Texas Sen. John Cornyn is defending his decision to speak at an upcoming meeting of the Log Cabin Republicans, an organization of gay Republicans. In a letter faxed yesterday to Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, a socially conservative group, Cornyn said he believes in "working together where possible" with other Republicans, even when he may disagree with them.
As chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, Cornyn is charged with electing as many Republicans as possible to the Senate. He has been under attack in recent weeks from some hardline conservatives who believe that he has recruited too many moderates in the 2010 primary season — including some, like Mike Castle of Delaware, who lost in primaries to insurgent conservatives.
Cornyn said he accepted the invitation because the Log Cabin Republicans are "committed to defeat Senate Democrats this November." He said they "stand for fiscal discipline, limited government and a strong national defense. We may not agree on several key issues, but we do agree that every committee in the United States Senate should be chaired by a Republican."
Cornyn's commitment to appear at the event has been known publicly since July, but Perkins wrote him a letter on Monday raising questions about the Texan's plans.
In a polite response, Cornyn recites his social conservative bona fides and notes that "my record on social issues is well-established."
But, he added, "as social conservatives we affirm the basic dignity of every human life, including not only unborn children, but also adults with whom we may disagree."
"I believe the beauty and blessing of America is that people of different faiths and creeds can live together in peace, despite serious disagreements," he said.
Cornyn- Perkins Log Cabin Letter
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Biden, Maddow Talk DADT Repeal
Biden, Maddow Talk DADT Repeal
Advocate.com Editors
JOE BIDEN ON RACHEL MADDOW X390
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/09/16/Biden_Maddow_Talk_DADT_Repeal/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AdvocatecomDailyNews+%28Advocate.com+Daily+News%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
Rachel Maddow interviewed Vice President Joseph Biden, who said he was personally involved in the effort to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the senate and expressed confidence that a potential Republican filibuster could be overcome.
On Wednesday Maddow asked Biden, a former senator from Delaware, whether he was personally involved in efforts to repeal the policy through the National Defense Authorization Act, he said, “Absolutely, I was personally involved in getting it out of committee. I not only think we should repeal it, I think everyone who was fired should be able to be reinstated if they want to.”
The vice president addressed the possibility that Republicans could introduce an amendment to strike DADT repeal from the bill, saying, “We’ve got the votes to defeat that.”
On the question of a Republican filibuster, Biden said, “I believe that at that point, the issue is, are these guys so out there that they are willing to punish the defense department and the fighting women and men who we have in Afghanistan, which you just visited. Iraq. That’s the frame.”
“We have enough votes to sustain support for repeal 'don’t ask, don’t vote' [sic], and we’re just going to push it as hard as we can,” said Biden.
Asked why discharges could not be stopped now while efforts to repeal the policy continue, Biden attributed it to “compromise.”
“That’s the compromise we basically had to make to get the votes to finally repeal it,” he said.
“In my view, if I could just wave a wand, it would just be flat repeal,” said Biden. “No one else would be suspended, and everyone suspended would be able to come back if they wanted to. But the truth of the matter is, we had to build a consensus for this. Everybody’s looking for the orderly elimination of this law.”
Advocate.com Editors
JOE BIDEN ON RACHEL MADDOW X390
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/09/16/Biden_Maddow_Talk_DADT_Repeal/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AdvocatecomDailyNews+%28Advocate.com+Daily+News%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
Rachel Maddow interviewed Vice President Joseph Biden, who said he was personally involved in the effort to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the senate and expressed confidence that a potential Republican filibuster could be overcome.
On Wednesday Maddow asked Biden, a former senator from Delaware, whether he was personally involved in efforts to repeal the policy through the National Defense Authorization Act, he said, “Absolutely, I was personally involved in getting it out of committee. I not only think we should repeal it, I think everyone who was fired should be able to be reinstated if they want to.”
The vice president addressed the possibility that Republicans could introduce an amendment to strike DADT repeal from the bill, saying, “We’ve got the votes to defeat that.”
On the question of a Republican filibuster, Biden said, “I believe that at that point, the issue is, are these guys so out there that they are willing to punish the defense department and the fighting women and men who we have in Afghanistan, which you just visited. Iraq. That’s the frame.”
“We have enough votes to sustain support for repeal 'don’t ask, don’t vote' [sic], and we’re just going to push it as hard as we can,” said Biden.
Asked why discharges could not be stopped now while efforts to repeal the policy continue, Biden attributed it to “compromise.”
“That’s the compromise we basically had to make to get the votes to finally repeal it,” he said.
“In my view, if I could just wave a wand, it would just be flat repeal,” said Biden. “No one else would be suspended, and everyone suspended would be able to come back if they wanted to. But the truth of the matter is, we had to build a consensus for this. Everybody’s looking for the orderly elimination of this law.”
