UK Gay reports: a Louisiana District Judge William Morvant ruled Louisiana’s anti-marriage equality amendment invalid because it violated the “single issue” criterion required by Louisiana’s constitution.

Those familiar with the amendments in 11 other states will be aware that many contain language that appears to restrict civil unions or laws permitting the government to recognize civil or domestic unions that permit unmarried couples to obtain legal recognition for “incidents of marriage”. The precise benefits, right and responsibilities associated with the “incidents of marriage” is not clearly defined. I previously mentioned that AARP has expressed opposition to Ohio’s anti-ssm amendment because they believe these secondary restrictions harm unmarried seniors, depriving them of property and other rights vital to seniors.

Despite the clear existence of multiple issues in the amendment, opponents of same sex marriage have accused Judge Morvant of usurping the role of the legislature. Judge Morvant, a Republican, has a reputation for a no-nonsense approach to application of the law. When presented with an emotional appeal by a gay plaintiff, he responded:

See The Enquirer

Presumably, the Judge did not rule in favor of the plaintiffs out of sympathy for their plight; this is a simple application of the law. The term “District” sounds like a lower court ruling to me, so I assume this will be appealed.

Gay rights advocates are getting some unexpected support. AARP has examined Ohio’s proposed anti-same sex marriage amendment; they concluded the restrictions will harm unmarried elderly people.

Rainbow Network quotes AARP :

Similar amendments appear on ballots in 11 states in November. Hopefully, AARP will evaluate, and publicly articulate their opposition to every one of them.

I ran across this story in Proud Parenting describing a Brazilian court case which imposed a legal restriction on a lesbian because her relationship with her partner was “tantamount to marriage”.

We generally don’t think of court rulings imposing restrictions as a major advance in rights, but this one may be! Here is the story: Astrid Cunha e Silva and Eulina Rabelo are lesbian partners. Ms. Cunha e Silva is currently the mayor of the small town of Viseu; Ms. Rebelo wants to run for office and replace the mayor at the end of her term. However, Brazilian law blocks the spouse and relatives of an elected official from succeeding them in office.

Sp. when Mr. Rabelo decided to run, the courts needed to decide if their relationship is marriage as far as the election law is concerned. Judges ruled unanimously that Ms. Rabelo cannot run because of the two are, for all intents and purposes, married.

Now, obviously, one does not hope to read of judges imposing legal restrictions associated with marriage, while refusing benefits, but I can only wonder:
Is Brazil about to fully recognize Same Sex Marriage? The answer may be yes.

Proud Parenting’s article states:

William Baude at Crescat Sententia quotes Reverend Abernathy of “Guys and Dolls”, asking:

For Roman Catholics, the answer is clear. It’s not a sin because in 1763 Pope Clement VII drank some and decreed:

I would submit it’s a sin to drink bad coffee. Do give that up.

For more coffee history read An Overview of Coffee Evolution which suggests that discussions in coffee houses contributed to calls for political change, and indirectly helped foment both the French and American revolutions. Likely the effect is indirect. However, if coffee can, indeed, lead to revolution, we may need to cut Jacob Levy off or risk overturning our current form of government.

Recently, this corner of the blogosphere has been discussing women smiling (or not) at strangers. (You will find dicussions by: Amanda at “Mousewords”, Amp, here, at “Alas, a Blog”, Astarte at “Utopian Hell”, and Hugo at “Hugo Schwyzer”.) There have a been a number of issues raised; many are interesting and important. I’m going to ignore most. Rather, I will discuss this one:

With some frequency, strange men, suddenly, out of the blue, instruct women whom they have never met to smile.

Many women find the man’s behavior intrusive and often, aggravating. At the very least, the woman would prefer to be left alone so they can go about their business as they originally planned. They certainly do not wish to be forced to devote their attention to this complete stranger simply because he has suddenly demanded it.

The woman’s question: What response does etiquette dictate?

Well, it turns out that Miss Manners weighed in on this situation some time ago. Her advice:

There we have it! According to traditional etiquette, those who accost strangers and demand smiles are guilty of rudeness. The correct response by the innocent who has been rudely accosted is to ignore the rudeness.

The correct response has nothing to do with moral guilt or innocence or concerns over physical safety. It has nothing to do with friendliness and coldness. The etiquette question is resolved by examining who controls their boundaries. You get to decide if you are going to smile; I get to decide if I am going to smile. Complete strangers do not have the right to demand others smile.

Of course, we all know why this issue is a feminist one: Some people don’t believe women have a right to boundaries. Women do.

Direct from an HRC email:

The amendment needed a 2/3’s majority; the final vote was 227 for, 186 against.

I’ve sent a thank you note to my representative, one of the Republicans who voted against the amendment.

Bean blogged about the South African Marriage scam. All Africa.com reports, the alleged King Pin has been caught.

Prime time TV, cartoons, internet diplomas, and same sex marriage, all wrapped in one story. How can I pass it up?

Rumors had been swirling around that a character on the Simpsons would turn out to be gay. The world has been wondering, who? FXCM reveal it is Patty, one of Marge’s sisters. After being rejected by every man in Springfield, Patty will turn to women. She will be seduced by a lesbian in a bar, and the two will become a couple. Evidently, Homer will turn to the internet to become a licensed minister after which he will join Patty and her new love in marriage.

I’m not sure what to think of all this. Patty becomes a lesbian because she’s rejected by men?! Homer is technologically savvy enough to surf the web? And becomes a minister? What will become of Selma? Will she be lonely sitting home alone smoking cigarettes and watching MacGyver? Or will she take up with Principal Skinner? Or Ned Flanders? I’d suggest a woman for Selma, but are there any unmarried female characters unrelated to Marge and her sisters?

I guess, I’m hoping I hear what others think. No need to watch the show to form an opinion; if you have one, fire away.

Spain’s socialist government is moving rapidly to expand both women’s and gay rights. Expatica reports that Spain’s government is drafting a bill that will grant gays the same legal rights as heterosexuals with regard to divorce, inheritance, and citizenship. Adoption by gays will be restricted to Spanish children. In contrast, the opposition Popular Party supports same sex civil unions, and opposes adoption. With Spanish support for same sex marriage reported at 66%, unions of one sort or another seem inevitable.

Meanwhile, Spain is simplifying divorce. Earlier this month the news.telegraph reported that starting next year, Spain will permit divorce within as little as 10 days. It is estimated the typical uncontested divorce will take 2 months, and the total time will be restricted to 6 months. The news.telegraph reports the change is welcomed by Spaniards.

Spain’s prime minister Zapatero is also proposing easing abortion restriction and lifting restrictions on embryo research. More recently, the news.telegraph reports the socialist government is also proposing to keep religious education optional, remove crucifixes from public buildings like prisons, schools and military head quarters, subject religious teachers, who are paid by the government, to secular employment regulations and cut government funding of the Catholic Church by half. A self avowed feminist, Zapatero also plans to modify the law to permit female succession to the throne, and, more importantly, to crack down on domestic violence.

So many changes in so little time. As an American citizen, I know my opinion about all this is of little importance, but I can only smile and applaud!

====
Update (Friday Oct.1): CNN

Medline News reports:

You already knew not to accept drinks; don’t accept cigarettes either.

The Richmond Times Dispatch reports Tom Delay predicts the House will not pass the Family Marriage Amendment tomorrow, Sept. 30. He is going ahead with the vote anyway. Some suggest this time wasting vote is motivated by DeLay’s desire to rally Fundamentalists Christian voters.

I suggest phoning your congressional representative to express your opposition to this amendment; HRC has set up a convenient toll free line. Call 1-800-460-7513. You will be asked to enter your ZIP code, and then be connected to your Congressional Representative.

I’m sure you’ve all wondered why I have not blogged about Alan Keyes, particularly after he promised to make an inflammatory statements every day and every week until the election. He let me down; he’s been discussing tariffs. ( The Chicago Tribune reports Keyes supports tariffs, and more specifically: “the conservative Republican advocating a position that runs counter to his party and more in line with stands advocated by some on the left” ). But that’s hardly an Alan Keyes story worth blogging about.

Today, things changed. Jason Kuznicki, of Positive Liberty, alerted me to a rumor (and possible hoax) about Keyes’s 19 year old daughter, Maya. The story is running at Modern Vertabrate, Josh Clayborn and The Daily Kos. For a variety of reasons, I was reluctant to blog about the young woman, who is not, after all, running for office. However, the story now appears in 365Gay.com, so the story is “out there”.

Here goes: Keyes daughter may be gay. Some stories about her life may be being posted by a user named “Xmisled0youthX ” at a blog hosted by xanga.com. (The final post seems to be dated April 24, 2004.)

Many will recall that Keyes commented on Cheney’s gay daughter, calling her a “selfish hedonism.” Not surprisingly, Keyes was questioned about the rumors about his own daughter. 365Gay.com reports the response Keyes gave at a Town Hall meeting somewhere in the South Side of Chicago:

Maya Keyes has also been asked whether she is the author of the web site or a lesbian. She is refusing to answer either question.

The Daily Kos has suggested this web page may be a hoax. If it is, it is a cruel one; no 19 year old woman deserves to be made the center of a political controversy not of her making. If it is not a hoax, and Maya is gay, I understand Alan Keyes even less than I previously thought.

I previously announced when Manitoba legalized Same Sex Marriage. Today,The Gazette reports “Nova Scotia becomes sixth province, territory to allow same-sex marriages”

Remember when the house passed a bill to prevent the federal courts from hearing DOMA challenges? Now, they’ve passed a similar bill to prevent the federal courts from hearing challenges over the words “under God” the Pledge of Allegiance!

Nj.com reports:

Why risk damaging our traditional system of judicial review for two words in the Pledge of Allegiance? Well, Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo., is worried that, should the courts strip the words “under God” from the pledge, “we will have emasculated the very heart of what America has always been about.” Oh my! Does he mean feminism might win?

For my part, if each state had it’s own point of view on the question of “under God”, I would still myself able to sleep at night. But the precedent of jurisdiction stripping would be a bad one. As Rep. Judy Biggert, R-Ill., who supported stripping jurisdiction from lower federal courts, but retaining jurisdiction at the Supreme Court, noted:

Of course, we all know the issue came up, to use a metaphor, yesterday. That time the issue was same sex marriage. The constitutionality of jurisdiction stripping was discussed widely. Notable discussions are available at: Volokh who thinks it’s probably constitutional, Ox Blog who thinks it’s not and Findlaw who thinks the issue is unclear.

Constitutional or not, jurisdiction stripping is a bad idea. Hopefully, the Senate will not pass this bill. If they do, hopefully the whole idea is unconstitutional. That could keep this strategy from exploding on to the scene and affecting every civil right the American people retained.

===Edited:
Balkinization has an interesting article which appeared at 1 am Sept. 25.

The pro-gay legislation is moving up the California pipeline. Last week, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger quietly signed the California Insurance Equality Act, which prohibits insurance from discriminating against domestic partners. Wednesday, he signed the Omnibus Hate Crimes Act into law. This law includes crimes against individuals based on sexual orientation or gender identity in the category of hate crimes. Meanwhile, there is a move to grant some nationwide protection. 356Gay.com reports:

Attention to hate crime seems particularly well timed, in light of Jimmy Swaggart’s recent “jokes” about killing gays who might look at him the wrong way.

365Gay.com reports Allies for Marriage and Children, a newly formed conservative group, is working to introduce an anti marriage equality amendment in Washington State. Washington state already has a one man-one woman marriage law. However, recent rulings in King and Thurston counties said the law was constitutionally invalid; their rulings are being appealed to the Supreme Court, where the constitutionality of Washington’s DOMA will be evaluated.

State Sen. Dan Swecker predicts pressure will mount to pass an amendment this winter; state Rep. Ed Murray, suggest that the amendment won’t even emerge from committee. We don’t yet know the wording of the hypothetical amendment, which thus far, has no sponsors.

The The Seattle PI notes that Washington’s DOMA did pass with more than two-thirds support in both houses. However, some legislators who voted for Washington’s DOMA in 1998 have lost their seats; in contrast no one who voted against it has. In addition, legislators may be more reluctant to amend the constitution than to pass a law.

Of course, I’m hoping this DOMA threat goes no where, and we’ll see same sex marriage legalized in Washington. (And for that matter, in Oregon and California.)

For additional information, visit:Fox 12 Oregon

Newsmax reports, 27% of Louisiana’s registered voters turned out yesterday and overwhelmingly passed an amendment banning same sex marriage in Louisiana. The amendment will be challenged by opponents on at least two grounds. One is failure to deliver ballot boxes to polls in a timely fashion. The other is a constitutional challenge, alleging the amendment has more than one purpose, which violates the Louisiana constitution. A previous constitutional challenge had been turned down by the courts, which ruled that challenges can only be lodged after the vote.

For more visit CNN.

Remember the over 200 same sex weddings performed in New Paltz, NY? NBC3 reports NY State Supreme Court Justice Michael Kavanagh refused to invalidate them.

Unfortunately, the judge’s reason is the couples need to be named in the case, this would give them the right to be heard in court. So, this doesn’t sound like a big legal victory for marriage equality. Matthew Staver of Liberty Counsel who filed the suit to invalidate the marriages plans to add the names to the suit, and then try again to invalidate the marriages.

We will be hearing more from the New York courts since there are several pending cases in the NY court system.

— Edited:
For a more detailed story, visit The Daily Freeman.com

CVT.ca reports:

This ruling was not unexpected. The neither the provincial nor the federal government contested the case and the Judge was swayed by previous rulings in other provinces. So, same sex marriages are now legal in Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, the Yukon and Manitoba.

The Guardian reports:

Lourdes Rivera, director of the Los Angeles-based National Health Law Program, comments on abortions foes’ concerns regarding conscientious objections by medical personnel:

I’d suggest not providing medical care and refusing referrals during a medical emergency would certainly represent crossing the line.

But, I have a non-abortion related question. Isn’t there a big states rights issue at stake here?

====== Edited at 4:35 pm central time.
Ema of The Well Timed Period expressed amazement at the idea that such a bill might be passed. She has called congress about this bill and is tracking down the provisions. We currently don’t know whether this story accurately represents the bill’s contents. (Let’s hope not!)

Friday Sept. 17. Ema dashes my hopes, and say the story is, indeed, true. For her update visit: Well Timed Period