"US court to hear appeal by Gay Marriage Opponents"

A recent law in Washington state has given homosexual couples added benefits and expanded rights. A group called "Protect Marriage Washington" succeeded in petitioning the state to get a referendum on the law. Over 130,000 people signed the petition, and "Protect Marriage Washington" is worried about the names on this petition being disclosed to the public, for fear of their supporters being harassed. The case will be heard by a US court sometime in late April.

"At issue is whether signing a referendum is a form of political speech protected by the First Amendment and whether there is a right to sign it without public disclosure... Some supporters of gay rights had vowed to put the names of those who signed the petition on the Internet."

On one side, the argument is that these voters have a right to not be harassed for signing, and that we should protect them from any possibility of harassment. On the other, these petitions belong to public records, and when you sign a petition, you have an understanding that people will be able to see if you signed it. The referendum, by the way, failed.

I'm unsure what to think of this. I certainly think that the group "Protect Marriage Washington" has a significant case. It seems to me that they do have the right to avoid any possibility of harassment. On the other hand, I think the idea of an "anonymous petition" for anything takes the power of it away. It's very difficult to take anything an anonymous group says seriously, because they're not willing to step forward for their beliefs. The point of a petition is to be able to attach names to numbers, and this is what gives it weight. I'm kind of annoyed with the few gay rights supporters that want to post these names on the internet, because it seems to imply some kind of desire to have these people harassed. It doesn't actually help the gay rights cause. Ideally, the names could be published as a part of public records, and no one would be threatening to harass these people. Unfortunately, that's not what will happen. Either the nature of a petition will change (and I think make it weaker, but who am I to say?), or people will be harassed.

More Benefits For Same-Sex Couples

A majority of the media attention is placed on whether same sex couples can get married. However, there has been significant progress in granting same sex couples health and other benefits in courtrooms and legislature. In Congress last week, a House committee approved legislation that would provide benefits, including health insurance, retirement and disability, to same-sex partners of federal employees. (read more about specific examples in the link embedding in the title.) Even one of the most prominent opponents of same-sex marriage, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, has shown willingness to support rights outside of marriage, by backing a Salt Lake City law prohibiting housing and employment discrimination against gays. However, voters in Maine repealed the state law that allowed same sex couples to wed.

It's enlightening to see that we've made progress in gay rights. However, I don't understand why so many people want to prohibit an official marriage. In Washington state, voters recently endorsed an "everything but marriage" bill that expands domestic partnership rights to lesbians, gays and unmarried elderly couples. See, I don't understand the point of that at all. It seems so strange that 57 percent of Americans oppose granting same-sex marriages legal status, but the same poll found that 67 percent would grant them access to health insurance and other benefits. Would anybody from this ten percent care to explain to me this?

Gay marriage at risk in Maine

There is an old election saying: As Maine goes so goes the country. Today voters in Maine have the chance to either support or reject gay marriage. Hopefully, Maine voters will go to support, and so will the country. The gay marriage law was passed in May but never went into effect because of a conservative petition. New England is typically one of the most supportive regions of gay marriage and this law being repealed would be quite a hard blow to gay rights activists. Don't follow in California's footsteps!!

Click on the title for a link to a blog about this issue

Ignorant or Just Plain Racist?

Today, many Civil Liberties groups are calling for the resignation of Louisiana Justice, Keith Bardwell. Apparently, the Louisiana Justice of Peace of Tangipahoa Parish in the southeastern part of the state, refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple. Earlier this month, Beth Humphrey, a white woman, and Terence McKay, a black man, were refused a marriage license by the Louisiana justice.

In response, Baldwell, the white Lousiana justice said that he thinks that any future children of interracial couples will have a troubled life. Wow, what a strong statement! I mean, I think Barack Obama, the child of an interracial couple, is completely troubled, being the president and all. Many other people with Liberties groups have expressed similar sentiments. In fact, Bill Quigley, director of the Center for Constitutional Rights and Justice, specifically said "Perhaps he's worried the kids will grow up and be president," ("he" referring to the justice).

After other angry people started to show their distaste, the Justice stopped answering his phone and Thursday, he specifically stated "No one's ever complained about it before...I do it to protect the children. The kids are innocent and I worry about their futures." This is exactly an example of stepping backwards into a time when the US was very racist. This very action is undermining the efforts of the Civil Rights Movements in the 1960s.

The justice actually believes that what he is doing is correct and is in no way racist at all. This is the kind of ignorance that damages the American image. Although I can't say whether Baldwell deserves to lose his job, it is clear that he just hurt his public opinion very much, just like Kanye and his embarrasing episode at the MTV awards.

Baldwell was a justice for 34 years, and he says that everytime he ran without opposition. However, after his current term expires, he will not try for another. Smart move.

-Henry Zhang

Palin seeks federal ban on gay marriage

I just read this article that said that Palin wants there to be a federal ban on gay marriage, rather than McCain's views to make it a state issue. I think this is bad for the McCain campaign to get some moderate votes, and he was already having some trouble with that like Moeka said earlier. At least someone in this election is taking a firm stance, because I can't really tell Biden or Obama's stance on this issue from what htey have said. I wonder if they really aren't for it, or want more votes, and the same for McCain because leaving it to the states doesn't give a concrete answer even though they've all said they are against it. It'll be interesting to see how this news affects McCain's poll ratings.

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20081020/Palin.Gay.Marriage/

Original Article ^