Today is the last day for Aussies to enrol to vote on marriage equality! Make sure you enrol, and if you are then make sure you check and update your details!
This post is going to be about New York. I usually post things related to languages. The reason today is, however, as a gay person I’m joyful that New York became the sixth and largest US state to allow gay marriage. The gay population of New York city is estimated at over half a million.
Back to languages: 72% of New Yorkers speak English mainly but 28% speak another language at home. One of the below sentences is each understood by at least 100,000 New Yorkers:
Él lo ama. 他愛他。 Lui lo ama. Он любит его. Il l'aime. Li renmen l ’. ער ליב אים. On go kocha. 그는 사랑.
The languages are the most commonly spoken by New Yorkers in this order: Spanish, Chinese, Italian, Russian, French, French Creole, Yiddish, Polish and Korean. Read more on this here.
Interview with Clela Rorex, the first person to issue same-sex marriage licenses in the U.S. back in 1975, long before marriage equality had come into the national spotlight.
She had married about six gay couples in Colorado during a time when the idea was so unthinkable that there weren’t actually any laws in place to stop her.
~Jester
Anthony Sullivan and Richard Adams were sitting in their Los Angeles living room watching The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson when they first heard about a feminist county clerk in Boulder, Colo., who was issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
It was April 1975, and Sullivan, an Australian national, had already been lying low, trying to avoid immigration authorities who wanted him deported. Although the men had been in a loving, committed relationship for several years, the Nationality Act of 1965 declared that homosexuals were “excludable at entry” into the U.S. And with the prospect of any state — let alone a nation — establishing marriage equality still seeming unreachable, the couple knew what they had to do.
They packed their bags. They flew to Colorado, and drove to Boulder, a picturesque college town situated at the base of the Rocky Mountains. Then, with the signature of Boulder County Clerk Clela Rorex, the two men tied the knot. Legally. The couple then spent nearly 40 years together.
Sullivan and Adams, a naturalized American of Filipino descent, were one of six same-sex couples legally married in 1975, after Rorex, 33 at the time, reviewed Colorado law and determined there was no legal justification to deny marriage to same-sex couples. She confirmed her interpretation with the Boulder District Attorney prior to issuing the first license.
Soon after, however, then-Colorado Attorney General J.D. MacFarlane ordered Rorex to stop letting same-sex couples wed, and delivered his opinion that the six licenses were not valid. But MacFarlane never actually ordered those licenses invalidated.
Unlike that of Jack Baker and Michael McConnell — the first known same-sex couple to obtain a marriage license in the U.S. in 1971, whose contract was never recorded — Adams and Sullivan’s marriage license remains on the official record of Colorado to this day. Many legal experts see their license as valid. In fact, record of their marriage is the basis on which lawyers have based their current case to obtain a marriage-based green card for Sullivan following Adams’s death in 2012.
For those in the LGBT community, this is obviously a historic day. For those of all sexual orientations who embrace D/s as a way of life, there is plenty more to do to eliminate explicit and implicit barriers and discrimination. If you are into D/s you know you can’t change who you are and that this goes far beyond kink and fetish. Maybe one day, people can be out in the open in all walks of life without being labeled obscene, immoral or mentally ill. Different doesn’t mean bad…just different.
I am so so incredibly happy and proud. Today the results came in for the Australian Marriage Equality postal vote, and the result was yes! I’m so grateful and relieved and surprised and thankful and you’ll probably hear more of this later but. Thank you Australia.
Large Christian Charity Embraces Gay Employees … If They’re Married
World Vision USA is updating its code of conduct to reflect changing marriage norms.
BY MICHAEL O'LOUGHLIN
World Vision USA, the American branch of one of the world’s largest evangelical Christian charitable organizations, says that employees are still expected to abstain from extramarital sex, but for the first time will consider sexual activity within a marriage between two men or two women to be in line with its rules.
