|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||
|
 |
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
TOP6NEWS - August 27, 2004 1-NEWS: Suit filed to block AR amendment 1 2-NEWS: SSM advocates want to remove LA Supreme Court justice 3-NEWS: CA legislature passes 5 pro-gay pieces of legislation in 1 week 4-NEWS: A. Leonard on WA bankruptcy ruling 5-OP-ED: 'Mean people and m' 6-OP-ED: WashBlade discusses strategy for ssm ________________________________________________________ 1-NEWS: Suit filed to block AR amendment Suit filed to block AR amendment The ballot initiative was certified last month for the November ballot by the Arkansas Secretary of State. "As a lifelong Arkansan and someone with close family members who are gay, I find this proposed amendment scary and misleading," said Susan May, who, along with her husband Ron, is challenging the initiative. "Marriage for same-sex couples isn't legal in Arkansas to begin with, and this initiative goes way too far in trying to require that the law always treat gay couples as strangers." ... ________________________________________________________ 2-NEWS: SSM advocates want to remove LA Supreme Court justice Opponents of marriage amendment want high court justice off case Randy Evans, an attorney for Forum for Equality, said Thursday that the group filed papers with the high court to have Victory removed because the justice, who faces re-election this fall, took a strong position in favor of the amendment. "Justice Victory has already taken a public position on this issue," Evans said. Victory should step down from the case voluntarily or be removed by the other six justices, the group said. Victory's wife Nancy said her husband would have no comment on the motion to remove him while it is pending in court. ... ________________________________________________________ 3-NEWS: CA legislature passes 5 pro-gay pieces of legislation in 1 week Calif. Leg. Passes 3 Gay Bills & 2 Resolutions In One Week The legislation approved ranges in subject from insurance equality to hate crimes and support for same-sex relationships. Equality California, the state's largest gay rights group, said it is optimistic that Governor Schwarzenegger will sign the three bills. The two resolutions do not need the governor's signature. ... ... And, the Omnibus Hate Crimes Act will standardize Penal Code sections relating to hate crimes. It would also change policies and procedures related to the treatment of victims, plus the training of law enforcement. The Permanent Partners Immigration Act Resolution encourages the passage of PPIA by the US Congress. Family unification is a basic principle of US immigration law, but same-sex bi-national couples are not covered under federal law. And, the Resolution Opposing A Federal Marriage Discrimination Amendment opposes the proposed federal amendment that would discriminate against gay and lesbian Americans. This resolution denounces attempts to amend the Constitution to prohibit lesbian and gay Americans from ever obtaining marriage equality and equal legal protections for their family relationships. ________________________________________________________ 4-NEWS: A. Leonard on WA bankruptcy ruling LEGAL Finding that the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which specifies that only marriages between one man and one woman can be recognized by the federal government, required dismissing the petition, Snyder also rejected arguments that DOMA’s application in this case violates applicants’ constitutional rights. In practical terms, this opinion will create a severe hardship for the petitioner, Lee Kandu, who may well lose her home. The U.S. Trustee, acting as agent for the Justice Department in this bankruptcy, actively opposed the application of Kandu, who represented herself in this case. ... The only previous consideration by the Supreme Court of same-sex marriage came in a 1972, Baker v. Nelson, in which a gay couple challenged Minnesota’s denial of marriage rights based on the due process language of the 14th Amendment, adopted after the Civil War to ensure that state laws do not infringe on guaranteed federal rights. Without hearing oral arguments or accepting full briefing, the Court affirmed the Minnesota high court, ruling that the appeal did not present a “substantial federal constitutional question.” Kandu looked to the Fifth Amendment, rather than the 14th, arguing that it protects the right of same-sex couples to marry, and is violated by DOMA’s definition of marriage. She relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s decisions in 1996 striking down Colorado’s anti-gay Amendment 2 (Romer v. Evans) and in 2003 overturning sodomy laws (Lawrence v. Texas), which appear to establish that gay people have full rights of U.S. citizenship, including constitutional protection for their liberty and equal protection of the laws. Snyder accepted the premise that the 1972 Baker decision was no longer binding given the more recent rulings Kandu cited. However, the Lawrence ruling has not generally translated into victories for gay litigants in other cases. A federal appeals court in Atlanta found the sodomy ruling to be essentially irrelevant to the question whether Florida could ban gay people from adopting children, and a few weeks ago the same court found that it did not establish a fundamental federal right