Search
Archives
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
Popular Tags
Joe Biden CNN Mitt Romney president RNC Sarah Palin waterboarding torture meta Iraq George W. Bush Hillary Clinton John McCain Barack Obama 2008Bolling Campaign Nixes Twin City Guidebooks Over Gay Tourism Section
Virginia Lt. Governor Bill Bolling’s re-election campaign is really scared of Teh Gay. So scared, in fact, that they shipped the Minneapolis-St. Paul guidebooks they had ordered for the Virginia RNC delegation back to the publisher because the books included a few pages for gay and lesbian visitors.
Bolling (R) had planned to give the guidebooks, published by the Rake, to the 123 members of the Virginia delegation to the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn.
A Bolling spokesman said Monday that the lieutenant governor never saw a copy of the guidebook but would not have had a problem with it.
A staffer reviewed a copy and canceled the order because of the section for gays and lesbians, said Randy Marcus, Bolling’s chief of staff and a convention delegate. Bolling’s campaign ordered another guidebook for the delegates and alternates instead.
“We are sorry that this has occurred and wish it had not happened,” Marcus said. “We wish it had not happened.”
So…. are they apologizing for ordering LGBT-friendly guidebooks? Or for shipping back something that Bolling “would not have had a problem with?” Or for inconveniencing the publisher with the return? Huh?
In any event, someone ought to tell Bill Bolling that you can’t turn people gay with a tolerant guidebook.
California High Court: Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional
In a historic decision, the California Supreme Court today ruled that a state law banning gay marriage was unconstitutional. Some money quotes from the decision:
After carefully evaluating the pertinent considerations in the present case, we conclude that the state interest in limiting the designation of marriage exclusively to opposite-sex couples, and in excluding same-sex couples from access to that designation, cannot properly be considered a compelling state interest for equal protection purposes.
To begin with, the limitation clearly is not necessary to preserve the rights and benefits of marriage currently enjoyed by opposite-sex couples. Extending access to the designation of marriage to same-sex couples will not deprive any opposite-sex couple or their children of any of the rights and benefits conferred by the marriage statutes, but simply will make the benefit of the marriage designation available to same-sex couples and their children. …
While retention of the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples is not needed to preserve the rights and benefits of opposite-sex couples, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage works a real and appreciable harm upon same-sex couples and their children. As discussed above, because of the long and celebrated history of the term “marriage” and the widespread understanding that this word describes a family relationship unreservedly sanctioned by the community, the statutory provisions that continue to limit access to this designation exclusively to opposite-sex couples — while providing only a novel, alternative institution for same-sex couples — likely will be viewed as an official statement that the family relationship of same-sex couples is not of comparable stature or equal dignity to the family relationship of opposite-sex couples.
Furthermore, because of the historic disparagement of gay persons, the retention of a distinction in nomenclature by which the term “marriage” is withheld only from the family relationship of same-sex couples is all the more likely to cause the new parallel institution that has been established for same-sex couples to be considered a mark of second-class citizenship.
Finally, in addition to the potential harm flowing from the lesser stature that is likely to be afforded to the family relationships of same-sex couples by designating them domestic partnerships, there exists a substantial risk that a judicial decision upholding the differential treatment of opposite-sex and same-sex couples would be understood as validating a more general proposition that our state by now has repudiated: that it is permissible, under the law, for society to treat gay individuals and same-sex couples differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals and opposite-sex couples.
In light of all of these circumstances we conclude that retention of the traditional definition of marriage does not constitute a state interest sufficiently compelling, under the strict scrutiny equal protection standard, to justify withholding that status from same-sex couples. Accordingly, insofar as the provisions of sections 300 and 308.5 draw a distinction between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples and exclude the latter from access to the designation of marriage, we conclude these statutes are unconstitutional.
There is a ballot initiative circulating in California that would amend the state constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman, but Gov. Schwarzenegger has said that he will uphold the ruling and will not support the initiative to overturn it.
It’s a beautiful day in California for marriage equality!
(h/t Meteor Blades for parsing the 172-page (PDF) decision)
Missouri Law Recognizes Gay Couples?
Missouri, though trending blue in recent elections, is in no way a bastion of liberalism. Last year, in fact, Missouri legislators introduced a bill that would make Christianity the state’s official religion (it failed), and Missouri law allows LGBT people to be fired, evicted, and even cut off from statewide public services because of their sexual orientation. That’s why I was surprised to hear a story from Kansas City where Missouri may have legally recognized a lesbian couple.
A lovers’ quarrel between two women got out of hand, police said, and one found herself nearly set on fire. She said it was the first time in their 10-month relationship that she had seen her girlfriend get violent.
…
The victim said [ex-girlfriend Nicole P.] Selectman called her several times and asked her not to pursue charges, but prosecutors charged Selectman with unlawful use of a weapon, second-degree domestic assault and tampering with a motor vehicle.
Let me perfectly clear: this–and every case of domestic violence–is a terrible crime that should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and I’m in no way trying to suggest that assaulting your partner is an appropriate way to gain recognition for your (soon-to-be over) relationship. But I found it interesting that Selectman was charged with domestic assault. Under Missouri law,
A person commits the crime of domestic assault in the second degree if the act involves a family or household member or an adult who is or has been in a continuing social relationship of a romantic or intimate nature with the actor
In this case, the law apparently includes homosexual partnerships in the same category as heterosexual relationships (and for good reason, because domestic abuse is not a specifically homo- or heterosexual crime). I wonder, though, if this law could be used to argue that homosexual relationships should be given that same equivalence when it comes to adoption, or parenting rights, or hospital visitation rights, or joint banking, or tax dependency, or other benefits that are currently only available to heterosexuals. In a very morbid sort of way, could this domestic violence law be the first step to LGBT rights in Missouri?
Hogwarts Head is Out of the Closet
I try not to get too caught up in Harry Potter mania, but this is too good to pass up. According to J.K. Rowling, already friend of all Christians, Albus Dumbledore had a little secret:
The big revelation of the night came when she was asked if Dumbledore had ever found love. With a sigh, she seemed on the verge of saying no, but then revealed, “my truthful answer to you… I always thought of Dumbledore as gay.” After a collective gasp, the audience roared with applause. Rowling was clearly astonished by the positive reaction and exclaimed, “if I’d known it would make you so happy, I would have announced it years ago!” She went on to say that she thought Dumbledore had fallen in love with Grindelwald, a Dark Wizard he defeated in battle in 1945, which possibly made it forgivable that he had not seen Grindelwald’s true nature, because “falling in love can blind us to an extent.”
I wonder if this makes Snape Hogwarts’ version of Fred Phelps?