rockwell paintings for those who will not see the challenges and beauties of real life.
It may be a good time to quote Lenny Bruce here. "Reality is what is. What should be is a dirty lie."
Note: Romney has also tried the ploy of having to change state law to permit this. Not only have other states and nations not had any difficulty tweaking their legal wording in this and related issues, but our own Chapter 45: Section 1 is pretty clean as is. For example: In the record of births, date of birth, place of birth, name and sex of child; names, places of birth, and dates of birth of both parents; and residence and birth surname of the child's mother.
Turnabout: No Fair
Ironically (and from a distance somewhat amusing) is the refusal of the Oregon Republicans to let the voters decide civil unions. In Massachusetts and Maine, the conservatives are screaming that it is only (lowercase) democratic to let voters have their say on important issues.
In Salem, House Speaker (and Republican) Karen Minnis is refusing to risk legalizing civil unions by letting voters vote. Citing a same-sex-marriage ban vote last fall, she imperiously holds now, "This issue has been greatly discussed; it's been voted on."
Catch all the latest hypocrisy here.
Democrats, other liberals and gay-right advocates are calling, writing, holding rallies and telling everyone they want the voters to decide. Governor Ted Kulongoski agrees that Minnis is blocking the letter and spirit of democracy.
Senate Majority Leader Kate Brown is one of many who pointed out that Massachusetts/Canada style marriage is one thing and civil unions quite another. She and other civil-union supporters point to a voter poll after the Measure 36 ban on marriages that found 49% favor civil unions, 30% oppose them, and 21 are undecided.
Hmmm. Sounds like a vote is needed eh?
Not to Minnis. She retorts, "When you amend every marriage statute we have on the books, that is a clear violation" of the same-sex-marriage ban.
In Salem, House Speaker (and Republican) Karen Minnis is refusing to risk legalizing civil unions by letting voters vote. Citing a same-sex-marriage ban vote last fall, she imperiously holds now, "This issue has been greatly discussed; it's been voted on."
Catch all the latest hypocrisy here.
Democrats, other liberals and gay-right advocates are calling, writing, holding rallies and telling everyone they want the voters to decide. Governor Ted Kulongoski agrees that Minnis is blocking the letter and spirit of democracy.
Senate Majority Leader Kate Brown is one of many who pointed out that Massachusetts/Canada style marriage is one thing and civil unions quite another. She and other civil-union supporters point to a voter poll after the Measure 36 ban on marriages that found 49% favor civil unions, 30% oppose them, and 21 are undecided.
Hmmm. Sounds like a vote is needed eh?
Not to Minnis. She retorts, "When you amend every marriage statute we have on the books, that is a clear violation" of the same-sex-marriage ban.
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Tsk Tsk from Vatican
It took only a day, but the Vatican has condemned Canada's legalization of same-sex marriage. In today's L'Osservatore Romano, the word is that with the law, "(t)he distortion of God's plan for the family continues."
The actual newspaper in Italian is not on-line yet, but the wire services carry that snippet.
The actual newspaper in Italian is not on-line yet, but the wire services carry that snippet.
Steamroller of Tolerance
The inexorable march to gay rights and same-sex marriage gets a broad historical view in today's The Globe and Mail. The piece by Allan Levin (writer and historian from Winnipeg) says the cascading forces of modernism made the latter inevitable.
Note: The article requires free registration to access.
He goes back over a century to trace the key steps that brought his nation here. He writes:
He contrasts U.S. political trends in sodomy, fornication, obscenity and church/state separation with Canada's. Basically, he says that they've done it. Catch up.
Note: The article requires free registration to access.
He goes back over a century to trace the key steps that brought his nation here. He writes:
Whereas a hundred years ago, even the most liberal of Canadians preached that non-Anglo-Saxon Protestant immigrants must adapt, conform or leave; we now live in a multicultural environment that, while far from perfect, has deemed as unacceptable and illegal property restrictions, ethnic quota systems, and discrimination based on race, colour or sex. The extension of gay rights must be understood as part of this historic transformation.He notes that the bluster about attacking same-sex marriage by Tory leaders is partly due to our president. "With his conservative bent, evocation of the Lord at every opportunity, and oppposition to same-sex marriage, abortion and stem-cell research, he has given the traditonalists an authority they have not had for years." He adds that with Bush leaving town in 2008, "the more moderate and progressive (by U.S. standards, at any rate) Democrats" can return and bring their own flavor of modernism.
He contrasts U.S. political trends in sodomy, fornication, obscenity and church/state separation with Canada's. Basically, he says that they've done it. Catch up.
Wide acceptance of same-sex marriage in the U.S. has a way to go - it's legal only in Massachusetts - and more liberal Canadians continue to lead Americans on this and other moral issues. Nevertheless, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper has declared that he will make his opposition to same-sex marriage a key point of his platform in the next federal election. That would be ignoring more than a century of history that suggests we will look back on the great same-sex-marriage upheaval of 2005 and wonder what all the fuss was about.
Hope for Benny XVI?
Might the new Pope have potential to surprise – like a conservative judge suddenly facing the gravity of being a Supreme Court Justice? We had not thought so, but that is just the tease held out by Anthony Grafton in the July 25th New Yorker.
Note: This article, "Reading Ratzinger," is not available online.
For 25 years, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger headed the Roman Inquisition, renamed several times from 1542, and currently the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He has been intractable in condemning homosexual acts and just as starkly anti same-sex marriage or civil unions. Now that he is Benedict XVI, we had not expected any change at all in the attitude of the Pope we like to call Benny the Rat.
However, Princeton professor of European History Grafton informs us that in his youth, Benny was liberal and loving. His mentor was Cologne, Germany's liberal Archbishop Joseph Frings. He suggests that the new Pope may draw on that background and not be so severe in the long run.
The leftist politics of the late 1960s turned Benny around and led him to transfer to a very conservative German university (Regensburg). From there, he went into the sometimes nasty and often reactionary world of doctrinal enforcement.
He describes the horrors of 1960s thought in The Ratzinger Report, a lengthy 1984 interview. According to Grafton:
In light of his new position, it is scary to reflect on his writings and oral comments over the past quarter century. For example, in The Ratzinger Report, he seems to close off any idea of an evolving, expanding theology:
Yet, Grafton concludes that the papacy may produce growth for Benny. "The Pope's job demands things that Ratzinger's old position as censor did not, and he a man of duty, who does what he is called to do."
Grafton seems appalled that the Pope endorsed a German critic's judgment that the Harry Potter books were "subtle seductions" of youth. The glimmer Grafton sees is "if the young scholar with his passion for learning from the dissidents, sometimes reappears in the imperious prelate whose mission now requires him not only to judge the city and the world from inside the walls of the Curia but also to confront and try to save them."
Note: This article, "Reading Ratzinger," is not available online.
For 25 years, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger headed the Roman Inquisition, renamed several times from 1542, and currently the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He has been intractable in condemning homosexual acts and just as starkly anti same-sex marriage or civil unions. Now that he is Benedict XVI, we had not expected any change at all in the attitude of the Pope we like to call Benny the Rat.
However, Princeton professor of European History Grafton informs us that in his youth, Benny was liberal and loving. His mentor was Cologne, Germany's liberal Archbishop Joseph Frings. He suggests that the new Pope may draw on that background and not be so severe in the long run.
The leftist politics of the late 1960s turned Benny around and led him to transfer to a very conservative German university (Regensburg). From there, he went into the sometimes nasty and often reactionary world of doctrinal enforcement.
He describes the horrors of 1960s thought in The Ratzinger Report, a lengthy 1984 interview. According to Grafton:
"(M)any Catholics moved from a narrow, inward-fixed Christianity to an uncritical openness to the world." He saw this as a dangerous development, a result largely of the expansion of the European universities, which had produced a "new tertiary-educated bourgeoisie with its liberal-radical ideology of individualistic hedonistic character..."With that background, it is easy to see how he has come down so hard on gays. He doesn't even think married straights should have fun in bed.
To Ratzinger, the world of the sixties looked rather like a vast and frightening engraving in the manner of Gustave Doré, in which fanged demons of sensuality and "liberal-radical libertarian culture" attacked the few angels who still tried to defined God's Gothic, pinnacled towers..."
In light of his new position, it is scary to reflect on his writings and oral comments over the past quarter century. For example, in The Ratzinger Report, he seems to close off any idea of an evolving, expanding theology:
The problem in the sixties was to take on the best values that two hundred years of "liberal" culture had produced. For there are values that, though they appeared outside the Church, yet, suitably purified and corrected have their place in its world-view. And that has taken place.Of course, that would not expand to gay rights or ordination of women. He seems to be saying what you see is what is going to be.
Yet, Grafton concludes that the papacy may produce growth for Benny. "The Pope's job demands things that Ratzinger's old position as censor did not, and he a man of duty, who does what he is called to do."
Grafton seems appalled that the Pope endorsed a German critic's judgment that the Harry Potter books were "subtle seductions" of youth. The glimmer Grafton sees is "if the young scholar with his passion for learning from the dissidents, sometimes reappears in the imperious prelate whose mission now requires him not only to judge the city and the world from inside the walls of the Curia but also to confront and try to save them."
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Disappearing Liberty...One Chunk at a Time
Note: This post has nothing to do with marriage or Massachusetts per se.
As the U.S. Senate holds its hearing on shield laws for journalists, the Administration already took its ball off the court and in effect said, "We won't play by the rules. Do it our way or the terrorists have won."
Deputy Attorney General James Comey was to represent the Justice Department. Shortly before he was to appear, he withdrew and instead testified publicly with prepared remarks. As George Bush's puppet, he then didn't have to be logical or defend the President's position. Puerile.
A Federal law giving reporters limited rights to withhold sources from legal and legislative probers is very unlikely. Even so, the Bush folk are trying to torpedo such an effort. Comey immediately waved the terrorist card, saying, "The bill is bad public policy primarily because it would bar the government from obtaining information about media sources – even in the most urgent of circumstances affecting the public's health or safety or national security."
Don't expect Justice to do its job. Use reporters as police agents. Oh, and if that means the public is less informed, that far less investigative reporting occurs, and that we end up nodding to the talking heads of TV instead of getting real news, that's okay by George.
In two ironies, first, the bill that would protect reporters from being imprisoned by Federal courts for refusing to reveal sources, is sponsored by two heartland Republicans, Richard Lugar and Mike Pence of Indiana. Second, bill co-sponsor Connecticut Democrat Christopher Dodd, referred to the 31 states and District of Columbia, which have limited local shield laws. "(T)hen wouldn't we expect to see great threats to public safety in those states that have shield laws which are at least as protective as the shield laws that we propose?" he asked.
