My Sites

Showing posts with label civil unions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label civil unions. Show all posts

Tuesday, 7 December 2010

The Fall of Rome, Reality Based History – and Gay Adoption



The vocal opponents of family equality are fond of making sweeping statements (in flagrant disregard of the evidence) about how marriage has "always" been between one man and on woman, how the proponents of equality are "redefining" evidence, quite ignoring the ways in marriage has been constantly redefined in the past - not least by the Christian churches. A variation on the theme has been that homosexuality has destroyed great civilizations, such as that of Rome. Illinois state Rep. Ronald Stephens has repeated this claim, blaming "open homosexuality" for the fall of Rome.

In a fun, sane response in the Chicago Sun-Times, Neill Steinberg dismisses the claim, basing his response on, well, historical fact, not what he calls Stephens' talking points. His most important observation is that the best known extensive study of the fall of Rome, Edward Gibbons "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", concluded that Roman civilization collapsed not because of homosexuality, but because of - guess what? Christianity.

Would that be a argument to ban Christianity today, for fear that it could cause the collapse of modern Western civilization?

The point I want to make is not that Gibbons was either right or wrong, but to heartily endorse Steinberg's larger point, that grand claims about the lessons of history really ought to be checked against the facts. This is certainly true in the secular sphere, but also in religious discourse. The often -repeated Vatican claims of Catholic "constant and unchanging tradition" are a smokescreen, often used to used to hide the importance of recently introduced changes, as Martin Pendergast noted recently, writing about gradualism in Benedict's theology.

But today, I do not want to explore this theme of the Church's constantly changing tradition. Let's just enjoy, instead, Steinberg's thoroughly delightful response to rep Stephens' ignorance. Here are some extracts:

Sunday, 7 November 2010

Blessing Same Sex Unions in Toronto

There is no longer any doubt in my mind that widepread, formal recognition by Christian churches of same-sex unions, by liturgical rites in church, is on the way - one small step at a time.
One of these small steps is in the diocese of Toronto, where the local archbishop has given pastoral guidelines for blessing same sex unions. Technically, the impact will be only local, in his own archdiocese, and limited to a simple blessing, not full marriage. Effectively, though, this one of those small steps that makes subsequent strides that much easier. Civil marriage for same sex couples is already a well-established fact of life in Canada. Church blessings in Toronto will soon spread across the nation, just as civil marriage did after a purely local introduction. From country-wide blessing of civil unions, to blessing civil marriages, to full church weddings, will be easy steps. Sweden already has gay and lesbian church weddings in the Lutheran church, with which Anglicans and Episcopalians are in communion. Other Scandinavian churches will soon follow suit - as will Canadian Anglicans, just a little later.

Archbishop Johnson with Queen Elizabeth, 2010


Wednesday, 21 July 2010

Irish Civil Partnership Bill Signed.


Irish President Mary McAleese has signed into law the provision of Civil Partnerships, which will provide Irish gay and lesbian couples with a legal status almost identical to that of heterosexual married couples - but not adoption rights. This is very similar to the UK Civil Partnership legislation. That too does not cover adoption, which was provided for separately.


In this deeply Catholic country, the legislation was strongly opposed by the Catholic bishops - who lost badly, It is notable that this legislation was not just passed, but warmly welcomed by the Justice Minster as "one of the most important pieces of civil rights legislation ...  since independence"  




Signing into law of new civil Bill welcomed


THE SIGNING into law yesterday of the Civil Partnership Bill was welcomed across the political spectrum and also by groups that have campaigned for legal recognition for same-sex couples in Ireland.
The Bill was signed into law by President Mary McAleese at Áras an Uachtaráin yesterday morning.
Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern said it was “one of the most important pieces of civil rights legislation to be enacted since independence”.
The Green Party’s justice spokesman Trevor Sargent also warmly welcomed the development, describing it as a significant step forward and a stepping stone towards greater equality in society.
While the Bill has now been enacted, it cannot fully commence until commensurate changes take place in social welfare, tax and pensions legislation.
Those changes are likely to be made in the Finance Bill and Social Welfare Bill drafted following December’s budget.
The changes will pave the way for the first civil partnership registrations to take place in January next year.



-(Full report from the Irish Times)

Wednesday, 30 June 2010

In Vermont, 10 Years of Civil Unions

It is now 10 years since the start of legal recognition for same sex unions in Vermont, just 11 years after a comparable start in Denmark. For a time, both Vermont in the US and Denmark internationally were seen as remarkable exceptions: idiosyncracies in that were unlikely to be emulated in more mainstream states and nations. However, after some initial delay, and increasing number of others followed, and even upped the game. 


