UTF on Hiatus Until Monday

Hi UTF Readers,

I will be away from blogging until Monday morning. Have a great weekend!

Ohio Joins Michigan and Oregon in Hopes of Repealing Same-Sex Marriage Ban

Cincinnati state Rep. Tyrone Yates (D) introduced a resolution Tuesday to repeal Ohio's same-sex marriage ban approved by voters in 2004 by a 23% margin.

The Columbus Dispatch says the possibility of the resolution even reaching voters on a ballot is slim because it would take 3/5 majority from both chambers of the state legislature. It went on to claim that if every Democrat voted for a repeal, which is unlikely, there still wouldn't be enough votes. But if fate were on the side of repeal, the initiative would be voted on in May.

Recently, Basic Rights Oregon launched an educational campaign that will lay the foundation for 2012 initiative to repeal the state's marriage equality ban. And recently, Michigan's Rep. Pam Byrnes introduced legislation that would legalize same-sex marriage.

RELATED: Ohio legislator introduces resolution to repeal state's super-DOMA amendment; another reflection on super-DOMA challenges

My Dog Is Sick

UPDATE: Just got home. Ethyl had to have an x-ray to see if she ate anything harmful (since she likes to see how EVERYTHING tastes.) Thankfully they found nothing and no sign of infection. So what is it? They're not sure. I'm guessing maybe she's just being a drama queen. But either way, we're putting her on a 24 hour fast which is said to help dogs with upset stomachs. Also, she got an anti-nauseous injection as well as some pills (which, naturally, I misplaced because I'm so absent-minded. They got to be here somewhere . . . ). Thanks for all the well-wishes on Facebook, Twitter and here! I promise not to make talking about Ethyl a habit, though she would love me to continue!

My little terrier mix, Ethyl, is sick. She usually loves to eat, but lately she's been nauseous, constantly trying to eat grass (which they say is a sign of an upset stomach) and not doing her, uhm, "business."

I'll be taking her to the vet in an hour, so my blogging today will be interrupted and sporadic at best.

In the meantime, you can ohh and aww over how cute Ehtyl is. :)

Catholic Church Threatens to End All Its Public Services if D.C. Passes Marriage Equality

This comes as no surprise to me.

The Catholic Church in Washington D.C. has threatened to pull out of all social services in the District if the City Council moves forward with the currently proposed marriage bill. Their concerns stem from the fact that though they will be exempt from having to provide wedding day services, they will be forced to recognize the relationships afterward through employee spousal benefits and other consequences of marriage equality.

Such a threat if followed through could affect tens of thousands of residents, reports the Washington Post, because of the assistance the church provides for adoption, homelessness and health care.

"If the city requires this, we can't do it," Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said Wednesday. "The city is saying in order to provide social services, you need to be secular. For us, that's really a problem."

However, it appears to me that the Church's biggest problem is with existing legislation, the Human Rights Act, which demands that discrimination against gays and lesbians not be tolerated.

The church is not the dominant provider in the district for its charitable services, though if they pull out, it will have an impact. But WaPo is saying that the church's influence is limited, with the marriage bill's sponsor, councilmember David Catania, who claims to have been a big supporter of their charitable work, says he'd rather part ways with the Church than to give into their threats.

"If they find living under our laws so oppressive that they can no longer take city resources, the city will have to find an alternative partner to step in to fill the shoes," Catania said. He also told WaPo that the Catholic Charities was involved in only six of the 102 city-sponsored adoptions last year.

Marriage equality advocates are telling the paper that this is the first that such a heated falling out has occurred over a marriage bill and public services.

But this has been a long-time coming. Who doesn't remember the Yes on 1 campaign crying foul that a Catholic adoption agency in Massachusetts, which was receiving government funds, chose to shut down instead helping same-sex couples adopt?

It's the same thing here. What the church is really objecting to is LGBT citizens receiving equality and as a result, more standing in society. This forces the church to deal with them publicly instead of keeping the status quo, which is acting like the LGBT population doesn't exist (unless of course to use us as a scapegoat for pedophile priests).

The crux of the problem is that the existing Human Rights Act, which is separate from the marriage bill, already demands that the church offer its public services to all residents if these public services are receiving public money. I've already objected to the fact that the current religious exemptions in the marriage bill violate the Human Rights Act, but now that the church is demanding even more coddling and special treatment, they're beyond reproach.

Let's face it. The Catholic Church will soon argue itself into non-relevance, exposing its hypocrisy to the point where society will have no interest in any of the actual good that it performs. Which is a shame because Jesus ordered that they feed the hungry and shelter the poor, something that the Church is good at doing. Jesus didn't say anything about gays or lesbians. Unfortunately, the Church has interpreted that as persecute and then ignore them.

