|
Friday, May 28, 2004
Romney Seeks To Block Gay Marriages In 2 More Towns
by Associated Press
Posted: May 27, 2004 8:03 pm. ET
(Boston, Massachusetts) Gov. Mitt Romney's office has requested marriage documents from Attleboro and Fall River after clerks there acknowledged issuing licenses to out-of-state gay couples in defiance of the governor's residency requirement, the clerks said Thursday.
Romney press secretary Shawn Feddeman would not comment on the request, but said, ''Anytime we find reason to believe there are blatant violations of the law, we will refer them to the attorney general's office.''
The Republican governor warned clerks that the state would not recognize marriages by nonresident gay couples.
Soon after gay marriage became legal on May 17, Romney's office requested records from four other municipalities Provincetown, Somerville, Springfield and Worcester which had openly defied the residency law.
Officials in the four communities agreed to stop issuing licenses to out-of-state couples at least temporarily after receiving a cease-and-desist letter from Attorney General Thomas Reilly.
Unlike the other four, Attleboro and Fall River had not publicly announced their decision to issue licenses to out-of-state couples.
But Attleboro City Clerk Susan Flood said the city solicitor had authorized her to issue licenses to gay couples from the 11 states that have not adopted Defense of Marriage Acts that bar same-sex weddings.
Fall River City Clerk Carol Valcourt said the city's law department had made the decision that all comers would be given licenses as long they attested that there is no legal impediment to their marriage.
Both clerks said they planned to turn over the documents, as requested. Reilly's office said Thursday that the governor's office had not yet referred the cases to the attorney general.
French Mayor Vows Showdown Over Gay Wedding
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.
Gay Parents Battle Virginia Adoption Rules
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.
Thursday, May 27, 2004
Australia Bans Same - Sex Marriages, Gay Adoptions
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.
Provincetown Halts Out-Of-State Gay Marriages
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.
SF Mayor Confident Of Ultimate Gay Marriage Victory
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.
Pennsylvania Postpones Anti-Gay Marriage Vote Until After Nov. Election
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.
Missouri Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Gay Marriage Ban Case
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.
Australia To Ban Gay Marriage & Adoption
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.
Wednesday, May 26, 2004
California Supreme Court Considers Gay Marriage Licenses
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."
Supreme Court Upholds Gay Marriage Ban
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.
Only One Mass. Town Remaining For Out-Of-State Gay Couples
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.''
Laura Bush Told Discuss The Economy Not Changing The Constitution
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.
Oregon Suit Targets County Officials Who Allowed Gay Marriages
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.
Calif. Supreme Court Weighs Gay Marriages
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.
Arizona Supreme Court Refuses Anti-Gay DOMA Case
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.
Tuesday, May 25, 2004
Romney Anti-Gay Marriage Stand Sparks Commencement Student Protest
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.
Fundamentalists Use HiTech To Assail Gay Marriage
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.
Missouri Anti-Gay Amendment Heads To State Supreme Court
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.
GOP Senators Told To Use Memorial Day To Push Anti-Gay Amendment
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."
Monday, May 24, 2004
Newlywed Lesbian Couple Sues Doctor
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.
California Supreme Court This Week Hears Gay Marriage Case
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.
New Papal Assault On Gay Marriage
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.
Mass. City Continues To Ignore Out-Of-State Gay Wedding Ban
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
New Yorkers March For Gay Marriage Rights
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."
Gay Marriage In The Balance As Canada Prepares For Election
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.
Saturday, May 22, 2004
Halt Ordered to Marriages for Some Same-Sex Couples
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.
Stop The Gay Bashing Stonewall Democrats Tell GOP
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."
Judge Rules Timing Of Missouri Anti-Gay Amendment Not Up To Gov.
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.
New Court Battle Brewing Over Mass. Gay Marriages
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.
Friday, May 21, 2004
Romney turns to AG for halt to licensing
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.
Governor Seeks to Invalidate Some Same-Sex Marriages
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."
Catholics In Congress Denounce Church's Anti-Gay Stand
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."
After Three-Day Wait Mass. Couples Flock To Wed
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.''
Top Presbyterian Sees A Gay Future
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.
Missouri Attorney General Sues Sec. Of State Over Gay Marriage Ban
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.
Thursday, May 20, 2004
Losing Its Nonchalance, France Feuds Over Gay Vows
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.
Senate votes to end 1913 law
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 lesbia |