Oddly enough, numerous leftists, including local bloggers here have bought into the Administration's position that journalists should quickly and passively cough up sources. That's like unquestioning obedience to a doctor because "if you don't take this drug and endure this test, you'll rob us of the only treatment and diagnostic tools we have." Both are coded language for obedience to authority without fully considering the consequences.
A wiser view is by The Nation's Victor Navasky in the August 1st issue's "The Rights of Journalists".
Plug: The full article is available online only to subscribers. If you don't get The Nation, you should.
Even he does not believe in absolute privilege, but he also has the wider, longer view of the issue. In part, he sees the media/entertainment conglomerates control over most of the press as eroding meaningful journalism. He admits this is an interlaced set of complex issues.
As the U.S. Senate holds its hearing on shield laws for journalists, the Administration already took its ball off the court and in effect said, "We won't play by the rules. Do it our way or the terrorists have won."
Deputy Attorney General James Comey was to represent the Justice Department. Shortly before he was to appear, he withdrew and instead testified publicly with prepared remarks. As George Bush's puppet, he then didn't have to be logical or defend the President's position. Puerile.
A Federal law giving reporters limited rights to withhold sources from legal and legislative probers is very unlikely. Even so, the Bush folk are trying to torpedo such an effort. Comey immediately waved the terrorist card, saying, "The bill is bad public policy primarily because it would bar the government from obtaining information about media sources – even in the most urgent of circumstances affecting the public's health or safety or national security."
Don't expect Justice to do its job. Use reporters as police agents. Oh, and if that means the public is less informed, that far less investigative reporting occurs, and that we end up nodding to the talking heads of TV instead of getting real news, that's okay by George.
In two ironies, first, the bill that would protect reporters from being imprisoned by Federal courts for refusing to reveal sources, is sponsored by two heartland Republicans, Richard Lugar and Mike Pence of Indiana. Second, bill co-sponsor Connecticut Democrat Christopher Dodd, referred to the 31 states and District of Columbia, which have limited local shield laws. "(T)hen wouldn't we expect to see great threats to public safety in those states that have shield laws which are at least as protective as the shield laws that we propose?" he asked.
Oddly enough, numerous leftists, including local bloggers here have bought into the Administration's position that journalists should quickly and passively cough up sources. That's like unquestioning obedience to a doctor because "if you don't take this drug and endure this test, you'll rob us of the only treatment and diagnostic tools we have." Both are coded language for obedience to authority without fully considering the consequences.
A wiser view is by The Nation's Victor Navasky in the August 1st issue's "The Rights of Journalists".
Plug: The full article is available online only to subscribers. If you don't get The Nation, you should.
Even he does not believe in absolute privilege, but he also has the wider, longer view of the issue. In part, he sees the media/entertainment conglomerates control over most of the press as eroding meaningful journalism. He admits this is an interlaced set of complex issues.
In the absence of a federal shield law, these controversies can be decided only case by case and conscience by conscience. But that is different from leaving it up to the corporate conscience...That's the matter with us pinkos. We are forever looking for fundamental changes that really fix problems.
Be that as it may, if I am right, the matter of a reporter's relationship to his/her sources won't be resolved until we break up the media behemoths; transform the judiciary into one that shares the views of Justices Hugo Black, William O. Douglas and William Brennan about the primacy of the First Amendment; repeal the Intelligence Identities Protection Act; and recognize that criminalizing journalists' conversations has only contributed to the confusions of the present situation.
But in case not all (or none) of the above happens, there are a few slender threads of hope on the legislative front: Republicans and Democrats have introduced several different bills for a federal shield law in both houses, claiming to offer journalists absolute protection but allowing the government to determine who is and is not a journalist, putting at risk independent journalists, not to mention bloggers. Conceivably the plight of Judith Miller will invite constructive legislation.
Canada Off the Podium
An early leader in same-sex marriage, Canada came in fourth yesterday. No, erase that.
Canada legalized same-sex marriage yesterday when its Senate voted 47 to 21 in favor. Three of the 95 senators abstained; 10 seats are vacant. That concludes three years of debate, both emotional and rational.
The last step is the formality of Royal Assent, given by the Governor-General, likely today.
Full coverage, with background is widely available in the Canadian press, such as Canoe here.
Churches can still refuse to marry same-sex couples, but public officials are technically obligated to do so. However, after the years of acrimony, Justice Minister Irwin Cotler has announced that he'll let some of the old coot marriage commissioners slide, so long as there is another public official handy who doesn't let religion get in the way of duty.
Canada legalized same-sex marriage yesterday when its Senate voted 47 to 21 in favor. Three of the 95 senators abstained; 10 seats are vacant. That concludes three years of debate, both emotional and rational.
The last step is the formality of Royal Assent, given by the Governor-General, likely today.
Full coverage, with background is widely available in the Canadian press, such as Canoe here.
Churches can still refuse to marry same-sex couples, but public officials are technically obligated to do so. However, after the years of acrimony, Justice Minister Irwin Cotler has announced that he'll let some of the old coot marriage commissioners slide, so long as there is another public official handy who doesn't let religion get in the way of duty.
Shivaree in Madrid
While not really a mock wedding celebration, it sort of was. At least tens of thousands of Spaniards hit the streets on July 2nd "banding drums, dancing toe booming techno music and crying victory over discrimination."
Read all the details in Macleans. or Yahoo News.
Mean and women walking or on flatbed trucks processed behind Culture Minister Carmen Calvo and Socialist party members, which sponsored the same-sex-marriage law. The parade took four hours to cover a kilometer. Estimates of the crowd ranged, in apparently typical Spanish style, from 100,000 to several million.
The quote of the day from a 26-year-old pharmacist, Ivan Sanchez, was, "This is infinitely gay."
Read all the details in Macleans. or Yahoo News.
Mean and women walking or on flatbed trucks processed behind Culture Minister Carmen Calvo and Socialist party members, which sponsored the same-sex-marriage law. The parade took four hours to cover a kilometer. Estimates of the crowd ranged, in apparently typical Spanish style, from 100,000 to several million.
The quote of the day from a 26-year-old pharmacist, Ivan Sanchez, was, "This is infinitely gay."
Get Over It Up North
While the Canadian legal approval of C-38 approving same-sex marriage nationwide dribbles on, polled Canadians want to get on with their lives. They seem to accept that this is a done deal. As the managing partner of pollster Strategic Counsel Tim Woolstencroft commented, "The Liberals have been successful in defining same-sex as an issue of rights, not a moral issue."
The Globe and Mail and CTV surveyed 1,000 Canadians between July 5th and 10th. Highlights include:
The Globe and Mail and CTV surveyed 1,000 Canadians between July 5th and 10th. Highlights include:
- 55% want the next government to keep its hands off and 39% want a repeal effort
- 51% did not support homosexual couples being allowed to adopt children and 46% do
- From a list of the current Liberal government's accomplishments, same-sex marriage (19%) ranked second only to a massive health-care cash infusion (28%)
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Goin' Down Muttering in Regina
A 69-year-old Canadian marriage commissioner (like our JPs) risks being canned instead of obeying the law requiring him to marry same-sex couples. In doing so, he is also stranding 30 straight couples who have arranged weddings with him this year.
...and the Globe and Mail are there.
In a scene that may replicate, particularly in the more rural Western and farther Eastern areas, Orville Nichols is claiming his beliefs prevent him from uniting homosexuals. He also said that if he is relieved of duty, he'll fight in court.
Justice Minister Irwin Cotler is willing coddle the crotchety in the short term. Recalcitrant solemnizers may be able to find other commissioners to perform their duty in such cases. "One should be able to find a way of accommodating those who for reasons of conscience feel they don't want to perform a same-sex marriage.
Several commissioners have filed complaints about being required to perform same-sex marriages. As with justices of the peace here, theirs is a civil function, legalizing contracts, with no religious duties. Ceremonies may include religious wording, but that is not relevant to the legality of the event. Some Conservatives in the province are huffing and puffing, asking why the government would "trample on the conscience and religious beliefs of Saskatchewan marriage commissioners."
Nichols is in Regina, Saskatchewan (population about 180,000). One of the six commissioners there is willing to solemnize gay marriages. There are also two commissioner vacancies, likely to be filled with candidates willing to obey the law.
Nichols refused to marry a gay couple, who complained to the Human Rights Commission.
...and the Globe and Mail are there.
In a scene that may replicate, particularly in the more rural Western and farther Eastern areas, Orville Nichols is claiming his beliefs prevent him from uniting homosexuals. He also said that if he is relieved of duty, he'll fight in court.
Justice Minister Irwin Cotler is willing coddle the crotchety in the short term. Recalcitrant solemnizers may be able to find other commissioners to perform their duty in such cases. "One should be able to find a way of accommodating those who for reasons of conscience feel they don't want to perform a same-sex marriage.
Several commissioners have filed complaints about being required to perform same-sex marriages. As with justices of the peace here, theirs is a civil function, legalizing contracts, with no religious duties. Ceremonies may include religious wording, but that is not relevant to the legality of the event. Some Conservatives in the province are huffing and puffing, asking why the government would "trample on the conscience and religious beliefs of Saskatchewan marriage commissioners."
Nichols is in Regina, Saskatchewan (population about 180,000). One of the six commissioners there is willing to solemnize gay marriages. There are also two commissioner vacancies, likely to be filled with candidates willing to obey the law.
Nichols refused to marry a gay couple, who complained to the Human Rights Commission.
Ballot Bill Puts Hiss in Hysteria
Senate Bill No. 459, AN ACT EXPANDING FINANCIAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AND INFORMATION AVAILABLE FOR VOTERS REGARDING BALLOT INITIATIVES is suddenly hot in the same-sex-marriage circle of friends and foes.
On the face of it, the aims are simple and fair. In fact, much like the bottle bill, this is a reaction to long-term abuse. This time, it's not the litterbugs, rather unscrupulous professional petition signature gathers. For example, an effort to ban same-sex marriages by constitutional amendment in 2001, failed by a small number, even though hired-guns seemed to have pulled in more than they needed. Widespread reports included such fraud as telling signers that the petition prohibited local horses from being sent to out-of-state abattoirs. Who wants to murder Trigger?
The bill requires obvious identification of paid gatherers. It limits the number of ballot questions one firm can handle by time. It charges the Secretary of State with governing the conduct of paid gatherers. It would also list the name, address and employer of each $5,000-and-up contributor.
The reactions of the most irrational and emotional groups, such as the Citizens for Limited Taxation, are predictable and amusing. We recommend reading every lurid word. Meanwhile, get a sense from:
This bill may come out of the Joint Committee on Election Laws this week, favorably.
