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.
Monday, July 04, 2005
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.
Thursday, June 30, 2005
Mitt Amidst His Own
Last night in Stamford, Connecticut, Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney verbally danced before 600 Republicans. The titular event was the annual Prescott Bush Awards Dinner. The real event was a practice POTUS-candidate speech.
It is the state GOP's biggest fundraiser, but it was poorly attended. In fairness to our big-haired guy, this was right before a long holiday weekend. Also, last year's was even worse, maybe because the outgoing governor (John Rowland) was in disgrace.
This time, the honoree, Jennifer Blei Stockman, who is the national co-chair of the abortion-rights group Republican Majority for Choice. That didn't play too well with many who might have attended. Mitt worked that theme before his speech, but avoided messy connections like his own state's same-sex marriages.
To hear him, he was always anti-abortion. He spoke in loaded terms, both of embryo farming and sanctity of life – this from someone who elsewhere pitches himself as a social moderate. Was there something in the air that suddenly switched him into conservative mode?
His half-hour speech got a middling review from the Stamford Advocate. The Hartford Courant dwelt mostly on the sour politics surrounding Gov. M. Jodi Rell's reign. While she is a Republican, she does not play toady to the rich as much as many former governors. For example, she signed a law that taxes gifts and estates worth over $2 million, if you can imagine not letting the rich passing their wealth directly to their kiddies!
This was a tune-up for Romney. However, he'll have to do better than pretending to be highly accomplished when he doesn't have accomplishments to back it up. He'll also have to prepare to bring up same-sex marriage and his LDS background. The country associates him quite fairly with both of those, both are unusual to most Americans, and the campaign trail will not be one right-wing fundraiser haven after another.
It is the state GOP's biggest fundraiser, but it was poorly attended. In fairness to our big-haired guy, this was right before a long holiday weekend. Also, last year's was even worse, maybe because the outgoing governor (John Rowland) was in disgrace.
This time, the honoree, Jennifer Blei Stockman, who is the national co-chair of the abortion-rights group Republican Majority for Choice. That didn't play too well with many who might have attended. Mitt worked that theme before his speech, but avoided messy connections like his own state's same-sex marriages.
To hear him, he was always anti-abortion. He spoke in loaded terms, both of embryo farming and sanctity of life – this from someone who elsewhere pitches himself as a social moderate. Was there something in the air that suddenly switched him into conservative mode?
His half-hour speech got a middling review from the Stamford Advocate. The Hartford Courant dwelt mostly on the sour politics surrounding Gov. M. Jodi Rell's reign. While she is a Republican, she does not play toady to the rich as much as many former governors. For example, she signed a law that taxes gifts and estates worth over $2 million, if you can imagine not letting the rich passing their wealth directly to their kiddies!
This was a tune-up for Romney. However, he'll have to do better than pretending to be highly accomplished when he doesn't have accomplishments to back it up. He'll also have to prepare to bring up same-sex marriage and his LDS background. The country associates him quite fairly with both of those, both are unusual to most Americans, and the campaign trail will not be one right-wing fundraiser haven after another.
Partners Win One in California
It's not about justice or fairness or humanity. Rather, it is about spite.
Even though the California Supreme court gave a victory to domestic partners, the nasties will not let it rest. The odious coupling of the Campaign for California Families and the Liberty Counsel got knocked down again yesterday, but the voter ballot initiatives continue. The state's highest court refused to hear an appeal to a lower-court finding that the domestic-partner law stands.
The short background is that since January 1st, the state has had a middling domestic-partner law. It lets gay couples who live together and register have minimal benefits. They do not get the right to community property, joint tax filing, nor any federal benefits such as social security, Medicare, federal housing, food stamps, veterans'’ benefits, military benefits, and federal employment benefit laws.
It is the wording of the law that seems to rile the anti-gay folk. Part of Family Code 297.5 reads:
Note: Two following references to legal papers bring up PDF documents. You need an Adobe Acrobat compatible reader to view or print them. The suit filing is 61 pages and the court ruling 26.
The suit to overturn this law hinged on a narrow point, that the DoMA-style Proposition 22 forbids any accommodation of same-sex couples. The Appeals Court ruling told them to take a hike, or in more legal terms, "Contrary to petitioners'’ suggestion, the Legislature has not created a 'marriage' by another name or granted domestic partners a status equivalent to married spouses."
The initial AP report on the lower-court findings is here.
As the San Francisco Chronicle recap on yesterday's development notes:
Even though the California Supreme court gave a victory to domestic partners, the nasties will not let it rest. The odious coupling of the Campaign for California Families and the Liberty Counsel got knocked down again yesterday, but the voter ballot initiatives continue. The state's highest court refused to hear an appeal to a lower-court finding that the domestic-partner law stands.
The short background is that since January 1st, the state has had a middling domestic-partner law. It lets gay couples who live together and register have minimal benefits. They do not get the right to community property, joint tax filing, nor any federal benefits such as social security, Medicare, federal housing, food stamps, veterans'’ benefits, military benefits, and federal employment benefit laws.
