Tag Archives: civil rights

Another Victim of Prop. H8 Pays Gay Alimony

Actor Michael Rapaport is only one of the victims of California’s Proposition 8:

**********************

Transgender California Natives Can Change Birth Certificates

Native sons of the Golden State who have become daughters – and native daughters who have become sons – can now have their birth certificates changed to match their gender, regardless of where they currently live.

Until the recent First District Court of Appeals ruling, California law only allowed people to obtain a birth certificate with the proper gender if they lived in the same county of their birth, or if their current county of residence allowed them to request one.

However, many counties around the country will not recognize this right, an obstacle that this ruling now removes

**********************

NY’s Governor Vows to Lead Gay Marriage Drive

Just as source predicted, NY Governor David A. Paterson announced today he would introduce a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in his state.

He compared the status of gay men and lesbians to that of African-Americans, Jews, women and other groups who were historically excluded from full political and social equality, Gov. Paterson said he would lead a movement to authorize same-sex marriage. “We have a crisis of leadership today,” he declared. “We’re going to fill that vacuum today.”

Read more in the NY Times City Room blog.

**********************

Talk of DOMA Repeal Heats Up

An new article by Kerry Eleveld on Advocate.com says Washington is abuzz with the possibility of repealing at least part of the Defense of Marriage Act in light of the fact two states have now legalized same-sex marriage and more appear to be on the way.

Passed in 1996, during the Clinton administration, DOMA says:

1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.

2. The federal government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

At the time of passage, it was expected that at least one state would soon legalize same-sex marriage, whether by legislation or judicial interpretation of either the state or federal constitution. Opponents of gay marriage feared (and many proponents hoped) that the other states would then be required to recognize such marriages under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution, which basically says that states have to recognize the “public acts, records, and judicial rulings” of other states

Hop over and read the article on Advocate.com.

**********************

NOM “Storm” Ad Rebuttal Rocks

Someone got creative with this response to the controversial National Organization for Marriage “Storm Clouds” commercial:

**********************

2M4M Update – Best Yet

It turns out the National Organization for Marriage didn’t bother to register the domain name of its incredibly poorly thought out 2M4M campaign.

An enterprising gay guy with nimble fingers is building a site fast.

Check it out here. (Thanks to Joe.My.God for this!)

**********************

Conservatives Need to Clean Up Their Language

I have to thank Rachel Maddow for saying – or at least almost saying – what we’re all thinking.

Apparently conservatives have never seen the John Water’s movie Pecker, or heard of the practice of “teabagging” as it’s been known in gay bars for many years.

If they had, I doubt they would have been so quick to whip it out and publicly shake it around the way they have.

Take a moment and watch these recent Rachel Maddow clips addressing the inadvertent conservative appropriate of really gay expressions:

If that wasn’t bad enough:

Rumor has it the Republican party found Sarah Palin through Google. When are they going to learn to Google other things before they run them up the flagpole of the misguided party?

**********************

With a Tongue This Slippery, Rick Warren Would Make a Fine Lesbian

Rick Warren, pastor of the Saddleback Church, was at the center of a hornet’s nest of controversy when he was invited to deliver the invocation at President Obama’s inauguration.

LGBT groups howled in protest, because of Warren’s public anti-gay statements. At the center of the controversy was this interview with Steve Waldman, the editor-in-chief of Beliefnet, where Warren expressed his sentiments about gays marrying:

WARREN: The issue to me, I’m not opposed to that [some partnership rights] as much as I’m opposed to redefinition of a 5,000 year definition of marriage. I’m opposed to having a brother and sister being together and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.

BELIEFNET: Do you think those are equivalent to gays getting married?

WARREN: Oh , I do. For 5,000 years, marriage has been defined by every single culture and every single religion – this is not a Christian issue. Buddhist, Muslims, Jews – historically, marriage is a man and a woman.

Of course, no one in the LGBT community appreciated being likened to pedophiles, bigamists, or people committing incest, which wasn’t just an interpretation of what he said, it’s what he said.

