Thursday, January 29, 2009
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
California case brings Internet into gay adoption debate
What began in October 2002 as an Internet adoption odyssey for Michael and Richard Butler ''Richard Butler may refer to:
Military:
- Richard Butler (general) (1743–1791), American Revolutionary War general, later killed fighting American Indians in Ohio
Politicians:
may end up in court. The Butlers, a gay couple who live in California, are suing the operators of Adoption.com for refusing to post their profile as prospective parents on the privately run site, which bills itself as "the Internet's #1 adoption Web site." (Butler v. Adoption Media, No. C 040135JL (N.D. Cal. filed Jan. 15, 2004).)
In a letter explaining the refusal, Dale Gwilliam, the site's legal counsel, said that "children have a much greater chance of thriving in their lives, rather than just surviving, if they are raised in a stable and traditional two-parent family environment."
The Butlers, whom the state had approved as adoptive parents adoptive parents Social medicine Persons who lawfully adopt children, who are generally married couples but may be single persons, including homosexuals; most APs are married , signed up for Adoption.com's service, making information about themselves available to birth mothers and adoption agencies. For their attorney, Neel Chatterjee, who is handling the case along with the National Center for Lesbian Rights The National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) is a non-profit, public interest law firm that litigates precedent-setting cases at the trial and appellate court levels, advocates for equitable public policies affecting the LGBT community, provides free legal assistance to LGBT (NCLR NCLR National Council of La Raza
NCLR National Center for Lesbian Rights
NCLR North Carolina Literary Review
NCLR North Carolina Law Review
NCLR National Conference of Law Reviews
NCLR New Criminal Law Review ), the issue is clear-cut: "In California, it has been legislatively allowed for over 20 years that same-sex couples or single homosexual parents can adopt," he said.
But the case has a few wrinkles. Because Adoption.com does not formally approve adoptions--it functions as a medium by which prospective parents, agencies, and birth mothers can find and contact one another--"it's somewhat of a distraction to say that this is a case about gay adoption," Chatterjee said. "The issue is: Can an organization refuse its services because of someone's sexual orientation sexual orientation
n.
The direction of one's sexual interest toward members of the same, opposite, or both sexes, especially a direction seen to be dictated by physiologic rather than sociologic forces. ?"
In addition, said NCLR's Kate Kendell, although Adoption.com is not "an ultimate arbiter of whether a couple gets to adopt," its practice of excluding prospective adopters "on a basis that has nothing to do with their ability as parents ... is discrimination that quite clearly violates California law California Law consists of 29 codes, covering various subject areas, the State Constitution and Statutes. See also
- Statute
- Bill (proposed law)
- California State Legislature
Leslie Cooper, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), nonpartisan organization devoted to the preservation and extension of the basic rights set forth in the U.S. Constitution. who is pursuing several gay adoption and foster parent cases--and is cocounsel for the Butlers--said the suit is novel.
"There aren't cases that have addressed that kind of antigay discrimination," she said. "California has very clear law that bans discrimination against gay people in public accommodations and employment. But there haven't been cases around the country challenging a private agency's decision to exclude gay people. This is the first that I've ever heard of."
The case was first filed in December in San Francisco San Francisco (săn frănsĭs`kō), city (1990 pop. 723,959), coextensive with San Francisco co., W Calif., on the tip of a peninsula between the Pacific Ocean and San Francisco Bay, which are connected by the strait known as the Golden County Superior Court, then was removed to federal district court, where the defendants filed a motion to dismiss on jurisdictional and substantive grounds: the former because the site is based in Arizona, not California, and the latter on the theory that discrimination on the basis of marital status marital status,
n the legal standing of a person in regard to his or her marriage state.
..... Click the link for more information. is allowed in California because gay people cannot be married there.
Before the first filing, the Web site amended its rules governing who may post prospective-parent profiles. In addition to noting that prospective parents must fulfill all adoption requirements of their states, the site now says they "must be legally married to each other as husband and wife." According to the site, this requirement ensures that all prospective parents who post profiles are eligible to adopt in all states, because some states allow only married couples to adopt. Adoption.com also points to unspecified research that "parents who are willing to make this kind of legal and emotional commitment to each other are more likely to stay together and to provide a nurturing family unit for their children."
Indeed, not all states are as open to adoption by gays as California is. Some, like Florida and Utah, ban such adoptions either outright or in effect by banning adoptions by unmarried people. Even in states that do allow gay adoption, Cooper noted, perceptions of gays are as diverse as the population.
"It varies from agency to agency, community to community, worker to worker," she said. "Somebody working in an adoption agency may have strong personal views, religious or otherwise, about gay people and refuse to make placements when there may or may not be policy within that agency [about] placement with gay parents--where some other worker in that agency may be perfectly comfortable with making such placements."
Some agencies' attitudes may be changing. A survey released in October 2003 of 307 adoption agencies by the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, an adoption advocacy group, found that even as controversy swirls about gay adoptions, gays and lesbians are adopting in growing numbers and that 60 percent of responding agencies accepted applications from gays.
"It doesn't come as a huge surprise that some states are more favorably disposed to gay and lesbian rights The goal of full legal and social equality for gay men and lesbians sought by the gay movement in the United States and other Western countries.
The term gay originally derived from slang, but it has gained wide acceptance in recent years, and many people who are
..... Click the link for more information. issues than others," said Chatterjee, noting that recent court decisions on gay-rights issues have worked "a significant adjustment to the law." He mentioned Lawrence v. Texas The Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S., 123 S.Ct. 2472, 156 L.Ed.2d 508 (2003), striking down state Sodomy laws as applied to gays and lesbians. (123 S. Ct. 2472 (2003)), which struck down a Texas antisodomy law; Romer v. Evans Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 116 S. Ct. 1620, 134 L. Ed. 2d 855 (1996), is a landmark and controversial decision, in which the U.S. Supreme Court declared unconstitutional an amendment to the Colorado state constitution that prohibited state and local governments from enacting any (517 U.S. 620 (1996)), which invalidated an antigay Colorado law; and Goodridge v. Department of Public Health Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, 798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003), was a landmark state appellate court case dealing with same-sex marriage rights in Massachusetts. Ruling
..... Click the link for more information. (798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003)), the recent Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) is the highest court in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The SJC has the distinction of being the oldest continuously functioning appellate court in the Western Hemisphere. finding that barring gay marriage violates Massachusetts law.
"Obviously, what many other states are doing that is either explicit or de facto [Latin, In fact.] In fact, in deed, actually.
This phrase is used to characterize an officer, a government, a past action, or a state of affairs that must be accepted for all practical purposes, but is illegal or illegitimate. discrimination is now being [seen as] highly suspect by courts around this country," Chatterjee said.
But gay-rights advocates hoping for additional favorable case law were disappointed by a recent Eleventh Circuit decision upholding Florida's ban on gay adoptions. In Lotion v. Department of Children and Family Services, a gay plaintiff who fostered a 12-year-old boy from infancy challenged Florida's law prohibiting gay adoption.
The Eleventh Circuit upheld the law, echoing the language Adoption.com used to restrict its postings: "Although social theorists from Plato to Simone de Beauvoir Noun 1. Simone de Beauvoir - French feminist and existentialist and novelist (1908-1986)
Beauvoir have proposed alternative child-rearing arrangements, none has proven as enduring as the marital family structure, nor has the accumulated wisdom of several millennia of human experience discovered a superior model," Justice Stanley F. Birch Jr. wrote. "Against this 'sum of experience,' it is rational for Florida to conclude that it is in the best interests of adoptive children, many of whom come from troubled and unstable backgrounds, to be placed in a home anchored by both a father and a mother."
The plaintiffs are "exploring the options," said Cooper (No. 01-16723, 2004 WL 161275 (11th Cir: Jan. 28, 2004).)
COPYRIGHT 2004 American Association for Justice
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2004, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.
I feel personally about this article because I am adopted! I believe anyone regardless of sexual orientation should be able to adopt a child. To love and nurture a child does not have to be in a “traditional” family. Even “traditional” families can neglect their children. If two people are able to comfortably raise a child and love that child there should be no limitations. The article discusses the choice of a private agency to censor an online post by a homosexual couple because they were not “traditional”. I find this to be hurtful because I easily could have never been adopted and many children go without stable homes every day. To censor the desire to adopt in terms of sexual orientation is unnecessary.
Shamime Shaw WAC 120
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Monday, January 26, 2009
Gay marriage benefits society
Dear Readers,
Students in the UCLA class helping out with the project were asked to express their own sentiments and/or find articles that dealt with the Prop 8 debate from a variety of angles. The articles chosen, thus represent a wide breadth of opinions, and by no means represent the viewpoint of the UCLA ArtGlobal Health Center. Please feel free to comment on any post that you find on this blog.Sincerely,Robert GordonTHATH Blog Editor
From: New Mexico Daily Lobo
by Mario Hernandez
Daily Lobo columnist
Society has always told us that love is all you need. It seems, however, that love isn't all you need. To be legally wed in the U.S., you need more than love - you need a man and a woman.
While still a minority, gays are more apparent and more abundant these days. Our society is becoming more understanding as time goes on, but understanding isn't the same as equality.
No one will resolve the moral debate surrounding homosexuality, but one thing is certain: People are people regardless of their sexual orientation, and to treat them as less than human beings is preposterous and outrageous. Also, gay marriage would benefit society by curbing the spread of disease and opening more loving homes to children in need.
The First Amendment guarantees the freedom of worship. This means the government has no right to tell people what is right and wrong in terms of religion, and therefore, it cannot and should not pass a law declaring marriage as being between only a man and a woman. Wouldn't that violate the First Amendment? Marriage is a religious institution and should remain in the hands of the churches. If a church is willing to marry gays, which some churches are, then the government should be willing to legally recognize it.
Gay marriage would make many positive contributions to society, like the decline of AIDS on a large scale. As Andrew Sullivan wrote in The New Republic, "(Gay marriage) would also, in the wake of AIDS, qualify as a genuine public health measure. Those conservatives who deplore promiscuity among some homosexuals should be among the first to support it." Logic would follow that if gay men are less promiscuous, then the spread of AIDS would naturally go down. This would benefit everyone, not just gays.
There are other benefits to society, as well. Gay marriage will lead to better households for children. Granted, gays cannot have children, but they can adopt. As a society, we would be heartless to say we want a child in an orphanage rather than in a home with loving parents. Studies also show that there is no conclusive evidence linking the sexual orientation of a child to the sexual orientation of his or her parents. That is a fallacy based on ignorance.
Detractors of gay marriage would have you believe that allowing gays to marry would undermine the value, tradition and sanctity of marriage. Nothing could be further from the truth. When we have celebrities like Britney Spears marrying at whim and divorcing 24 hours later, it's easy to see that marriage isn't all that sacred to this country in the first place. How can gays undermine the value of marriage when heterosexuals have already accomplished that?
Same-sex marriage is recognized by six countries. The Netherlands was the first country to do so, but that is no surprise, as it is one of the most liberal countries on the planet. Other countries include Belgium, Canada and Spain. More recently, South Africa has joined the group, and the state of Massachusetts threw its hat into the ring, as long as same-sex marriage is performed in that state and under its laws.
Many other countries have opted to go the civil union route. This means that it is not technically a marriage, but it is a legally recognized union in which the partners can receive benefits from the state. Denmark, Finland and the United Kingdom have done this. Many states in the U.S. - including California, Connecticut, Hawaii and New Jersey - have taken similar steps.
While things are slowly getting better, there are those who would love to see it get worse. Just as interracial couples attracted the scorn of those who thought people of different colors should not marry, so too does the love of two people of the same gender. But just as interracial marriages are now commonplace, hopefully gay marriage will be exactly the same in the future. Hopefully, we'll all look back on this and wonder what we were thinking being so prejudiced. Mario Hernandez is a UNM political science major.
Professor's defense of Prop 8 puts Pepperdine in crossfires
Dear Readers,Students in the UCLA class helping out with the project were asked to express their own sentiments and/or find articles that dealt with the Prop 8 debate from a variety of angles. The articles chosen, thus represent a wide breadth of opinions, and by no means represent the viewpoint of the UCLA ArtGlobal Health Center. Please feel free to comment on any post that you find on this blog.Sincerely,Robert GordonTHATH Blog Editor
Published:
Wednesday, January 7, 2009 1:27 PM PST
Kenneth Starr's involvement in Proposition 8 lawsuit sparks accusations that the university is homophobic.
By Olivia Damavandi / Staff Writer
Pepperdine University Dean of Law Kenneth Starr's involvement in a lawsuit to nullify 18,000 gay marriages performed before Proposition 8 was passed in November, and advertisements by another university professor that supported the measure, have led to many believing the university is sending out homophobic sentiments, but the professors say they are protecting the majority's vote.
The university's president, Andrew Benton, said he could not comment on the issue.
The Malibu Times received letters advocating the boycott of the university because, as one from an unnamed Pepperdine alumnus read, it is "leading a hate campaign against gays and lesbians in the state of California."
Responding to this sentiment, Jerry Derloshon, Pepperdine University director of Public Relations and News, said on Monday in an interview, "That's a definite no. Any assertion to that affect is grossly untrue."
During the campaign period of Prop 8, a proposed law to ban same-sex marriage, Richard M. Peterson, assistant professor of law and director of the Special Education Clinic at Pepperdine University, appeared in televised advertisements in support of the measure. The name of the university initially appeared in the advertisements, was then later removed at the request of Pepperdine officials, and finally reinserted and followed by the statement, "for identification purposes only."
Shortly after Prop 8 passed, three lawsuits were filed by three different opponents of the proposition from San Francisco, which have been bundled into one lawsuit, claiming that such a law could not be enacted as an initiative amendment, but rather only by a constitutional "revision," which requires either a two-thirds vote of the Legislature or a statewide Constitutional convention vote.
Responding to the legal challenges in mid-December, state Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. agreed with the official proponents that Proposition 8 was properly enacted by voter initiative, and therefore did not require a vote of the Legislature. The Attorney General also rejected claims by Prop 8 opponents that the measure violated the separation of powers between the branches of government.
However, in his December brief, the Attorney General proposed a new, unprecedented legal theory that Proposition 8-despite being a properly enacted constitutional amendment-is itself unconstitutional because it violates "inalienable or natural rights."
This led the California Supreme Court to ask Proposition 8's official proponents, who have engaged Starr as lead council to "defend the people's vote," to file a brief responding to the Attorney General's new "inalienable rights" theory.
Andrew Pugno, general council for the official proponents of the Proposition 8 campaign, said on Monday in an interview with The Malibu Times, "We are responding to lawsuits filed by people who oppose Prop 8 that are seeking to invalidate the people's vote. They want the court to say that Prop 8 is invalid and therefore same sex marriage would become legal again."
Pugno said when the three lawsuits were filed, the Supreme Court asked all parties to analyze the legal status of the marriages performed prior to the election, which amounted to a total of 18,000.
When asked why the official proponents are seeking to nullify the 18,000 marriages, Pugno stated, "The bottom line is Prop 8 doesn't include any exclusions or exceptions for existing same-sex marriage. Only marriage between a man and woman is valid in the state of California, so we think it's quite simple [as to why the marriages should be invalidated]."
"We are defending the people's vote," Pugno said. "We can't be expected to do nothing."
Douglas W. Kmiec. professor of constitutional law at Pepperdine, said he doesn't think the court will invalidate the marriages performed before the passing of Proposition 8.
"I think it would be a serious violation of principles or due process to set aside those marriages," Kmiec said. "The Supreme Court of California interpreted the [state] Constitution as it then existed to mean that marriage as a fundamental right should be extended to same sex couples as traditional couples, and also found that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was to engage in the use of a suspect classification. Those who came forward seeking to be married by the state of California in light of that ruling should be given the benefit of the law as it then existed."
Pugno said the last round of legal briefs is due Jan. 21. "At some point after that, the court will schedule a hearing possibly as early as March," he said.
Meanwhile, some people's perception of Pepperdine has changed.
Although Benton did not want to talk overall about the issue, he did comment to The Malibu Times in an e-mail that Peterson and Starr have been "bombarded" by "inappropriate e-mail" and letters threatening a boycott of the university.
Derloshon said Pepperdine was required by law to remain neutral during the Proposition 8 election campaign leading up to the vote, and that both Starr and Peterson are involved as individuals and do not represent the views of the university.
"He [Starr] is regarded throughout the country as one of the nation's leading constitutional scholars," Derloshon said. "Here at Pepperdine, he engages his students in learning experiences. He is an educator on one hand, but a constitutional scholar and a counselor who is active in the professional legal field.
"Starr is not speaking on behalf of Pepperdine, he has engaged himself in a variety of cases."
Regarding how Starr's and Peterson's involvement in Prop 8 will affect prospective Pepperdine students, Derloshon said, "I think there can be some backlash to the segment of the population in the country who would make a quick assumption that Pepperdine must be bigoted. But thinking, more considerate people who aren't so quick to judge may learn from an inquiry or an e-mail that Pepperdine as an institution is anything but bigoted."
A current Pepperdine law school student who wished to remain anonymous said he received e-mails from his family as soon as it was announced that Starr was going to join the legal representation of Proposition 8.
"Even though there was a part of me emotionally that got frustrated, you have to remove yourself from that initial reaction because at the end of the day you're dealing with something that has real world implications," the student said.
"As much as I disagree with what Ken Starr is doing, he's one individual of the school and he's not representative of it," the student continued.
Published:
Wednesday, January 7, 2009 1:27 PM PST
Kenneth Starr's involvement in Proposition 8 lawsuit sparks accusations that the university is homophobic.
By Olivia Damavandi / Staff Writer
Pepperdine University Dean of Law Kenneth Starr's involvement in a lawsuit to nullify 18,000 gay marriages performed before Proposition 8 was passed in November, and advertisements by another university professor that supported the measure, have led to many believing the university is sending out homophobic sentiments, but the professors say they are protecting the majority's vote.
The university's president, Andrew Benton, said he could not comment on the issue.
The Malibu Times received letters advocating the boycott of the university because, as one from an unnamed Pepperdine alumnus read, it is "leading a hate campaign against gays and lesbians in the state of California."
Responding to this sentiment, Jerry Derloshon, Pepperdine University director of Public Relations and News, said on Monday in an interview, "That's a definite no. Any assertion to that affect is grossly untrue."
During the campaign period of Prop 8, a proposed law to ban same-sex marriage, Richard M. Peterson, assistant professor of law and director of the Special Education Clinic at Pepperdine University, appeared in televised advertisements in support of the measure. The name of the university initially appeared in the advertisements, was then later removed at the request of Pepperdine officials, and finally reinserted and followed by the statement, "for identification purposes only."
Shortly after Prop 8 passed, three lawsuits were filed by three different opponents of the proposition from San Francisco, which have been bundled into one lawsuit, claiming that such a law could not be enacted as an initiative amendment, but rather only by a constitutional "revision," which requires either a two-thirds vote of the Legislature or a statewide Constitutional convention vote.
Responding to the legal challenges in mid-December, state Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. agreed with the official proponents that Proposition 8 was properly enacted by voter initiative, and therefore did not require a vote of the Legislature. The Attorney General also rejected claims by Prop 8 opponents that the measure violated the separation of powers between the branches of government.
However, in his December brief, the Attorney General proposed a new, unprecedented legal theory that Proposition 8-despite being a properly enacted constitutional amendment-is itself unconstitutional because it violates "inalienable or natural rights."
This led the California Supreme Court to ask Proposition 8's official proponents, who have engaged Starr as lead council to "defend the people's vote," to file a brief responding to the Attorney General's new "inalienable rights" theory.
Andrew Pugno, general council for the official proponents of the Proposition 8 campaign, said on Monday in an interview with The Malibu Times, "We are responding to lawsuits filed by people who oppose Prop 8 that are seeking to invalidate the people's vote. They want the court to say that Prop 8 is invalid and therefore same sex marriage would become legal again."
Pugno said when the three lawsuits were filed, the Supreme Court asked all parties to analyze the legal status of the marriages performed prior to the election, which amounted to a total of 18,000.
When asked why the official proponents are seeking to nullify the 18,000 marriages, Pugno stated, "The bottom line is Prop 8 doesn't include any exclusions or exceptions for existing same-sex marriage. Only marriage between a man and woman is valid in the state of California, so we think it's quite simple [as to why the marriages should be invalidated]."
"We are defending the people's vote," Pugno said. "We can't be expected to do nothing."
Douglas W. Kmiec. professor of constitutional law at Pepperdine, said he doesn't think the court will invalidate the marriages performed before the passing of Proposition 8.
"I think it would be a serious violation of principles or due process to set aside those marriages," Kmiec said. "The Supreme Court of California interpreted the [state] Constitution as it then existed to mean that marriage as a fundamental right should be extended to same sex couples as traditional couples, and also found that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was to engage in the use of a suspect classification. Those who came forward seeking to be married by the state of California in light of that ruling should be given the benefit of the law as it then existed."
Pugno said the last round of legal briefs is due Jan. 21. "At some point after that, the court will schedule a hearing possibly as early as March," he said.
Meanwhile, some people's perception of Pepperdine has changed.
Although Benton did not want to talk overall about the issue, he did comment to The Malibu Times in an e-mail that Peterson and Starr have been "bombarded" by "inappropriate e-mail" and letters threatening a boycott of the university.
Derloshon said Pepperdine was required by law to remain neutral during the Proposition 8 election campaign leading up to the vote, and that both Starr and Peterson are involved as individuals and do not represent the views of the university.
"He [Starr] is regarded throughout the country as one of the nation's leading constitutional scholars," Derloshon said. "Here at Pepperdine, he engages his students in learning experiences. He is an educator on one hand, but a constitutional scholar and a counselor who is active in the professional legal field.
"Starr is not speaking on behalf of Pepperdine, he has engaged himself in a variety of cases."
Regarding how Starr's and Peterson's involvement in Prop 8 will affect prospective Pepperdine students, Derloshon said, "I think there can be some backlash to the segment of the population in the country who would make a quick assumption that Pepperdine must be bigoted. But thinking, more considerate people who aren't so quick to judge may learn from an inquiry or an e-mail that Pepperdine as an institution is anything but bigoted."
A current Pepperdine law school student who wished to remain anonymous said he received e-mails from his family as soon as it was announced that Starr was going to join the legal representation of Proposition 8.
"Even though there was a part of me emotionally that got frustrated, you have to remove yourself from that initial reaction because at the end of the day you're dealing with something that has real world implications," the student said.
"As much as I disagree with what Ken Starr is doing, he's one individual of the school and he's not representative of it," the student continued.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
One day I'll fly away
Dear Readers,
Students in the UCLA class helping out with the project were asked to express their own sentiments and/or find articles that dealt with the Prop 8 debate from a variety of angles. The articles chosen, thus represent a wide breadth of opionions, and by no means represent the viewpoint of the UCLA ArtGlobal Health Center. Please feel free to comment on any post that you find on this blog.Sincerely,Robert GordonTHATH Blog Editor
I am a gay French student at UCLA. White and privileged, I have the chance to live my life “out”. I used to live for more than five years with a man. We are still in a civil union (we had a celebration at the Eleventh district of Paris city hall) even if we will have to separate soon. Gay people wanted marriage; they have now to experience divorce. These things happen.
My boyfriend (ex-boyfriend?) and I went to San Francisco in August 2008. We were so excited as the same sex marriage law just passed in California. To be in SF at this time was an amazing chance as a member of the homosexual community. What a big step forward for gay and human rights in general. We went hand in hand to visit the San Francisco City Hall.
Below the huge Napoleon style dome, a couple was getting married in front of a judge. The judge was a women, the groom a chic lady and the couple: two men at least in their sixties. I am 24 as I told you. I cannot tell you how strong I felt seeing this. To be in a free country where you can live your love while people are killed or in jail because they are gay, it was an infinite emotion. The second cause of young’s suicide in France is because they live in the closet and they fear the reaction of their family or community.
I can proudly tell to my friends and family that I saw a gay couple being married in a city hall (the most official symbol of urban communities): twenty years after the ban of homosexuality from the mental disease list of the ONU; sixty years after the deportation of homosexuals by the Nazis, one hundred and twenty years after the incarceration of Oscar Wilde for homosexuality.
This couple had only one maid, but two secret grooms. My boyfriend and I remained silent, almost crying. So many people are dead for our rights, for the simple right to be married with the one you love. We left the city hall full of joy and pride of being born in a society that can accept every type of love. This was a moment as powerful as my own union in Paris.
Then, the Election Day came. An incredible man has been elected the same day I felt threaten and endangered by the human stupidity and cruelty. November 4th, my faith in a better society, an equal and clever one, collapsed. I thought of many sufferings and debates it will create in a few days. But I especially thought of the lovers in San Francisco. They got married in the same place where Harvey Milk died because he was proud or at least not ashamed to be gay. They waited maybe for forty years to see their love recognized by the country they live in. And after all this struggles, the pain, the permanent political fight, everything is destroyed.
(the Memorial dedicated to gay deported by the Nazis during WWII. Berlin, Germany)
Give the future generations a reason to be afraid and to hide … “yes we did it”.
this is why the TO HAVE AND TO HOLD project must be seen by everyone. This why we need everyone to make it exist, to make it our statement for bigots and close-minded human beings.
Students in the UCLA class helping out with the project were asked to express their own sentiments and/or find articles that dealt with the Prop 8 debate from a variety of angles. The articles chosen, thus represent a wide breadth of opionions, and by no means represent the viewpoint of the UCLA ArtGlobal Health Center. Please feel free to comment on any post that you find on this blog.Sincerely,Robert GordonTHATH Blog Editor
I am a gay French student at UCLA. White and privileged, I have the chance to live my life “out”. I used to live for more than five years with a man. We are still in a civil union (we had a celebration at the Eleventh district of Paris city hall) even if we will have to separate soon. Gay people wanted marriage; they have now to experience divorce. These things happen.
My boyfriend (ex-boyfriend?) and I went to San Francisco in August 2008. We were so excited as the same sex marriage law just passed in California. To be in SF at this time was an amazing chance as a member of the homosexual community. What a big step forward for gay and human rights in general. We went hand in hand to visit the San Francisco City Hall.
Below the huge Napoleon style dome, a couple was getting married in front of a judge. The judge was a women, the groom a chic lady and the couple: two men at least in their sixties. I am 24 as I told you. I cannot tell you how strong I felt seeing this. To be in a free country where you can live your love while people are killed or in jail because they are gay, it was an infinite emotion. The second cause of young’s suicide in France is because they live in the closet and they fear the reaction of their family or community.
I can proudly tell to my friends and family that I saw a gay couple being married in a city hall (the most official symbol of urban communities): twenty years after the ban of homosexuality from the mental disease list of the ONU; sixty years after the deportation of homosexuals by the Nazis, one hundred and twenty years after the incarceration of Oscar Wilde for homosexuality.
This couple had only one maid, but two secret grooms. My boyfriend and I remained silent, almost crying. So many people are dead for our rights, for the simple right to be married with the one you love. We left the city hall full of joy and pride of being born in a society that can accept every type of love. This was a moment as powerful as my own union in Paris.
Then, the Election Day came. An incredible man has been elected the same day I felt threaten and endangered by the human stupidity and cruelty. November 4th, my faith in a better society, an equal and clever one, collapsed. I thought of many sufferings and debates it will create in a few days. But I especially thought of the lovers in San Francisco. They got married in the same place where Harvey Milk died because he was proud or at least not ashamed to be gay. They waited maybe for forty years to see their love recognized by the country they live in. And after all this struggles, the pain, the permanent political fight, everything is destroyed.
(the Memorial dedicated to gay deported by the Nazis during WWII. Berlin, Germany)The proposition 8 is not a problem of religion, tradition, way of life or way to fuck; it is a question of annihilating human rights. Proposition 8 is a caterpillar in the human enlighten and a bomb threw in the social progress. It is not like impeaching a law to pass, it is simply destroying more than 16 000 marriages. It is saying no to open your mind and your heart. That is why I did not celebrated Barack Hussein Obama’s election. I was mourning the human capacity to really change. Democracy is a weapon against fear and fanatics, not an official way to demolish human beings, lives and loves.
Give the future generations a reason to be afraid and to hide … “yes we did it”.
this is why the TO HAVE AND TO HOLD project must be seen by everyone. This why we need everyone to make it exist, to make it our statement for bigots and close-minded human beings.
When a political and ideological fight is cristalised against a certain group: the Mormons and the No on 8 campaign ...
Dear Readers,
Students in the UCLA class helping out with the project were asked to express their own viewpoints and/or find articles that dealt with the Prop 8 debate from a variety of angles. The articles chosen, thus represent a wide breadth of opionions, and by no means represent the viewpoint of the UCLA ArtGlobal Health Center. Please feel free to comment on any post that you find on this blog.
Sincerely,
Robert Gordon
THATH Blog Editor
Source: http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e419fb40e21cef00VgnVCM1000001f5e340aRCRD Date: January 2009
An ugly attack on Mormons
The religious group has been the target of a campaign by liberal supporters of same-sex marriage.
December 02, 2008 By Jonah Goldberg Los Angeles Times
Did you catch the political ad in which two Jews ring the doorbell of a nice, working-class family? They barge in and rifle through the wife's purse and then the man's wallet for any cash. Cackling, they smash the daughter's piggy bank and pinch every penny. "We need it for the Wall Street bailout!" they exclaim.
No? Maybe you saw the one with the two swarthy Muslims who knock on the door of a nice Jewish family and then blow themselves up?
No? Well, then surely you saw the TV ad in which two smarmy Mormon missionaries knock on the door of an attractive lesbian couple. "Hi, we're from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints!" says the blond one with a toothy smile. "We're here to take away your rights." The Mormon zealots yank the couple's wedding rings from their fingers and then tear up their marriage license.
As the thugs leave, one says to the other, "That was too easy." His smirking comrade replies, "Yeah, what should we ban next?" The voice-over implores viewers: "Say no to a church taking over your government."
Obviously, the first two ads are fictional because no one would dare run such anti-Semitic or anti-Muslim attacks.
The third ad, however, was real. It was broadcast throughout California on election day as part of the effort to rally opposition to Proposition 8, the initiative that successfully repealed the right to same-sex marriage in the state.
What was the reaction to the ad? Widespread condemnation? Scorn? Rebuke? Tepid criticism?
Nope.
This newspaper, a principled opponent of Proposition 8, ran an editorial saying that the "hard-hitting ad" was too little, too late.
The upshot seemed to be that if the pro-gay-marriage forces had just flooded the airwaves with more religious slander, things would have turned out better.
At a pro-gay-marriage rally in Los Angeles after the vote, chants of "Mormon scum!" were reported. Envelopes containing white powder have been sent to Mormon temples in California and Utah; vandals hit other temples. Lists of businesses to boycott -- essentially Mormon blacklists -- have sprung up on the Internet. The artistic director of the California Musical Theatre resigned because of pressure after it was revealed he gave $1,000 to a pro-Proposition 8 group.
It's amazing. Hollywood liberals, who shout "McCarthyism!" as a first resort, see nothing wrong with this. If Jews were attacked in this way for giving too much money to a political cause, Barbra Streisand would already have a French passport.
Never mind that Proposition 8 carried nearly every demographic slice of voters. Put aside the fact that the Catholic Church and scores of other Christian churches supported it too. Discount the inconvenient truth that bans on gay marriage have now passed in 30 states. It's all the Mormons' fault.
The argument is that Mormons used illegitimate power, in this case money, beyond their numerical standing in the population to secure victory for the measure. Golly, wealthy gay liberals would never do anything like that! I bet they're not giving a dime to the legal effort to overturn Proposition 8.
No, it's just that Mormons are the most vulnerable of the culturally conservative religious denominations and therefore the easiest targets for an organized campaign against religious freedom of conscience.
Traditional religion is the enemy anywhere it runs afoul of complete social acceptance of homosexuality. In New Mexico, a wedding photographer was fined nearly $7,000 for refusing to shoot a gay commitment ceremony. The dating site eHarmony, run by evangelicals, was just bullied by gay activists via the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights into starting up a site for gays. The first 10,000 registrants must get six months free.
It's often lost on gay-rights groups that they and their allies are the aggressors in the culture war. Indeed, they admit to being the "forces of change" and the "agents of progress." They proudly want to rewrite tradition and overturn laws. But whenever they're challenged democratically and peaceably, they instantly complain of being victims of entrenched bigots, even as they adopt the very tactics they abhor.
My own view is that gay marriage is likely inevitable, and won't be nearly the disaster many of my fellow conservatives fear it will be. But the scorched-earth campaign to victory pushed by gay-marriage advocates may well be disastrous, and "liberals" should be ashamed for countenancing it.
Students in the UCLA class helping out with the project were asked to express their own viewpoints and/or find articles that dealt with the Prop 8 debate from a variety of angles. The articles chosen, thus represent a wide breadth of opionions, and by no means represent the viewpoint of the UCLA ArtGlobal Health Center. Please feel free to comment on any post that you find on this blog.
Sincerely,
Robert Gordon
THATH Blog Editor
Source: http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e419fb40e21cef00VgnVCM1000001f5e340aRCRD Date: January 2009
An ugly attack on Mormons
The religious group has been the target of a campaign by liberal supporters of same-sex marriage.
December 02, 2008 By Jonah Goldberg Los Angeles Times
Did you catch the political ad in which two Jews ring the doorbell of a nice, working-class family? They barge in and rifle through the wife's purse and then the man's wallet for any cash. Cackling, they smash the daughter's piggy bank and pinch every penny. "We need it for the Wall Street bailout!" they exclaim.
No? Maybe you saw the one with the two swarthy Muslims who knock on the door of a nice Jewish family and then blow themselves up?
No? Well, then surely you saw the TV ad in which two smarmy Mormon missionaries knock on the door of an attractive lesbian couple. "Hi, we're from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints!" says the blond one with a toothy smile. "We're here to take away your rights." The Mormon zealots yank the couple's wedding rings from their fingers and then tear up their marriage license.
As the thugs leave, one says to the other, "That was too easy." His smirking comrade replies, "Yeah, what should we ban next?" The voice-over implores viewers: "Say no to a church taking over your government."
Obviously, the first two ads are fictional because no one would dare run such anti-Semitic or anti-Muslim attacks.
The third ad, however, was real. It was broadcast throughout California on election day as part of the effort to rally opposition to Proposition 8, the initiative that successfully repealed the right to same-sex marriage in the state.
What was the reaction to the ad? Widespread condemnation? Scorn? Rebuke? Tepid criticism?
Nope.
This newspaper, a principled opponent of Proposition 8, ran an editorial saying that the "hard-hitting ad" was too little, too late.
The upshot seemed to be that if the pro-gay-marriage forces had just flooded the airwaves with more religious slander, things would have turned out better.
At a pro-gay-marriage rally in Los Angeles after the vote, chants of "Mormon scum!" were reported. Envelopes containing white powder have been sent to Mormon temples in California and Utah; vandals hit other temples. Lists of businesses to boycott -- essentially Mormon blacklists -- have sprung up on the Internet. The artistic director of the California Musical Theatre resigned because of pressure after it was revealed he gave $1,000 to a pro-Proposition 8 group.
It's amazing. Hollywood liberals, who shout "McCarthyism!" as a first resort, see nothing wrong with this. If Jews were attacked in this way for giving too much money to a political cause, Barbra Streisand would already have a French passport.
Never mind that Proposition 8 carried nearly every demographic slice of voters. Put aside the fact that the Catholic Church and scores of other Christian churches supported it too. Discount the inconvenient truth that bans on gay marriage have now passed in 30 states. It's all the Mormons' fault.
The argument is that Mormons used illegitimate power, in this case money, beyond their numerical standing in the population to secure victory for the measure. Golly, wealthy gay liberals would never do anything like that! I bet they're not giving a dime to the legal effort to overturn Proposition 8.
No, it's just that Mormons are the most vulnerable of the culturally conservative religious denominations and therefore the easiest targets for an organized campaign against religious freedom of conscience.
Traditional religion is the enemy anywhere it runs afoul of complete social acceptance of homosexuality. In New Mexico, a wedding photographer was fined nearly $7,000 for refusing to shoot a gay commitment ceremony. The dating site eHarmony, run by evangelicals, was just bullied by gay activists via the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights into starting up a site for gays. The first 10,000 registrants must get six months free.
It's often lost on gay-rights groups that they and their allies are the aggressors in the culture war. Indeed, they admit to being the "forces of change" and the "agents of progress." They proudly want to rewrite tradition and overturn laws. But whenever they're challenged democratically and peaceably, they instantly complain of being victims of entrenched bigots, even as they adopt the very tactics they abhor.
My own view is that gay marriage is likely inevitable, and won't be nearly the disaster many of my fellow conservatives fear it will be. But the scorched-earth campaign to victory pushed by gay-marriage advocates may well be disastrous, and "liberals" should be ashamed for countenancing it.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Proposition 8 foes hold gay marriage boot camps
Dear Readers,Students in the UCLA class helping out with the project were asked to express their own viewpoints and/or find articles that dealt with the Prop 8 debate from a variety of angles. The articles chosen, thus represent a wide breadth of opionions, and by no means represent the viewpoint of the UCLA ArtGlobal Health Center. Please feel free to comment on any post that you find on this blog.Sincerely,Robert GordonTHATH Blog Editor
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Call Out For Couples Complete!
Wow! First of all we have to say a huge thank you to all of the couples that nominated themselves to take part in the photography project. We got an wonderfully large applicant pool and are extremely excited about how it will all turn out.
Check back here for online exclusive stories from couples and posts about how the project is coming along.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Call Out To LGBTQ Couples!!!
Call Out to LGBT Couples!! We Need You!!
The UCLA Art Global Health Center is looking for a diverse group of LGBT couples who are married, trying to wed, or in long term committed relationships to take part in an important and timely photography project entitled “To Have and To Hold.”
Participating couples (with or without children) will work with renowned South African photojournalist Gideon Mendel and a committed class of UCLA students on a mixed media project to highlight the human cost of Proposition 8.
About the Project
In connecting emotionally with real families – through photographs, stories, and videos – the issue of marriage equality becomes visceral, tangible, and personal.
Using existing family photographs, participants, students, and Mendel will work together to compile a set of images to be put into a photo album that tells the couple’s and/or family’s story. The album will be accompanied by a family portrait taken by Mendel.
To see Mendel’s work, go to http://www.gideonmendel.com/archive/
The photographs may be shown publicly in a variety of media, as a gallery exhibition, on the web, and possibly in a mass-media campaign. The overarching goal of “To Have and To Hold” is to raise social and public awareness about the civil rights of LGBT couples and families living in Los Angeles. This visual activism project intends to create a powerful response for social change around LGBT unions and the Proposition 8 debate. Participants will be asked to sign a waiver allowing wide use of their images and stories.
Here’s What You’ll Get
Although there will be no financial compensation for taking part in the project, participants will receive:
- One (1) professional family portrait taken by Gideon Mendel
- One (1) photo album that tells the story of your family
- The opportunity to be a spokesperson for the “To Have and To Hold” exhibition
- Complimentary Parking at UCLA for all project commitments
- Light refreshments
Here’s What You’ll Give
- Your time and your story (to be shown publicly)
- Access to your family story and your home to photographer and students for a day
- Audio Interview to be used as voiceover for slideshow
Requirements
Couples must be available for various dates and times, from
Thursday Jan. 29th – Friday Feb. 6th.
Dinner at UCLA Thurs, Jan 29 6 pm
Selecting Photos w/ students (1-2) @ your home Up to 6 hrs. by Appt.
(Btwn Fri Jan 30- Sun Feb 1)
Portrait by Mendel/Interview @ your home Approx 1.5 hrs by Appt. (Btwn Fri
Jan 30- Sun Feb 1)
Video-Slideshow Editing with Mendel @ UCLA (Optional. Approx 2 hr by Appt
Btwn Wed. Feb. 4th-Fri. Feb 6th)
Community Party/ @ UCLA Fri, Feb. 6th 7-9 pm
To nominate yourself and your partner for the project, send an email to robert.gordon@arts.ucla.edu or call 310-794-9208. Please tell us briefly why you want to take part in the project and convenient times for us to contact you for more information if necessary.
Please submit nominations by Thu Jan. 15th
The UCLA Art Global Health Center is looking for a diverse group of LGBT couples who are married, trying to wed, or in long term committed relationships to take part in an important and timely photography project entitled “To Have and To Hold.”
Participating couples (with or without children) will work with renowned South African photojournalist Gideon Mendel and a committed class of UCLA students on a mixed media project to highlight the human cost of Proposition 8.
About the Project
In connecting emotionally with real families – through photographs, stories, and videos – the issue of marriage equality becomes visceral, tangible, and personal.
Using existing family photographs, participants, students, and Mendel will work together to compile a set of images to be put into a photo album that tells the couple’s and/or family’s story. The album will be accompanied by a family portrait taken by Mendel.
To see Mendel’s work, go to http://www.gideonmendel.com/archive/
The photographs may be shown publicly in a variety of media, as a gallery exhibition, on the web, and possibly in a mass-media campaign. The overarching goal of “To Have and To Hold” is to raise social and public awareness about the civil rights of LGBT couples and families living in Los Angeles. This visual activism project intends to create a powerful response for social change around LGBT unions and the Proposition 8 debate. Participants will be asked to sign a waiver allowing wide use of their images and stories.
Here’s What You’ll Get
Although there will be no financial compensation for taking part in the project, participants will receive:
- One (1) professional family portrait taken by Gideon Mendel
- One (1) photo album that tells the story of your family
- The opportunity to be a spokesperson for the “To Have and To Hold” exhibition
- Complimentary Parking at UCLA for all project commitments
- Light refreshments
Here’s What You’ll Give
- Your time and your story (to be shown publicly)
- Access to your family story and your home to photographer and students for a day
- Audio Interview to be used as voiceover for slideshow
Requirements
Couples must be available for various dates and times, from
Thursday Jan. 29th – Friday Feb. 6th.
Dinner at UCLA Thurs, Jan 29 6 pm
Selecting Photos w/ students (1-2) @ your home Up to 6 hrs. by Appt.
(Btwn Fri Jan 30- Sun Feb 1)
Portrait by Mendel/Interview @ your home Approx 1.5 hrs by Appt. (Btwn Fri
Jan 30- Sun Feb 1)
Video-Slideshow Editing with Mendel @ UCLA (Optional. Approx 2 hr by Appt
Btwn Wed. Feb. 4th-Fri. Feb 6th)
Community Party/ @ UCLA Fri, Feb. 6th 7-9 pm
To nominate yourself and your partner for the project, send an email to robert.gordon@arts.ucla.edu or call 310-794-9208. Please tell us briefly why you want to take part in the project and convenient times for us to contact you for more information if necessary.
Please submit nominations by Thu Jan. 15th
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)