- By Michelle Garcia www.advocate.com April 30, 2010

Immigration Equality, one of the nation’s top organizations lobbying for rights for LGBT families in the realm of immigration, is condemning Arizona’s controversial new law.

The legislation, signed by Gov. Jan Brewer last week, would authorize police to stop anyone suspected of being an illegal immigrant to demand proof of citizenship.

“The lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community knows all too well how easily people who ‘look different’ can be singled out for harassment and prosecution,” writes Immigration Equality executive director Rachel Tiven. “In addition, LGBT immigrant families are too familiar with the double burden of immigration discrimination. Now Arizona’s LGBT families have yet another reason to be alarmed. The state’s new law threatens to tear apart families, separate children from their parents and rip apart loving couples who are building their lives together. Forty percent of LGBT binational couples in the United States include a Latino family member. For them, and their loved ones, Arizona is now the most dangerous place in America.”

Tiven also called the law “heinous” and added that the Arizona policy was illustrative of the need for “comprehensive immigration reform that protects all families.”

Traveling on Air Force One on Wednesday, President Barack Obama called Arizona’s immigration law a “shortcut” that would fan the flames on this major issue, rather than solve the problems involved.

“What I think is a mistake is when we start having local law enforcement officials empowered to stop people on the suspicion that they may be undocumented workers, because that carries a great amount of risk that core values that we all care about are breached,” Obama said according to the Los Angeles Times.

Atty. Gen. Eric Holder has also called the law “unfortunate” and said the Department of Justice was considering challenging it.

- By Ramon Johnson, About.com Guide
April 30, 2010

Hawaii is the newest of the 50 states, sitting just southwest of the continental United States. With just over a million permanent residents, gay culture is vibrant in the paradise state.

Civil Unions
Hawaii is a favorite destination for travelers looking to tie the knot before an island sunset, but what about Hawaii’s LGBT residents?

While same-sex marriage isn’t legal in the state, gay and lesbian couples may soon be able to enter into civil unions thanks to new civil unions bill passed by the state legislature on April 29, 2010.

If the bill is signed by Republican Governor Linda Lingle, civil union couples would be granted the same rights and privileges of marriage.

The gay affirmative legislation is a change in tempo for Hawaii. Back in 1998, voters approved a constitutional amendment that defined marriage as between one man and one woman.

For more on gay friendly travel destination, click here:

EECMY:-The Ethiopian Evangelical Church Mekane Yesus (EECMMY) has continued solidifying her refusal to the same sex marriage decision by the Church of Sweden (COS) and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), the controversial decision which is feared to create a splitting spirit among the member Churches of the Lutheran communion.

In his opening remark at the 16th meeting of the Executive Board of the EECMY, which was held on April 7-10, 2010 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Rev. Dr. Wakseyoum Idosa EECMY President reaffirmed the position of the EECMY which was taken at her 3rd Council meeting in July 2006 that declared the acceptance of the same sex marriage by COS which was followed by ELCA in August 2009 ‘is a clear disobedience to the Holy Scripture and the God ordained marriage”.

The President further stated that the decisions passed by COS and ELCA has a serious adverse effect on the unity of Lutheran communion. He went on and said that the EECMY is deeply saddened by the decision that these churches have made in connection with same sex, which is against the inspired word of God. The position of the Council which is against the decision of same sex marriage was expressed in the following statements.

“EECMY believes that God clearly defined that proper sexual relationship is only that is practiced between a man and his wife (woman) who become one flesh, Genesis 2:24.”

“The EECMY affirms that homosexual or same sex marriage does not have convincing ground neither in the Old nor in the New Testaments. It is a disastrous sin that was a cause for the wiping out of the tribe of Benjamin from its land, Judges: 19 i.e. incidence in Gibeah.”

“The decision of same sex marriage is against God’s order given to man and woman to produce offspring through proper holy marriage, Genesis: 1:28; 9.7. Thus, only a male – female sexual relationship can produce and create the type of family that God envisages with the father, mother and children. All other forms of sexual relationships are abnormal, unnatural and sin.”