Rich Stearns, president of World Vision USA, told employees in a letter that the organization has “not endorsed same-sex marriage, but we have chosen to defer to the authority of local churches on this issue.”
In an interview with Christianity Today, Stearns said that World Vision USA was not responding to a lawsuit or employee lobbying.
“There is no lawsuit threatening us,” he said. “There is no employee group lobbying us. This is simply a decision about whether or not you are eligible for employment at World Vision U.S., based on this single issue, and nothing more.”
“Changing the employee conduct policy to allow someone in a same-sex marriage who is a professed believer in Jesus Christ to work for us makes our policy more consistent with our practice on other divisive issues,” he said. “It also allows us to treat all of our employees the same way: abstinence outside of marriage, and fidelity within marriage.”
Stearns lamented the impact same-sex marriage has had on Christian churches.
“It’s been heartbreaking to watch this issue rip through the church,” he told Christianity Today. “It’s tearing churches apart, tearing denominations apart, tearing Christian colleges apart, and even tearing families apart. Our board felt we cannot jump into the fight on one side or another on this issue. We’ve got to focus on our mission. We are determined to find unity in our diversity.”
Criticism of World Vision USA’s action came swiftly. Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, said the heart of Christianity is in jeopardy because of decisions like this, The Washington Post reports. “At stake is the gospel of Jesus Christ,“ he said.
“If sexual activity outside of a biblical definition of marriage is morally neutral, then, yes, we should avoid making an issue of it,” he added. “If, though, what the Bible clearly teaches and what the church has held for 2,000 years is true, then refusing to call for repentance is unspeakably cruel and, in fact, devilish.”
World Visions provides disaster relief to 250 million people each year, in nearly 100 countries, and has revenue of about $1 billion per year. According to Christianity Today, the organization "has staff from more than 50 denominations — a handful of which have sanctioned same-sex marriages or unions in recent years, including the United Church of Christ, The Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and the Presbyterian Church (USA).”
Miss. Couple Creates First Record of Same-Sex Marriage
The couple’s registration of their New York marriage license doesn’t mean Mississippi will recognize their union, but it’s part of a push for marriage equality in Southern states.
BY TRUDY RING
In a first for Mississippi, a same-sex couple has created a public record of their marriage, which still does not give it legal standing in the state but lays the groundwork for further progress.
Anna Guillot and Chrissy Kelly, who were married in New York in 2012, paid $12 Tuesday to record their marriage license from that state at the Rankin County Chancery Clerk’s Office in Brandon, Miss. They live in Rankin County.
Their action is part of the Campaign for Southern Equality’s We Do Campaign, an effort for marriage equality in Southern states, which came to Mississippi this week. “Couples like Anna and Chrissy are doing everything in their power to have their marriage recognized — including creating a public record of their marriage,” Rev. Jasmine Beach-Ferrara, executive director of the Campaign for Southern Equality, said in a press release. “Now no one can deny the reality of their marriage, their love or their commitment. We are calling for Mississippi to treat LGBT people equally under the law.”
Added Kelly: “We want people to know they are not alone. There are gay couples here in Rankin County.”
In a follow-up move today, five same-sex couples applied for marriage licenses at the Hinds County Courthouse in Jackson. All were denied.
Four of the five couples have children, said Beach-Ferrara, who hopes the action will point up that lack of marriage recognition harms children. Mississippi, she said, has the highest percentage of same-sex couples raising children — 26 percent — in the nation.
Other events scheduled in Mississippi include a lecture on the LGBT equality movement by Beach-Ferrara at Milsaps College in Jackson tonight at 7; an LGBT rights rally in downtown Jackson at noon tomorrow; and a community organizing dinner in Hattiesburg from 7 to 9 p.m. tomorrow.
In previous We Do actions, same-sex couples have registered their marriage licenses in 17 counties in North Carolina and one county in Alabama. Like the registration by Guillot and Kelly, this does not give the marriages legal recognition in those states, but it does create a public record.
