Equality

Good news from Connecticut this morning: The CT Supreme Court ruled that the state's marriage laws apply to same-sex couples making it the third state to allow same-sex marriage. Even better news: The governor, Jodi Rell, though she does not agree with the decision, will not challenge it. Of course challenges may come from elsewhere. There is a question on the November ballot asking whether direct initiatives should be allowed in CT, as they are in CA, where voters in November will be able to decide directly whether the state's constitution should be amended to expressly limit marriage to couples who fit the one man and one woman formula.

Here's a link to the Connecticut decision (PDF). Click here to read more.

In Separate Or Not , a teacher discusses the "completely contrary to feminist thought" concept of same-sex education (or, if you prefer, separation of genders in classrooms).

Her personal experiences lead her to conclude:

As for someone who fought for gender equality I am willing to be politically incorrect in firmly stating my belief that based on the reasons above, students should be separated in classrooms to facilitate their learning. Is it time for the “fad” for separation of students to return? I think so.

Matters of gender identity aside (for that's too complicated a matter for me to contemplate at this wee hour), I am inclined to agree. Somewhat.

As a graduate of an all-women's college, I certainly benefited from the women-only atmosphere. We were free from (perceived or real) the attacks on our way of processeing and thinking.

Not wasting any time and taking advantage of a $5 waiver of the waiting period in Iowa, Sean Fritz and Tim McQuillan sealed the deal on the front lawn of Unitarian minister Rev. Mark Stringer.

A few hours later, Judge Robert B. Hanson formally stayed yesterday's ruling that the law declaring that valid marriages were only between a man and a woman was unconstitutional, and that the state had no valid interest in arbitrarily discriminating against same-sex couples by denying them the right to marry.

(CNN) -- An Iowa district court ruled Thursday that same-sex couples can marry based on the state constitution's guarantee of equal treatment, court documents show.

The ruling was in response to a December 2005 lawsuit brought by six same-sex couples seeking to wed. They were denied marriage licenses and claimed such treatment violates equal-protection and due-process clauses in the Iowa constitution.

The court also struck down a state law declaring valid marriages are only between a man and woman.

I originally posted about this as a Sex Act(ivism) item, and I'm posting again to update based on an email from the Human Rights Campaign folks:

From Human Rights Campaign :

Breaking news: the Senate will likely vote on the Matthew Shepard Act as early as this week. And right now, your Senators' phone lines are filling up with messages like this one: "[The Matthew Shepard Act] will be used to fund anti-Christian, pro-homosexual/drag queen materials for children – and divert scarce federal resources away from fighting Islamic terrorism."

Anti-gay groups like the Family Research Council and the Traditional Values Coalition – who invented that ridiculous lie – have mobilized a dangerously misinformed grassroots army. If we don't call right now, critical votes COULD BE LOST to these scare tactics.

Enter your zip code in the Contact Contress button on the left side bar and tell your senator that you support strong hate crimes legislation.

Original Sex Act(ivism) posting:

Something new to be proud of during Pride Month!

The New York State Assembly voted to approve marriage equality legislation with bipartisan support. This is a first in the country. When MA legalized marriage for same-sex couples it did so through the courts (though the legislature recently protected that decision) and in CA where marriage equality legislation was passed and then vetoed by the governor, not a single Republican voted for the bill. 85 assembly members voted in favor of the legislation, including four Republicans, while 61 voted against. That's the good news.

The bad news, as noted in this article in The Advocate, is that common wisdom holds that the legislation, which would give same-sex couples the same access to marriage that opposite-sex couples have, will be impossible to pass in the Senate, where there is a very slim Republican majority.

Two fourteen year old girls were kicked off a public bus in Portland, Oregon because they were kissing, and some nut-job complained. Just to add insult to injury, the driver called them "sickos".

Via Portland TV station KATU:

UPDATE: CONGRESS MAY ACT ON THIS AS EARLY AS THIS WEEK -- Call your senators now!

From Human Rights Campaign:

Anti-gay groups like the Family Research Council and the Traditional Values Coalition – who invented that ridiculous lie – have mobilized a dangerously misinformed grassroots army. If we don't call right now, critical votes COULD BE LOST to these scare tactics.

Enter your zip code in the Contact Contress button on the left side bar and tell your senator that you support strong hate crimes legislation.

Original posting:

BOSTON (AP) -- Massachusetts lawmakers threw out a proposed constitutional amendment Thursday that would have let voters decide whether to ban gay marriage in the only state that allows it.

The vote - which came amid heavy pressure to kill the measure from Gov. Deval Patrick and legislative leaders - was a devastating blow to efforts to reverse a historic 2003 court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage.

"Today's vote is not just a victory for marriage equality. It was a victory for equality itself," said Patrick, who had lobbied lawmakers up until the final hours to kill the measure.