On the 1st of August 2009, I was amongst thousands of supporters at the National Day of Action for Same Sex Marriage rally in Fed Square, Melbourne.

This day of action is part of a nationwide campaign, Equal Love, which is in its fifth year of pressuring the government into legalising same sex marriages. In 2008, the federal government amended over 100 laws to allow same sex couples (domestic partners) the same financial and work-related entitlements as heterosexual couples.

Marriage, however, is still illegal for same sex couples. Many participants of the rally were dressed in wedding outfits, and later on, a total of 65 couples were (illegally) married, exchanging vows on the steps of the city’s registry office.

Besides wedding outfits, rainbow colours were of course also a popular feature:

And political t-shirts, button badges, face paint, and eye-grabbing outfits:

(how gorgeous is that guy on the right, seriously)

The rally started with a gathering and some speeches at Fed Square, before taking to the streets. If you’re so inclined, here’s a video of the walk (“hey hey, ho ho, homophobia’s got to go!”)

Here are some photos from the walk:

For the rest of my pictures, take a look around this Flickr set: Equal Love.

Also, watch some videos from the same campaign, of “Mr Government” trying unsuccessfully to schmoooze “Ms Equality”

It was a very positive experience for me, to be around all these people. The parade had thousands of participants, many people in love, with their partners — all they want is to be able to marry each other. Straight people fighting for equal rights. Queer people fighting for their rights. In the end, it’s all just an effort to get love and equality recognised: why should anyone be allowed to police relationships between consenting adults?

As for police at the rally — sure there were police around…they were making sure everyone was safe, and that traffic was still going smoothly, letting the parade through first.

Of course, I came home that day to news that my friends were being tear-gassed, water cannoned, and abused by our FRU and police force in Malaysia, for taking a stand against the ISA. What can I say? The difference was stark.

I love Malaysia, but it breaks my heart when I read about the horrible things our government is capable of.

As for those in KL, Seksualiti Merdeka is now into its second year, and happening soon: 12th-16th August, at The Annexe, Central Market. I hope you attend, and find the event as edifying and rejuvenating as I found this rally.

Flickr: Equal Love (by Tilted World)

The Age: Big crowds turn out in support of gay marriage

Official website: Equal love

Congratulations to New Hampshire for becoming the 6th US state to legalize same-sex marriage. The other states include Vermont, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts & Connecticut.

As disheartening as California Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Prop 8, the silver lining in this debacle is that more and more states are legalize same-sex marriage and/or recognizing domestic partnership.

It’s no surprise to note that anti-gay marriage supporters are focusing their resources in California (RE: Mormon Church spending a purported $41 million dollars on “Yes on the Prop 8″ campaign in the last election). California just happen to be the largest economy of the 50 US states as well as the 5th largest economy in the world. California laws can be loosely construed as the bellwether for other state laws as well (RE: the latest federal ruling on emissions emulating California emission laws). So as long as Californians are fighting for equality, so will I.

HRC article on New Hampshire’s decision:

http://www.hrc.org/12847.htm

Gov. Lynch signs legislation passed by state Senate and House of Representatives; Law will take effect Jan. 1, 2010

6/3/2009

WASHINGTON – The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights organization, today applauded the state legislature and Gov. John Lynch for passing legislation to recognize marriage equality for same-sex couples under state law. The senate voted 14-10 earlier in the day in favor of the bill. The house followed later in the afternoon, voting 198-176. The law will take effect January 1, 2010. For a comprehensive summary of HRC’s work in New Hampshire, including a video and photo slideshow, visit: www.HRC.org/NHMarriage.

“With Gov. Lynch signing legislation passed by the state Senate and House, New Hampshire has become the latest state to recognize that loving, committed couples, and their families, should receive equal dignity and respect under the law,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. “No religious institution will have to recognize any marriage under this law, as the language proposed by Gov. Lynch and agreed to by the legislature made abundantly clear.”

The Human Rights Campaign salutes the work of key state groups and leaders, including: Gov. John Lynch, Senate President Sylvia Larsen, Senate Majority Leader Maggie Hassan, Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Deb Reynolds, House Speaker Terie Norelli and Representatives Jim Splaine, Ed Butler, Paul McEachern, Barbara Richardson, New Hampshire Freedom to Marry Coalition, MassEquality, GLAD, and the many activists, including HRC members, who have been working to build support for this legislation, and the majority of New Hampshire voters who support marriage equality.

“When the National Organization for Marriage [a group opposed to marriage equality] started making $50,000 ad buys in New Hampshire, I put out a call for help and HRC answered. We could not have done this without them,” said Mo Baxley, Executive Director of the New Hampshire Freedom to Marry Coalition.

