The decision is in a class-action lawsuit. It is the first decision to be handed down since President Barack Obama announced his support for same-sex marriage.

Wilken is just the latest judge to rule in this manner. Conservative and liberal judges have upheld the Constitution and its provisions which render DOMA unconstitutional. Wilken found, like many others, that Section 3 of DOMA, which is the federal definition of marriage and spouse, “vilates the equal protection rights of Plaintiff same-sex spouses.” Furthermore, subparagraph C of Section 7702B(f) of the Internal Revenue Code “violates the equal protection rights of Plaintiff registered domestic partners.” The court found that “both provisions are constitutionally invalid to the extent that they exclude Plaintiff same-sex spouses and registered domestic partners from enrollment in the CalPERS long-term care plan.”

Wilken ordered CalPERS not to use DOMA or that tax provision to deny enrollment to same-sex spouses and domestic partners in California. She also ordered that the federal government not disqualify CalPERS’ plan from the beneficial tax treatment for following her order. The order, however, has been stayed to see if there will be an appeal.

According to MetroWeekly:

The case comes about because, even if CalPERS wanted to allow the participation of same-sex married couples or domestic partners in its long-term care program, Section 7702B(f)(2) of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) disqualifies a state-maintained plan from favorable tax treatment if it provides coverage to individuals other than those specified under the tax-code provision, which was signed into law a month before DOMA was in 1996. As Wilken noted, “The list of eligible individuals in Section 7702B(f)(2)(C) includes state employees and former employees, their spouses, and individuals bearing a relationship to the employees or spouses which is described in subparagraphs (A) through (G) of 26 U.S.C. § 152(d)(2).” Wilken found the decision to include subparagraphs (A) through (G) — and not (H) — of the underlying tax provision relevant because subparagraph (H) would have allowed for coverage for domestic partners, among others.

"Marriage Equality: It's A Right" from Flickr

There is one phrase that comes to my mind with regards to the National Organization for Marriage’s boycott of Starbucks. . .Instead of leaving, they’re staying in droves.

Apparently, NOM has now decided to hold up Robert Adolph Enyart as their model. Apparently the man created a video of him dumping Starbucks coffee down the drain. Other than being a waste of money, it seems like it isn’t much of a stunt. Apparently, Pastor Enyart claimed that he did not know about the fact that Starbucks supports same-sex marriage, and had just bought the coffee right before he bought it. In fact NOM wrote about it saying:

This past week a pastor in Colorado made a video of himself dumping a cup of Starbucks coffee down the street curb drain. Apparently he had purchased it on his way to work shortly before hearing of Starbucks position in support of same-sex marriage and the DumpStarbucks.com campaign and decided he couldn’t go through with drinking it, but wanted to make a statement instead. What you can do this week: Make an inventive and fun home video of yourself or a friend “Dumping Starbucks” and send it in. As many as we can we’ll post online so everyone can see and have a good laugh. If you don’t want to buy a cup of Starbucks (remember we are protesting them) then grab an empty cup from a coworker or friend and use that instead.

Joe My God notes that:

As anybody who saw the original video knows, that preacher did know in advance of his purchase. In fact, AFTER he became the subject of widespread internet ridicule, he pulled the clip and filed copyright claims against others that had mirrored his video. He then re-recorded his clip with the new claim and restaged pouring it down the sewer, this time with an included ad for his stupid radio show.

Enyart is, of course, not exactly the best choice for the face of the boycott. He has been married three times according to sources. He was married to Krista Lynn Crisler from 1981 to 1989, but divorced because, as one source puts it, he was struggling “sexual immorality and porn.” This occurred during his Operation Rescue days. He married his second wife because “I was desperately lonely, but I was also on the rebound”. We do not even know the name of his second wife.

The final time, though, he married Cherl Mayns, a divorcee, and while the two were, apparently, cohabitating, he beat Stephen Mayns, Cherl’s son. According to John Mayns, the boy’s biological father, Enyart “stripped him down naked, bent him over my ex-wife’s bed and then beat him with one of her belts.” In fact, Enyart beat the boy so hard that he broke the skin and was charged with child abuse. Enyart eventually was convicted of the crime and spent fifty days in jail.

Sounds like a great person to showcase traditional marriage, huh?

The two live in Dummerston, Vermont and have been together more than a decade, and legally married in Vermont last year. They were informed of the decision by the Vermont Congressional delegation.

Marriage Certificate, 1875

Originally published May 11, 2012

The right wing avers that allowing gays to marry will destroy traditional marriage in America. They never say how, but they are sure it will happen. Too late. Traditional marriage is already in trouble, and gays had nothing to do with it. Neither did Kim Kardashian. She simply provided fathers with a really good argument against $25,000 custom wedding dresses and million dollar receptions.

Fifty years ago, 72% of Americans were married. Today, the number is just under 50%. The United States isn’t the only place experiencing this phenomenon. When my husband’s family in Canada held their last reunion a few years ago, the organizers got tired of trying to sort out spouses and non-spouses and just put “partner” on the name tags. Britain, France, New Zealand, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and Hong Kong are all reporting deep drops in the number of couples getting married.

In spite of the right wing nonsense, marriage has always been an economic arrangement. The rich and titled used marriage to join property, assure inheritances, merge businesses, cement international treaties. The poor didn’t bother to get married which is why the concept of common-law marriages arose. If two people stuck together long enough, they were considered married for legal purposes. Marriage was very much an upper-class thing until the emergence of a mercantile class. It was the middle class that set the standard of what the right calls traditional marriage. The economic factor was subtler than joining two estates or receiving a massive dowry that paid off the debtors. Money, property or value was not an open part of marriage negotiations in the middle class. Women wanted a husband who could support them because they were barred from earning their own incomes. Men often wanted a wife who might be able to advance their careers, which accounts for over half the signers of our Constitution marrying the daughter, sister or widow of an employer. Both Thomas Jefferson and George Washington became members of the landed gentry because of their marriages.

People in the middle class were also those most attached to a moral standard and a religious standard. So, within those moral and religious strictures, the only place for sex (which women weren’t supposed to enjoy anyway) was marriage, and sex was only supposed to be for procreation. A child born out of wedlock, and the mother, were spurned by society, relegated to the fringes of society, condemned to poverty and deprivation, or in their pregnant state, the girls were whisked off out of sight, the babies were disposed of into orphanages and the girls returned to their families to be handed over to the first man who expressed willingness to marry “sullied goods.” Discovering on his wedding night that his bride was not a virgin, was legal justification for divorce in many cultures.

Two factors blew up the traditional marriage model. The pill removed the fear of pregnancy if a woman had sex before marriage. And women started making strides in the workplace. They became able to support themselves.

There was a debate that occurred in Georgia a few years ago among black college students and college graduates. The women were questioned (more like challenged by black men) as to why they were either dating white men or having babies out-of-wedlock and dumping the fathers. They said that there were not enough black males going to college and able to match the women’s intellectual or financial achievements. As women became able to control their reproductive choices and their financial situations, men became optional.

The definition of why people got married changed. The modern prime motivation was supposed to be “love.” The only problem with that was the discovery that being “in love” is a chemical and biological state related to sexual passion and not a logical, rational emotion based on common values, goals and interests. There comes a point where the passion becomes secondary to the need for a best friend and partner. There is a moment when the ability to talk to each other overrides everything else. That revelation brought about a spike in divorce rates.

Is same sex marriage responsible for the decline in straight marriage? No way. Traditional marriage is still popular among those who live traditional lives bound on all sides by gender roles and religious morality. The problem is not that the existence of gay marriage diminishes the value of straight marriage, but that it shows young people there are alternative ways of thinking about gender roles and the structure of marriage.

Conservatives and followers of certain religious ideologies want to keep their kids locked up in a world where the only things they see or hear are “acceptable” ways of thinking or being. Tony Perkins of the American Family Research Council has stated that his children will never be gay because he and his wife raise them properly. But to keep them in that state, he must deny them access to thoughts outside of his narrow views. For that reason, Perkins wants gays back in the closet and religion to control our civil laws. For that reason, anti-abortionists also oppose birth control and fact-based sex education, and favor public shaming of those who become pregnant out of marriage. It’s a control issue, not a morality issue. They are losing, which is making them double down on their attempts to push the world back into the fantasy framework of the 1950s when no one saw or acknowledged those things that did not fit the “traditional” model, even though those non-traditional things existed all around us.

Where is marriage in America today? The following states have same-sex marriage: Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and Vermont. It is pending in California, Maryland, New Jersey and Washington.

Common law marriages still exist in Alabama, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Utah. In New Hampshire they are legally effective for settling an estate, and in Georgia, Idaho, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania a couple who were considered “common lawed” before a certain date must obtain a legal divorce to terminate the marriage.

Civil unions exist in Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. There are legally recognized domestic partnerships in California, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, Maine and Wisconsin (the last three have very restricted rights attached).

Laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman exist in Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Wyoming. The first three bar same-sex marriage while allowing civil unions.