MONTPELIER, Vt.—When Lois Farnham and Holly Puterbaugh were joined in civil union 10 years ago Thursday, some of their friends didn't come for fear they'd lose their jobs, and the church asked that plainclothes police officers attend the ceremony in case there was trouble.
A decade later, Vermont and four other states—Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Iowa, as well as the District of Columbia—have instituted full marriage for same-sex couples, and the Burlington couple say many people view their relationship as "ho-hum."
Vermont was the first jurisdiction in the country to offer most of the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples. Massachusetts instituted full same-sex marriage in 2004 in response to a state court's order. Last year, Vermont's Legislature became the first to approve full marriage for those couples without a court's prompting.
"At the time, civil unions were so radical," Farnham said this week. "Now it's the fallback, conservative issue."



What has been remarkable in recent years though, is how quickly, after the slow beginning, the idea has spread. In Europe, almost all countries have or are planning some form of provision for same sex partnerships, and seven have already upgraded to full marriage, with more on the way. In the US, early progress towards marriage equality was meet with a strong political backlash, but even here progress has been substantial and is accelerating.

Friday, 30 April 2010

Hawaii Surprise: Civil Unions Approved.

Who saw this coming? The path to gay marriage began in Hawaii way back in 1993, with a state Supreme Court decision. Five years later, a popular vote placed a ban on same sex unions. Since then, the supporters of marriage equality have launched repeated attempts to get civil unions approved, but have struggled even to bring it to a vote. A determined push last year fizzled out, and this year looked to be headed the same way - until this week, when a last minute decision on the final day of the session brought success.

Cross fingers now, that the Republican governor does not veto it.

From the Honolulu Advertiser:

Historic civil-unions bill gets House OK

State House lawmakers yesterday approved a bill that would give same-sex and heterosexual couples the ability to enter into civil unions and enjoy the same rights as married couples under state law. The 31-20 vote followed an improbable decision by state House Majority Leader Blake Oshiro, the bill's sponsor, to revive civil unions on the last day of the 60-day session. The House, focusing primarily on the state's budget deficit and concerned about the influence of civil unions on election year politics, had indefinitely postponed action on the bill after it passed the state Senate in January.
Earlier this week, Oshiro said he would not bring back the bill but indicated that others might. He said he decided on Wednesday evening, when it became clear that another lawmaker would try to force a vote, that he should be the one to make the motion.

The bill now goes to Gov. Linda Lingle,  a Republican, who has not said whether she would sign, veto or allow the bill to become law without her signature.

Friday, 2 April 2010

Civil Unions for Pennsylvania?

While Maggie Gallagher's NAM (National organisation Against Marriage) continues to insist that the momentum towards marriage equality has been reversed, the evidence contradicts her.  The much vaunted New Hampshire town hall meetings to begin a process to undo last year's legislation turned out to be a damp squib. In Maryland, moves to impeach the AG for his opinion on recognising out of state nuptials were rejected. In Iowa, on the anniversary of the recognition of marriage for all, attempts to ignite a popular repeal are going nowhere.  In California, opinion polls now show a clear majority in favour of marriage, and the repeal of prop 8 is now just a matter of timing the ballot. Elsewhere across the globe, advances for marriage are seen in more and more countries, including somewhat unexpectedly, Slovenia, Albania, Cyprus and Nepal. It is not the movement towards marriage equality that has stalled, but the attempts to impose constitutional bans.

Meanwhile, in the Pennsylvania  state legislature, the recent failure of attempts to ban marriage have now been followed by an attempt to introduce civil unions.  State rep Mark Cohen says he has 24 co-sponsors signed up, with another 10 "considering".  Even so, he believes that his chances of success are low - this year. I like this approach, which is more honest than sitting on bills until passage can be assured. Bringing a bill to the vote is a way to force opponents to crawl out of the woodwork and declare their opposition publicly - and may even flush out some surprising supporters. More importantly, the process begins public discussion.  If the bill does not pass this year, it will be re-introduced repeatedly until it does - and will then pave the way for full marriage.

As in California and Maine,New York and New Jersey, the disappointments of the past eighteen months will be overcome.
"To those who persevere, failure is only temporary".
Full marriage recognition is on its way. The only real question is - "When?"

From Philadelphia Gay News:


Civil-union bill to hit PA House