Posts Tagged ‘Gay’

h1

Same-Sex Marriages Recognized in Maryland

02.24.10

Gansler: Effective immediately Md. recognizes same-sex marriages performed elsewhere

UPDATE 2:50 P.M.: Maryland Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler (D) says effective immediately the state recognizes same-sex marriages performed elsewhere and state agencies should begin giving gay couples the rights they were awarded elsewhere.

UPDATE 10:25 a.m.: Sen. Richard S. Madaleno Jr. (D-Montgomery), who requested the opinion from Gansler, said in a brief interview that he was unsure whether there would be any immediate ramifications.

“It’s reaffirmation of what we thought, that Maryland can recognize gay marriage,” Madaleno said.

He said that changes in state policy could result from a court ruling, legislation or administrative action.

Original Post: A long-awaited opinion by Maryland Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler (D) out Wednesday morning concludes that the state’s highest court is likely to rule at some point that same-sex marriages performed in other states are valid in Maryland.

The policy implications of the opinion are not immediately clear, and Gansler says in a one-page summary that his conclusion “is not free from doubt.”

Gansler’s opinion concludes “that the Court of Appeals, when it ultimately rules on this question in a particular case, will likely apply the principle that a marriage that is valid in the place of celebration is valid in Maryland. The opinion reaches this conclusion in light of the evolving state policy, reflected in anti-discrimination laws, domestic partner laws and other legislation, that respects and supports committed intimate same-sex relationships.”

Maryland law currently limits marriages performed in the state to opposite-sex couples.

By John Wagner  |  February 24, 2010; 9:06 AM ET
Categories:  John Wagner

This is great news. Now any couple legally married in any of the other five states that have legalized gay marriage will be recognized as a married couple in Maryland. This is an interested step forward – could more states go this route than actually pushing forward with legalizing themselves?

Posted via web from Agree to Disagree

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Advertisements
h1

Denounce Uganda By Supporting New Jersey

12.04.09

gay marriage

Uganda is on the verge of passing legislation that will recommend the death penalty for those convicted of engaging in homosexual acts.

This is an abomination.

It is institutionalized genocide and all UN countries must act according if/when this bill passes into law.  To single out a minority demographic of a country and send them to the executioner simply for being who they are is genocide.  No nation that claims to support humanitarian causes and civil rights should remain quiet as this atrocity happens before our very eyes.

For that matter, no human being should sit silently as this gets closer to reality.  The more pressure we put on our own government to excoriate the Ugandan parliament the better chance we have at making a difference.  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has called for the legislation to be thrown out, along with the support of Canada, Britain, and the European Union, who provide almost 75% of Uganda’s funds to fight HIV/AIDS.

That’s not enough.

If this becomes law, the international community should charge those in the Ugandan government who drafted the bill for crimes against humanity and send them to The Hague.  Can you imagine the world uproar if the minority in question weren’t homosexuals but a minority ethnicity or religious group?  There would be outrage across the planet on a much larger scale.

I’m sure most Americans will denounce the extreme punishments suggested upon Ugandan homosexuals as being wrong, but at the same time, anti-sodomy laws were still on our own books until as recently as 2003, when the US Supreme Court ruling of Lawrence v. Texas found that Texas’ sodomy laws were unconstitutional, thereby making all states’ laws follow suit.  So, it’s hard to look at our own society and say that we’re so morally superior and advanced when we have an entire political party – and many in another voting in agreement with them – basing most of its values on those of discriminating and denying rights to the same group that Uganda is looking to execute.

Don’t get me wrong – I’m not saying that denying marriage rights to gays in America is equal to this new Ugandan legislation.  But, discrimination is discrimination.  Uganda has taken its bigotry toward and hate for homosexuals to new, appalling levels that must be condemned across the board, no matter what your stance is on our own American debate.  The thing about this recent development in Uganda is that it really sheds light on a scary reality involving our own marriage equality issue – the same rationale is being used to defend the Anti-Homosexuality Act in Uganda as is used stateside to support the denial of marriages rights to gays and lesbians: “gay relationships are against God’s will”; gays are trying to recruit your children; protect traditional family values.