HRC made a significant commitment of resources to the successful efforts to achieve marriage equality in New Hampshire. Working with the New Hampshire Freedom to Marry Coalition, HRC provided substantial field and communications expertise in the weeks leading up to Gov. Lynch signing the bill. HRC deployed 10 field staff to New Hampshire, hired three New Hampshire-based consultants to assist with field organizing efforts, and mobilized HRC members and supporters through online action alerts and telephone calls.

In 2006, HRC worked closely with legislators, community groups and local leaders to help elect fair-minded majorities to both the New Hampshire House of Representatives and Senate, which subsequently voted to pass civil unions legislation in 2007, followed by the marriage bill this year.

In addition to New Hampshire, five states have recognized marriage for same-sex couples under state law: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont (effective September 1, 2009), and Maine (effective September, 2009, pending a possible referendum). California recognized marriage by same-sex couples between June and November of 2008, before voters approved Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to prohibit marriage equality. The Proposition 8 vote was challenged, but the state supreme court upheld the amendment last month. The 18,000 marriages of same-sex couples performed before the passage of Proposition 8 remain valid.

Five states—California, New Jersey, Oregon, Nevada (effective October 1, 2009), and Washington (as of July 26, 2009, pending possible repeal effort)—plus Washington, D.C. provide same-sex couples with access to the state level benefits and responsibilities of marriage, through either civil unions or domestic partnerships.

Hawaii provides same-sex couples with limited rights and benefits. New York recognizes marriages by same-sex couples validly entered into outside of New York. The New York legislature is considering marriage legislation that would permit same-sex couples to marry in those states, and the D.C. Council has passed legislation that would recognize marriages by same-sex couples legally entered into in other jurisdictions (that legislation is going through a Congressional review period).

Same-sex couples do not receive federal rights and benefits in any state. For an electronic map showing where marriage equality stands in the states, please visit: www.HRC.org/State_Laws.

The Human Rights Campaign is America’s largest civil rights organization working to achieve lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality. By inspiring and engaging all Americans, HRC strives to end discrimination against LGBT citizens and realize a nation that achieves fundamental fairness and equality for all.

From the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/us/27marriage.html?_r=1&hp
By JOHN SCHWARTZ
Published: May 26, 2009

The California Supreme Court upheld a ban on same-sex marriage today, ratifying a decision made by voters last year that runs counter to a growing trend of states allowing the practice.

The decision, however, preserves the 18,000 marriages performed between the court’s decision last May that same-sex marriage was lawful and the passage by voters in November of Proposition 8, which banned it. Supporters of the proposition argued that the marriages should no longer be recognized.

Today’s decision, written by Chief Justice Ronald M. George for a 6-to-1 majority, said that same-sex couples still have the right to civil unions, which gives them the ability to “choose one’s life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship that enjoys all of the constitutionally based incidents of marriage.” But the justices said that the voters had clearly expressed their will to limit the formality of marriage to heterosexual couples.

Heated reaction to the decision began immediately, with protestors blocking traffic in front of San Francisco City Hall, their hands locked.

The same court had ruled in May that same-sex couples enjoyed the same fundamental “right to marry” as heterosexual couples. That sweeping 4-3 decision provoked a backlash from opponents that led to Proposition 8, which garnered 52 percent of the vote last November after a bitter electoral fight.

The opinion marks a new round in the long-running battle in California over the issue, and will almost certainly lead to a counter-initiative intended to overturn Proposition 8, which changed the state constitution, as early as next year.

The opinion focused on whether the use of a voter initiative to narrow constitutional rights under Proposition 8 went too far.

Supporters of same-sex marriage, who filed several suits challenging the proposition, argued that the change to the state’s constitution was so fundamental that the initiative was not an amendment to the constitution but a “revision,” a term for measures that rework core constitutional principles.

Revisions, under California law, cannot be decided through a simple signature drive and majority vote, which is what led to Proposition 8; they can only be placed on the ballot with a two-thirds vote by the legislature.

It has historically been rare, however, for the state’s courts to overturn initiatives on the ground that they are actually revisions, and many legal scholars deemed the challenge against Proposition 8 a long shot.

The question of whether Proposition 8 was an amendment or revision was the centerpiece of the oral arguments before the State Supreme Court during its hearing on March 5.

The justices who had issued the ringing support of same-sex marriage in 2008 presented a far less supportive front during the three-hour hearing. A number of justices who had voted in the majority in the 2008 case, particularly Joyce L. Kennard, strongly suggested in their questions from the bench that they were reluctant to overturn the will of the voters or to undercut the initiative process.

The justices had seemed to be seeking a middle ground that would allow the rights they had affirmed the year before to be preserved in the form of civil unions, which would be different from marriage in name only. Justice Kennard suggested that the substantive rights of gays were the same after the proposition, and all that had changed was “the label of marriage.”

