Italy is so. . . .Italian

Compare, say to Gavin Newsom's recent press conference (on his affair with his campaign manager's wife). . .This thanks to our friends at 365Gay.com:

"Silvio Berlusconi, leader of Italy's right of center coalition and the major opponent of civil rights for same-sex couples, has been publicly taken to task by his wife for making sexual overtures to other women.

His wife, Veronica Lario, wrote an open letter published this week in La Repubblica - a left-leaning daily and a fierce opponent of Berlusconi - condemning flirtatious comments the former premier reportedly made to other women.

"If I weren't married, I would marry you immediately," the 70 year old Berlusconi told one woman at a VIP party after a TV awards ceremony broadcast by one of his channels, according to reports widely carried in the Italian press.

He reportedly told another, "With you, I'd go anywhere."

Lario, 50, a former actress who usually guards her privacy and is seldom seen in public, wrote in the open letter: "I see these statements as damaging my dignity."
"To both my husband and the public man, I therefore demand a public apology, since I haven't received any privately," she wrote. "I have faced the inevitable contrasts and the more painful moments that a long conjugal relation entails with respect and discretion."

Lario is Berlusconi's second wife.

The public dressing down forced Berlusconi to reply in kind.

"Forgive me, I beg you. And take this public show of my private pride giving in to your fury as an act of love. One of many," said Berlusconi in a letter released by his office to the media on Wednesday.

The brouhaha comes as the cabinet of Premier Romano Prodi prepares to consider legislation granting limited civil partnerships to same-sex couples. . ."

posted by maggie at 6:08 PM | Link | 0 comments

SSM Updates

New Hampshire"Marriage Debate Shifts" Feb. 2 Concord Monitor:

"In years past, hundreds of supporters and opponents have filled Representatives Hall to testify passionately about proposed bills or constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage. Yesterday, a similar amendment proposal drew just 50 people for a subdued hearing before the House Judiciary Committee.

Supporters of equal rights for gay couples called it a sign the state's anti-gay marriage movement has slowed. They expect lawmakers to soundly reject the proposed amendment this year, then move on to consider bills to extend rights to gay couples instead of deny them. Several lawmakers have drafted bills this session to legalize civil unions or same-sex marriage in New Hampshire.

And in an unexpected move hailed by gay-marriage supporters, Sen. Bob Clegg - a Hudson Republican who served last session as Senate majority leader - yesterday disclosed a plan to introduce a "contractual cohabitation" bill to extend the legal benefits of marriage to any two adults who enter into an agreement with a justice of the peace.

"It's incredibly significant," said Rep. Mo Baxley, an Andover Democrat and longtime activist for gay rights, of Clegg's yet-to-be-written proposal. "He's not exactly the lefty liberal fringe."
New Hampshire law currently outlaws same-sex marriage and civil unions and also blocks the state from recognizing gay marriages or civil unions performed elsewhere. To strengthen those laws, some legislators last year attempted to pass a constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The proposal - which needed three-fifths support from the Legislature followed by two-thirds support of voters at the polls - never made it out of the House, where a majority of lawmakers opposed it.

The amendment proposal came back yesterday in a dramatically different State House. Democrats won control of the House and Senate in November, and lawmakers are on the cusp of considering the first bills ever proposed in New Hampshire to establish civil unions or gay marriage. . ."

DOMA passes Wyoming senate: "The Wyoming Senate Wednesday voted 21-8 in favor of a bill to deny recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states."

Indiana state marriage amendment gets out of committee.

A news story on the Iowa SSM lawsuit Bill Duncan posted on.

Connecticut bill creating SSM makes progress: (Gov. set to veto it though):

". . .The two Democratic leaders of the General Assembly's judiciary committee said Wednesday that they intend to introduce a bill legalizing gay marriage, even though Gov. M. Jodi Rell has announced her intention to veto it.

Committee co-chairman Rep. Michael Lawlor, D-East Haven, said lawmakers have many other important issues on their agenda and conceded that passage of a gay-marriage law could take more than just this legislative session. "This is a process where you have to count votes," he said, "but votes are influenced by public opinion."

