Last winter, the two male birds housed at the Madrid Zoo's Faunia Park made headlines in Spain by entering into a rare, but not unheard of, 'gay' penguin relationship. So, when the breeding season approached and an amorous spirit spread among their peers, Inca and Rayas worked together to prepare for the arrival of an offspring, apparently unaware of the nuts and bolts of reproduction.
But as the other preening penguin couples around them began to lay eggs and share in the duties of incubation, keepers say Inca and Rayas seemed a bit sullen and confused by their empty nest:
"They love each other as if they were male and female, courting each other the same," one zoo staffer told a Spanish news outlet. "But what they want is what they lack: to raise a chick."
Faced with this rather heartbreaking scene, last month zookeepers hatched a plan to help Inca and Rayas have a hatchling of their own. As it turns out, one of the zoo's breeding females had laid two eggs this season, one of which would have likely been abandoned -- so the keepers decided to offer it to the hapless penguin pair.
Keepers say that at first Inca and Rayas looked a bit nervous to suddenly be with child, but it didn't take long for them to welcome their new arrival with open wings, doting upon the adopted egg like any good expecting parents would.
"Inca (who's assumed the more motherly role) has yet to leave the nest. This is his first egg and he doesn't want to drop it," says their keeper. "He doesn't move even while we offer the best fish in the world."
Zoo staff expect the egg, so happily adopted by Inca and Rayas, to hatch within a week -- bringing with it renewed hopes of survival for their threatened species, and a reminder that the fruits of love most often grow sweetest when given a chance to grow.
Gay Penguins are not Gay
Kyle Munkittrick on 6 June 2012 for Pop Bioethics-
(http://www.popbioethics.com/2009/06/gay-penguins-are-not-gay/)
[IB editor's note: This article used the same Wikipedia graphic to illustrate "gay" penguins three years earlier.]
At least not the way the internet has made it out to be. The Humbolt penguins at the German zoo, Bremerhaven, that have been “male-male” mating bonding and have been raising donor chicks are being portrayed as “gay” birds. The whole obsession with penguins is something I relate to – I used to doodle “Super Penguin” comics in my elementary school notebook – and this news is particularly funny after the breathless endorcement of March of the Penguins was given by conservative groups as a defence of marriage.
Describing the penguins as “gay” isn’t very accurate because, a) in general most penguins are “monogomous” meaning they’ll pair off with a single partner per mating season, but will often have a new partner the next year and b) if Foucault taught us nothing else, that sexuality is constructed so much so that homosexuality was, in a sense, invented at the turn of the century, it seems ridiculous to describe a species with season-to-season pair bonding with the word “gay.” Gay has too many implications socially and has been misappropriated in scientific work far too often.
What the gay penguin story has shown, however, is that same-sex bonding and mating behavior exists among this breed of penguin. More important, same-sex pairs can successfully raise a healthy chick when provided an egg. Of course, the correlation to humans is an easy one to draw, but I don’t think it is useful for the political debate of same-sex adoption. Gay adoption is ethical and should be allowed because the current arguments against it don’t hold water, not because a couple of penguins in a zoo hinted that it might not be as “unnatural” as antagonists claim.
Having spent the last five years putting all of my political will, interest and energy into fighting against the spread of same-sex marriage as if it were a contagious disease, I must admit that it is hard for me to put the following text into words let alone utter them with my own voice.
Whether it is an issue of disbelief, shame or embarrassment, the one thing that is for sure is that I have come to this point after several months of an internal conflict with myself. That conflict gradually tore away at me until recently when I was able to for the first time simply admit to myself that I do in fact support civil marriage equality.
While I have come to terms with this reality internally, speaking about it, even with the closest members of my family, has proven to be something difficult for me to do.
In short, if there is an issue of disbelief surrounding my newfound support for civil marriage equality, it is disbelief from those who surround me. If there is an issue of shame, it is a result of acknowledging the number of people I have targeted, hurt and oppressed. And if there is an issue of embarrassment, its roots lie in the face-to-face encounters I have had and expect to have with those with whom I once toiled over this very contentious issue.
I understand that those whom I approach now are well within their right to disbelieve and question me and my motives. I accept that is the result of what I have done over the past few years and would therefore like to take this time to, as openly as I can, discuss the events that brought about my change of heart.
