|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||
|
 |
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
TOP6NEWS - October 8, 2004 1-NEWS: Appeal filed in LA 2-NEWS: GA m amendment before Supreme Court Oct. 19 3-NEWS: Churches argue for m in Canadian Supreme Court 4-NEWS: Gay economic boycott today 5-NEWS: House Republicans stop SO from being added to hate crimes laws 6-OP-ED: C. Karel Bouley: Gays should leave 'Medieval states' for friendly states ________________________________________________________ 1-NEWS: Appeal filed in LA Appeals filed on amendment against same-sex marriagehttp://www.2theadvocate.com/stories/100704/new_challengeappeal001.shtml By The Associated Press Louisiana's constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage began zipping through the state appeals system Thursday. The state attorney general's office filed appeals Thursday morning with both the 1st Circuit Court of Appeal and the Louisiana Supreme Court, spokeswoman Chris Wartell said. "We're letting the courts decide which should hear it," she said. "We believe the Supreme Court thinks it should be hearing the case." ... ________________________________________________________ 2-NEWS: GA m amendment before Supreme Court Oct. 19 Ga. Supreme Court will hear gay marriage appeal The court granted the request for a speedy appeal without comment Thursday and set a hearing date of Oct. 19. They say the language posed to voters is unlawfully vague because if voters approve the amendment, Georgia would also be barred from recognizing civil unions or same-sex marriages performed in other states. And judges would be barred from settling property disputes that could result from the break-up of same-sex couples. ... ________________________________________________________ 3-NEWS: Churches argue for m in Canadian Supreme Court Charter must not be used to alter definition of marriage, court told The definition of marriage as a union of man and woman, rooted in procreation, is beyond the reach of the Charter and only a full-scale constitutional amendment can change it, they said. "We would lack humility if we think that as a society, we have learned enough in the course of 20 years of Charter jurisprudence to displace in one fell swoop the wisdom accumulated since time immemorial and sweep into the dustbin the core of the historically accepted definition of marriage," said Robert Leurer, a lawyer for the Alberta government. The court reserved judgment in the case late yesterday. The case was referred to the top court by the federal government in an effort to learn whether its proposed same-sex marriage legislation would be constitutional. "The state interest in marriage is a simple and compelling one that is time-honoured: the integration of the sexes in a way that children are born and raised," argued William Sammon, a lawyer representing Catholic bishops. "It's not rocket science. The state interest is in producing the next generation." However, Mr. Justice Ian Binnie noted that with so many pressures on society and organized religions these days, it seems unlikely that allowing gays to marry "would bring the whole thing crashing down. "To reduce the whole thing to procreation seems to be an oversimplification," he added. "You already said you will legislate," Mr. Justice Michel Bastarache told government lawyer Peter Hogg. "Why do you need us to confirm that you're right?" ... ________________________________________________________ 4-NEWS: Gay economic boycott today Gay National Boycott Begins The Boycott for Equality called on gays and lesbians across the nation to drop out of the U.S. economy for the day by staying home from work, not shopping and not using cell phones. The boycott also asks people to withdraw $80 from their bank accounts and hold onto the money to symbolize the average daily contribution of gay and lesbian people to the economy. .. ________________________________________________________ 5-NEWS: House Republicans stop SO from being added to hate crimes laws House Republicans derail move to strengthen hate-crimes law According to sources close to the talks, the proposal was rejected by House members of a conference with the Senate as the negotiators for the two chambers neared completion of work on the 2005 defense authorization bill. The defense bill had been amended by the Senate in June to include the bipartisan proposal to strengthen and update the hate-crimes statute, created in the civil rights era. The Senate proposal, which also was rejected by House defense negotiators in 2000, would have added crimes based on sexual orientation, gender, and disabilities to the existing law that allows federal prosecution of offenses based on race, color, religion, and national origin. Financial support would have been provided for state and local investigations and prosecutions of hate crimes. ... ________________________________________________________ 6-OP-ED: C. Karel Bouley: Gays should leave 'Medieval states' for friendly states Leaving the United States of Medieval By Charles Karel Bouley II ... Let’s take Louisiana, the sixth fattest state in the land, according to the CDC’s Obesity Trends report, and the 46th smartest, based on 21 factors, from Morgan Quitno’s annual reference book, Education State Rankings, 2004-2005 (with