Friday, March 4, 2011
Via JMG: Alzheimer's Patient Wants To Marry While He Still Recognizes His Partner
Californians Ed Watson and Derence Kernik have been together for 40 years, but Ed has been been diagnosed with Alzheimer's and the couple is desperately hoping to marry while he can still recognize Derence. In a totally fucking related development, today the American Family Association denounced attempts to have the stay on Prop 8 lifted, using the headline, "Patience Is Not A Homosexual Virtue."
reposted from Joe
Labels: AFA, Alzheimer's, CA Supreme Court, California, LGBT rights, marriage equality, Proposition 8
reposted from Joe
Via JMG: Trump: Gays Deserve No Rights At All
We already knew Donald Trump opposes same-sex marriage, but now we learn just how far his animus towards gay people extends. After indicating to the Des Moines Register that he will compete in next year's Iowa caucus should he decide to seek office, Trump was questioned on his stance concerning same sex marriages. "They should not be able to marry," the Celebrity Apprentice star asserted. Trump also admitted that he hasn't developed a "fully formed" opinion on extending medical and civil benefits to gay couples, but he added: "As of this moment, I would say no and no." The TV personality has suggested that he will announce his final decision on whether to launch a presidential bid in the coming months.GOProud will be so pleased.
Via JMG: Concerned Women Are Concernstipated About 80s Pop Stars Getting Married
Or so it would seem from their bizarre image accompanying this message:So, just like any other despot, Obama decided unilaterally to make the decision for all of us ignorant Americans who support DOMA, and we should be grateful. Shame on him. And shame on us if we just stand by silently and take it. We should not! We must speak out. Truthfully, we have been too silent for far too long. President Obama and Mr. Holder have been actively working against DOMA and, therefore, against all Americans ever since they took office. Even on the cases where they decided to “defend” DOMA, they were actually undermining its reasoning by abandoning the most effective arguments.
DOJ’s mission statement says it is “...to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.” But President Obama and the attorney general have made a mockery of impartiality. They have chosen to side with an extreme, liberal minority and chose to suppress the rights of the majority of Americans. Simply put, if you support DOMA, this president and his administration view you as the enemy who does not deserve the same protections other Americans enjoy. We are on our own.
Via HRC:
Dear Daniel,
| Don't let Republican leaders in Congress waste time and resources protecting the hateful Defense of Marriage Act. Make an urgent gift to fund our all-out effort to fight DOMA.  |
In the wake of President Obama's courageous decision to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), radical lawmakers have sunk to a new low.
Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor have spent this past week working to placate anti-LGBT members of Congress and their right wing base by indicating they will defend DOMA – no matter what it takes.
So much for their pledges to focus on jobs and the economy. These so-called fiscal conservatives are wasting Congress's time and resources to defend discrimination.
We've never taken these attacks sitting down – and we can't start now. Time and again, our opponents lash out when we make progress. And time and again we band together to stop them. We've got to do it again this week, with a rapid-response effort in Congress and beyond. Can you help now?
In the past several weeks, HRC has helped drive major victories: civil unions in Hawaii and Illinois; unprecedented progress on marriage equality in Maryland, Rhode Island, and New York; and President Obama's decision on DOMA. All of those phone calls, rallies, letters to Congress, meetings with lawmakers – they're working.
But these victories have pushed our opponents to redouble their efforts to undermine equality.
So we're at a crossroads. We can catapult off of these recent victories and others in Illinois and Hawaii, grab this momentum with both hands and lay a foundation now for a future of full marriage equality – or we can let the extreme right wing dictate America's political agenda.
Right-wing radicals know the tide is turning against them. It's just making them more desperate. Only your generous grassroots support will help us stand strong. We must seize this moment. Are you with us, Daniel?
Thank you for helping us win – and for keeping this movement strong.
