Working a a gay cure.

In the United Kingdom, along with help from people from the state of California, a Christian charity which sponsored a conference promoting the idea that gay people can be converted to heterosexuality has funded interns for an estimated 20 Members of Parliament (MPs), including some who are now ministers in the coalition government.

No statement has been issued by Queen Elizabeth II nor her representatives.

The Christian Action Research and Education charity (Care) has provided staff to the parliamentary offices of Caroline Spelman, Alistair Burt and Steve Webb (members of the United Kingdom’s Parliament and recently made members of Her Majesty’s Most Honourable Privy Council, usually known simply as the Privy Council, a formal body of advisers to the Queen Elizabeth II).

In 2009 it sponsored a London conference about homosexuality and Christianity which included sessions on “mentoring the sexually broken”. The event in London was also organised by Anglican Mainstream, one of the conservative Christian charities that was blocked this week from showing adverts on London buses that supported the idea that with therapy, homosexual people can become “ex-gay”.

The conference featured a keynote by Joseph Nicolosi, a Californian psychologist and founder of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality in the United States (NARTH).  The organisers said they were “very worried about the continued progress of the gay – and in fact the LGBT – agenda across the board in the UK. Social, cultural, political and religious sectors are being targeted and most of them are capitulating”.

MPs (Member of Parliament) involved in accepting assistance from Care under its educational leadership program are now facing pressure to sever their ties with the charity. None of Spelman, Burt or Webb were available for comment.

“It’s a complete disgrace that any elected representative would have associations with an organisation that promotes a ‘gay cure’ in the 21st century,” said Phillip Dawson, who launched a campaign when he discovered his local Members of Parliament, David Burrowes had an intern sponsored by Care. “The Royal College of Psychiatrists has explicitly stated that discussions of a ‘gay cure’ fuel discrimination and prejudice. MPs should be fighting homophobia wherever it occurs but by associating themselves with Care they are actually helping to fuel it. We have to be clear that there is no place for groups that promote a ‘gay cure’ in the corridors of power.”

The register shows that Spelman, now secretary of state for the environment, declared an intern sponsored by Care from 2007 until July 2009. Both Burt, a Foreign Office minister, and Steve Webb, pensions minister, declared they had interns sponsored by the charity between October 2009 and July 2010. Each of them estimated the value of the support to be £8,880.

Care has said interns on its leadership programme are not involved in lobbying. The Rev Lyndon Bowring, the organisation’s executive chairman, wrote in a foreword to the internship scheme’s latest brochure: “Christian graduates are given the opportunity to explore how to live out their faith as they meet and learn from leaders in the public arena; and actively engage in the world of policy whether in Westminster, in Edinburgh, in media or in the third sector.”

A spokesman for Care said the programme was “a well-respected training initiative for Christian graduates”. Asked about the organisation’s belief in reparative therapy for gay people in the church, he said: “If there are people who want to change their sexual behaviour or orientation, who have an unwanted same-sex attraction and voluntarily seek help, there is no reason why they should not be at liberty to do so.”

Care interns are currently recorded for Conservative MPs John Glen and Gary Streeter, Labour’s Sharon Hodgson and Catherine McKinnell and the Lib Dem president Tim Farron. The register for the 2009-2010 parliamentary session showed that the Lib Dem MPs Alan Beith and Alan Reid as well as Labour MP David Drew also employed Care interns.

Some Members of Parliament who employed interns from Care, including Labour’s David Lammy, have already cut their links with the charity. Farron has told Care that he will not employ another of their interns because, he said on Friday night, “I don’t agree with the idea of a gay ‘cure’ and I think it is grossly offensive, homophobic and wrong. It shows the church in such an awful light.”

The extent of the internship programme’s reach inside Westminster provided fresh evidence of conservative Christian organisations’ desire to address what they feel is an increase in secularism. On Thursday an attempt by Anglican Mainstream and Core Issues Trust to run adverts on London buses promoting the possibility of gay people using therapy to change their sexual orientation was stopped by the London mayor, Boris Johnson. Anglican Mainstream said on Friday it had instructed a lawyer to prepare action against the mayor and CBS Outdoor, the company that booked the adverts, unless they reverse their decision.