It is the wording of the law that seems to rile the anti-gay folk. Part of Family Code 297.5 reads:
Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law . . . as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.This makes the haters drag out their dirty flag of marriage-in-all-but-name. Of course, this clearly is not, and if it were, that would be better, wouldn't it?
Note: Two following references to legal papers bring up PDF documents. You need an Adobe Acrobat compatible reader to view or print them. The suit filing is 61 pages and the court ruling 26.
The suit to overturn this law hinged on a narrow point, that the DoMA-style Proposition 22 forbids any accommodation of same-sex couples. The Appeals Court ruling told them to take a hike, or in more legal terms, "Contrary to petitioners'’ suggestion, the Legislature has not created a 'marriage' by another name or granted domestic partners a status equivalent to married spouses."
The initial AP report on the lower-court findings is here.
As the San Francisco Chronicle recap on yesterday's development notes:
The court action ends the legal case, but may not resolve the issue. Three proposed ballot initiatives that would amend the state Constitution to prohibit both same-sex marriage and marital benefits for domestic partners have been submitted to state officials for review, said Geoff Kors, executive director of the gay-rights group Equality Now. The initiatives could be cleared for signature-gathering by August and qualify for the state ballot next year.More's the pity. Such anti-gay sorts are like a tick in the ear. They just don't want to stop until they get what they came for.
Spain Edges Canada
In a sudden move, the parliament voted same-sex marriage as law yesterday, 187 to 147. This makes it the third country to legalize such unions.
While Canada's House of Commons passed its version earlier, the arcane formalities of Senate approval and the Queen's signature means its law won't be final until later this year.
Spain's Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero concluded, "We were not the first, but I am sure we will not be the last. After us will come many other countries, driven, ladies and gentlemen, by two unstoppable forces: freedom and equality."
While Canada's House of Commons passed its version earlier, the arcane formalities of Senate approval and the Queen's signature means its law won't be final until later this year.
Spain's Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero concluded, "We were not the first, but I am sure we will not be the last. After us will come many other countries, driven, ladies and gentlemen, by two unstoppable forces: freedom and equality."
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Same-Sex Marriage Documentary Recap
Check out Massresistance Watch's report on the Showtime same-sex marriage special. It was great for me. I'm not a TV guy and only see cable at someone else's house. So, this overview was very useful. I almost felt plugged into the popular culture.
You should also snoop around his blog. He has chartered himself to counter the inanity, inconsistency and outright lies of Massresistance, Article 8 and their running dogs. He covers a lot more and is good for the soul and mind.
You should also snoop around his blog. He has chartered himself to counter the inanity, inconsistency and outright lies of Massresistance, Article 8 and their running dogs. He covers a lot more and is good for the soul and mind.
The Inane in Spain
On Saturday in Madrid, Spain, hundreds of thousands of protestors led by Roman Catholic priests expressed their disapproval of the pending same-sex marriage law. It passed Parliament's lower house and should be confirmed by the Senate next week to make it the law of the land. Spain does nothing quickly and this has been in the works and unstoppable for many months.
See the Washington Post coverage of the demo here.
A solid majority of the nation favors same-sex marriage. The government would not have considered this law otherwise.
However, our guys in the frocks are not in that majority. One,Fr. Jose Ramon Velasco, said the implementation of the law would be like the start of Nazi Germany. "Back then the majority of people also backed Hitler just like the majority back this law. I'm serious, give it time and it will destroy the moral fiber of Spain and the West."
See the Washington Post coverage of the demo here.
A solid majority of the nation favors same-sex marriage. The government would not have considered this law otherwise.
However, our guys in the frocks are not in that majority. One,
A Big Maybe in Maine
The anti-gay-rights groups in Maine hoping to overturn the state's new equality provisions think they might have enough valid signatures to do this a third time. They need 50,519 valid voter signatures on petitions. They turned in over 57,000, which the state has a month to verify.
The Christian Civic League of Maine and its spin-off Maine Grassroots Coalition collected 12,000 in the final day. Normally in the petition process that is a sign of cutting corners and fudging qualifications or outright faking petitions.
For a different perspective Susan Madore, whose hubby Paul runs the Grassroots show said the surge was "a miracle" and "a gift from God." Her side best be praying that their version of God paid attention to the qualifications as well as the quantity.
So the question is whether one in seven of the signatures is a duplicate, from a non-voter or otherwise invalid. If they don't get the minimum, the gay-rights wording stays. If they have enough, the question of whether to overturn the anti-discrimination wording goes to voters in November. That's slightly likely to fail, as voter polls show Maine has lost its taste for hate.
Anyone wondering why these reactionaries are against adding sexual orientation as a basis for discrimination in Maine law can ask Paul Madore. "(T)his opens a door, without a doubt, to same-sex marriage."
The Christian Civic League of Maine and its spin-off Maine Grassroots Coalition collected 12,000 in the final day. Normally in the petition process that is a sign of cutting corners and fudging qualifications or outright faking petitions.
For a different perspective Susan Madore, whose hubby Paul runs the Grassroots show said the surge was "a miracle" and "a gift from God." Her side best be praying that their version of God paid attention to the qualifications as well as the quantity.
