Same-Sex Marriage Update

[suebee]

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

[suebee]

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.

[suebee]

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.”

[UofMfan]

Just one vote shy, come on NY!

[Soon]

[Heart]

NYers for marriage equality head to Albany today.

http://www.towleroad.com/2011/06/ral...y-at-noon.html

[MsTinkerbelly]

Originally Posted by Heart

NYers for marriage equality head to Albany today.

http://www.towleroad.com/2011/06/ral...y-at-noon.html

Come on NY, you can do it!

[dreadgeek]

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

[Toughy]

by Aj
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.

Does this mean I might become a Republican again????????

[CherylNYC]

Originally Posted by Toughy

Does this mean I might become a Republican again????????

I hope not.

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.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Toughy

Does this mean I might become a Republican again????????

Toughy:

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

[Novelafemme]

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/...ef=videosearch

I watched this in bed this morning. love it!!

[iamkeri1]

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.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by iamkeri1

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.

See, my problem with the Democratic party is that they KNOW we have no place to go so they never have to go on record or actually keep any campaign promises. It's not so much policy (although I have problems with both the far conservative and far liberal wings of the Democratic party) that I differ with. Rather, I want the Democratic party to have to work for my vote. Last night on The Last Word, O'Donnell asked Howard Dean a very penetrating question "to what degree do Democrats just *say* that they not in favor of marriage equality when they are actually only saying that for electability reasons". Dean was manifestly uncomfortable with that question because, I believe, it hits very close to where the Democratic party lives. I am willing to bet that most Democratic politicians, and EVERY one that isn't in the South, is in favor of marriage equality but will not say that for one reason: cowardice.

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.

However, it seems our president has preceeded you in joining the republican party.

Naw, he's just a typical Democrat (i.e. spineless).

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

[iamkeri1]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

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

From your lips to the goddess ears!
Smooches,
Keri

[MsTinkerbelly]

Has anyone heard what is happening with the vote in New York?

[iamkeri1]

Watching MSNBC - still no vote.
Biting my finger nails!
Smooches,
Keri

[Jess]

Obama speaks at NY Gay fundraiser tonight.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=137359508

[MsTinkerbelly]

Originally Posted by Jess

Obama speaks at NY Gay fundraiser tonight.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=137359508

I understand that President Obama has done what he can do with the Gay rights issues...he cannot "make laws", and change things alone.

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.

[Toughy]

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.