By a 4-3 vote, the Supreme Court of New Jersey voted in favor of providing the same rights and benefits of marriage to same-sex couples. However, the Supreme Court kicked the decision back to the State Legislature to decide on the term that will be used.
The State has 180 days to decide whether they will call the union a "marriage" or give it some other term like "civil union." But who cares? As long as full rights and benefits are granted, the rest is just semantics.
While a vote of 4-3 in favor of this decision appears to be a split, it's actually quite the opposite. The 3 who voted against the decision did so because they didn't want to kick the semantics decision back to the State. They wanted to make the decision on what to call the unions within their Supreme Court Ruling, and in fact, they argued the Court should give full marriage rights to LGBT couples, including calling such unions "marriages." So in actuality, the decision was a 7-0 vote, with 4 wanting to defer the semantics to the State and 3 wanting to grant full marriage rights on the spot.
Matt Daniels, President of the Alliance for Marriage, is, of course, upset about the ruling. One of his comments was, "They took the future of marriage out of the hands of the people of New Jersey." The future of marriage .... How is it that allowing same-sex unions has any affect on the future of heterosexual marriage other than now marriage is not an exclusive right?
We've been asking this question for a long time. We have yet to hear a compelling response as to how allowing same-sex marriage will have any adverse effect on heterosexual marriage. If anyone has a compelling reason they can offer, we'd love to consider it.
Interestingly, if you visit the Alliance for Marriage website, part of their mission reads, "AFM exists to educate the public, the media, elected officials, and civil society leaders on the benefits of marriage for children, adults and society." Isn't this what we all want?
Another bonus of the NJ Supreme Court decision is the lack of residency requirements on those who seek to get married. The impact could be huge nationwide. Essentially New Jersey has opened the door for couples to travel to NJ, get married and then return to their own state and challenge the laws there. It remains to be seen how significant this will turn out to be.
There are those who would disagree with our assertion that the remaining decision left to Legislature in New Jersey is one of semantics.
Steven Goldstein, chair of Garden State Equality told the Newark Star-Ledger, "Those who would view today's...ruling as a victory for same-sex couples are dead wrong. Marriage is the only currency of commitment the real world universally understands and accepts."
We respectfully disagree.
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Good News for LGBT Civil Rights in Pennsylvania?
Representative Dan Frankel (D-Pa) is the lead sponsor of the reintroduction of a bill in Pennsylvania banning anti-gay discrimination in employment, housing and credit (HB 3000). While a similar bill failed to move out of the committee in the last session, this bill, apparently, has 57 sponsors. The bill would add sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of discrimination categories already banned by Pennsylvania's Human Relation's Act.
The Senate has a similar bill (SB 912) with 19 Senators backing it, including lead Democratic supporter, Senator Jim Ferlo.
Is it possible Pennsylvania could be acting in a "diverse and tolerant" fashion as Frankel describes the state? While the House bill having 57 sponsors may be a relatively strong support for anti-discrimination, 19 supporters of the Senate bill hardly is.
Frankel said, “The fact that someone is gay or straight has nothing to do with his or her ability to do a good job or the ability to be a good neighbor or tenant. It is long past time for Pennsylvania to join the 17 states that already ban anti-gay discrimination on the job.”
Frankel also commented, “This is the right thing to do, and it also makes economic sense to improve our standing as a diverse and tolerant state. This is the kind of indicator that matters to forward-looking companies and individuals.”
But the question remains: If the bill didn't pass in the last session, why would it pass now?
As I sat here pondering Representative Frankel's comment that Pennsylvania is "diverse and tolerant," I wondered why he would take this position. Maybe it's a position of wishful thinking. But I don't necessarily think it's the position of groups who are continually discriminated against in Pennsylvania - I could be wrong though. But my guess is groups that are discriminated against probably have a bit more realistic perspective on tolerance. One thing I can say for sure, though, is it certainly wasn't the position of the man I am about to tell you about.
So I'm sitting in my office composing this post and a knock came at my door. I opened it to a nice looking man who introduced himself as a candidate for State Representative. His name is Lou Guerra, Jr. He wanted to put a "face to the name" and offered to answer any questions I had. Initially I told him I didn't have any. So he handed me his brochure with a picture of his wife, Linda, and their happy family - four kids, Amy, Ryan, Katie and Timmy, all gathered on a lawn, smiling, and invited me to check out his website and offered that if I had any questions, I should feel free to contact him via email.
I told him I did have one question, "Where do you stand on gay rights?" His silence spoke volumes. Eventually he responded in this manner, and I'm paraphrasing, "Well, that's a broad issue." He took a long pause.
I'm thinking, "Okay, not a difficult question, regardless of the scope of the issue. Either you're in support or not." I already know what his position is. Now it's just a matter of how artfully he's going to answer the question.
"While I don't support gay marriage, I also do not support discrimination of any kind."
"Hmmm," I responded, "that doesn't make much sense."
So according to Mr. Guerra, his ability to reap the benefits of the institution of marriage as a heterosexual man and my inability to do so as a lesbian woman does not constitute discrimination.
