- www.nytimes.com May 3, 2010

In a sad bow to security concerns, visitors to the Supreme Court will no longer enter the Cass Gilbert building by climbing its marble steps and passing through its bronze doors and underneath the words that define the court’s mission: Equal Justice Under Law. The court announced on Monday that the public will now have to enter through a new reinforced area at the plaza level.

We can’t and won’t second-guess the security decision. The loss of the main entrance for arriving visitors would feel better if the court were opening its proceedings to the wider public by allowing video and audio coverage of oral arguments. Americans have a right and a need to watch the nation’s highest court thrash out questions of immense legal and social significance.

The court is moving in the opposite direction. Over the years, justices have expressed concerns about their own privacy and suggested that television broadcasts would somehow diminish the proceedings. And while Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. has sometimes allowed audiotapes to be issued the same day as oral arguments in cases of his choosing, this term, he chose not one.

In another disturbing move against openness, in January the Supreme Court’s conservative majority barred the planned video-streaming of the San Francisco trial testing the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the ballot initiative in California outlawing same-sex marriage.

Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed a pair of bills that would mandate the televising of Supreme Court arguments and give lower federal courts new discretion to televise trials and appellate arguments. It would be better if the justices and the Federal Judicial Conference, which sets rules for the judiciary, acted on their own. But if Chief Justice Roberts and his colleagues persist in keeping these doors closed, Congress must open them.

- Posted May 4th, 2010 by Chris Marshall www.truthwinsout.org

George Alan Rekers has a distinguished history in the LGBT community. A colorful record as lively and prudent as felon Scott Lively himself.

While it is colorful, it is anything from bright and cheery. Rekers, a very outspoken and proud Baptist minister, who is a discredited psychologist, has published many papers and two books on what he feels homosexuality and gender identity is and what it isn’t. I quote again “what he feels” because his data is anything but science.

In his one online publication Summary of Expert Opinions on How Parenting by Homosexuality-Behaving Parent Figures Affects Child Adjustment and Well-Being (PDF document), he makes several references to work used on abusive parents and single parents and then labels them as proof that same-sex couples are detriments to children. He uses a plethora of religious sources– rather than use sources from the American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers, or the American Academy of Pediatrics — to come to his conclusion that children only do well, and should only be raised, by a mother and a father, and that homosexual parents are dangerous to children (Summary, page 1-2).

Rekers continues on in this paper to say that all the data and evidence that supports same sex couples are equally able to be nurturing and loving parents is false because those students only factor in to foster children, which Rekers claims to all have psychological problems, that the samples were too small and not random, and they have not been done for a long enough period of time (summary page 1). Rekers also states that homosexual couples are far less stable than heterosexual ones and that homosexual people are all psychologically damaged. He also states that same-sex couples in more tolerant cultures like the Netherlands are quite unstable because they are psychologically damaged.

These quotes are not from any mental-health associations, but from the religious University of St. Thomas Law School as his source for this data. This analysis by Rekers could not be further from scientific evidence. A multitude of studies have been done by Dr. Judith Stacey, the APA and the American Sociological Association that disprove these myths. More so Dr. John Gottman has done many studies that conclude that gay couples in the US and in places like The Netherlands are actually more stable (Gottman).

What is sad about this paper that Rekers wrote and his other works is that it repeats the same tired stereotypes about gay people being psychologically damage because they are gay. This has been disproven even by people like Dr. Evelyn Hooker back in the early Fifties. What we know now is that LGBT people face higher rates of suicide, depression and anxiety not because they are gay but because of the social oppression they face (Udavis). Despite Rekers quoting that gay parents should not be adoptive parents of any type, and they should not even be around children, he makes no mention at all of people who suffer from real psychological disorders and their ability to parent; concluding that his work is anything but unbiased. Rekers often uses religion in his work to define marriage and what a family is throughout his work but rarely takes into account what other religions outside of his own have to say on this issue (Summary, page 3).

As for being a board member to the Family Research Council, a hate group labeled by the Southern Poverty Law Center, he was involved in to court hearings as an “expert witness” for dependents of anti-gay bans on adoption in the state of Arkansas and Florida. His testimony was so outlandish that the circuit judge in Arkansas, Judge Timothy White declared Rekers testimony “extremely suspect” and “promoting his own personal agenda” (In re: Gill). The Judge Cindy Lederman declared:

“Dr. Rekers’ testimony was far from a neutral and unbiased recitation of the relevant scientific evidence. Dr. Rekers’ beliefs are motivated by his strong ideological and theological convictions that are not consistent with the science. Based on his testimony and demeanor at trial, the court can not consider his testimony to be credible nor worthy of forming the basis of public policy.” (In re: Gill trial court decision and order, PDF document, page 23.)

