A California state appeals court has denied a conservative law group’s request that it force Attorney General Jerry Brown and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to defend Proposition 8 in federal court.

The denial was issued Wednesday and entered Thursday on the website of the 3rd District Court of Appeals in Sacramento. [Fresno Bee]

Without explanation, the court denied a motion filed on Monday by Pacific Justice Institute on behalf of Joshua Beckley, a senior pastor at Ecclesia Christian Fellowship in San Bernardino, that sought to force the AG and Governor to defend the anti-gay-marriage law in the federal appeals case. [Court order here (PDF).]

The group had argued that Brown and Schwarzenegger have no right to pick and choose what state laws to uphold.

Both Brown and Schwarzenegger were named as defendants in the federal trial challenging Prop 8, and refused to defend it in court; both have said they believe Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution.

If upheld, the ruling could prove significant in the federal case involving Prop 8.

U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker has indicated that Prop 8 proponents may not have a legal right to appeal his decision to allow same-sex unions in California, because they cannot prove they will be harmed — as required by law — if gay and lesbian couples wed.

A Texas appeals court has ruled same-sex couples legally married in other states can’t get divorced in Texas. The ruling came in the case of a gay Dallas couple who had split up after getting married in Massachusetts in 2006.

In issuing the decision, the appeals court also ruled that the Texas same-sex marriage ban is constitutional.

The ruling from the 5th District Court of Appeals on Tuesday in the case, in the Matter of the Marriage of J.B. and H.B. (as they are identified in court records).

The couple filed for a divorce in Texas in January 2009. Massachusetts, which has allowed same-sex marriage since 2004, has a residency requirement for divorce.

[Equality Texas] issued this statement:

The Fifth District Court of appeals has taken the most extreme, the most conservative view possible on each issue before it. It’s not as if they wanted to just overturn the trial court’s decision, they wanted to smash it into ground and discourage anyone from ever filing a pro-LGBT suit ever again.

The ruling harkens back to a view of the world from generations past — a world where LGBT people were content to live in closets, and were afraid to demand to be treated with dignity and respect. A dignity and respect that this court goes out of its way to completely deny.

In October 2009, District Judge Tena Callahan ruled that J.B. and H.B. could obtain a divorce in Texas, saying that the state’s constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.

Callahan’s decision was immediately appealed by Republican Attorney General Greg Abbott, who argued that same-sex couples cannot divorce in Texas because the state doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage. [Dallas Voice]

A retired Presbyterian minister was found guilty Friday by a church tribunal of presiding at the marriage of same-sex couples in 2008 and will be censured, pending an appeal.

The six-member panel announced its verdict in the case of the Rev. Dr. Jane Spahr, of San Francisco, who was accused of violating church law by performing 16 gay and lesbian ceremonies.

Spahr

After a four-day church trial that was equal parts Scripture lesson and celebration of marriage, a panel of church leaders from the Presbytery of the Redwoods voted 4-2 that Spahr should be censured because she “persisted in a pattern or practice of disobedience.”

But the six-person panel voted unanimously that the 68-year-old lesbian’s actions did not disrupt the “peace, unity and purity of the church” and praised her “faithful compassion” and her 35-year ministry to gays and lesbians throughout the country.

In its ruling, the panel called upon the church to re-examine its “fear and ignorance that continues to reject the inclusiveness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”

“In the reality in which we live today, marriage can be between same-gender as well as opposite-gender persons, and we, as a church, need to be able to respond to this reality as Dr. Jane Spahr has done with faithfulness and compassion,” the panel noted.

The trial at Convenant Presbyterian Church in Napa was a difficult test for the national denomination, which has been split for years over whether to allow ordination of gay ministers and to permit ministers to sanction same-sex marriages.

The church’s highest court has previously held that Presbyterian ministers may bless same-sex unions as long as they do “not state, imply, or represent that a same-sex ceremony is a marriage.”

Ken Mehlman, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee and the campaign manager who helped win a second term for President George W. Bush on his anti-gay marriage platform has announced that he is homosexual.

Mehlman

During his tenure as chairman of the RNC, the party’s strategists encouraged state referendums banning same-sex marriage, but Mehlman now says he wants to become an advocate for gay marriage.

“It’s taken me 43 years to get comfortable with this part of my life,” Mehlman said in an interview with Atlantic magazine.

“Everybody has their own path to travel, their own journey, and for me, over the past few months, I’ve told my family, friends, former colleagues, and current colleagues, and they’ve been wonderful and supportive.

“The process has been something that’s made me a happier and better person. It’s something I wish I had done years ago.”

Mehlman is widely considered one of the key architects of the Bush-era Republican election machine that exploited anti-gay prejudices to motivate its conservative base. His revelation comes after years of speculation, and to date is the highest-profile national Republican figure to come out as gay.

Mike Rogers, a gay rights best known for his activity in outing closeted gay politicians who actively oppose gay rights, and whose work inspired the 2009 documentary “Outrage,” wrote on his blog that Bush’s 2004 election campaign was “the most homophobic national campaign in history. That campaign was run by one of the nation’s worst closeted individuals, Ken Mehlman.”

“I can’t change the fact that I wasn’t in this place personally when I was in politics, and I genuinely regret that. It was very hard, personally,” said Mehlman.

He adds that he “‘really wished’ he had come to terms with his sexual orientation earlier, ‘so I could have worked against [the Federal Marriage Amendment]‘ and ‘reached out to the gay community in the way I reached out to African Americans.’”

Mehlman said he is now working to raise money for the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which is backing the legal challenge to California’s Proposition 8, the ban on same-sex marriage narrowly passed in 2008.

After weeks of public protest over its financial support of an organization that backed a GOP gubernatorial candidate opposed to gay rights, Target Corp. now faces a new form of pressure: demands from institutional shareholders that it revamp its donation process to avoid the chance of additional backfires.

From the Los Angeles Times:

“Imprudent donations can potentially have a major negative impact on company reputations and business if they don’t carefully and fully assess a candidate’s positions,” said Tim Smith, a senior vice president at Walden Asset Management, one of three asset management firms that this week filed a resolution asking the retail giant to overhaul its campaign donation policies. He cautioned that funding ballot initiatives, as many corporations have done, “can similarly backfire.”

The three management firms sponsoring the resolution — Calvert Asset Management, Trillium Asset Management and Walden — together hold $57.5 million of Target stock. Other institutional investors, including the giant New York state pension fund and union investment managers, are considering co-signing the resolution, which calls on Target’s independent directors to review the criteria and risks in making donations to organizations active in political campaigns.

Retailers Target and Best Buy were among several Minnesota firms that gave large donations to MN Forward, a new tax-exempt committee running ads backing GOP gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, a staunch opponent of LGBT rights and same-sex marriage.

Best Buy has received the same shareholder resolution as Target, which calls for a far more rigorous and specific review by independent board members and for disclosure of the company’s contributions policy.

Ricky Martin is set to release his memoir, Me, on November 2.

Martin said in a statement Thursday that the project led him to extract memories that he had erased from his mind. He said the book was not easy but allowed for an “incredible spiritual journey.”

USA TODAY’s Cindy Clark reports that the Grammy-Award winning artist opens up for the first time about his early childhood, his experiences as a member of the boy band Menudo, and coming to terms with his sexuality. Martin also talks about being a father and his work with children around the world.

Martin has said that preparing to write the book was one of the reasons he decided to reveal earlier this year that he is gay.

There will also be a Spanish language edition released in Spanish the same day, titled Yo, which is Spanish for “I.”

A federal appeals court on Monday put a hold on same-sex marriages in California, overruling a federal district judge who had earlier ruled that Proposition 8 — the state’s voter approved ban on gay marriage — was unconstitutional.

The “stay” means same-sex marriages won’t start on Wednesday as thousands of gay and lesbian couples had hoped.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has placed such marriages effectively on hold until December at the earliest, granting a request by proponents of Proposition 8 to delay enforcement of the August 4 court order voiding the ballot referendum.

But in Monday’s order, the judges asked the ballot measure’s lawyers to submit arguments on why they have the legal right to appeal when the state’s top two officials, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Brown, had refused to defend the law or file an appeal.

In effect, the court is asking the coalition that led the campaign for Proposition 8 to prove they are actually entitled to bring the appeal — that they are, in fact, harmed by gay marriage.

According to Brian Devine at Courage Campaign:

“… the Court specifically orders the Prop 8 proponents to show why this case should not be dismissed for lack of standing. Here’s a discussion of the standing issue … It shows that the Court has serious doubts about whether the Appellants have standing.

Even better, the Court is expressing an opinion that its inclination is that the case should be dismissed. That being said, the panel that issued this Order (the motions panel) is not the same panel that will hear that case on the merits. The merits panel will be selected shortly before December 6th and we don’t know the three judges who will be on the merits panel. But this is a very good sign that the appeal could be dismissed on the ground of standing alone.”

On August 4, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker struck down Proposition 8 ruling that it failed to “advance any rational basis” to deny gay men and lesbians a marriage license.

Within hours of handing down his decision, Walker issued a ruling granting a temporary stay of his order, allowing opponents of same-sex marriage time to file appeals. The stay was to be lifted as of Wednesday, August 18, unless the higher court intervened.

The American Foundation for Equal Rights, a nonprofit organization created to support the plaintiffs in the case, released this statement in response:

“We are very gratified that the Ninth Circuit has recognized the importance and pressing nature of this case and the need to resolve it as quickly as possible by issuing this extremely expedited briefing schedule. As Chief Judge Walker found, Proposition 8 harms gay and lesbian citizens each day it remains on the books. We look forward to moving to the next stage of this case,” said Attorney Theodore B. Olson.

“Today’s order from the Ninth Circuit for an expedited hearing schedule ensures that we will triumph over Prop. 8 as quickly as possible. This case is about fundamental constitutional rights and we at the American Foundation for Equal Rights, our Plaintiffs and our attorneys are ready to take this case all the way through the appeals court and to the United States Supreme Court,” said Chad Griffin, Board President, American Foundation for Equal Rights.

A copy of the order is here.
More on this story as it develops.

Target Corp. said Monday it has no plans to donate money to gay-friendly causes to quiet the protests over a $150,000 donation that helped support a Minnesota governor candidate who opposes gay marriage.

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) said the Minneapolis-based retailer had effectively rejected the group’s proposals to donate to gay rights organizations to offset the earlier donation.

In a statement, Target said:

“Given the current political and emotionally charged environment, we have concluded that it is best to wait before taking further external action regarding our MN Forward contribution. We believe that it is impossible to avoid turning any further actions into a political issue and will use the benefit of time to make thoughtful, careful decisions on how best to move forward.”

The HRC issued this statement:

“After two weeks of good-faith discussions -– and two tentative agreements –- with Target Corporation, the company has informed the HRC that it will take no corrective actions to repair the harm that it caused by contributing $150,000 to an organization supporting a vehemently anti-gay candidate closely associated with a Christian rock band that advocates death and violence to gay people. In response, HRC announced that it will devote $150,000 of its own resources to help elect a pro-equality governor and legislature in Minnesota. The next governor will likely have the opportunity to either sign or veto marriage equality legislation in the North Star State.

“All fair-minded Americans will now rightly question Target’s commitment to equality. If their initial contribution was a slap in the face, their refusal to make it right is a punch in the gut and that’s not something that we will soon forget,” said HRC President Joe Solmonese.

The HRC also is in private talks with Best Buy, which gave $100,000 to MN Forward, a political action committee founded by Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s chief of staff and backed by Republican-leaning business groups.

MN Forward has produced television ads for Emmer, who is opposed to gay marriage and is running on a pro-business, anti-tax platform.

The HRC indicated it is considering whether to suspend Target’s 100 percent rating on its “Corporate Equality Index,” a measurement of corporate hiring diversity policies on a scale of 0 to 100.

“Target and Best Buy have – and no doubt will continue to have – model employment policies for LGBT people. We will continue to support those efforts. But before they can regain that exalted status among their consumers, they need to make things right in Minnesota,” said Solmonese. “The nation’s LGBT community has shown these two companies enormous customer loyalty. Now it’s time for that faithfulness to be returned.”

Neil Patrick Harris confirmed rumors on Saturday, and announced via Twitter that he and longtime partner David Burtka are expecting twins in the fall.

The pair have already started planning their baby shower, according to E! News, who first reported the twins were on the way, via a surrogate.

“So, get this: David and I are expecting twins this fall. We’re super excited/nervous/thrilled. Hoping the press can respect our privacy,” Harris “tweeted.”

Later in the day, the expectant dads hammed it up at Disneyland.

Harris is up for three Emmys this month — one for Best Supporting Actor Comedy on CBS’ “How I Met Your Mother,” a second for Guest Actor in a Comedy Series for “Glee” and a third for hosting last year’s Tony Awards.

Burtka has experience with twins; he helped to raise twins from a relationship with a previous boyfriend, although he wasn’t a primary parent to them.

Gay marriage in California could resume next week as a federal judge today denied defendant’s motion for a permanent stay to his decision to overturn Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that reinstated the ban on same-sex marriage, but extended the temporary stay another week.

Unless another stay is ordered by a higher court, today’s ruling creates a new window of opportunity for same-sex couples to marry, similar to May 2008, when the State Supreme Court overturned California’s ban on same-sex marriages. About 18,000 couples were married before Proposition 8 was passed by 52 percent of the vote that November.

Gay and lesbian couples lined up at San Francisco City Hall all morning in anticipation of today’s ruling, and officials in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and other jurisdictions indicated that if Walker lifted the stay, they would be performing marriages today on a first come, first serve basis.

But the Judge’s ruling extended the temporary stay until 5 p.m. next Wednesday, August 18, effectively allowing Proposition 8 supporters time to appeal his decision to 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and dashing the hopes of hundreds of gay couples hoping to marry today.

Judge Walker

In today’s order, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker wrote:

“Because proponents fail to satisfy any of the factors necessary to warrant a stay, the court denies a stay except for a limited time solely in order to permit the court of appeals to consider the issue in an orderly manner.”

None of the factors the court weighs in considering a motion to stay favors granting a stay. Accordingly, proponents’ motion for a stay is DENIED. … The clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment forthwith. That judgment shall be STAYED until August 18, 2010 at 5 PM PDT at which time defendants and all persons under their control or supervision shall cease to apply or enforce Proposition 8.

Final stay order here (PDF).

Walker ruled last week that Proposition 8 was in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment which guarantees of equal protection and due process of law.

In his decision, Walker said “moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians.”

But shortly after issuing his ruling, Walker issued a temporary “stay,” effectively leaving Prop 8 in tact while he considers whether his ruling should remain on hold as the case moves to the appellate court.

Walker’s ruling is expected to be appealed to the 9th Circuit Court, where it would be reviewed by a 3-person panel and their decision could be appealed to the full 9th Circuit and eventually the U.S. Supreme Court.

In the meantime, the 9th Circuit Court, however, could issue its own stay and prevent marriage licenses from being issued on August 18.

Proposition 8 supporters indicated last week they would also ask the appeals court and the U.S. Supreme Court for an emergency stay if to block same-sex marriages from occurring should Walker lift the stay.

Because the U.S. Supreme Court is not in session until October, the decision about lifting the stay is likely to be appealed to the lead Justice over the 9th Circuit, which is Justice Anthony Kennedy.

“It is clear that there is no basis for a stay of Judge Walker’s ruling striking down Prop 8,” according to a statement from Kate Kendell, Executive Director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. “We hope that the Ninth Circuit will agree that no stay is warranted and will allow marriages to resume. The chance for same-sex couples to marry again is not only fair and just, but an affirmation of love and basic humanity.”

More on this story as it develops.

While the standoff between LGBT groups and Target stores heats up over a $150,000 political donation that helped fund an anti-gay candidate for Minnesota governor, Best Buy, who donated $100,000 to the same fund, has quietly escaped much of the protests and headlines.

Two weeks ago, Target Corporation came under fire from gay rights advocates for contributing to Minnesota Forward, a political action group that has come out in support of anti-gay gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, a staunch opponent of same-sex marriage, who in 2007, authored a constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage and civil unions, and on numerous occasions has tried to change language in bills that would prevent same-sex couples from receiving benefits.

Within hours, LGBT activists sprung into action, and launched a Boycott Target page on Facebook, and a blog TargetingGLBT, all in effort to pressure the company to rethink its political contributions.

Not more than a day later, it was also revealed that Richfield, MN-based Best Buy contributed to the same group. And while a Boycott Best Buy effort was launched on Facebook as well, it was buried among the Target headlines and to date, barely attracted one tenth of the supporters of the Boycott Target effort.

Once the story escalated to the mainstream media, and the relentless LGBT community showed no signs of letting the retailer off the hook, Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel issued this apology in a letter to Target employees:

Steinhafel

“The intent of our political contribution to MN Forward was to support economic growth and job creation. While I firmly believe that a business climate conducive to growth is critical to our future, I realize our decision affected many of you in a way I did not anticipate, and for that I am genuinely sorry.

“We remain fully committed to fostering an environment that supports and respects the rights and beliefs of all individuals. The diversity of our team is an important aspect of our unique culture and our success as a company, and we did not mean to disappoint you, our team or our valued guests.

“Going forward, we will soon begin a strategic review and analysis of our decision-making process for financial contributions in the public policy arena. And later this fall, Target will take a leadership role in bringing together a group of companies and partner organizations for a dialogue focused on diversity and inclusion in the workplace, including GLBT issues.”

And from Best Buy, CEO Brian J. Dunn posted this statement online:

Dunn

“In our quest to focus on jobs and the economy, we’ve disappointed and confused some employees and customers. My leadership team and I are listening to, and learning from, your input. I’m taking it to heart.

“Best Buy’s recent contribution in Minnesota was done through an independent expenditure organization, focused solely on jobs and an improved economy. However, in this case, this contribution has raised questions on broader issues beyond jobs and the economy – most specifically, on issues that involve the lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgender (LGBT) community. We’ve learned from this. We’ve had a policy and process to guide the company’s voice (which has always remained focused on our business and the economy). We will review the process we use to make political contributions.”

There’s more to Dunn’s statement, and as with Steinhafel, both are equally ambiguous how their respective companies will evaluate political contributions in the future. Both tout their perfect scores in the HRC Corporate Equality Index (which will be unaffected by these donations), and support Twin Cities Pride, etc.

The only significant difference between the two statements is the absence of any apology from Best Buy to either its employees or customers.

So what’s next for these two retail giants?

While Target has issued its apology, it has not asked for its contribution back, nor has it retracted its support for MN Forward (or Emmer). Target is, however, reportedly locked in closed-door negotiations with the HRC, which is demanding that the retailer make an equivalent or greater donation to groups supporting equal rights candidates:

“Target’s apology is welcomed but without tangible action behind it, the LGBT community and our allies will continue to question the company’s commitment to equality,” the HRC said in a statement.

“The promise to evaluate political contributions in the future, while a step in the right direction, is provided without details and does not mitigate their $150,000 supporting an outspoken opponent of equality for LGBT people. Target can still make it right by making equivalent contributions to equality-minded organizations and by making clear the procedure by which they will evaluate potential contributions in the future to include issues of LGBT-equality.”

Best Buy has simply affirmed its political giving strategy –- and its decision to support MN Forward –- is based solely on the need to help elect candidates who will make jobs and economic issues a top priority this election, regardless of their position on other social issues that the company “may not necessarily agree with.”

And given the opportunity to publicly condemn Emmer’s positions on gay rights and commit to suspending funding for MN Forward, Best Buy gave no response.

In another international victory for gay rights advocates, Costa Rica’s highest court on Tuesday rejected a Catholic Church-supported national vote on whether the country should grant same-sex couples the right to civil unions in the Central American country.

The vote was scheduled for December 5 and was expected to reject the possibility of granting same-sex couples the same rights as their married counterparts, reports AFP.

The Supreme Court ruled that the rights of minorities could not be determined by a popular vote and that the issue should be decided by the country’s lawmakers.

“Minority rights that are derived from claims against the majority cannot be subject to a referendum process where majorities are needed,” the court said in a statement.

The vote sought to ask Costa Ricans whether the Central American nation should grant same-sex couples some of the rights of married couples, such as in inheritance, health insurance benefits and the right to family visits in case of hospitalization.

Conservative groups linked to religious organizations reportedly gathered 150,000 signatures in favor of the referendum.

The court’s 5-2 decision said it considers homosexuals a group that is at a disadvantage and the target for discrimination, requiring government authorities to protect their rights.

The ruling in Costa Rica is the third such court decision in a week favoring gays and lesbians in the Americas.

Last week, a U.S. District Court Judge overturned Proposition 8, Californina’s voter-approved ban on gay marriage.

The following day, the Mexico Supreme Court upheld the landmark law permitting same-sex marriages in Mexico City; earlier today, that same court ordered those marriages recognized in all 31 Mexican states.

On July 15, Argentina became the first Latin America country to legalize gay marriage.

Mexico’s supreme court ruled Tuesday that same-sex marriages in Mexico City must be recognized in all 31 states throughout the country, though the ruling does not mean other states have to allow gay weddings performed within their jurisdiction.

Gay couples celebrate their unions after marrying in Mexico City on March 11 under the new law.

In a 9-2 decision, the court cited an article of the constitution requiring states to recognize legal contracts drawn up elsewhere. The two judges who voted against the measure argued that it would damage the harmony of the federal system.

Last week, the court upheld the landmark law permitting same-sex marriages in Mexico City, and rejected the conservative federal government’s claim that the law is unconstitutional because it threatens the institution of the family.

The Court is scheduled to rule next on whether or not homosexual adoptions are constitutional.

Opponents argue that such adoptions violate the rights of children, enshrined in international treaties of which Mexico is a signatory.

Bill McCollum, Florida’s Attorney General and a Republican candidate for Governor, has made it clear he supports his state’s ban on gay adoption, and he doesn’t think gay people should be allowed to be foster parents, either.

McCollum

In an interview published in the Florida Baptist Witness, McCollum, who was embarrassed earlier this year when his key witness fighting Florida’s ban on gay adoption, Dr. George Rekers, was caught taking a European vacation with a male escort, said that he disagreed with Florida law that allows gays to serve as foster parents.

From the Florida Baptist Witness:

Do you support civil rights protections on the basis of sexual preference?

McCollum: I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. I believe that a family should consist of one man and one woman. I don’t believe in gay adoption. I don’t believe in involving the government in enforcing or encouraging the lifestyle of gays and homosexuals. I just don’t believe that.

Florida permits homosexuals to serve as foster parents. That has been used as an argument to undermine the ban on adoptions. Should homosexuals be permitted to serve as foster parents in Florida?

Well, I personally don’t think so, but that is the law.

Should the law be changed?

I think that it would be advisable. I really do not think that we should have homosexuals guiding our children. I think that it’s a lifestyle that I don’t agree with. I realize a lot of people do. It’s my personal faith, religious faith, that I don’t believe that the people who do this should be raising our children. It’s not a natural thing. You need a mother and a father. You need a man and a woman. That’s what God intended.

Early voting began Monday for the Florida Primary Election on August 24.

A recent assault and carjacking in Battle Creek, Michigan, has now led to a possible hate crimes investigation after police discovered two anti-gay rants that appeared online in Craigslist postings.

On July 25th, police say a 45-year-old man was brutally stabbed multiple times in the head and neck after another man forced him at knife point to drive from a gas station to wooded area of the Leila Arboretum. The suspect fled, taking the victim’s car after a witness heard screaming and interrupted the attack.

Now Battle Creek police say the attack was likely a hate crime, reports the Battle Creek Enquirer:

Detective Sgt. Austin Simons, supervisor of the detective bureau, said Thursday that police are investigating an online posting which appeared the day after the attack on Craigslist, a classified advertisement website.

In the anonymous message, which has since been removed, the writer, using derogatory references to gays, alluded to the attack under the headline “I warned you, you dumb queer.” The message continued about the meeting at the park and “I e-mailed and said I have something … but you did not think it was a knife did you. Now you are in the hospital and your car is in the river. I warned you.”

According to the Michigan Messenger, a second anonymous post appeared on Craigslist, this time the poster denied responsibility in the assault.

The post was filled with anti-gay slurs and references to AIDS. The writer claims that the previous post was “to keep the fags out of the parks, and I am the one that did it. It is not safe to take children to parks or for a walk in the woods without running into a dick sucking party.”

Police said the first Craigslist posting included a photograph, which does seem to match the description of the attacker the victim gave police, of a stocky white man with a bald, shaved head.

Both posts have since been removed from the website.

Simons said police still are looking for the victim’s car, a copper-colored Toyota Matrix and the suspect, described as a stocky white man with bald or shaved head and wearing a black shirt the day of the attack.

The victim, whose name has not been released, was hospitalized for ten days.

With the suspicion that the stabbing may be a hate crime, Battle Creek Police have contacted the FBI to assist in the investigation.

[fbshare]

Traditional marriage ‘defenders’ are in a tizzy after a federal judge overturned Proposition 8. Newt Gingrich issued a statement explaining how this ‘notorious’ ruling  shows ‘disrespect’ for the Constitution and the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman. He should know about marriage sanctity;  Newt’s been married no less than three times, with a few extramarital affairs to boot.

Divorce is a hot topic for conservatives worried about preserving the institution of marriage, so there is a silver lining in Proposition 8 for them: allowing gay marriage appears to reduce the divorce rate. Here’s a case study from the country with the longest history of allowing same-sex marriage: The Netherlands.

Methods: divorce rates for The Netherlands were taken from the Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (CBS) website; the official Dutch census/demography agency. Divorce rates per 1,000 people were downloaded from a 16 year period spanning 1992 through 2008.

Results: as can be seen in the above plot, the legalization of gay marriage in the Netherlands in 2001 appears to have led to a reduction in divorce rates. A comparison of mean divorce rates from the periods 1992 through 2000 and 2001 through 2008 shows significantly lower divorce rates after gay marriage was introduced.

The Duck Says: if conservative folks can somehow get past the ‘one-man-one-woman’ hurdle, and find it in their hearts to allow loving couples of any sexual orientation to marry, then perhaps the institution of marriage in California (and the rest of the US) will be strengthened… despite Newt’s best efforts to sully it through affairs and multiple divorces.

*Duck disclaimer: this informal study has certainly not managed to examine all the factors involved in Dutch divorce rates, and there is no reason to assume that correlation equals causation in this case. See more about potential problems here. Also, the average marriage in The Netherlands lasts about 14 years, so perhaps once the first gay marriages from 2001 start reaching the 14 year mark, divorce rates will shoot back up to ‘one-woman-one-man’ rates. Time will tell.

[fbshare]

A controversial book aimed at gay teens has been banned in the Burlington County, NJ, public library, the decision of a lone librarian acting on a single complaint by a Glenn Beck follower.

The book, Revolutionary Voices: A Multicultural Queer Youth Anthology — a collection of first-person essays by LGBT teen sharing their stories of coming out of the closet — was pulled from the county library after objections from Beverly Marinelli, a Lumberton, NJ woman and a member of the 9.12 Project, a conservative group founded by Beck, a Fox News Channel pundit.

Marinelli described the book as “pervasively vulgar and obscene.”

According to series of emails obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey through a Freedom of Information Act, the Library Commission supported the decision by Gail Sweet, the library’s director, to remove “Revolutionary Voices” from circulation, though “no official challenge” was made, and “no actual vote by the commissioners” was taken.

The emails reveal that Sweet not only wanted the book pulled off the library shelf, she wanted to get rid of any trace of it.

“How can we grab the books so they never, ever get back into circulation?” Sweet wrote to a fellow staffer. “Copies need to totally disappear, as it is not a good idea to send copies to the book sale.”

In April, Marinelli, along with others in the local chapter of the 9/12 Project, successfully lobbied in to have the book removed from Rancocas Valley Regional High School in Mount Holly, NJ.

The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) describes “Revolutionary Voices,” edited by Amy Sonnie, as “the first creative resource by and for queer and questioning youth of every color, class, religion, gender and ability.”

The book features first-hand coming-out accounts from gay students, and “reflections on identity,” according to the School Library Journal, the largest and most authoritative reviewer of children’s and young adult content. It was named as one of the best adult books for high school students by the Journal in 2001.

Sweet cited her decision to remove the book was that it constituted “child pornography.”

The emails can be read here (PDF).

Allowing gay couples to marry amounts to “genocide” and will lead to the “extinction” of the human race, said the niece of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. at a National Organization for Marriage rally in Atlanta on Saturday.

Alveda King (Photo: Atlanta Journal Constitution)

Speaking from the steps of the Georgia state capitol building, “Dr.” (as she refers to herself) Alveda King, emphasized the procreation aspect of the gay marriage debate and voiced her concerns that legalizing gay marriage would mean genocide.

“It is statistically proven that the strongest institution that guarantees procreation and continuity of the generations is marriage between one man and one woman. I don’t know about you, but I’m not ready to be extinct and none of us wants to be. We don’t want genocide, we don’t want to destroy the sacred institution of marriage.”

King, daughter of the late slain civil rights activist Rev. A. D. King, also spoke of her family’s commitment to strong marriages, including her uncle and “his lovely wife.”

She made no mention that Coretta Scott King, Martin Luther King Jr.’s wife, has spoken out in favor of gay marriage on numerous occasions and was a speaker at Atlanta’s Gay Pride festival in 1996.

(Note: King’s doctorate is an honorary degree, presented to her in 2001 by Saint Anselm College, an undergraduate institution.)

The Atlanta rally is latest stop in the NOM’s 23-city anti-gay “Summer of Marriage” roadshow, and attracted a crowd of — wait for it — about 20 supporters (although some reports say it was as high as 35, but we’re not counting the NOM speakers or the media).

The rally was outnumbered, as an estimated 300 gay marriage advocates rights lined the sidewalk across the street from the state capitol building, in a silent counter-protest to the NOM event.

Next stop for the NOM is a rally in Orlando on Sunday. In counter protest, hundreds – maybe thousands – of LGBT citizens and gay rights supporters plan a rally to celebrate and, as they promise in their press release, “spread a message of equality for all Americans.”

Republican U.S. Senate hopeful Sharron Angle believes the clergy should be allowed to endorse candidates from the pulpit and opposes laws allowing gays and lesbians to adopt children, according to a questionnaire obtained by The Associated Press.

Angle

The document provides a window into Angle’s social and moral views, which would place her among Congress’ most conservative members at a time of ongoing culture wars over gay rights, abortion and the boundaries between religion and government.

Among her positions, outlined in answers to 36 yes-or-no questions, Angle would oppose making sexual orientation a protected minority in civil rights laws.

Read Angle’s complete questionnaire here (PDF).

Angle is the Republican nominee for the United States Senate seat in Nevada held by the current Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid.

She supports a federal marriage amendment to ban same-sex marriage, and believes that single-income households are the best way to raise a family.

In a June 2010 radio interview, Angle who opposes abortion including in cases of rape or incest, stated that she had counseled young girls in “very at risk, difficult pregnancies” to consider other alternatives, by which they had been able to make “a lemon situation into lemonade.”

Mexico’s Supreme Court upheld a landmark law this week, permitting same-sex marriages in Mexico City, and rejecting the conservative federal government’s claim that the law is unconstitutional because it threatens the institution of the family.

(Sound familiar?)

The justices’ 8-2 ruling handed a legal victory to hundreds of same-sex couples who have been married in Mexico’s capital since the landmark law took effect March 4. When approved last December, it was the first law in Latin America explicitly giving gay marriages the same status as heterosexual ones, including adoption.

Mexico City’s law is an anomaly in the predominantly Roman Catholic country, where the church hierarchy and the ruling center-right National Action Party have vehemently opposed same-sex marriage.

Since the law took effect in March, 320 same-sex couples have married in the Mexican capital.

While the supreme court decided gay marriage was constitutional, it will review the adoption clause next week.

Thursday’s ruling was greeted as another victory in the international gay-rights community, coming just one day after a U.S. federal judge struck down Proposition 8, California’s voter approved ban on gay marriage.

Last month, Argentina passed a law allowing gay marriage nationwide, becoming the first country in Latin America to legalize same-sex marriage

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown filed motions in federal court late Friday, asking the judge to allow the state to begin performing same-sex marriages.

In his brief, Schwarzenegger called on U.S. District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker to lift the stay on his ruling that California’s gay marriage ban is unconstitutional, thereby allowing gay marriages to resume:

“The Administration believes the public interest is best served by permitting the Court’s judgment to go into effect, thereby restoring the right of same-sex couples to marry in California,” the brief read.

“Doing so is consistent with California’s long history of treating all people and their relationships with equal dignity and respect.”

The Governor’s brief here (PDF).

News of the Governor’s brief came shortly after Attorney General Jerry Brown filed a motion to lift the stay in the decision to overturn Proposition 8. In that motion, Brown wrote:

“While there is still the potential for limited administrative burdens should future marriages of same-sex couples be later declared invalid, these potential burdens are outweighed by this Court’s conclusion, based on the overwhelming evidence, that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. Accordingly, the harm to the plaintiffs outweighs any harm to the state defendants.”

“…The Attorney General respectfully requests that Defendant-Intervenors’ request for a stay pending appeal be denied>”

Brown’s motion here (PDF).

Walker ruled Wednesday that the gay marriage ban created by Proposition 8 violates federal equal protections and due process laws.

However, he agreed to block gay marriages from immediately resuming until he can consider arguments on whether to keep the ban in effect while its supporters take their appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Both Schwarzenegger and Brown were named as defendants in the federal trial challenging Proposition 8, and both declined to defend it in court.

Walker

Is Judge Vaughn Walker gay? Does it matter?

Not surprisingly, supporters of Proposition 8 say the U.S. District Court judge who overturned California’s voter approved ban on gay marriage should have recused himself from the case because, they say, he is gay — and therefore is biased.

“The ‘trial’ in San Francisco in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case is a unique, and disturbing, episode in American jurisprudence,” Maggie Gallagher, Chairman of the Board of NOM, said in a statement. “Here we have an openly gay (according to the San Francisco Chronicle) federal judge substituting his views for those of the American people and of our Founding Fathers who I promise you would be shocked by courts that imagine they have the right to put gay marriage in our Constitution. We call on the Supreme Court and Congress to protect the people’s right to vote for marriage.”

Although Walker has never publicly commented about his sexual orientation, Gallagher and others point to a February 7, 2010 article in the San Francisco Chronicle, effectively “outing” the judge.

“Judge Walker should have recused himself from this case since he is a practicing homosexual,” wrote Bryan Fischer of the American Families Association. “His own personal sexual proclivities utterly compromised his ability to make an impartial ruling in this case.”

So the question for Gallagher and Fischer, et. al., is: If a gay judge who rules against Prop 8 must be biased, wouldn’t a heterosexual judge who rules for Prop 8 be just as biased?

“I think it’s profoundly offensive to suggest that a judge who is not of the sexual orientation of the majority or the race of the majority or the religion of the majority is unfit to hear cases,” said Larry Levine, a professor at McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento.

Levine added that judges of all races and creeds are legally bound to render impartial verdicts, and that Walker’s only reverence in his ruling was to the law.

“Are they saying that an African American judge can never rule on an affirmative action case and a Muslim can never rule on a case dealing with religious expression? If you follow their logic, that’s exactly what they’re saying.”

Which goes back to the question of “rational basis” for Proposition 8 and Judge Walker’s ruling:

“The evidence at trial shows that gays and lesbians experience discrimination based on unfounded stereotypes and prejudices specific to sexual orientation. Gays and lesbians have historically been targeted for discrimination because of their sexual orientation; that discrimination continues to the present.”