“It is of deep concern that there can only be one point of view and that is the point of view of individuals who are determined to push through gay marriage and apparently believe that homosexuality cannot be altered in any possible way,” said Core Issues’ co-director Mike Davidson. “That is not a universally held view. This is a disturbing development and it is disappointing the UK finds itself in this position.”

In January, Core Issues staged conferences in Belfast and London backed by Anglican Mainstream, entitled The Lepers Among Us. The lead speaker was Dr Jim Reynolds, an evangelical preacher from the US, and the programme explained that homosexuality, or as he it put it “same-sex sin”, is “a disease of epic proportions, a malignancy that spreads”. Sessions included “naming the sin, lifting the shame” and “normal sinfulness or a sickness”. The event drew protests from gay groups appalled by the title and the content of the conference.

Speaking at the event at Belfast’s Orangefield presbyterian church, Reynolds said of gay rights protesters: “We disagree about the fact they want to live their life in a homosexual relationship and we do not think that is the will of God.”

Jeremy Marks, founder and director of Courage, a Christian group that supports same-sex partnerships, said: “I find some of Anglican Mainstream’s messages and the way they set about things to be extremely offensive and unpleasant.

“They are marginal in the Christian community but they have a lot more influence than their size suggests.”

Logo of Equality California.

The recently hired executive director of Equality California, the state’s major lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights organization, has resigned and will leave as of Friday, the group said Monday night.

The Marriage Director who Equality California recruited from Equality Massachusetts is also gone.

The news comes amid a deep cut in staff that the organization had not previously announced.

The evening e-mail statement came as opponents of SB48 face a Wednesday deadline to qualify a referendum to repeal that law, approved by Governor Jerry Brown earlier this year. That law mandates the teaching of the historical accomplishments of LGBT people and people with disabilities. Equality California appeared to be ready to defend it, though that is now in question.

In the e-mail, the organization’s Board of Directors said Roland Palencia “will step down as of Friday.” It also stated that the organization would release a “transition plan” by the end of this week.

Reached by phone, Palencia said, “I literally made a personal decision that I wanted to move on. There’s really nothing more to it.” He said he was not forced out by the board.

About the group’s financial situation, he said, “Right now a lot of nonprofits are having problems,” but he maintained that the organization has “a lot of support.”

Cathy Schwamberger, Equality California Institute board chairwoman, said its members were grateful for Palencia’s service “and wish him the best in all of his future endeavors.”

The organization appears to be in turmoil. Its recently laid-off Capitol office manager said staff has been cut drastically.

Matthew Bunch, who was the government affairs manager from January until he was laid off last month, said, “Everybody’s leaving,” adding that the organization has “a vacuum of leadership and a vacuum of staff.”

Rebekah Orr, Director of Communications for Equality California, said staff has shrunk from 18 to 11 this year, though she said more are “transitioning out of the organization.”

Former logo of the closed Equality Mississippi.

Equality Mississippi completely closed its doors in 2008 after eight years of being the only statewide LGBT civil rights organization in Mississippi.

Equality Mississippi’s Board of Directors decided, due to financial hardships, the organization was to be closed.

Prop. 8 supporters argue that a U.S. Appeals Court exceeded jurisdiction.

If last month’s ruling overturning Proposition 8 survives, same-sex marriage should be available only to the two homosexual couples who challenged the ballot measure and should remain barred for the rest of the state’s gay and lesbian population, sponsors of the measure told a federal appeals court.

In written arguments filed Friday night, ProtectMarriage.com, the group that sponsored Proposition 8, urged the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker’s ruling against the 2008 ballot measure.

Failing that, the group argued, the court should rule that the Aug. 4 decision affects only the couples named in the suit because it was not filed as a class action on behalf of all gays and lesbians, ProtectMarriage.com argued.

“At a bare minimum, the U.S. district court exceeded its jurisdiction to the extent its judgment extends beyond the four plaintiffs who were before the court,” lawyers for ProtectMarriage.com said.

Kentucky Equality Federation graphic. All Rights Reserved. Used with permission.

