VOLUME 4, ISSUE 4 Jan 27 — February 2, 2005
POLITICS
GAY CITY NEWS
By ANDY HUMM
The New York State Department of Taxation and Finance is invoking the federal Defense of Marriage Act to stop legally wed same-sex couples in New York from filing as married.

The office of state Attorney Gen. Eliot Spitzer, which issued an opinion last year that New York should honor the marriages of such couples wed in Canada and elsewhere, has refused to get involved in this controversy, a stance one legal advocate called “a dodge.”

Tom Bergin, spokesman for the tax department, said, “For purposes of filing in New York, we recognize the Defense of Marriage Act because that is what the IRS does. We follow federal guidelines.”

New York State law requires taxpayers to use the same filing status on their state returns that they use on their federal forms. In Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage is legal, same-sex married couples are required to file as married, filing either jointly or separately, while filing as single with the Internal Revenue Service. They are also required to figure their state tax by calculating what they would have paid Uncle Sam were they allowed to file as married.

State Comptroller Alan Hevesi used Spitzer’s opinion last year in ruling that the state pension fund, for which he is the sole trustee, will recognize legally married same-sex spouses.

Juanita Scarlett, press secretary for Spitzer, said, “We don’t have anything to do with the state tax department.” She added, “In terms of taxation, we enforce the laws on the books.” She repeatedly said that any comment on tax law relating to gay married people would have to come from the tax department.

James Esseks, litigation director for the Lesbian and Gay Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, said that the tax department was “not following the attorney general’s opinion” last year that these marriages should be honored by the state, and that Spitzer’s refusal to comment on the department’s decision not to recognize his finding was “a dodge.” Esseks acknowledged, however, that Spitzer’s opinion “is not binding on anybody.”

Alphonso David, a staff attorney with Lambda Legal Defense who heads a working group on gay tax issues, said, “New York has a well-established rule that a marriage validly entered into in another jurisdiction must be respected as valid in New York, even if the two parties could not have married in New York under the Domestic Relations Law.” He noted many insurers and towns in New York that are already recognizing legal same-sex marriages.

“Out-of-state same-sex marriages of New York same-sex couples have already been respected here in New York for purposes of employment, insurance, public accommodations and pension benefits,” David said. “For the state to now say that all these couples are married for these purposes but not for state tax purposes is not only unfair but blatantly hypocritical.”
Lambda is working on reversing the tax department’s decision.

David said that he did not know if Spitzer could compel the tax department to recognize gay married couples, but said, “He has to defend them if they are sued.”

Gay City News contacted many of the people aspiring to replace Spitzer as attorney general when he runs for governor next year to ask if they viewed the legal situation differently. Charlie King, who previously mounted a run for lieutenant governor, was the most willing among the candidates to stake out a position, saying, “I support Spitzer’s position that same-sex marriages from outside the state should be honored by New York,” adding that this should hold true for the tax department as much as any other entity. King acknowledged, however, that the attorney general would have to defend the tax department if sued, “unless it is clearly unconstitutional—and I haven’t come down on where I would draw the line.”

Sean Maloney, a former White House aide and out gay man who is running, said he would “need to look at Spitzer’s power to correct the tax department’s stance,” which he called “at odds with what the attorney general has said is existing law.”

Former Public Advocate and TV commentator Mark Green responded with a “no comment” through a spokesperson. Calls were not returned from Andrew Cuomo, who headed up the department of Housing and Urban Development under former Pres. Bill Clinton, Assemblymen Richard Brodsky of Westchester and Michael Gianaris of Queens, and State Sen. Michael Balboni, the lone Republican, of Nassau.

State Sen. Tom Duane (D-Manhattan) noted that he had hearings on same-sex marriage last year “and we found that New York State should already be recognizing them, so it is particularly egregious that they are not recognizing them from other jurisdictions.” He said he disagreed with the part of Spitzer’s 2004 opinion that said New York law did not yet allow it to issue marriage licenses to gay couples and insisted that the attorney general “absolutely should get involved” in this issue with the tax department.

Duane has introduced a Right to Marry Bill in the Senate to “clean up” state law in this area, but said it is not needed unless the courts rule that the Domestic Relations Law or the state Constitution does not already allow for same-sex marriage as legal advocates are asserting in several court cases.

Assemblywoman Deborah Glick (D-Manhattan) said, “The Pataki administration is disinterested to hostile to making accommodations in this area” so that a legislative remedy would be “difficult” to achieve.

Republican Gov. George Pataki’s office did not return a call for comment.

Where does all this leave the legally married same-sex couple in New York?

Gay activist Brendan Fay, who married Tom Moulton in 2003 in Canada, said they filed jointly as a married couple with New York last year.

“We went by the attorney general’s statement about recognizing our equal Canadian marriage,” he said, urging Spitzer to clarify the issue for all the married gay couples here.

Mark Munroe, an accountant who advises many gay couples said he does not advise a joint return at this point.

“If someone feels strongly and I get a release from them from liability,” he said, he will list their filing status as married, but it will entail an additional fee to calculate what their federal tax would have been were they allowed to file as married there. He also warned that unless state law changes, “the state is not going to accept it” and may not discover the discrepancy between the federal and state filing status for years, at which point significant penalties and interest could be assessed.

By filing an affidavit about the marriage and a copy of the license, he said, penalties—but not interest—might be avoided because of evidence that the filers acted in good faith.

Alan Van Capelle, executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda, said, “I think we’re entering the period of uncertainty for gay and lesbian people regarding what they’re entitled to in New York State and the tax issue is just one issue that gay and lesbian families will contend with. Much of this will be worked out through litigation. We want to work, as we have behind the scenes, to educate elected officials and policy makers to move them to places where they can be helpful to the community. This is uncharted terrain for everyone.”

posted by Anthony # 10:24 AM

January 29, 2005
New York Times
By BENEDICT CAREY
Are children worse off being raised by gay or lesbian couples than by heterosexual parents?
Responding on Thursday to a question about gay adoption, President Bush suggested that they were.

"Studies have shown," Mr. Bush said in an interview with The New York Times, "that the ideal is where a child is raised in a married family with a man and a woman."

But experts say there is no scientific evidence that children raised by gay couples do any worse - socially, academically or emotionally - than their peers raised in more traditional households.
The experts, who cross the political spectrum, say studies have shown that on average, children raised by two married heterosexual parents fare better on a number of measures, including school performance, than those raised by single parents or by parents who are living together but are unmarried.

But, said Dr. Judith Stacey, a professor of sociology at New York University, "there is not a single legitimate scholar out there who argues that growing up with gay parents is somehow bad for children."

Dr. Stacey, who published a critical review of studies on the subject in 2001 and has argued in favor of allowing adoption by gays, added, "The debate among scientists is all about how good the studies we have really are."

Since 1980, researchers have published about 25 studies comparing children from same-sex households with peers in traditional families, using measures of social adjustment, school performance, mental health and emotional resilience. Some of the studies have focused on elementary-school children, others on those not quite teenagers, a few on adolescents; a handful have followed children for years. Uniformly, the authors have reported that there are no significant developmental differences between the two groups of children.

Yet the field is still highly controversial, in part because the research on gay households with children has so far tended to be small; usually no more than a couple of dozen families have been involved.

"You can't force families to participate, and there aren't that many of them out there to start with," said Dr. J. Michael Bailey, a professor of psychology at Northwestern University who has studied gay men raising boys.

"There is also a strong volunteer bias: the families who want to participate might be much more open about sexual orientation" and eager to report positive outcomes, Dr. Bailey said.
Critics of the studies have more often charged that it is the researchers who are biased, failing to probe aggressively enough to find differences.

"In many of these studies, they simply aren't asking hard questions," said Lynn Wardle, a law professor at Brigham Young University who has agued against adoption by gay couples.
The researchers, Professor Wardle said, ask the families about the children's self-esteem, "about whether they have friends - soft and fuzzy questions - but not about sexual behavior, sexually transmitted disease and drug use."

Dr. Stacey said one small survey of people raised in lesbian households, published in the late 1990's, did pointedly address sexual development and identity. In it, she said, two English researchers reported that of 30 young adults raised by lesbian parents, 6 had had a gay sexual relationship by the time they reached their 20's.

She added that other small studies had also suggested that children raised in same-sex families might be more open in their attitudes toward gay relationships, if not gay themselves.

"To me, it is plausible that their attitudes toward homosexuality would be more open, but here again the studies are not large enough to say anything for certain," she said, adding that a vast majority of these children grow up to be heterosexual.

A more reliable finding, Dr. Stacey said, is that children in same-sex families tend to be more communicative with their parents.

One undisputed reality for children raised by gay parents is that they tend to face teasing, discrimination and bullying in the schoolyard because of who their parents are. That many of these children can navigate such nastiness, on top of the usual social and emotional squalls of growing up, and still be found as well adjusted as their peers on standard psychological tests is remarkable in itself, some researchers say.

As the political debate over same-sex parents becomes more contentious, the quality of the research appears to be getting better, some social scientists say. Last month psychologists at the University of Virginia and the University of Arizona published a study of 44 adolescents from all over the country being raised in female same-sex households.

The families, with a variety of income levels, were drawn from a huge, continuing national family survey. The survey was random, and therefore unaffected by the sort of volunteer bias created when, say, families with good stories to tell respond to advertisements placed by investigators. In addition, the interviews were conducted by a team of government researchers who were interested in a wide array of social and demographic factors, all but eliminating the researcher bias that some critics point to. The survey's results, published in the journal Child Development, confirmed some previous findings: the 44 girls and boys were typical American teenagers, the researchers found, no more confused or moody than a comparison group of 44 peers from similar but traditional families.

"They even reported being more involved at school, in clubs, after-school activities, things like that," said the report's senior author, Dr. Charlotte Patterson, a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia. "I have no idea what that means, but we sure didn't expect it."

posted by Anthony # 3:24 PM

January 29, 2005
BELIEFS
New York Times
By PETER STEINFELS
Perhaps you didn't know that Christian fundamentalists were running the United States, but then perhaps you weren't attending any upscale Manhattan parties over the holiday season. Or perhaps you didn't have the advantage of being introduced as someone who writes about religion for a newspaper.

That party climate was crisp with shock and awe at the dubious findings about the role of moral values in the presidential election. There was a palpable sense that the Bible Belt was tightening like a noose around Gotham City and all it represented for civilization. Sometimes it was hard to tell whether the partygoers found this ominous or merely more fuel for the seasonal excitement.
Most of them, needless to say, had about as much personal contact with Christian fundamentalists as with Martians. In fact, "fundamentalist" was a handy label for a vague group of religious conservatives "out there" who persist in raising moral objections to abortion, same-sex marriage and embryonic-stem-cell research.

The election had certainly revealed that these religious conservatives were a force to be reckoned with. But were they the moving forces behind the signature policies of George Bush's presidency: tax cuts, the war in Iraq, environmental deregulation and now a Social Security overhaul? Were they the sources of his administration's highly debated methods of fighting terror, handling prisoners of war, employing intelligence or explaining policies to the public?
Are Dick Cheney, Donald H. Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, Paul D. Wolfowitz, Alberto R. Gonzales and other decision makers taking their cues from biblical passages or Pat Robertson? Or are they carrying out ideas long fermenting within some national security circles, at conservative policy centers or among K Street lobbyists?

But don't suppose that the fixation on Christian fundamentalists is limited to giddy holiday revelers in Manhattan. Here is Bill Moyers, liberal sage par excellence, accepting an award last month from the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School:
"One of the biggest changes in politics in my lifetime is that the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the Oval Office and in Congress. For the first time in our history, ideology and theology hold a monopoly of power in Washington."
And what is this amalgam of ideology and theology that is now possessing a monopoly of Washington power? It is nothing less than the "bizarre" and "fantastical" vision of the end times as drawn out of the Book of Revelation and portrayed in the best-selling "Left Behind" series of novels by the Rev. Timothy LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins.

These beliefs are no longer a fringe phenomenon, Mr. Moyers explained, because nearly half the Congress and many of its leaders were "backed" by the religious right in the recent election - that is, they earned over 80 percent approval ratings from conservative Christian lobbies.
What does this mean for public policy? Well, if you go online and "read a remarkable work of reporting by the journalist Glenn Scherer," Mr. Moyers advised, "you will see how millions of Christian fundamentalists may believe that environmental destruction is not only to be disregarded but actually welcomed - even hastened - as a sign of the coming apocalypse."
"I've reported on these people, following some of them from Texas to the West Bank," Mr. Moyers said.

No doubt he has, but his acceptance speech drew more from two online articles that he cited and recommended to his audience than from the up-close and personal interviewing for which he is known. There seemed to be something more ideological - and maybe even apocalyptical - going on in his argument. In this he was probably representative of a much wider swath of liberal opinion.

His ominous description of the "delusional" that now holds sway in the Oval Office and Congress also stands in contrast with the personal account by Mark I. Pinsky in the current issue of The Columbia Journalism Review. Mr. Pinsky compares his "top down" reporting on evangelical Christians for The Los Angeles Times with his immersion in Florida's evangelical culture when he later went to work for The Orlando Sentinel.

"At P.T.A. meetings, at Scouts, in the supermarket checkout line and in my neighborhood," he writes, "I encountered evangelicals simply as people, rather than as subjects or sources of quotes for my stories."

Evangelicals "were no longer caricatures or abstractions," he says. "I learned to interpret their metaphors and read their body language" - and discovered that "they don't march in lockstep."
"While there is near unanimity opposing gay marriage and abortion among evangelicals," he says, "serious and fundamental divisions exist over other issues, including the Iraq war, environmentalism, tax policy - and, yes, even civil unions."

One can grant that religious conservatives (whose ranks of course include some Roman Catholics, Jews, Muslims and Mormons as well as evangelical or fundamentalist Protestants) have significant new political power, a controversial agenda focusing on abortion, same-sex marriage and stem-cell research and a surprising acquiescence in some economic and national security policies that seem at least problematic morally.

One can also recognize that despite Mr. Pinsky's unruffled view of his Florida neighbors, those ranks harbor plenty of notions and personages (just as in other sectors of public life) that many people find bizarre and worrisome.

But does it really serve critics of the administration to convince themselves that they are dealing with some alien species that holds Washington in the grip of a "fantastical" religious vision, rather than with adversaries who, in their mix of political and economic ideology, self-interest, good intentions and stubborn blindness, are probably not all that constitutionally different from the television executives, foundation officers and artistic figures Mr. Moyers has been deftly coping with for decades?

One effect of casting his indictment of administration environmental policies in dramatic theological terms is that Mr. Moyers offered only the faintest, glancing mention of the chemical and energy industries. Is their clout, for good or ill, really nothing compared with the Book of Revelation?

posted by Anthony # 10:12 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: January 28, 2005 11:02 am. ET

(Washington) Constitutional amendments that would bar same-sex marriage are gaining momentum in three more states - South Dakota, Kansas, and Maryland.

In South Dakota, which already has a so-called Defense of Marriage law, the proposed amendment has 55 House sponsors and 23 Senate sponsors, virtually guaranteeing that it will clear South Dakota's 105-member Legislature.

Lawmakers say they will put the issue on the 2006 ballot.

In Kansas the House is expected to vote next week on a proposed anti-gay amendment to that state's Constitution. The measure has already passed the Senate.

If approved by the House the amendment would go to voters on April 5
Republican lawmakers say they have enough support to ensure House passage.
"We're fairly certain we have the numbers with a small cushion," said Doug Mays, speaker of the House.

"Marriage is the foundation of our society. This would protect traditional marriage in Kansas."
In the last session a similar amendment was was unexpectedly defeated by five votes.
The proposed amendment would not only ban gay marriage but civil unions as well and prevent the state from offering benefits to domestic partners.

In Maryland, close to 1,000 supporters of an amendment demonstrated in front of the State House Thursday to put pressure on the legislature.

Among the speakers was Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele who said Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. would have spoken at the rally but had a scheduling conflict.

Also on hand was the Rev. Lou Sheldon, founder of the national Traditional Values Coalition.
The protest was organized by church groups opposed to gay marriage.

An amendment was proposed in Maryland last year, but did not make it out of the House Judiciary Committee.

Meanwhile, in Wisconsin, which is also considering a ban on gay marriage, close to 400 people opposed to measure demonstrated at the state capitol on Thursday.

The proposed amendment, which was approved in the last session of the state Legislature must also be approved in the current one in order to be placed on the state ballot.

posted by Anthony # 10:11 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: January 28, 2005 2:03 pm. ET

(New Orleans, Louisiana) The Louisiana Appeals Court will hear a suit challenging City of New Orleans ordinances that created a domestic partner registry and extended benefits to same-sex couples.

In 1997, the City of New Orleans extended health insurance benefits to same-sex partners of city employees. In 1999 the City Council, by a majority vote, created a domestic partner registry that allows couples to make a public commitment to care for and support each other.
The domestic partner benefits policy and the city's domestic partner registry almost immediately came under fire from conservatives. The suit was filed on their behalf by the Alliance Defense Fund, a Scottsdale, Arizona-firm that is involved in a number of similar cases nationwide.

The ADF claimed that the city's benefits program violates the rights of people opposed to homosexuality. The case was dismissed by a lower court and the group went to the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

At the request of the New Orleans city attorney, Lambda Legal joined the lawsuit representing city employee Peter Sabi and his partner, Philip Centanni. Sabi has worked in the city's Vieux Carre Commission as a senior building inspector for nine years. Centanni is a self-employed writer.

Sabi and Centanni have been together for almost nine years. As a self-employed writer, Centanni was paying $500 a month for health insurance before the city extended benefits to its employees' same-sex partners. Now the couple pays $50 a month for Centanni's coverage.
"Our clients deserve the same health coverage their co-workers receive for their families, and the City of New Orleans did the right thing by offering it," said Lambda lawyer Brian Chase, who is handling the case. "This benefit directly affects the health and well-being of city employees and their families."

Public employers in over 10 states, and nearly 140 counties and cities nationwide have extended health insurance benefits to the domestic partners of gay and lesbian employees.

More than 60 cities and counties have domestic partner registries, some of which have benefits attached. In general, registries have important symbolic value for couples who sign up, and both public and private employers often find them helpful when extending benefits to employees nonmarital partners.

Lambda Legal has handled many similar lawsuits on behalf of cities whose domestic partnership benefits and registries are attacked by antigay groups including the case of S.D. Myers v. City and County of San Francisco. Lambda Legal filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the City of San Francisco. A federal appeals court ruled in favor of the city and its domestic partnership plan.

Last year Louisiana voters approved a constitutional amendment blocking same-sex marriage. The vote was appealed on procedural grounds and earlier this month the state Supreme Court ruled that the vote was valid.

posted by Anthony # 10:10 AM

by Tom Maliti, Associated Press
Posted: January 28, 2005 8:02 pm. ET
(Nairobi, Kenya) Anglican archbishops from Africa, Asia and Latin America said Friday an apology from the U.S. Episcopal Church does not go far enough to heal the rift among Anglicans over the consecration of the denomination's first openly gay bishop.The Anglican Communion - the international association of churches that trace their roots back to the Church of England -- fears it unity is threatened by deep disagreements over homosexuality. Conservative clerics from Africa, Asia and elsewhere have harshly criticized the U.S. branch's move on the gay bishop.Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola noted the U.S. bishops apologized to individual church members in a letter issued earlier this month expressing "sincere regret" for consecrating V. Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire without full consideration of other Anglicans' objections. But Akinola told journalists they failed to repent for an act he said was contrary to their faith."That gives us a very big question mark whether we are together or not," said Malawi's Archbishop Bernard Malango.Akinola spoke after a weeklong meeting to discuss recommendations by an Anglican commission to resolve discord within the communion over homosexuality.In a report issued in October, the panel urged the U.S. branch not to elect any more gay bishops and called on conservative African bishops to stop meddling in the affairs of other dioceses.In Kenya Friday, church leaders were circumspect about their views on the recommendations, saying they did not want to pre-empt a meeting of all Anglican archbishops in Ireland next month.About 15 archbishops attended the gathering in the Kenyan capital, Nairobi.Some African church leaders, including South African Archbishop Njongonkulu Ndungane, have questioned why the communion is spending so much time on the issue of homosexuality, when there are pressing issues such as war, AIDS and poverty to be addressed on the continent.But Akinola said it was a question of faith."I didn't create poverty. This church didn't create poverty," Akinola said. "These are two separate things."

posted by Anthony # 10:09 AM

by Rachel Zoll, Associated Press
Posted: January 28, 2005 8:02 pm. ET

(Nashville, Tennessee) Four black Baptist groups whose churches were a training ground for prominent civil rights leaders, but split partly over how that fight should be waged, said Friday they were embarking on a new era of cooperation meant to put the concerns of their community atop the national agenda.

The National Baptist Convention USA, the Progressive National Baptist Convention, the National Baptist Convention of America and the National Missionary Baptist Convention of America hope to reclaim their historic role as leaders for broad social change. Among their top issues will be education, health care, jobs and foreign policy.

"We believe, and the numbers show it, that we have the power in terms of black registered voters across the country to make an impact," said the Rev. Stephen J. Thurston of Chicago, president of the National Baptist Convention of America.

His comments came at the end of the denominations' joint weeklong meeting - their first in at least 90 years. Together, the convention presidents said they represent about 15 million Baptists nationwide.

The groups' initial split occurred in 1915, over control of a publishing house. A similar schism over governance issues happened in 1988.

But the most notorious break was in 1961, when a fight over the presidency of the National Baptist Convention USA led the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and his supporters to form the Progressive Baptists. Opposition to King's strategy of civil disobedience and mass protest were a key factor in that split.

The groups say little of consequence now divides them, other than the independent denominational structures each has created that would make full reunification difficult at this time.

They are now positioning themselves collectively as an antidote, not just for blacks but for all Americans, to what they call the narrow moral focus of President Bush and his religious supporters.

Like white evangelicals, black Baptists generally oppose abortion and consider gay sex immoral. In the presidential race, Republicans made common cause with some black leaders over blocking gay marriage, hoping the issue would chip away at the overwhelming black support for Democrats.

However, the Baptist presidents said they would not highlight either issue for now because the topics are divisive and not a priority for their members, who face poverty, discrimination and other pressing ills.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson, during a keynote speech, asked the audience if any of their churches had fielded requests to perform same-sex weddings. When there was no visible response among the thousands packed into a cavernous hotel ballroom, he wheeled around the podium and shouted, "Then how did that get in the middle of our agenda?" People stood and cheered.
The groups' separation from Bush was underscored Tuesday when he invited a more sympathetic group of black pastors to the White House to discuss Social Security. Speakers at the Nashville gathering noted the White House event, and suggested Bush was being misled about what matters to blacks.

Even before Bush was elected, the conventions' national influence had waned. Many Baptist leaders turned inward when the civil rights movement ended, focusing on congregation building and local issues, said the Rev. Robert Franklin, a social ethics professor at Emory University's Candler School of Theology.

The National Baptist Convention USA faced its own massive internal problems. Its former president, the Rev. Henry J. Lyons, was convicted in 1999 of using his position to steal about $4 million, which he spent on luxury homes, jewelry and his mistress.

In an emotional sermon this week, the Rev. Major Lewis Jemison of Oklahoma City, president of the Progressive National Baptists, acknowledged the denominations' lower profile, saying "the church must come out of hiding."

"We must get actively involved in the process," he said. "We must once again become that redemptive change agent."

Despite past troubles and the current political climate, historic black churches continue to represent the majority of black Protestants and remain at the center of black life. The four denominations plan to use that influence in their new campaign.

In their joint statement Friday, the convention presidents outlined some of their positions. They opposed the war in Iraq, school vouchers and privatization of prisons, and they called for an increase in the minimum wage and more aid to Africa, the Caribbean and Latin America.

posted by Anthony # 10:08 AM

by Paul Johnson 365Gay.com Washington Bureau Chief
Posted: January 28, 2005 8:02 pm. ET

(Washington) Despite assurances from President Bush this week that the White House has ordered his cabinet not to hire journalists to promote the administration's agenda, a third journalist has been found to be taking payola.

Michael McManus, whose syndicated column, "Ethics & Religion," appears in 50 newspapers, was hired as a subcontractor by the Department of Health and Human Services to promote an administration marriage initiative, according to USA Today and Salon.com.

In several columns McManus touted the Bush "family" plan. He was allegedly paid approximately $10,000 for his work.

McManus also provided training at two HHS-sponsored conferences.

The new revelations came after it was learned Syndicated conservative columnist Maggie Gallagher and prominent black conservative writer/broadcaster Armstrong Williams were also paid by the administration to promote the marriage initiative.

Both Gallagher and Williams have a long history of attacking gays.

In a column following the November 2 election Williams linked gay rights advocates with organized crime.

"Despite the rhetoric that you hear from the homosexual Cosa Nostra, the lack of support for the gay marriage amendment has nothing to do with prejudice," he wrote.

In 2003 Gallagher testified before a Senate subcommittee in support of a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

Following the revelation earlier this week that she had been on the administrations' payroll Bush said has instructed his cabinet not to allow it to occur again.

The contracts may have broken federal law in addition to the ethics of journalism.

Congress has prohibited propaganda," or any sort of lobbying for programs funded by the government, said Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "And it's propaganda."

Rep. George Miller of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Education Committee has called for an investigation.

posted by Anthony # 10:07 AM

by Dan Dugas, Canadian Press
Posted: January 29, 2005 12:02 am. ET

(Ottawa) Conservative Leader Stephen Harper's position on gay marriage may play well with most of his MPs on the surface, but it exposes deep divisions that remain after the Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservative wedding.

While former Alliance members appear comfortable with Harper's decision to launch an ad campaign against same-sex marriage, many ex-Tories are decidedly uncomfortable. Marie-Josee Lapointe, former press secretary to Tory Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, calls Harper's stance "bad strategy that's left me completely flabbergasted."

"Have we no respect for the rule of law? . . . We are supposed to be the party that stands for the rights of individuals. Times have changed and it's time we changed with them."

Lapointe, whose public relations company is doing work for social groups opposed to the Conservative position, said the courts have made clear what their interpretation of the law is and Harper should accept that.

"The ad says: 'Where do you draw the line?' How about right here, Mr. Harper?" she said.
"We've found a way to divide the nation when we should be looking at ways of uniting it."
There are also doubts in Atlantic Canada, where the four provinces are run by Conservative premiers.

"This is bizarre, way out there," said a senior adviser to Nova Scotia Premier John Hamm.
Hamm has not spent five minutes on the issue, nor has it ever come up in any meaningful way, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

"The strategy has got our political people just shaking their heads. Is this where you draw the line, really? How about dealing with issues that really affect our lives."
Harper's strategy has also raised concerns on another level as well.

His decision to launch the ads without consulting his deputy leader, Nova Scotia MP Peter MacKay, reignited talk in some circles about just how involved former Progressive Conservatives are in the new party's direction.

MacKay has said the ads took him by surprise.

Harper has also drawn criticism for musing that gay marriage could lead to legalized polygamy.
Tory Brad Green, New Brunswick's attorney general, moved quickly to dispel that suggestion, but he would not pass judgment on Harper's tactics.

"Polygamy is not an issue I have heard raised by anyone in the province of New Brunswick," he said.

posted by Anthony # 10:06 AM

by Ben Thompson 365Gay.com Ottawa Bureau
Posted: January 29, 2005 12:02 am. ET

(Ottawa) American evangelists are urging Canadians to oppose same-sex marriage. The anti-gay groups are using Christian broadcasters to spread the message.

Earlier this week, James Dobson, chairman of the Colorado-based Focus on the Family, in a broadcast heard on 130 radio stations across Canada denounced the government of Prime Minister Paul Martin which will bring in a same-sex marriage bill next week.

"Your prime minister, Paul Martin, has recently done things to subvert the will of the people," Dobson said.

"It is clear here in the United States that the American people do not want same-sex marriage," Dobson continued. "I would hope that Canadians who also do not want same-sex marriage would be encouraged by what has happened down here."

Dobson told listeners that same-sex marriage is not a human rights issue and that passing such a law would destroy the institution of marriage and undermine society.

Dobson concluded his broadcast by calling on Canadians to pray on the issue and to donate money to Focus on the Family.

The organization has set up a Canadian website with form letters that people can download to send to their member of Parliament.

Alex Munter of Canadians for Equal Marriage said Dobson is trying to impose American values on the Canadian political system.

