Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Sunday news roundup – marriage equality in Ireland, Scotland, Australia and Cuba

Marriage equality Uncategorized

By Ana Beatriz Cholo

Here’s an international news round-up. Why not? It’s good to know what’s happening in other parts of the world and know that we’re not living in a vacuum. We have brothers and sisters around the globe fighting for the same issues we are.

  • Thousands of people marched for marriage equality in Dublin, Ireland, this weekend. The country’s Civil Partnership Act 2011 cements inequality in Irish society, activists say. Under the current law, if one parent in a same-sex marriage dies, the other parent has limited care rights for the child. Interestingly enough, a recent poll found that three-quarters of Irish people are in favor of gay marriage. Pleasantly surprised? I was.
  • Across the water in Scotland, the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey reveals that in 2010 almost two-thirds of people (61%) support same-sex marriage, up from 41% in 2002. One politician, however, seems to be a bit conflicted. John Mason, a member of the Scottish Parliament, claims that he is not anti-gay and is “perfectly relaxed” about same-sex marriages. He is concerned, however, about pissing off church ministers who might have issues with gay people getting married. A messy court case might be in his country’s future, he thinks.
  • Hundreds of gay and lesbian activists, some dressed as Jesus Christ and the Pope, held rallies in cities across Australia on Saturday. LGBT supporters in Australia are trying to pressure the government to legalize same-sex marriage. In 2004, an amendment to the Marriage Act was passed which bans same-sex marriage. The protests were held ahead of the Australian Labor Party’s National Conference in December where gay marriage will be debated. Coincidentally, the debate over same-sex marriage is getting renewed attention thanks to a prominent lesbian cabinet member. Federal Finance Minister Penny Wong recently revealed that she and her partner are expecting a baby in December.
  • And then, of course, there’s Cuba’s first gay wedding. A transgender woman and gay man were married on Fidel Castro’s 85th birthday Saturday. According to news reports, the wedding was a gift to Castro and is aimed at advancing gay rights in Cuba.

 

 

Tags: , , ,

61 Comments

  • 1. Fluffyskunk  |  August 14, 2011 at 11:47 am

    How is that a "gay wedding", and how is he "gay"?

  • 2. Sam_Handwich  |  August 14, 2011 at 12:01 pm

    Sam Handwich is also confused.

  • 3. JonT  |  August 14, 2011 at 12:21 pm

    Hmm. From the article:

    'Their union is not classified as a same-sex marriage, which is illegal in Cuba, because Iriepa underwent gender-reassignment surgery in 2007 in the first such operation sanctioned by the state.'

    So technically, not a gay wedding…

  • 4. Steve  |  August 14, 2011 at 2:13 pm

    Maybe it's just for show, but technically a gay man would not be attracted to a post-op transwoman. Weird

  • 5. AnonyGrl  |  August 14, 2011 at 9:18 pm

    When it comes to love, I don't know that "technically" means anything. If they met and fell in love before the woman had transitioned, or maybe even before she realized she WAS transgendered, then she transitioned later, would he necessarily fall out of love or suddenly be no longer attracted?

    Would you?

    I think the issue here is that they self identify as a gay man and a transgendered woman, and we should simply accept that and leave it to them to decide what their technicalities are.

  • 6. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  August 14, 2011 at 4:06 pm

    How is that a gift to Castro?

  • 7. _BK_  |  August 15, 2011 at 5:06 am

    While reading the article I thought Castro allowed a same-sex couple to wed, and that would be the gift. But… since they're not in a same-sex relationship, then…? Perhaps this is a mark of progress when it comes to transgendered rights in Cuba.

  • 8. Sam_Handwich  |  August 14, 2011 at 12:37 pm

    No, it's not a "gay wedding" at all (and i absolutely loathe that terminology to begin with).

    This Cuban marriage is considered legal only because one party has a penis and the other a vagina. Perhaps they both still identify as "gay men". Who knows. But the fact remains that they were only allowed to get married AFTER ONE HAD SURGERY! I hardly view this as progress…it's more like a celebration of stereotypes that confuse the issues of gender and sexuality.

  • 9. AnonyGrl  |  August 14, 2011 at 9:23 pm

    Without having all the facts, I don't know that we should be judging WHAT this means. It may well be GREAT progress on many fronts… the transgendered woman was the first one sanctioned by the state to have the surgery, the fact that they were allowed to marry at all may be huge progress for Cuba.

    It might be fantastic progress for them, and I hope it is and wish them well.