The legal battle over same-sex marriage is far from over, both sides have said so.  Remember last year when the leaders of major gay rights organizations issued a plea urging people not to make Prop 8 a federal issue? Though I have fought for LGBTI equality and marriage equality for years, these organizations had good reasons for issuing their plea. Both national and state leaders listed their reasons for issuing the plea — the battle must we waged within the states.

Most legal scholars agree that the federal government cannot impose a definition of marriage onto the laws of the various states.

In 1971, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Minnesota law limited marriage to opposite-sex couples, and that this limitation did not violate the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs appealed, and the United States Supreme Court, 409 U.S. 810 (1972), dismissed the appeal “for want of [a] substantial federal question,” meaning the U.S. Supreme Court lacked the authority to rule or override the Minnesota Supreme Court. That dismissal by the Supreme Court of the United States constituted a decision on the merits, and established Baker v. Nelson as the controlling precedent as a matter of federal constitutional law on the absence of federal authority regarding same-sex marriage.

Historically, the U.S. Supreme Court does not get too far ahead of either public opinion or the law in the majority of states (in which case same-sex marriage is overwhelmingly illegal).

Organizations Made Plea Not to Make Prop 8 a Federal Issue

Nine gay and civil liberties organizations – including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Human Rights Campaign, the National Center for Lesbian Rights and Lambda Legal – said “even the strongest gay-rights decision the court has issued – the Lawrence v. Texas case striking down laws against intimacy for gay couples – explicitly commented that it was not saying anything about formal recognition of same-sex relationships.”

SPECIAL NOTE: Credit to the Kentucky Supreme Court who struck down sodomy laws over 10 years before the U.S. Supreme Court heard the Lawrence v. Texas case (2003). The Kentucky Supreme Court struck down laws against intimacy for gay couples back in 1992 (Wasson v. the Commonwealth of Kentucky).

What prominent LGBTI organizations said last year about a federal lawsuit:

• Evan Wolfson of the GLBT equality group Freedom to Marry sent out a May 27 press release that stated, “In response to the California Supreme Court decision allowing Prop 8 to stand, four LGBT legal organizations and five other leading national LGBT groups are reminding the LGBT community that ill-timed lawsuits could set the fight for marriage back.”

• Law professor John Oakley of the University of California called the suit “a silly and rash act.”

• “It’s an enormous intellectual exercise against the biggest legal opponent in the country—the United States government,” said Lambda Legal’s Jennifer Pizer.

• “Successful change involves building blocks,” Matt Coles, director of ACLU’s LGBT project, told the Wall Street Journal’s law blog. “You build constitutional principles alongside efforts at the societal and legislative levels. They’re jumping over the process and going straight to the end. From where we sit, this is a very high-risk proposition.”

• “In our view, the best way to win marriage equality nationally is to continue working state by state, not to bring premature federal challenges that pose a very high risk of setting a negative U.S. Supreme Court precedent,” Shannon Minter, legal director of National Center for Lesbian Rights, told the AP.

NOTE: This entry was made by the co-founder and former president of Kentucky Equality Federation, Jordan Palmer. This entry may not conform to our editorial standards. This entry has been approved by an editor or moderator.

U.S. District Judge sides with the California Supreme Court

A federal judge declared California’s ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional Wednesday, saying that no legitimate state interest justified treating gay and lesbian couples differently from others and that “moral disapproval” was not enough to save the voter-passed Proposition 8.

California “has no interest in differentiating between same-sex and opposite-sex unions,” U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker said in his 136-page ruling.

Octogenarian Phyllis Lyon and her lifelong partner Del Martin were the first same-sex couple to be married in San Franciso City Hall in February 2004 in a private ceremony that opened the floodgates to thousands more weddings and multiple court battles.

Although Martin died four years later, Lyon was able to witness the landmark federal court ruling Wednesday striking down Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriages.

The California Supreme Court ruled 4 to 3 that gays and lesbians were entitled to marry under the state Constitution in a historic ruling in May 2008. Voters passed Proposition 8 six months later, amending the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

It is not the end of the fight. You can expect it be appealed up the legal food chain.

