A Stitch in Haste

What better way to acknowledge Super Bowl Sunday than with a gaggle of gay goodies? Not much analysis, just pass-alongs.

---

ITEM: The big story this week is the ruling by an intermediate appeals court in New York State holding that the state must grant full recognition to out-of-state same-sex marriages, even though gay couples cannot legally wed in New York. This is surprisingly unsurprising, since New York has no bigot amendment, no DOMA statute and (most importantly) a long-standing, explicit policy of recognizing valid out-of-state marriages even when such marriages would be prohibited in New York itself. An appeal to the state's highest court could mean a overturning of its much-criticized 2006 decision, Hernandez v. Robles, finding no right to same-sex marriage under the state constitution.

This ruling is also another nail in the coffin for New Jersey's split-the-baby decision demanding that the state offer civil unions that offer all the rights, privileges and benefits of marriage. But by definition, a New Jersey same-sex couple could now not have their civil union recognized in New York, while they could if they were legally married. Separate but equal is inherently unequal. Go figure.

The case is Martinez v. County of Monroe, CA 06-02591 (N.Y. App. Div., 1 February 2008) (PDF - 5 pages). The ACLU's press release here.

---

ITEM: The second-biggest story was the federal circuit court ruling affirming that parents simply do not have a right to censor a school's curriculum to suit their anti-gay bigotry —

Tonia and David Parker of Lexington [Massachusetts] sued school officials in April 2006 after their son brought home a book from kindergarten that depicted a gay family. Joseph and Robin Wirthlin joined the suit after a second-grade teacher read the class a story about two princes falling in love.
...
"Public schools are not obliged to shield individual students from ideas which potentially are religiously offensive, particularly when the school imposes no requirement that the student agree with or affirm those ideas, or even participate in discussions about them," the unanimous three-judge panel said in Parker v. Hurley (PDF - 44 pages).

Since these bigot parents care more about stunting their children's intellectual development than with catalyzing it, might I suggest "Jesus Camp"?

Previous post here. More thoughts from Decision of the Day, Appellate Law & Practice.

---

ITEM: A bigot amendment appears to have (barely) obtained enough signatures to appear on the Florida ballot in the 2008 election. Curious timing, there: Why, one wonders, would such a issue appear on the ballot during an election year? In Florida. When they say it's not about petty politics, they lie.

Incidentally, the amendment is not a "marriage only" version, but a "no nothing never" version. When they say it's "only about marriage," they lie. How Christian of them.

(Note that Florida requires 60% approval for constitutional amendments, not a simple majority. The likelihood of passage is unclear.)

---

ITEM: Bigots in Oregon were not so lucky. Their petition to force a popular vote to overturn a state law creating domestic partnerships fell short, and a federal judge recently threw out the last of the Alliance Defense Fund's frivolous challenges.

---

ITEM: Back to Florida for a moment —

A heterosexual high school junior sued the Holmes County School Board on Thursday, claiming she was prevented from peacefully supporting gay rights.
...
ACLU lawyer Benjamin Stevenson wrote in the complaint [PDF - 19 pages] that Gillman's cousin, an admitted lesbian identified as "Jane Doe," complained to Davis about being harassed by students on Sept. 7.

"He explained that Jane Doe should not be gay and she should not tell people she is gay," Stevenson wrote of Davis. "Defendant Davis also told Jane Doe the 'gay pride' was a disgrace to the school."

And Florida, the only state that, for example, singles out gays for an adoption ban, is a disgrace to the nation. What's your point?

---

ITEM: What was I just saying?

A bill has been filed in the Tennessee House of Representatives and the Tennessee Senate that would prevent anyone that isn't legally married from adopting, making it impossible for gay couples or individuals to adopt children.
...
In October of last year, Tennessee Attorney General Bob Cooper issued the opinion that Tennessee has no constitutional obstacles for gay couples wanting to adopt children, as long as adoption is found to be in the best interest of the child.

When they say "it's all about the children," they lie.

Meanwhile:

Representative Stacey Campfield of Knoxville filed a bill last week that would prevent public elementary and middle schools from allowing "any instruction or materials discussing sexual orientation other than heterosexuality.
...
"I think the schools should stick to the basics: reading, writing, and arithmetic. And maybe some civics," says Campfield. "But teaching transgenderism to middle school students ... I don't think that's the road we should go down. I think that's what parents should be doing."

When they say "it's all about the children," they lie.

(Via Good As You.)

---

ITEM: Flying over another flyover state —

Public universities and other government agencies would not be allowed to offer health insurance to the unmarried domestic partners of their employees under a bill that won quick approval Wednesday in the [Kentucky] state Senate.

But the fate of the measure appears in doubt in the House, where it died last year in committee.
...
Also, Gov. Steve Beshear has pledged to veto any measure that bans universities from offering domestic partner benefits.

Handcuffing your public universities in the name of bigotry has not served Wisconsin or Michigan well. So one wonders what these activist hillbilly legislators in the Kentucky Senate are really trying to accomplish by making their state even less appealing to non-bumpkins.

(Via InterstateQ.)

---

ITEM: Am I being too America-centric in this post? Sorry:

Civil partnerships became legal for [U.K.] homosexuals in December 2005, allowing them to acquire the same sorts of tax and pension rights as straight married couples.

Initially, thousands of gay and lesbian couples held ceremonies. However, a survey by the Local Government Association found that all the 40 councils across England they surveyed had experienced a fall in the number taking place — the figures show an average drop of 55 per cent in 2007 from 2006.

Hopefully this doesn't surprise anyone. Of course there was going to be rush to the altar in the first year or two of legalized partnerships. The same happened in Massachusetts.

The more interesting data points are:

--"[W]hen civil partnerships were introduced the government predicted that about 11,000 to 22,000 would take place by 2010. ... There were 1,950 in December 2005, then 16,100 during 2006, and more than 4,000 in the first half of last year, according to the Office of National Statistics."

--"[T]he low rate so far of gay divorce — known as 'dissolution' of a civil partnership — and the long time spent together by many couples who form one, 'shows that gay people are treating them with due solemnity and respect. Generally, they take them more seriously than many people who get married."

--I'm pleasantly intrigued by how casually The Guardian switches back and forth between the terms "wedding" and "ceremony" and between "divorce" and "dissolution." I wonder whether Brits are like that generally.