The claim that only a gay judge’s ruling would be biased, but a straight judge’s ruling would not, is nothing more than the same fear and hate mongering discrimination that fueled Prop 8 to begin with.

How many witnesses will they call to the stand to prove this theory?

Walker, by the way, didn’t seek out the Proposition 8 case – it was assigned to him at random.

[fbshare]

The federal judge who struck down California’s voter-approved ban on gay marriage must now decide whether the ban should remain in tact while the ruling makes its way through the appeals process.

Prop 8 opponents at a rally to celebrate the ruling to overturn the gay marriage ban.

U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled Wednesday that Proposition 8 was in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment guarantees of equal protection and due process of law.

But shortly after issuing his ruling, Walker issued a temporary “stay,” effectively leaving Prop 8 in tact while he considers whether his ruling should remain on hold as the case moves to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The stay prevents gay couples from marrying while the case is being appealed, but legal analysts speculate it is unlikely that Judge Walker would maintain the stay — judges often hesitate to do so after they have found people’s fundamental rights are being infringed.

On Thursday, Proposition 8 supporters filed their motion for an appeal one day before the Friday’s deadline. Walker asked both sides for written arguments on whether he should extend the stay.

If Walker decides to lift the stay, his ruling can take effect immediately, allowing California to resume issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Officials in several counties have already signaled they are ready to start issuing marriage licenses to gay couples should the stay be lifted.

That decision could create a new window of opportunity for same-sex couples to marry, similar to May 2008, when the State Supreme Court overturned California’s ban on same-sex marriages. About 18,000 couples were married before Proposition 8 was passed by 52 percent of the vote that November.

Already, Prop 8 supporters have said they would ask the appeals court and the U.S. Supreme Court for an emergency stay if that happens.

Ted Boutrous, one of the plaintiff’s attorneys in the case, said, “No one is harmed by people getting married. Our clients are hurt every day that Prop 8 is in effect and their constitutional rights are violated.”

If a stay is granted, same-sex couples could be in store for another long wait while the legal battle wages on. The appeals court posted a schedule Thursday for filing briefs in the case that extends through late December, meaning that it will not hold a hearing until early 2011.

Ryan Kendall (Photo: The Kendall Project)

[fbshare]

Ryan Kendall is a name you will be hearing a lot more in the weeks and months to come.  The 27-year-old from Denver served as a fact witness in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, a.k.a. the federal Prop 8 trial.

Kendall testified about knowing he was gay at a young age, and the horrors of experiencing so-called “reparative therapy” at the hands of NARTH as a teenager.  His testimony was a pivotal moment, not only for the case, but also for Kendall himself, who says he “still feels like a kid who just wants to be loved.”

Kendall, who plans to become an attorney, says the experience of testifying in the historic trial made him realize just how many unsung heroes fight for equality in the United States.

“To me, a hero is anyone who tries to make this a better place for all of us – for the people in our lives, and those that will come after us,’ says Kendall. “Even the smallest act can change the world.”

Like so many others, Kendall was sent to NARTH (the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuals), which he described as “hell on earth”, by his parents.  On the witness stand, he testified, “I knew I was gay.  I knew that could not be changed.”  He akins being gay to knowing he’s 5’6″ tall.  “It’s fundamental knowledge,” he says, “fundamental to my make-up as a human being.”

During the trial, Kendall described the mental anguish he endured because of his parents’ disapproval of his sexual orientation. He recalled his mother telling him he would burn in hell, that he was disgusting,  that she hated him.  She even told him she wished she’d had an abortion instead of a gay son.

After reading Judge Walker’s ruling, Kendall said, “Today is the first day that I know what justice really feels like.  It’s a victory for everyone.  We all deserve equal justice.  It’s a day we will never have again.”.  He added, “Somewhere in Nebraska, there is a 16-year-old kid whose parents are telling him he will go to hell for who he is.  The ruling today will let that kid know that there is nothing wrong with him, that the law treats him as an equal.”

Kendall says he knew people who underwent reparative therapy and ultimately committed suicide.  “It’s a miracle I survived NARTH,” he says.  “They teach you that you are unlovable if you are gay, and that has an impact that forever damages your life.  NARTH destroyed me and my family.”

However, Kendall refuses to play the victim.  Instead, he has found empowerment by speaking about LGBT equality.  “I speak out about these issues, not because it’s fun or flashy or glamorous, but because deep inside I still feel broken.”

“Sometimes I worry I won’t let anyone in,” Kendall adds. “It’s a defense mechanism.  If you shut others out, you shut out the hurt, but I don’t want to shut anyone out anymore.  I speak with such conviction because I know the suffering of others.  I lived it too.”

“As I speak for equality in an unjust world,” says Kendall, “I’m also struggling to work around my own flawed, damaged life.  I’m still that 14, 15, 16-year-old kid who just wants someone to love him for who he is.  That kid who hopes one day to grow up, fall in love, and get married.”

Kendall says he expects the case to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, as does AFER, the sponsoring organization for the plaintiffs. Theodore Olson and David Boies, the lead attorneys for the plaintiffs, have stated from the beginning that they fully intend to argue the case before the Supreme Court.

For more information:

• Visit The Kendall Project
• Read the Perry v. Schwarzenegger ruling
• Visit Marriage Equality USA
• Visit The American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER)

While gay rights advocates from across the country celebrate Wednesday’s historic ruling in which U.S. Judge Vaughn Walker overturned Proposition 8, California’s 2008 voter approved ban on gay marriage, political groups, elected officials and activists on both sides issued reaction, ranging from jubilation to furiously denouncing the court’s ruling.

Following are excerpts from today’s statements; full text available by clicking the respective links:

Statement from Chad Griffin, Board President of the American Foundation for Equal Rights:

The lawsuit was initiated by the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER), a nonprofit organization created to support the plaintiffs in the case.

“This decision follows the founding constitutional principle that every American is to be treated equally under the law. No law may violate the U.S. Constitution, and our courts were established to protect against unfair laws. Today was an example of our nation living up to its founding ideals.”

Protect Marriage.com Statement:

Andy Pugno, general counsel for ProtectMarriage.com, the official proponents of Proposition 8, said “Today’s ruling is clearly a disappointment. The judge’s invalidation of the votes of over seven million Californians violates binding legal precedent and short-circuits the democratic process. But this is not the end of our fight to uphold the will of the people for traditional marriage, as we now begin an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

“It is disturbing that the trial court, in order to strike down Prop 8, has literally accused the majority of California voters of having ill and discriminatory intent when casting their votes for Prop 8.”

Evan Wolfson, Executive Director of Freedom to Marry:

“Today’s federal ruling strikes down a cruel and unfair constitutional amendment that should never have become law and affirms that the freedom to marry belongs to every American. As the first court to strike down race restrictions on marriage said in 1948, “the essence of the right to marry is freedom to join in marriage with the person of one’s choice.

“There is no gay exception in the Constitution to personal choice and the right to marry, and there is no good reason to continue excluding same-sex couples from marriage.”

National Organization for Marriage statement:

“Big surprise! We expected nothing different from Judge Vaughn Walker, after the biased way he conducted this trial,” said Brian Brown, President of NOM.

“With a stroke of his pen, Judge Walker has overruled the votes and values of 7 million Californians who voted for marriage as one man and one woman. This ruling, if allowed to stand, threatens not only Prop 8 in California but the laws in 45 other states that define marriage as one man and one woman.”

HRC Statement:

The Human Rights Campaign – the nation’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights organization – praised Wednesday’s historic decision:

“After hearing extensive evidence in support of marriage equality, and essentially no defense of the discrimination wrought by Prop 8, Judge Walker reached the same conclusion we have always known to be true – the Constitution’s protections are for all Americans, including the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community,” said HRC President Joe Solmonese.

GLAAD Statement:

“The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), the nation’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) media advocacy and anti-defamation organization, joined same-sex couples across the nation in applauding today’s historic decision to overturn Proposition 8.”

“After hearing extensive evidence in support of marriage equality, and essentially no defense of the discrimination wrought by Prop 8, Judge Walker reached the same conclusion we have always known to be true – the Constitution’s protections are for all Americans, including the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community,” said HRC President Joe Solmonese.

Maggie Gallagher, Former President of NOM:

“Did our Founding Fathers really create a right to gay marriage in the U.S. Constitution? It is hard for anyone reading the text or history of the 14th Amendment to make that claim with a straight face, no matter how many highly credentialed and brilliant so-called legal experts say otherwise.

“Judge Walker has added insult to injury by suggesting that support for marriage is somehow irrational bigotry, akin to racial animus. The majority of Americans are not bigots or haters for supporting the commonsense view that marriage is the union of husband and wife, because children need moms and dads.

“Judge Walker’s view is truly a radical rejection of Americans’ rights….”

Statement from California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger:

Schwarzenegger, named as a defendant in the case, commended today’s ruling. He opposed Proposition 8 and declined to defend the ballot measure in court.

“For the hundreds of thousands of Californians in gay and lesbian households who are managing their day-to-day lives, this decision affirms the full legal protections and safeguards I believe everyone deserves. At the same time, it provides an opportunity for all Californians to consider our history of leading the way to the future, and our growing reputation of treating all people and their relationships with equal respect and dignity.

“Today’s decision is by no means California’s first milestone, nor our last, on America’s road to equality and freedom for all people.”

Statement from California Attorney General Jerry Brown:

Brown was also named as a defendant in the case, and as with Governor Schwarzenegger, declined to defend the ballot measure in court.

“In striking down Proposition 8, Judge Walker came to the same conclusion I did when I declined to defend it: Proposition 8 violates the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution by taking away the right of same-sex couples to marry, without a sufficient governmental interest.”

Statement from Geoff Kors, Executive Director for Equality California:

“We are thrilled with today’s ruling, which affirms that the protections enshrined in our U.S. Constitution apply to all Americans and that our dream of equality and freedom deserves protection. Judge Walker has preserved our democracy by ruling that a majority cannot deny a minority group of fundamental freedoms. This is as much a victory for the soul of our nation as it is for the thousands of same-sex couples and their families who will be directly impacted.

“We are truly indebted to Ted Olson and David Boies and to the American Foundation for Equal Rights. We owe Governor Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown a great deal of gratitude for their unprecedented decision not to defend this discriminatory measure.”

Follow our complete coverage on Wednesday’s historic decision here.

For achived coverage on the trial, including opening and closing arguments and day-by-day reporting coverage during the trial, browse our extensive coverage here.

[fbshare]

A federal judge on Wednesday struck down California’s Proposition 8, the 2008 voter approved ban on gay marriage, ruling it “unconstitutional” and fails to “advance any rational basis” to deny gay men and lesbians a marriage license.

In his 136 page ruling, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker wrote:

“Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.”

“Plaintiffs seek to have the state recognize their committed relationships, and plaintiffs’ relationships are consistent with the core of the history, tradition and practice of marriage in the United States.“

“Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians. The evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite sex couples.”

Read the complete ruling here (PDF).

Walker presided over a 13 day non-jury trial earlier this year on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the first in federal court to examine if states can prohibit gays from getting married without violating the U.S. constitutional guarantee of equality.

Judge Walker

Walker’s decision is expected to be appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and then up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Attorneys for the Proposition 8 defense team, anticipating the decision against them, filed court papers Tuesday night, asking Walker for a stay of his ruling. The motion indicated that the Proposition 8 lawyers will immediately ask the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to review the ruling.

In fact, within hours of handing down his decision, Walker issued a ruling granting a temporary stay of his order until Friday, allowing opponents of same-sex marriage time to file appeals, appearing to bar an immediate resumption of weddings between gays and lesbians in California.

To win a permanent stay pending appeal, Proposition 8 proponents must show that they are likely to prevail in the long run and that there would be irreparable harm if the ban is not enforced.

Plantiffs (left to right) Paul Katami, Jeff Zarillo, Kris Perry and Sandy Stier before the start of their trial in San Francisco. Photo credit: Reuters

The trial was instigated by a lawsuit filed by two same-sex couples — Kristin Perry, Sandra Stier, Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarrillo — who said that Proposition 8 violated their constitutional rights to equal protection and due process.

“For our entire lives, our government and the law have treated us as unequal. This decision to ensure that our constitutional rights are as protected as everyone else’s makes us incredibly proud of our country,” Perry said.

“Kris and I have raised four children, own a home and have professional careers. But because of Proposition 8, our family is still not complete. For us, equal rights are about our family having the recognition and protections that other families have,” Stier said.

“We just want to get married, just like our friends, family and relatives can. We are thankful to live in a nation of equal laws,” Katami said.

“We hope this decision brings us closer to the day when Americans no longer have to fight in court for the rights the Constitution says we all already have. We are grateful that the American Foundation for Equal Rights, Ted Olson and David Boies came together to fight for us, and millions of others, so that finally, every American will truly be equal under the law,” Zarrillo said.

The lawsuit, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, was initiated by the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER), a nonprofit organization created to support the plaintiffs in the case. To represent the plaintiffs, AFER retained former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson and David Boies (who worked on opposite sides in Bush v. Gore, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that gave George W. Bush the presidency in 2000).

AFER was founded by political consultant Chad Griffin, and counts Hollywood powerhouses Bruce Cohen, Dustin Lance Black and Rob Reiner among its board members.

Olson (left) and Boies

During the trial, Olson and Boies called 16 witnesses to testify against Proposition 8, including professors and historians from the nation’s top universities, experts in the fields of marriage, sociology and politics, and presented emotional testimony from gays and lesbians about why marriage mattered to them.

“Through its decision today, the court has acted in the best traditions of a legal system established to uphold the Constitution and the principles of equality upon which this nation was founded,” said attorney Theodore B. Olson. “On no less than 14 occasions, the Supreme Court has held that marriage is a fundamental right. This decision recognizes that Proposition 8 denied the plaintiffs, and tens-of-thousands of other Californians, that fundamental constitutional right and treated them unequally.”

“The Supreme Court has long held that marriage is a fundamental right. Equal protection under the law is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, and this ruling affirms that universal right of every American,” plaintiff’s attorney David Boies said. “Depriving the fundamental right to marry causes grievous harm to millions of Americans and their children.”

The backers of Proposition 8 called only two witnesses, both of who made concessions under cross-examination that helped the plaintiff’s case.

Proposition 8, which outlawed gay marriages in California five months after the state Supreme Court legalized them, passed with 52 percent of the vote in November 2008 following the most expensive campaign on a social issue in U.S. history.

Wednesday’s ruling comes just weeks after a federal court in Boston ruled that a key part of the government’s Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional and took away a state’s right to define marriage.

The ruling came after Massachusetts sued the federal government over the law, saying it forced the state to discriminate against its citizens.

Walker’s ruling is the first in the country to strike down a marriage ban based on federal constitutional grounds — previous cases have cited state constitutions.

More on the Prop 8 ruling, including reaction from both sides, from LGBTQ Nation as it develops.

For achived coverage on the trial, including opening and closing arguments and day-by-day reporting coverage during the trial, browse our extensive coverage here.

Tamara Scott

[fbshare]

But according to Tamara Scott, state director for Concerned Women for America, the anti-gay marriage movement is not about hate, instead, she said, being gay was as dangerous as using products that have been recalled.

This is not about hate. Let me ask you this. Recently, there was a series of cars that were recalled by a manufacturer because gas pedals would supposedly take off, and people were injured.

Would it be hateful to tell someone they may have a car that was recalled even though they might be embarrassed? … Or is it more loving to tell them, ‘Man, I hate to tell you bad news, but you might want to have that checked. You’re in danger.’ Seems more loving to me.

We recalled peanut butter because it’s dangerous. If you were sitting across the table from someone and you knew they were eating contaminated food that would do them bodily harm, would it be more loving to keep your mouth shut or to speak up? You know the truth, and so do I. What we’re talking about today is not hateful. Stopping someone from hurting themselves and hurting society is not hateful.

Scott cited a study by Walter Schumm, a family studies professor from Kansas, who concluded that, “we’ve yet to find out all the dangers and all the concerns about children who grow up in homosexual households.”

In 2008, Schumm testified in favor of Florida’s ban on gay adoption, but the judge dismissed his conclusions, saying he, “integrates his religious and ideological beliefs into his research.”

Also featured at Sunday’s rally: Openly gay Iowa State Senator Matt McCoy was called “chief sodomite” by his opponent Dave Leach.

The NOM is on a 23-city junket this summer to spread their “one man, one woman” hate message.

CBS has announced plans to add more gay characters to its fall line-up after receiving a “failing” grade in the annual Network Network Responsibility Index, a media survey by GLAAD that monitors the portrayal of gay, lesbian and transgender people on television.

In the season that starts in September, the network said a gay character will join “The Good Wife,” a lesbian character will join “Rules of Engagement” and a gay character will appear in the new sitcom “$#*! My Dad Says.”

Speaking last week to television reporters, Nina Tassler, CBS entertainment president, said the network was adding the characters to its prime-time programs “because we’re very disappointed in our track record so far.”

Tassler announced the addition of the three characters, saying that when it became clear that none of CBS’s new shows included gay or lesbian characters, the network looked for other opportunities to “improve the numbers we have represented in the casts.”

The network received a “Failing” rating from GLAAD, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, with only 7% LGBT-inclusive hours of prime time programming, the vast majority of which came from its reality series.

A group of same-sex couples are suing the state of Hawaii, alleging violations of constitutional rights in the wake of Governor Linda Lingle’s veto of civil unions bill that would have given same-sex couples the same rights as heterosexual couples.

The complaint filed in circuit court by the American Civil Liberties Union of Hawaii and Lambda Legal argues that the state violates the constitution by denying same sex couples the rights and protections currently available to heterosexual couples through marriage.

“It’s tragic that something needed so badly by so many Hawaii families was derailed with a stroke of the governor’s pen,” said Jennifer C. Pizer, Lambda Legal Senior Counsel.

“We had hoped we’d never have to file this lawsuit but the political process has failed the thousands of families who need the protections civil unions would have provided. Every Hawaii family should be treated equally under the law, but because the state refuses to do that, we’re forced to go to the courts.”

The complaint argues that the state violates its own constitution by denying same-sex couples important rights and protections readily available to heterosexual couples through marriage.

The bill, approved by the state Legislature in late April, would have granted gay and lesbian couples the same rights and benefits the state provides to married couples.

Lingle called the issue too emotional and too important to be decided solely by the governor or the state Legislature, and recommended a state constitutional amendment be placed on the ballot for voters in 2012.

Lois Perrin ACLU of Hawaii Legal Director said: “Governor Lingle vetoed HB 444, thereby failing in her sworn duty to do what’s best for the state she governs. To add insult to injury, she would now put fundamental rights up for a popular vote.”

The case is Young v. Lingle (.PDF). The plaintiff’s bios are here.

A comic classic, The Amazing Spiderman, will debut what is likely the first gay kiss to be featured on the cover of a mainstream comic book.

The comic, out this October by Brian Michael Bendis, is about a bummed out Spider-Man, on the outs with his buds, girlfriend, and the world at large.

The cover art by David LaFuente Garcia captures Spiderman feeling sorry for himself in a couples-crowded Central Park. Among them, two men embrace as they lean in, eyes closed, for a kiss. (Look center-right.)

Kudos to Marvel Comics for simply illustrating that the LGBT community is a normal part of everyday society.

Gay couples rushed to tie the knot in Argentina on Friday, two weeks after the country became the first in Latin America to grant them the same marriage rights as heterosexual couples.

Calefato (left), and Navarro

Miguel Angel Calefato, 65, and Jose Luis Navarro, 54, became the first gay couple to marry in Argentina under the new law legalizing same-sex marriages.

The couple, together more than 27 years, married in the province Santiago del Estero in an early morning ceremony where a civil registry official used a pen to cross out “man and woman” on the marriage license and wrote in “contracting parties.”

Another gay couple married in Buenos Aires an hour later, and many more gay marriages are scheduled for the weekend, including one between two men serving time in prison.

Argentina became the first country in Latin America to permit gay marriage after President Cristina Fernandez signed the law July 21. The legislation was passed by both houses of Congress despite fierce opposition from the Roman Catholic Church.

The new law amends the phrase “husband and wife” to “contracting parties” in Argentina’s Civil Code. It also extends equal rights to homosexual couples in matters having to do with adoption, inheritance and social benefits.

The South Bend, Indiana, Common Council has voted to table the human rights ordinance that would have extended employment discrimination protection to its gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender citizens.

About 200 people packed the meeting room Monday night as council members heard more than two hours of public debate about the proposal.

Councilman Oliver Davis, one of the measure’s three sponsors, sought the continuance when it became clear he lacked the five votes needed for a majority on the nine-member council.

Former Gov. Joe Kernan, a former mayor of South Bend, told council members failure to adopt a gay rights bill, ordinance number 30-10, will hurt the city’s image.

“The failure to pass 30-10 sends the message that we as a community are intolerant and we are better than that,” Kernan said.

Target Corporation has come under fire from gay rights advocates and LGBT activists for contributing to Minnesota Forward, a political action group that has come out in support of anti-gay gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer.

The Minneapolis-based retail chain gave $150,000 to the Republican-friendly fund, which is running television ads supporting Emmer, the presumptive GOP nominee.

Emmer is a staunch opponent of same-sex marriage. In 2007, he authored a constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage and civil unions, and makes this statement on his campaign website:

“I believe marriage is the union between one man and one woman. As a legislator, I have consistently supported the constitutional marriage amendment that protects traditional marriage.”

Until now, Target has been usually regarded as fairly pro-gay, offering partner benefits for employees and appearing on many lists of the best places for gays to shop and work.

But that has not deterred gay rights advocates from unleashing on Target. In recent days, LGBT bloggers have blasted the company, launched a Boycott Target page on Facebook, and a blog TargetingGLBT, all in effort to pressure the company to rethink its political contributions.

Emmer

The Minnesota Independent reports that on several occasions, Emmer has tried to change language in bills to that same-sex couples cannot benefit. In a bill to create standards around surrogate motherhood, Emmer attempted to replace the word “parents” with the words “mother and father.” In a wrongful death bill, Emmer disputed using the term “domestic partner” just as he has in bills aimed at providing benefits for same-sex partners.

Emmer has also been criticized for his association with Christian hard rock ministry, You Can Run But You Cannot Hide. The group’s front man, Bradlee Dean, told radio listeners recently that Muslim countries that call for the execution of gays and lesbians are “more moral than even the American Christians.”

Emmer has referred to the group as “nice guys.”

On Monday, the The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) issued this statement:

“Target has worked hard to create a fair and equitable workplace for its LGBT employees, and should be proud of its leadership in this area. It is for this reason that HRC is very disappointed in Target’s significant monetary contribution to Minnesota Forward, a group supporting the most clearly anti-LGBT candidate for Governor in Minnesota. We have reached out to Target to express our concern over this contribution.

While political contributions to support candidates are not a factor in HRC Foundation’s Corporate Equality Index, HRC finds it puzzling that Target would take great steps to support LGBT inclusiveness while simultaneously helping a candidate who shamelessly rejects equality for LGBT Minnesotans.”

On Tuesday, Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel today sent a letter to employees defending the company’s record on gay rights.

“Let me be very clear, Target’s support of the (gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered) community is unwavering, and inclusiveness remains a core value of our company,” Steinhafel wrote.

Electronics retailer Best Buy Co. gave $100,000 to the group, according to an MN Forward report made public Tuesday.

The New Jersey Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a case from six same-sex couples seeking the right to marry, saying the case needs to wind its way through the lower courts first.

The court said it could not consider the merits of the claim that New Jersey’s civil union law is unconstitutional, until there is a trial record, leaving open the possibility it could hear the argument sometime in the future.

Garden State Equality issued this statement:

Today’s procedural decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court, voting 3 to 3 not to take the marriage equality case directly and all but inviting our side to initiate a new case at trial, is, of course, profoundly disappointing.

Today’s decision represents a delay until the Court hears how the civil union law has devastated same-sex families and their children. And any time justice is delayed, justice is denied.

Monday’s announcement is the latest in a series of setbacks for New Jersey’s gay marriage movement, which suffered successive blows from the November election of Governor Chris Christie and the defeat in January of a bill that would have legalized gay marriage.

Outgoing Governor, Jon Corzine, promised to sign the gay marriage bill if passed before he left office on January 19, 2010.

In 2006, the NJ Supreme Court ruled same-sex couples were due the full rights and benefits of heterosexual married couples, but left it up to the state Legislature to provide those rights, leading to the 2006 Civil Union Act.

In the court’s ruling (copy here, PDF), Chief Justice Stuart Rabner wrote, “This matter cannot be decided without development of an appropriate trial-like record.” He added that the court has reached “no conclusion” on the constitutionality of the Civil Union Act.

In the dissenting opinion, Justice Virginia Long wrote that the court should have heard oral arguments to help “guide us on the best procedural course” for creating a trial-like record.

The court’s decision was split 3-3. There is one vacancy on the court, and a majority would have been needed for the High Court to bypass the lower courts.

“This ruling is a saddening setback for our plaintiffs and their families,” said Hayley Gorenberg, Deputy Legal Director for Lambda Legal. “We are now assessing possible next steps in Superior Court.”

[fbshare]

A Georgia graduate student has filed a lawsuit accusing Augusta State University officials of violating her constitutional rights — she claims the school told her that her anti-gay beliefs are incompatible with the standards of her desired profession.

Jennifer Keeton, 24, who is pursuing a master’s degree in counseling, said she was ordered to undergo a re-education plan that requires her to attend “diversity sensitivity training,” complete additional remedial reading and write papers to describe their effects on her beliefs, according to the lawsuit filed last week.

“The school counseling faculty has decided that my views are not acceptable for me or to share with other students,” Keeton said in a video statement produced by the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF).

“They have required a remediation plan in which the end result would be me altering my beliefs or being dismissed from the program.”

Keeton has said in and out class that, according to her Christian beliefs, homosexuality is immoral and a lifestyle choice.

The ADF, a legal alliance that supports religious freedom, filed the suit for Keeton in U.S. District Court in Augusta. The notoriously anti-gay ADF opposes gay marriage, gay adoption, and established an annual “Day of Truth” to counter what it calls the promotion of the homosexual agenda.

ASU officials have made no comment on the suit, but said its counselor education program is accredited by the Council for the Accreditation of Counseling and Related Education Programs, and follows the American School Counselor Association’s ethical standards, which specify that counselors in training must “recognize and accept” individual differences, cultural diversity and alternative points of view.

Keeton claimed that despite her beliefs, she would still be able to counsel lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans patients.

Plaintiffs in Donaldson and Guggenheim v. State of Montana.
Source: ACLU

[fbshare]

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and seven gay couples in Montana filed a lawsuit against the state this week for failing to offer legal protections to same-sex couples and their families.

The suit, Donaldson and Guggenheim v. State of Montana, claims same sex couples are being denied their rights of privacy, dignity and the pursuit of life’s basic necessities as provided for in the Montana Constitution.

Because there is a constitutional amendment in Montana barring same-sex marriage, the couples in the lawsuit are seeking the protection of state-recognized domestic partnerships, similar to those in place in several other states.

According to the ACLU, under Montana law, it is possible for same-sex couples to be barred from visiting their partners in the hospital and to be left out of conversations about emergency medical care. Montana inheritance laws refuse to recognize same-sex couples, and can leave surviving partners with nothing if their partners die without valid wills.

“It’s unfair for same-sex couples who have made commitments and formed families to be treated by the state like legal strangers,” said Betsy Griffing, Legal Director for the ACLU of Montana. “Lesbian, gay and bisexual Montanans are valuable and productive members of society who should be treated fairly if their partner is in the hospital or dies without a will.”

The suit seeks a mechanism such as the domestic partnership laws adopted by several other states to provide similar protections for committed same-sex couples.

The plaintiffs (pictured, clockwise from top-left) are: MJ Williams and Nancy Owens of Basin; Denise Boettcher and Kellie Gibson of Laurel; David Wilson and Casey Charles of Missoula; Mary Leslie and Stacey Haugland of Bozeman; Mike Long and Rich Parker of Bozeman; Jan Donaldson and Mary Anne Guggenheim of Helena; and Gary Stallings and Rick Wagner of Butte.

This photograph is one of the few mementos Clay has left of his 25 years together with Harold.

[fbshare]

California’s Sonoma County has agreed to pay $600,000 to settle a lawsuit by an elderly gay man who claimed he was separated from his dying partner, accused of abuse, and left penniless when county officials auctioned the contents of their home.

Clay Greene, 78, of Guerneville, CA, filed the lawsuit earlier this year, claiming the county’s Public Guardian program discriminated against him because of his sexual orientation.

It began in 2008, when Greene’s partner of 25 years, Harold Scull, 88, was injured after falling down the front steps of the couple’s home and was taken to a local hospital.

Greene said that when Scull was in the hospital, Sonoma County officials denied visitation for the couple, contending they were mere “roommates,” despite signed wills, medical declarations and powers of attorney.

Three months later, Scull died alone and Greene was left with nothing.

The lawsuit also alleged that after Scull’s death, social workers forced Greene into a nursing home and sold the couple’s property, including art and heirlooms. The county’s lawyer, Gregory Spaulding, denied the discrimination claims but admitted mistakes in selling the couple’s property.

With his share of the money, which amounts to about $350,000 including an additional $50,000 from a Glen Ellen nursing home named in the suit, Greene will be able to live out his retirement in comfort.

“He’s very pleased,” said Greene’s attorney, Anne Dennis of Santa Rosa, who will receive half of the county settlement. “He thought he’d be dead before the county ever gave him money. And he’s relieved he doesn’t have to go to trial.”

In settling the suit, Greene agreed to drop allegations that county officials actions were the result of discrimination.

“What Clay and Harold lost can never be replaced, but this settlement brings a measure of justice to their story,” said Amy Todd-Gher, senior staff attorney for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which represented Greene in conjunction with Davis.

[fbshare]

A federal judge on Friday issued an injunction preventing the State of Arizona from enforcing a law that would have prevented lesbian and gay state employees and their domestic partners (and the children of those partners) from receiving health benefits, referring to it as illegal discrimination.

The bill, passed by the legislature last session and signed by Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, eliminated coverage for non-spouse domestic partners, whether they were heterosexual or gay. The lawsuit, filed by Lambda Legal, said that heterosexual couples had the option of receiving benefits simply by getting married, but gay and lesbian couples can’t do so in Arizona.

United States District Judge John Sedwick agreed, citing the Arizona constitutional amendment that bars same-sex marriages, and said the state is making benefits for the partners of its employees available “on terms that are a legal impossibility for gay and lesbian couples.’’

The state argued, among other things, that the law saves Arizona money, to which Judge Sedwick addressed in his 33-page decision:

“Contrary to the State’s suggestion, it is not equitable to lay the burden of the State budgetary shortfall on homosexual employees, any more than on any other distinct class, such as employees with green eyes or red hair.”

He said the evidence shows that the cost of providing benefits to then partners of gay and lesbian workers is no more than 0.27 percent of total health care spending by the state. And even if cuts had to be made elsewhere, the judge said, that still doesn’t make the law right.

Arizona lawmakers included the provision to eliminate domestic partner health benefits for gay state employees as part of a last-minute budget deal signed by Brewer last September, while retaining spousal health benefits for heterosexual workers. Friday’s injunction barring enforcement of the insurance cut-off will take effect in ten days.

The State can appeal the ruling immediately to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, or proceed to defend the discriminatory budget provision on the merits in the District Court.

About 800 state employees are affected. State officials have not announced whether they will appeal the ruling.

[fbshare]

David Thompson, an attorney saddled with the unfortunate task of representing Prop 8 defendants, remarked in court during the federal trial that supporting the Prop 8 campaign was” political kryptonite,” according to the Washington Post.

Thompson, while cross-examining Stanford professor Gary Sergura, attempted to show that Prop 8 supporters “had been assaulted, gotten death threats and been subjected to economic boycotts,” and that the gay rights movement had suffered because of it.

In other words, Thompson was saying Prop 8 (a.k.a. “traditional marriage”) supporters are the victims here, not gay people. And that gay people have brought negative backlash upon themselves by standing up for their equal rights.

Sergura countered that he considered boycotts an acceptable political tool, but “organized violence or even broad disorderly behavior certainly has a negative impact.”  He said such behavior was “a cry for help or expression of frustration, or maybe the ultimate expression of powerlessness” by those whose lives were affected by the passage of Prop 8.

What would Thompson have the LGBT community do in response to having our equal rights stripped away? Sit back and take whatever hate-filled bigotry so-called “traditional marriage” supporters dish out with no repercussions?  Does he honestly believe his side would do the same if the shoe were on the other foot?  Judging from the hate speech [unpublishable here] that Prop 8 supporters were spewing out at Prop 8 rallies and during the trial, the answer seems to be a resounding “no”.

The UK’s Daily Mail is reporting that three Catholic priests were caught on tape having sex in Rome’s gay nightclubs.  The news has reportedly “shocked … the devoutly Catholic country”.

Video still allegedly showing a gay priest having sex in a Roman nightclub

A reporter for Panorama magazine, who works for Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi (who happens to own all Italian media), had a “gay accomplice” help him scope out Catholic priests in Italian gay bars.

Panorama said, “By day they are regular priests, complete with dog collar, but, at night it’s off with the cassock as they take their place as perfectly integrated members of the Italian capital’s gay scene.”

Well, all except for one, whom the magazine called Carlo, who “willingly put on his cassock to have sex with the reporter’s gay accomplice.”

Now, if you can get past your initial knee-jerk repulsion to this revelation, consider this:  The Vatican, and the Catholic Church generally, has a long history of priest pedophilia, which is illegal, and which, for the most part, has been kept secret.  The majority of priests who have admitted having sex with young boys identify as heterosexual, not homosexual. Nevertheless, Pope Benedict XVI predictably decided to scapegoat the gays, announcing a “crackdown” in 2008, or “gay witch hunt”, if you will.

So why go out to gay nightclubs with the intent to bust gay Catholic priests, who were not doing anything illegal, and weren’t doing it inside the church?

Stay with me here before you condemn me to hell for all eternity.   I’m simply saying gay priests are people, and have just as much of a right to have consensual sex as anyone else, as long as it’s legal and it doesn’t hurt anyone.

Let’s rewind a bit.  The vow of celibacy was introduced in the Church of Rome in 1079 by Pope Gregory VII, a.k.a. Hildebrand of Sovana.  It took 60 years for it to be codified.  Prior to that, Catholic priests were free to have sex, and even marry and have children. Pope Gregory was despised by by many for his overreaching of papal power.  He excommunicated Henry IV, twice no less, and was described as a “rough and violent peasant, enlisting his brute strength in the service of the monastic ideal which he embraced.”  Gregory VII was so despised, he died in exile in the small Italian town of Salerno.

Now fast-forward about 1000 years to the present.  Despite the fact that Gregory VII was reviled and exiled, the Catholic church continues to cling to his rotten-to-the-core vow of celibacy.  Granted, Catholic priests know what they’re getting into when they take the vow, but they are also human, and as such, by nature they have basic needs.  Many of them have satisfied the need for sex illegally, with children, and it’s been covered up for God knows how long by the church.  I’m guessing around 1000 years.