  • 10. Sam_Handwich  |  August 15, 2011 at 6:31 am

    I think what I and others have taken issue with is Ann's use of the term "gay wedding" to describe what is, quite apparently, an opposite gender wedding. Or perhaps I'm unaware of some subtle difference between the terms "gay wedding" and "same sex marriage".

    In other words, if, hypothetically, Marcus Bachmann is gay, does that mean he and Michelle had a "gay wedding" when they tied the knot?

  • 11. AnonyGrl  |  August 15, 2011 at 6:54 am

    If Mr. and Mrs. Bachmann want to refer to theirs as a gay wedding, who am I to question it? Would *I* label it as such? No, but it is not up to me.

    Much the same way that if I were to get married to a man OR a woman, I would call it a "marriage", not a "gay marriage", not a "bisexual marriage". I think it is up to ME to decide what to call it, and after all, isn't that what we are really fighting for, the right to get married and call it what we want to call it?

  • 12. Sam_Handwich  |  August 15, 2011 at 7:07 am

    I dunno. When i was freezing my tushie off for many hours in front of the Massachusetts State House, i was advocating for my right to marry my same gender partner without having to undergo radical surgical alterations.

    Unless i've been missing something for the last decade, SAME SEX MARRIAGE is the issue we're fighting for; it is, after all, the very CORE of the Prop 8 case, and this wedding in Cuba does not pass the test.

  • 13. AnonyGrl  |  August 15, 2011 at 7:56 am

    This is a HUGE problem within the LGBT (and lots of other letters that we always forget) community. While we fight for same sex marriage, we neglect transgendered issues, we don't even consider the implications of bisexuality, anyone intersexed, questioning or any other variation is completely ignored… and so on.

    Yes, same sex marriage. But the larger issue is equality for ALL, is it not? And as such, with our fight to define marriage as being simply between two people, does it matter who those two are, and is it up to us to put limits on that? Equality has to apply to everyone, no matter who they are, or were, or will be. If all I have been fighting for is to allow two men or two women to marry, then I have been sadly neglecting part of our family that may have less voice and need even more support.

  • 14. Steve  |  August 15, 2011 at 9:03 am

    The issue for transgender people is whether their biological or their assigned sex counts. There are states that go by their birth sex, which ironically allows them to marry same-sex partners after gender reassignment.

    Theoretically, solving this could be part of a marriage equality law.

  • 15. AnonyGrl  |  August 15, 2011 at 9:46 am

    For all of me, marriage equality needs to be universally gender neutral. Then if the couple in Cuba wants to call it "gay marriage" or the Bachmann's want to call it "traditional marriage" or someone else wants to call it "intergalactic marriage" it does not matter. It is all marriage, with the same rights and responsibilities for all.

  • 16. Elizabeth_Oakes  |  August 15, 2011 at 10:50 am

    The solution as I see it would be that any two consenting adults who which to incorporate as family under the laws of marriage should be allowed to do so, without the Government mandating requirements or approval for the contents of their underpants.

  • 17. Kevin S.  |  August 14, 2011 at 2:10 pm

    Not sure how 61% is "almost two thirds" – that feels like the type of exaggeration our opponents pull to make it seem like they have more support than they actually do.

  • 18. jpmassar  |  August 14, 2011 at 2:30 pm

    It's closer to 2/3rds than to 1/2, but yeah, it is hyperbole. They could have just say 'more than 60%…'

  • 19. Steve  |  August 14, 2011 at 2:14 pm

    Two thirds is 66%, so it's fairly close

  • 20. Bill S.  |  August 14, 2011 at 2:59 pm

    What's the word in Luxembourg, Uruguay, and Nepal? I thought those three countries were supposed to be legalizing equal marriage soon.

  • 21. _BK_  |  August 14, 2011 at 10:14 pm

    I, too, would like to know. But it'll likely just take more time for things to happen in those countries. It seems like we spend most of our time waiting. :\

  • 22. canada = freedom  |  August 14, 2011 at 11:30 pm

    well luxembourg has a bill in parlaiment but it has not been voted on yet or even debated, nepal is still in the process of promulgating its constitution and that keeps on getting pushed back and uruguay will probably not do anything until the fall but that one is likely to happen quicly as there ise no real opposition to the bill. the hope is by the end of the year, the number will be at least 13 countires that allow ssm

  • 23. _BK_  |  August 15, 2011 at 5:11 am

    Thanks for the info. I can't imagine the Luxembourg bill being defeated, unless the Catholic Church has a heavy presence there, but I don't know much about Luxembourg's politics or demographics. Nepal… grrr… they're taking their sweet time… they were supposed to be done with their new constitution by now, weren't they? As for Uruguay, can't wait!

