Taipei, Sept. 7 (CNA) Buddhist and Christian representatives and the leader of the Unification Church in Taiwan warned on Saturday against a bill to be sent to the Legislature that would legalize various forms of civil partnerships, including same-sex marriage.
The bill was drafted by the Taiwan Alliance to Promote Civil Partnership Rights, which pushes recognition of civil partnership rights for all couples, irrespective of gender.
The amendments to the civil code also call for legal recognition of the rights of a group of more than two people to form a family whose members are not related by blood.
Members of several religious groups expressed their opposition to the bill Saturday, saying at a press conference in Taipei that it would be detrimental to “traditional family values.”
Buddhist Master Shih Ching-yao said that while he respects same-sex couples, he also hopes they respect the traditional family value of the union of one man and one woman.
The union of one man and woman is nature’s rule, Shih said in arguing against passage of the proposed legislation.
Following a ruling by District Court Judge Alan Malott, Bernalillo County Clerk Maggie Toulouse Oliver can begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Toulouse Oliver said her office would need to get software ready to make the weddings happen, so weddings will begin at 8:00 am tomorrow.
A mass-wedding at Albuquerque Civic Plaza is expected at noon tomorrow.
This is the second time a district court judge had ruled in favor of same-sex marriage.
Read the rest at New Mexico Telegram: Same-Sex Marriages in Bernalillo County Will Begin Tomorrow
Here’s the full ruling:
The ACLU deserves much of the credit.
…Ruling in a case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of New Mexico, the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), and local attorneys on behalf of same-sex couples seeking the freedom to marry in New Mexico, Judge Malott said that denying same-sex couples access to civil marriage violates the New Mexico Constitution. The court issued a judgment against the two county clerks and the State of New Mexico declaring that, to the extent New Mexico law prevents same-sex couples from marrying, “those prohibitions are unconstitutional and unenforceable.”…
Two of the couples who sued will pick up their licenses ASAP, but their weddings may not be held immediately.
Following a court ruling this afternoon at least two couples in a gay-marriage lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and other organizations say they plan to get their marriage licenses.
State District Judge Alan Malott ruled that Bernalillo and Santa Fe counties cannot discriminate against same-sex couples seeking marriage licenses.
Kim Kiel and her partner Rose Griego, both of Santa Fe, will get their license, though they won’t be married right away. “We’re not sure when,” Kiel told me after the court hearing. “Possibly in October.”
Likewise, Tanya Struble and Therese Councilor of Jemez Springs told The Associated Press that they’re unsure whether to be married immediately or wait for a ceremony that can be attended by family and friends. “We’ve never done this,” Struble said after the hearing.
The Republicans will not be taking this lying down. There have been strongly-worded blog posts already. This is from the chairman of the Dona Ana Republican Party (DARP):
Republicans instinctively defend our core values by referring to natural law concepts acknowledged in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or more authoritatively, the Bible. For example, Republicans routinely appeal to the Bible as the source of authority to defend the definition of traditional marriage. In particular, Genesis 2:24 and Mark 10:6-7.
Yet, we hamstring ourselves by fighting secularist-progressives on their battle ground. Namely, that our fundamental rights come from the government and not our Creator. Though well intentioned, we have welcomed the government into our marriages by promoting subsidies and tax breaks in order to promote the nuclear family. This has unintended consequences. By providing government benefits to some and withholding from others, we provide the very legal foothold progressives need to establish grounds for a lawsuit based on discrimination. In this writer’s opinion, when we remove marriage from government control, we save it. If government has to be involved, it should only be at the State level in accordance with the Constitution.
Progressives want conservatives to base our arguments on ever-changing societal norms and “tradition” instead of the Constitution and natural law. Why? Because progressive reforms can infiltrate, endure and become the new “tradition.” When Republicans are complicit in creating meaning never contemplated by the authors of the Constitution, we lose our intellectual ammunition and end up accepting the change, for better or worse.
Republicans, it is only with an intellectual revolution and a reclaiming of the Constitution that we can effectively fight for religious freedom, marriage, property rights, and free speech. Truth is our strongest weapon. Arm yourself with the truth and change the battlefield.
Emphasis is in the original.
I’m hoping the rest of the state gets marriage equality before the Republicans’ ‘intellectual revolution’ arrives.
— DPNM (@NMDEMS) August 27, 2013
In an interview on Wednesday morning, Mr Abbott appeared to dismiss same-sex marriage as “the fashion of the moment”.
Speaking with talkback radio host John Laws, Mr Abbott said he supported the traditional definition of marriage between a man and a woman but added his family was “a little divided on this”.
“I know where I stand on this. I respect the views of people who disagree with me but I respectfully disagree with them,” he said.
Mr Abbott used the same interview to affirm his opposition to discrimination on the basis of race, religion, gender or sexuality, but then spoke about respecting traditions and not embarking on “radical change based on the fashion of the moment”.
“We have to be conscious of the fact that we are all the products of the society, of the culture, of the circumstances that have shaped us,” he said.
Kevin Rudd has used the first election debate to promise legislation on same-sex marriage within 100 days of re-election and Labor was ready with a social media campaign harking back to Labor’s famous 1972 “It’s time” election slogan ready to back up the pledge.
Rudd said he supported legalising same-sex marriage “as a mark of decency to same-sex couples across the country who wish the same loving, caring relationship that, for example, I have had with Therese my wife now for the last 32 years, and for that to be formalised”.
