Marriage in Buenos Aires & Portugal

Argentina As I told you last month, a gay couple who won the right to marry in Buenos Aires had their marriage blocked at the last minute.

Good news! The governor of Tierra Del Fuego allowed them to marry.

Alejandro Freyre, 39, and Jose Maria Di Bello, 41, tied the knot in a civil ceremony in the southern city of Ushuaia, in Tierra del Fuego province.....provincial governor Fabiana Rios..... gave the two men a special dispensation.

She said in a statement that gay marriage was "an important advance in human rights and social inclusion".

However Bishop Juan Carlos, of the southern Argentine city of Rio Gallegos, called the marriage "an attack against the survival of the human species".

The Catholic church is increasingly out of touch on this, don't you think? And it doesn't escape most people that the ranks of the hierarchy are replete with closeted gay men. (PHotos of the event here.)

Portugal: From the AFP:

Catholic Portugal, traditionally one of Europe's most socially conservative countries, is expected to approve the legalisation of gay marriage on Friday with a minimum of fuss. [Update: it did pass.]

With the governing Socialists and other left-wing parties enjoying a strong majority, the new law is likely to sail through the first reading debate and gain final approval before a visit by Pope Benedict XVI, due in Portugal in May.
....

If the gay marriage proposals do pass through parliament, they will the have to go through a parliamentary commission before coming back for the final approval.

According to media reports, both the government and the Catholic Church wants the gay marriage issue to be resolved before the visit of the pope, scheduled for May 11-14.

Prop 8 trial: from tears to laughter

Who is the audience for Prop8? THis excellent article from Daily Kos argues that the focus is on one person, and one person only: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, the swing vote. It was Kennedy who authored the overturn of the bigoted Amendment 2 in Romer v. Evans, and who wrote the sweeping decision of Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 (seems so long ago now) but has in other cases sided with the conservative cabal.

In the comments to that post, DKossack ivorybill says,

I think in many ways this particular Supreme Court case will be a tragedy - I cannot find it in me to feel the same intense distaste for Kennedy that I feel toward the other four.  Despite their erudition and quick wit, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Roberts are small cruel men.  In another century and on another continent, they would be constructing the legal argument to burn gay men at the stake.  I fear Kennedy may feel enough uncertainty and discomfort to step back from granting marriage equality - but the decision to do so will haunt him and damage his legacy.  Marriage equality is coming, it's just a question of whether this turns into a Plessy v Fergussen decision and another decade or two, or whether we bite the bullet now and move ahead with the inevitable trajectory expanding rights, rather than restricting them.    

For some background, Here's a list of 10 court cases that changed the GLBT movement.


Meanwhile, on a lighter note, have you visited the Prop8TrialTracker, the site run by the Courage Campaign? They have a logo that spoofs the Yes-on-8 logo, which is a cheeky thumb to the nose.

Seems Yes-on-8 folks are peeved and has sent a cease-and-desist. The Courage Campaign has responded,

Your letter threatening legal action and demanding a response in two days is a clear attempt to abuse intellectual property laws to stifle our client’s freedom of speech, particularly as no one is likely to confuse Courage Campaign with ProtectMarriage.com merely because of our client’s parody of your client’s logo. .....While our client does appreciate the irony of the suggestion in your letter that a logo of a family made up of a man, a woman, and two children is “substantially indistinguishable” from a logo of a family made up of two women and two children, your assertion is incorrect.....You conceded over the phone that bloggers and online commentators noted the changes from man to woman and are making fun of your client, demonstrating that the public notices the difference and gets the joke.

Sometimes it's best just to ignore it when you are being made fun of, you know? Lest you just make yourself look even sillier.

For some sharper humor, check out this Fiore cartoon.

Hiding under the rock: NOM and campaign financing in Maine

You know what lives in the dark, under rocks and bridges, right?

The bad guys continually try to hide who they are and where the money comes from, amidst unsubstantiated claims of threats ad violence. (Let's face it, they have had great success telling lies in both CA Prop8 and ME Question 1 campaigns). Fred Karger of Californians Against Hate continues to shine a bright light on these people.

But this takes the cake. Now Maggie Gallagher and her band of NOMmers are trying to overturn campaign finance transparency laws in Maine, in order to cover up the money.