Munter said conservative American groups are worried about the long-term effect of a Canadian same-sex marriage law on the United States.

"It is very important for Canadians to know that there is a tremendous influence by American organizations and by American far-right groups who are trying to affect the outcome of what should be a Canadian decision," Munter told Sun newspapers.

"Those who support discrimination in the United States know that when Canada respects equality, when Canada upholds the Charter of Rights, it undermines their arguments," he said.
The same-sex marriage bill is expected to pass Parliament. A Sun Media poll shows at least 135 members of parliament intend to vote in favor of the bill. Some 102 MPs say they will vote against it and 19 are undecided.

posted by Anthony # 10:05 AM

January 27, 2005

By REUTERS
Filed at 9:03 a.m. ET
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - The Vatican upped the ante in a diplomatic squabble with Spain on Thursday, criticizing the Madrid government a day after it summoned the Holy See's ambassador to complain about a speech by Pope John Paul.

In a terse statement, Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls told the government in no uncertain terms to re-read the speech the Pope made earlier this week, which Madrid interpreted as an attack on religious freedom in Spain.

The Vatican's ambassador was summoned to the foreign ministry on Wednesday and told that the Socialist government of Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero was unhappy with what the Pope told Spanish bishops in Rome on Monday.

It is extremely rare for a government to summon a Vatican ambassador to hear a complaint, and even more rare in a Catholic country such as Spain.

Navarro-Valls, a Spaniard himself, said the Vatican ``takes note'' of the statement the Spanish government issued when it summoned the Vatican ambassador, Archbishop Monsignor Manuel Monteiro.

Navarro-Valls retorted: ``On our part, we would ask you to carefully read the Pope's entire speech, which illustrates well the position of the Church.''

The Foreign Ministry had complained about ``the explicit reference in the speech to a supposedly restrictive laicism which might limit religious freedom and which might be attributed to the government's attitude.''

STRAINED TIES

A raft of liberal social legislation from Prime Minister -- including laws to allow gay marriage and relax restrictions on divorce and abortion -- has strained ties between Spain and the Vatican.
In his statement on Thursday, Navarro-Valls said the Vatican appreciated the Spanish government's stated desire to maintain good relations with the Holy See.

``This has always been the position of the Holy See,'' he said.

The Pope told the Spanish bishops an increasingly secular-minded Spanish society was moving toward ``restriction of religious freedom and even promoting disdain or ignorance of religion. ``The living roots of Christianity in Spain ... cannot be ripped out,'' the 84-year-old Pontiff said, without making specific reference to the government's social agenda.

Senior churchmen have criticized Spain's plans to legalize gay marriage and permit stem cell research, but the moves are popular among young Spaniards, fewer than a fifth of whom are practicing Catholics.

Under dictator Francisco Franco, who died in 1975, Catholicism was the only recognized religion in Spain and abortion and divorce were banned. Spain's 1978 constitution enshrines the right to religious freedom.

posted by Anthony # 7:46 AM

by Erik Stetson, Associated Press
Posted: January 27, 2005 2:04 pm. ET

(Concord, New Hampshire) Judi Howden went into her marriage knowing full well that one day her husband might become her wife.

The couple stayed together - even as Howden's husband, Michael, underwent a sex-change operation that transformed him into Mikayla. That surgery also landed them in a murky area where gender and law collide.

Their marriage - once between a man and a woman - is now between a woman and a woman, despite a ban on such unions in 40 states, including New Hampshire.

Their experience highlights a legal Catch-22. While states can either recognize or refuse to recognize someone's new gender following a sex change, either decision inescapably permits some form of same-sex marriage.

If the gender change is recognized, then existing, heterosexual marriages such as the Howdens' become same-sex. If recognition is denied, a de facto same-sex marriage emerges since the spouses' genders differ only on paper, not visibly.

``I have no answer to it,'' said state Rep. Dan Itse, a Republican who supports the state's same-sex marriage ban. ``We have ventured where angels fear to tread.''

The federal government must decide if Mikayla Howden, a U.S. citizen born overseas, can update her birth certificate. It hasn't yet ruled, and Shannon Minter, of the National Center for Lesbian Rights in California, said the Bush administration has not been as accommodating as earlier administrations.

According to the center, four states don't permit gender updates: Tennessee, Ohio, Kansas and Texas. About half of the remaining states do. A firm policy hasn't been legally well established in the remaining states, including New Hampshire, said Minter, the center's legal director.

``Whether or not society will acknowledge our marriage, I think, is my biggest fear,'' Judi Howden said. ``That someday, someone may pass legislation that says, `Because you are now two females, you are no longer married.' For anyone to say that they have the right to break up a family, I don't think is right.''

The Howdens' marriage clearly was legal when it began, and same-sex marriage bans cannot automatically invalidate it, Minter said, just as states don't automatically annul marriages for adultery or abuse.

But at least one conservative group would like to change that. The Rev. Louis Sheldon, founder and chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition in Washington, D.C., said marriages such as the Howdens' should be dissolved.

``Absolutely,'' he said. ``We don't want the roof to leak in any place. We must make sure that marriage is protected.''

Sheldon's coalition, a lobby claiming more than 43,000 member churches, is crafting an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriages and civil unions. The Howdens, he said, have slipped through a ``legal loophole.''

Judi Howden may be in a legal loophole, but she said she's happy. Her household is like many across America. There are prayers at meal times and children's toys in every room.

Her wedding to Michael Howden nearly four years ago - her second marriage - has produced love and another child. She said she struggled with Mikayla's emergence, but struggled even more with the idea of separating.

``There was so strong of a connection for Mikayla and I,'' she said. ``I never knew that there was such a relationship out there in the world.''

Social conservatives often portray same-sex marriage as a moral issue. But Mikayla Howden called changing her gender a life-and-death decision, not a lifestyle choice. Living as a man was fundamentally wrong, she said, and nearly led her to suicide.

``What are you going to pick? You certainly hope for the point of wanting to pick life,'' said Mikayla Howden, who changed her name in 2003 and underwent a sex change in September. ``So many of us, because of society, choose death.''

Transsexuals are not the only people who have sex-change operations. Surgery also is used to treat ``intersex'' conditions such as improperly formed genitalia.

Updating birth certificates isn't the only legal challenge facing transsexuals. State gay-marriage bans complicate such core activities as buying and inheriting property together or collecting insurance.

In 1999, a Texas appeals court upheld a ruling against a transsexual who became a woman and married a man. The court ruled the marriage an invalid union of two men, denying the transsexual money from a wrongful death settlement after her husband died.

Cases in Florida and Illinois are addressing whether transsexuals who have become men are legally fathers of children who were born through artificial insemination or adopted into their families while they were married.

And in California, a transsexual who became a woman is challenging a ruling that denied her husband citizenship because she was born male, Minter said.

``The human consequences are really painful,'' Minter said.

For the Howdens, the responsibilities of home and raising a family - a child of their own and two from Judi Howden's previous marriage - have helped them through tough emotional times. So has open, honest communication.

``It isn't always easy, but it's the most important, even when it comes to your fears,'' Judi Howden said. ``Because when you hold those fears inside, it doubles them.''

posted by Anthony # 7:43 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: January 27, 2005 2:04 pm. ET

(Houston, Texas) The Texas Supreme Court has refused to overturn the adoption of a Galveston woman's 6-year-old daughter by her former lesbian partner.

Julie Anne Hobbs had become pregnant through artificial insemination. In 2001, the man who donated the semen voluntarily terminated his parental rights and Hobbs partner, Janet Kathleen Van Stavern legally adopted the girl when she was a 3-years old.

But, Hobbs and Van Stavern's eight-year relationship ended in March of last year and Hobbs went to court to have the adoption overturned arguing that Texas law does not permit co-parenting by same-sex couples.

Van Stavern has continued to provide $400 a month in child support since her split from Hobbs. Van Stavern's attorney Shannon Warren said Hobbs could have attacked the adoption for six months after it was approved. Once that period is over, Warren said that under Texas law Hobbs had no grounds to fight the adoption.

Judge Janis Yarbrough agreed, ruling that the adoption should stand.

Hobbs took the case to the Court of Appeal which also ruled in Van Stavern's favor.
By refusing to hear the case, the o-parenting ruling will stand. But, the court fight is still not over. Van Stavern must battle with Hobbs for visitation rights. A reading is set for April 4.

posted by Anthony # 7:42 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: January 27, 2005 5:01 pm. ET

(Washington) Wal-Mart, the nation's largest private employer, has adopted a new definition of family that includes same-sex partners recognized under state law.

The new definition of "immediate family" was included in a conflict-of-interest policy for employees that the company filed yesterday with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The policy which lays out the terms under which workers would violate that policy says, "You are responsible for advancing Wal-Mart's business interests when the opportunity to do so arises. You may not take any opportunities or use any confidential information for your benefit, or for the benefit of your immediate family members, that you discover or obtain through your employment with Wal-Mart."

It then goes on to define immediate family members to "include (whether by birth, adoption, marriage or Domestic Partnership or Civil Union, if recognized by your state or other local law) your spouse, children, parents, siblings, mothers and fathers-in-law, sons and daughters-in-law and brothers and sisters-in-law."

The Human Rights Campaign applauded the change, which came with little fanfare.
"We hope that with equal responsibility come equal benefits," said HRC's Daryl Herrschaft, deputy director for HRC's workplace project. "We are encouraged by this sign showing America's heartland employer understands same-sex couples share the responsibilities that come with being a family. It's only appropriate for these families to also receive the same benefits as others."

Herrschaft said that HRC will continue our work to encourage Wal-Mart and other companies to expand fair-minded policies to areas where same-sex couples are not recognized by law.

"Without legal recognition of same-sex couples, employers' domestic partner programs are a critical way to ensure that every employee's family has equal access to healthcare, medical leave and other workplace-offered benefits." he said.

Currently 228 -- or 45 percent -- of Fortune 500 companies offer healthcare benefits to employees' same-sex domestic partners or spouses. The number has increased ten-fold since 1995 when only 21 Fortune 500 companies offered the benefits. Wal-Mart competitors Costco Wholesale, Best Buy and Home Depot all offer domestic partner health benefits.
In July 2003, Wal-Mart expanded its non-discrimination policy to include sexual orientation. Currently, nine of the 10 top companies in the Fortune 500 include sexual orientation in their non-discrimination policies, and three of these companies also include protection against discrimination based on gender identity in their policies.

"Every gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender employee deserves to be judged by the job they do, not who they are," said Herrschaft. "We urge Wal-Mart and other companies to add protections for transgender employees so that no employee at risk for losing their livelihood for reasons that have nothing to do with their work."

posted by Anthony # 7:41 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: January 27, 2005 9:04 pm. ET

(Des Moines, Iowa) A proposed amendment to the Iowa Constitution that would ban same-sex marriage was introduced in the Senate Thursday.

The measure was put forward by 9 Republicans. An identical amendment was also introduced in the House where 55 members have signed on as co-sponsors.

If approved the proposal would go to voters in 2006.

The single sentence amendment says, "Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in the state of Iowa."

But, its outcome in the legislature is far from certain. The Senate is equally divided, 25 - 25, between Democrats and Republicans, and Democrats control the House.

Nevertheless, the supporters of the measure say they will push to bring the amendment to a full vote in both houses.

"I still feel the majority of Iowans think we need to keep marriage protected," said Sen. Bob Brunkhorst (R-Waverly) one of the co-sponsors.

Iowa already has legislation banning same-sex marriage, but Brunkhorst and other supporters say the amendment is necessary because the law could be overturned in the courts.

They also expressed concern about a lesbian "divorce" case before the state Supreme Court. The court earlier this month heard a challenge to the granting of a dissolution of a civil union to two lesbians by a lower court judge more than a year ago.

The ruling was appealed to the high court by a group of conservative lawmakers who said the decision violated the state's ban on gay marriage. The group argued that in granting a "divorce", Woodbury County District Judge Jeffrey Neary was acknowledging same-sex marriage.

posted by Anthony # 7:40 AM

by Matt Johns 365Gay.com Los Angeles Bureau
Posted: January 27, 2005 9:04 pm. ET

(Santa Ana, California) Two national LGBT civil rights groups Thursday asked a federal judge not to issue a ruling in a challenge to the Federal Defense of Marriage Act until California courts have dealt with the issue of same-sex marriage.

A suburban Orange County gay couple, Christopher Hammer and Arthur Smelt, are suing the federal government in a bid to have DOMA struck down, but Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights filed friend of the court briefs Thursday arguing that the cases already before California courts should take precedence.

"Marriage traditionally has been a state law matter," said Jennifer Pizer, senior counsel with the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund.

A joint suit brought by the City of San Francisco and several of the 4,000 same-sex couples married in the city last year is before San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer. Arguments were heard last year and a decision is not likely for at least a month. It is expected the case will work its way to the state Supreme Court.
Hammer and Arthur Smelt took the unusual step of bypassing the California case and directly challenging the federal ban on gay marriage.

But, a similar move in Florida failed. Earlier this week gay couples in the Sunshine State decided to drop their lawsuits.

Hammer and Smelt, both 45 and on disability retirement from their jobs, met in 1996 and held a commitment ceremony in their Mission Viejo home a year later in front of a few family members.

They tried to get a marriage license in Orange County at the time but were turned down.
Today before U.S. District Judge Gary L. Taylor, Gilbert went up against lawyers for the U.S. Department of Justice, the California Attorney General's Office and Orange County.

The couple's lawyer, Richard C. Gilbert told the court that laws prohibiting gay marriage are a violation of civil rights equivalent to racial segregation.

Calling gays and lesbians "the most oppressed minority since slavery," Gilbert urged Judge Taylor to overturn the California and federal laws against same-sex marriage.
"It now falls to you to uphold the principles of liberty," Gilbert said.

In addition to Lambda and NCLR, Taylor allowed two conservative groups opposed to gay marriage to enter the case - the Florida-based Liberty Counsel and Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund.

Taylor did not say when he would decide whether to withhold his ruling until the state cases are dealt with.

posted by Anthony # 7:38 AM

January 27, 2005

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 4:12 a.m. ET
SANTA ANA, Calif. (AP) -- The legal fight over same-sex marriage has shifted to Southern California now that a lawsuit filed by a gay couple from suburban Orange County is the only remaining challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Christopher Hammer and Arthur Smelt plan to be in U.S. District Court on Thursday as their attorney argues that the federal law, as well as California's Proposition 22, are violations of civil rights akin to slavery or denying women the right to vote.

California recognizes only marriages between a man and a woman, and the Defense of Marriage Act allows states to disregard gay marriages performed in other states and foreign countries.
The hearing comes two days after gay couples in Florida decided to drop similar lawsuits.
``Certainly, eyes are going to be focused on this particular case,'' said Matthew Staver, president of Liberty Counsel, an opponent of gay marriage involved in some 30 cases nationwide.

The only other same-sex marriage case pending in federal court, according to lawyers on both sides of the debate, is one in Nebraska that challenges a state law on same-sex marriages. The judge has not ruled yet in that case.

Hammer and Smelt, both 45, met in 1996 and held a commitment ceremony in their Mission Viejo home a year later. They tried to get a marriage license in Orange County at the time but were turned down.

``I was laughed at,'' Hammer said.

Last year, as the couple watched news reports of gays and lesbians getting married in San Francisco -- ceremonies later halted by a court -- they decided to give it another shot. Turned down again, they filed a lawsuit.

Their attorney, Richard C. Gilbert, pursued the case in federal court, even though most cases elsewhere were filed in state courts, where activists believe their chances are better.

``Marriage traditionally has been a state law matter,'' said Jennifer Pizer, senior counsel with the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, a national gay rights organization.

On Tuesday, three gay couples in Florida dropped their lawsuits challenging the Defense of Marriage Act after a judge dismissed their cases. They decided not to risk appeals that could result in the U.S. Supreme Court setting a precedent by rejecting the cases.

Gilbert, who said his arguments are different from those used in Florida, said he will appeal if he loses before the federal judge in Santa Ana.

``I'll fight all the way to the United States Supreme Court if these plaintiffs are willing to fight,'' he said.

In Thursday's hearing, Gilbert will go up against lawyers for the U.S. Department of Justice, the California Attorney General's Office and Orange County.

The judge will also hear from two private groups -- the Florida-based Liberty Counsel and Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund -- that believe gay marriages undermine traditional marriage.

posted by Anthony # 7:03 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: January 26, 2005 11:03 am. ET

(Denver, Colorado) Legislation to ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation has passed a key Senate committee.

The bill still must go through two more committees before proceeding to a vote in the Legislature, but LGBT civil rights activists say they are hopeful that it will pass. For the first time in 42 years Democrats are in a majority in the Legislature.

"We should not be in a position today where we allow someone to be fired just because they're gay or lesbian," said Senator Jennifer Veiga (D) the bill's sponsor.

Four witnesses told committee members that they had either faced discrimination on the job or lost their jobs because of their sexuality.

One of them, Karen Fox said current state law gave her no recourse after being fired as an assistant professor at the University of Colorado's Health Sciences Center in July.

Fox said she appealed the chancellor's decision upholding her termination but said the three-member review committee included two people with ties to those who allegedly wanted to get rid of her.

She also pointed out to the committee that she was not able to sue because it's not illegal in Colorado to fire someone for being gay.

The measure passed 4 - 3, along party lines.

"There's no real evidence that this is a real big issue or problem in Colorado," said Sen. John Evans, one of three Republicans to vote against the bill.

"What (the LGBT community) really wants here is state approval of a lifestyle, of a value system. I don't think the people of Colorado approve that lifestyle or that value system."

If the legislation makes it through both houses of the legislature there is no sign that Gov. Bill Owens will sign it. The governor's office said Tuesday it has no comment on the bill.

One poll conducted last summer showed half of all Coloradans did not know that it's legal to discriminate against gays in the state.

posted by Anthony # 7:02 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: January 26, 2005 2:01 pm. ET

(Washington) A so-called Defense of Marriage bill was introduced Wednesday in the New Mexico legislature.

The legislation defines marriage as "between one man and one woman" and says that "marriage between persons of the same sex is prohibited."

“That’s biblical, and we feel that the values that we have, that the family values that we want our children to have, are those that marriage is between a man and a woman," said Rep. Gloria Vaughn the bill's sponsor.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have already signed on to the bill.

“This is against American values,” said Linda Siegle of Equality New Mexico. “In America, everyone should be treated equally."

Meanwhile, a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriages in Virginia has been endorsed by a Senate committee.

The amendment, proposed by Sen. Stephen D. Newman (R-Lynchburg) would decree that only a union between one man and one woman would be a valid marriage in Virginia. It would also ban the state from recognizing civil unions or domestic partnerships.

Two Democrats and one Republican on the committee voted against it.

Sen. Janet D. Howell (D-Fairfax) called the legislation "the biggest disgrace to Virginia since Massive Resistance."

The bill is one of four similar measures before the House Privileges and Elections committee, which is expected to act on them Friday.

If a bill passes the legislature, which seems likely, it must pass another session of the General Assembly next year before it can be put before the voters in a constitutional referendum in November of 2006.

Virginia already has one of the country's broadest Defense of Marriage acts.

The legislature is also considering a bill to bar gays from adopting.

“The creator of nature set up a system where a child comes from a mother and a father, and needs to be nurtured by a mother and a father,” said Delegate Robert G. Marshall, the bill's sponsor.

“You want to remake the social order? There are limits to everything.”
Marshall's bill is almost identical to one in Florida.

Another bill to be considered in this session would put the marriage issue on license plates. The bill calls for traditional marriage to be displayed on car licenses. If passed the plates would have interlocking gold wedding bands superimposed over a red heart over the legend "Traditional Marriage."

posted by Anthony # 7:01 AM

by Ben Thompson 365Gay.com Ottawa Bureau
Posted: January 26, 2005 5:01 pm. ET

(Ottawa) A bill to legalize same-sex marriage will go before the Canadian Parliament next week Justice Minister Irwin Cotler announced Wednesday.

Speaking in Fredericton, New Brunswick where the Liberal Party is meeting this week to prepare for the upcoming session, Cotler said that the bill will be based on the court rulings in seven provinces and territories that have already struck down the current definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.

Last month the Supreme Court gave the government the go-ahead to bring the bill before Parliament, ruling that it protects both the constitutional rights of gay couples and those of churches opposed to same-sex marriage.

”[The legislation] leaves open to any of the faith communities to celebrate marriages as they wish," Cotler told reporters. "It protects any member from any religious community to refuse to celebrate a same-sex marriage if it's contrary to their religion or belief, or to celebrate it if they wish."

Cotler said he wants to see the legislation passed by June.

The opposition Conservatives, and some members of Cotler's own Liberal Party are vowing to fight the legislation.

Conservatives this week launched a series of ads in ethnic and religious newspapers condemning gay marriage.

The party has also promised a raft of amendments and separate legislation aimed at blocking passage of the bill.

Conservative leader Stephen Harper says, though that he would not try to use the notwithstanding clause in the Constitution to prevent the legislation from passing. The clause, which has never been used by Parliament, allows the government to opt out of a section of the Constitution with which it disagrees.

Harper says there are other ways to prevent passage of the bill. But, earlier this week 130 Canadian law professors said that the only way to defeat it would be to use the notwithstanding clause.

Harper says lawyers have told him he's on solid legal ground, and can eliminate a proposed same-sex law without sparking a constitutional debate.

The lawyers, all experts in constitutional law, say Harper is misleading the public.

The bill is expected to pass with a narrow margin. If it were to be defeated it would not affect those provinces where same-sex marriage has been declared legal by the courts and would not prevent legal challenges in the other regions.

posted by Anthony # 6:59 AM

by Paul Johnson 365Gay.com Washington Bureau Chief
Posted: January 26, 2005 2:01 pm. ET

(Washington) Syndicated conservative columnist Maggie Gallagher who testified before the Senate in support of a constitutional ban on gay marriage was paid by the Bush Administration it was revealed on Wednesday.

The Washington Post reports that Gallagher received more than $40,000 from the White House and from the Department of Health and Human Services to help promote the president's program promoting heterosexual marriage as a means of strengthening families. She neglected to mention she was on the Administration's payroll when she testified in 2003 before the Senate subcommittee on the Constitution.

Just months before her appearance before the subcommittee she wrote in the National Review that "Polygamy is not worse than gay marriage, it is better."

Interviewed for a Wednesday column by the Post's Howard Kurtz, Gallagher said, "Did I violate journalistic ethics by not disclosing it? I don't know. You tell me." She also told Kurtz she would have "been happy to tell anyone who called me" about the contract but that "frankly, it never occurred to me" to disclose it.

After Kurtz told her Tuesday that he was working on a story about the payoff, Gallagher filed a column in which she said that "I should have disclosed a government contract when I later wrote about the Bush marriage initiative. I would have, if I had remembered it. My apologies to my readers."

Earlier this month is was disclosed that another prominent conservative columnist was also paid by the Bush Administration to promote the President's agenda in his columns.

Armstrong Williams who regularly attacks gays was paid nearly a quarter million dollars to promote the No Child Left Behind law according to documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by USA Today.

Tribune Media Services dropped Williams's column after his administration contract was disclosed. Universal Press Syndicate, which distributes Gallagher's column, said it plans no such action.

The nation's largest LGBT civil rights organization Wednesday called on the Acting Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services to investigate whether Gallagher violated federal law by not disclosing the funding to the public or Congress.

"The public deserves to know if there are other 'pay-to-sway' columnists and opinion leaders on the Bush Administration payroll," said HRC Political Director Winnie Stachelberg.

In the letter, Stachelberg wrote, "The failure to disclose a financial conflict-of-interest seems to us to be a clear violation of the public's trust in journalist integrity. We would like to know whether federal law or congressional rules were violated when Gallagher testified before Congress, testimony that to our knowledge was not preceded by disclosures of these financial contracts and interests. ... In an era of pinched funding, where critical health care and social service programs are experiencing severe budget cuts, we find the use of government funds for political advocacy to be deeply troubling."

National Stonewall Democrats also criticized Gallagher.

"Maggie Gallagher is perhaps the best know advocate for marriage discrimination against gay families," said Dave Noble, NSD Executive Director. "The White House should not be shadow funding her activities while Republicans call on her to testify before Congress as an independent voice on such matters."

During a scheduled news conference Wednesday the President was asked about paying journalists for promoting Administration policy.

"It's wrong," Bush said, adding he has instructed his cabinet not to allow it to occur again.

"We value our reputation with the press, Bush said, "And the press must remain independent."

posted by Anthony # 6:59 AM

by The Associated Press
Posted: January 26, 2005 9:02 pm. ET

(Santa Ana, California) They filed their lawsuit almost as an afterthought. But a legal challenge by a gay couple from suburban Orange County against laws banning same-sex marriage has suddenly become an important case in a thinning field of litigation on the issue.

Christopher Hammer and Arthur Smelt plan to be in U.S. District Court on Thursday as their attorney argues that the federal Defense of Marriage Act and California's Proposition 22 are violations of civil rights akin to slavery or denying women the right to vote.

The hearing comes two days after gay couples in Florida decided to drop their lawsuits, leaving the California case as the only federal court challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act.

"Certainly, eyes are going to be focused on this particular case," said Matthew Staver, president of Liberty Counsel, an opponent of gay marriage involved in some 30 cases around the nation.
The only other same-sex marriage case pending in federal court, according to lawyers on both sides of the debate, is one in Nebraska that challenges a state law on same-sex marriages. The judge has not ruled yet in that case.

Hammer and Smelt, both 45 and on disability retirement from their jobs, met in 1996 and held a commitment ceremony in their Mission Viejo home a year later in front of a few family members.

They tried to get a marriage license in Orange County at the time but were turned down.
"I was laughed at. They said, 'don't even bother,'" Hammer said.

But last year, as the couple watched news reports of gays and lesbians getting married in San Francisco - ceremonies later halted by a court - they decided to give it another shot. Turned down again, they filed a lawsuit.

It's a matter of principal and fairness, the men said.

"Everybody should have the right to get married. That's all," Smelt said. "That's just how I feel."
Their attorney, Richard C. Gilbert, decided to pursue the case in federal court, even though most cases elsewhere were filed in state courts, where activists believe their chances are better.
"Marriage traditionally has been a state law matter," said Jennifer Pizer, senior counsel with the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund.

Gilbert said federal and state laws against same sex marriage are unconstitutional.
On Tuesday, three gay couples in Florida dropped their lawsuits challenging the Defense of Marriage Act after a judge dismissed their cases. They decided not to risk appeals that could result in the U.S. Supreme Court setting a precedent by rejecting the cases.

Gilbert, who said his arguments are different from those used in Florida, was stunned to learn the cases had been dropped and believes that if he loses before the federal judge in Santa Ana, he will prevail on appeal.

"I'll fight all the way to the United States Supreme Court if these plaintiffs are willing to fight," he said.

In Thursday's hearing before U.S. District Judge Gary L. Taylor, Gilbert will go up against lawyers for the U.S. Department of Justice, the California Attorney General's Office and Orange County.

The judge will also hear from two private groups - the Florida-based Liberty Counsel and Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund - that believe gay marriages undermine traditional marriage.

Taylor has not said when he will rule in the case.

The state attorney general, Lambda and the city of San Francisco have filed briefs asking that he delay a decision until after a ruling, expected soon, by San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer on suits seeking to make California the only state other than Massachusetts where gays and lesbians can marry.

posted by Anthony # 6:57 AM

January 25, 2005

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 7:38 a.m. ET
MADRID, Spain (AP) -- Spain's defense minister on Tuesday rejected Pope John Paul II's criticism of its Socialist government, which wants to legalize gay marriage and streamline laws on divorce and abortion, and he said some church positions go against the teachings of Jesus Christ.

``Faith is not something a government can impose. It is not something that it is up to the state, but rather to people,'' Defense Minister Jose Bono told Spanish radio, the news agency Efe reported.

He said some of the church's positions, such as its opposition to homosexuality and use of condoms, go against the message of Jesus Christ, according to the report.

``Today, Christ would be more worried about the 25,000 children who die each day of hunger or in wars. I think Christ would side with those who are peaceful,'' Bono was quoted as saying.
Bono is believed to be the only practicing Catholic in the Spanish Cabinet.

He spoke a day after the pope, in a meeting with visiting Spanish bishops, said secular trends in Spain were leading youth to become indifferent to religion.

In Spain, the pope's comments were widely seen as a sharp dig at Socialists who took power in April and are pushing an agenda that includes legalization of gay marriage, fast-tracking divorce proceedings, and relaxing Spain's strict abortion law.

Spanish newspapers quoted the pope as saying, for instance, that ``the public powers'' in Spain have the obligation to guarantee parents the right to religious education for their children.

The Socialist government did away with a law that would have made religious education mandatory in public schools and have students' grades in these classes count toward their overall average. Now, the classes are optional and don't count toward the average.

The pope's comments came after a leading Spanish prelate said last week that bishops there support the use of condoms to fight AIDS. The prelate quickly backtracked, saying the church believes condom use is immoral.

The pope made no reference Monday to those comments.

He reminded the bishops of Spain's ``deep Christian roots'' and warned of the spread of ``a mentality inspired by secularism.'' New generations, he said, are growing up with indifference to religion, ignorance of Christian traditions and a ``temptation to moral permissiveness.''

On Saturday, the pope reiterated the Vatican's position that education, chastity and sexual fidelity are the responsible methods to combat AIDS.

posted by Anthony # 8:23 AM

by Paul Johnson 365Gay.com Washington Bureau Chief
Posted: January 25, 2005 2:03 pm. ET

(Washington, D.C.) A coalition of the nation's largest right wing "pro-family" organizations is reportedly threatening to stall the White House's plans for Social Security reform unless the President becomes more active in the push for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

The Arlington Group, in a letter to Carl Rove obtained by The New York Times, says that conservatives are angry that President Bush has placed Social Security reform ahead of the proposed amendment on its 'to do' list for Congress.

The letter, according to The Times, points out that many social conservatives voted for Bush because of his stance on same-sex marriage and reminds Rove that the President will need all the support he can muster to pass Social Security legislation.

"We couldn't help but notice the contrast between how the president is approaching the difficult issue of Social Security privatization where the public is deeply divided and the marriage issue where public opinion is overwhelmingly on his side," the letter said.

"Is he prepared to spend significant political capital on privatization but reluctant to devote the same energy to preserving traditional marriage? If so it would create outrage with countless voters who stood with him just a few weeks ago, including an unprecedented number of African-Americans, Latinos and Catholics who broke with tradition and supported the president solely because of this issue."

The letter also criticizes the President for telling the Washington Post that he does not think an anti-gay marriage amendment can pass the Senate.

But, within hours of the Post hitting newsstands the White House was denying the President had thrown in the towel on the amendment.

Nevertheless, the Arlington Group is not satisfied, noting that in his interview with the Post, "He even declined to answer a simple question about whether he would use his bully pulpit to overcome this Senate foot-dragging."

The group calls for Bush to appoint "a top level" White House official to coordinate opposition to same-sex marriage, "as a show of commitment."

Yesterday, the proposed amendment was reintroduced in the Senate. It is the same legislation that failed last year.

posted by Anthony # 8:21 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: January 25, 2005 5:01 pm. ET

(Washington) The "glass is nearly half full" a new analysis of LGBT civil rights says.

The study, by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute shows that 47 % of the U.S. population – 138 million people – now lives in a jurisdiction that bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Ten years ago, the figure was 34%.

The analysis was undertaken after Illinois last week enacted legislation banning anti-gay discrimination.

The study also found that more than one in four Americans - 27% – now lives in a jurisdiction that bans discrimination against transgender persons, up from 4% ten years ago, and 5% just five years ago. Illinois's law also bans discrimination based on gender identity and expression.
"Thanks to the hard work of grassroots activists, the glass of basic fairness for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans is slowly filling up," said Sean Cahill, Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute. "While we have a long way to go until all of us are protected from discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations, the progress is undeniable and unstoppable."
The Policy Institute analysis concluded that the actions of state legislatures and town councils reflected strong public support for laws protecting gay and transgender people from discrimination.

As nondiscrimination protections have spread across the nation at the local and state level, a federal bill to ban anti-gay discrimination in employment has languished in Congress for nearly a decade.

But, the study also points out that 156 million Americans, or 53% of the U.S. population, live in a state or jurisdiction where one can be fired, refused service in a restaurant, or denied housing or a loan simply because of his/her actual or perceived sexual orientation.

Fifteen states ban discrimination based on sexual orientation. The first state to ban anti-gay discrimination was 1982 in Wisconsin. Five states ban discrimination based on gender identity and expression. The first state to ban anti-transgender discrimination was Minnesota in 1993. Washington, DC and more than 200 towns, cities and counties also ban sexual orientation discrimination, and more than 70 local jurisdictions ban anti-transgender discrimination.

posted by Anthony # 8:20 AM

by Ben Thompson 365Gay.com Ottawa Bureau
Posted: January 25, 2005 7:30 pm. ET

(Ottawa) Canada's two major parties are meeting in opposite ends of the country, and the stormy sessions over same-sex marriage are mirroring the weather outside.

Although Members of Parliament in both the Liberal and Conservative parties have been promised a free vote the outcome will be an indication of how much strength the respective party leaders have.

Prime Minister Paul Martin is believed to have enough support both within his minority government and from the small New Democratic Party and the Bloc Quebecois to pass the gay marriage bill when it comes before the House of Commons next month, but by all accounts it will be with the slimmest of margins.

There remains a vocal group of Liberal dissidents, mainly from rural ridings, who oppose the legislation. This week's Liberal caucus meeting in Fredericton, New Brunswick, has been the scene of intense lobbying by both sides in the marriage issue.

Martin has also been vilified by some in his own party for suggesting last week he could call a snap election if the marriage bill is defeated. Martin later backed off saying he would only call an election if the opposition Conservatives won a vote on the use of the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution to block the bill.

Martin is expected to weather the criticism and divisions within his own party, but on the other side of the country, in Victoria, British Columbia, Conservative leader Stephen Harper faced a potentially more serious problem.

The Conservatives, a merger of the extreme rightwing Alliance Party and the more moderate Progressive Conservatives, are facing their first major ideological division.

Harper has angered many Tories by launching an ad campaign against same-sex marriage without consulting the party.

Deputy party leader Peter MacKay said he was surprised to learn about the ads, which will be released in ethnic newspapers this week.

"I don't know how to explain that but I wasn't aware specifically of an ad campaign," he said.
Conservative MP Belinda Stronach, who supports same-sex marriage, said she too was unaware of the campaign.

"I wasn't consulted about the ads and I would not have run those ads," she said.

The Quebec wing of the party, arguably the most moderate, also supports gay marriage.

With a minority government an election could come at any time, and despite the divisions within the Liberals, the Conservatives - and Harper in particular - are seen as walking on thin ice. If the party maintains Harper's strict far right stance it stands to lose support in vote rich Ontario and Quebec where gay marriage has widespread support. But, if the party veers to far toward the center it stands to lose support in the west.

Recent polls show that if an election were held now the Liberals would win a slim majority.

posted by Anthony # 8:18 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: January 25, 2005 9:02 pm. ET

(Madrid) Spain's Socialist government Tuesday told the Vatican to stop butting in on affairs of state. The warning came from Defense Minister Jose Bono.

The Vatican has publicly rebuked the government for bring in legislation on same-sex marriage and for streamlining laws on abortion and divorce.

"Faith is not something a government can impose. It is not something that it is up to the state, but rather to people," Defense Bono told Spanish radio.

That the criticism came from Bono was particularly noteworthy. He is the only practicing Catholic in the government.

In the radio interview Bono said some of the church's positions, such as its opposition to homosexuality and the use of condoms, go against the message of Jesus Christ.

"Today, Christ would be more worried about the 25,000 children who die each day of hunger or in wars. I think Christ would side with those who are peaceful," Bono said.

The criticism of the Church's stand came a day after the Pope, in a meeting with visiting Spanish bishops, said secular trends in Spain were leading youth to become indifferent to religion. The remarks were seen in the Spanish press as a stiff rebuke of the government of Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero.

Last June, shortly after Zapatero announced the gay marriage bill, he was summoned to the Vatican for a severe tongue lashing from Pope John Paul.

On the weekend, the Pope attacked the use of condoms, after a leading Spanish prelate said that bishops support the use of contraceptives to fight AIDS. The prelate quickly backtracked after the Vatican intervened.

posted by Anthony # 8:16 AM

January 25, 2005
New York Times
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
WASHINGTON, Jan. 24 - A coalition of major conservative Christian groups is threatening to withhold support for President Bush's plans to remake Social Security unless Mr. Bush vigorously champions a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

The move came as Senate Republicans vowed on Monday to reintroduce the proposed amendment, which failed in the Senate last year by a substantial margin. Party leaders, who left it off their list of priorities for the legislative year, said they had no immediate plans to bring it to the floor because they still lacked the votes for passage.

But the coalition that wrote the letter, known as the Arlington Group, is increasingly impatient.
In a confidential letter to Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's top political adviser, the group said it was disappointed with the White House's decision to put Social Security and other economic issues ahead of its paramount interest: opposition to same-sex marriage.

The letter, dated Jan. 18, pointed out that many social conservatives who voted for Mr. Bush because of his stance on social issues lack equivalent enthusiasm for changing the retirement system or other tax issues. And to pass to pass any sweeping changes, members of the group argue, Mr. Bush will need the support of every element of his coalition.

"We couldn't help but notice the contrast between how the president is approaching the difficult issue of Social Security privatization where the public is deeply divided and the marriage issue where public opinion is overwhelmingly on his side," the letter said. "Is he prepared to spend significant political capital on privatization but reluctant to devote the same energy to preserving traditional marriage? If so it would create outrage with countless voters who stood with him just a few weeks ago, including an unprecedented number of African-Americans, Latinos and Catholics who broke with tradition and supported the president solely because of this issue."

The letter continued, "When the administration adopts a defeatist attitude on an issue that is at the top of our agenda, it becomes impossible for us to unite our movement on an issue such as Social Security privatization where there are already deep misgivings."

The letter also expressed alarm at recent comments President Bush made to The Washington Post, including his statement that "nothing will happen" on the marriage amendment for now because many senators did not see the need for it.

"We trust that you can imagine our deep disappointment at the defeatist position President Bush demonstrated" in the interview, the group wrote. "He even declined to answer a simple question about whether he would use his bully pulpit to overcome this Senate foot-dragging."
The letter also noted that in an interview before the election Mr. Bush "appeared to endorse civil unions" for same-sex couples.

The group asked Mr. Rove to designate "a top level" official to coordinate opposition to same-sex marriage, as a show of commitment.

Trent Duffy, a spokesman for the White House, said on Monday that "the president was simply talking about a situation that exists in the Senate, not about his personal commitment or his willingness to continue to push this issue." Mr. Duffy said the "president remains very committed to a marriage amendment" and added, "We always welcome suggestions from our friends."

Some Senate Republican leaders were not optimistic on Monday about the amendment's prospects this year.

"I think if we had the vote right now we'd come up short," said Senator Rick Santorum, the Pennsylvania Republican who is a member of the leadership and one of the amendment's most vocal backers in Congress. "We'd like to bring it up when we have the best possible chance of getting it passed."
The members of the coalition that wrote the letter are some of Mr. Bush's most influential conservative Christian supporters, and include Dr. James C. Dobson of Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, the Southern Baptist Convention, the American Family Association, Jerry Falwell and Paul Weyrich.

Several members of the group said that not long ago, many of their supporters were working or middle class, members of families that felt more allegiance to the Democratic Party because of programs like Social Security before gravitating to the Republican Party as it took up more cultural conservative issues over the last 20 years.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, declined to talk about the letter, but said, "The enthusiasm to get behind his proposals is going to require that he get behind the issues that really motivated social conservative voters."

Asked to estimate the level of discontent with the White House among the group on a scale from one to 10, Mr. Perkins put it at 8.

posted by Anthony # 6:56 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: January 24, 2005 11:02 am. ET

(New York City) "No Name-Calling Week" began today at middle schools across the country with conservative groups denouncing it as an "excuse to advance the homosexual agenda".
The week, which was created two years ago by Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network, seeks to promote tolerance of all minorities.

But, groups like Concerned Women for America says schools that embrace the program are treading on dangerous water.

"I hope schools will realize it's less an exercise in tolerance than a platform for liberal groups to promote their pan-sexual agenda," said Robert Knight, director of Concerned Women for America's Culture and Family Institute.

"Schools should be steering kids away from identifying as gay," Knight told the Associated Press. "You can teach civility to kids and tell them every child is valued without conveying the message that failure to accept homosexuality as normal is a sign of bigotry."

This year's "No Name-Calling Week" draws its inspiration from a teen novel "The Misfits" which deals with four much-taunted middle schoolers - one of them gay - who run for the student council on a platform advocating an end to nasty name-calling.

GLSEN worked with "Misfits" out author James Howe to develop a program for schools.

"Gay students aren't the only kids targeted - this isn't about special rights for them," Howe said. "But the fact is that 'faggot' is probably the most common insult at schools."

Last month, an Iowa school board banned "The Misfits" from classrooms following complaints from some parents and a number of schools, mainly in 'red' states have refused to recognize "No Name-Calling Week".

GLSEN said Monday that it is uncertain of the exact number of schools that will participate in this week's event, but that 5,100 educators from 36 states have registered, up from 4,000 last year.

"No Name-Calling Week" has the endorsement of the Girl Scouts, the national associations of elementary and secondary school principals, and the National Education Association.

"People who would criticize this, regardless of who came out with it, are people with bad hearts," said Jerald Newberry, who directs the NEA's health information network.

Recent studies have shown that LGBT students face a greater risk of harassment than other students and a survey released earlier this month indicates that 95 percent of the nation's schools have little or no gay, lesbian or bisexual resources in their counseling services and only one percent have transgender resource.

GLSEN executive director Kevin Jennings said that schools need to do more than hold a one-week event to draw attention to bullying.

"Every week should be 'No Name-Calling Week', but having one week at least raises the visibility of the issue," Jennings said.

posted by Anthony # 6:54 AM

by Paul Johnson 365Gay.com Washington Bureau Chief
Posted: January 24, 2005 2:03 pm. ET

(Washington) Despite President Bush's belief there are not enough votes in Congress to pass an amendment banning gay marriage the measure returned to the Senate Monday.

The legislation was reintroduced this afternoon by Colorado Republican Wayne Allard.
"This amendment represents, I think, the democratic process or the democratic response to recent and widespread efforts by activist courts to change this age-old definition of marriage," Allard said at a late morning news conference.

LGBT civil rights groups immediately denounced the move. The Human Rights Campaign said it shows Sen. Allard and other conservatives backing the amendment are out of touch with the American people.

"The American people value freedom, not discrimination," said HRC Political Director Winnie Stachelberg. "Americans want laws that ensure the safety and stability of their neighbors, and that's what our policymakers should be focused on. Pushing an amendment that would deny protections to millions of Americans is completely out of step with our nation's values."

Matt Foreman, Executive Director at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force said the new attempt to pass the Marriage Amendment will be a key test of Senate Democrats.

"Its not relevant what the Republicans in the Senate do," Foreman told 365Gay.com.

"What is relevant is whether Democrats and our friends and allies continue to stand with us and against this discriminatory legislation."

“The Democratic Party is still opposed to this amendment," said Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe. "It is wrong to write discrimination into the U.S. Constitution and it is shameful for Washington Republicans to attack gay and lesbian families for purely political reasons.”

“This is clearly political payback," said McAuliffe. "The only reason Washington Republicans would introduce a measure that has already failed is to appease a small group of right-wing extremists who are now running their Party."

The so-called Marriage Protection Amendment would deny marriage to same-sex couples and deny the ability to provide any protections to same-sex couples, such as domestic partnerships and civil unions.

It is the same measure as Allard sponsored in the last session. That attempt failed in July on procedural grounds.

The House version also died partly due to disarray within the GOP.

Following the House vote Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) vowed the issue would be resurrected.

"We will come back and come back until this is passed," DeLay warned.

Earlier this month President Bush told the Washington Post that he would not press the Senate to pass a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

"The point is, is that Senators have made it clear that so long as DOMA is deemed constitutional, nothing will happen. I'd take that admonition seriously," Bush told the Post.

But, within hours of the Post hitting newsstands the White House was denying the President had thrown in the towel on the amendment.

"Who's to say whether we have enough votes or not," Allard told reporters Monday, adding that the new congressional term has just begun.

Allard said he expects GOP leaders to call for a vote before the 2006 elections and added, "I think it would be foolhardy to back off when we've got a good head of steam coming out of the election."

"Sixty percent of Americans support either marriage or civil unions for same-sex couples," said HRC's Stachelberg.

"Same-sex couples are already denied more than 1,100 federal protections that other families take for granted. This amendment would enshrine that discrimination into our nation's most cherished document of freedom. It would also threaten protections that states have enacted, and on which thousands of American families already rely. It's wrong. Congress should be spending time protecting Americans, not looking for ways to preserve our peril."

posted by Anthony # 6:53 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: January 24, 2005 8:26 pm. ET

(Salem, Oregon) Two organizations that spearheaded the drive to amend Oregon's constitution to ban same-sex marriage has now turned its sights on a bill that would provide civil rights protections for gays and lesbians.

The Oregon Family Council and the Defense of Marriage Coalition say the legislation is unnecessary and have vowed to defeat it.

The legislation would ban on discrimination against gays in employment, housing and public accommodations.

OFC leader Tim Nashif said there is no proof discrimination exists against gays and lesbians in Oregon, except possibly in "isolated" instances.

"They are creating a problem where none exists," Nashif said of lawmakers including Gov. Ted Kulongoski who support the bill.

Nashif said that if the legislation is passed it would only result in frivolous lawsuits.
Kulongoski, in his state-of-the-state address this month, listed passage of the bill as a high priority.

Basic Rights Oregon, the state's largest LGBT civil rights group, said it believes most Oregonians would support the anti-discrimination bill even though they voted in favor of banning gay marriage last November.

"There are a lot of people who voted for Measure 36 who at the same time think discrimination against gays and lesbian is wrong," said Rebekah Kassell a spokesperson for the group.

Last week Illinois became the 15th state to enact anti-discrimination protections to gays and lesbians.

The Oregon Family Council and the Defense of Marriage Coalition are also opposing legislation to create civil unions in the state.

The legislation would give gay couples many of the rights of married people.

House Majority Leader Wayne Scott (R-Canby) said he would oppose both bills also calling them "unnecessary."

In November Oregon voters joined voters in 10 other states to approve a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

The issue of same-sex couples is currently before the state's Supreme Court.

In December the Court was told that the Oregon Constitution requires that same-sex couples receive the same legal protections as couples that get married.

The court was hearing arguments in a case that began when Multnomah County last March began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The court must decide two issues: what to do about the nearly 3,000 marriages performed after Multnomah County began issuing licenses last year, and whether, despite the ban on gay marriage the Constitution requires the state to provide rights and benefits to same-sex couples.

posted by Anthony # 6:51 AM

by Fidel Ortega 365Gay.com Miami Bureau
Posted: January 24, 2005 8:26 pm. ET

(Miami, Florida) Last week's ruling upholding the federal Defense of Marriage Act will not be appealed the attorney in the case announced Monday night. "With the present Supreme Court not willing even to hear the Florida adoption case, and the possibility of newly appointed Supreme Court judges by the Bush administration being even more conservative, it would not be prudent at this time to continue this effort," said Ellis Rubin.

The case was the first legal challenge to federal DOMA.

The decision, Rubin said, followed a meeting with Matthew Coles, Director of the ACLU Lesbian and Gay Rights Project.

The case involved a Tampa lesbian couple who were married in Massachusetts.

Rev. Nancy Wilson, a Metropolitan Community Church minister, and Paula Schoenwether, a family marriage counselor were married July 2 in Massachusetts, the only state where same-sex marriages are recognized.

The two have been together for 27 years.

The suit named John Ashcroft, who at the time was Attorney General, as defendant.
In his ruling, U.S. District Judge James S. Moody ruled in favor of filings by the Justice Department that the government has a legitimate interest in allowing states to ban same-sex marriages.

Ellis had argued that that right to marry is a "fundamental right."

But Moody disagreed, saying the Defense of Marriage Act was not discriminatory on the basis of sex because it treats men and women equally and that the government met its burden of stating a legitimate interest for only allowing marriages to exist between men and women."The fact that so many courts have closed themselves to the equal rights of our community demonstrates the urgent need for our movement to get back into the streets, where history has shown that civil rights movements are ultimately won," said Robin Tyler, Executive Director of the Equality Campaign where Rubin is chief legal counsel.

posted by Anthony # 6:50 AM

January 23, 2005OP-ED COLUMNIST
New York Times
By MAUREEN DOWD

I should have known.

I can't believe I thought he was just an innocent little sponge wearing tight shorts.

What in the name of Davy Jones's locker would a sponge be doing holding hands with a starfish or donning purple and hot-pink flowered garb to redecorate the Krusty Krab if he weren't a perverted invertebrate?

Before this is over, we're going to find out that SpongeBob is the illicit spawn of the Tampa shock jock Bubba the Love Sponge. Who knew SpongeBob would become as fraught as the cover of "Abbey Road"?

It took Dr. James Dobson, the conservative Christian leader and gay marriage opponent, who claims the president's re-election was more a mandate for his ideas than George Bush's, to point out the insidious underside of the popular cartoon character SpongeBob SquarePants. It takes a sponge to brainwash a child.

Holy Abe! Dr. Dobson outed SpongeBob at a black-tie inaugural fete last week for members of Congress and political allies. He said that a "pro-homosexual video" - starring SpongeBob, Barney, Jimmy Neutron, Winnie the Pooh, Kermit the Frog and Miss Piggy - was set to go to elementary schools to promote a "tolerance pledge," including tolerance for differences of "sexual identity."

Hoppin' clams, as they say in Bikini Bottom, the den of epicene iniquity where SpongeBob lives. Nothing good can come of tolerance.

Dan Martinsen, a spokesman for Nickelodeon, where SpongeBob beats the pants off the competition, was flummoxed: "It's a sponge, for crying out loud. He has no sexuality."
Dr. Dobson has done the country a service by reminding us to watch out for the dark side of lovable but malleable sponges. He inspired me to fish through the president's Inaugural Address with a more skeptical eye.

Mr. Bush's epic pledge to support democratic movements and institutions in every nation and to end "tyranny in our world" may seem wildly pie-in-the-sky, given that the Iraq vortex has drained our military.

Although his incendiary speech about "the untamed fire of freedom" has been widely interpreted as a code-red warning to both foes and friends, I wonder if the president knew he was literally promising to stamp out undemocratic governments across the globe, which would include some of our top allies. He probably thought it was a fancier way of repackaging the Iraq invasion, not as a failed search for W.M.D., but as a blow for freedom (a word used 27 times) and liberty (used 15 times).

I wonder if W. is surprised that people took it literally. The Bushes don't always understand that they're being held to their rhetoric in major speeches. (Read my warships.) For such a brass-knuckled vision, the president's delivery was curiously unemotional.

Some of the same advisers who filled Mr. Bush's brain with sugary visions of a quick and painless Iraq makeover did mean the speech to be literal; they are drawing up military options for the rest of the Middle East. Once again, the lovable and malleable president seems to be soaking up the martial mind-set of those around him, almost like ... a sponge.
SpongeBush SquarePants!

We can only hope that Dr. Dobson doesn't pick up on the resemblance. SpongeBob, as his song goes, "lives in a pineapple under the sea/absorbent and yellow and porous is he!" SpongeBush lives in a bubble in D.C./absorbent and shallow and porous is he!

SpongeBush ensnared the country in a whale of a mess in Iraq because he guilelessly absorbed the neocons' dire warnings about Saddam's weapons capabilities and their rosy assumptions about Ahmad Chalabi's leadership capabilities.

Dick Cheney is a gruff Mr. Krabs taskmaster to SpongeBush, but SpongeBush is crazy about him anyhow. W. trustingly let his vice president make the worst-case scenario about Iraq a first-case scenario.

Mr. Bush might have thought he was just blowing pretty bubbles full of lofty ideals about freedom and liberty in his speech, but Mr. Cheney and the neocons seem intent on filleting Iran and Syria. (Doesn't Richard Perle remind you of the snarky and pretentious next-door neighbor to SpongeBob, Squidward Tentacles?)

The vice president told Don Imus that Iran was "right at the top of the list" of trouble spots, and that Israel "might well decide to act first" with a military strike.

Even if he's a little light in the flippers, SpongeBob has brought children good, clean fun. SpongeBush has brought the world dark, endless fights.

posted by Anthony # 8:47 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: January 22, 2005 4:02 pm. ET

The producer of a pro-tolerance music video for kids, featuring scores of their TV heroes ranging from the Muppets to SpongeBob SquarePants, says he is astounded that the project has been assailed by some conservatives as a cunning attempt to advocate homosexuality.

"The only response is, 'Wow,'" said Nile Rodgers, a veteran musician and producer whose We Are Family Foundation plans to give away 60,000 copies of the video after it is aired next month on several television networks.

The video itself involves a rendition of the 1979 hit song "We Are Family," that Rodgers co-wrote, and contains no reference to gay rights or sexual orientation.

However, as 365Gay.com entertainment columnist Mickey Barnes reported on Wednesday, Christian fundamentalists have gone ballistic over SpongeBob.

The Mississippi-based American Family Association, in a detailed article by the editor of its monthly journal, insists the endeavor has a pro-gay subtext.

"On the surface, the project may appear to be a worthwhile attempt to foster greater understanding of cultural differences," wrote Ed Vitagliano. "However, a short step beneath the surface reveals that one of the differences being celebrated is homosexuality."

To back his assertions, Vitagliano said the foundation's Web site contained links to other organizations' educational material supporting tolerance of gays and lesbians.

Vitagliano also complained of a "tolerance pledge" found on the We Are Family Web site, borrowed from a civil rights group, which says in part, "To help keep diversity a wellspring of strength and make America a better place for all, I pledge to have respect for people whose abilities, beliefs, culture, race, sexual identity or other characteristics are different from my own."

Rodgers said he asked some of his foundation's officials if they thought the reference to "sexual identity" should be removed from the Web site, and the consensus was to keep it.

"I don't understand their motivation," Rodgers said of his critics. "Nothing could be more devastating to the people who believe in me and our organization than to imply there's an insidious undercurrent to it."

"As I grew older, I've grown to respect people with a different point of view," he said. "The problem with this whole thing is that people are forcing me to be confrontational."

The matter gained attention Thursday, after The New York Times reported that prominent conservative James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, alluded to SpongeBob SquarePants' role in a "pro-homosexual video" during remarks to a pre-inauguration dinner in Washington.

For at least two years, some cultural analysts have mused about whether SpongeBob, a talking sponge, is "gay." Though the cartoon character does have a loyal following among gay men, his creator, Stephen Hillenburg, has described him as an asexual oddball.

Nevertheless, the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center said Saturday that it would welcome Sponge Bob. In a tongue in cheek statement the Center invited SpongeBob to join the Center's recently formed gay/straight alliance of cartoon characters that includes Bugs Bunny, Tinky Winky, Waylon Smithers and Batman and Robin."

But, the center also said that the message from conservatives has serious repercussions on young people.

"If SpongeBob is gay, we want him to know he's not alone," said Lorri L. Jean, the Center's Chief Executive Officer.

"The L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center's youth center and transitional living program can offer him support and a home if he's ever kicked out of his pineapple under the sea or attacked because of his sexual orientation."

Jean also called on conservative groups to end their attacks on youth; real or animated.

"The anti-gay rhetoric from supposedly 'pro-family' organizations ... sends a dangerous message to parents that something is wrong with their gay or lesbian children and contributes to feelings of shame and humiliation among youth. All too often, the result is that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender youth are forced out by their parents or flee a home that feels unsafe. Many come to Los Angeles where there are thousands of GLBT young people living on the streets. The Center's 24-bed residence for homeless youth is unfortunately always full."

posted by Anthony # 8:44 AM

by The Associated Press
Posted: January 23, 2005 12:01 am. ET

(Salem, Oregon) A bill that would require Oregon adoption agencies to give opposite-sex, married couples preference over same-sex couples or single people is being attacked as "outrageous" by a gay rights organization.Basic Rights Oregon pledges to fight the measure that was introduced by Rep. John Lim (R-Gresham).

