|
IRS Is Entangled In Gay Marriage Debate
April 12, 2011 Tax Day brings a dilemma for same-sex married couples whose marriages are not recognized by the federal government. They are required to file their federal taxes as single even though they are legally married in their home state. But this year, many couples are protesting by checking the married box on their federal return. Copyright © 2011 National Public Radio®. For personal, noncommercial use only. See Terms of Use. For other uses, prior permission required. RENEE MONTAGNE, host: Some same-sex married couples are planning a protest this tax day. They object to the federal law requiring them to check the single box on their federal tax returns. Same-sex married couples file jointly on their state tax returns, but they're still regarded as single by the federal government, based on the federal Defense of Marriage Act. In defiance of that law - known as DOMA - some couples are checking the married box on their federal returns. NPR's Tovia Smith reports. TOVIA SMITH: You don't have to read the small print about the pains and penalties of perjury to know it's not a good idea to lie to the IRS. And yet, tens of thousands of same-sex couples who are legally married - in Massachusetts, Iowa or New Hampshire, for example - sign their federal tax returns saying they're single because legally, they have to. Ms. NADINE SMITH: We are caught between the truth and the law, and it's an impossible situation. SMITH: Nadine Smith got married three years ago in California and has played along, as she says, ever since - checking single on her federal tax return. But this year, she says, she just couldn't. Ms. SMITH: We are tired of quietly being complicit in a law that tells us we must disavow our spouses, we must erase our families - or face penalties. SMITH: Earlier this month, Smith started a website for what she's calling the Refuse To Lie campaign. In many cases, same-sex couples filing jointly would owe less. But some who are choosing to file as married are willingly paying more. Ms. KATE KENDELL (Executive Director, National Center for Lesbian Rights): My tax accountant thought I was crazy. And there's no doubt, it was sticker shock. And it is going to be a burden. SMITH: Kate Kendell, head of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, says she and her wife are giving up their summer vacation to cover the extra $5,000 they'll pay to file jointly. Ms. KENDELL: You know, I think there's a moment where - you know - you just have to say enough is enough, and I am going to stand up for my family and my relationship and say, this is who we are. Ms. KAREN STOGDILL (Tax consultant): I think it's a great statement to make. I'm just not sure that the proper way to make it is to file a married-filing-joint federal income tax return. SMITH: Tax consultant Karen Stogdill says couples who do that risk serious penalties, and still won't get any benefits of marriage from the federal government like sharing a spouse's Social Security or retirement. To avoid penalties, she advises couples to file as singles, and then file an amended return as married. Or, they can file two returns. Either way, Stogdill says, it all amounts to an unfair burden on same-sex couples trying to figure out what to do. Ms. STOGDILL: They call the IRS, and they talk to people at the IRS phone lines, and they can't even tell you. And so it's very sad that people can't even get proper help - even from the governmental agencies - to figure it out. SMITH: The IRS declined to comment for this report. But even the agency's own ombudsman has called the situation quote, ridiculously complex. The IRS has responded by saying DOMA leaves the agency no choice but to require same-sex couples to file as singles. But officials also say the IRS isn't going to spend a lot of time working on new guidelines that might help clarify things since one federal court has already ruled DOMA unconstitutional, and the future of the law is anything but certain. Tovia Smith, NPR News. |
|
DELAWARE!
Civil Union bill passed in the House last night. Governor Jack Markell says he will sign "as soon as there is a suitable place and time". So, we are golden!
It seems as though this was pretty grass roots, too. DE only received $2,500from HRC in support for this to happen, even though DE was a state they were supposedly focused on. But, I guess we didn't need any more than that! |
Quote:
|
HURRAY FOR DELAWARIANS
Smooches, Keri |
Delaware- you Rawk! Great news!!
|
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...-in-minority/# http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/im...4/19/rel6h.pdf NYT refers to it as the fourth credible poll to have come out recently that shows this equality trend. Here are the other ones: http://pollingreport.com/civil.htm |
Opponents of gay marriage announce a motion to vacate Judge Vaughn Walker's decision after he confirms his sexual orientation
New Push to Reverse Prop 8 Decision Because Judge Is Gay.