If it becomes law, it would decidedly mean that the present sloppy and unethical options in signature gathering would change. We suspect that interest groups of all stripes would have to attract and train volunteers. This would largely remove the financial incentive for petition fraud. On the other hand, until such organizations are in place, getting issues before the legislature and the voters would be tougher.
It looks like a good trade-off, affecting everyone equally and improving the honesty of the process. A short-term negative for a large long-term benefit.
Now the question comes whether these precious voter initiatives are so good after all.
On the face of it, the aims are simple and fair. In fact, much like the bottle bill, this is a reaction to long-term abuse. This time, it's not the litterbugs, rather unscrupulous professional petition signature gathers. For example, an effort to ban same-sex marriages by constitutional amendment in 2001, failed by a small number, even though hired-guns seemed to have pulled in more than they needed. Widespread reports included such fraud as telling signers that the petition prohibited local horses from being sent to out-of-state abattoirs. Who wants to murder Trigger?
The bill requires obvious identification of paid gatherers. It limits the number of ballot questions one firm can handle by time. It charges the Secretary of State with governing the conduct of paid gatherers. It would also list the name, address and employer of each $5,000-and-up contributor.
The reactions of the most irrational and emotional groups, such as the Citizens for Limited Taxation, are predictable and amusing. We recommend reading every lurid word. Meanwhile, get a sense from:
They've always detested the constitutional ability of the unwashed masses, from time to time when nothing else worked, to end-run the hoi-polloi and powers-that-be; for us peons to make our own laws, repeal bad ones imposed upon us, on our own...Forgetting the misuse of hoi polloi, one must wonder whether these screamers have any respect for the intellect of the public. Their arguments are much like the bait-and-switch of the horse slaughtering.
This insidious attack instead will simply need a majority in the Legislature to kill the right of the people -- by making the rules and requirements to comply impossible to ever meet..
Can you imagine the chilling effect on signing a petition -- if you know your name and address will be immediately posted, that wild-eyed opponents will begin harassment of you as soon as they get their corrupt hands on The List, publicly disclosed by this proposed law?..
This bill may come out of the Joint Committee on Election Laws this week, favorably.
If it becomes law, it would decidedly mean that the present sloppy and unethical options in signature gathering would change. We suspect that interest groups of all stripes would have to attract and train volunteers. This would largely remove the financial incentive for petition fraud. On the other hand, until such organizations are in place, getting issues before the legislature and the voters would be tougher.
It looks like a good trade-off, affecting everyone equally and improving the honesty of the process. A short-term negative for a large long-term benefit.
Now the question comes whether these precious voter initiatives are so good after all.
Monday, July 18, 2005
Bucks to Chuck Maine Law
The anti-gay nasties in Maine will have to orchestrate another miracle to keep their not-here! train on track. The wire services and Boston papers picked up on the fund-raising for the gay-rights law rollback. The best coverage was in the Portland Press-Herald.
The short of it is that to date the key players in the effort to strip sexual orientation from the state's equal-rights law have spent their hate war chest. The anti folk are largely the Christian Civic League of Main and its spinoff Maine Grassroots Coalition. Through July 5, they raised $117,826 and only have $3,800 left. Much of its money went to collecting signatures to put the rollback on the November ballot.
Meanwhile, Maine Won't Discriminate and Equality Maine only collected $83,071, but have $32,000 to use.
Of course, both sides will get more cash. Some of the anti forces include industrialists who have already written big checks to beat homosexuals back down below legal protection. One who will surely pony up more is Douglas Sukeforth, who used to own and be president of Mid-State Machine Products. He seems convinced that Massachusetts-style gay marriage will follow if Maine offers homosexuals protection against discrimination. "The gay-rights part is just a cover-up," he really did say.
Both sides are busy raising money for the campaign. Meanwhile, there are those of us who hope that the petition people overplayed their cards as similar types did a few years ago in Massachusetts. If they don't have enough real voters on the petitions, Maine won't even have to face the issue in the fall.
The short of it is that to date the key players in the effort to strip sexual orientation from the state's equal-rights law have spent their hate war chest. The anti folk are largely the Christian Civic League of Main and its spinoff Maine Grassroots Coalition. Through July 5, they raised $117,826 and only have $3,800 left. Much of its money went to collecting signatures to put the rollback on the November ballot.
Meanwhile, Maine Won't Discriminate and Equality Maine only collected $83,071, but have $32,000 to use.
Of course, both sides will get more cash. Some of the anti forces include industrialists who have already written big checks to beat homosexuals back down below legal protection. One who will surely pony up more is Douglas Sukeforth, who used to own and be president of Mid-State Machine Products. He seems convinced that Massachusetts-style gay marriage will follow if Maine offers homosexuals protection against discrimination. "The gay-rights part is just a cover-up," he really did say.
Both sides are busy raising money for the campaign. Meanwhile, there are those of us who hope that the petition people overplayed their cards as similar types did a few years ago in Massachusetts. If they don't have enough real voters on the petitions, Maine won't even have to face the issue in the fall.
Non-Fomenting Remarks
"Rhetorical hysteria" was one legal expert on Cardinal Marc Ouelett's anti-same-sex-marriage-bill remarks. While the cleric was testifying to the Canadian Senate that priests could go to jail for even discussing homosexuality, he didn't find support in the legal community.
The Globe and Mail (requires free registration) report went to academicians who study hate-crime prosecution. A key point is that "...the hate-crimes law does not apply in cases where the statements made are proved to be true or in cases where they are expressed in good faith or in an attempt to voice an opinion on a religious subject." Few such prosecutions have occurred and those only for cases where the speakers were trying to foment hatred.
University of Toronto political science professor David Rayside called remarks like the Cardinal's "rhetorical hysteria." He noted that the Roman Catholic Church has not been prosecuted for refusing to marry divorces people or ordain women priests. For non-religious organizations, the latter type of discrimination would clearly violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The kindest spin on the Cardinal's bluster came from Justice Minister Irwin Cotler. (By the bye, he is in Israel at the Maccabiah Games, representing Canada in ping pong masters division play. Keen.) He commented, "when people speak out of a sense apprehension, if not anguish, then they may overstate their case.
The Globe and Mail (requires free registration) report went to academicians who study hate-crime prosecution. A key point is that "...the hate-crimes law does not apply in cases where the statements made are proved to be true or in cases where they are expressed in good faith or in an attempt to voice an opinion on a religious subject." Few such prosecutions have occurred and those only for cases where the speakers were trying to foment hatred.
University of Toronto political science professor David Rayside called remarks like the Cardinal's "rhetorical hysteria." He noted that the Roman Catholic Church has not been prosecuted for refusing to marry divorces people or ordain women priests. For non-religious organizations, the latter type of discrimination would clearly violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The kindest spin on the Cardinal's bluster came from Justice Minister Irwin Cotler. (By the bye, he is in Israel at the Maccabiah Games, representing Canada in ping pong masters division play. Keen.) He commented, "when people speak out of a sense apprehension, if not anguish, then they may overstate their case.
Friday, July 15, 2005
Suffer the Children to Come
Well, I guess the infants can go to hell with the parents in Canada. Another aspect of the Cardinal Ouelett crying Victim! in Senate testimony yesterday is that the Roman Catholic church won't baptize a child if two dads or two moms are to be the signators on the certificate.
The Ottawa Citizen reports this absurd aspect. The article quotes the mitered one:
The Senate committee, with the Conservatives objecting, reported C-38 to the whole Senate for passage with no amendments. It should pass before the Tour de France is over and become law the same day.
The Ottawa Citizen reports this absurd aspect. The article quotes the mitered one:
"If I take the example of the ceremony of baptism, according to our canon law, we cannot accept the signatures of two fathers or two mothers as parents of an infant," Cardinal Ouellet told the committee. "With a law that makes these unions official, situations of this will multiply and this threatens to disturb not just the use of our territory, but also our archives and other aspects of the life of our communities."Senator Marcel Prud'homme (a Catholic) objected to punishing the children this way. Later in the day, a Conference of Catholic Bishops official hedged a bit and said that if one of the parents did not insist on signing the certificate the priest had the option of performing the baptism. (Do we call that marginalization?)
The Senate committee, with the Conservatives objecting, reported C-38 to the whole Senate for passage with no amendments. It should pass before the Tour de France is over and become law the same day.
Red-Eyed Cardinal
There was a weird and ugly symmetry in testimony by a Canadian Cardinal. He sounds remarkably like the most extreme sensationalists in Maine trying to overturn the gay-rights law.
Quebec City's Cardinal Marc Ouelett has flushed out the bugbear of a muffled clergy, terrified of speaking from the pulpit. That's much like what the Christian Civic League and its spinoff group has been threatening in Maine – quite illogical and baseless, but with a powerful emotional pull. Both sets claim that if homosexuals get rights, even ordinary speech must be censored or they will face hate-crimes prosecution.
Well, la de da, cut me a real thin slice of that balogna.
The Canadian press covered the Cardinal's remarks thoroughly. A good piece is in Canoe.
Of course, the Cardinal must be mindful of his international reputation. He was considered to replace Pop John Paul II.
Concerning his opposition to same-sex marriage, he tried to divert the discussion to, "There's a climate taking shape where we don't dare say what we think anymore or we don't dare teach," before a Senate committee.
Another well-known Christian went even farther. "Christians are going to inhabit the closet so recently vacated by gays," said the policy director for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, Janet Epp Buckingham. "There's a tremendous amount of concern and fear in our community - feelings that we're being targeted and marginalized. Feelings that we're being considered un-Canadian."
At some level that must be funny to gay Canadians. Yes, it's fine to marginalize homosexuals, but the mere idea of not being able to say the nastiest things you can think of targets you. Hardy har.
Even though U.S. gay-rights laws invariably make stronger exceptions for bigots in the pulpit and those managing church-based organizations, the Canadians have been lenient in letting religious groups discriminate as we do. There though, questions remain whether clergy will be able to refuse to marry homosexual couples. Here, we have been careful to institutionalize that discrimination too.
Even though the Canadian rights charter is more severe about limiting free speech when it is hateful, playing the victim card so freely and so early is amusing from here.
Quebec City's Cardinal Marc Ouelett has flushed out the bugbear of a muffled clergy, terrified of speaking from the pulpit. That's much like what the Christian Civic League and its spinoff group has been threatening in Maine – quite illogical and baseless, but with a powerful emotional pull. Both sets claim that if homosexuals get rights, even ordinary speech must be censored or they will face hate-crimes prosecution.
Well, la de da, cut me a real thin slice of that balogna.
The Canadian press covered the Cardinal's remarks thoroughly. A good piece is in Canoe.
Of course, the Cardinal must be mindful of his international reputation. He was considered to replace Pop John Paul II.