Sound familiar?

The question then becomes – to those who agree with that rationale when it comes to American marriage laws but not to Ugandan death penalties – why should there be any punishment of any kind whatsoever?   (Yes, denying two American adults the right to marry simply because of their sexual orientation is a form of punishment.)  Denying civil liberties to a minority group is wrong no matter the severity, so how is that same rationale valid for outlawing marriage to adults simply because they happen to be of the same sex?

And if you think I’m going way overboard because being denied marriage rights is not a big deal at all compared to the threat of execution, take a look at the same US politicians against marriage equality who are also members of The Family, a Christian fundamentalist group that supports the Ugandan bill and tell me that I’m inflating the situation.

Hate is hate.

As we denounce the disgusting Ugandan legislation, let’s rally for New Jersey, who will be voting on marriage equality as early as next week.  Let’s lead by example instead of “do as I say, not as I do.”  Our leaders failed us in New York.  Let’s demand they do better in Trenton.

(Photo courtesy of Steve Bott)

h1

The Difference Between Democrats and Republicans

12.02.09

From the New York Senate, where the legislature just voted against marriage quality:

“When I walk through these doors, my Bible stays out.” – Sen. Eric Adams, D-Brooklyn

“That’s the wrong statement. You should carry your Bible all the time.” – Sen. Ruben Diaz, R-The Bronx

How is this total breach of church and state allowed?  Again, the Republicans show how they’ve become a church.  It’s much more a religious movement than anything resembling a political party of any credibility.

UPDATE: Sen. Diaz is NOT a Republican.  He is a Democrat.  Please see my subsequent apology and correction.

h1

With Gay Marriage Comes Gay Divorce

02.08.09

Hillary and Julie Goodridge, one of the first gay couples legally married in Massachusetts back in 2004, have gotten divorced.

And the anti-gay rights groups rejoice!

The writers at WorldNetDaily must love hearing this kind of news because it gives them the opportunity to fill an article full of inappropriate quotes around words.  It’s odd that in the first sentence, writer Chelsea Schilling opted to put quotes around the word “marriage,” implying that the lesbian couple was never really married in her definition of the word, yet left the word “divorce” untouched.  So it was a real divorce to a sham marriage?  How does that work exactly?  I suppose all divorces are equally sinful in her world, no matter how unnatural the nature of the marriage.

Schilling goes on to demean the Goodridge’s union by explaining that they lasted half as long as the “average straight marriages that end in divorce.”  I didn’t realize that if you divorce after a long time together that it somehow adds more justification to the marriage than if you divorce quickly.  I suppose this is meant to be rationale for not allowing gays to marry: they divorce even more quickly than us normal straight people do!

Naturally, Schilling got a solid anti-gay marriage quote to back up her one-sided shoddy journalism:

Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, a public policy group that fought to repeal the legalization of “gay” unions, said their separation is confusing.

“Divorce is a very painful issue, but I also can’t help but reflect on the pain this couple has caused on the commonwealth and the nation to redefine marriage. And now they’re getting divorced? It doesn’t make a lot of sense,” Mineau said.

“Obviously, they don’t hold the institution in very high esteem.”

Give me a break.  This is just a nice way to deflect the high and rising rate of straight marriage divorces.  If divorce is a reason for a population of people to lose their right to marriage, straight people should’ve lost it years ago.  This isn’t a privilege like your driver’s license where if you get too many infractions you get it revoked, and the so-called protectors of marriage should be careful to not mistake the difference.  Although, clearly they already have.

Schilling never bothered to interview anyone on the side of marriage equality.  Perhaps no one bothered to speak to her and her biased publication masquerading as news.  Seems that she should’ve mentioned that no calls were returned.

She does, however, end with a quote from Boston divorce attorney Gerald Nissenbaum:

“And what a surprise: Gay people are like everyone else.”

It’s sad that it’s considered a surprise.