Adam Martin Adam Martin – Tue Apr 26, 5:25 pm ET The National Organization for Marriage wants Judge Vaughn Walker's decision on Prop 8 last summer thrown up, and they filed a motion to that effect yesterday. Supporters of the anti-gay marriage law think the judge should have recused himself because he is gay and in a long-term relationship. But proponents of gay marriage, who have challenged the constitutionality of the law, say the judge's sexual orientation is irrelevant to his decision in the case, and besides, it was well known even before the judge struck down law on August 4 and nobody complained. Here's the background: In 2008, California voters passed the California Marriage Protection Act (state proposition 8), which changed the state constitution to define marriage as "only marriage between a man and a woman." Just days after the vote, several groups filed suits in federal district court, calling for the law to be overturned on the grounds that it infringed on civil rights. Walker, the chief judge of the San Francisco-based ninth federal court district, ruled on August 4, 2010, that the law "discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation and gender," according to longtime San Francisco Chronicle federal court reporter Bob Egelko. Walker retired this year. The Chronicle reported on Walker's sexuality during the trial, and the Los Angeles Times notes that he "was widely known within San Francisco's legal community to be gay. He brought his partner to bar events and introduced him to others as his partner." So why didn't NOM and its lawyers make a big deal out of his sexuality until yesterday? It seems the thing that really got under NOM's skin was that Walker started showing a three-minute video of the Prop. 8 trial in lectures he has been giving post-retirement. On April 13, they filed a motion to stop him showing the video, and they pressed the attack Monday with the request to void the trial. "Judge Walker's ten-year-long same-sex relationship creates the unavoidable impression that he was not the impartial judge the law requires," Andy Pugno, a lawyer for ProtectMarriage, told the L.A. Times. "He was obligated to either recuse himself or provide full disclosure of this relationship at the outset of the case." But opponents of the law have laughed off the challenge: "What's next? Are they going to say all female judges should recuse themselves from gender discrimination cases," San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera asked the Chronicle. San Francisco is a plaintiff in the case. |
How come it's not a conflict of interest for straight (married) folks to rule on Prop 8? Why is it only a conflict if you are gay?
|
From joemygod
NEW YORK: Leading Spanish-Language Paper Endorses Marriage Equality
The most widely-read Spanish-language newspaper in New York has published an editorial endorsing same-sex marriage. Capitol Confidential sees a jab at Sen. Ruben Diaz in the second (translated) paragraph below from El Diario. New York needs and is ready for this change. Our gay population is bigger than the seven nearby jurisdictions (six states plus the District of Columbia) that have legalized same-sex marriage. And close to 60 percent of New Yorkers support gay marriage. Governor Cuomo’s campaign merits all the the support of the Latino community, including those who are opposed for religious reasons. Officials in this position should remember that they were elected to serve the public (independent of its sexual orientation) under American laws, which were established with a clear distinction between church and state. Latinos should also remember our collective fight is against discrimination and marginalization. Homosexuality is a human reality. The majority of New Yorkers have a friend, colleague or relative who’s gay. It’s time to give these people the opportunity to develop families and build communities. Our government shouldn’t be in the business of telling the people who to love or who to marry. |
Attorney General Orders Deportation Order Vacated.
"An order to vacate from U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder halting the deportation of a foreign national in a civil union may be sign of hope for bi-national same-sex couples in the United States who are facing separation.
In the decision, dated April 26, Holder remands back to the Board of Immigration Appeals the case of Paul Wilson Dorman — a New Jersey man who’s apparently seeking residency in the United States through his partner — to reassess a previous petition that was denied based on the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage. The order was made public Thursday. “In the exercise of my review authority under that regulation, and upon consideration of the record in this case, I direct that the order of the Board be vacated and that this matter be remanded to the Board to make such findings as may be necessary to determine whether and how the constitutionality of DOMA is presented in this case,” Holder writes." Full story here. |
|
The best ad for marriage equality so far.
|
From the Prop 8 Trial Tracker
The 11-year evolution of civil unions
By Adam Bink As Illinois takes a step forward today when the state begins issuing civil union licenses, I am reminded of the hullabaloo surrounding the same moment in Vermont on July 1, 2000: the creation of a new institution that for many was eerily close to marriage. I did some reading this morning of the news coverage, and below is an excerpt of an article from the Los Angeles Times 11 years ago: A Historic Day in Vermont as Civil Unions Become Legal by Elizabeth Mehren BRATTLEBORO, Vt.–Mindful of a law banning booze on municipal property, Annette Cappy will stop short of serving champagne. But to the town clerk in this southern Vermont village, opening her office just after midnight this morning–the minute that civil unions between same-sex couples become legal here–seems like the right thing to do. “This office has been known to stay open for 24 hours on the first day of hunting season,” Cappy said. “I figure if we did it for people who want to shoot animals, I can do it for two people in love.” Sure enough, as the nation’s most sweeping gay rights legislation takes effect today, scores of couples from around Vermont, and some from outside the state, will descend on town halls to plunk down $20 for a license giving them everything heterosexual couples have–except the word “marriage.” Much of the state is celebrating, but some opponents of what amounts to gay marriage are less than overjoyed. Though no one could predict just how many civil union licenses would be issued today, some who sought them laughed about Vermont’s new argot. “David and I are saying we’re being unionized,” said John Castaldo, who can now legally refer to his companion of eight years, David Myette, as his spouse. The couple lives in Waterbury, where Castaldo, 51, works for a granite consortium and Myette, 52, handles financial aid for a