Mississippi, Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico rounding out the dumbest of the dumb in America). These large, undereducated folks found a way to waddle to the polls right after being deluged by a hurricane to make sure them fags and dykes couldn’t get married. This is the same state that derives millions of dollars in revenue from the debaucheries that are Mardi Gras, Southern Decadence, etc. It’s home to the Big Easy, a city of sin on a par with Babylon. This bastion of morality has decided that gays and lesbians shouldn’t get married. So, should we boycott Louisiana, following the lead of the Boycott for Equality? Nope, we should leave. Why? Let the South band together against gays and lesbians and nonmedieval values. We’ll take our money someplace progressive to buy homes, live our lives. In fact, along those lines, maybe the Civil War wasn’t such a bad idea. Maybe the South just needs to go. Whether it’s the retirees in Florida costing us the election because they can’t figure out a butterfly ballot (with Mother Nature now intent on destroying every Bush precinct in Florida through her relentless series of hurricanes) or Louisiana’s population overwhelmingly voting for bigotry or the antigay laws and politicians of Mississippi, Georgia, Texas—let them all band together and start their own theocratic, backward, ignorant country. The United States of Medieval. The Theocratic Union. Whatever. But let them do it without our help. “Oh, but that’s giving up,” you say. “What’s next—concentration camps?” If we fled, states would respond. Economies of states that welcome gays and lesbians instead of discriminating against us would flourish. And the rest of the states would want a piece of the pie. Suddenly equality wouldn’t be so far-fetched when it came to basic decencies like marriage. It would take time. And unity. But I don’t know how it hasn’t happened already. Why stay where you’re not wanted? Why fight so hard for so long for so little? It’s time for a new tactic. How about emptying out those nice, newly gentrified neighborhoods, depriving these communities of our property taxes for schools that most of us will never utilize for our children? How about watching fine restaurants close because they can’t get good help, good management, good chefs, or a steady clientele since all the gays skipped town? How about leaving behind all those jobs and showing employers what running a business is like without our help? From administrative assistants to executives, from hairdressers to physicians—whatever the occupation, it’s time to hang our shingles in states that want us there. The change will come slowly, but it will happen. Right now it would mean that we’d all have to move to Massachusetts. I’ve lived there--not bad. But in California, come January 2005, I’ll have domestic-partnership benefits that are equal to Vermont’s civil unions, and that’s acceptable for now. So, California and Vermont are fine. In fact, Washington and New Jersey are fine too, because at least they’re trying. The other 45? Iffy at best. But why should you leave your home? Because your home state doesn’t want you, and it’s time to end the abusive, toxic relationship. Gays are the battered spouses of the states in which they live when that state refuses to recognize their right to love and marry whom they please and grant them equal benefits. Money--not right or wrong, but money. Not moral or principle, money. Not the sanctity of marriage, money is what it’s all about. We’ve got a lot of it. Let’s start taking it to places that value our taxes and acknowledge us by endorsing our relationships. Boycotting the economy for one day does nothing. Letting states know that we’re ready to take our money elsewhere will. Will there be states full of bigots and hatred, verboten to gays altogether? There already are; we’re just too stupid or in too much denial to admit it. We’re like Log Cabin Republicans, too dumb to know that the people we hang out with don’t want us around or care about our needs, even if they smile politely at us when they have to. We’re always knocking on the door saying, “You’d better pay attention to us or else!”--or else what? Republicans don’t care about gay Republicans, and states with antigay laws won’t care about their gay citizens unless they are forced to by the courts, or by budgets. Stop attending events in states that don’t support equality. Forget Mardi Gras, forget Southern Decadence, forget this party or that in South Beach. Move those events, and the revenues they generate, to states that support equality. Make the South and other backward regions the culturally and financially bankrupt wastelands that they are. Take our culture, our art, our dedication as employees, our abilities to be good parents and family members, our disposable income, and our good taste--let’s take everything we can offer to where we’re wanted. It’s time to get out of the courts and start using the power we really have: our purses. Decrease a state’s tax base, its revenue source, its liquid assets--especially in states that are already in financial tatters (with most states already facing huge deficits)--and the battle would suddenly become a lot more winnable. |
|
|
|||||
 |
||||||||
| Copyright © 2001 - 2009 The Catholic University of America. | ||||||||
 |
||||||||