On the same occasion, the President said that the Africa Lutheran Churches during the Lutheran World Federation (LWF) Pre-Assembly meeting held in Abuja Nigeria from 24-28 March 2010 has also reaffirmed the earlier position of Africa Lutheran Churches, taken in Lund, Sweden which is to reject same sex marriage indicating that it is the act of sin. The summary content of the LWF Africa Lutheran Churches pre-assembly meeting position taken in Abuja is stated as follows.

“We strongly affirm our decision taken in Lund, Sweden in 2007 that ‘ marriage is holy ordained by God and is a relationship between a man and a women.’ Therefore, the majority of African member churches says “NO” to homosexual and regards it sinful.”

“Further to this affirmation of our position on this matter, we are extremely disturbed and deeply regret of the recent development taking place in some member churches of the Communion who have taken unilateral decision on same sex marriages, disregarding the strong sentiments expressed by other members of the communion. This unilateral action has negatively impacted our life together as a communion, something which could have been avoided.”

“We pray for the spirit of discernment and for the grace of God to abound as we seek to resolve these issues.”

At the conclusion of his opening remark the president said that by the directives of the Council of the EECMY the issue of same sex marriage is under serious study, in order to explore the next action that the church shall take with regard to the relationship between her and the member churches of the Lutheran communion that have already legalized ‘the same sex marriage. The progress of the study will be discussed at the forthcoming sixth meeting of the Council, the President added.

EECMY Public Relations Office Addis Ababa. April 12, 2010

Written by: Shibru Galla

Source:- EECMY

April 29, 2010 by Donal Brown

In hearing arguments about keeping referendum signatures private in a referendum to repeal Washington’s domestic partnership law, several justices appeared unsympathetic to arguments of the attorney opposing making the signatures public. -db

Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
April 28, 2010
By Mara Zimmerman

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday appeared skeptical of the argument that signatures on a referendum to repeal Washington state’s domestic partnership law should be kept private.

The court heard the case Doe v. Reed, which arose when same-sex marriage opponents who sponsored the referendum said the names of petition signers should not be released under the state’s Public Records Act for fear of ensuing intimidation or harassment. Under Washington law, the names of individuals who sign initiatives or petitions seeking to adopt or revoke a law become public records.

James Bopp, the attorneys for Protect Marriage Washington and the anonymous petitioners in the case, asked the court to find that the First Amendment prevents the names of petition signatories from becoming public. Bopp argued that because petition signatories may suffer intimidation, harassment, and economic boycotts, people would be less likely to participate and it would have a “chilling effect” on political speech.

Several justices appeared unsympathetic to portions of Bopp’s harassment argument, believing that criticism of personal political views was a natural result of the American system of government.

“Running a democracy takes a certain amount of civil courage. The First Amendment does not protect you from criticism, or even nasty phone calls,” Justice Antonin Scalia said.

Citing the fact that for the first “century of our existence” voting occurred out in the open, Scalia said that Bopp was asking the court to “go into a whole new field, where we’ve never gone before.” Scalia later added that the argument was too “touchy-feely.”

The justices agreed that threats and acts of violence because of political views were unacceptable, but did not appear convinced that the First Amendment was the correct mechanism to prevent these acts.

The court also appeared to carefully differentiate between participating in government through the legislative process — by signing a referendum petition, for example — and advocating political views by passing out leaflets. The court has previously decided that the First Amendment does protect people from having to disclose their names on political statements.

Several justices asked Bopp if voters would have a serious interest in obtaining the names of petition signers for various reasons, including detecting fraud. Justice John Paul Stevens, hearing his final argument before the court, inquired as to whether Bopp believed there was a legitimate public interest in knowing who signed a petition in order to engage them in public debate.

Bopp responded that such concerns were “marginal.”