Andy Pugno, general counsel for ProtectMarriage.com, the official proponents of Proposition 8, released the following statement today in response to the ruling of U.S. District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case:

“Today’s ruling is clearly a disappointment. The judge’s invalidation of the votes of over seven million Californians violates binding legal precedent and short-circuits the democratic process. But this is not the end of our fight to uphold the will of the people for traditional marriage, as we now begin an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

“It is disturbing that the trial court, in order to strike down Prop 8, has literally accused the majority of California voters of having ill and discriminatory intent when casting their votes for Prop 8.

“Reversing today’s decision will also serve as a reminder that the role of the courts is to interpret and apply the law only as enacted by the people and their elected representatives, not to impose new social policies.

“And federal precedent is clear that there is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage. To prevail in the end, our opponents have a very difficult task of convincing the U.S. Supreme Court to abandon precedent and invent a new constitutional right.”

Ultimately, Professor Doug NeJaime at Loyola Law School, Los Angeles said, even the four more liberal justices on the U.S. Supreme Court might shy away from a sweeping decision that could overturn same-sex marriage bans across the country. “The U.S. Supreme Court rarely likes to get too far ahead of things,” he said.

Reverend Jim Garlow, pastor of Skyline Church in La Mesa, California, and a leading supporter of Proposition 8 stated: “Given the present makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court at this time, ’one woman, one man’ will stand,” he said.

Even the LGBT community who applauded the opinion, however, said the path ahead for it is not clear or easy. Professor NeJaime said while Judge Walker’s ruling he found “a great opinion,” he was skeptical of the strategy to take a marriage case through the federal courts. Despite Judge Walker’s efforts to set a factual foundation and the traditions of deference, he said, the U.S. Supreme Court is not completely constrained by lower court findings of fact.

Flag of California

The first decision in what is expected to be a long legal battle over California’s same-sex marriage ban will be announced Wednesday afternoon, with both sides planning appeals if they lose.

The California Supreme Court ruled 4 to 3 that gays and lesbians were entitled to marry under the state Constitution in a historic ruling in May 2008. Voters passed Proposition 8 six months later, amending the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

The decision will be posted online between 1 p.m. and 3 p.m., Pacific time, and will be written by Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker of Federal District Court here, who oversaw a lengthy trial on the ban — Proposition 8 — this year. Walker, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, heard myriad witnesses testify about the history of marriage, the nature of homosexuality and the degree of power gays and lesbians possess in the political system during the 2 1/2-week trial in January. (previous story)

But on Tuesday, supporters of the ban — who were widely regarded as being on the defensive at many points in the trial — had already filed paperwork indicating that they would appeal, according to The San Francisco Chronicle.

The trial, which included testimony from experts on marriage, sociology and politics, was instigated by a lawsuit filed by two gay couples who said that Proposition 8 impinged on their constitutional rights to equal protection and due process. The proposition was passed in 2008 by 52 percent of California voters, and nullified an earlier decision by the state Supreme Court allowing same-sex marriage.

Regardless of the outcome, supporters of gay marriage were planning demonstrations in San Francisco and Los Angeles on Wednesday evening.

U.S. District Judge S. Todd Rogers / Photo Credit: AP

Although a majority of California voters say they support same-sex marriage, that endorsement is as tenuous as it was two years ago when voters told pollsters that they approved of the idea but still voted to ban the marriages.

A Field Poll scheduled to be released today shows little has changed since May 2008, when 51 percent of voters said they supported same-sex marriage, only to ban it by approving Proposition 8 six months later.

The legality of Prop. 8 probably will be decided this month when U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker rules on whether the ban violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equality. The legal battle could ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

As in May 2008, 51 percent of voters say they support same-sex marriage, with 42 percent opposed and 7 percent having no opinion.

Yet when given a third option of allowing same-sex civil unions but not marriage, about one-third of survey participants – 34 percent – said they prefer this alternative, dropping the numbers of those who support same-sex marriage to 44 percent and that favor no legal recognition of same-sex couples to 19 percent. Three percent had no opinion.

