DOMA and #Prop8 Struck Down (Probably): A Historic Day For American LGBT People

It has been a long wait for the resolution of the Prop 8 cases. It has been nearly 5 years since the voters of California decided to overrule their fellow citizens ability to marry. It has been 3 years (and I really can't believe it has been that long!) since Judge Walker overturned that vote. In that time the opinion polls have rapidly changed and even the main financial backers of the proposition have backed off from their role in the campaign. Now the US Supreme Court has decided that those fighting to keep Prop 8 in place have no standing before the court. This leaves some complications as they thus made no decision on what this actually means practically. 

Though the Governor of California has advised clerks to prepare to issue marriage licenses when this decision takes effect in a few weeks time, there is some concern that legally the decision may only have a limited effect (i.e. only the plaintiffs may have the right to be married or only people in the counties they are from). Time will tell as the authorities in California begin to work out the issues. 

Meanwhile the Supreme Court has also struck down the Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional. This will have a huge effect upon the lives of married same-sex couples across the USA. Extremely awesome ruling that doesn't over-extend the power of the federal government into state affairs. Well done to the Supremes! 

With Rudd now likely to become Prime Minister of Australia (the first openly pro-equality PM they've had, he's changed since the last time ;), if only briefly, is another good sign. Plus tomorrow Scotland will release their marriage equality bill. 

Another good week for the cause of equal marriage!

Teachers Face Sack For Personal Morality (By Religious Schools)

Spreading fear is something religious organisations are good at. Right now they are scaremongering over the consequences of marriage equality and their leading with the possibility of teachers being sacked for expressing anti-marriage equality views.

So I wondered about how people expressing their personal beliefs are treated at religious schools, obviously I expect they are given the space to hold views contrary to the organisation that runs the school?

A Seventh Day Adventist Church school in Melbourne, Australia sacked a teacher because he expressed support for marriage equality on Facebook.

A Catholic school in St. Louis, Missouri, USA sacked a gay teacher for... getting married.

A Catholic school in Minnesota, USA sacked a teacher who dared to say she disagreed with the church on marriage equality.

These cases are all outside of the UK, I couldn't find recent cases involving teachers on either side of the debate here in the UK (feel free to point them out). But I'd be interested to know where our religious friends stand on this matter. Do they support sacking teachers for their personal morality or not? And are they saying that a school has no right to tell a teacher what they can and can't tell the children?

Ultimately I suspect you'll find hypocrisy somewhere in their arguments....

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Marriage Equality Opponents Around The World Undermine Their Own Cause

The anti-equality campaign down in Australia suffered a rather unnecessary own goal this week when Jim Wallace, the head of the Australian Christian Lobby, suggested that the homosexual male "lifestyle" was more dangerous than smoking. Interestingly he cited the same life expectancy reduction of 20 years as the Scottish Catholics, who were quoting a 2005 study based on obituaries. I've dealt with the fairly obvious faults on the more dangerous than smoking line before.

The own goal part came when Julia Gillard, the Prime Minister of Australia, cancelled her top billed speech at the ACL's conference next month. Gillard, an opponent of marriage equality herself, said:

 ''To compare the health effects of smoking cigarettes with the many struggles gay and lesbian Australians endure in contemporary society is heartless and wrong,'' 

''Although everyone is entitled to their own view, these statements reiterated again today on behalf of ACL are totally unacceptable. In light of this, I believe my attendance at the conference would be inappropriate." 

''There are a range of deeply held views in the community on the issue of same-sex marriage but it is the responsibility of all parties in this debate to be respectful and responsible in any public comments they make.'' 

The more exposure the anti-equality groups arguments get, the more the moderates and the undecideds move away from them.

Meanwhile over in the United States of America...  a Democratic member of the Maryland House of Delegates, Emmett C. Burns Jr., was very unhappy with the pro-marriage equality position of Brendon Ayanbadejo (an American football player for the Baltimore Ravens) and wrote a letter to the team basically asking them to shut him up. Whilst the team rather maturely decided not to respond to him, one of Ayanbadejo's footballing colleagyes, Chris Kluwe, gave him a strongly-worded and rather amusing response which has since gone viral on Twitter.

I find it inconceivable that you are an elected official of Maryland's state government. Your vitriolic hatred and bigotry make me ashamed and disgusted to think that you are in any way responsible for shaping policy at any level. The views you espouse neglect to consider several fundamental key points, which I will outline in great detail (you may want to hire an intern to help you with the longer words)... 

...Have you not heard of Kenny Washington? Jackie Robinson? As recently as 1962 the NFL still had segregation, which was only done away with by brave athletes and coaches daring to speak their mind and do the right thing, and you're going to say that political views have "no place in a sport"?... 

...I can assure you that gay people getting married will have zero effect on your life. They won't come into your house and steal your children. They won't magically turn you into a lustful cockmonster.