Washington Attorney General Robert McKenna opened his argument with an explanation of when the names became public information. Several justices broke in almost immediately to ask about what personal information could be publicly disclosed and still be consistent with the First Amendment.

McKenna was also questioned about the potential intimidation of voters. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked whether there was any history in the state of signers of controversial petitions being harassed. McKenna responded that there was no evidence of harassment, even over a measure allowing assisted suicide.

But Justice Samuel Alito seemed less convinced, asking McKenna whether his office was willing to give out the home addresses of its employees so people could visit and have “uncomfortable conversations” regarding controversial political views.

“We would not, Justice Alito . . . because they can come to the office and have uncomfortable conversations with them, which I can personally attest happens with some regularity,” McKenna said before affirming Scalia’s query that some of the information, such as a name and office address, is considered a matter of public record under state law anyway.

The Reporters Committee filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case, along with several other media organizations, arguing that citizens who utilize a state constitutional provision to repeal legislation are engaged in state action, not personal speech, and the public has an interest in holding state actors accountable.

Copyright 2010 The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

By Kerry Eleveld www.advocate.com April 28th, 2010

Lawmakers in favor of repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” voiced their support for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s conveyed commitment to getting a full floor vote on the policy by the end of this year.

“The Speaker’s support for a vote this year is encouraging, and I will continue to do my part to make sure we’ve got the support lined up in the House to get this thing over the finish line,” said Rep. Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania, chief sponsor the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, which would overturn the military’s gay ban. The bill has 192 cosponsors and Murphy has indicated repeatedly that he has the votes to pass it.

Pelosi spokesperson Drew Hammill told the DC Agenda Monday, “It is the Speaker’s intention that a vote will be taken this year on [‘don’t ask, don’t tell’] in the House.”

Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin also embraced the statement.

“I hope what I heard from the Speaker is correct — that the House and Senate will proceed with dispatch,” Baldwin said, adding that “there’s no need” to wait for the Pentagon’s implementation study due in early December.

Baldwin expressed disappointment with the White House for suggesting that Congress shouldn’t take action until the report is issued and said she wished President Barack Obama would weigh in.

“He has the most powerful bully pulpit in the world, and I hope he uses it to advance equality,” she said.

Many eyes are still trained on what happens in the Senate Armed Services Committee, where Chairman Carl Levin of Michigan is weighing whether to include a repeal measure or a moratorium on discharges in the Department of Defense Authorization bill. The committee is expected to pound out the final details of the Defense funding bill during the week of May 24.

by GoPride.com News Staff
Thu. April 29, 2010 8

San Francisco — The federal trial on whether California’s voter-approved ban on gay marriage is constitutional will wrap up in June.

The trial had been on hiatus while gay and civil rights groups fought requests to turn over internal documents. Those documents are from 2008, during the campaign to fight Proposition 8.

Closing arguments are now scheduled for June 16. The judge heard two weeks of testimony in January.

However there still may be more delays, as anti-gay groups try to get evidence stricken from the record. In particular, “Project Marriage” want to remove homophobic emails and memos written by Prop. 8 supporters.

Those emails describe gays are pedophiles and claim that legalized gay marriage will create more gay people.

Lawyers for the anti-gay group say including those memos and emails as evidence violates the writers’ freedom of association.

By RACHEL LA CORTE
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

OLYMPIA, Wash. — Supporters of an initiative campaign to tax the earnings of couples making more than $400,000 annually want to make sure the state’s domestic partners are taxed at the same rate as married couples.

An updated draft of Initiative 1077 was filed with the secretary of state on Friday. The initiative was announced Wednesday by Bill Gates Sr. and others. In addition to making some technical changes, it adds language to ensure that it is consistent with the state’s latest expansion to domestic partnerships.

I-1077 would tax couples with adjusted gross incomes greater than $400,000 annually, or incomes of more than $200,000 for individuals. Supporters said that represents the top 3 percent of earners in Washington. It also would cut the state property tax by 20 percent and increase the business-and-occupation tax credit to $4,800.

