Tag Archives: same-sex marriage

Austin, Our Lonely Blue Island

Posted on by
Reply

800px-Austin_from_Congress_Bridge-at_night

The one place in Texas I can stomach living anymore (except maybe parts of Houston)

The City of Austin became the first Texas city to formally support same-sex marriage. The City Council unanimously approved a resolution on Thursday, September 27, 2012. Item #77 on the morning’s agendawas:

Approve a resolution declaring the City Councils intent to support marriage equality in the State of Texas.

I took the liberty of uploading a copy of the draft resolution here (PDF file). The city’s original (also a PDF) is here.

KUT reported on the vote, and the City Council’s statements in support:

Before the vote, local civil rights groups declared their support for the resolution, which was sponsored by Mayor Pro Tem Sheryl Cole and co-sponsored by Mayor Lee Leffingwell and Council member Laura Morrison.

At a press conference, Mayor Pro Tem Cole spoke about the evolution of rights in Texas, quoting Dr. Martin Luther King: “… Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere. Whatever afflicts once directly also afflicts one indirectly.”

Council member Morrison acknowledged the progress made within the Austin community, when it comes to civil rights, but said there was still a ways to go.  Morrison pointed to practicality when making her point.

“Marriage equality provides important legal and economic protections including access to health care, parenting rights, property rights and other protections,” said Morrison.

I happen to believe that there is far more to this issue than one of practicality. This about people’s right to live their lives on their own terms. This is about people I care about, who cannot obtain basic recognition of their relationship with their life partner. The fact is that a majority of voters in my state, when they look at my friends, think that they can deny them that right. This mindset baffles me. More to the point, it infuriates and disgusts me.

In 2005, voters approved an amendment to the Texas Constitution that states: “Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.” It then prevents any political subdivision (i.e. a city) from “creat[ing] or recogniz[ing] any legal status identical or similar to marriage.” The amendment, known as Prop. 2 on the November 2005 ballot, passed with 76% voter approval. Travis County, where Austin is located, was the only county in the entire state where a majority of voters disapproved. Continue reading →

Share

Welcome, Adam and Steve

Posted on by
Reply

360px-Hymnal_1982

This brings back some memories

I’m a pretty terrible Episcopalian. It’s the church I was baptized and confirmed in, but that whole atheism thing kind of intervened since then. I tend to consider myself “culturally Episcopalian,” in that it’s the culture of my upbringing, and that stuff is pretty ingrained. In that sense, I’m always happy to hear of the goings-on in the church when they make its members look good.

Sixteen years after first allowing gays and lesbians to become priests and nine years after electing its first gay bishop, the Episcopal Church on Tuesday became the largest Christian denomination in the U.S. to offer religious blessings to same-sex couples.

The monumental decision, approved by a thick margin at the church’s triennial General Convention in Indianapolis, means that priests in the 1.9 million-member church can officiate blessings to same-sex couples who are in long-term relationships beginning in December.

The church’s House of Deputies voted 171 to 41, with nine people saying they were divided, to support a same-sex blessings liturgy that will be used during a three-year trial before the church meets again and decides if it should be permanent. The deputies’ vote was done in two parts, with lay members approving the blessings by 78 percent and clergy members approving by 76 percent.

The vote followed Monday’s decision by the church’s House of Bishops supporting the measure by a 111 to 41, with three abstentions. Both groups have to approve new legislation.

There’s a bunch of stuff about approving new liturgical rites for same-sex marriages performed in the church. To that specific issue I say meh, but overall this is thrilling.

Photo credit: ‘Hymnal 1982’ by Sarum blue [CC0 or Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons.

Share

Confronting empathy head-on

Posted on by
Reply

'Protest against a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage' by Fibonacci Blue [CC-BY-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia CommonsA fascinating thing happened the other day. A Republican insider (at least, I think that’s a fair way to describe him), Jan Van Lohuizen, penned a memo urging the party to get with the times, so to speak, on the issue of same-sex marriage. On the heels of North Carolina’s farce and various other national embarrassments, it is a remarkable document.

He starts out citing statistics about increasing support for same-sex marriage (or at least civil unions) across the political spectrum. This may be a good political argument for changing positions on the issue, but that’s as far as I would be willing to go. The question of how many Americans favor extending these rights to same-sex couples implies that these rights are somehow ours to give, which they are not.

The policy statements he recommends, however, are very interesting. In essence, he makes arguments in favor of same-sex marriage based on what might be termed traditional conservative principles of “equality under the law.” He goes on to eviscerate the tired argument about “special rights:”

This is not about giving anyone extra protections or privileges, this is about making sure that everyone – regardless of sexual orientation – is provided the same protections against discrimination that you and I enjoy.

He goes on to point out the real reason why changing public opinions are important:

As more people have become aware of friends and family members who are gay, attitudes have begun to shift at an accelerated pace. This is not about a generational shift in attitudes, this is about people changing their thinking as they recognize their friends and family members who are gay or lesbian.

The problem with many of the positions taken by today’s Republicans is that they rarely survive a head-on collision with empathy.

He concludes with a shoutout to “the freedom to decide how you live and to enter into relationships of your choosing” and “the freedom to live without excessive interference of the regulatory force of government.”

The problem, of course, is that Republicans probably have some biological imperative to oppose same-sex marriage now that Obama has voiced support for it. Their all-but-chosen presidential candidate isn’t exactly winning empathy points, either.

Share