small college. With a 9 a.m. appointment to get their civil union license from the town clerk in tiny Williston, 57-year-old Lynn Goyette said she and Eileen Blackwood, 41, would continue to call each other what for 13 years they always have. “Hon.” Perhaps predictably, a clever strain of commercialism is finding its way into the weekend’s celebrations. Jewelers from around the state pushed “civil union rings.” Bakers made sure to have lots of same-sex wedding figures on hand to stick on top of cakes. A boutique brewery (owned by lesbians) issued a new golden amber, Gay Pride Ale. Brewery partners Liz Trott and Janice Moran marketed their elixir with the slogan, “The beer to come out for.” 300 Benefits Extended to Same-Sex Couples Vermont’s groundbreaking law extends more than 300 benefits normally associated with marriage to gay and lesbian couples. To couples who form a civil union, inheritance rights are now automatic, as are the authority to make medical decisions for an incapacitated partner, the right to take control of a partner’s body upon death, the right to transfer property from one partner to another without tax consequences and the right to be treated as an economic unit for tax purposes. Conversely, a civil union must be dissolved in a court proceeding similar to divorce. “It’s a huge step,” said Blackwood, a lawyer. Three years ago, after 10 years together, she and Goyette, a mental health counselor, held a giant, weeklong celebration to affirm their commitment among family and friends. They wear rings because, Goyette said, “we’re ring people.” But both see marriage as a patriarchal institution–so much so that when the law passed, Blackwood called Goyette to crow, “Guess what, we don’t have to get married!” Still, the pair saw civil union status as such a significant civil rights victory that they wanted to be among the first to sign up. “In this case,” said Blackwood, “the personal is definitely political.” Though the benefits of the bill passed in April after sometimes agonizing debate do not apply outside Vermont, some couples nonetheless trekked here from other states and places. Cappy had appointments for couples from New York, New Jersey, North Carolina and Washington, D.C. “It’s by far the greatest thing that’s happened to gay people in the United States,” said John Campbell, who is driving to Vermont from Edison, N.J., for a civil union ceremony with Richard Harrison, his partner of 13 years. Campbell, a retired VA Hospital administrator, is 70 (“you would ask”) and HBO executive Harrison is 45. “But he was the aggressor,” Campbell insisted. “He went after a dirty old man like me and he got me.” Long ago they drew up living wills, put all their possessions in both names and began wearing matching rings. So to some extent, they conceded, their vows in Vermont before a justice of the peace will be symbolic only. “We’re just celebrating the fact that a state is recognizing a relationship like ours,” Campbell said. “If it was marriage, we’d be coming home and throwing a big reception. But it’s not, so we won’t be doing that. We’re just so excited that this is happening.” Not everyone shares this enthusiasm. The town clerks in half a dozen or so Vermont hamlets resigned rather than distribute civil union licenses. “It’s a moral issue with me,” explained Helen O’Donnell, as she resigned the clerkship of Tunbridge. “I don’t want my name on a document supporting that.” A group of 15 state legislators promised to renew their efforts after they lost a court battle to overturn the law. Groups with names like Vermont Speaks, Vermonters Taking a Stand and Vermonters for Traditional Marriage have sprouted in direct opposition of the law. Gov. Howard Dean, a Democrat who changed his mind after initial opposition, last week wrote the state’s Catholic bishop, urging him to make sure that “hatred and intolerance will have no place” in the debate. Milestone Comes Amid Court Defeat Vermont’s breakthrough in civil rights for gays and lesbians takes effect, moreover, in the same week when they suffered a bitter defeat as the U.S. Supreme Court approved banning gays from leadership positions in the Boy Scouts. But Bill Lippert, the state’s only openly gay legislator, said the progress in Vermont is irrevocable. “Despite all the threats by all the opponents we will never go back,” said Lippert, who helped draft the legislation. “The significance goes well beyond the couples who are adult right now,” he said. “For the young gay and lesbian people, they now get to grow up with the image of the choice and the possibility of forming loving, deeply committed relationships that can be affirmed with all the legal protections and rights that any other couple can have, at least in the state of Vermont.” Castaldo said one reason they were delaying their ceremony until August is that Myette’s 26-year-old son from a long-ago marriage would be home from Japan to stand up for his father. An Episcopal priest will administer their vows at their home, with splendid mountain views all around. After eight years together, Castaldo said he and Myette will trade rings and probably wear suits for the ceremony, then change into shorts for a grand old barbecue. “Why do it?” asked Castaldo. “I think we want to take our relationship up one level. We both realize we want to be able to do this commitment for ourselves spiritually, but I think a lot has to do with legal protection. Our biggest fear is that if one of us is sick, we would be denied access.” The real telling paragraph is the final one (bolding mine) Was the Green Mountain state setting the stage for the rest of the country? Advocates are optimistic that several other states, including Hawaii and New Hampshire, may consider similar measures. “I hope so,” said Farnham. “I hope so.” It certainly has. We’ve advanced to a place where civil unions, as Jeremy writes this morning, are “step one” on the path to full recognition. We’ve also advanced to where civil unions, nearly 11 years later, aren’t nearly as much news. Contrast the piece above with today’s NYTimes: CHICAGO — Illinois has begun giving out licenses to couples who want to form a civil union. Hundreds of couples lined up early Wednesday to get licenses as the state’s new law went into effect. It allows gay and lesbian or straight couples to form civil unions, a rough equivalent to marriage. Civil unions give couples many of the rights that accompany traditional marriage. That includes the power to decide medical treatment for an ailing partner and the right to inherit a partner’s property. The first civil union ceremonies can’t take place until Thursday. Cook County Clerk David Orr says it will be “a joyous day for all couples, gay and straight, who want to make history.” I think a lot of people will read and not even give it the second thought they might have 11 years ago. Progress. |
Yee haw!! LOL
The ruling made by Judge Walker declaring that Prop 8 was unconstitutional was just upheld.