I’m willing to bet you that if hidden cameras were placed in every priest’s quarters and every little hidden-away spot in the Vatican, Silvio Berlusconi’s head would explode when he saw the tapes and realized the Vatican is a hotbed of gay sex.   Is it wrong when grown men have sex with children?  Yes.  Is it wrong when two consenting adults have sex? No.

So before you go condemning the priests who were caught on camera in gay nightclubs having sex, think about who the Catholic vow of celibacy came from, and just how unrealistic it is, even to men of the cloth.  Isn’t it about time the Vatican wised up and stopped pointing the finger of blame at gay men for its own pathetic failures to fight human nature?

I welcome your comments, condemnations, and prayers for my soul.

[fbshare]

Last week, Todd Ransom, a 28 year-old gay man from Orem, Utah, committed suicide.

While it is unclear why exactly Ransom took his life, friends report that he struggled to reconcile his sexual orientation with his Mormon upbringing.

Todd Ransom

There have been few reports of Ransom’s death in the media. Local news outlets have published only brief accounts from when Ransom’s body was discovered July 19.

But in a website memorial launched this weekend, Ransom’s family released this statement:

“Our beloved son, brother and friend took his own life at Battle Creek Canyon near Pleasant Grove, Utah after a long and painful battle with depression.

Some people have said that Todd ended his life because he was gay or felt persecuted by the LDS Church and his family, but this is not true. We loved him unconditionally. We were always there for him.

Todd attempted suicide previously and we know from that experience that his manic depression was a constant thorn in his side and that there were other factors that influenced his suicide. Todd didn’t always agree with us or want to share his life with us, but he was loved by us. That is the undeniable truth.”

Ransom’s death has fueled new debate about suicide among gay Mormons.

Utah bloggers have written that this is the third gay suicide in Utah this month, all of which have been largely ignored by local news outlets — David Standley, 21 of Ogden, took his life on June 30, and Weber State University student Tim Tilley, 20, killed himself on July 11.

And according to the Deseret News, a LDS owned and cultured newspaper:

- Every 11 days a Utah teen commits suicide
- Utah leads the nation in suicide among men 15-24
- Utah has the 11th highest overall suicide rate in the nation
- Suicide is the #1 cause of death among Utah teens

Last year, Ransom signed up to participate in Reed Cowan’s film, 8: The Mormon Proposition, a documentary that chronicled the Mormon Church’s involvement in the passage of California’s Proposition 8, the voter-approved ban on gay marriage.

According to Cowan, Ransom left inexplicably before he could appear in front of the camera.

A candlelight vigil for Todd Ransom was held Tuesday at the Utah state capital. (Photo via David Daniels Photography)

But the memorial website goes beyond speculation, and explains with much candor, Ransom’s life and struggles:

“Our lives changed when Todd announced to his family in 2001 that he was gay. Thus began the difficult dance that takes place between a faithful Mormon family and a much-loved son and brother who chooses to live a gay lifestyle.

It was difficult for his parents to publicly acknowledge his homosexuality, and this hurt Todd in ways that his parents did not intend. On the other hand, in spite of his upbringing in the LDS Church, Todd insisted that family members affirm his sexuality in ways that put them at odds with their conscience and beliefs.

Todd was very hurt when his parents felt that they could not attend his commitment ceremony with Jake Jacquez, his partner of eight years, however he and Jake were both welcome in our home.”

Ransom was born July 11, 1982 in Princeton, New Jersey. He grew up in Tucson, Arizona and Orem, Utah. He graduated with honors from the University of Utah in May 2009, earning a BS degree in biomedical engineering.

Friends say Ransom left behind a note reading “Sunrise – Accept This Offering.”

A candlelight vigil was held last Tuesday evening on the steps of the Utah state capital. Photos at David Daniels Photography.

Ransom’s obituary here.

With thanks to Laurie Beth’s Grotto for calling our attention to the memorial website.

MTV has been awarded high marks from Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), earning an “Excellent” rating from the advocacy group for its portrayal of gay, lesbian and transgender people on television.

GLAAD released its fourth annual Network Responsibility Index (NRI) on Thursday, a report that maps the quantity, quality and diversity of images of LGBT people on television. Prime time programming on the five broadcast networks was evaluated as well as original prime time programming on 10 of the highest-rated cable networks.

“It is with great pride that GLAAD honors MTV with our highest mark of excellence in recognition of the network’s commitment to fair and accurate representation of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community,” said GLAAD President Jarrett Barrios.

“From their inception, MTV programs like ‘The Real World’ and ‘America’s Best Dance Crew’ have offered richly diverse portrayals of gay and transgender people that help Americans better understand and accept our community,” said Barrios.

Of MTV’s 207.5 hours of original prime time programming, 42% included LGBT-inclusive images that reflected the ethnic and racial diversity of the LGBT community as well as a strong cross-section of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, said GLAAD.

GLAAD reviewed more than 4,700 hours of prime time programming for inclusion of LGBT characters or issues on the five major networks (ABC, CBS, The CW, Fox and NBC) from June 1, 2009 to May 31, 2010. GLAAD also examined 1,227 hours of original prime time programming on 10 highly-rated cable networks. Each hour was reviewed for on-screen LGBT representations.

Based on the quantity, overall quality and diversity of these representations, a rating was assigned by GLAAD’s Entertainment Media Program to each network: Excellent, Good, Adequate, or Failing.

Here are the findings from the GLAAD Network Responsibility Index:
(Download a copy of the report here.)

Broadcast Networks

• After three years in second place, The CW is now the top broadcast network with 35% of its prime time programming hours being LGBT-inclusive. This is the highest percentage ever recorded for a broadcast network, though it should be noted that The CW airs less prime time programming hours than the other four broadcast networks.
• ABC dropped to third place in terms of its percentage of LGBT-inclusive programming hours (26%). ABC received a “Good” rating because of the quantity and strong quality of its LGBT images.
• Fox ranked right behind The CW in its percentage of LGBT-inclusive programming hours (30%) but received an “Adequate” rating because of the stereotypical and defamatory nature of some of its content. NBC also received an “Adequate” because of the comparatively low quantity of LGBT stories (13%).
• CBS once again received a “Failing” rating with only 7% LGBT-inclusive hours of primetime programming, the vast majority of which came from its reality series.

Cable Networks

• In addition to MTV’s groundbreaking “Excellent” rating, for the first time a majority of cable networks received higher than an “Adequate” rating. ABC Family (37%), TNT (34%), Showtime (32%), Lifetime (31%) and HBO (26%) all received “Good” ratings for the quantity and quality of their LGBT-inclusive original programming.
• FX aired a significant amount of LGBT-inclusive programming (27%), but often relied on stereotypes or problematic representations of the LGBT community.
• USA (4%), A&E (3%) and TBS (2%) all received “Failing” ratings for their lack of LGBT-inclusive images.

“When television networks share real stories of our community, audiences begin to see the common ground that we all share,” said Barrios. “Over the last year, viewers across the country celebrated the arrival of Mitchell and Cameron’s baby on ABC’s ‘Modern Family’, while teens and parents everywhere were moved by Kurt Hummel’s relationship with his father on Fox’s ‘Glee.’ These images and stories are being noticed by viewers, critics and Awards programs and we urge other networks to open their airwaves to such powerful and inclusive messages.”

Lt. Dan Choi, an Iraq war veteran who has emerged as one of the most outspoken critics of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the military ban on openly gay service members, has been discharged from the Army National Guard.

In a telephone call from his battalion commander on Thursday morning, Choi was notified of his honorable discharge, coming almost a year and a half after he came out on national television.

Choi

Choi issued this statement:

“This morning I received notification of my honorable discharge from the army under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” After 11 years since beginning my journey at West Point and after 17 months of serving openly as an infantry officer this is both an infuriating and painful announcement.

“But my service continues. To all those veterans who have endured similar trials and injustices or prematurely ended their military service because of the unjust policy: our fight has only begun.

“The true honor and dignity of service does not come from a piece of paper, a pension or paycheck, a rank or status; only an unflinching commitment to improve the lives of others can determine the nature of one’s service. From the first moment we put on our nation’s uniform and swore our solemn oath, we committed ourselves to fight for freedom and justice; to defend our constitution and put the needs of others before our own. This is not an oath that I intend to abandon. Doing so at such a time, or remaining silent when our family and community members are fired or punished for who they truly are would be an unequivocal moral dereliction that tarnishes the honor of the uniform and insults the meaning of America.”

Choi’s discharge order here (PDF).

Since outing himself, Choi has become a vocal opponent of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” In March, he criticized Defense Secretary Robert Gates for only relaxing enforcement of the policy rather than unilaterally ceasing enforcement.

On two occasions earlier this year, Choi was arrested for handcuffing himself to the White House fence in “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” protests. He was charged with two counts of failure to obey a lawful order, but last week prosecutors dropped all charges.

Earlier this week, Choi was arrested in Las Vegas during a demonstration calling on Nevada Sen. Harry Reid, the Democratic senate majority leader, to do more to pass the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

Meanwhile, efforts to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” continue to move through Congress and the military. The Pentagon is currently conducting a study into a possible repeal’s effects. A report on that study is expected to be presented to President Obama and military officials by December 1.

Since 1993, when “don’t ask, don’t tell” was introduced, more than 14,000 servicemen and women have been discharged because of their sexual orientation, and tens of thousands of others have voluntarily ended their military careers.

Choi announced he is gay on The Rachel Maddow Show on March 19, 2009, prompting the U.S. Army to initiate discharge proceedings. His discharge became effective on June 29, 2010.

Gaymon

[fbshare]

The ACLU joined gay rights groups, civic and religious leaders in calling for an independent investigation into the death of a prominent Atlanta CEO who was shot and killed last week during an undercover sweep of alleged homosexual activity in a New Jersey park.

DeFarra “Dean” Gaymon, 48, CEO of the Credit Union of Atlanta, was shot and killed last Friday in Newark’s Branch Brook Park.

Authorities said he was masturbating and propositioned an undercover Essex County sheriff’s detective before a confrontation that led to the fatal shooting.

The undercover officer, whose name has not been released, told investigators that on the evening of June 17, he had returned to the woods after chasing down another suspect, because he realized he had lost his handcuffs.

When he bent down to retrieve his handcuffs, he claims he was approached by Gaymon, a married father of four, and was propositioned for sex.

The former Montclair, NJ resident, in town for his 30-year high school reunion, “appeared to panic” when the detective identified himself and showed his badge in an area of the park known to the Essex County Sheriff’s Office as a gay sex pickup spot, authorities said.

Essex County Prosecutor Robert D. Laurino said Gaymon then assaulted the officer and ran.

“The officer made repeated commands to Mr. Gaymon to stop and submit. Mr. Gaymon ignored those commands, did not raise his arms or make his hands visible and repeatedly threatened to kill the officer,” Laurino said. “Mr. Gaymon then lunged at and attempted to disarm the officer while reaching into his own pocket.”

“What we have here is a situation where an unarmed citizen ends up dead as a result of what would have been a minor crime,” said Deborah Jacobs, executive director for the ACLU-NJ.

A key question asked by all groups involved was why the officer pulled his gun for what Jacobs at the ACLU called “basically a misdemeanor for which you normally get a fine.”

Gaymon’s family is demanding a federal investigation, accusing the officer who said he fired in self defense of lying.

“We know that the police killed an innocent man, with no history of or disposition towards violence,” the Gaymon family said in their statement, according to the Atlanta Journal Constitution.

“Dean Gaymon was a nonviolent, non-aggressive and nonthreatening person his entire life,” said the statement. ” It would have been completely and totally against his nature to ‘tussle’ with a police officer, to resist authority, to assault a police officer…Words such as ‘I am going to kill you’ would not be uttered from him.”

Lt. Dan Choi is a controversial crusader for DADT repeal

[fbshare]

A study released by the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law estimates that there are currently several thousand lesbian, gay, and bisexual soldiers serving in the military, and enforcing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” has cost U.S. taxpayers up to more than a half a billion dollars since its inception in 1994.

