Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Couples Torn Apart by the Government: April 24 Marriage News Watch

Bad beer, nice commercial...

STF analisa ações sobre união homossexual no próximo dia 4

STF analisa ações sobre união homossexual no próximo dia 4

Publicidade
 
CAROLINA LEAL
DE SÃO PAULO

O STF (Supremo Tribunal Federal) deve analisar no próximo dia 4, quarta-feira, dois processos relativos à união homossexual. Um deles é a Ação Direta de Inconstitucionalidade, da Procuradoria-Geral da República, que pede o reconhecimento do casal gay como entidade familiar; o outro é uma ação do governo do Rio de Janeiro que pede que seja aplicado a casais homossexuais o mesmo regime jurídico das uniões estáveis.

STJ adia decisão sobre união de casal homossexual
Justiça do RS nega pensão a companheiro gay
Previdência formaliza pagamento de pensão a gays

Caso a decisão seja favorável, os mesmos direitos e deveres de companheiros nas uniões estáveis poderão ser estendidos aos casais do mesmo sexo. Um poderá ser considerado dependente do outro, por exemplo.
Segundo explica Maria Berenice Dias, desembargadora aposentada e especialista em direito homoafetivo, há indicativos que de a decisão do Supremo deve ser favorável aos pedidos. Não há previsão, no entanto, de quando a decisão final sairá. Para Dias, é certo que será feito algum pedido de vistas, o que deve atrasar o andamento dos processos.

No STJ (Superior Tribunal de Justiça), a decisão sobre o tema foi adiada no último dia 7 pela terceira vez este ano.

"O significado muito importante dessas decisões é que esse tema vem avançando no poder Judiciário, já que no Legislativo há uma omissão injustificável", diz Dias. Para ela, o reconhecimento da união homossexual é "um caminho sem volta".

A decisão do STF não é vinculante --que precisa ser acatada--, mas finaliza a orientação aos tribunais do país e influencia as decisões em instâncias inferiores.

Dentre as entidades que devem se manifestar no julgamento das duas ações no Supremo estão grupos de direitos humanos e a CNBB (Conferência Nacional dos Bispos).

http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/cotidiano/907902-stf-analisa-acoes-sobre-uniao-homossexual-no-proximo-dia-4.shtml


Folha.com
http://www.folha.com.br/

Via SacBee: Editorial: Prop. 8 backers get desperate, go after judge

During their 2008 campaign to pass an initiative banning same-sex marriage, Proposition 8 proponents insisted they weren't attempting to demonize or marginalize gays and lesbians. They were only standing up for "family values."

Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/04/27/3581168/prop-8-backers-get-desperate-go.html#ixzz1KjES26OY

Via AmericaBlog: Should judges be excused from cases based on their skin color, their politics, their marital status?

As a follow on to Joe's earlier post that the religious right is now trying to have the courts overturn our recent Prop 8 victory in court, based on the simple fact that the judge is gay, I wanted to examine what other court decisions would have to be overturned if we follow this logic.

1. Black judges could not try cases involving civil rights.  Nor could a judge who's a member of any minority.  Of course it wouldn't stop there.  Judges who are white couldn't try cases either, since they're not minorities, but rather, part of the "oppressive majority," as the argument goes. Everyone has a stake in the case, white and black.

2. Judges who are straight couldn't decide sexual orientation cases.  After all, as the religious right keeps telling us, straight marriages are at risk.  So any straight judge who is married, or contemplates possibly ever getting married, would have a personal interest in any gay marriage case, and we can't have that.

3. Female judges couldn't decide any case dealing with gender.

4. Meat eaters couldn't try cases against PETA.  But then again, Vegans couldn't either.

5. And no Republicans or Democrats could ever try any political cases at all.  So basically, no judge could ever try a case brought before it by the Congress or the executive branch.

If anything, the accusation that gay judges are per se unable to be fair and objective judges is prima facie evidence of the bigotry and animus motivating Prop 8 supporters.

Via AMERICAblog: Law firm was reportedly in "mayhem" over decision to take DOMA case

The law firm King & Spalding stunned many observers Monday by abruptly withdrawing from representing the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) -- barely a week after coming under fire for signing on to defend the law on behalf of House Republicans. But the real shockwaves may have taken place within the firm, where, according to one insider, employees were at each other's throats over its decision to take on the case.





A source at the firm described the “mayhem” that ensued after employees learned King & Spalding agreed to defend DOMA.

“Management was divided, people were threatening to quit,” the source said. In addition, it was unclear if members of the firm’s Diversity Committee had been consulted ahead of time about taking on the case.
And for the record, Barack Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder thinks every single one of you is un-American. Unless you're Republicans who are trying to make a fast buck off of stopping gays from get their full and equal civil rights. Then Holder [hearts] you.

It would seem the facts of this case are a tad more complicated than our Attorney General realized when he decided to mouth off in a homophobic burst earlier today (funny how Holder never mouths off with pro-gay comments).  We're still waiting to hear the President disavow his Attorney General's incredibly offensive remarks.