League of Homophobic Voters | The latest homophobic stunts pulled by government officials and political candidates

Maryland - No Gay Marriage Yet, but Gay Divorce Ok?

Gay marriage discrimination is set to end in Maryland come January of 2013, which is another great victory for human rights in the United States. The new law is, of course, being challenged by the anti-gay movement who seeks to collect enough signatures to get it repealed. In the meantime, certain issues still have to be dealt with and one in particular involves the case of two women who were legally married in California but have since moved to Maryland and wish to get a divorce.

The petition for divorce was previously denied to the couple on the grounds that since same-sex marriage wasn’t recognized in the state that none of the other legal issues surrounding marriage should be recognized either. But an appeal to the highest court in the state ended with the divorce being accepted.

This sets a precedent that may act as a small but potentially effective buffer against the rash of constitutional amendments against gay marriage. Those in power don’t expect the same-sex marriage protection law to be overturned, but if it were then this ruling by the court might create the opportunity for a new attack on the laws which prevent recognition of gay marriages that have been performed legally in other places.

Currently, there is a federal law in place which allows states to ignore the laws of other states when it comes to such things (though this is currently being fought) which means a precedent because of the divorce ruling may seem small and insignificant. It could, however, end up being used in other states as a model to follow which may, at the very least, allow those contesting the lack of recognition to push it to a higher court via appeal. Consequently, if the Maryland same-sex marriage law gets shot down, there may be protections for same-sex couples based on the ruling.

This whole system of laws is a convoluted thing, but every little victory counts in the war to ensure civil rights for all types and classes of people. If it weren’t for such small victories, racial discrimination might never have been beaten. If discrimination against the LGBT community it to be a thing of the past, rulings such as these are essential ammunition in the fight.

Obama Takes a Stand on Gay Marriage

"Good job to Obama, whether he did it for the votes or for his conscious."

So, I guess at first I should apologize for my rather scathing criticism of President Obama in a previous post. His denial of the legislation which would have supported gay marriage rights at first seemed a political maneuver designed to avoid losing massive amounts of votes during election time. It appears that now, however, he has finally chosen to speak out about his own personal views of gay marriage. Everyone probably knows by now (since the media has been bombarded with it), but Obama has officially announced his support for the LGBT community and their right to marry who they wish.

Again, being the skeptical person that I am when it comes to politicians, I see this as a possible play for votes. Statistics show that young voters are very much in support of gay marriage and these voters are the next generation of political power. The repercussions from making his announcement, however, could be much worse for his current voting base. If Obama made his decision based on votes, he’s taking quite a chance.

Some are speaking of this as an historic precedent, though in truth there are several countries and world leaders that have already made this stand. The only difference here is that the United States, due to our power on the international stage, is always in the spotlight and the matter will gain a great deal of attention in world media. This may generate a domino-effect whereby other world leaders step forward to voice their own support.

The main effect I see Obama’s announcement having is the quicker adoption of federal guarantees of the right for ‘non-traditional’ marriages. States are already implementing their own laws and the trend on that level is spreading fairly quickly. With more state support and the legitimacy that a public announcement from the president brings, a federal law may not be too far away.

Good job to Obama, whether he did it for the votes or for his conscious. Either way, it is something that needs to happen and the sooner the better.

Gay Rights Labeled Propaganda in St. Petersburg, Russia

Russia is known more for its highly religious population and legacy of hard-line communist rule than for civil rights. Both the Russian government and its people have a history of notoriously anti-gay sentiments. The recent mayor of Moscow has expressed his belief that Gay Pride parades are satanic and a recent poll showed that 74 percent of Russians believe that those who practice LGBT lifestyle are either “amoral” or “mentally defective.” This does create an environment that is conducive to making progress in the realm of rights for this minority of Russian society. Until 1993, being gay was considered a crime, but even now that it has been legalized there are still many hurdles to overcome.

In recent news, gay rights activist Nikolai Alexeyev was arrested and convicted for being openly gay. This is not as direct as it may sound, but instead uses a law which makes it illegal to talk openly about homosexual issues when minors are present. All things revolving around LGBT issues are considered propaganda by this law, which led to the arrest of Alexeyev as he picketed outside a St. Petersburg legislative building to protest the very law which landed him in jail.