And those states whose populations have been persuaded to amend their state constitutions because same-sex marriage will bring about Armageddon are: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin. Nevada and Oregon have domestic partnerships.

California’s amendment is in the courts, and the result of that law suit will determine the future of all these amendments. As much as conservatives love to lament “activist judges” Georgia’s amendment is a shining example of conservative activist judges. The state constitution clearly requires an amendment have only one clause. The same-sex marriage ban has two. The amendment was argued to the Georgia Supreme Court on that single issue – it’s consitutionality under their constitution. The judges upheld the amendment, denying their own constitution.

Related articles

• Mecklenburg board votes, 5-4, to oppose marriage amendment(goqnotes.com)

  ---

• Biblical / Traditional Marriage is … what exactly?(brgulker.wordpress.com)

  ---

• Obama talks same-sex marriage on “The View”(cnn.com)

  ---

• Rush Limbaugh Accuses Obama Of Leading War On Marriage (lezgetreal.com)
• There Is No Such Thing As “Traditional Marriage” (outsidethebeltway.com)
• Five myths about gay marriage (topix.net)
• Traditional marriage and families debunked (queeringthechurch.com)

"Marriage Equality: It's A Right" from Flickr

Originally published May 10, 2012

One of the things one learns doing French Canadian genealogy is that in 17^th century France, while two Catholic cardinals served as Chief Minister to the King, religious weddings were not recognized as legal contracts. It was necessary for the colonists to sign a marriage contract in the presence of a Royal Notary for the marriage to be legal. A religious ceremony could be performed after the civil contract was certified. Napoleon spread the idea throughout Europe and today, most European countries (notably not those of the British Isles) do not recognize a religious ceremony as the legal marriage.

Having been an English colony, America adopted the British method, which was tied in to the fact that the King of England was the head of the Church of England. A marriage license could be certified by a clergyman.

A lot goes into creating a nation, so it is understandable that the simple matter of separating a civil contract of marriage, which carried with it certain legal obligations and rights, from a ceremony that binds two people within the precepts of their religion just didn’t occur to our Founding Fathers. They knew it was important to protect us from religion dictating civil law. They knew that those who came to America for religious freedom did so to escape countries where one church controlled civil law and membership in another church restricted a person’s life choices. But on this one small issue, they were blind.

It is long past time that the power to certify a civil contract which carries with it civil rights and responsibilities and can only be dissolved in a civil court be removed from any clergy of any faith. No clergyman can declare a marriage legally null and void. If they are barred from dissolving the contract, how can they been empowered to create it?

Conservatives talk about “traditional marriage” without understanding that the traditions of their faith are not the precedents of law around the world. In Muslim countries there are no civil marriages, all marriages are religious. We do not acknowledge Muslim religious marriages without a civil license in America. In all but two of our ancestral European countries, only civil marriages have legal validity and it has been that way more or less for over 200 years.

We need a Constitutional Amendment that expands and defines the First Amendment guarantee of freedom from state religion and freedom of worship. It should state that no civil legal contract can be fulfill with a religious ceremony. It should state that no law or amendment can be passed if it is based solely on religious principles and not on the need to provide legal protections to the people. It should state that definitions that impact our laws should not be based on religion but on science, as in the definition of when life is viable and independent and not when the soul is implanted.

Like the Second Amendment, which was written in language that made sense in the 18^th century, the First Amendment did not go far enough in expressing what it was intended to protect and define. We must rely on the Federalist Papers and the writings of those who wrote the Constitution to understand what was intended, and far too many people don’t bother to read them or understand them. The Second Amendment was intended to provide a fledgling nation with a militia to supplement a very small standing Army, not to give ordinary citizens the right to own weapons the founding fathers could not even imagine. The First Amendment was intended to protect us from a religion writing our civil laws and controlling the lives of those who don’t belong to that religion. That aspect got lost in the first two hundred years of our nation, and it is time to reassert it.

Related articles

• RNC Chair Reince Priebus Says Gay Marriage Not a Civil Rights Issue: VIDEO(towleroad.com)

  ---

• Reports of Election Fraud in NC ‘Amendment One’ Battle(towleroad.com)

  ---

• Rabbi Shmuley Boteach: What If Government Recognized Only Civil Unions and Left Marriage to Religion?(huffingtonpost.com)

  ---

• North Carolina Amendment One (aka The Marriage Amendment)(babyloniusjournal.wordpress.com)

  ---

• Amendment One Reactions (joemygod.blogspot.com)
• NC Amendment One Marriage Poll (joemygod.blogspot.com)
• The State Of Marriage In America (lezgetreal.com)
• Menachem Rosensaft: The Case for Same-Sex Marriage: Striving for the Moral Absolute of Equality (huffingtonpost.com)

First of all, most people embrace moderate change while opposing radical change. The idea that women would no longer be raising children by this point in history is too radical. It goes outside the way that the world is structured too far.

Same-sex marriage is not as radical as it might sound. For all the complaints about how it will destroy traditional marriage- all it will do is destroy the idea that heterosexuals are better than homosexuals. It actually goes pretty far towards preserving marriage within society as there are growing pressures that are destroying marriage in our society including things like people living very long lives and the lack of a living wage in the United States.

In truth, Gallagher is far more on the side of destroying marriage than strengthening it. When you tell people that marriage is not important enough to be given to everyone, then you destroy the position it has within the society.

What this is about is not marriage, but rather hatred for lesbians, gays, bisexuals and trans people.

So, it is not surprising that the stars of TLC’s Sister Wives have an open mind about same-sex marriage. Kody Brown, who has four wives- Meri, Janelle, Robyn and Christine- talked about the issue with Billy Bush and Lisa Rinna of Hollywood Live. Kody stated “I have been able to choose and define my marriage and I think everybody should be able to do that. Choose and define who you marry, choose and define who you love.”

Rush Limbaugh, by Donkey Hotey, Creative Commons

Originally posted 10 May 2012

It is not surprising that Rush Limbaugh is busy running amok over the fact that President Barack Obama would support same sex marriage even going as far as saying “We’ve Arrived At A Point Where The President Of The United States Is Going To Lead A War On Traditional Marriage”

Of course, Limbaugh knows something about traditional marriage. After all, he has been married how many times? In a traditional marriage, he would not have been allowed to get a divorce. But it is not surprising that those who constantly talk about so-called traditional marriage ignore the actual traditions that were part of marriage.

President Barack Obama finally evolved on marriage. In an ABC interview with Robin Roberts of ABC, Obama finally stated his support for same-sex marriage. He stated “I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.”

Obama’s announcement comes the day after the vote to ban all same-sex unions in North Carolina. The personal beliefs come even as his administration has already committed to broadening marriage rights to same-sex couples through the dissolution of the Defense of Marriage Act.

What is now important is not so much that Amendment One passed, as was expected, but by how much. Many LGBT activists, at this point, are more focused on the courts with regards to marriage equality. Should the Defense of Marriage Act go down, then so long as one state has marriage equality, it will no longer be an issue.

Statement from President Clinton:

“Hello, this is President Bill Clinton. I’m calling to urge you to vote against Amendment One on Tuesday May 8. If it passes, it won’t change North Carolina’s law on marriage. What it will change is North Carolina’s ability to keep good businesses, attract new jobs, and attract and keep talented entrepreneurs. If it passes, your ability to keep those businesses, get those jobs, and get those talented entrepreneurs will be weakened. And losing even one job to Amendment One is too big of a risk. Its passage will also take away health insurance from children and could even take away domestic violence protections from women. So the real effect of the law is not to keep the traditional definition of marriage, you’ve already done that. The real effect of the law will be to hurt families and drive away jobs. North Carolina can do better. Again, this is Bill Clinton asking you to please vote against Amendment One. Thanks.”

And, believe it or not, Glinda the Good Witch of the North. . .and many members of WICKED are also set to push to end this attempt to write discrimination into the constitution of North Carolina:

On Monday, May 7, members of Broadway’s biggest blockbuster, WICKED will work the phones and mobilize North Carolina voters against Amendment One, a constitutional amendment on the May 8, 2012, North Carolina primary ballot that would ban relationship recognitions and threaten protections for the state’s unmarried couples.

Cast members including Tiffany Haas (“Glinda”) and Michael Rose (ensemble, u/s for “Fiyero”), crew and musicians from the second national tour of WICKED will be on-hand at the Durham Protect All NC Families headquarters (201 West Main St. Suite 200) from 3 to 6 p.m., to man phone banks, talk to volunteers and get the word out against Amendment One.

The company is currently performing at Durham Performing Arts Center (DPAC) and is onstage through May 27. Following each performance of WICKED between May 3 and May 6 cast members, crew and musicians are disseminating information about Amendment One, talking with patrons about the amendment, and encouraging them to vote against on May 8.

For more information about joining a virtual phone bank for Protect All NC Families, please visit, http://www.protectallncfamilies.org/vpb.

WICKED has “cast quite a spell” (Washington Post) throughout North America, breaking box office records in every city that it has played, including Toronto, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Washington, DC, Philadelphia and Boston to name a few. Called “a cultural phenomenon” by Variety, WICKED continues to thrill audiences around the world. There are currently seven productions of WICKED worldwide: New York; London; Japan; Holland; Australian/Asian Tour; and two concurrent North American National Tours.