And public opinion, Lawlor said, is shifting in favor of same-sex marriage, especially among those younger than 40. "This is inevitable," he said.

Those on the other side vow to fight it. Brian Brown, executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut and one of the leading voices against same-sex marriage, called for an amendment to the state constitution defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. . ."

From Canada: Canadian government accepts foreign SSMs for immigration purposes. And a marriage commissioner (whatever that is) is in hot water in Canada for refusing to marry SS couple:

"The rights of a same-sex couple to marry faced off Wednesday against the rights of a Saskatchewan marriage commissioner who said he couldn't perform the service because of religious beliefs. . .

M.J. testified Wednesday that he obtained a list of marriage commissioners in the city and began to make telephone calls.

Nichols, he said, was simply the first to answer the phone.

"He said, 'Congratulations,' " M.J. recalled, adding that the conversation was progressing until Nichols asked for the name of M.J.'s fiancee and learned it was a man.
"There was a lengthy pause . . . all of a sudden he said he would not marry us."

posted by maggie at 6:05 PM | Link | 1 comments

Michigan Domestic Partner Case

After Michigan voters approved a state marriage amendment in 2004, a group of public employees sought a court order that government employers could offer domestic partnership benefits to their employees without violating the amendment. A trial court agreed saying that health care benefits are benefits of employment not benefits of marriage, so extending the benefits to same-sex couples would not conflict with the marriage amendment’s policy.

Yesterday, the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed. The court said that the amendment prevents public employers from offering benefits to employees “if the benefits are conditioned on or provided because of an agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union.” The court said the domestic partnership policies here “recognized” a same-sex union by “require[ing] proof of the existence of a formal domestic partnership agreement to establish eligibility.”

To the court, because the domestic partnership is a “public proclamation” of the couple’s relationship, it creates a “union.” The union is similar to marriage because both (1) have requirements related to the sex of the parties, (2) require an agreement between the parties, (3) prohibit blood relations from contracting, (4) prohibit married persons from entering, (5) include an age requirement and (6) create legal obligations for third parties (here, the employment benefits).

An extremely interesting element of the decision is what it says about the constitutionality of marriage. Plaintiffs had argued that if the amendment were interpreted to preclude benefits, it would conflict with the Equal Protection guarantee in the state constitution. The court rejected this argument saying that the people of Michigan “could rationally conclude that the welfare and morals of society benefit from protecting and strengthening traditional marriages, and this act of the people constitutes a legitimate government interest.”

Finally, the court said that the amendment does not “selectively target[] same-sex couples” because it applies to any unmarried relationship. The court concluded that the amendment “does not preclude the extension of employment benefits to unmarried partners on a basis unrelated to recognition of their agreed-upon relationship.”
posted by William Duncan at 2:02 PM | Link | 6 comments

Due to Technical Difficulties

in switching from old blogger to new blogger, I seem to have lost a number of comments. . . apologies. Maggie
posted by maggie at 1:08 AM | Link | 0 comments

GET A FIRST LIFE

What's this body thing, and what do I do with the dangly bits?
posted by Eve at 12:19 AM | Link | 0 comments

Iowa Marriage Case

At the end of 2005, the Lambda Legal Defense Fund filed suit in Polk County, Iowa representing six same-sex couples seeking marriage licenses from the state. Today, they asked the court to rule on the case without waiting for a trial (the typical practice in these cases). Lambda’s main brief is here.
posted by William Duncan at 11:43 AM | Link | 0 comments

New Book: Emma's Journal

Hmm, so Dawn ("The Thrill of the Chaste") Eden isn't the only woman penning conversion memoirs about the sexual revolution. A blogger's review of Emma's Journal here.
posted by maggie at 3:44 PM | Link | 2 comments