to sexual privacy, in the Alabama sex toys case. Several courts have rejected the argument that same-sex couples have a right to marry by virtue of the Lawrence decision, noting that the Court specifically stated that it was not deciding the marriage question. Based on these rulings, Snyder found that as a federal bankruptcy judge, he was not in a position to declare any new fundamental federal rights. Looking back to DOMA’s passage in the wake of a Hawaiian state court ruling the seemed to foretell same-sex marriage in that state, Snyder found that it was rational for Congress to seek uniformity in eligibility for federal benefits, and also to restrict federal rights only to traditionally married couples, seen as the most desirable families to conceive and raise children. In considering Snyder’s ruling, one must keep in mind that bankruptcy judges have even less authority as constitutional decision-makers than federal district judges. As judges of limited and specialized jurisdiction, they are unlikely to strike out in bold new directions. That is a role for the federal appellate courts, and it will be interesting to see whether Kandu’s case is appealed within the federal court system. Kandu’s situation would certainly present a sympathetic vehicle for a challenge to DOMA, though it seems unlikely that the Supreme Court would necessarily grant review to the first lower court case that rejects a constitutional challenge to the law. Completely absent from the court’s opinion was any flexibility in the face of the poignant human issues in this case. Lee Kandu told the Associated Press in an interview published on August 20, “The people who came up with the Defense of Marriage Act, basically have been punishing us for who we are. I feel like we have been tried and convicted and as a punishment they are taking away our rights. It’s just not fair.” ________________________________________________________ 5-OP-ED: 'Mean people and m' Mean people and marriage By Bruce C. Steele Don’t get me wrong: Mean Creek isn’t “about” same-sex marriage. It’s about what makes a bully and what makes a friend, and it’s about revenge and how kids respond differently to a crisis when there are no adults around. In the first scene, a boy named Sam (Rory Culkin) is creamed by hulking bully George (Josh Peck) and winds up sitting home with a bag of frozen green beans over one eye. Sam and his big brother, Rocky (Trevor Morgan), decide to teach George a lesson and rope in Rocky’s pals Marty (Scott Mechlowicz) and Clyde (Ryan Kelley) to carry out their plot. The four boys plan to play a mean practical joke on George during an afternoon boat trip on a nearby lazy river; Sam’s girl pal—and maybe girlfriend—Millie (Carly Schroeder) winds up coming along. Then, as it will in movies, everything goes horribly wrong. Mean Creek received a good bit of publicity for earning an R rating strictly on its language and its inclusion of pot and alcohol use. That means teenagers under age 17 are forbidden from seeing the movie by themselves because they’d be subject to hearing some stoners use the same crude words that teenagers hear everyday at school, from the mouths of stoners and everyone else. With the support of distributor Paramount Classics, writer-director Jacob Aaron Estes refused to censor his characters, because the whole point of his film is to portray average teenagers—at least, white, middle- and working-class teenagers in a small town in the Northwest—the way they actually act. And that includes a good deal of gay baiting. Clyde—the skinny, well-behaved kid who declines to indulge in doobies and beer—has two gay dads, and both his friends and George the bully tease him about it repeatedly, his pals in “good fun” and George viciously. When the boat trip starts going sour and George tears into a rant against everyone present, he goes right for Clyde’s soft spot: “I’m tired of hearing about how your dads’ assholes work,” he screams, among other nonsensical homophobic obscenities. ... ________________________________________________________ 6-OP-ED: WashBlade discusses strategy for ssm A new strategy to win marriage By Eric Rofes Washington Blade With this in mind, a group of activists in the Bay Area have worked to create a Web site intended to support direct action and non-violent civil disobedience related to marriage equality and to serve as a focal point for thoughtful, critical analysis. On this site, we hope to post reflections, analyses, activist reports, tips, and personal critiques of the strategies and rhetoric. Please visit www.perfectunion.net and join in the dialogue. I’ve developed three specific concerns that I hope organizers will consider as they go forward in their work: Concern No. 1: The strategic focus on love and romance in our campaigns must be balanced with a focus on liberty and full and equal participation in the institutions of democracy. ... ... Concern No. 3: The repeated refrain of “We all deserve the freedom to marry” is problematic politically and philosophically and should be reconsidered. One lesbian couple was featured on a news program saying, “We’ve been together 15 years. I’m a doctor, and my partner is a school teacher. If this hasn’t earned us the right to be married, what else could we do?” ... |
|
|
|||||
 |
||||||||
| Copyright © 2001 - 2009 The Catholic University of America. | ||||||||
 |
||||||||
