Via American Foundation for Equal Rights:

Dear Daniel, Today, California’s largest newspaper, the Los Angeles Times, published a powerful editorial which argued that gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to marry, starting immediately. Last week, AFER’s attorneys filed a brief with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, urging it to lift the stay of the district court decision that ruled Prop. 8 unconstitutional, which would enable marriages to resume. Today’s editorial underscores the growing consensus that gay and lesbian couples should not have to wait to get married while the Prop. 8 case works its way through the legal system. “Enough already,” the Los Angeles Times editorial board wrote. “…Every day that the case drags on, gay and lesbian couples who would like to marry are being deprived of their civil rights. That's not our wording; the federal trial judge decided that issue, at least for now. The denial of constitutional rights, even temporarily, is a deplorable situation that must meet high legal standards to be allowed to continue. In our view, those conditions have not been met.” I encourage you to read the full editorial on the L.A. Times website, and to share it with your friends and family on Facebook and Twitter. Help raise visibility for all the people who cannot wait to get married. Sincerely, Chad GriffinBoard President American Foundation for Equal Rights

Via Courage Campaign:

Dear Daniel, This week, we’re filing an amicus curiae letter to the Supreme Court of the State of California asking them to speed it up. We’re taking this step because couples are literally getting sick and dying while the Court is dragging its feet, and we’ve had it. When the Court announced that it would look into the question sent to them by the Ninth Circuit regarding whether Prop 8 proponents had standing, they announced a schedule that would have the oral argument in “late September 2011.”  That isn’t good enough. Help us show the California Supreme Court what happens when they drag their feet. Can you co-sign our amicus curiae letter to the California Supreme Court? In the letter, we describe some of the heartbreaking stories of over 400 Courage Campaign members who wrote in to tell us how they are impacted by these delays.  Stories like those of Derence Kernek, who wants to marry his partner of over forty years before Alzheimer’s robs his partner, Ed, of the ability to even recognize Derence. Four months really could mean the difference between getting a chance to marry and a lifetime of regrets. Throughout the trial process, the federal courts have moved along with breakneck speed, but now the California Supreme Court is slamming on the brakes.  For so many Californians, this could have devastating consequences. Tell the California Supreme Court: Marriage can't wait! Please co-sign to our letter to the California Supreme Court and forward it on to five of your friends. www.couragecampaign.org/NoMoreWaiting We need the Court to see how painful any additional delay could be for so many Californians. Thank you for your continued commitment to equality. Sincerely, Rick Jacobs Founder and Chair, Courage Campaign P.S. To see additional stories, and to provide your own, check out our newest project we’re launching this coming month, Testimony: Take a Stand.

JMG Quote Of The Day - Albert Mohler

"When we talk about same-sex marriage, we talk about something that is already legal in one form or another in basically twelve states. So whether they call it marriage, as they do in a few states, or marriage-lite as they have now in twelve states, the reality is that a good number of Americans are living where they're already facing not just the inevitably, but the reality of same-sex marriage. I think it's clear that something like same-sex marriage - indeed, almost exactly what we would envision by that - is going to become normalized, legalized, and recognized in the culture. It's time for Christians to start thinking about how we're going to deal with that." - Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, speaking on a Focus On The Family radio show.

Stand by for the wingnut denouncements.

Labels: Albert Mohler, Focus On The Family, marriage equality, Quote Of The Day, religion

reposted from Joe

Via UOL: Jean Wyllys reage à ofensiva evangélica contra gay

Edson Sardinha e Eduardo Militão
Do Congresso em Foco

• Jean Wyllys reage à ofensiva evangélica contra gay
  

Para frear contestação de benefício no Imposto de Renda para casais homossexuais, deputado ameaça questionar falta de prestação de contas por parte das igrejas. Ele diz que crítica a portaria da Fazenda “mascara” homofobia

Primeiro gay a se eleger deputado federal defendendo a bandeira dos homossexuais, Jean Wyllys (Psol-RJ) anuncia uma contra-ofensiva à iniciativa de parlamentares evangélicos de tentar derrubar a principal novidade da declaração do Imposto de Renda deste ano: a inclusão de parceiros homossexuais como dependentes para fins de dedução fiscal. O deputado disse que vai discutir esta semana com outras lideranças da Frente Parlamentar Mista pela Cidadania GLBT (Gays, Lésbicas, Bissexuais, Travestis, Transexuais e Transgênero), ainda em reestruturação, uma maneira de barrar o movimento articulado pelo deputado Ronaldo Fonseca (PR-DF), que considera o benefício ilegal.

Jean Wyllys afirmou ao Congresso em Foco que pretende utilizar o mesmo argumento “legalista” do colega, que é pastor da Assembléia de Deus, para cobrar que as igrejas, que têm imunidade fiscal, passem a prestar contas à sociedade. “Posso recorrer também à legalidade para exigir do ministro da Fazenda que ele explique por que as igrejas não prestam contas à sociedade. Se os partidos políticos prestam, por que igrejas não?”, questionou.

Pastor da Assembléia de Deus, Ronaldo Fonseca tem em mãos desde a quinta-feira passada um parecer técnico elaborado na Câmara (leia a íntegra) que contesta a concessão dos benefícios aos homossexuais, conforme revelou o Congresso em Foco. O deputado do DF estuda recorrer à Justiça e apresentar um projeto de decreto legislativo para sustar os efeitos da portaria da Fazenda que garantiu o benefício aos homossexuais. Ele também cogita chamar à Câmara o ministro Guido Mantega para dar explicações sobre sua portaria.

Apoiado no parecer, o deputado alega que a medida é inconstitucional, viola o artigo 226 da Constituição e precisaria do aval do Congresso para entrar em vigor. Ronaldo busca apoio da Frente Parlamentar Evangélica, que deve se decidir sobre o assunto nos próximos dias. “Na canetada, eu não vou [aceitar], não. Tem de ter o debate”, disse Ronaldo Fonseca na quinta-feira.

“Motivação homofóbica”

“Ele disse que na canetada, não. Eu digo que no grito da falsa legalidade, nós também não vamos aceitar”, respondeu Jean Wyllys. Para o parlamentar, a ofensiva evangélica sobre o assunto tem motivação homofóbica.  “A máscara do discurso deles é da legalidade, mas isso tem uma motivação homofóbica disfarçada”, acusou.

O deputado fluminense ressalta que a portaria que beneficia os homossexuais está amparada em parecer da Procuradoria-Geral da Fazenda, que está ancorado, por sua vez, no artigo 87 da Constituição, que define os poderes de Estado, e também no artigo 5, que diz que “todos são iguais perante a lei” no Brasil. Para ele, a portaria da Fazenda é legal. “O direito é extensivo aos homossexuais. Em nenhum momento, a lei diz que companheiro ou companheira tem de ser heterossexual. Pode ser tanto homossexual ou heterossexual”, afirmou o deputado.

Jean Wyllys diz que vai tratar do assunto na terça-feira em reunião com a deputada Manuela D’Ávila (PCdoB-RS) e na quarta, com a senadora Marta Suplicy (PT-SP), responsáveis pela reativação da frente parlamentar que defende os direitos dos homossexuais. O deputado também rebate o argumento utilizado por Ronaldo Fonseca, sustentado no parecer da Câmara, de que o governo está abrindo precedente a outras categorias ao atender às reivindicações dos homossexuais.

Impacto

Ele conta ainda que pediu um estudo à sua assessoria técnica para levantar de quanto será a renúncia fiscal com a dedução do Imposto de Renda por parceiros do mesmo sexo. “O impacto será muito pequeno. A Receita só vai aceitar a inclusão como dependente de casais reconhecidos pela Justiça, que ainda são muito poucos no Brasil”, afirmou.

O deputado diz que não pretende tratar a bancada evangélica como “inimiga”, mas cobra respeito dos parlamentares religiosos à causa dos direitos humanos e civis e à tolerância de credo. “A liberdade religiosa deles, em geral, só vale para um lado, não pensam em termos de pluralidade. Eles vêm sempre agindo nisso. Com minha presença e por estar trabalhando na frente parlamentar, isso acirra mais os ânimos. Não sou inimigo, nosso espaço é do diálogo. Se eles tiverem projeto de interesse coletivo, vou defender. Mas eles têm de se abrir ao diálogo, e não ficarem presos a dogmas”, declarou.

A nota da Consultoria da Câmara ressalta que o artigo 226 diz que apenas “é reconhecida a união estável entre o homem e a mulher”. Afirma ainda que a Lei de Responsabilidade Fiscal obriga toda concessão de benefícios fiscais, como a dedução de imposto para os gays, lésbicas e transexuais vir acompanhada de impacto orçamentário e fonte de compensação da receita a ser perdida. De acordo com o estudo, isso não aconteceu.

Nota técnica

A nota alega ainda que a concessão desse benefício aos homossexuais abrirá brecha para outros segmentos da sociedade exigirem novas isenções de imposto. O texto cita como exemplo os irmãos solteiros que moram juntos; os filhos  solteiros que permanecem morando com os pais, às vezes adotando filhos; e as pessoas celibatárias que vivem juntas fraternalmente.

A consultoria da Câmara entende que o governo federal foi descuidado ao tentar encaixar os gays nas hipóteses de dedução de imposto. Em nota enviada ao site, a Procuradoria da Fazenda diz ter “plena convicção da constitucionalidade e legalidade de seu parecer”, que embasou a decisão do ministro Guido Mantega.

Lawrence O'Donnell Rewrites Gingrich & Beck Over DOMA Enforcement

MSNBC - Big Week For Gay Rights

Via JMG: DOJ Notifies Court Of DOMA Withdrawal

Via press release from GLAD:

The Department of Justice followed Wednesday’s withdrawal from two DOMA cases in the Second Circuit, including GLAD’s Pedersen v. OPM by notifying the clerk of the First Circuit that they will also “cease to defend” the two consolidated DOMA cases, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Massachusetts v. HHS. The DOJ has not sent a letter to the Congress declining to defend DOMA in toto in the Gill case, so its determination may only apply to the extent the court determines that heightened scrutiny is the proper standard of review for DOMA’s constitutionality. No matter what happens, the case will proceed with DOJ as the attorneys for the government defendants.

“It is increasingly clear to everyone what has been clear to gay and lesbian families for years - that DOMA’s denial of protections available to all other married families is discriminatory, harmful, and unjustifiable,” said Mary L. Bonauto, GLAD’s Civil Rights Project Director and lead attorney on both Gill and Pedersen. “DOJ’s acknowledgement of this is momentous. At the same time, we know this isn’t the end of the road.” In a letter to the court Assistant Attorney General Tony West writes that “the Department will cease its defense of Section 3” in cases including Gill and Massachusetts. DOJ also “notifies the courts of our interest in providing Congress a full and fair opportunity to participate in the litigation of those cases,” and that “we will remain parties to the case and continue to represent the interests of the United State throughout the litigation.”

Labels: DOJ, DOMA, feds, GLAD, Obama administration

reposted from Joe

Via JMG: DOMA Renews Immigration Challenge

This week's DOMA news has set activists into high gear on many fronts. Immigration Equality founder Lavi Soloway emails us today with his latest move.

In New York, New Jersey and California three married, same-sex binational couples, two gay male couples and one lesbian couple, are facing Immigration Judges in deportation proceedings. Each will brandish a pending green card petition filed by the American spouse on behalf of the foreign spouse. In each case their lawyer, Lavi Soloway, will argue that deportation proceedings should be halted because the only thing standing between each couple and a green card is the Defense Of Marriage Act which the President and the Attorney General announced this week will no longer be defended in court based on their finding that the statute is unconstitutional. Soloway, an immigration lawyer and long time gay rights activist, argues that the Department of Homeland Security should cease giving effect to this unconstitutional law and put all deportation proceedings on hold where they involve married gay binational couples, who but for DOMA, would be eligible for green cards on the basis of their marriages.

Soloway notes that the issue is quite urgent because deportation from the United States stipulates a ten year ban on ever returning.

Labels: DOMA, feds, immigration, Immigration Equality

reposted from Joe

Via JMG: Gay Man Named WH Social Secretary

Longtime Obama fundraiser Jeremy Bernard (on left, with former partner Rufus Gifford), has been named White House social secretary. He's the first openly gay man to hold that position and the third in the job since Obama took office.

“Jeremy shares our vision for the White House as the People’s House, one that celebrates our history and culture in dynamic and inclusive ways,” President Obama said in a statement, “We look forward to Jeremy continuing to showcase America’s arts and culture to our nation and the world through the many events at the White House.” Bernard comes to the White House from the US Embassy in Paris, where he served as Senior Advisor to the Ambassador. Prior to this role, he worked as the White House Liaison to the National Endowment for the Humanities.

Obama's first social secretary departed after that dumbass Real Housewives debacle. The second left to campaign for Rahm Emanuel.

Labels: Barack Obama, Obama administration, White House

reposted from Joe

Via JMG: Sen Patrick Leahy: I Will Cosponsor Feinstein's Bill To Repeal DOMA

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) emailed his constituents today with a promise to cosponsor Sen. Dianne Feinstein's coming bill to repeal DOMA.

As a Vermonter who has been married for 48 years, I believe it is important to encourage and to sanction committed relationships; relationships that encourage us all to give back to our community; and relationships that complete our lives. Vermont led the way by being the first state to adopt a same-sex marriage law through a legislative process. Now that several states that have voted to give full marriage rights to same-sex couples, I believe that the Federal government should not interfere with those laws or discriminate between marriages sanctioned by State law. Vermont and other states have determined that committed same-sex couples and their families should be entitled to all the protection of that state-sanctioned union. The Defense of Marriage Act denies some Vermont families equal treatment, creating a system of second-class citizens. This goes against American values and it must end. In the coming days, I will join with Senator Dianne Feinstein to introduce legislation to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. It is a core American value that all people should be treated equally by their government. Vermont has been leading the nation on this important civil rights issue and this week, President Obama and Attorney General Holder moved the Federal government in the right direction.

(Tipped by JMG reader Matthew)

Labels: Diane Feinstein, DOMA, Senate, Vermont

reposted from Joe