Lim said Friday that he has no intention of discriminating against gay or single parents with the measure, House Bill 2401."I'm considering what's the best interest of the child or children," Lim said, "and the chance is they will have a better opportunity to grow up under the circumstances of mom and dad."But Rebekah Kassell of Basic Rights Oregon said there's no evidence to support the idea that opposite-sex parents are better for children or more capable, loving or committed than same-sex parents."There is no way to square this type of legislation with the overwhelming body of research that says same-sex parents make as qualified of parents as straight parents," Kassell said.She said the bill reveals a broader agenda "to diminish or limit the ability of same-sex parents or partners to be parents" that she doesn't think Oregonians support.Lim said he does not intend to prohibit same-sex parents from adopting children. The former state senator also said his record will show he is strongly opposed to any type of discrimination.In 2003, 17 children were adopted by two people of the same sex, according to Kathy Ledesma, program manager for adoption services for the Department of Human Services.She said the number has been steady for several years.Not all of those children were adopted by gay couples, though. She said, for example, a grandmother might adopt a child with her adult daughter. She also said the agency requires all adults living in the same household to adopt the child, so more than two adults - gay or straight, single or married - can be adoptive parents.The department has been researching same-sex parenting since spring, when then-Rep. Betsy Close, R-Albany, told Ledesma she planned to introduce a similar bill if re-elected.Close instead gave up her House seat in an unsuccessful bid for secretary of state in the November election."We couldn't find anything in reliable literature that would lead us to believe that a practice of adoption of children by couples of the same gender is contrary to their best interest necessarily," Ledesma said. Ledesma said it's too soon to comment on Lim's bill, which was introduced Thursday. Ledesma said she wants to do what's best for the more than 100,000 children up for adoption in the country by finding qualified parents, regardless of their marital status or sexuality.In addition to requiring that the state give preference to prospective adoptive parents who are married, it also would give preference to parents living in Oregon.Exceptions include if the prospective parent is a birth relative or if the child has developed attachments to single or same-sex foster parents.

posted by Anthony # 8:43 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: January 23, 2005 4:03 pm. ET

(Salt Lake City Utah) Less than three months after Utah voters approved an amendment banning same-sex marriage the Legislature is considering a bill to give some rights to gay and lesbian couples.

The legislation was approved unanimously Friday in committee in the Senate. Even Republican Majority Leader Peter Knudson who moved for a vote said it is "a fine piece of legislation."
Under the proposed bill any two adults even siblings or a grandparent and child could register with the state Health Department.

It would grant hospital-visitation rights, inheritance benefits, and allow partners to make organ-donation decisions, make funeral arrangements and emergency medical choices for the other person.

Jane Marquardt, chairwoman of the board for Equality Utah, said the proposed legislation is not a civil union bill. "[It] in no way approaches the more than 1,200 rights and responsibilities that automatically accompany traditional marriage," she said.
Nevertheless, she says it is an "excellent start."

The legislation has the support of Republican Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr.

It now moves to the full Senate for a vote. It would need approval of the House before going to Huntsman for signature.

posted by Anthony # 8:41 AM

by Ben Thompson 365Gay.com Ottawa Bureau
Posted: January 24, 2005 12:01 am. ET

(Ottawa) As Canada's Prime Minister Paul Martin and Opposition leader Stephen Harper verbally spar over same-sex marriage, the country's two biggest denominations have come out swinging with one opposing gay marriage and the other endorsing it.

A letter by the Roman Catholic primate of Canada denouncing same-sex marriage was read Sunday in parish churches across the country. "At the risk of being judged politically incorrect, we need to recall that the bill under discussion is offensive to the moral and religious sensibility of a great number of citizens, both Catholic and non-Catholic," Marc Cardinal Ouellet writes in the letter.

"We therefore find ourselves at a turning point in the evolution of Canadian society, and the bill announced by the government threatens to unleash nothing less than a cultural upheaval whose negative consequences are still impossible to predict."

But, as the Catholic Church was mustering support to oppose the legislation to legalize gay marriage the country's largest Protestant denomination was sounding its support.

"Some will protest that we must have faith in the Bible, and that the Bible takes an unfavorable view of intimate same-sex relationship. But I would answer that Christian faith is not an uncritical repetition of a received text. It is a mindful commitment to the power of love, to which the text seeks to give witness. Every generation of the Christian faith must decide how they will honor that demand of love in the living of their days. Changing circumstances and changing ideas are not the enemy of faith," said the Right Rev. Dr. Peter Short, Moderator of the United Church of Canada in an open letter to all members of Parliament.

"It is wrong to invoke the love of God in order that one person's 'values' might diminish another's value. Those who claim that homosexual people threaten to dismantle the value of heterosexual marriage would do well to remember that if anyone destroys marriage, it is married people, not gays and lesbians."

Dr. Short also invited MPs to a parliamentary breakfast that he will host on Parliament Hill on Thursday, February 24, to engage parliamentarians in further conversation on the subject of marriage.

In China, where he is leading a trade delegation, Prime Minister Martin Sunday repeated a threat he made on Friday that he could call a snap election over gay marriage.
Martin said that if his minority Liberals lose a free vote on same-sex marriage it would not necessarily lead to an election call, but, if the Conservatives attempt to invoke the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution he would see it as a confidence motion. If the Tories won that, Martin said, the government would fall.

Martin said that if Conservative leader Stephen Harper wants to ensure marriage in Canada remains between a man a woman, he would have to over-ride the Charter of Rights.
" The only way that that option can be realized is if, in fact, you use the notwithstanding clause. Stephen Harper has got to come clean and tell Canadians the truth -- there are no other options," Martin told reporters.

"I will not allow the rights of Canadians to be taken away and I will make that - the use of the notwithstanding clause - a motion of confidence,'' Martin said at a news conference in Hong Kong.

Harper remains coy on the use of the clause, which allows a government to opt out of any section of the Constitution with which it disagrees.

"The prime minister keeps talking about the notwithstanding clause and legal mumbo jumbo because he doesn't want to face the marriage issue,'' Harper from Vancouver.

But, if the government fell Harper said he would be comfortable campaigning on a traditional definition of marriage. Tory ads are already exploiting the wedge issue.

If the government's gay marriage bill were defeated in Parliament it would not affect the rights of same-sex couples to wed in areas of Canada where the courts have ruled in favor. But, gay couples in the other regions would have to go to court to challenge the existing law. In every area where gay marriage has come before the courts same-sex couples have won.

posted by Anthony # 8:39 AM

January 21, 2005
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 7:36 p.m. ET
CHICAGO (AP) -- Illinois on Friday became the 14th state with a law barring discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Gov. Rod Blagojevich signed a bill that adds ``sexual orientation'' to an existing law that protects people from bias based on race, religion and other traits. It bans discrimination in areas including jobs, housing and credit.

``What we're doing today is older than Scripture: Love thy neighbor,'' Blagojevich said to a cheering group of about 150 gay rights supporters and community leaders.

Opponents had argued the law would be the first step toward the legalization of gay marriage and would infringe on the rights of churches and civic groups to oppose homosexuality on moral grounds.

Proponents argued that such laws, which also are in effect in the District of Columbia, are needed because discrimination against gays is just as wrong as discriminating against people because of race or religion.

posted by Anthony # 11:21 AM

January 21, 2005

By REUTERS
Filed at 4:21 p.m. ET
OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin said on Friday he was prepared to fight an election over the issue of same-sex marriage, but his office insisted the comments did not mean he intended to call an election if legislation legalizing same-sex marriage fails.

However, Martin spokesman Marc Roy said the prime minister could trigger an election if Parliament passed a resolution directing him to override lower court decisions that made gay marriage legal in seven of Canada's 10 provinces and one northern territory.

Martin made his remarks to reporters in Beijing, when asked whether he would call an election over gay marriage.

``It is not my intention to go into an election. We are there to govern, and I want to continue,'' he said in French.

``But if the question you're asking is, am I ready to go into an election to support the Charter of Rights against those who want to attack it, the answer is absolutely yes.''

Roy said the planned legislation to legalize same-sex unions nationally would remain a free vote for Liberal members of Parliament outside the cabinet, but that ministers were required to support the bill.

He also said the bill would not be considered a matter of confidence that could bring down Martin's minority government.

``The prime minister is not contemplating an election over the issue,'' Roy said. ``It's not a matter of confidence.''

However he added that it would be a matter of confidence if there were a vote to return to a ban on gay marriage by using the ``notwithstanding clause'' in the Charter of Rights, a move that allows governments to override the courts.

``If there was a motion to use the notwithstanding clause to deny rights that seven provinces and a territory have already been recognized to have, of course the prime minister would make it a matter of confidence,'' Roy said.

``The consequences of losing such a thing would be going to the polls.''

Conservative leader Stephen Harper, who launched an ad campaign this week against the planned legislation, quickly issued a news release saying he was ready to join battle with Martin over the issue in an election.

``I thought Mr. Martin had an agenda that he was planning to legislate, but if he wants to call an election on this issue, so be it. I am confident that our position on this issue is supported by a majority of Canadians,'' Harper said.

The prime minister lost the Liberals' majority in the federal election last June and the party has not had a bounce in the polls that would enable him to call another vote with any confidence of regaining a majority. The Conservatives have not moved up in the polls either.

posted by Anthony # 11:20 AM

by Ben Thompson 365Gay.com Ottawa Bureau
Posted: January 21, 2005 1:01 pm. ET

(Ottawa) Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin Friday threatened to call a snap election over opposition to his plans to bring in same-sex marriage legislation.

Martin was reacting to claims made yesterday by Conservative leader Stephen Harper' who asserted that same-sex marriage could lead to polygamy.

"I hate to say this but I think you have to draw the line somewhere," Harper told a news conference.

Conservatives plan to introduce legislation next month to maintain the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, and at the same time create civil unions for gay and lesbian couples.

"I believe we have to recognize the traditional definition of marriage in law, otherwise we will continue to be presented with demands that just get more and more radical. I don't believe there's any support in the country for the recognition of polygamy in law," Harper said.
In Beijing where he was on a trade mission Friday an angry Martin accused Harper of attempting to gut the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canada's Bill of Rights.

"It's not my intention to go into an election," said Martin who has a minority in Parliament. "We want to govern.

"Am I ready to go into an election to uphold the charter of rights against those who would attack it? The answer is certainly yes."

Martin's threat was immediately hailed by Canadian gay rights advocates.

"I'm glad to see the Prime Minister take a strong stand in defense of the Charter and in defense of can values like nondiscrimination and mutual respect," Canadian for Equal Marriage chair Laurie Arron told 365Gay.com.

"Mr. Harper is targeting gays and lesbians to try to make political points. That's just plain wrong. And, if he targets gays and lesbians today who will he target tomorrow."
A spokesperson for Harper said Martin was issuing "an idle threat".

None of the country's four political parties is in strong enough financial shape for a snap election, less than a year after Canadians elected a minority Liberal government. But, Tories believe they have a winning issue in same-sex marriage. And, the party has hired a number of Republican strategists who worked on the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign which used gay marriage as a wedge issue.

However, Martin's threat may have been aimed at critics within his own party as much as at Conservatives. The cabinet is forced to vote for the gay marriage bill when it comes before Parliament next month but backbench Members of Parliament have been promised a free vote and some say they will vote against the legislation.

If the bill were defeated it would not affect gay marriage in those areas of Canada where the courts have deemed it legal, and court challenges in the other regions would not be blocked.
If the Tories were to win the next election, though, they have implied they would use the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution to end same-sex marriage and turn those already performed into civil unions. The clause, which allows the government to opt out of any section in the Constitution with which it disagrees has never been used by Parliament and would have to be renewed every five years.

posted by Anthony # 11:16 AM

by Steph Smith 365Gay.com Chicago Bureau
Posted: January 21, 2005 3:36 pm. ET

(Chicago, Illinois) The Illinois Supreme Court Friday overturned a lower-court decision that ordered a foster child removed from the home of his lesbian foster mother and her partner.

In rendering its decision the lower court awarded the child, (known only as "Austin W." in court documents) place in the guardianship of grandparents even though they had been indicted for abuse against him.

The lower court ruling was appealed by both the foster mother, Rosemary Fontaine, and the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services.

During the appeal the child, now 5, was allowed to remain with his foster mother.

Friday's unanimous Supreme Court ruling restores the foster mom as his legal guardian and allows the DCFS to resume its previously approved plan to allow adoption by Fontaine.

The Supreme Court said that 'serious errors' were made when the abuse the boy suffered was discounted by caseworkers and the lower court.

"Today's ruling puts the child's best interests first," said Patricia Logue, Senior Counsel for Lambda Legal.

"It's clear today that the Illinois Supreme Court understands that lesbian and gay parents can provide children with the love, support and guidance they need.

"Two decades of social science evidence shows that lesbian and gay people make excellent parents, and the state Supreme Court today did not even suggest that Rosemary's sexual orientation should keep this 5-year-old boy from the nurturing environment she's given him for nearly his entire life."

Last month the Arkansas Supreme Court struck down a state regulation barring gays from becoming foster parents.

posted by Anthony # 11:15 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: January 21, 2005 8:31 pm. ET
(Chicago, Illinois) Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich signed legislation today that would ban discrimination of gays and lesbians.

The legislation was passed by the General Assembly last week, ending a decades long battle. The new law prohibits discriminating against people because of sexuality in housing, employment, credit and other areas.

As Blagojevich signed the legislation about 150 gay rights supporters who had been invited to witness the even broke into cheers.

Opponents argued it would lead to approval of gay marriage in Illinois, supporters called it a basic human rights issue, saying discrimination of gays and lesbians over housing and employment is just as wrong as discriminating against people because of race or religion.

A recent poll sponsored by Equality Illinois shows that a wide majority of Illinois residents support granting civil rights protections to gays.

The House had passed similar bills in the past, but until Monday night they had been blocked in the Senate. As it was, the legislation squeaked through on a 30 -27 vote following a heated debate.

Once the governor signs the legislation into law Illinois will join 14 other states that bar discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Nearly half of Illinois' population is already covered by similar local ordinances. Cook County and 15 cities have such provisions: Bloomington, Carbondale, Champaign, Chicago, Decatur, DeKalb, Evanston, LaGrange, Moline, Naperville, Normal, Oak Park, Peoria, Springfield, and Urbana.Opponents of the law have said it opens the door to gay marriage and would infringe on religious organizations' rights.

In a statement released Friday, the Illinois Family Institute said the new law ultimately could force state and federal courts to choose between the ban on discrimination against gays and constitutional protection of religious freedom.

posted by Anthony # 11:13 AM

by The Associated Press
Posted: January 22, 2005 12:01 am. ET

(Boston, Massachusetts) As if tax season isn't stressful enough, gay newlyweds in Massachusetts are pondering what should be a simple question: Do they check ``married'' or ``single'' on tax forms for the federal government that doesn't recognize their union?

A landmark court ruling made Massachusetts the first state to sanction same-sex weddings nearly a year ago, but gays and lesbians will have to untie the knot, on paper, by declaring themselves ``single'' to the IRS.

Or not, in some cases.

``I fully intend to file married joint return, regardless of the fact the we're not supposed to,'' said Arthur Henneberger, 46, of Springfield. ``If they kick it back, fine, we'll go to court.''Ultimately, gay and lesbian advocates who pushed to get same-sex marriage legalized in Massachusetts hope to overturn the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

But for now, the Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders aren't looking to pick a fight with the IRS.

``It's not something that should be done quickly or precipitously,'' GLAD spokeswoman Carisa Cunningham said. ``We wouldn't advise anyone to try to do it alone.''

Instead, the group is advising the state's estimated 4,900 same-sex couples who married in the past year to file federal returns as if they are single, but to note either through an attached letter or on the return itself, that they were married in Massachusetts.

Seven gay and lesbian couples who had been denied marriage licenses across the state sued, leading to the landmark ruling by the state Supreme Judicial Court that legalized same-sex marriage.

A wave of same-sex weddings took place when the ruling took effect May 17, and sparked a social revolution when the mayors of San Francisco and New Paltz, N.Y., issued thousands of gay marriage licenses, which were later declared invalid.

On Election Day, however, anti-gay marriage ballot questions in 11 states prevailed. Even in Massachusetts, the Legislature last year gave preliminary approval to a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriages but simultaneously legalize civil unions.

Julie and Hilary Goodridge, the lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit, plan to follow GLAD's advice and file separate single returns to the IRS, along with a letter noting their marriage.

``I don't want to do something that's not legal, frankly, whether it's discriminatory or not,'' Julie Goodridge said. ``I consider it every single day, but I won't do it.

``We created a lot of change in this state,'' she said. ``There's a lot of ways that we're incredibly lucky. We were able to get married in our home state. If I have to wait two or three or four more years to file a joint federal tax return, then I'm willing to wait.''

IRS spokesman William Cressman said the agency has issued no guidance regarding same-sex couples.

``We're going to follow the Defense of Marriage Act,'' he said. ``We've not given any other guidance.''

If the IRS catches same-sex couples filing as ``married'' on their federal tax returns, ``the status would be changed and they would be notified of that,'' Cressman said.

The IRS would bill the filer for any overdue amount, plus interest, and possibly levy a fine. Cressman said, however, that if people pay up with interest, they likely wouldn't get fined.
Cases vary widely, but there's little financial difference between filing as single or as married, Cressman said.

The IRS won't discuss its audit criteria, but Cressman added: ``We are always looking to make sure that tax returns are accurate and filed correctly.''

Opponents of gay marriage say same-sex couples who file federally as married are out of line.
``We need to respect the laws of the land,'' said Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute. A same-sex marriage joint return ``would be a fraudulent return and they would be subject to prosecution.''

Filers are permitted to write comments on their returns, but those comments are ignored when it comes time to calculate tax payments or refunds, Cressman said. He noted that electronic filers don't have that option.

``It's hard enough to be different,'' Bob Murch said. ``I don't understand why the government needs to see me as gay. I pay my taxes, I go to work, I'm a good person.''

Murch and husband Gary Halteman's tax preparer advised them to file ``single'' federal returns along with a certified letter and copy of their marriage certificate. But the couple, who live in Salem, haven't decided what they'll do.

``If you say you're single, you've actually lied on your taxes,'' said Murch, 30.

Murch, who like his husband works for a financial investment firm in Boston, says he won't be offended if he has to file as single.

``In any civil rights struggle there's always bumps in the road,'' he said. ``It's just part of what we need to change.''

Henneberger, of Springfield, who married his partner of 23 years, Donald Smith, who changed his last name to Henneberger, said he won't consider filing as single.

``We're not second-class citizens. The fact is, we're married,'' he said.

posted by Anthony # 11:12 AM

Gay City News VOLUME 4, ISSUE 3 Jan 20 - 26, 2005
By Andy Humm

Bush Flip Flops on Marriage AmendmentPres. George W. Bush, in an interview with the Washington Post, said that he would not “press” U.S. senators on the Federal Marriage Amendment that would limit marriage to opposite-sex couples and bar courts from providing marriage-like rights to same-sex couples. He said that until the Defense of Marriage Act was struck down by a court, the requisite two-thirds of the Senate wasn’t there for the amendment.
The same day the story came out Dan Bartlett, a Bush top aide, appeared on “Meet the Press” and insisted that the White House will spend “political capital” on the amendment fight, something that the religious right is demanding.
Tony Perkins, leader of the Family Research Council, told the Post, “I believe there is no more important issue for the president’s second term than the preservation of marriage.”
Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family said Bush had sent the wrong signal.
“We would like him to stoke this first, so when there is this precipitating event, we can hit the ground running,” Minnery said.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––
DOMA Upheld in Federal CourtFor the first time, a federal judge has upheld the constitutionality of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act that bans U.S. recognition of same-sex marriages and allows the states to withhold recognition of legal gay marriages sanctioned elsewhere.
U.S. District Court Judge James Moody in Tampa dismissed a suit by two Florida women who had married in Massachusetts and wanted recognition by their home state. Their lawyer is Ellis Rubin, a former anti-gay activist who claims to have taken up their case and others like it to make amends for his past. Leaders of mainstream gay legal groups have criticized Rubin for his rogue lawsuits, concerned that they will set bad precedents. Ellis has vowed to appeal Wednesday’s decision to the Supreme Court.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––
Kansas Amendment Clears First Hurdle“What’s the matter with Kansas?” a hot 2004 book asked. Well, this week, the Kansas Senate voted to add a ban on same-sex marriage to the state’s constitution. If the state House concurs, it will go on the ballot April 5.
U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts, Republican of Kansas, told the Topeka Capital that the more states that pass these amendments—and 15 have so far, with Louisiana’s upheld by that state’s Supreme Court just this week—the better the chance of passing the Federal Marriage Amendment.

posted by Anthony # 9:22 AM

State Supreme Court says marriage amendment properly framed, even as it limits application
By ARTHUR S. LEONARD
Gay City News VOLUME 4, ISSUE 3 Jan 20 - 26, 2005

The Louisiana Supreme Court ruled on January 19 that the enactment of the Marriage Amendment approved overwhelmingly by the voters on September 18, 2004, does not violate Louisiana’s constitution, so the amendment will go into effect.

Under the terms of the amendment, which went to the voters after resolutions were approved by both houses of the Legislature, Louisiana will neither sanction same-sex marriages nor recognize any enacted in other jurisdictions.

The amendment also provides: “A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized,” a critical element that shaped the arguments made by its opponents in court.

The ruling overturned an order by a lower court preventing the amendment from going into effect based on the trial judge’s finding that it violated the state constitution because the content of the amendment covered two different “objects.”

Immediately after the vote in September, a group of plaintiffs, led by Forum for Equality PAC and the Louisiana Log Cabin Republicans, filed a lawsuit claiming that the amendment’s enactment violated a state constitution provision which provides that any amendment proposed to the voters have a “single object.” The plaintiffs argued that each of the amendment’s four sentences presented a distinct and separate issue.

Defending the amendment, the state argued that all four sentences related to the overall purpose of the amendment, defending the traditional institution of marriage of opposite-sex couples in Louisiana from any encroachment by recognition of same-sex unions.

At the district court level, Judge William Morvant disagreed with the plaintiffs that there were four different objects presented by the amendment, but found that there were two—prohibiting same-sex marriage and prohibiting alternative arrangements, such as civil unions and domestic partnerships, from conferring the rights and benefits of marriage on same-sex couples. Since the state constitution prohibited combining more than one issue in an amendment, two was enough to hold the amendment unconstitutional, in Morvant’s view.

But the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Jeannette Theriot Knoll, disagreed with Morvant’s application of prior Louisiana decisions in determining whether the single object rule had been violated. Knoll found some early precedent for making what she saw as the narrow interpretation that Morvant employed, but she pointed to more recent decisions that embraced a broader concept.

Knoll said that current judicial thinking about the single object requirement depends on a “germaneness test.”

“The ‘single object’ rule… requires that an amendment to the Constitution embodies a single plan and that every provision therein is germane to that plan,” she wrote. “In other words, the judiciary in determining whether the legislative action in submitting a constitutional amendment to the people is constitutional under the ‘single object’ requirement must examine all the provisions of an amendment to ascertain whether every provision relates or is germane to the main purpose or object of the amendment.”

In the Supreme Court view, Morvant erred in characterizing the main purpose of the amendment as banning same-sex marriage. Pointing to the Legislature’s labeling of the initiative as a “Defense of Marriage” amendment, Knoll wrote, “Given the clear and unambiguous language of the title adopted by the Legislature, one could logically conclude the object of the amendment is ‘defense of marriage,’” and not merely a ban on same-sex marriage.
According to this line of reasoning, prohibiting the creation of alternative structures to be given the rights of marriage would be seen as advancing the overall goal of preserving traditional heterosexual marriage, and would thus be “germane” to the purpose of the amendment.
This argument casts doubt on the future of domestic partnership registries and benefits for the partners of public employees in Louisiana, which currently exist in New Orleans.

In a prior opinion by the Supreme Court rejecting a pre-election challenge to the amendment, Chief Justice Pascal F. Calogero, Jr., had speculated that the proposed amendment might concern multiple objects since it could be seen as addressing both marriage and civil unions or domestic partnerships, subjects on which the same voter might entertain differing views. At that time, he as much as invited the plaintiffs to resubmit their challenge after the election if the measure passed. But in a brief concurring opinion, Calogero now said he thought the state had the better argument on the question of whether the one object rule had been violated.

The question of how the amendment might impact the rights of same-sex couples in arrangements other than marriage, however, clearly remained on the minds of the justices. Knoll, in a footnote to her majority opinion, and Calogero, in his concurrence, both went out of their way to dismiss one of the significant fears raised by the amendment’s challengers—that the sentence under judicial review regarding alternative arrangements might invalidate all contractual arrangements that same-sex couples make to protect their relationships.
In her footnote, Knoll specifically rejected this contention.

“As noted by the State in its brief to this court,” she wrote, “this constitutional amendment would not impair any property rights, which are not ‘identical or substantially similar to’ the package of unique property rights necessary to marriage. For example, the amendment would not prohibit an unmarried couple (either a same-sex couple or opposite-sex couple) from contracting to be co-owners of certain specific property they purchase together or from contracting with each other to designate each other his/her agent for making critical life or medical decisions for him/her in cases of medical emergencies where he/she might not be conscious or contracting as to one’s power of attorney; nor does this amendment prohibit an unmarried couple from making wills leaving their estates to one another.”

However, the court said nothing directly about what impact the amendment might have on domestic partnership registries or public employer domestic partnership benefit plans. (It will clearly have no direct application to domestic partnership plans adopted by private employers.) The public employer benefit question, left open in Louisiana, is also agitating public employers and employees in several other states where similar amendments were adopted by the voters on November 2, and as yet there are no clear answers how far the new provisions reach.

The Louisiana decision promises to have reverberations beyond that state’s borders, because “single object” challenges to several of the other marriage amendments adopted last year are now pending, and the key question for all of them is whether banning government recognition for non-marital couples presents a distinctly separate policy question from a simple ban on same-sex marriage.

The Louisiana Supreme Court is the first to weigh in, and the first to weigh in is frequently the most influential, in light of the tendency of judges—when called upon to make controversial decisions—to seek cover by citing early decisions.

posted by Anthony # 9:19 AM

by The Associated Press
Posted: January 20, 2005 8:03 am. ET

(Sao Paulo, Brazil) A well-known federal prosecutor said Wednesday he has asked a judge to order justices of the peace throughout Brazil to perform same-sex marriages.
Joao Gilberto Goncalves Jr. said he filed paperwork Tuesday asking a federal judge to issue a nationwide order -- a move likely to stir controversy in the world's largest predominantly Roman Catholic country.

''In addition to recognizing their rights as couples, the action is intended to help reduce the prejudice against homosexuals, which is a cause of violence in Brazil,'' Goncalves said.
If approved, the marriages would entitle gay couples to all the rights accorded heterosexual married couples, including inheritance and legal grounds to seek insurance benefits and pensions.

Federal judges in Brazil frequently issue decisions that apply nationwide only to have them suspended in drawn-out legal battles.

Gay rights activist were optimistic, however.

''The judiciary has usually ruled in a humanitarian way when it comes to gay and lesbian rights,'' said Marcelo Nascimento, president of the Brazilian Association of Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals and Transsexuals.

``The impact of a favorable decision would be huge. Brazil could become the first country in Latin America to accept same-sex marriages.''

Brazil's Constitution specifies that marriage is a union between men and women, but Goncalves said ``it does not make any restrictions against marriage between same-sex couples.''
The Catholic Church has steadfastly opposed allowing gays to marry. Church officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

In March, the southern state of Rio Grande do Sul became the first in Brazil to legalize civil unions between gays.

Goncalves made headlines last year after he pushed for the release of secret files from Brazil's 21-year military dictatorship.

While the government moved quickly to develop a process to release some files, Goncalves said recognition of same-sex marriages could require a longer struggle.

posted by Anthony # 9:16 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: January 20, 2005 11:02 am. ET

(Indianapolis, Indiana) The Indiana Court of Appeals on Thursday ruled that the state's so-called defense of marriage act is legal.

"What we decide today is that the Indiana Constitution does not require the governmental recognition of same-sex marriage," the court said in a written ruling, noting that "the Legislature is certainly free to grant such recognition or create a parallel institution under that document.''

Three same-sex couples asked the court to set aside a lower court ruling that also upheld the statute.

Marion County Superior Court Judge S.K. Reid ruled in May 2003 that the law "promotes the state's interest in encouraging procreation to occur in a context where both biological parents are present to raise the child."

Judge Reid also denied a petition to recognize civil unions performed outside the state.
The three couples had civil unions in Vermont but under the DOMA they are not recognized in the state.

