A gay man in Germany may be entitled to his dead partner's pension following a ruling by the highest court in the EU.
[The man's] partner died in 2005 but the pension fund refused him a widower's pension and the case was sent to the European Court of Justice (ECJ).
The court ruled that refusing a pension was direct discrimination if the partnership was comparable to marriage...
The court based its ruling on an EU directive which states that there should be no discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.
Although German law considers only heterosexual unions as marriage, the ruling makes it clear that any country in the EU that gives same-sex couples rights equivalent to marriage should treat the two as comparable...
[One of the man's lawyers] said the ruling would have significant repercussions for the UK and Scandinavia where same-sex partners had "mirror institutions" to marriage, rather than French-style civil contracts...
GAY MARRIAGES IN THE EU
- Full marriage recognised: Spain, Netherlands, Belgium
- Legal partnerships similar to marriage: Germany, Sweden, Denmark, UK, Czech
Republic, Slovenia, Hungary, Finland, Portugal- Civil contracts: France, Luxembourg
- No provision: Austria, Baltic states, Cyprus, Greece, Malta, Romania,
Bulgaria, Italy, Ireland, Poland, Slovakia
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
EU Court Ruling on Same-Sex Unions
Marriage Algorithm Creator Dead at 86
...[Mathematician David Gale] was widely recognized for work on the so-called stable marriage algorithm, a concept he developed in the 1960s with the economist and mathematician Lloyd S. Shapley.
The problem begins with the assumption that equal numbers of men and women are in search of potential partners. Is it possible to pair the individuals in such a way that all achieve a satisfactory match? The solution developed by Dr. Shapley and Dr. Gale was to have each participant rank the members of the other sex in terms of desirability. The researchers then developed an algorithm that directed each participant to his or her next choice of partner, if rejected by the first or second choices.
The result was that everyone would be matched in a "stable" pairing, a term meant to suggest that no two members of the opposite sex would rather marry each other than the ultimate partner provided by the algorithm.
The findings were published in 1962 in The American Mathematical Monthly, and were soon recognized as having broad applications to other situations...
Ivy League Abstinence
...The Ivy League's abstinence clubs began emerging several years ago about the same time as student sex blogs, sex columns and, at Harvard and Yale, student sex magazines…[T]he Princeton club [was] the first to form in the Ivy League in 2005...
[The Princeton club members so admired the logic of Catholic thinker Elizabeth Anscombe, the philosopher and student of Ludwig Wittgenstein, whose arguments] against premarital sex are as impressive as they are difficult to summarize, [that] they named their society after her...
[S]tudents at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology were the first to follow with another Anscombe Society...
The Harvard abstinence club came next, in 2006...[The founders] decided that their club would focus on the issue "most immediately relevant" to people on campus — premarital sexual abstinence — and would try to persuade people toward it with arguments less philosophical than scientific...
Does Gay Marriage Ban Invalidate Custody Agreement?
An Ohio woman says the state's ban on same-sex marriage is grounds for barring her ex-partner from sharing custody with her son....
The dispute over custody began in 2005 after the women ended their relationship.
After their son was born in 1996, both women parented him. In order to ensure that Leach had a protected legal relationship with the child, the two women signed a joint custody agreement. Such agreements were approved by the Ohio Supreme Court in 2001.
That same year an Ohio court approved the joint custody agreement stating they would share custody.
After Leach and Fairchild broke up, Fairchild sought to terminate the custody agreement, citing the 2004 state amendment limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.
I don't particularly approve of same sex parenting. But that is not the issue here. These women entered into an agreement (which excluded the bio dad, of course, but never mind.) That explicit agreement sets this case apart from marriage. In a marriage, both members of the couple are assumed to be the parents. That presumption has been in place for centuries, precisely because it is a safe presumption for opposite sex couples. I think we would all be far better off if same sex couples handled their relationships through a series of contracts, rather than trying to rewrite the presumption of paternity into a generic "presumption of parentage."
In this case, the two women did exactly what I think they should have done, and what all same sex couples ought to do: they signed an explicit agreement regarding the upbringing of this child. One of them now wants to set that agreement aside, because of strains in their relationship. I don't think the court should help her renege.
Cross-posted at my personal blog.
Woman Argues OH SSM Ban Bars Ex From Sharing Custody
(Columbus, Ohio) An Ohio woman says the state's ban on same-sex marriage is grounds for barring her ex-partner from sharing custody with her son.
Thursday the Court of Appeals will hear her case. Last June a judge in Columbus ruled that the amendment has no bearing on a signed agreement between [the two women] that they would share custody of the boy, now aged 11...
In addition to banning same-sex marriage the amendment, known as Issue 1, says the state "and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage."...
Whichever way the court rules the case is likely to be appealed to the state Supreme Court...
New Study: 45% of UK Marriages Will End in Divorce
Nearly half of all marriages will end in divorce, according to a study published today [on p.28 of the spring issue of Population Trends].
About 45% of marriages will not survive if current divorce rates continue - with almost half of these divorces happening before the couples reach their 10th anniversary.
The study by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) [ONS news release here] is published just a day after reports that marriage rates have fallen to the lowest level since records began.
Today's report says the proportion of marriages ending in divorce by the 50th anniversary has increased from 34% in 1979/80 to 45% in 2005...
A history of denialism - Part II - Tobacco companies [denialism blog]
To continue to explain how terribly misguided Mooney and Nisbet are about ignoring denialist campaigns I think it's time to go over the history of one of the most effective denialist campaigns ever. That is the concerted effort by the major tobacco companies (RJ Reynolds, Brown & Williamson, Lorillard, Phillip Morris, and British American Tobacco) to spread misinformation about the health risks associated with smoking.
Fortunately for those who study denialism, one of the results of the Tobacco Master Settlement all the internal memos of four of the largest tobacco companies have been released to the public and exist as free searchable databases.
Within these documents one can find some true gems of denialist strategy second only to Wedge Document for their unintentional disclosure of their dishonest tactics. For instance from "NEW DIRECTIONS" A presentation of the tobacco institute staff June 25th, 1981:
And:
And this gem from Brown and Williamson "Smoking and Health Proposal" from 1969:
Throughout these documents you see a similar theme every time. Science comes out that is harmful to their profits, such as the 1964 Surgeon General's report on tobacco and health was to be opposed no matter what the results. The writing is schizophrenic, while they seem to be convinced of their righteousness and the safety of smoking, they write about actively pursuing and eliminating the carcinogens in tobacco smoke, making filters that will be safer, and consider strategies of admitting to the danger of cigarette smoke. As the science becomes more damning they just shift the message to one of righteousness of personal liberty while their own research confirmed the risks to nonsmokers from environmental tobacco smoke.
What does this have to do with Mooney and Nisbet telling us to ignore the cranks like the DI or the Heartland Institute? It shows that even when the majority of people understand and believe the science - for instance the evidence showing cigarettes cause cancer has been believed by around 90% of Americans for decades - well-funded denialist campaigns can still be highly effective in disrupting appropriate regulation, legislation, and dissemination of accurate public health information.
Global warming denialists using some of the same think tanks the tobacco companies used, and even some of the same shills such as Steven Milloy and Fred Singer (now working for the Heartland Institute) are capable of waging the same kind of war on legitimate science as they did for the tobacco companies. Only after years of work from public health authorities, scientists and interest groups, as well as vicious fighting over legislation, civil litigation and the actions of whistleblowers were the tobacco companies largely declawed in their campaign against scientific truth. It certainly wasn't by ignoring them, and letting them act unopposed, or letting the polls dictate a non-existent victory that they were finally defeated. And that is the danger of the message we're currently getting from the framers. It's the worst possible strategy for opposing denialism, it's dangerous, historically-ignorant, and will lead to disaster.
Despite the fact that the majority of Americans believed in the link between cigarettes and cancer the the tobacco companies' denialist campaign worked for a long time, and here's how they did it...
Protestors Kick Off Prayer Effort Against China’s Handling of N. Korean Refugees
Protestors Kick Off Prayer Effort Against China’s Handling of N. Korean Refugees
Source: www.christianpost.com
Date: April 2, 2008
By
\n
Michelle A. Vu
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Christian Post Reporter
Korean-American churches staged the first of a series of prayer vigils Tuesday at Chinese consulates in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., to protest China's treatment of North Korean refugees ahead of the Beijing Olympics.
The Korean Church Coalition (KCC) for North Korea Freedom – which includes over 3,000 Korean pastors and the millions of Korean-American Christians they represent – have organized the prayer vigils which will take place every Tuesday at one or more of the six Chinese consulates in the United States until the Olympic Games begin on Aug. 8. The prayer vigil in San Francisco will be held every Friday.
"We hope that China will finally open its ears and eyes and realize that they have a legal and moral obligation to protect and safeguard the human rights of the refugees residing within their borders," said Sam Kim, KCC's executive director, to The Christian Post Tuesday after the event.
There are a total of six Chinese consulates in the United States – in Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, and Washington.
Kim said KCC, on behalf of the 300,000 North Korean refugees in China, is making three requests: for Beijing to grant refugee status to North Koreans instead of calling them economic migrants; stop forced repatriation of North Koreans back to their country; and allow them safe passage to a third country that is willing to allow them to resettle. North Korea is one of the most repressive regimes in the world and is ranked by the watchdog Open Doors as the world's worst persecutor of Christians.
Citizens of North Korea are forced to adhere to a personality cult that revolves around worshipping current dictator Kim Jong Il and his deceased father, Kim Il Sung. And it is said that at least 500,000 North Koreans have crossed the border over to China in the past 10 years to escape the communist state.
Although North Koreans who flee to China are considered by the U.N. Special Rapporteur on North Korea as "refugees" who deserve protection, China claims they are "economic migrants" and not refugees. China has used the status as an excuse to return North Korean refugees back to their country where they face imprisonment, torture, and sometimes execution for leaving the country – a state crime.
On Tuesday in Los Angeles, about 48 Korean-Americans gathered at the Chinese consulate and visa offices to pray out loud and peacefully protest China's handling of North Korean refugees. Kim said the police officers monitoring the event were surprised by the makeup of the group which included lawyers, doctors, businessmen and pastors – some of them in business suits – and to hear that a Korean church group will return every week until the Olympics.
For the Washington event, it was decided that only Korean-American pastors would attend the first prayer vigil.
The prayer vigils are part of the KCC's "Let My People Go Before 2008 Beijing Olympics" campaign that aims to mobilize hundreds of thousands people to display banners and bumper stickers throughout the country before the Olympic Games.
"We are determined to make a big impact and we will continue to speak out for the North Korean refugees who have no voice of their own," Kim declared.
Since 2004, KCC has held about 38 prayer vigils across the United States and in South Korea.
March 2008: Higher Doses Of Celebrex Are Associated With Heart Attack And Stroke Risks
Lower, More Popular Dose Presumed To Be Safe, But Definitive Study Results Will Not Be Available For Few More Years
(Posted by Tom Lamb at DrugInjuryWatch.com)
On March 31, 2008, at the American College of Cardiology's annual meeting, a recent analysis of several studies involving Pfizer Inc.'s arthritis drug Celebrex was presented. In short, it showed that only higher doses of Celebrex are associated with an increased risk of heart attacks and strokes.
That same day the medical journal Circulation published (online before print) an article by Scott D. Solomon, director of noninvasive cardiology at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, and colleagues about this latest data analysis concerning the safety of Celebrex, "Cardiovascular Risk of Celecoxib in 6 Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trials. The Cross Trial Safety Analysis".
From the abstract for this medical journal article about the side effects associated with high dose Celebrex (celecoxib):
Conclusions—We observed evidence of differential cardiovascular risk as a function of celecoxib dose regimen and baseline cardiovascular risk. By further clarifying the extent of celecoxib-related cardiovascular risk, these findings may help guide treatment decisions for patients who derive clinical benefit from selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibition.
The significance of this Circulation article as well as the American College of Cardiology (ACC) presentation in Chicago is explained by Wall Street Journal reporter Jennifer Corbett Dooren in her March 31, 2008 article, "Higher Doses of Pfizer's Celebrex Are Linked to Heart, Stroke Risks":
The analysis, supported by the National Cancer Institute, broadly shows patients receiving the highest dose of Celebrex of 400 milligrams twice daily had a nearly three times higher risk of heart attacks and strokes than patients not taking the drug. Patients taking a lower dose of Celebrex, 400 milligrams once daily, had a 10% higher risk of a cardiovascular event....
[This is] an analysis of six studies that lasted for at least three years comparing patients taking Celebrex to those taking placebo. The combined analysis involved 7,950 patients.
The analysis showed Celebrex was associated with an increased risk for a combined study endpoint of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (heart attack), stroke, heart failure or thromboembolic event, or events related to blood clots, compared to patients not taking the drug. The risk was not affected by aspirin use.
For some contextual information we turn to a Bloomberg article, "Pfizer's Celebrex at High Doses May Raise Heart Attack Risk", by Shannon Pettypiece:
Most arthritis patients take a total of 200 milligrams or less of Celebrex a day. The study didn't examine risk for those lower doses, Solomon said.
Celebrex belongs to a category of drugs called Cox-2 inhibitors, which includes Merck's Vioxx and Pfizer's Bextra. Merck withdrew Vioxx in September 2004 after a company-sponsored study found the rate of heart attacks and strokes among people who took Vioxx for at least 18 months was 15 per 1,000 patients, about double the rate for those given a placebo.
Pfizer later removed Bextra and said Celebrex should remain on the market because there was no data showing a risk at the most commonly prescribed doses.
The study presented today examined the highest doses. The study that supported the removal of Vioxx looked at the most commonly prescribed dose, Solomon said. There is no data available showing whether Celebrex carries a heart risk at the lower doses....
A more definitive assessment on the risks of Celebrex won't come until 2010 or 2011, when a $100 million study of 20,000 patients comparing Celebrex with the pain pills ibuprofen and naproxen is expected to be completed.
In light of what we heard reported at the March 2008 ACC meeting in Chicago about how some negative study results about Vytorin and Zetia were seemingly delayed, or withheld, by Merck and Schering-Plough, it makes me a bit uneasy that we must wait for several more years before learning whether or not the lower, more popular dose of Celebrex is safe for use.
