Tuesday, November 1, 2011

Thank you, Kim Kardashian

From the Rev. Susan Russell, of All Saint's Episcopal Church, Pasadena CA, a thank you to Kim Kardashian. I hope Susan forgives me the lengthy quote, but this is just TOO GOOD not to share widely:
I am not sure you can appreciate just what a gift it is to have the extraordinarily well publicized news of the end of your hysterically hyped marriage come the very week our congressional leaders are set to begin debating the Respect for Marriage Act on Capitol Hill.

Seriously. As a marriage equality activist I cannot thank you enough for your gift of the stunning example of how the gender of the couple saying "I do" clearly has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with respect for the institution of marriage. It is a gift -- I promise you -- that will keep on giving.

As we continue to work for Family Values that value all families and a Protect Marriage Movement that protects all marriages we will have your example to add to Britney Spears' 55 hour marriage, Larry King's eight marriages and Newt Gingrich's three (just to name a few) as proof positive that marriage needs protection all right -- but not from gay and lesbian couples who want to pledge to live together until death do they part.

We will have another great example to contrast to those couples building lives, families and a future without the 1138 federally protected rights that you and Kris Humphries enjoyed for the 72 days you were married to each other. Rights like social security, inheritance, taxation, hospital visitation and immigration status. Just to name a few.

We will have another opportunity to talk about the values that make up a marriage -- values that transcend the gender and sexual orientation of the couple. Values like fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and love -- the values that we in the Episcopal Church have held up as the standards we hold for relationships blessed by our church.

And it will give me the chance to talk about the marriages I know about that actually embody all those traditional values which were so utterly lacking in your $10 million dollar nuptial debacle. Like Alec and Jamie. Gay men who have been together for 10 years. Married since 2008. New parents to a 5-year old son adopted out of the foster care system. A son they are raising in a stable, loving home, bringing him to Sunday School every Sunday ... .

So thank you again, Kim. As we work without ceasing to secure for Alec and Jamie and their family the rights you and Kris threw away after 72 days of marriage, I hope you will know how deeply grateful we are for the "on a silver platter" gift you gave us this week as we head into Senate Judiciary Hearings on the Respect for Marriage Act and look ahead to the repeal of DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act). Honestly, we just can't thank you enough.
What Susan said! Well done!


Leonardo Ricardo said...

Just another, albeit well known, mess of the heterosexual variety...emotionally and spiritually ¨challenged¨ people come in all sexual orientations...often has to do with egos running riot, or worse.

dr.primrose said...

Yesterday afternoon the anti-Prop. 8 forces filed their brief in the 9th Circuit in the case where the pro-forces are seeking to reverse the district court's order finding Prop. 8 unconstitutional on the grounds that the judge should have recused himself because he is a gay man in a same-sex relationship. You can read the brief here. A story posted on the L.A. Times website this morning said:


A federal judge’s failure to disclose whether he intended to marry his long-term, same-sex partner before presiding over the Proposition 8 case amounts to misconduct that requires the removal of his ruling against the 2008 ballot measure, lawyers opposed to gay marriage told a federal appeals court.

In written arguments to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, both sides in the gay marriage legal dispute debated whether the sexual orientation of retired Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker might have affected the case.

The 9th Circuit, considering the arguments filed over the last few weeks, has put Walker’s ruling on hold pending a decision on whether to uphold or overturn it.

Minority judges have long been permitted to preside over civil rights cases affecting their race or ethnicity, and the dispute over Walker’s sexual orientation is likely to clarify the legal rules for gay and lesbian jurists. Walker is openly gay and his sexual orientation was widely known in San Francisco’s legal community. But he did not publicly discuss it until after retiring from the bench in February.

Walker should have disclosed any interest he may have had in marrying his partner of 10 years or stepped aside when he was randomly chosen to preside over the case, the opponents of gay marriage said.

“Although a judge may choose to avoid disclosure by recusing himself without explanation, he cannot both remain silent and sit in judgment of a case in which a reasonable observer, with knowledge of all of the relevant facts (disclosed or not) would conclude the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” ProtectMarriage argued.

Gay rights lawyers countered that judges must disqualify, or recuse, themselves from hearing cases only when they have a “substantial and individualized interest in the case, particularly a financial interest, that gives rise to actual bias,” the lawyers for Proposition 8’s challengers said.

“A recusal rule that turns on a minority judge’s subjective desire to enjoy his basic civil rights would effectively disqualify all minority judges,” Proposition 8’s challengers said.