Queer News

[Kobi]

With a vote on Thursday, the Presbyterian Church USA became the biggest Christian denomination in the country to allow its ministers to marry same-sex couples in states where those marriages are legal. Previously, ministers were allowed to bless same-sex unions, but not unions that were equivalent to a marriage.

The vote was 371-238 for the resolution, a huge change from the denomination's narrow defeat of a similar measure in 2012. The Presbyterian Church USA has just under 2 million members and more than 10,000 congregations. The church also voted to change its constitution's definition of a marriage to gender-neutral terms, although that has to be ratified by regional Presbyterian bodies, as the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette explained.


The Presbyterian Church USA has lost about 10 percent of its membership over the past several years. Decades ago, many of the church's more conservative congregations left the larger organization for the Presbyterian Church in America. That organization condemns homosexuality as a sin, and prohibits ordination of women and openly gay members of the church. The Presbyterian Church USA voted in 2011 to allow openly-gay Presbyterians to become ordained ministers. That vote helped to grow the membership of its more conservative rival as more conservative PCUSA members defected.

The denomination is one of several mainline Christian organizations rethinking their stances on same-sex relationships. The United Methodist Church has been fiercely debating the denomination's prohibitions on same-sex marriage over the past several months, with a group of 80 pastors saying that the denomination could very well split over the issue. Although some Methodist members and clergy have pushed for years to reform the church's policy, the debate escalated when Frank Schaefer was found guilty of violating the church's laws when he officiated the same-sex marriage of his son. Schaefer will appeal that decision in a church hearing on Friday. The church has since shied away from trying new pastors who have officiated similar unions.

Pew Research had a good chart earlier this week detailing where many major denominations stand on same-sex marriage. It will now need a slight update:




http://www.thewire.com/national/2014...ouples/373107/

[DapperButch]

Growing up in the Presbyterian Church of America (the other Presbyterian denomination), this is of special interest to me. I wonder if they changed their doctrine? I am not sure how else they could have sanctioned this.

[Kobi]

WASHINGTON — The federal government on Friday will extend a wide range of marriage benefits to same-sex couples, making good on a promise by President Obama after the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act last year.

On Friday, the Department of Labor will clarify that federal employees will be able to take leave from their jobs to care for a same-sex spouse, something that has long been limited to heterosexual married couples.

After decades of blocking gay married couples from receiving the same benefits as their heterosexual counterparts, most federal agencies are now treating married couples alike, regardless of gender.

The action is important, officials said, because of differences in how states treat same-sex marriage. Without the regulatory changes, gay couples could be blocked from receiving federal benefits in states that do not recognize their marriages. Same-sex marriage is legal in 19 states and the District of Columbia.

“In almost all instances, federal benefits and obligations for same-sex married couples will be provided, regardless of where the couple lives,” a White House official said late Thursday before the agencies’ formal announcements.

The actions by the Labor Department extend the changes that have been made at other agencies.

Under the changes, same-sex spouses of Defense Department employees receive all the benefits of heterosexual husbands and wives. Federal immigration laws apply equally to gay and straight married couples. The Internal Revenue Service recognize the marriages of all gay couples. The spouses of gay federal employees get health insurance, life insurance and flexible spending accounts.

The action announced Friday is the latest example of Mr. Obama’s embrace of equality for same-sex couples following what he called his evolution on the issue. A politician who once opposed same-sex marriage, Mr. Obama said two years ago that his position had changed.

“At a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me, personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married,” Mr. Obama told Robin Roberts of ABC News in May 2012.

Since then, Mr. Obama has aggressively sided with advocates of same-sex marriage and other gay rights. His administration argued in the Supreme Court for the Defense of Marriage Act to be overturned, and his administration argued that the court should strike down Proposition 8, the California ban on same-sex marriage. He also eliminated the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy for gay service members.

At a New York gala for lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people on Tuesday, Mr. Obama hailed the rights that were extended to gays and lesbians in the last year, saying, “If we’re truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.”

“This is a country where no matter who you are, or what you look like, or how you came up, or what your last name is, or who you love — if you work hard and you take responsibility, you should be able to make it,” Mr. Obama said. “That’s the story of America. That’s the story of this movement.”

While he was at the event, Mr. Obama announced that he had directed his staff to develop an executive order that would ban federal contractors from discriminating in hiring decisions on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. And he vowed to keep pressuring Congress to pass a law that would extend those protections to all workers.

Officials said that a small number of provisions in federal law explicitly prohibit the government from providing benefits to same-sex couples. The officials said the president would call on Congress to pass legislation to change those provisions.

At the gala, Mr. Obama criticized Congress for failing to act on a broader anti-discrimination law to protect workers in all industries.

“This seems to be a pattern these days,” he said. “Everybody has just given up so much on Congress that we end up doing something through executive order. And that’s helpful, but it doesn’t reach everybody that needs to be reached. Congress needs to start working again, so let’s make sure that we keep the pressure up there.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/21/us...088400000&_r=2

[Kobi]

LGBTQ rights, particularly marriage equality, have made incredible advances over the past year. But, like other great human rights struggles, organized opponents are working hard to contain and undermine movement gains.

