The Maine gay-marriage initiative went down to defeat Tuesday. But the real tragedy is that it should never have been put to a vote in the first place.
"I think this would be a good time for a beer," Franklin D. Roosevelt said upon signing a bill that made 3.2-percent lager legal again, some months ahead of the full repeal of Prohibition. I hope Barack Obama will come up with some comparably witty remarks as he presides over the dismantling of our contemporary forms of prohibition—laws that prevent gay marriage, restrict cannabis as a Schedule I Controlled Substance, and ban travel to Cuba. "You may now kiss the groom," perhaps, or—a version of the comment he once made about smoking pot—"I inhaled—that was the point."
Prohibition now is different from Prohibition then. When the 18th Amendment went into effect in 1920, it was a radical social experiment challenging a custom as old as civilization. Its predictable failure—the gross insult to individual rights, the impossibility of enforcement, the spawning of organized crime—came to an end when Utah, of all places, became the 36th state to ratify the 21st Amendment in 1933. Today prohibition is a byword for futile attempts to legislate morality and remake human nature.
Our forms of prohibition are more sins of omission than commission. Rather than trying to take away longstanding rights, they're instances of conservative laws failing to keep pace with a liberalizing society. But like Prohibition in the '20s, these restrictions have become indefensible as well as impractical, and as a result are fading fast. Within 10 years, it seems a reasonable guess that Americans will travel freely to Cuba, that all states will recognize gay unions, and that few will retain criminal penalties for marijuana use by individuals. Whether or not Democrats retain control of Congress, whether or not Obama is re-elected, and whether they happen sooner or later than expected, these reforms are inevitable—not because politics has changed but because society has.
SAN ANGELO, Texas — The first jury trial in more than a decade in the sleepy West Texas town of Eldorado involves an alleged polygamist and an accusation of sexual assault of an underage bride, a far cry from the occasional drunken driving cases that normally occupy the Schleicher County court system.
Attorneys on Monday will begin culling the largest jury pool ever called in Eldorado to try to find 14 people in a county of 2,800 who can set aside what they have heard about a polygamist sect whose alleged marriages involving underage girls triggered a police raid that swept more than 400 children into state custody last year.
Raymond Jessop, 38, will become the first man from the Yearning For Zion Ranch to go on trial here. He is charged with sexual assault of a child — an underage girl he allegedly married first — and faces up to 20 years in prison if convicted. He is also charged with bigamy for allegedly marrying a second underage girl, but will be tried on that charge separately.
In all, 12 sect men have been charged with crimes ranging from failure to report child abuse to bigamy and sexual assault at the ranch, where women and girls wear braids and pastel prairie dresses. They have all denied wrongdoing.
The cases began after a woman in Colorado allegedly called a Texas domestic abuse hot line in March 2008 and pretended to be a teenage girl with a much-older husband who raped and beat her. State authorities swooped in, taking 439 children away from their sheltered lives and hundreds of boxes of documents and family photos to build their case. The Texas Rangers have acknowledged the hot line information was false, but the caller has never been charged.SAN ANGELO, Texas — The first jury trial in more than a decade in the sleepy West... more
Video blogger Mike Stark caught up with Louisiana Senator David Vitter as Vitter was entering an elevator. Asked what he had to say about the Keith Bardwell, the Louisiana Justice of the Peace who refused to marry an interracial couple, Stark was met with a closing elevator door.Video blogger Mike Stark caught up with Louisiana Senator David Vitter as Vitter was... more
HAMMOND, La. - A Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have.
Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.
Neither Bardwell nor the couple immediately returned phone calls from The Associated Press. But Bardwell told the Daily Star of Hammond that he was not a racist. "I do ceremonies for black couples right here in my house," Bardwell said. "My main concern is for the children."
Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said. "I don't do interracial marriages because I don't want to put children in a situation they didn't bring on themselves," Bardwell said. "In my heart, I feel the children will later suffer." If he does an interracial marriage for one couple, he must do the same for all, he said. "I try to treat everyone equally," he said.
Thirty-year-old Beth Humphrey and 32-year-old Terence McKay, both of Hammond, say they will consult the U.S. Justice Department about filing a discrimination complaint.
Humphrey told the newspaper she called Bardwell on Oct. 6 to inquire about getting a marriage license signed. She says Bardwell's wife told her that Bardwell will not sign marriage licenses for interracial couples.