As commented in the Bangor Daily News Editorial,

In October, NOM filed suit in federal court claiming Maine’s referendum campaign finance reporting requirements were overly burdensome and, therefore, unconstitutional..... If its challenge is upheld, it would leave a big hole in the state’s reporting requirements and its Clean Election financing program, which relies on candidates’ reporting of donations to determine whether matching funds are warranted.

The group, based in New Jersey....has refused to disclose to state election officials where its money came from....

The Commission on Governmental Ethics and Elections Practices is investigating whether NOM violated state campaign finance laws by refusing to name its donors in connection with Question 1 on the Nov. 3 ballot.

Attorneys for the group have argued that listing donors would discourage contributions because people would be afraid of retaliation.

Gay marriage is an emotional issue, but citing fear as a reason to flout the law is an unpersuasive argument, especially when thousands of donors are named — complete with their home or businesses addresses and occupations — on campaign finance reporting forms filed by groups on both sides of Question 1....

A close look at the group’s fundraising literature will clarify whether it was raising money for the Yes on 1 campaign in Maine. If it was, reporting is necessary, as it should also be for other national groups that contribute to Maine campaigns....

The bottom line is that Maine voters should be able to know who is trying to influence their vote.

Shine the light on the donors. Tell the truth.

DC Court rejects attempt to put marriage equality on the ballot

From the WaPo:

A D.C. Superior Court judge ruled Thursday that same-sex marriage opponents do not have a right to hold a public referendum on whether those marriages should be legal in the District.

The ruling, a major victory for gay rights activists, makes it more likely that the District will start allowing same-sex couples to marry in March.

The D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics has twice ruled that a referendum or initiative on same-sex marriage would violate a city law prohibiting a public vote on a matter covered by the Human Rights Act, which outlaws discrimination against gay men and lesbians and other minority groups.....

In her ruling, Judge Judith N. Macaluso stated the board "properly rejected the proposed initiative" because of the Human Rights Act....

City leaders say that, barring intervention from Congress, marriage licenses will be available to same-sex couples around the first week of March.

Day 3-4 of Prop8 trial: what's happened so far

The Good Guys continue to lay out their case. The Bad Guys continue to focus on children and procreation and scapegoating Teh Evil Gays.

First witnesses were the plaintiffs: Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier, who have 4 kids, and Paul Katami and Jeff Zarillo. The defense only cross-examined Katami, trying to get him to admit that the parents have legitimate reasons to fear marriage equality. Katamii doesn't have kids, why didn't they ask Perry? perhaps they didn't want to highlight the fact that GLBT couples have kids too. It's hard to read the testimony of these people without tears. They are so loving and so vulnerable.

Expert Witness 1, Professor Nancy Cott of Harvard, an expert on marriage, explained that the concept of marriage continues to evolve, and particiularly noted how it changed with changed gender roles, and women's independence. She feels that marriage equality will strengthen the institution.

Expert Witness 2, Professor George Chauncey of Yale, an expert on GLBT history, gave an overview of the discrimination and prejudice against GLBT people. This led to a somewhat surreal moment where the defense attorney in cross examination claimed that because the film Brokeback Mountain got awards, there is no more discrimination against GLBT people. Then he read a list of faith groups that support marriage equality. I think the goal is to claim that GLBT people are not discriminated against any more (um, then what are you defending?).

The re-direct examination of Prof Chauncey exposed some of the really vile lies told in the campaign. The deposition of WIlliam Tam (he who tried to withdraw) was important here, and they showed the video. From the SF Chronicle:

Tam, who organized rallies and raised money for the measure, sent a letter to Prop. 8 supporters during the campaign warning that if same-sex marriage remained legal, "other states would fall into Satan's hand."

San Francisco's government, already "under the rule of homosexuals," would move next to legalize sex with children and prostitution, Tam said.

In his deposition, Tam said he was also concerned that "every child can grow up thinking whether he would marry John or Jane."

Tam also was quoted as saying he believes there is a homosexual agenda, and it started in Chicago in 1972.

Wow.