As you may already know, I was the one behind the 2010 Summer for Marriage Tour which the National Organization for Marriage sponsored and operated throughout July and August last year. It was my doing when, in March that year, I approached Brian Brown, then Executive Director of the National Organization for Marriage about sponsoring and participating in a series of traditional marriage rallies scattered around the Nation.
In fact, the tour route itself, while chosen largely by NOM itself, incorporated as many of the sites I had originally chosen and helped independently organize. Other locations were added due to strategic, political or simply logistical purposes.
Ironically, one of the last tour stops added to the itinerary was Atlanta and I bring this site up because it was in Atlanta that I can remember that I questioned what I was doing for the first time. The NOM showing in the heart of the Bible-belt was dismal and the hundreds of counter-protesters who showed up were nothing short of inspiring.
Even though I had been confronted by the counter-protesters throughout the marriage tour, the lesbian and gay people whom I made a profession out of opposing became real people for me almost instantly. For the first time I had empathy for them and remember asking myself what I was doing.
If my transition from opponent to supporter of same-sex civil marriage was a timeline, Atlanta would be indicated by the first point on the line. The next point on that timeline would be two months later.
After the marriage tour wrapped up and everyone went their separate ways, I transformed my marriage tour “Inside Look” blog to a more general blog about protecting marriage and opposing the homosexual agenda.
Over the course of September and October I occupied my time writing up articles along these very lines. Some of the articles were fair, even if you disagree with them, but many of them I would now categorize as propaganda filled with strong and unnecessary rhetoric. This is especially true of the YouTube videos I made.
One article I wrote, towards the end of October, 2010 caught the attention of a blogger by the name of RJ, who writes on the blog AmIWorking. He responded to my article about the homosexual agenda with an article addressed personally to me regarding marriage equality. In short, his article had the miraculous effect of instantly putting things into perspective for me.
At that point, between what I had witnessed on the marriage tour and RJ’s post about marriage equality, I really came to understand that gays and lesbians were just real people who wanted to live real lives and be treated equally as opposed to, for example, wanting to destroy American culture. No, they didn’t want to destroy American culture, they wanted to openly particulate in it. I was well on my way to becoming a supporter of civil marriage equality. You can read my statement retracting the statements I made about gays and lesbians here.
As a result of that I closed down my blog within a couple of days. That gave birth to my current endeavor, The Conservative Dispatch, which is how I occupy my time. The site is about promoting general conservative principles and is not focused solely on social issues.
In December I came out in support of the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. I also removed the admins I had delegated my moderating duties to for my Facebook page.
Having done that, I had to pick up where they left off. I was largely taken aback by the fact that the page I created had become such a hateful place. My comments and rhetoric paled in comparison to what that place had turned into. I began to understand why the gay community was out there claiming opposition to same-sex civil marriage was all about hate.
I soon realized that there I was surrounded by hateful people; propping up a cause I created five years ago, a cause which I had begun to question. This would be timeline point number three. I wanted to extend an olive branch in some way and started to reinstate those who had been banned by previous administrators of my page. I welcomed them to participate on the page and did what I could do erase the worst comments and even ban those who posted them.
Also, I started regularly conversing with same-sex marriage supporters in another Facebook group. This further solidified my new perception of gays and lesbians as real people, not some faceless political opponent. That could be considered the next point on the timeline.
Lastly, I came to understand the difference between civil marriage and holy marriage as in the sacrament of the Catholic Church. Let me rephrase. I understood that but either willingly chose not to accept it or just didn’t see it. Regardless, I see it now and the significance of that is as follows:
Once you understand the great difference between civil marriage and holy marriage, there is not one valid reason to forbid the former from same-sex couples, and all that is left to protect is the latter.
Indeed Christians and Catholics alike are well within their right to demand that holy matrimony, a sacrament and service performed by the Church and recognized by the Church, remains between a man and a woman as their faith would dictate. However, that has nothing to do with civil marriage, performed and recognized by the State in accordance with state law.
After months of tortured evasions, Mufi Hannemann July 16 finally came out of the closet and announced that if he were Governor, he "guesses" he would "probably" have vetoed HB444 gay civil unions. The Star-Advertiser July 17 reported:
Hannemann said that if he were to be elected governor in November, he would work with state lawmakers on expanding the state's reciprocal beneficiaries law so gay couples could have additional benefits. But he said he would use his veto power if lawmakers sent him an identical civil unions bill.