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
More than half of child rapists priests in England and Wales still active priests
by Chris in Paris on 9/15/2010 06:29:00 AM
Of course it's immoral, but we're talking about the Catholic Church after all. The church never seems to learn any lessons and keeps repeating the same horrible behavior. How could anyone support this institution as it stands today? The Guardian:
But at least 14 of the 22 priests who have served a year or more behind bars are still members of the clergy and 10 of these appear in the most recent edition of the Catholic Directory, the official yearbook of the church. Only eight of the 22 men have been dismissed from their positions.
One of those featured in tonight's programme, Fr John Coughlan, was jailed in 2005. Although he no longer leads services, he is still a priest and lives in church-owned property. He refused to appear on camera but said he was "in limbo" and that he was in touch with other priests who were in a similar situation.
His home is in the diocese of Westminster, which is run by Vincent Nichols, who is the most senior Catholic in the country and who played a pivotal part in developing child protection policies for the church. He has frequently said the Catholic church in England and Wales leads the way in child protection.
Of course it's immoral, but we're talking about the Catholic Church after all. The church never seems to learn any lessons and keeps repeating the same horrible behavior. How could anyone support this institution as it stands today? The Guardian:
But at least 14 of the 22 priests who have served a year or more behind bars are still members of the clergy and 10 of these appear in the most recent edition of the Catholic Directory, the official yearbook of the church. Only eight of the 22 men have been dismissed from their positions.
One of those featured in tonight's programme, Fr John Coughlan, was jailed in 2005. Although he no longer leads services, he is still a priest and lives in church-owned property. He refused to appear on camera but said he was "in limbo" and that he was in touch with other priests who were in a similar situation.
His home is in the diocese of Westminster, which is run by Vincent Nichols, who is the most senior Catholic in the country and who played a pivotal part in developing child protection policies for the church. He has frequently said the Catholic church in England and Wales leads the way in child protection.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Bill White declines interview with Dallas Voice prior to his upcoming appearance at gay Pride
Posted on 09 Sep 2010 at 10:09am
Bill White was endorsed by the Human Rights Campaign in March.
Dallas Voice has had a standing interview request in with Texas Democratic gubernatorial candidate Bill White’s campaign for months. After Stonewall Democrats of Dallas announced this week that White will be marching in the upcoming gay Pride parade, we figured it would be a perfect opportunity to reiterate our request. We received a reply e-mail from White spokeswoman Katy Bacon on Wednesday night:
“Unfortunately we’re not going to be able to make it work, John, I am sorry,” Bacon wrote.
This is disappointing but hardly surprising. For one thing, we’re guessing White is extremely busy right now and closely managing his priorities. But White has also been extremely reluctant to discuss LGBT issues publicly or in detail since he emerged as the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination almost a year ago. His obvious concern is that Republican Gov. Rick Perry, who has a long history of anti-gay politicking, would try to use whatever statements he makes to rile up conservative voters. We’ll continue to seek an interview with White right up until Election Day, but for now you can read previous stories about him by going here, here and here.
— John Wright
Bill White was endorsed by the Human Rights Campaign in March.
Dallas Voice has had a standing interview request in with Texas Democratic gubernatorial candidate Bill White’s campaign for months. After Stonewall Democrats of Dallas announced this week that White will be marching in the upcoming gay Pride parade, we figured it would be a perfect opportunity to reiterate our request. We received a reply e-mail from White spokeswoman Katy Bacon on Wednesday night:
“Unfortunately we’re not going to be able to make it work, John, I am sorry,” Bacon wrote.
This is disappointing but hardly surprising. For one thing, we’re guessing White is extremely busy right now and closely managing his priorities. But White has also been extremely reluctant to discuss LGBT issues publicly or in detail since he emerged as the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination almost a year ago. His obvious concern is that Republican Gov. Rick Perry, who has a long history of anti-gay politicking, would try to use whatever statements he makes to rile up conservative voters. We’ll continue to seek an interview with White right up until Election Day, but for now you can read previous stories about him by going here, here and here.
— John Wright
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Group looks at gay couples' census participation
Windy City Times
From a News Release, posted Sept. 7, 2010
Williams Institute survey shows that 1 in 7 same-sex couples will not be identified in Census 2010; 30% of same-sex couples are in legal relationships
"Government surveys must improve and adapt to the changing landscape of relationship recognition in this country," says Williams Institute Scholar Dr. Gary Gates
LOS ANGELES — The Williams Institute for Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy at the UCLA School of Law issued results of a survey showing that while 99% of same-sex couples participated in Census 2010, 1 in 7 same-sex couples will not be identified as such in Census 2010. In addition, survey findings also show that 30% of same-sex couples are either married ( 14% ) or in a civil union or registered domestic partnership ( 15% ) . More than 4 in 10 of those couples in legal relationships do not live in states that recognize their marriage, civil union, or domestic partnership.
