BRAZIL: Sao Paulo State Legalizes Gay Marriage

I have noted before how the United States - the self-advertised "land of liberty" and home of religious freedom - is increasingly looking like a theocratic Islamic state as it continues to bow to the religious bigotry of far right Christians who comprise a Christian Taliban even as other modern nations move toward marriage equality.  The Brazilian State of Sao Paulo has amended its laws to allow for same sex marriage and marriage visas will be issued to foreigners seeking to marry in Sao Paulo (pictured above), the largest city in South America.  Meanwhile in America we see bigoted asses like Justice Antonin Scalia who spout anti-gay animus as a badge of distinction.  The world is marching forward even as the Christofascists seek to drag America back to the Middle Ages.  Here are highlights from Brazilian Law Blog:

Brazil is about to see something that we only heard about from the United States: a massive movement of people going to one specific State, in order to get married there.  This is because São Paulo State (where São Paulo city is located) has updated its registration rules in order to allow the automatic registration of same sex marriages, without the need of a previous court order.

This change has followed, with some delay, a decision from the Brazilian Supreme Court regarding same sex marriage.  Therefore, foreigners who wish to marry same sex partners in Brazil will now be allowed a marriage visa, which is much easier to obtain than the civil union visa for same sex unions, which already existed.

I consider this a triumph  of law and civility. A good thing for Brazil, at last.  The link below is in Portuguese:

Folha de S.Paulo - Cotidiano - Norma do TJ obriga cartórios de SP a registrar casamento gay - 19/12/2012

The blog's author is a Brazilian lawyer who specializes in international business who has worked in Argentina, Mexico, India, England, China and Dubai, in addition to having extensive experience in Brazil.

. 

Kennedy favors ’08 Senate vote on ENDA

While it will do doubt cause more bickering and back biting by and among gay rights organizations, as the Washington Blade is reporting (http://www.washblade.com/2008/1-4/news/national/11819.cfm), Senator Edward Kennedy is pushing for a vote in 2008 on a "gay only" version of ENDA. In fact, the bickering has already begun based on what I have seen on several other blogs, including some statements that it will sabotage the Democrat candidates. Inasmuch as virtually all of the viable Democrat candidates have already publicly endorsed civil unions, how taking a position of a law that prevent gays from being randomly fired due to their sexual orientation would seem to be not exactly something risky. Particularly when most Americans - except for fundie wingnuts who would NEVER vote for the Democrat candidate anyways - support employment protections for gays. Such was my experience with call-in viewers in Martinsville, Virginia, back in the spring on a show featuring one of my clients. If that redneck area was pro-gay employment protections, most anywhere would be.

True the transgender community would be left out - for now - but as I have stated a number of times, I continue to believe that it is better to get something enacted rather than hold out for something that by all reports cannot pass the U.S. Senate. As for Bush's threatened veto, make him have to veto the legislation during this important election year. With polls showing that roughly two thirds (2/3) of the public support work place employment protections for gays, a Bush veto would only serve to further demonstrate that the GOP's is increasingly out of touch with moderate main stream voters. As for members of the LGBT community that might sit home in a huff over this version of ENDA, I am sorry, but in my view, if they are that stupid and petty, then they deserve Mike Huckabee for President. Here are some story highlights from the Blade:

Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) is expected to push for a Senate vote in 2008 on the same gay-only version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act that the House of Representatives passed in 2007, a Kennedy spokesperson said this week. Kennedy stated on the Senate floor on Nov. 8, one day after the House passed ENDA by a vote of 235 to 184, that he hoped the Senate would follow suit by passing the employment protection bill in the current Congress, which lasts through 2008.

But until this week, Kennedy’s office had not stated publicly where Kennedy stood on the demands by many gay and transgender organizations that Congress should withhold any action on ENDA unless it includes protection for transgender persons. “Although Sen. Kennedy strongly supports protections against job discrimination for transgender workers, inaction won’t advance justice for anyone, and will just make it harder to pass any version of ENDA in 2009,” said Kennedy spokesperson Melissa Wagoner.

Asked if Kennedy thought ENDA could pass the Senate in an election year, Wagoner said, “Yes, if enough Republicans support the bill to give us a realistic chance of breaking a filibuster.” Most political observers have predicted Republican senators opposing ENDA will stage a filibuster against the legislation, which requires 60 votes to break through a parliamentary move known as cloture. Kennedy and Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.), who has joined Kennedy as a chief sponsor of ENDA, have said they were hopeful they could line up a bipartisan “super majority” of at least 60 senators to ensure the bill’s passage.

Jim Manley, a spokesperson for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), said this week that Reid strongly supports ENDA and favors holding a Senate vote on the measure in 2008. Manley said Reid would defer to Kennedy on the “strategy and timing” of such a vote.

The statement this week by Kennedy’s office that Kennedy plans to back a gay-only version of ENDA comes after news surfaced last month that a high-level official at the Human Rights Campaign suggested a vote on ENDA would not take place until 2009.

Wall Street Starts to Lean Democratic

After Years of Backing Republicans, High Finance Turns to Democrats in '08, according to ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/MarketTalk/story?id=3399837&page=1&Business=true) Hopefully, the trend continues and intensifies:

Wall Street — often thought of as a bastion of Republican ideals — is leaning toward Democrats these days. As campaign contributions pour in to the 2008 presidential race, employees at some of the nation's largest banks and investment firms are deciding more often than not to write out big checks to Democratic candidates.

Don't be mistaken — there are still plenty of Republican supporters on Wall Street. But, for the first time in more than a decade, Democratic donors outnumber those supporting Republicans.

For evidence of this shift, look no further than Morgan Stanley chief executive John Mack, a major backer of President Bush, who helped raise more than $200,000 for the president's last campaign. Mack now backs Clinton.

Number of Republicans in U.S. Hits New Low

You have to say one thing for Chimperator Bush and his vassals in the Christianist controlled GOP: they know how to drive people away from the GOP. Hopefully, they will continue the trend. Only through a devasating defeat at the polls in 2008 will the Christianists be thrown overboard and the GOP given a chance to be retaken by rational individuals. Here's the latest results of a Rasmussen poll:

A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of 15,000 adults in May found that just 30.8% now say they’re Republicans. That’s down slightly from last month and down more than six percentage points from the GOP peak of 37.3% during Election 2004. The number of Republicans has been falling fairly steadily since the middle of 2005.

However, the survey also found that the number of people identifying themselves as Democrats has fallen to its lowest level in seventeen months (since January 2006). Democrats gained about two percentage points of support during 2006 and peaked at 38.0% in December of last year. Since actually taking control of Congress, Democrats have given back most of those gains. Today, 36.3% say they belong to Nancy Pelosi’s party.

As a result, the number not affiliated with either major party has jumped to another all-time high—32.9%. That’s up nearly nine percentage points since Election 2004 and means that there are now more politically unaffiliated adults than Republicans