The American Psychological Association (APA) policy-making panel voted 157-0 to approve a resolution to support marriage equality, citing an abundance of new studies that show that same-sex couples share the same goals as opposite-sex couples in building “stable, long-lasting and committed intimate relationships and are successful in doing so.”
The APA has historically supported full equality for the LGBT community, and Clinton Anderson, director of APA’s Office on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Concerns, said the resolution will lend considerable weight to the national debate.
“Now as the country has really begun to have experience with gay marriage, our position is much clearer and more straightforward — that marriage equity is the policy that the country should be moving toward,” Anderson said.
Gay jurist in Proposition 8 case had no legal obligation to remove himself, judge rules - latimes.com ›
A federal judge on Tuesday refused to invalidate last year’s ruling against Proposition 8, deciding the gay jurist who overturned the same-sex marriage ban had no obligation to step aside because of a possible conflict of interest.
The decision by Chief Judge James Ware of the U.S. District Court in San Francisco left the ruling by retired Judge Vaughn R. Walker in place. Walker’s decision remains on hold pending a separate appeal to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The U.S. government will no longer automatically deny applications for immigration benefits for same-sex couples, opting to put them on hold until it gets some legal advice on the Obama administration’s decision to stop defending the law that prohibits gay marriage
The decision to put off deciding the fate of applications for immigration benefits from gays and lesbians married to U.S. citizens is not a change in policy, said Chris Bentley, a spokesman for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
Until USCIS announced the temporary change, applications for immigration benefits for foreign nationals married to a U.S. citizen of the same gender were automatically denied because the Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage as only between a man and a woman.
In February, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Justice Department would no longer defend the constitutionality of the law. Now, USCIS is awaiting legal direction from the Department of Homeland Security on how to handle applications for benefits from gay couples.
There are no gifs for what I am feeling, and that is disgust.
Maryland was widely expected to become the next U.S. state to legalize same-sex marriage, but the plan crashed and burned March 11.
The bill to legalize gay marriage had passed the Senate and had the governor’s support, but, at the last minute, after almost three hours of debate in the House of Delegates, supporters realized they did not have the votes there.
That’s a really misleading headline. They voted to shelve the bills until their next session. The issue will be back.
Californians Ed Watson and Derence Kernik have been together for 40 years, but Ed has been been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s and the couple is desperately hoping to marry while he can still recognize Derence. In a totally fucking related development, today the American Family Associationdenounced attempts to have the stay on Prop 8 lifted, using the headline, “Patience Is Not A Homosexual Virtue.”
Kamala Harris has asked that marriages resume for same sex couples while we await some final results from the Prop 8 fiasco. But the best part of this story is the following:
The president of the Family Research Council, a Washington-based advocacy group that opposes same-sex marriage, said Tuesday it suspected the government was colluding with lawyers in the Proposition 8 case.
Tony Perkins, the group’s president, pointed out that lawyers for the two California couples asked the 9th Circuit to lift its stay just a few hours after U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced the administration’s new position on the federal act.
Perkins asked the government to provide records of any contact the Justice Department might have had with the attorneys.
“Even the appearance of collusion between the Department of Justice and litigants is highly damaging to the rule of law in America,” Perkins wrote.
LOL, Tony Perkins!
What a tool.