The punishment was rather minor, Alexeyev being fined only 5000 rubles ($170 US), but the law allows for potential fines of up to 500,000 rubles ($17,000 US). Four other cities in Russia have laws similar to this and there is currently a movement among religious and conservative leaders to enact the law on a federal level.

This is another case of human rights being divided into two different pools - one set for heterosexuals and another for the LGBT community. In the United States we see this all the time, though not on the same level that Russia is experiencing now. Gay rights activists are worried that these sorts of laws may be abused even further and used to prevent all gay rights activities, including demonstrations and public gatherings. Russia has a long way to go before they will accept the LGBT community, but luckily those such as Alexeyev are stepping forward and putting themselves on the line to make tomorrow a better and safer place for all gay Russian citizens.

Using religion to support gay rights

Normally one of the worst enemies of rights for those in the LGBT community, religion is taking a turn for the better as spiritual leaders in Maine seek to help reverse the 2009 decision which blocked the ability of same-sex couples to get married. In order to help them win this battle, they are taking a different approach to the situation. They are using faith-based arguments to help sway other religious voters that gay marriage is not something that is directly opposed by the teachings of the Bible.

Leading the fight is the Religious Coalition Against Discrimination, a statewide group of religious leaders who are dedicated to fighting for equal rights. They recently held a conference in which they addressed the members of their group and discussed ways to approach the subject of gay marriage with others of their faiths in a manner that may make some progress. They also addressed the touchy subject of using sermons for their own congregations to show people why blocking same-sex marriage does not follow the core tenants of their church.

If RCAD is successful, the law which allows gay marriage in Maine will go back into effect. A new vote is coming up in November, so being prepared and having a strong voter base is critical. RCAD is only one of 35 groups in the state of Maine which have come together to help support LGBT rights. With so many supporters, it seems likely that there may be a victory on the horizon.

The approval of gay marriage is being adopted by state-after-state and it is inevitable that this right will soon be something that generates little cause for debate. Maine can choose to get on the bandwagon early or wait until the end, but either way it will have to face the facts. Luckily, religious groups such as RCAD and others are helping to move the process ahead quicker so that all people may enjoy their rights, regardless of gender or sexual orientation.

President Obama chickens out signing gay rights bill

President Obama, the promiser of many things and deliverer of next to none of those things, has once again shown his reluctance to take a stand. An executive order came across his desk that would have made workplace discrimination based on sexuality and gender identity illegal, but he refused to sign it. This is despite the fact that he had promised to be an advocate of these acts and expressed his intention to eliminate such workplace discrimination.

Of course, his public mouthpiece denies that there was any sort of ulterior motive revolving around this decision. He stated that the Obama administration was still dedicated to helping the LGBT community, regardless of the President’s decision on this particular act.

Others believe that Obama didn’t sign the act because of the delicate situation he is in regarding his re-election. A law that bans workplace discrimination based on sex and gender could cause ripples among business owners in addition to the normal anti-gay rights groups.

The administration defended itself by touting its decision on the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law. Apparently that one act of solidarity with the LGBT community is enough to allow a pass on this one.

Obama himself has given no reason for his actions as of yet and some are taking a reactionary stance. There are those who are calling for people to pull funds from Obama’s reelection campaign in protest. This would seem a correct course of action, in theory. In reality, however, a Republican candidate in office would prove to be even worse for all things LGBT related.

Obama needs to be forthright and take a stand on these issues or at least explain why he made the decision that he did. Politics may be a tricky arena to play in, especially during election time, but there are some things that need to be addressed openly and changed as soon as possible.

Suing Nevada for same-sex marriage rights

Following in the wake of the lawsuit by foreign same-sex couples trying to acquire their civil rights, another suit has come forward against the government by people who are demanding to be treated equally with regards to marriage. This time the lawsuit involves the state of Nevada. Those who issued the suit are challenging two constitutional amendments, passed in 2000 and 2002, which they say violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, a civil rights organization which has been fighting for the rights of the LGBT community for decades, is leading this assault. They represent eight same-sex couples in Nevada who have been experiencing problems from all sides due to their ambiguous relationship status, including discrimination from both hospitals and police. One of the targets of the suit is the Governor of Nevada, Brian Sandoval, who is accused of intentionally having created barriers to the access of marriage, which is a fundamental right for all citizens.