Bernard Lewis: Muslims About to Take Over Europe

Way off topic (except maybe a bit on the cultural effects/causes of depopulation) but so striking I couldn't help post it. Bernard Lewis: Muslims About to Take Over Europe, prospects for Europe's Jews "dim," he tells the editorial staff of the Jerusalem Post. I hope of course he is wrong:

". . .The Muslims "seem to be about to take over Europe," Lewis said at a special briefing with the editorial staff of The Jerusalem Post. Asked what this meant for the continent's Jews, he responded, "The outlook for the Jewish communities of Europe is dim." Soon, he warned, the only pertinent question regarding Europe's future would be, "Will it be an Islamized Europe or Europeanized Islam?" The growing sway of Islam in Europe was of particular concern given the rising support within the Islamic world for extremist and terrorist movements, said Lewis.

Lewis, whose numerous books include the recent What Went Wrong?: The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East, and The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror, would set no timetable for this drastic shift in Europe, instead focusing on the process, which he said would be assisted by "immigration and democracy." Instead of fighting the threat, he elaborated, Europeans had given up. . ."

posted by maggie at 3:15 PM | Link | 0 comments

The New French Baby Boom

France becomes (I believe) only the second developed nation, after the U.S., to regain replacement level fertility after a sustained dip into depopulation. From the a column by William Pfaff in the Jan. 29 International Herald Tribune:

". . .The national statistics agency says that in 2006 France had the highest birthrate in Europe. The average number of births by women of fertile age was slightly more than two.

Thus France becomes one of the two European Union states with a positive birthrate; Ireland is the other. The contrast with their neighbors is very marked. Germany, Italy and Spain all have birthrates under 1.4. The rates in the new EU members, Slovakia, Slovenia, Lithuania, the Czech Republic and even Roman Catholic Poland, are below 1.3. . .

If the new French population trend should presage rising birthrates elsewhere, much angst might lift. However, this may be another "French exception." The increase in French births seems not to be disproportionately due to immigrant births, the conventional inference, but that the native-born are having more babies.

. . .The number of marriages fell from 416,500 in 1972 to 268,100 last year, but the number of civil partnerships — a legal alliance meant originally for homosexual couples, which has proven extremely popular among heterosexuals living in concubinage — has gone from some 6,000 to over 60,000 in six years.

Birth records no longer note legitimacy of birth. A report of the National Assembly, chaired by the spokeswoman of the conservative UMP party, said that the choice between marriage and civil union seems to have no great impact on family life: which is to say that while the number of divorces is up, the civil union is not noticeably more unstable than marriage.

A factor in the increasing number of children is undoubtedly France's generous social legislation, giving long maternity leaves, with assured return to work with posts and seniority intact. Governments with negative birthrates have investigated the French system, and Germany has just introduced new allowances for parents. "New Labour" introduced such measures in 2001 and Britain had its highest birthrate in 13 years last year.

Another possible birth incentive in France, which may not be copied elsewhere, is its 35-hour workweek. It has been suggested that the French have so much leisure now that they have found nothing more interesting to do with it than have babies, combining fun with demographic patriotism."

posted by maggie at 2:14 PM | Link | 3 comments

UPDATE: Compromise Gives Catholic Church until 2008

Two versions:The Telegraph version and the Jan 30,(U.K) Guardian:

"Catholic agencies given deadline to comply on same-sex adoptions"
Catholic adoption agencies must comply with non-discrimination laws by the end of 2008 or lose all access to public funds, Downing Street said yesterday.
In the interim, faith-based agencies will have a statutory duty to refer applications to adopt from same-sex couples to other agencies. An independent panel of experts will advise the government on how the seven Catholic agencies can cooperate with the laws. It is still possible that the expert panel could find a way for Catholic agencies to be reconfigured with other adoption agencies and so survive, possibly in a consortium, but no concrete details exist at present.
The issue has divided the cabinet and led to warnings by the Catholic church that same-sex adoption is against members' conscience and religious teaching.