Sorry, Mr. Guerra, I think I'll vote for the other guy. But thanks for putting a face to the name.
Check out HRC's list of endorsed candidates to see if your candidates are gay-friendly.
The Senate has a similar bill (SB 912) with 19 Senators backing it, including lead Democratic supporter, Senator Jim Ferlo.
Is it possible Pennsylvania could be acting in a "diverse and tolerant" fashion as Frankel describes the state? While the House bill having 57 sponsors may be a relatively strong support for anti-discrimination, 19 supporters of the Senate bill hardly is.
Frankel said, “The fact that someone is gay or straight has nothing to do with his or her ability to do a good job or the ability to be a good neighbor or tenant. It is long past time for Pennsylvania to join the 17 states that already ban anti-gay discrimination on the job.”
Frankel also commented, “This is the right thing to do, and it also makes economic sense to improve our standing as a diverse and tolerant state. This is the kind of indicator that matters to forward-looking companies and individuals.”
But the question remains: If the bill didn't pass in the last session, why would it pass now?
As I sat here pondering Representative Frankel's comment that Pennsylvania is "diverse and tolerant," I wondered why he would take this position. Maybe it's a position of wishful thinking. But I don't necessarily think it's the position of groups who are continually discriminated against in Pennsylvania - I could be wrong though. But my guess is groups that are discriminated against probably have a bit more realistic perspective on tolerance. One thing I can say for sure, though, is it certainly wasn't the position of the man I am about to tell you about.
So I'm sitting in my office composing this post and a knock came at my door. I opened it to a nice looking man who introduced himself as a candidate for State Representative. His name is Lou Guerra, Jr. He wanted to put a "face to the name" and offered to answer any questions I had. Initially I told him I didn't have any. So he handed me his brochure with a picture of his wife, Linda, and their happy family - four kids, Amy, Ryan, Katie and Timmy, all gathered on a lawn, smiling, and invited me to check out his website and offered that if I had any questions, I should feel free to contact him via email.
I told him I did have one question, "Where do you stand on gay rights?" His silence spoke volumes. Eventually he responded in this manner, and I'm paraphrasing, "Well, that's a broad issue." He took a long pause.
I'm thinking, "Okay, not a difficult question, regardless of the scope of the issue. Either you're in support or not." I already know what his position is. Now it's just a matter of how artfully he's going to answer the question.
"While I don't support gay marriage, I also do not support discrimination of any kind."
"Hmmm," I responded, "that doesn't make much sense."
So according to Mr. Guerra, his ability to reap the benefits of the institution of marriage as a heterosexual man and my inability to do so as a lesbian woman does not constitute discrimination.
Sorry, Mr. Guerra, I think I'll vote for the other guy. But thanks for putting a face to the name.
Check out HRC's list of endorsed candidates to see if your candidates are gay-friendly.
Monday, October 02, 2006
Potential CA Legislature Will Send "Children Straight into the Arms of the Homosexual Activist Community"
Last week, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed three bills into law which will have a positive impact on the gay and lesbian community.
One bill makes it "more difficult" for defendants to use the "gay panic" defense in order to justify their violent acts against the LGBT community. This bill was spurred on by the 2002 murder of a transgendered teenager, Gwen Araujo, who was brutally attacked, strangled and eventually murdered by several teenage boys when they learned that Gwen was biologically male. The new law requires courts to instruct juries that they cannot make decisions based on bias against victims or witnesses.
A second bill was enacted for the equal treatment of gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgendered persons in political campaigns. The fair treatment of LGBT people will be included in the voluntary pledge candidates and campaign committees sign prior to a political campaign.
The third bill Schwarzenegger signed into law was the Civil Rights Housing Act of 2006, which will change the housing laws making it illegal to discriminate against LGBT persons.
Interestingly, there was a fourth bill up before Governor Schwarzenegger last week - the Safe Place to Learn Act. The Governor did not sign this bill into law. Of all the bills before the Governor, this is the one bill that would have actually done something to help prevent violence against the LGBT community ... and yet the Governor refused to sign it.
This bill would have helped strengthen policies prohibiting discrimination and bullying of LGBT students in California schools. It would have barred textbooks that use discriminatory language against LGBT people. It would have prohibited the negative portrayal of lesbians and gays in textbooks and other materials used for instruction. The original bill, which was eventually amended to the current bill Governor Schwarzenegger refused to sign, included the requirement that social science textbooks include the historical contributions made by gays and lesbians. Because of political pressure, this part of the bill was stricken.
While Governor Schwarzenegger's gestures in support of the LGBT community are (somewhat) admirable, they are soft. If the Governor truly wanted to support the LGBT community, he would have signed all four bills into law.
Sure, it's great that violent criminals can't hide behind a "gay panic" defense by portraying the victim as a deviant and themselves as the victims. It's great that juries will be instructed not to use their biases to make judgments, but will this really stop juries? The truth is that people give into their judgments and biases every day. Jurors are no different.