Represented by the Indiana Civil Liberties Union the three couples took the case to the Appeals Court.

The ICLU argued that DOMA is unconstitutional because it restricts same-sex couples and denies them equality under the law.

The Illinois attorney general's office defended the law, saying the courts should respect the decision made by legislators in approving the gay marriage ban.

The three couples involved in the case, Teresa Stephens and Ruth Morrison of Indianapolis; David Wene and David Squire of Indianapolis; and Charlotte Egler and Dawn Egler of Hendricks County said they expect the case to be appealed to the Indiana Supreme Court.

Wednesday a judge in Tampa, Florida upheld the federal Defense of Marriage Act dismissing a suit brought by a Tampa lesbian couple who were married in Massachusetts.

posted by Anthony # 9:15 AM

by Luann LaSalle, Canadian Press
Posted: January 20, 2005 7:33 pm. ET

(Montreal, Quebec) The traditional definition of marriage should be enshrined in law or Canada could be faced with more radical demands, such as legalizing polygamy, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper said Thursday."I hate to say this but I think you have to draw the line somewhere," he told a news conference.But Harper said he doesn't know if legalizing same-sex marriage will lead to the same demand for legally having more than one wife."I don't know if same-sex marriage opens the door to polygamy," he said."I believe we have to recognize the traditional definition of marriage in law, otherwise we will continue to be presented with demands that just get more and more radical. I don't believe there's any support in the country for the recognition of polygamy in law."Harper repeated his support for extending benefits to same-sex couples.The Conservative party will launch a national advertising campaign, targeting Canadian ethnic groups with the party's stand against gay marriage.Ottawa is set to introduce same-sex marriage legislation within weeks.The Tories' advertising campaign comes as Sikh and Roman Catholic leaders have spoken out against redefining marriage laws to include homosexual relationships.Harper, who was wrapping up a three-day visit to Quebec, said he fears the Liberals may end up being open to eventually legalizing polygamy."As soon as they've got to attack one traditional idea, the next one is down the road."I don't want to get into the polygamy debate but I fear if we do this, the next thing on the Liberal agenda will be polygamy and who knows what else."In Ottawa, Justice Minister Irwin Cotler accused Harper of scare tactics."We don't see any connection, I repeat, any connection between the issue of polygamy and the issue of same sex marriage," he said Thursday. "Any attempt to make that kind of connection is simply a way of confusing distinguishable issues in every regard."

posted by Anthony # 9:14 AM

by Paul Johnson 365Gay.com Washington Bureau Chief
Posted: January 20, 2005 5:01 pm. ET

(Washington) George W. Bush took the oath of office for a second term Thursday as hundreds of anti-war protestors and gay rights advocates demonstrated nearby.

In a speech devoted almost entirely to foreign policy Bush “All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know [that] the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors,” he declared.

He also said, 'No human rights without human liberty", a line not missed by gay rights supporters.

"President talks and delivers rhetoric that often betrays his record of discrimination," Human Rights Campaign spokesperson Steven Fisher told 365Gay.com.

"Most Americans would be shocked to learn it is legal in most states to fire someone because of who they are."

There are no federal LGBT civil rights laws to protect gays in employment or housing. Hate crime legislation died in the last Congress. And, the White House and Republicans in Congress are bent on a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

“From the day of our founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this Earth has rights, and dignity and matchless value because they bear the image of the maker of heaven and Earth,” Bush said during the swearing in.

"Over the past four years this administration and its allies have attacked the rights and dignity of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans," National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Executive Director Matt Foreman told 365Gay.com.

"We have seen an intense and ugly rise in homophobia, the passage of constitutional amendments in 13 states seeking to prohibit lesbian and gay citizens from full and equal protection under the law, and an unprecedented rise in hate crimes against lesbian, gay bisexual and transgender people. In his second term, we challenge the president to be true to his words and begin proclaiming - instead of attacking -- the rights, dignity, and matchless value of gay Americans.”

During cable news coverage of the inauguration television commercials paid for by the Human Rights Campaign blasted the president.

As protestors gathered near Dupont Circle the National Organization for Women issued a statement attacking Bush over his positions on abortion and gay marriage.

"The time has come in our country for the recognition of same-sex marriage. We must reject discrimination against lesbian and gay couples and families,." the NOW statement said.
Demonstrations were also held in a number of cities across the country.

posted by Anthony # 9:14 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: January 21, 2005 12:01 am. ET

(Little Rock, Arkansas) Arkansas is considering following Texas in banning any mention of gay families in school books.

Legislation was introduced in the Legislature Thursday by Rep. Roy Ragland (R-Marshall) that would force the state's school districts to purchase only textbooks which define marriage as between one man and one woman.

The measure was approved by the House Education Committee despite concerns from some committee members that it could limit discussion in social studies and history classes.
The legislation would apply only to new textbooks purchased by school districts.

Last November Arkansas voters overwhelmingly endorsed a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in the state. As well, the state is appealing a ruling that struck down a law barring gays from becoming foster parents.

The Texas Board of Education in November approved new health textbooks for the state's high school and middle school students only after the publishers agreed to change the wording to depict marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Legislation pending in Alabama would go even further. The bill, if enacted, would bar any representation of homosexuality in schools, libraries, and state funded universities.

posted by Anthony # 9:13 AM

January 20, 2005

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 4:50 a.m. ET

TAMPA, Fla. (AP) -- After 27 years together, Nancy Wilson and Paula Schoenwether got married last summer in Massachusetts, along with thousands of other same-sex couples who wanted their unions legalized.

Massachusetts right now is the only state that allows gay marriage, but Wilson and Schoenwether want their home state of Florida to recognize their union, too. Their attempt to get that recognition, though, was soundly rejected Wednesday when a judge dismissed their lawsuit, upholding a federal law that lets states ban same-sex marriages.

The ruling was described by legal experts as the first of its kind.

``This is a legal shot heard 'round the world,'' said attorney Ellis Rubin, who filed the lawsuit on the women's behalf. ``But we are not giving up. ... This case is going to be resolved in the U.S. Supreme Court, and I have said that since the day I filed it.''

Also Wednesday, the Louisiana Supreme Court unanimously reinstated an anti-gay marriage amendment to the state constitution that was overwhelmingly approved by voters in September.

The rulings are the latest in a national debate on the legality and morality of same-sex marriage that has been raging 2003, when Massachusetts became the first state to legalize the unions. Opponents are bolstered by last year's elections, when 11 states pushed through constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. And President Bush has promised to make a federal anti-gay marriage amendment a priority of his second term.

Although several federal cases are challenging the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, attorneys said the ruling in Florida was the first by a federal judge on a direct challenge to the law.

Moody sided with Attorney General John Ashcroft, who argued in court filings that the government has a legitimate interest in allowing states to ban same-sex marriages, namely to encourage ``stable relationships'' for the rearing of children by both biological parents.
The Justice Department did not immediately comment on the ruling.

Wilson, a minister for Metropolitan Community Churches, one of the world's largest congregations of gay Christians, said in a statement that she was prepared to take her challenge to the Supreme Court.

``Despite this ruling, we are still married in our hearts, and legally married in Massachusetts,'' she said. Her partner added: ``No civil rights movement was lost on one bad court decision.''
The women argued the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional because it was discriminatory on the basis of sex and violated their fundamental rights.

But Moody disagreed, saying the law was not discriminatory because it treats men and women equally and that the government met its burden of stating a legitimate interest for allowing marriages to exist only between men and women.

Moody said he could not declare marriage a ``fundamental right,'' as the lawsuit urged him to do, and that he was bound to follow legal precedent.

``The legislatures of individual states may decide to overturn its precedent and strike down'' the law, Moody wrote. ``But, until then, this court is constrained to hold (the law) and the Florida statutes ... constitutionally valid.''

Conservative Christian groups applauded the ruling.

``Today we have witnessed a significant victory -- for marriage and democracy,'' said Tom Minnery of Focus on Family. The group is pushing for an amendment to the Constitution that would ban same-sex marriages.

``Unfortunately, at any time, marriage in any jurisdiction is only one judge away from being ruled unconstitutional.''

Last year, a federal bankruptcy judge in Washington state ruled the Defense of Marriage Act constitutional when a lesbian couple sought to file for bankruptcy as a heterosexual couple would. But that decision was not binding on other courts.

Gay rights groups criticized the decision by the Louisiana Supreme Court to reinstate a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

``High divorce rates, high adultery rates, poverty, lack of education, parents having to hold more than one job, those are the real threats to marriage,'' said Chris Daigle, a gay rights activist and state legislative candidate.

posted by Anthony # 6:31 AM

by Paul Johnson 365Gay.com Washington Bureau Chief
Posted: January 19, 2005 11:01 am. ET

(Washington) State lawmakers who opposed constitutional bans on same-sex marriage fared extraordinarily well at the polls even though all the states where the proposed amendments were on the ballot voted to bar gay marriage a new national poll shows.

The survey released Wednesday by the Human Rights Campaign and the Equality Federation is almost identical to a smaller survey of five key states that was released last week.

The HRC found that only 1.7 percent of 640 legislators in 28 states, including Massachusetts where gay marriage became legal last year, were voted out of office because they opposed measures banning marriage for same-sex couples.

Eleven of the 28 states had constitutional amendments on the ballot in November.

In releasing the report at the National Press Club in Washington, the HRC said its findings should help dispel widespread speculation that gay marriage was "one of the key moral issues driving voting behavior in 2004."

"Since the election, political observers have provided compelling arguments to discredit the belief that the marriage issue contributed in any significant way to the outcome of the national elections," the report states.

Of the 640 legislators for whom the issue of marriage could have factored into their election, 604 or 94 percent won.

In the races of the 36 legislators who lost, the legislator’s vote against discrimination was cited as a factor in only 11 races. Only 1.7 percent of state legislators running for re-election lost their race because of their vote against banning marriage for same-sex couples.

“Voting against discrimination is good policy and good politics,” said Seth Kilbourn, HRC’s national field director, as the report was released.

“Anyone trying to score political points by discriminating against same-sex couples should be put on notice. Prejudice does not win at the polls.”

Last week the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force released a report on voting in Iowa, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, where state legislatures had voted in 2004 on constitutional amendments seeking to ban marriage between same-sex couples, and in some cases, any form of partner recognition such as civil unions or domestic partnerships.

The analysis looked at the results in states where incumbent legislators handled the marriage issue in their re-election campaigns differently from others in 2004.

The report found that 100 of 103 of state legislators who voted against anti-gay constitutional amendments and ran for re-election won their races, compared to 196 of the 215 state legislators who voted for them.

In all five states combined, 19 legislators who voted for anti-gay amendments lost their seats. Only 3 legislators who voted against these amendments lost their seats.

posted by Anthony # 6:29 AM

by The Associated Press
Posted: January 19, 2005 2:11 pm. ET Updated 9:01 pm ET

(New Orleans, Louisiana) The Louisiana Supreme Court yesterday unanimously reinstated the anti-gay marriage amendment to the state constitution that was overwhelmingly approved by voters in September.

The high court reversed a state district judge's ruling in October striking down the amendment on the grounds that it violated a provision of the state constitution requiring that an amendment cover only one subject.

"Each provision of the amendment is germane to the single object of defense of marriage and constitutes an element of the plan advanced to achieve this object," the high court said.
The court's ruling puts the amendment in the constitution.

"We're obviously delighted," said attorney Michael Johnson, who represented the Alliance Defense Fund, which argued for the amendment's legality before the Supreme Court.
But gay-rights activist and state legislative candidate Chris Daigle said the amendment did nothing to strengthen the institution of marriage.

"High divorce rates, high adultery rates, poverty, lack of education, parents having to hold more than one job -- those are the real threats to marriage," he said.

The amendment was sent to the ballot by the Legislature and approved by 78 percent of the voters on Sept. 18.

Legislative backers said that although gay marriages are banned by state law, the amendment was needed to ensure that courts would not authorize the marriages, as had happened in Massachusetts.

In striking down the "defense of marriage" amendment, Judge William Morvant of Baton Rouge had ruled that the amendment also prevented the state from recognizing any legal status for common-law relationships, domestic partnerships and civil unions between both gay and straight couples.

At issue was a provision of the amendment that stated: "A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be recognized."

Opponents had warned that the amendment went far beyond banning gay marriage and would deny contractual rights to all unmarried couples -- whether gay or straight -- in such areas as owning property, willing it to heirs, and taking legal care of an incapacitated partner. As a result, they contended, the amendment had more than one object, and therefore could not become part of the constitution.

But the Supreme Court said that each part of the amendment is "germane to the object of 'defense of marriage.'"

posted by Anthony # 6:29 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: January 19, 2005 7:30 pm. ET

(Tampa, Florida) A federal judge Wednesday upheld the federal Defense of Marriage Act dismissing a suit brought by a Tampa lesbian couple who were married in Massachusetts.
Rev. Nancy Wilson, a Metropolitan Community Church minister, and Paula Schoenwether, a family marriage counselor were married July 2 in Massachusetts, the only state where same-sex marriages are recognized..

The two have been together for 27 years.

They were represented by controversial attorney Ellis Rubin who has become the biggest private litigator for same-sex marriage. Rubin has several similar cases before the courts in other parts of Florida. The cases are the first to challenge the federal DOMA.

The suit named John Ashcroft, who at the time was Attorney General, as defendant.
In his ruling, U.S. District Judge James S. Moody ruled in favor of filings by the Justice Department that the government has a legitimate interest in allowing states to ban same-sex marriages.

Ellis had argued that that right to marry is a "fundamental right."

But Moody disagreed, saying the Defense of Marriage Act was not discriminatory on the basis of sex because it treats men and women equally and that the government met its burden of stating a legitimate interest for only allowing marriages to exist between men and women.

"This is a legal shot heard round the world," Rubin told reporters outside the court. "But we are not giving up. Certainly, there are a lot of things in this ruling that I am encouraged by."

The outcome in the case was hailed by conservative groups. But, gay rights group The Equality Campaign called the ruling "archaic'."For the courts to refuse to recognize that gays and lesbians should be a protected class only gives us more energy to continue this fight for our future generations," said spokesperson Robin Tyler.

"We are disappointed, but not surprised," said Rev. Wilson. "This is just one battle in a long war against intolerance, and prejudice, and we are prepared to take this all the way to the Supreme Court. Despite this ruling, we are still married in our hearts, AND legally married in Massachusetts."

posted by Anthony # 6:27 AM

by Ben Thompson 365Gay.com Ottawa Bureau
Posted: January 19, 2005 7:30 pm. ET

(Ottawa) The Canadian Forces has approved a policy that calls on military chaplains to formally bless same-sex marriages.

The document, obtained by Sun Media, follows draft legislation to be introduced next month in Parliament in not requiring chaplains to perform weddings.

However, those chaplains whose religions do not permit same-sex marriage have the responsibility to find another member of the clergy to conduct the service under the guidelines.
"It's essentially a statement of the way the law is going. We don't put any expectations on people. We expect them to function as we always do, according to the tenets of their church, their own conscience and the laws of the province," Col. Stan Johnstone told the Sun.

The document also outlines the process for pre-nuptial counselling and using the on-base chapel for same-sex ceremonies.

Johnstone, a military chaplain who helped draft the policy, said the guidelines reflect the primary role of ministering to all forces members and their families.

He told the Sun that chaplains vary on personal convictions and points of theology, but don't discriminate against anyone in need of counsel.

There are about 150 military chaplains who work on bases across the country and overseas.
Meanwhile, Cardinal Aloysius Ambrozic, the Roman Catholic archbishop of Toronto, has called on Prime Minister Paul Martin to drop the gay marriage bill.

Ambrozic made public Wednesday a letter to Martin urging him to maintain traditional marriage. He said that Parliament should use the notwithstanding clause to override the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The clause allows the federal government or the provinces to opt out of a section of the Constitution with which they disagree. It has been used on several occasions by provinces but never by the federal government.

Ambrozic's letter warns the Prime Minister that, if Parliament were to proceed now to pass legislation permitting same-sex marriage, Canada would be tipped into an uncharted sea fraught with risks to some of the country's most significant social institutions, such as public education.
"Can we say with certainty what the social outcome of a redefinition of marriage would be?" Cardinal Ambrozic asked. "In all humility, none of us can do so."

Liberal Catholics were quick to denounce the Cardinal's letter.

“The same law that protects the religious freedoms of Catholics to practice our faith – the Charter of Rights – also protects lesbian and gay people,” says Helen Kennedy, a former Toronto-area city councillor and spokesperson for Challenge The Church. “The Charter of Rights is what guarantees minority rights. You can’t switch it on and off.”

The cardinal's letter was released as the opposition Conservatives announced they were launching an ad campaign against gay marriage that will target Canadian ethnic groups.
Conservative Leader Stephen Harper said his party needs to send a clear message against changing the definition of marriage.

Harper wants to preserve marriage as the union of a man and a woman. He also wants to allow civil unions for homosexual couples to give them the same rights as married people.

posted by Anthony # 6:26 AM

January 19, 2005

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 8:08 p.m. ET
TAMPA, Fla. (AP) -- In what is believed to be the first ruling of its kind, a judge on Wednesday upheld the federal law letting states ban same-sex marriages, dismissing a lawsuit by two women seeking to have their Massachusetts marriage recognized here.

Attorneys for conservative groups hailed the ruling by U.S. District Judge James S. Moody as an important first step, but the plaintiffs promised to appeal.

``This is a legal shot heard 'round the world,'' said attorney Ellis Rubin, who filed the lawsuit on the women's behalf. ``But we are not giving up. ... This case is going to be resolved in the U.S. Supreme Court, and I have said that since the day I filed it.''

Although several federal cases are challenging the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, attorneys said Wednesday's ruling was the first by a federal judge on a direct challenge to the law.

Moody sided with former Attorney General John Ashcroft, who argued in court filings that the government has a legitimate interest in allowing states to ban same-sex marriages, namely to encourage ``stable relationships'' for the rearing of children by both biological parents.
The Justice Department did not immediately comment on the ruling.

The plaintiffs, Nancy Wilson and Paula Schoenwether, a couple for 27 years who live in Tampa, were married in Massachusetts in July. They wanted their union recognized in Florida, where state law specifically bans same-sex marriages.

The women argued that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional because it was discriminatory on the basis of sex and violated their fundamental rights.

But Moody disagreed, saying the law was not discriminatory because it treats men and women equally and that the government met its burden of stating a legitimate interest for allowing marriages to exist only between men and women.

Moody said he could not declare marriage a ``fundamental right,'' as the lawsuit urged him to do, and that he was bound to follow legal precedent.

``The legislatures of individual states may decide to overturn its precedent and strike down'' the law, Moody wrote. ``But, until then, this court is constrained to hold (the law) and the Florida statutes ... constitutionally valid.''

Wilson, a minister for Metropolitan Community Churches, one of the world's largest congregations of gay Christians, said in a statement she was prepared to take her challenge to the Supreme Court.

``Despite this ruling, we are still married in our hearts, and legally married in Massachusetts,'' she said. Her partner added: ``No civil rights movement was lost on one bad court decision.''
Conservative Christian groups applauded the ruling.

``Today we have witnessed a significant victory -- for marriage and democracy,'' said Tom Minnery of Focus on Family. The group is pushing for an amendment to the Constitution that would ban same-sex marriages.

``Unfortunately, at any time, marriage in any jurisdiction is only one judge away from being ruled unconstitutional.''

Last year, a federal bankruptcy judge in Washington state ruled the Defense of Marriage Act constitutional when a lesbian couple sought to file for bankruptcy as a heterosexual couple would. But that decision was not binding on other courts.

Elsewhere Wednesday, the Louisiana Supreme Court unanimously reinstated an anti-gay marriage amendment to the state constitution that was overwhelmingly approved by voters in September.

The high court reversed a ruling by a state judge, who struck down the ``defense of marriage'' amendment on the grounds that the measure dealt with more than one subject, in violation of the Louisiana Constitution.

But the Supreme Court said: ``Each provision of the amendment is germane to the single object of defense of marriage.''

The amendment was put on the ballot by the Legislature and approved by 78 percent of the voters. Eleven other states adopted similar amendments in the fall elections.

posted by Anthony # 8:28 PM

by Bruce Cheadle, Canadian Press
Posted: January 18, 2005 8:34 am. ET

(New Delhi) Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin got a little taste of home Tuesday in the Indian capital, where he was forced back into the ultra-Canadian soup of ethnic politics, Charter rights and same-sex marriage legislation.

Just two days before Martin arrived in New Delhi, the spiritual leader of Sikhism directed his religion's followers worldwide to reject the legalization of gay marriage, as proposed by Martin's Liberals.

The unprecedented edict by Joginder Singh Vedanti _ likened by one Sikh Liberal MP to the Pope _ followed a lively debate in the Indian press this month in which it was speculated that Martin had cancelled a planned visit to the Golden Temple in Amritsar because of political concerns about the controversy.

Martin had to defend the legislation Tuesday after a meeting with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

"I would point out that we are a country of ethnic and religious minorities,'' Martin said in response to a question about the controversy at a news conference.

"And the purpose of the Charter of Rights is to protect minorities, to protect them against the oppression of the majority.''

Singh declined to comment on what he called domestic Canadian politics, but added mischievously that same-sex legislation "would not have, I think, wide appreciation'' in India.

The Amritsar Tribune newspaper cited sources to suggest Martin was advised against visiting Sikhism's holiest city because he would get a cool reception from religious leaders there. Such an insult "would hit the Liberal party hard politically because most of the Sikhs supporting it in Canada would turn away from it, keeping in view the posture adopted by the Sikh clergy,'' wrote the newspaper.

Canadian officials flatly deny the speculation.

Health Minister Ujjal Dossanjh visited Amritsar last week to explain Martin's change of plans _ which revolved around his decision to tour tsunami-affected areas in Thailand and Sri Lanka at the expense of three Indian stops outside the capital.

According to one senior official, speaking on background, Dossanjh was told by the religious leaders "that if Guru Nanak had been consulted _ Guru Nanak who was the founder of the Sikh religion _ Guru Nanak would have said that the prime minister should go to Phuket and to Sri Lanka. I think they had a very strong sense that that was the thing to do.''

Dossanjh, however, put a quite different spin on his visit to the Golden Temple, telling reporters Tuesday he went as a private individual.

"I went to the temple not to explain anything to anyone. I represent a secular state, religion and politics are two separate issues for me.''

Dossanjh went on to say the edict would have no influence whatsoever on the political views of Canadian Sikhs, who are heavily courted by the Liberal party.

"I mean, Prime Minister Martin and (former) prime minister Chretien both were Catholics, the Vatican (stand against same-sex marriage) didn't have an impact on them. And therefore no other religious institution would have an impact on anybody else.''

Martin and his entourage are clearly taking the controversy seriously, however.

All four Sikh MPs in the Liberal caucus are on this trip and the issue was buzzing around the prime minister's plane before his arrival late Monday in New Delhi.

All those Liberals also planned to stay and visit Amritsar after Martin moved on to Japan late Tuesday.

Ruby Dhalla, who represents a Brampton, Ont., riding, said she hasn't decided how she will vote when the same-sex legislation comes to the Commons this spring. She said Canadian MPs won't be swayed by the Sikh edict, but she didn't deny its impact.

"The individual that's issued it is equivalent to the Pope, so there is a significant influence,'' said Dhalla.

Gurbar Singh Malhi, a Bramalea, Ont., Liberal, says he's voting against his government's bill.
"Traditionally . . . everybody works under the guidelines of the Golden Temple,'' said Malhi.

"For the Sikhs, (Vedanti) is next to God. So I think whatever he says, the people have to follow the rules and regulations of the traditions.''

But his caucus-mate Navdeep Singh Bains of Scarborough, Ont., made an impassioned plea for Canadian Sikhs to recognize the wider significance of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

"How quickly we forget,'' Bains, a fully observant Sikh, said as Malhi and Dhalla stood by listening.

"When you're not in the minority _ somebody else is the minority _ how easy it is to point the finger at another minority. I think Sikhs, Muslims, Hindus and all other faiths and all other minorities that exist in Canada cannot forget how important the Charter has been to us in the past and will be in the future.''

Conservative MP Jason Kenney, who is also taking part in the prime minister's Asian tour, said Martin's response about the Sikh religious concerns showed a lack of understanding.

"He didn't give any leeway to the Sikh members in his comments today to vote in accordance with the views of their constituents, their community and their consciences,'' said Kenney.

"I think that would be far more respectful of the Canadian tradition of pluralism.''

posted by Anthony # 8:12 AM

by Michael J. Meade 365Gay.com Boston Bureau
Posted: January 18, 2005 11:02 am. ET

(Boston, Massachusetts) A survey of Massachusetts legislators shows that a proposed amendment to the state Constitution is likely to fail.

To amend the Constitution the proposal must pass two consecutive sessions of the legislature and then go to voters. Last March the amendment passed the first phase, following heated debate, by only a handful of votes. The proposed amendment would bar same-sex couples from marrying but would allow civil unions and convert those marriages already performed to domestic partnerships.

An analysis of lawmakers by the Boston Globe shows that following last November's election the State House now has more moderates and the amendment is unlikely to get the 101 votes votes needed. In March it was approved with only four votes to spare.

Earlier this month the man who brokered the wording of the proposed amendment to include the civil unions provision, Senate President Robert Travaglini, a Democrat, appeared to be having second thoughts about the measure.

"There is still some feeling that what we've put forward is discriminatory, and some feel it is not. There are a lot of questions that have to be answered," Travaglini said, adding that he still supports the amendment.

Nevertheless, neither supporters of the amendment nor gay rights activists are ready to say that the proposed amendment is dead.

"The numbers are good but we don't want anyone to let their guard down and we need everyone to keep working for marriage equality," Carisa Cunningham, a spokesperson for GLAD, the group that won the landmark court ruling on gay marriage in Massachusetts, told 365Gay.com.

A special election will be held in March to fill the seats of three gay-marriage opponents who have resigned in recent weeks. The amendment is unlikely to be brought up before then with both sides in the issue waiting to see who fills the three seats.

One of those seats is that of House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran who pressed for an amendment that would exclude gays from marrying or from having civil unions He has already been replaced as speaker by Salvatore F. DiMasi, who opposes any amendment.

If the trend by Massachusetts voters continues and moderates are elected in those seats in March there is virtually no chance the amendment would pass the Globe analysis shows.

The former leader of the Massachusetts Family Institute, a conservative political action group that had pushed for the amendment, says he would not be surprised if the amendment died.

"I will not be surprised if the Legislature defeats that amendment," Ron Crews told the Globe.
But, both Crews and his successor at the Institute, Kris Mineau, say that if it is the group will likely begin a petition drive for an amendment that would ban gay marriage and not create a system of civil unions. "That is something that is still in the decision mode," Mineau told the Globe.

posted by Anthony # 8:08 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: January 18, 2005 2:06 pm. ET

(Moscow) A Russian politician and a gay journalist, have applied for a marriage license in Moscow. The application is expected to be rejected but the men say it will pave the way for a court battle to determine the legality of same-sex marriage in the country.

The couple is unusual though. Eduard Murzin, a Bashkiria regional State Assembly deputy, is hetrosexual. The man he wants to marry is Eduard Mishin, head of "Together" LGBT center and the editor of web newspaper Gay.ru.

“Our marriage is a mere formality,” Murzin told the Moskovsky Komsomolets daily newspaper. “I do not belong to a sexual minority, but I am ready to stand up for the civil rights of gays and lesbians in Russia. An attempt to register an official marriage between the two males was conceived as an action of protest against the discrimination of sexual minorities.”

Same-sex marriage is not legal in Russia, but there is no law specifically banning it. Murzin began campaigning for the legalization of same-sex marriage a year ago.

Murzin has proposed legislation to amend the legal definition of marriage from the "mutual consent of a man and a woman" to “by mutual consent of citizens”. The bill was rejected.
The men say that the denial of the right to marriage for gays contradicts the Russian constitution.

"Russia will not be among the first countries to allow same-sex marriages, but it will certainly do so at some point," Member of Parliament Petr Shchelishch told Ekho Moskvy radio Tuesday. "This attempt is unlikely to lead to a Constitutional Court decision, but it is good in terms of changing public attitudes."

Mishin said Tuesday that he hopes the fight over same-sex marriage will mobilize the Russian LGBT community.