Expert Witness #3 is on the stand: Prof Anne Peplau of UCLA, a social psychologist who studies couples and relationships. She stated that there is no real difference in GLBT and straight couples and that marriage improves both types of relationships. Pushed by the defense during cross, she admitted there is one difference: no unintended pregnancies with GLBT folks. The defense here really tried to focus on gay men being promiscuous by nature--relying on data from 25 years ago. (In addition, I don't know why someone doesn't point out that without marriage, straight men would probably be promiscuous too.)

The final note is that the Supreme Court decided (5 to 4, usual suspects) NOT to allow cameras in the courtroom. The NY Times nails them in an Op/Ed Discrimination on trial, not on TV. Because remember, this way the bad guys can keep hidden shocking evidence like William Tam's lies and paranoia, or the awful, awful things they say about us....and they can keep hidden the scary normality of people like Kristin Perry.

Following the Prop8 case

I've written extensively about this case.

Also:
Follow on twitter:

• From the Advocate
• From Bilerico
• Hashtag #prop8

Follow live blogs:

• Prop8 Trial Tracker
• Firedoglake

Other info:

• Lawdork
• Pam's house blend
• LGBTPOV
• Proposition 8 and the right to marry
• Gay Couples Law Blog

Day 1, now Day 2 of the Prop8 trial

Here we go again: Gay on Trial. Can you imagine how dehumanizing and hurtful this feels, straight people, for others to once AGAIN debate the most personal and intimate and tender aspects of our lives to decide if we are sufficiently human to deserve civil rights?

Based on the first day, we can see the trends.
1) THe defendants will focus on the role of marriage in the procreation of children (theChildren Question). It seems to me this can be challenged in several ways, principally:

• We do not restrict marriage to fertile people, and nor do we require married people to reproduce. Therefore, marriage is uncoupled from procreation.
• GLBT families are raising children, often their own biological children from former relationships, or from IVF, or adopted and fostered children. Therefore the status of marriage protects OUR kids too. or are they not worth protecting?

2) The defendants will focus on whether the presence of married gay people will affect what children are taught in schools (the education question). I would challenge this by saying

• What children are taught in schools is the reality around them. There are already GLBT parents with kids in schools, just like there are single parents, divorced parents, or inter-racial parents. Whether or not we are married doesn't change the fact we are already present and children are ALREADY taught that.
• Parents must already deal with the challenge of families and relationships they may religiously disapprove, for example, Catholics must contend with divorced/remarried families, or unwed parents.
• You don't get to teach bias in schools. THey needn't approve to tolerate and coexist. That is the requirementof a pluralistic society.

3) The defendants will focus on being GLBT is immutable--if it's not, they will argue against "suspect class" status, as for race. I respond thus:

• Whether it is changeable for some does not affect the reality that it is not changeable for all. Sexuality is on a gradient, that's well established. Along these lines, when did your average straight person choose to be straight, and why on EARTH would gay people choose to belong to a villified despise minority?
• Religion is a choice. We do not allow discrimination on the basis of religion; we do not prevent Jews or Wiccans or Hindus from marrying just because they are a small minority.

4) The defendants will argue that if you let gay people marry, straight people won't, and how can you PROVE no harm?

• You can't prove a negative, of course, and a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument is fallacious --it attempts to establish causality by coincidence. There is good evidence that marriage rates are declining in Europe regardless of marriage equality. But why let quantitative analysis get in the way of breathless hyperbole.

The bad guys are already saying the judge is prejudiced, that he has made up his mind, and that they can't get a fair trial. They are also accusing him of being gay himself. The mud they are flinging is quite remarkable.

I feel sick to be back on this merry go round again listening to the same vile lies and bigotry again. Let's face it, the two sides are talking past each other. There is no common ground: either you believe I'm a full citizen, entitled to the love and respect of any other, or you don't.

Text of opening statement (Olson)

here.

Follow live blogging here
Twitter feed here
hashtag #prop8

PROP 8 TRIAL BEGINS TODAY (updated)

What it's about: A challenge to Prop 8 under Federal constitutional guarantees of equal protection is underway (Perry V. Schwarzeneggar). This case will be heard by Judge Vaughn Walker of the US District (Federal) Court and the trial begins today. Live twitter feed here.