"If that bill continues to be tantamount to marriage -- between a man and a man or a woman and a woman -- I could not sign it," he said at a meeting with Star-Advertiser editors and reporters. "I would not sign it."
Pressed on exactly what he would have done had the bill reached his desk as governor, he said, "I guess I probably would have vetoed it."
Until yesterday Hannemann had declined to say how he would have handled the civil unions bill.
For just a moment, it appeared as if Hannemann had sort of taken a position--after refusals dating back to September, 2009. But in yesterday’s Democrat Gubernatorial debate, Hannemann again reverted to his old waffly ways refusing to take any firm stance for or against HB444.
Steve Petranik, editor of Hawaii Business magazine, who moderated the forum, asked Hannemann whether his administration would take an active role in civil unions if it came up at the state Legislature next year, and whether he would sign or veto a civil-unions bill.
Hannemann said he wanted to end discrimination and would work to extend benefits to gay couples. He said he believes marriage is sacrosanct and should be between a man and a woman.
The former mayor has said previously that he, like Gov. Linda Lingle, would have vetoed a civil-unions bill passed this year by the Legislature because he considered it the same as marriage under state law.
Abercrombie, who favors civil unions and has said he would sign the bill into law, chided Hannemann for not directly answering. Asked the same questions by Petranik, Abercrombie simply responded, "Yes."
My favorite part however, came about halfway through the debate. An audience member brought up the controversial civil unions legislation and asked, “If you become governor and a bill similar to HB 444 passed your desk, would you sign it or veto it?” You might recall, Gov. Linda Lingle vetoed the bill last month, which would have allowed homosexual couples to enter into a civil union and given them more rights under the state law.
It was Hannemann’s turn to answer first. He beat around the bush, starting off by saying that he would meet with folks on both sides of the issue before making his decision (as Lingle also did). He then brought up President Obama and echoed his stance by saying that he is against discrimination in our community. But he also believes that marriage should be between a man and woman. That, to me, is plain discrimination.
Then it was Abercrombie’s turn. His response was, “yes.” Yes, he would sign a civil unions bill.
It was refreshing to hear a politician actually answer a question. Not skirt the issue, or answer ambiguously, but a straightforward “Yes, I support this,” or “No, I don’t support this.”
The moderator asked Hannemann whether his administration would support or oppose any state legislation relating to legalizing civil unions, and whether he would sign or veto such a law. Initially skirting the issue by talking about the need for equity in benefits, which he said he would work to make happen, Hannemann finally came back to the issue.
"I have to be clear, my position has always been, marriage is sacrosanct between a man and a woman, and I will hold to that," Hannemann said.
Seemingly amused by Hannemann's response, Abercrombie asked for the question again, then answered with just the word yes, twice, indicating he would support civil union legislation and he would sign such a bill into law.
SUBHEAD: California Prop 8 is determined to be unconstitutional by federal judge.
Image above: Lady Liberty and Lady Justice - The ultimate same sex marriage. From (http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/11/california-libertarians-fight-prop-h8/).Transcript of Rachel Maddow 0n 4 August 2010 for MSNBC -(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/38567479#38567479)
In past decade, 31 states put to a vote the question of whether or not gay people should be allowed to get married. Thirty-one states have put those minority rights up to a vote. And in all 31 of those states, that minority rights issue has gone down to defeat. In general, when ask you for a majority rules vote on minority rights, you get results like what we`ve seen on the gay marriage issue -- 31 out of 31 times in 31 out of 31 states voters voted it down. But here`s the thing about rights-- they`re not actually supposed to be voted on. That`s why they`re called rights.
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
No state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protections of the laws -- even if lots of people in that state want to. It`s not up for a vote. Rights are part of the deal if you`re an American.
That`s why the Equal Protection Clause is in the Constitution. In this case, specifically, it`s in part of the newly controversial 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Rights are not supposed to be put up for a vote. They`re not a popularity contest. They`re supposed to be subject to a test of their constitutionality. That`s why we have courts, not just to put people on trial, but to try the things the people say they want to be their laws. We try those things against the Constitution. And the Constitution restricts the things that Americans can make laws about so those laws don`t infringe on our constitutionally protected rights. That`s sort of the big idea in this country. That`s sort of the big idea that is this country. America, come for the religious liberty, stay for the rock-ribbed constitutional guarantees of all your other rights.
Today, for the first time in our nation`s history, a federal court put the issue of a state ban on gay marriage to the constitutional test. The results were blistering. A federal judge in California ruled unequivocally today in the strongest possible terms that California`s recently passed gay marriage ban, Prop 8, is unconstitutional. The ruling`s long but it is page turner. Federal Judge Vaughn Walker summed up his ruling this way,
"Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians. The evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. The court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.
And with that, California`s gay marriage ban went kaput -- a huge victory, of course, for gay rights supporters in that state and possibly around the country. But Judge Walker, who`s a George H.W. Bush appointee, Judge Walker not only struck down California`s gay marriage ban as unconstitutional, he also probably set the stage for what will be the next big court fight and the next big political fight -- the anti- gay marriage side that was defeated in this case has already filed paperwork expressing intention to appeal the decision. We should expect to hear lots of excerpts from Judge Walker`s ruling. Not only in the legal discussion, but I think you`ll hear it in the political fight that is sure to come as well, because I think many conservatives will see some of this language as explosive.
"That the majority of California voters supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant, as fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote. They depend on the outcome of no elections."
Also, there`s this:
"The evidence shows that movement of marriage away from a gendered institution and toward an institution free from state- mandated gender roles reflects an evolution in the understanding of gender rather than a change in marriage. The evidence did not show any historical purpose for excluding same-sex couples from marriage as states have never required spouses to have an ability or willingness to procreate in order to marry. Rather, the exclusion existed as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed. The right to marry has been historically and remains the right to choose a spouse and with mutual consent join together and form a household. Race and gender restrictions shape marriage during eras of race and gender inequality, but such restrictions were never part of the historical core of the institution of marriage. Today, gender is not relevant to the state in determining spouses` obligations to each other and to their dependents."
Stick that on a bumper sticker. Actually, I will bet you that somewhere in right-wing America, someone already is. You know, the night that the gay marriage ban passed in California back in November 2008, gay people and gay rights supporters took to the streets in anger during what was an otherwise joyous election night for liberals and progressives. Obama was just elected president. But then in California, that was Prop 8. Today, some of those same protesters were back in the streets, this time celebrating -- celebrating a dramatic and provocative reversal. In a few minutes, we`ll be joined by David Boies and Ted Olson, the two attorneys who won the case against Prop 8 today. But, first, we`re joined by Slate.com`s legal correspondent and senior editor, Dahlia Lithwick. Dahlia, thanks so much for joining us.
DAHLIA LITHWICK: Hi there, Rachel.
MADDOW: So, the senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, the people defending Prop 8, say they plan to appeal the decision today, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Where do they start? What happens next?
LITHWICK: Well, first we have a little site that we`re going to have over the judge staying his order. Today, in other words, Judge Walker almost immediately temporarily stayed his order. And he`s going to let the parties decide. I think their papers are due actually -- it`s definitely expedited. But I think, by Friday, they`ve got to get their filings in. And then he`s going to make a decision, I`m hearing, on Tuesday, about whether or not this is going to be stayed pending an appeal. So, we have already a fight over a stay. And then over and above that, as you say, there`s going to be an appeals process, both sides had intended to appeal, because the end game here was always to get this before the U.S. Supreme Court.
MADDOW: In terms of the ruling, Judge Walker`s reasoning, the way he wrote his decision, if or when this does make it to the U.S. Supreme Court, or even looking ahead to the 9th Circuit, based on your understanding of the law here, how strong do you think the anti- gay marriage appeal is going to be? How resilient do you think this ruling is going to be when it gets higher scrutiny?
LITHWICK: It`s a great question, Rachel. And it`s really clear when you look at this 138-page opinion of which you read some of the highlights but not nearly all.
MADDOW: Yes.
LITHWICK: It`s really worth reading in its entirety. But, you know, two very, very strategic things that Judge Walker did. One, and you quoted some of these quotes yourself, he quoted Anthony Kennedy, who`s been the pivotal justice on gay rights issues in Romer, the Colorado anti- gay rights initiative and then again in Lawrence v. Texas, the Texas sodomy case. It was Anthony Kennedy, believe it or not, on a very, very polarized court who always stood really steadfast and in lofty language for the rights and the dignity of gay Americans. So, this is couched in a little bit of a love letter to Anthony Kennedy. The other thing that is really important to understand in Judge Walker`s order is that there are findings of fact and there are findings of law. An appellate court has to defer enormously to a judge`s finding of fact. They can really look at findings of law from scratch. And Judge Walker puts together 80 different findings of fact in this cage, really meticulously combing through the record, looking at the evidence, citing the witnesses and finding 80 different places where he says things as a matter of fact like kids that -- it doesn`t make any difference if you are raised by gay or straight parents, that the animus of Prop 8 was biased and based on stereotypes. So, bump, bump, bump, he goes down 80 findings of fact that the courts are going to have to take very seriously. So, I think that he really constructed something that is going to be hard to dismiss as, you know, activist judges, finger painting, you know, to loud music.
MADDOW: All right. I`m so glad that you pointed that out. That`s how -- just as a layman, I don`t have any legal training or never, but I was reading through this. I got to the statements of fact and I -- instead of just reading them online, I started printing them out and highlighting them because I sort of couldn`t believe that this was in that part of the ruling. I mean, the campaign to pass Proposition 8 relied on stereotypes to show that same-sex relationships are inferior to opposite-sex relationships. He then says the stereotypes are not based in fact. He makes claims about, you know, the health of children in gay families. It`s a bold, bold ruling. In terms of the federal and national implications for this, Dahlia, obviously, this is narrowly about Proposition 8 in California. But this was a federal court ruling. Does this have implications for other states?
LITHWICK: Well, not immediately. And, in fact, Judge Walker was very careful in the -- in his own closing arguments and when he was talking to the lawyers asking questions. He asked a lot of questions about DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act. That doesn`t come up in this case. So, I think what this really does is it -- a very, very broad statement. I mean, he finds both as a matter of equal protection and as a matter of due process of law, this is unconstitutional. So, it`s not a narrow ruling, Rachel. But, certainly, I think this tees up a question that the Supreme Court probably wants to avoid but I think it`s really going to have to deal with it. I mean, this is -- you know, has always been a gamble about, as I said, one person, Anthony Kennedy, at the center of the court. And I think it tees it up in a way that`s going to make, really force the court to contend with this issue squarely on the merits and again dealing with the very, very elaborate findings of fact.
MADDOW: And that was always the case that was made by David Boies and Ted Olson when they faced criticism for pushing forward with this case when some other advocates of this issue wanted other cases to take the issue forward. They always maintained that they felt like this was their best -- this was their best vehicle for bringing it to the Supreme Court. David Boies and Ted Olson will actually be joining us next. They`re standing by. Dahlia Lithwick, senior editor and legal correspondent for Slate.com, you really helped us clarify this. Thanks a lot.
Birds of a feather aren't opposed to same-sex relationships.
One-third of the pairs of Laysan albatrosses in a colony in Hawaii actually consist of two female birds, according to The Independent.
Biologist Lindsay Young, who studies the colony and who made the discovery with a colleague, told the British newspaper, "They were supposed to be icons of monogamy: one male and one female. But I wouldn't assume that what you're looking at is a male and a female."
The Laysan albatross, which lives to the age of 60 or 70 and has a very low "divorce rate," preferring to mate annually with the same bird, is one of many species of animals in which males and females look basically the same.
Many of the female-female pairs at Kaena Point in Oahu and another colony on Kauai had been together for up to 19 years, report the Independent, and some of the pairs had incubated eggs and reared chicks together –- appearing to be "straight couples."
The albatross is not alone in its same-sex preferences. Same-sex sexual activity in various guises is seen often in situations where there is a shortage of one sex or another -- more frequently at zoos than in the wild. Now some psychologists are looking into why and how homosexual behaviors evolved and the evolutionary role they have.
Young wants to learn how the same-sex albatrosses in Hawaii are able to get fertilized eggs. One possible theory is that male albatrosses who make it back to the colony for mating season before their longtime hetero partners could be forcing themselves on the females. Or maybe the females are "soliciting" sex from the males?
She and another biologist, Marlene Zuk, hope to get a 10-year National Science Foundation grant that would let them keep studying female albatross pairs.
We invite articles submitted by our readers. You can add an article (subject to editorial approval) by emailing the Juan Wilson with what you want to post.
We will include your name as the author, or, if you are forwarding another's words, we will add you as the source.
Image above: A pair of penguins kissing at Cotswold Wildlife Park. From (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Penguincotswoldwildlifepark.jpg).
By all accounts, Inca and Rayas are just like any other Humboldt penguin couple -- loyal, affectionate, and family oriented -- but until recently, the same-sex pair's literal love nest seemed bound to be empty.