  • 24. Seth from Maryland  |  August 15, 2011 at 11:45 am

    i been talking to some friends of mine in Finland and the said Finland may have marriage equality by the end of this year

  • 25. Seth from Maryland  |  August 15, 2011 at 2:08 pm

    as for whats going on in Australia , I think it might actually happen , a new indenpendent National showed 70% of the people of Australia support equality (thats the highest support for marriage equality i have personally seen) Australia is really personal to my sister and her partner who's from Australia. i really hope by next year my sister can marry her partner in her home state of Maryland, and can marry in her partner's country

  • 26. José Merentes  |  August 14, 2011 at 3:06 pm

    It´s amazing! Coincidentially I have been through research and I found this:
    In Karner c.Austria, July 24, 2003, and E.B. c. France, Grand Chamber, 22 January 2008, the Strasbourg Court found that when faced with a difference of treatment based on sex or sexual orientation the principle proportionality "requires not merely that the measure chosen is in principle suitable for achieving the desired objective…it must also be shown that it was necessary to exclude from the people who engage in homosexual unions the application of the contested provision in order to achieve this goal. "
    The principle is reaffirmed in Schalk and Kopf c. Austria, June 24, 2010.

  • 27. José Merentes  |  August 14, 2011 at 3:07 pm

    Schalk and Kopf v.Austria (I translated directly from italian, sorry).

  • 28. Ann S.  |  August 14, 2011 at 3:25 pm

    §

  • 29. Alan_Eckert  |  August 15, 2011 at 9:30 am

  • 30. Zander1986  |  August 14, 2011 at 7:02 pm

    I know this may be a little early, and off topic… but, is anyone paying attention to who is going to run for presidency? Are there any that we need to watch out for? Just from what I've seen, Bachmann isn't too keen on LGBT people… any others?

  • 31. _BK_  |  August 14, 2011 at 10:15 pm

    Well, Pawlenty quit, so there are three (or four?) more out there who signed onto NOM's pledge. I'm pretty sure either Bachmann, Perry, or Romney will win the nomination, and all three have publicly denounced marriage equality. I'm pretty sure B & P have endorsed a federal marriage amendment, I don't know about Romney. Disappointing field, nonetheless.

  • 32. Leo  |  August 15, 2011 at 5:20 am

    Well, NOM's pledge includes FMA, and Romney signed it, so…

  • 33. _BK_  |  August 15, 2011 at 6:05 am

    You're right. Too bad Huntsman isn't likely to win the NOMination – he's too much of a moderate for social conservatives. *sigh*

  • 34. Seth from Maryland  |  August 15, 2011 at 11:54 am

    i hope Bachmann starts losing too really bad and drops outs, maybie her followers will be less likely turn out in Minnesota in 2012 ,giving us more of a chance to defeat the anti equality amendment

  • 35. peterplumber  |  August 15, 2011 at 5:47 am

    Bachman could be dangerous for many reasons. Here is one reason (bolding mine):

    Bachmann studied with John Eidsmoe, whom she described in 2011 as "one of the professors who had a great influence on me". Bachmann worked as a research assistant on Eidsmoe's 1987 book Christianity and the Constitution, which argues that the United States was founded as a Christian theocracy, and should become one again.

  • 36. Lora  |  August 14, 2011 at 7:57 pm

    Bachmann getting grilled…and of course, not answering the questions.
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/vp/44136510#4

  • 37. AnonyGrl  |  August 14, 2011 at 9:30 pm

    "I think my views are clear"

    Yes… you are a homophobic nutjob.

  • 38. _BK_  |  August 14, 2011 at 10:16 pm

    Lol.

  • 39. Reformed  |  August 15, 2011 at 12:07 pm

    Bachmann says her only criterial (for administration appointees) is following the constitution, qualification, and holding her views. So, presumably, an openly gay candidate would be acceptable in her administration if they were qualified, followed the constitution, and believed that marriage should only be between a man and a woman?

    If the outright bigotry of this woman weren't enough, the deer in the headlights look as she struggles to keep her composure while tap dancing around the incongruity of statements like same sex marriage is the defining issue and now "its not what people are concerned about."