Why it's different than the previous case: Previous challenge to Prop8 was based solely on California Constitutional issues about the legality of amending the state constitution. It did NOT involve federal issues and was heard by the state Supreme Court. The California court ruled, with some regret, that California's misguided constitution allows any minority's rights to be abolished by popular vote. Federal constitutional issues were not addressed.

Why it's risky: This case will certainly be appealed up to the US Supreme Court, which is still very conservative. A setback from the Supreme Court could set back marriage rights for a generation or more. A win would be amazing!

Crucial Questions:

• Are GLBT people a protected class? (think protections of race, or of religious practice)
• Were the proponents of Prop8 motivated by legitimate concerns, or by animus against GLBT people?

Previous posts on this topic from this blog

MOre background from The SF Chronicle ,and What's at stake, from the American Prospect

More info from these sites:
The Court's webpage on this trial
LGBTPOV
Law Dork
American Foundation for Equal Rights

There's a delayed broadcast of proceedings on this YouTube video

Update: Supreme court blocks Youtube broadcast, at least for now.

UpdateFrom the defense counsel: "Marriage is socially approved sexual intercourse."

Oh, so THAT'S all it's about!

Their argument is going to be based on procreation, and on the reduced marriage rates in the Netherlands. (Caused by gay marriage!) I'm so frustrated at these people ....!

Prop 8 trial will have delayed internet video

From The SF Chronicle:

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco ordered the video coverage, the first for a federal trial in California, over the objections of Proposition 8's sponsors. Their lawyer argued that allowing the proceedings to be viewed outside the courthouse would violate their right to a fair trial by intimidating their witnesses.....

Lawyers for the couples supported video coverage. "What happens in the courtroom is public property," attorney Theodore Boutrous told Walker.....

The videotape will be posted on a YouTube site as soon as possible...

Prop8 defendant wants out

From the AP:

SAN FRANCISCO – An outspoken gay marriage opponent serving as an official litigant defending the state's ban on same-sex weddings on Friday asked a judge to remove him from the lawsuit because he feared the trial would generate publicity that could endanger him and his family.

This is their new thing, claiming that bands of tastefully dressed homos are going to assault them in public. Please. There's no evidence for that, at all. The only people arrested at the protests *I'VE* been to have been the other side. But there's more:

Hak-Shing William Tam was one of five people who formally intervened to defend the state from a federal lawsuit filed against California. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown have declined to mount a defense on behalf of the state......

"In the past I have received threats on my life, had my property vandalized and am recognized on the streets due to my association with Proposition 8," Tam said in a court filing. "Now that the subject lawsuit is going to trial, I fear I will get more publicity, be more recognizable and that the risk of harm to me and my family will increase."

In the months leading up the trial, lawyers for two unmarried same-sex couples on whose behalf the case was brought complained that Proposition 8's sponsors were withholding evidence to which the plaintiffs were entitled by citing a letter they had uncovered written by Tam to members of his church during the campaign.

In the letter, Tam outlined what he described as the disastrous consequences for allowing gays to marry in California.
"One by one, other states would fall into Satan's hands," he wrote. "Every child, when growing up, would fantasize marrying someone of the same sex. More children would become homosexuals."

The contents could come up in the trial because one of the issues is whether the measure's backers were motivated by anti-gay bias.

Interesting. First, I'd like to know the formal evidence for these attacks he claims he has been subject to. Of course it's interesting that he was okay with this, until the judge decided to allow a delayed Youtube video. It's not like his name is hidden or anything. Second, that letter certainly suggests a mind somewhat ....unhinged, on the subject of GLBT people. I wonder if letting him out takes that letter out of play. Might be a liability.

Tam has a right to believe as he will. He also needs to realize that his actions contributed to enormous harm to others: far more harm than a few mean words. Perhaps the judge could let him wear a hood. I understand such things have a history with those who deny civil rights to their compatriots.

You know, I was yelled at, spat at, and my car was vandalized during the run up to Prop8. All I did was display a sign that said "No on Prop 8". If that's evidence of backlash, it goes both ways.

And meanwhile, Mean Maggie Gallagher and NOM are saying,

We do not expect to win at the trial level, but with God’s help, at least five members of the current Supreme Court will have the courage to defend our Constitution from this grave attack.