Support not solid

The results of the question with three options illustrated that the “51 percent is not rock solid,” Field Poll director Mark DiCamillo said, referring to the level of support for same-sex marriage in the two-option question. DiCamillo highlighted how the drop in approval of same-sex marriage came from all the surveyed subgroups, including age, political party, region, race-ethnicity and religion.

Patrick Egan, a politics professor at New York University who has studied the issue, noted that over the last few decades, voters have become increasingly supportive of full marriage rights for gays and lesbians. But he said it is common for polls to overstate the likelihood of people voting that way on ballot measures.

Researchers do not know why voting results for same-sex marriage initiatives fail to match polls, Egan said, but DiCamillo said one reason for the discrepancy in 2008 was that Prop. 8 proponents launched a successful campaign that boosted voter turnout in their favor.

Marc Solomon, the marriage director of Equality California (formerly the executive director of Massachusetts Equality), which works to secure legal protections for gay people, said that the poll results were “great news” because they showed an increase from last year’s Field Poll when 49 percent of voters approved of same-sex marriage. A Public Policy Institute of California survey released in March also showed a growing acceptance of same-sex marriage, with 50 percent of participants supporting same-sex marriage and 45 percent opposing it.

Still, Solomon acknowledged that the Field Poll showed a narrow margin and that Equality California needs to continue its outreach to voters before 2012, when supporters hope to get another initiative on the ballot.

“We’re certainly not resting on our laurels and we certainly have work to do,” Solomon said.

Defeats in 31 states

Voters have defeated same-sex marriage in all 31 states where it has appeared on the ballot. When arguments in the Prop. 8 trial culminated last month, Andrew Pugno, the general counsel of ProtectMarriage.com, said in a statement that if Vaughn overturns Prop. 8, it will “spurn 7 million Californian voters” who voted for the measure.

The poll found that, overall, women approve of same-sex marriage more than men, and the older voters are, the more likely they are to disapprove of same-sex marriage. Democrats and others who plan to vote for Attorney General Jerry Brown in this year’s gubernatorial race and Sen. Barbara Boxer in her re-election race tend to support same-sex marriage. Republicans and those likely to vote for gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman and Senate challenger Carly Fiorina are more likely to oppose it.

While most Protestants disapproved of same-sex marriage and Catholics came down evenly on the issue, people who practiced another or no religion tended to back same-sex marriage, according to the poll.

The Bay Area had the highest percentage of voters who support same-sex marriage: 63 percent. Only 29 percent of voters in the region said they did not support same-sex marriage, while 8 percent had no opinion.

The poll, conducted June 22 to July 5, was based on a telephone survey of 1,390 registered California voters and has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.8 percentage points.

This article appeared on page A – 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Prop. 8, which restricted the definition of marriage couples to straight couples, effectively overturned the California Supreme Court’s ruling that gay couples should be allowed to marry.

Roman Porter, the director of the California Fair Political Practices Commission, said an investigation revealed the Mormon Church was tardy in revealing about $37,000.00 worth of work its staff performed on behalf of Proposition 8 in the final weeks before the November 2008 election.

The commission’s five appointed members are scheduled to consider the proposed settlement on Thursday. The investigation did not uncover evidence that the church failed to disclose any contributions but concluded that it failed to meet required deadlines for disclosing the value of 13 days of staff time devoted to the campaign.

Its role in putting Proposition 8 on the ballot made the Mormon Church a target for much of the anger that gay rights supporters felt after California voters approved the ballot measure, which outlawed same-sex marriage five months after the California Supreme Court legalized it.

At the urging of church leaders, individual Mormons from around the country volunteered for and gave millions of dollars to the Yes on 8 campaign.

Porter’s finding came in response to a complaint filed by a gay rights activist after voters approved the gay marriage ban 19 months ago. At the time, the church said it had spent just $2,078.00 itself to support Proposition 8.

Fred Karger, the founder of Californians Against Hate, alleged the church ran out-of-state phone banks, produced commercials and provided other services without disclosing them as contributions to ProtectMarriage.com, the coalition of religious and conservative groups that sponsored the gay marriage ban.

Actress and former talk show host Roseanne urged a boycott against the supporters of “Yes on Proposition 8,” the supporters also included:

• Aaron Eckhart (actor)
• American Express
• Black & Decker
• Dell Computer
• Gladys Knight (R&B and Gospel Singer)
• Kroger (who also owns Ralph’s and Albertsons)
• Hollywood Video
• Host Marriott (Marriott Hotels & Resorts; this includes Courtyard, Residence Inn, and Fairflied Inn)
• KeyCorp (Key Bank)
• K-Swiss Shoes
• La Quinta Hotels
• Marriott International
• Priceline.com
• Ryder Systems (Ryder trucks)
• and Sky West (airline) among others. (previous story)

In Kentucky, Kroger also supporters the Kentucky chapter of the American Family Association, another anti-gay group.

In 1997, Time estimated that the Church of Latter-day Saints’ net worth was a minimum of $30 billion, and its annual gross was around $5.9 billion.

A 150-day period to gather signatures to place the question on the ballot ended on Monday.

Restore Equality 2010 says it fell short of the 695,000 signatures needed by yesterday’s deadline to put the measure on the ballot.

“We have a large team of volunteers that are interested in working on marriage equality,” said Sean Bohac, chairman of the state advisory panel and San Diego coordinator for Restore Equality 2010. “We’re holding our heads high and proud of the work that we’ve done to keep marriage equality in the public consciousness.”

Two of the states largest organizations — Equality California and Courage Campaign, did not participate in the 2010 effort.  Since Prop 8 passed and same-sex marriage was overturned by the people, more than 15 new gay rights organizations formed across California, blaming Equality California, the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, Human Rights Campaign, and Marriage Equality USA for the defeat.

Courts and state legislatures have legalized same-sex marriage in five U.S. states and the District of Columbia, but popular votes have always rejected such unions, which are illegal in the vast majority of U.S. states.

Many gay organizations are hoping the U.S. Supreme Court will rule bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. This however is unlikely since the U.S. Supreme Court has already interfered in the 9th Circuit Court’s decisions.  (previous story)

Stanford University Professor Gary Segura, a national political scientist testifying on behalf of supporters of same-sex marriage said in January that gays and lesbians have little political power and can’t count on most of their friends in high places, including Governor’s or U.S. President Obama.  “Gays and lesbians do not possess a meaningful degree of political power. They are not able to protect their essential interests,” said Segura, who heads the university’s Chicano studies program and co-directs its Center on American Democracy.

In the meantime, Assemblyman John A. Pérez (D-Los Angeles), was elected earlier this year as Speaker of the California Assembly, the states lower chamber, and assumed office on March 1st. (previous story)

Now, Fox has the distention of being the first openly gay speaker of a state lower house, although Assemblyman John A. Pérez (D-Los Angeles) was elected to the speakership of the California Assembly several weeks before Fox (Pérez, however, will not be sworn in as speaker until March 1).

Members of the State of Rhode Island & Providence Plantations (official name of the state) House of Representatives elected Fox to succeed William J. Murphy in a day of pomp and speechifying, capping months of behind-the-scenes maneuvering.

After March 01, 2010, two states will have openly gay executives in charge of their lower chambers (California’s equivalent to a House of Representatives is the California Assembly).

Fox (pictured) is an attorney who was first elected to the Rhode Island House of Representatives in 1992. He is a graduate of Providence College, Rhode Island College, and Northeastern Law School.

“Politics is often timing, and you deal with the times you’re allotted,” Fox said in 2001, after being named House Finance Chairman.

The Providence Journal reported that during a famous midnight budget debate in 2004, an impassioned Fox lashed out at Republican Governor Donald L. Carcieri for trying to cut backroom deals to pick off Democratic votes. “Let’s get it on,” Fox thundered. “If you put lipstick on the pig, it’s still a pig, Governor Carcieri.”

Still, at a December news conference, Rhode Island Governor Carcieri gushed about Fox as “a real champion” for economic development.

Rhode Island & Providence Plantations is the smallest of the 50 U.S. states by size, and ranks 42nd by population with just over 1 million citizens. California ranks as the 3rd largest U.S. state by size, and 1st by population with nearly 40 million citizens.