- Deb Price of the Detroit News examines House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s child-laced photo-op, and calls on Pelosi to use her new clout to protect gay kids from harassment.
- The Arizona legislator who filed a bill calling for a new vote on a revised same-sex marriage amendment, has said he made a mistake and requested that the bill not move forward. Arizona was the only state to defeat a same-sex marriage amendment last November.
- New Mexico Representative Gloria Vaughn (R) introduced a bill to ban same-sex marriage in the state. The House Speaker assigned the bill to three committees, including one that killed a previous anti-gay-marriage bill introduced by Vaughn. If the bill manages to pass both chambers, however, it will go to voters in the November 2008 election.
- The Rhode Island Supreme Court says it needs more information before it can decide if the state Family Court has jurisdiction to hear the case of a lesbian couple from Providence who married in Massachusetts but filed for divorce in Rhode Island. As Queerty notes, since Rhode Island does not forbid same-sex marriage, a ruling that recognizes the couple’s right to divorce would also implicitly recognize their right to wed in the Ocean State.
- In the ongoing story of a former lesbian couple fighting for child custody while Vermont and Virginia debate jurisdiction, a Vermont court ordered the non-bio mom to pay child support. It is unclear if, by accepting the payments, the bio mom would be acknowledging the non-bio mom’s parental rights. The bio mom now claims to be straight, and is represented by the conservative Liberty Council. A judge last year found her in contempt for not heeding a temporary visitation order. (Thanks to PageOneQ for the link.)
- The City Council of Madison, Wisconsin will allow elected and appointed officials to make a supplemental statement when taking their oath to uphold the state constitution. The statement asserts they took the oath under protest because they oppose the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, and will work to eliminate it.
Around the world:
- The Nigerian government is debating a series of proposed laws that would not only ban same-sex marriage, but would also outlaw participation in LGBT groups, advocating for LGBT rights, and owning LGBT books or videos, among other things. Separately, Archbishop Desmond Tutu spoke in opposition to the anti-LGBT focus of his fellow African Anglican leaders, saying “I am deeply disturbed that in the face of some of the most horrendous problems facing Africa, we concentrate on ‘what do I do in bed with whom.’”
- A committee of gay citizens in Poland plan to build a monument shaped like a pink triangle in the center of Warsaw as a permanent reminder of the gay victims of the Nazis during the Second World War. Other gay-rights leaders are hesitant about the memorial, fearing it could be seen as “litigious.”
Marriage, a religious institution?
I have difficulty trying to understand why allowing gays to use the term “marriage” rather than “unions” to be such a sticking point. I have heard it often said by people that are opposed to gay marriage; say that marriage is a religious institution. Or using the term marriage will somehow make a mockery of traditional marriages. If marriage were indeed a religious institution, why then are heterosexual couples afforded such a wide variety of ways of getting married that have no religious affiliation whatsoever? Heterosexual atheists are allowed to marry and they certainly don’t want any religious overtones to their marriages. Straight couples can get married by the justice of the piece; they can get married by a ship captain on a cruise ship. They can be married underwater or on a mountaintop, it seems to me it just doesn’t matter and that there are no restrictions. The list goes on and on therefore, making the argument of about marriage being a religious institution absurd.
I have also heard many opponents of gay marriage say that same sex marriage will make a mockery of traditional marriages, meaning I suppose between a man and a woman. I think that looking closely at all of the statistics about the success of traditional marriages; they seem to be doing a damn good job of their own, making a mockery of the institution of marriage. Then when one looks at the statistics of how many straight lay men and woman who have extramarital affairs doesn’t look so good either not to mention many couples of the clergy who seem also not to have the greatest track record. So then, what do the opponents of gay marriage really mean by saying that same sex marriages would make a mockery of traditional marriage? One doesn’t have to be a sociologist or have a degree in statistics to understand that allowing gay marriages to exist would hurt no one. In fact gay marriage would likely cause gays to have longer lasting relationships. There has been a common complaint generally spouted out by the straight population, that gay relationships don’t seem last very long. Statistics do however bear out one thing in regards to marriage verses just living together as a couple. Couples that are married verses couples just living together, do last longer if they are married. On the other hand, not allowing gays to marry will put a stop to homosexuality. We’ve been around since the beginning of history and will surely be around till the end of our human presence on this planet. Perhaps this could be the answer in motivating gay couples to work harder at their relationships if they were legally bound by a legitimate contract, rather than just being able to just walk away as so often happens when a couple hits some rough waters as all relationships do at some point whether gay or straight. If certain religious groups are not in favor of providing a religious sanctity for gay marriage that shouldn’t stop the government from doing the right thing. This ought to be considered a separation of church and state. Basic human rights ought never to be determined by popular vote. If it were o.k. then African Americans would still be in slavery. Thank you, Aaron Jason silver; http://www.aaronjasonsilver.com Fennville Mi 49408
[...] This is yet another case of one lesbian mom using anti-LGBT laws to try and gain custody. Janet and Lisa Miller-Jenkins have been in the news over their custody fight, which also involves a battle between the jurisdictions of Vermont and Virginia. The couple had entered into a Vermont civil union. When they split, Lisa moved to Virginia and refused Janet any visitation rights. She sought the aid of various “ex-gay” groups, and is represented by the conservative Liberty Council. (I covered the latest in the case in last week’s Political Roundup.) An attorney for Lambda Legal says the matter could end up before the U. S. Supreme Court. [...]
[...] The Washington Post has a lengthy article on the child-custody case involving former partners Janet and Lisa Miller-Jenkins. (I’ve covered this case several times before.) The Post says: These lawyers . . . are debating questions so profound that the answers have the power to affect legions of families gay and straight: Who is a parent? Who has the legal rights of a parent? [...]