The next stop for the We Do Campaign will be May 8 in Raleigh, N.C., said Beach-Ferrara. The date is the second anniversary of North Carolina’s adoption of Amendment One, writing a ban on same-sex marriage into its constitution. Find more information on the Campaign for Southern Equality’s Facebook page.
DETROIT — An appeals court put an indefinite halt Tuesday on same-sex marriages in Michigan though lawyers for the couple who challenged the state’s gay-marriage ban had asked the judges to allow them while the state appeals the ruling.
The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals granted the state’s request 2-1 to suspend Friday’s ruling from U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman, who had declared Michigan’s gay-marriage ban unconstitutional. On Saturday, the appeals court had granted an emergency stay.
“The Supreme Court has already determined that a stay pending appeal is warranted when a district court strikes down a state constitutional amendment defining marriage,” Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette wrote Tuesday in asking for the extension. The high court ordered a halt to same-sex marriages in Utah in January while that state appeals a December federal court ruling.
Also Tuesday, lawyers for plaintiffs April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse had asked the court to lift its emergency stay while the state appealed.
In 2004, Michigan voters amended the state constitution to defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The state has claimed that children thrive best when mothers and fathers raise them and has argued that’s why it wants to preserve the traditional definition of marriage.
After Friedman’s ruling Friday, clerks in Ingham, Muskegon, Oakland and Washtenaw counties opened their offices Saturday and issued 321 marriages licenses to same-sex couples; at least 299 weddings were performed before the appeals court issued its first stay. The stay leaves those couples in a sort of limbo, waiting to see if their vows are legally recognized.
Rowse and DeBoer didn’t get married Saturday. They said they want to wait to see if Friedman’s decision is upheld after all appeals.
The American Civil Liberties Union said Tuesday it is preparing to launch its own set of legal challenges if Michigan doesn’t recognize the validity of the weddings of same-sex couples performed Saturday.
The challenges could come if Michigan refuses to grant benefits to a spouse in a same-sex marriage, blocks adoptions from those couples or does not allow a couple to file state income tax forms jointly, said Jay Kaplan, a lawyer for the ACLU of Michigan.
“I truly don’t understand the rabid resistance from some people,” said Glenna DeJong, who with Marsha Caspar was the first same-sex couple to get married Saturday in Michigan. “I do know we’ll be on the right side of history.”
DeBoer and Rowse’s lawyers had argued that denying the stay best meets the public interest.
“There are times when maintaining the status quo makes sense,” their filing said. “There are also times when maintaining the status quo is merely a kinder label for perpetuating discrimination that should no longer be tolerated.”
Seventeen states and the District of Columbia issue licenses for same-sex marriage. Since December, bans on gay marriage have been overturned in Oklahoma Texas, Utah and Virginia, but appeals have put those cases on hold.
A federal judge, saying he was complying with the U.S. Constitution and not trying to defy the people of Texas, struck down the state’s ban on gay marriage Wednesday but left it in place pending a ruling by an appeals court later this year.
Judge Orlando Garcia issued his ruling in Austin in response to a suit by two gay couples. They challenged the state’s constitutional amendment, which had been approved by 76% of voters in 2005, and a 2003 law banning gay marriage.
Garcia’s decision rejected the argument by the Texas attorney general’s office that each state has the right to define marriage in the traditions of its citizens. Texas also argued that traditional marriage best supports the state’s interest in procreation and child rearing.
“After careful consideration, and applying the law as it must, this court holds that Texas’ prohibition on same-sex marriage conflicts with the United States Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process,” Garcia wrote in a 48-page opinion. “Texas’ current marriage laws deny homosexual couples the right to marry, and in doing so, demean their dignity for no legitimate reason.”
He continued that regulation of marriage “has traditionally been the province of the states and remains so today,” but “any state law involving marriage or any other protected interest must comply with the United States Constitution.”