Now, in an interview with Christianity Today, Warren talks about the backlash against his invitation to participate in the inauguration, and slips and slides around, parsing his language. Here’s his take on the interview exchange above:

In a Beliefnet interview, which was an hour long, Steve Waldman asked me about gay marriage. I said I believe marriage, that term, should be reserved for a man and a woman. I’m not saying same-sex couples don’t love each other. I gave some examples of what I think shouldn’t be considered to be marriage, like an older guy with a younger woman. Then [Waldman] said, “Are you saying that those are the same thing?” I said, “Oh sure.” It made it sound like I was equating homosexuality with pedophilia and incest. I don’t believe it, never have, and never would.

And just to futher confuse things, here’s Warren on Larry King Live a couple of nights ago, claiming he’s not against gay marriage:

However, just before the election, he made this video for his congregation, endorsing Proposition 8:

(Side note to Rick – next time, sit farther away from the camera, please.)

Will the real Rick Warren please stand up?

**********************

Way to Override, Vermont!

Vermont has become the fourth state to legalize gay marriage – and the first to do so with a legislature’s vote.

The Legislature voted Tuesday to override Gov. Jim Douglas’ veto of a bill allowing gays and lesbians to marry. The vote was 23-5 to override in the state Senate and 100-49 to override in the House. Under Vermont law, two-thirds of each chamber had to vote for override.

The vote came nine years after Vermont adopted its first-in-the-nation civil unions law.

It’s now the fourth state to permit same-sex marriage. Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa are the others. Their approval of gay marriage came from the courts.

**********************

States & Nations Recognizing Same-Sex Couples

It’s a fast-growing group of governments that recognize same-sex marriages and same-sex civil unions.

There are even a couple to add to the list since my friend E. compiled it just days go (Yea, Iowa! Go Vermont!)… but it’s a good list and anyone who thinks the U.S. is a world leader in LGBT rights should take a look at it.

Read the list here.

**********************

Pick Up Your Flip Camera and Meet the Idaho Challenge

**********************

Iowa Historically Civil Rights Leader

I really appreciate the serious commentary over at Box Turtle Bulletin.

Hop over there and read Jim Burroway’s post about Iowa’s recent court decision that allows same-sex marriage, and why Iowa might be the obvious place for the big ball of equality to really get rolling.

**********************

Iowa Ruling Teases Californians Still Working on Prop. H8

Same-sex marriage advocates in California were whooping and hollering as the Iowa Supreme Court overturned that state’s law banning the practice.

(You can see my earlier post about Iowa here.)

But as those advocates argued the Iowa ruling’s language shores up their California case, same-sex marriage opponents argued the cases are not as similar as they seem.

In an interview with the Oakland Tribune, National Center for Lesbian Rights legal director Shannon Minter, who argued before the California Supreme Court last month, acknowledged that the two cases’ issues “are not identical, but the Iowa Supreme Court emphasizes that equal protection is an essential principle that defines the ‘blueprint’ of our government, which is the foundation of our argument in the Prop 8 case.”

“A measure that changes something so essential to our existing form of government is, by definition, too significant to be a mere ‘amendment,’” he said, echoing his argument to the state Supreme Court that Prop. 8 had to
have been a constitutional revision requiring legislative votes to be placed on the ballot rather than just petition signatures.

“It’s obviously not relevant to the current California case,” said Andy Pugno, general counsel for the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign.

Iowa’s court also held that a separate status other than marriage for same-sex couples can’t be considered equal, Minter said. “The fact that two state supreme courts, including now a court in the heartland of our country, have now followed the California Supreme Court’s holding on that issue underscores very powerfully that the court cannot back away from that holding “… without undermining its credibility and stature,” he said.

Pugno acknowledged there’s been a pattern of state supreme courts interpreting their constitutions to permit same-sex marriage, but also a pattern of voters subsequently amending those constitutions to forbid it. “They may do exactly the same in Iowa now.

**********************

Same Sex Marriage A-Okay in Iowa!!!

This from the Associate Press just minutes ago:

DES MOINES, Iowa — Iowa Supreme Court says state’s same-sex marriage ban violates rights of gays and lesbians.

Hello? California? Are you listening?