Williams Institute scholars designed the national survey conducted by Harris Interactive in June, 2010 that asked more than 600 individuals in cohabiting same-sex couples about their participation in Census 2010. The survey was designed to understand if and how same-sex couples completed their Census 2010 form and why they chose the options they did to identify their relationship.
Same-sex couples are identified in Census data when one partner is "Person 1" in a household and designates the other as a husband, wife, or an unmarried partner. The survey found that 1 in 10 individuals in same-sex couples opted to identify as roommates on their Census forms. An additional 5% of couples are not identified because they live in a household where neither partner is Person 1.
Respondents who used terms other than spouse or unmarried partner cited three main reasons for their decision. About a third said that they just thought of their relationship in some other way, a quarter cited confidentiality concerns about disclosing their relationship, and a third were protesting either because they opposed the fact that the Census was not asking a sexual orientation or gender identity question or they were offended by the options presented.
Study author and Williams Distinguished Scholar Gary J. Gates notes that, "The survey reveals an interesting contrast in the reasons why some same-sex couples won't be identified in the Census. While many still experience stigma and are reluctant to call themselves spouses or partners, an even larger group seems perfectly comfortable identifying but feels the Census does not provide an appropriate term or even a question to identify their sexual orientation."
The survey also shows a high level of correspondence between couples' legal relationship status and their responses on the Census. While virtually all couples who were not in a legally recognized relationship called themselves unmarried partners, the census form options were more challenging for those in legal relationships.
Most married couples ( 80% ) called themselves spouses but that figure was higher ( 89% ) in states that recognized the marriage. Only 62% of married couples in states that did not recognize the marriage used husband or wife.
Approximately 84% of those in civil unions or registered domestic partnerships called themselves unmarried partners. A quarter of these couples who lived in states where their status was recognized called themselves spouses compared to just 12% among those who lived in states with no recognition.
Gates comments that, "Choosing unmarried partner seems obvious for couples who are not married and not in a civil union or registered domestic partnership, but the Census forms are more challenging and confusing for those who are married but live in states that do not recognize the marriage or those who are in civil unions or registered domestic partnerships. Government surveys must improve and adapt to the changing landscape of relationship recognition in this country."
The findings provide insight into how to interpret same-sex couple data from Census 2010 that will be released next year. Most couples ( 86% ) who called themselves spouses were either married ( 71% ) or in a civil union or registered domestic partnership ( 15% ) . Virtually all couples ( 99% ) who used unmarried partner were either not married ( 96% ) or were married but lived in a state that did not recognize their marriage ( 3% ) .
Other study findings include:
• More than 9 in 10 same-sex couples completed and mailed their surveys back, a figure higher than the general population mail-back rate of 7 in 10 households.
• Nearly all married couples who selected unmarried partner to describe their relationship said that they did so because either the federal or state government does not recognize their marriage.
• Among those in civil unions or registered domestic partnerships who selected husband or wife to describe their relationship, virtually all said it was because they were in a legal relationship status or they simply thought of themselves as spouses.
• More than 3% of individuals in same-sex couples indicated that they were transgender or had a transgender partner. Of that group, 55% said that they were either married or in a civil union or registered domestic partnership compared to only 28% of non-transgender respondents.
From a News Release, posted Sept. 7, 2010
Williams Institute survey shows that 1 in 7 same-sex couples will not be identified in Census 2010; 30% of same-sex couples are in legal relationships
"Government surveys must improve and adapt to the changing landscape of relationship recognition in this country," says Williams Institute Scholar Dr. Gary Gates
LOS ANGELES — The Williams Institute for Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy at the UCLA School of Law issued results of a survey showing that while 99% of same-sex couples participated in Census 2010, 1 in 7 same-sex couples will not be identified as such in Census 2010. In addition, survey findings also show that 30% of same-sex couples are either married ( 14% ) or in a civil union or registered domestic partnership ( 15% ) . More than 4 in 10 of those couples in legal relationships do not live in states that recognize their marriage, civil union, or domestic partnership.
Williams Institute scholars designed the national survey conducted by Harris Interactive in June, 2010 that asked more than 600 individuals in cohabiting same-sex couples about their participation in Census 2010. The survey was designed to understand if and how same-sex couples completed their Census 2010 form and why they chose the options they did to identify their relationship.
