IGF CultureWatch

Arnold says:

I am returning Assembly Bill 849 without my signature because I do not believe the Legislature can reverse an initiative approved by the people of California.

I am proud California is a leader in recognizing and respecting domestic partnerships and the equal rights of domestic partners. I believe that lesbian and gay couples are entitled to full protection under the law and should not be discriminated against based upon their relationships. I support current domestic partnership rights and will continue to vigorously defend and enforce these rights and as such will not support any rollback.

California Family Code Section 308.5 was enacted by an initiative statute passed by the voters as Proposition 22 in 2000. Article II, section 10 of the California Constitution prohibits the Legislature from amending this initiative statute without a vote of the people. This bill does not provide for such a vote.

The ultimate issue regarding the constitutionality of section 308.5 and its prohibition against same-sex marriage is currently before the Court of Appeal in San Francisco and will likely be decided by the Supreme Court.

This bill simply adds confusion to a constitutional issue. If the ban of same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, this bill is not necessary. If the ban is constitutional, this bill is ineffective.

That certainly won't please critics, and shouldn't (Log Cabin issued a statement expressing its "deep disappointment"). But it's not the traditional Republican gay-baiting, either, and will help take the wind out of the sails of the proposed anti-gay marriage/anti-partnership constitutional amendment(s) when it/they come up for a vote.

We've posted two new pieces on the latest edict from Rome. Want more? Ex-Catholic Rick Rosendall weighs in with his insights, here.

Further: Columnist James Carroll writes in the Boston Globe on "A Catholic Moment of Truth," and that:

the coming instruction is regarded as a catastrophe in the making. With boards of Vatican-appointed investigators poised to swoop down on American schools in which new priests are trained, interrogations of candidates and loyalty tests for teachers already betray a nostalgia for the bygone era of thought-control and snitching. A formally licensed obsession with homosexuality will push the investigation into a realm, as one senior priest put it to me, more of Joseph Stalin than Jesus Christ.

--Stephen H. Miller

As recounted in this Detroit Free Press editorial:

Gay couples scored a big victory Tuesday in a judge's ruling that last fall's [Michigan] constitutional amendment barring marriage between two men or two women does not jeopardize health care benefits afforded such couples. Even though Michigan is a long way from recognizing marriage equality, it cannot outlaw equitable health coverage.

In other words, the state and local governments-as well as private-sector employers-can extend health benefits to employees' partners.

That's good; but permitting (or at least not constitutionally prohibiting!) civil unions or marriage would be much better. As often noted on this site (see here, for instance), if conservative marriage defenders really wanted to safeguard the institution, they'd realize that letting gays wed would do more to strengthen marriage than a prohibition that, by necessity, leads to providing spousal benefits to the unwed, both straight and gay.

Still, at least one of the most pernicious aspects of these overly broad anti-gay amendments (none of which, to date, has ever failed to pass when put to a popular vote) was dealt a major setback.

Al-Qaida has purportedly launched a news program via the Internet. According to the Washington Post account:

The anchorman, who said the report would appear once a week, presented news about the Gaza Strip and Iraq. . . . A copy of the Koran, the Muslim holy book, was placed by his right hand and a rifle affixed to a tripod was pointed at the camera.

Then came this weather report:

"The whole Muslim world was filled with joy" [after Katrina], the anchorman said. He went on to say that President Bush was "completely humiliated by his obvious incapacity to face the wrath of God, who battered New Orleans, city of homosexuals."

Pat Robertson, met Bin Laden.

Blade newspapers editor Chris Crain penned this editorial defending ideological diversity - that is, inclusion of gay conservatives - in his papers. At issue: a flood of negative pushback from rather illiberal gay "liberals" after he ran viewpoint columns such as this.

More Recent Postings
9/18/05 - 9/24/05

I rather like Connecticut's suggested wording for the pronouncement of civil unions, which become legal in that state next weekend. At the end of ceremonies justices are advised to pronounce couples "partners in life" rather than "husband and wife."

To date, as the Washington Post story notes, Connecticut is the first state, without court pressure, to pass a civil union law conferring the same state (but not federal) rights as marriage. Vermont is the only other state that allows civil unions; Massachusetts is the only state that allows same-sex marriages.

Dale Carpenter's newly posted take on the governator's pending veto of California's marriage bill is here.

Jeff Cook, a gay small-government Republican, is challenging Rep. Sue Kelly, a GOP big spender, for New York's Hudson Valley congressional seat. Good for him! Kelly not only supported the pork-laded transportation boondoggle and favors expanding federal government funding for "the arts," but she also voted for the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment. Wrong on everything, she is (as Yoda might say).

"I have become really concerned in the last couple of years about the direction of some of the leaders in our party," Cook told The Hill. "If the Republican Party is unwilling . . . to stand up to the trappings and the temptations of big government, then who will? We've got to have a dividing line."

Cook opposes "larger and larger government" in both the fiscal and social realms:

he opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment on the grounds that it's unconstitutional and contrary to his small-government philosophy.

Striking a careful ideological balance, Cook said families, not government, should make life's most important decisions - about schools, for instance- but offered an expansive view of "family" including adoption by gay couples.

Beating an incumbent is a tall order, but I'm glad to see someone advocating a consistent view of limited government and calling the GOP home to its roots (as the anti-slavery party, remember?).

More on Cook from Boi from Troi and Rick Sincere. And here's the campaign's website.

Further: A commenter notes this item on the race from the conservative RedState.org site

We've posted an interesting column from philosophy prof. John Corvino, In Defense of Pleasure, which asks, provocatively, what's so bad about feeling good? Nothing, says I, as long as you do no harm to others and take responsibility for your actions - and maintain the ability to self-discipline in the many areas where it's necessary to do so for your overall wellbeing. Alas, too many embark on the path of hedonism and spiral out of control, harming themselves quite seriously. So, can you abandon yourself to the fires of pleasure and not get burned?

HRC, the large abortion-on-demand lobby that targets gay and lesbian donors, seems to imply in its lastest broadside vilifying John Roberts that only anti-Roberts votes are "principled" - suggesting that even stalwart left-liberals like Sen. Leahy, who reliably vote HRC's way on legislation, have taken an unprincipled stand by supporting Roberts - the anti-gay Chief Justice nominee who inconveniently has no anti-gay record and, annoyingly, did pro bono work on behalf of gay activists.

The British gay rights group Outrage! stands alone, it seems, in exposing the latest example of the murderous homophobia of Iran's Islamic regime, while the gay international rights groups that are dominated by left-wingers decline to criticize an anti-American ally. Hat tip: Gay Patriot.

Update: A new Amnesty International report reveals "alarming and widespread police mistreatment of gays" - in the USA.

Also, as one commenter notes, on the website of the reliably leftwing International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission, Iran's not exactly highlighted.
--Stephen H. Miller