By Denise Ross
Welcome back, Hoghouse readers. Sorry things went radio silent for much of last week. I got sucked into another project - the documentary - which is nearing completion at long, long last.
I return bearing gifts.
First is the list of legislative candidates endorsed by Equality South Dakota, the relatively new LGBT advocacy group. Later today, there will be video of an interview with the Democratic campaign manager from Mississippi who won the special congressional election last week. (I swear it’s true.)
OK, so Equality South Dakota endorsed seven Democrats. Here’s the list. (Read the full press release by clicking “CLICK HERE to read more” below.
Elaine Elliott, House District 2, Aberdeen. Candidate Elliott is in a three-way primary against longtime legislator Paul Dennert and candidate John Graham for two spots on the general election ballot.
Darrell Solberg, House District 11, Sioux Falls. Candidate Solberg faces fellow candidates Don Rose and Shawn Anderson in a three-way primary for two ballot spots.
Martha Vanderlinde, House District 15, Sioux Falls. Candidate Vanderlinde faces fellow candidates John Madigan and Patrick Kirschman in a three-way primary for two ballot spots.
Caitlin Collier, House District 17, Vermillion. Candidate Collier faces former legislator John Reedy, incumbent Eldon Nygaard and candidate Thomas Jones in a four-way primary for two ballot spots.
Larry Lucas, House District 26A, Mission. Incumbent Lucas faces candidates Calvin Jones and Paul Joseph in a three-way primary for one spot on the ballot.
Kevin Killer, House District 27, Pine Ridge. Killer faces fellow candidates Robert Fogg, Joseph White Bear Claws and Ed Iron Cloud III in a four-way race for two ballot spots.
Jeff Nelsen, House District 33, Rapid City. Candidate Nelsen faces fellow candidate Kimberly Henderson and perennial candidate Gary Loudner in a three-way race for two ballot spots.
Read more:
Monday, May 19, 2008
Deb Price: California Supreme Court adjusts people's vision on gay rights
When I took the eye exam for my driver's license as a teenager, I first tried without my glasses.
"Nice rows of blurry black lines, right?" I joked.
I slipped on my glasses. And, presto, crisp, distinct letters appeared before my eyes. The letters, of course, had always been there; I just couldn't recognize them.
When the California Supreme Court ruled May 15 that gay couples have the same constitutional right to marry as heterosexuals, it essentially said that one job of courts is to adjust the vision of people who simply haven't been able to see the injustice right in front of them.
Chief Justice Ronald George, a Republican appointee who wrote the 121-page majority opinion, said the nation's evolution in views and policies toward racial minorities and women teaches "that even the most familiar and generally accepted of social practices and traditions often mask an unfairness and inequality that frequently is not recognized or appreciated by those not directly harmed by those practices or traditions."
The 4-3 ruling -- the same split as in 1948 when California's top court became the first to strike down a ban on marriage between people of different races -- means gay couples can marry in California in about 30 days.
California follows Massachusetts, where more than 10,000 gay couples have married since 2004. But, unlike in Massachusetts, gay couples from any state will be able to marry there.
The breakthrough in the trendsetting Golden State -- home to one of every 8 Americans -- is gigantic.
As San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who triggered the court case in 2003 by allowing his city to issue licenses to gay couples, joyfully put it after the ruling, "As California goes, so goes the nation!"
The landmark ruling by the nation's most influential state court was immediately embraced by two California heavyweights: Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat with the power to block any federal marriage amendment.
All is not sunny in California, though. Voters will likely have to decide on a state amendment aimed at once again restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples.
Read more:
"Nice rows of blurry black lines, right?" I joked.
I slipped on my glasses. And, presto, crisp, distinct letters appeared before my eyes. The letters, of course, had always been there; I just couldn't recognize them.
When the California Supreme Court ruled May 15 that gay couples have the same constitutional right to marry as heterosexuals, it essentially said that one job of courts is to adjust the vision of people who simply haven't been able to see the injustice right in front of them.
Chief Justice Ronald George, a Republican appointee who wrote the 121-page majority opinion, said the nation's evolution in views and policies toward racial minorities and women teaches "that even the most familiar and generally accepted of social practices and traditions often mask an unfairness and inequality that frequently is not recognized or appreciated by those not directly harmed by those practices or traditions."
The 4-3 ruling -- the same split as in 1948 when California's top court became the first to strike down a ban on marriage between people of different races -- means gay couples can marry in California in about 30 days.
California follows Massachusetts, where more than 10,000 gay couples have married since 2004. But, unlike in Massachusetts, gay couples from any state will be able to marry there.
The breakthrough in the trendsetting Golden State -- home to one of every 8 Americans -- is gigantic.