The regulations will come into force in April, giving the Catholic church in effect a 20-month grace period to prepare and monitor existing placements before decisions are taken on whether to close their agencies rather than cooperate with gay people. Tony Blair said he hoped the decision would be seen as a sensible compromise. The Catholic church expressed disappointment, but did not renew its threat to close the seven Catholic agencies rather than take applications from same-sex couples.

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, the leader of the church in England and Wales, said last night: "We are, of course, deeply disappointed that no exemption will be granted to our agencies on the grounds of widely held religious conviction and conscience. We look to the forthcoming parliamentary debate to address some of the fundamental issues centred on the wellbeing of the child, whose needs must always be put first. We note and welcome, however, the government's expressed desire that the experience and excellent work of our agencies is not lost, especially for the benefit of needy children."

The row has been damaging to Mr Blair politically since it exposed a degree of indiscipline in the cabinet, especially as candidates for the party's deputy leadership vied with one another to insist there could be no exemptions for the Catholic church.

The prime minister promised last week that there would be no exemptions. The past few days have been spent working on the details of the compromise, including the length of the transition. Some equality campaigners argued for a transition of as little as six months, while the Tory leader, David Cameron, proposed a period of three to four years.

The communities secretary, Ruth Kelly, a devout Catholic, last night hailed the deal as "a positive breakthrough in eliminating discrimination while recognising the need for a practical approach that ensures the most vulnerable children are found loving homes".

She insisted that despite her faith she supported the right of gay parents to adopt, saying: "We all know that there is a wide range of potential adoptive parents out there, including lesbians and gay men, who can provide a loving home for children." Her critics claim she was arguing for an exemption for the church, but her allies say she was working for the kind of compromise announced yesterday.

The compromise was welcomed by the education secretary, Alan Johnson, a strong opponent of exemption, who said: "This is the right outcome for all concerned because it puts the interests of children first. We reject discrimination in all its forms, particularly when that deprives our most vulnerable children of a stable, loving and secure home."

Ben Summerskill, chief executive of Stonewall, the gay rights campaign, said: "We are delighted that so many ministers have listened to the representations we made and acknowledge that there should be an as wide as possible pool of adopted parents. This is a triumph for 21st century tolerance over 19th century prejudice.

posted by maggie at 12:12 PM | Link | 2 comments

UPDATE: U.K Adoption: Couples Defends Archbishop

From the Jan 27 Daily Mail. I have never heard this story (of a U.K. pedophile ring using foster care to acquire children):

"A foster mother pays tribute to the Archbishop of Canterbury's compassion
By EILEEN FAIRWEATHER -

When the Archbishop of Canterbury supported the Catholic Church in the gay adoption row last week, many were surprised.

Dr Rowan Williams, usually considered a moderniser, was criticised by liberals for asking Tony Blair to exempt Catholic adoption agencies from Government regulations - being introduced in April - which will force all agencies to offer children for adoption to gays.

The Guardian newspaper, in a comment piece, even suggested that the church's moral authority was 'fatally compromised'.

Now it has emerged that Dr Williams may have been influenced by his close involvement with a remarkable couple who rescued a boy brutalised by a notorious social services paedophile ring.

Horrified by the inference that the Archbishop is homophobic, the couple have spoken for the first time of their friend's 'immeasurable' help as they struggled to save a child driven to despair by abuse while in the care of the London borough of Islington.

And they described how Dr Williams even devoted an entire week's prayers for Liam, the terribly damaged boy they went on to foster.

Liam Lucas was just one of the children abused by predatory paedophiles who took advantage of far-Left Islington Council's childcare policies in the Eighties and Nineties, when it pro-actively recruited gay social workers.

Paedophiles exploited its well-intentioned commitment to equal opportunities and soon most of Islington's 12 children's homes had child molesters on the staff who cynically pretended to be ordinary homosexuals. Numerous children and other staff made allegations of abuse, but were branded homophobes and ignored.

Liam - now 29, in a permanent relationship and the proud father of year-old Isabella - was even falsely classified as gay by Islington social services, which decided he should be fostered only by single men.

Quaker couple Brian Cairns, 57, and his wife Kate, 56 - who became friends with the future Archbishop when they were students together - fought to foster him instead. The horrors Liam later disclosed eventually helped end a 20-year regime of appalling abuse.

A lengthy investigation by The Mail on Sunday's sister paper, the London Evening Standard, resulted in government-ordered inquiries, but at least 26 members of Islington social services staff, despite being accused of grave offences, were simply allowed to resign, often with glowing references.

Mr and Mrs Cairns and their foster son Liam were so concerned by the 'rigidity' of the current debate about adoption and equal opportunities for gays, and the invisibility of children's needs, that they have decided to go public.

The Church of England's own adoption agency already allows gay adoptions, and it is thought the Archbishop's support for the Catholic Church's exemption plea mainly reflects the importance he places on freedom of conscience and thought.

Mrs Cairns is herself a leading socialwork academic, author and trainer. "I am not anti gay, any more than is Rowan Williams,' she said.

"I have a close relative who is gay, and I am emphatically not opposed to gay adoption. I am, however, deeply concerned by the bullying, intolerant nature of the present attacks on people with religious or other concerns about it.

"It feels horribly familiar and I fear that rigid thinking about equal opportunities may again blind people to paedophiles who claim to be gay, when all they really want is access to vulnerable children.

"On radio and TV this week I have repeatedly heard politicians insist that every adoption agency, whatever its religious beliefs about the best home for children, must offer gay people "equality of access to all goods and services".

"My blood has run cold every time I have heard that. Children in care are not goods or services, chattels to be claimed or shared. They have, however, often been treated like that, as Liam's appalling experiences show.

"Rowan Williams is a deeply spiritual and humble man, he would never dream of telling anyone how he helped us. But he did - immeasurably."

Liam himself said: "There's a lot about my childhood I can't remember. There's a lot I can remember and wish I couldn't. The best I can say about it is that it's over, and that I learned a lot, that will probably make me a better person in the end."

He was in and out of Islington's care from the age of two, and witnessed his birth mother suffer domestic violence and descend into drug addiction. When he was nine she died of a heroin overdose.

The distraught, vulnerable boy was initially fostered by a motherly woman who asked to keep him. But the council instead sent him, from age five to 11, to a 'therapeutic' boarding school, New Barns in Gloucestershire. This was later closed following a child abuse and pornography scandal.

During school holidays he was fostered by a man later imprisoned for abusing another child in his care. When Liam was nine, Islington placed him in its children's home in Grosvenor Avenue, run by two single males. Both were eventually accused of abuse but escaped investigation by moving to Thailand.

Last year, Thai police charged the deputy head, Nick Rabet, 57, with serious sexual offences against 30 Thai boys, the youngest six years old. He escaped trial by killing himself.

Liam initially liked Rabet, a 'big kid' who pretended he was a sheriff and even wore a sheriff's badge. The unqualified social worker owned a Sussex manor house, which he had turned into a children's activity centre, with quad bikes, pinball machines and horses. He took Liam there at weekends.

Liam was abused by a friend of Rabet's, a senior social services colleague. It is believed he backed the council's decision to find the boy a gay foster father.

Mr and Mrs Cairns spotted Islington's advertisement in 1990 in a fostering magazine.

Mrs Cairns was haunted by the then 13-year-old boy's photo, and the council's claim that he was 'suitable for a single man'.

She said: "I instinctively felt that the ad was aimed at paedophiles."

Mrs Cairns and her husband, also a senior figure in social services, already had three children but immediately applied to foster Liam.

"Islington insisted Liam wouldn't settle in a family because they had decided he was gay,' she said. "I said, "So what? Don't gay people have families?" Besides, he was still a child - how could they be sure?'

Mrs Cairns believes children in care who genuinely identify as gay can particularly benefit from gay carers, but she mistrusts adults deciding children's sexuality for them. Former Islington senior social worker Liz Davies, who blew the whistle on the abuse scandal, said: "Other Islington children were also falsely classed as gay at a very young age."

A rebel Islington social worker defied his bosses and supported Mr and Mrs Cairns' fostering bid after Liam begged him: "I just want a family, I just want to be normal."

Mrs Cairns said: "He arrived and looked around and said, "Please, please don't send me back."'

She recalls that when he first joined the family at their Gloucestershire home, 'he had this shy, placatory smile. But it was belied by his eyes - it hurt me to look at him.

"You thought, My God, who left you with terrors like this? He had nightmares every night. He would wake screaming then pretend to me that he was just woken by a cough. He was so ashamed of his fear and trying so hard to be brave and pretend he was fine. It was heartbreaking. I'd sit up til he slept again. This went on for months."

Eventually, he disclosed abuse at both the home and at boarding school. But his sympathetic social worker, and Liam's files, simply vanished and nothing was done.

Mrs Cairns found the vice-chairman of the school governors, Peter Righton, former Director of Education at the National Institute for Social Work, had for years openly advocated sex with boys in care.

"Righton and I had sat together on the body which regulated social work training. I researched everything he had published and I felt sick. I was devastated by the betrayal of trust, and social work's naivety.

"He got away with this, and influenced social workers to this day, because they feared seeming "homophobic" by challenging him."

It prompted Mrs Cairns to begin confiding secretly with Scotland Yard.

The impasse ended in 1991, when police discovered Rabet's Sussex children's centre was partly financed by convicted child pornographers and that he was part of a ring of wealthy, well-connected paedophiles.

Police also discovered that Righton was a founder member of the notorious Paedophile Information Exchange, which campaigned for the age of consent to be reduced to four.

In 1992, Righton was convicted of importing child pornography from Holland. Later, two teachers at New Barns were convicted of sexual abuse, five others tried, and the school was abruptly closed.

Islington admitted 32 'gross errors' in its treatment of Liam, and paid him £5,000 compensation.

His principal abuser quit Britain for a Third World country and is believed to have adopted a boy there.

Liam had a breakdown in 1994 after the ordeal of giving evidence at the trial of New Barns staff.

He became angry, took to drugs and drink, was violent and smashed things. "My descent into crime was sudden and violent and frightened me as much as everybody else,' he admitted.

Liam tried to hang himself and even attempted to strangle Mrs Cairns. She said: "He was wild-eyed and kept saying, "What do you mean, you love me? What does that mean?"

"He couldn't trust anyone, he was a child broken by grief and betrayal. It broke my heart but I had to report him to the police for our own safety."

Liam was sectioned to a mental hospital and later ended up for nine months, at just 17, in a secure jail. Mr and Mrs Cairns, feeling desperate, exhausted and lost, con-fided in their friend Rowan Williams, whose help they described as 'solid and generous'.

"He was deeply moved by Liam's sufferings and he didn't just calm us and provide advice, he offered to make Liam's recovery the focus of his prayers on his annual retreat.

"He is a deeply spiritual man but humble and reticent. He would never, ever volunteer this, but in 1995 he went on a pilgrimage to the shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham in Norfolk, fasted and devoted his week's prayers to Liam's healing."

Liam, who had no idea he was being prayed for so intensely, blamed Mr and Mrs Cairns for his incarceration and no longer kept touch. "But on the last day of Rowan's pilgrimage, at 5am, Liam woke suddenly and, he says, "just knew he had to write to Mum and Dad". He started to get better then,' said Mrs Cairns.

Liam remembers: "I didn't appreciate my foster family. I was too eaten up with bad memories of being a child and of being in care to appreciate what I had, but when I lost them I learned how much they mattered to me. I never thought before that I could trust anyone, or learn to love or be loved. But I did."

Although it was a long journey back to health, and the adult stability he has today, he took responsibility for his own behaviour.

Liam has never re-offended and today teaches social workers about the needs of children. Next month he will contribute to a TV programme for teachers on the same theme.

He considers thorough checks on carers essential. Islington dispensed with all but the most basic checks on self-declared gay staff in order to help them counter 'discrimination'. It meant they were not obliged to provide evidence of childcare experience, qualifications or professional references.

Many now fear such minimal checks will also be made on gay would-be adopters, for fear of prosecution for discrimination.

Mrs Cairns said: "Gay adoptions can work extremely well, but we need sensitively to match the right child to the right carer.

"Liam, for example, was genuinely terrified of men, and he wanted a mum. An abused girl might feel safest with a single woman, or a lesbian.

"We must be utterly rigorous in assessing everyone who wants to care for children, whether heterosexual or gay, male or female - remember Rose West.

"We cannot be less vigilant because an adult says they are from an oppressed group and their feelings should be protected. Child protection matters far more."

posted by maggie at 11:07 AM | Link | 1 comments

JOHN HEARD ON GAY MARRIAGE VS. "CARERS' RIGHTS"

here
posted by Eve at 8:25 PM | Link | 0 comments

UPDATE: U.K. Put Catholics Out of Adoption Biz?

Ruth Kelly seeks three-year transition period before Catholic adoption agencies must place children with gay couples or close, according to the Jan. 28 U.K Independent:

"Ruth Kelly is mounting a desperate last-ditch effort to allow Catholic adoption agencies to turn away gay couples for years to come.

Ms Kelly was defeated in a cabinet revolt last week after The Independent on Sunday revealed her efforts to hand Catholic agencies an opt-out from new anti-discrimination laws.

Tony Blair withdrew his support for the exemption on Wednesday in the face of determined opposition from backbenchers and senior ministers.

But Ms Kelly is trying to save face by pushing for a three-year "transition period" during which Catholic adoption and fostering agencies could still refuse applications from prospective adoptive parents who are gay.

Catholic bishops say church-run adoption services will close because staff would be unable to reconcile their faith and the new laws. A lengthy period is needed to ensure that agencies can continue to provide support for completed adoptions, claim Ms Kelly's aides. However, campaigners suspect that the delay is intended to push the implementation date beyond the next election, ensuring that it remains a live political issue. . ."

According to the Jan. 28 U.K Telegraph, the conservative "shadow" home secretary back the Catholic church:

"David Davis, the shadow home secretary, threw his weight behind the Roman Catholic church today in the gay adoption row as pressure mounted on David Cameron to break his silence on the issue.

Mr Davis became the most senior Conservative to speak out on the issue when he said he would oppose new regulations that would make it illegal for Catholic adoption agencies to turn away gay couples. . .

Mr Davis, who founded the Conservative Adoption Forum, said he wanted to defend the "very proper right of children to have the best available adoption service.
"These are very, very badly damaged children and actually the Catholic Adoption Society is the best to deal with that.

"If the consequence of this is actually we end up with a worse adoption system then that’s a reason to come back to this and say perhaps this is not the right answer, we should do something else or find a better compromise." . . ."

The Jan 26 U.K. Times reports Muslims back Catholic stance:

"The Muslim Council of Britain has backed the leaders of the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches in the adoption row.
The intervention adds to the pressure on the Government to create an exemption for religious adoption societies under the new Sexual Orientation Regulations. . ."

posted by maggie at 10:04 AM | Link | 0 comments

French Pol Faced Prison for "Hate Speech" on SSM

But, he escapes with a $4,000 fine, story from 365gay.com:

"A member of President Jacques Chirac's ruling UMP party has been fined almost $4,000 under a French law making it a crime to publicly disparage gays.

A court in Douai, in northern France leveled the fine, plus more than $2,000 in court costs, on Christian Vanneste.

In 2004 the mayor of a small community in southwestern France performed France's first gay marriage Vanneste declared that homosexuality was "inferior" to heterosexuality and would be "dangerous for humanity if it was pushed to the limit".
The marriage was later declared illegal, but Vanneste was charged under the then new hate crime law by LGBT activists.

Under the law it is a criminal offense to incite hatred against minorities. Gays were added to the law just over two years ago.