Concerning his opposition to same-sex marriage, he tried to divert the discussion to, "There's a climate taking shape where we don't dare say what we think anymore or we don't dare teach," before a Senate committee.
Another well-known Christian went even farther. "Christians are going to inhabit the closet so recently vacated by gays," said the policy director for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, Janet Epp Buckingham. "There's a tremendous amount of concern and fear in our community - feelings that we're being targeted and marginalized. Feelings that we're being considered un-Canadian."
At some level that must be funny to gay Canadians. Yes, it's fine to marginalize homosexuals, but the mere idea of not being able to say the nastiest things you can think of targets you. Hardy har.
Even though U.S. gay-rights laws invariably make stronger exceptions for bigots in the pulpit and those managing church-based organizations, the Canadians have been lenient in letting religious groups discriminate as we do. There though, questions remain whether clergy will be able to refuse to marry homosexual couples. Here, we have been careful to institutionalize that discrimination too.
Even though the Canadian rights charter is more severe about limiting free speech when it is hateful, playing the victim card so freely and so early is amusing from here.
Thursday, July 14, 2005
Nodding Monarchs
A chum asked for some clarification about the glib remarks on Queen Elizabeth II's role in effectively vetoing legislation. It came up in the posting on the ex-televangelist's drive to get her to do that with Canada's same-sex-marriage bill C-38.
It's a little out of our ken down here. You can get enough detailed background from Wikipedia's article on Royal Assent.
The gist of it is that for Commonwealth countries, including Australia and Canada, the ruling monarch is the titular head of government. In theory, the Queen could keep a law from taking effect by withholding her approval. This is part of the monarch's Reserve Powers, which are very rarely exercised.
Notably in 1937, two bills giving Alberta provincial, non-federal banking authority, and one bill requiring newspapers to print government rebuttals fell afoul and did not receive assent. It's possible too that if Quebec tries to separate, such a bill would not become law.
There is a bifurcation here though. In the U.K. (England and Northern Ireland), legislation comes directly to her. In places like Canada, the Governor-General is her representative and almost always takes the advice of the ministers. In practice, unless she tells him otherwise, he assents to the bill and it is the law of the land.
There are also some delightful rituals, passing of papers, separate notification of the houses of Parliament and so forth. It's a lot better theater than our Congressional snuff boxes.
It's a little out of our ken down here. You can get enough detailed background from Wikipedia's article on Royal Assent.
The gist of it is that for Commonwealth countries, including Australia and Canada, the ruling monarch is the titular head of government. In theory, the Queen could keep a law from taking effect by withholding her approval. This is part of the monarch's Reserve Powers, which are very rarely exercised.
Notably in 1937, two bills giving Alberta provincial, non-federal banking authority, and one bill requiring newspapers to print government rebuttals fell afoul and did not receive assent. It's possible too that if Quebec tries to separate, such a bill would not become law.
There is a bifurcation here though. In the U.K. (England and Northern Ireland), legislation comes directly to her. In places like Canada, the Governor-General is her representative and almost always takes the advice of the ministers. In practice, unless she tells him otherwise, he assents to the bill and it is the law of the land.
There are also some delightful rituals, passing of papers, separate notification of the houses of Parliament and so forth. It's a lot better theater than our Congressional snuff boxes.
Busy in California
Maybe California should change its animal from the bear to the beaver. Despite recent and pending same-sex-marriage decisions (and in some cases because of these), there's much agitation and action on the We(s)t Coast. To wit:
- A pushy bunch wants the state to bypass the Court of Appeals and hand gay marriages directly to the state's Supreme Court. The wrinkle is that both sides want this. Attorney General Bill Lockyer is defending the DoMA-style restrictions. The city of San Francisco and a dozen homosexual couples have joined in the request, with the aim of Massachusetts-style full marriage.
- As of July 12th, Sacramento is still at work too. Gay marriage is swimming with the fishes since the Senate Judciary Committee slipped a measure legalizing same-sex marriage into a fisheries research bill. Last month, such a bill (gays, not guppies) barely failed in the Assembly. Three votes the other way will make the difference this time.
- Downstate, the Los Angeles City Council seized on that vote to pass unanimously a resolution supporting same-sex marriage in the state. This is a symbolic gesture, and two anti folk on the Council walked before the vote to permit the unanimous count.
Connecticut Civil How-To
A booklet on how to set up a civil union in Connecticut is available here from GLAD. It covers planning, preparation, rights and limits, and even dissolution.
Note: This is a 38-page/19 spreads, 105KB PDF file. You need an Adobe Acrobat browser plug-in or reader to view or print it. You can save the file directly to disk from the main page. Right click on Read the Publication link.
Note: This is a 38-page/19 spreads, 105KB PDF file. You need an Adobe Acrobat browser plug-in or reader to view or print it. You can save the file directly to disk from the main page. Right click on Read the Publication link.
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
God-TV Guy Begs Queen
Let us not make jokes about the Queen being asked to say no to queens. This is serious stuff.
An anti-same-sex-marriage talking head is pleading with Queen Elizabeth II to withhold Crown approval for Canadian gay marriage when the law crosses her secretary's secretary for signature. We'll have our ocean-beach cabanas in Indiana before that happens, but, hey, David Mainse is a showman first. Reality is somewhere over yonder.
Mainse, recently retired host of a long-running Christian TV program, leads an email-writing campaign to ask ER to queer, if you pardon, the law.
For those unfamiliar with Canadian evangelical broadcasting. Mainse founded and hosted 100 Huntley Street. He had about 7,000 broadcasts and subsequently has devoted his efforts to a anti-same-sex marriage group with Website.
Now before you think he is just courting traffic and engineering his next career, look at his image above or here. Could this man ever be insincere?
If you are Canadian, you can hie to his email link to the Queen. Warning: You are supposed to cut and paste your own negative comments into the box.
You can also read his own letter, which pleads:
I ask you to consider stepping in to withhold Royal Consent by instructing our Governor General, your representative to do the same. This is a non-partisan issue because some Members of Parliament of all four parties in the House voted against C-38.In addition to noting the lack of unanimous voting, he carefully selects some wispy reasons before adding:
Our beloved Queen Elizabeth II, I know that the refusal of the Governor General to give Royal Consent would precipitate a crisis. Millions have nowhere else to turn but you. Queen Esther was encouraged by the words, "“Who knows but that you are come to the Kingdom for such a time as this."”He'd surely get a bad mark if this had been Logic 101. However, it's show biz.
Alberta as Uncle-berta
Alberta, Canada, cried "Uncle" yesterday. Premier Ralph Klein genuflected begrudgingly to reality, saying his province will recognize same-sex marriages.
The Senate is poised to sign off of C-38. The pro-forma acknowledgement of the Queen is the last step to making Canada the fourth nation with countrywide same-sex marriage.
Klein was a bit puerile in his announcement, saying, "We will proceed to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, much to our chagrin, following proclamation of the federal Civil Marriage Act." More meaningful than his because-we-have-to angle was ensuring that the objectors have an out.
"We will develop legislative options to ensure the rights of religious officials and those Albertans who hold social or cultural beliefs or values, whether religious or non-religious," he said at his new conference on the matter. He wants to make sure that ministers and marriage commissioners (much like our justices of the peace) will not be compelled to join two homosexually in wedded bliss.
Same-sex couples will likely have to ask first before arranging for their ceremony.
The Senate is poised to sign off of C-38. The pro-forma acknowledgement of the Queen is the last step to making Canada the fourth nation with countrywide same-sex marriage.
Klein was a bit puerile in his announcement, saying, "We will proceed to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, much to our chagrin, following proclamation of the federal Civil Marriage Act." More meaningful than his because-we-have-to angle was ensuring that the objectors have an out.
"We will develop legislative options to ensure the rights of religious officials and those Albertans who hold social or cultural beliefs or values, whether religious or non-religious," he said at his new conference on the matter. He wants to make sure that ministers and marriage commissioners (much like our justices of the peace) will not be compelled to join two homosexually in wedded bliss.
Same-sex couples will likely have to ask first before arranging for their ceremony.
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
Gay Couple's Spanish Wedding
With 20 family and friends, plus 50 media folk, Emilio Menendez and Carlos Baturim married in Tres Cantos, north of Madrid, Spain, yesterday. It was the nation's first same-sex marriage.
You can see them here. A better picture and Spanish coverage is here. The latter report, in Spanish of course, gives nice color missing in the English press, such as the wedding ended with a reading of Pablo Neruda.
As typical of Massachusetts same-sex marriage, this was no whim. They had been partners for over 30 years.
Numbers from Spain include:
You can see them here. A better picture and Spanish coverage is here. The latter report, in Spanish of course, gives nice color missing in the English press, such as the wedding ended with a reading of Pablo Neruda.
As typical of Massachusetts same-sex marriage, this was no whim. They had been partners for over 30 years.
Numbers from Spain include:
- the Justice Ministry estimates 10% of the population is gay
- 50 homosexual couples may have already filed for licenses
- the BBC reports that over 5,000 such couples intend to wed
Canadian Express Rolls
As the Senate in Ottawa gets to bill C-38 formally legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide, they heard from Justice Minister Irwin Cotler yesterday. He testified to the Senate committee considering the bill that it was moot.
If they reject the bill (extremely unlikely), it remains the law of the land for two reasons:
A full report of yesterday's action is in the Globe and Mail (free registration required) or the wires.
The Conservative Senators are still petulant about losing the C-38 vote in Commons. Yesterday:
If they reject the bill (extremely unlikely), it remains the law of the land for two reasons:
- the nation's highest court has declared discrimination by gender in marriage unconstitutional
- a large majority of provinces and territories have already legalized such marriages
A full report of yesterday's action is in the Globe and Mail (free registration required) or the wires.
The Conservative Senators are still petulant about losing the C-38 vote in Commons. Yesterday:
The party's lack of grace in accepting defeat that they saw coming over six months ago is quaint and amusing. However, they still are making noises about somehow generating a majority or coalition and overturning the pending law."You seem to worship at the altar of the Charter. I do not," Tory Senator Anne Cools said.
The former Liberal described herself as an admirer of the Charter's founding figure, the late prime minister Pierre Trudeau. But she added: "The Charter has gone places that Pierre Trudeau never would have intended."
Slow Export of Mass. Marriage
This afternoon, my wife and I were literally in the clichéd position of being in the neighborhood, this time of the two men whose marriage I solemnized late last year. When we stopped by, we found that they had just returned yesterday from a long trip to a huge family reunion in South Carolina.
The one who grew up there is the eldest of a large family and has been out to them for decades. Most of his hundreds of relatives remain relatively close to home. They are black, Protestant, and almost all straight. His partner has always been welcome, but the particulars of their personal life together has not been a matter for confrontation, scolding or other negative conversation.
