Asterisk

The New Hampshire Senate passed a marriage equality bill today, clearing the way for the measure (which has already passed in the New Hampshire House) to be sent to the Governor’s desk. From the New Hampshire Union Leader:

Concord – A bill legalizing same-sex marriage in New Hampshire passed the Senate today on a 13-11 vote.

The bill, amended on the Senate floor, draws a distinction between civil and religious marriage, and says that any two individuals have a right to join together in a civil marriage.

Last week Senate Judiciary Committee chair Sen. Deborah Reynolds, D-Reynolds, opposed the bill and voted with a committee majority that it should be killed. She said voters in her district told her they favor the legislation, and urged the Senate to vote for an amendment that was drawn up Tuesday night.

She said the wording “gives everyone in the state the right to seek a civil marriage … This is a compromise that is respectful to both sides in this debate and meets our shared goals of equality in state laws for all the people of New Hampshire. The people of this sate share the core values of equality for all, tolerance and acceptance regardless of our differences”

Republicans voted in a block against the measure, joined by Sen. Lou D’Allesandro, D-Manchester.

Does this mean we’ll soon be adding another star to the marriage equality flag? Possibly, but there’s a rough road ahead. The governor’s against it, and neither the House nor the Senate has a veto-proof majority, as the Vermont legislature had. We’ll be sweating for every single vote!

I have to say, these amendments clarifying the difference between religious and civil marriage are a bit annoying. On the one hand, if it gets the bill through, it’s fine because the law was pretty doggone clear on the separation in the first place. On the other, it lends credibility to the notion that we want the government to take over religious institutions, which just isn’t true. For now it’s a grin-and-bear-it compromise, but it’s frustrating.

Stay tuned for further news as it becomes available.

While we wait for the US House to vote on the Matthew Shepard Act, also known as HR 1913 Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, Gay Rights Watch is supplying a fantastic blow-by-blow of the debate. I’m learning a lot about House members from around the country.

Take for example Virginia Foxx, Republican representative of the 5th District in North Carolina. She had a heckuva lot to say, including on Twitter, where just before the debate began she called the hate crimes bill a “thought crimes” bill. But I think she managed to suck all the air out of the room when she said this:

I also would like to point out that there was a bill — the hate crimes bill that’s called the Matthew Shepard bill is named after a very unfortunate incident that happened where a young man was killed, but we know that that young man was killed in the commitment of a robbery. it wasn’t because he was gay. This — the bill was named for him, hate crimes bill was named for him, but it’s really a hoax that that continues to be used as an excuse for passing these bills.

Just to refresh your memory, Matthew Shepard was kidnapped, beaten, tortured, and ultimately murdered ten years ago. He was also robbed, yes, but he was targeted specifically because he was gay. This fact is not in dispute; it was confirmed by the then-girlfriends of Shepard’s murderers at trial.

So no, Representative Foxx, it’s not a hoax. Matthew Shepard was murdered specifically because he was gay. And it wasn’t a “very unfortunate incident”. It was a murder. Shame on you for trying to demean the value of his life.

Having just wrapped up their Spring session, the United Methodist Church’s Judicial Council (Supreme Court) has released three separate rulings regarding questions surrounding gays in the Church.

Two of the rulings went specifically to same gender marriage resolutions from the two California Annual Conferences. From the UMC news feed:

In the case of the California-Nevada Annual Conference, the council affirmed Bishop Beverly J. Shamana’s decision voiding a resolution passed by the regional group backing retired pastors who perform same-gender marriages.

“An annual conference may not legally negate, ignore or violate provisions of the (Book of) Discipline with which they disagree, even when the disagreements are based on conscientious objections to the provisions,” the council ruled.

Council member Belton Joyner Jr. filed a dissenting opinion.

In a separate decision, the council reversed California-Pacific Conference Bishop Mary Ann Swenson’s ruling supporting a conference resolution recognizing “the pastoral need and prophetic authority of our clergy and congregations to offer the ministry of marriage ceremonies for same-gender couples.”

In a concurring opinion, Jon Gray and the Rev. Kathy Austin Mahle wrote “church law can only be made by the General Conference and cannot be achieved through piecemeal resolutions adopted in an annual conference session.”

The 2008 General Conference, the denomination’s top legislative body, voted to retain its ban on same-gender marriages and to bar clergy from performing such marriages or consecrating them in the church. Pastors who perform same-gender unions risk losing their clergy credentials.

Separately, the Council declined to take up the issue of Decision 1032, brought by the Alaska Annual Conference, which requested clarification of 1032′s compatibility with Article IV of the Methodist constitution.

In the membership case, the council said it did not have jurisdiction to address possible competing claims in church rules because the request for a declaratory decision did not deal with an action by the Alaska Conference.

The case refers back to an earlier council ruling in favor of the right of a Virginia pastor, the Rev. Ed Johnson, to block a practicing homosexual from joining the congregation of South Hill (Va.) United Methodist Church. The council ruled the pastor of a local church has authority to determine a layperson’s readiness for membership.

None of these decisions are terribly surprising, but all are disappointing for those of us on this side of the issue. However, they each bear important witness to future generations of United Methodists. Regardless of what declarations the ultra-conservative members of the General Conference push through, we aren’t all in agreement on the issue of LGBT people’s lives and contributions to the Church.

Make no mistake, we will continue to work until the day all of God’s children are welcome in the United Methodist Church. The next stage begins soon as each Annual Conference takes up Amendment 1. (More on that tomorrow.)

Bea Arthur passed away Saturday after a fight with cancer. Most remember her from her starring roles in TV’s Maude and Golden Girls, but she had a successful stage career long before she hit the small screen in the early 1970s.

Bea Arthur
May 13, 1922 – April 25, 2009

Here’s a short bit of audio from her 2002 album Bea Arthur on Broadway – Just Between Friends.

So long, Bea. You were one of a kind.

I happened upon this new symbol a month or so ago and thought it was a fantastic idea, so much so that I’ve put it on the sidebar over there on the right. Carl Tashian, the man behind the symbol, explains:

In 1902, when the women’s suffrage movement was just getting warmed up, the American flag had 45 stars. In protest, the suffragists created their own US flag with only four stars, representing the four states that allowed women to vote.

This flag flew at the podium of the First International Womens Suffrage Conference in 1902, and it was my inspiration for a re-appropriation of the American flag. Unfortunately, all four states that were so progressive regarding women’s suffrage in 1902 have state-wide same-sex marriage bans today.

This new protest flag creates a visual history of our struggle for marriage equality. With every new law, court decision, and amendment that offers marriage equality in a state, a star will be added to reflect the new reality.

If you’re on Facebook, you can join the group here, or go to Carl’s site to read more about it.