Gay advocates worried that domestic partnerships in which only one person makes more than $200,000 would be unfairly penalized by the tax.

For example, if a person makes $225,000 and his or her domestic partner makes $30,000, the goal is to ensure the higher wage earner would not be subject to the new tax – as would be the case if the couple was married.

“You would have seen gay and lesbian families paying significantly more taxes than their similarly situated heterosexual peers,” said Josh Friedes with Equal Rights Washington.

The new language needs to be reviewed by the state code reviser, and supporters will not be able to gather signatures for the amended initiative until that process is done. However, the campaign will continue to gather signatures on the original initiative while they determine which version to put forth to voters.

The campaign needs to collect more than 240,000 valid petition signatures by July 2 to qualify for the November ballot.

I-1077 spokesman Sandeep Kaushik said if supporters decide to go with the amended language instead of the original language, “it will cause a delay, but we remain confident that we’ll be able to qualify for the ballot.”

Kaushik said measure supporters believe domestic partners would be covered under current state law but decided to submit the amended language while they researched it.

“There’s some legal ambiguity there, and we’re right now trying to resolve that issue,” he said.

In November, voters approved granting registered domestic partners additional state rights previously given only to married couples. Full-fledged gay marriage is still not allowed under Washington law.

The expanded law in Washington state adds benefits, such as the right to use sick leave to care for a domestic partner, and rights related to adoption, child custody and child support.

More than 14,000 people in Washington state are registered as domestic partners, and most are gay. Under state law, senior heterosexual couples can register as domestic partners as well, if at least one partner is 62 years old or older. That provision was included by lawmakers to help seniors who don’t remarry out of fear they could lose certain pension or Social Security benefits.

The proposed income tax initiative sets out two tax brackets. The first tax rate would be 5 percent assessed on the portion of joint incomes that exceed $400,000, or $200,000 for individuals.

For joint incomes above $1 million, the tax would be $30,000 plus 9 percent on income above the threshold. Single incomes above $500,000 would pay $15,000 plus 9 percent of earnings above the threshold.

Advocates said it would raise about $1 billion per year for education and health programs.

—

On the Net:

I-1077: http://www.yeson1077.com

Cheyenne Williams, 18, victim in alleged attack by three classmates. Photo April 22 in McKee

By Bill Estep – bes...@herald-leader.com Lexington Herald Reader April 26th, 2010

MCKEE — The alleged attack on a gay teenager in Jackson County was a staged performance in which the girl was a willing participant, attorneys for those charged said Monday.

Attorneys for Ashley Sams and Corinne Schwab, both 18, said the teens committed no crime.

There are some “distinct falsehoods” in what the alleged victim, Cheyenne Williams, has told authorities, said James Baechtold, Schwab’s attorney.

Sams and Schwab pleaded not guilty during a short hearing Monday. Their attorneys asked for a preliminary hearing in the case on Thursday. Sams’ attorney, Sharon Allen Gay, said she looks forward to the truth about the case coming out on Thursday.

At that hearing, Judge Henria Bailey Lewis will decide whether to dismiss the charges, amend the charges or send the case to a grand jury.

Williams told authorities that Sams, Schwab and a 17-year-old classmate assaulted her April 16 and tried to push her off a cliff. The 17-year-old’s name and the charges against her have not been released because she is a juvenile.

Sams and Schwab are charged with kidnapping and attempted murder. Williams’ mother said the attack was a hate crime, motivated by the fact that her daughter is openly gay.

But the detective handling the case said he would not characterize the alleged attack as a hate crime. It appeared that the incident started as a prank but escalated to the point that Williams was frightened and suffered minor injuries, Detective Joie Peters said last week.

A Kentucky gay rights group, Kentucky Equality Federation, has offered financial support to the Williams family. A group leader said the organization has offered to help pay legal expenses if Williams’ family wants to push for a hate-crime designation or pursue a civil lawsuit in which hate as a motivation could influence a monetary judgment.