It is the first time a member of the French Parliament has been charged under the law. The maximum Vanneste faced was imprisonment. . ."

posted by maggie at 4:52 PM | Link | 10 comments

Ecuador: Dads' Absence Leads to Kids' Suicide

From the LA Times:

". . .Pinos said that in 2006, youth suicides in Azuay rose 20% from the previous year, and he estimated that the province's overall suicide rate was at least twice the world average of about 12 per 100,000. In towns such as Giron and neighboring Santa Isabel, which have seen an exodus of men, the rate is eight times the global norm as calculated by the World Health Organization, health officials say.

"Sixty percent of adult males have left this municipality. As a result, families fall apart," said Claudia Romero, a social worker in Santa Isabel. Suicides in her town last year included a 10-year-old boy and a 9-year-old girl, she said.

Miguel Penafiel, director of Vicente Corral Moscoso Hospital in Cuenca, said that although other countries with a pattern of immigration to the United States and Europe also see suicides, he thinks Ecuador's rate is higher because social disintegration is more pronounced here. . ."

posted by maggie at 2:25 PM | Link | 3 comments

NJ Teaches 3rd Graders Family Diversity

Mothers, fathers? As Marriage Equality points out children need to be reeducted by government lest prejudices in favor of certain kinds of families persist. What the NJ government thinks our 8 year olds need to know. A report in the Philly Inquirer:

"New Jersey's preeminent gay rights group came to the defense yesterday of Evesham's school district, which is facing questions from some parents for showing a diversity video that includes families headed by same-sex couples.

The video, called "That's a Family!," depicts children being raised in a variety of family structures, including those headed by divorced and single parents, grandparents, guardians, and gay and lesbian couples.

The video is used around the state, and the New Jersey Department of Education provides training on incorporating "That's a Family!" into the classroom.

Evesham elementary schools began showing the video this year to third graders as part of their health curriculum.

But the video drew complaints from some parents who objected to the portion showing same-sex parents, saying the school district didn't tell parents about "That's a Family!" beforehand.

NBC-10 aired a report on the video Monday, after receiving an e-mail from one parent, who asked not to be identified.

That report - and the reaction from the gay-rights group Garden State Equality - has made the school district a temporary front in the culture wars.

Garden State Equality issued an e-mail "action alert" yesterday, encouraging its members to support the school district.

"We take this seriously," said Steve Goldstein, the group's chair. "For us in the gay community, prejudice perpetuates into future generations unless the current generation... is taught about diversity."

He called on Garden State Equality members to attend the next Evesham school board meeting on Feb. 13.

Jeanne Smith, the Evesham school district's public information officer, said the school district sent out a letter to parents at the beginning of the school year explaining the curriculum. The letter said a video would be used, but did not discuss or explain the content of "That's a Family!"

"I don't think any of us expected we'd have to defend it," she said.

The half-hour video, produced by Women's Education Media, comes with a discussion and teaching guide. It was screened at the White House in 2000.

The state Department of Education does not require schools to use the video, but provides training for those that want to teach it to students.

Jon Zlock, a spokesman for the department, did not have statistics yesterday on how many school districts use "That's a Family!" But he said the state's health education standards require second-grade students to be able to "identify different kinds of families and explain that families may differ for many reasons."

"In essence, that's what this tape does," he said. "In a state as diverse as New Jersey, it's important for students to learn how diverse a family can be."

Smith said she received four e-mails and phone calls from parents yesterday, questioning whether third graders were old enough for the material in the video. Evesham's superintendent received a handful of complaints as well, Smith said.

Prior to the NBC-10 story, she said, no parents had complained to the superintendent's office.

Smith said she planned to explain to the parents who raised concerns that third graders are well aware of the diversity in their communities. She said the video also addresses worries over bullying in schools.

"The whole diversity thing goes along with that, trying to teach children that people come from all kinds of families and they deserve respect and dignity, as you do," she said. "We don't believe there's an age limit for when you teach that concept."

posted by maggie at 2:09 PM | Link | 18 comments