I am not sure if you all knew that the forces behind Prop 8 were trying to get Judge Walkers decision thrown out based on the fact that he is Gay and has something (Same-sex marriage) to gain from his ruling. This only means the decision will not be vacated, the original case is still before the Ninth Circut Court of Appeals. I'm working and can't post again until later, so if anyone gets ahold of an actual published news item please post it so I can read it later. Please???? |
Quote:
NY Gov. Introduces Marriage Bill as Support Swells http://glaadblog.org/2011/06/14/ny-g...upport-swells/ |
By Dan Levine and Peter Henderson Dan Levine And Peter Henderson – 22 mins ago
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – A U.S. judge's same-sex relationship is no reason to toss out his ruling backing same-sex matrimony, another federal judge ruled Tuesday. Doing otherwise would send a message that minority judges could not rule in civil rights cases, ruled Chief U.S. District Judge James Ware, who upheld the decision to overturn California's gay marriage ban. In pointed language Ware slapped down the attempt to throw out his gay former colleague's decision as an attack on standards of judicial impartiality, saying it ignored the idea that protecting the rights of minorities benefits all. U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco last year struck down California's same-sex marriage ban, known as Proposition 8, and supporters of the ban now say his ruling was compromised and should be vacated. The case was immediately appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. It could set national policy if it reaches the U.S. Supreme Court and is being watched throughout the nation, where same-sex marriage is legal in only a handful of states. In a written ruling, Judge Ware said Walker's same-sex relationship was no reason to throw out his decision. Ware took over the case after Walker retired earlier this year. "Standards such as those advocated by the pro-ban attorneys would come dangerously close to forcing minority judges to excuse themselves from civil rights cases, wrote Ware, an African-American appointed by former President George H.W. Bush. Shortly after Walker retired, he discussed his homosexuality in the press for the first time, saying he is in a 10-year relationship with a physician. That led opponents of same-sex marriage to ask that Walker's ruling be vacated. Walker's relationship put him in the same shoes as the plaintiffs, and should have been disclosed when he was assigned to the case, their attorneys argued. "This is a powerful ruling that makes clear that gay and lesbian judges are entitled to the same presumptions of fairness and impartiality as all other federal judges," said Theodore Boutrous, an attorney representing two same-sex couples seeking to overturn the California ban. In his ruling, Ware he shot down the argument that Walker's silence about his relationship could be taken as an implicit indication of his interest, saying that judges were presumed to be impartial. "The presumption that Judge Walker, by virtue of being in a same-sex relationship, had a desire to be married that rendered him incapable of making an impartial decision," Ware wrote, "is as warrantless as the presumption that a female judge is incapable of being impartial in a case in which women seek legal relief." The 9th Circuit court is still considering the constitutional issues surrounding gay marriage and has asked the California Supreme Court to weigh in on one point of state law. The case in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California is Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 09-2292. (Reporting by Dan Levine and Peter Henderson; editing by Christopher Wilson |
Quote:
Great news Jess! |
Interview with co-author of French marriage equality bill.
This is an interview with the co-author of the French marriage equality bill, which was defeated yesterday in the French National Assembly:
INTERVIEW. Au lendemain du rejet du mariage pour les homos à l'Assemblée nationale, TÊTU interroge le député auteur de la loi. Il s'exprime sur son regret, son espoir pour l'avenir de son texte, l'UMP et... Christian Vanneste. C'est lui qui, il y a plus de dix ans, avait écrit avec Jean-Pierre Michel la loi portant création du pacs. C'est à nouveau lui, qui, en 2006, a écrit la proposition de loi sur l'ouverture du mariage aux couples de même sexe, débattu la semaine dernière et finalement rejeté hier à l'Assemblée nationale. A cette occasion, TÊTU fait le point avec Patrick Bloche, député socialiste et maire du 11e arrondissement du Paris, sur la façon dont il a vécu ces derniers jours dans l'hémicycle, sur les derniers outrages de Christian Vanneste et sur l'état du débat sur le mariage pour tous. TÊTU: Quelle est votre réaction à l'issue du vote négatif d'hier soir? Patrick Bloche: Vu que la majorité requise était à 258 voix, je remarque qu'il n'y a plus que 36 députés à convaincre! (Rires) Plus sérieusement, le résultat était plus que prévisible. Les lignes politiques se sont appliquées, comme souvent. J'espérais qu'elles auraient pu bouger un peu plus. Tout de même, neuf députés UMP, et un au Nouveau centre, ont voté pour… Peut-on dire que ces lignes commencent à bouger? Lorsque j'ai soumis la loi sur le pacs, en 1999, il n'y avait qu'une députée de ce camp à voter pour en première lecture, c'était Roselyne Bachelot. Cette fois, il y a neuf députés qui ont vraiment voté en fonction de leurs convictions personnelles, c'est tout de même peu quand le mariage a