Within the same case Rekers stated that Native Americans were all alcoholics and should also not be adoptive parents (Gill pg. 21). Rekers concluded that a child living with his same sex parents for even a period of over ten years should be removed and that the child will adjust in only a year of being with a opposite sex family (Gill pg 21). The court docket of this case does not exacerbate when it states that people were astonished at this heavily biased, scientifically void and outlandish statement that is contrary to all childhood development studies.

Rekers’ wonderful history of working with junk science groups like NARTH and hate groups like the Family Research Council prove to be the pinnacle of his background. His work is not just questionable but its overwhelmingly false, bias, and irresponsible, going over a micrometer just to call it lavishly mean. With people like Rekers heading up the our enemies ideologies and defendants of anti-gay adoptions and marriage bans our equality seems more like a hop, skip and then a jump away from reality. Rekers, while continually claiming that LGBT people are mentally ill and unstable seems in the process of his own work to undulate that phrase enough as to question his own mental stability. Falling on the ideas of Paul Joseph Goebbels, Rekers must believe that if he tells his lie long enough and loud enough someone will eventually believe it. Even with his constant “crazy man” undulation of anti-gay rhetoric, Rekers is zero for two in the battle in the courts. It would be suffice to say that earlier retirement from his anti-gay campaign seems like a smart idea that has yet to ignite that burnt out bulb in his brain.

By JEREMY W. PETERS www.cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com May 4th 2010

ALBANY — New York State’s highest court ruled in two cases Tuesday that nonbiological parents involved in same-sex relationships have rights similar to those of biological parents.

But the court limited its rulings, ultimately leaving it up to the State Legislature to decide whether to amend state law to grant nonbiological parents full custody rights.

In one case, the court, the Court of Appeals, found that a woman is entitled to seek child support from her former partner, who is not the biological mother of a child the couple raised together before they separated.

The ruling was 4 to 3.

In the second case, which experts said was the more significant of the two, the court ruled that a woman can seek visitation rights from her former partner because she is a legal parent, even though she is not the child’s biological mother. The two women entered into a civil union in Vermont.

“In many ways this is a real breakthrough in New York,” said Susan Sommer, who argued the case before the Court of Appeals and is senior counsel and director of constitutional litigation for Lambda Legal, a legal advocacy group.

The ruling was 7 to 0 that the nonbiological parent, referred to in court documents as Debra H., had parental rights. The court recognized the woman’s legal status as a parent because her relationship with the biological mother was legally established through the civil union.

But some legal experts said they were dismayed that the court did not go a step further and establish the parental rights of nonbiological parents who are not in legally recognized relationships.

“It is a narrow victory that will help the children of couples who marry or enter civil unions, but it will not help the children of parents who don’t,” said Nancy Polikoff, a law professor at American University.

The rulings reflect the expanding affirmation by the Court of Appeals of rights for gays and lesbians. The court has generally ruled that short of same-sex marriage — which it has said should be approved by the State Legislature — gay and lesbian couples can enjoy a broad range of legal protections.

While same-sex marriages are not legal in New York, the state does recognize same-sex unions performed in other states. The Court of Appeals has so far rejected legal challenges to out-of-state gay unions.

In November, the court decided in separate cases that New York State and Westchester County had both acted lawfully when they extended benefits to same-sex couples. In the state case, the court rejected a challenge to a state policy that extended health benefits to same-sex partners of state employees who were married in states where such unions are legal.

In the Westchester County case, the court said the county could recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

In February, the United States Supreme Court refused to hear a case in which a biological mother was seeking to strip her former partner of parental rights. A family court in California had ruled that the former partner should be considered a full parent.

- By Staff Writer, PinkNews.co.uk • May 4, 2010

Conservative Party leader David Cameron appeared to contradict his equalities manifesto last night when he said he was “not planning” to rename civil partnerships as marriage.

Yesterday, shadow equalities minister Theresa May launched an equality manifesto which said the Tories would “consider the case for changing the law to allow civil partnerships to be called and classified as marriage”.

Mr Cameron was asked by Sky News political editor Adam Boulton last night to confirm what the manifesto said.

Mr Boulton said: “And just one final question, it’s been suggested that you would consider renaming or are going to rename civil partnerships as civil marriages for gay people, is that correct?”

Mr Cameron replied: “I am not planning that. I think civil partnerships are an excellent thing because they give gay people the opportunity to form a partnership and have some of the advantages of marriage, I think that is right and I’m very happy to look at how we can take policy forward and I think the debate in the House of Lords about allowing things to happen in churches and all that, that’s a debate we should have but I think where we are at the moment I think has dealt with one of the great unfairnesses and so we should look to the future cautiously about whether we can build on that.”