Homosexuality was illegal under the old Soviet regime but was decriminalized in 1993.

posted by Anthony # 8:02 AM

by Paul Johnson 365Gay.com Washington Bureau Chief
Posted: January 17, 2005 8:02 am. ET

(Washington) Conservative groups that supported President Bush's reelection wasted no time in reacting to his suggestion Sunday that he would not push for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in his second term.

Bush made the remarks in an interview with The Washington Post.

"The point is, is that Senators have made it clear that so long as DOMA is deemed constitutional, nothing will happen. I'd take that admonition seriously," Bush told the Post.

But within hours of the Post hitting newsstands Bush aide Dan Bartlett and other conservatives were on the TV Sunday talk show circuit to "clarify" the president's statement.

Bartlett said the president was only speaking about the reality of getting a two-thirds vote in the Senate, adding that it doesn't change Bush's position that an amendment is needed and that " he'll continue to push for an amendment."

The switchboard at the White House "lit up like a Christmas tree" shortly after the Post article hit the streets noted one White House employee.

Conservative Christian groups that backed the President last November warned the GOP shortly after the election that they had better make a second attempt at passing the amendment if they want support in 2006. And, conservative Republicans say they intend to bring the amendment back in the new session of Congress.

Speaking on Fox, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pennsylvania) said, "I can tell you, I'm not going to break faith with social conservatives, and I know the president won't either."

Last September, when the proposed amendment came to a vote, it failed to get the two-thirds majority needed. Even with greater numbers in both the House and the Senate it remains doubtful the amendment would pass.

Democrats last week called on the President to abandon his push for an amendment.

The DNC in its Pride at the Polls newsletter to more than 100,000 party supporters last week called on President Bush to tell House Majority Leader Tom Delay to " stop discriminating against Americans."

DeLay (R-Texas) has made it clear that he wants the amendment approved. "We will come back and come back until this is passed."

It is not the first time Bush has sent out conflicting statements on same-sex relationships.
In an interview with ABC in the days leading up to the election Bush said that while he opposes gay marriage he would support giving rights to same-sex couples.

Bush said that he didn't think "we should deny people rights to a civil union [or] a legal arrangement if that's what a state chooses to do."

posted by Anthony # 7:17 AM

by Keith Leslie, Canadian Press
Posted: January 17, 2005 7:18 pm. ET

(Toronto, Ontario) There have been no problems with anyone in Ontario being forced to perform same-sex marriages against their will after more than 1,000 such weddings in the past 18 months, says Attorney General Michael Bryant.

``We've probably had more experience [as a government] with civil ceremonies of same-sex couples than maybe any other jurisdiction,'' Bryant told The Canadian Press.

``We've been very Canadian about this, and the municipalities in the province have managed it.''

Twenty marriage commissioners - the people who perform civil weddings - have quit their jobs in Saskatchewan and British Columbia provinces because they object to same-sex marriage, although none had been asked to preside at a gay wedding.

But Bryant said large and small communities across Ontario dealt with the issue without complaints from people who perform marriages, or from gay couples unable to find someone to preside over their wedding.

``It's important for Canadians to know that at least in one province, there have not been any real problems that have developed,'' Bryant said.

``And I expect that the experience in Ontario will be the same experience across Canada.''
Bryant called fears that someone may be forced to participate in a gay marriage ``a tempest in a teapot,'' and said he's confident that communities in Ontario share the same values as towns and cities across the country.

``We in Ontario have communities that are reflective of every part of Canada, and our experience has been there hasn't been any problems in terms of availability or potential conflicts,'' Bryant said.

``Is there the potential for problems? Well, who cares if there have been no problems?''
Federal Justice Minister Irwin Cotler has said the government plans to introduce a bill in Parliament next month to legalize same-sex marriage across Canada, and hopes to have it passed into law by the summer.

Courts in seven provinces and one territory have struck down the traditional definition of marriage.

Ontario's Appeal Court ruled in June 2003 that the right to marry should be extended to same-sex couples - a decision that deemed Canadian law on traditional marriage unconstitutional.

posted by Anthony # 7:16 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: January 18, 2005 12:01 am. ET

(Helena, Montana) Montana legislators considered two gay rights bills on Martin Luther King Day - one that would allow civil unions, and one to extend civil rights protections to gays and lesbians.

The legislation to create civil unions was held in House Judiciary Committee while the Senate Judiciary Committee considered a civil rights bill. Both measures met with stiff opposition during packed hearings.

The civil unions bill would extend to same-sex couples the same benefits, protections and responsibilities afforded spouses in a marriage. Some of those benefits are group insurance, power of attorney in health care instances, and public assistance benefits under state law.
Some in the visitors section carried signs reading, "Someone you know and love is gay."
The bill is needed in this time of cultural war over gay marriage, said the bill's sponsor, Christine Kaufmann (D-Helena).

It provides a compromise that acknowledges opponents' concerns about protecting the sanctity of marriage, while providing a legal set of rights to couples who otherwise must spend money and time with attorneys trying to establish those rights piece-by-piece, she said.
"I think people are sadly misinformed about the lives of gay and lesbian people, and I know because they're talking about me," Kaufmann told the committee. "This bill allows some measure of fairness to some of your constituents."

"We wouldn't think today of denying civil rights to blacks and other people of color," said Terry Kendrick with the Montana Human Rights Network, noting that the hearing fell on Martin Luther King Day. "You are at one of those critical times in history. You have an opportunity to cast a historic vote for justice."

Opponents said the bill simply replaces the word "marriage" with the phrase "civil unions" and ignores the will of the people. Montanans in November passed a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

Allowing gay marriage disregards the purpose of marriage, said Dallas Erickson of Montana Citizens for Decency Through Law.

"Loving, committed relationships alone are of no interest to government," he said, but society benefits from marriages producing children.

Another speaker, Merry Nelson told the committee that "Homosexuality is an abomination to God."

Meanwhile, in the Senate Committee considering civil rights legislation was told that Montanans should be able to discriminate against gays and lesbians because their way of life threatens society and should be kept at bay, some critics said Monday in attacking a bill that would outlaw such discrimination under human-rights laws.

"We want the right to say no to something we really think is wrong," said Jeanette Zentgraf, representing Concerned Women of America.

Dallas Erickson of Stevensville, spokesman for Montana Families for Decency, rushed from the civil unions hearing to the civil rights hearing to tell the committee that employers should he able to fire or not hire a person they consider dangerous based on the sexual aspect of his or her lifestyle.

He said extending human-rights protection based on sexual orientation would extend rights beyond gay and lesbian Montanans, to include people who engage in other "kinky or perverted" practices such as pedophilia, incest, bestiality, exhibitionism and necrophilia.

Backers of the measure said it is long past time to extend anti-discrimination laws to a minority routinely subjected to mistreatment in many facets of life.

"It's time to lift our gay and lesbian neighbors up to the same level where non-gay and lesbian residents live," said Karl Olson, executive director for PRIDE, a gay-lesbian advocacy group.
If passed, the bill would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment, public accommodations, housing, financial transactions, education, job referrals, licensing, training programs, government services and funding, and public contracts.

Similar proposals failed in the 2001 and 1999 legislative sessions.

Neither committee acted on the bill Monday.

posted by Anthony # 7:13 AM

January 17, 2005
New York Times

By RICHARD W. STEVENSON
WASHINGTON, Jan. 16 - The White House sought on Sunday to reassure conservatives that President Bush would work hard on behalf of a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, backtracking from remarks Mr. Bush made in an interview suggesting that he would not press the Senate to vote on the amendment this year.

In an interview with The Washington Post published on Sunday, Mr. Bush said many senators did not see the need for the amendment as long as the law known as the Defense of Marriage Act was in place. Because many senators are waiting to see if that legislation can withstand a constitutional challenge, "nothing will happen" for now with the proposed amendment, Mr. Bush said.

In the same interview, Mr. Bush said that his victory in last year's presidential race was an "accountability moment" in which voters accepted his view of the need to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

His remarks on Iraq drew barbed replies from some Democrats. Appearing on "Face the Nation" on CBS, Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts called the president's statement about accountability "ridiculous," and drew a parallel between Mr. Bush and President Lyndon B. Johnson.

Johnson, Mr. Kennedy said, "had to basically abdicate the presidency because of Vietnam" in 1968, even though he won the 1964 election.

"And this clearly is George Bush's Vietnam, Iraq is," Mr. Kennedy added.
Speaking two weeks before Iraqis go the polls for a first round of voting to develop a constitution and begin putting together a permanent government, Mr. Bush told The Post that he remained optimistic about establishing democracy in Iraq despite the violent insurgency. And he gave no indication that he had had second thoughts about the planning or execution of the war and its aftermath.

"Well, we had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 election," Mr. Bush said. "And the American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and they chose me, for which I'm grateful."
Mr. Bush went on to say that, "in times of war, things don't go exactly as planned," and that "on a complicated matter such as removing a dictator from power and trying to help achieve democracy, sometimes the unexpected will happen, both good and bad."

Mr. Bush's stated support for an amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman was a rallying cry for many social conservatives in the presidential campaign.
Along with ballot initiatives in several states barring same-sex marriage, it helped increase turnout among voters who backed him.

In interviews on Sunday on television news programs, Dan Bartlett, Mr. Bush's counselor, said Mr. Bush was referring in The Post interview only to the reality of legislative vote counting and was not suggesting that his support for the amendment had diminished.

"What the president was speaking to was some of the legislative realities in the United States Senate," Mr. Bartlett said. "As you know, it requires 67 votes in the United States Senate for a constitutional amendment to move forward. That's a very high bar. What we learned through the debate last year is that many members of the Senate believe that the Defense of Marriage Act first must be overturned or challenged before we take the next step of a constitutional amendment."

The president's statement in the interview with The Post, Mr. Bartlett said, "does not change President Bush's view about amendment, the need for an amendment. And he'll continue to push for an amendment."

Some of Mr. Bush's conservative allies on Capitol Hill said that they would keep pushing the issue and that they believed the president would be with them.

"I can tell you, I'm not going to break faith with social conservatives, and I know the president won't either," said Senator Rick Santorum, Republican of Pennsylvania, speaking on "Fox News Sunday.

"This president has gone out and led on this issue," Mr. Santorum added. "He understands the importance of traditional marriage, that children need mothers and fathers, and we have to have a culture that nurtures and supports that. And I'm confident the president will go out there, and I don't think one interview is a turning point in his presidency."

posted by Anthony # 11:31 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: January 17, 2005 12:01 am. ET

(Cleveland, Ohio) The amendment to the Ohio Constitution to prevent gay marriage is being used to block the prosecution of people in unmarried heterosexual relationships who abuse their partners.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports that the Cuyahoga County public defender's office has moved to dismiss domestic-violence charges against unmarried defendants since the amendment was passed by voters last November.

Ohio was one of 11 states to pass amendments to block gays from marrying. The wording in the Ohio amendment, known as Issue 1, says the state "and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage."

The public defender's office argues that the amendment does not apply only to same-sex couples and therefore spousal abuse laws do not apply to unmarried heterosexual couples.
"The thing is, you can only get a domestic-violence charge now if you are a wife beater, not a girlfriend beater," Jeff Lazarus, a law clerk for public defender Robert Tobik told the Plain Dealer.

There have bee no rulings on the motions yet but people who deal with battered women say they are stunned.

"It's a bad, bad thing," Cathleen Alexander, director of the Domestic Violence Center in Cleveland told the Plain Dealer. "We're very worried that some victims will not be granted the protection they need because they're not married. That could jeopardize people's lives.

Some lawyers, the paper reports, believe that the vagueness of the amendment could lead to it being overturned based on the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law.

If a judge were accept the public defenders' office argument it would mean that a married victim of domestic violence would have more protection than an unmarried neighbor beaten by a live-in lover, and married and unmarried defendants would be treated differently as well.

posted by Anthony # 9:50 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: January 15, 2005 4:01 pm. ET

(San Francisco, California) California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is suggesting a go slow approach to same-sex marriage.

In a meeting Friday with the editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle Schwarzenegger discussed a range of topics from his budget to education.

The paper reports that when Schwarzenegger was asked whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry the governor said he preferred domestic partnerships.

"I feel most comfortable with the way it is right now,'' the Chronicle reports Schwarzenegger said.

Under California's partnership law which went into effect the first of this month same-sex couples have many of the rights of marriage but are denied the name and the benefits of federal marriage laws.

Assemblyman Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) is sponsoring a bill that would be allow same-sex marriage in California.

The "Marriage License Nondiscrimination Act" would amend a section of California's family code that defines marriage as "a personal relationship arising out of a civil contract between a man and woman" to read "between two persons."

The legislation has the support Assembly Speaker Fabian, a fellow Democrat. But, Assembly Republicans and some moderate Democrats say they will oppose it.

Schwarzenegger told the Chronicle that this may not be the best time to push gay marriage, saying that a legislative push to fully recognize marriage rights for gays might backfire.

"Eventually in a few years from now, you can readdress it again and see what the people of California think,'' he told the paper. "You cannot force-feed those kind of things.''
The governor did not say whether, if the bill is passed, he would sign it or veto it.

Last March in a Tonight Show appearance Schwarzenegger said gay marriage would be "fine with me" if it were enshrined in state law or ruled legal by the courts.

Host Jay Leno asked, "Would you have any problem if they changed the law?" the governor replied: "No, I don't have a problem. Let the court decide. Let the people decide."

Meanwhile the marriage issue continues to work its way through the court system. Last month San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer heard arguments from both sides.

A ruling is not expected before spring. Ultimately the case will wind up in the California Supreme Court.

posted by Anthony # 8:26 PM

by Rich Peters 365Gay.com Western Canada Bureau
Posted: January 16, 2005 4:02 pm. ET

(Calgary, Alberta) The Roman Catholic Bishop of Calgary Sunday called on Catholics to stamp out same-sex marriage.

In a pastoral letter read in every church in the diocese Bishop Frederick Henry equated homosexuality with adultery, prostitution and pornography.

Henry said that the government has a duty to suppress public expressions of homosexuality.
"Marriage and the family are the foundations of society, through which children are brought into this world and nurtured as they grow to adulthood," the bishop said.

"Since homosexuality, adultery, prostitution and pornography undermine the foundations of the family, the basis of society, then the State must use its coercive power to proscribe or curtail them in the interests of the common good."

Henry's letter which was read in churches Sunday and will be sent to the quarter million Catholics in the diocese, said that two individuals of the same sex will never be able to marry because it is an insurmountable biological impossibility.

"We can't endorse homosexual activity or the lifestyle as normative. Society is within its rights to say 'No, this is unacceptable behavior.' "

Same-sex marriage is legal in all but a handful of Canadian provinces. Legislation will be introduced in Parliament next month to extend gay marriage to the holdouts. But, Alberta has warned it will do all in its power not to recognize same-sex marriage.

Gay activists reacted angrily to Henry's letter. Stephen Lock, the Calgary organizer for Canadians for Equal Marriage Coalition called the bishop "a fascist".

"I mean that quite sincerely," Locke told the Calgary Sun.

"How dare he? This is supposed to be a good Christian?"

posted by Anthony # 8:25 PM

by Paul Johnson 365Gay.com Washington Bureau Chief
Posted: January 16, 2005 4:02 pm. ET

(Washington) President Bush said Sunday that he will not press the Senate to pass a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

In a wide-ranging interview with the Washington Post Bush said that he remains opposed to gay marriage but believes there aren't the votes in the Senate to ensure the amendment would be adopted.

"The point is, is that Senators have made it clear that so long as DOMA is deemed constitutional, nothing will happen. I'd take that admonition seriously," Bush told the Post.

The change in position comes just days after Democrats called on the President to abandon his push for an amendment.

A year ago, in his State of the Union Speech, Bush attacked "activist judges" like the Massachusetts Supreme Court which ruled gays could not be excluded from marriage.
"If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage," Bush told the joint session of Congress.

But, in September, when the proposed amendment came to a vote, it failed to get the two-thirds majority needed. Even with greater numbers in both the House and the Senate it remains doubtful the amendment would pass.

The DNC in its Pride at the Polls newsletter to more than 100,000 party supporters last week called on President Bush to tell House Majority Leader Tom Delay to " stop discriminating against Americans."

DeLay (R-Texas) has made it clear that he wants the amendment approved. "We will come back and come back until this is passed."

Republicans used same-sex marriage to their advantage in last November's election painting Sen. John Kerry as pro gay. Kerry opposes same-sex marriage but believes in granting rights to same-sex couples - a position that Bush also endorsed in an interview with ABC.

Bush said that he didn't think "we should deny people rights to a civil union [or] a legal arrangement if that's what a state chooses to do."

By dropping his push for a constitutional amendment Bush will likely incur the wrath of social conservatives within the GOP, but avoid a confrontation with Democrats when he needs their support in the Senate to confirm dozens of appointments.

posted by Anthony # 8:24 PM

by Doreen Brandt 365Gay.com Washington Bureau
Posted: January 14, 2005 2:08 pm. ET

(Washington) The Democratic Party launched a petition Friday telling the White House not to push for a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

The DNC in its Pride at the Polls newsletter to more than 100,000 party supporters calls on President Bush to abandon his call for the amendment and to tell House Majority Leader Tom Delay to " stop discriminating against Americans."

DeLay (R-Texas) has made it clear that it's at the top of the Republican legislative agenda, warning, "We will come back and come back until this is passed."

In an interview on Good Morning America one week before the election, Bush said that he didn't think "we should deny people rights to a civil union [or] a legal arrangement if that's what a state chooses to do." Bush then went on to call "wrong" and disagree with the portion of the Republican platform that opposed extending to gay and lesbian families "legal recognition and the accompanying benefits."

"But Bush can't have it both ways, supporting an amendment that takes away our rights while saying he wants to leave it up to the states," the DNC newsletter says.

"It is time for Bush to move America forward and come out publicly against this amendment."
Eric Stern, Director of GLBT Outreach told 365Gay.com that the petition will be delivered to the White House just before the State of the Union Address.

"We are not going to stand by and let the Republicans in Washington discriminate against GLBT Americans, who have always been an integral part of our party and our country," Stern said.

"Democrats are ready to fight back for the rights of GLBT Americans.""The American people are overwhelmingly opposed to the Republican's Federal Marriage Amendment and this petition is an opportunity for us to make sure our voices are heard in Washington and across the country."

The petition is available online at http://www.democrats.org/glbt/

posted by Anthony # 8:23 PM

by Doug Windsor 365Gay.com New York Bureau
Posted: January 14, 2005 5:01 pm. ET

(Rochester, New York) The New York Civil Liberties Union Friday filed a lawsuit in the state Supreme Court on behalf of a Rochester woman seeking health care benefits for her female partner whom she married in Canada.

"Gay and lesbian couples make the same long-term commitments to each other as heterosexual couples," said Donna Lieberman, Executive Director of the NYCLU. "This case highlights the fact that same-sex couples are entitled to the same protection under state law."

The NYCLU filed its lawsuit on behalf of Patricia Martinez against her employer, Monroe Community College, as well as Monroe County. According to the lawsuit, the college and the county are violating the state constitutional rights of Martinez and her spouse because they are a lesbian couple.

Martinez has been a word processing supervisor for the community college in Rochester since 1994. She has been in a committed relationship with her partner, Lisa Ann Golden, since 2000. Martinez and Golden solemnized their relationship in a civil union in Burlington, Vermont in July 2001 and were legally married in Niagara Falls, Ontario in July 2004. The women own a home together, share financial responsibility for their expenses and each other’s needs, and have drawn up mutual wills.

"Last year, Attorney General Spitzer reiterated that New York State recognizes out-of-state and Canadian marriages, even if the same marriages cannot be performed in New York State," said Barbara de Leeuw, Executive Director of the Genesee Valley Chapter of the NYCLU. "The Martinez case is discrimination pure and simple."

In March 2004, Martinez wrote a letter to the college’s human resources director, Sherry Ralston, who is also a defendant in this suit, requesting spousal health benefits for Golden as provided for by the Monroe Community College employment contract. Martinez also provided Ralston with documentation of her civil union and marriage in Canada, but her request for benefits was denied. After repeated appeals and denials, Martinez requested legal assistance from the NYCLU.

Martinez is seeking an order requiring governmental employers like the community college to adopt fair and equitable health care policies that will allow same-sex couples to assume the rights and responsibilities extended to all New Yorkers in solemnized relationships.

"The lawsuit states that it is unlawful for county officials not to extend the same benefits to a legally married couple simply because they are gay," said Jeffrey Wicks, a cooperating attorney with the NYCLU. "What we are seeking is full application of the law to Martinez and Lisa Golden, as well as other gay and lesbian couples."

The New York State and Local Retirement System last year announced they would recognize same-sex marriages from Canada, and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg called for the city's pension funds to treat municipal workers in same-sex marriages in the same way as those in traditional marriages. In both cases Spitzer's reading of the comity law was given as the reason for the decision.

posted by Anthony # 8:21 PM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: January 14, 2005 7:03 pm. ET

(Des Moines, Iowa) The Iowa Supreme Court Friday heard a challenge to the granting of a dissolution of a civil union to two lesbians by a lower court judge more than a year ago.

The ruling was appealed to the high court by a group of conservative lawmakers who said the decision violated the state's ban on gay marriage. The group argued that in granting a "divorce", Woodbury County District Judge Jeffrey Neary was acknowledging same-sex marriage.

The dissolution had been granted to Kimberly Brown and Jennifer Perez. The Sioux City women had a civil union in Vermont in 2002 in Bolton, Vt. and then returned to Sioux City to live.
Neither of the women contested the dissolution, and Judge Neary in November 2003 granted their petition.

Neary later said that it was not until after he had signed the divorce decree that he realized it involved a same-sex couple, but added that it would not had altered his decision.

Neary said he believed that under the legal concept of full faith and credit, he would be able to grant the divorce of a union that is legal in another state.

Neither the women nor Judge Neary were in court Friday.

"The judges, obviously they had a lot of questions, feel very comfortable with our position and when the judges really knuckle down and read the cases I think they're going to determine first that the judge didn't have jurisdiction (to grant the "divorce")...and most importantly, recognize that the people of Iowa have already spoken and that is that marriage is between one man and one woman and anything short of that undermines marriage," Kevin Theriot told the Supreme Court.

But the justices questioned whether the case was even valid since the appeal did not come from the two women who got the "divorce" or from the judge who ruled on the case.

One of the Supreme Court justices noting that gay marriage is illegal in Iowa noted that nowhere in state law is there a prohibition against civil unions.

Lawyer Camilla Taylor, representing the ACLU, Lambda Legal and the Lesbian, Gay Bisexual, and Transgender Community Center of Central Iowa said she is hopeful the dissolution will be allowed to stand.

This was a private family matter between two people and no one else had the right to interfere in this case," she said.

Taylor said that Iowa courts routinely decide how property should be divided between couples, whether they're married or living together, and this case was no different.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the case this spring.

posted by Anthony # 8:20 PM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: January 14, 2005 5:01 pm. ET

(Elmira, New York) A New York state judge Friday was told that barring gay couples from marrying is no different than discrimination against women or minorities.

Lawyer Mariette Geldenhuys is representing 25 same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses in Ithaca, New York last June.

"The basis of the opposition (to gay marriage) is that it goes against tradition," Geldenhuys argued. "If tradition carried on, we would still have slavery."

Known locally as The Ithaca 50 they are suing the New York State Department of Health which oversees registering marriages.

Jim McGowan, an attorney for the state, argued that the court must follow previous court decisions upholding New York's prohibition against same-sex marriages. The state has prevailed in two similar cases.

In the most recent, in December a New York trial court judge ruled that the New York constitution allows the state to continue to exclude same-sex couples from marriage.

The case is under appeal.

In the Ithaca case ,Judge Robert Mulvey is expected to rule within 60 days.

Marriage fever hit New York shortly after San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The first gay weddings in the state were in tiny New Paltz just north of New York City where Mayor Jason West performed a group of ceremonies on February 27.

West was later charged as were two Unitarian ministers under New York State law.

posted by Anthony # 8:20 PM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: January 14, 2005 9:01 pm. ET

(Atlanta, Georgia) The first step began today in what is expected to be a long trek to the Georgia Supreme Court over the legality of last November's vote on amending the state constitution to ban gay marriage.

Gay rights advocates maintain the ballot question was illegal because it contained two issues: one was the issue of same-sex marriage itself, the other a ban on civil unions.

Under the Georgia constitution a ballot measure may only deal with one issue, and only the question of marriage was put to voters.

An attempt to get the question off the Nov. 2 ballot failed. The Georgia Supreme Court said that the issue could only be taken up after the election.

Friday, gays were back in court arguing the case before Fulton County Superior Judge Constance Russell that voters were misled by not being told the ban would extend to civil unions.

Lawyer John Stephenson urged Russell to declare the vote invalid.

Stefan Ritter, senior assistant attorney general, told Russell that there was nothing illegal or misleading about the question put to voters. Russell said that the issues of marriage and civil unions were one and the same.

A ruling in the case may take some time. Russell said she cannot issue a decision until an appeal is heard over her refusal to allow a conservative group to intervene in the case.
The group, that includes several state senators and the state Christian Coalition have gone to the court of appeal.

If the court allows the group to enter the case, Russell would have to hear their arguments before making a ruling on the constitutional issue.

Even if Russell were to toss out the amendment, gay marriage would still be illegal in Georgia which has a Defense of Marriage Act.

posted by Anthony # 8:19 PM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: January 13, 2005 7:32 p.m. ET

(Phoenix, Arizona) Arizona conservatives saying they don't trust Republicans or Democrats to push through a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage said Thursday they'll mount their own drive.

The Center for Arizona Policy, a coalition of conservative organizations, said it will draft its own version of a proposed amendment and begin collecting signatures to force the question onto the ballot.

"Marriage - the foundation of our society - is too important to politicize," CAP President Len Munsil said in a statement.

A bill that would bar gays and lesbians from marrying has already been proposed in the Arizona legislature, but the coalition said that it feared the issue would be used by both Republicans and Democrats for political purposes.

"For that reason, we are announcing today that our coalition intends to gather signatures to place a comprehensive, constitutional marriage amendment on the 2006 ballot. We are taking this issue directly to the people," Munsil said.

Lawmakers will take up the amendment in this session of the legislature with the intent on putting it on the 2006 ballot. Last week Gov. Janet Napolitano dared the legislature to call a special election this year rather than wait for the November 2006 election.

In addition to the constitutional amendment the legislature will consider a bill to bar any government-sponsored benefits to domestic partners.

The benefits ban would include both state and local governments in Arizona. The cities of Phoenix and Tempe offer health and dental insurance to the partners of their unmarried employees.

posted by Anthony # 9:12 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: January 13, 2005 9:02 p.m. ET

(Washington) A new examination of how incumbents fared at the polls last November shows that lawmakers who opposed amendments to state constitutions banning gay marriage met with little opposition.

The study, prepared by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, shows that voters failed to heed a call from conservative groups to vote against lawmakers who did not support the amendments.

The study examined election results in Iowa, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, where state legislatures had voted in 2004 on constitutional amendments seeking to ban marriage between same-sex couples, and in some cases, any form of partner recognition such as civil unions or domestic partnerships.

The analysis looked at the results in states where incumbent legislators handled the marriage issue in their re-election campaigns differently from others in 2004.
The report found that if anything opposition to the amendments may have helped.
The report found that 100 of 103 of state legislators who voted against anti-gay constitutional amendments and ran for re-election won their races, compared to 196 of the 215 state legislators who voted for them.

In all five states combined, 19 legislators who voted for anti-gay amendments lost their seats. Only 3 legislators who voted against these amendments lost their seats.

“This study shows that contrary to threats and demagoguery of extreme right, legislators who take a stand against marriage discrimination rarely suffer consequences at the polls,” said Matt Foreman, the Task Force’s Executive Director.

In Iowa, all 7 legislators who voted against the anti-gay amendment were re-elected, compared to 71% (10 of 14) of those who voted for it. The Iowa proposed amendment died and never went to voters.

Although all Iowa Democrats voted against the anti-gay constitutional amendment, the Democrats picked up a net four seats, evening the balance of power in the Senate in which the majority had been Republican.

In Minnesota, 98% (40 of 41) of House members who voted against the anti-gay amendment were re-elected, compared to 86% of those who voted for it. The Minnesota measure also died before going to voters.

In Michigan, Democrats picked up seats, closing the Republican majority in the House from 63-46 to 58-52. The amendment failed in the legislature but a conservative voter group forced it onto the ballot and it passed.