Don't believe a word of it, and don't let down your guard.

Update More from LGBTPOV:

[Tam] doesn’t “like the burden of complying with discovery requests. I do not like people questioning me on my private personal beliefs.” He doesn’t want to be questioned? But he publicly stated those opinions as the reason why people should vote in favor of Prop 8.

Whole filing here.

Marriage in Malawi "indecent"?

From the BBC:

Two gay men arrested in Malawi after getting engaged have pleaded not guilty to charges of gross public indecency.

Tiwonge Chimbalanga and Steven Monjeza appeared at a packed court in Malawi's biggest city Blantyre, where they will ask for bail....

The pair held a traditional engagement ceremony over the weekend - believed to be the first gay couple in Malawi to start the process of getting married.

Homosexual acts carry a maximum prison sentence of 14 years in Malawi.

So they have been beaten and abused in prison. Now, the Times reports:

Since they became the first openly gay couple in Malawi to be engaged, Tiwonge Chimbalanga and Steven Monjeza have been arrested, put in prison and charged with offences that could lead to a 14-year jail sentence.

Between true love and gay martyrdom, however, is the brutal reality of life in a Malawi prison. Yesterday, in their first interview since being jailed, the pair claimed that they had been beaten in prison, and demanded to go to court to prove their innocence.

and the Advocate adds

The Guardian reports that Tiwonge Chimbalanga and Steven Monjeza could face 14 years in prison if the government concludes they consummated their relationship — gay acts are illegal in Malawi.

Simply BEING GAY is an imprisonable offence in parts of Africa. The marriage equality sticker on my computer is enough to get me a jail sentence in Uganda. We owe our GLBT brothers and sisters there every support just to live free lives.

Breaking: New Jersey Senate votes against equality

From Blue Jersey, a statement from Garden State Equality

With today's vote in the state Senate, the New Jersey legislature defaulted on its constitutional obligation to provide same-sex couples in New Jersey equal protection....

In 2006, the New Jersey Supreme Court told the legislature it could enact marriage or another structure that provides the equal protection of marriage. But the civil union law failed to do that. Too often, civil union couples too often cannot visit loved ones in hospitals, make medical decisions for their partners or receive equal health benefits from employers. Hospitals and employers have treated civil union couples differently because they've been labeled differently. Children have been treated differently at school because their families are labeled differently.

In recent months, including today and at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in December, New Jersey legislators publicly recognized these failures. They publicly acknowledged that the civil union law has not provided equal protection. That's important. New Jersey legislators themselves said it. Our opponents in the legislature said it.
....
In 2006, New Jersey enacted an experiment called civil union. In 2010, New Jersey has a mountain of proof that the experiment has failed.

Now let's talk about what happened politically.

Things didn't go our way in the legislature because of one factor: Governor Corzine lost reelection.

After his win in November, Governor-elect Christie persuaded a number of legislators to reverse their support of the bill. Before the election, nearly every neutral observer in New Jersey thought marriage equality was certain to become law in lame duck. It became the zeitgeist in Trenton, with good reason. In contrast to today's outcome, before the election we had votes to spare in the Senate, including from a number of Republicans.

But the election changed everything and our national opponents changed nothing. They didn't do much or spend much in New Jersey. As you saw from our thousands of members at the State House these past few weeks who symbolized the massiveness of our campaign, we overwhelmed our opponents on every front - but one. Our opponents had the Governor-elect on their side, and that's all they needed to have. It's ironic given that marriage equality wasn't even an issue in the election, and that the candidates who favored marriage equality together won a majority....

No political party should write off any constituency. And no party should take any constituency for granted either. Our fundamental right to equality should never have been left to sudden death overtime by the party to which the LGBT community and our allies have been unstintingly loyal and have given so much. ... Marriage equality stopped being just a gay issue long ago.

Read the emphasis: they KNOW and ADMIT that separate is not equal. Testimony from many "unioned" couples show that they are still not given equal rights to which they are by theory entitled. A state commission found, unequivocally,

the civil union law "invites and encourages" harm to same-sex couples and their children. The commission cites "overwhelming evidence" the civil union law will never provide equality with the passage of time

But separate and unequal is what they want us to be.