    How is "thats not what people are concerned about" an appropriate answer to a question about her stance on marriage equality? Its "Meet the Press" afterall, not the "Michelle Bachmann show."

    I will still vote for her in the primaries however!

  • 40. AnonyGrl  |  August 15, 2011 at 1:42 pm

    And answering every pointed question with "I am running for President" is quite odd. I am guessing she was DRILLED on that answer, because they are trying to avoid any Palinisms… but it sure makes her look like "I KNOW I cannot answer that without stepping in the dogsh*t and then immediately putting my foot in my mouth, so I am going to DEFLECT… cause that's what they trained me to do!"

  • 41. Ronnie  |  August 15, 2011 at 2:01 pm

    Every time she says "I am running for President"… I want the interviewer to say "No shite sherlock"…… ; ) …Ronnie

  • 42. Zander1986  |  August 15, 2011 at 7:25 pm

    I feel it's very scary that she is seriously being considered…

  • 43. AnonyGrl  |  August 14, 2011 at 9:25 pm

    And Pawlenty, who JUST finished touring with NOM, has now dropped out.

    Anybody for sponsoring a Bachmann/NOM bus tour?

  • 44. _BK_  |  August 14, 2011 at 10:16 pm

    I'd probably chip in… it would be worth watching it fail… *wink*

  • 45. _BK_  |  August 15, 2011 at 5:14 am

    I will be making a few t-shirts for myself celebrating the repeal of DADT. One shirt each for the 19th, 20th, and 21st. Does anyone here have plans concerning the repeal?

  • 46. AnonyGrl  |  August 15, 2011 at 6:58 am

    I am going to ask. And tell.

    I am not in the military, so I take on very little risk, but there it is.

    Other than that, I am just planning to enjoy a few minutes of living in a better world than the one we had last year at this time. Then I am going to look and see what we need to work on next.

    What are your t-shirts going to say?

  • 47. _BK_  |  August 16, 2011 at 5:27 am

    Don't laugh, because my t-shirts aren't going to be anything spectacular. I was just planning on having a statement on each shirt, and hopefully a few inquisitive folks would ask what they mean. The words would be in all caps:

    Sept 19th: "One more day"
    Sept 20th: "Ding, dong, DADT is dead!"
    Sept 21st: "One day anniversary"

    I'm no clothing designer, but hopefully people will ask questions like "one more day until what?" and "what's the anniversary for?" The t-shirt for the 20th is a tad more forward.

  • 48. Leo  |  August 15, 2011 at 6:56 am

    OT: Today is the deadline for the House's response in the Pedersen case: Motion to Dismiss and opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment. I'm guessing it will be very similar to the filing two weeks ago in the Windsor case. One thing to watch for may be whether Paul Clement will change tack with regard to citing articles as a result of the Motion to Strike in Windsor. The more interesting deadline (I think) is this coming Friday in the Windsor case: plaintiff's reply to BLAG and DOJ's brief.

  • 49. FlexSF  |  August 15, 2011 at 7:19 am

    I may be wrong, but I think the reply thingy already happned. Unfortunately I can't cite which P8TT post it was posted on. From my understanding, the Plaintiffs eviscerated Clement's argument. They expect the court to throw out essential elements of Clement's "evidence". Because Clement failed to present one witness, whatsoever, he cited phony experts as marriage gurus to prove his point. Maggie G., of the NOM, was one of them. (fail) The plaintiffs expect his arguments to be tossed because they can't cross examine a book; conversely, their real, authentic, certified, marriage experts were put to the test. (The same experts from the Perry v Schwarzenegger trial) But I may be wrong. I should STFU. Good day.

  • 50. Leo  |  August 15, 2011 at 7:26 am

    That was the Motion to Strike: the plaintiff asked the court to throw out that "evidence." The Reply is still pending.

  • 51. Ronnie  |  August 15, 2011 at 8:00 am

    Subscribing & sharing……..

    I have quite a bit to catch up on. I went to Fire Island this weekend with my cousin & friends so I cut myself off from the world to enjoy the beach, good food, strong drinks, & the view. I had a fun & relaxing weekend.

    Then I came home & read this sad news. I'm not sure if it was posted already, apologies for double post if it was……

    Remembering Christina Santiago http://www.noh8campaign.com/article/remembering-c

    My heart goes out to five people killed in the stage collapse at the Indiana State Fair. Their families & friends are in my thoughts. Christina Santiago was one of them. She was an LGBT advocate. Here is a piece about her from the NOH8 Campaign including a photo of her with her partner Alisha Marie Brennon.