It's great that LGBT people will get equal and fair treatment in political campaigns. But, number one, it's a statement included on a voluntary pledge candidates sign. I'll say it again, voluntary. If it's so important, why isn't fair treatment being included on something political candidates are required to adhere to? And secondly, what about fair and equal treatment for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people in all aspects of life and the law ... not just in political campaigns? Now that would be something!
And sure, it's great LGBTs can't be discriminated against in the housing market. But a real estate agent isn't likely to come out and tell you, "I'm sorry, you can't live there because you're gay/black/jewish/insert-group-here." They simply won't take you to those areas. And if you show interest, likely they'll come up with some reason why you shouldn't live there. So yes, it's great the law is there in the rare event an agent actually tells you, "I'm sorry. I can't show you that house because you're gay." But come on, there are other areas where pro-gay laws could have more impact.
By not passing the Safe Place to Learn Act, it appears as if Governor Schwarzenegger is supporting continued violence against LGBT youth.
James Dobson, an outspoken and politically influential right-wing Christian and chairman of Focus on the Family, said in a statement recently that if the bills are signed into law, "There goes the next generation of children straight into the arms of the homosexual activist community."
Is Mr. Dobson afraid that California students will "turn gay" because they are seeing positive portrayals of lesbians and gays in their social science books? I wonder if Mr. Dobson, or wait, I think it's actually Dr. Dobson clinical child psychologist, is aware of the fact that heterosexuals actually produce and raise more homosexuals than homosexuals do.
And so it seems as if the Governor of California was more interested in his political career than in doing the right thing. Maybe next time it comes before him, Schwarzenegger will sign it. Aren't the children worth it?
One bill makes it "more difficult" for defendants to use the "gay panic" defense in order to justify their violent acts against the LGBT community. This bill was spurred on by the 2002 murder of a transgendered teenager, Gwen Araujo, who was brutally attacked, strangled and eventually murdered by several teenage boys when they learned that Gwen was biologically male. The new law requires courts to instruct juries that they cannot make decisions based on bias against victims or witnesses.
A second bill was enacted for the equal treatment of gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgendered persons in political campaigns. The fair treatment of LGBT people will be included in the voluntary pledge candidates and campaign committees sign prior to a political campaign.
The third bill Schwarzenegger signed into law was the Civil Rights Housing Act of 2006, which will change the housing laws making it illegal to discriminate against LGBT persons.
Interestingly, there was a fourth bill up before Governor Schwarzenegger last week - the Safe Place to Learn Act. The Governor did not sign this bill into law. Of all the bills before the Governor, this is the one bill that would have actually done something to help prevent violence against the LGBT community ... and yet the Governor refused to sign it.
This bill would have helped strengthen policies prohibiting discrimination and bullying of LGBT students in California schools. It would have barred textbooks that use discriminatory language against LGBT people. It would have prohibited the negative portrayal of lesbians and gays in textbooks and other materials used for instruction. The original bill, which was eventually amended to the current bill Governor Schwarzenegger refused to sign, included the requirement that social science textbooks include the historical contributions made by gays and lesbians. Because of political pressure, this part of the bill was stricken.
While Governor Schwarzenegger's gestures in support of the LGBT community are (somewhat) admirable, they are soft. If the Governor truly wanted to support the LGBT community, he would have signed all four bills into law.
Sure, it's great that violent criminals can't hide behind a "gay panic" defense by portraying the victim as a deviant and themselves as the victims. It's great that juries will be instructed not to use their biases to make judgments, but will this really stop juries? The truth is that people give into their judgments and biases every day. Jurors are no different.
It's great that LGBT people will get equal and fair treatment in political campaigns. But, number one, it's a statement included on a voluntary pledge candidates sign. I'll say it again, voluntary. If it's so important, why isn't fair treatment being included on something political candidates are required to adhere to? And secondly, what about fair and equal treatment for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people in all aspects of life and the law ... not just in political campaigns? Now that would be something!
And sure, it's great LGBTs can't be discriminated against in the housing market. But a real estate agent isn't likely to come out and tell you, "I'm sorry, you can't live there because you're gay/black/jewish/insert-group-here." They simply won't take you to those areas. And if you show interest, likely they'll come up with some reason why you shouldn't live there. So yes, it's great the law is there in the rare event an agent actually tells you, "I'm sorry. I can't show you that house because you're gay." But come on, there are other areas where pro-gay laws could have more impact.
By not passing the Safe Place to Learn Act, it appears as if Governor Schwarzenegger is supporting continued violence against LGBT youth.
James Dobson, an outspoken and politically influential right-wing Christian and chairman of Focus on the Family, said in a statement recently that if the bills are signed into law, "There goes the next generation of children straight into the arms of the homosexual activist community."
Is Mr. Dobson afraid that California students will "turn gay" because they are seeing positive portrayals of lesbians and gays in their social science books? I wonder if Mr. Dobson, or wait, I think it's actually Dr. Dobson clinical child psychologist, is aware of the fact that heterosexuals actually produce and raise more homosexuals than homosexuals do.
And so it seems as if the Governor of California was more interested in his political career than in doing the right thing. Maybe next time it comes before him, Schwarzenegger will sign it. Aren't the children worth it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)