They are bound back to court. The courts in New Jersey told the legislature to fix the problem. Today, the legislature REFUSED to do it.

Frank Schubert and his sister

Remember Frank Schubert, the whiz behind the pro Prop8 and Question 1 campaigns? You know, the consultant for hate who said,

"However, I represent those who read the Bible and believe in God." Some people found that incredibly offensive. At one point, some people were hissing.

yeah, that one.

his sister is a lesbian in a partnered relationship, running for judge. Reported in the Bay Area Reporter:

The lesbian sister of Proposition 8 mastermind Frank Schubert has announced her candidacy for Sacramento County Superior Court judge.

At her campaign Web site, Anne Marie Schubert, a deputy district attorney for Sacramento County, promotes herself as a law and order and victim's rights candidate with several endorsements from local law enforcement organizations......

Frank Schubert told the Bay Area Reporter the two women are in a registered domestic partnership.

"She and Julie are in a domestic partnership, and they have two wonderful children," Frank Schubert said.

Asked if he considered the children and Greenberg to be a part of his family, Frank Schubert replied, "Of course I consider them and their children to be part of my family, and I love them very much."....

He also endorses her campaighn.

So, let's get this straight, so to speak. This awful person attacks the rights of people LIKE HIS SISTER to have a marriage and says he loves her very much. Some brotherly love. No comment from the would-be judge, either. OF course she's a Republican.GIve that woman the Mary Cheney award for cognitive dissonance. You cannot make this stuff up.

Imagine what Christmas is like around THEIR family.

As one blogger suggests,

It also forces one other question: can you be as anti-gay marriage as Frank Schubert is, and still believe that LGBT people, like his sister Anne Marie, can be great mothers, judges, and members of society? Because it sure seems like, in this case, Schubert is talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Marriage in NJ at risk

The momentum to legalize same sex marriages in New Jersey was set back by the election of an anti-gay republican governor in November. Now, there is almost no time left to pass a bill and have outgoing Gov Corzine sign it.

Time may be running out, but a bill that would legalize gay marriage in New Jersey isn't technically dead.

Advocates of gay marriage are pushing lawmakers to adopt the law before Jan. 19, when Republican Chris Christie becomes governor. He says he'd veto it. The current governor, Democrat Jon Corzine, says he'd sign it if lawmakers can get it to his desk in time.

Earlier this month, the state Senate canceled a vote on the issue when it became clear there was not enough support to pass it.
The issue was handed over to the state Assembly, which has not scheduled a hearing on it....

Supporters of gay marriage have a January 11th deadline -- the last day of this lame duck session of the Legislature. And a week later, Republican Chris Christie takes office.

Meanwhile the state assembly is blaming the state senate and vice versa.

Meanwhile, a group of faith leaders in New Jersey have written a letter demanding equality. From Blue Jersey:

During the historic 7 hours of testimony on marriage equality in December, most if not all of the testimony against reforming our laws on marriage were religious arguments. They said, in essence:

I believe this, so therefore, your rights should be limited, because my belief tradition tells me they should.

News coverage focused on those people (even though plenty clergy in favor showed up), who while they feel strongly, were trying to apply private beliefs to public civic questions, claiming equality would endanger their religious freedom. In fact the reverse is true; clergy who are accepting and ready to perform marriage for same-sex couples cannot do that now. And opponents are only a slice of where New Jersey's faith community is on marriage equality. A letter - with a far broader representation New Jersey's religious leaders - in strong support of marriage equality, and signed by 120 clergy from 19 faiths, was sent today to Senate President Dick Codey and Speaker Joe Roberts. The letter asks that both leaders put the marriage equality bill to a vote before their full respective houses in this legislative session, without precondition.

Click here for the text of the letter, and if you are in NJ, make some calls!

Uganda Gay Death Bill : more on the American Connection

From the NY Times:

Last March, three American evangelical Christians, whose teachings about “curing” homosexuals have been widely discredited in the United States, arrived ... in Uganda’s capital to give a series of talks.

The theme of the event, according to Stephen Langa, its Ugandan organizer, was “the gay agenda — that whole hidden and dark agenda” — and the threat homosexuals posed to Bible-based values and the traditional African family.