A Conservative Party spokesman said Mr Cameron’s response did not contradict the equality manifesto and said he had focused on the part of the question which suggested the Tories were definitely going to legalise gay marriage.

The spokesman added: “We’re not planning to rename civil partnerships at the moment. We are considering it. We recognise there is a case to consider but we’re not at that point, there has been no firm decision.”

Civil partnerships give gay couples all the rights of marriage with a few small differences. Currently, ceremonies can have no religious elements, although there are plans to change the law.

A civil partnership is formed when the second of the two parties signs the partnership papers, while a marriage happens when the partners exchange spoken words and sign the register.

Gay equality group Stonewall says that civil partnerships are adequate, although some campaigners such as Peter Tatchell argue that “equal but separate” is not good enough and the word ‘marriage’ carries important connotations.

Although Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg has given his support to gay marriage, the document made the Conservatives the only one of the major political parties to raise the prospect of reclassifying civil partnerships to marriage in formal manifesto or policy documents.

The document repeats the party’s commitment to allow people convicted of historical gay sex offences to have their criminal records cleaned of sexual acts that are now legal. The promise was made in an article for PinkNews.co.uk by Mr Cameron.

Mr Cameron’s party has suffered a string of embarrassing headlines in the last month over candidates’ alleged homophobia.

Last month, shadow home secretary Chris Grayling was secretly recorded suggesting that bed and breakfast owners should have the right to ban gay couples, while shadow defence minister Dr Julian Lewis said that equalising the age of consent has led to greater levels of HIV.

Last week, PinkNews.co.uk revealed that Philip Lardner, a Scottish Conservative candidate, stated on his official election website that homosexuality was not ‘normal’ and that Section 28, which banned the ‘promotion’ of homosexuality in schools should not have been repealed.

Mr Cameron banned Mr Lardner from the being an official Conservative Party candidate but has taken no action against either Mr Grayling or Dr Lewis.

At the weekend, newspapers claimed that Conservative Candidate and Mr Cameron’s own advisor on families, Philippa Stroud, ran a church where LGBT people were told to pray and cleanse themselves of demons to get over homosexual urges.

VATICAN CITY — Belgian bishops stung by sex abuse revelations began a series of meetings at the Vatican on Monday that will culminate in talks later this week with Pope Benedict XVI.

Benedict will sit down with the bishops Friday to talk with the churchmen about what the archbishop of Brussels called the “painful” case of the Bruges bishop who resigned last month with a sorrowful admission that he had sexually abused a boy for years.

Bishops from around the world are summoned to Rome every five years to personally review with the pontiff matters of mutual concern, and the Belgian prelates’ meeting with Benedict was long scheduled.

But with clergy abuse scandals breaking into the open in a string of Western European countries in past weeks, damage-control efforts are starting to top what otherwise could be routine discussions of long-running issues of local church concern such as immigration on the continent.

“We will surely touch on the painful questions that were posed in our country after the resignation of the bishop of Bruges,” Brussels Archbishop Andre Leonard said in an interview with Vatican Radio before the weeklong visit at the Vatican.

Bruges Bishop Roger Vangheluwe stepped down last month, expressing sorrow in a statement for having abused the child for years.

“It is inevitable that we talk about this issue and about the measures that we count on taking to face this situation,” Leonard said.

Leonard himself has been accused in the Belgian media of covering up a case of church abuse in the 1990s, but has denied the allegation.

The Belgium clergy abuse scandal has even overshadowed the collapse of the Belgian government, with nearly every day bringing new witness accounts and reports of attempts to hush up abuse.

“It is an extremely difficult moment (to come to Rome) but perhaps appropriate to see where we are at,” Leonard’s spokesman, the Rev. Eric De Beukelaer, told Belgium’s VRT network Monday. “Obviously the meeting will have a charged atmosphere.”

Belgium’s bishops began their visit to Vatican City with prayers and a Mass before the tomb of Pope John Paul II in the crypt of St. Peter’s Basilica. Next, the first stop on a long list of meetings with senior Vatican officials was a meeting at the Pontifical Council for Social Communications, the Vatican arm handling media.

But while the spreading abuse scandals pose a public relations nightmare for the Vatican, the Belgian bishops are grappling with an even bigger challenge — how to hold on to the rank-and-file flock.

The Belgian bishops conference said late last week about Belgium’s Catholics that “understandably, many fear losing their faith.”

In the early weeks of the scandal staining several Western European churches, including Benedict’s own homeland, Germany, the Vatican tried a strategy of depicting itself as a victim, saying anti-Catholic lobbies were targeting the pope for such conservative stands as prohibition of same-sex marriage and abortion.