“Today’s court decision is not made in defiance of the great people of Texas or the Texas Legislature, but in compliance with the United States Constitution and Supreme Court precedent,” said Garcia, who was nominated to the federal bench by President Clinton in 1994. “Without a rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose, state-imposed inequality can find no refuge in our United States Constitution.”
Under federal court rules, a judge may suspend a law if he or she believes the plaintiffs have a strong case and will suffer if the law is enforced.
Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican, indicated the state would appeal. He issued a statement that Texas would “continue to fight for the rights of Texans to self-determine the laws of our state.”
“Texans spoke loud and clear by overwhelmingly voting to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman in our constitution, and it is not the role of the federal government to overturn the will of our citizens,” he said.
Nicole Dimetman and Cleopatra De Leon, one of the couples who filed suit, were wed in Massachusetts and want Texas to recognize their marriage. The other plaintiffs, Mark Phariss and Vic Holmes, have been together 17 years and want to get married at home in Texas.
“We are extremely happy — happy beyond words — with Judge Garcia’s decision,” Phariss and Holmes said Wednesday in a joint statement with Dimetman and De Leon, the San Antonio Express-Newsreported. “Today, Judge Garcia affirmed that the Equal Protection Clause applies to all Texans. We are delighted by that decision, and we expect that, if appealed, it will be upheld.”
Dimetman and De Leon called the ruling “a great step towards justice for our family.”
“Ultimately, the repeal of Texas’ ban will mean that our son will never know how this denial of equal protections demeaned our family and belittled his parents’ relationship,” they said. “We look forward to the day when, surrounded by friends and family, we can renew our vows in our home state of Texas.”
Michael Diviesti, state lead organizer of GetEQUAL TX, a gay rights group, said, “It’s a sure sign that things are changing in Texas for the better. We’ve got a few more steps to go on the marriage front, but I think we’re all pretty prepared to keep up the fight.”
He added, “I wish we could start planning our weddings right now. Unfortunately, we can’t, but now there is an end in sight. A lot of us were thinking it would take five to 10 years before we could get married in our home states. But seeing this happen in our state shows us that we’re not as far away from that as we thought we were.”
Cece Cox, CEO of Resource Center Dallas, a community services agency for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, said, “Even though today nothing is exactly different, there are a lot of conversations that are going to be had about discrimination. And that’s where a lot of progress is made — not just in the courts.”
“This ruling by an unelected federal judge is the most egregious form of judicial activism in our generation,” said Jonathan Saenz, president of Texas Values, an organization that promotes religious liberty. “This is only the beginning of an epic battle that the Texas people will ultimately win in the name of the only true and lawful definition of marriage: one man and one woman.”
Federal judges also struck down bans on gay marriage in Utah, Oklahoma and Virginia, but the Texas ruling — if upheld on appeal — would have stronger reverberations coming from the nation’s largest, most influential red state.
Lawsuits are pending in at least 20 other states that ban gay marriage, including Michigan, where a federal judge is currently hearing arguments about a constitutional amendment that limits marriage to heterosexuals.
Seventeen states and the District of Columbia allow same-sex marriages.
Wednesday evening, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed a Republican-backed measure that would have allowed individuals and businesses to invoke their religious beliefs as a defense against claims of discrimination against gays.
Senate Bill 1062, which passed both houses of the Legislature last week, came under a withering assault from major corporations, organizations, politicians, professional sports and individuals.
Three of Brewer’s fellow Republicans who voted for the measure also urged her to not sign the bill into law, saying that although its intent was “to create a shield for all citizens’ religious liberties, the bill has been mischaracterized by its opponents as a sword for religious intolerance.”