So the question is whether one in seven of the signatures is a duplicate, from a non-voter or otherwise invalid. If they don't get the minimum, the gay-rights wording stays. If they have enough, the question of whether to overturn the anti-discrimination wording goes to voters in November. That's slightly likely to fail, as voter polls show Maine has lost its taste for hate.
Anyone wondering why these reactionaries are against adding sexual orientation as a basis for discrimination in Maine law can ask Paul Madore. "(T)his opens a door, without a doubt, to same-sex marriage."
Canada - Reviews Pour In
The best rush reviews of Canada's House of Commons vote for same-sex marriage is this morning's Washington Post article by Doug Struck. Up top, he quotes gay-rights activist Alex Munter saying, "The big peaceable kingdom on the U.S. border will demonstrate that it is absolutely possible for religious freedom to coexist with the end of discrimination against gay and lesbian people."
Then again, people see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear. Beyond the Post piece, we in the United States will have to see whether anti folk consider this a threat. Many claim Massachusetts' same-sex marriage is.
Federalists and cosmopolitans among us believe in the full-faith and credit practices and principles. We honor another state's driver's licenses, for example. We expect the same from other states and nations.
On the other hand, we do impose hard limits. In marriage, for example, all of our states forbid polygamy. Just because another nation permits a man four wives, we do not bend the rules to let him import them as legal spouses here.
So the Chicken Little states who have waited and waited for Massachusetts to collapse under the weight of sin from homosexuals marrying remain fearful. What happens when a Massachusetts marriage sues in their courts for recognition? Will their oh-my-God-not-here amendments or laws prevent a court-imposed recognition, hence legalization?
And now, there is a huge trading partner, ewww, actually touching Minnesota, Michigan, Maine... Canada doesn't even impose a residency requirement. It is even plainer about equality than Massachusetts. What happens to the gay couples from there who become U.S. citizens and want their status recognized?
It must be tough being timorous.
Then again, people see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear. Beyond the Post piece, we in the United States will have to see whether anti folk consider this a threat. Many claim Massachusetts' same-sex marriage is.
Federalists and cosmopolitans among us believe in the full-faith and credit practices and principles. We honor another state's driver's licenses, for example. We expect the same from other states and nations.
On the other hand, we do impose hard limits. In marriage, for example, all of our states forbid polygamy. Just because another nation permits a man four wives, we do not bend the rules to let him import them as legal spouses here.
So the Chicken Little states who have waited and waited for Massachusetts to collapse under the weight of sin from homosexuals marrying remain fearful. What happens when a Massachusetts marriage sues in their courts for recognition? Will their oh-my-God-not-here amendments or laws prevent a court-imposed recognition, hence legalization?
And now, there is a huge trading partner, ewww, actually touching Minnesota, Michigan, Maine... Canada doesn't even impose a residency requirement. It is even plainer about equality than Massachusetts. What happens to the gay couples from there who become U.S. citizens and want their status recognized?
It must be tough being timorous.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Gay Old Time in Canada
The Canadian Commons passed the same-sex marriage bill C-38 late Tuesday. The Senate will make this official later this week.
Canada thus joins Belgium and the Netherlands in permitting homosexual couples to marry. Spain should legalize this this year.
The final vote was 158 to 133, even with a couple of dozen defectors from the Liberal and NDP MPs.
All the wire services and papers are beginning coverage. A good overview is in Canoe.
With Conservatives still muttering that they want to overturn this if they get to form a government, the piece includes:
Canada thus joins Belgium and the Netherlands in permitting homosexual couples to marry. Spain should legalize this this year.
The final vote was 158 to 133, even with a couple of dozen defectors from the Liberal and NDP MPs.
All the wire services and papers are beginning coverage. A good overview is in Canoe.
With Conservatives still muttering that they want to overturn this if they get to form a government, the piece includes:
The Liberals said Harper has only one tool at his disposal: the Charter's notwithstanding clause, an escape hatch which no federal government has ever used.
"They're going to have to at least be honest with the people," said Justice Minister Irwin Cotler.
"They're going to have to acknowledge that they want to override the (Charter of Rights), override constitutional-law decisions in nine jurisdictions in this country, override a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, override the rule of law in this country."
Crack Your Cheeks, Harper
To paraphrase West Side Story, when you're a jerk, you're a jerk all the way. Canadian Commons Conservative Leader Stephen Harper compounded his blunders this afternoon. This time he said that assuming same-sex marriage becomes nationwide law today, he'll revisit and maybe overturn it if he gets to form a government.
Perhaps we was a particularly spoiled child. He at least seems to act like one on this. His response to losing now is:
Perhaps we was a particularly spoiled child. He at least seems to act like one on this. His response to losing now is:
How Harper might handle the issue is unclear since almost every provincial and territorial government has made gay marriage legal.But he raised eyebrows Monday when he suggested the federal vote will be stamped with illegitimacy because it will owe its passage to Quebec separatists.
"I'm not going to question the legitimacy of the Bloc in the sense that they're elected people," he said Tuesday as he defended his statement.
"But I don't think Canadians are going to accept as the final word a decision taken by only a minority of federalist MPs imposed because the government made a deal with the Bloc."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)