**********************

Ellen and Oprah Together on O Magazine Cover

Oprah Winfrey offered to share the cover of O magazine with Ellen DeGeneres, and DeGeneres — who’s been campaigning for the spot — has accepted.

Winfrey surprised DeGeneres with a video telephone call on Friday’s episode of “The Oprah Winfrey Show.” She told a shocked DeGeneres that she was “calling to officially invite you on the cover of O.”

DeGeneres, who’s been mounting a campaign for the cover during her “Ellen” talk show, told Winfrey: “I can’t believe you’re serious about this. I’m freaking out right now.”

Winfrey had gone solo on the cover of O magazine for nine years before sharing the spot with first lady Michelle Obama.

**********************

Portia de Rossi Makes Fake Prop 8 PSA

Last night on ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel Live, Portia de Rossi offered up this spoof on a Prop H8 PSA:

**********************

Send Yves St. Laurent to Indiana, Please!

lesmokingUpdate: The school district has reversed its policy that barred a female student from wearing a tuxedo to her school’s prom. The district superintendent has said formal attire will be required at the prom, but the requirements won’t be “gender-based.” However, he said the School Board would have to vote Tuesday to accept the agreement. The ACLU legal director told The Indianapolis Star that the teen is pleased with the decision and will attend the April prom in a tuxedo.

A 17-year-old lesbian in Indiana filed a lawsuit because her principal said she couldn’t wear a tuxedo to the prom.

This only goes to prove that Indiana is provincial in two entirely different ways:

1. Binary gender thinking

and perhaps even worse,

2. Very bad fashion sense. The late Yves St. Laurent spent a career making variations on what he called “Le Smoking” (as in “smoking jacket” ). Some of these tuxedos were frilly, some were sleek. Some were girly, and some were downright butch (yum). All of them were beautifully made, expensive as hell, accepted in polite society, and are now iconic.

Apparently Vogue never made it to newsstands in the Hoosier state, or there wouldn’t be silly discussions about whether girls can wear tuxedos.

While the ACLU was seeking an injunction that would allow the girl to wear a tuxedo, school officials were debating whether she could wear a women’s “pantsuit” instead. I assume, by this, they were picturing the kind of neutral, sexless thing usually worn by WNBA coaches during games and by lesbian attorneys for press conferences.

Would someone out there who has some taste and style dust off a “Le Smoking” and loan it to this kid in Indiana? The state obviously needs some fashion education and it seems she’s just the one to provide it.

And, while I’m at it, how smoking hot is this this 1975 Helmut Newton photograph of an Yves St. Laurent Le Smoking?

lesmoking2

**********************

College Guys Launch California Domestic Partnership Move

I suspected this wasn’t too far off:

Ali Shams, a senior 22-year-old pre-law student at UC-San Diego, spent his Christmas break framing a constitutional amendment initiative to replace the word “marriage” with “domestic partnership” under state law. Now his project has been cleared by Secretary of State Debra Bowen to gather petition signatures for a potential statewide ballot. Shams’ proposed amendment would take the state out of the wedding business, making marriages a product of church-sanctioned ceremonies, and letting the state government grant domestic partnerships, to gay and straight couples alike. Shams and a friend, Kaelan Housewright, a 21-year-old senior at the California Institute of the Arts, are taking their movement to the internet. You can read more about it in the San Jose Mercury News.

BTW, here’s an essay on the same topic I wrote last October.

**********************

The Defense of Marriage Act

As California sits and waits for a State Supreme Court decision on the legality of Proposition 8, I want to throw a huge shout-out to the legally married same-sex couples in Massachusetts who are now challenging the Defense of Marriage Act. (Read about it on Gay City News.)

And, I’m just wondering: Am I the only one who thinks of it as the “Defensive Heterosexuals Act”?

**********************

Hey, What’s Your Sign?

milk1

Well, there was plenty of media coverage of the State Supreme Court hearing. Ultimately no one knows what the judges will do, and they’ve got 90 days to do it.

The Advocate has this round-up story of how the California newspapers are reporting on the day’s events.

(Thanks to Steve Rhodes for the great photo on Flickr with a Creative Commons license, and thanks to the girl for a great sign.)

.

.

**********************