déjà été voté dans un certain nombre de pays européens, en Afrique du Sud, en Argentine ou au Canada… Neuf, c'est déjà cela. Mais je constate que pour faire avancer les droits, il faut une majorité politique claire. Comme sous François Mitterrand en 1982 pour dépénaliser l'homosexualité, sous Lionel Jospin en 1999 pour voter le pacs, je souhaite qu'il y ait une majorité de gauche à l'Assemblée nationale en 2012 pour voter cette proposition de loi. Comment avez-vous vécu, jeudi dernier, le débat à l'Assemblée? Je l'ai bien vécu, car le débat s'est déroulé de façon beaucoup plus acceptable que ce qui s'est passé en Commission des lois (Brigitte Barèges avait comparé homosexualité et zoophilie, lire notre article). On n'a pas assisté à des propos scandaleux. C'était finalement un beau débat, chargé d'émotion, car pour la première fois dans l'hémicycle de l'Assemblée nationale, on a pu débattre de cette question. Il y a eu des arguments opposés, ce qui est normal, mais les interventions de Franck Riester et d'Henriette Martinez ont été des éléments de fraîcheur. Quand Christian Vanneste évoque une «aberration anthropologique», est-ce un nouveau dérapage grave ou une saillie de plus de la part d'un député UMP que l'on est habitué à entendre sur ce terrain? Il avait déjà fait la même déclaration en Commission des lois (donc à huis clos, NDLR). C'est évidemment scandaleux, et je condamne totalement ces propos. C'est du Vanneste tout craché, qui s'arroge, parce qu'il est prof de philo, des compétences qu'il n'a pas. Mais en matière d'anthropologie, je lui préfère Maurice Godelier, un spécialiste de grand talent, qui a lui-même mis en avant, dans les sociétés qu'il a étudiées à-travers le monde, que l'union entre personnes de même sexe et l'homoparentalité sont parfaitement acceptées dans des sociétés très différentes de la nôtre. Il n'a pas répété ces mots en séance, cette fois, mais dans les couloirs de l'Assemblée. Selon vous, y a-t-il matière à un nouveau procès Vanneste? On a des associations performantes pour sanctionner des propos à caractère homophobes, je leur fais confiance pour utiliser la loi de 1881 sur la liberté de la presse, que j'ai moi-même contribué à réformer pour que ce soit possible en pareil cas. Lors du débat à l'Assemblée, jeudi, vous avez insisté sur le fait que votre texte «ne traite que de l'homoconjugalité, pas de l'homoparentalité». Or, les dispositions du Code civil sur le mariage reviennent à de multiples reprises sur les enfants du couple. Peut-on donc si facilement dissocier ces deux questions? Je pense qu'on peut dissocier les deux, et je crois même qu'on doit le faire. Le lien, qui était étroit hier, entre mariage et procréation, s'est distendu. Ainsi, on peut désormais se marier sans avoir un projet familial. Inversement, une majorité de premiers enfants naissent hors mariage. La logique de cette union n'est donc plus celle d'autrefois. Et ma proposition de loi a donc été construite pour ne traiter que de la conjugalité, en laissant de côté ce qui concerne l'homoparentalité. Pas par gêne ou frilosité de notre part – le Parti socialiste a clairement pris position pour l'adoption et la PMA – mais parce qu'on ne voulait pas que la majorité actuelle prenne prétexte de son opposition à l'homoparentalité pour refuser l'ouverture du mariage. Visiblement, ça n'a pas suffi. Tous les partisans depuis hier se donnent «rendez-vous en 2012», vous aussi sans doute – d'ici-là, pensez-vous que le débat sur le mariage homosexuel aura lieu à nouveau? J'espère qu'il aura lieu, parmi d'autres thèmes, dans le cadre de la prochaine élection présidentielle. Mais le scrutin d'hier a eu valeur de test. Je vois mal, demain, Nicolas Sarkozy se prononcer subitement pour le mariage ou l'homoparentalité. Pourtant, l'UMP a annoncé hier ouvrir un groupe de travail sur les droits des homos. Faut-il croire que les choses peuvent avancer par la droite d'ici à 2012? J'espère que nos concitoyens vont s'estimer vaccinés! Tout d'un coup, le jour où on rejette le mariage, faire cette annonce… Cela fait neuf ans que la droite est au pouvoir et il n'y a eu aucune réelle avancée des droits. Nicolas Sarkozy n'a pas tenu ses promesses. La droite, qui s'était opposée au pacs en 1999, s'en félicite aujourd'hui et considère que cela suffit pour les homosexuels. C'est le maintien des discriminations, pas l'égalité des droits! Après, les couples homosexuels feront ce qu'ils voudront. Est-ce qu'ils se marieront en nombre? Là n'est pas la question. Le problème n'est pas de nature statistique, c'est une question de liberté de choix. ENGLISH TRANSLATION INTERVIEW. In the aftermath of the rejection of marriage for gays in the National Assembly, the member asked TÊTU author of the law. He expressed his regret about his hope for the future of his text, the UMP and ... Christian Vanneste. It was he who, more than ten years, had written with Jean-Pierre Michel law establishing the PACS. It is again he who in 2006 wrote the bill on the opening of marriage to same-sex couples, debated last week and finally dismissed yesterday at the National Assembly. On this occasion, TÊTU an update with Patrick Bloche, the Socialist deputy and mayor of the 11th arrondissement of Paris, about how he lived these days in the Chamber on the latest outrage from Christian Vanneste and the state of debate on marriage for all. TÊTU: What is your reaction to the negative outcome of the vote last night? Patrick Bloche: Given that the required majority was 258 votes, I notice that there is more than 36 deputies to convince! (Laughs) More seriously, the