Yet raised as a Southerner myself, I understand that it is considered very rude to figuratively peek into another's bedroom, gay or straight. Your mother may be the only person with the right to ask direct questions.
I had to ask before we left whether they discussed or even mentioned their marriage. They did not.
They referred to each other as my partner. In such a conventional and largely rural environment, that message alone packs a wallop. They guy figured that the relatives would have been quite uncomfortable with the knowledge. It's likely that many don't even know it's possible here for two men to marry.
Anyway, a good time was had by all and each of them has the family-reunion t-shirt.
The one who grew up there is the eldest of a large family and has been out to them for decades. Most of his hundreds of relatives remain relatively close to home. They are black, Protestant, and almost all straight. His partner has always been welcome, but the particulars of their personal life together has not been a matter for confrontation, scolding or other negative conversation.
Yet raised as a Southerner myself, I understand that it is considered very rude to figuratively peek into another's bedroom, gay or straight. Your mother may be the only person with the right to ask direct questions.
I had to ask before we left whether they discussed or even mentioned their marriage. They did not.
They referred to each other as my partner. In such a conventional and largely rural environment, that message alone packs a wallop. They guy figured that the relatives would have been quite uncomfortable with the knowledge. It's likely that many don't even know it's possible here for two men to marry.
Anyway, a good time was had by all and each of them has the family-reunion t-shirt.
Monday, July 11, 2005
Glum Gays in Garden State
A year after homosexuals had the right to register for domestic partnerships in New Jersey, they had a muted celebration. They want full rights, Massachusetts-style marriage.
At yesterday's rally in Maplewood (led by Garden State Equality), attendants who had registered or not expressed disappointment at the subset of rights they have. According to the Newark Star-Ledger,
Our U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, probably the most out of the outed Congressional gays, was at the rally. He noted that like Massachusetts, New Jersey strengthens its case for full marriage by people seeing only positive effects of granting equal rights. Another Star-Ledger article quotes him as, "But we have had the measure for well over a year now and there has been no negative effect. It doesn't affect anyone who is not themselves in a same-sex marriage."
Meanwhile, New Jersey residents wait and stew. The state attorney general agreed with anti folk, who claim only the legislature should make such a change. The state Supreme Court will hear arguments to allow same-sex marriage.
At yesterday's rally in Maplewood (led by Garden State Equality), attendants who had registered or not expressed disappointment at the subset of rights they have. According to the Newark Star-Ledger,
Over 700 couples registered on the first day. In the past year, the total is 3,211.Under the Domestic Partnership Act, same-sex couples who register as domestic partners gain some of the benefits of marriage, including the right to give medical consent, joint insurance coverage and income tax exemptions. (It also allows unmarried heterosexual couples over 62 to register so they can get benefits and preserve retirement income they could lose if they wed.)
But the law does not include hundreds of other rights and obligations that go with being married, such as the right to sue over a spouse's death or the law's protection for the secrets spouses tell each other.
Our U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, probably the most out of the outed Congressional gays, was at the rally. He noted that like Massachusetts, New Jersey strengthens its case for full marriage by people seeing only positive effects of granting equal rights. Another Star-Ledger article quotes him as, "But we have had the measure for well over a year now and there has been no negative effect. It doesn't affect anyone who is not themselves in a same-sex marriage."
Meanwhile, New Jersey residents wait and stew. The state attorney general agreed with anti folk, who claim only the legislature should make such a change. The state Supreme Court will hear arguments to allow same-sex marriage.
Holy Cross Holy Flame War To Be
Sodomy v. Love might be the subtitle of the Sunday Boston Globe op-ed piece by Loyola Professor of Roman Catholic Studies at the College of the Holy Cross is Worcester David O'Brien. Does love matter? is unlikely to change any minds of the fundamental Christians of any stripe.
Note: The link is probably only free for about a week.
Dr. O'Brien asks very pointed questions as well as giving definitive background on Massachusetts same-sex marriage. For example, he points to then Worcester Bishop Daniel Reilly testifying to the legislature that the church did not approve of such marriage but would discuss legal rights of all couples. He also skewers the state's bishops for their DoMA position without "...the slightest effort to consult their pastors, their most respected couples, or any lay leaders before pronouncing against gay marriage. By acting without reference to pastoral experience, unfortunately, they not only weakened their case on gay marriage but further damaged their genuinely helpful efforts to support family life in other areas of social policy, such as income support, full employment, and affordable housing."
Perhaps from his years in Holy Cross' ethics school or his wide and deep research for his numerous theological books, he seems to lack patience with hypocrisy and duplicity. He notes the inanity of pretending that a heterosexual couple that can and will produce children in a closed environment is the only real marriage. Of course, most marriages are childless at any given time. This brings him to the point of his lengthy analysis —– "Should love be considered? Marriage, after all, is not just about sex; it is also about love."
He is, if your pardon the expression, straight about the church hierarchy being flat out against what they call sodomy, which to them includes any form of homosexual sexual contact. O'Brien concludes:
Note: The link is probably only free for about a week.
Dr. O'Brien asks very pointed questions as well as giving definitive background on Massachusetts same-sex marriage. For example, he points to then Worcester Bishop Daniel Reilly testifying to the legislature that the church did not approve of such marriage but would discuss legal rights of all couples. He also skewers the state's bishops for their DoMA position without "...the slightest effort to consult their pastors, their most respected couples, or any lay leaders before pronouncing against gay marriage. By acting without reference to pastoral experience, unfortunately, they not only weakened their case on gay marriage but further damaged their genuinely helpful efforts to support family life in other areas of social policy, such as income support, full employment, and affordable housing."
Perhaps from his years in Holy Cross' ethics school or his wide and deep research for his numerous theological books, he seems to lack patience with hypocrisy and duplicity. He notes the inanity of pretending that a heterosexual couple that can and will produce children in a closed environment is the only real marriage. Of course, most marriages are childless at any given time. This brings him to the point of his lengthy analysis —– "Should love be considered? Marriage, after all, is not just about sex; it is also about love."
He is, if your pardon the expression, straight about the church hierarchy being flat out against what they call sodomy, which to them includes any form of homosexual sexual contact. O'Brien concludes:
So one moral question is sodomy, another is love. And you don't have to be a Christian to understand that love is good. We are all better off when we and our friends and neighbors and coworkers and children love and are loved. What happened in those towers and those captured airplanes on 9/11? Hundreds of people called people they loved to speak at the end of love.I suspect that would lead to a lot of subject changing or rephrasing to avoid the issue. Maybe O'Brien's clearheadness will pick off a few confused minds and set them right.So try an experiment. The next time an argument starts about gay marriage, see what happens if you ask: Does love matter, or doesn't it?
Saturday, July 09, 2005
Soft Shoe in Maine
Jim Brunelle, the Portland (Maine) Post-Herald columnist doesn't have much patience with the anti-gay soldiers of the Christian Civic League, Coalition for Marriage, and other plug nasties. His Independence Day column details their latest theater.
Note: This will be free online only through July 10th. Then it's $2.95.
Already the CCL is crying foul, which shows how well he nailed it. The gist is that these groups followed the same script last time they fought a gay-rights law. They hold back a lot of petitions. Then they bring them out in the final hours, cheapening the term miracle to claim blessed victory. If there were a Biblical, retributive God up to his punishment, you'd do well to stand clear of these folks or wear your rubber-soled boots.
In Brunelle's words:
Maine hasn't settled this. The haters still want the right to say dreadful things as well as discriminate against homosexuals...and not be called, God forbid, bigots for doing so.
Assuming they weren't too, if you pardon the expression, liberal in their signature gathering, we'll hear more of this as we come to a November vote.
Note: This will be free online only through July 10th. Then it's $2.95.
Already the CCL is crying foul, which shows how well he nailed it. The gist is that these groups followed the same script last time they fought a gay-rights law. They hold back a lot of petitions. Then they bring them out in the final hours, cheapening the term miracle to claim blessed victory. If there were a Biblical, retributive God up to his punishment, you'd do well to stand clear of these folks or wear your rubber-soled boots.
In Brunelle's words:
It was the same old show, complete with manufactured suspense, familiar dialogue, victory snatched from the jaws of near defeat and a jubilant closing scene assuring the leading actors one more curtain call, despite the weariness of both players and audience.He traces both the duplicity of the anti folk in claiming that the petition prevented same-sex marriage rather than forbade discrimination. He also does a good recap of the related votes on previous measures, the close and not close ones.
The theatrical metaphor is apt, politics being a form of show biz. And the rule is, if a good punch line, an unusual prop or an attention-getting bit of stage business works, use it over and over again.
Maine hasn't settled this. The haters still want the right to say dreadful things as well as discriminate against homosexuals...and not be called, God forbid, bigots for doing so.
Assuming they weren't too, if you pardon the expression, liberal in their signature gathering, we'll hear more of this as we come to a November vote.
Friday, July 08, 2005
Warning to Moralists
Late last month, Deval Patrick got rave reviews for a snappy new routine to counter the anti-same-sex-marriage folks. In fairness, his fund-raiser audience of South Enders, at an art gallery no less, was strongly for him before he tried his patter.
You can see a full report in Bay Windows here.
As an announced candidate for Massachusetts governor, Patrick has been fustigated by anti-gay black clergy. In particular, because of his pro-same-sex-marriage position, he has been the object of tirades by Bishop Gilbert "Andy" Thompson, president of the Black Ministerial Alliance. Thompson, of the Mattapan neighborhood's Jubilee Christian Church (formerly the New Covenant Christian Church), is a buddy of Gov. Mitt Romney and a leader in the effort to roll back same-sex marriage here.
Patrick is not much for hate or for stripping groups of existing rights. According to the Bay Windows coverage:
You can see a full report in Bay Windows here.
As an announced candidate for Massachusetts governor, Patrick has been fustigated by anti-gay black clergy. In particular, because of his pro-same-sex-marriage position, he has been the object of tirades by Bishop Gilbert "Andy" Thompson, president of the Black Ministerial Alliance. Thompson, of the Mattapan neighborhood's Jubilee Christian Church (formerly the New Covenant Christian Church), is a buddy of Gov. Mitt Romney and a leader in the effort to roll back same-sex marriage here.
I don't accept the meanness and the hate that is preached from some pulpits in some places about the rightness of equality when it comes to marriage.
