Lemigova, who has two children, and Navratilova have been together for six years. Navratilova said she hoped they could be married in Florida, where they live. But that the moment, that’s still not possible even if she was hopeful that within a year the laws would be changed.
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in several gay-marriage cases on 26 August 2014, including Wolf v. Walker and Baskin v. Bogan. The three judges—Richard Posner, David Hamilton, and Ann Claire Williams—were utterly without mercy as they tore apart argument after argument. The anti-gay-marriage defense lawyers were reduced to rhetorical flailing about, at which point the judges took turns beating them over the head with their own stupid words. The full audio can be found here.
Some choice quotes by Judge Posner:
Funny; you don’t like homosexual sex and you don’t like incest, but you’re willing to tolerate incest… all these incestuous cousins running around Wisconsin, I don’t get it… You don’t worry about that, you don’t worry about incest, but you’re terribly worried about homosexual marriage.
“We’ve been doing this stupid thing for 100 years, 1,000 years; we’ll keep doing it because it’s tradition”—You wouldn’t make that argument… Don’t you have to have some empirical or some practical or common-sense basis for barring these marriages? I don’t get anything out of you brief that sounded like a reason for doing this… What if men stopped shaking hands, it’d be the end of the nation, right?
Let me ask you about this positive-rights argument if I could… you’re asking us to contemplate a world in which a state might simply decide to repeal all of its marriage laws, and the federal constitution would not forbid that… it reminds me of the responses of several states to Brown v. Board of Education, who decided to abolish in particular areas public schools, on the theory that they didn’t have to [have them]. That ran into its own set of problems…
And see, I think Loving threw out this positive-negative distinction in the Fourteenth Amendment that you try to rest on… I just don’t see how you get around Loving, because I think that killed that argument you’re making.
You can listen to the full audio here. It’s totally worth it, nearly a full hour of epic beatdowns.
The truth about homophobia and Christianity (and likely the only fair generalized claim to make about the two) is that they are not mutually inclusive. The fact that many Christians reject homophobia proves the salient point that bigotry is chosen, and not an inherent foundation of faith.
This is true of Islam, of Buddhism, or Christianity, and of faith in general. People are bigots not because they are Christian - they are bigots because they chose to be bigots. Every time another Christian chooses to endorse the self-realization of GLBTI people, he does so by highlighting those who choose to hate, and do so under the auspices of doctrine.
Shaun Dellenty, Alfred Salter Primary School Deputy Head-teacher and founder of the award-winning inclusionforall.co.uk anti-homophobic bullying project will today attend Trinity School in Lewisham to meet with the Archbishop of Canterbury; the most Reverend Justin Welby. Trinity School is a strongly Christian school with an inclusive ethos for students of all faiths, in addition to those who have none. The Archbishop will be accompanied by key personnel from Lambeth Palace, the National Palace and the Diocese and Southwark Diocesan Board of Education.
While Welby is making great moves within his church in attacking homophobia- he still has not endorsed SSM:
I have been saving till last one of his least favourite subjects: homosexuality. He is against gay marriage (though he has already done something wise and invited the gay activist Peter Tatchell over to Lambeth Palace for a chat) and presides over the curious church policy that homosexuals in civil partnership can be bishops but they must be celibate. This strikes me as not only unfair but unclear. What does celibate mean? Is holding hands celibate? Is kissing?
In Canada, The United Church’s Moderator has penned an open letter to the GLBTI community (and i suppose allies at large) :
Friedersdorf might want us all to believe it is ‘commendable’ to try and save the bigots from the ‘bigot’ stigmatization - however it fails the credibility test:
A narrow point we disagree on is the comparison of opposing interracial marriage to opposing gay marriage. Opposition to interracial marriage was all but synonymous with a belief in the superiority of one race and the inferiority of another. (In fact, it was inextricably tied to a singularly insidious ideology of white supremacy and black subjugation that has done more damage to America and its people than anything else, and that ranks among the most obscene crimes in history.)
Opposition to gay marriage can be rooted in the insidious belief that gays are inferior, but it’s also commonly rooted in the much-less-problematic belief that marriage is a procreative institution, not one meant to join couples for love and companionship alone.*
Simply and conclusively false. If his contention were correct, then divorce, marriage after middle age, ‘Our Time’/ ‘Christian Mingle’ would all be redundant. Americans no more believe this than they believe Santa Claus is real. Marriage in the western world is a system based on love and commitment, for most people, and for reproduction for a percentage of those people.
The logic is specious at best. Turn it on its head - how many people get married for procreation alone, not love, and not commitment? How could you characterize a loveless marriage? Ridiculous - Friedersdorf is no idiot - his attempt is both nonsensical and deliberate.
Sure ,there are marriages where people have no love and are in it for procreation alone, but would you want your child to grow up in that household? Would you want to be personally in a loveless marriage? Would you wish that upon your worst enemy?
The answer is no. No. Not - arguably. It is definitively NO.
Yes - opposition to gay marriage is based on bigotry - it is based on a choice - that some Christians choose to abide bigoted doctrine does not inoculate them from the label of ‘bigotry’ - simply because many other Christians CHOOSE to not abide bigoted doctrine.