result was more than predictable. The political lines were applied as often. I hoped they could move a little more. Still, nine UMP deputies, and one in New Center, voted for ... Can we say that these lines begin to move? When I submitted the law on civil partnerships in 1999, there was only one member of this camp to vote for first reading was Roselyne Bachelot. This time, there are nine members who actually voted according to their personal beliefs, it is still little when the marriage has already been voted in a number of European countries, South Africa, Argentina or Canada ... Nine is already doing this. But I find that to advance the rights, we need a clear political majority. As a by Francois Mitterrand in 1982 to decriminalize homosexuality, under Lionel Jospin in 1999 to vote on civil unions, I wish there was a left-wing majority in the National Assembly in 2012 voted for this bill. How did you live last Thursday, the debate in the Assembly? I lived well, because the debate was much more acceptable than what happened in the Law Commission (Brigitte Barèges had compared homosexuality and bestiality, read our article). We have not witnessed outrageous. It was ultimately a good debate, emotional, because for the first time in the Chamber of the National Assembly, one could debate this issue. There have been arguments against, which is normal, but interventions Franck Riester and Henriette Martinez were key freshness. When Christian Vanneste evokes an "anthropological aberration," Is this a new grave or skidding project more by a UMP that one is accustomed to hearing on this ground? He had already made the same declaration Law Commission (and therefore closed, Ed). This is obviously outrageous, and I totally condemn these remarks. It's written all over Vanneste, which assumes, because he is professor of philosophy, skills he does not. But in anthropology, I prefer Maurice Godelier, a specialist of great talent, who has himself put forward in the companies he has studied to the world, that the union between persons of the same sex and same-sex parents are perfectly acceptable in societies very different from ours. He has not repeated those words during the meeting, this time, but in the corridors of the Assembly. In your opinion, is there material for a new trial Vanneste? It has powerful associations to punish homophobic remarks to character, I trust them to use the 1881 law on freedom of the press, I myself helped to reform to make it possible in such cases. During the debate in the Assembly on Thursday, you insisted that your text "deals only with the homoconjugalité, no same-sex parents." However, the Civil Code provisions on marriage back repeatedly on the couple's children. Can one so easily separate these two questions? I think we can separate the two, and I believe we must do. The link, which was close yesterday, between marriage and procreation was distended. Thus, we can now marry without a family project. Conversely, a majority of first children born out of wedlock. The logic of this union is no longer what it used to. And my bill has been built to treat only of marriage, leaving aside regarding homosexual parenting. No embarrassment or reluctance on our part - the Socialist Party took a clear position for the adoption and LDCs - but because we do not want the current majority pretext of his opposition to same-sex parents to refuse to open marriage. Obviously, it was not enough. All supporters yesterday to give "appointment in 2012, you probably also - by then, do you think the gay marriage debate will take place again? I hope it will be, among other topics, in the context of the upcoming presidential election. But yesterday's vote was a test. I can not see tomorrow, Nicolas Sarkozy suddenly decide to marriage or same-sex parenting. However, the UMP announced yesterday opened a working group on the rights of homosexuals. Are we to believe that things can move forward from the right by 2012? I hope our citizens will consider themselves vaccinated! Suddenly, the day they rejected marriage, make this announcement ... It has been nine years since the right is in power and there has been no real advance fees. Nicolas Sarkozy has not kept its promises. Right, who objected to the PACS in 1999, welcomes today and considers that this is sufficient for homosexuals. This is the continuation of discrimination, not equal rights! After, homosexual couples will do what they want. Will they marry in number? That is not the issue. The problem is not statistical in nature, is a question of freedom of choice. http://www.tetu.com/actualites/franc...zK8_k;facebook |
Appeal Planned on Latest Prop 8 Decision
http://www.365gay.com/news/appeal-pl...-upheld-in-ca/
(San Francisco) The sponsors of California’s same-sex marriage ban are planning to appeal a federal judge’s decision that his predecessor had no obligation to divulge that he was in a long-term relationship with another man when he struck down the ban. Lawyer Charles Cooper, who represents the conservative religious coalition that put the ban on a 2008 ballot, said he disagrees with the ruling Tuesday in San Francisco by U.S. Chief District Judge James Ware. Ware upheld former Chief Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling from last year that struck down Prop. 8. Ware found Walker could not be presumed to have a personal stake in the case just because he has a same-sex partner. Cooper says the appeal is intended to defend the will of Californians to preserve marriage as the union of a man and woman. |
This is interesting!
