Lots of new in advance of the U. S. elections this coming Tuesday. Here are some of the highlights:
An Alaska Superior Court will order the state to change its proposed requirements for benefits given to same-sex partners of state employees. Among other things, it ordered that partners who are jointly responsible for a child could use that to qualify for benefits. Last year, the ACLU argued that the state’s original rules, including a relationship exclusivity requirement of 12 months, were too burdensome. The new measure shortens that to six, and asks the state to add benefits, including the right to personal leave upon medical disability or death of a partner. Sigh. Here’s one more example of how the term “marriage” cuts through the clutter and immediately conveys a certain set of rights and assumptions. No need to waste time deciding what rights same-sex couples should and shouldn’t have. (See Terrance’s post, What Rights Should Same-Sex Couples Not Have? for further discussion.) I’ll also opine that any jurisdiction requiring a “relationship exclusivity” requirement for same-sex couples should also require it for opposite-sex couples who wish to marry.- Evangelical pastor Ted Haggard, a vocal supporter of a proposed same-sex marriage ban in Colorado, resigned after admitting that he bought methamphetamine and got a massage from a gay prostitute. Speculation is that this could deter evangelicals from going to the polls Tuesday in support of the marriage ban.
- The Georgia State Court of Appeals rejected the request of a lesbian mom who wanted to revoke her former partner’s adoption of her biological child. The attorney for the biological mom said they will appeal to the state Supreme Court. (Thanks to Queerty for the sighting.)
- Massachusetts Senate President Robert Travaglini plans to proceed with a constitutional convention next week to discuss a proposed 2008 ballot question to ban same-sex marriage in the state. The proposed question reads “When recognizing marriages entered into after the adoption of this amendment by the people, the Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall define marriage only as the union of one man and one woman.” As I read it, this means the same-sex couples who marry before the amendment is adopted would still be married. I’m not sure what purpose this serves, other than to confuse further the question of who gets what rights.
- A poll of New Jersey residents indicated that support for a same-sex marriage ban has grown in the days since the state Supreme Court ruling. Now, a little over half support a ban; in June, a little more than half opposed it. My sense is that it’s still early days yet, and too soon to draw any firm conclusion from such polls.
- Support for a same-sex marriage ban in South Dakota is falling, with supporters and opponents now running nearly neck and neck.
And around the world:
- Reuters reports on the growing political clout of the gay community in Brazil, and the impact it could have on upcoming elections, even in the face of opposition from Catholics and better organized Protestant evangelicals.
- Conservative candidates in Alberta, Canada are split on the issue of same-sex marriage, with one urging a fight against the federal law, one supporting it, some wanting to protect the “religious rights” of those who don’t want their children to be taught about same-sex relationships, and others waiting for the federal government to revisit the issue.
- A South African parliamentary committee delayed a decision on proposed same-sex partnership legislation in order to discuss the measure further. As with the recent New Jersey Supreme Court ruling, the proposed legislation pleases neither conservatives, who fear it undermines tradition, nor LGBT-rights activists, who dislike that it still bans same-sex couples from marriage.