He promised Labor MPs would again have a conscience vote on the issue and he “appealed to Abbott to do the same because folk out there want this to happen”.
Tony Abbott said he understood same-sex marriage was “a very important issue”, acknowledging his gay sister, Christine Forster, who was in the National Press Club debate audience with her partner.
But he said the matter had been recently debated by the parliament and would not be a high priority for an incoming Coalition government. He said it would be up to the Coalition party room to decide whether Coalition MPs should get a conscience vote, if it ever came up in the future.
In one of the few cases to attract press attention, in 2008, Eudy Simelane, a lesbian, was gang-raped and stabbed to death. Her naked body was dumped in a stream in the Kwa Thema township outside Johannesburg. A soccer player training to be a referee for the 2010 FIFA World Cup, she was targeted because of her sexual orientation.
In 2011, Noxolo Nogwaza, 24, was raped, and stabbed multiple times with glass shards. Her skull was shattered. Her eyes were reportedly gouged from their sockets. Ms. Nogwaza had been seen earlier that evening in a bar with a female friend.
Khayelitsha, left, outside of Cape Town, is among fastest-growing townships in South Africa. According to the South African Police, 249 sexual crimes were reported between April 2011 and March 2012. In Kwa Thema, right, outside Johannesburg, a mural was painted here after the body of a well-know soccer player, Eudy Simelane, was found in a park. She was gang-raped and stabbed nine times. Clare Carter/Contact Press Images
I read of these killings and began to research them. I was shocked by the contradiction between South Africa’s law — it was the fifth country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage — and what was actually happening on the streets.
Attorney General Kathleen Kane is expected to announce Thursday that her office won’t defend the state in a federal lawsuit that challenges Pennsylvania’s ban on gay marriage, the Daily News has learned.
Multiple sources confirmed that Kane, who is named along with Gov. Corbett as a defendant in the suit, plans to make the announcement at the National Constitution Center.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit, known as Whitewood v. Corbett, on Tuesday on behalf of 21 state residents. The plaintiffs are 10 couples and one widow who want to marry here, want the state to recognize their out-of-state marriages or want equal protections granted to straight married couples.
The suit was filed in Harrisburg and is believed to be the first federal case on the gay marriage issue since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act last month.
Pennsylvania is the sole state in the Northeast without same-sex marriage or a civil-union statute.
What the DOMA decision does not immediately improve is the lot of same-sex couples who live in the thirty-seven states without marriage equality. Thirty-one of those states go further, with bans on same-sex marriage—their own versions of DOMA. Nor does it simplify the situations of couples who are legally married in one state but move to another where same-sex marriage is not legal. Windsor struck down Section 3 of DOMA, which dealt with the federal government, but it left untouched Section 2, which allows states to deny recognition to other states’ marriages. Indeed, the victory in Windsor was grounded in the notion that marriage law has traditionally been left up to the states. So while Justice Anthony Kennedy’s language in the opinion—his powerful invocations of dignity and respect and equal protection—will certainly give aid and comfort to anyone trying to overturn the state-level DOMAs, it doesn’t help much in the practical short term.
These “mini-DOMAs,” as the legal scholar Steve Sanders calls them this week on the SCOTUS blog, “deny legal recognition to the marriages of same-sex couples who migrate from states where such marriages are perfectly legal; some expressly purport to ‘void’ such marriages.” For same-sex couples living in “mini-DOMA states,” the uneven landscape of marriage equality means that “Windsor simply creates new legal dilemmas.”
The Obama Administration could help insure that the Windsor decision, which it applauded, helps as many couples as possible by encouraging all of its agencies to adopt a “place of celebration standard”—that is, to recognize marriages based on where they were performed rather than on where the couple resides. On immigration matters, this is the rule already; that’s why Marsh and Popov prevailed. Though they live in Florida, which does not recognize same-sex marriage, they were wed in New York, which does. Or, as Julian Marsh put it, “We are first-class citizens in New York and in the eyes of the federal government, but second-class citizens in Florida.”
According to the survey, a majority — 51 percent — said they disapproved of the ruling. Among African-Americans, more than seven in 10 said they did not agree with the high court’s findings. Whites disapproved at a 48-33 percent clip, while a full half of Hispanics said they were against the ruling.
Voters were more supportive of a pair of the court’s decisions on same-sex marriage, echoing similar findings in Pew and USA Today polls released earlier this week.
Of those surveyed, 56 percent say they support the extension of federal spousal benefits to gay couples legally married in their home states, while 51 percent said they backed the move to strike down California’s prohibition on gay marriage.
WASHINGTON — Justice Anthony Kennedy of the Supreme Court denied on Sunday a request from Proposition 8 supporters in California to halt the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses in the nation’s most populous state.
Justice Kennedy turned away the request with no additional comment.
Same-sex marriage opponents had asked Justice Kennedy to step in on Saturday, a day after the federal appeals court in San Francisco allowed same-sex marriages to go forward. Numerous weddings were performed at San Francisco City Hall after the court decisions. The appeals ruling came a day after the Supreme Court declined to decide the California case, effectively allowing same-sex marriages in the state.
The opponents said the appeals court had acted about three weeks too soon. Proposition 8 supporters could continue their efforts to halt gay marriage by filing their request with another Supreme Court justice.