Follow the link for more...
by Kevin Williams - Al Jazerra America
Sect balks at LGBT rights, even as some individual churches and members embrace them.
Follow the link for more...
by Kevin Williams - Al Jazerra America
Dr. Josh Brown from the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire is researching anabaptist sexuality. If you would like to participate, follow the link and use the password "menno" (without quotes). The questionnaire can be anonymous, unless you want to speak more with Dr. Brown about your experiences. Anabaptist sexuality questionnaire.
Josh, a gay Amish teen, moves to the big city and struggles to find his place in the LGBT community.
Visit https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/josh-short-film to help bring this story to the screen.
Big day for marriage equality! A conservative federal court in Ohio will consider 6 cases seeking marriage rights in Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, and Tennessee. Oral arguments are scheduled for 1 pm. Follow along on twitter with #6thCircuit
LGBT Amish will be shown support at Michigan Pride this year! We will be represented on the float of the fabulous Miss Kalamazoo Pride LaDonna Divine. #nooneleftbehind
Thanks, Miss Divine and James Schwartz....
Updates and photos to follow.
What happens when a man discovers he’s gay but the culture he is raised in doesn’t address sexuality, much less homosexuality? James Schwartz, an LGBT poet and writer who grew up in an Amish community in Michigan, gives Sensa Nostra an inside look at what it’s like to grow up gay in a world where gender roles are strict and marriage between a man and woman is seen as an imperative.
Hello LGBT friends and allies. We wanted to introduce you to an ongoing support group for the LGBT community and their friends, family and allies that meets once a month in Medina Ohio. Here are the details. We'd love it if you came to join us! Invite your families and friends! We warmly welcome the Amish and ex-Amish communities! http://outsupport.org/meetings-map You can print a map and flyer here. Come join us. Our meetings are the 4th Monday of every month Your friends at OutSupport.org
We are excited to be invited to speak on queer Amish issues at the PFLAG Ohio state conference!
Jeffrey Garris will be presenting on behalf of our organization. We also have several interviews and features lined up in the near future. Thank you for your support and check back for updates!
SAVANNAH, GA - May 28, 2013
Opponents of gay marriage say that it is in the best interest of the family, the state, the nation and humanity itself to protect the traditional definition of marriage as a strictly procreative institution between one man and one woman. They say redefining the word “marriage” at a state or federal level will undermine the purpose of marriage itself and (somehow) devalue existing heterosexual marriages. Furthermore, opponents say allowing same-sex couples to marry will inevitably lead to state-sanctioned polygamy, incest and bestiality.
Now, I am no biologist—how exactly does redefining marriage as a union between one person and one person lead to polygamy, incest or bestiality? That depends on the definition of person, some could say. Well, of course, but is it necessary to include such taxonomical designation in our civil rights legislation?
Liberal lawmakers and talking heads scoff at such reckless exaggerations, but these scare tactics work better than we unclassified, displaced homosexuals would like to admit. Rights are not always guaranteed for minorities, and especially not for homosexuals, who do not have minority designation under the law.
The only quasi-logical justification for protecting the “traditional,” binary definition of marriage is that it ensures continued procreative success for our species. That sounds innocent enough—after all, survival is in our nature, and children of intact nuclear families are statistically better off than “other” children. “Other,” as generalized by Prop 8 proponents during the appellate session, can be defined as children of one or more gay or straight, divorced, widowed, disabled and/or handicapped, unemployed, alcoholic and/or drug-addled, abusive and/or neglectful, single and/or multi-parent households.
If we are to believe these arguments, I propose that we treat them with an equal measure of conviction and absurdity. So, for the sake of posterity, let us accept the premise that people marry to create a family. What would it mean to write such logic into law?
If we define marriage (strictly) as a state-issued license between one man and one woman for the purpose of procreation, and if that guarantees the continued existence of the human race, by all means, write it in stone. I will be the first to sign a petition that guarantees our survival, but we have to be consistent. If we are to implement a federally issued, state-regulated, morality-based mandate on traditional marriage, our parameters must be clearly defined, with no margin for interpretation.
First, states must revamp the marriage application process to weed out ineligible couples. Besides being of “sound mind,” applicants must submit to fertility testing to verify their physiological, reproductive ability. Fertility tests can be administered at the probate court when submitting other required vital records; external test results can be accepted if obtained no more than six months prior to the application date and notarized by an approved clinician and one witness. Applicants found to be infertile and/or unable to produce offspring will be denied based on any or all of the following criteria (includes medical history): erectile dysfunction, previous or expected hysterectomy/vasectomy, low sperm count, ovarian/testicular cancer, certain mental and/or physical disabilities, sterility, menopause, previous miscarriage or abortion, tilted uterus, terminal illness, venereal disease, or traces of birth control in the blood.
In addition, couples must sign a pre-marriage contract relinquishing their rights to divorce, separate, annul, or otherwise terminate their marriage. The contract will also require couples to produce no less than one child every three years. DFACS will conduct unannounced investigations to determine contractual fulfillment; derelicts will be arrested and charged with child endangerment and obstruction of justice. Under no circumstances can the pre-marriage contract be revoked, voided or dissolved; the contract will expire upon the death of one or both applicants. Fertile widowed persons may remarry.
This is all ludicrous, of course, but it illuminates a larger issue. The debate about marriage equality is hardly a debate at all. Arguments against equality are simply arguments for continued ignorance, bigotry and homophobia.
It all comes down to this: states issue marriage licenses, not the church or the federal government, and it is unconstitutional for either the state or federal government to regulate one’s unobtrusive pursuit of happiness. If procreation is the only factor differentiating opposite- and same-sex couples, why not require it? Other than procreation, what is the point of marriage?
Marriage represents so much more than procreation. Firstly, it is a declaration of love between two people. Secondly, it is an easy way for federal and state governments to divvy out privatized extended benefits. When someone marries, divorces, adopts, births or dies, the government simply needs an easy way to say whom gets what and how much.
Besides, getting married is easy in most states; you do not even have to be in love. Vital records in hand, I could propose to a female stranger on the street and the state would rubber-stamp our marriage without hesitation or delay. In an instant, I could be legally bound to a woman with whom I share no connection whatsoever, and she would automatically reap the benefits of being my wife (i.e. Social Security, tax deductions, inheritance, guardianship and hospital visitation rights).
This raises the question—seriously, someone explain to me—of how a loveless, meaningless union to a complete stranger is better than my real marriage to a loving, nurturing, forgiving, honest man with whom I have chosen to build a life?
Is it because we are gay? Is it because we flail our hands when we are excited? Is it because we take care of each other when we are sick, and that just makes you sick? Is it because we choose to be gay and flaunt it?
I take it back—keep your haphazard rationalizations to yourself. Some stranger’s “traditional” heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than mine, nor is my big, “in-your-face” homosexual marriage any better or worse than theirs.
That is the only argument worth making, and it is the only discussion worth having.
(c) 2013 Jeffrey Garris
On same-sex marriage, New England is now united.
Rhode Island became the 10th U.S. state and final one in the region to make gay weddings legal, after its House of Representatives passed a bill expanding marriage rights to homosexuals. Governor Lincoln Chafee, a 60-year-old independent, has pushed the change since taking office in 2011 and signed the bill yesterday, shortly after its approval.
“I am proud and humbled to make the Marriage Equality Act the law of the land in Rhode Island,” Chafee said in a statement. “We would not be where we are today without the Rhode Islanders who for decades have fought for tolerance and freedom over discrimination and division.”
Chafee backed the measure as a way to spur the state’s economy. Rhode Island’s law takes effect Aug. 1.
Along with the five other New England states -- Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and Connecticut -- same-sex marriages also are legal in Washington, Iowa, New York, Maryland and the District of Columbia. Similar measures are pending in Delaware, Illinois and Minnesota.
The law will make Rhode Island “a place that is welcoming to the younger generation, the creative generation, entrepreneurs,” Chafee said in an interview at Bloomberg News headquarters in New York this week.
“New England is now complete,” Marc Solomon, national campaign director at Freedom to Marry, a New York-based group that helps and funds local gay-rights organizations, said by telephone. “We have an entire region of the country that has approved the freedom to marry.”
No Surprise Frank Schubert, national political director for the National Organization for Marriage, a Washington-based group that fights same-sex marriage legislation around the country, said the loss for his side wasn’t a surprise.
“It is a heavily Catholic state, which is what helped us hold same-sex marriage off for so long,” Schubert said by e- mail. “It is also one of the most Democratic states.”
Rhode Island’s House, led by Representative Gordon D. Fox, a Democrat and the country’s first openly gay House speaker, passed a same-sex marriage measure by 51 to 19 in January. On April 24, the Senate approved a modified version by 26 to 12 that expanded protections for religious organizations. That change was approved in yesterday’s 56-15 vote.
All five Republicans in the 38-member Senate endorsed the proposal, marking the first time that a state Republican legislative caucus has unanimously done so, they said.
Generational Shift “We recognize that there is a national consensus building on this generational issue, and we are glad that support for the freedom to marry is growing within the Republican Party,” the caucus said in a statement last week.
Two years ago, Rhode Island’s legislature pulled back a gay-marriage bill and instead approved civil unions. The state has granted fewer than 100 of them since, according to the Health Department. Rhode Islanders United for Marriage, a local gay-rights group, has said the low rate stems partly from the state’s proximity to others where gay marriage was already legal.
Last May, Chafee signed an executive order recognizing same-sex marriages performed out of state.
To contact the reporter on this story: Annie Linskey in Boston at firstname.lastname@example.org
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Stephen Merelman at email@example.com