Sexuality, just like race, is immutable - however, whatever religious doctrine you choose to believe is a subjective choice. You choose to be a homophobic bigot, or you choose not to be one.
This may make them uncomfortable, but the truth is that opposition to SSM is no different than white supremacist opposition to interracial marriage. It’s just supremacy of sexuality. And it is just as immoral.
Read more if you choose - but why bother? Why Gay-Marriage Opponents Should Not Be Treated Like Racists - Conor Friedersdorf - the Atlantic
If you would like to read instead - a Christian using Christian doctrine and logic to affirm equality for LGBTI people = stltoday.com - is much worthier of your time and soul.
The first same-sex weddings have taken place after gay marriage became legal in England and Wales at midnight.
Politicians from the main parties have hailed the change in the law.
David Cameron said the move sent a message that people were now equal “whether gay or straight”, but some religious groups remain opposed.
Scotland passed a similar law in February; the first same-sex marriages are expected there in October.
Good for you.
In a historic ruling that provided a huge morale boost to the gay-rights movement, U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman today struck down Michigan’s ban on same-sex marriage, making it the 18th state in the nation to allow gays and lesbians to join in matrimony, just like their heterosexual counterparts.
The state has long argued that it is, and that the will of 2.7 million voters — who in 2004 decided that marriage is only to be between a man and a woman — should not be drowned out by a single judge. The state also argues that it has a “legitimate” interest in preserving the traditional family structure because — it claims — children thrive best when raised by married moms and dads.
Friedman, though, sided with the plaintiffs: two Hazel Park lesbian nurses who argue the state has no “rational basis” for denying them the right to get married and adopt each others’ children.
As an Irish ex-patriot myself, and resident of the Boston area, when I discovered the actual truth of the extent of bigotry and racism in the Irish American community I was shocked. It was so far from the Ireland I know and love that I have been trying to understand what went wrong since…
David Norris, an Irish senator and former professor, has been at the center of the Irish gay rights movement for four decades. In fact, it was his lawsuit against the country in the European Court of Human Rights that resulted in the country’s 1993 decriminalization of homosexuality.
“I find it extraordinary that Irish Americans can be so far behind the actual inhabitants of the island of Ireland; that 10 years ago the gay float won first prize in our national St. Patrick’s Day Parade,” he wrote in an e-mail.
Ireland was slow to see the march of gay rights, but much changed in the last two decades. With a yes vote in this year’s referendum on gay marriage considered a foregone conclusion, Ireland is drifting ever further from the Catholicism-dominated days of yore.
Mr. Norris sees the issue as being founded in a sectarian dispute. “As an Irish man who through my mother has direct descent from the ancient kings of Ossory, Leinster, and the High Kingship of Tara,” he says, “I find the claiming of the parade as an exclusively Roman Catholic festival - despite being originally founded in the US by exiled Irish Protestants - completely ridiculous,” he told the Monitor.
“Every leader goes through different phases of maturity, growth and development and it helps by (recognizing) the mistakes that you make,” Cathy said. “And you learn from those mistakes. If not, you’re just a fool. I’m thankful that I lived through it and I learned a lot from it.
Cathy talked about the events of the summer of 2012 in a wide-ranging interview that included his thoughts about the company’s future and the path he wants to put it on as the newly named CEO. He got the title in November after his father, Chick-fil-A founder Truett Cathy, stepped aside at age 92.
Still, as Cathy starts the job the company’s link to the gay marriage debate lingers. And it still occupies a niche as the only major fast food chain that isn’t open on Sunday, owing to the Christian, pro-family convictions of the elder Cathy — something Dan Cathy says he won’t change.
For Cathy, there is lots to talk about other than gay marriage.
Chick-fil-A, like a lot of fast-food companies, is being forced by an increasingly better-educated consumer to review every aspect of its menu, from calorie counts to genetically modified ingredients to where it gets its chicken. Bowing to changing consumer tastes, it set a goal last month to serve chicken raised without antibiotics at all stores nationwide within five years.
A brief history of how we got here:
In 2004, Kentucky voters overwhelmingly approved a state constitutional amendment that made it unconstitutional for the state to recognize or perform same-sex marriages or civil unions. The referendum was approved by 75% of the voters.
The text of the amendment states:
Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized
In September of 2013, the Kentucky Equality Federation filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn the state’s 2004 constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage.
The lawsuit, filed in Franklin Circuit Court, named Gov. Steve Beshear, Attorney General Jack Conway and the Fayette County clerk’s office as defendants.
The group said in a news release that its lawsuit is “the latest attempt to achieve equal rights and protections for families across the commonwealth whose very existence has been banned by the forces of religious zealotry and hatred.”
The lawsuit claims that the 2004 amendment violates multiple sections of the Kentucky Constitution that guarantee citizens equal protection under the law.
“In 2004, social conservatives, who normally try to hide behind the Constitution, decided that it wasn’t good enough for them anymore,” Kentucky Equality Federation president Jordan Palmer said. “They decided to rewrite a document which guarantees freedom and to pervert it to fit their own jaded hatred of gay and lesbian couples. This was done despite the fact that it negated part of the Bill of Rights.”