So much for charity.

RELATED:

• WaPo - D.C. marriage bill draws eyes across the region
• Catholic Church Ready to Throw Homeless Under Bus in Order to Stop Gay Marriage

The Status of LGBT Rights Bills in Congress

The Washington Blade has done an extensive report, interviewing Rep. Barney Frank and more, on the status of several different LGBT rights bills making their way through Congress and when they may actually hit the chambers' floors for voting.

DON'T ASK DON'T TELL

The effort to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” will likely come next year as an amendment to the Defense Department spending bill, rather than through a standalone bill, according to gay Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.).

Frank said in an interview with the Blade that repealing the 1993 law barring gays from serving openly in the military would happen as part of the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill.

“The House will take up and the Senate will take up ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal,” he said. “That will again, like hate crimes, even more so, will have to be done, I believe, in the context of the defense authorization. You can’t do the standalone bill. It belongs in the defense authorization.”

Currently, Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.) sponsors the standalone version of legislation in the House, but there is no equivalent for the Senate.

David Stacy, HRC’s senior public policy advocate, noted that Congress enacted “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in 1993 as part of a defense authorization bill, so repealing the law via the same vehicle would mirror the process.

So look for Congress to take on DADT in the summer of 2010.


EMPLOYMENT NON-DISCRIMINATION ACT

"Action on other pro-LGBT legislation seems more imminent," reports the Blade. "Frank said Congress could advance the Employment Non-Discrimination Act . . . in the near future."

Frank, sponsor the the House version of ENDA, says the bill is in good shaped and headed to the House Education & Labor Committee would mark up ENDA before year’s end and then will hit the floor for a vote in February and then to Senate voting in Spring.

Allison Herwitt, legislative director for the Human Rights Campaign, is more optimistic and believes it could all happen before the end of the year.

Frank has concerns though on obtaining the necessary 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster for ENDA and DADT.


DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP BENEFITS & OBLIGATIONS ACT

This bill would provide partner benefits to LGBT federal employees.

“That one I’m the most confident is going to become law because I think you have Senate support for it — enough to get to the 60” votes needed to overcome a filibuster, Frank said.

Lieberman is sponsor of the Senate version of the legislation while Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), the only out lesbian in Congress, is sponsoring the House version of the bill. Baldwin was recently quoted in The Hill as saying she “absolutely” believes there are enough votes to pass the bill in the House.

Herwitt believes this bill can be taken up along with ENDA.

“The critical question is, given the Republicans getting worse and worse on LGBT issues, whether we’ll get any Republicans voting,” Frank said. “I assume we would have safe senators — [Sen. Olympia] Snowe and [Sen. Susan] Collins, maybe [Sen. George] Voinovich or one or two others — but that’s the key.”


UNITING AMERICAN FAMILIES ACT/IMMIGRATION REFORM

This standalone bill, if passed, would allow LGBT citizens to sponsor a foreign partner for residency.

Immigration advocates hope provisions can be added as part of comprehensive immigration reform that are equal to UAFA.

Steve Ralls, spokesperson for Immigration Equality, said his organization is pushing for inclusion of the provision in immigration reform legislation that Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) are expected to introduce later this year.

“They are still operating on a timeline of introduction around the end of the year,” Ralls said. “All indications that we have so far is that it’s probably late December, early January in terms of introduction of an actual bill.”

RESPECT FOR MARRIAGE ACT

The full-DOMA repeal, which has 104 sponsors, was introduced by Rep. Jerrold, Nadler. There is no Senate equivalent, though Sen. Russ Feingold has been approached. No hearings or markups have been scheduled.

“I think there’s three or four gay rights bills that are cued up,” said John Doty, a Nadler spokesperson. “The Respect for Marriage Act is a little bit further down that list. It hasn’t been talked about as long or debated as long … as the other bills.”

Frank is not a co-sponsor of the Respect for Marriage Act and said he’s not optimistic about the bill’s chances because “marriage is the toughest of these issues.”

“That’s why I do not see any chance of any success on marriage in the Congress this year,” he said. “Neither does anyone else, by the way, no matter what people pretend to make people feel better. But that’s why we’re focusing on these other issues.”

EVERY CHILD DESERVES A FAMILY ACT/ADOPTION BILL

This bill, introduced by Rep. Pete Stark, would restrict federal funding to states that have adoption restrictions, including those that bar same-sex couples from adopting. Frank intends to sign on as co-sponsor, but right now the bill has none.