“Legislators can be confident that when they cast a vote to reflect the courage of their convictions, the people of their district respect them," said Minnesota State senator D. Scott Dibble. "We found out in Minnesota that not giving in to the politics of distraction and fear allowed us to cut through the hyperbole and speak directly withy voters about the real priorities facing our state. The election was a strong repudiation of those who would divert our attention and divide Minnesotans against each other.”

posted by Anthony # 9:11 AM

by The Associated Press
Posted: January 13, 2005 7:32 p.m. ET

(Topeka, Kansas) Senators adopted a proposed amendment to the Kansas Constitution on Thursday that bans same-sex marriage and prevents the state from allowing civil unions or granting other legal recognition to gay relationships.The measure declares that only couples in a union of one man and one woman would be entitled to benefits normally associated with marriage.

The 28-11 vote sent the measure to the House. Supporters had one vote more than the two-thirds majority necessary for adoption in the 40-member chamber, and they're hoping for a statewide vote April 5.

Backers of the amendment said it would protect the traditional definition of marriage -- already defined in state statute -- from legal challenges. They also said such unions form strong families and are vital to society."Can we be sure that no activist judges or officials exist in Kansas?" said Sen. Dennis Wilson, R-Overland Park, who voted for the measure. "An amendment to our constitution is the only way to protect the sacred institution."

Critics consider the proposed amendment discriminatory.

"Never before in the history of our state have we added an amendment to the constitution that proactively discriminates against people," said Sen. John Vratil, R-Leawood, an opponent of the measure. "The people we're discriminating against are not a threat to my marriage or your marriage. They're not a threat to our children."

The proposed amendment mirrors one the Senate approved but the House rejected last year. Last year, voters in 13 other states, including Missouri, amended their constitutions to ban gay marriage.

Kansas senators voted 28-11 against a proposal to narrow their measure so that it mirrored the existing Kansas law. Such a change would have made it possible for the state to allow civil unions or grant other benefits to unmarried couples.

The Senate moved with unusual speed to consider the measure. Republican leaders scheduled the vote on the fourth day of the legislative session, without having public hearings or a committee review. Debate lasted less than an hour.

The House will have to adopt the measure by Feb. 11 for it to appear on the ballot in April, when Kansas holds city and school board elections. Voters' approval by a simple majority would add the amendment to the state constitution.

Key House Republican leaders were not sure how quickly their chamber would act.

posted by Anthony # 9:10 AM

by Doug Windsor 365Gay.com New York Bureau
Posted: January 12, 2005 11:02 a.m. ET

(New York City) A New York State Appeals Court today hears arguments in the case of a man denied compensation following the death of his longtime partner in an air crash.

Joe Lopes, was killed on November 12, 2001, while working as a flight attendant on American Airlines flight 587 when it crashed shortly after takeoff from John F. Kennedy Airport.
His surviving spouse, Bill Valentine, was turned down when he applied for workers' compensation benefits given to people whose spouses die on the job.

Despite a history of recognizing unmarried couples as spouses, the New York State Workers' Compensation Board denied benefits to Valentine in July 2003 because he and Lopes did not possess a marriage certificate.

Lopes and Valentine had been in a relationship for more than 21 years. The couple was financially interdependent, constructed powers of attorney agreements and was among the first couples in New York City to register as domestic partners in 1994.

"Not only did Bill and Joe regard themselves as spouses, but their families, friends, neighbors, coworkers and employers did, as well. Their relationship was as strong and committed as any healthy marriage," said Adam Aronson, staff attorney for Lambda Legal and lead attorney on the case.

"They did everything under the law that could be done in the state of New York to protect themselves and demonstrate that they were a loving, committed couple who planned to spend the rest of their lives together."

Lambda Legal won the first case in the nation in 2003 that recognized a couple who entered into a Vermont civil union as spouses outside that state, when John Langan won his right to sue St. Vincent's Hospital in New York for medical negligence leading to his longtime same-sex spouse's death.

The hospital appealed and the case remains before the court.

posted by Anthony # 6:50 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: January 12, 2005 5:01 p.m. ET

(Salt Lake City, Utah) The leaders of the Episcopal Church, the American branch of the worldwide Anglican faith, went into closed door meetings in Salt Lake City Wednesday over demands that the Church "apologize" for the election of a gay bishop.

Conservatives and moderates within the Church have been at odds since the election of Eugene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire in 2003. Some American diocese have withheld their contributions to the Church, while semi-autonomous Churches in Africa and Asia have threatened a schism.

In October, a blue ribbon commission set up by the world leader of the Church, the Archbishop of Canterbury, called on the Episcopal Church to "apologize" for Robinson's election.

The report, prepared by Irish primate Robin Eames invited the Episcopal Church "to express its regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached" in Robinson's election. Until there is an apology, the report says, those who took part in consecrating Robinson — which would include Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold — should consider whether to withdraw themselves from functions of the Anglican Communion.

In meetings today and Thursday the House of Bishops, the annual meeting of the leaders of the Episcopal Church, must decide whether to accept the report. Church observers say that is unlikely, even though at least ten bishops are calling for such a move.

Following the Utah meeting Episcopal leaders are expected will go to Dublin, Ireland, next month where they will explain their same-sex theology and practice to Eames.

In February, Anglican primates from around the world will meet at the General Synod where the divisions between the branches of Anglicanism are likely to reach the boiling point.

There are 2.2 million members in the Episcopal Church and about 70 million Anglicans worldwide.

posted by Anthony # 6:49 AM

by Doreen Brandt 365Gay.com Washington Bureau
Posted: January 13, 2005 12:01 a.m. ET

(Washington) America's often fractious LGBT civil rights groups have put aside their differences and on Wednesday announced they would work more closely to achieve major civil rights goals.
Following last November's election that saw the reelection of President Bush and passage of amendments banning same-sex marriage in 11 states the country's major gay rights groups began a soul-searching process about the future of the gay rights movement.

In a joint statement by more than 20 national organizations the country's leading rights groups pledged to work towards a common goal.

"We play different instruments – lobbying, electoral politics, impact litigation, grassroots organizing, public education, media advocacy and more – and we are dedicated to playing them well," the statement said.

"While our organizations vary in focus and strategies, we share a number of common priorities that will help shape and unite our work in the months and years to come."
Among the groups signing the declaration were the Human Rights Campaign - the nation's largest LGBT rights organization - and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, its oldest.
Log Cabin Republicans and Stonewall Democrats also signed on.

The list includes GLAAD, the ACLU, the National Black Justice Coalition, and the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. It also includes Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights both of which are involved in a number of suits to win gay marriage rights.
Other signatories include the Equality Federation, Freedom to Marry, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (which won the Massachusetts gay marriage case), Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund and Leadership Institute, the Mautner Project, National Association of LGBT Community Centers, the National Center for Transgender Equality, National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, National Youth Advocacy Coalition, Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network and the National Latino/Hispanic LGBT Leadership.

The LGBT movement "strong, it is determined, and it is gathering momentum every day," the joint statement declares.

"It has been only 18 months since the Supreme Court struck down the last remaining state laws that branded us as criminals, little more than a year since Massachusetts’ top court ruled that same-sex couples could not be denied full equality in marriage, and mere weeks since California enacted the nation’s most expansive domestic partnership law."

The document also notes that a recent Gallup Poll found that 89% of Americans support equal employment opportunity for gays and lesbians and that other polls show nearly two-thirds support the same opportunities for transgender Americans.

But, it says there is a long way to go before the LGBT community arrives at full equality.
To that end the groups issued an 8 point mission statement.

"We must fight for equal employment opportunity, benefits and protections – and the federal and state laws that safeguard them," the document says.

"We must fight against anti-LGBT violence and for the inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity in federal hate crimes law that already protects Americans based on race, religion and national origin.

"We must fight – in both the private and public sectors – for better access to health care and insurance. We must advocate for HIV/AIDS policies – including age-appropriate, LGBT-inclusive comprehensive sexuality education – that effectively address this epidemic at home and abroad.

"We must insist on safe schools, where youth can learn free from bullying, harassment and discrimination.

"We must fight for family laws that give our children strong legal ties to their parents.
"We must work to overturn the military’s discriminatory anti-LGBT ban, which dishonors service members who serve their country with valor and distinction.

"We must continue to expose the radical right’s efforts to advance a culture of prejudice and intolerance, and we must fight their attempts to enshrine anti-gay bigotry in our state and federal laws and constitutions.

"And we must continue our vigorous fight for the freedom to marry and the equal protections, rights and responsibilities that safeguard our families, strengthen our commitments, and continue to transform understanding of our lives and our relationships."
The joint statement also calls for grassroots action.

"Even the most vibrant, vital community can, over time, settle into a status quo. A movement cannot. And the success of our movement is measured not only in the hearts and minds we change, the allies we engage and the civil rights we secure, but in the strength of our collective commitment to the pursuit of enduring social, political and legal change that moves us ever closer to true equality."

posted by Anthony # 6:47 AM

January 11, 2005
New York Times
By JASON HOROWITZ
VATICAN CITY, Jan. 10 - Pope John Paul II unequivocally condemned gay marriage and weighed in on a host of other social questions on Monday in a strongly worded message meant to define the position and agenda of the Roman Catholic Church.

The 84-year-old pope addressed the 174 ambassadors who make up the diplomatic corps accredited to the Holy See with an incisive account of the Vatican's definition of family.

"Today the family is often threatened by social and cultural pressures that tend to undermine its stability; but in some countries the family is also threatened by legislation which - at times directly - challenge its natural structure, which is and must necessarily be that of a union between a man and a woman founded on marriage," said the pope, who spoke in French.
Family, he said, "must never be undermined by laws based on a narrow and unnatural vision of man."

In recent months, senior Vatican officials have increasingly attacked what they see as the decaying of Christian tradition.

In October, the Vatican rallied around Rocco Buttiglione, an Italian minister whose effort to win a post in the European Union was rejected after he expressed his conservative Catholic views, like considering homosexuality a sin.

But the message on Monday was perhaps an even stronger indictment of what the church sees as loose secular values, both because it was delivered in the pope's own words and because it came during the so-called state of the world address, which establishes the Vatican's priorities for the coming year.

While the pope's comments on problems related to social values are largely in accord with the stance of President Bush, who has asked Congress to support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages, it is Iraq that presents a sharp point of divergence between the two.

On Monday, Cardinal Pio Laghi, a special papal envoy sent to the United States last year to persuade Mr. Bush not to wage war in Iraq, told Italian Catholic television that Mr. Bush had assured him the intervention would be "quick."

"Unfortunately, the facts have demonstrated afterward that things took a different course - not rapid and not favorable," he said.

posted by Anthony # 8:29 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: January 11, 2005 11:03 a.m. ET

(Salem, Oregon) Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski is calling for gay civil rights legislation to outlaw discrimination against gays and lesbians.

In his "state-of-the-state" address to a joint session of the Legislature Monday Kulongoski said he would submit a bill this year to "defend social justice, tolerance and diversity."
The speech marked the opening of the 2005 session of the Legislature.

"We also face a great moral challenge: To make sure that opportunity is an open door through which every citizen can pass — not a revolving door that turns for some and doesn't budge for others," Kulongoski told lawmakers.

"This is a moral challenge because if we do not defend social justice, tolerance and diversity — then the progress we make on the economic front will be bought with compromised principles and a weakened human spirit," Kulongoski said. "That is not a trade-off I can accept."
Kulongoski has been a longtime supporter of a gay civil rights law but attempts to get a bill through the Legislature have faced tough opposition in the past.

This time he linked the issue to the state's economy saying a civil rights law would help bring new business into the Oregon.

Kulongoski also said he supported a proposed bill to legalize civil unions. The legislation would give gay couples many of the rights of married people.

House Majority Leader Wayne Scott (R-Canby) said he would oppose both bills calling them "unnecessary."

In November Oregon voters joined voters in 10 other states to approve a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

The issue of same-sex couples is currently before the state's Supreme Court.

In December the Court was told that the Oregon Constitution requires that same-sex couples receive the same legal protections as couples that get married.

The court was hearing arguments in a case that began when Multnomah County last March began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The court must decide two issues: what to do about the nearly 3,000 marriages performed after Multnomah County began issuing licenses last year, and whether, despite the ban on gay marriage the Constitution requires the state to provide rights and benefits to same-sex couples.

posted by Anthony # 8:27 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: January 11, 2005 2:06 p.m. ET
(Springfield, Illinois) After a decade long struggle to gain civil rights protections the Illinois legislature has passed a law banning the discrimination of gays and lesbians.

The House passed the measure by a 65 - 51 vote Tuesday on the final day of the session. The bill passed the Senate Monday night. It now goes to Gov. Rod Blagojevich who has said he will sign it.

The law adds "sexual orientation" to the state law that protects people from bias based on race, religion and similar traits. It applies to discrimination in jobs, housing, public accommodations or credit.

Opponents argued it would lead to approval of gay marriage in Illinois, supporters called it a basic human rights issue, saying discrimination of gays and lesbians over housing and employment is just as wrong as discriminating against people because of race or religion.
A recent poll sponsored by Equality Illinois shows that a wide majority of Illinois residents support granting civil rights protections to gays.

The House had passed similar bills in the past, but until Monday night they had been blocked in the Senate. As it was, the legislation squeaked through on a 30 -27 vote following a heated debate.

Once the governor signs the legislation into law Illinois will join 14 other states that bar discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Nearly half of Illinois' population is already covered by similar local ordinances. Cook County and 15 cities have such provisions: Bloomington, Carbondale, Champaign, Chicago, Decatur, DeKalb, Evanston, LaGrange, Moline, Naperville, Normal, Oak Park, Peoria, Springfield, and Urbana.

posted by Anthony # 8:25 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: January 11, 2005 8:16 p.m. ET

(Des Moines, Iowa) The Iowa Supreme Court this week will hear a challenge to the granting of a dissolution of a civil union to two lesbians by a lower court judge more than a year ago.
The "divorce" had been granted to Kimberly Brown and Jennifer Perez. The Sioux City women had a civil union in Vermont in 2002 in Bolton, Vt. and then returned to Sioux City to live.
Neither of the women contested the dissolution, and Woodbury County District Judge Jeffrey Neary in November 2003 granted their petition.

Neary later said that it was not until after he had signed the divorce decree that he realized it involved a same-sex couple, but added that it would not had altered his decision.
Neary said he believed that under the legal concept of full faith and credit, he would be able to grant the divorce of a union that is legal in another state. The divorce also could be granted by applying equity and partnership laws that govern the business world, he said. He later altered the decree to reflect the broader scope.

But, a group of conservative lawmakers said the ruling violated the state's ban on gay marriage, arguing that granting a divorce, Judge Neary was acknowledging same-sex marriage.
The group appealed to the Supreme Court for a review of the ruling.

Lambda Legal filed a friend-of-the-court brief last June, signed by the Iowa Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU and the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Community Center of Central Iowa, that urged the court to throw the case out. The brief argued that none of the parties involved in the challenge have legal standing to interfere in the case because they aren't harmed in any way by Judge Neary's decision.

This week's oral arguments will focus on whether individuals have the right to interfere with the trial court's authority.

"We will urge the court to recognize that disapproval of gay couples doesn't give these groups or individuals the right to interfere in other people's personal lives," said Camilla Taylor, Staff Attorney in Lambda Legal's Midwest Regional Office, who will argue the case on Friday.

"A judge in his rightful authority has already addressed this matter. Iowa judges regularly resolve a wide range of matters between couples who live together, regardless of the status of their relationship or whether they're married." said Taylor. "A handful of legislators and others have tried to insinuate themselves into this particular case because this time it involves two lesbians."

In November, Iowans voted to retain Judge Neary , despite aggressive efforts by antigay groups to unseat him.

posted by Anthony # 8:21 AM

by Paul Johnson 365Gay.com Washington Bureau Chief
Posted: January 10, 2005 11:02 am ET

(Washington) The Supreme Court turned down an appeal Monday of Florida's blanket ban on adoption by gays. Florida is the only state with an all out ban on gays and lesbians adopting children.

The high court did not offer a reason for rejecting the case. The justices seldom offer an explanation when an appeal is turned down.

Last year the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit declined to hear a challenge to the Florida law, allowing to stand a ruing by a three-judge panel of the Court that upheld the ban.
The American Civil Liberties Union brought the lawsuit on behalf of four gay men who would like to adopt in Florida but are prevented from doing so by the state law. The ban was passed in 1977 in response to Anita Bryant's infamous anti-gay campaign.

The key vote by the court was cast by Judge William H. Pryor Jr. Pryor's nomination to the eleventh Circuit had been blocked by Democrats concerned about his conservative views, but during a one-week recess of the Senate last February, Bush used a clause in the Constitution giving the president the right to appoint judges directly when Congress is not in session to put Pryor on the bench.

The ACLU appealed the ruling to the US Supreme Court.

The circuit panel's decision "reflects an almost complete failure to absorb this Court's rulings in Lawrence and Romer that disapproval of gay people is not a constitutionally acceptable basis for government action," wrote American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Matthew Coles in his petition to the Supreme Court. "It threatens to strip this Court's holdings of any principled meaning and deprive them of the significance that they rightfully deserve."

In his brief to the justices Coles said that while Florida excludes gays as adoptive parents, it does allow adoptions by individuals who are unmarried, disabled, or have a history of substance abuse or even domestic violence.

But, the state of Florida in its brief to the Supreme Court said that the state's law is rationally related to valid state goals and also uses Lawrence in its argument noting that that case involved private sexual acts where adoption is a public act and a privilege, not a right.

Had the Court agreed to hear the appeal it would have been its first chance to comment on the scope of its 2003 ruling in Lawrence v. Texas that proclaimed due process extends to gays.
"This case deserved to be heard," said Patricia Logue, Senior Counsel at Lambda Legal. "Florida's law keeps thousands of children in state care and out of permanent loving homes -- solely because the state wants to express disapproval of gay people.

posted by Anthony # 7:28 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: January 10, 2005 2:05 p.m. ET
(Atlanta, Georgia) African Americans were taken in by a "con" game by Republicans last November former presidential candidate Al Sharpton said.

Speaking to parishioners at Atlanta's Butler Street Christian Methodist Episcopal on Sunday, Sharpton said Bush manipulated the gay marriage debate to draw attention away from the Iraq war and his domestic problems.

"I think George Bush manipulated a lot of religious feelings about marriage when the president has little or nothing to do with marriage," Sharpton said.

"The president cannot order what marriage is for men or women," Sharpton said.

"It was the place for a debate on Iraq, he's in charge of the military; health care, he's in charge of that; on Social Security, he's in charge of that," he told church goers. "But we should not relinquish the morality of the church to the office of president. He has nothing to do with that."
Sharpton lost the Democratic presidential nomination to Sen. John Kerry but recently his name has been suggested for chair of the Democratic Party.

During weekend meetings with African American members of the Democratic National Committee, Sharpton warned that party leaders will continue to ignore blacks when choosing future leaders at the party's peril.

He said that more African Americans will drift from the Democrats unless leaders reward black party members with key posts.

During he primaries Sharpton was one three Democratic presidential candidates to endorse same-sex marriage. The others were Congressman Dennis Kucinich, former Senator Carol Mosely Braun.

Senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman, Congressman Dick Gephardt and former Governor Howard Dean endorsed civil unions but not marriage.

posted by Anthony # 7:27 AM

by Francis D'Emilio Associated Press
Posted: January 10, 2005 5:01 p.m. ET

(Vatican City) Pope John Paul II put lobbying against gay marriage at the top of the Vatican's agenda for 2005 and also urged politicians in prosperous nations Monday to do more for the millions of hungry people around the globe.

In a speech to the diplomats accredited to the Vatican, the ailing, 84-year-old pontiff laid out the Roman Catholic Church's priorities for the new year, making clear he intended to use his energies to tackle what he called "challenges of life" issues — abortion, cloning, gay marriage, assisted procreation and embryonic stem cell use.

He noted the anguishing news of 2004, from natural disasters — including the Indian Ocean tsunami and locust plagues in northern Africa — to "barbarous terrorism which caused bloodshed in Iraq and other countries," and the suffering in Darfur, Sudan.

While the pope was delivering his annual speech to the ambassadors, the Italian cardinal he sent to the White House in March 2003 in a last-hour bid to dissuade President Bush from invading Iraq war told TV viewers in Italy the president had promised the prelate the American intervention would be wrapped up quickly.

"Unfortunately, the facts have demonstrated afterward that things took a different course — not rapid and not favorable" in Iraq, the cardinal said.

"Bush was wrong" about Iraq, the prelate, now retired, said of the current U.S. leader.
John Paul, who had vigorously opposed what the United States called "preventive war," said in his speech that "arrogance of power must be countered with reason, force with dialogue, pointed weapons with outstretched hands, evil with good."

In an obvious reference to laws permitting marriage between same-sex couples or equating the social rights of unwed couples to married ones, John Paul said that in some countries, the family's "natural structure" has been challenged.

Families "must necessarily be that of a union between a man and a woman founded on marriage," he said.

John Paul also reasserted the church's opposition to abortion, assisted procreation and scientific research on human embryonic stem cells.

posted by Anthony # 7:26 AM

by Peter Moore 365Gay.com London Bureau
Posted: January 10, 2005 8:07 p.m. ET
(London) A woman whose marriage was invalidated after the British government learned she had been born biologically male is taking her case to the European Court of Human Rights.
Elizabeth Bellinger 56, underwent sex reassignment in 1981 and married Michael Bellinger the same year.

The registrar who married the couple did not ask for any evidence of her gender and the couple have lived since then as husband and wife.

After 22 years of marriage Bellinger sought to have her birth records corrected to show her actual sex, only to find the UK does not permit the records to be altered.

By not recognizing the right of the transgendered to have their, the couple's marriage was invalidated.

Five Law Lords, the highest form of appeal in the UK, rejected her appeal, even though a new Gender Recognition Bill comes into force in April.

Monday the Bellingers' lawyers filed papers with the European Court asking it to grant her full recognition as a married woman.

"We're arguing under Articles Eight and 13 of the Human Rights Act which protects the right to family life and the right not to be discriminated against," said Louise Christian, the couple's lawyer.

If the court decides to hear the case it could come before the justices in two years.

posted by Anthony # 7:25 AM

by The Associated Press
Posted: January 10, 2005 8:07 p.m. ET
(Chicago, Illinois) The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America this week is expected to announce results from a three-year study on sexuality, including recommendations on whether the church should change its policies on the blessing of same-sex unions and ordination of gay ministers.

Leaders from the 5 million-member denomination will announce on Thursday the recommendations from a 14-member task force. Church members will act on the proposals at their Churchwide Assembly in August.

The Chicago-based church now has no official policy on blessing same-sex relationships. It allows members who identify themselves as gay or lesbian to be ordained but expects them to remain celibate.

The study included surveys of more than 28,000 Lutherans, and members from across the church attended voluntary hearings.

``The task force has, since its beginning, represented a spectrum of the views one can hear from within our church,'' the Rev. James M. Childs Jr., director of the study, said in a statement.
Greg Egertson, co-chairman of Lutheran Lesbian & Gay Ministries in San Francisco, said the church's current stance on ordination of gay ministers is a ``don't ask, don't tell'' policy that leads to ambiguity.

``The church is very uneven in the application of the current policy,'' Egertson said.

posted by Anthony # 7:25 AM

by Jim Brown, Canadian Press
Posted: January 10, 2005 8:07 p.m. ET

(Ottawa) A bill to legalize gay marriage from coast to coast will come before Parliament in early February and should be law by summer, says Justice Minister Irwin Cotler.

``It will be introduced and there will be the customary debate,'' Cotler said Monday in an interview with The Canadian Press.

``I'd like to think that it would pass . . . before the House rises in June.''

But even if he's wrong and the bill can't muster support from a majority of MPs, it won't stop the inevitable march toward gay marriage, said Cotler.

He noted that courts in seven provinces and one territory have already struck down the traditional definition of marriage as an institution restricted to opposite-sex couples.

Judges in other jurisdictions would eventually follow suit, with or without the blessing of elected politicians, Cotler suggested.

``If the bill does not pass, the likelihood is that the constitutional development will continue in the other provinces, and we will likely see this issue being arrived at one by one in the courts.
``My view is that this is an issue of minority rights and equality rights.''

The only way to thwart the legal evolution, said Cotler, would be to invoke the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution to override the Charter of Rights.

Prime Minister Paul Martin has already said that's something he won't do.

The Liberal government, in response to earlier judicial rulings in several provinces, drafted legislation more than a year ago to legalize same-sex marriage everywhere.

But it held off introducing the bill until it could get further legal advice from the Supreme Court of Canada.

In a unanimous verdict in early December, the high court cleared the way for the government to proceed, saying its proposed law complies with the Charter.

The only caveat was that churches can't be forced to perform religious ceremonies against their beliefs _ a provision the government has always agreed with.

``This has nothing to do with religious marriage,'' said Cotler. ``We're talking only about civil marriage.''

He's also talking about civil divorce.

Cotler said the new marriage legislation will be accompanied by amendments to the federal Divorce Act, modifying the definition of spouse in that statute to include same-sex couples.
Justice Department lawyers are still working on similar changes that may be needed in the wording of a handful of other laws.

The issue has sharply divided the Liberal caucus, and Martin has promised to loosen party discipline to let backbench MPs vote their consciences.

The 38 members of cabinet, however, will be expected to toe the government line and support the bill.

There has been speculation that some who personally oppose gay marriage could break ranks, even if they have to quit cabinet to do so.

But Cotler shrugged off the possibility, saying he hopes all his fellow ministers will be onside.
``My own appreciation of cabinet is that they are very solid on this, and that the discussion within cabinet has reflected that solidarity.''

Cotler also predicted a ``strong majority''of Liberal backbenchers will support the bill, along with the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois.

``Even among the Conservative party I think you will find that there are members who are voting in favor.''

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper has said he will press for amendments that would somehow preserve the traditional definition of marriage while also recognizing the rights of gay couples.

He hasn't explained exactly how he would square that circle. Nor has he said explicitly whether he would resort to the notwithstanding clause, but legal experts believe that would be the only solution.

Judges in Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Yukon have overturned the traditional definition of marriage.

Opinion polls indicate Canadians are split nearly 50-50 on the issue, but Cotler expressed confidence that most will eventually be swayed by respect for the Charter of Rights.

That document guarantees not only the equality rights of gays, but also of religious, racial and other minorities, he noted.

Legislators shouldn't be in the business of selecting whose rights to uphold and whose to overturn, said Cotler.

``We can't pick and choose . . . . This is part of the Constitution of Canada.''

posted by Anthony # 7:23 AM

by Doreen Brandt 365Gay.com Washington Bureau
Posted: January 10, 2005 8:07 p.m. ET

(Washington) A second wave of states considering amendments to their constitutions to bar same-sex marriage has begun.

Steve Morris, the president-elect of the Kansas Senate said Monday that he plans to seek Senate approval of a constitutional ban on gay marriage by the end of this week.
If approved by a two-thirds vote, that would give the House about three weeks to consider the proposal and make a Feb. 11 deadline needed to get the proposal before Kansas voters on an April 5 ballot, he said.

The proposal defines marriage being between one man and one woman and would prevent the state from granting civil unions.

Supporters of the amendment and those opposed to it held rallies at the legislature on Monday.
In Tennessee, Republicans, in the majority in the state Senate for the first time in years, vow to bring in an amendment this session. Senate Republicans say their priority will be to use their electoral gains to push their perceived advantage on the so-called moral issues, using them to pigeonhole Democrats as out-of-touch liberals.

But, even the Democratically controlled House is considered relatively conservative.
The proposed amendment passed the first test last year. Under Tennessee's constitution a proposed amendment must be passed in two sessions of the legislature before going to the people.

It is expected to clear both chambers with the required two-thirds support and go to voters in 2006.

South Dakota also may put forward an amendment to that state's constitution. Republicans are considering whether to file a bill that would amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

In the issue is when to put a proposed amendment to that state's voters. Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano is daring the state legislature to call a special election this year to let voters decide whether to approve a constitutional ban on gay marriage rather than wait for the November 2006 election.

Virginia lawmakers are considering their own amendment.

And, Alabama lawmakers will make a second attempt at approving a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage when the legislature resumes.