Read more:

By On Top Magazine Staff
Published: April 26, 2010

On Friday, Illinois House members joined Senators in approving an anti-bullying bill that includes sexual orientation and gender identity.

The Illinois House of Representatives – which includes 48 Republican members – voted unanimously in favor of the measure. The bill was approved in the Senate on March 24 over the objections of two Republicans: Minority Leader Christine Rodogno and Assistant Minority Leader J. Bradley Burzynksi.

Under the law, schools will be required to fight bullying by adopting anti-bullying policies and creating resistance education for students.

“At long last, schools across the state will be uniformly required to take steps to protect vulnerable kids from bullying and violence,” said Bernard Cherkasov, CEO of Equality Illinois, the state’s largest gay rights advocate. “Students who are perceived to be lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender are particularly vulnerable to bullying. And the attempted suicide rate rate among LGBT students, which is as much as three times higher than the general average, presents alarming evidence for just how urgently we need this law.”

While senators made quick work of the bill – going from introduction to approval in under eight weeks – representatives greatly upped the ante by approving the bill in just over four weeks. The measure was sponsored by Senator Kimberly A. Lightford in the Senate and Representative Karen A. Yarbrough in the House. Both lawmakers are Democrats.

“This was a no-nonsense bill, and I am glad that it sailed quickly through both chambers of the legislature,” Cherkasov added.

Illinois Governor Pat Quinn is expected to sign the bill.

- The Bilerico Project April 22, 2010

It is difficult to understand why the White House would want to delay Don’t Ask Don’t Tell until at least next year. What is their political strategy?

An overwhelming majority — nearly 60%– of Americans support a repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, regardless of party affiliation. 72% of Democratic voters support a repeal. In fact, a repeal is likely the least controversial issue on voters’ minds this fall.

Yet, as Gibbs confirmed on Wednesday, the President remains committed to a Pentagon review that will extend into December, making a repeal in 2010 impossible — that is unless the legislature acts on their own.

Why would the President put Congress in this position?

On Wednesday David Mixner wrote about several conversations he had with “very reliable sources” on the Hill. Reportedly, the grassroots aren’t alone in their angst about the President’s delay:

One high ranking staffer said, “We are going to get creamed in our district since we need the gay vote. It is just only a matter of time that what is happening to Pelosi in San Fran works it way down to our districts. We don’t fucking need it. For God sakes, lets get this out of the way.” An elected official in DC told me, “If the President digs in, he then guarantees that the debate will be ugly and divisive. I am really concerned about their intransigence.” Another Chief of Staff confided to me that this is a ‘huge mistake’ since it was the President himself that set the expectations.

I don’t know where the distressed elected official is from, but their concerns are an accurate description of the mood in my district. I have spoken to leadership in the labor movement, business leaders, the wealthy, the not-so wealthy, young and old, and the tone is overwhelmingly consistent — progressives are upset. In several conversations, I was told off the record, they are willing to withhold support from Senator Patty Murray’s re-election if progress is not made on the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and the passage of an inclusive ENDA.

And yes, in my district you need the gay vote to win. Nearly 90% of voters in my district supported the expansion of LGBT rights at the ballot box last November by voting to Approve Referendum 71 to keep the “everything but marriage” Domestic Partnership law.

Elections in Washington are won and lost by the voters in Western Washington. I can’t imagine Senator Murray’s campaign team is pleased by the President’s time line. She needs something to bring back to her base, particularly after the public option was left on the cutting room floor. That didn’t go over very well here either.

The repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t tell is legislatively easy. They can include it in the Defense Appropriations Bill. That’s exactly how the Matthew Shepherd Act (aka Hate Crimes) was finally passed in 2009. If the President’s review was so important, Congress could build in a delay for the repeal to go into effect in December when the review is scheduled to be completed.

Yet, Gibbs has confirmed that the President wants to wait. So what exactly is the White House’s strategy? To lose?