Patrick is not much for hate or for stripping groups of existing rights. According to the Bay Windows coverage:
"We learned about community there on the South Side (of Chicago). We also learned in our church that justice was an element - that equality was an element - of social justice and that social justice was an act of worship. It was an act of worship. So I don't accept," he said, raising his voice and sounding a bit like a preacher himself, "the meanness and the hate that is preached from some pulpits in some places about the rightness of equality when it comes to marriage. I don't accept it, you shouldn't accept it, we are not going to retreat on that, we are not going to surrender on that. Let's be absolutely clear."The fire-with-fire approach should be a good one. Calling bigots on their pronouncements has a good success rate. Patrick is not likely to convert the anti folk, but the undecided ones should appreciate someone with both guts and constructive values.
Thursday, July 07, 2005
Partial Faith and Credit in Spain
Already the newly legalized same-sex marriage procedure in Spain faces a legal hiccough. Two male Spaniards filed to wed, but one still holds his passport from India, where same-sex marriage is illegal.
Much like a big-kid'’s version of the Massachusetts law forbidding marriages illegal in other states of the United States, the Catalonian Supreme Court of Justice slammed the guys. Like our states, nearly all nations like to respect each other'’s laws, in the full-faith-and-credit posture. The problems come when something, like polygamy, is illegal in one country.
In the case of the informal Spanish ruling, the men can appeal to the Justice Minister. From here it looks like the one fellow can turn in his Indian passport, get a local one, and then pony up for a license.
There is a certain elegance to pinheaded bureaucracy. It's like playing Simon Says.
UCC Head in Own Words
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
More Big-Tent Church
Head over to Blue Mass. Group for details on his refreshing discovery. The moderate (not Southern) American Baptist Churches just received the charge to deal with gays rather than pushing them away and damning them.
At their biennial meeting last week, the 1.5 million member group heard their General Secretary The Rev. Dr. A. Roy Medley tell them that using selected scripture to separate from others produced small souls in efforts to be comfortable (I read cowardly).
His speech is long, but well focused, both rational and loving. He does not approve of homosexuality, but neither is he afraid. As he charged the group, "The issue of homosexuality has brought us as a denomination to a cross-road in our life together. One road will lead to separation. The other path will lead us to shared ministry and mission in all the theological and ethnic richness that has come to make us the unique denomination we are. What will you choose? Which road will you take?"
For those into exegesis or even sword drills, he cites a lot of scripture. However, he chooses those that challenge Christians to live the good works, not to claim superiority over others. It's a great read.
At their biennial meeting last week, the 1.5 million member group heard their General Secretary The Rev. Dr. A. Roy Medley tell them that using selected scripture to separate from others produced small souls in efforts to be comfortable (I read cowardly).
His speech is long, but well focused, both rational and loving. He does not approve of homosexuality, but neither is he afraid. As he charged the group, "The issue of homosexuality has brought us as a denomination to a cross-road in our life together. One road will lead to separation. The other path will lead us to shared ministry and mission in all the theological and ethnic richness that has come to make us the unique denomination we are. What will you choose? Which road will you take?"
For those into exegesis or even sword drills, he cites a lot of scripture. However, he chooses those that challenge Christians to live the good works, not to claim superiority over others. It's a great read.
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
UUs Been There
A commenter on the UCC initial post notes that this same-sex-marriage stuff is old news to UUs. You can check out Unitarian Universalist-related gay rights (including marriage-equality) history here.
The UCC is a lot bigger and many people pay attention to self-identified Christians. While Garrison Keillor, Doonesbury, Kudzu and even UUs have a lot of fun joking about the denomination, folks tend to take even liberal mainline Protestents more seriously.
Truth is, UUs are almost always out there first on justice and equality issues. They did the same-sex marriage resolution nine years ago. However, that surprised almost no one.
Now if the United Methodists or Southern Baptists could see the light, that would be newsworthy
Fair Disclosure: I'm a UU.
The UCC is a lot bigger and many people pay attention to self-identified Christians. While Garrison Keillor, Doonesbury, Kudzu and even UUs have a lot of fun joking about the denomination, folks tend to take even liberal mainline Protestents more seriously.
Truth is, UUs are almost always out there first on justice and equality issues. They did the same-sex marriage resolution nine years ago. However, that surprised almost no one.
Now if the United Methodists or Southern Baptists could see the light, that would be newsworthy
Fair Disclosure: I'm a UU.
Skunk in the Garden
Like a dog with a sock, the Biblical Witness Fellowship folk are not about to let the UCC support for marriage equality stay still. Frederick Clarkson's blog covers their immediate reaction. It remains to be seen (and heard) whether they will take their Good Books and go home, lonely.
We can assume they expected the vote and prepared the answering shot, including, "This resolution does not validate same sex relationships but only invalidates and de-legitimizes the UCC as a religious body."
So there you have it. Godless anti-Christians daring to include folk we want excluded. A pox on their filthy house!
Perhaps they should now change their name to the Biblical Witness Club, a name with several apt meanings.
We can assume they expected the vote and prepared the answering shot, including, "This resolution does not validate same sex relationships but only invalidates and de-legitimizes the UCC as a religious body."
So there you have it. Godless anti-Christians daring to include folk we want excluded. A pox on their filthy house!
Perhaps they should now change their name to the Biblical Witness Club, a name with several apt meanings.
Don't Rest Easy in Atlanta
I regret not tuning into the United Church of Christ's Sunday evening sermon simulcast. Read-ware is available here.
The Rev. Kenneth L. Samuel did what real ministers should. He charged the worshippers to listen and act instead of turning inward to comfortable piety. He built on the powerful UCC Still Speaking program.
In contrast to the ambiguity adverse, as well as the haters, Samuel shredded the attitude of hiding behind this Bible verse or that. When exegesis becomes the basis for bigotry, folks won't step up and do the right thing.
Samuel started with Isaiah 1:7-18, in which Israel whines to God about abandoning them. Samuel put the answers plainly:
"As long as God is speaking, it behooves us to keep listening," he said. As one can see from both Jewish and Christian history, the concepts and practices of religion and social justice keep evolving as they have for thousands of years.
Samuel also noted some transcended Biblical citations:
Powerful stuff. It won't change any of the sanctimonious or bigoted, but for many, the call to reflect, then act, may make a difference.
The Rev. Kenneth L. Samuel did what real ministers should. He charged the worshippers to listen and act instead of turning inward to comfortable piety. He built on the powerful UCC Still Speaking program.
In contrast to the ambiguity adverse, as well as the haters, Samuel shredded the attitude of hiding behind this Bible verse or that. When exegesis becomes the basis for bigotry, folks won't step up and do the right thing.
Samuel started with Isaiah 1:7-18, in which Israel whines to God about abandoning them. Samuel put the answers plainly:
“But God is not impressed with sanctimonious displays of piety. What good is one nation under God when that nation is beset with classism, bigotry and prejudice? What good are the Ten Commandments on the walls of the courthouse when we canÂ’t insure justice in the halls of the courthouse? What good is a nation that delivers democracy in Iraq but can'’t deliver it at home?”Without question, hiding behind a verse here or there that seems to justify not acting or acting terribly is not unusual. Samuel just doesn't buy it and told the synod attendants not to either.
"As long as God is speaking, it behooves us to keep listening," he said. As one can see from both Jewish and Christian history, the concepts and practices of religion and social justice keep evolving as they have for thousands of years.
Samuel also noted some transcended Biblical citations:
- Colossians 3:22 that recognized human slavery and told the owned to obey the owners.
- 1st Corinthians 11 and 16 that ordered women to remain silent and think as their husbands command.
- Leviticus 20:13 that is often interpreted as forbidding homosexuality.
Powerful stuff. It won't change any of the sanctimonious or bigoted, but for many, the call to reflect, then act, may make a difference.
Monday, July 04, 2005
Currie on UCC Inclusion
The United Church of Christ blog has a good wrap-up of the vote favoring marriage equality today. Chuck Currie quotes the supporters including, "Love and compassion, justice and peace are at the very core of the life and ministry of Jesus. It is a message that always bends toward inclusion."
For those of us not in the anti camp or the haters, it's hard to see how they can't feel the joy of it and get with the program.
For those of us not in the anti camp or the haters, it's hard to see how they can't feel the joy of it and get with the program.
UCC Overwhelmingly Approves Marriage Equality
The United Church of Christ's (UCC) General Synod in Atlanta voted strongly today, first in committee then in the whole synod to support the marriage-equality resolution. Each member church will decide whether to follow this policy. The group has nearly 6,000 churches.
This is the first mainline Christian church association to do so. Smaller Protestant denominations, such as the Unitarian Universalist Association (in 1996), had previously done so.
The UCC announcement is here. The Atlanta daily covers it here.
The conservative UCC churches have the options of adopting the policy, ignoring it, or even leaving the group. At the extreme end:
As well as asking UCC churches to marry without disciminating by gender, the resolution asks them to support same-sex-marriage legislation in their states.
The more conservative member churches had proposed a DoMA-style resolution instead.
This is the first mainline Christian church association to do so. Smaller Protestant denominations, such as the Unitarian Universalist Association (in 1996), had previously done so.
The UCC announcement is here. The Atlanta daily covers it here.
The conservative UCC churches have the options of adopting the policy, ignoring it, or even leaving the group. At the extreme end:
The Rev. Brett Becker, who represents a group of the UCC's more conservative churches, said it's possible his congregation at St. Paul United Church of Christ in Cibolo, Texas, will leave the church over the resolution.The 84-member committee that considered it gave it an almost unanimous up vote (smattering of voice no votes). About 80% of the 884-member synod supported it.
"I would like to see us stay in the denomination and network for positive change," said Becker. "However, many of my members have expressed very clearly that this decision would cause great consternation and that, if this happened, they would want to see us leave."
As well as asking UCC churches to marry without disciminating by gender, the resolution asks them to support same-sex-marriage legislation in their states.
The more conservative member churches had proposed a DoMA-style resolution instead.
Fight the Right: A How-To
Beyond Gay Marriage, in the July 18-26th The Nation, is long on background and deep on action. It specifies where the DoMA drive is going and perhaps how to derail it.
The writers are Lisa Duggan, an NYU associate professor and widely published author, and Richard Kim, an American studies Ph.D. candidate at NYU and The Nation Institute's intern program director. To see it online, you need to be a subscriber. (If you aren't, consider it.)
Some of what they cover is of no surprise, although they document it well. The big one is that same-sex marriage is just a wedge issue and a stepping stone for the extreme right. They suck the sincere fundamentalists in with it, get DoMA amendments or laws, but what they are really after is control over American's long-established civil contract rights. They want to outlaw or control all manner of domestic partnerships.
While Duggan and Kim don't stress it, we see this as dovetailing perfectly with the intrusive big-government policies of the Republicans since Reagan. They say, "Freedom," and mean, "Give us yours."
While most of us hadn't thought much about it during these times of passion and debate, the economics of this are very right-wing too. The early Baby Boomers are already known as the Sandwich Generation. They care for aged, underinsured parents as well as their own children and grandchildren. If the nasty right gets it way, there will be fewer and fewer obligations for the government.
