clic the pic to make the jump to see the fotos of the event
photo is of Sonja in sunglasses during the 'hand-in-hand' homo walk, wearing her 'mana' (Maori carving)
to see the work of Sonja van Kerkhoff jump to:
If I’ve asked it once I’ve asked it a hundred times: how does marriage equality hurtRecently I posed the question yet again to Maggie Gallagher, outgoing president of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), as she visited my ethics class at Wayne State University via audio conference.
I “get” that Gallagher wants children to have mothers and fathers, and ideally, their own biological mothers and fathers. What I’ve never quite gotten is why extending marriage to gays and lesbians undermines that goal. One can be married without having children, one can have children without being married; and (most important) same-sex marriage is not about gay couples’ snatching children away from their loving heterosexual parents. No sane person thinks otherwise.Maggie Gallagher is a sane person. (Wrong, but sane.) For the record, she is not worried that marriage equality would give gays license to kidnap children. Nor does she oppose adoption by gay individuals or couples, although she thinks heterosexual married couples should be preferred. So what’s the problem?
Jump here to read the full articleDear Daniel,
Late yesterday in a strongly worded letter to House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen wrote that they oppose "legislation that seeks to change this policy prior to the completion of" the Pentagon Working Group implementation study. Of course this statement flies in the face of the President's commitment in the State of the Union address to work with Congress to repeal the discriminatory "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law this year. Later last evening the White House issued a statement that did little to clarify the conflicting signals being sent.
The question for President Obama now is: does he want to mark this issue in the failure column as President Clinton was forced to do, or does he want to deliver on the change we were promised? It is inconceivable that the Secretary of Defense would so blatantly undermine the Commander-in-Chief's policy commitment and now the country looks to the President to exert his authority and leadership. If the President is going to fulfill his pledge to the American people it is essential that he address this issue.
Secretary Gates himself has said repeatedly that the Pentagon Working Group is designed to review how to implement a change in DADT, not if a change should occur. If those statements were true, there should be no reason that he wouldn't support the plan for which we have advocated where Congress moves forward with repeal while providing additional time for the Pentagon review to complete before implementation.
Action by Congress this year, in the National Defense Authorization bill, will not, as the Secretary suggests, 'send a very damaging message to our men and women in uniform.' But failure to act this year will, without a doubt, continue to send the message to the thousands of gay and lesbian Americans serving their country in silence – and those of us who support them – that their views and concerns, and the impact on them and their families, do not matter to the military leadership, including their Commander-in-Chief.
Clearly this news changes the landscape, but we haven't given up before and we refuse to now. The service of the more than 13,000 discharged men and women under DADT demands that we fight back. The silent service of soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines living under the law right now demands that we fight back. Until "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is no more, we will fight back.
Sincerely,
Joe Solmonese
President, Human Rights Campaign
"But Justice Scalia - this was a big surprise for me, his skepticism on this argument. But it's making me think that in fact he's thrown down the gauntlet for many of us who want to protect the privacy of those who are afraid of being intimidated. He said, and this is the quote that's gonna make it in all the news items when we hear about this case, he said 'Running a democracy takes a certain amount of civic courage'. Well, I think in a sense he is right. And if we lose this case I think that's the gauntlet thrown down to each one of us. Are we up to it? Are we willing to do what is right? Are we willing to put a name on a paper that clearly states a biblical viewpoint like being in favor of marriage even if we know we could face intimidation and harassment for it?Labels: Concerned Women Of America, PhoboQuotable, Protect Marriage, Referendum 71, Wendy Wright
reposted via JMG
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has fired back at yesterday's statement by Defense Secretary Robert Gates.Washington, D.C. – Speaker Nancy Pelosi released the following statement in response to a letter sent this afternoon by Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Defense Secretary Robert Gates concerning the repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy:The ball's in your court, Secretary Gates.
“We all look forward to the report on the review of the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy by the Defense Department. In the meantime, the Administration should immediately place a moratorium on dismissals under this policy until the review has been completed and Congress has acted.”
Labels: DADT, Nancy Pelosi, Obama administration, Robert Gates
reposted via JMG| | Rev. Eric Lee, California president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, has a very important message to share with you regarding the new law in Arizona that enables racial profiling.
|
Dear Daniel --
| |
I've spent my life fighting institutional racism. That's why it outrages me to see it happening now just across the border from California.
Arizona -- the state that for years refused to recognize Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr's birthday as a holiday -- is once again targeting people of color. Arizona's governor just signed SB 1070, a law which allows police officers to question anyone they believe to be in the country illegally based on nothing more than "reasonable suspicions."
And now this law could have a devastating impact on California as well. Republican Senate candidate Tom Campbell -- who could face Sen. Barbara Boxer in November's election -- just came out in support of this draconian new law that turns Arizona into a police state.
In fact, Californians have already been targeted. According to ABC 30 TV news, a truck driver -- a U.S. citizen of Latino heritage from Fresno -- was pulled over last week by Arizona police and arrested simply because he didn't have his birth certificate on him. The same could happen to any of us if the Arizona law is allowed to stand.
Tom Campbell, who wants to be one of California's two U.S. Senators, doesn't see a problem with that. On Wednesday he told the Sacramento Bee "I support [the law]. I don't believe it deserves the negative attention it received." Tom Campbell believes the Arizona law to be constitutional. However, there is nothing constitutional about the bigotry of racial profiling.
I don't support it -- and neither should Tom Campbell. That's why I'm joining the Courage Campaign and the California Federation of Teachers in signing a letter to Campbell showing him that Californians will not accept his support for Arizona's racial profiling. Sign here now and we'll hand-deliver your signature to Campbell. DEADLINE: Tuesday, 5 p.m.:
http://www.couragecampaign.org/StopCampbell
Tom Campbell's support for the law is out of step with the rest of California.
Polls show Californians support President Obama's plan to secure our borders and provide a path to citizenship to undocumented immigrants. That is the just and sensible approach to this issue.
Californians do not support racial profiling, and they do not want law enforcement to waste their time asking for people's papers instead of chasing down violent criminals. But Tom Campbell does.
We have to hold Tom Campbell accountable. Join me and add your name to the Courage Campaign and California Federation of Teachers' letter -- tell Campbell you won't let him take California down the dark path of racism that Arizona has followed. DEADLINE: Tuesday, 5 p.m.:
http://www.couragecampaign.org/StopCampbell
Thanks for taking a stand for justice and fairness.
Rev. Eric Lee
California President, Southern Christian Leadership Conference
The Courage Campaign is a multi-issue online organizing network that empowers more than 700,000 grassroots and netroots supporters to push for progressive change and full equality in California and across the country. Supported by thousands of small donations from our diverse community, the Courage Campaign holds politicians accountable to progressive values, works for fundamental reform to our state's broken government, and trains and organizes activists to change their communities.
To support this people-powered campaign, please chip in what you can today:
Leah Sears appears on the AFJ list, and the report includes her connection to the Institute for American Values (IAV) and an op-ed she wrote as reasons to be concerned about her commitment to marriage equality and the right of same-sex couples to raise children.
I think the AFJ does not go far enough.
Continue reading "Potential SCOTUS Nominee Leah Sears: Underestimated Hostility to LGBT Families" »
We got to the border in the middle of the night and were rudely and pointedly awakened by a border guard who came on, armed to the teeth, to tell us to get out documentation out and ready for inspection. I generally traveled with both my US and Canadian passport (because I was one of those who, during a brief legal window, could hold dual citizenship), but I couldnt find the former in my backpack. Still, I had my Canadian one, so I figured no big deal.
Wrong.
JMG reader Bernard tips us that the Smoking Gun has all the dirt about the dancing soldiers in the Lady Gaga tribute clip that I posted yesterday. Your favorite's real name is Aaron Melcher. The video was the brainchild of Aaron Melcher, a married 24-year-old soldier who graduated in 2004 from North Carolina's Gramercy Christian School. Melcher opens the video in a pas de deux, of sorts, with fellow enlistee Justin Baker, who is not nearly as enthusiastic a dancer as the gyrating Melcher, who incorporated elements of the original video's choreography in his desert remake. Melcher declined to answer questions. The video, he noted, was intended to be for "a couple of our friends and family and you can see that it has blown up way more than that...nobody in the video would like any further media coverage." When he first uploaded "Telephone: The Afghanistan Re-make," Melcher told Facebook friends to "feel free to share it with the world." He added, "it's the hotness." Melcher and several of his fellow soldiers have carefully monitored the spiraling number of views their video has received. On Wednesday, Pilon posted a brief update on his Facebook wall: "5,000 views...I'm going to be Famous!!!"Lots more pics at the above link. The clip currently has almost 200K views.
Labels: Afghanistan, Lady Gaga, military, silliness
reposted from JMGAnti-bullying bills passed yesterday in both Massachusetts and Georgia! Both bills passed unanimously.
Invoking the suicides of Phoebe Prince and Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover, lawmakers unanimously approved a sweeping measure to crack down on school bullying, saying its strict requirements for reporting student harassment make it one of the nation’s toughest. Yesterday’s legislation emerged with broad prohibitions against any actions that could cause emotional or physical harm, including text messages and taunting over the Internet. It also mandates antibullying training, for faculty as well as students, and requires that parents be informed of incidents at school.Georgia:
The Georgia Senate voted 44-0 tonight to approve an anti-bullying measure that was backed by LGBT political group Georgia Equality. Senate Bill 250 squeaked in under the wire to receive a vote in the hectic final hours of the annual 40-day state legislative session. The measure's anti-bullying provisions originated in the state House, and appeared destined for failure this session until Rep. Mike Jacobs (R-Atlanta) was able to maneuver to have them added as an amendment to the Senate legislation. SB 250, sponsored by state Sen. Bill Hamrick (R-Carrollton), was approved in the Senate last March and originally dealt only with “unlawful disruption of or interference with the operation of public schools or public school buses.”Both state's bills are expected to be signed into law by their governors.
Labels: bullying, education, gay youth, Georgia, Massachusetts
a repost from JMG
Dr. Jillian Weiss at Bilerico tips us to the above graphic on the status of ENDA in the Senate. Have you lobbied YOUR Reps and Senators about ENDA today? Do it now. Weiss points us to this ENDA spreadsheet which assesses the position of every member of Congress.If ENDA becomes law, the government will order businesses -- including faith-based businesses -- to cast aside their personal beliefs and hire homosexuals and cross-dressers, even if the employer considers these lifestyles immoral and inappropriate for their business. Even groups like the Boy Scouts and child care providers aren't exempt from the bill's oppressive demands. Worse still, ENDA will make it easier for activist judges to overturn the federal Defense of Marriage Act -- the most important protection for marriage that exists in our country! I know that because the most powerful open homosexual in the Obama administration says it will: John Berry, the director of the federal personnel office, says: "If we can get ENDA enacted and signed into law, it is only a matter of time" before pro-family, pro-marriage laws topple under its weight. You see, ENDA is just one step in the homosexual lobby's methodical plan to demand special rights for homosexuals...force the military to accept open homosexuality in its ranks...and ultimately redefine marriage for our entire nation.
Labels: Congress, ENDA, Jillian Weiss, LGBT rights
a repost via JMG
In late 2000, David and I traveled to Vermont to enter into a civil union. At the time, this “marriage in all but name” alternative was the only legal option available for same-sex couples who wanted state recognition of their unions.