Many in the LGBTQ community may be unaware of the Religious Right’s strategy to undermine civil rights gains by establishing ever-larger exemptions from state and federal laws. But in a landmark decision focused on employers’ responsibility for contraceptive coverage under the Affordable Care Act, the Supreme Court has given the Right’s efforts a big boost—with potentially far-reaching implications.

While they’ll seldom admit it in public, leaders of the Religious Right understand there has been a cultural sea change regarding homosexuality. Marriage equality and workplace non-discrimination are on course to become the law of the land.

Faced with this reality, Religious Right legal groups like the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF, formerly known as Alliance Defense Fund) have been working hard on a back-door strategy to limit the reach of court and legislative wins for the LGBTQ community.

Despite existing protections and exemptions for religious institutions, the Religious Right is now seeking to expand the range of institutions and individuals that can claim religious exemptions to laws that protect our constitutional rights.

As a result of this week’s Hobby Lobby ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, a for-profit corporation has, for the first time in U.S. history, been endowed with the right to discriminate on the basis of religious convictions, throwing open the door for an expanded wave of attacks on LGBTQ people, including on marriage equality.

But the Right’s attacks are not just coming via the courts. We are also seeing conservative state legislatures advancing legislation that would carve out exemptions for “sincerely held religious beliefs.” These exemptions could be used to legalize, and institutionalize, discrimination against both LGBTQ employees and consumers.

Both the Hobby Lobby decision and legislation proposed in a number of states (passed in Mississippi) argue that “sincerely held religious belief” should trump state and federal laws—including long-established civil rights laws.

Earlier this year, the national LGBTQ community erupted in protest (rightly so) when conservative legislators in Arizona passed SB 1062, the “Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” which would have allowed private business owners to refuse services to LGBTQ customers on the basis of the owners’ religious beliefs.

Thanks in no small part to the enormous response of the LGBTQ community, the Act was vetoed by Governor Jan Brewer. Just one month later, however, the Mississippi legislature passed a nearly identical bill, which was quickly signed into law by Governor Phil Bryant.

But mainstream LGBTQ organizations made no similar showings in the course of the Hobby Lobby v. Burwell decision.

In Hobby Lobby, the owners of a private, for-profit, national craft store chain successfully won an exemption from a preventive health care provision within the Affordable Care Act, which requires that employee’s health insurance include coverage for birth control methods such as morning-after pills and intrauterine devices, claiming that doing so violated their company’s religious liberty.

Religious liberty is a foundational principle in our democracy, yet it is being eroded, manipulated, and redefined by the Right. Allowing businesses the right to discriminate against employees and customers according to their owners’ religious beliefs effectively transforms the Framers’ shield against religious tyranny into a sword institutions can wield to impose religious dictates on individuals in the marketplace.

The Hobby Lobby decision focused on contraceptive issues, and there’s a lesson in that for the LGBTQ community. Religious “conscience clauses” in many states entitle doctors and pharmacists to refuse to offer reproductive health services they object to.

For decades, the Religious Right has been whittling away at the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision which decriminalized abortion. As a result, while Roe still stands, women do not have anything close to the access to abortion care that is needed. This is due, in large part, to the Right’s long-term strategy to erode access in the name of “abortion reduction”—in case it was unable to overturn Roe. This strategy has worked shockingly well.

Exemptions can beget exemptions. It takes no stretch of the imagination to envision dozens of lawsuits seeking to build upon the Hobby Lobby ruling and to foresee legislation pushing the boundaries of what classifies as permissible bigotry. A generation of litigation, testing the breadth and depth of the corporate exemption, has just begun.

If corporations are able to pick and choose which civil rights laws will apply to them, the rights of all Americans are at risk, not just LGBTQ rights or sexual and reproductive health and rights.

The Mississippi law (which will almost certainly be challenged in federal court), is much more direct in applying the standard of “sincerely held religious belief” to legalize overt discrimination against LGBTQ people.

Indeed, it seems likely that the Supreme Court will soon be asked to decide whether “sincerely held religious belief” allows business owners to discriminate against LGBTQ customers and employees.

The implications of this campaign are clear. If corporations enjoy exemptions from federal laws in the name of religious freedom, the rest of us may be forced to choose between our livelihoods and our consciences.

If a business owner happens to believe God demands women always be subservient to men, could the company legally be allowed to deny women managerial positions?

As Justice Ginsberg noted in her dissent of the Hobby Lobby ruling, could businesses owned by Scientologists deny health care coverage for antidepressants? Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t believe in whole-blood products; even if you don’t happen to share that faith, could your boss nevertheless deny you coverage for surgeries?