Regardless of any gender combination, do away with the federal or state governments or private employers having any responsibility and the burden on the rich is lighter. Also, the government can spend on their killing machines and other worthy (to them) projects.
The trends over the last half of the 20th century until recently was to protect Americans. Social Security, pension funds, medical programs all helped. When states enabled various domestic partnerships, the needy could get a fair shake, or at least a fairer one. That might be a single woman having a civil contract with related or unrelated children, adults, foster children, the disabled and so forth. Not only could they share government benefits, but they have the medical and guardian relationships.
Of course, there is a cost. An employer or agency might have to help with medical costs for the sick mom, for example. You can see why some conservatives see this kicking of the weak is so tempting a fund-freeing source.
Another aspect to the broader agenda "clear by another marriage movement leader, Bryce Christensen of Southern Utah University, when he said, 'If those initiatives are part of a broader effort to reaffirm lifetime fidelity in marriage, they're worthwhile. If they're isolated--if we don't address cohabitation and casual divorce and deliberate childlessness--then I think they're futile and will be brushed aside.'" To his type, just preventing gays from marrying is only a beginning.
Duggan and Kim propose that gay activists and other progressives:
The good guys have been quietly active, writer Duggan and Kim. "(D)rafting novel cohabitation contracts, pressing for state and local legislation, challenging discriminatory laws and urging employers to expand benefits, they have begun to create the kind of household recognitions that befit a genuinely pluralistic society." The article ends with a call for gays and lesbians to join with progressives in this broader effort.
Show the stunned nation that their security is being ripped from their bodies. Show them that the issue is not same-sex marriage but Americans retaining control over their destiny.
The writers are Lisa Duggan, an NYU associate professor and widely published author, and Richard Kim, an American studies Ph.D. candidate at NYU and The Nation Institute's intern program director. To see it online, you need to be a subscriber. (If you aren't, consider it.)
Some of what they cover is of no surprise, although they document it well. The big one is that same-sex marriage is just a wedge issue and a stepping stone for the extreme right. They suck the sincere fundamentalists in with it, get DoMA amendments or laws, but what they are really after is control over American's long-established civil contract rights. They want to outlaw or control all manner of domestic partnerships.
While Duggan and Kim don't stress it, we see this as dovetailing perfectly with the intrusive big-government policies of the Republicans since Reagan. They say, "Freedom," and mean, "Give us yours."
While most of us hadn't thought much about it during these times of passion and debate, the economics of this are very right-wing too. The early Baby Boomers are already known as the Sandwich Generation. They care for aged, underinsured parents as well as their own children and grandchildren. If the nasty right gets it way, there will be fewer and fewer obligations for the government.
Regardless of any gender combination, do away with the federal or state governments or private employers having any responsibility and the burden on the rich is lighter. Also, the government can spend on their killing machines and other worthy (to them) projects.
The trends over the last half of the 20th century until recently was to protect Americans. Social Security, pension funds, medical programs all helped. When states enabled various domestic partnerships, the needy could get a fair shake, or at least a fairer one. That might be a single woman having a civil contract with related or unrelated children, adults, foster children, the disabled and so forth. Not only could they share government benefits, but they have the medical and guardian relationships.
Of course, there is a cost. An employer or agency might have to help with medical costs for the sick mom, for example. You can see why some conservatives see this kicking of the weak is so tempting a fund-freeing source.
Another aspect to the broader agenda "clear by another marriage movement leader, Bryce Christensen of Southern Utah University, when he said, 'If those initiatives are part of a broader effort to reaffirm lifetime fidelity in marriage, they're worthwhile. If they're isolated--if we don't address cohabitation and casual divorce and deliberate childlessness--then I think they're futile and will be brushed aside.'" To his type, just preventing gays from marrying is only a beginning.
Duggan and Kim propose that gay activists and other progressives:
- Expand the focus from same-sex marriage to the resources needed by the whole country.
- Turn the debate to one of recognizing the many possible types of households, thus cutting across cultural and class limitations.
- Stress caretaking, decent jobs, adequate healthcare and other benefits.
- Talk about how many households, straight as well, are damaged or destroyed by the new restrictions.
- Lay out a vision of social justice that provides for all types of households.
The good guys have been quietly active, writer Duggan and Kim. "(D)rafting novel cohabitation contracts, pressing for state and local legislation, challenging discriminatory laws and urging employers to expand benefits, they have begun to create the kind of household recognitions that befit a genuinely pluralistic society." The article ends with a call for gays and lesbians to join with progressives in this broader effort.
Show the stunned nation that their security is being ripped from their bodies. Show them that the issue is not same-sex marriage but Americans retaining control over their destiny.
Sunday, July 03, 2005
Show Some `nads, Says Rev. Young
Religion in action means something open and loving apparently to Rev. Andrew Young. On Friday, he announced support for the UCC resolution on marriage equality.
The General Synod in Atlanta will vote on the resolution tomorrow.
Young is a lifelong UCC member, a minister, a civil-rights leader, the former Atlanta mayor and former UN ambassador. Catch the full coverage of his remarks on the UCC news site.
He said, “I’d be disappointed if we did not approve this resolution. I think it would be consistent with our historic spirit of fairness and justice. But it also would be consistent with the spirit of grace and mercy as the path to peace and that you judge not that you not be judged.”
That may be very hard for the fundamentalists who are taken so far out of their comfort zone by this challenge to rethink and check their emotions on this prejudice.
The Daily Bulletin quotes him and previous remarks by Coretta Scott King. Unfortunately Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s widow cannot address the synod as scheduled because of health concerns. However, in March in New Jersey, she told an audience, "Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union."
Perhaps their combined support may make it harder for the black ministers who have spoken in brimfire terms recently of homosexuals and, the Lord forbid, same-sex marriage. Some well credentialed civil-rights leaders see the need for justice here.
The General Synod in Atlanta will vote on the resolution tomorrow.
Young is a lifelong UCC member, a minister, a civil-rights leader, the former Atlanta mayor and former UN ambassador. Catch the full coverage of his remarks on the UCC news site.
He said, “I’d be disappointed if we did not approve this resolution. I think it would be consistent with our historic spirit of fairness and justice. But it also would be consistent with the spirit of grace and mercy as the path to peace and that you judge not that you not be judged.”
That may be very hard for the fundamentalists who are taken so far out of their comfort zone by this challenge to rethink and check their emotions on this prejudice.
The Daily Bulletin quotes him and previous remarks by Coretta Scott King. Unfortunately Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s widow cannot address the synod as scheduled because of health concerns. However, in March in New Jersey, she told an audience, "Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union."
Perhaps their combined support may make it harder for the black ministers who have spoken in brimfire terms recently of homosexuals and, the Lord forbid, same-sex marriage. Some well credentialed civil-rights leaders see the need for justice here.
Saturday, July 02, 2005
Yuck within UCC
The UCC Synod could be good politics and defining cultural moments. They haven't voted on the marriage-equality resolution yet, but the posturing is good theater.
Chuck Currie has taken a vacation from his blog to blog the synod. It should be worth checking out at least daily. Big cultural issues are on the table.
He cites a call for UCC President John H. Thomas to resign after speaking out at Emory University for same-sex marriage. It seems a UCC fundamentalist cell, the Biblical Witness Fellowship, is trying to stir up anger and maybe hate on the subject.
In response to Rev. Thomas' statement that he believe UCC churches should move toward marriage equality, the cheerless Witness folk called for his resignation and added:
Chuck Currie has taken a vacation from his blog to blog the synod. It should be worth checking out at least daily. Big cultural issues are on the table.
He cites a call for UCC President John H. Thomas to resign after speaking out at Emory University for same-sex marriage. It seems a UCC fundamentalist cell, the Biblical Witness Fellowship, is trying to stir up anger and maybe hate on the subject.
In response to Rev. Thomas' statement that he believe UCC churches should move toward marriage equality, the cheerless Witness folk called for his resignation and added:
God is still speaking, but it is an unprecedented arrogance for Dr. Thomas to speak as and for God on such a primary reality of revelation. He now no longer enjoys the credibility to continue as a religious leader of a Christian church. The implications are staggering. Marriage is the ordained human covenant from which all other covenants including the identity of the Christian Church derive. His declaration means that all covenants including all those which connect churches and persons within the UCC are now wide open to whatever interpretation suits ones need for personal validation and fulfillment. Moreover by including bi-sexual in his list of possibilities he obviously intends and says that marriage should be extended to covenants including more than two persons. We are deeply dismayed and saddened by this further erosion of the integrity, unity and authenticity of our church.I love this jumping from the specific to general. The statement is a great example of several logical fallacies. Nonetheless, the opposition serves to clarify the issue – choose love and compassion on one side or blind, self-righteous fundamentalism on the other. Both sides have their adherents.
City Councilor Not-to-Be
Perennial Boston-City-Councilor-Not Roy Owens managed to stand out among 15 candidates running for four at-large positions. June 23rd, they spoke at a forum organized by the Democratic Committees. Owens got himself hissed off the microphone with his anti-same-sex marriage, out-of-nowhere rap.
Ironically, Owens has done good community organizing, as well as forever losing his bid for the Council. At the forum, he basically threw a rock in the simmering campaign soup. The other candidates spoke of specifics on how they would fight or foster the bio lab, tone down youth violence, and bring economic aid to the poorer neighborhoods.
Then according to the South End News (Web site pending, but not yet), Owens squeezed the wheeze and played bozo when it came to speak. He said:
Amusingly enough, he may find support for those views among the same group that supports the long-serving bigoted Councilor Jim Kelly. African-American Owens has had differences in many areas with Kelly, who plays well with white racists.
It will be a good measure of Boston's temper on same-sex marriage to see how badly Owens get tromped in the election.
Ironically, Owens has done good community organizing, as well as forever losing his bid for the Council. At the forum, he basically threw a rock in the simmering campaign soup. The other candidates spoke of specifics on how they would fight or foster the bio lab, tone down youth violence, and bring economic aid to the poorer neighborhoods.
Then according to the South End News (Web site pending, but not yet), Owens squeezed the wheeze and played bozo when it came to speak. He said:
(H)e's running "because our children are suffering from an identity crisis." He cited teen pregnancy, gangs and gay marriage as problems in our society. "To be a heterosexual today is abnormal," he said. "We're calling on you to join us in the fight to save the children," he said. After speaking against the biolab, Owens responded to a man in the audience who said, "I object to your characterization that gay people don't have family values." Owens responded, "Would you consider homosexuality natural?" before he was hissed away from the podium.How utterly bizarre that he could try to blame the year-old same-sex marriage for the decades old youth problems based in economics and culture.