That distinction was deeply dissatisfying to an attorney for plaintiffs, Shannon Minter, who argued that without the right to the word “marriage,” same-sex couples would find “our outsider status enshrined in our Constitution.”

In the months since the case was argued, three other states have legalized same-sex marriage. On April 3, Iowa’s supreme court struck down a state statute that limited civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman — and cited California’s 2008 decision repeatedly in support of its ruling. Less than a week later, the Vermont Legislature narrowly overrode a veto by Gov. Jim Douglas of a bill that allowed same-sex couples to marry. Then on May 6, Maine’s legislature, too, passed a bill allowing same-sex marriage, and Gov. John Baldaci signed it.

Initiatives are also moving forward in New York and New Jersey; a similar measure has stalled in the New Hampshire legislature by a slim margin this month, but could come up for a new vote next month.

At the same time, attitudes of Americans toward same-sex marriage favor liberalization of the practice. In an April CBS/New York Times poll, 42 percent of those surveyed favored same-sex marriage, up from 21 percent at election time in 2004, when it was a wedge issue during the presidential campaign. That poll suggests the trend will continue into the future: 57 percent of the respondents favored legal recognition for same-sex marriage, compared with 31 percent of respondents over the age of 40.

The language of Chief Justice George’s decision seemed almost regretful, as he wrote that “our task in the present proceeding is not to determine whether the provision at issue is wise or sound as a matter of policy or whether we, as individuals, believe it should be a part of the California Constitution.” Instead, he wrote, “our role is limited to interpreting and applying the principles and rules embodied in the California Constitution, setting aside our own personal beliefs and values.”

From CBS News: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/05/08/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5001396.shtml

In spite of President Obama’s declared stance against the “don’t-ask-don’t-tell” policy that keeps openly gay individuals out of the military, the U.S. Army on Thursday told Lt. Dan Choi he is being dismissed for publicly revealing his homosexuality.

Choi is not the first servicemember to be dismissed because of his sexuality under the Obama administration, but his dismissal stands out because of his noted skills. Choi is an infantry platoon leader in the New York National Guard who is fluent in Arabic. He graduated West Point and recently returned from Iraq.

As founding member of Knights Out, an organization for openly gay, lesbisan, bisexual, and transgender West Point alumni and their supporters, Choi advocates allowing openly gay people to serve in the military. He announced his own sexuality on MSNBC on March 19.

On the campaign trail, Mr. Obama specifically criticized the dismissal of openly gay servicemen who have special language skills. He also told the Advocate, a gay newsmagazine, that the don’t-ask-don’t-tell policy is a “counterproductive strategy.”

“We’re spending large sums of money to kick highly qualified gays or lesbians out of our military, some of whom possess specialties like Arab-language capabilities that we desperately need,” he said in an interview with the magazine. “That doesn’t make us more safe.”

Since the don’t-ask-don’t-tell policy was implemented during the Clinton administration, around 12,500 servicemembers have been dismissed because of their sexuality. 

What will Obama do?

The White House also recently came under fire from liberal bloggers who noted a change in the language addressing the issue on Whitehouse.gov. The site initially said Mr. Obama supported “repealing” don’t-ask-don’t-tell, but it later said the president supported “changing” the policy “in a sensible way.” After taking heat on the matter, the White House changed the wording on Whitehouse.gov once again to say the president “supports repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in a sensible way that strengthens our armed forces and our national security.”

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has also been noncomittal about repealing the policy. While touring war colleges in April, Gates said he did not yet have a position on whether gay troops should be open about their sexuality.

Mr. Obama has also come under pressure from gay advocates to appoint an openly gay person to the Supreme Court.

Posted by Stephanie Condon, May 8, 2009 11:33 AM.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Lt. Choi has recently appeared again on Rachel Maddow’s show. He has just received his letter of termination from the military. The interview also highlighted a personal letter written to Sandy Tsao, a woman in the military who had just come out as gay and has also been informed that she will be withdrawn from the military. You can watch the You Tube video below:

In the first 100 days of Obama’s presidency, there has been mounting pressure for Obama to speak up on what he intends to do when it comes to issues pertaining to gay rights, the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy and same sex marriage. Maine, Iowa, and Vermont have recently sanctioned same sex marriage in the past few months. And pressure is building for the Federal Government to pass same sex marriage in the United States. There is also increasing pressure for Obama to repeal the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy in the military, which states that somebody can be fired from the military on the basis of homosexual conduct, which includes coming out publicly.

The CNN video below provides a great summary of the current situation here in the US.

1. DADT: Sandy Tsao and Dan Choi explains.

2. Same sex marriage: Can you hear us, Obama?