"It is really astonishing and disappointing to see this come up in 2009," said American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana attorney Katie Schwartzman. "The Supreme Court ruled as far back as 1963 that the government cannot tell people who they can and cannot marry."
end of excerpt
Source: MSNBC
For the children my ass.HAMMOND, La. - A Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage... more
As dawn was breaking in Brooklyn, N.Y., on Sunday morning, three very sleepy friends and I crammed ourselves into a small, banged-up Honda, cranked on the acoustic lesbian folk music and began the lengthy drive to Washington, D.C., to be gay. The National Equality March, meant to draw attention to marriage equality and "don't ask, don't tell" -- and demand changes from the Obama administration -- was going to be the first gay march on the Capitol since 2000. While none of my trip companions (or I) are particularly energized by the gay marriage cause -- given our long-standing, uh, skepticism of the institution -- we still wanted to seize what might be our last chance ever to attend a large-scale gay rally in D.As dawn was breaking in Brooklyn, N.Y., on Sunday morning, three very sleepy friends... more
What happens when a gay guy asks people who gave time and money to support anti-gay Referendum 71 the most basic question?
* We have no idea what these people actually look like. We talked to them over the phone.
On August 31, the Washington Secretary of State's office announced that Christian extremists had gathered enough signatures to put Referendum 71 on the November ballot. Assuming a lawsuit doesn't stop it, R-71 allows the voting public to decide if the legislature was right in recently granting same-sex partners in this state the same rights as married couples. (An "approve" vote on the referendum will put the law into effect; a "reject" vote will nullify it.) Conservatives have long held that they don't have a problem with gay people—they just want to protect "marriage." But R-71 only applies to domestic partnerships. So why are those challenging this law fighting so hard to deny gay people equal rights? Since the state public disclosure commission recently ruled that the names of contributors to Referendum 71 must remain public, we called up four contributors to ask them. These were the first four people we called.What happens when a gay guy asks people who gave time and money to support anti-gay... more
Theodore B. Olson's office is a testament to his iconic status in the conservative legal movement. A framed photograph of Ronald Reagan, the first of two Republican presidents Mr. Olson served, is warmly inscribed with "heartfelt thanks." Fifty-five white quills commemorate each of his appearances before the Supreme Court, where he most famously argued the 2000 election case that put George W. Bush in the White House. On the bookshelf sits a Defense Department medal honoring his legal defense of Mr. Bush's counterterrorism policies after Sept. 11.
But in a war room down the hall, where Mr. Olson is preparing for what he believes could be the most important case of his career, the binders stuffed with briefs, case law and notes offer a different take on a man many liberals love to hate. They are filled with arguments Mr. Olson hopes will lead to a Supreme Court decision with the potential to reshape the legal and social landscape along the lines of cases like Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade: the legalization of same-sex marriage nationwide.Theodore B. Olson's office is a testament to his iconic status in the conservative... more
Big news from Maine. On the plus side, the campaign to save Maine's marriage law has been launched -- and they've got a kick-ass campaign manager leading the effort. In Maine, new laws can be challenged via the referendum process. As I write this, the Catholic Church and its vehemently anti-gay allies are collecting signatures to get a measure on the ballot this November to repeal the new marriage equality law.Big news from Maine. On the plus side, the campaign to save Maine's marriage law has... more
As you may have heard, President Obama tomorrow will be signing a presidential directive, not an executive order, providing "some" benefits to gay and lesbian employees. Well, the details, murky that they are, are coming. And they aren't great.Ah, those pesky details.
As you may have heard, President Obama tomorrow will be... more
A Michigan lawmaker said Saturday she wants to change state law to recognize gay marriages.
The proposal announced by State Rep. Pam Byrnes faces an uphill climb. Michigan voters in 2004 passed a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman, effectively banning the legal recognition of same-sex marriage.
But Byrnes launched an effort to repeal that provision at the annual gay rights Michigan Pride event at the state Capitol.
The joint resolution by the Democrat from Washtenaw County's Lyndon Township would have to be approved by two-thirds of the Michigan Legislature before it would be put to voters in the 2010 election.
The proposal would be opposed at every step by many of the same groups that successfully supported the 2004 campaign, including the Catholic Church. The 2004 ballot measure passed by a 59 percent to 41 percent margin.
Byrnes said same-sex couples deserve the same rights as opposite-sex couples in state law.
"No doubt, it will be a fight," Byrnes said. "But we're seeing some attitudes change."A Michigan lawmaker said Saturday she wants to change state law to recognize gay... more
Former solicitor general and ultraconservative lawyer Ted Olson is a rock star of the US Supreme Court bar. He’s argued more than 50 cases before the high court during his career and won more than three-fourths of them. So on Wednesday, when he signed on to a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, which bans gay marriage, he looked like the great white hope for a cause that’s had only mixed success in the nation’s courts. If anyone could prevail in this case, Olson could. So gay rights groups must be thrilled that he’s thrown his significant legal weight and conservative bona fides behind their cause, right? But they’re not—not at all.