http://www.365gay.com/news/bankruptc...-marriage-ban/
Bankruptcy Court Rules Against Gay-Marriage Ban (San Francisco) Gene Balas and Carlos Morales were facing health problems and crushing financial pressures plaguing many U.S. households when they decided to file bankruptcy as a married couple. The Obama administration said they couldn’t, citing the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriages. On Monday, 20 of 24 judges sitting on the country’s largest consumer bankruptcy court sided with the gay couple. In doing so, the court took the extraordinary step of declaring the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. The ruling is the first such attack of the Defense of Marriage Act in bankruptcy court, and it adds to the building pressure on the Obama administration to make good on a February pledge to stop defending the law in court. Balas and Morales were among the 18,000 Californian same-sex couples who wed Aug. 30, 2008, during the brief period when gay marriages were legal in the state. “It is hurtful to hear my own government say that my marriage is not valid for purposes of federal law,” Balas said in a court filing. Balas said he was laid off from his $200,000-a-year job in the financial industry in March 2009. The couple said they share all income and expenses. “All the property that either of us owns is community property, and all of our debts are community debts,” said Morales, who has spent most of the relationship unemployed. “We have no prenuptial agreement, postnuptial agreement or transmutation agreement.” The ruling written by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Thomas Donovan wasn’t the first blow to the Defense of Marriage Act in federal court. That came last year when a federal judge in Boston declared the law an unconstitutional violation of equal protection guarantees. Two other bankruptcy courts have also rejected administration attempts to dismiss joint filings made by same-sex couples, but neither of those rulings addressed the constitutionality of the act. Monday’s strongly worded ruling contributes to the legal assault on the Defense of Marriage Act and puts added pressure on the Obama administration to stop defending the law. Attorney General Eric Holder said in February that the U.S. Department of Justice would “remain parties to the cases and continue to represent the interests of the United States throughout the litigation” despite the administration’s view that the law was unconstitutional. After the administration’s announcement, a House of Representatives committee hired former Solicitor General Paul Clement to defend the Defense of Marriage Act against federal court challenges. In May, U.S. Trustee Peter Anderson, who represents the federal government’s bankruptcy interests in Southern California, told the judge the Obama administration opposed the gay couple’s petition to give the Congressional committee a chance to join the case in support of the Defense of Marriage Act. Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler declined to comment. The judge noted Monday that the committee didn’t respond to requests to join the case. Brendan Buck, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, said the committee can’t afford to respond to every legal challenge to DOMA. “Bankruptcy cases are unlikely to provide the path to the Supreme Court, where we imagine the question of constitutionality will ultimately be decided,” Buck said. “Obviously we believe the statute is constitutional in all its applications, including bankruptcy, but effectively defending it does not require the House to intervene in every case, especially when doing so would be prohibitively expensive.” Clement and the committee have responded to at least seven separate legal challenges across the country, lawyers said. Without hearing a detailed defense of the 15-year-old law, Judge Donovan ruled Monday the Defense of Marriage Act violates the couple’s equal protection guarantees. He added there is “no valid governmental basis for DOMA.” Nineteen of Donovan’s 23 colleagues on the Los Angeles bankruptcy court signed the opinion. The couple’s lawyer, Robert Pfister, said that’s significant because it shows an overwhelming majority of that court is prepared to rule similarly. “Litigating constitutional issues takes a lot of time and money,” Pfister said. “To have 20 judges sign on sends a strong message that almost the entire bench has decided this important constitutional issue.” |
Just one vote shy, come on NY!
|
|
NYers for marriage equality head to Albany today.
http://www.towleroad.com/2011/06/ral...y-at-noon.html |
Quote:
Come on NY, you can do it! |
A sea change?
The pending vote in NY on marriage equality is definitely a good sign for us queers. It is a good sign for America. It may be--at least, if I'm right it may be--a very *bad* sign for the Republican party.