As we crossed the state line from Vermont back into New York at the end of an unforgettable weekend, David looked at the wedding rings newly at home on our hands and said: “Well, they didn’t disappear.”Over the years, I’ve thought about that statement from time to time. On the level that matters most, the comment is dead-on: Our marriage crosses and transgresses many lines, both spatial and transcendent, and in that sense isn’t dependent on any state’s laws.
But we could have made such a commitment without the state’s (secular) blessing, so we obviously cared about the legal recognition.
And when it comes to the legal effect of our union, we and other same-sex couples find ourselves living on Bizarro Earth, where logic is shelved and results are backward. Let me explain how David’s statement is both right and wrong from the legal perspective.
Gay and lesbian couples married (or civilly united) in a given state may find that their unions, paradoxically, have little or no legal weight but may also be impossible to exit.
The first part of this problem is well-known. A gay couple married in, say, Massachusetts does have the state-conferred benefits of marriage, but only as long as they remain in that state. If they move to a state that doesn’t recognize their union – in other words, most states – their marriage doesn’t exist. So they can’t file state joint income tax returns, gain any exemption from estate taxes that might be available to opposite-sex couples, visit each other in the hospital, and on and on.
Even if they don’t move, the rings they wear might figuratively vanish on an out-of-state vacation – in addition to the hospital visit problem, a surviving spouse might not be able to sue a negligent motorist for the wrongful death of her partner.
And even if the couple remains in the state until they day they die, the evil Defense of Marriage Act – the repeal of which appears to have disappeared from sight – means that their marriage is a nullity for federal purposes.
But recent developments in Texas and Pennsylvania remind us that same-sex marriages are even harder to get out of than they are sometimes legally useless to be in.
As a lawyer, one of the unpleasant thoughts that has intruded on me is that my civil union wouldn’t enable a “civil divorce” (now there’s an oxymoron) in our home state of Pennsylvania, even if the day ever came that we wanted to take that sad step. Vermont, like virtually all states, has this strange dichotomy: Out-of-staters can travel there to marry, but can only dissolve their unions by becoming residents for a period of time (usually six months or one year).
That’s not a problem in most cases, because a divorce entered into in one state will be recognized in another. A straight couple married in Vermont can divorce in any state, and Vermont will give that divorce decree full faith and credit.
Not so for our unions. A few years ago, a friend who’d also gotten civilly united in Vermont called me, almost in tears, because her partner had met someone else and now her union needed to be dissolved.
But the pain of her personal loss was being compounded by the fact that she didn’t see a way out of her situation. Unable to move to Vermont, she found herself trapped in a nightmare that not even The Marriage Ref could solve.
Luckily for her, she was wrong. The two women live in New Jersey, and because of that state’s more progressive legislation and courts, a judge was willing to dissolve the union and allow the parties to get on with their lives. That wouldn’t have happened in most states, including the one just across the Delaware River.
Down in Texas, the trial judge’s decision to allow a gay couple to divorce was challenged by the Attorney General, and the appellate court heard arguments on the messy matter last week. The easiest thing would be for the court to hold that granting the divorce would simply be recognizing that the marriage was valid in the state where it was celebrated (Massachusetts, in this case). The court might take that approach, just to avoid getting swamped by the constitutional wave that would otherwise crash down on it.
What if the divorce isn’t recognized? There’s a procedure called a “voidance,” but the remedies and division of property aren’t as reliable in those cases. So the two men won’t be able to close the circuit cleanly, and may find themselves in a confusing and stressful tangle for years to come.
When will this change?
————
John Culhane is Professor of Law and Director of the Health Law Institute at Widener University School of Law in Wilmington, Delaware. He blogs about the role of law in everyday life, and about a bunch of other things (LGBT rights, public health, biology, sports, pop culture, philosophy and lots of personal stuff) at http://wordinedgewise.org A fuller bio is here. This week, he is blogging the week-long Equality Forum from Philadelphia. Each day features a new post on the panels from the night before.