Frank's optimistic, but - “Even people from certain states who don’t agree with that policy will be reluctant to vote to deny money to their states. Plus, you have Republican opposition in general. Remember, the Republicans are now almost monolithically against us.”

“I think this bill needs to be seen and viewed positively, most importantly, by the child welfare professionals and have the support of the leading child welfare and children’s rights organizations,” Herwitt said.

VIDEO: New York Sen. Ruben Diaz Faces Heat for His Opposition to Marriage Equality

Yesterday, I wrote about anti-LGBT New York Sen. Ruben Diaz and his vapid interview with the New York Times in which he attempts to defend his position of opposing marriage equality.

I've got gay family and friends, he exclaims. How can I be a homophobe? Since I already said my piece about his interview (and on his other ignorant actions against LGBT citizens), I'll let Nathaniel Frank at the Huffington Post say more.

Díaz never offers an argument against gay marriage. "The people of the nation don't want gay marriage," he told the Times. But then he argues the issue should not even come to a vote. If the people don't want equality, why shouldn't their representatives be able to express that will democratically, after debate, in the senate chamber? More to the point, why should the rights of a minority be granted only at the whim of a majority vote? Was it right in an earlier era to deny blacks and women equal rights just because the majority of the nation wished to do so?

-------

In addition to the majority tyranny argument, Díaz offers his Pentecostal religion as the reason for his effort to deny gay couples the right to marry. "My religion doesn't allow me to dance," he says, "but that does not mean I don't go to the party. My religion doesn't allow me to drink. But that doesn't mean I can't hang around with my friends. My religion is against gay marriage. It means, I don't agree with what you do. But let's go out. Let's go to the movies. Let's be friends."

Okay, where to start? It's fine, Senator Díaz, for you not to dance, but are you leading the effort to make dancing for others illegal? It's fine for you not to drink, but where is your fierce leadership on reviving that super popular and effective age of Prohibition? It's fine for you not to get gay-married, but why insist on denying others the rights you enjoy? And where is your outrage about all the Jews and Muslims and atheists who are legally allowed to get married even though, according to your religion, they're all going straight to hell? And where is your righteous effort to outlaw Jews' right to observe the Sabbath on the "wrong" day, or to keep Kosher? Might that seem a bit anti-Semitic? And maybe a bit absurd?

So, about this notion that you can ban others' rights because your religion "doesn't agree" with what they do: Have you ever given a moment of thought to how stupid this sounds? Millions and millions of people get married every year in this world. You have no idea what they all do and I bet you don't really care, so long as they're straight. But one thing you can be sure most of them do at one point or another is violate the tenets of their own (and your) religion. To be morally and intellectually consistent, don't you need to give a litmus test to all of them, about "what they do," to determine if you support their right to marry? Or just the gays?

But it wasn't just Hawthorne and me who were pissed yesterday. After it became apparent that the Senate was going to ignore the marriage bill AGAIN, some people had a few choice words for the senator as he left the chambers.



Like Hawthorne, I don't usually support the use of the word bigot against those who may feel they have valid reasons to vote against us. But in the case of Diaz, who can't seem to find a valid reason or even one that's masked in false logic, the word just may be appropriate.

Transcripts of Two Hearings on the Federal Challenge Against Prop 8

Thanks to the American Foundation for Equal Rights, the organization behind the federal challenge to Proposition 8, and to Michael Petrelis for posting, transcripts of both the August 19 hearing and the October 14 hearing have been made available for viewing.

The August 19 hearing focused on the different LGBT legal and advocacy organizations; and the City of San Francisco's requests to intervene as plaintiffs in the case to argue against Prop 8. The organizations were denied, but San Francisco was permitted to join the Olson/Boies power team.

Aug 19 Prop 8 Hearing, Motion to Intervene

During the now famous October 14 hearing, Judge Walker considered the defendants' request for summary judgment. In other words, those defending Prop 8 wanted to avoid going to public trial.

It was during this hearing that attorney Charles Cooper, who is representing the defendants, argued that the state has a rational basis to promote opposite sex marriages, in order to further procreation.

How does permitting same sex couples to marry adversely affect that interest, asked Judge Walker? Cooper had argued procreation is the interest of the state.

After some back and forth, Cooper eventually conceded: "The answer is, I don't know. I don't know."

"Does that mean if it's not rational basis review, you lose?" Walker asked.

"No."

"You just haven't figured out how to win on that level," the chief judge surmised.

Read the rest below!

Oct 14 Prop 8 Court Hearing Transript on Request for Summary Judgement