Tuesday, June 19, 2007
New York State and Cuba Consider Marriage Rights
In an interesting twist, both New York State and Cuba are considering legislation that would grant gays marriage rights or some equivalent thereto. For the New York legislation, 365gay.com has a story: http://www.365gay.com/Newscon07/06/061907nymar.htm. Another story appears in the Gay City News and reports in part as follows:
In a straight party-line vote, the Judiciary Committee of the New York State Assembly this afternoon approved the marriage equality bill introduced by Democratic Governor Eliot Spitzer in April and sponsored by Assemblyman Daniel O'Donnell and Senator Tom Duane.The favorable vote out of Judiciary is a strong predictor that the full Assembly will approve the measure later this week.
In a straight party-line vote, the Judiciary Committee of the New York State Assembly this afternoon approved the marriage equality bill introduced by Democratic Governor Eliot Spitzer in April and sponsored by Assemblyman Daniel O'Donnell and Senator Tom Duane.The favorable vote out of Judiciary is a strong predictor that the full Assembly will approve the measure later this week.
Meanwhile, Cuba of all places is considering legislation that would give gays the same rights as married heterosexual couples:
HAVANA, Cuba, June 18, 2007 - Cuba could become the first Caribbean island nation to recognise the civil and inheritance rights of gay and lesbian couples, if a proposed reform of the Family Code is approved.
The proposal would give homosexual couples the same civil and inheritance rights as heterosexual couples. However, it does not mention gay marriage, because a change of that magnitude would require a lengthy process of reforming the constitution, which was last amended in 1992.
The complete article on the proposed legislation can be found at: http://www.caribbean360.com/News/Caribbean/Stories/2007/06/18/NEWS0000004516.html
It will be a sad day if Castro's Cuba ends up being more progressive than the State of Virginia, which continues to hold to its pre-Loving v. Virginia Christianist mentality.
Bush's Torture Regime
If anyone doubts that the new rules governing the use of torture were unknown to George W. Bush and his minions, one only needs to review the various documents set out on this web page:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB127/index.htm. One of my personal favorites is the memo, written by then Attorney General John Ashcroft, which summarizes the position of the Justice Department on why the Geneva Convention does not apply to al Qaeda or Taliban prisoners. Ashcroft warns against the possibility of U.S. officials being subject to prosecution for violating U.S. and international laws if the Geneva Conventions are applied.
The fact that such a warning was needed should have told Bush and company all they needed to know and that the proposals should NOT have been implemented. Bush, Ashcroft, and their ilk at one moment wear their alleged Christianity and dovoutness on their sleeves and in the next authorize utterly un-Christian conduct. Sadly, it's all too typical of the Christianists. Hate and abuse of others always trumps truly Christian conduct. How appropriate that Ashcroft is now on the faculty of Regent University. These people make me ashamed to be an American.
Monday, June 18, 2007
What is the real face of Regent's law school?
Apparently, in the wake of the Monica Goodling disaster at the U. S. Department of Justice, Regent Law School is trying to improve it's image. Leave it to the Virginian Pilot to do a piece like this one that tries to de-emphasize Regent's Christianist agenda (http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=126866&ran=91097). I have met the author of the article who is not a bad guy per se. However, when it comes to investigative reporting, the Pilot seems to have never heard of the term. Even when Congressman Ed Schrock was "outed," Virgina newssource.com beat the Pilot in breaking the story in the Pilot's own backyard.
Here are my thoughts on attending Regent Law School that I posted on the Virginian Pilot's web site (assuming they are not censored):
I suspect many of Regent Law's better students went to the school because it allows part time students while the other law schools in Virginia generally do not. Hence someone can work a regular job and go to law school part time. For such students, attending Regent Law may seem attractive. However, in the legal community, Regent does not have a good image or reputation and the average pass rate on the bar exam is anything but stellar. Graduates may find out that they will have a difficult time landing a job in a top law firm or corporation with a Regent Law diploma.
While I know some Regent Law graduates that I consider competent and honest, far too many wear religion on their sleeves and use their "Christian" label to either gain jobs with far right organizations or politicians like Monica Goodling or to attract clients who would be better served employing more competent attorneys.
While I know some Regent Law graduates that I consider competent and honest, far too many wear religion on their sleeves and use their "Christian" label to either gain jobs with far right organizations or politicians like Monica Goodling or to attract clients who would be better served employing more competent attorneys.
Mildred Loving, 40 Years Later
Andrew Sulliavn has a post concerning a public statement made by Mildred Loving, one of the plaintiffs in the U. S. Supreme Court case decided 40 years ago. What is so remarkable is what she reports the Virginia judge said as he conviced her and her husband who had been legally married in another jurisdiction. It shows that little has changed in the mind set of the Christianists. Here in Virginia, the same hate of those who are differnent is sadly alive and well. Here are some highlights Mildred Loving's statement:
We didn’t get married in Washington because we wanted to marry there. We did it there because the government wouldn’t allow us to marry back home in Virginia where we grew up, where we met, where we fell in love, and where we wanted to be together and build our family. You see, I am a woman of color and Richard was white, and at that time people believed it was okay to keep us from marryingbecause of their ideas of who should marry whom.
Not long after our wedding, we were awakened in the middle of the night in our own bedroom by deputy sheriffs and actually arrested for the “crime” of marrying the wrong kind of person.
Our marriage certificate was hanging on the wall above the bed. The state prosecuted Richard and me, and after we were found guilty, the judge declared: “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.” He sentenced us to a year in prison, but offered to suspend the sentence if we left our home in Virginia for 25 years exile.
I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.(Emphasis mine)
Her words still ring so true today as they did in 1967. For her entire press statement see: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/06/mildred_loving_.html#more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)