Though no deal has been reached yet in the fight over the New York marriage equality bill, there's one Republican state Senator who's dropped his poker face. James Alesi told a crowd in Albany Tuesday that he's supporting the bill, adding: "I'm a Republican -- I was born that way." Alesi announced his support for the bill last week, the first Republican to do so. He had previously voted against marriage equality in 2009 when it failed to pass the state Senate. "Passing marriage equality is the most important thing that I think I can do in my 20-year history as a legislator," Alesi said. Referring to the order votes would be cast (which is alphabetical), Alesi added: "I am proud to be a Republican. I will also be proud to be the first Republican voter to vote for marriage equality in this state." The Democratic party is 'supposed' to be the party that is on our side. If, over the next decade or two, the Republican party begins moving away from the theocratic direction they've drifted (and then rushed) toward in the last three decades and decides that, all electoral considerations notwithstanding, being in the same room with people who can barely contain their racism is just not appealing, the Democrats could be in trouble. There are three groups in America that vote Democratic in overwhelming numbers--Blacks, queers and Latinos. The reason is pretty straightforward, looking at the GOP one would have to question whether a black, queer or Latina Republican was operating from the same 'rational self-interest' script that political scientists say that people use in their voting behavior. No matter *how* much money one makes, if you're black and queer it's very difficult to think that the GOP has your best interests at heart. But what if that no longer became the case? What if the GOP was no longer a place where theocrats and racists set the agenda? That would change the calculus quite a bit, I think. Now, this might not come to pass and even if it does, I think that the next couple of GOP electoral majorities will drag us as close to a theocracy as the Constitution will allow. However, in doing so they will destroy that coalition and what is rebuilt will be a different, less religious, more diverse GOP. If that day ever comes, the Democratic party may be in big trouble. Cheers Aj |
Quote:
|
Quote:
After all these years of hatefulness and scorn, it does feel very strange to have so many Republicans coming out in favour of marriage equality. The Republican Mayor of NYC, Michael Bloomberg, is an incredibly wealthy man. He's the single largest private donor to NYS Republican politicians, and he has said that he would cut off his private funds to any Republican NY State Senator who votes against this marriage equality bill. Time will tell if he keeps that promise, but the fact that he made the threat is significant. |
Quote:
That may come to pass. I posted what I did because a very conservative friend of mine asked me if there were any circumstances under which I might vote Republican again and, to be honest, if the GOP were ever to get its mind back and decide that it *can* have a liberal wing (just like the Democrats have a conservative wing) then I might actually consider it. I remember a GOP that was not so hostile to the idea of a social democracy and that was actually out in front on issues of civil rights (because Jim Crow laws offended the libertarian sensibilities of the more liberal Republicans). Should that party ever revive itself (and it pretty much has NO choice but to do so) then I might go back to the GOP. Cheers Aj |
|
Toughy and dreadgeek,
I can not imagine a female, a poc or a queer folk of any kind BEING a republican. There are of course, at times, good republican candidates for office who deserve our votes. For me, I will "dance with the one what brung me." I have been a democrat since I was 8 years old. and I will remain one till death. However, it seems our president has preceeded you in joining the republican party. Vote for whom you will - just vote. Smooches, Keri One more thought... when the tea party first appeared it was not republican. It was at least non partisan, or possibly the immergence of a third party. It's concerns were limited to fiscal issues. The extreme right wing of the Repubs embraced them (at first they resisted the embrace.) This brought about the "marriage" of ridiculous fiscal policies and extreme social policies which the r's find themselves burdened with today. Like many marriages in which the groom is more committed than the bride, she (the tea party) has him by the balls and controls the union. In this case, a divorce would be a good idea for both parties. |
Quote:
It's a very simple calculus for the Democratic politician: Yes, hemming and hawing will piss off the queer base of the party but where else are they going to go? The GOP? Not hardly. The Greens? Probably not. So at the end of the day, they'll still get our vote no matter how much they evade. I want that to pass. I want the Democratic party to have to worry that if sell us out time and time again, we'll take our votes elsewhere. As far as being a Republican, if certain conditions were met I could see myself voting Republican. Those conditions would have to be met before that could happen. The GOP would have to decide that they want MY vote more than want the vote of some racist. They would have to decide that they want MY vote more than they want the vote of some homophobe. If that day ever comes, I might consider it. I remember a very different GOP than the current party. Thirty or forty years ago, the GOP was not the haven of crazies and bigots it has become now. It is said that elected Democrats hate their base and elected Republicans fear theirs. I would like to give the Democratic party a moment of pause. Quote:
My hope is that next year, with the Tea Party pulling the GOP to the extreme fiscal right and the religious right pulling it to the extreme social right, the coalition will tear itself apart in the aftermath of a humiliating loss. Cheers Aj |
Quote:
Smooches, Keri |
Has anyone heard what is happening with the vote in New York?
|
Watching MSNBC - still no vote.
Biting my finger nails! Smooches, Keri |
Obama speaks at NY Gay fundraiser tonight.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=137359508 |
Quote:
That being said, he has been a HUGE disappointment to me on the issue of Same-sex marriage. I can get how you would be on the fence about it, and then "see the light" and want to fight for equality, but to one day be for it and then crawl back into the "I think marriage should be one man and one woman" hole because it is a more "popular" view point and you want to get re-elected....he won't get my vote this time. But that is just my viewpoint.(f) |
Anytime someone says that Obama will not get their vote again a thought runs through my head: Who in the hell are you gonna vote for then??????
If the response is I'm not gonna vote for anyone, I think about the duty and obligation of a citizen to vote. And I flat out do not understand why anyone votes for Republicans. They seem to be a party of hate and greed. Obama did say last night: "Ever since I have a memory about what my mother taught me, and my grandparents taught me, I believed that discriminating against people was wrong. I believed that discrimination because of somebody's sexual orientation or gender identity ran counter to who we are as a people, and it's a violation of the basic tenets on which this nation was founded. I believe that gay couples deserve the same legal rights as every other couple in this country." I will see in my lifetime gays serving openly in the military and having the right to a civil marriage. It will happen under Obama and probably in his 2nd term. If a Republican is elected President and/or gains control of both Houses in 2012, I would bet my life neither will happen. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:07 PM. |
ButchFemmePlanet.com
All information copyright of BFP 2018