The ultimate goal of LLDEF is not just the acceptance of same-sex marriage in Nevada, but is the start of a campaign that will involve attacking all such laws in an attempt to create national acceptance for same-sex couples. This suit will lay the groundwork for further suits by creating more precedents to add to the ruling in California which they are basing their own suit upon.

The previous challenge to a law of this sort came in California when Proposition 8 was brought to trial. Prop 8 was shot down, and now those working in Nevada hope to achieve the same results. Nevada already accepts domestic partnerships that are same-sex, and LLDEF is hoping that this will further help them to achieve recognition of marriages as well. If this campaign is a success, the likelihood of being able to push America towards being unified in its acceptance of same-sex marriages is greatly increased. This lawsuit is a huge step forward for gaining equal rights for those who have suffered discrimination for much too long.

Non-U.S. Citizens challenge same-sex marriage ban

Same-sex couples have many barriers in place, both on the federal and state levels, which prevent them from being able to exercise the rights that every United States citizen is entitled to. Recently, a lawsuit was filed that attacks one of the most powerful of these laws – the Defense of Marriage Act (DoMA). This act was implemented on a federal level, more than 15 years ago, in order to deny the ability of the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages as legitimate. The end result has been a host of complications for many, though, oddly enough, foreigners are the ones who are being hit the hardest.

Gay couples that consist of one citizen and a foreigner are not considered to be married by the federal government, even if they were legally married in a state where it is acceptable. This means that the foreign half of the couple is not entitled to the rights they would normally receive for being married to a US citizen, such as being able to get their green card. When their work visa expires and they can not get another one, they will end up being deported, whether they are in the country legally or not.

The lawsuit challenges this, claiming that both the citizen and the foreign member of the couple are being denied their rights. It was brought to the federal court not by any of the usual gay rights activist groups, but by Immigration Equality. This is good news, as it means the cause of gay rights is beginning to spread into other organizations, giving a more united front against this form of ignorance.

This suit is likely to become a high-profile case, as it may end up being the second time that the DoMA is legally changed. There was already a precedent set in 2010 when part of the act was considered unconstitutional because it interfered with state’s rights to decide their own legality of same-sex marriage. If successful, this lawsuit could tear at the very core of the DoMA, breaking its legal structure down to the point where it may simply cease to function. Or at least we can hope it does. If laws like the DoMA can be struck down, we will be able to move one step closer to creating true freedom and understanding in our country and in our world.

Divide and Conquer – NOM’s attempt to use black voters to undermine gay rights

In a recent political move that can only be described as immoral and underhanded, the largest anti-same-sex marriage lobby in the U.S., the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), has organized a campaign designed to estrange gay marriage advocates from their African American and Hispanic supporters. Documents that were unsealed by a Maine court due to a lawsuit pending against NOM concerning their campaign financing revealed how they planned to go about this.

The paperwork broke down the plan in terms of the “…goal of this project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks…” and that by promoting black spokespeople who agree with their agenda they would then “…provoke the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots.” They also stated their intentions to “Find attractive young black Democrats to challenge white gay marriage advocates electorally.”

By separating two minority groups, NOM would effectively weaken both to the point where they would be forced to ally with other political groups in order to accomplish their own agendas. By creating the above event so that supporters of these groups must choose sides, NOM kicks the legs out from underneath their most powerful opponents.

African Americans were not the only targets of this clandestine assault, however. The documents also stated that NOM wished to separate gay-rights advocates from their Latino supporters by “…making support for marriage a key badge of Latino identity…” If that isn’t enough, it gets even worse as NOM attempts to turn children against their own parents, as is evident in the statement “…indentify children of gay parents willing to speak on camera…” The children they wish to “indentify” are certainly not those who have good relationships with their parents, of course.

Breaking apart alliances is a typical political tactic that many organizations use. Minority groups are generally less politically powerful and thus need to band together in order to survive and prosper. NOM’s assault is aimed as exploiting the differences between groups and tricking them into thinking that the causes they work towards in unity are less important than the dislike they may have for each other. This sort of manipulation and intentional creation of conflict seems far out of the bounds of Christian morality.