For three days, according to participants and audio recordings, thousands of Ugandans, including police officers, teachers and national politicians, listened raptly to the Americans, who were presented as experts on homosexuality. The visitors discussed how to make gay people straight, how gay men often sodomized teenage boys and how “the gay movement is an evil institution” whose goal is “to defeat the marriage-based society and replace it with a culture of sexual promiscuity.”

Now the three Americans are finding themselves on the defensive, saying they had no intention of helping stoke the kind of anger that could lead to what came next: a bill to impose a death sentence for homosexual behavior. ...

And now they are shocked, shocked, that the Ugandans are proposing death. Oh no! We didn't mean that! Some of our best friends are gay! (yes, they really say that).

Human rights advocates in Uganda say the visit by the three Americans helped set in motion what could be a very dangerous cycle. Gay Ugandans already describe a world of beatings, blackmail, death threats like “Die Sodomite!” scrawled on their homes, constant harassment and even so-called correctional rape.

“Now we really have to go undercover,” said Stosh Mugisha, a gay rights activist who said she was pinned down in a guava orchard and raped by a farmhand who wanted to cure her of her attraction to girls. ...

“What these people have done is set the fire they can’t quench,” said the Rev. Kapya Kaoma, a Zambian who went undercover for six months to chronicle the relationship between the African anti-homosexual movement and American evangelicals.

We've talked about Rev. Kaoma before, and the revelations linking this horrible bill to American evangelicals in government, especially the murky C-street cult, in some detail here.

In iraq, religious leaders are silent, or even endorse brutal, sickening torture and murder of gay people. Now in Uganda, there's a positive blood-lust, driven by American fundamentalists who call GLBT people "evil", "hidden", "dark". They didn't say a thing about this bill as long as it wasn't officially noticed, which means they see nothing wrong with murdering people for the crime of whom they love. You know perfectly well these sexual obsessives would like to see GLBT people imprisoned and executed in this country too.

Is it different really from a Vatican that calls GLBT people "objectively disordered" and our relationships a "intrinsic moral evil"? Remember the Vatican would not sign on to a UN resolution against criminalization of homosexuality, ostensibly because to do so would support gay marriage. I call it their "better dead than wed" policy. And of course they oppose condom usage as a means to fight HIV, arguing that condoms increase the disease.

This language is the same used to de-humanize despise minorities throughout history: whether used against gays by straights, Tutsis by Hutus, or against Jews by Nazis. And they claim they are doing it in the name of religion.

Let us remember that many faith groups oppose this abuse. Why is it their rights and voices are ignored?

For shame.

Update: Scott Lively in this video describes this law as a "nuclear bomb" against gays. Suuuuure he's surprised by it. As noted by Andrew Sullivan,

here's a video of Lively's talk in Uganda that reveals what he says when he doesn't think he's being watched by Americans. He likens gays to mass killers, as the kind of people who would create a holocaust, as terrible dangers to civilization. This is the core of the Christianist message and the Christianist message is now the core of the GOP. At some point, you have to take these people's words seriously.

Public access and the Federal Case against Prop 8

So, you remember, the Prop8 federal case, Perry v. Schwarzeneggar, right? Part of this case turns on whether the Bad Guys were motivated by animus against GLBT people. The judge ruled they had to release their emails.

Then a group of 3 judges ruled they didn't have to.

Now it appears that THAT decision will be reviewed en banc, by a larger group of the Ninth District Appeals Court.

Then there's the matter of whether it will be televised. First it was yes, but now the bad guys are suing to keep it quiet. Seems their witnesses are unwilling to be public.

In a letter to Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, lawyers defending Proposition 8 argued that allowing cameras in the federal court trial would violate federal rules and expose their side to threats, intimidation and harassment from gay marriage advocates.

The letter warns the judge that some witnesses for the Proposition 8 defense "have indicated they will not be willing to testify at all if the trial is broadcast or webcast beyond the courthouse."

Hmmmm.....something to be ashamed of? Or just afraid of marauding bands of tasteful homosexuals?

Honestly these people are their own parody.