Lee should be more concerned about Grand Inquisitor Benedict than his family.

Lee has stated openly that he believes that celibacy in the Church should not be enforced, and is writing a book expanding on the “wrongdoing” of his fellow priests. Of course, Father Lee has already been removed from his post and the Diocese of Parrametta is already doing damage control.

Bishop Anthony Fischer is denying Father Lee’s assertions saying “As Father Kevin is aware, by his actions he can no longer operate as a priest…As a result I will immediately be appointing an administrator to Padre Pio parish.”

Lee is hoping that coming clean will lead to change in the Church, but that seems unlikely given the fact that Pope Benedict seems intent on enforcing rigid dogma within the Church.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Modern Family is known especially for the fact that there is a gay married couple on the show, and it has received numerous awards from LGBT organizations. CIMA, though, stated about the show “This remains far and away the best prime-time sitcom: crisp and farcical, but very kind. This fast-paced mockumentary perfectly captures the experience of parenthood.”

According to Yahoo News “Other honorees at the ceremony included Martin Scorsese’s 3D film ‘Hugo,’ the Emilio Estevez/Martin Sheen movie ‘The Way’ and the Tom Shadyac documentary ‘I Am.’”

CIMA Awards is meant to recognize “those projects and people in the entertainment industry who, by their work, have made clearer the Word of God.”

The whole piece is worth reading because it is an unflinching conservative reckoning with the forces of modernity. Much of its core argument I made in the third chapter of “Virtually Normal”: that once middle class gay people have emerged in a middle class society, simply refusing to tackle the subject of how to integrate them was not a long-term conservative proposition; and the alternative – more religiously-based repression against a minority rapidly gaining acceptance – was reactionary and spiteful. The point was simply that marriage was the obvious conservative solution: bring gays into this architectonic institution under the Burkean banner of conservative reform. That’s what I tried to argue for on conservative and libertarian grounds. Sadly, the neocons and theocons decided to ratchet conservative policy back to the 1950s. It was Bill Kristol who attempted to bring reparative therapy into the conservative mainstream in response to our progress in integration. It was as disgusting a move as it was utterly cynical.

McCarthy writes in his article:

Same-sex marriage is a radically new notion; its apologists have to stretch exiguous evidence to find any foreshadowing in past societies. This should not be surprising, since homosexuality itself, as a thing parallel to heterosexuality, is a recent invention. Homosexual activity may be as old as civilization, but the idea of a category of person whose sexual identity is primarily defined by same-sex attraction, yet who is otherwise quite like the mainstream of society, is of recent vintage. That people in this group are not negligible in numbers—amounting to perhaps 5 percent of the general population—has also been a slowly dawning realization.

. . .

For the better part of 2,000 years the meaning of marriage was stable because the authority of Christianity was constant. In an age when the Church no longer supplies the institutional framework for family life, the definition of marriage has become radically uncertain. Into this fluid environment—in which individualism or atomism is once again rising to the fore, as in the Roman Empire—the new fact of homosexuality was gradually introduced. The result, same-sex marriage, has shocked conservatives. But this innovation has moved so far so quickly only because it is not at all out of step with the institutions and ideas of our time.

McCarthy is only broadly correct. Homosexuality and heterosexuality only dates back to the very late 1800′s- around 1870 to be more exact. However, he is incorrect in a number of manners. Many cultures have had what we, today, would call same-sex marriages. In fact, the difference between what some would call “homosexual marriage” and “same-sex marriage” is not just terminology, but reality. Almost all Native American cultures had a form of same-sex marriage, as did- it appears- the Celts. Marriage has also not had as stable a meaning as McCarthy claims since that has changed repeatedly over the centuries- including it should be noted cousin marriages, and certain consanguinary marriages.

Finally, McCarthy is incorrect about the percentage of lesbians and gays in the population- there are about 7.5-8% who are willing to admit to being lesbian or gay, and the probability is that about 10% of the population is lesbian or gay.

Still, McCarthy is right about something- the world is changing. I am not convinced he understands the why, but the reality is that we no longer have a society that is based on the farm, or in the world of male supremacy.

Nagel said “It is very rare that the Catholic Church allows such political activity on her property (you may remember a similar process some years ago regarding an initiative on abortion). It only happens when the political issue touches upon a clear and important teaching of the church.”

Which is a lie, of course. As much as Nagel wants to claim that this is going to be about religious freedom, it is actually about opposing religious tyranny.

Nagel also stated that those who oppose legal civil marriage for same-sex couples ““are being called ‘bigots’ by some,” but he maintains that they are “two completely different ways of looking at the issue. The Catholic Church does not believe that people with same sex attraction are inferior. It is sometimes said to support the charge of bigotry that the Catholic Church teaches that homosexual persons are ‘disordered’. That is not true.”

He went on to say “It is true that the sexual DESIRES for persons of the same sex are disordered. That is, such desires are not ORDERED, or aimed, at the right end or goal. But we all have disordered desires — in terms of sex, food, power, money, etc. That is because, although made in the image and likeness of God, we are also fallen creatures.”

Here in is where he mistakes what bigotry is about. When you call the natural actions and desires of someone disordered, you call the individual disordered. That is bigotry. It is no different than calling Catholics evil because they practice ritualized cannibalism, and that has no basis in natural actions or desires, but religious beliefs.

According to SeattlePi.com:

Nagel argued that “homosexual persons” already have “the legal benefits of marriage” — thanks to the Domestic Partnership law enacted when Washington voters approved Referendum 71 in 2009.

“So our opposition to redefining marriage is not now a matter of denying anyone legal rights,” Nagel told parishoners.

He acknowledged that the Washington State Catholic Conference opposed the 2009 Domestic Partnership law, as “obviously” a step toward legalizing marriage and “in part because we don’t believe such sexual relationships encourage the best lives and greatest happiness for homosexual persons.”

“The Catholic Church believes that creating this new legal and social institution of domestic partnerships is, on balance, not wise,” Nagel said. “But it is doable. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, believes that Gay MARRIAGE is simply not possible.”

“Like the Resurrected Body of Jesus, so the definition of marriage as necessarily between a man and a woman, is an objective fact: part of the reality of the universe, whether we believe it or not.”

“Marriage is not a man-made institution, as domestic partnerships are. Marriage was created and defined by God. It’s not changeable in this way, even if human law says that it is.”

Actually, marriage is a man-made institution, and has been practiced in some form among almost every single culture on the face of the planet, and long before Christianity even sought to define marriage some 500 years after the birth of Christ. There were those among the early founders of Christianity who argued that marriage was sinful and should be abolished. In the United States, it was not until the founding of the nation that Catholics could get married since British law prevented non-Anglicans from marrying anywhere other than in the Anglican Church, and that meant converting to Anglicanism, which many Catholics would not do.

Almost every attempt to define marriage has come with this attempt to limit it to Christianity. This is a very ethnocentric view of marriage, and is completely incorrect.

To give you some idea, 211 Representatives voted against the repeal, and that there are only 103 Democrats in that chamber. That means that there are a lot of Republicans who voted against it. NOM’s ad lists 87 names, but it should be noted that this is at least 21 names short of the full run.

According to Brian Brown “Dozens of House Republicans in New Hampshire betrayed the cause of marriage, betrayed the GOP party platform in support of traditional marriage, and stood in opposition to every major Republican candidate for president. It’s time for them to be held accountable for their vote.”

The ad accuses the Republicans who voted for equality of siding with “Democrats from New York”, which would be a horrible thing if you happened to live in Brunswick, Georgia, but this is New England, and resentment of New Yorkers is hardly there. The ad also states “Worse, some of them mocked the very institution of marriage that God himself authored.”

NOM is busy saying that they want to create a “pro-marriage legislative majority” in New Hampshire by funding “pro-marriage” candidates.

This ad shows just how ignorant NOM is of why they ultimately lost in New Hampshire. Four out of the top five least religious states in the Union are in New England. New Hampshire is the second least religious state in the US, just behind Vermont, and ahead of Maine and Massachusetts. Most New Hampshire Republicans are libertarians rather than religious conservatives. This makes it difficult for NOM to make headway. What is more, the conditions that made it possible for the Republicans to win a veto-proof majority in 2010 are not there this time.

After their mother died, the two grew close and began an incestuous relationship. The two have insisted that their love is no different than any other form of love, but it should be noted that two of their children are described as being disabled.

The two took their case to the courts, and finally as high as the European Court of Human Rights which ruled that German has every right to ban incest.

According to the BBC “their lawyer argued that there is also a greater risk when disabled people have children, or with older women, but such circumstances are not banned.”

It does appear that the rates of disability with children born of an incestuous relationship is much higher than with those who are disabled or among older mothers. Take note of this case all those who love to claim that legalizing same-sex marriage will lead to brothers and sisters marrying.