Study author Dr. Gary J. Gates (presumably no relation to Defense Secretary Robert Gates) stated that, “Despite official policy requiring that lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals remain silent about their sexual orientation, data from the US Census Bureau suggest that an estimated 66,000 gay, lesbian, and bisexual men and women are serving in the US military.”

Key findings of the study include:

• An estimated 66,000 lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals are serving in the US military, accounting for approximately 2.2% of military personnel.
• Approximately 13,000 gay, lesbian, and bisexual people are serving on active duty (comprising 0.9% of all active duty personnel) while nearly 53,000 are serving in the guard and reserve forces (3.4%).
• While women comprise only about 14% of active duty personnel, they comprise more than 43% of lesbian and/or bisexual men and women serving on active duty.
• Lifting DADT restrictions could attract an estimated 36,700 men and women to active duty service and 12,000 more individuals to the guard and reserve.
• Since its inception in 1994, the “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell” policy has cost the military between $290 million to more than a half a billion dollars.
• The military spends an estimated $22,000 to $43,000 per person to replace those discharged under DADT.

In other words, ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” has never worked, and never will.

In the meantime, both the Senate and the Pentagon have continued to drag their feet on the issue, despite prompting from President Obama, former U.S. Generals, and Congress to repeal the archaic law.  A repeal passed the House earlier this year.

Click here for for a link to the study.

Ted Olson said he fully intends to take the Prop 8 trial to the US Supreme Court

Ted Olson, a staunch conservative and one of the attorneys challenging the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8 (and the state’s ballot initiative process) in federal court wrote a lengthy but brilliant op-ed piece for Newsweek titled The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage:  Why same-sex marriage is an American value.

As we patiently await Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling, let’s take a few moments to remember the highlights:

• The very idea of marriage is basic to recognition as equals in our society; any status short of that is inferior, unjust, and unconstitutional.
• Conservatives should celebrate gay marriage.  Same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize. Marriage is one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and our nation.  The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance
• The 14th Amendment says “no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person the equal protection of the laws”.  What better way to make this national aspiration complete than to apply the same protection to men and women who differ from others only on the basis of their sexual orientation?
• The Supreme Court has has set precedents establishing marriage as part of the Constitution’s protections of liberty, privacy, freedom of association, and spiritual identification.  Without it, there can be no true equality under the law.In Romer v. Evans (1996) the Supreme Court struck down a popularly adopted Colorado constitutional amendment that withdrew the rights of gays and lesbians in that state to the protection of anti-discrimination laws. And seven years ago, in Lawrence v. Texas, (2002) the Supreme Court struck down, as lacking any rational basis, Texas laws prohibiting private, intimate sexual practices between persons of the same sex, overruling a contrary decision called Bowers v. Hardwick (1986).
• The Supreme Court has always considered marriage in the context of the underlying rights and liberties that marriage embodies, which are in no way confined to heterosexuals.
• Simply because something has always been done in a “traditional” way does not mean that it must always remain that way. Otherwise we would still have segregated schools and debtors’ prisons.  The fact that some states now honor same-gender unions further weakens the “tradition” argument.
• The procreation argument cannot be taken seriously.  We do not inquire whether heterosexual couples intend to bear children, or have the capacity to have children, before we allow them to marry.  Allowing gays and lesbians to marry someone of the same sex will not discourage heterosexuals from marrying a person of the opposite sex. How, then, would allowing same-sex marriages reduce the number of children that heterosexual couples conceive?
• Gay marriage does no harm to heterosexual marriage.  When [Judge Walker] asked our opponent to identify the ways in which same-sex marriage would harm heterosexual marriage, to his credit he answered honestly: he could not think of any.
• Refusal to accord marriage to gays and lesbians tells them, those who love them, and society as a whole that their relationships are less worthy, less legitimate, less permanent, and less valued. This serves no benefit to society.
• I reject religious teachings that denounce homosexuality as morally wrong, illegitimate, or unnatural.  Science has shown us that gays and lesbians do not choose to be homosexual any more than the rest of us choose to be heterosexual. To a very large extent, these characteristics are immutable, like being left-handed.
• Society has changed since Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and Loving v. Virginia (1967).   I am convinced that Americans will be equally proud when we no longer discriminate against gays and lesbians and welcome them into our society.
• We disagree with the notion that we have brought this case too soon, and that neither the country nor the courts are “ready” to tackle this issue and remove this stigma.  We do not tell persons who have a legitimate claim to wait until the time is “right” and the populace is “ready” to recognize their equality and equal dignity under the law.
• Americans who believe in the words of the Declaration of Independence, in Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, in the 14th Amendment, and in the Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and equal dignity before the law cannot sit by while this wrong continues. This is not a conservative or liberal issue; it is an American one, and it is time that we, as Americans, embraced it.

The trial has taken much longer than expected, and will be appealed in the 9th Circuit.  It will almost certainly heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.

McMillen

[fbshare]

A Mississippi school district has agreed to pay a recent high school graduate $35,000 in damages and adopt a policy prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, according to a statement released Tuesday by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Itawamba County School District officials agreed to have a judgment entered against them in the case of 18-year-old Constance McMillen, who sued her school for canceling the prom rather than let her attend with her girlfriend. The agreement ends a precedent-setting lawsuit brought by the ACLU on behalf of McMillen, who suffered humiliation and harassment after parents, students and school officials executed a plan to put on a “decoy” prom for her while the rest of her classmates were at a private prom 30 miles away.

“I’m so glad this is all over. I won’t ever get my prom back, but it’s worth it if it changes things at my school,” said McMillen, who was harassed so badly by students blaming her for the prom cancellation that she had to transfer to another high school to finish her senior year.

“I hope this means that in the future students at my school will be treated fairly. I know there are students and teachers who want to start a gay-straight alliance club, and they should be able to do that without being treated like I was by the school.”

According to court documents, school officials agreed to implement a policy banning discrimination or harassment on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, the first policy to do so at a public school in the state of Mississippi.

The school also agreed to pay McMillen $35,000 in damages and pay for McMillen’s attorneys’ fees.

“We hope this judgment sends a message to schools that they cannot get away with discriminating against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students. LGBT youth just want to be treated like their peers and do all the normal high school things, like going to the prom with the date they choose,” said Bear Atwood, Interim Legal Director at the ACLU of Mississippi.

Armed with chants and shouted prayers, more than 300 opponents and proponents of same-sex marriage faced off Sunday on the south lawn of the Rhode Island State House on Sunday.

Two members of the National Organization for Marriage pray as a pro-same-sex-marriage protester waves the gay-rights rainbow flag above them. (via Providence Journal)

Speakers from the New Jersey-based National Organization for Marriage seemed startled as they were encircled by gay rights advocates who yelled, sang, waved the rainbow flag, and chanted “Get your hate out of our state.”

The NOM rode into town as part of a 19 state bus tour, opposing same sex marriage.

Currently, same sex marriage is legal in four New England states, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont and New Hampshire, but not Rhode Island, and protesters say they want to keep it that way.

LGBTQ youth are more prone to depression and suicide due to bullying and discrimination in school

[fbshare]

As we fight for equal rights – rights to which every citizen of this nation is entitled – we should be careful not to become so engrossed in these issues that we forget where we came from, the place that shaped us into who we are and motivates us even now to defeat bigotry and hate and make this nation truly great.

It’s a reasonable argument that our collective experiences in school during our most formative years made us the fighters and advocates we are today.  So many of us remember the hostility, ridicule, discrimination, and maybe even the beatings we had to endure beginning around middle school and following us throughout high school. The sort of horrors no young person should have to endure, at the hands of bigots and bullies who were our peers and teachers alike.  How many times did we have to walk down the hall to threats of physical violence, while school personnel just stood by watching and listening, doing nothing to come to our aid?

It’s no wonder some of us, feeling completely lonely and helpless, became self-destructive and turned to drugs and alcohol as an escape, or gave up trying to excel academically.  It’s no wonder those of us who survived the ordeal spent years in psychotherapy or on anti-depressant medication to figure out who we were, or what was wrong with us, or to get the support and guidance we needed to cope with life.

Some of us never got over it, and are still psychologically trapped in high school, afraid to grow up and let go of destructive habits.  Some of us blocked it out of our minds altogether and took off for the nearest gay-friendly city right after graduation, leaving our biological families behind.

According to a 2007 survey by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network’s (GLSEN), 86.2 percent of LGBT students reported being verbally harassed. Over half of the students surveyed claimed they felt unsafe in schools because of their sexual orientation, while a third felt unsafe due to their gender expression.

In January, Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO)  introduced a bill called the Student Non Discrimination Act (SNDA) , which would make it illegal to discriminate against students based on sexual orientation, perceived sexual orientation and gender identity.

“Every student has the right to an education free from harassment and violence,” said Polis. “Like Title VI for minorities in the ‘60s and Title IX for women in the ‘70s, my legislation puts LGBT students on an equal footing with their peers, so they can attend school and get a quality education, free from fear.”

However, by all accounts the bill is on the back burner, while debate about health care reform takes over Congress.  There are also two other gay-friendly pieces of legislation making their way through Congress – one to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and the other to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to allow gay men and women to serve openly in the U.S. military.

Given all this, it’s not hard to see why the plight of gay kids is not high up on the national agenda for LGBT advocates who devote so much of their time making certain these pieces of legislation see the light of day and become reality.

But let’s not forget, there are LGBT kids out there right now who are suffering through the same hell we experienced.  Aren’t they worthy of more of our attention?  How long are we going to let this cycle continue before we do something really substantial to help them?

We should demand that school boards nationwide assure that school personnel receive education regarding the dangers facing LGBT students and show support in force for them against the school bullies and bigots.   Penalties should be tougher for those not playing by the rules.  Whatever it takes to protect our kids.  By doing so, we will help create a whole new generation of healthy, strong-minded LGBT youth who know who they are and refuse to accept discrimination in any form.

Think about it – these are the advocates, leaders, and legislators of the future.  By making them stronger, we help them break down those walls that keep us from obtaining full equal rights. Let’s not continue to allow this opportunity to escape us.

Westboro bigots outside the Lady Gaga concert in St. Louis

[fbshare]

Homophobic hate-monger Fred Phelps’ gang of Westboro Baptist Bigots has taken a break from picketing military funerals with its “God hates fags” message to picket the Lady Gaga concert in St. Louis on Saturday night.

“Now what type of wicked hypocrites would we be if we did not warn this little false prophetess and all of her over-indulged sycophants that they are each one, individually heading straight to hell in a gender-confused, self-loathing, tone-deaf hand basket,” said Westboro, via their website.

In response, about an hour prior to her concert, Gaga posted this message to fans, via Facebook:

“At the risk of drawing attention to a hateful organization, I would like to make my little monster fan aware of a protest being held outside the Monsterball in St.Louis tonight. Although we have had protesters before, as well as fundamentalists at the show this group of protesters are hate criminals and preach using lude and violent language and imagery that I wish I protect you all from.

Their message is of hatred and divisiveness, but inside at the Monsterball we preach love and unity.

My request to all little monsters and public authority is to pay these hate criminals no mind. Do not interact with them, or try to fight. Do not respond to any of their provocation. Don’t waste your words, or feelings, no matter what you hear or see.

You are more fortunate and blessed than they are, and in your heart just pray for them. Although I respect and do not judge anyone for their personal views on any politics or religion, this group in particular to me, is violent and dangerous. I wanted to make my fans aware of my views on how to approach, or rather not approach, these kinds of hate activists.

Be inspired to ignore their ignorant message, and feel gratitude in your heart that you are not burdened or addicted to hate, as they are. X”

And post-concert, via Twitter:

@ladygaga: Tonight love and hate met in St. Louis. And love outnumbered the hate, in poetic thousands. Hate left. But love stayed. + Together, we sang.

Westboro is a small church in Topeka, KS, and is not affiliated with the Baptist denomination or any other Baptist church. According to news reports, almost all of its members — fewer than 100 — are related to founder Fred Phelps either by blood or marriage.