    Santiago "was a fierce advocate. She was as brilliant as she was beautiful. She was the greatest advocate for equal health care for all. That love doesn't die, it lives on," ……"She has been a leading and driving force in the expansion of our women's health services division and a powerful advocate for all LGBT women." ~ Jamal Edwards, president & CEO of Howard Brown……Christina was program manager at the Howard Brown Health Center's Lesbian Community Care Project.

    Rest in Peace…….<3…Ronnie

  • 52. Bryce  |  August 15, 2011 at 8:48 am

    I really think that P8TT should start postin more on presidential candidates and their records on LGBT issues (and so should we commentators). Anti-equality groups are already spreading candidate oriented messages, and if we don't start those types of discussions then I fear we could face problems come election time.

  • 53. Peterplumber  |  August 15, 2011 at 9:12 am

    Two bits of news just came out from the supreme Court of California.

    The request for extended media coverage, filed by KGO-TV, Channel 7 on July
    29, 201 1 is hereby denied

    But also this:
    The request for extended media coverage, filed by the Califomia Channel on July
    29, 20 1 1, is granted, subject to the conditions set forth in nzle 1.150, Califomia Rules of
    Court.

  • 54. peterplumber  |  August 15, 2011 at 9:36 am

    Posted this once, but it seems to have disappeared…

    Two bits of news from the California Supreme court:

    The request for extended media coverage, filed by KGO-TV, Channel 7 on July
    29, 201 1 is hereby denied.

    But also this:
    The request for extended media coverage, filed by the Califomia Channel on July
    29, 20 1 1, is granted, subject to the conditions set forth in nzle 1.150, Califomia Rules of
    Court.

  • 55. jpmassar  |  August 15, 2011 at 11:21 am

    What are the implications of this?

  • 56. FlexSF  |  August 15, 2011 at 9:46 am

    Hooray, Joyce Kennard gets her day in court, again.

  • 57. Ed in South Bend  |  August 15, 2011 at 11:27 am

    Um….she does realize the ban has been rendered unconstitutional in different courts, right? http://advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/08/15/Ba

  • 58. Ronnie  |  August 15, 2011 at 12:24 pm

    Even though LGBT soldiers have died or have been injured & others are currently risking their lives so that she can run her fascist mouth off…she doesn't care….she's an anti-American ingrate….. She doesn't care about what those different courts rendered because they did so based on the Constitution (which is their job) rather then her version of the "Bible" (which is a violation of the establishment clause). She's an uneducated piece of trash not qualified to clean up my dog's ordure let alone run a secular country in which she is required to respect & protect ALL types of citizens, not just the ones she chooses too.

    In FACT, a rabid & incontinent Cujo is far more qualified to run this country then she ever will……just saying……. <3…Ronnie

  • 59. nightshayde  |  August 15, 2011 at 2:07 pm

    Oy – I read that as "…a rabid & incontinent Cuomo…" originally. Oopsie!

  • 60. Ronnie  |  August 15, 2011 at 11:37 am

    Adam Levine Will Be Loved http://www.out.com/features/2011/08/Adam-Levine-W

    From page 2:
    Levine, 32, grew up in a liberal Los Angeles home — his parents both went to Berkeley — but it wasn’t his own sexuality that defined his open-minded beliefs. It was his younger brother’s. “I can single-handedly dispel any ideas that sexuality is acquired,” he says, laughing. “Trust me, you’re born with it. My brother is gay, and we knew when he was two. We all knew.”

    Instead of a family freak-out, the Levines doubled down. “We all really wanted to provide some cushion for him and constantly let him know that it’s OK,” Levine says. “A lot of people don’t want their kid to be gay and will fight it at all costs. But I’ve got news for you—it’s a losing fucking battle. The more you fight it, the more fucked-up your kid’s gonna be. You’ve just gotta embrace it from the beginning. That’s the only way to deal with it as a family. Otherwise, you’re just screwing yourself over, and you’re gonna make your kid miserable.”

    <3…Ronnie

  • 61. Sagesse  |  August 15, 2011 at 12:22 pm

    Kathleen, this one's for you. These symposia are really 'dense'… the last one was on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. The line up of authors is impressive, so I will make an effort to read. Not too many rightwingnuts.

    Announcing symposium on same-sex marriage

    In our third symposium of the summer, guest bloggers will examine the future of the Defense of Marriage Act and Proposition 8 at the Court.
    http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/08/announcing-symp

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!