This is the problem in Maryland where a lesbian couple are suing for divorce. The two were married in California back in 2008, and sued for divorce in 2010, but in Maryland. They were informed that their state does not recognize their marriage. However:

Kansas City News notes:

“If you’re validly married somewhere else, the rule in Maryland is your marriage is going to be respected in Maryland, and that’s what we’re asking the court to do here,” said Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights in San Francisco.

Judges in Maryland have been inconsistent about granting divorces for gay couples. Lawyers said judges have granted divorces for about half a dozen gay couples, but their clients and at least two other couples were denied. As a result, some couples are waiting for a ruling from Maryland’s high court before filing for divorce, the lawyers said.

The ruling may not matter for very long since this January same-sex marriage is suppose to start. That is, of course, if they can get 56,000 valid signatures by June 30th. The Maryland Marriage Alliance claims that they have collected 20,000.

Still, the fact that the voter veto of the same-sex marriage law lost by less than 4% (52% to 48%) and polls going into that were pretty much evenly split, this is encouraging news. Of course, polls are just a starting point, but they do not guarantee a victory in November.

Rep. Allen West

Allen West may not really like same-sex marriage, but at least he is now trying to run away from it by saying that it isn’t some gigantic threat to civilization. Now he just says it’s not important.

Last June, West stated that:

“The term ‘gay marriage’ is an oxymoron. Because marriage is a union and a bond between a man and a woman to do one thing: the furtherance of society by procreation, through creating new life. Have you ever read the book America Alone by Mark Steyn? It’s about demographics. And if we continue with a cycle of debt and punishing our unborn then it just becomes a matter of time before you don’t have society.”

Of course, as people have enjoyed pointing out, this definition of marriage would require forcing all unwed mothers to marry, banning divorce, and dissolving any union that doesn’t produce a child within five years.

So, of course, yesterday when asked about same-sex marriage, West just said that there “are a lot of people that try to take you down a rabbit hole to discuss things that really aren’t that important.” CNN’s Kyra Phillips then asked “Wait a minute. Are you saying gay marriage is not important?”

West went on to reply “I think if you poll the American people … I don’t think they’re going to bring up gay marriage as one of the top concerns. The American people are concerned about where they’re working.”

West is correct, to a certain degree. Most polls show that the majority of Americans are more worried about jobs than same-sex marriage. However, it should be pointed out that Republicans tend to be more worried about same-sex marriage than Democrats and Independents, and that is especially true for the Religious Right.

The letter, signed by Archbishop Peter Sartain and Auxiliary Bishop Eusebio Elizondo, rejects the idea that refusing marriage to same-sex couples is discriminatory. They say in the letter that:

“Treating different things differently is not unjust discrimination. Marriage can only be between a man and a woman because of its unique ends, purpose and place in society. The word ‘marriage’ isn’t simply a label that can be attached to different types of relationships.

“Instead ‘marriage’ reflects a deep reality — the reality of the unique, fruitful, lifelong union that is only possible between a man and a woman. There is nothing else like it, and it can’t be defined or made into something that it isn’t.”

The definition of marriage that the Catholic Church continues to rely upon has not been the definition of marriage used by the majority of people in almost more than a century.

State Senator Ed Murray, the architect of the bill, called the bishops’ use of the parishes as “fairly reprehensible.” He stated “To use church resources, in advancing a measure that promotes discrimination, is incredibly disappointing. As a gay person, and a Catholic, I can understand their refusal to perform (gay) marriages. Using the church in promoting a referendum . . . is very disappointing.”

In Maine, the Catholic Church has decided to stay out of the marriage battle because of the damage that they have done to themselves.

Alabama apparently has one of the worst divorce rates in the nation, but never worry, Williams has made it his mission to make sure that more couples stay married. Williams wants to redefine the definition of marriage, in fact. Oh, sorry if I got your hopes up there. Williams doesn’t want to boost marriage by promoting it through equality. Instead, he wants to introduce something called “covenant marriages”.

For those who do not know, a covenant marriage would be a new, more restrictive marriage that would limit the ways that it could be dissolved. Williams apparently comes from a broken family, but is now happily married. He stated “The truth of the matter is, if you can save the family, which is the backbone of our society, if you can do something to preserve that, I think it’s a winner.”

That is, of course, so long as he doesn’t raise the minimum wage, lower taxes on the middle class, raise taxes on the rich and the megacorps. You know, so long as you do something that treats the symptoms and not the cause.

Williams hopes that these covenant marriages will help put a dent in Alabama’s divorce rate stating “Alabama’s divorce rate is one of the worst in the country. This is a pro-family bill and it’s purely optional. It gives people a chance to look from the beginning and the end at taking the extra steps necessary to save a marriage.”

The bill would also make it tougher to get divorced if you are in a covenant marriage. A divorce could only be granted with “proof of adultery, abuse, felony, repeatedly refusing counseling, or living apart without reconciliation.”

The bill is not going over well with a lot of people. According to WAAYTV:

Dashana Walker feels the bill will make a divorce too difficult to obtain: “I feel like if they want a divorce they can get divorced, there doesn’t necessarily have to be abuse, cheating, or anything like that.”

Laura Cashio agrees: “I don’t think that making divorces harder is going to do anything for anyone besides make the actual process of getting a divorce harder. I don’t think it’s going to strengthen marriage, I think it’s just going to cause more problems in marriages that are already failing.”

William Burns is happily married, but if he could do it all over again, he says he still wouldn’t opt for a covenant marriage. Burns explains, “I don’t think it’s a necessary bill. I think the legislature has a lot more things they need to be doing instead of fiddling around in the private lives of people.”

Similar bills have passed in three other states, and they have, apparently, had fewer covenant marriages than Vermont has had same-sex marriages. Of course, Williams feels that it’s a good idea because “If 1% of the marriages drop off of that 40% divorce rate we have right now, that’s a big boost and I’m all for it.”

Truth be told, those who are likely to go for this kind of marriage are those who are unlikely to get divorced in the first place.

Thanks to Adamas for pointing this article out..

Tobin also called it an “ill-advised social experiment,” and tried to claim that his words were not meant to be an attack on gays, but that “The promotion of homosexual marriage is an attempt to rationalize such behavior and to give it the affirmation, the ‘blessing’ of the state.”

California Supreme Court Justice J. Shenk likely meant no harm to Blacks and interracial couples when he stated “The amalgamation of the races is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results. The purity of the public morals, the moral and physical development of both races, and the highest advancement of civilization . . . all require that [the races] should be kept distinctly separate, and that connections and alliances so unnatural should be prohibited by positive law and subject to no evasion.”

That has been one of Tobin’s arguments several times, in fact. Reverend Gene Dyszlewkski, the chairman of the Rhode Island Religious Coalition, called Tobin’s column “divisive and uninformed” and stated “These continued attacks on our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters only further perpetuate the notion that some religious leaders are out of touch with members of their faith.”

When the First Amendment’s religious protections were put into effect, they were a social experiment.  That social experiment allowed Catholics not only the right to vote, but hold office and to marry.  Until the passage of the Constitution, it was possible for the government to limit the rights of Catholics to marry in their own churches, and not be forced to convert to Anglicanism in order to get married.

Women's Protests In Rabat, Morocco

When a man rapes an under-age female in Morocco, he can avoid being prosecuted for the rape if he marries the girl. This is an acceptable solution for the girl’s family because rape victims in Morocco, as in many Islamic communities, are “despoiled” and “dishonored” and cannot contract decent marriages. But these “honor marriages” put the girls at real risk. Rape is not a crime of sex. It is a crime of violence, and rapists are violent men. The violent nature of the rapist will not be contained to a single sex act.

Sixteen-year-old Amina Filali took her own life because her husband, her rapist, was routinely beating her. On March 10, she swallowed rat poison. It is a horrible, painful, slow way to die. The usual chemical in rat poison is strychnine, which causes muscles to spasm starting with the head and neck, within 20 minutes of ingestion. Then the spasms spread to very muscle in the body. The spine arches continuously. Fragile bone will break due to the strain. The body receives too little oxygen leading to overloads of lactic acid in the muscles, the body becomes very cold and the breakdown of skeleto-muscle tissue floods the body with proteins and other by-products causes kidney failure. The victim starts hallucinating, suffers from intense pain. Eventually, the neuromuscular collapse causes the victim to die of suffocation because the lungs can no longer breathe. Death takes up to three hours from the time of ingestion, but if the dosage was in the right range, it can take days for the victim to die.

In the Moroccan capital of Rabat, hundreds of women gathered to protest the law and its victims. They held signs saying “The law has killed Amina.” Her parents attended the protest rally. They told the BBC that their daughter was pressured by the court into marrying her rapist.

Amina’s death has shocked many in Morocco. There is an on-line campaign to pressure for repeal of the law, Article 475. A Facebook page has been set up called “We are all Amina Filali.” The case has opened up the debate over rape, pre-marital sex and the treatment of women who have been sexually assaulted or who choose a more liberated lifestyle. It also addresses the matter of a family’s honor being damaged by the rape or choice made by a female family member.

Fouzia Assouli, President of the Democratic League for Women’s Rights, believes that the repeal of Article 475 and proper punishments for rapists would advance the position of women in Moroccan society and start to change conservative attitudes. The protest began because the government has not responded to calls to investigate Amina’s death. It is easy to say she committed suicide and close the case. Ms. Assouli told the BBC, “What we have witnessed is scandalous. We have had enough. We must change this law, we must change the penal code.” That would only address the crime of rape, not the society that deems the victim to be at fault and having dishonored her family.

The legal age for marriage in Morocco is 18. A rape is considered “special circumstances” that allow for a girl to be married before that age. In a rape case, all parties must agree to the marriage but considerable judicial and social pressure is put on the girl and her parents.

Laheen Filali, Amina’s father, told the blog goud.ma that when he reported the rape of his daughter to the authorities, he was immediately told of the marriage option. “The prosecutor advised my daughter to marry. He said, ‘Go and make the marriage contract.’” The victim was being told to accept a plea bargain for being the victim, to accept a life sentence of being the slave of the rapist, while the real criminal was getting off without any kind of punishment and handed a young wife in the process.

The protesters want the judge who pressured Amina to accept the marriage and the rapist/husband to be prosecuted and jailed. The best anyone can reasonably hope for is that the judge would be forced to resign and the rapist tried under any law Morocco might have for contributing to a death. It is nearly impossible, even in the most legal-minded nation, to convict people of laws that didn’t exist at the time of the crime.

In Saudi Arabia and Egypt, we have seen protests for women’s rights. In many ways, these protests are seen as separate from the broader protests for greater political rights for all people. But no nation is truly free if any portion of that nation’s population is denied equality and dignity.

Related articles

• Moroccan women demand reform (moroccotomorrow.org)
• Teen girl’s suicide leads to uprise in Morocco over rape laws (twitchy.com)
• Moroccans outraged over suicide of rape victim (moroccotomorrow.org)
• Amina Filali and Violence Against Women in Morocco (humanrightswarrior.com)
• Morocco suicide victim fell prey to society, laws (moroccotomorrow.org)
• Activists in Morocco demonstrate against rape law rooted in the Biblical Old Testament (moroccotomorrow.org)
• Morocco says to take tougher line on rape-marriages (moroccotomorrow.org)
• Suicide After Forced to Marry Rapists (socyberty.com)

Rick Santorum (by Gage Skidmore)

Here is a surprise. Well, not really. Republicans apparently trust Rick Santorum when it comes to social issues more than they do Mitt Romney. This news is so surprising that I might just forget to piss my pants.

Apparently a new poll found that Santorum beat Romney 44 to 22. Gingrich came in at 15 and Paul at 13. Six percent said they didn’t trust any candidate.

Santorum has been busy pushing his social views including saying that “We can’t have 50 different marriage laws in this country. You have to have one marriage law.” He also plans on annulling all same-sex marriages and civil unions in the United States if he becomes president.

Showing his complete devotion to the propaganda out of the Vatican, he told Piers Morgan this January that “Marriage is an institution that existed before governments existed. It’s something that reflects nature and reflects God and God’s will for us. I think it’s important to understand that you respect everyone and you respect their rights to be able to live their life in the way that they want to live it.”

It should be noted that the idea of one-man-one-woman marriage only dates to within the last 1500 years or so. It certainly does not predate in Western Culture the spread of Christianity. While Roman and Greek cultures did have one-man-one-woman marriage, other cultures including the Celtic cultures that dominated Europe for a long time had both multiple and same-sex marriages.

Of course, when Santorum says that marriage predated government. . .this must be what he has in mind:

Well, that is not stopping Republicans from pushing these measures in an attempt to drum up support among voters. In Pennsylvania, though, they have hit a snag as the attempted constitutional ban was pulled at what amounts to the last minute. The House State Government Committee was suppose to take up the bill this morning, but it did not. The committee is headed by Representative Daryl Metcalfe, and he is the bill’s sponsor. It would ban same-sex marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships.

Metcalfe decided to set the bill aside due to, what he is claiming, are a large number of amendments that were attached to it. He stated back when he introduced the amendment, though, that “The institution of traditional marriage has never been under greater attack. This not only includes the special interests who want to permanently redefine marriage, but unfortunately the executive branch and the federal Department of Justice who have blatantly and recklessly refused to uphold and defend its constitutionality. Once again, it falls to the responsibility of state lawmakers to restore the rule of law and carry out the will of the people.”

Of course, the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman is not exactly traditional for a given value of tradition. Simply put, until 1967, traditional marriage was designated as being between a man and a woman of the same race. In fact, many of the same things used to attack the end of bans on interracial marriage have been used to attack marriage equality today.

Metcalfe sounds like a Georgia representative who stated “Allowing interracial marriages ‘necessarily involves the degradation’ of conventional marriage, an institution that ‘deserves admiration rather thanexecration.’” What is more, Pennsylvania’s economy is still very bad, and their unemployment rate, while below say, Ohio, the state is doing worse then Vermont, a state where same-sex marriage is legal.

It is not clear if Metcalfe will try to push the law again sometime in the future.

Pope Benedict has urged visiting US bishops to push their beliefs about the supposed evils of premarital sex, cohabitation and homosexuality. He also denounced what he sees as the powerful gay marriage lobby in the United States. When an ayatollah, imam, or ulim dares to utter similar words as Benedict, they are swiftly denounced by Republicans, many of whom then call for the bombing and invasion of Iran. When a Catholic Pope does it, it is alright and even embraced by the Republicans running for President.

Benedict also apparently lamented the lack of chastity among Americans. He even called it an essential element of Christian teaching. Of course, one might point out that he has certainly not looked to his own house on that front, often ignoring the lack of chastity among his priests.

The Boston Globe noted that:.

In addition, bishops have been at the forefront of the campaign against same-sex marriage, with at least five U.S. states scheduling ballot measures on the issue in coming months. Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the head of the U.S. conference of bishops and archbishop of New York, unsuccessfully lobbied against the legalization of gay marriage in his state.

The 84-year-old pope acknowledged his comments might sound anachronistic or “countercultural,” particularly to the young. But he told bishops to not back down in the face of “powerful political and cultural currents seeking to alter the legal definition of marriage.”

Benedict stated that “Sexual differences cannot be dismissed as irrelevant to the definition of marriage.” He also denounced the failure of priests and bishops to instruct Catholics in what he sees as the core Church teachings on human sexuality. That those core teachings amount to men are superior to women, that women are vessels for the seeds of men, and that ejaculation inside a woman’s mouth is tantamount to cannibalism, he might have some problems with that given that those ideas no longer have much hold on people’s minds. Oh, and he stated that cohabitation was “gravely sinful, not to mention damaging to the stability of society.”

Of course, the reality is that this ‘sin’ is about not making sure that a child belongs to its father as Christianity is very jealous of women having children that do not belong to the men who supposedly sire them.

Benedict also stated that “Young people need to encounter the church’s teaching in all its integrity, challenging and countercultural as that teaching may be; more importantly they need to see it embodied by faithful married couples who bear convincing witness to truth.”

The fact that many Catholic men had mistresses and even whole families outside of wedlock just never seems to bother Benedict. It is not so much that Catholics have stopped doing those things that he objects to, but rather that they have stopped ignoring that they happen.

After all, my great-grandmother came from a Catholic country where she and her children were the second family of a married man. That is, until she moved without telling him and went on with her own life living as a WWI ‘widow’.

Ohio

Ohio may end up being another battleground in the push for marriage equality. Supporters of marriage equality dropped off some 1,800 signatures to the Ohio Attorney General’s Office as part of the first step to changing Ohio’s Constitution. Ohio voters have already approved a ban on same-sex marriage, but that was back in 2004.

The amendment that has been proposed would be worded to allow two consenting adults to marry. Religious organizations would be allowed the discretion to recognize and perform ceremonies of marriage or not. Of course, opponents have been using the usual run of lies in order to try and get it from happening.

Phil Burress, president of Citizens for Community Values, an anti-LGBT group, saying “We don’t think our children should be taught in public schools that homosexuality is the norm. That’s what’s happened in these states, where they have approved same-sex marriage. Once you approve same-sex marriage, then the children are the target.”

Burress has said that the amendment would make it impossible for Obama to win Ohio, but that may not be accurate since support for same-sex marriage is growing. What is more, Freedom to Marry Ohio has made it clear that they are not aiming for the 2012 ballot saying that “We will absolutely put this issue on the ballot, and when we do, and I believe that will be in 2013, we will win, because we will never never never never give up and never give in.”

Via 10TV

The decision by O’Malley had been pushing the bill through the Assembly. Reaction, of course, has been happy among the LGBT Community. The law makes Maryland the eighth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Washington, DC also has passed same-sex marriage, which is part of what put the pressure on Maryland to pass their law.

Fischer was fired on 17 February with an effective termination date of 9 March, the day he is suppose to marry Charlie Robin, who happens to be the executive director of Washington University’s Edison Theatre. Their relationship was never a secret, but Fischer was fired after a representative of the St. Louis Archdiocese overheard a conversation between Fischer and his coworkers about the wedding plans.

Fischer and Robin have been together for twenty years, and their anniversary is also on 9 March.

The date of the firing was suppose to occur on 9 March, but ended up happening after Robin posted about it on Facebook on 16 February. The Archdiocese hid behind their rules about living according to Catholic teachings and stated that it “fully supports the action taken at St. Ann Parish School as it is in full compliance with the Christian Witness Statement signed by every educator in the Catholic school system.” Of course, it should be pointed out that not being a single, celibate gay man or lesbian is against the policies of the Catholic Church as well.

According to the news report:

The Rev. Bill Kempf, St. Ann’s pastor, said in an emailed statement that the parish was “recently informed by one of its teachers of his plan to unite in marriage with an individual of the same sex. With full respect of this individual’s basic human dignity, this same-sex union opposes Roman Catholic teaching as it cannot realize the full potential a marital relationship is meant to express. As a violation of the Christian Witness Statement that all Catholic educators in the Archdiocese of St. Louis are obliged to uphold, we relieved this teacher of his duties.”

The Christian Witness Statement, which educators sign when applying for Archdiocese work, says all who serve in Catholic education should, among other requirements, “not take a public position contrary to the Catholic Church” and “demonstrate a public life consistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church.”

Robin, who is a practicing Catholic, noted that Fischer did sign the witness statement and said “We just didn’t realize we were making a ‘public’ stand. There’s nothing that’s been hidden about our relationship at any point. I go to the staff parties. I show up at the school concerts. … It doesn’t matter until somebody with the Archdiocese is sitting in the room.”

Churches and religious schools have the right, under a recent Supreme Court ruling, to fire or hire anyone that they want without repercussions.

The firing is coming at a time when Catholics are less and less tolerant of their Church’s anti-gay stance. One parent, who has not been identified, noted that many parents are upset over Fischer’s firing, and that they were well aware that he is gay. Fischer wrote a letter to the parents in which he said “I think the word has been well spread that this is not the fault of St. Ann School or its leadership, and I want to emphasize that I get that, too.” It added that the school’s principal and the parish priest “are still there for me in a big way.” He also encouraged parents to have “A family conversation about whether or not justice was served here could be a great thing,” it read. “I do not want the lesson from this for the kids to be, ‘Keep your mouth shut, hide who you are or what you think if it will get you in trouble.’”

Rick Santorum at the 2011 CPAC (photo by Gage Skidmore)

Yesterday, Washington State’s Governor Christine Gregoire signed into law a same-sex marriage law that grants full parity to the state’s same-sex couples. So, of course, this is going to go to the voters. Former Republican Senator Rick Santorum has already had his say on this issue saying that “I encouraged them to continue the fight. There are ebbs and flows in every battle, and this is not the final word.”

This has certainly proven to be true given the sudden and renewed battle over the issue of contraception- an issue that most people had thought had been settled back in the 1970′s. Santorum tried to link the social issues with fiscal ones saying that, without so-called traditional marriages there would be more people going to prison, more school drop outs, higher poverty rates and more government spending.

We are, of course, waiting for the proof of that, and for Santorum to start running on ending divorce, repealing domestic violence laws, and so forth.

Santorum stated that “There are legitimate reasons that people have to want to have to change the law, and there are legitimate reasons that people have to want to keep the law in place. If you keep it at that level, don’t make it personal, make it about what is best for society, then I think we’ll be fine.”

Of course, Santorum might want to actually note that same-sex marriage benefits society and actually decreases many of the negative issues associated with banning a group of people from having social equality. Many anti-gay people are trying to come up with an excuse for hating homosexuality because they cannot believe that something that the Bible claims is a sin is actually a benefit to society. What they forget is that, at the time that the Bible was being consolidated, homosexuality would have been disastrous. In desert cultures, life is pretty perilous, and there is a need to have every able bodied person breeding. This is not true in many other cultures where food and water is a lot more plentiful.

Santorum is campaigning in Washington State right now.

Of course, the National Organization for Marriage is busy pushing their ballot initiative. They wrote:

What you may not have heard is that this is by no means a settled issue.

NOM is joining with the Family Policy Institute of Washington, Stand for Marriage Washington, Concerned Women for America and hundreds of other groups, pastors and individuals to take this issue directly to the people in November via a referendum.

We need your help!

The referendum was filed today in Olympia just hours after Governor Gregoire signed the legislation. This begins the legal process that will result in referendum petitions being circulated in a few weeks, once we complete the required preparatory steps. We need to collect 120,577 voter signatures by June 6th to prevent the law from taking effect and qualify the referendum to the ballot.

But we’re not waiting for petitions to be available to start.

By the time we have received official approval to being circulating the petitions, we want to have 50,000 people identified and ready to circulate the petitions. Will you help us?

Of course, if much of this rhetoric seems familiar, well, as was once stated “The amalgamation of the races is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results. The purity of the public morals, the moral and physical development of both races, and the highest advancement of
civilization . . . all require that [the races] should be kept distinctly separate, and that connections and alliances so unnatural should be prohibited by positive law and subject to no evasion.”

Oh, and here is one of those lovely ones “[T]he State’s prohibition of interracial marriage . . . stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage, or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry, and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent.”

Oh, I can go on. . .

Would this family be allowed to exist in Virginia?

By a 71-28 vote, the Virginia House has passed a law which codifies the state’s Board of Social Services policy of allowing private adoption agencies to discriminate against potential adoptive parents on the basis of gender, age, religion, disability, sexual orientation and family status. The supporters of the bill cite religious freedom, while the opponents say any agency which has a state contract cannot discriminate.

Naturally, the loudest voices are being raised over the issue of same sex couples or gay individuals being barred from adoption in Virginia. That ignores the discrimination being allowed against others.

Under this law, a Virginia private adoption agency can decide that they will only provide services to a white, married couple, aged 25 through 35, who belong to an evangelical church, are found to be perfectly healthy by medical examination and who are “pillars of their community” with an inherited or achieved status that includes a yearly income over $100,000 a year. The suitability of the couple will not be an issue, just their ability to meet these arbitrary and superficial criteria. A couple could meet all those criteria and turn out to be child molesters or spousal abusers. Psychological abuse does not leave visible bruises, but leaves scars just as damaging and devastating.

Legally, the opponents are right. Private firms that accept government contracts and government money are subject to the same anti-discrimination laws are government agencies. This law will probably end up being challenged in court. Hopefully, it will not be presented as a single-issue lawsuit. An older couple should be able to adopt, particularly since there are so many older adoptable children in America. A person in a wheelchair can be an excellent parent. People of every faith and people of no faith can be good parents . And what the hell does “family status” mean?

This law is a case of “cover your ass” legislation. To keep gays from adopting, Virginia’s legislature has voted for broad-spectrum discrimination, just so they will not be accused of being homophobic. These are great laws, really they are. In covering their homophobic asses, these homophobes leave themselves open to having the laws overturned under all the laws this country has about not discriminating against people with disabilities, or on the basis of race, religion, age or gender. Thank you, Virginia, for being so utterly stupid.

Related articles

• VIRGINIA: State Board Allows Adoption Agencies To Discriminate Against Gays (joemygod.blogspot.com)
• Virginia’s Anti-Gay Adoption Restrictions May Create Costs For State (thinkprogress.org)
• New Virginia Adoption Rules Permit Anti-Gay, Gender, Disability And Other Forms Of Discrimination (thinkprogress.org)
• Obama Backs Gay Parents in Proclamation for National Adoption Month (towleroad.com)

According to the language of House Joint Resolution 22, “Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. A marriage, civil union or similar relationship entered into by persons of the same sex that is recognized by another state or foreign jurisdiction is void and shall not be recognized for any purpose in this state. In the exercise of the state’s police power and recognizing the state’s strong interest in governing the relationships between married persons, the provisions of this section shall apply retroactively.”

When it comes to respecting marriage, though, Chavez has a pretty spotty record. In October 2010, Chavez was accused of domestic abuse, and his wife filed for divorce. The two were married for four years and two months.

This is a consistent theme. Many of the politicians who oppose same-sex marriage have problems with marriage. They tend to be divorced repeatedly or have problems with domestic abuse, and so forth.

“I’ve been married to my wife for 14 wonderful years. Like many couples out there, we’ve had our hardships, we’ve had our trials, but nothing like the LGBT has to go through. It pains me to see my family and friends blocked from the same rights, privileges, protections that my wife and I are granted, just because we are legally married. What does it say to the youth of Indiana when a whole segment of our society is treated like second-class citizens?”

H/T Towleroad

In an editorial, Mehlman wrote:

The party of Lincoln and Reagan should stand first and foremost for freedom. It’s part of our heritage and ought to be part of our DNA. Freedom for Americans of all races is why our party was founded. And our greatest moments — from the unbelievable economic recovery unleashed by lower taxes and less regulation to the fall of the Berlin Wall — resulted when we promoted freedom.