The country’s major legal groups defending gay rights, including the ACLU and the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, don’t think Olson is doing them much of a favor. They are upset about the lawsuit, in large part because they think it will fail. A loss could be a major setback not just to the gay marriage movement but to other established gay rights governing adoption and foster care, employment discrimination, and other matters. Pushing the case to the Supreme Court, they contend, could do serious harm.Former solicitor general and ultraconservative lawyer Ted Olson is a rock star of the... more
This has been at the back of my mind for a while now, me and my partner are planning to marry in a couple of years, but my concerns are that I've been married before in a church of England and my partner is catholic, her church, most of her family has been married in, how is it possible for us to marry in her catholic church or is there no possible way??
Regards.
RobHello.
This has been at the back of my mind for a while now, me and my partner are... more
I believe that one day, Americans will see gay rights like they now see minority rights, women's rights, and the rights of the disabled.
Civil rights issues are supposed to be judged by the supreme court, not voters. Homosexuals are a minority. Arkansas voters did not vote on integration. Men didn't vote on women's suffrage.
Religious people can still have the sanctity of marriage in their church of choice. Gay people only want to be able to be recognized as married by the government so they can have the same legal benefits as straight couples.
Where is the sanctity of marriage in getting married by an Elvis impersonator in Vegas? The government recognizes that as a valid marriage.
I believe that one day, Americans will see gay rights like they now see minority... more
Divorce destroys the sanctity of marriage and its powerful influence on the betterment of society. This proposition would keep the very meaning of marriage from being transformed into nothing more than a contractual relationship between two adults. Prohibiting divorce between heterosexual married couples will keep the interests of children and families intact. We will continue to celebrate marriage as the union of husband and wife, not as a relationship between Party A and Party B. The marriage of a man and a woman has been at the heart of society since the beginning of time and it promotes the ideal opportunity for children to be raised by a mother and a father in a family held together by the legal, communal, and spiritual bonds of marriage. As a society we should put the best interests of children first, and those interests lie in traditional marriage. Permitting divorce destroys marriage as we know it and causes a profound harm to society. We should be restoring marriage, not undermining it.
And for those of you who voted yes on Prop 8 but disagree with this petition...Why? This petition is copied and pasted from literature from your website, ProtectMarriage.com, but applied to Divorce instead of Gay Marriage. So how can you argue with your own words?
The right to marry is for everyone. It is unconstitutional to give rights and then try to take them away because some people are homophobic. Right now the polls in California indicate that Prop 8 will pass!
If you live in California or know anyone that does, tell them to watch this video and to vote NO on Proposition 8- it's just wrong. Protect beautiful families like the one in this video- not families that teach hate and intolerance.The right to marry is for everyone. It is unconstitutional to give rights and then try... more
When indie musician Todd Baechle married Orenda Fink, he made a decision that rocked some worlds. He took his wife's last name.
Fans of his band, the Faint, buzzed about it. Music writers were confused when he said he had a brother in the band, even though every member has a different last name. The move initially miffed his parents.
And — most troubling for Fink — it was grueling to navigate the legal process of changing his name. Many county and state officials didn't know what to do.
"Humans trust traditions," said Fink, now married three years. "But some things are worth changing. Sometimes you have to walk off the sidewalk if you want new experiences."
There's a slow-growing trend for men to take their spouses' last names. No local, state or national agency records the instances, but anecdotal evidence nationwide indicates it's more common, said Mark Rosenbaum, a lawyer and University of Michigan professor of law who has led legal charges in California to make the process as easy for men as for women.
Employees at the Douglas County Clerk's Office, which issues marriage licenses, recall about five men who have made the choice in the past decade. Jackie Fairbanks, registration supervisor for the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services' vital records division, hasn't seen many, but she has noticed more in the past year or two.When indie musician Todd Baechle married Orenda Fink, he made a decision that rocked... more
"We cannot accept the view that Amendment 2's prohibition on specific legal protections does no more than deprive homosexuals of special rights. To the contrary, the amendment imposes a special disability on those persons alone. Homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint"
-Justice Anthony Kennedy,
writing for the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court in the decision overturning Colorado's Amendment 2 referendum "We cannot accept the view that Amendment 2's prohibition on specific legal... more