More on this from LGBTPOV blog, including the response from the plaintiffs (=the good guys), who support full transparency and thus support televising the proceedings:

More than 13 million Californians cast a vote for or against Prop. 8. And there are hundreds of thousands of gay and lesbian Californians who have a direct stake in the outcome of this case. Ultimately, however, the issues in this case are of such transcendent importance that every Californian should be afforded an opportunity to view the proceedings to the greatest extent practicable. .....The “ability to see and to hear a proceeding as i[t] unfolds is a vital component of the First Amendment right of access.” ABC, Inc. v. Stewart, 360 F.3d 90, 99 (2d Cir. 2004).

Proponents’ concerns about “the possibility of compromised safety, witness intimidation, and/or harassment of trial participants” (Doc # 324 at 6) are utterly unsubstantiated and groundless speculation. Indeed, Proponents willingly thrust themselves into the public eye by sponsoring Prop. 8 and orchestrating an expensive, sophisticated, and highly public multimedia campaign to amend the California Constitution. They certainly did not exhibit a similar fear of public attention when attempting to garner votes for Prop. 8 from millions of California voters, when touting their successful campaign strategy in post-election magazine articles and public appearances.....

As I've said before, Mother's advice was sound: if you are afraid to be known for what you did, that's a good measure that maybe YA SHOULDN'T HAVE DONE IT.

Update: The Judge is seeking public comment about televising the trial. Speak out for open access!

The Courage Campaign has a website: http://www.couragecampaign.org/TeleviseTheTrial

SIGNATURE DEADLINE: FRIDAY 9 a.m.:

Courageous conversations, Part I (Video Sunday)

Guide to having a Courageous Conversation here

Marriage in New Hampshire

Congratulations to Brothers and Sisters in New Hampshire, who can now marry!

From the NY TImes.

Jeffry Burr and Neil Blair are just hours from their wedding, but there are no typical prenuptial jitters. After all, this is the third time they've exchanged vows.

They first committed to each other before scores of relatives and friends on June 24, 2006, in an emotional ceremony that didn't even count under New Hampshire law. Then, at 12:01 a.m. on Jan. 1, 2008, the first moment they were legally able to do so, they became civilly committed in a more subdued ceremony.

This time, the two will finally be legally married Friday, when New Hampshire becomes the fifth state to allow gay couples to wed.....

The ceremony is more about pronouncing their civil equality than restating their commitment to each other, they say.

"It's a right that's been afforded to us, and it's our responsibility to take advantage of it," Blair said.
...

The retired Rev. Eleanor McLaughlin and her partner of 19 years, Elizabeth Hess, of Randolph, climbed a mountain and exchanged rings the summer of 1991 but didn't enter a civil union. They waited for marriage. Both devout Episcopalians, they designed their ceremony Saturday to reflect the state's role in civil marriage and their church's role in blessing the union.....

Winter's starkness is their wedding theme.

"We want people to recognize we had to wait a long, long time," Hess said.
....

Burr and Blair said New Hampshire's marriage law, while important, does not grant them full equality.

"We're halfway there," Blair said. "We got the state rights. We had civil unions. Now we have marriage. But until we get full equal rights under the federal law, we'll never be there. We'll never be truly equal."

Congratulations, New Hampshire-ites. May your love and commitment be a beacon for our GLBT family in other states!

The good, the bad, and the ugly: Top Ten 2009 landmarks for GLBT couples

GREAT post from Pams House Blend on landmarks, for good or ill, in 2009 in the struggle for equality for GLBT couples. Read the whole thing for explanations, but here's the list:

10. Obama Extends Some Health Care, Other Benefits to Domestic Partners of Federal Employees

9. Congress Amends the Hate Crimes Act to Include Sexual Orientation as Protected Class

8. Colorado and Nevada Pass Limited Domestic Partnership Laws

7. New York Senate Rejects Gay Marriage

6. D.C. Council Votes to Legalize Gay Marriages and Recognize Ones From Other States

5. California Supreme Court Upholds Proposition 8

4. Washington Passes Everything-But-Marriage Law, Citizens Affirm Through Referendum 71

3. Wisconsin Passes Domestic Partnership Law Despite Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage

2. Maine Passes Same Sex Marriage Law, Voters Overturn It

1. Iowa, New Hampshire, and Vermont Legalize Gay Marriage