Same-sex couples are identified in Census data when one partner is "Person 1" in a household and designates the other as a husband, wife, or an unmarried partner. The survey found that 1 in 10 individuals in same-sex couples opted to identify as roommates on their Census forms. An additional 5% of couples are not identified because they live in a household where neither partner is Person 1.
Respondents who used terms other than spouse or unmarried partner cited three main reasons for their decision. About a third said that they just thought of their relationship in some other way, a quarter cited confidentiality concerns about disclosing their relationship, and a third were protesting either because they opposed the fact that the Census was not asking a sexual orientation or gender identity question or they were offended by the options presented.
Study author and Williams Distinguished Scholar Gary J. Gates notes that, "The survey reveals an interesting contrast in the reasons why some same-sex couples won't be identified in the Census. While many still experience stigma and are reluctant to call themselves spouses or partners, an even larger group seems perfectly comfortable identifying but feels the Census does not provide an appropriate term or even a question to identify their sexual orientation."
The survey also shows a high level of correspondence between couples' legal relationship status and their responses on the Census. While virtually all couples who were not in a legally recognized relationship called themselves unmarried partners, the census form options were more challenging for those in legal relationships.
Most married couples ( 80% ) called themselves spouses but that figure was higher ( 89% ) in states that recognized the marriage. Only 62% of married couples in states that did not recognize the marriage used husband or wife.
Approximately 84% of those in civil unions or registered domestic partnerships called themselves unmarried partners. A quarter of these couples who lived in states where their status was recognized called themselves spouses compared to just 12% among those who lived in states with no recognition.
Gates comments that, "Choosing unmarried partner seems obvious for couples who are not married and not in a civil union or registered domestic partnership, but the Census forms are more challenging and confusing for those who are married but live in states that do not recognize the marriage or those who are in civil unions or registered domestic partnerships. Government surveys must improve and adapt to the changing landscape of relationship recognition in this country."
The findings provide insight into how to interpret same-sex couple data from Census 2010 that will be released next year. Most couples ( 86% ) who called themselves spouses were either married ( 71% ) or in a civil union or registered domestic partnership ( 15% ) . Virtually all couples ( 99% ) who used unmarried partner were either not married ( 96% ) or were married but lived in a state that did not recognize their marriage ( 3% ) .
Other study findings include:
• More than 9 in 10 same-sex couples completed and mailed their surveys back, a figure higher than the general population mail-back rate of 7 in 10 households.
• Nearly all married couples who selected unmarried partner to describe their relationship said that they did so because either the federal or state government does not recognize their marriage.
• Among those in civil unions or registered domestic partnerships who selected husband or wife to describe their relationship, virtually all said it was because they were in a legal relationship status or they simply thought of themselves as spouses.
• More than 3% of individuals in same-sex couples indicated that they were transgender or had a transgender partner. Of that group, 55% said that they were either married or in a civil union or registered domestic partnership compared to only 28% of non-transgender respondents.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Fifth District Court Reverses Dallas County Divorce Case
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Appeals court overrules gay divorce ruling
Appeals court overrules gay divorce ruling
Gay couples who got married outside of Texas can’t get a divorce inside Texas, according to the 5th Court of Appeals in Dallas.
Two men won’t be able to turn their Massachusetts marriage into a Texas divorce, the Dallas Court of Appeals ruled today. At Attorney General Greg Abbott’s request, the court overruled a lower court’s order that granted them a divorce.You can read the ruling here (PDF); background on the case is here, here, and here. There are two things I know today. One is that it will take federal action for marriage equality to come to Texas. As was the case with the civil rights movement and women’s suffrage, this is the sort of thing that cannot be left up to the states. Whether by Congress or by the Supreme Court, this basic right will need to be federally enforced. That day is coming – not soon enough, of course, but it’s coming. And when it does, the other thing I know is that some day we will look back at this and wonder why it wasn’t always this way. We’ll marvel at the lengths that opponents went to delude themselves and distort the truth. And we’ll look at how far we’ve come and be glad. A statement from Equality Texas about this ruling is here.
When a Dallas family court moved forward with the case last October, Abbott appealed, saying that “the laws and constitution of the State of Texas define marriage as an institution involving one man and one woman” and that the court’s decision “purports to strike down that constitutional definition.” The appeals court agreed with Abbott’s argument — essentially, that the state can’t dissolve a marriage that it doesn’t recognize — and asked the lower court today to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. [...]
Randall Terrell, the political director of gay rights advocacy group Equality Texas, says the language interpreting the Constitution in the Dallas court’s ruling is “tailor-made” for an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. That is, “if the parties have the financial wherewithal and the desire to push this case that far.” If the men decide to appeal today’s ruling — and their lawyer Pete Schulte says they haven’t yet made that decision — the next stop would first be the Texas Supreme Court.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)