Amusingly enough, he may find support for those views among the same group that supports the long-serving bigoted Councilor Jim Kelly. African-American Owens has had differences in many areas with Kelly, who plays well with white racists.
It will be a good measure of Boston's temper on same-sex marriage to see how badly Owens get tromped in the election.
Friday, July 01, 2005
UCC Geeks with Blogger
Putting its long neck way out on the chopping block, the United Church of Christ is set to endorse same-sex marriage at its synod, starting today in Atlanta, Georgia. You can check out the blog posting here.
Chuck Currie is going to be tickling the keyboard as lead blogger.
This walk-it-like-you-talk-it group of Christians is giving the Unitarians a run for the most-liberal title. (By the bye, the churches do education projects and others together already.) They list 1.3 million members in over 6,000 congregations. It is very refreshing here to see self-identified Christians who actually practice Jesus' teachings of love, tolerance and social action.
They have a long and impressive list of resolutions (their to-do list for the year). You can check out their marriage equality one here. (It's a PDF.)
In Atlanta on Tuesday, speaking at Emory University, the church's head, the Rev. John H. Thomas endorsed same-sex marriage. He wants the Synod to vote to "affirm the rights of gay, lesbian and transgender persons" to have marriages "equal in name, privileges and responsibilities to married heterosexual couples.
Chuck Currie is going to be tickling the keyboard as lead blogger.
This walk-it-like-you-talk-it group of Christians is giving the Unitarians a run for the most-liberal title. (By the bye, the churches do education projects and others together already.) They list 1.3 million members in over 6,000 congregations. It is very refreshing here to see self-identified Christians who actually practice Jesus' teachings of love, tolerance and social action.
They have a long and impressive list of resolutions (their to-do list for the year). You can check out their marriage equality one here. (It's a PDF.)
In Atlanta on Tuesday, speaking at Emory University, the church's head, the Rev. John H. Thomas endorsed same-sex marriage. He wants the Synod to vote to "affirm the rights of gay, lesbian and transgender persons" to have marriages "equal in name, privileges and responsibilities to married heterosexual couples.
"I believe our local churches, as they are able, should move toward the development of marriage equality policies."
Damned Christian of him, as the expression goes.
For the call for Rev. Thomas' resignation, see Yuck within UCC.
For civil-rights leaders on the marriage equality resolution, see Show some `nads.
The vote on the resolution is here,
Two in a Handbasket
"Oh, but it will be fun to watch Spain and Canada burn in hell. I mean, we're right next door to Canada. We have the best possible view," writes Mark Morford in the San Francisco Chronicle.
More Unsolicited Advice: Unless you are the overly sensitive sort, make Mark regular reading. You can add yourself to his mailing list here.
Mark deals with both hands and both feet on the core related issues. For example:
More Unsolicited Advice: Unless you are the overly sensitive sort, make Mark regular reading. You can add yourself to his mailing list here.
Mark deals with both hands and both feet on the core related issues. For example:
Kids will, they certainly fear, be aggressively harvested, recruited, converted to homosexuality much in the same way other dark forces siphon off our youth -- like, oh, the U.S. Army sucking up lost lower-class teens or Billy Graham working for over 50 years to convert millions of Christians to a certain narrow worldview and rigid lifestyle. Yes, gays will treat kids just like that.Catch his column before he goes to hell too.
Outlying Insights
We are still coming to terms with the very literal thinking of many of the anti-gay folk. The confluence of recent laws and blogs bubbles them above ground. For two examples, look to A Catholic Life and Christway Prayer Life.
These are not the spite nasties we have seen and heard so much of recently, particularly in New England. Instead, they seem honestly stunned that Roman Catholics would dare to challenge church pronouncements. The implication is that they are fighting God by doing so.
Kane Rydell at the all-prayer-all-the-time site comments:
Yet, in France, Italy, Spain and even very Roman Catholic towns like Boston, birth control, divorce, abortion and voting patterns remain individual decisions. Catholics I know well say they consider the church's teachings...consider.
Likewise, over at A Catholic Life, we find:
These are not the spite nasties we have seen and heard so much of recently, particularly in New England. Instead, they seem honestly stunned that Roman Catholics would dare to challenge church pronouncements. The implication is that they are fighting God by doing so.
Kane Rydell at the all-prayer-all-the-time site comments:
It is utterly amazing to me that in a nation that is mainly Roman Catholic would allow for Gay Marriages to become legal. But that's what happened yesterday. Another nation has decided to have war with God. This nation needs our prayers. I hope that people who visit this site will pray for all nations but especially for Spain, Canada and America.That's both touching and a bit sad. Check your brains at the door. The Pope and priests will tell you all you need to know and how you must act.
Yet, in France, Italy, Spain and even very Roman Catholic towns like Boston, birth control, divorce, abortion and voting patterns remain individual decisions. Catholics I know well say they consider the church's teachings...consider.
Likewise, over at A Catholic Life, we find:
That is extremely sad that people that consider themselves Catholic would go against Church teachings. Look clearly to St. Francis and other saints; St. Francis was a man that greatly opposed the bureaucracy of the Vatican at the time, but he remained and loved the Catholic faith.So, it's war with God or one strike and you're out for these guys. What's sad here is how out of touch and out of tune they are with the larger Catholic world.
If you begin to doubt just one article of the faith or a moral teaching then you begin the loose the entire faith. This has been proved time and time again when people leave the Church because they believe in their own morals and ideas. But, in truth, only God's morals matter because, after all, it is the Ten Commandments, not the Ten Suggestions.
Nova Scotian on Same-Sex Marriage
Click on over to Salon for a solid analysis of the disparate Canadian positions on same-sex marriage. The author, Nova Scotia columnist and travel writer Barry Boyce, has a lot of good stuff online already.
Note: If you're not a subscriber, you'll get an ad before they feed the article.
Boyce compares the Conservatives –– an embarrassing blend of hicks from out West who hate the liberals back East (hmm) – with the tenuously empowered minority Liberals under Paul Martin. While a majority of Canadians, except those 55 and older, favor same-sex marriage, those who don't are much like the Bushies here. It's their version of a God who makes them put marriage in quotes if it's close to homosexual.
Canada's pending new marital reality "...offends the sensibility of those who believe that God is concerned about whom you sleep with and how. Some people believe he/she is; some people don't; some people don't believe in God at all. At this late date, one would think that God would not and could not enter into the matter, but the Canadian national anthem still contains the line 'God keep our land glorious and free,' which for many people means that patriotism and piety are one and the same. And we all know whom God speaks directly to south of the 49th Parallel."
Boyce gives us a perspective on the Conservatives.
I had a very crude boss years ago who described such futile displays. As he put it, "It's like peeing in a blue serge suit. It gives you a nice warm feeling, but nobody notices.
Note: If you're not a subscriber, you'll get an ad before they feed the article.
Boyce compares the Conservatives –– an embarrassing blend of hicks from out West who hate the liberals back East (hmm) – with the tenuously empowered minority Liberals under Paul Martin. While a majority of Canadians, except those 55 and older, favor same-sex marriage, those who don't are much like the Bushies here. It's their version of a God who makes them put marriage in quotes if it's close to homosexual.
Canada's pending new marital reality "...offends the sensibility of those who believe that God is concerned about whom you sleep with and how. Some people believe he/she is; some people don't; some people don't believe in God at all. At this late date, one would think that God would not and could not enter into the matter, but the Canadian national anthem still contains the line 'God keep our land glorious and free,' which for many people means that patriotism and piety are one and the same. And we all know whom God speaks directly to south of the 49th Parallel."
Boyce gives us a perspective on the Conservatives.
The Conservative Party, which started as a regional party that catered to Canadian Westerners' alienation from the Eastern establishment, has strived mightily to make itself a national party, and it could be if it were located in the United States, because many of its members espouse the kind of social conservatism that's in vogue there. To become a national party in Canada, though, the Conservatives must hide this fact. But just when it looks like they've managed to do so, as if in a reverse Clintonian bimbo eruption, some member of Parliament from a God-fearing locale pipes up about moral depravity of one kind or another. At that point, Canadians cannot find a pole long enough to distance themselves from this bigoted brand of conservatism.Perhaps the good angle to that and the lesson we might draw from it here is that the fundamentalists remain in the minority. (Fortunately for the Canadians, they have a smaller percentage.) Their self-righteous bluster there or here may make them feel good, but it won't be convincing the rest of the freedom-loving citizens to hate along with them.
I had a very crude boss years ago who described such futile displays. As he put it, "It's like peeing in a blue serge suit. It gives you a nice warm feeling, but nobody notices.
Canadian Hicks Nix
Much like downtown in Massachusetts, Canadians need to come to terms with the overdue reality. Some of the most rural and traditional areas remain conflicted about same-sex marriage, even as the most urban areas have already mandated it.
Canoe carries a good analysis. As the nation prepares for formal legalization by legislation of same-sex marriage, a few areas will still have to learn to deal.
Presently, Alberta, the Northwest Territories, Prince Edward Island, and the six-year-old Nunavut Territory waaay up North do not marry homosexual couples. One source is Calgary resident Keith Purdy. He and his partner of 14 years are waiting to announce their wedding."We won't make any plans until it's totally accepted here," he said.
Once bill C-38 goes through the formalities of the Senate vote and Queen's signature, they plan to file for a license. If they don't get it, they'll go to court.
The Canoe piece cites the same irrational fears as we heard in Massachusetts, which never occurred. Meanwhile, over 3,000 Canadian gay couples have wed. Ironically to the detractors, these marriages are likely more stable than heterosexual ones, as here. Those marrying tend to be long-term committed couples who will likely be life partners, not folk playing out passions and lust.
It's all understandable. Nothing will work as well as seeing the results.
Canoe carries a good analysis. As the nation prepares for formal legalization by legislation of same-sex marriage, a few areas will still have to learn to deal.
Presently, Alberta, the Northwest Territories, Prince Edward Island, and the six-year-old Nunavut Territory waaay up North do not marry homosexual couples. One source is Calgary resident Keith Purdy. He and his partner of 14 years are waiting to announce their wedding."We won't make any plans until it's totally accepted here," he said.
Once bill C-38 goes through the formalities of the Senate vote and Queen's signature, they plan to file for a license. If they don't get it, they'll go to court.
The Canoe piece cites the same irrational fears as we heard in Massachusetts, which never occurred. Meanwhile, over 3,000 Canadian gay couples have wed. Ironically to the detractors, these marriages are likely more stable than heterosexual ones, as here. Those marrying tend to be long-term committed couples who will likely be life partners, not folk playing out passions and lust.
It's all understandable. Nothing will work as well as seeing the results.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)