SAME SEX COUPLES IN LOUISIANA SUE TO HAVE THEIR MARRIAGES RECOGNIZED

From Houma Today:

The Blanchards are a gay couple, married in Iowa last year, who live in Lafourche. They, along with two other gay couples, have sued the state claiming Louisiana’s refusal to recognize their marriage violates their constitutional freedoms.  
....

Driving through their Raceland subdivision past the single story, cookie cutter red brick homes, the Blanchards’ home would be difficult to distinguish from those of most bayou families. 
....

Courtney argued that those still resisting will be remembered in the same light as those who resisted civil rights for blacks. She added the couple feel nothing but love from their neighbors and others.

“We are accepted around here,” Courtney said. “My grandma knows, and she understands it. I would never imagine that kind of stuff.”

I wish the Blanchards and the other couples in Louisiana success in their litigation to have their marriages recognized.  In other states which do not allow same sex marriages, courts have ruled in favor of recognition.  If the litigation is successful, you'll hear hootin' and hollerin' from folks who disagree with the ruling, but recognition of the marriages is inevitable, and, if not now, then it will come, probably sooner, rather than later.  Seventeen states allow same sex marriages, and the number will surely grow.

The reporter paints a sympathetic picture of the Blanchard family, portraying them as "normal" and unthreatening, which I do appreciate, but I was amused at the description of their house as just like any other house in the neighborhood.  You'd never know from passing by that a family with a young child with two mommies lived there.  What are the expectations about the homes of lesbian and gay couples?   I have no idea.  Norman Bates' house in Psycho? 

NEWS FROM THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN SOUTH CAROLINA

Grace Episcopal Church - Charleston, SC

The Episcopal Church in South Carolina has filed to remove the state lawsuit filed against it to the U.S. District Court, citing statutory and constitutional issues that need to be addressed by the federal court. The Episcopal Church is also a defendant in the suit and has consented to the removal to the federal court.

The suit, originally filed in South Carolina Circuit Court in Dorchester County by a group that is breaking away from The Episcopal Church, now moves entirely  to the federal court system, according to Thomas S. Tisdale, Jr., Chancellor of The Episcopal Church in South Carolina, which is remaining part of The Episcopal Church.

“We have carefully examined the claims made against The Episcopal Church in South Carolina, and inherent in all these claims are federal statutory and constitutional issues that must be decided in a federal court rather than in South Carolina state court,” Mr. Tisdale said.

The plaintiffs, who include a group representing itself as “the Diocese of South Carolina” along with 35 parishes, now have 30 days to respond to the notice of removal. They could seek to have the case remanded to state court, and a federal judge would then have to decide where the case will be heard.

Not only did Mark Lawrence and the breakaways take property that belonged to the Episcopal Church when they left, they took the name of the Episcopal diocese.  The faithful Episcopalians chose a clever new name after they were enjoined from using their proper name.

The photo is from an Easter service at Grace Episcopal Church in Charleston, where, as you see, the church was full, which warms my heart.

MORE ON DR JEFFREY JOHN AND HIS ALLEGED LITIGATION AGAINST THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

Thus far The Independent seems to have the most reliable coverage of the alleged litigation being prepared by Dr John and his legal advisers against the Church of England.

Under current equality laws religious organisations are are given dispensation to discriminate against those who do not comply with their teachings, allowing clerics like Dr John to be passed over, and mosques to only have male imams, for example. Were the Church's current stance on homosexuality to be tested in court the Church would almost certainly win, for if it didn't the very existence of many faiths would be under threat. But by forcing the issue those at the top would be forced to confront some embarrassing - and extremely divisive - issues.

Some of those who know him expressed surprise that he would take such a step. "Jeffrey's always wanted to do things within the church," said one. "He's not the litigious type."

Others questioned where the leak came from. "It's so obviously deeply counter-productive to Jeffrey," said another colleague. "It makes him look like he's saying promote or I'll sue. It's a rather good way of smearing him."

The newspaper report includes a photo of a nasty sign, which I don't see as necessary, but I admit the sign is the reality for some who oppose the appointment of gay bishops.

The Independent also understands Dr John was not even long-listed for the currently vacant post of Bishop of Edinburgh, meaning no church leader was willing to put him forward for another key diocese with liberal leanings.

More's the pity. I expect Jeffrey John will not be a bishop, which is very much the Church of England's loss.

Read the article which reminds us of what conservatives happily label "The Jeffrey John clause", in which gay persons are asked to repent of their "physically homosexual past", whereas such repentance is not asked of heterosexual candidates, a Catch-22, which is about as blatantly discriminatory as one can imagine.

UPDATE: Andrew Brown in the Guardian thinks it is unlikely that Jeffrey John will sue the Church of England because he keeps his personal life private, which he could not do in the midst of litigation, and because he will lose the case anyway.

Last year the Church of England published a legal opinion that makes it quite clear that it believes it is legal to discriminate against John, not because he is gay, since he is also celibate, but because he is not in the least bit ashamed of being gay. That is what sticks in the craw of the conservative evangelicals who oppose him. They have moved on from supposing that it is absolutely wrong to be gay. They now believe that it is OK to be gay providing that you are very unhappy about it.
....

Look at the small print of its legal opinion on civil partnerships, transparently designed to prevent John from being able to sue for discrimination. No selection committee would ask straight candidates for a job whether they had ever had pre-marital sex, and, if they had, whether they were jolly sorry for it. Yet the Church of England believes that it is legally and morally OK to ask the equivalent questions of gay men: "Whether the candidate had always complied with the church's teachings on sexual activity being solely within matrimony; whether he had expressed repentance for any previous pre-marital sexual activity."

As the late, great Molly Ivins said so often, you can't make this stuff up.

UPDATE 2 from Jim Naughton at The Lead:

Articles appeared in several British newspapers over the weekend suggesting that Dean Jeffrey John of St. Alban's Cathedral was going to sue the Church of England for discrimination unless he is made a bishop. We don't think these stories were quite right.

It is our understanding, after some extensive conversations, that what John has done is hire a lawyer to inform the Church of England that provisions which prohibit anyone in a civil partnership--be they gay or straight, celibate or sexually active--from becoming a bishop exceed even the generous exemptions provided for religious organizations in the Equality Act of 2010.

JEFFREY JOHN V. THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND?

From the Guardian:

The Church of England's most senior openly gay cleric is understood to be considering suing his employers for discrimination unless he is made a bishop.

I doubt that Jeffrey John will pursue litigation on the basis of what is stated above. The article includes words such as, "Reports on Sunday suggested..." and "It is thought..." Jeffrey John, along with his reported legal representative, have refused to comment. The Church of England also refuses comment. Much is yet to be known about what's really happening, thus the wording that indicates much less than certainty about the situation by the writer of the article.

A source close to John told the Sunday Times: "This is not a case of demanding something he is not entitled to but a way of resolving the flawed voting process that prevented him being made the bishop of Southwark."

If possible litigation is pending, then the above statement would more likely be the basis for John to pursue legal action against the Church of England, rather than his demanding that he be made a bishop. The Guardian usually does a better job of reporting.