Stripping away the right of adults in New Hampshire to marry the person they love is antithetical to freedom. If we really believe (and we should) that every citizen is endowed by their creator with the right to pursue happiness, shouldn’t this include the right to marriage? If we believe in limited government, how can we justify expanding the authority of the state to take away this most personal, fundamental right? Aren’t politicians already too involved in too much of our lives? Why would we want to expand government to such a personal space?

. . .

During my time in politics, I always believed that good policy is good politics. Looking at the views of New Hampshire voters, it’s pretty clear that stripping the right to marry is bad policy and bad politics. Sixty-two percent of New Hampshire voters oppose taking away the right to marry.

I will be in New Hampshire this week — to urge legislative members of my party to reject House Bill 437. It’s time to stand up for individual freedom and liberty, to live by the Golden Rule and to oppose any effort to diminish or strip away individual rights, and to return to the real business of building business, keeping taxes down and growing our economy. “Live Free or Die” should be more than just a slogan.

Many Americans are tired of having the Religious Right dictate what the nation is suppose to be like, and they want an end to these discriminatory laws and they want the maximum amount of personal freedom that the State can manage.

It may take some time, but hopefully, Mehlman can redeem himself and reverse the damage he has done to the LGBT Community during his time in politics.

http://www.unionleader.com/article/20120126/OPINION02/701269967

Elizabeth Warren

At a time when It Gets Better videos all tend to be flashy and almost campaign-y, former school teacher and current Senatorial candidate Elizabeth Warren has issued a video that is very low key. Her video matches her personality in that it is simple and direct. In the video, Warren starts:

“I’m Elizabeth Warren, and you may be wondering what I have to say to you. After all, I haven’t lived your life. But when I graduated from college, I was a schoolteacher, and I watched what happens in hallways, on sidewalks, out in the schoolyard. I watched kids who pushed, who bullied. I saw how much pain some kids could inflict on other kids.”

Aubrey Sarvis, the outgoing Executive Director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, stated:

“This is a clear victory in the fight to achieve full equality for service members. In his 2010 State of the Union, President Obama committed to repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ and indeed, it would not have been possible without his determination to do so. Even as we celebrate this milestone tonight, let us not forget that our work is far from done. While gay and lesbian service members may now serve openly if they choose, they are still not serving equally. They are without the same protections from harassment and discrimination that are afforded others, and legally married gay and lesbian service members do not receive the same recognition, support, and benefits for their families as their straight married counterparts. We must keep fighting until the mission is complete.”

Polk County Judge Eliza Ovrom issued her ruling this past week, based entirely on standing law. In Iowa, if a couple is married, as a consequence of court rulings in 1945 and 1999, the husband’s name is automatically listed on the birth certificate, even if there is a question about his contribution to the child’s DNA. Melissa and Heather have been together since 2003. They had a son, Zachary, in 2007, through anonymous donation. Heather was the birth mother and Melissa adopted Zachary. But, in April, 2009, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that the state must allow same-sex marriage, and in June, 2009, Heather and Melissa were legally married. When Heather gave birth to daughter Mackenzie in September, 2009, they expected Melissa’s name to be listed on the birth certificate in accordance with Iowa law.

In Judge Ovrom’s view, the law that says a husband’s name must automatically go on the birth certificate applies to all legal marriages in Iowa. It would not apply to all same-sex couples who are legally married in Iowa, however. Ovrom ruled that it applies in situations like the Gartner’s where there is no established identity for the donor of the sperm. Where a biological father is known, the state needs to be mindful of his rights.

Not being on the birth certificate seriously impedes Melissa’s rights as a parent, not allowing her to make medical care decisions, enroll her in school or pick her up at a day care. She would not even be allowed to obtain a copy of Mackenzie’s birth certificate. Adoption is a very expensive process, that would create an unusual and legally unnecessary burden on the Gartner family.

The legalese of the ruling cites the relevant section of the Iowa Code, which states that birth certificates would include the name of a “husband” as the “father.” But the ruling also includes the Iowa Supreme Court ruling about same-sex marriage which stated that all language in Iowa Codes should be amended to allow gay and lesbian couples full access to the legal protections of civil marriage.

The manner in which the Iowa Department of Public Health implements the ruling will determine if other same-sex married couples need to file their own lawsuits. If they limit listing the partner’s name on children conceived through anonymous donors, it may be necessary to work out new rules concerning known donors.

Related articles

• Iowa Judge: Both Same-Sex Parents’ Names Belong On Birth Certificates (thinkprogress.org)
• Iowa Must Issue Two Mother Birth Certificate (julieshapiro.wordpress.com)
• More good news from Iowa; Same-sex parents win lawsuit! (queerlandia.com)
• Melissa And Heather Gartner, Iowa Lesbian Couple, Win Child’s Birth Certificate Lawsuit (huffingtonpost.com)

Archbishop John C. Nienstedt has stated that any priest who does not agree with the Church’s stance on a constitutional ban on marriage for same-sex couples had better just shut up and never talk in public. He said this in a private speech:

It is my expectation that all the priests and deacons in this Archdiocese will support this venture and cooperate with us in the important efforts that lie ahead. The gravity of this struggle, and the radical consequences of inaction propels me to place a solemn charge upon you all — on your ordination day, you made a promise to promote and defend all that the Church teaches. I call upon that promise in this effort to defend marriage. There ought not be open dissension on this issue. If any have personal reservations, I do not wish that they be shared publicly. If anyone believes in conscience that he cannot cooperate, I want him to contact me directly and I will plan to respond personally.

Various members of Progressive Catholic Voice are upset with Nienstedt. Paula Ruddy, a parishioner at St Boniface in Minneapolis, said “When I first read this letter I couldn’t believe that the Archbishop was telling priests and deacons to be silent if they were opposed to the marriage amendment. Is one’s position on whether the State constitution should be amended a matter of Church doctrine? How are Catholics to form their consciences if their pastors are not candid with them?”

Ruddy is on the board of Progressive Catholic Voice, and their editor Michael Bayly said “The Archbishop’s letter is problematic in many ways. As a gay man, I find it particularly offensive that he can’t even bring himself to name gay and lesbian people. We’re simply a ‘minority’ seemingly out to destroy the church and civilization. Such an absurd caricature would be funny if not for the hurtful and damaging consequences to individuals, couples and families resulting from the Archbishop’s anti-marriage equality activism.”

Minnesota’s Catholic Church hierarchy started to find itself under intense scrutiny over their support for the constitutional amendment.

Related articles

• MINNESOTA: Archbishop Tells Priests To Shut Up If They Oppose Anti-Gay Bill (joemygod.blogspot.com)

Rick Santorum, by Donkey Hotey

We have had this conversation before about Rick Santorum, back when he was in the U. S. Senate. He uses studies that relate to straight parents to defend his position on gay parenting. His newest one cites “one anti-poverty expert” who, according to Santorum, “…found that even fathers in jail who had abandoned their kids were still better than no father at all to have in their children’s lives.” The first time Santorum came to my attention, he was speaking on the Senate floor, weeping copiously, displaying charts created based on a couple of “studies.” The first was the infamous “Marriage in Scandinavia” That study alleged that the legalization of same sex marriage had adversely impacted straight marriage in “Scandinavia.” The study used statistics from the 1970s through the 1990s which did show a decline in marriage rates in Scandinavia. Problem is, The Netherlands isn’t in Scandinavia. Scandinavia consists of Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland. None of those countries had same sex marriage. They didn’t even have civil unions. The Netherlands had progressed, over a ten year period, through registered domestic partnerships and civil unions to same sex marriage. Their Bureau of Statistics said that there hadn’t been enough same sex marriages to draw any statistical conclusions about their impact.

The second study Santorum used was about the effects of divorce and single parenthood in straight couples. Not a single same sex couple was profiled. That study did say that a child benefitted from having both a mother and a father. But it didn’t say anything about having two mothers or two fathers.

The studies that Santorum ignored were the ones that showed that same-sex parents waited to have children, were more financially stable (have to be, becoming a same-sex parent is expensive), were better educated, more emotional mature and really, really, really wanted that kid. They also showed that two parents, of any configuration, was better than one. Santorum is still ignoring those studies. They don’t fit with his narrative. They deny the necessity of men.

That is what this comes down to with Rick Santorum. The work that is being done now that could lead to the conversion of a human egg into the equivalent of a sperm is Santorum’s worst nightmare. If women could have babies without any contribution, natural or otherwise, from a man, what is the point of having men at all?

There is a new research brief, Childbearing Outside of Marriage: Estimates and Trends in the United States, that shows that more women are having babies outside of marriage. It’s just the kind of study Rick Santorum loves. The right wing is pushing the study to show that single motherhood is a public concern because “it is linked to negative outcomes for women and their children across a range of measures, as well as with a reliance on public assistance.” Agreed, if all you look at is a teenager who got pregnant by accident and whose baby-daddy took a hike. But that conclusion ignores the increase in single motherhood among educated, financially stable women, older women, who have given up on trying to find a man and chosen to have a family instead. Add in the single women who adopt, like Diane Keaton and Sandra Bullock, and you have a whole other picture. It is also worth looking at the way “staying together for the sake of the children” no longer works as a reason to stay in a bad marriage, unless there is some deficiency in the wife – lack of education, lack of resources, psychological factors. Women are coming to the conclusion that becoming a mother isn’t worth the investment in time, effort or commitment with a less-than-acceptable man.