There are dozens of conservative-dominated state legislatures around the country that might add religious liberty exemptions to state laws—and perhaps even their state constitutions—specifically to ensure that even if the LGBTQ community wins the protections it deserves, many businesses and individuals will be under no obligation to honor those legal protections.

Such proposals are already being floated in Utah, Idaho, Georgia, and beyond.

The Religious Right has cast itself in the role of heroic defender of religious liberty. But we are not fooled.

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/07/h...flKzU.facebook

[Soon]

John Oliver celebrates recent LGBT rights milestones in the United States before covering oppressive anti-gay laws in Uganda. (Also, the US involvement in inspiring and funding those laws.) Ugandan LGBTI rights advocate Pepe Julian Onziema sits down with John to discuss the situation in his home country.

[Kobi]

"We have absolutely nothing in common with gay men," says Eda, a young lesbian, "so I have no idea why we are lumped in together."

Not everyone agrees. Since the late 1980s, lesbians and gay men have been treated almost as one generic group. In recent years, other sexual minorities and preferences have joined them.

The term LGBT, representing lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender, has been in widespread use since the early 1990s. Recent additions - queer, "questioning" and intersex - have seen the term expand to LGBTQQI in many places. But do lesbians and gay men, let alone the others on the list, share the same issues, values and goals?

Anthony Lorenzo, a young gay journalist, says the list has become so long, "We've had to start using Sanskrit because we've run out of letters."

Bisexuals have argued that they are disliked and mistrusted by both straight and gay people. Trans people say they should be included because they experience hatred and discrimination, and thereby are campaigning along similar lines as the gay community for equality.

But what about those who wish to add asexual to the pot? Are asexual people facing the same category of discrimination. And "polyamorous"? Would it end at LGBTQQIAP?

There is scepticism from some activists. Paul Burston, long-time gay rights campaigner, suggests that one could even take a longer formulation and add NQBHTHOWTB (Not Queer But Happy To Help Out When They're Busy). Or it could be shortened to GLW (Gay, Lesbian or Whatever).

An event in Canada is currently advertising itself as an "annual festival of LGBTTIQQ2SA culture and human rights", with LGBTTIQQ2SA representing "a broad array of identities such as, but not limited to, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, transgender, intersex, queer, questioning, two-spirited, and allies". Two-spirited is a term used by Native Americans to describe more than one gender identity.

Gay men and lesbians have always faced different challenges.

Until 1967 consenting sex between men, of any age, was criminalised in the UK. Following decriminalisation, prejudice prevailed, with police entrapment operations to seek out men "cottaging" - having sex in public toilets and parks - creating fear and insecurity.

Very interesting continuation of article. Historical perspective is great.

[Allison W]

Originally Posted by Kobi

that article asking whether gay men and lesbians should be bracketed together

A complicated issue, to be sure, but I honestly believe that Ms. Power is correct that political cooperation between gay men and lesbians on sexual orientation issues is useful.

I halfway disagree that it's an entirely separate issue from sexism, because I honestly believe it (along with transphobia and lots of other shit, hence the LGBT coalition) largely flows from the same patriarchal well, even if lesbians are in a position to see it far more clearly than gay men do. (Sadly, too many gay men seem to think they can join the patriarchy, when hatred of gay men frequently stems from the belief that gay men are womanlike, and the belief that this makes them a failure of masculinity that needs to be punished lest manhood be "degraded.")

[Kobi]

NEWBERG, Ore. — The U.S. Department of Education has granted a Christian university a religious exemption from federal anti-discrimination laws after a transgender student filed a discrimination complaint because the school would not allowing him to live in the men’s dormitories.

PQ Monthly reports that George Fox University obtained the exemption in its effort to deny the student, Jayce Marcus, a place in the campus’ single-sex residence halls on the basis that it is a “Christ-centered community.”

Portland attorney Paul Southwick filed a Title IX discrimination complaint with the DOE in early April on behalf of Marcus, a junior at the Christian university in Newberg, Ore., who has medically, socially, and legally transitioned.

Southwick said the DOE closed Marcus’ complaint earlier this week, granting George Fox an unusually speedy “religious exemption.”

Exemptions historically take years to get, according to Southwick, but George Fox received theirs in just a few months. He says the school applied for the exemption “in secret” while still negotiating the housing dispute with Marcus, and “a mere four days before Jayce filed his complaint” with the DOE.

Title IX, passed in 1972, prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. In 2010, the DOE issued guidance clarifying that Title IX also protects LGBT students from sex discrimination, which would apply to complaints such as Marcus.’

But the law also includes a broad exemption for educational institutions which are “controlled by a religious organization.”

School officials said their Christian theology makes it necessary for their residential facilities to be single gender.

The exemption comes only weeks following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision, which many LGBT rights advocates fear will be used by religious organizations to discriminate against LGBT people.

“This is worse than Hobby Lobby because George Fox is largely funded by taxpayer money,” says Southwick, who added that he believes George Fox “is the first Christian college to ask the federal government for a permission slip to discriminate against transgender students.”

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/07/c...udent-housing/