On February 12, 2014, a federal judge ruled that Kentucky must recognize same-sex marriages from other states, opening the door for gay and lesbian couples to gain full legal protection as families.
Ruling in favor of four Kentucky same-sex couples who sued the state last year, U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II in Louisville struck down portions of a 1998 state law and a 2004 state constitutional amendment, both of which limited marriage in Kentucky to “one man and one woman.”
The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees equal protection of the law from state to state, so Kentucky cannot deny people their fundamental rights, such as the right to marriage, Heyburn wrote.
“No one has offered any evidence that recognizing same-sex marriages will harm opposite-sex marriages, individually or collectively. One’s belief to the contrary, however sincerely held, cannot alone justify denying a selected group their constitutional rights,” Heyburn wrote.
Although Kentuckians are entitled to enact laws based on their “moral judgments … those laws are subject to the guarantees of individual liberties contained within the United States Constitution,” he wrote.
Tuesday, March 4, Kentucky’s Attorney General Jack Conway broke with Governor Breshear and announced he would not pursue an appeal of Heyburn’s final ruling.
Today, Conway explained how and why he came to that decision.
Conway, who opposed same-sex marriage during his failed run for the U.S. Senate in 2010, wouldn’t pinpoint when he changed his mind to support full marriage equality. He said he came around “over the last few years” after conversations with friends in the gay community, and after thinking about how his two daughters would come to view his decision.
“I thought long and hard. I thought about the arc of history,” he said. “I thought about the fact that at one time in this country we discriminated against women. At one time we discriminated against African-Americans and people of color. At one time we discriminated against those with disabilities. This is the last minority group in this country that a significant portion of our population thinks it’s OK to still discriminate against in any way. And I didn’t think that was right.”
His conversion coincides with that of millions of Americans, who in recent years have shifted rapidly toward support for gay marriage. Marriage equality polls at over 50 percent nationally, but notably, not in the Bluegrass State: 55 percent of Kentucky voters oppose gay marriage, while 35 percent support it, according to a poll last month. The Supreme Court struck down that prohibits federal recognition of gay marriage, and a flood of lower court decisions suggests the court may soon end up deciding whether gay marriage is a constitutional right.
“To discriminate and not allow two people to marry does not have a rational basis under the law, and therefore it cannot withstand scrutiny under the equal protection [clause of the 14th Amendment],” Conway said, arguing that laws against gay marriage are unconstitutional.
Conway plans to run for Governor in 2015 when Gov. Beshear maxes out his two terms. This move by Conway will give him an uphill battle with many Kentucky voters, but my belief is that Conway is on the right side of history and he has made the right decision no matter his own personal political future.
UPDATE: TIME also has a piece today.
A Catholic and a Democrat considering running for governor in 2015, Conway said he knew the decision could put him at odds with voters and with church leaders in his hometown. His thinking was shaped partly by statements from Pope Francis that encouraged openness toward gays. “Our new Pope recently said on an airplane, ‘Who am I to judge?’ The new Pope has said a lot of things that Catholics like me really like. I have, as someone who grew up as a Catholic, listened to some of the words of the new Pope and found them inspirational.”
After reading Heyburn’s opinion several times, Conway came to the conclusion the judge was right. “Once I reached the conclusion that the law was discriminatory, I could no longer defend it,” he said. “At that point, being true to myself became more important than the political considerations.”
In taking his stand, Conway joined a small but growing group of elected state officials who have refused to defend gay-marriage bans put in place by voters over the past decade. In 2009, Jerry Brown, California’s attorney general at the time, refused to defend the state’s ban on gay marriage, and more recently officials in Nevada, Pennsylvania, Virginia and elsewhere have followed suit.
Half of Americans think gay marriage is in the Constitution
And how many of those 50% cited the relevant amendment (14th)? How many of them know the Constitution even has amendments? How many of them know what the Constitution is?
Aweee….. he doesnt mind if gay people TELL themselves they are married, as long as he doesnt have to agree they are actually married….by you know - law…..
However, there is a problem with his lede, and context:
Fifty percent say the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection gives gays the right to marry, while 41 percent say it does not.
Yeah, that says 50% of Americans believe gays are protected by “the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution”, not that they believe gay marriage ” is in the Constitution”
not a lie right? we can chalk this one up to not understanding how the English language portrays mathematics?
Please…….. it does not need to be said - but I will say it anyways - Jim Treacher is desperate:
I’m not sure why they’re bringing the Constitution into it anyway. It’s not like Obama follows it. Why should anybody who voted for him?
Of course, whatever is stopping Jim Treacher from bringing a suit against the President on constitutional premises is beyond me…… putting your money where your mouth is apparently not a conservative virtue.
b.t.w. Gay Peoples of the Worldz - Mr. Treacher wants you to know
“If I make a joke at gay people’s expense, as I just attempted to do, it doesn’t mean I want you to be wiped from the planet. It means I made a joke.”
so if you’re being sensitive about his ‘jokes’ at your expense, please understand that insults his sensitivities and rights to make jokes at your expense. Totally not personal….