The 4,700-word document, called “The Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience,” sounds familiar themes from political and social debates over the health care overhaul and gay marriage battles.

While acknowledging that “Christians and our institutions have too often scandalously failed to uphold the institution of marriage,” the group rejects same-sex marriage. The declaration states that opening a legal door for gay marriage would do the same for “polyamorous partnerships, polygamous households, even adult brothers, sisters, or brothers and sisters living in incestuous relationships.”

President Barack Obama’s desire to reduce the need for abortion is “a commendable goal,” but his proposals are likely to increase the number of elective abortions, the document contends.

“The present administration is led and staffed by those who want to make abortions legal at any stage of fetal development, and who want to provide abortions at taxpayer expense,” it says.

Obama has said he wants to strike a balance on abortion coverage in the health care overhaul.

The declaration also cites threats to health care workers’ conscience clauses and anti-discrimination statutes it argues impinge on religious freedoms.

Signatories include 15 Roman Catholic bishops, including New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan and Washington Archbishop Donald Wuerl; Focus on the Family founder James Dobson; National Association of Evangelicals president Leith Anderson; seminary leaders, professors and pastors.

Equality California announced Thursday that it would be airing a spot featuring a teenage girl with two mothers during the Nov. 22 contest, which is airing on the CW and My Network TV.

Keith Lewis, the pageant’s executive director, says he would give Prejean the same amount of time if she wanted to provide a pre-taped message.

Lewis, who is gay, accused Prejean of violating her contract when she ignored his advice on how to handle the intense publicity after she said during this year’s Miss USA pageant that she was opposed to same-sex marriage.

However, the judges ruled narrowly, and asked that the legislature resolved the question of marriage equality.

From the New York Times:

…the decision gave gay advocates a small victory because it was narrowly written and applied to a relatively small number of people.

In their majority ruling, four of the seven members of the court said they were making their decision on narrow grounds involving the specifics of each case, and not settling the broader question of whether same-sex marriages performed in other states should be recognized. Judge Eugene F. Pigott Jr., writing for the majority, expressed “hope that the Legislature will address this controversy.”

But in a concurring decision, three of the justices said that the court should have addressed the wider issue because New York law already allows for the recognition of marriages that are considered legal elsewhere.

Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, who wrote the concurring decision, said “that the orders under review should be affirmed on the ground that same-sex marriages, valid where performed, are entitled to full legal recognition in New York under our state’s longstanding marriage recognition rule.”

The ruling leaves open the possibility that there could be future challenges on the issue in New York.

Gov. David Paterson issued an executive order last year extending state recognition to gay couples who are married in states where same-sex marriage is legal. The order was challenged by anti-equality activists who argued that marriage equality should be decided by the legislature.

A marriage equality bill has passed the New York State Assembly; it is not clear whether it will come up for a vote in the state senate.

*****
From Evan Wolfson:

The policy of honoring marriages on equal terms was upheld in a ruling today by the NY Court of Appeals, with a strong and repeated plea by the High Court to the Legislature to act on the underlying question of the freedom to marry here in NY.

(Washington, DC)  Civil rights triumphed over another failed attack from advocates of discrimination when today, the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics rejected a proposed referendum to put the rights of a minority up for a vote.

The proposed effort to limit the rights of District residents was brought by Stand For Marriage and Maryland pastor, Bishop Harry Jackson. The BOEE denied the referendum as a violation of the Human Rights Act of the District of Columbia.

 “Equality should never be up for debate or denied on a ballot,” said D.C. resident Michael Crawford, Co-chair of D.C. for Marriage. “We only want what every other American already has – the right to marry the person we love.”

Rev. Cedric Harmon, a D.C. resident and a representative of D.C. Clergy United for Marriage Equality, a group of nearly 200 Washington, D.C. faith leaders representing all eight wards of the District and a variety of religious faiths added the following statement in support of the BOEE’s decision:

 ”It is shameful when religious leaders fail to uphold the Christian teachings of our faith by trying to institutionalize a second-class citizenship on our neighbors. People of faith have worked for generations to achieve social justice for all people — regardless of race, creed, class, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. We serve our entire flock, and there is no justification under God that we should discriminate against any of God’s children.

“The District of Columbia has not voted on the civil rights of a minority since the Civil War, when a majority prevented freed male slaves from gaining the right to vote. Today, the Board of Elections and Ethics reminded us that human rights should never be put to a vote. As members of the clergy who support equal rights for all citizens, and who struggle to achieve social justice in the District of Columbia, we applaud the BOEE for standing up for human rights in the face of discrimination.”

Jose Maria Di Bello and his partner Alex Freyre won the right to get married when a judge ruled last week that a ban on gay marriage violates Argentina’s constitution.

“On December 1st we will become man and man,” said Di Bello, welling up in tears as a city clerk gave him the paperwork.

Buenos Aires Mayor Mauricio Macri said the city will not appeal – in effect inviting other same-sex couples to pursue their rights in court as well.

“We have to live with and accept this reality: the world is moving in this direction,” Macri said Friday, adding that it is important officials “safeguard the right of each person to freely choose with whom they want to form a couple and be happy.”

Freyre, 39, executive director of the Buenos Aires AIDS Foundation, and Di Bello, 41, an executive with the Argentine Red Cross, sued after being denied a license in April.

Their request was granted by Judge Gabriela Seijas, who said laws limiting marriage to “a man and a woman” violate constitutional rights of equality.

Argentina’s Congress is considering changing dozens of articles in the civil code to enable same-sex marriage. The proposal has support among ruling party lawmakers but President Cristina Fernandez has yet to take a stand. The Roman Catholic Church and other Christian groups are opposed.

Currently no country in Latin America allows gay marriage, though some jurisdictions allow gay partners to form civil unions with many of the same rights.

Seijas’ ruling sets no precedent beyond this case, but other gays and lesbians can cite it and hope for positive results in court if their requests for marriage licenses are denied.

“Ideally we want the bill to pass so that couples won’t have to resort to this type of action,” said Maria Rachid, president of the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transsexual Federation of Argentina.

Buenos Aires in 2002 became the first city in Latin America to allow same-sex civil unions, and Mexico City followed in 2007. Uruguay has legalized civil unions nationwide. In the Spanish-speaking world, Spain went further, legalizing same-sex marriage in 2005.

The men – both HIV positive – plan to marry on World AIDS Day at the same civil registry in the capital’s Palermo neighborhood. They told The Associated Press that marriage – and not just a civil union – is important to them because they want a shared health insurance policy and inheritance rights, among other things married couples now enjoy.

Bishop Thomas E. Breidenthal of the Episcopal Diocese of Southern Ohio announced at the 135th diocesean convention that he would lift the prohibition of same-sex unions in the church.

The diocese includes about 25,000 Episcopalians in more than 80 churches.

Right Rev. Breidenthal put conservatives at ease by assuring them that no priest will be required to perform the same-sex blessing.

The General Convention this past summer approved openly gay bishops to serve in the Episcopal church.

Himself gay and Mormon, Cowan clashed with his family over his sexual orientation and the beliefs of their faith, but it was a conversation between him and a sibling about her support of Proposition 8 cemented his commitment to make the film: “8: The Mormon Proposition.”

“I thought, if this is the dialogue in my Mormon family, then what is like in other Mormon households,” the Miami-area filmmaker and former Utah television journalist said. “If this is the pain I feel over Prop. 8 and other Mormon efforts to quash (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) rights, what is the pain of others multiplied all over the world?”

While the 80-minute documentary is still in production, a trailer posted on the Internet has caught the eye of both sides of the debate, viewed by roughly 70,000 people in its first 78 hours online. And the Web site that hosts the video has had nearly 28,000 visitors since it went online last month.

Cowan contends that the church was the most influential force in the campaign and paints the faith’s theology and culture as historically anti-gay.

Internet commentary on the trailer is divided.

Depending on the source, the movie is either an emotional and scathing indictment of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or an unfair characterization of the Utah-based church’s beliefs and motivation for political involvement. The church was part of a coalition of faiths and conservative groups that pushed for approval of a gay marriage ban in California’s constitution.

Church officials have seen the trailer and other online materials about the film, LDS spokeswoman Kim Farah said, and “it is obvious that anyone looking for balance and thoughtful discussion of a serious subject will need to look elsewhere.”

Like many faiths, Mormonism defends traditional marriage as an institution ordained by God that is central to a healthy society. The church has consistently worked against legislation to legalize gay marriage since the 1990s. Last week, however, church leaders endorsed a pair of Salt Lake City ordinances that make it illegal to discriminate against LGBT persons in employment and housing.

Narrated by Academy Award winning screenwriter Dustin Lance Black – also gay and raised Mormon – the film chronicles the campaign and includes personal stories from straight and gay Mormons, including newlyweds Tyler Barrick and Spencer Jones, who married in San Francisco on June 17, 2008, the first day same sex marriage was legal in California.

The film touches on gay suicide and homelessness, which many believe occur at higher-than-average rates among gay Mormons and highlights the strong opposition to gay rights from the Utah Legislature and lobbyists who are predominantly Latter-day Saints.

It also draws on past statements of former leaders and efforts to cure homosexuality with electroshock therapy at the church-owned Brigham Young University.

Mormon church officials appear in the film in footage obtained through other filmmakers, media outlets and in a church-produced video that appeared on the Web.

Cowan said he “begged” for church participation – through both official channels and personal connections – but was rejected. “I got an immediate no,” he said.

Alex Nibley, a Utah filmmaker and digital media instructor said the trailer’s powerful, high-quality footage promises an emotional look at it subject. Still, he said, it appears to fit within the typically polaraized spectrum of film takes on the Mormon church – most either that promote the faith or attack its views.

“I suspect that the impact will be to confirm certain ideas that people have about the church,” Nibley said. “It may expand some perceptions in the public at large, but it will probably not shake the faith of a lot of those who aren’t going to pay much attention to it.”

Cowan said his goal for the film was to document what he believes is a crusade against gay people and to illustrate that the faith operates as both a church and a political action committee.

A release date for the film, believed to be the first about Prop. 8, is uncertain. Cowan is shopping the film to festivals.

1. Dr. Bert Chapman writes nothing worth a darn; however, he doesn’t need to lose his gig at Purdue University.

2. I’ve taken the Human Rights Campaign to task many a time, but this morning a lift of the coffee cup for this website focusing on students at predominately black colleges and universities.

3. Need a good laugh? Or cry? Watch Donnie McClurkin expound on what it means to be gay.

4. Will marriage equality get a vote this week in New York? Wish I knew.

5.  Pops: A Life of Louis Armstrong is starting to appear in bookstores.

6. Anyone reading Sarah Palin’s new book? And yes that is a serious question.

7. Anyone watch the Colts/Patriots game last night? Not a fan of the pig skin but that match had me shouting.

8. There is nothing better than someone going on an extended homophobic rant and then coming up with a lame apology.

9. Who doesn’t need Cassandra Wilson on a Monday morning?

10. Why am I always late for work?

So far, most city council members have refused to do that.

Catholic Charities has city contracts to provide services to about 68,000 people. The marriage bill would not require churches to perform same-sex weddings, but because Catholic Charities uses city money, the archdiocese fears it would have to offer employee benefits and adoptions to married same-sex couples.

The marriage legislation is expected to pass next month and has the mayor’s support.

Jane G. Belford, the chancellor of the Washington archdiocese, wrote Councilman Phil Mendelson on Wednesday asking for an exemption to protect the church’s religious freedoms. The church wants to be exempt from any measure that would require it to extend benefits to same-sex couples or allow gays and lesbians to adopt children.

Council member Tommy Wells said it would be dangerous to let the Catholic church start writing D.C. laws, a sentiment expressed by Mendelson and other members.

“Allowing individual exemptions opens the door for anyone to discriminate based on assertions of religious principle,” Mendelson said. “Let’s not forget that during the civil rights era, many claimed separation of the races was ordained by God.”

Archdiocese spokeswoman Susan Gibbs said the law would require city contractors to ignore their religious principles.

“We are not threatening to walk out of the city,” Gibbs said. “The city is the one saying, ‘If you want to continue partnering with the city, then you cannot follow your faith teachings.’”

Catholic Charities, one of dozens of nonprofits that partner with D.C. government, manages city-owned shelters that serve about one-third of Washington’s homeless population. The group’s contracts totaled $8.2 million in the past three years, according to the city council.

Council chairman Vincent Gray said Thursday the city would have to find another group to provide social services if the church backs out. He said he didn’t see any room for compromise.

Council member Jim Graham said the church hasn’t abandoned social services in New Hampshire, Connecticut or Vermont after those states began recognizing same-sex marriages.

However, Catholic Charities halted its adoption programs in 2006 in Boston because Massachusetts banned discrimination against same-sex couples who want to adopt children.

Reports The Providence Journal:

“Maybe it’s something we should consider,” said Carcieri, after meeting privately Thursday for more than an hour in his office with a half-dozen members of Queer Action of Rhode Island, a group that in the immediate aftermath of his veto had labeled him “a bigot.”

Among those attending was Mark Goldberg, the Providence East Sider whose five-week battle to claim the body of his partner of 17 years from the state morgue, had sparked the vetoed legislation.

Citing as a possible model the “everything but marriage” referendum that won approval in the state of Washington earlier this month, Carcieri said: “I don’t know enough, yet. All I am saying is I understand the circumstances. I understand the difficulties” that can arise for same-sex couples and others — such as widows living with widowers, and widows with other widows — outside the legal framework of a traditional marriage.

“Let’s see if we can find a way to solve that without discreet [pieces] of legislation every time something comes up. I just don’t think that is the right way to deal with it,” he said.