Yet again the anti-equality movement shoot themselves in the foot, giving time and publicity to the pro-equality arguments whilst they end up looking authoritarian and foolish. Thank you anti-marriage equality activists, you are really helping our cause!

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

A New Danger From Civil Partnerships?

Opponents to marriage equality from both the LGBT community and the anti-LGBT groupings often complain that LGBT folk don't need marriage because they already have civil partnerships which gives them all the rights they need.

If we ignore the obvious argument that this isn't quite true, we must face the fact that civil partnerships (as a separate institution) allow politicians to far more easily undermine those rights at any time. This week this is exactly what has happened in Queensland, Australia.

Unlike with marriage where LGBT folk are either "allowed" access to this institution or forbidden it (and sometime forbidden after being allowed such as in California, USA), the separate institution of civil partnerships allows politicians to tinker with which rights they will allow and which they won't at any time without consequence for the majority of the population of their jurisdiction.

This puts LGBT people's relationships at far greater risk than when covered by a gender neutral marriage law. It's far harder to demote LGBT's marriages to some sort of "not quite marriage" at any moment without risking legally undermining all marriages. Sure you can ban same-sex marriages completely but even then, in most cases, marriages performed before the ban are left unaffected. It'd take a cruel politician to destroy someone's marriage after the event! But in the case of civil partnerships it seems quite acceptable for politicians to giveth and then taketh away willy-nilly.

Another compelling reason to fight for marriage equality instead of (or as well as) civil partnerships.

There is, of course, an even better way to protect relationships from Government meddling.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

It's Time: The Best Marriage Equality Ad Yet

Every time I watch this ad I'm reminded of exactly why marriage equality is so important. 

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Penny Wong: The Return.

Back in July Australian Labor Senator Penny Wong backed her new leader's position on marriage equality with these words:

"On the issue of marriage I think the reality is there is a cultural, religious, historical view around that which we have to respect. The party's position is very clear that this is an institution that is between a man and a woman."

She did not say "This is the party's view and I respect that. However, I hold a different view." No she said nothing about believing in equality here did she? Perhaps she didn't want to rock the boat.

Fast forward a few months:

''There has been some commentary which has confused my position of not commenting publicly on this issue with my position on the actual issue itself,'' she said. ''I have had the opportunity to advocate for equality at the highest level of our party and within our party's processes as I do today. And I will do so again at the next national conference.''

Oh, I see. You've been quietly working for equality behind the scenes but were just too modest to be upfront about your beliefs? Perhaps the real reason is that you believe less in equality and more in Labor's continued electoral success and didn't wish to advocate publicly for your countrymen's freedom because it might embarrass your backwards leader. Yes, Penny Wong puts partisan victory ahead of her actual political beliefs.

Senator Wong criticised the Greens for seeking change by "shouting about it", rather than sensibly advocating for it.

"Sensibly", here means "Shh... don't rock the boat, we'll get there one day if we all just shut up and do as our heterosexual overlords say". Screw that Penny Wong. The Greens, and the Democrats, have the balls to stand up for something they believe in. It might not be politically astute, but at least it's honest and upfront.

Penny Wong remains very, very wrong.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Penny Wong Is Very Wrong

Australian Senator Penny Wong has come out against marriage equality. I guess this was a Labor party effort to back up the new Prime Minister's stance. I can imagine the meeting. "Well you know, if we get a lesbian to say she doesn't support it, all the activists out there will go 'Oh well, that's okay then', PENNY COME HERE!"

It appears to have backfired. She originally said:

"On the issue of marriage I think the reality is there is a cultural, religious, historical view around that which we have to respect. The party's position is very clear that this is an institution that is between a man and a woman."

Which of course is silly. Women, Asians and gays wouldn't have got into the Senate in the past for "cultral, religious, histroical" reasons. Perhaps she would like us to return to that? No I thought not.

In the article above Queerty found this statement from 2006

"I hope there will come a time when this country can look back and wonder why some in this place and some in this government were so frightened of and antagonistic to certain types of relationships. I look to a day, to paraphrase a great man, when we not only judge people by the content of their character but also where we judge their relationships by markers such as respect, commitment, love and security and not by the gender of their partners. I look to a day when government policy and articulation is not so mired in prejudice that it can address these issues fairly. One thing I do know is that that will only come under a Labor government." (Emphasis ours.)"

Oh Penny, I think the game is up. Of course she came back with some statement about discrimination which made no sense.

I find this more often than I'd like. The other day I was having a Twitter battle with Chris Bryant, who told me off for questioning his LGBT rights stances. I'm still awaiting his reply to explain why he failed to stand up and even MENTION marriage equality during the Civil Partnership Bill debates. In fact all I found from him was a strong defence of the party line, whilst he threw LGBT rights under a bus.

Never, ever trust a politician who can't even stand up for their own rights because how will they ever have the guts to stand up for yours?

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist