by Malcolm Thornberry
365Gay.com Newscenter
European Bureau Chief

Posted: May 27, 2004 8:03 pm. ET

(Bordeaux, France) The mayor says the wedding will go ahead, the prosecutor says he'll go to court, and the government says it won't recognize the marriage. Gay marriage is taking center stage in France.

The dispute began in April when Noel Mamere, the mayor of the tiny village of Begles, just outside Bordeaux, agreed to marry a local gay couple and has escalated ever since.

After Dominique Perben, justice minister in the center-right government, said that French law required officiating mayors to verify that couples to be married were indeed a man and a woman, the local prosecutor this week fired off a letter to Mamere saying he'll ask a judge to declare the marriage illegal.

Bertrand de Loze gave Mamere formal notice that the marriage will be declared null and void

That isn't deterring Mamere. He announced on Thursday that the June 5 wedding of Jean-Luc Charpentier, a shop worker, and Stephane Chapinwill, a nurse, will go ahead as planned.

Charpentier and Chapinwill say they will take their case to the European Court of Human Rights if their marriage is rendered void.

"The initiative is a political one," Mamere said, comparing himself to San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom who challenged California law earlier this year allowing same-sex couples to wed.

The California Supreme Court eventually halted the practice. Newsome's actions are forcing the courts to deal with the Constitutionality of same-sex marriage. A spate of other suits have been launched in other US states. Massachusetts' Supreme Court began allowing gay couples to marry earlier this month.

Like Newsom's actions, Mamere's decision to allow gay marriage is spreading throughout the country.

The mayor of the city of Marseille Thursday said he will celebrate a gay marriage on June 19, and a handful of other mayors have declared themselves willing in principle.

As well as being mayor of Begles, Mamere is a deputy in the French Parliament, representing the Green Party.

The Greens along with the French Socialist Party say they will support gay marriage in the next general election.

posted by Anthony # 12:35 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: May 27, 2004 8:03 pm. ET

(Richmond, Virginia) Three same-sex couples denied birth certificates for their adoptive children are appealing to state Supreme Court.

The issue is co-adoption legal in some states but illegal in Virginia. Although it permits single gays and lesbians to adopt, Virginia does not recognize same-sex unions.

While the children were adopted in Virginia, they now live with their parents outside the state. When the parents attempted to get new birth certificates showing the names of the new same-sex parents the Virginia Department of Vital Records refused.

A Richmond judge upheld the Department's right to refuse to issue new birth certificates.

Circuit Judge Randall G. Johnson ruled that requiring the state to issue new birth certificates with the names of the children's adoptive parents instead of their birth parents conflicts with Virginia's policy prohibiting joint adoption by unmarried couples.

The appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of the three couples who live in New York, Maryland, and Pennsylvania.

"This should be a straightforward process in which the adoptive parents, regardless of their gender, fill out a simple form and obtain new birth certificates for their children," ACLU executive director Kent Willis said.

posted by Anthony # 12:34 AM

May 27, 2004

By REUTERS

Filed at 3:38 a.m. ET

CANBERRA (Reuters) - Same-sex marriages in Australia will be outlawed and gay couples blocked from adopting children from overseas under laws proposed by the conservative government on Thursday that are likely to be approved by parliament.

Prime Minister John Howard said his government planned to ask parliament to amend the Marriage Act to define a marriage as a union between a man and a woman, preventing gay and lesbian couples from marrying. It doesn't currently define marriage.

The move echoed calls by Howard's ally President Bush for the U.S. constitution to ban same-sex marriage, yet the difficult task of winning support for an amendment meant there was little chance of Bush being successful any time soon.

``The commonly accepted definition of a marriage is a union of a man and a woman. We have decided to insert this into the Marriage Act to make it very plain that that is our view of marriage,'' Howard told a news conference.

But the changes will also allow same-sex couples to nominate their partners as beneficiaries for superannuation -- tax-free pension death benefits.

Howard, whose eight-year-old government is trailing in opinion polls ahead of an election expected within months, said the law would also be amended so same-sex couples married overseas would not be recognized in Australia.

Opposition Labor spokeswoman Nicola Roxon said Labor did not support gay marriage and would vote in favor of the government's changes to the Marriage Act if it was consistent with common law.

But in the United States, where gay couples in Massachusetts state became the first in the country to marry legally last week, Bush faces the tougher task of gaining support from two-thirds of the U.S. Congress and three-quarters of the country's 50 states.

HOMOPHOBIA CHARGE

Gay and Lesbian lobby groups criticized the government, saying it was using homophobia to divert attention away from its flagging popularity and more serious issues ahead of an election.

``No government should enshrine discrimination legislation. Howard is trying to create a crisis where one does not exist,'' co-convener of the Australian Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby, Robert McGrory, told Reuters.

``We would have thought there are far more significant issues that the prime minister of Australia should be focusing on.''

But the changes to death benefits did win support.

``Credit must be paid where credit is due. Howard's proposal to change the superannuation entitlement regime is a step forward,'' said Green politician Michael Organ, who criticized the move to ban gay marriages.

Howard said the laws would also be amended to block same-sex couples from adopting overseas by making them ineligible as prospective adoptive parents under any multilateral or bilateral agreement to which Australia was a party.

But the government has no plans to overturn laws allowing same-sex couples to adopt in the Australian Capital Territory, site of the national capital Canberra, and cannot change similar laws in the states of Tasmania and Western Australia.

The gay marriage debate has become an election issue in the United States later this year, where a ruling by the highest court in the state of Massachusetts legalizing same-sex marriage has set a precedent for lawsuits being pursued in at least four other U.S. states.

In Britain, laws are due to be passed by the end of the year giving legal recognition to gay partnerships, bringing it into line with nine other European Union countries that already have provisions for recognizing committed same-sex partnerships.

posted by Anthony # 7:15 AM

by Michael J. Meade
365Gay.com Newscenter
Boston Bureau

Posted: May 26 2004 2:33 p.m. ET

(Provincetown, Massachusetts) Provincetown Wednesday put the brakes on issuing marriage licenses to gay couples from outside Massachusetts.

Tuesday night in a closed door meeting with the town's lawyer Selectmen voted to temporarily suspend issuing marriage license forms to out-of-state couples.

The move follows similar decisions Monday by three other communities which were also defying Gov. Mitt Romney's ban on allowing gays from outside the Commonwealth from marrying in Massachusetts.

Romney is relying on a 1913 law that says it is illegal to grant licenses to couples whose marriages would be illegal in their home states.

Friday Attorney General Thomas Reilly Friday issued a notice to the dissident towns reminding them of Romney's direction.

"We firmly believe that it is unlawful and unconstitutional to deny out-of-state same-sex couples the right to marry in Massachusetts," said Provincetown Board of Selectmen Chair Dr. Cheryl Andrews, who married her partner shortly after same-sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts May 17.

"The Governor’s last minute policy change reverses decades of practice welcoming out-of-state couples to Massachusetts who wish to marry to here."

But, while Reilly sent his warning to Provincetown, Worcester, Somerville and Springfield he did not contact, two other communities still granting licenses to out-of-state gay couples.

The clerk of Attleboro is issuing licenses to same-sex couples from the 11 states that have not adopted so-called Defense of Marriage Acts that bar same-sex weddings.

Fall River is granting licenses to qualified applicants no matter what state they reside in.

On another front Wednesday a conservative Democrat has filed a bill in the Massachusetts legislature to remove Supreme Judicial Court Justice Margaret Marshall from the bench.

Rep. Philip Travis (D-Rehoboth) blames Marshall for the decision that paved the way for same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.

Travis told reporters at the State House that he believes Marshall had already made up her mind before hearing the case and pressured other justices to go along with her decision.

The bill is similar to another proposal that targets all four justices who voted to legalize gay marriage. But, Travis said he disagreed with that tactic and wanted to keep the focus exclusively on Marshall.

posted by Anthony # 7:14 AM

by Mary Ellen Peterson
365Gay.com Newscenter
San Francisco Bureau

Posted: May 26 2004 5:28 p.m. ET

(San Francisco, California) San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom predicts same-sex marriage will be recognized in California, and sooner than many people think.

While the state's highest court considers whether Newsom exceeded his authority and broke the law when he he began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in February the mayor said he was confident of "ultimate victory".

Speaking at the Sacramento Press Club Newsom said that the court may rule against him, but it will eventually have to deal with the key question: Is banning barring same-sex marriage is constitutional.

The constitutional question is working its way through the lower courts and isn't expected to reach the state Supreme Court for at least year.

Tuesday, city lawyers told the seven Supreme Court justices that the mayor's actions were legal because the California Constitution provides equality for all under the law.

Chief Deputy City Attorney Therese Stewart cited cases dating to 1896 which she said showed local officials have properly refused to enforce a state law after determining it unconstitutional.

But, Deputy Attorney General Timothy Muscat arguing for the state, accused Newsom of usurping Legislature's power.

Under a voter endorsed proposition in 2000 state law defines marriage as being between a man and a woman.

A decision is expected within 90 days.

Newsom also criticized President Bush for supporting a proposed amendment to the US Constitution to ban gay marriage. The federal and state constitutions are for protecting rights, not denying them to a particular group, Newsom told reporters.

And, he had a message for California same-sex couples and foes of gay marriage alike. The mayor said he will continue to push for recognition of gay couples' right to marry, regardless of how the court rules, pointing to legislation proposed by Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) to legalize same-se marriage in the state.

The legislation won a landmark vote in committee last month when it became the first gay marriage bill to ever win approval in any legislative committee in the country.

It was headed last week for a hearing by the Appropriations Committee were it also was expected to be approved but at the last minute was pulled by Leno. Despite heavy lobbying by Leno and gay rights groups Leno said there were not enough supporters to ensure passage in the House.

Leno said he would reintroduce the measure in the next session of the legislature. Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (D-Los Angeles) said he would support the bill at that time. That would virtually guarantee passage in the House.

posted by Anthony # 7:13 AM

by Martha Raffaele
The Associated Press

Posted: May 26, 2004 8:03 pm. ET

(Harrisburg, Pennsylvania) The state House of Representatives began Wednesday to wade into the national debate over gay marriage, considering a measure that supporters say would bolster a state law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

But after a little more than an hour of floor debate, the House postponed action and voted 96-94 to table the proposal until Nov. 8, nearly a week after the Nov. 2 general election.

Rep. Jerry Birmelin, a conservative Republican from Wayne County, sponsored the measure, which would prohibit gay couples from obtaining marriage licenses and bar Pennsylvania from recognizing same-sex marriages sanctioned by other states.

It would also prohibit the state from recognizing "spousal equivalent relationships" among unmarried couples who live together, regardless of their sexual orientation.

Birmelin said it was important for lawmakers to make a public statement reinforcing the state's Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, in response to actions such as a Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling in November that enabled the state to become the first to allow same-sex unions.

"State government is not only about dollars and cents ... it's also about who we are as a people, what our values are," Birmelin said.

Republicans and Democrats alike weighed in on both sides of the issue. Among Birmelin's Democratic allies was Rep. Tom Yewcic of Cambria County.

"Civil rights was always based on national origin and skin color," Yewcic said. "I reject the notion that civil rights should be extended to what someone does behind their bedroom door."

Opponents argued that the measure was discriminatory, and that the Legislature had more pressing business, such as trying to meet a June 30 state budget deadline.

"I'm married, and I have two children, so statistically I'm right there in the norm," said Rep. Daylin Leach, D-Montgomery. "But there are gay couples with children, there are single people with children ... There are all kinds of families and every one of them is a legitimate family."

Rep. Steve Nickol, R-York, who voted for the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, said he believes any revisions are unnecessary and potentially would infringe on the civil rights of all unmarried couples.

"If this amendment is entered into law, it will predictably lead to protracted and expensive litigation ... and the rights of many Pennsylvanians will be compromised in the process."

Rep. Harry Readshaw, D-Allegheny, made the motion to table the bill, saying that the issue should be aired in public hearings before lawmakers vote on it.

"If such hearings are held throughout the summer, I think everybody can get a better handle on this thing," said Readshaw, who opposes the amendment.

Birmelin sought to attach his amendment to an adoption-records bill that would eliminate a requirement for adult adoptees to obtain criminal background checks when they seek a court's permission to change their names.

After the voting session ended, he said he would not be deterred from reviving the debate sooner by incorporating it into another bill.

"I'm going to keep trying until we get a final vote. If I lose the vote on the amendment, so be it - I'll just close up shop and move on," he said. "I'm convinced a majority of the members are going to vote for it. They just didn't want to deal with it today."

Pennsylvania is among 38 states with laws defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Four others - Alaska, Hawaii, Nebraska and Nevada - have similar language in their state constitutions.

posted by Anthony # 7:12 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: May 26, 2004 8:03 pm. ET

(Jefferson City, Missouri) The Missouri Supreme Court has agreed to resolve a dispute between Democratic Gov. Bob Holden and Republican Secretary of State Matt Blunt over when a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage will be put to voters.

The proposed amendment has already passed the legislature and Holden wants to put it on the ballot during the August primaries when voter turnout is low. Blunt is seeking the GOP nomination for governor and is expected to be the man facing Holden in November. If they amendment issue is on the same ballot it could work in Blunt's favor.

As Secretary of State Blunt is responsible to deciding when to put the issue to the electorate.

The high court said it would hear arguments in the case June 1, but it warned Blunt not to wait for the court to rule before making arrangements to put the question on the August ballot.

The proposed amendment consists of just one sentence: "That to be valid and recognized in this state, a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman."

Missouri already has a law limiting marriage to one man and one woman, but supporters of the state constitutional amendment believe it could better withstand a potential legal challenge.

posted by Anthony # 7:12 AM

by Peter Hacker
365Gay.com Newscenter
Sydney, Australia Bureau

Posted: May 27, 2004 12:01 am. ET

(Canberra) Australian Prime Minister John Howard today announced legislation to prevent same-sex couples from marrying or adopting children.

Despite a multi-million dollar federal government tourism program overseas to cultivate a reputation for Australia as a gay oasis, the Howard government is accused by gays at home as homophobic and reactionary.

Howard said the Marriage Act would be amended to exclude gay couples from marrying and bar the government from recognizing gay unions performed outside the country. The Act will now include a clause defining marriage as "a union of a man and a woman to exclusion of all others," he said.

The Prime Minister also said that the law will show that " marriage is something that should rest in the hands ultimately of the parliament of the nation." He said that state governments and the courts will have no jurisdiction to change the will of parliament on marriage.

As for adopting, Howard said that the law would bar same-sex couples from adopting children in Australia and disallow gay couples from going abroad to adopt.

Howard recently met with US President George W. Bush at Bush's Texas ranch to discuss the war on terror. At that meeting the two leaders discussed moves in both their countries by same-sex couples go win the right to marry. Bush has endorsed a proposed amendment to the US Constitution to prevent same-sex marriage in the US.

Howard will face voters this year and same-sex marriage is expected to become a wedge issue as he tries to solidify his conservative base.

In an effort to appear conciliatory to the gay community Howard said laws covering pensions and some other benefits will be amended to "introduce the concept of financial interdependency."

Howard said the Government would expand the definition of dependant in regards to pension death benefits to include people in a financially interdependent relationship.

It would allow people to avoid paying taxes on the benefits they receive from a deceased partner.

posted by Anthony # 7:11 AM

May 26, 2004
New York Times
By DEAN E. MURPHY

SAN FRANCISCO, May 25 - Justices of the California Supreme Court appeared torn Tuesday about whether to invalidate more than 4,000 marriage licenses issued here to same-sex couples in February and March.

But in their first public hearing on the matter since ordering a halt to the gay marriages on March 11, some of the seven justices hinted that Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco had overstepped his authority in directing the county clerk to issue the licenses.

California state law defines marriage as between a man and woman, but Mr. Newsom argued that the law violates both the state and federal Constitutions. On Tuesday the justices heard two hours of oral arguments in a courtroom here about the legality of Mr. Newsom's actions and the validity of the licenses; the larger constitutional questions are being considered by a lower court.

Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar wondered aloud how the licenses could remain valid if the court ruled that Mr. Newsom had abused his power in issuing them. Several judges, including Justice Werdegar, also expressed concerns about throwing out the licenses without first hearing from the married same-sex couples.

Chief Justice Ronald M. George said, "I have empathy for the situation that these people are in, perhaps, you know, because of the doing of the city officials."

Therese M. Stewart, a San Francisco deputy city attorney, told the judges that allowing the licenses to remain in effect until the constitutional questions were resolved would not amount to "civilization coming to an end." She also suggested that a decision to invalidate the licenses would be a slap in the face of gays.

But Justice Marvin R. Baxter said he was not satisfied that Mr. Newsom could not have taken a less disruptive path, like filing a lawsuit, to challenge the state statute.

"It's the city that created this mess," Justice Baxter said, "and I still haven't heard an adequate explanation as to why the city did not get a judicial determination of the correctness of its position before putting all these people in the precarious position that they are now in."

Jordan Lorence, a lawyer for the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian group opposed to same-sex marriage, told the judges that Mr. Newsom had engaged in "an act of disobedience" and that city officials accepted that the licenses were of "dubious validity." Mr. Lorence pointed to a disclaimer printed on marriage license applications by the county clerk, which said "marriage of lesbian and gay couples may not be recognized as valid by any jurisdiction other than San Francisco."

Some of the justices suggested that the mayor's actions, if allowed to stand, might invite defiance of state laws by other local officials. Justice George asked Ms. Stewart if her office would take the same stance in defense of a sheriff or police chief who refused to enforce state gun control laws out of a belief that they violated the Second Amendment.

"In any of those other scenarios, wouldn't your same approach justify that type of disregard for the state statute?" Justice George asked.

"Generally, the answer is yes," Ms. Stewart said, adding that in Mr. Newsom's case there "was sound judicial authority for the position the mayor and the county clerk took."

Deputy Attorney General Timothy M. Muscat, whose office petitioned the court to intervene against the city, said Mr. Newsom had tried to sidestep the legal process.

"We appreciate the argument they made that they have constitutional concerns about this statute," Mr. Muscat said. "But we believe that it's ultimately a question of judicial power and judicial authority."

posted by Anthony # 8:19 AM

May 26, 2004

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 6:19 a.m. ET

PHOENIX (AP) -- A gay couple's challenge to Arizona's ban on same-sex marriages has been turned away by the state Supreme Court.

Without comment Tuesday, the state's highest court let stand an appeals court ruling that upheld the 1996 state law.

Phoenix couple Don Standhardt and Tod Keltner in December asked the high court to review the Court of Appeals decision, arguing the statute discriminates against gay couples and their children by violating the state Constitution's privacy and equal treatment clauses.

The Court of Appeals had held in October that there is no fundamental constitutional right to same-sex marriage. It found that the state has a rational basis for prohibiting same-sex marriage because of goals related to procreation and child-rearing.

Standhardt and Keltner were denied a marriage license in Maricopa County, according to their original lawsuit, filed July 7.

``With it being a pressing civil rights issue here, we thought they would see the injustice in the law being what it is,'' Standhardt said after hearing decision.

The Attorney General's Office urged the Supreme Court to reject the appeal, contending the ban was based on legislative policies and not discrimination.

The court action came amid legal maneuvering on the same-sex marriage issue in Massachusetts and California.

In San Francicso, California Supreme Court justices listened skeptically to arguments that San Francisco's mayor had the right to defy state law when he issued marriage licenses to 4,000 gay couples earlier this year.

A ruling on whether the mayor abused his powers is expected within 90 days.

The justices are not likely to decide the validity of the 4,000 gay and lesbian marriages that were performed before the high court put a stop to the practice in March. And the high court has said it will not use this case to decide the constitutionality of the state's ban on gay weddings.

Across the country, in Massachusetts, two city clerks confirmed they are issuing marriage licenses to out-of-state gay couples, even as three other clerks temporarily stopped the practice under pressure from the governor.

Republican Gov. Mitt Romney has stated that no gay couples from other states can marry in Massachusetts based on a 1913 statute that prohibits unions that would not be legal in a couple's home state.

Democratic Attorney General Thomas Reilly ordered clerks on Monday in Provincetown, Somerville, Springfield and Worcester to cease and desist from issuing marriage licenses to out-of-state couples.

All except Provincetown, a gay tourist mecca on Cape Cod, stopped issuing such licenses while they explore legal options. Provincetown officials met Tuesday night but delayed announcing any decision until Wednesday.

posted by Anthony # 8:18 AM

by Margo Williams
365Gay.com Newscenter
Boston Bureau

Posted: May 25, 2004 11:11 a.m. ET

(Boston, Massachusetts) Provincetown was the only community in Massachusetts allowing out-of-state same-sex couples to marry Tuesday, and it too may end the practice tonight.

Worcester, Somerville and Springfield ended their protest against Gov. Mitt Romney's direction that it was illegal to allow gay couples from outside Massachusetts to wed after Attorney General Thomas Reilly Friday issued a notice to the dissident towns that his reading of a 1913 law concurs with the governor's opinion.

Somerville and Springfield stopped issuing the licenses immediately. Worcester continued giving out licenses on the weekend (story) Provincetown's Board of Selectmen will meet tonight to decide whether to stop issuing the marriage licenses or fight the state in court.

Romney, a Republican and devout Mormon, has fought same-sex marriage since the state's highest court overturned laws preventing gays from tying the knot. After being thwarted by the legislature, the courts, and Reilly, Romney turned his attention to same-sex couples from outside the state.

The law he is using dates back to 1913 and says that marriage licenses cannot be given to people whose marriages would be illegal in their home states. The law was passed when interracial marriage was legal in Massachusetts but illegal in most other states. After the US Supreme Court in 1967 struck down state laws barring interracial couples from marrying the old law was never used in Massachusetts. Even before the Supreme Court ruling it was seldom applied.

Meanwhile, opponents of same-sex marriage are continuing the battle for an amendment to the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage. The latest barrage came this week from the Roman Catholic bishop of Worcester.

In a pastoral letter Bishop Robert McManus said that after recognizing gays and lesbians as ``brothers and sisters in the human family ... it must be pointed out that Catholics, especially public officials, who willingly and with approval facilitate the legal sanctioning of same-sex unions are involving themselves in cooperation with evil.''

The letter drew criticism from Marianne Duddy-Burke of Boston Dignity, a group of gay Catholics

``It's an appalling statement on so many levels. It disregards a civil servant's duty to the entire community.''

``That's pretty strong language,'' Rushford said on hearing the paragraph yesterday. ``I just would hope that people from all walks of life and our society would agree that the civil rights of individuals are not debatable.''

posted by Anthony # 8:17 AM

by Doreen Brandt
365Gay.com Newscenter
Washington Bureau

Posted: May 25, 2004 2:06.m. ET

(Washington) Laura Bush was told Tuesday to focus on the economy and other issues Americans are concerned about rather than enter a divisive national debate about amending the Constitution to stop same-sex couples from marrying.

Last week the First Lady told the Boston Globe that gay marriage "an issue that a lot of people have a lot of trouble with."

Stopping just short of endorsing a proposed federal constitutional amendment to ban same-sex union that is supported by her husband, Mrs Bush said that the American people, not a few judges, should have a voice in setting the important social policy.

Her comments came as the first legal gay weddings were taking place in Boston.

In a letter today to the First Lady Human Rights Campaign President Cheryl Jacques there are more pressing issues facing the country.

"I do not believe, at this moment in our nation's history, that the American people want a conversation about amending the Constitution on this issue," Jacques wrote. "Instead, they want a discussion about the issues you care about most, like education. And they want more focus on the challenges that face America every day, from the cost of gasoline to our foreign policy and economic challenges."

Religious conservatives are pressuring the White House and Congress to pass the proposed amendment. On the weekend a coalition of anti-gay marriage groups broadcast a program to churches across the country via satellite urging churchgoers to pressure their Senators to vote on the amendment.

posted by Anthony # 8:16 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: May 25, 2004 5:01 p.m. ET

(Portland, Oregon) The Christian Coalition of Oregon filed a lawsuit Tuesday in Portland claiming that Multnomah county misspent public money when it allowed marriage licenses to be issued to same-sex couples.

The suit names Diane Linn, chair of the county board, Commissioners Maria Rojo de Steffey, Serena Cruz and Lisa Naito, Cecillia Johnson, director of the county Department of Business and Community Services, and David Boyer, the county's finance officer.

The Christian Coalition is already attempting to have the four elected officials recalled.

The suit, filed by Johnny Alan Belgarde, director of the Christian Coalition of Oregon, asks the court to order the defendants to return to the county general fund all money spent by the county in issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The suit also asks for an injunction to prevent similar expenditures in the future..

Linn, with the support of the other two commissioners, approved the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples in March. The following month a judge ordered the city to stop giving out the licenses. The issue is now before the state Supreme Court.

posted by Anthony # 8:15 AM

by Mark Worrall
365Gay.com Newscenter
San Francisco Bureau

Posted: May 25, 2004 5:01 p.m. ET

(San Francisco, California) The California Supreme Court began deliberations Tuesday on the future of same-sex marriages conducted in San Francisco this year.

At issue is whether Mayor Gavin Newsom acted illegally when he began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in February.

The seven justices heard oral arguments from both sides. Lawyers for the city said the mayor was only following the California Constitution which guarantees equality and take precedence over state law which does not permit same-sex marriage.

Chief Deputy City Attorney Therese Stewart cited cases dating to 1896 which she said showed local officials have properly refused to enforce a state law after determining it unconstitutional.

But, Deputy Attorney General Timothy Muscat arguing for the state, accused Newsom of usurping Legislature's power.

"Don't cities make these kinds of preliminary constitutional determinations all the time with respect to the issuance of, say, parade licenses or news rack ordinances?" asked Justice Carlos Moreno.

"Certainly not to this degree, your honor," responded Muscat. He described San Francisco's actions as a unilateral rewrite of state law that has "completely taken away" the Legislature's power.

Justice Joyce Kennard suggested that if the court endorsed Newsom's actions it could encourage a legal anarchy under which local officials could choose which laws to follow.

"Wouldn't that be setting a problematic precedent?" asked Kennard. "Presumably, other local officials would be free to say ... I don't like that particular law, be it a ban on guns" or another issue.

That, she worried, would mean "no certainty of the rule of law."

The Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund which is representing a conservative Christian political action group said the court should annul the marriages already performed in San Francisco, prompting Justice Kathryn Werdegar to ask whether the 4,000 who were married should be represented in the arguments.

"I want to acknowledge the great emotions expressed by the couples," ADF lawyer Jordan Lorence responded. "But this was essentially an act of disobedience. ... There was the disclaimer that the clerk put onto the applications to the licenses saying 'Hey, everyone, I want you to know, these things are of dubious validity."

"I have empathy for the situation these people are in, perhaps because of the doing of city officials," said Chief Justice Ronald George.

City attorney Stewart responded that the best course would be to let the couple keep the licenses until lower courts decide the question of their validity.

While today's arguments were limited to the legality of Newsome's actions, the issue of the constitutionality of same-sex marriage is still working its way through the lower courts and is not expected to reach the high court for at least a year.

LGBT civil rights groups supported the city's position but did not present arguments today. Among those monitoring the case was Lambda Legal's senior counsel Jon Davidson.

"There are thousands of real, living and breathing couples who know first-hand how important the protections of marriage are, but the court has not yet heard from them, said Davidson.

"Before ruling on the validity of those couples' marriages, the court must hear from the families who are affected and whose lives they are discussing. Those families will be irreparably harmed if their marriages are invalidated, and will suffer an even greater harm to their dignity if that happens without them even being heard from."

One of those couples is Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, the first same-sex couple to be married in San Francisco.

"We are anguished that the court may invalidate our marriage without allowing us even to be heard in the case,” said Martin.

“We are eighty-three and seventy-nine years old, respectively, and we have been together more than fifty years. We do not deserve the indignity of finally being able to marry, only to have this precious right stripped away from us without even a semblance of due process.”

A ruling on today's hearing is expected within 90 days.

posted by Anthony # 8:14 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: May 25, 2004 8:03 p.m. ET

(Tucson, Arizona) The Arizona Supreme Court Tuesday refused to hear a challenge to the state's so-called Defense of Marriage Act that bans gay unions.

The challenge was brought by Donald Standhardt, 34, and Tod Alan Keltner, 37, a Phoenix gay couple. They had been refused a marriage license in Phoenix last year and went to court to have the DOMA overturned arguing the 1996 law is a violation of state constitutional rights of privacy and equal treatment under the law.

A lower court ruled that there is no fundamental constitutional right to same-sex marriage. It found the state has a reason to prohibit same-sex marriage because of goals related to procreation and child-rearing.

At the Appeals Court level, their lawyer, Michael S. Ryan, argued that it is unconstitutional for the state to deny legal protections to gay couples that it extends to heterosexual couples.

"We're entitled to the same protections, the same benefits and the same responsibilities as any other family," Ryan argued.

Just because the state and federal constitutions do not explicitly say that same-sex marriages must be permitted does not mean there is no right for gays to marry, Ryan said.

He called on the court to order a court clerk to issued a marriage license.

The Appeals Court rejected their claims and allowed the lower court ruling to stand. The Arizona Supreme Court gave no reason for its decision not to hear the case.

posted by Anthony # 8:13 AM

by Margo Williams
365Gay.com Newscenter
Boston Bureau

Posted: May 24, 2004 2:03 p.m. ET

(Boston, Massachusetts) The graduating class at Boston's Suffolk University showed its distain for Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney Sunday with about a third of the class of 2004 standing and turning their backs on him.

Other students wore blue and yellow arm bands denouncing the Governor for his stand against same-sex marriage. Still others wore rainbow tassels from their mortar boards while other students refused to attend the commencement at all, opting instead to go to a diversity celebration.

At least two students at the graduation ceremony were escorted out when they heckled the governor.

Another student called Romney "one of the most biased politicians of the day."

The governor attempted and failed in a number of political and legal moves to block the Supreme Judicial Court's historic ruling that legalized gay marriage. Most recently he ordered towns to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples from outside the state, citing a 1913 law that prevents couples marrying in Massachusetts if those marriages would be illegal in their home states.

In his address Romney did not mention same-sex marriage. Nor did the issue come up in the speech by valedictorian Kashish Chopra.

The 20 year old lesbian who came out in the eighth grade later criticized the small university perched on Beacon Hill for inviting Romney in the first place.

posted by Anthony # 7:49 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: May 24, 2004 5:02 p.m. ET

(Colorado Springs, Colorado) Conservative Christian ministries used a satellite hookup Sunday to take their battle against same-sex marriage to churches throughout the country.

The broadcast was beamed into 500 churches and carried on hundreds of Christian radio stations as a result of the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.

Among the speakers were James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family; Bishop Wellington Boone of Wellington Boone Ministries; Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council; Chuck Colson of Prison Fellowship Ministries; and Rev. Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals.

Colson, the former Nixon aide who went to prison for his role in the Watergate scandal, called the audience “the great sleeping army” and said that Christians are the key to forcing congressional support for a federal marriage amendment.

“I’m now the new archhomophobe,” Dobson said. “I’ve been called a lot of names. That’s a new one.”

Boone said, “We are not afraid of homosexuals. We are afraid of God.”

The evangelical pastors implored the audience to "make some noise in Washington" and senators to support a federal amendment forbidding same-sex marriage.

posted by Anthony # 7:48 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: May 24, 2004 5:02 p.m. ET

(Jefferson City, Missouri) The battle over the timing of a vote for a proposed amendment to the Missouri constitution to bar same-sex marriage moved to the state Supreme Court Monday.

Earlier this month the legislature passed the proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. It now must be ratified by voters.

But, the Democratic Gov. Bob Holden and Republican Secretary of State Matt Blunt are warring over when the vote will be held. Holden wants voters to decide the issue in August during the primary election. Blunt wants it in November.

The timing could be crucial not for the amendment though. Polls show most Missouri voters will support it. But, when the vote is held could determine the outcome of the gubernatorial election in November.

Holden is up for re-election and fears if the amendment is on the November ballot it will bring out large numbers of Republicans ensuring his defeat. His expected opponent in November is Blunt who has refused to put the question on the August ballot.

It is up to the Secretary of State to set the ballot questions.

Last week a judge ruled that under Missouri law the decision when to schedule the vote is Blunts.

Monday, the Governor, Attorney General, acting for Gov. Holden, filed an appeal with the Missouri Supreme Court.

There was no immediate indication of when, or if, the Supreme Court might hear arguments.

posted by Anthony # 7:48 AM

by Paul Johnson
365Gay.com Newscenter
Washington Bureau Chief

Posted: May 24, 2004 8:03 p.m. ET

(Washington) The Republican Leadership in the Senate is urging GOP Senators to use Memorial Day as a forum to condemn gay marriage.

The move is aimed at breathing new life into the proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex couples from marrying Roll Call reports.

The Capitol Hill paper says that Republican Senators were issued talking points on the amendment twice last week, first as part of the GOP’s weekly message plan Tuesday and later in a Memorial Day recess packet.

“This is a national crisis that requires a national response — a federal constitutional amendment,” according to one of the talking points contained in both packets, Roll Call reported.

In addition to nine bullet points on same-sex marriage, the GOP memo also includes the “Top Five Reasons to Defend Marriage.”

The Republican majority in the Senate does not have the 67 votes needed to send the measure to the states for ratification, but Senate Republican Conference Chairman Rick Santorum ( Pa.) says he is determined to force a vote on the issue.

The Republican move drew immediate response Monday from gay Democrats.

"Republicans should use Memorial Day to honor the sacrifices of our veterans, rather than to peddle discrimination as an election-year gimmick," John Marble, Communications Director, National Stonewall Democrats told 365Gay.com.

" There are a lot of angry veterans back home who would like to know why the Bush Administration has quietly slashed veteran benefits. Perhaps these Republican Senators can use this weekend to answer their concerns."

posted by Anthony # 7:47 AM

by The Associated Press

Posted: May 22, 2004 4:06 p.m. ET

(Boston, Massachusetts) One day after getting married, a lesbian couple filed a medical malpractice lawsuit in Worcester asking that one of the women receive damages because doctors failed to detect breast cancer in her spouse.

Lawyers called the lawsuit that Michelle Charron, 44, and Cindy Kalish, 39, filed Friday in Worcester Superior Court the first of its kind. In the lawsuit, Kalish claims "loss of consortium" because of the breast cancer in Charron.

Loss of consortium is a legal claim long available to spouses and relatives, but only available to gay and lesbian couples married since the state began allowing gay marriage on Monday.

The lawsuit provides a glimpse into the kinds of legal battles involving gay and lesbian unions that Massachusetts courts can now expect.

"I think there will be tons and tones of incidental issues, and this apparently is the first one," said Boston tort lawyer Steven Schreckinger.

Charron and Kalish were seventh in line on Monday to apply for a wedding license, and were married Thursday. The lawsuit filed Friday contends that two doctors affiliated with Fallon Clinic failed to order a biopsy for a lump in Charron's breast, which she first brought to their attention in Dec. 2002.

By the time the biopsy was performed nearly eight months later, Charron's lump had grown and she was diagnosed with advanced cancer that had spread to her liver and sternum. Doctors have given her 10 years to live.

A spokeswoman for Fallon Clinic declined to comment on the case.

The Supreme Judicial Court has ruled that unmarried partners cannot bring lack of consortium claims, said David White-Lief, a specialist in personal injury law and a former chairman of the Massachusetts Bar Association's civil litigation section.

Schreckinger said the lawsuit's timing could be challenged, because the alleged negligence was before the couple was married. But the couple's lawsuit, Ann Maguire, said the court will view the case differently because marriage was not an option before Monday. They began dating in 1990 and had a commitment ceremony in 1992.

posted by Anthony # 12:41 AM

by The Associated Press

Posted: May 23, 2004 5:11 pm. ET

(San Francisco, California) Is California far behind Massachusetts, the union's first state to permit gay marriage?

With legislation to legalize same-sex marriages stalled in Sacramento, all eyes have shifted to the state Supreme Court, which holds oral arguments here Tuesday on whether San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom abused his municipal powers when he issued 4,000 marriage licenses to gay couples this year.

The highly charged hearing will have everything and yet nothing to do with same-sex marriage, since the justices already declined to address the civil rights issues involved. Those battles will have to percolate up through the state courts.

Tuesday's arguments will be focused on how much leeway elected officials have to interpret the law – and on that question, experts predict Newsom will lose. The justices are virtually certain, they said, to prevent the legal anarchy that could result if local officials are empowered to choose which laws to follow.

"The prospect of local government officials unilaterally defying state laws with which they disagree is untenable and inconsistent with the precepts of our legal system," California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said in a brief filed with the court.

California laws clearly defines marriage as a union between a man and woman. In 2000, voters also approved a statewide initiative requiring the state to only recognize a marriage between opposite sexes.

The California Supreme Court halted San Francisco's gay marriages in March at the request of Lockyer and gay marriage opponents. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger worried that Newsom's precedent, if allowed to stand, would encourage other local officials to subvert state law – for example, permitting assault weapons despite a California law prohibiting them.

That leaves the question of what to do about the gay and lesbian marriages already performed at City Hall. Lockyer and gay marriage opponents are urging the court to take the next step and invalidate them.

Robert Tyler, an attorney for Alliance Defense Fund, which is opposing Newsom before the high court, said the marriage licenses "are not worth the paper that they are written on," and urged the justices to declare them "completely void."

Gay rights groups say the court need not go that far.

"They don't need to reach any conclusion on this. That is not the issue before them," said Shannon Minter, an attorney with the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which is representing Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, a lesbian couple whose nuptials started the city's wedding march Feb. 12.

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said the justices should refrain from addressing that issue unless or until the court concludes that "California can constitutionally discriminate against same-sex couples."

In the likely event the justices remain silent on the matter of the gay marriages already performed, it would neither validate nor invalidate them. For now, they carry great symbolic value, and virtually no legal weight.

When Newsom sanctioned the marriages for gays and lesbians, he cited the California Constitution, which bars discrimination, and claimed he was duty-bound to follow this higher authority rather than the state laws against gay marriage.

The justices, however, said they would only entertain his constitutional challenge if a lawsuit worked its way to them through the lower courts. Gays took that invitation and sued in San Francisco County Superior Court.

That lawsuit – brought by gay and lesbian couples denied marriage licenses – is not expected to reach the justices for a year or two.

It was a challenge by gays denied marriage licenses that prompted Massachusetts' highest court to allow the gay marriages that began there last week.

Tuesday's arguments are scheduled for two hours. A decision is expected within 90 days.

posted by Anthony # 12:40 AM

by Malcolm Thornberry
365Gay.com Newscenter
European Bureau Chief

Posted: May 23, 2004 12:02 am. ET

(Vatican City) Pope John Paul Saturday urged American Catholic leaders to step up their opposition to same-sex marriage. The Pontiff's latest denunciation of gay unions came less than a week after the first legal gay marriages in the US took place in Massachusetts.

Although he made no specific reference to the gay marriages in Massasachusetts, his intent was clear. Twice in his remarks he used the word 'sacrament' to describe traditional marriage, an effort to reinforce the Church's claim that it has the sole right to determine who should marry.

"Family life is sanctified in the joining of man and woman in the sacramental institution of holy matrimony," he said in an address to visiting American bishops.

"The Church teaches that the love of man and woman made holy in the sacrament of marriage is a mirror of God's everlasting love for his creation," he told the bishops who came from Texas and Oklahoma.

"Many today have a clear understanding of the secular nature of marriage, which includes the rights and responsibilities modern societies hold as determining factors for a marital contract, but, there are "some who appear to lack a proper understanding of the intrinsically religious dimension of this covenant."

For nearly two years the Church has been on a major offensive to block same-sex marriage in the US, Canada, and in Europe, most recently in Spain where the government announced it would bring in legislation to allow gays to marry.

President Bush will meet the pope in Rome on June 4. The agenda for the meeting has not been announced, but it is believed that the issue of same-sex marriage will come up. Bush is pressing Congress for a constitutional amendment banning gays from marrying.

Some American bishops are threatening churchgoers that they will be denied communion if they vote for politicians who support gay marriage or are pro-abortion rights.

posted by Anthony # 12:40 AM

by Margo Williams
365Gay.com Newscenter
Boston Bureau

Posted: May 23, 2004 5:11 pm. ET

(Worcester, Massachusetts) The city of Worcester is continuing to issue marriage licenses to out-of-state same-sex couples despite a warning from Gov. Mitt Romney and Attorney General Thomas Riley.

The move pits Worcester city clerk David Rushford against the two most power elected officials in the state.

Worcester was one of four municipalities which decided a week ago to issue licenses to same-sex couples from outside Massachusetts even though Gov. Romney, a Republican, warned the marriages would be illegal and would not be registered. The other cities were Provincetown, Somerville, and Springfield.

Friday, acting on instructions from Romney, Riley, a Democrat, reminded the four cities that under a 1913 law marriage licenses cannot be given to couples whose union would be illegal in their home state.

The law had been enacted when interracial marriage was legal in Massachusetts but illegal elsewhere in the country.

One couple who received a marriage license despite Riley's reminder was James Reeves and Marc Epstein of Baltimore.

The clerk's office approved their marriage license Friday, only hours after receiving Riley's warning.

Their marriage was performed Friday night by Justice of the Peace Lisa Thomas, who is also an assistant city clerk. Just before the ceremony began Thomas called Rushford to be sure it was OK, and was given the go-ahead.

"We always knew there was going to be a cloud of suspicion over this, but we felt if we didn't try, we would have regretted it for the rest of our lives," Reeves, 26, told the Baltimore Sun.

Riley was not available to comment on the marriage, but most legal minds in the state say the issue of out-of-state gay marriage will be tested in the courts, and the 1913 ban is likely to be overturned.

In an interview with the Sun prior to their wedding, Reeves and Epstein said they wanted a marriage certificate so they could return home and press for specific legal rights, such as spousal health care coverage or filing joint tax returns

posted by Anthony # 12:38 AM

by Beth Shapiro
365Gay.com Newscenter
New York Bureau

Posted: May 23, 2004 5:11 pm. ET

(New York City) More than 2,000 New Yorkers staged a protest march across the Brooklyn Bridge Sunday to demand the right for same-sex couples to marry in the Empire State.

Many of the marchers wore signs on their backs bearing numbers representing each of the 1,838 state and federal rights denied to gay couples unable to marry. Others were dressed in wedding garb.

The protest stretched for more than a mile.

"We pay taxes. We're good citizens. "We need to be treated equally," said City Councilwoman Margarita Lopez (D-Manhattan) who marched with her partner Francisca Rivera.

Three suits have been launched in New York challenging the state's ban on same-sex marriage. Among the couples involved in the litigations is the brother of Rosie O'Donnell, York State Assemblyman Danny O'Donnell and his partner John Banta.

The mayor of the village of New Paltz began marrying gay and lesbian couples soon after San Francisco issued its first marriage licenses to same-sex couples in February. West was later charged and blocked by a court order preventing him from performing more weddings.

Two Unitarian ministers then began performing the weddings. When they too were charged they continued the practice.

Sunday's march was organized by Equality New York and activist group The Wedding Party. It started at Cadman Plaza in Brooklyn and ended at Battery Park in Manhattan.

Many of the couples at today's march were not gay, a point emphasized by Freedom to Marry's Evan Wolfson.

"The transformation we achieved [in Massachusetts] on May 17 shows us what's possible and seeing so many people take action today underscores the need for each of us to reach out to non gay people and ask them to support marriage equality."

posted by Anthony # 12:38 AM

by Ben Thompson
365Gay.com Newscenter
Ottawa Bureau

Posted: May 24, 2004 12:01 a.m. ET

(Ottawa) Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin called a general election Sunday that will pit his creaking Liberal Party against the newly formed Conservatives the result of which could have an impact on same-sex marriage.

The election call was widely anticipated even though Martin has a year left in his mandate and the party's standing in the polls has dropped significantly the result of a series of scandals involving millions of dollars paid to ad agencies with ties to the Liberal Party.

The election will be held June 28. The most recent polls show Martin will be returned but with a minority government. If that is what happens Martin will be forced to depend on the New Democratic Party to stay in power.

For the opposition Conservatives the campaign will revolve around the Liberal Party scandals and same-sex marriage. Martin's predecessor as Liberal leader and Prime Minister, Jean Chretien, refused to appeal court rulings in Ontario and Quebec that overturned the country's ban on same-sex marriage opting instead to rewrite Canadian law to legalize gay marriage. The draft legislation was sent to the Supreme Court of Canada for a constitutional opinion.

Martin's government recalled the constitutional questions put to the court an added the possibility of civil unions, although Martin maintains he supports gay marriage. The maneuver has delayed the date when the high Court was to hear the case from spring to late fall, and avoided the issue being front and center during an election campaign.

In the meantime, a third province, Quebec, also overturned the federal ban on gay marriage.

The Conservatives, a melding of the old Progressive Conservative Party and the right wing Canadian Alliance, under former Alliance leader Stephen Harper oppose gay marriage.

The Tories, like Republicans in the US, blame "activist judges" for striking down laws that "protect traditional families". The party wants all appointees to the Supreme Court of Canada to be approved by Parliament. Currently high court judges are appointed by the Prime Minister.

If the Conservative were win, the party has already said it would invoke an opt out clause in the Constitution to void any Supreme Court decision on gay marriage. The party's campaign will portray the Liberals as too left of center and not representative of Canadian "values".

But, a minority Liberal government, propped up by the NDP, could have enough votes to push through same-sex marriage legislation. The New Democrats are long time supporters of gay marriage.

Same-sex marriage has divided the country for the past two years polls indicate. The most recent, by Leger Marketing and taken between April 6 and 11, shows that forty-three per cent of respondents support gay marriage, while 47 per cent are opposed.

The poll also shows that gay bashing by the Conservatives could backfire on the party.

Almost 60 per cent of Canadians surveyed indicated they believe being homophobic is as bad as being racist or anti-Semitic.

The campaign officially gets underway today and political observers predict it will be the nastiest in modern history.

posted by Anthony # 12:36 AM

May 22, 2004
New York Times
By MICHAEL LEVENSON

The attorney general of Massachusetts, Thomas F. Reilly, ordered officials in four communities on Friday to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples from outside the state.

Clerks in Somerville, Worcester, Provincetown, and Springfield had been issuing licenses to gay couples from outside the state, even though Gov. Mitt Romney has said a 1913 state law forbids same-sex couples from outside Massachusetts from marrying in the state if they have no intention of moving there.

Mr. Romney, a Republican, took steps on Thursday to begin nullifying marriages of 10 same-sex couples who received licenses in Provincetown and Springfield despite stating on their applications that they did not intend to move to Massachusetts. The governor asked Mr. Reilly, a Democrat who also opposes gay marriage, to make a "corrective effort'' to stop clerks in the four communities from issuing licenses to out-of-state gay couples.

On Friday, Mr. Reilly agreed to Mr. Romney's request, sending a letter to the clerks and town lawyers in the four communities, asking them to explain their actions and, in the meantime, to "cease and desist'' from issuing marriage licenses to out-of-state gay couples or face "enforcement action.''

"We expect the clerks to respect the law,'' Mr. Reilly said after a memorial service in Boston for police officers who had died on duty.

Someone who knowingly violates the 1913 law could face a $500 fine, a year in jail, or both. Mr. Reilly said he would wait to hear from the clerks before deciding whether to charge them criminally, but he said that jail sentences were unlikely.

Mark Horan, a spokesman for the mayor of Somerville, Joseph A. Curtatone, said city officials would review Mr. Reilly's request over the weekend before deciding whether to change their policy. "We're quite committed to treating same-sex couples the same as we treat other couples," Mr. Horan said.

Gretchen Van Ness, a lawyer for Provincetown, said Mr. Reilly's request would be considered by the town's board of selectmen on Tuesday. The board has voted to grant marriage licenses to gay couples from outside Massachusetts.

The city clerk in Springfield, William J. Metzger, had already decided to stop issuing licenses to out-of-state gay couples on Wednesday, out of concern about an official crackdown.

Gay rights advocates have vowed to challenge the 1913 law in court.

The attorney general's office disputes contentions by the advocates that the 1913 law was, in part, an effort to enforce other states' bans on interracial marriage.

Although legislators who drafted the law considered those bans, "there is not the slightest evidence that this purpose actually motivated the Massachusetts Legislature, which had repealed the Commonwealth's ban on interracial marriage in 1843," said a five-page letter to the local officials by one of Mr. Reilly's deputies.

posted by Anthony # 1:17 AM

by Doreen Brandt
365Gay.com Newscenter
Washington Bureau

Posted: May 21, 2004 5:08 pm. ET

(Washington) National Stonewall Democrats Friday called on Republicans to stop a barrage of anti-gay attacks that they have unleashed this week.

Late last night, the Republican National Committee released a research paper titled "Totally San Fran" which blasted Democratic House Leader Nancy Pelosi for being "extreme and out of touch on homosexual issues."

Also last night, U.S. Representative Tom Reynolds (R-NY), chair of the National Republican Congressional Committee, lobbed a thinly-veiled anti-gay taunt at Pelosi, saying that the Democratic Leader " should just go back to her pastel-colored condo in San Francisco and keep her views to herself." In response, Pelosi's office noted that her family lives in a red-brick house.
"These taunts aren't worthy of a schoolyard bully, let alone a national party," said Dave Noble, NSD Executive Director. "The majority of Americans support equal employment protections, hate crime laws and open military service. It is the Republican Party that is out of touch with mainstream America, and they are demonstrating that point with this extreme rhetoric. "

The RNC research paper titled " Totally San Fran: 17 Years of San Francisco Liberalism " attacks Pelosi for her support of gay families.

One section titled " San Francisco Liberal, Out of Touch with Mainstream Values" notes Pelosi's vote against the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. A second section condemns Pelosi as " extreme and out of touch on homosexual issues." Subsections include "Pelosi Called DOMA Blatant Act Of Discrimination” and "Pelosi Voted To Lift Ban On Homosexuals In Military."

Republicans began attacking Representative Pelosi as a "San Francisco Liberal" - a reference designed to conjure images of the city's gay population - shortly after her election as Democratic House Leader.
GOP anti-gay attacks are not reserved for Pelosi alone. A similar RNC research piece on Senator John Kerry attacks the Senator for his support of gay families. Furthermore, RNC Chair Ed Gillespie continues to scare audiences of Republican voters with gay issues. In a series of stump speeches, Gillespie threatens audiences that Democrats and John Kerry will force their localities to legalize same-sex marriage.

Today, two Republican State Representatives attacked the Oklahoma Democratic Party for loaning space to the Oklahoma Stonewall Democrats for a fundraiser.
"By hosting a gay marriage celebration at their party headquarters, the Democrats are exposing just how liberal their party leadership really is, even in Oklahoma," said State Representative Lance Cargill (R-Harrah). His comments were echoed by State Representative Thad Balkman (R-Norman) who called the fundraiser "outrageous." Both men are among the co-authors of a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages in Oklahoma.

Earlier this week, it was revealed that the North Carolina Republican Party rejected a donation by the Log Cabin Republicans. The gay Republican group had sought to purchase table space at the state convention this Saturday. However, North Carolina Republican Party Chairman Ferrell Blunt rejected the application by quoting the North Carolina GOP platform which states that "homosexuality is not normal."

posted by Anthony # 1:12 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: May 21, 2004 5:08 pm. ET

(Jefferson City, Missouri) A squabble between Missouri's Democratic Governor and its Republican Secretary of State over when a proposed constitutional amendment would be put to voters has been settled by a judge.

Last week the legislature passed the proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. The proposal will be placed on the ballot in November.

Gov. Bob Holden attempted to move that up to August when voters go to the polls in the primaries. Secretary of State Matt Blunt refused to set a date until he receives the actual amendment from the legislature. The measure is not expected to reach his desk until after the deadline for an August vote.

Cole County Circuit Judge Richard Callahan Friday ruled that the Secretary of State has the right to decide when the amendment proposal will be put to voters.

Holden's office immediately announced an appeal.

With the proposed amendment likely to be endorsed by voters in conservative Missouri, what's at state is governorship.

Holden is seeking reelection and Blunt is seeking the GOP nomination to unseat Holden.

Holden fears that if the issue is put off until November it could bring out large numbers of Republicans anxious to vote against gay marriage and at the same time provide Blunt with enough votes to become Missouri's next governor.

posted by Anthony # 1:11 AM

by Michael J. Meade
365Gay.com Newscenter
Boston Bureau

Posted: May 21, 2004 5:08 pm. ET

(Boston, Massachusetts) The legality of issuing marriage licenses to out-of-state couples is expected to be tested in the courts following the intervention Friday of Massachusetts Attorney General Thomas Riley.

Riley's office told clerks in four towns which refused to follow a directive by Gov. Mitt Romney that a 1913 law prevented licenses from being given to couples who reside in states where their marriages are not legal.

Provincetown, Somerville, Springfield, and Worcester all have granted marriage licenses to out-of-staters since same-sex marriage became legal in the Massachusetts on Monday.

Thursday, Romney sent copies of ten marriage application forms filled out couples from outside of Massachusetts to Riley and called on him to take action.

Friday Riley said that his interpretation of the 1913 law was the same as Romney's. The two have disagreed in the past on gay marriage. In the weeks leading up to the implementation of the Supreme Judicial Court's ruling that the Commonwealth's Constitution made it illegal to bar same-sex couples from marrying Riley refused to represent the governor in an appeal challenging the high courts ability to render the landmark ruling.

Riley initially said that he believed the 1913 law, enacted when interracial marriage was legal in Massachusetts but illegal elsewhere in the country, only applied to couples from states which have specific laws banning gay marriage, but Friday he said that on consultation with attorneys in his office he would have to agree the law applied to all out-of-state marriages.

Yesterday, Springfield's clerk said he would stop issuing licenses to out-of-state couples if Reilly directed him to. The other towns have not commented.

Riley said that any marriage licenses already granted to out-of-state gay couples would not be registered by the state and that any marriages already performed would be declared void.

posted by Anthony # 1:10 AM

Targets marriage by gay outsiders

By Yvonne Abraham and Raphael Lewis, Globe Staff | May 21, 2004
Boston Globe

Governor Mitt Romney yesterday asked the state attorney general to stop municipal clerks from issuing marriage licenses to samesex couples from other states and said Massachusetts would refuse to ofﬁcially record the licenses of those couples who do not intend to live here.

Romney sent Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly copies of the license applications of 10 out-ofstate same-sex couples who sought marriage licenses in Provincetown and Springﬁeld this week and asked Reilly to take steps to prevent the clerks from issuing licenses to such couples in the future.

Over the next several days, Romney will forward Reilly the names of nonresident couples given license applications in Worcester and Somerville, two other communities where clerks announced their intention to welcome all comers.

Romney said he expected Reilly to urge the clerks to stop issuing the licenses with calls and letters at ﬁrst. If that does not work, Romney said, a court injunction might be warranted.

But Reilly refused to say whether he would agree to the governor’s request. Reilly, a likely Democratic opponent to Romney in 2006, said, “We have an awful lot of other things going on, so we’ll deal with this as it comes.”

Reilly repeatedly stressed that under Massachusetts law, the governor has the power to prosecute all matters related to marriage without the help of the attorney general. "I want to recognize here and acknowledge that the governor of Massachusetts has special authority and jurisdiction when it comes to the regulation of the issuance of marriage [licenses], and enforcement of the marriage laws and process," Reilly said. "I certainly understand that authority, and I respect that authority. We will take it in that context."

Romney said he has spoken to Reilly personally and that the two officials are "on the same page."

"We all have the same interests," Romney said. "To make sure the law is carried out."

Outlining his legal strategy at a news conference yesterday, the governor said he does not intend to punish the clerks or the couples. He said his aim is to avoid the "export" of same-sex marriage to other states by restricting licenses to gay couples who live in Massachusetts.

However, he also said he would take steps that could make it impossible for out-of-state gay couples to claim many of the benefits associated with marriage. The state registrar, he said, would refuse to record the marriages of the 10 out-of-state residents he identified and all those others who state on their applications that they have no intention of moving here. That step, he said, renders their marriages automatically invalid under a 1913 law that voids Massachusetts marriages if they would be void in the state in which a couple resides.

"He can use whatever tools he has on hand to remind the clerks of their obligations to carry out the law," Romney said of Reilly."I don't expect there would be any kind of punitive effort on [Reilly's] part. I would expect a corrective effort, where he would use the tools he has to ensure the elected officials, and particularly the appointed officials, are following the law as we understand it."

As Romney interprets the 1913 law, the same-sex marriages of couples from out of state are null and void because no other state in the union licenses them. Reilly sees the reach of that law differently: He has said that the marriages of out-of-state gay couples would be void only in the 38 states that have laws on the books specifically banning gay marriage.

The documents forwarded to Reilly were copies of 10 applications filed by residents of states that have no specific law banning gay marriage and those that do. Gay-marriage supporters have said that the governor and the attorney general are applying an archaic law inappropriately and unfairly, and are preparing to fight it in court.

The request ends weeks of speculation on what Romney would do to enforce a 1913 law after nearly a week of silence from the governor following his prominent role in the fight to block the beginning of legalized gay marriage in Massachusetts, which began Monday. With yesterday's move, he has lobbed the ball squarely into Reilly's court. Romney asked Reilly to seek, on his behalf, a delay in the May 17 start of those marriages earlier this spring, but the attorney general rebuffed him, saying the matter was settled.

Gay-marriage opponents urged Reilly to act.

"I certainly think there is merit in the governor calling the attorney general to action. Now the ball is in the attorney general's court," said Kristian M. Mineau, acting president of the Massachusetts Family Institute. "We have to see if he, who is supposed to uphold and support the law, is going to carry it out. I expect the attorney general to do his job in accordance with the constitution."

Supporters of gay marriage said they hoped Reilly would respond to Romney the same way now as earlier.

"We would urge the attorney general to reject the governor's invitation altogether, for a simple reason," said Mary Bonauto, civil rights project director of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, which argued the Supreme Judical Court case that gave gays and lesbians the right to marry. "Massachusetts already allows heterosexual nonresidents to marry and it can't have a different rule for gay people. The governor is picking a fight here, by denying recognition of this legal commitment these people so joyfully assumed."

Yesterday Romney stressed that he would not move to punish out-of-state couples. Their marriages do "no harm to the Commonwealth," he said.

"The consequences of people not following the law unfortunately is falling on the couples that are entering into a relationship," Romney said. "The Commonwealth, I don't imagine, is planning to challenge those marriages. . . . It's instead down the road, where another state might challenge them, or an employer might challenge them, or one of the individuals [in] the marriage itself might challenge the relationship, and that's really unfortunate for those individuals."

With the state registrar not recording the licenses of couples who do not intend to live here, the couples will not hold a valid Massachusetts license, making it unlikely that they would have legal standing to fight for benefits.

According to the documents forwarded to the attorney general and obtained by the Globe under the state's Public Records law, the applications selected by Romney were filed by couples from Maine, Vermont, Ohio, New York, California, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New Jersey.

Virginia Purcell, a Maine resident who arrived in Provincetown on Tuesday with her partner, Susan Elias, to apply for a marriage license, said she was troubled to hear that Romney had flagged the couple's application.

The parent of twin 7-year-old children, Purcell said she would gladly join a class-action lawsuit to make sure her marriage is acknowledged in Massachusetts. Only then, she said, could she fight to overturn Maine's Defense of Marriage Act. "Someone has to challenge the DOMA in the state of Maine," said Purcell.

Globe staff writer Frank Phillips contributed to this report.

posted by Anthony # 9:06 AM

May 21, 2004
New York Times
By PAM BELLUCK

BOSTON, May 20 - Gov. Mitt Romney began cracking down Thursday on same-sex marriages by out-of-state couples, taking steps to invalidate their marriage licenses and asking the attorney general to consider taking action against the cities that issued them.

Earlier this week, as gay marriage became legal in Massachusetts, Mr. Romney's administration demanded copies of marriage license applications from four cities and towns that were defying the governor by issuing licenses to out-of-state couples.

On Thursday, the governor said he had received the applications from two communities, Provincetown and Springfield, and found 10 out-of-state marriage applications that the state would not record, effectively nullifying those marriages. Out-of-state applications from the other two cities, Somerville and Worcester, would be treated the same way, he said.

"We certainly won't record on our public health records marriages that are on the face of them not consistent with the law," Mr. Romney said at a news conference, his first public appearance since same-sex marriages began on Monday.

Mr. Romney, a Republican, also said he was sending the out-of-state applications to Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly, a Democrat who also opposes gay marriage, and asking him to make a "corrective effort" to get town clerks to stop issuing licenses to out-of-state couples. "He can use whatever tools he has at hand to remind the clerks of their obligation to carry out the law," Mr. Romney said.

Mr. Reilly said he had not decided what action to take. His options range from sending town clerks a written reminder to filing charges against them that could result in a $500 fine or a year in jail. He could also seek an injunction to stop the clerks from issuing licenses to out-of-state couples. "What we will do is review the materials and make judgments based upon what we see, what information we receive and what we find," Mr. Reilly said at another news conference.

Gay rights advocates said they expected to file lawsuits on behalf of at least some of the couples. "That is an aggressive move," said Mary L. Bonauto, a lawyer for Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, who won the case legalizing same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.

"People have now gone through this process because they want to get married, and now the governor is seeking to turn this whole process on its head and invalidate their marriages," Ms. Bonauto said. "That could trigger legal action certainly."

Mr. Romney's actions are based on his interpretation of a 1913 law which says that the state cannot issue marriage licenses to couples if the marriage would be illegal in their home state. Mr. Romney has concluded that because no other state allows gay marriage, only Massachusetts residents, or people who intend to move to the state, can receive marriage licenses.

Julie Mohan, of Woodstock, N.H., who got a license to marry her partner, Adrienne Monestre, in Somerville on Tuesday, said they expected to be part of a lawsuit.

"We think it's really outrageous what they're doing," said Ms. Mohan, who said they had not wanted to lie and pretend that they intended to move to Massachusetts. "We intend on going forward if he intends to void our marriage. We'll sue him without a doubt."

The 10 couples, most of whom were issued licenses in Provincetown, come from eight states, including New York, Vermont, California and Ohio. Couples from states like Ohio, one of 39 states with a law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, might have a more difficult time challenging the 1913 law than couples from New York, where the law does not explicitly outlaw same-sex marriage.

But Ms. Bonauto said a legal challenge might include couples from many states. "Since we think the law has no validity whatsoever, it seems to us to make sense to ensure that there are a variety of different couples from different states with a variety of different laws," she said.

Officials in Somerville, Worcester and Provincetown said they would continue to issue licenses to out-of-state couples even if they had no intention of moving here.

"We're on the right side of justice and the law," said Mayor Joseph A. Curtatone of Somerville.

The city clerk in Springfield, William J. Metzger, said that he had decided on Wednesday to stop issuing marriage licenses to out-of-state couples because he was worried about a crackdown by the governor.

"I just think it's prudent not to put people through turmoil," Mr. Metzger said.

Mr. Romney could have taken tougher action Thursday by seeking an injunction through his own legal counsel or directing the attorney general to punish the town clerks.

Instead, Mr. Romney, apparently conscious of appearing too confrontational, talked about tolerance, saying "this is a time for opening ourselves to others and for respecting other individuals."

He expressed dismay at the handful of vulgar anti-gay marriage protesters outside town hall and said his expectation was that the attorney general would tell the defiant town clerks, "'Gosh, you need to get back on track."

Nonetheless, the couples whose marriages would not be recorded were crestfallen Thursday.

"It's a real shame," said Bobbi Cote-Whitacre of Essex Junction, Vt., who got a marriage license in Provincetown with her partner, Sandi Cote-Whitacre. "I just think it's a shame that he doesn't believe in freedom for everyone."

posted by Anthony # 9:04 AM

by Paul Johnson
365Gay.com Newscenter
Washington Bureau Chief

Posted: May 20, 2004 11:05 am. ET

(Washington) 48 Roman Catholic members of Congress are condemning threats by some bishops to refuse communion to politicians who do not follow the Church's doctrine on gay marriage and abortion.

In a letter to Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington, obtained by the Washington Post, the Congressmen, all Democrats, warn that threats are likely to revive anti-Catholic bigotry and "severely harm the church."

"For many years Catholics were denied public office by voters who feared that they would take direction from the pope," the Congressmen wrote. "While that type of paranoid anti-Catholicism seems to be a thing of the past, attempts by church leaders today to influence votes by the threat of withholding a sacrament will revive latent anti-Catholic prejudice, which so many of us have worked so hard to overcome."

Some bishops have already told Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry that he will not be allowed to take communion in their churches.

Last week, the situation was further acerbated by the Bishop of Colorado Springs who said that voters who support politicians who do not oppose same-sex marriage, abortion rights, stem-cell research, or euthanasia may not receive Communion until they recant and repent in the confessional.

McCarrick is heading a task force of bishops that is considering what action the church should take against Catholic politicians whose public positions are at odds with Catholic doctrine.

The Cardinal will not comment on the Congressmen's letter but last week in an article in the District of Columbia's Catholic newspaper he said that he does not agree with threatening politicians or voters.

"As a priest and bishop, I do not favor a confrontation at the altar rail with the Sacred Body of the Lord Jesus in my hand," he wrote. "There are apparently those who would welcome such a conflict, for good reasons, I am sure, or for political ones, but I would not."

posted by Anthony # 9:03 AM

by Jennifer Peter
The Associated Press

Posted: May 20, 2004 5:04 pm. ET

(Boston, Massachusetts) The Rev. Kim Crawford Harvie had barely retreated down the aisle with her wife of five minutes when she donned her white robes and got back to work, helping to marry dozens of other gay couples during a full day of back-to-back weddings at the Arlington Street Church.

``OK, I'm ready for my next couple!'' said Harvie, 46, senior minister at the Unitarian Universalist church since 1989, who married her partner of seven years, Kem Morehead, in a ceremony officiated by Rabbi Howard Berman.

So began a marathon day of weddings at the church in Boston's Back Bay which planned to marry nearly 50 couples on Thursday and at chapels, parks and on beaches across the state, as a mandatory three-day waiting period expired for couples who obtained the nation's first gay marriage license applications on Monday. (In Depth Coverage) Dozens of other couples that got a court waiver of the waiting period have already been married.

The new round of nuptials came as Gov. Mitt Romney took the first steps toward blocking city and town clerks from issuing marriage licenses to out-of-state gay couples, which the Republican governor says is prohibited by state law. Attorney General Tom Reilly said the governor's office was referring a ``handful'' of cases to him regarding out-of-state couples who received licenses, but Reilly would not say whether he planned to prosecute the couples or the clerks.

The legal maneuverings on Beacon Hill didn't stop gay couples including some from out of state from getting married on Thursday.

Provincetown, one of four municipalities that have openly defied the governor by issuing licenses to out-of-state couples, hosted the weddings of couples from as far away as Florida.

``I feel sorry for him,'' Pamela Jarvis, 46, of Baltimore, said of the governor after marrying, Kathleen Bieler, her partner of two years.

In Northampton, Joan and Kim Williams became ``legally recognized life partners'' on a quiet side of Look Park near a bubbling fountain. Dressed in blue suits, the couple of 13 years held hands and exchanged vows before their 4-year-old daughter, 1-year-old son and Kim's parents.

``In my lifetime, I never envisioned this as a possibility,'' said Kim Williams, a 48-year-old stay-at home mom. ``We've been really overwhelmed by this.''

It was a moment that her father, Jack Arbuckle, also once never imagined.

``Thirteen years ago, I was adamantly opposed to this,'' he said. ``But as I've grown older and wiser, I've also grown more accepting.''

Under the shade of a tree at Provincetown's Town Hall, two justices of the peace performed at least a dozen weddings Thursday morning for couples who had waited out the three-day period.

Along Commercial Street, the town's main road, newlyweds Cheryl Andrews, chairwoman of the Provincetown Board of Selectmen, and her wife, Jennifer Germack, drove a red convertible Mustang past Town Hall. The couple had just been married at a local nursing home where Andrews' father lives.

At the Arlington Street Church, the newly married Harvie conferred quietly with her next customers Annie Gauger and Cindy MacKenzie in a pew as Berman presided over the wedding of David Wakely, 59, and Lewis Stein, 57.

``Marriage is a vital social institution,'' Berman said, reading from the landmark Supreme Judicial Court decision that legalized gay marriage in Massachusetts. ``The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support; it brings stability to our society.''

Harvie, who made a point of referring to Morehead as her wife about a dozen times within the first minutes of their marriage, said she was not confident this day would come, even when she was waiting in line at Cambridge City Hall on Sunday night.

``We still thought someone would say to us, 'Oh, you're two girls. That isn't allowed,''' Harvie said. ``We never thought we'd live to see this day.''

posted by Anthony # 9:02 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: May 20, 2004 8:03 pm. ET

(Toledo, Ohio) The Moderator of the Presbyterian Church (USA) says she sees the day when gays will allowed to serve as pastors and when the Church will allow same-sex couples to marry.

"I was elected last year as moderator with the position that I hope in my lifetime we will indeed open all the offices of the church to partnered gays and lesbians," the Rev. Susan Andrews told the Toledo Blade in an interview.

"But ... I don't want us to get to a point where we open those offices until we have had more time so we can keep the church together."

Andrews said that she believes rather than a national policy on the role of gays in the Presbyterian Church the issue should be decided by individual member churches.

Currently the Church’s constitution forbids the ordination of sexually actively gay and lesbian ministers and bars clergy from performing same-sex marriages.

In the deep South where there is strong opposition to homosexuality Andrews said churches should be free to bar gay clergy or weddings. But, in large metropolitan areas like New York or San Francisco, churches would be able to hire gay ministers and perform weddings if they are legal.

Andrews said she believed her solution would find acceptance pointing to other "sensitive" issues the church has faced. "I think if we've changed our mind on divorce, we've changed our mind on slavery, we've changed our mind on women, I think there's room through the movement of the Spirit to change our minds on this issue," she told the paper.

The Presbyterian Church (USA) has 2.5 million members.

Earlier this month the Church voted to reaffirm its position that "homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching". The vote followed a ruling by the Church's top ecclesiastical court that an Ohio minister did not break church law when he married several same-sex couples.

posted by Anthony # 9:01 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: May 20, 2004 8:03 pm. ET

(Jefferson City, Missouri) Missouri Gov. Bob Holden wants to strike while the iron is hot. A week after the legislature passed a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage (story) Holden and his Secretary of State are battling over when the proposal will be put to voters.

The issue was to have been decided by the electorate in the November general election, but Holden wants a vote sooner. He favors August when the primaries are held.

Secretary of State Matt Blunt, who is in charge of overseeing elections, is refusing to set a date until he receives the actual amendment from the legislature.

The amendment isn't scheduled to reach Blunt's desk until May 28, three days after the notification deadline for August.

An angry Holden Thursday instructed the Attorney General to go to court to force Blunt to put the proposal on the August ballot. Cole County Circuit Judge Richard Callahan said Thursday that he expects to have a decision on Friday

Holden is a Democrat and Blunt is a Republican who is seeking his party's nomination to unseat Holden.

The issue of when the proposed amendment is put to voters is seen as more about November's gubernatorial election than about gay marriage.

Holden fears that if the issue is put off until November it could bring out large numbers of Republicans anxious to vote against gay marriage and at the same time provide Blunt with enough votes to become Missouri's next governor.

With polls showing the same-sex marriage ban likely to succeed in either August or November Holden believes that if it is dealt with in August, it could work to his favor in November.

posted by Anthony # 9:00 AM

May 20, 2004
PARIS JOURNAL
New York Times
By ELAINE SCIOLINO

PARIS, May 19 - Until recently, the French assumed they had solved the issue of gays and marriage in a most civilized manner.

The raw political debates and the spectacle of same-sex weddings in the United States were little more than a source of bemusement, what a Frenchman might call "a tempest in a glass of water."

After all, the French were the inventors of the Civil Solidarity Pact, a creative legal mechanism introduced in 1999 that gives all adult couples - regardless of gender or sexual orientation -- many of the same fiscal and social rights as those who are formally wedded.

But that was before Noël Mamère, the leader of France's tiny leftist Green Party and a member of Parliament, announced last month that he would defy tradition (and some would say the law) by officiating at the country's first gay wedding ceremony.

Like many French politicians, Mr. Mamère holds multiple offices. So he is using his perch as mayor of an obscure southwest town named Bègles to conduct his social experiment, joining two thirty-something men, a supermarket clerk and a health-care worker, in marriage on June 5.

"France is a hypocritical country," said Mr. Mamère in explaining his decision. "Marriage here is traditionally considered a Judeo-Christian value, a very strong symbol organized around heterosexuality. For many, the validity of marriage is procreation. It's an extremely archaic vision in my opinion, an idea encased in glass. The Americans are much more advanced in the fight against discrimination despite their puritanical and their slightly Protestant bent."

Mr. Mamère argues that nothing in the Napoleonic Code, the vast compilation of civil laws that has governed since 1804, specifies that marriage has to be between a man and a woman. He has also threatened to take any challenge of his action to the European Court of Human Rights, a European Union court based in Strasbourg..

His crusade has enraged the center-right French government, riven the Socialist Party and touched off a fierce intellectual battle in newspaper opinion columns and television talk shows over the rights of homosexuals in France.

"Marions-Nous" ("Marry Us"), screamed the cover headline of the most recent issue of Le Monde's glossy weekly magazine, illustrated with the faces of two smiling men apparently lying on flowered pillows.

Justice Minister Dominique Perben has served notice that Mr. Mamère's gay marriage will be null and void in the eyes of the French state. "To argue that sexual difference between spouses is not written into the civil code is to lie," Mr. Perben told the right-leaning daily Le Figaro.

Discrimination against gays in France was enshrined in French law until the Socialists came to power in 1981. The age of consent for heterosexual couples was 15, but 18 for homosexual couples until 1982, when the law was changed to allow all 15-year-olds the right to consensual sex.

"Police kept surveillance files on people who had sex with someone of the same gender," wrote Frédéric Martel, a French sociologist in his book on homosexuality in France, "The Pink and the Black." "Laws required civil servants and tenants to behave like 'good family men.' And films and books were censored."

Today, for the majority of the French, even homosexual marriage is no big deal. According to a poll released this week by the Ipsos polling agency, 57 percent of all Frenchmen and 75 percent of those under 35 believe that gay couples should be allowed to marry. That compares with only 24 percent in the United States, other polls show.

Still, France is more conservative than much of the rest of Europe, far behind Denmark (82 percent) and the Netherlands (80 percent), for example, as well as Luxembourg, Sweden, Spain, Belgium. Norway, Switzerland and Germany.

The Civil Solidarity Pact initative gives couples housing rights, health and welfare benefits, the right to file a joint tax return and to inheritance.

But proponents of gay marriage insist that it is marriage-lite, an unsatisfying compromise that does not go far enough. It does not allow couples to adopt children, for example. Couples have to wait three years before they can file joint tax returns. It is sometimes difficult for a non-French partner in a civil pact to receive a residence permit or French citizenship, especially for foreigners from places like North Africa.

Lynne Petrovic, a 38-year-old American therapist, and Ségolène Rubin, a 36-year-old Frenchwoman, were joined by a civil solidary pact at the French consulate in San Francisco in 2001 and married on Valentine's Day at San Francisco's city hall. But they want to be married under French law largely so that they can share custody over Ms. Rubin's biological son.

"It's not gay marriage in the end that worries the French," says Ms. Rubin. "It's homosexuals raising kids." But, she adds: "We're not militants. We're talking about a little family unit. It's our reality."

If reality is the guide, Mr. Mamère's gay marriage project is unlikely to go very far. Still, it has created odd fissures, particularly in the Socialist Party, which championed the civil solidarity pact in the first place.

The Socialist - and openly gay - mayor of Paris, Bertrand Delanoe, for example, has not fully embraced the idea, calling same-sex marriages "a little bit less urgent than the question of parenting."

The former prime minister and former Socialist Party leader, Lionel Jospin, has declared his opposition, writing in Le Journal du Dimanche last Sunday that that marriage is the union of a man and a woman "first and foremost" because the "duality of the sexes characterizes our existence and is the condition for procreation."

François Hollande, meanwhile, the current head of the Socialist Party, has suggested that it might be advisable to eventually change the law to allow gay marriage. "Every society should be organized on the principle of equal rights and respect," he said. "As a result, marriage should be open to everybody." He called Mr. Jospin "a free man" to "express his own opinions."

Mr. Hollande has an unusual marital arrangement himself. He and Ségolène Royal, a Socialist deputy in Parliament and the mother of his four children, have never married. Ms. Royal has only addressed the issue of gay adoption, which she opposes. As for Mr. Mamère, he seems delighted by the fuss he has stirred up. "If a provocateur is someone who advances the cause of society, then I am a provocateur," he says. "I prefer to call myself a man of courage."

Ariane Bernard contributed reporting for this article.

posted by Anthony # 7:29 AM

Boston Globe
By Raphael Lewis and Yvonne Abraham, Globe Staff | May 20, 2004

The state Senate yesterday voted overwhelmingly to repeal a 1913 law that Governor Mitt Romney is enforcing to prevent out-of-state same-sex couples from marrying in Massachusetts.

The repeal measure passed by a vote of 28 to 3, but it was uncertain the House would follow suit because Speaker Thomas M. Finneran does not want the contentious issue tied up in state budget negotiations.

The action came as Romney's legal team continued to collect marriage license paperwork from four Bay State communities where officials have refused to turn away out-of-staters. Aides say he will probably seek a court injunction to force municipal clerks into compliance with the 1913 law, and that he is also weighing whether to attempt to nullify licenses granted to out-of-state couples.

Aides to the governor said yesterday that they will not act until the administration receives all the marriage license applications requested from clerks in Worcester, Somerville, Provincetown, and Springfield, but that may not happen immediately. Officials in Somerville and Worcester said they would provide the documents in ``a reasonable amount of time.''

Meanwhile, attorneys for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), who were planning to challenge the 1913 statute in a civil lawsuit, said yesterday that they are preparing a legal counteroffensive for when Romney seeks an injunction.

State Senator Jarrett T. Barrios, one of the chief sponsors of the repeal measure passed yesterday, said the overwhelming margin of victory for the legislation was a clear message to Romney, especially since five of the Senate's seven Republicans voted to strike the 1913 law.

"I believe the message sent by the Senate today is that the people of Massachusetts want the governor to act more like his father, [former Michigan governor] George Romney, than like George Wallace," the segregationist former governor of Alabama, Barrios said. "Mitt Romney's father was a civil rights leader and a man of great courage. He supported the Civil Rights Act, he brought people together and did not divide them."

Eric Fehrnstrom, Romney's communications director, said the Senate vote made one thing abundantly plain: that the 1913 law is on the books and must be enforced until repealed, despite assertions by critics that Romney is selectively enforcing an archaic law to discriminate against gays.

"The fact that the Legislature is debating whether or not to change the law points out what has been obvious to us all, and that is, this is the law of the land," Fehrnstrom said. "The governor cannot pick and choose what laws to enforce."

The repeal measure is attached to the Senate's version of the state budget, but it is not included in the House version. To pass, the repeal must be agreed upon by budget leaders from the House and Senate in a closed-door conference. The entire consensus budget is then voted up or down by the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Asked if he would push hard to make sure the 1913 law repeal gets into the consensus budget, Senate President Robert E. Travaglini yesterday vowed to "exert the necessary level of energy and effort to keep our budget intact."

The Senate was more aligned on yesterday's vote than it was on the final vote on the proposed constitutional amendment on gay marriage in March. The amendment, which would limit marriage to a man and a woman and establish civil unions with equal benefits for same-sex partners, was favored by 17 senators and opposed by 22 with one senator absent. The proposed amendment passed the joint convention, 105-92.

Arline Isaacson, cochairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, said she would now lobby House and Senate leaders to make sure the repeal survives. "We have no delusions about this issue being at the top of the agenda," Isaacson said. The 1913 statute, passed in part to uphold other states' bans on interracial marriage, says that no out-of-staters can marry in Massachusetts if the marriage would be "void if contracted" in their home state.

Romney has argued that, since no other state has legalized gay marriages, no out-of-staters may marry here unless they intend to move to Massachusetts.

Gay-rights groups, on the other hand, argue that the law has been largely ignored for decades, and that it runs afoul of the Supreme Judicial Court's Nov. 18 ruling granting gays and lesbians the right to marry.

State Senator Dianne Wilkerson, a Democrat, called Romney a "political opportunist" for his handling of the 1913 law.

"He is invoking a statute that has history in the darkest days of this Commonwealth and using it to impose discriminatory practice on another group of people," Wilkerson said.

Brian P. Lees, the Senate's top Republican, voted to repeal the 1913 law yesterday, but rose to Romney's defense against allegations that he is being discriminatory or selective in his enforcement of the law.

"The governor is enforcing the law that's on the books," Lees said.

As the Senate debated yesterday, GLAD was preparing to fight the Romney administration in court. GLAD yesterday posted a notice on its website asking couples from Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont, and New York to contact the organization if they have filed, or who want to file, for marriage in Massachusetts. GLAD might use the couples as plaintiffs in a lawsuit, or offer to represent them if they have difficulty obtaining benefits as married couples.

"I am going to remain hopeful the governor doesn't take this extreme action," said Mary Bonauto, civil rights project director at GLAD. "If he's going to rely on the 1913 law to block the door to these couples, then we want to make sure the couples' interests are represented, in case public officials are asked to resurrect the discrimination condemned in the Goodridge case."

Fehrnstrom yesterday would not say when the Romney administration would take action to apply the law. He also would not rule out the possibility that Romney will take action against the couples themselves -- which could include nullifying their marriages, or prosecuting out-of-state couples who swore to statements that they were Massachusetts residents.

"Nearly every city and town clerk in Massachusetts is complying with the Department of Public Health's instructions, and they should be commended for following the law," he said. "A handful of town clerks have made public statements that they will issue marriage certificates to same-sex couples from other states. We are reviewing these violations, but have no comment on what enforcement steps we plan to take."

posted by Anthony # 7:28 AM

by Mark Worrall
365Gay.com Newscenter
San Francisco Bureau

Posted: May 19, 2004 2:08 pm. ET

(San Francisco, California) A bill to give same-sex couples the right to get marriage licenses that sailed through committee was pulled Wednesday before it could reach the floor of the Assembly.

The author of the bill, Assemblymember Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) said there was little chance the legislation would pass in this session and vowed to bring it back in the fall.

The legislation won a landmark vote in committee last month when it became the first gay marriage bill to ever win approval in any legislative committee in the country. It was headed this week for a hearing by the Appropriations Committee were it also was expected to be approved. But, despite heavy lobbying by Leno and gay rights groups there were not enough supporters to ensure passage.

Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (D-Los Angeles) a supporter of same-sex marriage, said "we have to pick our battles, and it's probably not a fight we engage in this year."

But, Nunez has pledged his support as a co-sponsor if the bill comes back in the next session. That would make it a leadership bill, ensuring the full support of the party and virtually guaranteeing passage.

It would then be up to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to decide whether to sign or veto it. In March in an appearance on "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno" the governor said that same-sex marriages would be "fine with me" if the courts or the voters changed state law and made them legal." He did not, however, include the legislature in that remark.

Schwarzenegger's office has refused to comment on Leno's bill.

"We have to be strategic and savvy as we move forward," Leno said.

"We have successfully covered an enormous distance in the last few months, and there's every reason to believe we can get this to the governor's desk one year from now."

Gay rights advocates were disappointed but not surprised by Leno's announcement Wednesday.

"With the majority of of statewide officials and the speaker behind it, gay marriage legislation will become a priority in the next session leaving us confident it will reach the governor's desk in 2005," Geoffrey Kors, the executive director of Equality California told 365Gay.com

The measure has the backing of the California Teachers Association, the California Council of Churches, and the California State Employees Association.

If the bill passes and is signed into law it would make moot a legal challenge before the Supreme Court of California to declare San Francisco acted illegally in allowing gays to marry, but the law would likely be challenged in a new round of law suits by conservative groups opposed to gay marriage .

posted by Anthony # 7:26 AM

by Michael J. Meade
365Gay.com Newscenter
Boston Bureau

Posted: May 19, 2004 5:03 pm. ET

(Boston, Massachusetts) The Massachusetts Senate voted Wednesday to repeal a 1913 law that Gov. Mitt Romney is using to stop same-sex couples from outside the state from marrying.

The overwhelming vote by the Democratic controlled Senate is a slap in the face to the Republican Governor, but it may not make it through the House, and even if it does, Romney has vowed he will veto it.

The law dates back to a period when interracial marriage was legal in Massachusetts but illegal in most other states.

This week same-sex couples began to get the first legally sanctioned marriage licenses in the country but Romney has warned that out-of-state couples cannot marry in the state.

In April Romney sent a letter to all governors and attorneys general advising them that unless they notify him gay marriage is legal in their states same-sex couples would not be allowed to tie the knot.

Yesterday, the governor ordered four cities, including Provincetown, that refused to abide by his directive not to issue licenses to out-of-state gay couples to submit copies of all marriage license applications.

The measure to rescind the 1913 law was tacked onto the Senate's version of the state budget. Only three senators voted against it.

But, the action is expected to face a showdown in the House. Thomas Finneran the powerful Democratic speaker of the House and a foe of gay marriage said he would strike the repeal measure from the budget when it goes to committee.

posted by Anthony # 7:25 AM

by The Canadian Press

Posted: May 19, 2004 8:02 pm. ET

(Ottawa) Canada's recognition of gay marriage is being extended to would-be immigrants.

The Immigration Department confirmed Wednesday that it has begun recognizing same-sex marriages in processing immigration applications. But the change only applies to couples in which one spouse is a Canadian citizen or permanent resident. It also applies only to those who marry in Ontario, B.C. or Quebec - the provinces that allow such marriages.

"It's encouraging to see the federal government follow through on its commitment to equal marriage," said Alex Munter, co-chair of Canadians for Equal Marriage.

"Same-sex couples have been getting married in Canada for almost a year. Legal recognition of those marriages is tremendously important, both for the couples and for the rule of law."

Immigration lawyer El-Farouk Khaki also hailed the change.

"This will improve the lives of loving and committed same-sex couples who want to live in Canada," he said.

"In today's world, it is not at all uncommon for Canadians and non-Canadians to meet, fall in love, and want to marry. If they are denied the ability to marry or denied recognition of their marriage for immigration purposes, their lives will be made unnecessarily difficult."

posted by Anthony # 7:24 AM

by Michael J. Meade
365Gay.com Newscenter
Boston Bureau

Posted: May 18, 2004 8:03 pm. ET

(Boston, Massachusetts) Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney late Tuesday demanded copies of all applications for marriage licenses by same-sex couples that were filled out yesterday in Provincetown and three other communities that defied the his directive that out-of-state gay couples are not eligible for marriage in in the state.

The order for the documents came following a study published by a Boston newspaper that showed one third of the license applications in Provincetown were from couples from outside of Massachusetts.

In April Romney sent a letter to all governors and attorneys general advising them that unless they notify him gay marriage is legal in their states same-sex couples would not be allowed to tie the knot.

Romney is relying on a 1913 law that says marriage licenses cannot be issued to out-of-state couples if their marriages would be "void" in the couples' home states. The law dates back to a period when interracial marriage was legal in Massachusetts but illegal in most other states.

In addition to Provincetown clerks in Worcester, Springfield and Somerville said they would refuse to follow the governor's directive.

"Any marriages performed outside of the law are null and void under Massachusetts statutes," Romney spokesperson Shawn Feddeman said Tuesday when asked about the governor's demand for the documents.

The clerks in the four cities say they were acting within the law y granting the licenses. It is expected if Romney attempts to charge the clerks with violating the 1913 law or if he nullifies the marriage applications by out-of-state couples the issue will wind up in court.

posted by Anthony # 7:24 AM

by Chris T. Nguyen
The Associated Press

Posted: May 19, 2004 12:01 am. ET

(Los Angeles, California) About 200 people opposing same-sex marriages held a rally Tuesday, urging state lawmakers to vote against a proposed bill that would allow gay unions in California.

The gathering at Pershing Square came one day after Massachusetts became the first U.S. state to legalize same-sex marriages, and rally organizers that included several religious and community groups worried California would be next.

"The message we want to send is this - yesterday in Massachusetts same-sex marriages began. However, in California same-sex marriage ends today," said Luis Galdamez, spokesman for the Campaign for California Families. "And we need to take it to the politicians. ... What we want is marriage between one man and one woman."

Protesters shouted "no homosexual marriage" and waved signs, including one that read, "Let's not legalize immorality." Children, accompanied by their parents, also protested.

A girl held a sign addressed to the Assembly speaker. It read, "Fabian Nunez: Californians overwhelmingly passed Proposition 22. Uphold the will of the people."

In 2000, 61 percent of voters passed the measure, which says only marriages between a man and a woman are valid.

In February, one day before San Francisco began marrying the first of 4,000 gay couples, Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, introduced legislation that would permit marriages between "two persons" regardless of their gender or sexual orientation.

Nunez supports the bill, which cleared a legislative committee last month but was placed on hold last week pending the vote of another committee.

"Terrorism against America was September 11th. Terrorism against marriage in America is May 17th," Dr. Vicente Martin Garcia, president of La Familia Hispana, said Tuesday at the rally.

Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, founder and president of the Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny, said people died fighting for civil rights for blacks.

"For homosexuals to use the civil rights movement in order to further their agenda is an assault on black America," he said. "Homosexuality is not about family. It is not about love. It is not about civil rights. It's about sex and nothing else."

The stereotype drew the ire of a passer-by, 52-year-old David Merritt.

"Get a life. You're sick," he told the crowd as he walked by. "They're condemning people. They're all out here telling people we're all going to hell."

posted by Anthony # 7:22 AM

May 18, 2004
New York Times
By PAM BELLUCK

BOSTON, May 17 — Hundreds of gay and lesbian couples streamed into city halls from Boston to the Berkshires on Monday as Massachusetts became the first state to allow same-sex marriages.

Weddings were held on a hill overlooking a park, in churches and synagogues, in the shoebox quarters of justices of the peace, and on a Christmas tree farm with peacocks, pigs, turkeys and Icelandic sheep nearby.

"Your marriage is an example to others of how life is supposed to work," Rosaria E. Salerno, Boston's city clerk, told Joe Rogers and Tom Weikle, choking with emotion as she married the longtime couple in City Hall's first same-sex ceremony Monday morning. "You really are already married. The only thing that's been wrong with your marriage, if I can put it that way, is that it hasn't been public. And this is so exciting because the moment I put my name on that piece of paper, your marriage is public."

Gay rights advocates hailed this day, which fell on the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education, as an occasion that evoked the triumphs — and the social vindication — of the civil rights era.

After an emotional court and legislative battle, Massachusetts now joins a tiny list of places where same-sex couples can marry — Belgium, the Netherlands, and the Canadian provinces of Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia. Same-sex couples have been issued marriage licenses in San Francisco and Multnomah County, Ore., but those licenses have not been state-sanctioned and are the focus of legal battles.

On the first day here, the issuing of licenses and the marriage ceremonies proceeded without many snags or confrontations. It was unclear how many same-sex couples sought licenses here Monday, but at least 900 couples showed up in 29 of the state's 351 cities and towns, according to town clerks and the office of the secretary of the commonwealth.

There were small demonstrations by opponents of gay marriage — and camera crews from a national conservative organization, the Family Research Council, gathering images to use in anti-gay marriage presentations.

But the seeds of a full-fledged conflict were planted on Monday by scores of out-of-state couples who came to Massachusetts to apply for marriage licenses despite Gov. Mitt Romney's refusal to allow gay men and lesbians from other states to marry here. The governor has said that a 1913 state law, adopted in part to block interracial marriages, forbids Massachusetts from marrying anyone who cannot be legally married in their home state.

At least four communities — Provincetown, Somerville, Worcester and Springfield — decided to defy Governor Romney and issue out-of-state couples marriage licenses even if they said on their application that they had no intention of moving to Massachusetts.

"No matter who you are or where you come from, if you fill out this application you will be given a license to marry," Mayor Joseph Curtatone of Somerville, just north of Boston, said on the steps of City Hall, where at least a fifth of the more than 40 couples came from other states, including two couples who arrived on the $10 bus from Chinatown in New York.

"Those of you from out of state, welcome to Somerville," the mayor said.

Officials in those towns could face fines or criminal charges for violating Governor Romney's edict.

And the out-of-state couples who flocked to those communities on Monday face the prospect that Governor Romney will invalidate their marriages. They also face — some of them willingly — possible legal battles in their home states if they seek to have their marriage recognized or to apply for benefits accorded married couples.

Governor Romney, a Republican who had tried to delay same-sex marriage until a state constitutional amendment could come before voters in November 2006, issued a two-sentence statement: "All along, I have said an issue as fundamental to society as the definition of marriage should be decided by the people. Until then, I intend to follow the law and expect others to do the same."

Thirty-nine states have laws defining marriage as a heterosexual union. On Monday, the attorneys general of two neighboring states without such laws — Connecticut and Rhode Island — issued statements about how they would treat their residents who married in Massachussetts.

Connecticut's attorney general, Richard Blumenthal, issued a two-part opinion that said state law forbids same-sex couples from marrying in Connecticut, but it stopped short of saying whether residents who wed across the border in Massachusetts should be denied marital status at home.

Rhode Island's attorney general, Patrick C. Lynch, said courts had not yet decided whether same-sex couples could marry in the state. But Rhode Island law, Mr. Lynch said, appeared to void mainly marriages involving bigamy, incest or mental incompetence.

Mr. Lynch said "validly performed" marriages in other states would be recognized unless they contradicted the state's public policy.

New York's attorney general, Eliot Spitzer, had issued a similar opinion, and, despite the uncertainty, Cris Goldman-Beam and Robin Goldman-Beam of Manhattan came to Somerville on the Chinatown bus, saying they were not worried about legal challenges to the marriage license they applied for in Massachusetts.

"We'll go forward as if there will be no bumps, and if there are bumps we'll take them," said Chris Goldman-Beam. "We're thinking of renting a car to drive back to New York, attach `Just Married' signs, and drive by Spitzer's office."

President Bush issued a statement on Monday criticizing the Massachusetts court that legalized gay marriage.

"The sacred institution of marriage should not be redefined by a few activist judges," Mr. Bush said. "All Americans have a right to be heard in this debate. I called on the Congress to pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of a man and a woman as husband and wife. The need for that amendment is still urgent, and I repeat that call today."

Some couples, eager to marry on the first day, zipped through the license application paperwork, and sought and secured judicial permission to waive the three-day waiting period between applying for a license and receiving it.

In Rowley, a tiny working-class community north of Boston with a conservative bent, Lawton P. Bourn III married Stuart W. Wells IV, on their 8 1/2-acre Christmas tree farm in a stand of fading daffodils under an arch they had made from the ribs of a whale.

The men wore lily-of-the-valley boutonnieres and stood behind a lilac bouquet as Mr. Bourn, a town selectman, read "Oh Tell Me The Truth About Love" by W. H. Auden.

The two men clasped hands, looked into each other's eyes.

"I love you, Stuart, and I want to give you the best of who I am and who I am becoming," said Mr. Bourn, reading the couple's marriage vows. "I know that this journey will not be easy but I will live better with you."

At Boston City Hall, Mr. Rogers, a 55-year-old accountant, and Mr. Weikle, a 53-year-old bank vice president, showed up at 5:30 a.m., having decided to try to marry on Monday because they had a crush of other family obligations later this week, including a funeral for Mr. Rogers's father and the impending birth of a grandchild.

"In some ways, this is like a shotgun wedding, but we've been together for 25 years," Mr. Weikle said. After correcting a mistaken middle initial and mother's maiden name on their marriage license, where they were listed not as bride and groom, but Party A and Party B, they filed into Ms. Salerno's office.

"I will try not to make any mistakes," Ms. Salerno said, choking up, "but since it's the first wedding, I might call one of you the bride."

All seven plaintiff couples in the lawsuit that legalized same-sex marriage married on Monday, in five different communities.

"Here come the brides, so gay with pride, isn't it a wonder that they somehow survived," sang the guests at the wedding of the lead plaintiffs, Julie and Hillary Goodridge, who wore Armani pantsuits and assigned their 8-year-old daughter Annie to be ring bearer and flower girl. After they kissed, rainbow streamers unfurled in the room at the Unitarian Universalist headquarters in Boston, and the lawyer who won their case, Mary L. Bonauto, caught the bouquet.

Not every town hall was thronged with eager couples. In rural Rehoboth, home of a state representative who sponsored a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, the town clerk said one couple had called at 8 a.m., but the office was not yet open and they apparently went elsewhere.

Thomas Drinkwine in Rehoboth, who said he works in a liquor store, said he was "embarrassed" that the state legalized gay marriage. "I believe that a man and a woman are meant to fit together, physically and emotional," he said.

In Boston, where large crowds of gay marriage supporters cheered each same-sex couple as they left City Hall, a small group of opponents from Washington, D.C., knelt to pray on a banner that said, "Jesus, Mary and Joseph, we hope you keep the family holy."

In Worcester, Melissa Keough, a bible college student who stood with half a dozen other protesters, said "God loves these people, but he doesn't want them to live this lifestyle."

But the disapproval of some did not dampen the exhilaration of the couples.

"I feel kind of like my bones filled out somehow," said Cris Goldman-Beam in Somerville. "I felt thin and shaky this morning, and I feel fortified and amazed."

posted by Anthony # 7:19 AM

By Yvonne Abraham and Michael Paulson, Globe Staff | May 18, 2004

More than 1,000 gay and lesbian couples streamed into city and town halls across the state yesterday seeking licenses to marry, as Massachusetts marked the first day of legalized same-sex matrimony.

From the tiny town of Rowley, where a town clerk opened her doors four hours earlier than usual so that a selectman could marry his partner, to Boston, where 99 gay couples were greeted by the mayor and given a wedding cake reception in a tent on City Hall Plaza, the day went smoothly, with few disruptions or protests.

Provincetown received 154 license applications, while Northampton accepted 113. Brookline took in 77, Worcester 72, and Newton 38. Cambridge received 41 applications during daylight hours yesterday, in addition to the 227 accepted during its special first-in-the-state session that began shortly after midnight.

Scores of couples from outside Massachusetts also flocked to the clerks' offices, especially in cities and towns that had announced their willingness to issue them licenses in defiance of Governor Mitt Romney's directive that a 1913 law prohibits it.

The status of those out-of-state residents' marriages was in question yesterday. Attorneys general from Connecticut and Rhode Island issued opinions indicating that gay marriages may be recognized in their jurisdictions, echoing a statement from New York's Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. The opinions, while nonbinding, may hasten what many expect to be the next battle over gay marriage, whether the rights granted in Massachusetts have legal force elsewhere.

While most couples arriving at city and town halls yesterday were filling out applications to marry, in Cambridge they had moved to the next stage. The city recorded the nation's first legal gay marriage when Marcia Kadish, 56, and Tanya McCloskey, 52, of Malden were married shortly after 9 a.m. by Cambridge City Clerk Margaret Drury. At least 77 same-sex couples were married in the Commonwealth yesterday, according to a Globe survey of several communities.

"Oh, my God, I'm speechless," said McCloskey, a massage therapist. "I'm so happy right now. This is a dream come true. To stand here in front of all these people makes us nervous but proud."

"I'm glowing from the inside," said Kadish. "Happy is an understatement."

A Boston Globe survey indicated that lesbians accounted for two-thirds of the couples seeking licenses yesterday. The survey found that the median age of applicants was 43, though the ages of the 752 couples surveyed in 11 cities and towns ranged from 19 to 75. Ninety percent of the couples surveyed live in Massachusetts.

At Stoughton Town Hall, Peter Fowler, 29, and his partner, Todd Bouffard, 33, stopped by around 4 p.m. They filled out their application, beneath a Norman Rockwell painting of a man and a woman completing their marriage license paperwork while a crusty clerk looks on.

Bouffard, who works at Suffolk University, said he was excited to see the festivities in Boston on his lunch hour. But he and Fowler wanted to take the big step in their hometown. "It was important to do it here," Fowler said. "It seems natural to go where you live."

In Northampton, Joan Williams, 38, and her partner arrived outside the clerk's office at 4 a.m.

"I just wanted to be in the first 50," said Williams, 38, a lawyer, who recently moved to Northampton from San Diego specifically to marry.

The rush of same-sex marriages drew national attention from the news media, interest groups, and policymakers. President George W. Bush reaffirmed his opposition to gay marriage on the day it became legal, and called again for passage of a federal constitutional amendment banning it. "The sacred institution of marriage should not be redefined by a few activist judges," he said, in a prepared statement. "All Americans have a right to be heard in this debate. I called on the Congress to pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of a man and a woman as husband and wife. The need for that amendment is still urgent, and I repeat that call today."

US Senator John F. Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, declined to respond to questions about the start of gay marriages in Massachusetts.

At 9 a.m., three of the seven couples who were plaintiffs in the case that led to the Supreme Judicial Court decision granting gays and lesbians the right to marry arrived at the registry office counters at Boston City Hall. Accompanied by Mayor Thomas M. Menino, they were waited on by Registrar Judith A. McCarthy. Each couple went up to the window to apply for their marriage license as a throng of reporters, and ordinary citizens paying parking tickets, looked on.

Julie and Hillary Goodridge, the lead plaintiffs, got their license application first.

"Next to the birth of our daughter, Annie, this is the happiest day of our lives," said Julie Goodridge, holding back tears.

Hillary Goodridge called the experience "exhilarating. It's absolutely thrilling. We're so grateful. . . . It's overwhelming. I'm so happy." Asked what she would tell people who oppose gay marriage, she said: "Come on over to our house for dinner and find out how loving and normal and boring we are."

The couples, surrounded by a fast-moving crush of reporters, walked from City Hall to the Edward W. Brooke Courthouse a block away to get waivers of the required three-day waiting period so they could be issued their licenses to marry yesterday.

By day's end, all seven plaintiff couples were to be wed.

In Provincetown, a gay vacation mecca, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, the advocacy group that argued the Goodridge case, handed out wedding cake, a carrot variety with buttercream frosting generously layered in flower-bud dollops. There were roses for the first 50 couples to receive their certificates. Both the roses and cake were donated by local outfits.

Cheers went up all day as couples emerged from the town hall. "Kiss!" some in the crowd yelled to the couples. Many obliged.

In Somerville, the only city in metropolitan Boston where officials had declared their willingness -- even eagerness -- to marry same-sex couples from outside Massachusetts, multiple couples from Florida, Maryland, and New York arrived seeking marriage licenses. By late afternoon, the city had taken 37 applications for licenses, seven of which were from out-of-state residents.

While officials in other communities were asking couples whether they live in, or intend to live in, Massachusetts, Mayor Joseph A. Curtatone greeted one lesbian couple from Gainesville, Fla., by asking about the fortunes of the University of Florida Gators. And clerks did not blanch as several couples offered out-of-state drivers licenses as identification.

Somerville officials did ask the couples to take an oath that they knew of no impediments to their marriage, and gave them a statement warning that the Registry of Vital Records and Statistics might refuse to accept and record their marriage certificates. But they issued the license applications.

"You don't interrogate people specially because of the rights they intend to exercise," said Denise Provost, an alderman-at-large.

Most of the out-of-state couples who applied for licenses said they had never been to Somerville before -- some said they had never heard of Somerville -- but that they learned over the Internet, by reading newspapers online or visiting gay-themed websites -- that city officials there were willing to marry them.

Robin Goldman, 34, and Cris Beam, 32, of Manhattan, came up to Massachusetts on the Chinatown-to-Chinatown bus Sunday afternoon. "As soon as we heard this would be possible, we made plans to come here," said Beam, a writer.

Goldman, a scientist, said the couple plan to attempt to exercise rights associated with marriage in New York -- to file joint taxes, to seek family health insurance, and to file for name changes -- and that "if we hit a problem, we'll deal with it."

Staff reporters Patrick Healy, Sarah Schweitzer, Brian MacQuarrie, Raja Mishra, Scott Greenberger, Emily Shartin, Wayne Washington, and correspondents Jared Stearns and Stephanie Sheen contributed to this report.

posted by Anthony # 7:18 AM

by Michael J. Meade
365Gay.com Newscenter
Boston Bureau

Posted: May 17, 2004 11:01 am. ET

(Boston, Massachusetts) Nearly a thousand people crowded Boston's City Hall Plaza Monday to celebrate the start of gay marriage in Massachusetts.

"I think is one of the happiest if not the happiest day of my life," Joshua Legg of Freedom To Marry told 365Gay.com.

"I'm a man of faith and I feel a lot prayers are answered," said Legg who is single but one of dozens of volunteers from gay groups in the city who helped organize today's party on the Plaza.

In a tent, same-sex couples were enjoying wedding cake. A local baker donated several multi-tiered cakes, each with same-sex wedding toppers. A florist sent hundreds of red roses to be handed out to the happy couples.

The city set up a special information booth on the Plaza where couples were given numbers to mark the order in which they would be served. Inside the building about 20 city workers wearing "welcome" badges were on hand to answer questions.

In addition, the city has printed 3,000 full-color brochures, which included a letter of congratulation from Mayor Thomas M. Menino and instructions on how to obtain marriage licenses.

The brochures will contain information on how to get the three-day waiting period for a marriage license waived by a probate court judge, on finding justices of the peace to perform weddings, and on getting to city and town halls in Boston's suburbs if Boston finds itself backed up.

Several hundred gay and lesbian couples began receiving their applications for marriage licenses shortly after the clerk's office opened at 8:30.

Annie Goodridge and her partner Hillary Goodridge became the first Boston couple to be processed. The Goodridges were the lead couple in the successful suit to strike down the Massachusetts prohibition to gay marriage.

As they swore that the information they had provided on their marriage license application was correct, their 8-year-old daughter wipes tears from her mother's eyes.

As they Goodridge's emerged from city hall a tumultuous cheer went up from the crowd on the Plaza.

The couple and other who applied today for licenses went immediately to a judge to get a waiver to the three day waiting period to marry in Massachusetts.

Extra police have been called in to deal with crowds. Despite a few demonstrators kept away from the Plaza there were no problems.

Boston had considered ignoring a directive from Gov. Mitt Romney to restrict marriage to Massachusetts residents but at the last minute, after advice from the city's legal department decided to abide by the governor's instruction.

Nevertheless, three communities, Provincetown, Somerville, and Worcester say they will grant licenses to out-of-state gay couples.

Boston is one of more than 100 communities around the state where same-sex couples are receiving the forms for marriage licenses. The first city hall to open today was Cambridge at 12:01 this morning.

Boston Archbishop Sean O'Malley called on Catholics to remember the church is opposed to same-sex marriage, but he called on people not to protest on Monday.

In a pastoral letter O'Malley said "I remind all Catholics that our sadness at what has happened should not lead us into anger against or vilification of any group of people, especially our homosexual brothers and sisters."

O'Malley has also warned priests not to perform gay marriages .

The Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts also said its priests should not officiate at gay weddings.

Reconstructionist Judaism, Reform Judaism, the Unitarian Universalist Association and the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Church -- have endorsed gay marriages. Other denominations have left the decision regarding same-sex marriages to individual clergy.

The final legal threat to gay marriage was overcome Friday when the US Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from conservatives who called for an injunction to block same-sex marriages. With no more legal obstacles left, the state will become the first to legally wed gay couples.

Even Gov. Romney a foe of same-sex marriage says he like to attend a gay wedding.

Romney says he was invited to one marriage of gay friends, but won't be in town at the time. He says he anticipates more invitations, and that he'll accept some and will be unable to accept others.

Romney supports an amendment to the Massachusetts constitution defining marriage as the union of a man and woman.

But he says he respects the rule of law.

posted by Anthony # 7:17 AM

by Margo Williams
365Gay.com Newscenter
Boston Bureau

Posted: May 17, 2004 2:02 pm. ET
Updated: May 17, 2004 6:11 pm. ET

(Provincetown, Massachusetts) Despite threats from Gov. Mitt Romney that they cannot marry in Massachusetts and laws in their own states that prevent their marriages from being recognized dozens of out-of-state same-sex couples are arriving in Provincetown to wed.

The gay mecca at the tip of Cape Cod is one of three towns in Massachusetts refusing to heed Romney's demand that gay couples from outside the state cannot be granted marriage licenses.

The first couple in line at Provincetown's Town Hall this morning was from Anniston, Alabama. Chris McCary and John Sullivan flew into Boston Sunday and arrived at the steps of the Town Hall at 5:30 a.m.

'This is the most important day of my life,'' said McCary, even though their union won't be recognized in Alabama. ''This window could be closed in the future but it's still worth it.''

The couple, together for six years, didn't want to wait any longer to make it official. After filling out the license application they headed to the district court in Orleans to ask a judge to waive the normal three-day waiting period. They said they planned to marry later today in Provincetown.

Other couples came from Minnesota and New York.

Rhode Island Attorney General Patrick Lynch said same-sex couples who wed in Massachusetts would be recognized as married in his state.

Last week New York Attorney General Eliot L. Spitzer said that under New York law same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts should be recognized but Gov. George Pataki said state law forbids gay marriage. The issue will likely end up in state Supreme Court.

Monday, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said same-sex marriages are not allowed in that state.

Blumenthal issued a legal opinion saying Connecticut statutes refer to a "bride" and "groom" and a "husband" and "wife" and says these terms are commonly understood to refer to a man and a woman. The ultimate test though will be the state courts.

In addition, 38 states have Defense of Marriage laws which define marriage as a union between and man and a woman.

John Yarbrough and his longtime partner Cody Rogahn came in from Minnesota. The couple said they hope their marriage helps convince their state to legalize same-sex marriage.

"I'm excited," Yarbrough said. "It is kind of historic. The whole atmosphere is just wonderful."

The majority of the 110 couples lined up in Provincetown today were locals, or people who have summer homes in the community.

Among them was Cheryl Andrews, chair of the Provincetown Board of Selectmen, and her partner Jennifer Germack.

"It's really one of the greatest things that has ever happened to me," said Andrews after filling out the license form. "I've been bursting into tears just about every other minute for the last two weeks."

The couple has planned a private ceremony Thursday at Germack's father's Cape Cod nursing home.

Shel Goldstein and his partner John Burke walked down the steps of Provincetown Town Hall sporting a bit of whimsy. Burke wore black sunglasses and a bridal headpiece decorated with hearts, flowers and the word "groom."

"We're making history, but we're doing something we should have been able to do for years," Burke said.

Almost all of the town's gay community turned out to celebrate the historic day. Commercial Street was decorated with Rainbow flags, and as each couple came out of the Town Hall the crowd let out a cheer.

posted by Anthony # 7:16 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: May 17, 2004 8:01 pm. ET

Groups and individuals across the country are congratulating the hundreds of same-sex couples who sought marriage licenses today after Massachusetts became the first state in the country to legalize gay marriage. Here is a sampling of the comments.

"This historic day in Massachusetts is just the beginning of a long period of progress and breakthroughs for lesbian and gay couples nationwide," said Lambda Legal Executive Director Kevin Cathcart.

"This wonderful day would never have happened but for the more than four decades of struggle for equal rights by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people all across our nation," said Matt Foreman, Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "Day after day, year after year, we have opened hearts and changed minds."

"There are so many people in Massachusetts to whom we owe this extraordinary breakthrough, including Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, Mary Bonauto, MassEquality, the Massachusetts Freedom to Marry Coalition, our own Sue Hyde, the couples who joined in the Goodridge litigation, and the tens of thousands of Massachusetts residents - gay and straight - who have come forward to preserve Goodridge and celebrate for our families. We also applaud the four justices on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court for having the courage to impose the rule of law in the face of extraordinary opposition," Foreman said in a statement.

“We are thrilled for the couples who have fought so hard to achieve this remarkable victory for equality in Massachusetts,” said Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin, the first same-sex couple to be married in California after San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and San Francisco Assessor Mabel Teng authorized the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples in February of this year.

“Fifty-one years ago when we began our life together, we couldn’t have imagined this day would come, and yet even now, it is long overdue,” said Lyon and Martin in a press statement.

“As we celebrate today with the couples in Massachusetts, we are keenly aware that lesbian and gay couples in California do not yet have a secure right to marry in our own state,” the couple said.

“We are inspired by the tremendous courage of same-sex couples in Massachusetts, who refused to accept anything less than full equality and dignity for their families,” said Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. “We will not rest until we achieve the same safety, dignity, and protection for our families here.”

“The marriages taking place in Massachusetts this week are a reminder to the rest of the country that we should all have the freedom to enjoy that right,” said Tamara Lange, staff attorney for the ACLU. “Marriage is a commitment. It is about sharing, love, trust, and compromise. Two adults who make this personal choice to form a life-long commitment should not be denied the right to marry just because they are gay or lesbian.”

“In time, May 17, 2004 will be almost universally regarded, in the annals of American history, as a hallmark of social justice where discrimination based on sexual orientation was deemed un-American and where love, commitment, family and equality prevailed,” said Executive Director Dan Furmansky.

“Unfortunately, thousands of Maryland couples from all walks of life are still considered virtual strangers in the eyes of the law, even if they have been together for decades. The denial of marriage equality in Maryland also leaves thousands of children of same-sex couples without the same protections that other children receive.”

"This morning at 12:01 I was honored to be present at the granting of the first civil marriage licenses for same sex couples in Cambridge, Massachusetts," said Patrick Guerriero, Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director.

"I can report that despite what the voices of intolerance are saying, the sky will not fall today. No marriage will be threatened today and no church or religious institution will be forced to do anything. The only thing that has happened and will continue to happen is that two people who love each other and want to take care of each other for life will now be subject to the equal protection of the law."

posted by Anthony # 7:15 AM

by Paul Johnson
365Gay.com Newscenter
Washington Bureau Chief

Posted: May 17, 2004 5:01 pm. ET

(Washington) President George W. Bush isn't sending bouquets to same-sex couples marrying today in Massachusetts, the first state to legally endorse gay unions.

In a statement released as the President was observing the 50th anniversary of the landmark civil rights ruling in Brown V The Topeka Board of Education Bush accused Congress of foot dragging in passing a constitutional amendment limiting the rights of gays.

"I called on the Congress to pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of a man and a woman as husband and wife," the president's statement said.

"The need for that amendment is still urgent, and I repeat that call today."

"The sacred institution of marriage should not be redefined by a few activist judges," Bush said referring to the justices of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts which struck down that state's ban on gay marriage.

Later, Bush praised the justices of the Supreme Court for their ruling in Brown which banned the concept of separate but equal in education. The case is considered the catalyst for all civil rights rulings which followed, and has been cited in numerous gay rights cases.

"This president needs a high-school civics lesson, fumed Kevin Cathcart, Executive Director of Lambda Legal.

"It's dishonest and irresponsible to attack a court for doing its job. The court's job is to make sure that everyone's constitutional rights are protected, and that's exactly what happened in Massachusetts.

"President Bush is putting himself in the company of segregationists who made the same attacks on judges who upheld the constitutional rights of African-American people exactly 50 years ago today, after Brown v. Board of Education. These are different issues and a different generation, but the same old smear tactic. It didn't work to circumvent our system of justice 50 years ago, and it won't work today," Cathcart said.

Bush comments also drew criticism from the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

"The president's hypocrisy is appalling," NGLTF Executive Director Matt Foreman told 365Gay.com.

"When a 'few activist judges elected him pres he didn't complain, but when justices impose the rule of law in Massachusetts he wants to write discrimination into the Constitution."

The Human Rights Campaign accused the President of "trying to turn the camera away from the nation's foreign policy and economic problems"

"President Bush is attempting to lead this nation into discrimination. We will not let him hurt our families," said HRC President Cheryl Jacques.

Gay Democrats also assailed Bush for using the anniversary of an historic civil rights case to attack gays.

"Today the President denounced judicial activism in one statement while praising the same actions as judicial courage in another, said John Marble, Communications Director - National Stonewall Democrats.

"President Bush's speech today on Brown vs. Board of Education is a classic argument for civil recognition of same-sex marriage," said Marble.

"In denouncing separate and unequal institutions, President Bush praised the courage displayed by courts who 'ruled against prevailing opinion in order to expand the rights of all Americans'. Unfortunately, I think the irony of his remarks is lost on him."

posted by Anthony # 7:15 AM

by Jean-Pierre O'Brien
365Gay.com Newscenter, Boston

Posted: May 17, 2004 8:01 pm. ET

(Boston, Massachusetts) Florists, limousine companies, caterers, and hotels were all rubbing their hands with glee Monday as same-sex couples headed off to town halls across Massachusetts for marriage licenses.

As the first legal gay marriages in America began the wedding industry saw the world through pink colored glasses.

"It isn't as big as Mother's Day, but it's sure busier than any Monday I can remember," said florist John O'Neil as he prepared a bouquet to be used at a wedding later today. "I have orders coming in for church weddings and receptions for the next week."

Boston's Ritz Carlton, Marriott, and Four Seasons hotels all have bookings for same-sex wedding receptions. The Ritz, overlooking the Public Garden is particularly popular because couples can have their pictures taken in the park. Even the stately and some would say stogy Harvard Club is getting ready for a reception.

A desk clerk at the Copley Plaza hotel said few hotels in the city were expecting much business in room rentals, blaming Gov. Mitt Romney for telling out-of-state couples they could not marry in Massachusetts.

In Provincetown, which is ignoring Romney's direction not to grant marriage licenses couples not from Massachusetts, hotels reported an increase in bookings after the first marriage licenses were granted today.

The Crown & Anchor has several receptions booked.

A recent study by Forbes Magazine found that legalized same-sex marriage would be "a windfall for the wedding industry." The business journal has estimated that if the laws were changed, gay couples currently living together would collectively spend $16.8 billion to get hitched.

"Of course, they wouldn't all get married right away, so it might be several years before the industry reaped the entire windfall," Forbes reports. "But it seems reasonable to presume that if same-sex marriage were to be legalized, a large percentage of gay couples immediately would begin making plans to march down the aisle together."

The Forbes survey found that the average wedding costs $22,000.

"If gay couples could say 'I do,' and assuming they spend as much on the occasion as their heterosexual counterparts, then such companies as Tiffany, Williams-Sonoma, Marriot International, Federated Department Stores and May Department Stores would see a serious boost in their matrimony-related business," Forbes reports.

Forbes arrived at its conclusion that gay weddings would be worth about $16.8 billion by looking at the US Census.

posted by Anthony # 7:14 AM

Boston Globe
By Yvonne Abraham and Rick Klein, Globe Staff | May 17, 2004

Massachusetts became the first state in the nation to permit gays and lesbians to wed just after midnight today, when Cambridge City Hall welcomed more than 250 same-sex couples who hugged, cried, cheered, and applied for the marriage licenses many thought they would never see in their lifetimes.

Outside City Hall, 10,000 supporters and onlookers gathered to witness the historic event, spilling off the grounds of City Hall, and clogging Massachusetts Avenue. Police in riot gear lined the street, but the anticipated clash between protesters and supporters of gay marriage never came: All but a handful of opponents stayed away.

"This is like winning the World Series and the Stanley Cup on the same day," said Susan Shepherd, 52, who, with her partner, Marcia Hams, 56, was the first to apply for a marriage license in Massachusetts. "I'm trying not to lose it. We just really feel awesome. It's awesome.

"There's a kid somewhere that's watching this," she continued, fighting back tears. "It's going to change his whole life."

What began in Cambridge last night will continue in city and town halls across the state today, as a November ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court granting gays and lesbians the right to marry goes into effect. The licenses are to be granted after years of legal wrangling, political maneuvering, and fractious public debate, which will probably continue even after the first gay and lesbian marriages. The giddy celebrations of couples in Cambridge last night, and those expected in other cities and towns across the state today, will soon give way to disputes over the reach and validity of same-sex marriages elsewhere in the country.

Governor Mitt Romney, who opposes gay marriage because he says it undermines the traditional family, has said that, under a 1913 law, only residents of Massachusetts are eligible to marry same-sex partners. If couples come from other states seeking to marry, their unions will be void because same-sex marriage is illegal in the rest of the country, the governor has said. Gay-rights advocates disagree with Romney's application of the law, and are likely to test it in the courts in coming months.

Attorneys general in Rhode Island and Connecticut are set to issue opinions today on whether gay marriages performed in Massachusetts will be valid in their states. New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer has informed the Romney administration that he believes Massachusetts gay marriages will be honored in his state, but Governor George E. Pataki disagrees with that assessment.

A spokeswoman for Romney said today would be a "normal work day" for the governor. He was to spend it in the State House, then attend an education forum in Framingham this evening, Romney spokeswoman Shawn Feddeman said in an e-mail. The governor had tried to stay the SJC decision until after a proposed ballot question banning gay marriage is decided in 2006. But Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly refused to take Romney's case to the court, saying the governor had no grounds to seek the stay.

"Now that the court's decision is going into effect, the governor expects everyone to respect the law and respect one another," Feddeman said.

Despite Romney's opposition, Massachusetts joins three Canadian provinces, Belgium, and the Netherlands as the only places where gays can marry legally. Several US cities allowed gays to marry earlier this year, but the legality of the marriages is in question.

The first same-sex couples applied for licenses at Cambridge City Hall at a minute past midnight, following a celebration with wedding cake and sparkling cider presided over by Mayor Michael A. Sullivan. Elsewhere in Massachusetts, couples had to wait until city and town clerks' offices opened this morning to apply for licenses to marry. Some couples plan to be married by day's end, including all seven plaintiff couples in the case that led to the historic SJC ruling.

"It is an historic day," said Mary Bonauto, the legal director of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, which brought the suit that led to the SJC decision. "This is extraordinarily significant on a personal level, and for the history of our country. Our country has always promised we are all equal under the law, and tomorrow, more citizens will be equal under the law than has been the case to date."

In cities and towns in the state, supporters of gay marriage have planned today with an eye toward history and maximum media impact. With the help of city officials, the plaintiff couples will be brought to the front of some lines to get their paperwork. The three plaintiff couples who live in Boston, including Julie and Hillary Goodridge, for whom the case was named, were to be first in line at Boston City Hall this morning, greeted by Mayor Thomas M. Menino.

Members of Parents, Families and Friends of Gays and Lesbians will be visiting town halls, giving flowers to waiting couples. And some city and town halls will host celebrations later today, including an ice cream social hour in Belmont and a "Community Celebration of Equality and Family," with speakers and entertainers, hosted by Mayor David B. Cohen in Newton, home to plaintiff couple Ellen Wade and Maureen Brodoff. In other municipalities, today will be a day like any other, said Linda Hutchenrider, president of the Massachusetts Town Clerks Association.

Meanwhile, Cambridge, with its reputation for liberal politics and passionate advocacy, reveled in its first-in-the-nation status, a large red-and-black clock ticking down the minutes to midnight in the council chamber where celebrations were held. The first couple to get the application, Shepherd and Hams, had arrived at City Hall at midnight on Saturday. Both are longtime Cambridge residents who together raised a son, now 24. They said they had been waiting 27 years for this opportunity.

"This is amazing," Shepherd said. "You never thought this would ever happen, not in any amount of lifetimes you could think about."

Shepherd and Hams spent Saturday night in sleeping bags and under tarps near the front entrance to City Hall. The couple plan to marry Sunday, at the First Parish Church in Cambridge, a Unitarian Universalist church, with a reception in September.

"We just didn't imagine we could ever have this," Hams said.

The couple had been carefully selected by gay advocacy groups, including the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and GLAD. Those advocates are eager to see media attention trained on the right kind of couples in the first hours of gay marriage: those with deep local roots, so their residency -- the focus of enormous controversy over gay marriage in the past few weeks -- is not in question. Though they are likely to challenge the residency rule in the near future, gay-rights advocates are trying to avoid disputes over residency and political sparring today, fearing it will take the focus off what they say should be a day of celebration.

Throughout the evening, motorists honked their horns in support, and local residents dropped off bouquets of flowers and coffee, muffins, and cupcakes to the couples who put in long hours in the drizzle outside City Hall.

"We're well-taken care of," said Sasha Hartman, a 29-year-old South End resident who joined her partner of seven years, Alex Fennell, on the steps of City Hall. "Every time someone honks, I get goosebumps."

"We would have done it 26 years ago, on the night we met," said Donal O'Leary, who will marry his partner, Roby Fader, in July. "Good things happen if you wait long enough."

Massachusetts law requires a three-day waiting period between an application for a marriage license and the issuance of the license, but the waiting period can be waived by a judge. Some couples got waivers before they applied for marriage licenses last night.

Cambridge Mayor Sullivan said that even if couples have waivers, no marriage licenses will be issued until after City Hall opens for business today at 8:30 a.m. Couples hoping for waivers in Middlesex County today will find extra courtrooms open at the district court to accommodate them.

In Somerville, Mayor Joseph A. Curtatone planned to formally welcome couples at 8 a.m., to serve refreshments, and to have extra people on hand to direct them to the appropriate offices. He said he decided to allow out-of-state couples to marry in Somerville.

"We're not going to create a new standard for same-sex couples that doesn't apply to out-of-state couples," Curtatone said. "It's about fairness and justice at this point."

Clerks in Worcester and Provincetown have vowed to defy the governor's directive, even though Romney has threatened to take action against them for doing so.

Scores of GLAD volunteers will be on hand in larger cities to help applicants with their forms. At GLAD's headquarters in Boston, 40 volunteers will man phones in a "hotline room," between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. all week. They will track the progress of licenses in the state's 351 cities and towns, and troubleshoot when couples run into difficulties. Volunteers will write up successes and problems in columns headed "good news" and "bad news."

Some who have led the fight against gay marriage said they would not lead protests today, preferring to save their energy for upcoming fights to replace legislators who voted down a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, and to fight for passage of that amendment in 2006. But other opponents have planned demonstrations.

One group, the Article 8 Alliance, planned a protest on Boston City Hall Plaza at noon today. The group seeks the ouster of the Massachusetts SJC judges who handed down the Goodridge decision last year. If they don't protest today, said Brian Camenker, who heads the group, they will have no credibility.

"If we just sit around with our hands in our pockets and don't say something, I don't think the world will think we think this is important," he said. "For people not to make a statement would almost be a crime."

posted by Anthony # 8:13 AM

May 17, 2004

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 7:59 a.m. ET

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (AP) -- Two by two they emerged from City Hall, the nation's first gay couples set to legally marry, breaking a barrier many never believed would fall and putting the United States among four countries in the world that recognize same-sex weddings.

With the passage of a midnight deadline, Massachusetts became the first state to process marriage licenses for gay and lesbian couples Monday. Cambridge was the only city to seize the first possible moment, opening its offices to 260 couples -- even supplying a giant wedding cake -- as thousands of sign-waving well-wishers cheered into the wee hours.

Despite the late night, some couples said they would try to leapfrog the state's three-day waiting period by asking a judge to let them tie the knot later in the day, a routine request that is rarely turned down.

``Somewhere, someone's working really hard to find that loophole,'' to quash the gay-wedding march, said Baxter Brooke, 35, of Cambridge, who hoped to wed her partner, Sonia Hendrickson, 36, on Monday. ``We're worried that it's not going to last.''

Other Monday wedding plans included the seven couples who brought the lawsuit that eventually led the state's highest court to declare gay marriage legal.

The first couple to receive marriage paperwork was Marcia Hams, 56, and her partner, Susan Shepherd, 52, of Cambridge. After 27 years together, they sat at a table across from a city official shortly after midnight, filling out forms as their adult son looked on.

``I feel really overwhelmed,'' Hams said as they left the clerk's office and walked through a throng of reporters. ``I could collapse at this point.''

Massachusetts was thrust into the center of a nationwide debate on gay marriage when the state's Supreme Judicial Court issued its 4-3 ruling in November that gays and lesbians have a right under the state constitution to wed.

In the days leading up to Monday's deadline for same-sex weddings to begin, opponents looked to the federal courts for help in overturning the ruling. On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene.

The SJC's ruling emboldened officials in San Francisco, upstate New York, and Portland, Ore., to issue marriage licenses as acts of civil disobedience earlier this year. Even though courts ordered a halt to the wedding march, opponents pushed for a federal constitutional gay marriage ban, which President Bush has endorsed.

The SJC's ruling also galvanized opponents of gay marriage in Massachusetts, prompting lawmakers in this heavily Democratic, Roman Catholic state to adopt a state constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage but legalize Vermont-style civil unions. But to take effect it must get by another session as well as voters. The earliest it could wind up on the ballot is 2006 -- possibly casting a shadow on the legality of perhaps thousands of gay marriages that take place in the intervening years.

As of Monday, Massachusetts joins the Netherlands, Belgium and Canada's three most populous provinces as the only places worldwide where gays can marry. The rest of Canada is expected to follow soon.

Early Monday morning, police estimated that more than 5,000 people had descended on City Hall in Cambridge, across the Charles River from Boston and home to Harvard University. Besides scores of reporters, many in the crowd were family and friends; others simply wanted to join the party and express support.

Police said the crowds were orderly, and no arrests were reported. About 15 protesters, most from Topeka, Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church, stood near City Hall carrying signs. The group, led by the Rev. Fred Phelps Sr., travels around the country protesting homosexuality.

But the atmosphere was overwhelmingly festive. People cheered and held signs reading ``Yay!'' and urged couples to kiss as they left City Hall. The city provided a giant wedding cake for couples, many of whom had waited in line for hours.

``We came here because I've been waiting seven years and I don't want to wait another day, another second,'' said Alex Fennell, 27 a Boston lawyer marrying Sasha Hartman, 29. ``For me, it's excitement and gratitude. It's nothing I ever thought we would be able to do.''

Hillary and Julie Goodridge, namesakes of the landmark lawsuit that started it all, tried to get a marriage license in Boston three years ago but were turned down. This time, Mayor Thomas Menino planned to greet them at Boston City Hall, where they were expected first thing Monday morning.

Out-of-state gay couples are likely to challenge Massachusetts' 1913 marriage statute, which Gov. Mitt Romney, a gay-marriage opponent, has cited to limit marriages to only Massachusetts residents. The law bars out-of-state couples from marrying in Massachusetts if the union would be illegal in their home state.

Several local officials, including those in Provincetown, Worcester and Somerville, have said they will not enforce Romney's order and will give licenses to any couples who ask, as long as they sign the customary affidavit attesting that they know of no impediment to their marriage.

Both sides in the debate say the issue may figure prominently in the November elections across the country.

Candidates for Congress could face pressure to explain their position on a proposed federal constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage.

Voters in Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Missouri and Utah -- and probably several other states -- will consider similar amendments to their state constitutions.

But the possibility of future bans didn't faze Chris McCary, 43, and his partner, John Sullivan, 37, who came to Provincetown to get married -- despite that their union won't be recognized back home in Alabama.

``This is the most important day of my life,'' McCary said. ``This window could be closed in the future but it's still worth it.''

------

Associated Press writers Martin Finucane, Jennifer Peter and Matt Pitta contributed to this story.

posted by Anthony # 8:12 AM

May 17, 2004

By REUTERS

Filed at 7:17 a.m. ET

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (Reuters) - Hundreds of gay couples on Monday began untying the final strands of red tape separating them from something they never thought possible -- the right to legally marry in the United States.

After months of anticipation, debate and protest, Massachusetts on Monday became the first and only U.S. state to allow same-sex marriage, an election-year milestone likely to fuel legal and political battles nationwide.

At the stroke of midnight, cheers erupted among hundreds of gay and lesbian couples waiting to apply first thing in the morning for marriage licenses at City Hall in the famously liberal community of Cambridge, Massachusetts.

It is expected the first legal gay weddings will take place after courthouses open across the state.

Several of those waiting to fill out forms expressed a mix of giddiness and anxiety as they contemplated the new rights and responsibilities they will face as married couples.

``I've always thought it was not just about the rights but the rightness. It legitimizes who I am,'' said Tod Davis of Somerville, Massachusetts, who intends to marry his partner of nine years, Joseph Winkley. ``Until I get married, I'm just a second-class citizen.''

Passing cars honked their horns and a throng of onlookers choked the sidewalks outside the 19th-century building. Across the street, about a half-dozen anti-gay demonstrators held signs like ``God Hates Fags.''

``If they're going to allow this, then why not incest? Why not have people marry animals? Why not polygamy?'' asked protester Ben Phelps of Topeka, Kansas.

Thousands of same-sex couples were married at San Francisco City Hall earlier this year, but the marriages were not recognized by the state of California. A mayor in New York state is being prosecuted after performing gay marriages in February.

MASSACHUSETTS IN SPOTLIGHT

The issue has catapulted Massachusetts into the national spotlight in an election year with its junior senator, Democrat John Kerry challenging Republican President Bush for the White House.

Both oppose gay marriage. Bush supports a constitutional ban and Kerry favors limited legal recognition for same-sex couples.

Conservatives have assailed Massachusetts' top court, which ruled last year that a state ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional and allowed same-sex couples to wed legally.

The final hurdle was cleared on Friday when the U.S. Supreme Court failed to block a last-minute legal challenge filed by conservative opponents of same-sex weddings.

A federal appeals court has agreed to hear the case next month, but by that time clerks will probably have granted hundreds of marriage licenses to homosexual couples.

Some may be given to out-of-state gay couples who come to Massachusetts in defiance of Republican Gov. Mitt Romney, who has told them to stay home amid fears his state could become ``the Las Vegas of same-sex marriage.''

Citing a 1913 state law that prevents Massachusetts from marrying any couple if the marriage would be ``void'' in their home states, Romney's administration has warned clerks they can issue licenses to out-of-state couples only if they plan on settling in Massachusetts.

Several clerks, noting the statute has not been strictly applied to heterosexual couples, plan on issuing licenses to all gay couples who request them. Gay rights advocates plan to challenge the law, and at least two district attorneys will not prosecute clerks who break the statute, The Boston Sunday Globe reported.

It is expected some couples will take their marriage licenses back to states where they may not be not recognized, setting up legal test cases that courts around America will have to resolve.

posted by Anthony # 8:11 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: May 15, 2004 4:46 pm. ET

(Harrisburg, Pennsylvania) A gay couple who were turned down for a marriage license in Bucks County are now being sued by a group of conservative lawmakers.

Robert Seneca and Stephen Stahl were rejected when they applied for the license at the Bucks County Courthouse in New Hope last March. The couple is preparing a lawsuit challenging Pennsylvania's so-called Defense of Marriage law which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

The suit filed Friday by 11 Republican and one Democratic member of the state legislature seeks to make a preemptive strike by getting a court to affirm the gay marriage ban.

''We want to establish the constitutionality of the law so that the register of wills does not have to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple,'' Leonard G. Brown III, the attorney who represents the lawmakers, told the Allentown Morning Call.

Brown said he wants an injunction preventing the couple from challenging the state's DOMA. Seneca and Stahl are named as defendants in the suit.

Brown said that the legislators fear that if Seneca and Stahl get to court first and are successful in getting a Bucks County judge to grant them a marriage license for Seneca and Stahl without a public hearing, opponents of same-sex marriage would have to file an appeal to the state Superior Court that could take months before it is litigated. In the meantime, Seneca and Stahl would remain legally married.

No hearing has been set, and Brown said he would expect a judge to first ask for legal briefs in the case.

Stahl reacted angrily to the suit. ''This is absurd,'' he told the Morning Call. ''They have a lot of fear. They can sue us, but it's OK. Things will change.''Stahl said he and Seneca haven't taken steps to challenge the

Pennsylvania law. He said they wanted to wait until after Monday, when same-sex unions in Massachusetts become legal and see first if those marriages stand up to court tests.

posted by Anthony # 8:10 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: May 16, 2004 8:01 pm. ET

(Boston, Massachusetts) The seven same-sex couples who challenged Massachusetts ban on gay marriage will all marry today. Massachusetts has a three day waiting period between the time marriage licenses are granted and weddings can take place, but all seven have been assured they will receive judicial wavers.

The couples will go to their local city or town halls to get an application for a marriage license, proceed to the local district or probate court to retrieve the necessary three-day waiver, return to city/town hall for the marriage license, and be married that day.

Julie and Hillary Goodridge, the lead plaintiffs in the case, have been committed partners for 17 years. Their eight-year-old daughter, Annie, will be an integral part of their wedding.

The ceremony will take place at the Unitarian Universalist Association headquarters in Boston.

The ceremony will be performed by their attorney and friend, Deborah Kay, and solemnized by Rev. William Sinkford, President of the Unitarian Universalist Association.

Several friends of the family will speak including: Amy Domini, President and Founder of Domini Social Investment, who introduced the couple.

The celebration will conclude with a cake and champagne reception.

Julie is the president and founder of NorthStar Asset Management, Inc., an investment advisory firm specializing in socially responsible investing. Founded in 1990, the firm has $50 million under management.

Hillary has had her share of 'firsts' -- a member of the first class of girls at the St. Paul's School in Concord, N.H., as well as the third class of women at Dartmouth College. She is currently the Program Director of the Unitarian Universalist Funding Program which gives away just under $1 million each year to denominational and social service and justice programs across the country.

Robert Compton and David Wilson will be celebrating their ninth year together as they join their extended family at their wedding.

Rob and David's eight children and grandchildren, ranging from two-years-old to 37, will attend, and members of the church’s congregation are expected to participate in the celebration.

The Boston Gay Men's Chorus will sing a special selection dedicated to the couple.

Mike Horan and Ed Balmelli have been together for 10 years.

They will be attending the wedding ceremonies of the Goodridges and Robert Compton and David Wilson during the day. Their wedding ceremony will take place Monday evening at downtown hotel.

Maureen Brodoff and Ellen Wade of Newton, have been in a committed relationship for more than 20 years, and have a 15-year-old daughter, Kate.

Newton Mayor David Cohen will deliver a welcome, and Justice of the Peace Gale Smalley will officiate at their wedding.

Maureen and Ellen expect about 50 family and friends to join them. Among those attending will be former Massachusetts Attorney General James M. Shannon.

Richard Linnell and Gary Chalmers of Northbridge, have been together for 15 years, and are parents of 11-year-old Paige.

Paige will be the flower girl at their wedding Monday evening, and Rev. Aaron Payson, minister of the Unitarian Universalist Church of Worcester, will officiate.

Extended family and friends will join Rich and Gary at a reception to be held at the church.

Celebrating more than 33 years together, Gloria Bailey and Linda Davies will join their close friends at a stretch of beach where Rev. Dr. Mykel Johnson, Minister of First Parish Brewster, will conduct their wedding.

Gina Smith and Heidi Norton and their children Avery, 7, and Quinn, 4, a host of friends and family will begin the day at 8:00 a.m. at Northampton City Hall and then walk down Main Street to Probate Court located at 33 King Street to get their waiver to marry.

The Nortonsmith family will pass out Gerbera flowers to the Mayor and city clerks during the application process.

A private ceremony will be held later that evening with United Church of Christ minister, Rev. Kelly Gallager, Pastor of Christ Community UCC officiating.

posted by Anthony # 8:08 AM

by Margo Williams
365Gay.com Newscenter
Boston Bureau

Posted: May 16, 2004 8:01 pm. ET

(Boston, Massachusetts) As gay and lesbian couples across Massachusetts prepare to marry, most say they want to tie the knot in their hometowns.

In informal survey of 493 gay and lesbian couples planning to get marriage licenses shows that same-sex weddings will take place in 133 cities and towns across the Commonwealth.

The majority, 66, will be in Boston with another 39 across the river in Cambridge and a dozen in Provincetown. But marriages will also take place in Northampton, Somerville, Brookline, Worcester, Newton, Arlington, Springfield and Watertown.

Jeff Parker (42) and Luiz Duque (33) of South Walpole – together for eight years - are planning a ceremony in their church, Unity Church in North Easton.

The survey, by the Freedom to Marry Coalition and MassEquality also shows that about half of the respondents – many of whom are planning formal wedding ceremonies – plan to be married by members of the clergy.

Ministers in the Unitarian Universalist Church, the MCC, some congregational pastors, and Reform rabies, are officiating.

John Budron (51) and Timothy Fitzgerald (44) of Milton – together for 17 years – will be married in their local Unitarian church. On the other hand, Tobin Wirt (49) and Robert King (48) of Sandwich will conduct their ceremony at their home with Justice of the Peace Susan Walker.

Slightly more than a third of the couples will marry this week. Another 13% plan to marry by the end of May 2004, while another 46% of respondents plan to marry before the end of the year. Only 3% indicated plans to marry in 2005 and 2006.

Massachusetts has a three-day waiting period between the time a couple is granted a marriage license and the date they can marry. Only 20 couples indicated they plan to seek a waiver from a judge and marry on Monday.

“Couples across the Commonwealth are joyful, happy and grateful that for the first time in U.S. history, we can receive the critical legal rights and protections that come only through marriage,” said Marty Rouse, Campaign Coordinator for MassEquality. “May 17th is a historic day: it’s the day that marks a new chapter of equality for gay and lesbian families.”

posted by Anthony # 8:07 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: May 16, 2004 8:01 pm. ET

(Boston, Massachusetts) The road to marriage equality for same-sex couples has been long and treacherous, and even with the landmark Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling the journey is not over.

For millions of gay ad lesbian couples around the country marriage remains just a dream. And, even for those couples who wed in Massachusetts their marriages are not recognized by the federal government or 49 other states. In addition there remains the looming threat of a constitutional amendment in Massachusetts that would turn those marriages into civil unions.

Nevertheless it's significance cannot be discounted.

The road to marriage arguably began with a court case that had nothing to do with gays but with African American civil rights. The case was Brown v Topeka Board of Education in 1954.

The Supreme Court ruled that the US Constitution guarantees equality for all and that state-sponsored racial segregation is indefensible.

The ruling provided the legal underpinning for much of what followed in the civil rights era.

It was handed down by the court on May 17, 1954 and when same-sex couples in Massachusetts file for marriage licenses they do so on the 50th anniversary of the ruling.

The other case that paved the way for gay marriage was another landmark decision by the US Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court on June 26, 2003 declared the state of Texas law banning sodomy by gays was unconstitutional.

In its ruling the majority found that gays and lesbians are entitled to equal protection under the Constitution.

For the Massachusetts couples who challenged Massachusetts ban on same-sex marriage the court battles began more than three years ago.

April 11, 2001 - Seven same-sex couples, denied marriage licenses, sue in Suffolk Superior Court in Boston to challenge the state's gay marriage ban.

May 8, 2002 - Suffolk Superior Court judge rules against granting marriage licenses to seven gay couples, saying the legality of same-sex marriage should be decided by the Legislature, not the courts.

July 17, 2002 - Lawmakers adjourn constitutional convention without taking a vote on amendment that would have banned gay marriage in the state. The amendment was initiated by a petition signed by 130,000 citizens.

March 4, 2003 - The state Supreme Judicial Court hears arguments in case brought by the seven gay couples to legalize same-sex marriage.

Nov. 18, 2003 - The SJC rules it was unconstitutional to bar gay couples from marriage, and gives the Legislature 180 days to come up with a solution to allow gays to wed. President Bush criticizes the decision and vows to work with Congress to "defend the sanctity of marriage."

Nov. 29, 2003 - The state's four Catholic bishops called the SJC decision a "national tragedy" in a letter read at Sunday Masses across the state.

Dec. 11, 2003 - The Massachusetts Senate votes to ask the SJC if Vermont-style civil unions would satisfy the court's decision legalizing gay marriage.

Dec. 28, 2003 - Pope John Paul II calls for greater defense of the institution of marriage between man and woman, saying a "misunderstood sense of rights" was altering it.

Feb. 3 - Massachusetts' House delegation sends state lawmakers a letter urging them to defeat a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Feb. 4 - The SJC clarifies its earlier ruling, saying only full, equal marriage rights for gay couples - rather than civil unions - are constitutional.

Feb. 11 - Massachusetts Legislature opens constitutional convention with debate on a proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage.

Feb. 12 - Lawmakers adjourn convention deadlocked, after failing to pass three separate proposed bans on same-sex marriage.

March 11 - Lawmakers recess constitutional convention, but come steps closer to passing a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage and allow for civil unions. Legislators agree to reconvene on March 29.

March 29 - State Legislature approves proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage but legalize Vermont-style civil unions. (story)

May 17 - Same-sex weddings begin across Massachusetts

posted by Anthony # 8:07 AM

by Doreen Brandt
365Gay.com Newscenter
Washington Bureau

Posted: May 17, 2004 12:01 am. ET

(Washington) Conservative political action groups wasted no time condemning same-sex couples marrying today in Massachusetts.

The Christian Coalition demanded that Congress set in and immediately pass legislation to begin the process of amending the Constitution to ban gay marriage.

Calling the decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that paved the way for marriage licenses to be issued to gay couples the Coalition "judicial tyranny running rampant in America" the group said that Congress must act before American families are destroyed.

"Four left-wing judges presumed to know what the definition of marriage is for 280 million Americans," Roberta Combs, president of Christian Coalition said in a statement.

"Traditional marriage has been dealt a severe blow beginning with so-called legalized homosexual 'marriages' ... an abomination which must not be allowed to continue. Traditional marriage is one of the last obstacles to the complete normalization of homosexuality in America."

Christian Coalition statement said that the group agrees with Boston Archbishop Sean O'Malley when he said last week, "The creation of a right to same-sex marriage in the end will not strengthen the institution of marriage within our society, but only weaken it, as marriage becomes only one lifestyle choice among many others."

posted by Anthony # 8:06 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: May 17, 2004 12:01 am. ET

(Hartford, Connecticut) Hartford and state police are investigating the contents of a suspicious canister discovered Sunday at a rally in support of gay marriage at the Connecticut Capitol.

The canister was found on the steps of the building where more than 700 people were calling on legislators to enact legislation to legalize same-sex marriage in the state.

An area immediately surrounding the spot where the package was discovered was evacuated. A special police unit wearing hazardous material suits removed the canister and took it to a state lab for testing.

Police say no one was injured and none in the crowd showed any symptoms of exposure to a dangerous substance.

A 50 year old man identified by police as Edgardo Rivera was arrested. He is being held on a ten-thousand dollar bond. Police say he was part of an anti-gay demonstration organized by a group of local churches opposed to same-sex marriage.

Police report several scuffles and taunting back and forth between the two demonstrations but there were no arrests.

Many at the pro-gay rally, carried signs that read "Make love legal in Connecticut" and "Love is tender and knows no gender," said they would wed as soon as legally possible.

The protests came as Massachusetts was preparing to issue the first legal marriage licenses in the country to same-sex couples.

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal has said he will release his opinion on the legality of same-sex marriage in the state on Monday.

Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has said couples who do not own property in that state, or who can't marry in their home states, will not be issued licenses.

posted by Anthony # 8:06 AM

by Michael J. Meade
365Gay.com Newscenter
Boston Bureau

Posted: May 17, 2004 12:32 am. ET
Updated: May 17, 2004 7:13 am ET

(Boston, Massachusetts) The city of Cambridge, Massachusetts, Monday became the first community in America to issue marriage license forms to same-sex couples.

Cambridge Mayor Michael Sullivan threw open the doors of city hall about 10 p.m. Sunday night and invited dozens of same-sex couples into the building for a celebration to countdown the minutes until midnight.

There was a three-tiered wedding cake, pastries, and to wash it down, sparkling cider and coffee.

The Cambridge Community Chorus, the Greater Boston Lesbian Chorus, and a choir made up of children from several Cambridge elementary schools performed.

Couples were given numbers as they entered the second floor reception room. At the stroke of midnight, the first number was called.

Marcia Hams, 56, and her partner, Susan Shepherd, 52, entered the history books as the first same-sex couple in America to legally wed. The couple arrived at city hall 24 hours earlier just to be able to claim the honor.

As the women were handed their marriage applications Hams said she was nervous.

"I'm shaking so much," she said as she filled out the form. "I could collapse at this point."

As each couple was given the forms to fill out, the line grew longer.

By dawn 260 couples had completed the forms, the first step in getting married. They must return to city hall in three days to pick up their licenses and then are able to legally marry.

As the couples left city hall huge cheers went up from well-wishers gathered outside. More than a thousand people many of them straight gathered throughout the night to show their support for gay marriage.

Cambridge originally intended to jumpstart issuing licenses long before today. Soon after the Supreme Judicial Court ruling last November that struck down the state's ban on gay marriage Cambridge began looking at ways to immediately issue licenses.

On the advice of its attorney, however, council decided to wait until today. Nevertheless it vowed to be the first community in the state and the country to begin issuing the licenses.

Across the Charles River hundreds of people formed a long line in front of Boston city hall. The clerk's office there will open at 8:30 a.m.

Extra police have been called in to deal with crowds. A special information booth been set up outside city hall where couples will be given numbers to mark the order in which they'll be served. Inside the building about 20 city workers wearing "welcome" badges will be available to answer questions.

In addition, the city has printed 3,000 full-color brochures, which will include a letter of congratulation from Mayor Thomas M. Menino and instructions on how to obtain marriage licenses.

The brochures will contain information on how to get the three-day waiting period for a marriage license waived by a probate court judge, on finding justices of the peace to perform weddings, and on getting to city and town halls in Boston's suburbs if Boston finds itself backed up.

Boston had considered ignoring a directive from Gov. Mitt Romney to restrict marriage to Massachusetts residents but at the last minute, after advice from the city's legal department decided to abide by the governor's instruction.

Nevertheless, three communities, Provincetown, Somerville, and Worcester say they will grant licenses to out-of-state gay couples.

Boston Archbishop Sean O'Malley called on Catholics to remember the church is opposed to same-sex marriage, but he called on people not to protest on Monday.

In a pastoral letter O'Malley said "I remind all Catholics that our sadness at what has happened should not lead us into anger against or vilification of any group of people, especially our homosexual brothers and sisters."

O'Malley has also warned priests not to perform gay marriages .

The Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts also said its priests should not officiate at gay weddings.

Reconstructionist Judaism, Reform Judaism, the Unitarian Universalist Association and the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Church -- have endorsed gay marriages. Other denominations have left the decision regarding same-sex marriages to individual clergy.

The final legal threat to gay marriage was overcome Friday when the US Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from conservatives who called for an injunction to block same-sex marriages. With no more legal obstacles left, the state will become the first to legally wed gay couples.

Even Gov. Romney a foe of same-sex marriage says he like to attend a gay wedding.

Romney says he was invited to one marriage of gay friends, but won't be in town at the time. He says he anticipates more invitations, and that he'll accept some and will be unable to accept others.

Romney supports an amendment to the Massachusetts constitution defining marriage as the union of a man and woman.

But he says he respects the rule of law.

posted by Anthony # 8:04 AM

May 14, 2004
New York Times
By PAM BELLUCK

BOSTON, May 13 - Trey Watts and Darin Moore have never been to Massachusetts. They live in Oklahoma City, where Mr. Watts sells used cars and Mr. Moore is a beauty consultant at a salon.

But they plan to marry in Massachusetts this month, one of a first wave of gay couples expecting to do so when same-sex marriages become legal in the state next week.

The Oklahomans' plans fly in the face of an edict by Massachusetts' governor, Mitt Romney, who says out-of-state same-sex couples cannot wed here. But Mr. Watts and Mr. Moore are coming anyway, heading to Provincetown, on Cape Cod, one of three Massachusetts communities that have said they will defy the governor and marry out-of-state couples.

"As long as Provincetown's going to give marriage licenses out to whoever applies for them, we're going," Mr. Watts, a 30-year-old former Marine corporal, said in a telephone interview. "Regardless of what their governor says. We're hoping that the governor backtracks a little. But either way we're going. We're going to take a stand."

With Massachusetts about to become, on Monday, the first state to legalize same-sex marriages, the treatment of out-of-state couples has become one of the most controversial aspects of this highly controversial issue. And against that shifting and tension-fraught background, thousands of out-of-state couples eager to marry here are trying to decide what to do.

Governor Romney has threatened legal action against clerks who issue marriage licenses to out-of-state couples with no intention of moving to Massachusetts; such action could lead to fines of up to $500 or a prison sentence of up to a year. He has also said the state will "refuse to recognize those marriages and inform the parties that the marriage is null and void."

Gay-marriage advocates say they will go to court to challenge the governor's directive, which is based on his interpretation of a 1913 law that says the state will not marry couples if they do not intend to move here and if their marriage would be "void" in their home state. The governor, saying that "Massachusetts should not become the Las Vegas of same-sex marriage," has interpreted the law to mean that since no other state performs gay marriages, only Massachusetts same-sex couples are eligible to marry here.

"We will be litigating this 1913 law," said Mary Bonauto, a lawyer with Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders. "I don't think Massachusetts has any basis under our equality principles for enforcing discriminatory laws against other states."

There is also the possibility that states like New York, Connecticut and Rhode Island, which do not have laws explicitly barring same-sex marriage, will tell Mr. Romney that residents of their states should be able to wed in Massachusetts. Mr. Romney has informed every state that Massachusetts will not allow its residents to marry unless that state gives him a legal reason to do so.

New York's attorney general, Eliot Spitzer, issued an opinion in March saying New York could not marry same-sex couples but would recognize legal same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. Mere recognition of same-sex marriages, however, would not persuade Mr. Romney. Instead, a state would have to assert that same-sex marriages are not "void" in that state, and New York, Rhode Island, Connecticut and the District of Columbia are deciding whether they can reach that conclusion.

There is wide variation in how municipalities plan to handle non-Massachusetts residents.

Some, like Great Barrington, will follow the governor's preference, issuing licenses to out-of-state couples only if they show real estate records or other proof that they intend to move to Massachusetts. Others, including Boston, will not ask for proof, allowing a couple to marry if they simply sign a form saying they intend to move to Massachusetts, an approach Mr. Romney initially rejected but later said was acceptable.

Provincetown, Worcester and Somerville, however, say they will give licenses to couples even if they state on the form that they have no intention of moving to Massachusetts. Officials in those towns say they can marry anyone who signs the form because it includes an oath saying the couple know of "no legal impediment" to their marriage's being valid in their home state.

"We plan to follow the law, which says that if someone takes the oath and signs it, it's correct," said Cheryl Andrews, chairwoman of the Provincetown Board of Selectmen, who is gay and plans to marry her partner. "The problem seems to be that the governor has a different interpretation of it."

Ed Horvath, 53, and his partner, Richard Neidich, 64, both of Washington, D.C., where they plan to remain, will apply for a license in one of those three towns, even if Mr. Romney declares their marriage "null and void."

"We really think that Massachusetts is the place," said Mr. Horvath, adding that Mr. Neidich's successful battle with cancer last year had strengthened their desire to marry soon. "I have a very strong assumption that that law is going to be thrown out."

In any event, Mr. Horvath said, he has thought of buying a burial plot in Massachusetts, wondering "if having a grave site would be considered having an intention of residing there."

Some out-of-state couples plan to exploit established legal loopholes, especially one that allows people with weekend homes in Massachusetts to be considered residents.

Tom Wolfe and Santiago Arana, from the Hell's Kitchen section of Manhattan, will apply for a marriage license on Monday in Provincetown, claiming that a friend's Cape Cod home is their weekend residence.

"I want to go by the book," said Mr. Wolfe, a police officer in Suffolk County, N.Y., who said he and Mr. Arana would actually start spending weekends in Massachusetts. "I'll modify my life,'' he said.

Lucy Mercier, 41, and Linda Campbell, 55, of Flint, Mich., are considering saying they intend to move to Massachusetts even though they have no current plans to.

"We have to decide how far we're going to go," Ms. Campbell said, adding that because they expected to be here a day or so before getting their license and to marry three days later, "at that moment we will have lived in Massachusetts for four or five days."

Other couples are being more cautious, including Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Taskforce, who lives in New York and wants to marry his partner, Francisco DeLeon.

"I have hotel reservations, but at this moment we're not coming up," Mr. Foreman said. "I don't want to get in a situation of shading the truth. We really want to get married somewhere where there's no shadow over it, no legal cloud."

Cheryl Jacques, president and executive director of the Human Rights Campaign, another gay rights group, is encouraging couples to be careful.

"A lot of folks are taking a wait-and-see attitude, given the attention paid to the residency issue," said Ms. Jacques, a former Massachusetts state senator. ''Some people are saying, 'Gee, I can't wait to go to Massachusetts to get married,' and I'll say: 'Make sure you talk to a lawyer first. There's a residency issue.' ''

Not only are Mr. Watts and Mr. Moore planning to travel from Oklahoma to marry, a heterosexual couple, Jacque Egan and Brendan Hoover, their next-door neighbors, will arrive with them and wed at the same time. Ms. Egan, a waitress, said she and Mr. Hoover hoped to show that it would be "completely unfair" to treat same-sex couples differently.

Mr. Watts, of course, agrees. "I served in the Marine Corps, got an honorable discharge, a Navy achievement medal, and yet I can't be afforded the same rights as a heterosexual person?'' he said. "We don't want a legal battle, but at the same time we're not going to shrink from that."

Conservative Challenge Rebuffed

By The New York Times

BOSTON, May 13 - A federal judge on Thursday turned back a challenge by a conservative organization that had sought to stop the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples in Massachusetts, whether residents of the state or outsiders.

The judge, Joseph L. Tauro, rejected the argument by the plaintiff, the Liberty Group, that the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts had violated separation of powers by deciding that the state's earlier refusal to issue such licenses was unconstitutional.

The court acted within its authority, the judge said, since it is the "exclusive function'' of the state's judicial branch to decide matters pertaining to the Massachusetts Constitution.

Katie Zezima contributed reporting for this article.

posted by Anthony # 9:05 AM

Boston Globe
Setback likened to Roe v. Wade
By Yvonne Abraham, Globe Staff | May 14, 2004

As Massachusetts prepares to begin marrying same-sex couples Monday, opponents are viewing legalization of gay marriage as a setback on the scale of the US Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion, and they see a similar long fight ahead in their efforts to overturn the court decision that is leading to a new social era.

As many opponents of gay marriage see it, same-sex unions will make homosexuality more acceptable and fracture family values. On a practical, political level, the reality of gay marriage will make the opponents' battle for a state constitutional amendment to ban it more difficult than ever.

''I don't know whether this ranks as high as the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision," said Ronald A. Crews, former president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, who has helped lead the fight against gay marriage here for several years and who also strongly opposes abortion. "If it's not equal to, then it is second only to that."

For months, opponents have fought to prevent the start of court-authorized gay marriages on May 17. They have pleaded with legislators, yelled themselves hoarse in protest, joined letter-writing campaigns, and prayed for a late reversal. Several legal efforts to stay the SJC ruling have failed.

But those who led the battle against gay marriage will not lead protests at city and town halls on Monday, and they plan to avoid ugly collisions with couples that might be broadcast worldwide. Instead, opponents will hold a rally at Faneuil Hall, and gird for other battles in Congress and in other states.

"Just like after Roe v. Wade, we still carry on," said Representative Philip Travis, the Rehoboth Democrat who sponsored a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. "We don't fight the law. The law is the law. We exercise all the avenues available to us, and we've certainly done that as best as we could as a group. As the 17th rolls around, the 17th as planned will go forward, with no insurrection or disturbance from me individually whatsoever."

After Monday, everything changes, gay marriage opponents say.

"It is a day of mourning, because we are losing something very precious and practical and very needed in society," said Glenn Stanton, a senior analyst at Focus on the Family, the Colorado-based organization that sent money and volunteers to the fight in Massachusetts. His group is among several urging passage of a federal constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage.

"My world changes in the fact that the marriage license I hold with my wife will no longer mean what it meant on May 16," said Crews, who stepped down from the Massachusetts Family Institute this week to run for Congress. "It is not going to impact my relationship with my wife of almost 34 years, but the fact [is] that the word marriage has now been radically redefined by judicial fiat," he said. ''If I dwell on that I can get really despondent, but I choose not to dwell on that."

Political novices who fought gay marriage are also disappointed, Crews said. He has been visiting churches, trying to buck up congregations who see upcoming gay marriages as a defeat. He has told those people to take refuge in their faith, to trust that "we serve a sovereign God, and we don't yield to despair."

''In this case, it's not what we had hoped, but we also believe God is able even at the last minute to intervene," Crews said.

Tracy Egan, an Andover graphic designer, had never been involved in politics before. But she said the SJC decision outraged her and disrupted her "whole belief system," so she began writing letters to her local paper decrying it and offered her help to the Coalition for Marriage, which led the charge on the gay marriage ban.

May 17, she said, will be "a slap in the face."

"It is a setback, definitely, a setback for society," said Egan, 47.

She has grown increasingly disappointed as attempts to stay the decision and to remove the judges that made it have failed. She is angry and worries that the people who feel the way she does are too exhausted to battle on.

"I feel like nobody wants to fight, and the only people who are fighting are the gays," Egan said. "A lot of people in general would rather leave it up to the legislators . . . but they're not handling it properly because there is so much pressure on them from [the] other side. I think a lot of people feel, if they do speak out, they are discriminating, and that's when people shut their mouths."

Crews said he has urged those people to turn their energy toward working to change the face of the Massachusetts Legislature, to support lawmakers who voted for an amendment to bay gay marriage, and to replace those who did not.

But he and other activists concede that pushing forward an amendment will be more difficult once those marriages become a reality. If an amendment makes it to the ballot in 2006, as its supporters hope, gay and lesbian couples will have been marrying for more than two years, and the public is less likely to vote to undo those marriages, members of both sides of the issue argue.

And staunch opponents of gay marriage also oppose the provision in the amendment that would also establish civil unions. After the November elections, opponents will likely focus their efforts on a citizen petition that would impose a simple ban on gay marriage and, if it gets through the Legislature, would be on the ballot in 2008.

Still, opponents are confident that the tide will eventually turn back.

Crews said he is confident that, with recent moves to ban certain types of abortion and to compel parental consent for young women seeking abortions, the nation is moving away from Roe V. Wade, and that in the same way, it will eventually leave the Goodridge decision behind.

''There will be an awakening in this country that says, enough is enough," Crews said. "That may take some decades, but we didn't get into this situation overnight, and we're not going to get out of it overnight."

Travis hints at a more cataclysmic reversal.

"You can call it marriage, but in the natural world, in the Christian world, marriage is the union of one man and one woman," Travis said. "I wish them well, but it's a collision course with nature, and when you challenge nature, nature snaps back at you. . . . Nature will always win out."

posted by Anthony # 9:03 AM

by Malcolm Thornberry
365Gay.com Newscenter
European Bureau Chief

Posted: May 13, 2004 5:11 pm. ET

(Paris) Both France's Greens and Socialist parties are vying for the gay vote with both promising legislation to legalize same-sex marriage.

The move pits the left of center against the governing conservative UMP party which opposes gay marriage. France already has one of Europe's most inclusive civil union laws. However, the law, passed in 2000 still denies gay couples many of the rights of marriage such as adoption rights and the tax advantages are still less than that for married heterosexual couples.

Gay marriage has become a key issue in the upcoming elections for the European Parliament.

Greens leader Noel Mamere launched the debate last month when he said he would marry two gay men in June in his capacity as mayor of a town near Bordeaux.

President Jacques Chirac has predicted that parliament would not approve any such reform. But, a recent survey by Elle magazine showed 64 percent of the French were in favor of same-sex marriages, while 49 percent said they would also approve of gay couples adopting children.

Chirac's government is unpopular with votes as the country battles high inflation and unemployment.

posted by Anthony # 9:02 AM

by the Associated Press

Posted: May 13, 2004 5:11 pm. ET

(Boston, Massachusetts) A federal judge late Thursday denied a last-minute bid by conservative groups to block marriage licenses from being issued to same-sex couples on May 17.

Plaintiffs immediately announced they would appeal to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro heard arguments Wednesday (story) on a petition spearheaded by the Florida-based Liberty Counsel and joined by the Catholic Action League, 11 state lawmakers and conservative legal groups in Boston, Michigan and Mississippi are working on the case.

Mathew Staver, president and general counsel of the Liberty Counsel said the state's highest court overstepped its bounds when it ruled in November that gay marriage should be legal in Massachusetts.

``It's an unusual time that we live in, and we're asking this court to intervene to prevent this constitutional train wreck,'' Staver told Tauro.

Arguing on behalf of the Supreme Judicial Court, assistant Attorney General Peter Sacks said the court made its ruling based on an interpretation of the state constitution, and the case shouldn't be in federal court.
``These are pure questions of state law,'' Sacks said. ``There is no jurisdictional basis for this court to intervene or second guess the SJC's ruling on a core matter of state law.''

The SJC ruled that city and town clerks could begin issuing marriage licenses to gay couples next Monday. The Legislature has given preliminary approval to a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage and simultaneously legalize civil unions, but a second vote by the Legislature is needed and even then voters would not get to weigh in until November 2006.

Staver predicted constitutional chaos during the 2 years in between, but the judge likened the gay marriage issue to the struggle for integration in the 1950s and '60s.
"They said it was going to be chaos, it's going to be the end of the world,'' the judge said. ``It hasn't been.''

posted by Anthony # 9:01 AM

by Paul Johnson
365Gay.com Newscenter
Washington Bureau Chief

Posted: May 13, 2004 8:06 p.m. ET

(Washington) Calling a proposed amendment to the US Constitution to ban same-sex marriage a "measured and moderate response" its author Thursday said it was aimed at curbing "activist judges" not homosexuality.

Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colorado) told the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution that it is a "biological fact that men and women are designed to complement one another."

"In a very real sense it is impossible for a man to “marry” a man or a woman to “marry” a woman, and the very meaning of the word “marriage” necessarily contemplates a relationship between a man and a woman," Musgrave said.

Robert Bork, whose nomination as a Supreme Court justice was rejected by the Senate because of his radical viewpoints also testified before the committee today.

"It seems clear that the drive for same-sex marriage is primarily about a constitutional ruling as the ultimate expression of moral approbation of homosexual behavior," Bork said.

"The tactic of the activists is to seek judicial rulings because it is clear that a majority of the American public and their elected representatives do not want same-sex marriages. Judges, however, have pushed and continued to push our culture in ever more permissive directions and do not hesitate to strike down laws that for all of our history, for well over two centuries, have been regarded as legitimate defenses of the moral order."

This is the third hearing the proposed amendment has had.

Before today's session a broad range of civil and religious rights organizations held a news conference at the Capitol to condemn the proposed amendment. Among them were the ACLU. the Japanese American Citizens League, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund and the United Church of Christ Justice and Witness Ministries.

"Judge Bork's ideology is inconsistent with American values of fairness and equality," said Christopher E. Anders, an ACLU Legislative Counsel.

"His philosophy falls well outside the mainstream, and fails to even be conservative - it's just plain radical. His endorsement of the amendment should raise serious flags about the intent of its supporters. Discrimination is discrimination, no matter what else you call it."

"Gay and lesbian families are the new targets for some politicians this election year," Anders added.

"It's no surprise that a man who was too extreme to serve on the Supreme Court now advocates enshrining discrimination into the Constitution," said Human Rights Campaign President Cheryl Jacques. "Judge Bork has a history of anti-gay rhetoric and an abysmal civil rights record."

Yesterday Hispanic members of Congress announced their opposition to the proposed amendment.

At previous hearings before the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, prominent conservatives have expressed reservations about the amendment.

Former member of Congress Bob Barr (R-GA), the author of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which allows individual states to not recognize same-sex marriages performed by other states, said that, "Part of federalism means that states have the right to make bad decisions - even on the issue of who can get married in the state."

The debate over denying marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples has escalated following the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision that those couples cannot be denied the same rights enjoyed by straight married couples, and the city of San Francisco and other local government's issuance of marriage licenses to over 7,000 gay and lesbian couples. Massachusetts is scheduled to begin issuing marriage license for gay and lesbians next week.

posted by Anthony # 9:00 AM

Boston Globe
By Michael Paulson, Globe Staff | May 13, 2004

The Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts, headed by three bishops who support gay marriage, is barring its priests from ofﬁciating at same-sex weddings, citing restrictive language in the canons and prayerbook of the church.

The decision by the Episcopalbishops, who are among the most outspoken religious supporters of same-sex couples in the state, is in line with the rulings of the vast majority of mainstream religious denominations, most of which are barring their clergy from ofﬁciating at the marriages of same-gender couples when those marriages become legal in the Commonwealth next week.

The Roman Catholic Church, the Episcopal Church, the United Methodist Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Greek Orthodox Church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints, the National Baptist Convention, and the Church of God in Christ are ordering or asking clergy not to ofﬁciate at same-sex marriages. Clergy in several religions and denominations with no hierarchy, such as Islam, Orthodox Judaism, and Conservative Judaism, as well as in most independent African-American Protestant and evangelical Protestant churches, are also expected to refuse to officiate at same-sex weddings. The prohibitions, in a state where hundreds of clergy have said they support same-sex marriage, are setting up serious conflicts and the possibility of ecclesiastical trials within several major denominations.

One local Episcopal priest, a prominent feminist theologian at Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, has notified the bishop of Massachusetts that she plans to disobey him by officiating at the marriages of two lesbian couples this month; one Lutheran minister has similarly informed the bishop of New England of an intention to disobey. In both denominations, performing same-sex weddings despite instructions from bishops not to do so could lead to serious discipline, such as ouster from the ministry.

Only four denominations have endorsed same-sex weddings: the Unitarian Universalist Association, Reform Judaism, Reconstructionist Judaism, and the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches, a gay denomination. Three mainline Christian denominations -- the United Church of Christ, the American Baptist Churches, and the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) -- are allowing clergy to decide what to do and expect that many will choose to officiate at same-sex weddings. And some Buddhist monks, nuns, and lay people are expected to perform such weddings.

But perhaps no denomination has struggled as much as the Episcopal Church. The Diocese of Massachusetts, meeting at a special convention in March, endorsed same-sex marriage, as the bishops did last fall. Scores of Episcopal priests have signed a declaration of support for same-sex marriage, the diocese was strongly supportive of the confirmation of a gay man as the Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire, and an Episcopal parish in Cambridge, Christ Church, is hosting an interfaith rally in support of same-sex marriage Sunday night.

But the Episcopal bishops of Massachusetts, citing their allegiance to their national denomination, the Episcopal Church USA, and the global Anglican Communion, have concluded there is no room for same-sex marriage under church law. The Episcopal Church's constitution and canons declare that "Holy Matrimony is a physical and spiritual union of a man and a woman," and the same definition is cited in the rubric for weddings, as well as the catechism in the church's Book of Common Prayer.

The Episcopal bishops in Eastern Massachusetts have granted clergy here blanket authority to bless same-sex couples; they are only prohibiting clergy from "solemnizing" marriages, which they said includes the signing of marriage licenses.

Some clergy said they plan to bring justices of the peace, or to deputize parishioners, to sign marriage licenses inside their churches, and then the priests will bless the married couples. But the Rev. I. Carter Heyward, a professor of theology at Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, said she will disobey the bishops by officiating at two same-sex weddings. Heyward was one of the 11 women who were irregularly ordained as Episcopal priests in 1974, before the Episcopal Church allowed the ordination of women.

"I have heard so many gays and lesbians tell me how profoundly disappointed they are in the Diocese of Massachusetts, and the bishops' responses, and they feel betrayed and really, really upset about it -- they are saying it seems to be OK for the church to bless our unions as long as nothing is at stake," Heyward said. "I was persuaded by those lamentations . . . so I would say my position is constructive disobedience."

Episcopal Bishop Roy F. "Bud" Cederholm Jr. said bishops have no comment on how they might respond to priests who officiate at same-sex weddings. But the Rev. Cathy H. George, chairwoman of the Episcopal diocese's Task Force on Blessing of Holy Unions, said priests who perform such weddings could be liable for a presentment trial in an ecclesiastical court for holding a public teaching of a doctrine contrary to that held by the church.

"We belong to a Communion larger than the state of Massachusetts, yet we're trying to respond and function in a way that supports the civil rights of gays and lesbians in this state," said George, rector of St. Anne's in-the-Fields Church in Lincoln. "The fact is it's a work in progress; there is conflict, but people seem to be willing to work through it."

For many denominations and faiths, there is no ambiguity -- marriage is an exclusively heterosexual institution, regardless of what Massachusetts law says.

Officiating at same sex-marriages is "absolutely forbidden," and any priest who performed such a ceremony would be immediately suspended, said the Rev. Christopher J. Coyne, spokesman for the Catholic Archdiocese of Boston. About 3 million of the state's 6 million residents are Catholic.

Imam Talal Eid, the head of the Islamic Center of New England, said "the official position of Islam is that marriage is defined only between a man and a woman -- any other thing is condemned, and is not acceptable."

Although rabbis have almost total authority within Jewish congregations, for Orthodox Jews "there is no conceivable basis under Orthodoxy's understanding of halakha [Jewish law] which would sanction a same-sex marriage," according to Nathan J. Diament, public policy director for the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations. Similarly, in Conservative Judaism "The Rabbinical Assemblies' Law Committee has deemed it inappropriate for a Conservative rabbi to perform such marriage," said Aaron Kischel, executive director of the New England region of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism.

African-American Protestant denominations have also come out against same-sex marriage; the Church of God in Christ, for example, has issued a proclamation declaring: "Notwithstanding the rulings of the court systems of the land in support of same-sex unions; we resolve that the Church of God in Christ stand resolutely firm and never allow the sanctioning of same-sex marriages by its clergy nor recognize the legitimacy of such unions."

And Metropolitan Methodios, the presiding hierarch of the Greek Orthodox metropolis of Boston, said, "If two men or two women come to a priest with a civil license, they are going to be turned away. We believe marriage is a bond between a man and a woman, and that's it."

For several mainline Protestant denominations, by contrast, the Massachusetts court ruling has injected new tension into acrimonious debates over the ordination of gay clergy and the blessing of gay relationships that have been confounding the churches for decades.

"At this time, our present policy is that marriage is an institution between a man and a woman, and my direction to pastors is that, although we're in the midst of studying the issue, my expectation is that they will not perform civil marriages," said Bishop Margaret G. Payne, chief of the New England synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

Payne said Lutheran pastors can bless gay and lesbian couples.

Similarly, clergy of the Presbyterian Church (USA) can bless, but not marry, gay couples, according to Catherine T.R. MacDonald, stated clerk of the Presbytery of Boston.

By contrast, Bishop Susan W. Hassinger, the top official in the New England Conference of the United Methodist Church, said Methodist ministers should neither marry nor bless gay couples.

Michael Paulson can be reached at mpaulson@globe.com.

posted by Anthony # 7:01 AM

Boston Globe
By Joanna Weiss, Globe Staff | May 13, 2004

In a move that could thwart out-of-state gay couples who plan to get marriage licenses in Boston City Hall next week, city ofﬁcials announced yesterday that they will not accept marriage applications from gay couples who live outside Massachusetts or don’t intend to move to the state. But the city will accept a couple’s word, and not require proof of residency, ofﬁcials said.

The decision from Merita Hopkins, Boston’s corporation counsel, marks a shift in tone for Boston, where Mayor Thomas M. Menino has voiced strong support for gay marriage, and plans to be on hand in City Hall on Monday as the ﬁrst licenses are handed out.

Earlier this month, Menino strongly signaled that he was willing to allow out-of-state applications, saying he might instruct Boston clerks not to ask for proof of residency, in deﬁance of Governor Mitt Romney’s directive at the time. He said he would move ahead if city lawyers could justify the city’s position.

But yesterday, Boston’s chief lawyer issued a one-sentence statement through a spokesman. The city will accept marriage applications “from everyone except partners who do not reside in Massachusetts, and neither one of which intends to reside in Massachusetts,” Hopkins said in the statement.

The decision effectively means out-of-state gay couples will be able to obtain marriage licenses in Boston only if they ﬁll out a form saying they intend to move to Massachusetts and sign the form under penalty of perjury. It also adds a new layer of confusion to a process that has seen weeks of legal wrangling and ever-changing rules.

And it hews to the wishes of Romney, who has instructed city and town clerks to enforce a 1913 law that prohibits Massachusetts from issuing marriage licenses to couples whose marriages would be illegal in their home states. Romney originally said clerks would have to produce documents such as tax returns or utility bills to prove their residency. The administration later eased off that position, saying clerks could rely on couples' pledges.

Yesterday, Menino's spokesman, Seth Gitell, would not elaborate on the city's position, referring a reporter to Hopkins's statement. A spokeswoman for Romney declined yesterday to comment on the decision.

But some city and town officials pointed out yesterday that, in Boston and elsewhere, clerks will have to rely on out-of-state couples to report their residences truthfully. The issue, some said, comes down to a new line on the state marriage application, which was revised by Romney administration officials after last fall's state Supreme Judicial Court decision legalizing gay marriage: "If not a Massachusetts resident, I intend to reside in --------."

Officials in both Worcester and Provincetown have stated plans to defy Romney. In Provincetown, clerk Douglas Johnstone said he will not require that the question be answered. He said he will allow couples to leave that line blank, saying town leaders believe they have a defensible case if the issue goes to court.

"We're not trying to put same-sex couples into the position of lying to get a marriage license," he said. "Anybody can say they're intending to move to Massachusetts, because intention is not something you can evaluate and judge."

But lawyer Mary Bonauto, who as legal director of Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders argued the case that led to the SJC decision legalizing gay marriage, said she and the organization have instructed gay couples not to misrepresent themselves in any way, "let alone on a form signed under oath."

And a handbook distributed to city and town clerks during a gay-marriage training session last week says that, on the application, "All fields are mandatory, except those `not applicable.' "

According to state law, perjury on the marriage application form carries a penalty of "a fine of not more than $100." The form also notes that marriages will be "null and void" if a couple does not live in Massachusetts and continues to reside in a state where the marriage would be void.

Bonauto did not criticize Boston officials for their decision, saying it was Romney who threatened to punish clerks who did not enforce the 1913 law.

"I understand the difficult position in which the governor has placed city and town leaders," she said. "He has now, from our perspective, dusted off this old law that hasn't been in use for decades" and "is placing the most extreme interpretation possible upon it."

Johnstone, too, said Romney is to blame for recent confusion over the process of issuing marriage licenses, saying the SJC decision left the state with six months to alter the application process as necessary.

"The governor's office has completely squandered the 180-day stay that was designed to answer these questions," Johnstone said.

Somerville Mayor Joseph A. Curtatone said city officials are still determining if same-sex couples seeking marriage licenses can leave blank where they intend to reside. Normally, couples have to fill out the entire form, he said. Curtatone said he is discussing the matter with legal counsel and the city clerk, and he plans to make a decision tomorrow. However, he said that couples who sign the affidavit stating that there are no legal impediments to their marriages will be issued certificates. Also, he said the city will not heighten scrutiny for same-sex couples on May 17.

"I respect the governor's position. I disagree with it," Curtatone said. "It's not a time for personal politics to be an impediment to equity and fairness."

Meanwhile, Romney has been invited to Washington to testify at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, "Preserving Traditional Marriage: A View from the States," which had been set for May 18.

"He was invited to go but because of scheduling he is unable to attend next week," said Shawn Feddeman, his spokeswoman.

Senate sources said the hearing has been postponed, however.

Yvonne Abraham of the Globe staff and Globe correspondent Matthew Rodriguez contributed to this report.

posted by Anthony # 7:00 AM

by Martin Finucane
Associated Press

Posted: May 12, 2004 2:01 p.m. ET

(Boston, Massachusetts) Conservative groups pleaded with a federal judge Wednesday in an 11th-hour bid to stop the nation's first state-sanctioned gay marriages from taking place next week in Massachusetts.

Mathew Staver, president and general counsel of the Florida-based Liberty Counsel, argued that the state's high court stepped outside its jurisdiction when it ruled in November that gay marriage should be legal in Massachusetts.

``It's an unusual time that we live in, and we're asking this court to intervene to prevent this constitutional train wreck,'' Staver told U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro.

Assistant Massachusetts Attorney General Peter Sacks, arguing on behalf of the Supreme Judicial Court, said the state court based its ruling on an interpretation of the state constitution, and the case does not belong in federal court.

``These are pure questions of state law,'' Sacks said. ``There is no jurisdictional basis for this court to intervene or second-guess the SJC's ruling on a core matter of state law.''

The judge said he would issue a decision Thursday afternoon or Friday morning. His ruling could then be appealed to a federal appeals court.

The Massachusetts high court said city and town clerks could begin issuing marriage licenses to gay couples on Monday.

The Legislature has given preliminary approval to a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage and legalize civil unions, but voters will not get to weigh in on the amendment until November 2006.

Staver predicted constitutional chaos during the 2 years in between, but the judge likened the gay marriage issue to the struggle for integration in the 1950s and '60s.

``They said it was going to be chaos, it's going to be the end of the world,'' the judge said. ``It hasn't been.''

posted by Anthony # 6:59 AM

by Doreen Brandt
365Gay.com Newscenter
Washington Bureau

Posted: May 12, 2004 5:06 p.m. ET

(Washington) Next week same-sex marriage becomes legal in Massachusetts, but two other states may not be far behind.

Lawsuits identical to the case that won marriage in Massachusetts are expected to reach high courts in New Jersey and Washington State by the end of 2004.

"We're living in historic times that will be looked back on by generations to follow. This isn't just one historic moment in Massachusetts next week -- it's the start of what will be a long period of progress and breakthroughs, with gay couples in other states also winning the right to marry and finally being treated equally under the law," said Kevin Cathcart, Executive Director of Lambda Legal.

"Lesbian and gay couples need the protections marriage provides, and they need them where they live and pay their taxes. We are closer than ever to making that a reality in several states."

Lambda Legal has been pursuing a state-by-state strategy to win marriage for same-sex couples for the past decade Cathcart said.

Currently, Lambda and other groups are suing for marriage on behalf of lesbian and gay couples in New Jersey, New York, Washington State and California, the ACLU and Equality California.

All of those cases are in state courts, arguing that denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples violates their rights under state constitutions. And all of those cases are heating up this month, Cathcart said.

In New Jersey, Lambda Legal filed appeal papers last week and the case should move quickly to a final ruling. In Washington State, Lambda Legal and Northwest Women's Law Center filed motions for a prompt ruling last week, and attorneys for the state and King County have agreed to move the case quickly.

In New York, attorneys for the city are set to respond to Lambda Legal's lawsuit on Monday, just as couples begin marrying in Massachusetts. And in California, hearings are scheduled for later this month and early next month in nearly a half-dozen marriage-related lawsuits that Lambda Legal and the other groups either filed or intervened in on behalf of same-sex couples.

"We get calls every day from lesbian and gay people who are left vulnerable because they cannot secure the basic protections and security for their relationships that marriage provides. The legal patchwork that some couples can piece together without marriage does not come close to the protections of marriage itself," Cathcart said.

"Unless same-sex couples can get married, they are not treated equally under the law. And when they can get married, nobody else is harmed -- heterosexual marriages remain intact and aren't jeopardized in any way by same-sex couples being treated equally."

In California a bill that would allow same-sex couples to get marriage licenses was put on hold today by the Assembly Appropriations Committee. The committee asked for further information on the economic impact of same-sex marriage.

Yesterday, a UCLA study showed the state could gain up to $25 million dollars a year by letting gay and lesbian couples marry.

Despite the progress several states are moving forward with amendments to their constitutions to bar same-sex marriage. Votes will decide the issue for gay families in Mississippi, Utah, and a number of other states are attempting to put the issue to voters.

posted by Anthony # 6:58 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: May 12, 2004 8:02 p.m. ET

(New Orleans, Louisiana) A proposed amendment to the Louisiana constitution to ban same-sex marriage failed by one vote Wednesday afternoon. The amendment also would have prevented the state from recognizing civil unions or domestic partnerships.

But, the issue is not dead. The amendment's sponsor, Sen. John Hainkel of New Orleans, can try to round up one more vote for the measure and ask for another vote while the House considers its own version.

Louisiana law already bans same-sex marriages but supporters of an amendment say the current law is not enough. Citing the court decision in Massachusetts that will allow same-sex couples to marry next week, backers of the amendment say only by putting a gay marriage ban in the constitution can they be assured that same-sex marriage will never come to the state.

The House version of the proposed amendment has cleared committee and has yet to go to the floor for a vote. During hearings, Chris Daigle, director of governmental affairs for Equality Louisiana, told the committee that backers have failed to show how the ban would strengthen families or trim the state's divorce rate.

Daigle called the bill election-year posturing pointing out that the measure's sponsor, Rep. Steve Scalise (R-Metairie), is a candidate for the U.S. Congress.

"It's wrong and it sets a dangerous precedent," Daigle said of the bill. "Who will be the next group targeted for discrimination?"

Meanwhile, in North Carolina, a bill has been introduced in the Senate to amend that's state's constitution.

Supporters of gay marriage Wednesday said the proposed constitutional amendment amounts to "codifying into law" biblical interpretation.

Among the speakers at a Capitol Hill news conference were several church leaders who support same-sex marriage.

"The debate over marriage equality in our society is a power struggle," said the Rev. Jack McKinney from Raleigh's Pullen Memorial Baptist Church. "Like all other justice struggles, the majority is unwilling to give up its sense of privilege easily."

McKinney, Rabbi Lucy H.F. Dinner from Temple Beth Or in Raleigh and other clergy cited Bible scripture that calls for justice and noted the Bible's teaching that people are created "in the divine image."

But, the sponsor of the measure, Sen. James Forrester (R-Gaston) says the amendment is necessary to prevent judges from overturning North Carolina's Defense of Marriage Act.

"The gay and lesbian communities are trying to get us to condone their behavior," Forrester said. "I'm not against gays and lesbians. They're nice people. I just don't think they should be allowed to marry."

posted by Anthony # 6:57 AM

by Paul Johnson
365Gay.com Newscenter
Washington Bureau Chief

Posted: May 12, 2004 8:02 p.m. ET

(Washington) There are growing indications that Hispanic voters, the fastest growing voter block in the country, are ready to reject any attempt to amend the US Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

Today a leading group of Hispanic members of Congress joined the largest Latino gay civil rights organization in denouncing the proposed amendment.

"The institution of marriage is open to all under the law. The only way to prevent that is by amending the constitution.... Someone is trying to say that 'yes, separate is equal'... We will fight this because it is the right thing to do. The law demands that of us. Our own conscience demands that of us," Rep Xavier Becerra (D-California) told a Capitol Hill news conference today.

According to a recent Field Poll, 57 percent of Latinos in California -- the state with the largest Latino population -- oppose a federal constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage.

"The President is proposing that we use the Constitution to limit the rights of a specific group of Americans in pursuit of a political agenda that abandons moral common sense, is counterproductive, and shuns both state's rights and the very liberties that this document grants all Americans as well," said Becerra. "This policy may be conservative, but it most certainly is not compassionate."

Becerra was joined by Reps. Charles A. Gonzalez (D-Texas) and Raul Grijalva (D-Arizona), and by the National Latina/o Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Organization and several Hispanic human rights groups.

Also on hand was Elba Cedeno, whose life partner was killed Sept. 11, 2001, in the World Trade Center and now is represented by Lambda Legal in an attempt to obtain compensation from the federal victim's compensation fund.

"The fact that elected officials and several of the largest and most respected Latino civil rights organizations in the country are taking a stand against writing discrimination against same-sex couples into the Constitution is a good indication that the mainstream Latino community recognizes how wrong the proposed amendment is," said LLEGO's Ornelas-Quintero.

The announcement of support from the Hispanic members of Congress came on the eve of hearings by the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution on the proposed amendment.

Scheduled to testify are Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colorado) the original sponsor of the FMA, and Robert Bork, the defeated Supreme Court nominee who has a record of anti-gay statements.

He has criticized the media for portraying gays as "social victims," and suggested that recognition of same-sex marriage will lead to tolerance of "man-boy associations, polygamists, and so forth."

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts) will also testify.

posted by Anthony # 6:56 AM

by Michael J. Meade
365Gay.com Newscenter
Boston Bureau

Posted: May 13, 2004 12:02 a.m. ET

(Boston, Massachusetts) Massachusetts is likely to be a patchwork of cities and towns next week some of which will allow out-of-state gay couples to marry and others which will not. Wednesday Boston decided it will follow Gov. Mitt Romney's directive and not issue marriage licenses to gay couples from outside Massachusetts.

But, while Boston was making its announcement, neighboring Somerville said it would welcome out-of-staters. Worcester, about 45 miles west of Boston also said it would marry gay couples from outside the commonwealth. Earlier this week Provincetown announced it also would ignore Romney's directive.

Several other communities are also pondering whether to allow couples from outside Massachusetts to marry.

The Republican governor's directive stems from a little used 1913 law that says marriage licenses cannot be issued to out-of-state couples if their marriages would be "void" in the couples' home states. The law dates back to a period when interracial marriage was legal in Massachusetts but illegal in most other states.

Boston's decision to bar out-of-state gay couples from marrying came as a surprise. Mayor Thomas M. Menino, a Democrat who supports gay marriage, asked for a legal opinion on ignoring the old law.

City lawyer Merita Hopkins issued a statement Wednesday saying, "We intend to accept applications for certificates of marriage from everyone except partners who do not reside in Massachusetts, and neither one of which intends to reside in Massachusetts."

Same-sex marriage will become legal in Massachusetts next week. On Monday couples can begin applying for licenses. Under Massachusetts law the applications can be picked up three days later. That would mean Thursday would be the first day same-sex couples will be able to marry in the state.

The three-day waiting period can be waived by a judge, but only under certain circumstances.

posted by Anthony # 6:55 AM

May 11, 2004

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 7:02 p.m. ET

BOSTON (AP) -- Some gay-rights advocates are worried that flamboyant, campy, over-the-top gay weddings could hurt their cause when the nation's first state-sanctioned same-sex weddings begin taking place in Massachusetts next week.

``Any sort of bizarre or hyper-unusual weddings will be used as a weapon against the gay community in the political battles of this upcoming year,'' said Arline Isaacson, co-leader of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus. ``We obviously have some concern that some media outlets may focus on the flamboyant.''

On Monday, cities and towns across Massachusetts will begin accepting applications for marriage licenses for gay couples.

It will be a milestone in the battle for gay rights, but the victory could be short-lived if voters ultimately approve a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. The earliest that such an amendment could go before the voters is November 2006 -- 2 1/2 years from now.

Advocates are worried that if the news media treat gay marriage the same way they have traditionally treated gay pride parades -- with the lens focused on the most outrageous spectacles, such as leather-clad Dykes on Bikes, buttocks-flashing cowboys and drag queens -- it could become even more difficult to defeat the amendment.

Several gay couples who wandered through an exposition of gay wedding services at a Cambridge hotel earlier this month said their weddings would be far from flamboyant, with some even describing their plans as ``boring.''

Cindy Sproul, co-owner of RainbowWeddingNetwork.com, an online wedding gift registry for gays, which organized the exposition, said gay people getting married appeared to want the same thing heterosexuals want.

``They want to wear tuxes, they want to wear gowns, they want traditional weddings,'' she said. ``They want the same things: a DJ, a florist, a caterer.''

David ``Dixie'' Federico, a former drag queen and newly ordained online minister in Provincetown, bristled at the idea that gay couples should be forced to tone it down, after being denied marriage for so long. But he predicted tradition will be the order of the day, at least in the first weeks.

``I think everyone in the beginning is going to be on their best behavior,'' said Federico, who manages a restaurant in Provincetown, a gay tourism hot spot at Cape Cod's tip. ``But no matter what, they're going to look for the butchest women and the most effeminate men. It's the nature of the beast.''

Under the Supreme Judicial Court's decision, gay couples can apply for marriage licenses beginning Monday but must wait three days to tie the knot unless a court grants them a waiver of the state's waiting period. The seven gay and lesbian couples who brought the court challenge expect to receive waivers and plan to get married on Monday.

On hand to witness the first gay nuptials in Provincetown will be news crews from England, Holland and Germany, as well as newspaper reporters and TV crews from around the country, according to town tourism director Patricia Fitzpatrick.

David Schermacher, co-owner of Ptown Parties, said that all of the weddings he is helping to organize will have a traditional feel to them.

``But if someone were to ask for something like that, I would certainly honor their wishes,'' he said. ``Flamboyance is a part of our culture and it's kind of backwards to ask people to curb that, especially on a special day.''

Alfredo Roldan-Flores, 38, an occupational therapist from Boston, said he and his partner, David Koses, 36, are planning a June wedding and a low-key Sunday brunch.

``I hope the media treats it with the respect it deserves. I really don't want them to make a freak show of it, because it's not a freak show, it's a celebration of life,'' he said. ``Trust me, we're not taking this trivially.''

------

Associated Press Writer Martin Finucane contributed to this story.

posted by Anthony # 8:25 AM

The Boston Globe

By 0, 5/12/2004

BOSTON

Eleven state lawmakers yesterday joined a federal lawsuit that accuses the seven justices of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court of usurping the Legislature's authority in a ruling last November legalizing gay marriage. Joining the suit filed Monday in US District Court in Boston by Robert P. Largess, vice president of the Catholic Action League, were state Senator Steven C. Panagiotakos of Lowell and Representatives Mark J. Carron of Southbridge, Emile J. Goguen of Fitchburg, Robert S. Hargraves of Groton, Peter J. Larkin of Pittsfield, James R. Miceli of Wilmington, Philip Travis of Rehoboth, Christopher P. Asselin of Springfield, Edward G. Connolly of Everett, John A. Lepper of Attleboro, and Elizabeth A. Poirier of North Attleborough. Hargraves, Lepper, and Poirier are Republicans; the rest are Democrats. US District Judge Joseph L. Tauro will hear arguments today on whether to issue a permanent injunction barring state officials from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples as planned, beginning Monday.

posted by Anthony # 8:24 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: May 11, 2004 11:10 am. ET

(Durham, North Carolina) A lawsuit by a Durham North Carolina gay couple who were denied a marriage license moved a tiny step forward Monday when a district court dismissed the case.

Richard Mullinax and Perry Pike were denied a marriage license in March by Durham County. They filed an immediate lawsuit with the county asking for it to be dismissed.

District Judge Craig Brown ruled that the case involved constitutional questions that more properly belong in Superior Court, where judges have greater authority.

"Judges don't make the law," Brown said in his ruling. "The Legislature makes law, and judges interpret it."

The couple's lawyer, Cheri Patrick said she would refile the case in Superior Court. It is expected the suit could wind up in the state Supreme Court.

Patrick said there is no reason under North Carolina law to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples because the guidelines are not gender-specific. Applicants are asked only if they are related closer than first cousins, if they are over age 16 and if they have been previously married.

The suit, Patrick said, is only about the issuance of a marriage license and is not an attempt to immediately overturn a state law against same-sex weddings. Without a license, same-sex couples cannot effectively challenge that law, she said.

"We don't have anything until we take the first step," Patrick told the Durham Herald-Sun. "Recognition [of same-sex marriages] is a long way down the road. It probably will happen elsewhere long before it happens [in North Carolina]."

But Patrick said it is time to begin the legal battle.

"The gay community has lived in fear of what will happen if we stand up for our rights for far too long," she said.

posted by Anthony # 8:22 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: May 11, 2004 11:10 am. ET

(Oklahoma City, Oklahoma) A national ad campaign that began running Monday in USA Today is warning Oklahoma that an anti-gay marriage amendment will cost the state money and jobs.

Headlined "Oklahoma Going Out of Business" the featured a map of the state with a "closed" sign hanging from it.

"Companies thinking of relocating to or doing business in Oklahoma should look hard at Oklahoma's worsening culture of intolerant exclusion and its resulting brain and talent drain," the half page ad said.

"Studies show that a state's level of tolerance for its gay and lesbian citizens directly impacts its success in attracting the talented people and creative atmosphere essential for economic growth in today's competitive marketplace," the $10,000 said ad which appeared in the paper's Money section.

The ad was sponsored by LGBT civil rights group Cimarron Equality Oklahoma in response to a proposed amendment to the state constitution to ban same-sex relationships. The amendment proposal passed the legislature last month and will be put to voters in November.

The amendment would define marriage as between one man and one woman and prohibit the state from recognizing unions, including civil unions, performed in other states.

Supporters of the amendment called the ad economic extortion and predicted it would backfire.

"There is a real hunger for a return to traditional values and for leaders who will draw a line in the sand to help stop the moral decay of this country," state Sen. James Williamson (R-Tulsa) told the Oklahoman.

Williamson challenged Democratic Gov. Brad Henry and Democratic legislative leaders to join him in "condemning Cimarron Equality Oklahoma and their radical agenda."

Henry's office issued a comment criticizing the ad as unhelpful to state economic development efforts, but it did not comment on Williamson's challenge.

200 of the Fortune 500 companies now provide domestic partner plans.

"They have done so because it creates a competitive edge for these large companies," said Terry Gatewood, chairman of Cimarron Equality Oklahoma.

"They will be unwilling to open or expand operations in a state that is hostile to the principles that they have adopted for the running of their business," Gatewood said.

The Greater Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce recruits nationally but has no position on the marriage amendment. Chamber Vice President Cynthia Reid, however, criticized the ad saying that the issue should have stayed within the state.

"We do think it is unfortunate that the group would choose to take this discussion outside our state boundaries to a national audience," she told the paper.

"The growth of the economic environment is important to all Oklahomans, and discouraging businesses from considering our state is in no one's best interest."

posted by Anthony # 8:21 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: May 11, 2004 8:08 pm. ET

(Los Angeles, California) A UCLA study says that if California legalized same-sex marriage there would be a net gain of $22.3 to $25.2 million each year for the State budget.

The study was prepared by the Williams Project, a think tank at UCLA School of Law and by the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies.

Savings in means-tested public benefits programs, increases in sales tax revenues from tourism, and additional dollars for same-sex wedding ceremonies would account for the windfall to the State, the study says.

"These savings more than offset a decrease in income tax revenues, says" Brad Sears, co-author of the study and Executive Director of the Williams Project.

The main savings for the State would be the consequence of decreasing the number of individuals eligible for means-tested state benefit programs, like Medi-Cal and CalWorks the study says. Under the benefit programs a person's married same-sex partner is included when determining eligibility for state benefit programs.

"Even if only a small percentage of individuals living with partners register and become ineligible for public benefits," says economist and study co-author, Dr. M.V. Lee Badgett, " California is likely to reduce its expenditures on these programs by more than $23 million each year."

In addition, the S tate will benefit from a boom in tourism if it extends marriage to gay couples. When San Francisco was allowing gays to marry couples flew in from 46 states and 8 countries.

The study concludes that if same-sex marriage were permanently offered, each year California would benefit from over $100 million in increased business revenues -- generating over $10 million in sales tax revenues for the State.

According to Sears, "our analysis makes it clear that providing California families with equal rights is fiscally responsible. Making same-sex partners accountable to each other not only strengthens families; it has a positive impact on the state budget."

The study was released on the eve of a hearing before the California State Assembly Appropriations Committee on same-sex marriage legislation.

“This study makes it clear that equal protection is not only the right thing to do morally, but also fiscally,” said Geoffrey Kors, Executive Director of Equality California.

“By passing this bill, the legislature could avoid onerous proposed budget cuts in education and health programs. The Assembly Appropriations Committee can not in good conscience let this bill die when it could do enormous good for families and for the economy.”

posted by Anthony # 8:20 AM

by Jennifer Peter
Associated Press

Posted: May 11, 2004 8:08 pm. ET

(Boston, Massachusetts) Some gay-rights advocates are worried that flamboyant, campy, over-the-top gay weddings could hurt their cause when the nation's first state-sanctioned same-sex weddings begin taking place in Massachusetts next week.

"Any sort of bizarre or hyper-unusual weddings will be used as a weapon against the gay community in the political battles of this upcoming year," said Arline Isaacson, co-leader of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus. "We obviously have some concern that some media outlets may focus on the flamboyant."

On Monday, cities and towns across Massachusetts will begin accepting applications for marriage licenses for gay couples.

It will be a milestone in the battle for gay rights, but the victory could be short-lived if voters ultimately approve a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. The earliest that such an amendment could go before the voters is November 2006 - 2 1/2 years from now.

Advocates are worried that if the news media treat gay marriage the same way they have traditionally treated gay pride parades - with the lens focused on the most outrageous spectacles, such as leather-clad Dykes on Bikes, buttocks-flashing cowboys and drag queens - it could become even more difficult to defeat the amendment.

Several gay couples who wandered through an exposition of gay wedding services at a Cambridge hotel earlier this month said their weddings would be far from flamboyant, with some even describing their plans as "boring."

Alfredo Roldan-Flores, 38, an occupational therapist from Boston, said he and his partner, David Koses, 36, are planning a June wedding and a low-key Sunday brunch.

David "Dixie" Federico, a former drag queen and newly ordained online minister in Provincetown, bristled at the idea that gay couples should be forced to tone it down, after being denied marriage for so long. But he predicted tradition will be the order of the day, at least in the first weeks.

"I think everyone in the beginning is going to be on their best behavior," said Federico, who manages a restaurant in Provincetown. "But no matter what, they're going to look for the butchest women and the most effeminate men. It's the nature of the beast."

David Schermacher, co-owner of Ptown Parties, said that all of the weddings he is helping to organize will have a traditional feel to them.

"But if someone were to ask for something like that, I would certainly honor their wishes," he said. "Flamboyance is a part of our culture and it's kind of backwards to ask people to curb that, especially on a special day."

Under the Supreme Judicial Court's decision, gay couples can apply for marriage licenses beginning Monday but must wait three days to tie the knot unless a court grants them a waiver of the state's waiting period. The seven gay and lesbian couples who brought the court challenge expect to receive waivers and plan to get married on Monday.

posted by Anthony # 8:19 AM

by Margo Williams
365Gay.com Newscenter
Boston Bureau

Posted: May 11, 2004 8:08 pm. ET

(Boston, Massachusetts) Despite a Massachusetts high court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage a local of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers says it will not provide benefits to the gay spouses of its members.

Local 103 of the IBEW, one of the largest unions in the state, has sent letters to all of its 6,000 members saying that married spouse's of gay or lesbian members will not be able to get health or pension benefits, according to the Boston Globe.

The letter said that union's benefit plan defines" dependent spouse" as "a person of the opposite sex." The decision was unanimously made by the union's six benefits trustees.
"I'm sure we have some gay members and that's OK. They shouldn't have expected benefits if they knew their plan," said IBEW administrator Russell Sheehan.

Sheehan said the letter was sent out now because the first gay couples in the state are expected to marry on Monday.

"In light of all the changes that are coming, we just wanted to be ahead of the curve and make the clarification,'' Sheehan told the Globe.

The union action is legal, according to a lawyer who specializes in employee benefits. Employers and unions whose benefit plans are covered under the federal Employee Retirement Income Security act can choose whether to extend benefits to same-sex spouses, said Matt Giuliani.

"Federal law allows the union to decide who's covered and who's not,'' Giuliani told the paper.

The federal law pre-empts state law, including antidiscrimination statutes and the SJC's gay marriage decision, Giuliani said.

posted by Anthony # 8:18 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: May 11, 2004 8:08 pm. ET

(San Francisco, California) A woman who donated her eggs for her partner's twin girls has no parental rights a California appeals court ruled Tuesday.

The woman, identified in court documents only as K.M. She donated eggs to her registered domestic partner, identified as E.G. who became pregnant and delivered healthy twins in 1995.

The two women lived together and raised the girls for almost six years. But in August 2001, the relations soured and they separated. E.G. moved with the girls to Massachusetts.

Both claimed to be the children's' mothers, but E.G. contended that K.M. had voluntarily given up any rights, while K.M. she never intended to do so.

A Marin County judge ruled that the egg donor had not shown her intention to be a parent at the time of conception and that the birth mother was the only natural mother.

A three-judge appellate panel on Monday upheld the ruling. In handing down its decision the court said that it was not deciding whether it might be possible in other cases for a child to have two natural mothers.

Diane Richmond, a lawyer for the birth mother said, "This ruling is a complete vindication of my client's position. It upholds the freedom of choice of same-sex couples that they can either be or not be the parents of children born to them."

The lawyer for K.M., Jill Hersh, said her client is considering an appeal.

posted by Anthony # 8:17 AM

May 11, 2004
New York Times
By PAM BELLUCK

BOSTON, May 10 — One week before same-sex marriage becomes legal in Massachusetts, the Cape Cod town of Provincetown voted Monday to issue marriage licenses to out-of-state same-sex couples even if they have no intention of moving to Massachusetts. The move contradicts a directive by Gov. Mitt Romney, who has said that no same-sex couples residing out of state would be allowed to marry here.

Mr. Romney, who opposes same-sex marriage, has invoked a 1913 law that says that the state will not marry couples if their marriage would be "void" in their home state. The governor has interpreted that to mean that since no other state performs same-sex marriages, only Massachusetts same-sex couples are eligible to marry here.

Couples applying for marriage licenses in Massachusetts are required to fill out a form asking where they reside and where they intend to reside, and to sign it under penalty of perjury. Town and city clerks have been instructed by the governor's office to issue licenses to out-of-state same-sex couples if they intend to move to the state, but not those who plan to return to their home states.

But the board of selectmen in Provincetown, a town with a large gay population, voted unanimously to issue the licenses even if the applicants declare on the form that they do not intend to live in Massachusetts. The new policy reads: "The town clerk may issue marriage licenses to any persons — whether residents of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, non-commonwealth residents that intend to reside in Massachusetts, or non-commonwealth residents that do not intend to reside in Massachusetts."The couples must sign the form, attesting that they have been truthful on their application and that they know of no "legal impediment" to their marriage.

"To start to say yes to certain couples but not others doesn't make sense," said the Provincetown town clerk, Douglas Johnstone.

"If they sign the affirmation," Mr. Johnstone said, a couple will receive a marriage license. Essentially, the onus would be on the couple to be truthful and to accept the consequences of getting a license in defiance of the governor's edict.

The town clerk in Worcester has also said he will issue licenses to out-of-state couples, but Provincetown is the first community where elected town officials have voted to make such a practice town policy. Provincetown is expected to draw gay couples from across the state and the country beginning next week.

Governor Romney, a Republican, said in a statement Monday that state law prohibited out- of-state gay couples from marrying in Massachusetts. He said: "I expect local officials to follow this law regardless of their personal views. If they choose to break the law, we will take appropriate enforcement action, refuse to recognize those marriages and inform the parties that the marriage is null and void."

Shawn Feddeman, a spokeswoman for the governor, said that such marriages would not be recorded by the state's Department of Public Health. It was not clear Monday how the state would go about scrutinizing the marriage application forms, what sort of action would be taken against defiant clerks or whether enforcement would be handled by district attorneys or the attorney general.

Also Monday, the Liberty Counsel, a conservative group based in Longwood, Fla., filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court in Boston to stop the issuing of same-sex marriage licenses on May 17.

The group argues that the state's highest court violated the federal Constitution in its November ruling that gay couples had the right to marry under the state's Constitution. The suit argues that only the governor and the legislature may change marriage law, according to the separation of powers clause in the Massachusetts Constitution.

Similar bids to stop same-sex marriages have foundered in court in recent weeks, but Monday's challenge is the first in federal court.

posted by Anthony # 12:28 AM

by Doreen Brandt
365Gay.com Newscenter
Washington Bureau

Posted: May 10, 2004 11:14 am. ET

(Washington) With John Kerry all but anointed the Democratic Party's Presidential nominee eyes are now focusing on who he might pick as his running mate.

Six names are rumored to be under consideration: Senator John Edwards (NC), Representative Dick Gephardt (MO), Senator Bob Graham (FL), former Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia, Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, and Governor Thomas J. Vilsack of Iowa.

How they stand on LGBT issues varies according to a report prepared by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

The report, from the NGLTF Policy Institute says that Dick Gephardt and John Edwards are the most supportive of issues important to gay Americans, while Same Nunn is at the bottom of the list.

The report is based on an analysis of the voting records and public statements of the prospective candidates in 13 key issue areas, including: sexual orientation and gender identity nondiscrimination laws; HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment; lifting the military's ban on openly gay and lesbian servicemembers; marriage equality for same-sex couples; and, education policy that supports the right of LGBT youth to attend school in a safe and affirming environment.

According to the report, the most supportive prospective VP candidate is Representative Dick Gephardt, who has taken supportive positions on 11 of the 13 issue areas (and unclear in 1 area, and opposed in 1 area). He is followed by: Senator John Edwards (supportive in 9, unclear in 3, opposed in 1), Governor Richardson (supportive in 8, unclear in 4, and opposed in 1), Senator Graham (supportive in 4, unclear in 6, and opposed in 3), and Governor Vilsack (supportive in 5, unclear in 8). Former Senator Sam Nunn, who led efforts to pass the much-reviled "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law, ranked last (supportive in only 2, opposed in 4, unclear in 7). None of the prospective VP candidates supports marriage equality for same sex couples.

"To win in November, Senator Kerry must have the enthusiastic support of the LGBT community and who he selects as his running mate will have a lot to do with that," said Matt Foreman, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Executive Director.

"Our community needs to see a vice presidential candidate on the Democratic side whose record shows both a willingness and capacity to fight head on the other side's ugly campaign to use same-sex marriage to wedge the electorate."

According to exit polls in previous election, the gay, lesbian and bisexual vote comprises at least 5% of the general election vote, and traditionally votes heavily (70%+) Democratic, making the gay community the party's third most loyal bloc of support, behind the African American and Jewish communities.

With the electorate being so evenly divided, both parties agree that turning out their bases is critical. Many see President Bush's public call for an anti-marriage U.S. constitutional amendment as an overt play to energize and turn out evangelical Christians, who made up 40% of his vote in November 2000.

Foreman said that Senator Kerry's statement that he - while opposing amending the U.S. Constitution to forbid same-sex marriage - might support amending the Massachusetts Constitution to do just that had caused consternation in the LGBT community and the vice presidential nod could go a long way in either healing or exacerbating the rift.

"Picking someone like Sam Nunn would send a terrible message to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people," Foreman said.

Collectively, the prospective candidates are most supportive of sexual orientation nondiscrimination laws, HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment, inclusive hate crimes laws, and to a lesser degree, domestic partnership. Although they oppose marriage equality for same-sex couples, four oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment (the positions of Bob Graham and Sam Nunn on the amendment are not clear).

posted by Anthony # 12:25 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: May 10, 2004 5:01 pm. ET

(Des Moines, Iowa) The Iowa Supreme Court is being urged to throw out an appeal to a "divorce" granted a lesbian couple who had a civil union in Vermont.

Following their civil union Kimberly Jean Brown and Jennifer Sue Perez returned to their homes state of Iowa but their relationship broke down and they sought to have a judge grant them a divorce.

The petition for divorce was approved by District Judge Jeffrey A. Neary without a hearing. Both parties had a stipulated agreement, and Neary signed the dissolution decree before realizing the relationship he was ending involved two women.

Judge Neary said he believed that under the legal concept of full faith and credit, he would be able to grant the divorce of a union that is legal in another state. The divorce also could be granted by applying equity and partnership laws that govern the business world, he said.

But a group of conservative lawmakers disagreed. The six filed an appeal with the state Supreme Court arguing that since Iowa has a so-called Defense of Marriage law a court cannot dissolve something which does not exist.

Today, Lambda Legal, filed a friend-of-the-court brief, signed by the Iowa Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU and the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Community Center of Central Iowa, urging the high court to throw the case out.

The brief argues that none of the parties involved in the challenge have legal standing to interfere in the case because they aren't harmed in any way by the lower court judge's decision.

The brief also points out that Iowa law permits a court to terminate a civil union, so that the members of the couple can move on with their lives with certainty about their legal rights, plan financially, and start new families.

"A judge, in his rightful authority, has addressed this matter," said Camilla Taylor, Staff Attorney in Lambda Legal's Midwest Regional Office.

"Iowa courts consistently resolve matters between couples living together, regardless of the status of their relationship, whether married or not. A handful of legislators and others have tried to insinuate themselves into this particular case because this time it involves two lesbians. It's clear these groups don't like gay people, but that doesn't give them the right to interfere in other people's personal lives."

After losing a legislative effort to overturn an executive order banning discrimination in state employment based on sexual orientation and gender identity, four of the legislators trying to insert themselves into this case sued Governor Tom Vilsack seeking to overturn the order. After a lower court loss, the governor chose not to appeal.

posted by Anthony # 12:24 AM

by Margo Williams
365Gay.com Newscenter
Boston Bureau

Posted: May 10, 2004 5:01 pm. ET

(Boston, Massachusetts) A Catholic political action group has asked the US District Court to prevent same-sex couples in Massachusetts from marrying.

Gay marriage becomes legal in Massachusetts next Monday under a landmark ruling by the state Supreme Judicial Court.

In a motion filed today in US District Court the Catholic Action League argues that the state high court violated the U.S. Constitution.

The motion is similar to one turned down last week by the state court. Justice Roderick Ireland ruled that the League had no standing in the case to seek a delay.

Ireland went one step further in a veiled warning to other groups attempting to force the court to back away from its marriage ruling. He said that even if the League did have standing he would have denied the petition.

Today's motion was filed by the conservative Christian law group Liberty Counsel on behalf of the League. The motions said that the SJC usurped the constitutional powers of the Legislature and the governor when it changed the state's marriage laws. This, in turn, violated the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees a uniform separation of power in all of the states, the motion argues.

"The federal courts are obligated to step in to ensure that Massachusetts is following the basic principle of separation of powers that is vital to our very system of law and government," said Mat Staver, president and general counsel of Liberty Counsel in a statement to the media.

Mary Bonauto, of GLAD, the organization that won the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling said she is not overly concerned by the court challenge.

"It's a predicable, more rehashing the same old thing, She told 365Gay.com. "It's just unfortunate that we have to go through it."

The same-sex marriage issue has also sparked a war of words between Governor Mitt Romney and municipal clerks over whether licenses can be given to out-of-state gay couples.

The governor wants clerks to refuse licenses to couples from outside Massachusetts, citing a 1913 law. This week a group of state senators tabled legislation to repeal the law with Romney threatening to veto the repeal if it is passed.

posted by Anthony # 12:23 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: May 11, 2004 12:01 am. ET

(Provincetown, Massachusetts) Provincetown's Board of Selectmen voted Monday night to ignore a directive from Gov. Mitt Romney and allow gay couples who reside outside Massachusetts to marry when same-sex marriage becomes legal in the state next Monday.

The board decided to allow any couple who applies for a license to be granted one as long as the parties attest that they know of no legal impediment to their union.

Romney's order to clerks across the state not to issue licenses to same-sex couples from outside Massachusetts is based on a 1913 law that says marriage licenses cannot be issued to out-of-state couples if their marriages would be "void" in the couples' home states. The until now seldom used law dates back to a period when interracial marriage was illegal.

The directive came as a severe blow to the owners of inns and other tourist spots in the popular gay resort at the tip of Cape Cod who were hoping to cash in on a stampede of gay couples from across the country.

A spokesperson for the governor said that clerks violating the law could be prosecuted. Under state law, officials who issue a license "knowing that parties are prohibited" can face up to a $500 fine or a prison sentence of up to a year.

Meanwhile a Catholic political action group Monday asked the US District Court to prevent same-sex couples in Massachusetts from marrying. The Catholic Action League argues that the state high court violated the U.S. Constitution.

posted by Anthony # 12:22 AM

by Catherine Wilson
Associated Press

Posted: May 11, 2004 12:01 am. ET

(Miami, Florida) Four Florida gay and lesbian couples tomorrow will become the first same-sex couples to contest the 8-year-old federal law banning same-sex marriage.

Although gay-rights groups have limited their legal challenges to state courts, attorney Ellis Rubin says he plans to file a federal lawsuit Wednesday challenging the constitutionality of the 1995 federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Rubin was denied marriage licenses for the four couples at the Miami-Dade County clerk's office.

"I've talked to several gay organization lawyers, and they claim that they don't want to go into federal court because they're picking their states very carefully," Rubin said Monday. "I don't believe in sitting back and letting a steamroller roll over me."

Rubin filed a challenge to an equivalent Florida law in state court in February, and a second lawsuit against the state law was filed last month. But the new lawsuit may not be welcomed by its intended beneficiaries.

David Buckel, director of the marriage project with Lambda Legal, said he couldn't say whether he supported the new lawsuit without seeing it but had reservations about its timing and location.

"Thoughtful lawyers all around the country have been holding back from" a federal challenge, said Buckel, whose organization is challenging state marriage laws in California, New Jersey, New York and Washington. "In any civil rights movement you've got to pick the right time and the right place because what you want to do is win."

Rubin, who grabbed headlines in the 1970s with a novel but unsuccessful television intoxication defense in a murder trial, believes the federal lawsuit could force the U.S. Supreme Court to address the question of gay marriage as much as two years before lawsuits working their way through state courts.

He also claimed gay advocacy groups are using federal and state gay marriage bans to achieve fund-raising goals.

"I believe that these gays rights organizations have just perpetuated themselves by putting on masks of appeals for money," Rubin said. "They accomplish absolutely nothing except raising more money. I think this case will put an end to all that."

The suit contends the federal law is a discriminatory violation of the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution and violates the full faith and credit clause by allowing states to refuse to recognize gay marriages from other states.

Defendants in the lawsuit will be Gov. Jeb Bush, state Attorney General Charles Crist and Miami-Dade clerk Harvey Ruvin.

Bush, brother of President Bush, supports the 1997 state law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman and bans the recognition of same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.

posted by Anthony # 12:21 AM

May 9, 2004
New York Times
By THOMAS CRAMPTON

LONGWOOD, Fla. — The map that hangs above Liberty Counsel's weekly planning meeting measures the small firm's national reach, with color-coded tabs marking the status of 33 active cases in 13 states.

Their agenda: stop same-sex marriage by using the courts.

From an unmarked beige tin warehouse near a railway line at an address they insist on keeping secret, Liberty Counsel has employed a range of legal tactics to fight same-sex marriage across the country.

"This is the central command center for the defense of traditional marriage against the same-sex marriage movement," said Mathew D. Staver, president, general counsel and founder of the firm. "We will use every means the law can provide."

Supporters of same-sex marriage say Liberty Counsel and other conservative organizations have had a strong impact on their efforts.

"We used to be up against the government when fighting for gay rights, but more and more often we find ourselves also battling against Liberty Counsel and similar organizations," said Jon W. Davidson, a Los Angeles-based senior counsel for Lambda Legal, a legal organization fighting for gay rights. "It is clear in the case of same-sex marriage that the religious right has started using legal tactics normally associated with liberal and progressive groups like the A.C.L.U. or N.A.A.C.P."

Other groups are fighting same-sex marriage, including the Alliance Defense Fund in Arizona and the American Center for Law and Justice in Virginia. But it is Liberty Counsel that has been at the forefront of the legal battles. Mr. Staver's firm obtained the restraining order that stopped the mayor of New Paltz, N.Y., from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The weekly meeting map shows that same-sex marriage remains a prime focus for Liberty Counsel. Yellow tags mark four states where officials have recognized or conducted same-sex marriages, matched by four blue tags that signify the firm's lawsuits against those officials.

Red tags on 13 states with lawsuits seeking recognition of same-sex marriage are matched by seven green tags noting the firm's attempts to intervene.

An orange tag marks the brief Liberty Counsel filed with the Supreme Court of California, and a lone gold dot marks a victory for their cause: the striking down of a same-sex marriage lawsuit by the Superior Court of West Virginia.

"Until we started the tracking map, it took forever just to figure out where we had court cases," said Rena M. Lindevaldsen, the firm's lead lawyer on this issue. "It has been an exhausting few months since the marriages began in February."

Ms. Lindevaldsen dismisses the links advocates of same-sex marriage have drawn to the civil rights movement. "Homosexuality is a choice that people make," she said, "while race is something you cannot change."

On the strength of donations, Mr. Staver said, his firm plans to expand activities in the coming months. The number of lawyers will double to 10 this summer, and Mr. Staver says he will oversee the opening of a law school intended to train a new generation of like-minded lawyers.

While Mr. Staver said it was faith that prompted him to found the firm in 1989, same-sex marriage was not the prime issue then. Instead, he said, his intentions were primarily to fight for "religious freedoms."

In practice, this has meant representing clients ranging from student evangelists prevented from posting flyers in public schools to public officials fighting to display the Ten Commandments in government offices.

In addition to using the courts, Mr. Staver addresses legal issues through regular radio and television programs and in a dozen books he has written, the latest of which, "Same-Sex Marriage: Putting Every Household at Risk," will be published in September.

But Mr. Staver's most prominent moment probably occurred when he argued before the United States Supreme Court in 1994, against a Florida judge's order that limited picketing outside an abortion clinic.

In that case, Madsen v. Women's Health Center, the court upheld a 36-foot buffer zone that kept protesters away from the entrance, but struck down a 300-foot zone inside which the protesters could not make unsolicited approaches to clinic patients.

All cases are handled pro bono, with the law firm's finances mainly coming from donations and court-awarded fees in successful lawsuits.

Registered as a nonprofit group, Liberty Counsel had revenue of $1,374,658 in 2002, a big increase from $163,341 in 1997, according to tax records provided by GuideStar, a philanthropic research group.

The Rev. Jerry Falwell, whose Liberty University has been represented by Mr. Staver, is a major supporter. Since joining the university's board last year, Mr. Staver has been in charge of the steering committee seeking to establish the Liberty Law School. Although not yet accredited by the American Bar Association, the school will begin teaching several dozen full-scholarship students this fall.

"The law school will teach the biblical worldview, but also instruct on practical lawyering," Mr. Staver said. "We will train the next generation of lawyers to protect religious freedoms through the courtrooms."

Mr. Staver and Ms. Lindevaldsen said that while they disapproved of homosexuality, they were compassionate, and they distinguished themselves from those who "spread hate" against gay people.

"Adultery and homosexuality are both against God's will," Mr. Staver said. "Such sinners must be helped."

posted by Anthony # 9:03 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: May 8, 2004 4:06 pm. ET

(San Francisco, California) 78 year old Rev. Otis Charles who did not come out until after he retired as Episcopal Bishop of Utah in 1993 has been given a stern reprimand by the church for marrying his longtime partner.

After he retired Charles moved to San Francisco where he became active with a local gay Episcopal group and served as bishop-in-residence at an Episcopal Church in San Francisco.

When the city began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in February, Charles and his partner of two years, Felipe Sanchez Paris, took the plunge.

But, this week Charles was informed that his license to officiate at church services or preside over the church's sacramental ceremonies was revoked by San Francisco Bishop William Swing.

Charles says he can't figure out why the action was taken, but he thinks that an article in the San Francisco Chronicle about his wedding had something to do with it.

He said that Swing, who has in the past been a supporter of gays, was informed two weeks before the wedding that the couple was planning to wed.

Swing supported the election of Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire and has endorsed blessing ceremonies for same-sex couples.

The Episcopal Church has been under siege from within as conservatives threaten a schism over what they see as a liberalization in the faith's position on gays.

The church where Charles and Sanchez Paris were married is also under investigation to determine if it broke church rules.

posted by Anthony # 9:01 AM

by David Crary
The Associated Press

Posted: May 9, 2004 4:18 pm. ET

They hope for the right to marry -- someday, for the sake of their infant twins. Today, however, two lesbian couples on opposite sides of America are savoring the here-and-now joys of their first Mother's Day as mothers.

"We're going to wake up as late as we can, and take our day really slow and just appreciate the experience so far and the experiences yet to come," said Rebecca Rodriguez of Oakland, Calif. "We're so grateful to have two children in our lives."

Rodriguez' partner, Yvonne Day, gave birth Jan. 18 to twins Benicio and Adela, more than two years after first trying to become pregnant through artificial insemination.

St. Petersburg, Fla., partners Mica Garretson and Shannon Anderson tried even longer -- more than three years -- and persevered even after a miscarriage by Garretson. She delivered redheaded twins Abbie and Bo on March 17.

"We're so excited having Mother's Day," Anderson said. "We had to have a budget -- otherwise we'd go overboard buying gifts for each other because we're finally moms."

Both couples said their decision to have children was not directly linked to the fast-moving national developments regarding same-sex marriage.

Yet the four new mothers echoed the views of fertility experts and parenting counselors across the country -- that the marriage debate has provided lesbian and gay would-be parents with both long-term optimism about their chances and a keener sense of short-term challenges.

Betsy Cairo runs Cryogram Colorado, a sperm bank in Loveland, Colo., that has served a steadily increasing number of lesbian couples.

"We certainly have more women coming forward, being candid about their sexuality, looking for a gay-friendly environment," she said. "We're getting calls from Texas, Louisiana, Bible Belt states, saying. 'Hey, do you know a physician who works with same-sex couples?"'

Cairo guessed that most of these couples would decide to have children regardless of how the marriage debate unfolds.

"What marriage would do for them is make all of it easier," she said. "They have to go through so much pre-birth legal stuff now -- that's a huge burden."

Even in Massachusetts, on the verge of authorizing same-sex marriage, many couples are tentative because of political uncertainty, said Liz Coolidge. She coordinates lesbian and gay family and parenting services at Boston's Fenway Community Health Center, which two decades ago was among the first places in the nation to help lesbians and other single women bear children.

"If people want to have kids, they're going ahead and doing it anyway," said Coolidge. "Marriage could make things much stronger for their families -- but couples have a lot of questions about the legal implications."

At the Broadway United Methodist Church in Chicago, the Rev. Gregory Dell serves as consultant to a prospective-parents group that consists largely of lesbian couples.

"The number of same-sex couples now considering parenthood has at least tripled in the past few years," he said. "What I'm hearing from them is, 'There's another part of our relationship that we want to explore -- how well we work together as parents."'

He said lesbian prospective mothers have the same yearnings and worries as heterosexual women, but complicated by three distinct factors: choosing among the varied methods for having a child, resolving legal uncertainties, and wondering how their new, no-father families will be viewed by relatives and acquaintances.

"These couples discover fairly quickly there's no way they are afforded the same protections as a straight couple," Dell said. "It's a very unjust system in my mind, but a hard-nosed reality that they have to sort through."

Dr. Mark Sanchez is co-director of the Florida Fertility Institute in Clearwater, Fla., and helped Mica Garretson become pregnant. Because Florida law prohibits gays and lesbians from adopting, he advises same-sex couples to consult with an attorney on how best to ensure that both partners have the strongest possible legal ties to their children.

"Sometimes one woman provides eggs for fertilization, and the other carries the baby," Sanchez said. "Florida law recognizes only the woman who delivers as the parent, even though the other woman is the genetic parent, and that can become a sticky situation."

Garretson, 36, and Anderson, 38, have been partners for 11 years. They had a "holy union" ceremony at their church in Kansas City, Mo., six years ago, moved to Florida two years later and soon began efforts to have a child.

Initially, Anderson hoped to bear the child, but her insurance did not cover in-vitro fertilization. Garretson was covered, became a client of the Florida Fertility Institute, and bore Abbie and Bo on St. Patrick's Day.

They consider their family as valid as any, even though Florida law bars Anderson from becoming the twins' legal adoptive mother. They have talked about getting married in Canada -- or Massachusetts if it decides to accommodate out-of-state couples -- not to put a stamp of approval on their own partnership but because of the potential legal benefits for their children.

"We always wanted to have a family," Anderson said. "People kept telling us we were crazy. But it's the greatest thing -- it's everything we thought, plus more."

"There are times when it hasn't quite hit us that we're really moms," said Garretson, a computer software consultant. "Then you pick them up, and they actually smile at you, and you realize what a miracle it is."

Like their counterparts in Florida, Rodriguez, 31, and Day, 28, are in no rush to legalize what they already consider to be a committed marriage. What they do want are legal and financial protections for their twins, comparable to those afforded any other children.

"What's disheartening is all the backlash to gay marriage, the homophobia that's coming out of Washington," said Rodriguez, who works at a youth health center. "My way to deal with that is concentrate on my family, live day to day. When the government decides to recognizes us, fine."

The two Oakland women have been partners for eight years, and sensed all along that they would become parents together. After months of false starts, Day, a graphic designer, became pregnant with sperm from an anonymous donor -- selected because he shared Rodriguez' Latino background.

The high point of motherhood so far? Day concurred with Garretson: "When they smile. ... That's the best."

posted by Anthony # 9:00 AM

May 6, 2004
New York Times
By THOMAS CRAMPTON

To anyone who thought that the fight for same-sex marriage rights started this year around Valentine's Day at San Francisco's City Hall, the grainy scenes from 1971 that open the documentary film "Tying the Knot" will be a revelation.

Longhaired protesters in bell bottoms, armed with a guitar and bearing a wedding cake, force their way into the clerk's office in New York's City Hall demanding marriage rights for homosexuals.

After one answers the clerk's phone to decline a request for a heterosexual wedding license, the protesters dance, do a singalong and finally peacefully file out.

"Seeing that people already started fighting for these same rights 30 years ago will surprise many people," said Jim de Sève, the film's director. "I think people will also be surprised by the power of marriage in a legal sense."

News clippings from more recent events in the movement for same-sex marriage rights — including the legalization of gay marriage in Canada and the Netherlands — appear throughout the documentary, which had its premiere this week at the TriBeCa Film Festival, where it will be shown again on Saturday afternoon at 2 at Regal Entertainment's UA Battery Park Stadium 11. Tying the film together is the trail of troubles faced by the surviving partners of two long-term homosexual relationships.

One is a lesbian police officer whose partner, also a policewoman in Tampa, Fla., was gunned down in the line of duty by a robber.

Although the two had been married in a ceremony a decade earlier and were openly acknowledged as a couple at the funeral, Mickie, the surviving partner, faces difficulty getting Lois's pension.

The other story involves an Oklahoma farmer, Sam, whose partner of 22 years, Earl, died, leaving him the ranch in his will. A distant relative contests the will and forces Sam into a court battle in which same-sex partners have no legal standing.

Started more than three years ago with a grant from the Jerome Foundation in St. Paul, the documentary was originally intended to highlight the personal struggle faced by Mr. de Sève and his partner of five years, Kian Tjong, over whether to marry.

"My point of reference for marriage has always been my parents," said Mr. Tjong, who was a producer on the film. "In doing the film I learned about the risks that a couple faces without marriage."

The filmmakers appear in the final cut only as off-camera voices asking occasional interview questions, and the film itself studies the meaning of marriage.

"We still wanted to answer the initial question `Should we marry?' " Mr. de Sève said. "Yes, we should marry, and we want to marry because that would be society's acceptance of the reality of our lives."

Many fears about allowing gays to marry are based on the notion that the institution of marriage has remained unchanged through the ages, Mr. de Sève said.

The film shows marriage as evolving from an event centered around the exchange of property in the Middle Ages to one linked to the notion of romantic love in the 19th century.

Highlighting the importance that property once held over love in marriage, E. J. Graff, author of "What Is Marriage For?" (Beacon Press, 1999), tells the camera, "The proverb goes: `He who marries for love has good nights and bad days.' "

One tightly edited sequence draws parallels with the civil rights movement, as a longtime gay-marriage advocate, Evan Wolfson, describes the legal battle fought by a mixed-race couple to have their marriage recognized by Virginia in the 1950's.

The historic arguments used against mixed-race marriage — society will fall apart, it is too costly, it is bad for children — are echoed in news clips of comments on the floor of Congress during a recent debate on same-sex marriage.

"The frame around the debate on marriage rights has not changed," Mr. de Sève said. "This is the new civil rights movement."

posted by Anthony # 9:20 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: May 7, 2004 11:26 a.m. ET

(Salem, Oregon) Oregon's Attorney General has asked a Portland court judge to suspend his ruling that the state must recognize more than 3,000 same-sex marriages.

Circuit Judge Frank Bearden said in an April 20 ruling that the state was acting illegally in refusing to register the marriages. Bearden also ordered that no more marriage licenses be issued to gay couples until the courts and the legislature determine how to proceed.

In a motion filed Thursday, Attorney General Hardy Myers said that while the courts and legislature decide the future of same-sex marriage in the state the licenses of those couples already married should remain sealed.

If the legislature moves to block same-sex marriage, or if the courts rule against gay and lesbian couples, by registering the 3,000 marriages already performed there would be inequity.

It is likely that the issue will ultimately end up in the state supreme court barring a last minute constitutional amendment to tie the hands of the justices.

Multnomah County began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in March but stopped following judge Bearden's ruling.

posted by Anthony # 9:16 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: May 7, 2004 2:15.m. ET

(Seattle, Washington) Telling a state court that same-sex couples in Washington need the protections and security that marriage provides, Lambda Legal and the Northwest Women's Law Center filed court papers Friday seeking a prompt ruling in the case without a trial.

Lambda Legal and the Northwest Women's Law Center filed a lawsuit two months ago on behalf of same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses in King County, arguing that denying marriage to same-sex couples violates the state Constitution's guarantees of equality, liberty and privacy for all Washingtonians.

The case was the first of its kind to be filed in Washington since the Massachusetts high court ruled that same-sex couples are entitled to full marriage under that state's Constitution.

"Today, we're telling the court that the legal issues in this case are clear. Couples in Washington shouldn't have to wait through a long legal process to get the protections they need, and that only marriage can provide," said Jennifer C. Pizer, Senior Staff Attorney in Lambda Legal's Western Regional Office.

"This case seeks full marriage for lesbian and gay couples in Washington ? nothing more and nothing less."

Attorneys for King County and Washington State have agreed to respond promptly to today's motion for summary judgment in the case. Lambda Legal and the Northwest Women's Law Center are asking the court to hold oral argument and to decide the case quickly after the briefs are filed.

Yesterday, Lambda Legal filed appeal papers in its lawsuit seeking marriage equality for same-sex couples in New Jersey, putting that state at the front of the line for an answer on marriage for gay and lesbian couples.

In New York, Lambda Legal represents five same-sex couples seeking the right to marry. Together with NCLR and the ACLU, Lambda Legal is also representing ten couples in California seeking the right to marry (and working to ensure that marriages of same-sex couples in San Francisco earlier this year are respected).

"Since that first day in San Francisco when lesbian and gay couples began getting married, the nation has again been asked whether it's really fair to deny marriage to loving couples and whether anyone else is really harmed when these couples get married," said Pizer.

"In Washington, same-sex couples can see that just to their north, in Canada, their relationships can be fully respected, but they are treated like legal strangers at home. Our clients pay taxes in Washington, and they want to take their vows in Washington," she said

Until Massachusetts begins issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in
10 days, there is no place where same-sex couples can get married in the United States, as officials in San Francisco; Portland, Oregon; New Paltz, New York; and Sandoval County, New Mexico, were all ordered to stop issuing licenses to same-sex couples. But Canada has been issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples since last summer.

Washington is among 38 states with laws explicitly prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying.

posted by Anthony # 9:15 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: May 7, 2004 8:03:pm. ET

(Augusta, Maine) The Maine Senate has approved legislation barring the state from recognizing the marriages of same-sex couples performed outside the state. The bill has already passed the House and now goes to Gov. Elias Baldacci.

The legislation was created after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled last year that gay couples may marry. The ruling goes into effect May 17.

Maine already has legislation barring same-sex marriage, but supporters of the new bill say the existing law leaves open the possibility of gay couples crossing the state line and marrying in Massachusetts.

The new bill, however, raises the possibility of civil unions.

In addition, last month the state passed a domestic partner law. The measure provides inheritance rights, next-of-kin status, victim's compensation, and guardian and conservator rights to domestic partners.

posted by Anthony # 9:14 AM

by Margo Williams
365Gay.com Newscenter
Boston Bureau

Posted: May 7, 2004 8:03:pm. ET

(Boston, Massachusetts) The Supreme Judicial Court Friday delivered yet another blow to opponents of same-sex marriage. The court unanimously rejected an appeal by 13 state lawmakers to reverse its landmark ruling legalizing gay marriage.

The legislators, both Republicans and Democrats, were represented by the conservative American Center for Law and Justice founded by televangelist Pat Robertson. The appeal said that the Supreme Judicial Court does not have jurisdiction over marriage.

The suit said that only the Legislature and governor are empowered to determine marriage laws.

But the high court disagreed saying the assertion was erroneous. The court also said, in a written decision, that the motion was untimely, because the case had already been decided and that the same arguments had been raised by others and rejected during the court process.

Challenges to the ruling that lets same-sex couples begin receiving marriage licenses May 17 are not over.

Former Boston Mayor and Vatican Ambassador Ray Flynn has also filed a motion with the court to vacate its ruling. Flynn's argument is similar to that of the 13 members of the Legislature. It will be heard in Suffolk Superior Court next week.

Earlier this week a petition to the court to delay the start of same-sex marriages for two years was also rejected.

The same-sex marriage issue has also sparked a war of words between Governor Mitt Romney and municipal clerks over whether licenses can be given to out-of-state gay couples.

The governor wants clerks to refuse licenses to couples from outside Massachusetts, citing a 1913 law. This week a group of state senators tabled legislation to repeal the law with Romney threatening to veto the repeal if it is passed.

posted by Anthony # 9:14 AM

by Margo Williams
365Gay.com Newscenter
Boston Bureau

Posted: May 6, 2004 11:08 a.m. ET
Updated: May 6, 2004, 5:08 p.m. ET

(Boston, Massachusetts) A group of Massachusetts state senators are backing a bid to repeal a 1913 law that Governor Mitt Romney says prevents out-of-state gay couples from marrying in Massachusetts.

Senator Jarrett T. Barrios (D-Cambridge) the only out member of the Senate, and Senator Stanley C. Rosenberg (D-Amherst) have tacked the repeal onto a budget bill that comes up for a vote next week, just days before same-sex couples will be legally able to marry in the state.

By adding the repeal to an existing bill Barrios and Rosenberg have been able to avoid lengthy hearings on the issue.

The 1913 law says that the state cannot marry an out-of-state couple if that marriage would be void in the couple's home state. It was passed to prevent out-of-state interracial couples from marrying before laws blocking weddings between blacks and whites was stuck down by the U.S. Supreme Court. The law has remained on the Massachusetts books but has been seldom used.

Romney, a foe of gay marriage dusted off the old law and told clerks across the state it must be followed. This week the governor backed down on a demand that clerks seek proof of residency before issuing licenses to gay couples, but is still requiring couples to sign an affidavit affirming that they live in the state or intend to do so.

The move to repeal the 1913 law has the support of as large number of Democrats and some Republicans but it is unclear if they have enough votes necessary to pass it according to the Boston Globe. And, even it they do they will have trouble getting it past the governor.

One Republican who opposes gay marriage said he would support the repeal.

"I think that particular law is somewhat archaic," said Senator Brian P. Lees (R-East Longmeadow).

"For years, it has not been enforced with heterosexual couples," Less told the Globe.

Lees said that repeal would end discrimination in state law while at the same time not necessarily benefit out-of-state gay couples because they would be returning to states where their marriage isn't recognized.

But, Thursday afternoon, Romney said that even if the bill is passed he would veto it. The governor's position is a marked reversal from earlier statements on the issue. In the past he indicated he would not oppose repeal. The governor is on record saying that it is his obligation to enforce the laws that are on the books and that if gay-marriage supporters want to stop him from enforcing this law, they should work for its repeal.

posted by Anthony # 12:28 AM

by Beth Shapiro
365Gay.com Newscenter
New York Bureau

Posted: May 6, 2004 1:58 p.m. ET

(Trenton, New Jersey) A suit challenging a New Jersey law that prevents same-sex marriage will be heard by the state Court of Appeals.

The appeal brief was filed today by Lambda Legal on behalf of seven lesbian and gay couples seeking full marriage.

The suit began in 2002 and is based solely on the New Jersey Constitution. "New Jersey's Constitution requires the state to treat everyone equally, and gay couples aren't treated equally as long as they can't marry," said David Buckel, director of Lambda Legal's Marriage Project and lead attorney in this case.

The appeal follows a lower-court decision late last year in favor of the state, just as the lower court ruled in Massachusetts before that state's high court ruled that same-sex couples must receive marriage licenses starting May 17.

"With Massachusetts couples about to get married, all eyes will turn to New Jersey for a big breakthrough in this historic time," said Buckel.

The seven couples in the case are hoping for a speedy ruling so that the case can move to the state Supreme Court which will make the final decision.

"More and more these last few weeks, people have been asking us if we are going to Massachusetts to get married. We hope to be able to say our vows right here in New Jersey by this time next year," said Karen Nicholson-McFadden, one of the seven couples in the suit.

The seven plaintiff couples in the case have been together between 11 and 32 years. Five of the seven couples have children. All of them want and need the legal security that comes with marriage but has been denied to them.

Earlier this year New Jersey Gov. James E. McGreevey signed a domestic partner bill that will go into effect July1.

Under the new law, same-sex couples will be granted the right to collect the public pensions of deceased partners, guaranteed hospital visitation during illnesses, and qualify to receive health benefits in a partner's name.

But it will still deny many of the rights enjoyed by married couples.

It will not make gay couples eligible for any of the federal benefits of marriage, nor would it give partners the same property rights as married spouses or many child custody rights and obligations heterosexual couples have. It also will not force businesses to offer health coverage to same-sex partners of employees but would require insurance companies to make it available.

Lambda Legal is also involved in marriage equality lawsuits in New York, California and Washington State.

posted by Anthony # 12:27 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: May 6, 2004 5:08 p.m. ET

(Nashville, Tennessee) A bill to amend the Tennessee Constitution to ban same-sex marriage has passed the state House of Representatives.

Tennessee already has legislation blocking gay marriage but supporters of the amendment say it could be overturned by judges.

The sponsor of the bill, Rep. Bill Dunn ( R-Knoxville) said he does not trust the state courts. Dunn said the Tennessee Supreme Court has a reputation for legislating from the bench.

Lawmakers voted 86-5 with no discussion to approve the Constitutional change. It must still be approved in three votes by the Senate in the current session, and then gain three approvals in both houses in the next session before going to voters.

The earliest the amendment could be placed on the ballot would be 2006.

posted by Anthony # 12:26 AM

by Rex Wockner
365Gay.com Editor-At-Large

Posted: May 6, 2004 5:08 p.m. ET

In the beginning there were eight candidates seeking the Democratic nomination for president and three of them were more pro-gay than John Kerry, who is opposed to same-sex marriage.

Now it is a given that Kerry will win the Democratic nomination in July in Boston. Where does he stand on gay issues?

. The federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act: "In 1985 ... I became the original sponsor and author of the gay civil-rights legislation in the United States Senate -- before Ellen DeGeneres, before Will & Grace, before anyone knew who Melissa Etheridge was, before there'd been a march on Washington, when it was radioactive. ... I have cosponsored ENDA and voted for it when it came before the Senate in 1996. I have also adopted a nondiscrimination policy for my congressional offices so that sexual orientation is not a factor in employment decisions."

. Inclusion of transgender people in ENDA: "I oppose discrimination of all kinds and my office policy prohibits discrimination in the workplace based on gender identity and expression. I believe that we should focus efforts on getting ENDA passed and signed into law, and I am concerned that adding gender identity and expression to the ENDA legislation is likely to significantly hinder that effort."

. Inclusion of "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" in federal hate-crime laws: "It is shameful that Americans still suffer as victims of hate crimes based on sexual orientation and gender and remain without protection at the federal level. I support S. 966, and voted for a similar amendment in 2000, which extends the definition of hate crimes to add actual or perceived sexual orientation and actual or perceived gender as protected categories."

. Same-sex marriage (1): "While I do not support gay marriage, I support civil unions and I believe that gays and lesbians should have full rights and equality under the law. ... Same-sex couples should be afforded the same rights and benefits as married couples ... including access to pensions, health insurance, family medical leave, bereavement leave, hospital visitation and survivor benefits. ... Additionally, I am one of six cosponsors of legislation to provide domestic-partnership benefits to gay and lesbian federal employees."

. Same-sex marriage (2): "It may well be that if we achieve civil unions ... then we may -- all of us -- progress ... to a place where there is a different understanding [on marriage]. But I think that one has to respect the current cultural-historical-religious perception [against same-sex marriage], and I respect it."

. Same-sex marriage (3): "Whether you call it marriage or not is up for grabs, but you have to have the rights. ... I think marriage is a term that kind of gets in the way of this discussion. But there is a distinction between church-sanctioned marriage and what rights the states give. A state itself can afford different rights. The rights is what's critical. It's equal protection under the law that is at stake here."

. Same-sex marriage (4): "Marriage to many people is obviously what is sanctified by a church. It's sacramental. Or by a synagogue or by a mosque or by whatever religious connotation it has. Clearly there's a separation of church and state here. ... Marriage is a separate institution. I think marriage is under the church, between a man and a woman, and I think there's a separate meaning to it."

. Same-sex marriage (5): "An equal-protection clause, I think, pertains to the rights you give to people, not to the name you give to something, so I'm for civil unions. That gives people the rights: the rights of partnership, the rights of inheritance of property, the rights of taxation and so forth. But I think there is a distinction between what we have traditionally called 'marriage' between a man and a woman and those rights. ... I believe very strongly that we can advance the cause of equality by moving toward civil unions. But that's where my position is at this point in time. What is distinct is the institutional name. Whatever people look at as the sacrament within a church or within a synagogue or within a mosque as a religious institution, there is a distinction. The civil state really just adopted that. It's the rights that are important, not the name of the institution."

* The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage: "While I continue to oppose gay marriage, I believe that today's decision calls on the Massachusetts state legislature to take action to ensure equal protection for gay couples. ... I believe the right answer is civil unions. I oppose gay marriage and disagree with the Massachusetts Court's decision."

. Social Security benefits for same-sex partners: "Support."

. Immigration rights for same-sex couples: "Support."

. The military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy: "In 1993, I was one of four senators who testified before the Armed Services committee that it was fundamentally wrong to continue to deny gay and lesbian Americans the right to participate in the armed forces of the United States."

. Is being gay a choice?: "I think it's entirely who you are from birth, personally. Some people might choose, but I think that it's who you are. I think people need to be able to be who they are. I have a friend who was married for many years and then the marriage dissolved and he came out and he announced that he was gay, and he lived this life of tension, and of great difficulty. And I don't think that's a kind of choice. I think that's being who you are. It's in your system. It's in your genes. ... I think that people have a right in America to be who they are, who they are born as, and we are all God's children, and that is my view."

posted by Anthony # 12:26 AM

GLOBE EDITORIAL

Boston Globe
By 0, 5/6/2004

DAN WINSLOW, chief legal counsel to Governor Romney, has brought a modicum of sanity, but not enough clarity, to the question of how city and town clerks must enforce a 1913 law that would bar out-of-state gay couples from getting married in Massachusetts. Winslow appears to understand that selectively enforcing the obscure law only against same-sex couples is a discrimination suit waiting to happen. By far the best resolution would be to repeal the law altogether and concentrate on helping gay marriages procede smoothly when they become legal on May 17.

Romney has been brandishing the 1913 statute -- which requires that marriages performed in Massachusetts to out-of-state couples be legal in their home states -- to discourage an imagined deluge of gay applicants after May 17. But for decades the law has been rarely, if ever, enforced. Some states, for example, do not allow first cousins to marry, and others have higher minimium age requirements. Yet town clerks virtually never take it upon themselves to investigate whether couples are cousins or demand proof of age. They should not now be required to examine utility bills or mortgage statements to satisfy themselves that same-sex couples are from Massachusetts.

Faced with a growing mutiny of city and town officials, including Boston's Mayor Thomas Menino, Winslow clarified at a training session in Barnstable on Tuesday that the marriage application itself is sufficient for clerks to be satisfied that couples are not violating the 1913 law. And he made allowances for couples with second homes in Massachusetts and for out-of-state couples who intend to live in Massachusetts in the future.

But the clerks are still in a difficult position. The new notice-of-intention forms provided by the state reprint the 1913 statute on the back and require the clerks to affirm that "no legal impediments" exist to the marriage.

The answer to that can be murky. What of New York, for example, where Attorney General Eliot Spitzer has said his state would recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere even though they are not explicitly legal in New York? Is that a "legal impediment" or not?

At its essence, the 1913 law is discriminatory. It was written to prevent mixed-race couples, and even divorced individuals, from obtaining marriage licenses in Massachusetts. It is a remnant from a different era when such discrimination was widely practiced. Now that the Supreme Judicial Court has declared discrimination against gay couples who want to marry unconstitutional, it is hard to see the point of enforcing the discriminatory laws of other states. Massachusetts should be proud of leading the nation in recognizing same-sex marriages, not clinging to moribund statutes to place obstacles in their way.

posted by Anthony # 6:44 AM

by Beth Shapiro
365Gay.com Newscenter
New York Bureau

Posted: May 5, 2004 11:18 a.m. ET

(New Paltz, New York) A supporter of New Paltz, N.Y. mayor Jason West coasted to victory Tuesday in a special election for a seat on the village Board that was seen as a major test of the mayor's popularity.

Michael Zierler defeated West foe Rick Remsnyder by a wide margin.

West had been criticized for his decision in February to begin marrying same-sex couples in the small village in the Hudson Valley north of New York City.

West was subsequently charged with 19 counts of violating New York State law and placed under a court order not to perform more marriages. The weddings went on though with two Unitarian ministers picking up where West left off. When the ministers were also charged gay positive religious leaders around the country protested.

The marriage spree in the village, home to the State University of New York, saw police costs skyrocket as New Paltz became a magnet for both pro and anti gay marriage supporters, angering some in the community.

Robert Hebel, a member of the village Board took West to court to get the restraining order has been an outspoken opponent of the mayor and backed Remsnyder's election bid. Had Remsnyder won it would have been considered a key victory for Hebel and a stinging rebuke of West.

Following the vote Remsnyder accused university students who voted in large numbers of skewing the results, saying they outnumbered "real" residents of the village.

"Students cannot think for themselves," he told the Freeman newspaper. "They do village elections as a political exercise or as a protest vote against what they see as the establishment."

Zierler, 45, discounted Remsnyder's contention that he represents only the students.

"I would not have won this election if I did not have a base of support that runs throughout the village," he said Tuesday night.

Three lawsuits are challenging New York state's ban on same-sex marriage.

11 same-sex couples including New York State Assemblyman Danny O'Donnell and his partner John Banta are asking a court to strike down the ban. O'Donnell is the brother of Rosie O'Donnell.

Both Empire State Pride and Lambda Legal also have cases pending.

posted by Anthony # 6:42 AM

by Mark Worrall
365Gay.com Newscenter
San Francisco Bureau

Posted: May 5, 2004 5:22 p.m. ET

(Sacramento, California) A bill to allow gay and lesbian couples to get marriage licenses in California is cautiously moving forward amid fears it may not reach the floor of the Assembly this session.

Yesterday, Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (D-Los Angeles) said it was doubtful the House would vote on it this year. Nunez, a supporter of same-sex marriage, said that "we have to pick our battles, and it's probably not a fight we engage in this year."

Nevertheless, he said it is an issue that he hopes to see passed during his tenure in the Assembly.

The author of the bill, Assemblymember Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) continues to lobby his colleagues but concedes he does not yet have enough votes to ensure passage.

"I don't want to bring it to the floor to see it fail or just to make a point," Leno told 365Gay.com. "When I bring it to the floor it is to win passage."

Leno said that if it isn't in this session, "I'll be back January first with a new bill."

The legislation won a landmark vote in committee last month when it became the first gay marriage bill to ever win approval in any legislative committee in the country.

Next Wednesday it goes before the Appropriations Committee. If it is approved it would then be up to the leadership to decide if it advances to the floor of the Assembly.

"Though our expectations are high and there's a lot of hope and excitement and expectation, this sort of social change does not always happen as fast as we like," Leno said.

"We have to be strategic and savvy as we move forward."

Geoffrey Kors, the executive director of Equality California said he hopes the legislation does make it to the floor this session. But, he notes, "at this time last year we didn't have enough votes for any LGBT bills....we're building on that and confident that in long run we will win," he told 365Gay.com.

posted by Anthony # 6:41 AM

by Doug Windsor
365Gay.com Newscenter
New York Bureau

Posted: May 5, 2004 8:07 p.m. ET

(New York City) New York City council overwhelmingly approved legislation Wednesday to require all city contractors to provide equal employment benefits to all employees, whether they are married or in domestic partner relationships.

The legislation requires contractors that do more than $100,000 of business each year with NYC to offer the equal benefits. It is expected to make health coverage available to tens of thousands of additional people in the New York City region and hundreds of thousands across the country.

Council passed the measure on a 43-5 vote.

But despite the big victory, the bill must still overcome the opposition of Mayor Bloomberg before it can become law.

Once a supporter but now an opponent, the Mayor is widely expected to veto the bill when it reaches his desk. That would force the Council into overriding the veto if it wants to enact the legislation. Speaker Gifford Miller and lead sponsor Councilmember Christine Quinn have said this is an action the Council is ready to take.

“The New York City Council came together today and said with a strong voice that all workers and their families should be treated equally by employers and that continued use of taxpayer dollars to fund discriminatory practices by NYC contractors in the area of employee benefits is no longer acceptable, said Empire State Pride Agenda Executive Director Alan Van Capelle.

The bill was first introduced on September 23, 2002 with less than a dozen Council sponsors and Mayor Bloomberg’s support for the issue in general, based upon the his response to the Pride Agenda’s 2001 candidate questionnaire when he ran for Mayor.

At the Pride Agenda’s October 2002 Fall Dinner, Mayor Bloomberg surprised the 1000 people in attendance by telling them he no longer supported the issue and would oppose the bill.

“Trying to use the City’s procurement dollars to advance social issues is just not productive,” said Bloomberg. He also cited a decrease in competition for contracts and a resulting increase in the cost of services.

Similar legislation is already in effect in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, Oakland, and the State of California.

posted by Anthony # 6:40 AM

by Doreen Brandt
365Gay.com Newscenter
Washington Bureau

Posted: May 6, 2004 12:01 a.m. ET

(Washington, D.C.) U.S. businesses are continuing to extend domestic partner health insurance benefits to gay and lesbian workers, with an average of three employers per day adding such coverage in 2003, according to a new report.

The survey, released today by the Human Rights Campaign Foundation also shows a sharp increase in company policies prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity.

"Companies across America continue to recognize that a key to success is treating employees equally," said HRC President Cheryl Jacques.

"By adding benefits and protections during a stormy economy, the private sector continues to demonstrate that treating employees fairly is good for the bottom line."

Overall, 1,067 private employers and colleges and universities added domestic partner benefits in 2003, including 25 of the Fortune 500, according to "The State of the Workplace for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Americans 2003." Thus, at the end of 2003, a total of 200 Fortune-listed companies, or 40 percent, offered domestic partner health insurance benefits.

"Companies that already offer domestic partner benefits are well-positioned to deal with legal marriage for same-sex couples," said Kim I. Mills, HRC's education director and editor of the report. "Companies that have yet to offer the benefits are well-advised to move forward."

The report found that the number of private employers offering DP benefits rose by 18 percent in 2003, the same rate as in 2002.

The report addresses the impact to employers of marriage for same-sex couples as well as proposed anti-marriage amendments at the state and federal level and notes that statewide and federal anti-marriage laws could restrict competitiveness for companies and decrease their flexibility to define their benefits programs.

"Employers that have implemented domestic partner benefits are likely to be prepared for scenarios in which an employee marries a same-sex partner and asks that the partner be treated as equal to a spouse by their employer for benefits eligibility," said Daryl Herrschaft, deputy director for HRC WorkNet and the report's lead author.

Herrschaft added: "There's also a positive trend regarding company policies that protect transgender employees against discrimination. The report shows that big business is definitely listening to calls for equal protection."

In 2003, 11 Fortune 500 companies modified their non-discrimination policies to include gender identity and/or expression, bringing the total to 26. This compares to 15 in 2002 and represents a 73 percent increase.

Some of the reports other findings include:
* Twelve cities and counties added health care
benefits for public employees' same-sex partners in 2003, bring the
total at yearend to 175, a 12 percent increase. The increase in 2002 was
6 percent.
* Seventy-two percent, or 360, of the Fortune 500
companies included sexual orientation in their non-discrimination
policies at the end of 2003, even though sexual orientation is not a
protected category under federal law. This compares to 333 in 2002 and
represents an 8 percent increase
* Half of all states and the District of Columbia
provided some level of protection from sexual orientation discrimination
in the workplace last year. Eleven states cover their public employees
and 14 states extend protections to the private sector.

posted by Anthony # 6:40 AM

Boston Globe
By and Yvonne Abraham, Globe Staff | May 5, 2004

HYANNIS -- Romney administration officials said yesterday that out-of-state gay couples who want to marry in Massachusetts do not have to show documents proving that they live here or plan to move here, a major shift from the governor's earlier stance on enforcing limitations on licensing gay marriage.

Under the guidelines, any gay couple claiming a Massachusetts address could be granted a license, because clerks would not be required to demand proof of residency.

Following a training session for about 70 clerks at the Barnstable Town Hall, which serves Hyannis and several other Cape Cod villages, Romney's general counsel, Daniel B. Winslow, said the clerks are entitled to ask for proof of residency, as long as they require it of all couples, gay and straight.

But he acknowledged that the governor has no plans to sanction clerks who decline to ask for documentation, because under state law a clerk merely "has to satisfy himself, by requiring affidavits or otherwise" that the couple is telling the truth.

The signed marriage application, which includes a statement of residency, qualifies as an affidavit, Winslow said.

"We've suggested to the clerks that the law allows them to ask for documentation," Winslow said after the presentation, which was closed to reporters and conducted with Barnstable police officers and a state trooper standing sentry at the doors. But, he added, they are "not required to look behind a person's oath."

Winslow's advice signals a shift in the way Romney intends to enforce a 1913 law that bars out-of-state couples from marrying here if the marriage would be void in their home state. That law was designed to uphold other states' bans on interracial marriage.

Because no other state allows same-sex marriage, that law would block gay couples from coming here to marry if they do not live or intend to live in Massachusetts, Romney contends. Previously, the administration had indicated that it would demand both the signature attesting to residency and the documents proving residency. On April 24, Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said that, as gay marriages begin taking place after May 17, city and town clerks would be specifically instructed by the state to require evidence of residency, and he cited driver's licenses, utility bills, telephone listings, deeds, and rental leases as examples of acceptable evidence. A sample of the new marriage license application form written by the Romney administration contained spaces for clerks to write in the specific documentation of residency offered by couples.

"We have taken the common-sense view that gay marriage is not legal anywhere in the United States except Massachusetts starting on May 17," Fehrnstrom said at the time. "That means gay marriage is for Massachusetts residents only, unless circumstances change."

But in recent days some municipal clerks, including Boston's, have threatened to defy the requirement that they demand a document proving the residency of marriage-license applicants. Since 1977, clerks have been specifically instructed by the state Department of Public Health not to ask for those documents.

"The law states that if a clerk can satisfy himself through an oath, an affidavit, that would be sufficient; that's what I have done for as long as I have been clerk," said the Plymouth clerk, Laurence Pizer.

It is not his responsibility to determine whether a couple is lying, he said. "I'm hoping that people don't perjure themselves, but it's not up to clerks to determine whether someone is telling a lie."

Both Winslow and Fehrnstrom said yesterday that the wide discretion given to clerks is not a change from the administration's earlier statements. They said city and town clerks who spoke of their refusal to ask for the evidence were premature, because the policy was not outlined in detail until yesterday.

"The governor said his intention is to uphold the law that prohibits out-of-state gay couples from marrying here," Fehrnstrom said. "And that is exactly the point of much of the instruction that the clerks received today. There are two ways to provide proof of residency. One is by showing documentation; the other is by swearing an oath."

After Winslow's presentation, Linda Hutchenrider, the Barnstable town clerk and president of the Massachusetts Town Clerks' Association, agreed that "it is not up to us to be the police for this whole particular project."

"If they are signing under oath that they are telling the truth . . . I can't question that," she said.

Because it won't require clerks to ask for proof of residency, the administration is pointedly reminding them that issuing a marriage license to a gay or lesbian couple from out-of-state might end up creating serious legal complications for the couple. In his presentation, Winslow pointed out that a marriage without legal standing might affect the rights of children and come back to haunt the couple in a wrongful-death action, a divorce, or an estate challenge.

"The consequences of failure to abide by the law are just so great," he said. "We're going to operate under the assumption that clerks will act in accordance with the training and are people of good will."

Despite his stern warnings, however, Winslow later refused to spell out what sanctions, if any, clerks would face if they did not follow the law. State statues say that knowingly issuing a marriage license to a couple prohibited from marrying under the 1913 law carries a fine of between $100 and $500 or up to a year in prison or both. But according to Winslow's explanation of the law, clerks can't be compelled to do more than they do now to confirm residency.

Neither Winslow nor Romney's spokeswoman Shawn Feddeman would say whether penalties might be imposed on out-of-state couples who lie on their applications. Under Massachusetts law, the maximum penalty for lying on a marriage application is $100.

Those penalties are far lighter than those for other kinds of perjury. Under state law, "lying in a judicial proceeding or in a proceeding in a course of justice" may be punished with up to 20 years in state prison or a fine of up to $1,000 or up to 2 1/2 years in jail or by a combination of jail time and a fine.

Perjury on a marriage application is clearly considered a lesser crime according to the statutes, said Leonard Kopelman, a lawyer whose firm, Kopelman and Paige, advises many of the state's municipalities.

"I think the Legislature was trying to tell us something here," he said "You lie in court, and somebody goes to jail for it. That's very serious, and you've hurt other people. If you lie on this application, you've violated the law, but to what level are you hurting other people? These are social questions I can't answer, but I suspect what the Legislature had in mind is a difference in the quality of what is going on here."

Mary Bonauto -- legal director of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, which brought the gay-marriage case before the Supreme Judicial Court -- said yesterday's presentation made it clear that "the governor had to bow to past practice, and the law, with respect to accepting people's oaths about their residence." But she continued to bristle at Romney's interpretation of the 1913 law, which she described as "extreme and overreaching."

"He is still putting the clerks in the position of enforcing his discriminatory view of the law," she said. "The roadblock is still up."

Winslow's presentation gave an indication that applying the 1913 law will be no clear-cut affair.

For example, he told clerks that applicants with more than one residence can choose which to write on the application form. Among the examples of those with more than one residence are college students who live at their parents' homes in the summer but on campus during the year; a person who owns properties in three different states and resides in each at different times of the year; or a person who resides in Massachusetts during the warmer months and in Florida in the colder months.

posted by Anthony # 8:40 AM

May 5, 2004
New York Times
By PAM BELLUCK and KATIE ZEZIMA

BOSTON, May 4 — In the face of protests from cities and towns around the state, the administration of Gov. Mitt Romney appears to be softening its approach to excluding same-sex couples of other states from marrying in Massachusetts.

On May 17, the state is scheduled to become the first to legalize gay marriage. Mr. Romney, a Republican who opposes same-sex marriage, said last month that out-of-state gay and lesbian couples could not marry here because of a 1913 statute that says the state cannot marry people if their marriage would be void in their home state.

The governor interpreted that law, which was born in part from an effort to prohibit interracial marriages, to mean that gay couples from any other state, even one that does not explictly ban gay marriage, cannot marry in Massachusetts.

At the time, Mr. Romney said he would require town clerks to ask couples for proof of residency and proof of where they intended to live. But on Tuesday, at a state-run training session for town clerks, Mr. Romney's legal counsel, Daniel B. Winslow, told the clerks that they did not necessarily have to ask for such proof.

As long as a couple signs the marriage license application form, which includes an oath that their statements about residency and other issues are true, a clerk does not have to ask for proof, Mr. Winslow said. "A clerk is not required to look behind the person's oath about their intention to marry," Mr. Winslow said outside the training session in Hyannis.

He said that while Mr. Romney's administration would prefer that clerks ask for documents like mortgages or utility bills to verify whether a couple lived or intended to live in Massachusetts, it would allow the clerks to simply accept the form. As a result, only if an out-of-state couple says that they plan to continue to live out of state is a clerk required to reject their marriage application.

In recent days, officials from a number of cities and towns, including Boston and Springfield, said they were uncomfortable with having to demand proof of residency and were considering refusing to do so. Officials from Worcester, another large city, had already said they would not demand that out-of-state couples prove where they were from or where they intended to live.

Clerks and mayors in these and other municipalities said they had never been asked to require such documentation from heterosexual couples, and they were concerned that asking same-sex couples for it would be discriminatory.

"It comes down to discrimination," said Bill Metzger, the Springfield city clerk. "It doesn't matter how one feels about same-sex marriages. It's a matter of the law."

Wendy Mazza, the Northampton city clerk, said, "They're signing the intention under the pains and penalties of perjury." She added, "And that's as far as it should go, instead of us being the perjury police."

Lawrence Pizer, the clerk in Plymouth, who attended Tuesday's session, said he was heartened that he could accept a signed affidavit, as he always had with heterosexual couples. "It's an issue of fairness, and I also believe the affidavit is the strongest piece of evidence you can have," he said. "It's not up to the clerks to determine if someone is lying."

Mary Bonauto, a lawyer who won the case establishing same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, said she still objected to the governor's broad interpretation of the 1913 law, which she said would still preclude most out-of-state couples from marrying.

"We would never counsel someone to say they do reside in Massachusetts or they intend to reside in Massachusetts if they don't," Ms. Bonauto said, adding that she expected legal challenges to be brought against the 1913 law. "I don't think Massachusetts has any basis under our equality principles for enforcing discriminatory laws against other states."

posted by Anthony # 8:03 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: May 4, 2004 11:22 a.m. ET
Updated: May 4, 2004 3:31 p.m. ET

(Oklahoma City, Oklahoma) Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry Monday signed legislation barring adoptions by gay couples from out of state.

Same-sex Oklahoma couples were already prevented from adopting, although singles gays may become the parent of adoptive children. The new law removes a loophole that had allowed same-sex partners in states where co-adoption is legal to seek children in Oklahoma.

The legislation stemmed out of a March controversy in which the Oklahoma Health Department refused to issue a birth certificate for a child adopted by a gay couple who live in Seattle, Washington.

Lambda legal threatened to take the Department to court, but after the state Attorney General said Oklahoma's adoption code requires the state to recognize out-of-state adoption decrees involving gay couples the new birth certificate was issued.

The new law says that only one person in a gay household could be recognized as the legal parent of any child adopted in Oklahoma.

Lambda said the legislation will punish children for the sake of scoring political points.

"By it's plain language, if a couple moves from Vermont or California or Canada with a child adopted by both partners, the adoption would be unenforceable in Oklahoma by either parent," Lambda attorney Brian Chase told 365Gay.com

"The language could make orphans out of kids who have been adopted into loving homes. The law could make it difficult or impossible to register a child for school, visit a child in the hospital, or make financial plans to ensure a child will be provided for in the event of an emergency."

Chase said that Lambda is prepared to fight the law, arguing among other things the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. constitution which guarantees that "Full faith and credit shall be given in each other state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state."

"An adoption is a final judgment by a court," said Chase, "and, under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, those adoptions must be respected by sister states. Any other system would introduce chaos into families by severing parental ties as families travel from state to state."

The sponsors of the law, Sen. James Williamson (R-Tulsa) and Rep. Susan Winchester (R-Chickasha) are also pushing for an amendment in the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

posted by Anthony # 8:02 AM

by Margo Williams
365Gay.com Newscenter
Boston Bureau

Posted: May 4, 2004 5:16 p.m. ET

(Boston, Massachusetts) A war of wills is emerging in Massachusetts over issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples from outside the state with Gov. Mitt Romney threatening clerks who disobey his ban.

But the threat rang hollow with most clerks and left the governor trying to put a positive spin on his position.

The state Tuesday began the first training sessions for clerks from across the state who will begin issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples in 12 days. As the meeting began the governor's lawyer reiterated Romney's directive that no marriage licenses can be given to couples who reside outside the commonwealth and threatened "repercussions" for any clerk who disobeyed.

But, lawyer Daniel Winslow did not say what those repercussions would be, and admitted it would be difficult to sanction or charge clerks. Some clerks accused the governor of "posturing".

Romney a foe of gay marriage is using a 1913 law says marriage licenses cannot be issued to out-of-state couples if their marriages would be "void" in the couples' home states. The until now seldom used law dates back to a period when interracial marriage was illegal.

Clerks were told Tuesday that effective May 17, when same-sex couples can obtain marriage licenses under a ruling by the Supreme Judicial Court, that they must seek proof of residency or the intention to move to Massachusetts from both gay and straight couples.

During the meeting clerks were shown the state's new intent-to-marry forms, which are gender neutral but include a place to show what proof of residence was provided.

But, the form also allows for a sworn statement at the bottom of marriage forms in lieu of specific documentation of proof of residency or intended residency in the state. And, once the sworn statement is signed by a couple, the clerk is only responsible for being assured it is authentic.

That say most lawyers lets clerks off the hook but could land couples who lie in legal hot water.

Whether Romney has the legal power to require residency status for marriage will likely be decided by a court.

Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino has already asked city lawyers to determine if the Governor has the power to issue the directive.

Menino, a supporter or gay marriage, says that if the city's legal department determines the governor lacks the authority to carry out his threats Boston will marry any couple who applies for a license.

"It's a matter of civil rights," Menino told 365Gay.com. "I want all people to be treated fairly."

Other cities said they may also refuse to follow the governor. The clerks of Lowell, north of Boston, and Northampton west of the city, told 365Gay.com they too are seeking opinions from their city's attorneys

"The governor's directive is just political theater," said Josh Friedes of the Boston-based Freedom to Marry Coalition. "He's appealing to the national stage."

"I think the governor's directive is legally suspect," Friedes told 365Gay.com, "and I am sure that civil rights lawyers will be taking a close look at it.

posted by Anthony # 8:01 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: May 4, 2004 8:11 p.m. ET

(Seattle, Washington) The Washington Court of Appeals has ordered a new trial for a woman seeking co-parental rights for the little girl she helped raise.

Mian Carvin and Page Britain met in 1989 and soon after began a relationship. In 1994 Britain was artificially inseminated and bore a daughter.

While Britain concentrated on her career, Carvin cared for their daughter.

But, seven years later the couple's relationship was on the rocks and they split up. Britain took the little girl, and Carvin was shut out of the child's life.

Last year a King County Superior Court Judge dismissed a petition by Carvin to be declared a parent saying that under the state's Uniform Parentage Act his hands were tied.

But, the appeals court while agreeing that under the act Carvin could not be considered a parent there were other sections of the law which could apply. In ordering a new trial, the three-judge panel said that Carvin could seek status as a "de facto or psychological parent" by presenting evidence of a parent-child relationship. Or, she could argue for "third party visitation" in the same way that a child's grandparents might.

"This case is about the relationship between my daughter and me," Carvin said in a written statement, "but it stretches beyond those boundaries to include people in similar situations."

The American Civil Liberties Union praised the ruling.

"This is wonderful news for gay parents and their children. The court recognized that being a parent is not just about blood ties," said Leslie Cooper, a staff attorney with the ACLU's Lesbian and Gay Rights Project.

"When two people who have chosen to raise a child together break up, the children involved should not be denied the love and support of a parent simply because that parent doesn't have a biological connection."

posted by Anthony # 8:00 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: May 4, 2004 8:11 p.m. ET

(Topeka, Kansas) For the second time legislators in Kansas have rejected a proposed amendment to the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

In March the Kansas Senate defeated the same bill after it had been passed in the House. But, last month, after pressure from conservative religious groups and right wing Republicans, lawmakers from both the House and Senate agreed write a single wide-ranging ban to be put to the two chambers, an action that usually comes only after separate bills have already passed each house.

The ban would have included civil unions and barred the state from providing any legal benefits to same-sex couples.

The new bill passed the Senate last weekend. But, today in the House, it failed by five votes.

Had it passed, the question would have been put to voters in November.

The state already has a Defense of Marriage Act that limits marriage to a man and a woman, but conservative lawmakers say it could be overturned by judges, pointing to Massachusetts where the state Supreme Court ruled preventing gays from marrying is unconstitutional.

posted by Anthony # 7:59 AM

by Malcolm Thornberry
365Gay.com Newscenter
European Bureau Chief

Posted: May 5, 2004 12:01 a.m. ET

(Madrid) The papal ambassador to Spain has made a stunning admission: The Vatican made a mistake in not supporting same-sex couples.

It is the first time that a high ranking official in the Catholic Church has questioned the official position that gay relationships are "evil and deviant" and indicates, Church-watchers say, a major crack in what was until now considered an impenetrable wall of opposition to gay unions.

"The new political situation in which we are living in Spain sets new challenges in the spreading of the gospel and we must meet those challenges in an appropriate manner," Monsignor Manuel Monteiro de Castro told a conference of Spanish bishops.

The speech shocked some in the audience, surprised the government, and gave hope to thousands of gay couples in what is considered Europe's most Catholic country.

But, Monteiro de Castro stopped just short of endorsing gay marriage saying that although the law in Spain, and many other countries, currently defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, "there are other forms of cohabitation and it is good that they be recognized".

"They are not the same as marriage," he said. "We will leave the term marriage for that which it has always referred to, and other arrangements should be given other names."

Monteiro de Castro said gay couples should be given access to certain civil rights, including those within the social security system. He added: "The church can also help them in their spiritual life."

Last month the Spanish government formally announced it will bring in legislation to legalize same-sex marriage.

posted by Anthony # 7:58 AM

May 4, 2004

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 1:21 a.m. ET

BOISE, Idaho (AP) -- Homosexuality should be no more of a factor when determining child custody than a health condition like epilepsy, the attorney for a gay father argued before the Idaho Supreme Court on Monday.

Theron McGriff of Idaho Falls appealed to the high court after a magistrate ruled in 2002 that he could no longer see his two daughters if he lived with his partner of many years.

``We feel it would be especially inappropriate for the court to get involved in the gender of Theron's partner,'' said Richard Hearn, representing McGriff. ``There is no evidence that this had any impact on the children.''

In 1938, Hearn said, the Idaho Supreme Court found that a mother could not be denied custody because she remarried three weeks after her divorce, though at the time such behavior was stigmatized. The court made a similar ruling when presented with a parent suffering seizures from epilepsy, Hearn said.

A county magistrate had sided with McGriff's ex-wife, Shawn Weingartner, in the case. She said she feared the children would suffer backlash in conservative Idaho Falls because of their father's sexuality. She wanted McGriff to undergo counseling about how to present his relationship to the girls.

Marie Tyler, representing Weingartner, told the high court that McGriff refused to speak to his ex-wife about the matter as the animosity between them grew.

``This is about a parent who refuses to cooperate and puts his needs ahead of his children,'' she said.

Some justices questioned the motives behind the custody dispute.

``The only thing I can find here are several allegations with regard to an intimate relationship with the same sex,'' said Justice Wayne Kidwell.

Chief Justice Linda Copple Trout noted that the children -- now ages 13 and 9 -- are fully aware that their father is gay.

Tyler and Weingartner have declined to talk to reporters.

Hearn and McGriff said outside the courthouse that they're optimistic the court will rule in McGriff's favor. A ruling is expected by the end of the year.

``My children were so young when I started dating my partner, they don't remember a time without him. They've told me that we've always been a family,'' McGriff said.

His partner is living with family members instead of in the home the two bought together, McGriff said.

posted by Anthony # 7:18 AM

May 4, 2004

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 1:14 a.m. ET

CINCINNATI (AP) -- A church court ruled that a Presbyterian minister did not violate church law by marrying same-sex couples, reversing a ruling by a lower court.

The permanent judicial commission of the Presbyterian Church (USA) synod that oversees churches in Ohio and Michigan ruled 6-4 that the denomination's constitution does not prohibit ministers from marrying same-sex couples.

The ruling, released Monday, reverses the lower church court's conviction of the Rev. Stephen Van Kuiken for marrying same-sex couples.

The constitution of the 2.5 million-member denomination defines marriage as a covenant between a man and a woman. The church's highest court ruled in 2000 that ministers may bless same-sex unions, but cannot marry those couples.

That interpretation makes same-sex marriages impermissible, but ``it avoids an outright prohibition by using the words 'should' and 'should not' in guidance for church bodies and ministers,'' the judicial commission ruled.

The commission also said that the 2000 ruling also fails to define the performance of a same-sex marriage by a minister as an offense subject to disciplinary trial.

The commission ordered that the lower court's decision be reversed and a rebuke of Van Kuiken dismissed.

The four dissenting commissioners called the decision ``an improper and unjustified attempt to rewrite the clear and unambiguous meaning'' of the section of the church's Book of Order that pertains to same-sex marriages. They said rewriting the section can only be accomplished by legislative amendment to the constitution.

Van Kuiken, a married heterosexual, was pastor of the Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church in Cincinnati when he was removed as pastor. He was later reinstated while his appeal was pending.

Van Kuiken was the first Presbyterian minister to be tried on accusations of marrying homosexuals.

``I am very grateful for the courage the commission has shown in reaching this landmark decision,'' Van Kuiken said Monday. ``A new era has dawned in the Presbyterian Church.''

Van Kuiken said he has nonetheless decided to resign from the Presbyterian Church (USA) and become pastor of a non-denominational congregation called The Gathering, made up of former members of Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church who left the church following his ouster.

``I choose to stand by The Gathering, as they have stood by me,'' he said.

posted by Anthony # 7:18 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: May 3, 2004 2:11 p.m. ET

(Cincinnati, Ohio) A Presbyterian ecclesiastical court has ruled that an Ohio minister did not break church law when he married several same-sex couples.

The ruling overturns a decision last year by a lower court that found the Rev. Stephen Van Kuiken guilty of violating the orders of the Church.

Van Kuiken was rebuked but not removed from the ministry as a result of the original trial.

Van Kuiken, 44, pastor of Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church in Cincinnati, said at the time that the Church is facing a crisis of theological intolerance.

He said he would continue to marry gay and lesbian couples and appealed his conviction.

In its ruling, released today, the synod court said that constitution of the Presbyterian Church does not specifically prohibit ministers from marrying same-sex couples.

It noted that while the faith's top court in 2000 had ruled that same-sex marriages are impermissible, "it avoids an outright prohibition by using the words 'should' and 'should not' in guidance for sessions and ministers."

The court ordered that the lower court's decision be reversed and a rebuke of Van Kuiken dismissed.

"A new era has dawned in the Presbyterian Church, a day for which we have waited and hoped," Van Kuiken told the Cincinnati Enquirer today.

The denomination has 2.5 million-members in the US.

On the weekend, the Methodist Church reaffirmed its position that "homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching" and has reopened the case of a lesbian pastor who came out to her bishop.

posted by Anthony # 7:17 AM

by Michael J. Meade
365Gay.com Newscenter
Boston Bureau

Posted: May 3, 2004 8:17 p.m. ET

(Boston, Massachusetts) A petition to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to delay the start of same-sex marriages for two years was rejected Monday by a single justice.

The Catholic Action League had asked Justice Roderick Ireland to issue a stay on the ruling by the full court that it was a violation of the Massachusetts Constitution to deny gay and lesbian couples the right to marry.

Same-sex couples will legally be able to get marriage licenses beginning May 17, but the legislature is considering a constitutional ban on gay marriage. It has passed one session of the legislature but needs to be passed a second time in the next session before going to voters. The earliest it could be put on the ballot would be 2006..

C.J. Doyle, the executive director of the Catholic Action League told Justice Ireland there would be pandemonium if the weddings go ahead, only to be annulled in two years.

"Legal chaos will be created by the issuance of same-sex `marriage' licenses before the issue goes to the citizens for a vote in 2006," Doyle said in an eight-page petition filed with the court.

The court, he added, "has a duty to avoid this inevitable conflict and confusion by simply staying the entry of its judgment pending the outcome of the amendment process."

But, Ireland disagreed, ruling that the League had no standing in the case to seek a delay.

Ireland went one step further in a veiled warning to other groups attempting to force the court to back away from its marriage ruling. He said that even if the League did have standing he would have denied the petition.

"Why should same-sex couples, who have been determined to have the right to marry under the Massachusetts Constitution as it exists here and now, be required to wait to exercise that right simply because the petitioner and others hope ... to be able to amend the Constitution and take away that right at some point in the future?'' Ireland said in his written ruling.

Justice Ireland was in the majority in the original same-sex marriage case.

Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney who also has been thwarted in attempts to delay gay marriages is facing a challenge to his directive that municipal clerks must not allow same-sex couples from outside Massachusetts to marry. On the weekend Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino asked city lawyers to determine if the Governor has the power to issue the directive.

If not, Boston is preparing to provide marriage licenses to anyone who applies.

posted by Anthony # 7:16 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: May 3, 2004 8:17 p.m. ET

(Boise, Idaho) The Idaho Supreme Court today heard the case of a gay dad who lost custody of his two children because he is gay and who was denied visitation rights as long as he lived with his same-sex partner.

Theron McGriff and his wife, Shawn McGriff, divorced six years ago when he came out. Under the divorce agreement Theron McGriff got custody of the two children.

But, when he met another man, fell in love and the two bought a home together, Shawn McGriff went back to court claiming a gay relationship wasn't in the best interest of their two daughters.

Bonneville County Magistrate L. Mark Riddoch removed the girls from Theron McGriff's custody and gave them to his ex-wife. Riddoch further ordered that the children not visit Theron McGriff as long as he lived with his partner.

In his ruling Riddoch said that Theron McGriff hadn't considered the impact his "lifestyle" would have on the girls, especially in their conservative and heavily Mormon city of Idaho Falls.

He also ordered him to pay all the legal fees in the case, estimated at more than $30,000.

The partner moved into a trailer on the property and Theron McGriff began an appeal with the help of the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

NCLR legal director Shannon Minter told the state Supreme Court Monday that the lower court judge committed procedural "improprieties"

Minter also reminded the five justices that in the past "Idaho courts have always held that bias against any particular group of people must not play a role in custody decisions."

"If gay parents are held to a different standard," Minter argued, "it would be a violation of Lawrence v Texas" the case in which the US Supreme Court ruled that gays are entitled to equal protection under the law.

"I think it went very well today," Minter told 365Gay.com. "The court was very prepared."

Minter said that the Idaho high court usually issues a ruling in cases in about six months.

posted by Anthony # 7:15 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: May 2, 2004 12:02 am. ET

(Seattle, Washington) More than 20,000 people demonstrated against same-sex marriage Saturday in Seattle's Safeco Field, but they had to walk a gauntlet of gay protesters to get inside.

Busloads of people from conservative Christian churches and groups throughout the state faced more than a thousand angry gay protestors who lined the route to the stadium entrance.

The gay protestors yelled for "the bigots to go home" and accused the organizers of bringing in out of state agitators to stir up the crowd.

Inside the stadium, the anti-gay rally, called Mayday For Marriage, resembled a revival meeting and that featured Focus on the Family leader James Dobson.

FOC is at the forefront of the national effort to ban gay marriage. Dobson denounced homosexuality and condemned same-sex marriage. He told the crowd they must act now to pass a constitutional amendment to prevent gays from marrying.

Organizers of the rally paid $120,000 to rent the stadium.

The stadium is owned by the Seattle Mariners and named for Safeco Insurance which pays the Mariners a license fee to have its name on the facility.

Gays say the stadium should never have been rented for the rally and plan to mount a campaign to get people to cancel their Safeco insurance policies, and return their baseball tickets.

Police report only one arrest, a man who failed to obey a police order to move.

posted by Anthony # 7:06 AM

by Margo Williams
365Gay.com Newscenter
Boston Bureau

Posted: May 3, 2004 12:01 am. ET

(Boston, Massachusetts) The city of Boston may refuse to adhere to a directive from Governor Mitt Romney that only gay couples who reside in Massachusetts can be issued marriage licenses.

Same-sex marriage becomes legal in the state next month, and Romney a foe of gay marriage has told clerks across the state that a 1913 law says that they cannot issue licenses to out-of-state couples if their marriages would be "void" in the couples' home states.

The law was passed to prevent out-of-state interracial couples from marrying before laws stopping weddings between blacks and whites was stuck down by the Supreme Court. The law has remained on the Massachusetts books and has been seldom used.

Last week the Republican governor sent letters to all other governors and attorneys general telling them that unless they specify same-sex couples can marry in their states those couples cannot marry in Massachusetts.

But. Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino, a Democrat who supports gay marriage, is said to be considering ignoring the governor. Officials in the mayor's office tell the Boston Globe that Menino has asked for as legal opinion.

If the city lawyers find they can legally justify disregarding the governor's directive Boston's clerk will be told to issue marriage licenses to any same-sex couple who applies.

The mayor has already begun preparations for an expected onslaught of gay and lesbians couples May 17, the first day same-sex couples can apply for licenses under the state Supreme Court ruling that legalized by marriage.

The Globe reports that an information booth will be set up outside city hall where couples will be given numbers to mark the order in which they'll be served. Inside the building about 20 city workers wearing "welcome" badges will be available at City Hall to answer questions.

In addition, the city is printing 3,000 full-color brochures, which will include a letter of congratulation from Menino and instructions on how to obtain marriage licenses. The brochures will contain information on how to get the three-day waiting period for a marriage license waived by a probate court judge, on finding justices of the peace to perform weddings, and on getting to city and town halls in Boston's suburbs if Boston finds itself backed up.

If the mayor goes ahead and ignores the governor it is expected Romney will go to court to force the city to adhere to the 1913 statute. But, by the time the case could be heard thousands of out-of-state couples could already be married.

Other communities in the state, including Provincetown are watching developments in Boston. Provincetown, one of the nation's most popular gay tourist spot was counting on extra business generated by weddings of out-of-staters.