But with surveys showing abuse revelations are shaking Catholic faith in Western Europe — 19 percent of faithful polled this spring in Germany said the scandal has made them think of abandoning the church — the Vatican and the pope have been making more pro-active moves, although Benedict has ignored victims’ call that he take responsibility for cover-ups.

The tendered resignations of two Irish bishops accused of covering up child abuse by Dublin clergy have been sitting on the pope’s desk since December. But recently, Benedict did accept the resignation of a third Irish bishop identified in an Irish government-ordered probe of decades of cover-ups of child-abusing clergy in the Dublin archdiocese.

And Benedict met last month in a special meeting with German bishops to discuss a high-profile bishop’s resignation in Germany.

Critics say the pope himself helped perpetuate a culture of secrecy, both when he was Munich archbishop Joseph Ratzinger, and later in his long tenure as held of the Vatican office dealing with abuse allegations.

While nearly all of the bishops or cardinals implicated in the scandals have been accused of being part of a systemic cover-up of pedophilia and other abuse, the Bruges bishop himself admitted to himself abusing a child, a boy from among his circle of acquaintances.

Revealing that case was a retired Belgian priest who said when he realized a bishop was involved in abuse, he turned to the prelate who was then Belgium’s top churchman, Cardinal Godfried Danneels.

Danneels, who was replaced upon retirement by Leonard, has said he cannot recall being told about the Bruges bishop.

Associated Press writer Raf Casert in Brussels contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

BOSTON — A lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a federal law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman is slated for its first court hearing.

Gay couples say the Defense of Marriage Act denies them access to federal benefits given to other married couples.

A federal judge in Boston will hear arguments Thursday on the government’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit and the same-sex couples’ request to rule in their favor without a trial.

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders sued on behalf of seven same-sex couples and three widowers who were married after Massachusetts became the first state to legalize gay marriage in 2004.

The Justice Department makes it clear in court documents that the Obama administration thinks the law should be repealed, but the department says it’s obligated to defend federal laws.

© Copyright 2010 Associated Press.

Filed by: Waymon Hudson
April 21, 2010 Bilerico Project

Over 1,300 people gathered at Makerere University in Kampala, Uganda on Sunday to hear American Evangelical Lou Engle preach at a rally and prayer service against “homosexuality, witchcraft, and corruption.”

Engle’s involvement in organizing TheCall Uganda was mired in controversy from the very beginning given his long history of violent anti-gay and anti-abortion rhetoric and preaching. At past TheCall rallies, like the one against Proposition 8 in California, Engle called homosexuality a “spirit of lawlessness” and called for “martyrs” to become “God’s Avengers of Blood” to stop the “homosexual agenda” at all cost.

Engle’s newly founded chapter of TheCall Uganda comes at a time of unparalleled violence and animus towards LGBT people in the country, including the odious Anti-Homosexuality Bill, which calls for life imprisonment for gays and their supporters, as well as the death penalty in some cases.

With this backdrop of violence, Engle chose to hold a huge religious rally to further gin up anger towards gay people in Uganda. Before the rally, Engle claimed in a press release that he would not be there promoting the “Kill the Gays” Bill to try and stem some of the push-back he was getting from human rights groups for his panned rally. Not surprisingly, once he arrived in Uganda his tune was very different and very dangerous.

- Alison Nadaud, May 3, MTV Examiner

After much speculation in the past few weeks, country music star Chely Wright has confirmed that she is gay. Just last week, media sites were buzzing about the rumor of a famous country star preparing to come out of the closet. E! News is one of the many sources now reporting that Chely has in fact shared this personal information about her life.

Most people know Chely for her hit singles “Shut Up and Drive” and “Single White Female.”

In an interview with Access Hollywood, the 39-year-old musician opened up about her past denial over her true identity. “Early in my life I went through what I think a lot of gay people go through, thinking that I could change and pray it away.”

As Chely continued to struggle with her self-image, the singer even contemplated ending her life to escape from the pain. “I was looking at myself in a mirror… as I was about to do it,” she told Access. “I just looked at myself and something snapped and I started to cry… and I realized I have too much to live for.”

The country artist debated over coming out about her sexual orientation, but eventually decided that it was worth any price. “I may lose my career in country music, that will break my heart, but it’s okay,” she confessed. “I have a lot of different pieces of my heart that matter and that’s what I’ve come to learn.”

Chely’s new album, “Lifted off the Ground” will launch on May 4. For more of Chely’s interview, tune in to Access Hollywood on Wednesday, May 5.

- 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: