Law - Gay, LGBT Hub




Dublin Supports Motion in Favor Of Same-Sex Marriage: VIDEO

Fintan warfield

A motion supporting same-sex marriage was passed on June 14th in South County Dublin, Ireland.

The vote comes following last month's announcement by the Irish government that under an employment law amendment to be passed shortly, schools will no longer be allowed to fire teachers based on family status or sexual orientation.

Openly gay mayor of South County Dublin Councillor Fintan Warfield received support for his motion to extend marriage rights to include gay and lesbian couples in next year's referendum on marriage equality, reports Pink News.

The motion was passed by 34 votes to 1.

After the vote, Warfield said:

“The LGBT community is still marginalised in the Ireland of today and we must work towards changing that. Support for marriage equality and for the passing of the referendum next spring is pivotal. This referendum is about...the LGBT community being afforded the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts. This referendum is about love. It is about two people sharing in the ups and downs of life."

Civil partnerships were introduced in Ireland in 2011.

Watch Fintan Warfield speak in favor of same-sex marriage at the Sinn Féin Ard Fheis last year, AFTER THE JUMP...

Continue reading "Dublin Supports Motion in Favor Of Same-Sex Marriage: VIDEO" »


Hobby Lobby and the Democrats Who Want to Fix It

SupremesBY ARI EZRA WALDMAN

In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court's conservative majority allowed a large swath of for-profit companies to deny contraception to their female employees. Hobby Lobby, a national chain of arts and crafts stores, is a privately held, for-profit company that is run by a religious family. It's not a church. Nor is it a religious-based organization. It is simply a company that happens to be owned by religious people, but employs about 21,000 of varying beliefs. The owners objected to the part of Obamacare that required employers to provide health insurance that includes access to certain forms of contraception. They challenged that requirement and won, leaving the Supreme Court with a decision that declared that Hobby Lobby was a "person" entitled to the religious rights of persons.

We discussed the details of that decision here, in Part 1 of this three-part series on Hobby Lobby. In Part 2, I discussed how the Supreme Court actually made Hobby Lobby worse! For now, let's put aside our understandable anger at a decision that discriminates against women, denies necessary health care to those who need it, abuses precedent, and bloats religious freedoms to dangerous levels.

Hobby Lobby was a confusing decision and it is worth discussing it again not only so we can all understand it, but so we can fully appreciate its potential effects on the LGBT community. The ruling discussed religious freedom, which is enshrined in the First Amendment, but it was really based on a statute passed by Congress called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) (as if religious freedom needed to be restored). It talked about corporations deserving the freedoms of persons, but it never fully explained if corporate personhood applies to everything or just certain freedoms and rights. Then, after going out of its way to explicitly narrow and cabin the decision to very specific situations, the Court majority did an about-face the next day, possibly expanded the scope of the decision, and admitted to the American people that, sometimes, the majority's words are just words, nothing more.

The decision did a lot of damage. So much damage, in fact, that Democrats in Congress are introducing legislation to overturn the decision. Speaker Boehner's conservative majority in the House is never going to bring the bill to the floor; the act of introducing the bill of pure (and great) politics. But to most of us, the entire scenario begs the question: How can Congress introduce a bill aimed at overturning a Supreme Court decision?

AFTER THE JUMP, I delve into the legal background of the Hobby Lobby decision so we can see how the case was decided and how legislation could fix it. 

Continue reading "Hobby Lobby and the Democrats Who Want to Fix It" »


Singapore Court Of Appeals Reconsiders Ban On Gay Sex - VIDEO

Pink dot com singapore

The Singapore Court of Appeals yesterday heard arguments challenging the country’s 76-year-old ban on gay sex, reports Bloomberg.

In June, police asked attendees at Singapore's Pride rally Pink Dot to avoid comments on race and religion after Muslim and Christian groups called on followers to oppose the event.

In 2007, although provisions that made heterosexual oral and anal sex a crime were repealed, lawmakers agreed to uphold the ban on gay sex.  While the government says that the law has not been enforced since the 1990s, figures from the Home Affairs Ministry show that there were a total of 185 people convicted under section 377A from 1997 to 2006.

Lawyer Deborah Barker said that the 1938 law should either be declared void or modified to exclude sex between consenting adults in private.

Speaking to Bloomberg, Law Minister K. Shanmugam said that the majority of people support the legal framework as it stands. A survey commissioned by the government showed that about 47% of those polled rejected “gay lifestyles,” 26% percent were receptive and 27 percent neutral.

Last month, Proposition 8 spokespeople Jennifer Roback Mors and Pastor Jim Garlow spoke at a Singapore conference whose head is fighting to retain anti-gay laws. 

Watch Pink Dot's stirring report on this year's Pride rally in Singapore, AFTER THE JUMP...

Continue reading "Singapore Court Of Appeals Reconsiders Ban On Gay Sex - VIDEO" »


The Supreme Court Made Hobby Lobby Worse, for Women and for the LGBT Community

Hobbylobby

BY ARI EZRA WALDMAN

The end of a Supreme Court term usually brings a flurry of action on big cases. Last year, we got Justice Kennedy's decision in United States v. Windsor that struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act and ushered in an unbroken marriage equality winning streak in the courts. This Supreme Court docket did not include any similar LGBT law cases. Nor did it end as heroically. This year, the Court's conservative majority allowed for profit companies to discriminate against women in the provision of health care in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby

But sometimes, it's the less heralded maneuvers that make all the difference: a silent nemesis that creeps up behind you can do a lot more damage than a screaming Visigoth charging head on.

SupremesThat's what happened at the end of the Court's term last month. Justice Alito's Hobby Lobby majority opinion explicitly limited the decision to closely-held (family-run) corporations and explicitly limited it to the particular forms of contraception that were at issue in the case. The justices in the majority went out of their way to say that the decision leaves antidiscrimination laws intact, that it does not apply to publicly-traded corporations, that the decision should be confined to its facts. What's more, the Court also stated that one of the main reasons the government could not compel for-profit companies to provide objectionable health care was because there already was a viable work around aimed at religious nonprofits. Those organizations fill out a form attesting to their religious objection and the contraception would be provided directly from the health care company and not through the employer.

Not 24 hours later, the Court proved to us that all those words meant nothing. After issuing a decision, the Court also ordered lower courts to rehear related cases that could be changed by the decision. If Justice Alito and the majority could be taken at their word, the only cases that would need rehearing were those cases within the explicit narrow confines of Hobby Lobby. But the order went further. To the great consternation of Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan (notably, the three female justices on the Court), the majority ordered lower courts to rehear all pending cases involved religious exemptions to the contraception requirement, not just cases involving companies like Hobby Lobby and not just cases involving the particular forms of contraception involved in the case. And, as if that were not enough, the Court enjoined the very workaround meant for nonprofits that it appeared to endorse in Hobby Lobby as a viable alternative.

Left-leaning bloggers and writers -- not to mention the three female justices on the Court -- were apoplectic. The Court seems to have gone back on its word. Perhaps worse, the Court has broadened an already dangerous decision.

I summarize what the Court did, why Justice Sotomayor seemed so irate in her dissent, and why this matters for the LGBT community, AFTER THE JUMP...

Continue reading "The Supreme Court Made Hobby Lobby Worse, for Women and for the LGBT Community" »


Oklahoma Lesbian Student Expelled For Marrying Her Girlfriend

Minard

Southwestern Christian University student Christian Minard has been expelled from the Oklahoma college for marrying her girlfriend, reports Religion News Service.

The university is affiliated with the International Pentecostal Holiness Church in Bethany, Oklahoma, which has consistently opposed homosexuality and same-sex marriage.

ASouthwestern christian university oklahomas part of her admission requirements, 22-year-old Minard, who is one semester from completing her sports management degree, signed a lifestyle covenant that prohibits “homosexual behavior,” harassment, sexual misconduct, pornography, alcohol, tobacco and other “sins.”

Minard and Kadyn Parks were married on March 17. On July 9, a letter from the university’s vice president Brad Davis, arrived at Minard’s parents’ home, telling her she was being expelled.

The letter read in part:

“I was informed that you recently married someone of the same sex and saw a few pictures from Facebook. Of course, this is opposing to our view as an International Pentecostal Holiness denominational university as well as the Lifestyle Covenant that all students must agree and sign.”

Speaking to The Washington Post, Minard said “other students violate parts of the covenant all the time, but they don’t get expelled.”

Although university provost Connie Sjoberg declined to comment, she cited the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974, which prohibits colleges from disclosing information about students, even to parents.

(image facebook)


Teacher Fired For Being Gay in 1972 Receives Apology 42 Years Later: VIDEO

Gaylord

Washington-based Jim Gaylord, fired for being gay in 1972, will finally receive an apology from the Tacoma School District, reports The Olympian.

When confronted by the the vice principal at Wilson High School, Gaylord decided that he couldn’t live a lie any longer and confirmed rumors that he was gay.

The termination of his contract came after a Wilson student approached Gaylord to discuss the student’s same-sex attractions.  After a later suicide attempt, the student related to police that he had spoken to Gaylord.  The police visited the school and the vice principal then paid a visit to Gaylord.

A letter received by the former teacher informing him that he was fired read in part:

“The specific probable cause for your discharge is that you have admitted occupying a public status that is incompatible with the conduct required of teachers in this district. Specifically, that you have admitted being a publicly known homosexual.”

Gaylord never returned to teaching and a long court battle that went to the U.S. Supreme Court was unsuccessful.

Although Gaylord did not seek the apology, he said that it will help to “put a relatively pleasant end on an unpleasant situation.”

Last week, Flint Dollar, a teacher in Macon, Georgia, filed a sex discrimination lawsuit against a school after his contract was not renewed when the school found out he plans to marry a man.

 Watch KIRO7's report on the apology, AFTER THE JUMP...

Continue reading "Teacher Fired For Being Gay in 1972 Receives Apology 42 Years Later: VIDEO" »


Trending



Towleroad - Blogged