Needless to say, the revelation of the documents’ contents has caused quite the stir. When asked about the plan, however, Brian S. Brown vehemently supported NOM’s strategy. It makes one wonder whether the Christian morality that organizations like NOM profess to follow is all just a sham or not, given that they are willing to sink to such depths to implement their vision of right and wrong.

Iowa – Another Anti-Gay Marriage Attack

Iowa is currently one of six states that allow same-sex marriage, putting it at the forefront of the gay civil rights movement. Now, however, that status as a forward-thinking and progressive state is under attack. A recent rally was held to encourage Iowa’s lawmakers to approve a ballot referendum which would overturn the existing marriage equality law. In addition, those same activists are trying to implement a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. A constitutional ban was already knocked out once by the Iowa Supreme Court, though these anti-gay rights activists seem to think that a second time around might be successful.

With the chanting, praying and singing that is typical of these types of protests, two major groups are attempting to sway the vote. Family Leader and the National Organization for Marriage are at the front of the assault, with their leaders making some rather brash and aggressive remarks concerning marriage equality.

Bob Vander Plaats, the head of Family Leader, was also behind an attack on the same Supreme Court justices that ruled against the constitutional ban. His attack ended in three of these justices losing their jobs. With a mindless rhetoric that can only be attributed to hard-core religious protest, Plaats made such religiously-biased statements as “…stick to the way God designed it – one man and one woman, period.”

His buddy, Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage, claimed that the only civil rights being attacked due to marriage equality debates were those of the religious people of Iowa. He seems to think that a ban on same-sex marriage is not unconstitutional in the slightest and that the people should be able to vote it up whether it violates people’s rights or not. What makes it worse is that Brown had the audacity to use Martin Luther King’s words to defend his point (albeit he spun and reinterpreted them to fit his needs).

Some of the most ridiculous quotes came from others at the rally, including one individual who said of gay marriage “It’s something that He hates.” I’ve read the Bible a bit and I don’t remember Jesus ever saying anything about hating people. In fact, he tended to preach quite the opposite of hate. I guess people need to go back to Sunday school.

What irks me the most is that these protestors keep using their religion as an excuse to try to manipulate the laws of this country, despite the fact that separation of religion and state is very clear in the constitution. Do they just not understand how this is supposed to work? Or are their beliefs so strong that they simply choose to ignore the way the law operates in the United States?

UN Human Rights Council Debates Gay Rights

March 7^th saw an historic meeting of the United Nations Human Rights Council in which the topic of gay rights among its members was officially discussed. This is first council to address the issues of violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation, a progressive step forward in the role that the HRC plays. Unfortunately, many of the UN were not in agreement as to the rights that those of differing sexual preference should be granted.

Of the 192 member nations, 76 currently have laws in place which punish those caught participating in homosexual behavior. Five of these still impose a death penalty against homosexuals. Regular events of physical abuse, rape, torture, murder and denial of legal rights, health care and education still prevail.

The main objectors to the promotion of gay rights were Arab and African nations, many of them Islamic. According to Islamic belief, same-sex relations are considered to be deviant behavior and therefore not subject to international views of human rights. Representatives from these countries claimed that the concept of sexual orientation itself is nothing more than a way to mask perverse behavior that is dangerous to a functional society and that the subject should not be one that the United Nations has jurisdiction over.

Defenders of the council stated that the UN is present to promote equality among all people, not just those who adhere to a religious standard of sexuality. There was general opinion that no human being should be subject to harsh punishments based on such a factor and that the laws in place in some counties are a direct violation of international law.

While many of us take for granted the fact that we live in a country where gay rights can be addressed openly, it is simply not the case in many places. A long and difficult road lies ahead for those who wish to bring equality to these countries steeped in religious and social traditions that condemn people based on their sexual preferences. Just the fact that the UN has addressed the subject is a huge step forward, though there must be some agreement reached on where the line is to be drawn. Hopefully, the future holds more understanding and an acceptance that all people deserve to have their human rights protected, no matter what country they live in.

Pages