As San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who triggered the court case in 2003 by allowing his city to issue licenses to gay couples, joyfully put it after the ruling, "As California goes, so goes the nation!"
The landmark ruling by the nation's most influential state court was immediately embraced by two California heavyweights: Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat with the power to block any federal marriage amendment.
All is not sunny in California, though. Voters will likely have to decide on a state amendment aimed at once again restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples.
Read more:
Commentary on Marriage Equality Victory in California
In These Times
California Rules!
A Defeat for Right-Wing Activism On and Off the Bench
By Hans Johnson
Refusing to be boxed in by election-year timidity or political threats from the religious right, a majority of the California Supreme Court ruled May 15 that same-sex couples have an equal right to civil marriage in the state. The judgment stands on a sturdy foundation of precedents involving equal protection of the law. Its reasoning and force rebut a far-right charge that has cowed other courts despite being perfectly backward.
In a ruling that the state will not appeal, California’s highest court ordered officials to begin granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples June 15. The clarity of the ruling is a reminder that people outside the ranks of a social movement can sometimes best articulate its progress.
“In contrast to earlier times,” wrote Chief Justice Ronald George, “our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation.”
Sixty years ago, against a steep and contrary bent of public opinion, the same court upheld the right of a Mexican American woman, Andrea Perez, to marry her African-American sweetheart, Sylvester Davis, in Los Angeles. It took two decades for the U.S. Supreme Court to finally follow California’s lead and nix all such bans on interracial marriages.
In the current marriage case, Carlos Moreno, the court’s sole Latino justice, and two others joined the ruling by George, an appointee of former Republican governor Pete Wilson. George became the court’s chief justice the very month (May 1996) that fellow Californian Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan appointee to the U.S. Supreme Court, confounded religious conservatives by striking down an antigay amendment to the Colorado constitution. The measure aimed to obliterate and forever outlaw any protection in any area of life against antigay bias, no matter how severe. Kennedy countered with simple declarative grace that even a majority of voters cannot make gay people “strangers to the law.”
Seven years later, in 2003, Kennedy infuriated the far right again with his ruling against a Texas sodomy statute so prone to abuse that police could wield it to barge into the homes and bedrooms and arrest unsuspecting adults. Today, at its fifth anniversary, the Lawrence standard nullifying all state sodomy laws and extending privacy continues to gain traction in politics and case law in part because of its author’s conservative credentials.
Even the farthest right-wing fringe refrains from demonizing Kennedy due to his status as a swing vote on the Supreme Court. Instead, like prison wardens mocked by defiance of a noncompliant inmate, they direct their rage at justice David Souter, the moderate appointee of Bush 41, and the aged but unflagging jurist John Paul Stevens, a Ford appointee whose demise some on the right actually pray for.
Read more:
The Huffington Post
Bowing to Fear, candidates ignore historic nature of CA decision
Lane Hudson
On Thursday, the California Supreme Court issued a historic ruling that overturned a law denying gays and lesbians equal access to civil marriage. For millions of people like me, it was a moving moment - a moment where we were recognized as being equal in every way in the eyes of the law. A moment that we aspire to see become reality in every corner of America.
Hillary Clinton had this to say about this incredibly important ruling:
"Hillary Clinton believes that gay and lesbian couples in committed relationships should have the same rights and responsibilities as all Americans and believes that civil unions are the best way to achieve this goal. As President, Hillary Clinton will work to ensure that same sex couples have access to these rights and responsibilities at the federal level. She has said and continues to believe that the issue of marriage should be left to the states."
Barack Obama had this to say:
"Barack Obama has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law, and he will continue to fight for civil unions as President. He respects the decision of the California Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage."
Seventy-five words and fifty-four words, respectively, about a 172 page ruling that time will surely find to be the definitive ruling on marriage equality. This ruling will be cited in every marriage case that will be argued in the future. The thoughtful, well-written decision provides the pathway to ending one of the last vestiges of civil discrimination in America. Yet, our presidential candidates couldn't even muster the effort to acknowledge its importance. Disappointing would be a mild word to describe my feelings about them on this issue.
In 1948, California became the first State in America to overturn a ban on interracial marriage. In its decision on Tuesday, the California Supreme Court cited its own words from that 1948 decision. This New York Times piece, titled 'Same-sex marriage, racial justice find common ground' shows the parallels drawn between the two issues by the Court itself:
Not long into the oral argument before the California Supreme Court in March over whether gay and lesbian couples have a constitutional right to marry, Chief Justice Ronald M. George showed his hand.
Three times he quoted from the court's 1948 decision in Perez v. Sharp that struck down a state ban on interracial marriage, a high point in the history of a prestigious and influential court.
"The essence of the right to marry is freedom to join in marriage with the person of one's choice," Chief Justice George said, quoting Perez.
Without doubt, this is the next step in America's journey to live up to the founding principle that all men are created equal. After the Perez decision in 1948, it took the U.S. Supreme Court until 1967 to overturn the remaining unconstitutional laws banning interracial marriage. Even then, public support for interracial marriage was incredibly low.
Today, America is closely divided on the issue. But we know where this is headed. It is in keeping with the tradition and history of America. After all, our nation has a history of making people equal.
Read more:
California Rules!
A Defeat for Right-Wing Activism On and Off the Bench
By Hans Johnson
Refusing to be boxed in by election-year timidity or political threats from the religious right, a majority of the California Supreme Court ruled May 15 that same-sex couples have an equal right to civil marriage in the state. The judgment stands on a sturdy foundation of precedents involving equal protection of the law. Its reasoning and force rebut a far-right charge that has cowed other courts despite being perfectly backward.
In a ruling that the state will not appeal, California’s highest court ordered officials to begin granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples June 15. The clarity of the ruling is a reminder that people outside the ranks of a social movement can sometimes best articulate its progress.
“In contrast to earlier times,” wrote Chief Justice Ronald George, “our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation.”
Sixty years ago, against a steep and contrary bent of public opinion, the same court upheld the right of a Mexican American woman, Andrea Perez, to marry her African-American sweetheart, Sylvester Davis, in Los Angeles. It took two decades for the U.S. Supreme Court to finally follow California’s lead and nix all such bans on interracial marriages.
In the current marriage case, Carlos Moreno, the court’s sole Latino justice, and two others joined the ruling by George, an appointee of former Republican governor Pete Wilson. George became the court’s chief justice the very month (May 1996) that fellow Californian Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan appointee to the U.S. Supreme Court, confounded religious conservatives by striking down an antigay amendment to the Colorado constitution. The measure aimed to obliterate and forever outlaw any protection in any area of life against antigay bias, no matter how severe. Kennedy countered with simple declarative grace that even a majority of voters cannot make gay people “strangers to the law.”
Seven years later, in 2003, Kennedy infuriated the far right again with his ruling against a Texas sodomy statute so prone to abuse that police could wield it to barge into the homes and bedrooms and arrest unsuspecting adults. Today, at its fifth anniversary, the Lawrence standard nullifying all state sodomy laws and extending privacy continues to gain traction in politics and case law in part because of its author’s conservative credentials.
Even the farthest right-wing fringe refrains from demonizing Kennedy due to his status as a swing vote on the Supreme Court. Instead, like prison wardens mocked by defiance of a noncompliant inmate, they direct their rage at justice David Souter, the moderate appointee of Bush 41, and the aged but unflagging jurist John Paul Stevens, a Ford appointee whose demise some on the right actually pray for.
Read more:
The Huffington Post
Bowing to Fear, candidates ignore historic nature of CA decision
Lane Hudson
On Thursday, the California Supreme Court issued a historic ruling that overturned a law denying gays and lesbians equal access to civil marriage. For millions of people like me, it was a moving moment - a moment where we were recognized as being equal in every way in the eyes of the law. A moment that we aspire to see become reality in every corner of America.
Hillary Clinton had this to say about this incredibly important ruling:
"Hillary Clinton believes that gay and lesbian couples in committed relationships should have the same rights and responsibilities as all Americans and believes that civil unions are the best way to achieve this goal. As President, Hillary Clinton will work to ensure that same sex couples have access to these rights and responsibilities at the federal level. She has said and continues to believe that the issue of marriage should be left to the states."
Barack Obama had this to say:
"Barack Obama has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law, and he will continue to fight for civil unions as President. He respects the decision of the California Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage."
Seventy-five words and fifty-four words, respectively, about a 172 page ruling that time will surely find to be the definitive ruling on marriage equality. This ruling will be cited in every marriage case that will be argued in the future. The thoughtful, well-written decision provides the pathway to ending one of the last vestiges of civil discrimination in America. Yet, our presidential candidates couldn't even muster the effort to acknowledge its importance. Disappointing would be a mild word to describe my feelings about them on this issue.
In 1948, California became the first State in America to overturn a ban on interracial marriage. In its decision on Tuesday, the California Supreme Court cited its own words from that 1948 decision. This New York Times piece, titled 'Same-sex marriage, racial justice find common ground' shows the parallels drawn between the two issues by the Court itself:
Not long into the oral argument before the California Supreme Court in March over whether gay and lesbian couples have a constitutional right to marry, Chief Justice Ronald M. George showed his hand.
Three times he quoted from the court's 1948 decision in Perez v. Sharp that struck down a state ban on interracial marriage, a high point in the history of a prestigious and influential court.
"The essence of the right to marry is freedom to join in marriage with the person of one's choice," Chief Justice George said, quoting Perez.
Without doubt, this is the next step in America's journey to live up to the founding principle that all men are created equal. After the Perez decision in 1948, it took the U.S. Supreme Court until 1967 to overturn the remaining unconstitutional laws banning interracial marriage. Even then, public support for interracial marriage was incredibly low.
Today, America is closely divided on the issue. But we know where this is headed. It is in keeping with the tradition and history of America. After all, our nation has a history of making people equal.
Read more:
Sunday, May 18, 2008
The Titusville Herald: ACLU claims students' right to free speech violated
The American Civil Liberties Union has accused Oil City Area School District of violating students' right to free speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and has threatened legal action if the district doesn't provide written assurance that such a violation will not happen again.
In a letter addressed to Joseph L. Carrico, district superintendent, and Scott Stahl, Oil City Senior High School principal, the ACLU states that several students were sent home on April 25 for refusing to remove or cover up their “Day of Silence” shirts and other students were told to remove Day of Silence stickers.
The Day of Silence is a day to protest the bullying and harassment of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender students and their supporters.
The ACLU letter, which was signed by ACLU staff attorney Sara J. Rose and legal director Witold Walczak, states that the school justified its ban on the Day of Silence T-shirts by pointing to its policy prohibiting homemade T-shirts. However, the ACLU did not find any such policy in the student handbook, stated the letter, adding that if such a policy did exist it would be unconstitutional to the extent that it prohibits students from wearing homemade shirts with expressive messages.
The student handbook prohibits “visibly altered clothing,” but does not define the term, the ACLU wrote.
The letter also stated that the ACLU has learned that students have previously been permitted to wear homemade shirts bearing other school messages.
Read more:
In a letter addressed to Joseph L. Carrico, district superintendent, and Scott Stahl, Oil City Senior High School principal, the ACLU states that several students were sent home on April 25 for refusing to remove or cover up their “Day of Silence” shirts and other students were told to remove Day of Silence stickers.
The Day of Silence is a day to protest the bullying and harassment of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender students and their supporters.
The ACLU letter, which was signed by ACLU staff attorney Sara J. Rose and legal director Witold Walczak, states that the school justified its ban on the Day of Silence T-shirts by pointing to its policy prohibiting homemade T-shirts. However, the ACLU did not find any such policy in the student handbook, stated the letter, adding that if such a policy did exist it would be unconstitutional to the extent that it prohibits students from wearing homemade shirts with expressive messages.
The student handbook prohibits “visibly altered clothing,” but does not define the term, the ACLU wrote.
The letter also stated that the ACLU has learned that students have previously been permitted to wear homemade shirts bearing other school messages.
Read more:
Classic Ann Landers: May 18
Dear Ann Landers:
My husband has been clinically depressed for most of his adult life. A while back, "Herman" began seeing a female therapist who focused on my husband's early years to see whether something in his childhood might be the cause of his depression. His therapist discovered that during adolescence, Herman had been a cross-dresser.
He apparently had worn women's clothing in his early teens but repressed it as an adult. Now Herman wants my permission to express this part of his personality around the house. He says he would not go out in public.
This disgusts me, Ann. The thought of my husband in makeup, wig and high heels makes my skin crawl. His therapist told me I need to be more tolerant. She doesn't seem to think his behavior is abnormal or sick.
Herman is artistic and sensitive, a gourmet cook and an avid sportsman. More importantly, he is a terrific father to our two sons. I used to think he was the most masculine man alive. Now I don't see how I ever can look at him the same way or stop wondering whether he is gay. I don't want to break up our marriage, but if anyone found out about the makeup, wigs and high heels, I would be devastated. I need your advice. — N. Carolina
Dear N. Carolina: You need to have a better understanding of your husband's cross-dressing. Herman is a transvestite. Some transvestites are gay, but many are not. They get their thrills from dressing up in women's clothing, but that's as far as it goes. Please go to the public library and read up on the subject. The more you know the less you will fear it.
ANN LANDERS (R)
My husband has been clinically depressed for most of his adult life. A while back, "Herman" began seeing a female therapist who focused on my husband's early years to see whether something in his childhood might be the cause of his depression. His therapist discovered that during adolescence, Herman had been a cross-dresser.
He apparently had worn women's clothing in his early teens but repressed it as an adult. Now Herman wants my permission to express this part of his personality around the house. He says he would not go out in public.
This disgusts me, Ann. The thought of my husband in makeup, wig and high heels makes my skin crawl. His therapist told me I need to be more tolerant. She doesn't seem to think his behavior is abnormal or sick.
Herman is artistic and sensitive, a gourmet cook and an avid sportsman. More importantly, he is a terrific father to our two sons. I used to think he was the most masculine man alive. Now I don't see how I ever can look at him the same way or stop wondering whether he is gay. I don't want to break up our marriage, but if anyone found out about the makeup, wigs and high heels, I would be devastated. I need your advice. — N. Carolina
Dear N. Carolina: You need to have a better understanding of your husband's cross-dressing. Herman is a transvestite. Some transvestites are gay, but many are not. They get their thrills from dressing up in women's clothing, but that's as far as it goes. Please go to the public library and read up on the subject. The more you know the less you will fear it.
ANN LANDERS (R)
Saturday, May 17, 2008
The Bilerico Project:California Supreme Court OKs Marriage for Gays - But It Ain't Over Yet
Filed by: Karen Ocamb
May 15, 2008 7:00 PM
That joyful noise you hear rumbling across America is the sound of equality applauding: today the California Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that lesbian and gay couples have the same constitutional right to marry as heterosexuals.
The decision could be overturned, however, if a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage makes it onto the November ballot, as expected, and is passed by voters.
The right-wing reaction to the court's ruling from Karen England, executive director for the antigay Capitol Resource Institute, is typical. She said in a statement issued via email:
Read more
LINK to ACLU on Marriage decision
Youtube on celebration
May 15, 2008 7:00 PM
That joyful noise you hear rumbling across America is the sound of equality applauding: today the California Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that lesbian and gay couples have the same constitutional right to marry as heterosexuals.
The decision could be overturned, however, if a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage makes it onto the November ballot, as expected, and is passed by voters.
The right-wing reaction to the court's ruling from Karen England, executive director for the antigay Capitol Resource Institute, is typical. She said in a statement issued via email:
Read more
LINK to ACLU on Marriage decision
Youtube on celebration
Wayne Besen: TWO Ecstatic Over Historic California Marriage Ruling
Ruling Undermines ‘Ex-Gay’ Propaganda And Lets Potential Recruits See The Truth About Same-Sex Relationships
NEW YORK – TruthWinsOut.org expressed jubilation over the California Supreme Court’s decision to overturn a ban on same-sex marriage. The momentous 4-3 ruling is one of the biggest victories in the GLBT equality movement’s history. It also undermines “ex-gay” propaganda that demeans gay relationships to recruit new members.
“We are thrilled to be a part of history and experience a monumental victory for marriage equality,” said Wayne Besen, TruthWinsOut.org’s Executive Director. “The court made a bold decision and confirmed that all relationships, regardless of sexual orientation, are equal in California.”
“Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest,” the court said in a majority decision. “Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional.”
The California court also said that the right to marry in the state’s constitution “guarantees same-sex couples the same substantive constitutional rights as opposite-sex couples to choose one’s life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship.”
“This ruling is a devastating blow to ‘ex-gay’ cults, because it undermines their propaganda, which claims that same-sex relationships don’t work,” said TWO’s Besen. “The images of happy couples marrying undercut their efforts to recruit vulnerable people.”
The ruling will take effect and marriages will begin in 30 days. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued a statement that said he will “respect the court’s decision and will “uphold its ruling.” He also said that he “will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.”
TruthWinsOut
NEW YORK – TruthWinsOut.org expressed jubilation over the California Supreme Court’s decision to overturn a ban on same-sex marriage. The momentous 4-3 ruling is one of the biggest victories in the GLBT equality movement’s history. It also undermines “ex-gay” propaganda that demeans gay relationships to recruit new members.
“We are thrilled to be a part of history and experience a monumental victory for marriage equality,” said Wayne Besen, TruthWinsOut.org’s Executive Director. “The court made a bold decision and confirmed that all relationships, regardless of sexual orientation, are equal in California.”
“Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest,” the court said in a majority decision. “Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional.”
The California court also said that the right to marry in the state’s constitution “guarantees same-sex couples the same substantive constitutional rights as opposite-sex couples to choose one’s life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship.”
“This ruling is a devastating blow to ‘ex-gay’ cults, because it undermines their propaganda, which claims that same-sex relationships don’t work,” said TWO’s Besen. “The images of happy couples marrying undercut their efforts to recruit vulnerable people.”
The ruling will take effect and marriages will begin in 30 days. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued a statement that said he will “respect the court’s decision and will “uphold its ruling.” He also said that he “will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.”
TruthWinsOut
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