Rick Santorum will continue to rail against gays and lesbians and same-sex parenting for two reasons. First, he’s deeply homophobic. He admits it, sort of. He acknowledges that the whole idea of gay makes him ill. That covers the gay men bashing. He hates lesbians because they prove that it is not necessary to have a dick to be an important person or raise great kids. Lesbians diminish Santorum’s level of importance in the world. They, and straight women who chose to be single parents, are making the statement that straight men need to prove themselves capable of something more valuable in society than spreading their seed. Jane is saying Tarzan should get an education and a decent job and stop sitting on the couch, drinking beer, watching “the game” and scratching himself.

On Friday, Santorum told an audience that “Marriage is not a right. It’s a privilege that is given to society by society for a reason. We want to encourage what is best for children.” Wrong. Marriage is a legal contract for the protection of property or to secure inheritance rights to a position. For centuries, women were told that marriage protected them. Not hardly. It denied them every imaginable freedom.

Somewhere in all the uproar over Rick Santorum’s positions on gay marriage and gay rights, his equating of homosexuality with beastiality and pedophilia, his insistence that gay marriage is a gateway to polygamy and marrying your dog, something important has gotten overlooked. Rick Santorum hates women. He doesn’t trust women to raise children, run a home, earn a living, lead productive lives without a MAN. In his view, women are only complete when they have a man and children are only valid if they have a male parent. He actually believes that having a rapist, drug dealer, murderer or psychopath for a father is better than being raised by a woman alone.

He’s politically savvy enough to understand that he can’t just come out and say that if he could he would strip women of their rights, but that’s what is lying just under the surface of his positions on family and children. He is 100% with St. Paul, who said that a man was the head of the household just as Christ was the head of the Church. Maybe that’s what he really meant when he said he was the “Jesus candidate” – he’s the person who thinks men are the earthly equivalent of Christ and are to be obeyed and followed in all things.

On a more earthly note…..

Now that Santorum is center stage, literally and figuratively, people are finally looking at his finances. He portrays himself as blue-collar, with an Italian immigrant coal-mining grandfather. Well, the grandfather part is true. Santorum’s raking in about $1.3 million a year as a member of the board of a health care company, a consultant for a Pennsylvania energy company and his work for a Washington lobbying firm. Not bad for a guy who, while in the Senate only made $165,000 in salary and $32,000 in book royalties. He is hardly the Washington outsider he says he is. He’s taken the path of least ethics since being defeated for re-election – he’s a paid lobbyist for those very interests that most hurt us – for-profit health care and over-priced energy.

Related articles

• Rick Santorum Argues with Students About Same-Sex Marriage and Polygamy: VIDEO (towleroad.com)
• Rick Santorum booed for suggesting gay marriage ‘harms’ children (topix.net)
• The Desperate Spin Of Rick Santorum (lezgetreal.com)
• ABC News video | New Hampshire college students boo Rick Santorum for anti-gay marriage stand (miamiherald.typepad.com)
• Santorum Tells Kids With Gay Parents: You’d Be Better Off With Parents In Prison (thinkprogress.org)
• Bill O’Reilly Questions Rick Santorum About His ‘Extreme’ Plans to Invalidate Same-Sex Marriage Licenses: VIDEO (towleroad.com)

via Wikipedia

Ricky Martin is not getting married in Spain. That has been the rumor for some time, but he has routinely denied it. Instead, he plans on marrying his boyfriend Carlos Gonzalez on 28 January in New York City. Same-sex marriage is legal in New York.

Martin came out in March of 2010, and has since expressed his support for marriage equality. Martin has called for marriage equality in Puerto Rico, where it is currently illegal. He has said in the past “What I want is for them to say no to discrimination so that equality among us human beings may be a reality in my country.” Rumors of his getting married in Spain began after he was granted Spanish citizenship on 4 November.

This is still somewhat speculation. A Puerto Rican newspaper is reporting this, and they were told by a source close to the couple.

Via FOX News

The state Department of Health’s newly created website to apply for a civil union is hawaii.gov”>https://civilunion.ehawaii.gov .

Applications for marriage can also be made online at marriage.ehawaii.gov”>https://marriage.ehawaii.gov .

That former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum wants to impose his religious beliefs upon others is not a surprise. He is very open about it, in fact. In the following clip, Santorum explains not only his desire to have an amendment banning same-sex marriage, but how he wants to ensure that all those marriages are rendered null and void:

SANTORUM: I think marriage has to be one thing for everybody. We can’t have 50 different marriage laws in this country, you have to have one marriage law…

TODD: What would you do with same-sex couples who got married? Would you make them get divorced?

SANTORUM: Well, their marriage would be invalid. I think if the constitution says “marriage is this,” then people whose marriage is not consistent with the constitution… I’d love to think there’s another way of doing it.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Santorum is a devout Catholic, and his view of marriage is nowhere near universal. Instead, this would amount to the religious beliefs of a minority of Americans being imposed upon the beliefs of the majority. While legalizing same-sex marriage throughout the nation would not result in people having to give up their religious beliefs, it would force those religions that support same-sex marriage to be considered second-class beliefs.

Rep. Ron Paul

There are many problems with Ron Paul’s position on marriage including the fact that, like it or not, the idea that you are married if the community thinks you are married ignores the fact that many Americans move constantly, and that the marriage contract ensures that all communities recognize people as married.

The idea is not horrific, in all honesty.  It was how many cultures worked about a thousand to fifteen hundred years ago when, well, people did not move around a lot.

It is one of those beliefs of Ron Paul’s that looks good on the surface, but a little bit of logic and accounting for modern times tends to render it rather badly conceived.

This is not, however, why the National Organization for Marriage hates his ideas regarding marriage.  They recently wrote “Many believe that Congressman Paul is a conservative, but when it comes to marriage, he’s no conservative—his position is radical and will lead to the destruction of traditional marriage in America.”

They also wrote “Go and see for yourself what he has to say. When asked if gay marriage should be legal, his response was, ‘Sure.’ Even should a federal court impose gay marriage (as a district judge in San Francisco has already done), he opposes a constitutional amendment to restore traditional marriage. In fact, he has even gone so far as to say that civil marriage should be abolished altogether.”

The ad from them is above.

Related articles

• Ron Paul Still Backing Getting Government Out Of Marriage (lezgetreal.com)
• An Open Letter Of Apology To Amy Koch From The LGBT Community (lezgetreal.com)
• Money Hard To Come By For Anti-Gay Groups (lezgetreal.com)

The law exempts clergy from having to solemnize civil unions. The legislation reads “Nothing in this section shall be construed to require any person authorized to perform solemnizations pursuant to chapter 572 or civil unions pursuant to this chapter to perform a solemnization of a civil union, and no such authorized person who fails or refuses for any reason to join persons in a civil union shall be subject to any fine or other penalty for the failure or refusal,”

In the complaint, the lawyer representing the two churches stated that they thought that Act 1 did not include the exemption and Shawn Luiz wrote “Neither Act 1 not it’s [sic] implementing regulations exempts religious institutions, churches and houses of worship, clergy, officers and members from being subject to the injunctive relief and fine provisions of H. R. S. 489. Within the last 12 months, private individuals have already initiated complaints with the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission against churches and houses of worship for refusing to rent their facilities for same-sex unions and/or marriage ceremonies.”

They also claim that the bill will have a ‘chilling effect’ on people’s religious expression.

Via Courthouse News
Via OnTopMag

According to the spokesperson for Colectivo Diversidad “This market niche … is very attractive for European, Canadian and American (homosexual) couples.” Activist Patricia Novelo stated that this upcoming January, the first same-sex group wedding will be held in the resort area. Eight of the couples that have confirmed their desire to marry are from Mexico.

Still, more couples are expected, and Colectivo Diversidad, Fusion G, Gaytoursmexico and the International Gay & Lesbian Travel Association are handling the preparations for the marriages. According to Novelo, even before the unions were legally recognized in that state, there was a great demand from travel agencies for these marriages in Cancun and the other resorts.

FOX News noted that:

Novelo said that this “is something very positive. Besides the social part there are many economic benefits because the gay community generates between 45 and 60 percent more income on top of conventional tourism.”

At least they were together for longer than most of the recent celebrity divorces. The two were married on 23 October 2010. They have no children. Brand did release a statement saying “Sadly, Katy and I are ending our marriage. I’ll always adore her and I know we’ll remain friends.”

Brand appeared on Ellen this month in order to attack the whole divorce rumors bit. He said “I’m really happily married … I’m married to Katy. Perpetually, until death do us part was the pledge. I’m still alive.” The couple did not spend Christmas together, nor have they been wearing their wedding bands.

There are some indications that Perry was blindsided by this.