How a Single Gay Juror Brought Down Nevada’s Same-Sex Marriage Ban
In 2011, attorneys for Abbott Laboratories dismissed a prospective juror prior to a blockbuster trial on account of his sexual orientation. Abbott’s attorneys were convinced that the juror, an openly gay man, would be prejudiced against Abbott, which had been accused of inflating the price of an HIV drug. The company’s legal opponents cried foul and litigated the dismissal. And now, thanks to that juror, Nevada just gave up on its same-sex marriage ban.
How did a complex case about peremptory jury strikes lead a Republican governor to give up on his state’s constitutional ban against gay marriage? The legal path is rocky and strange—and also fairly amusing. Here’s a sketch of the chain of events.
While Abbott prepared to litigate its dismissal of a gay juror last summer, the Supreme Court issued a case you may have heard of: U.S. v. Windsor. In Windsor, the court overturned the Defense of Marriage Act, holding that it “violates basic due process and equal protection principles” of the Constitution. Although the court irritatingly refused to clarify its precise rationale, many commentators believed that the justices had granted gays heightened constitutional protections, similar to the type that women are afforded.
Before Abbott’s gay juror case went to trial, the 9th Circuit asked the company’s attorneys to explain Windsor’s effect on its arguments. This was bad news for Abbott. Any reasonable observer could see that Windsor changed the game, elevating legal protections for gays to an unprecedented extent. The Supreme Court has already ruled that blacks and women cannot be pre-emptively struck from a jury on the basis of their race or gender, as both jurors and defendants must be protected from racism, sexism, and “historical prejudice.” Shouldn’t the same logic now apply to gay jurors, in order to shield them from similar bigotry and “historical prejudice”?
The 9th Circuit said yes—and then some. In a profoundly bold and trailblazing opinion, Judge Stephen Reinhardt waved aside Abbott’s arguments, holding that allowing strikes based on “preconceived notions of the identities, preferences, and biases” of gay people would perpetuate the “history of exclusion of gays and lesbians from democratic institutions.” And he didn’t stop there: This exclusion, Reinhardt wrote, was unacceptable in light of Windsor because:
In its words and its deed, Windsor established a level of scrutiny for classifications based on sexual orientation that is unquestionably higher than rational basis review. … In short, Windsor requires heightened scrutiny. These sentences did nothing less than herald a new era of gay rights. For decades, gay activists have strived for this precise constitutional protection; now the 9th Circuit had afforded it to them. No longer, the 9th Circuit declared, can gays be denied basic rights based on some vague notion of traditional values. Instead, a state must have a compelling interest in discriminating against gays—and because no such interest exists, they must be afforded the same rights as everybody else.
The ruling only applied to those states within the 9th Circuit’s jurisdiction, including—you guessed it—Nevada. When the Abbott opinion was handed down, Nevada’s attorney general was already struggling to defend the state’s marriage ban; following Windsor, she asked for a series of extensions in light of the changing legal landscape. A federal judge had upheld the ban in late 2012, but that was during the dark days of DOMA; now, in the shadow of Windsor, the state’s argument that it must discriminate against gays in order to “preserve traditional marriage” was beginning to look a little flimsy.
And now it has toppled completely. Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto filed a motion with the 9th Circuit on Monday conceding that, following the gay juror ruling, “the state has determined that its arguments grounded upon equal protection and due process are no longer sustainable.” Brian Sandoval, the state’s Republican governor, agrees, admitting that “it has become clear that this case is no longer defensible in court.” And just like that, the always ridiculous rationale for banning gay marriage fell away, revealing the silly, nonsensical bigotry that has always lurked underneath.
It’s likely that a group of Republican legislators will step in to defend that law in place of the attorney general. But without the support of even the Republican governor, they’ll be fighting an uphill battle. With Windsor, the Supreme Court gave judges across America permission to knock down legal barriers to gay equality. The 9th Circuit took the justices up on their offer, and in doing so, it may have triggered a chain reaction. Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Alaska all fall within the 9th Circuit—and all ban gay marriage. For gay couples hoping to get married in those states, today should mark the start of a race to the courthouse.
Él lo ama.