Best,
Joe Solmonese
President
Via JMG: Thrice-Married Serial Adulterer Arranged $200K To Protect Sanctity Of Marriage
According to the Los Angeles Times, Newt Gingrich served as middleman for an anonymous donor who gave $200,000 in "seed money" to fund the successful campaign to oust three Iowa state Supreme Court justices. This year, several potential presidential candidates are vying for attention among religious conservatives. But only Gingrich was instrumental in the most heralded event of recent Christian political activism: The effort last fall to remove the Iowa judges. "It wouldn't have happened without Newt," said David Lane, executive director of Iowa for Freedom, the organization that led the campaign. "Newt provided strategic advice and arranged the initial seed money, about $200,000, which is what got everything started." The money came from an anonymous donor whose contribution was arranged by Gingrich, Lane said. Robert L. Vander Plaats, chief spokesman for the judicial campaign, said the former speaker provided key strategic advice. He said Gingrich had won over pastors in the state with his "open and transparent" approach.Newt Gingrich would like to remind everybody that that marriage is between one man and one woman whom you abandon riddled with cancer on her hospital bed while you fuck the shit out of your mistress whom you later marry and cheat on with a third woman while screaming with Godly moral outrage about the infidelities of the president.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Via JMG: New Book: Germans Invented Gay Rights
According to a coming book by historian Robert Beachy, the genesis of the modern gay rights movement came in 19th century Germany. Modern conceptions of homosexuality began, ironically, with an anti-sodomy law. When the German empire was unified in 1871, the Imperial Criminal Code included a law prohibiting sexual penetration of one man by another. Questions about what types of activity should fall under the law spurred a sustained public inquiry into the nature of same-sex eroticism and sexuality in general. [snip] This new view of same-sex love was pioneered by German doctors who published early case studies of homosexuals in the 1850s. German psychiatrist Richard von Krafft-Ebing released the first edition of his hugely influential Psychopathia Sexualis in 1886, which included multiple case studies of homosexuals that supported this new position. Through his work, Krafft-Ebing became a vocal opponent of the German anti-sodomy law, stating that homosexuality "should not be viewed as a psychic depravity or even sickness."Beachy claims the world's first gay rights group, the Wissenschaftlich-humanitäres Komitee (Scientific-Humanitarian Committee) came into being at that time to gather petition signatures to repeal the anti-sodomy law. His book, The German Invention Of Homosexuality, is due out next year.
Via JMG: HomoQuotable - Jim Burroway
"This [Westboro] ruling is important for many reasons. First and foremost, it preserves the primacy of free speech in America, which benefits us all. But from a parochial pro-LGBT narrative, it’s equally important to note that it proves the lie to the multiple instances when anti-gay activists falsely claimed that advances in LGBT equality and protections — whether they come in the form of marriage equality or hate crimes protections — will result in the infringement of religious and speech rights. They never have and, if this ruling is any indication, it reaffirms the fact that they never will. So the next time someone claims that marriage equality will result in pastors being prosecuted for hate speech, make a note of it: Snyder v Phelps." - Jim Burroway, writing for Box Turtle Bulletin.Labels: Box Turtle Bulletin, First Amendment, HomoQuotable, Jim Burroway, LGBT rights, religion, Supreme Court, Westboro
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Via JMG: Gillibrand Launches RepealDOMA.com
Just launched by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY). Via Huffington Post:We must repeal this discriminatory law. There is no reason same-sex couples should be denied the same rights that my husband and I and so many other straight Americans enjoy. For me it comes down to the very simple principles that every American should be able to marry the person they love, and that discrimination against LGBT Americans is unconstitutional and wrong. The law as it currently stands denies federal benefits to thousands of legally married couples -- more than 1,100 federal rights and privileges enjoyed by straight couples, including hospital visitation, inheritance and some health care benefits. It discourages states from recognizing these legal marriages and it denies millions more Americans the right to marry the person they love. This is wrong.Gillibrand has also pledged to cosponsor Feinstein's coming repeal bill.
Via JMG: Quote Of The Day - Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand
"Dear Mr. Speaker, In a letter to you last week, the Attorney General advised that the Administration has concluded that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional and therefore will cease to defend the statute in pending litigation. It is in the best interests of taxpayers and the constitution for you to refrain from appointing special counsel to defend this law. A decision to appoint special counsel would be an unnecessary cost to taxpayers, and would detract from our shared goal of cutting wasteful spending and creating jobs."The executive branch’s responsibility to defend federal laws is not absolute, particularly in instances such as the present case, where the federal law is in direct conflict with the confines of the Constitution. At this critical economic juncture in our nation’s history, it is imperative that we as legislators do not devote resources to defending an antiquated and unconstitutional law."- Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, in a letter sent today to House Speaker John Boehner.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Via JMG: GOP House Majority Leader Eric Cantor Vows DOMA Defense Move By Friday
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said last night that a GOP plan to defend DOMA will be in place by the end of the week. Cantor's announcement came as the GOP completely ended unemployment and the nation's budget crisis, as promised.“I stand by [Boehner’s] commitment to make that happen,” Cantor (R-Va.) said Monday afternoon at a press conference, promising to outline their plans in detail Friday. Cantor said the Justice Department’s refusal to defend the law is a problem separate from the substance of the law itself, which allows states to decide whether to recognize same-sex unions in other states. The Justice Department has called another provision, that bars same-sex couples from receiving federal-worker benefits, unconstitutional. “Again I do believe that this is a case that is distinguishable on its merits and to have the administration take the position, the president take the position, that he’s not defending the law of the land, is something very troubling I think to most members of the House,” Cantor said. When pressed on what House Republicans planned to do, he demurred. “I think you’ll see that on Friday,” Cantor said.Yesterday House Speaker John Boehner told the Christian Broadcast Network that he may appoint a special House counsel to defend DOMA, a move suggested to him by former GOP Sen. Rick "Frothy Mix" Santorum.
Via JMG: CALIFORNIA: Attorney General Kamala Harris Demands Lift In Prop 8 Stay
California Attorney General Kamala Harris today filed a request with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, demanding that they lift their stay on the overturn of Proposition 8 and immediately allow the resumption of same-sex marriages. Attorney General Harris said it is unlikely that an appeal will succeed in overturning Judge Walker's ruling that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. The appeal's likelihood of success has been substantially diminished, Attorney General Harris said, "both by the United States Attorney General's conclusion that classifications based on sexual orientation cannot survive constitutional scrutiny and by this Court's certification order to the California Supreme Court, which seriously questions the Court's jurisdiction to decide the merits of the case."Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger also filed a brief today with the same request.
In addition, Attorney General Harris said, "there is no injury that the proponents of Proposition 8 will suffer if same-sex couples are permitted to enter into civil marriages in California." But as long as the stay on same-sex marriages remains in effect, Attorney General Harris said, the due process and equal protection rights of same-sex couples will continue to be violated, perpetuating unconstitutional discrimination and making a stay of Judge Walker's ruling legally inappropriate.
Via jMG: Sarah Palins Slams Obama On DOMA
"I have always believed that marriage is between one man and one woman. Like the majority of Americans, I support the Defense of Marriage Act and find it appalling that the Obama administration decided not to defend this federal law which was enacted with broad bipartisan support and signed into law by a Democrat president. It’s appalling, but not surprising that the President has flip-flopped on yet another issue from his stated position as a candidate to a seemingly opposite position once he was elected." - Sarah Palin, as triumphantly quoted today by Maggie Gallagher.New! Share this on Facebook: Share
SACBEE.COM BREAKING NEWS ALERT
California AG asks court to lift gay marriage stay
California's attorney general has asked a federal appeals court to allow gay marriages to resume while the court considers the constitutionality of the state's ban on same-sex unions.Monday, February 28, 2011
Via 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/NoMore 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. |
Sunday, February 27, 2011
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.
Via UOL: Jean Wyllys reage à ofensiva evangélica contra gay
Edson Sardinha e Eduardo Militão
Do Congresso em Foco
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.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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)