07.03.08
Posted in Advocate Articles, Gay Rights at 12:58 pm by pikapp44
Same-sex couples from Wisconsin who go to California to marry could face criminal charges when they return home.
A Wisconsin law makes it a criminal offense to enter into a marriage outside the state if that marriage were illegal in Wisconsin.
The law was passed decades ago to prevent underage couples from crossing state lines to marry, but it could be used against same-sex couples, The Capital Times of Madison reported Wednesday.
The penalty is a fine of up to $10,000, nine months in prison, or both.
Wisconsin law limits marriage to opposite-sex couples.
Same-sex marriage became legal in California following a state supreme court ruling that went into effect June 17.
While Massachusetts, the only other state to offer marriage to gay couples, will marry out-of-state couples only if their unions would be legal at home, the California ruling allows for marriage licenses to be issued to all same-sex couples
Permalink
07.01.08
Posted in Advocate Articles, Gay Rights at 7:47 pm by pikapp44
The Log Cabin Republicans have confirmed that Sen. John McCain has switched from holding a neutral position on California’s anti-gay marriage measure to supporting it.
Permalink
06.25.08
Posted in Advocate Articles, Gay Rights at 6:51 pm by pikapp44
The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation issued a press release Tuesday urging community members to contact FX Networks to express concern about a defamatory claim by an antigay activist that was featured uncensored, and unchallenged, on the June 24 episode of 30 Days. The show “examines social issues in America by immersing individuals in a life that requires them to see the world through another’s eyes,’” according to the show’s website.
In an episode titled “Same-Sex Parenting,” Kati, a woman who is opposed to gays having families, lives for 30 days with gay parents Dennis and Thomas and their four adopted sons.
The episode includes a defamatory statement by Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council, who, according to GLAAD’s press release, is quoted as saying: “Homosexuality is associated with higher rates of sexual promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases, mental illness, substance abuse, domestic violence, and child sexual abuse, and those are all reasons for us to be concerned about placing children into that kind of setting.”
After reviewing a screener supplied by FX Networks, GLAAD and the Family Equality Council, a national nonprofit working to ensure equality for LGBT families, contacted FX, requesting that the inaccurate claim be removed from the episode or that a credible social science expert be brought in to provide an on-air correction.
FX Networks refused to remove the statement or address it during the course of the episode.
GLAAD, the Family Equality Council, and Children of Lesbians and Gays Everywhere are urging their members and the community to contact FX Networks and 20th Century Fox to express their concerns over the network’s providing a platform for such an inaccurate, misleading claim by the Family Research Council:
Jeffrey Glaser, senior vice president, current programming, 20th Century Fox Television, Inc., (310) 369-0211, jeffrey.glaser@fox.com.
Nick Grad, executive vice president of original programming, FX Networks, (310) 369-0949, ngrad@fxnetworks.com.
Chuck Saftler, executive vice president of programming, FX Networks, (310) 369-0949, csaftler@fxnetworks.com.
Scott Seomin, vice president of public relations, FX Networks, (310) 369-0938, sseomin@fxnetworks.co
Permalink
06.24.08
Posted in Advocate Articles, Gay Rights at 3:20 pm by pikapp44
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is asking California members to join the effort to amend that state’s constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman.
‘’The church’s teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and the formation of families is central to the Creator’s plan for His children,'’ the four-paragraph letter states.
‘’We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to ensure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman,'’ church leaders say in the letter. ‘’Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage.'’
The latest letter is a disappointment to members of Affirmation, an international support group for gay, lesbian and transgender Mormons. Last month, Affirmation called on the church not to meddle in California politics. ‘’This initiative will hurt so many people,'’ executive director W. Olin Thomas said in a statement Monday. ‘’The California law affects civil marriage; it has no effect on any religious institution or official.'’
Permalink
06.23.08
Posted in Advocate Articles, Gay Rights at 2:06 pm by pikapp44
Sen. Obama reminded us this week that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman, something LGBT people might have easily forgotten over the course of the primary.
During an interview with ABC’s Jake Tapper, Obama uttered the words so cunningly crafted by the Christian right: marriage is between a man and a woman.
More precisely, Sen. Obama said, “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman,” shortly after being asked if he opposed same-sex marriage, to which he responded, “Yes.” This positioning is not new for Sen. Obama. He has uttered those words plenty – during a debate with Alan Keyes in 2004, on the Senate floor in 2006, even in his 2007 Human Rights Campaign candidate questionnaire.
But if LGBT people across the country bristled at the one-man, one-woman construction, they can be forgiven. After scouring the web, drawing upon memory and scanning my notes, this reporter cannot remember the senator using those words during the entire primary season from January right through until Sen. Hillary Clinton conceded the race to Obama on June 7. In fact, I don’t believe he has used them in any one of the 20-some Democratic debates.
Why now? Welcome to the general election say the pundits. One Democratic strategist and TV pundit who agreed to speak on the condition of anonymity said the language is intended to send a signal to swing state voters that Sen. Obama isn’t the crazy liberal they’ve been told he is. “That’s language that’s required,” he said.
But on the bright side, he added that Sen. Obama followed his man-woman statement with: “I also think that same-sex partners should be able to visit each other in hospitals, they should be able to transfer property, they should be able to get the same federal rights and benefits that are conferred onto married couples.”
Indeed, the concept of a presidential candidate supporting civil unions was considered a serious liability as recently as 2004 when people wondered whether Howard Dean would be lambasted in a general election for signing Vermont’s civil unions bill into law.
“Obama is saying he wants the federal government to recognize whatever the states decide to sanction,” said the strategist. “That’s progressive and that was unthinkable just 4 years ago.”
Paul Begala, a Democratic strategist who is not working for any campaigns, found Sen. Obama’s statement on gay marriage rather unremarkable given his previous proclamations on the issue. “I thought it sounded like the standard line for him,” said Begala, who is an Obama supporter. “And I have to say as a political consultant, this is where you don’t want to make news. It hurts your consistent position. He is where most people are, which is, we want to have civil unions, we want to have equal rights. But a lot of people get off the train on the word ‘marriage,’ and so you show respect for that.”
That may be true, but any number of gays and lesbians would like a little respect too – especially those same-sex couples who are already married in Massachusetts and California. If you cup your ears and listen closely you can almost hear them grumbling, “Btw, Sen. Obama, marriage is no longer simply between a man and a woman. At least, ours isn’t.”
Surely, the LGBT folks associated with the campaign are working feverishly behind the scenes to find a work-around for that phrase – one with the added benefit of being accurate. Only time will tell whether they prevail. Begala reminds us that this political season will be a fight for the center that we have not witnessed in about 15 years, back when Ross Perot managed to draw enough independent votes (almost 20%) to hand Bill Clinton the presidency in 1992.
“The last two elections the country was so deeply polarized, and Bush won because he realized there really were no independents left,” Begala said. “So, yes, there’s a bigger pot of independent voters. And, interestingly, each party has nominated the candidate who, in the primaries, demonstrated the strongest ability to get independent votes.”
Permalink