Last November 11 states passed amendments to ban gay marriage.

posted by Anthony # 7:22 AM

January 10, 2005

By REUTERS
Filed at 10:39 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court refused on Monday to hear a constitutional challenge to a 1977 Florida law that bans gays and lesbians from adopting children, the only such state law in the nation.

Without comment, the high court declined to consider whether the law, which was adopted at the height of entertainer Anita Bryant's anti-homosexual campaign, unfairly singled out gays and lesbians in violation of their constitutional rights.

The law states, ``No person eligible to adopt under this statute may adopt if that person is a homosexual.'' No other state categorically excludes gays or lesbians from adopting.
The law's sponsor, Florida Sen. Curtis Peterson, said at the time the purpose of the legislation was to send a message to gays and lesbians that ``we're really tired of you. We wish you'd go back into the closet.''

The Supreme Court issued its last gay rights ruling in 2003, when it struck down a Texas sodomy law and declared that constitutional due process and privacy rights applied to gays in that case.

The Florida law was challenged in 1999 by four gay men, Steven Lofton, Douglas Houghton, Wayne LaRue Smith and Daniel Skahen, who have been raising foster children, but cannot adopt them because of the law.

The lawsuit claimed the law violated the right to equal protection of lesbians and gays who seek to adopt and of the children raised by gays and lesbians who cannot be adopted by those caring for them.

A federal judge in Miami and a U.S. appeals court upheld the law. The Atlanta-based appeals court said the issue of gay adoptions should be decided by the Florida legislature, not by the courts.

Attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union appealed to the Supreme Court. They said whether a state can categorically exclude gays from consideration as adoptive parents represented an important question of federal law.

They said the appeals court disregarded Supreme Court rulings in 2003 and in 1996 that held that disapproval of gay people is not a constitutionally acceptable basis for government action.
They also said the law denied many Florida children permanent families. ``This law sacrifices the interests of children,'' they said. ``It is no exaggeration to say that lives may be at stake here; childhoods certainly are.''

Attorneys for the Florida Department of Children and Families said the appeal should be denied and that Supreme Court review would be ``inappropriate.''

They described the law as related to rational state goals. ``Florida's interest in placing children with married mothers and fathers has been recognized as legitimate by Florida state courts.''

posted by Anthony # 7:18 PM

by Doreen Brandt 365Gay.com Washington Bureau
Posted: January 7, 2005 8:02 pm ET

(Washington) A prominent black conservative was paid nearly a quarter million dollars by the White House to promote the President's agenda in his columns and nationally syndicated talk show.

Armstrong Williams who regularly attacks gays was given the money to promote the No Child Left Behind law according to documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by USA Today.

"I wanted to do it because it's something I believe in," Williams said. He also said that he does not recall disclosing the contract to audiences on the air but told colleagues about it when urging them to promote NCLB.

The contract with the White House may have broken federal law in addition to the ethics of journalism.

Congress has prohibited propaganda," or any sort of lobbying for programs funded by the government, said Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "And it's propaganda."

Rep. George Miller of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Education Committee Friday called for an investigation.

Williams is a former aide to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. In a column following the November 2 election Williams linked gay rights advocates with organized crime.

"Despite the rhetoric that you hear from the homosexual Cosa Nostra, the lack of support for the gay marriage amendment has nothing to do with prejudice," he wrote.

"It's not about trying to dictate to adults what they should do in the privacy of their own homes. Let's be clear about that. Opposition to the gay marriage amendment isn't about disallowing homosexuals the same basic rights we extend to everyone else. It is about recognizing that marriage between man and woman is the bedrock of our society. It is about the citizens of this country saying, en masse, that they are unwilling to deconstruct certain basic and essential norms in our culture and society."

posted by Anthony # 6:36 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: January 9 2005 3:02 pm ET

(Pierre, South Dakota) Republicans in the South Dakota legislature are considering whether to file a bill that would amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

Buoyed by the Republican defeat of US Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) in November the GOP in the statehouse are pushing for a conservative agenda. During the election campaign Daschle was dogged by Republican ads that painted him as too left for South Dakota values. Also, a conservative group ran an ad saying Daschle "refuses to protect marriage; he would let liberal activist judges redefine it."

South Dakota already has a so-called Defense of Marriage Act but supporters of an amendment say it could be overturned by judges.

If a proposed amendment were introduced in the legislature it would win easily according to a new poll released on the weekend.

Two-thirds of the legislators responding to the survey, by The Associated Press, said they would support a constitutional amendment.

While 82 percent of the Republican lawmakers would support such a proposal, only a quarter of the Democratic legislators favored the idea.

To amend the state constitution, it would need not only approval of the legislature but also require a majority of voters to endorse it.

However, Senate Republican Leader Eric Bogue of Faith, a lawyer, seems hesitant to force the issue.

"I think there are some legal issues on top of what would be obvious moral questions that would have to be answered so we would know best where to go," Bogue told the AP.

Senate Democratic Leader Garry Moore of Yankton said he could vote for such an amendment, but he doubts that it is needed.

"It's never been an issue in South Dakota because we very clearly have laws that prohibit that type of union," Moore said.

House Democratic Leader Dale Hargens of Miller also said he doubts the need for a constitutional amendment.

"They would have to prove to me our state law is in danger somehow. I don't see that it's in danger," Hargens told the AP.

But, House Republican Leader Larry Rhoden of Union Center said he expects such a measure will be introduced and passed by the Legislature.

posted by Anthony # 6:35 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: January 10, 2005 12:01 am ET

(London) One of the most senior bishops in the Anglican Church in England has commissioned the writing of a liturgy for same-sex couples and cohabiting heterosexuals.
John Saxbee, Bishop of Lincoln, has instructed staff to prepare the rite.

The move is likely to anger Church conservatives still fighting the election of a gay bishop in the US and comes in the midst of attempts by the leader of the worldwide faith, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, to heal the rift.

The liturgy will stop short of introducing a marriage service for gays but would allow those in non-marriage relationships to proclaim their unions in the church.

“When I arrived in the diocese,” Saxbee told the London Times, "I saw a member of the clergy become a victim of tabloid sensationalism for being prepared to support same-sex friendships liturgically. Part of the impetus behind this initiative was to provide a way clergy could do that with diocesan support.”

Individual priests have conducted same-sex union blessings in the past in England, but this is the first time that a bishop has sanctioned a rite for same-sex relationships.

Saxbee said that the new service will be “consistent with current Anglican guidelines” because it does not claim to sanctify or bless a relationship, but simply gives thanks for the union.

“Who’s kidding who?” said David Banting, chairman of Reform, the largest conservative group in the Church.

“Would liturgy for this sort of relationship have come forward for friendship’s sake were it not for the pressure from the gay lobby?”

In Canada in 2003 Bishop Michael Ingham, head of the Anglican diocese of New Westminster agreed to authorize clergy in some of his parishes to carry out blessing ceremonies for same-sex couples.

The move was attacked by conservatives around the world and feud between them and Church moderates intensified when Eugene Robinson was elected bishop of New Hampshire.

posted by Anthony # 6:34 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: January 10, 2005 12:01 am ET

(Miami, Florida) A lawsuit by a group of Christian conservatives against a lesbian couple seeking to marry in Lee County, Florida has been dropped.

The group, made up of a county clerk in Florida's Panhandle, more than a dozen notaries public, wedding chapels and churches, are still battling same-sex couples in other parts of the state.

The were represented by Liberty Counsel, a Christian law firm that is fighting gay marriage throughout the country. Liberty Counsel has filed notice that it is abandoning the Lee County case.

The other suits may also be abandoned, legal experts say, in light of a ruling last month in federal court where a judge dismissed a Liberty Counsel lawsuit seeking a legal ruling that upholds the state's defense of marriage act banning same-sex unions.

All of the suits were meant to challenge cases brought by same-sex couples in the state seeking the right to marry.

In the Lee County case, Liberty Counsel named Margaret Kelley and Cindy Koenig who are challenging the Florida's ban on gay marriage.

In withdrawing from its suit against Kelley and Koenig, Liberty Counsel said it would file an intervenor brief in the couple's suit against the state.

Koenig and Kelley launched their suit after Lee County Court Clerk Charlie Green refused to give them a marriage license last year.

posted by Anthony # 6:33 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: January 7, 2005 5:01 pm ET
(Atlanta, Georgia) Georgia Republicans who supported an amendment to the state constitution are condemning a judge's decision not to allow them to challenge a lawsuit brought by same-sex couples that seeks to have the amendment set aside.

"I think it's only fair" to allow lawmakers and other supporters help defend the amendment, former state Sen. Mike Crotts said Thursday. Crotts who made an unsuccessful bid for a seat in Congress last November had been the sponsor of the Georgia amendment.

Last week, Fulton County Superior Judge Constance Russell denied a request by Crotts, several GOP lawmakers and the Christian Coalition of Georgia to become intervenors in the case. The group has sought to help Republican Gov. Sonny Perdue defend the amendment.

In her ruling Russell said that people who support a law or amendment are not entitled to become involved in a later lawsuit about it. She also noted that the governor didn't say he needed help defending the amendment.

The amendment was passed by voters November 2. Days later gay rights advocates filed suit saying the question put to voters was "fatally flawed ... because it contains multiple sections which deal with more than one subject matter."
The lawsuit named Perdue as defendant.

Crotts told reporters Thursday that he and other lawmakers interested interested in "preserving the family" should be free to join the suit.

He predicted that if the courts overturn the amendment it will be reintroduced in the legislature this year and put back on the ballot in the next election.

posted by Anthony # 7:46 AM

January 7, 2005OP-ED COLUMNIST
New York Times
By PAUL KRUGMAN

I've been thinking of writing a political novel. It will be a bad novel because there won't be any nuance: the villains won't just espouse an ideology I disagree with - they'll be hypocrites, cranks and scoundrels.

In my bad novel, a famous moralist who demanded national outrage over an affair and writes best-selling books about virtue will turn out to be hiding an expensive gambling habit. A talk radio host who advocates harsh penalties for drug violators will turn out to be hiding his own drug addiction.

In my bad novel, crusaders for moral values will be driven by strange obsessions. One senator's diatribe against gay marriage will link it to "man on dog" sex. Another will rant about the dangers of lesbians in high school bathrooms.

In my bad novel, the president will choose as head of homeland security a "good man" who turns out to have been the subject of an arrest warrant, who turned an apartment set aside for rescue workers into his personal love nest and who stalked at least one of his ex-lovers.

In my bad novel, a TV personality who claims to stand up for regular Americans against the elite will pay a large settlement in a sexual harassment case, in which he used his position of power to - on second thought, that story is too embarrassing even for a bad novel.

In my bad novel, apologists for the administration will charge foreign policy critics with anti-Semitism. But they will be silent when a prominent conservative declares that "Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular."

In my bad novel the administration will use the slogan "support the troops" to suppress criticism of its war policy. But it will ignore repeated complaints that the troops lack armor.
The secretary of defense - another "good man," according to the president - won't even bother signing letters to the families of soldiers killed in action.

Last but not least, in my bad novel the president, who portrays himself as the defender of good against evil, will preside over the widespread use of torture.

How did we find ourselves living in a bad novel? It was not ever thus. Hypocrites, cranks and scoundrels have always been with us, on both sides of the aisle. But 9/11 created an environment some liberals summarize with the acronym Iokiyar: it's O.K. if you're a Republican.
The public became unwilling to believe bad things about those who claim to be defending the nation against terrorism. And the hypocrites, cranks and scoundrels of the right, empowered by the public's credulity, have come out in unprecedented force.

Apologists for the administration would like us to forget all about the Kerik affair, but Bernard Kerik perfectly symbolizes the times we live in. Like Rudolph Giuliani and, yes, President Bush, he wasn't a hero of 9/11, but he played one on TV. And like Mr. Giuliani, he was quick to cash in, literally, on his undeserved reputation.

Once the New York newspapers began digging, it became clear that Mr. Kerik is, professionally and personally, a real piece of work. But that's not unusual these days among people who successfully pass themselves off as patriots and defenders of moral values. Mr. Kerik must still be wondering why he, unlike so many others, didn't get away with it.

And Alberto Gonzales must be hoping that senators don't bring up the subject.

The principal objection to making Mr. Gonzales attorney general is that doing so will tell the world that America thinks it's acceptable to torture people. But his confirmation will also be a statement about ethics.

As White House counsel, Mr. Gonzales was charged with vetting Mr. Kerik. He must have realized what kind of man he was dealing with - yet he declared Mr. Kerik fit to oversee homeland security.

Did Mr. Gonzales defer to the wishes of a president who wanted Mr. Kerik anyway, or did he decide that his boss wouldn't want to know? (The Nelson Report, a respected newsletter, reports that Mr. Bush has made it clear to his subordinates that he doesn't want to hear bad news about Iraq.)

Either way, when the Senate confirms Mr. Gonzales, it will mean that Iokiyar remains in effect, that the basic rules of ethics don't apply to people aligned with the ruling party. And reality will continue to be worse than any fiction I could write.

posted by Anthony # 7:43 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: January 7, 2005 8:02 pm ET
(Frankfort, Kentucky) A bill before the Kentucky legislature seeks to remove all locally passed gay civil rights laws in the state.

The legislation by Republicans Reps. Joe Fischer (Thomas) and Republican Stan Lee (Lexington) would amend the state's civil rights law to prohibit local ordinances related to "alleged discriminatory practice against a group -- based upon a common trait, characteristic, belief or practice."

Kentucky's state civil rights law is based on federal law and prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, gender, age or disability. Fischer's bill would not change the protection of those groups. Only civil rights protections for gays and lesbians would be affected.
Fischer filed a similar bill last year but, it never made it out of committee in the House where it was overshadowed by debate over a constitutional amendment to bar same-sex marriages and civil unions. Voters approved the amendment in November. It is now being challenged in court.

Fischer said that he expects his measure will pass this year because of the groundswell of support for the amendment.

LGBT rights groups are furious.

"The local community should be able to secure the safety of their citizens," said Tom Miller, co-chair of the Northern Kentucky Fairness Alliance "Since the state doesn't have the courage to do that, I think the cities should be able to protect their citizenry."

A bill that would have provided civil rights protections for gays and lesbians died last year in committee.

posted by Anthony # 7:42 AM

by Doreen Brandt 365Gay.com Washington Bureau

Posted: January 7, 2005 8:02 pm ET (Washington) A prominent black conservative was paid nearly a quarter million dollars by the White House to promote the President's agenda in his columns and nationally syndicated talk show.

Armstrong Williams who regularly attacks gays was given the money to promote the No Child Left Behind law according to documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by USA Today.

"I wanted to do it because it's something I believe in," Williams said. He also said that he does not recall disclosing the contract to audiences on the air but told colleagues about it when urging them to promote NCLB.

The contract with the White House may have broken federal law in addition to the ethics of journalism.

Congress has prohibited propaganda," or any sort of lobbying for programs funded by the government, said Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "And it's propaganda."

Rep. George Miller of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Education Committee Friday called for an investigation.

Williams is a former aide to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. In a column following the November 2 election Williams linked gay rights advocates with organized crime."Despite the rhetoric that you hear from the homosexual Cosa Nostra, the lack of support for the gay marriage amendment has nothing to do with prejudice," he wrote.

"It's not about trying to dictate to adults what they should do in the privacy of their own homes. Let's be clear about that. Opposition to the gay marriage amendment isn't about disallowing homosexuals the same basic rights we extend to everyone else. It is about recognizing that marriage between man and woman is the bedrock of our society. It is about the citizens of this country saying, en masse, that they are unwilling to deconstruct certain basic and essential norms in our culture and society."

posted by Anthony # 7:41 AM

by Doreen Brandt 365Gay.com Washington Bureau
Posted: January 7, 2005 8:02 pm ET
(Washington) A prominent black conservative was paid nearly a quarter million dollars by the White House to promote the President's agenda in his columns and nationally syndicated talk show.

Armstrong Williams who regularly attacks gays was given the money to promote the No Child Left Behind law according to documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by USA Today.

"I wanted to do it because it's something I believe in," Williams said. He also said that he does not recall disclosing the contract to audiences on the air but told colleagues about it when urging them to promote NCLB.

The contract with the White House may have broken federal law in addition to the ethics of journalism.

Congress has prohibited propaganda," or any sort of lobbying for programs funded by the government, said Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "And it's propaganda."

Rep. George Miller of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Education Committee Friday called for an investigation.

Williams is a former aide to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. In a column following the November 2 election Williams linked gay rights advocates with organized crime.
"Despite the rhetoric that you hear from the homosexual Cosa Nostra, the lack of support for the gay marriage amendment has nothing to do with prejudice," he wrote.

"It's not about trying to dictate to adults what they should do in the privacy of their own homes. Let's be clear about that. Opposition to the gay marriage amendment isn't about disallowing homosexuals the same basic rights we extend to everyone else. It is about recognizing that marriage between man and woman is the bedrock of our society. It is about the citizens of this country saying, en masse, that they are unwilling to deconstruct certain basic and essential norms in our culture and society."

posted by Anthony # 7:37 AM

by Doreen Brandt 365Gay.com Washington Bureau
Posted: January 7, 2005 8:02 pm ET
(Washington) A prominent black conservative was paid nearly a quarter million dollars by the White House to promote the President's agenda in his columns and nationally syndicated talk show.

Armstrong Williams who regularly attacks gays was given the money to promote the No Child Left Behind law according to documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by USA Today.

"I wanted to do it because it's something I believe in," Williams said. He also said that he does not recall disclosing the contract to audiences on the air but told colleagues about it when urging them to promote NCLB.

The contract with the White House may have broken federal law in addition to the ethics of journalism.

Congress has prohibited propaganda," or any sort of lobbying for programs funded by the government, said Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "And it's propaganda."

Rep. George Miller of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Education Committee Friday called for an investigation.

Williams is a former aide to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. In a column following the November 2 election Williams linked gay rights advocates with organized crime.
"Despite the rhetoric that you hear from the homosexual Cosa Nostra, the lack of support for the gay marriage amendment has nothing to do with prejudice," he wrote.

"It's not about trying to dictate to adults what they should do in the privacy of their own homes. Let's be clear about that. Opposition to the gay marriage amendment isn't about disallowing homosexuals the same basic rights we extend to everyone else. It is about recognizing that marriage between man and woman is the bedrock of our society. It is about the citizens of this country saying, en masse, that they are unwilling to deconstruct certain basic and essential norms in our culture and society."

posted by Anthony # 7:37 AM

by Doreen Brandt 365Gay.com Washington Bureau
Posted: January 7, 2005 8:02 pm ET
(Washington) A prominent black conservative was paid nearly a quarter million dollars by the White House to promote the President's agenda in his columns and nationally syndicated talk show.

Armstrong Williams who regularly attacks gays was given the money to promote the No Child Left Behind law according to documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by USA Today.

"I wanted to do it because it's something I believe in," Williams said. He also said that he does not recall disclosing the contract to audiences on the air but told colleagues about it when urging them to promote NCLB.

The contract with the White House may have broken federal law in addition to the ethics of journalism.

Congress has prohibited propaganda," or any sort of lobbying for programs funded by the government, said Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "And it's propaganda."

Rep. George Miller of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Education Committee Friday called for an investigation.

Williams is a former aide to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. In a column following the November 2 election Williams linked gay rights advocates with organized crime.
"Despite the rhetoric that you hear from the homosexual Cosa Nostra, the lack of support for the gay marriage amendment has nothing to do with prejudice," he wrote.

"It's not about trying to dictate to adults what they should do in the privacy of their own homes. Let's be clear about that. Opposition to the gay marriage amendment isn't about disallowing homosexuals the same basic rights we extend to everyone else. It is about recognizing that marriage between man and woman is the bedrock of our society. It is about the citizens of this country saying, en masse, that they are unwilling to deconstruct certain basic and essential norms in our culture and society."

posted by Anthony # 7:37 AM

by Doreen Brandt 365Gay.com Washington Bureau
Posted: January 7, 2005 8:02 pm ET
(Washington) A prominent black conservative was paid nearly a quarter million dollars by the White House to promote the President's agenda in his columns and nationally syndicated talk show.

Armstrong Williams who regularly attacks gays was given the money to promote the No Child Left Behind law according to documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by USA Today.

"I wanted to do it because it's something I believe in," Williams said. He also said that he does not recall disclosing the contract to audiences on the air but told colleagues about it when urging them to promote NCLB.

The contract with the White House may have broken federal law in addition to the ethics of journalism.

Congress has prohibited propaganda," or any sort of lobbying for programs funded by the government, said Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "And it's propaganda."

Rep. George Miller of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Education Committee Friday called for an investigation.

Williams is a former aide to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. In a column following the November 2 election Williams linked gay rights advocates with organized crime.
"Despite the rhetoric that you hear from the homosexual Cosa Nostra, the lack of support for the gay marriage amendment has nothing to do with prejudice," he wrote.

"It's not about trying to dictate to adults what they should do in the privacy of their own homes. Let's be clear about that. Opposition to the gay marriage amendment isn't about disallowing homosexuals the same basic rights we extend to everyone else. It is about recognizing that marriage between man and woman is the bedrock of our society. It is about the citizens of this country saying, en masse, that they are unwilling to deconstruct certain basic and essential norms in our culture and society."

posted by Anthony # 7:37 AM

January 6, 2005
New York Times
By JENNIFER MEDINA
Four years ago, Eastchester became one of the first communities in Westchester County to offer health benefits to the domestic partners of its employees. Critics charged that the town supervisor had rammed the plan through and voted him out of office. Now Eastchester has become the first town in New York to end the benefits.

At a meeting Tuesday night, the Town Board voted 3 to 2 to approve new union contracts and to end a town policy of providing coverage for domestic partners. The town's Civil Service Employees Association and police union agreed to dropping the coverage, saying their members had more pressing concerns. The two employees who have made use of the benefits will be allowed to continue to do so, but new employees will not be eligible.

Town officials say they took the action to save money, but when the issue arose four years ago, one local group condemned the idea of domestic partner benefits as an effort by gay activists to promote same-sex marriage. Gay rights groups said yesterday that the town's decision was a dangerous step backward that could eat away at policies that have become common in government and the private sector.

"The town is out of step with what has become an established trend," said Ross Levi, director of public policy and government affairs for Empire State Pride Agenda, a gay rights group. "One set of families is going to get protection, and another set is going to be left out in the cold."
Eleven states, including New York, provide domestic partner benefits for public employees. So do New York City and 128 counties around the country, including Westchester, Suffolk, Nassau and Albany counties, according to the A.F.L.-C.I.O.

The Eastchester decision in late 2000 to extend domestic partner benefits to town employees became an issue in the 2003 supervisor campaign, when the current supervisor, Anthony Colavita, ran against James Cavanaugh, the incumbent, in the Republican primary. Mr. Cavanaugh had successfully pushed for the domestic partner benefits three years earlier and ended up facing serious opposition from voters in his own party.

"This is a real victory," Raymond W. Belair, a lawyer with Family First, a local group that opposed the policy, said yesterday.

In 2002, the group filed a lawsuit against the town, which it now plans to drop, and collected more than 1,100 signatures on a petition opposing the policy. After Mr. Colavita said he was willing to end the policy, the group endorsed his candidacy, and he narrowly won the 2003 primary.

"This was always about the gay lobby chipping away to get to marriage," Mr. Belair said. "And right now there is nothing more important than preserving marriage."

Mr. Belair said that he had been unaware of the contract negotiations that led to the board's action until earlier this week, but that he called Mr. Colavita yesterday to congratulate him.
Union officials said yesterday that there was not enough interest among its members to fight to keep the benefit, which covers 163 employees - 114 city workers and 49 police officers - in a town of 31,000 people.

"There are things that the members need, and this was not something that was being used by a large number of them," said Gary Conley, president of C.S.E.A. Local 860, which covers Westchester County. "It was not something that was particularly needed, and you have to decide what you are going to fight for. Not enough people thought this was worth it."
Mr. Colavita said that dropping the benefit was a financial matter. The two employees who receive the benefits cost the town $15,000 to $20,000 annually, he said.

"That is a significant sum of money," Mr. Colavita said. "People wanted to make this a moral and gross social issue, but the employees who it affects supported it entirely. No town employee is being excluded from benefits."

Mr. Levi, of Empire State Pride Agenda, disputed Mr. Colavita's economic argument. "To say that that this is purely a fiscal issue is totally dishonest," Mr. Levi said. "This is not saving the town one penny. It is just bad public policy."

Councilwoman Vicki Ford voted in favor of the domestic partnership policy four years ago and was one of two members who voted against repealing it, calling the action a step backward. "This should not be about local politics," she said. "This should be about respecting the individual who is doing work for the company or municipality."

Current employees have 60 days to apply for the benefits before the rule takes effect. By ensuring that members who used the benefit would continue to receive it, the union fulfilled its responsibility, said Jeff Meyer, the president of the police union.

But Josh Cazares, a co-president of A.F.L.-C.I.O.'s Pride at Work gay and lesbian group, said the decision by the two unions not to press the town for the benefits was surprising. "We want to make sure that we have fairness and equality everywhere, so that anyone who wants these rights can get them," he said.

posted by Anthony # 8:01 AM

by Paul Johnson 365Gay.com Washington Bureau Chief
Posted: January 6, 2005 12:01 am ET

(Washington) Senate Democrats want answers from the man nominated by President Bush to be Attorney General. Senate confirmation hearings for White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales will begin Thursday amid allegations Gonzales secretly helped write the Federal Marriage Amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

The American Civil Liberties Union said on Wednesday that Gonzales' White House office undertook the legal thinking behind Bush's decision to support the amendment and helped formulate the legal framework for it and for the president’s "faith-based initiative" which would allow faith groups to circumvent local laws which prevent discrimination against gay and lesbian workers.

In discussing the administration’s consideration of the Federal Marriage Amendment, Bush announced in August 2003 that he had assigned "lawyers" to examine the different legislative approaches to banning same-sex marriage. "Although President Bush did not identify Gonzales as one of the assigned lawyers, the Senate Judiciary Committee ought to explore Gonzales’s role on the issue," the ACLU said in a statement Wednesday.

"Gonzales, who may have been responsible for the legal vetting of the different amendatory approaches, should make clear his position on the Musgrave-Allard amendments, which would bar all marriage rights for same-sex couples, and would likely ban civil unions," the ACLU said.
It is also likely that Goznales will be questioned on his role in developing legal arguments that permitted aggressive interrogation tactics in the months after 9/11, and denying detainees in the "war on terror" any formal legal protections. He is also expected to be asked if the White House counsel’s office played the leading role in creating the system by which the president could move American citizens from the criminal justice system into detention as "enemy combatants," without any formal due process protections.

Gonzales' career has been linked with Bush for at least a decade, serving as general counsel when Bush was governor of Texas, and then as secretary of state and as a justice on the Texas Supreme Court.

Bush in November named Gonzales to succeed John Ashcroft as Attorney General shortly after Ashcroft announced he was leaving he administration.

Last fall, under Ashcroft's direction, the Department of Justice filed a motion to intervene in a lawsuit challenging California's law that prevents same-sex marriage.

He also was named as a defendant in several Florida lawsuits challenging the Federal Defense of Marriage Act.

posted by Anthony # 7:59 AM

by Margo Williams 365Gay.com Boston Bureau
Posted: January 6, 2005 11:02 am ET

(Boston) For the first time in the five weeks since she was ousted from the head of the nation's largest gay rights group Cheryl Jacques is speaking out publicly about the future of the LGBT civil rights movement.

Jacques is urging gay leaders not to pull back and put gay marriage on "the back burner".
"In determining our path going forward, we should look to the past and learn from the leaders of the civil rights battles that have come before us," Jacques says in her newly opened website.
"Some have interpreted the 2004 election results as a backlash against gay marriage," she writes. "Thirty-nine years ago Dr. King dismissed the notion of 'backlash' against the black civil rights movement. He stated, 'There really is no white backlash, because that gives the impression that the nation had decided it was going to solve this problem and then there was a step back because of development in the civil rights movement. Now, the fact is that America has been backlashing on the civil rights question for centuries now...The backlash is merely the surfacing of prejudices, of hostilities, of hatreds and fears that already existed and they are just now starting to open.'"

"The lessons of history are clear - equality cannot wait for a convenient time, society only moves toward equality when challenged to do so," Jacques says. "Change does not come through cautious inaction, but through principled insistence. A backlash isn't a reaction, it is the surfacing of long-standing resentments and misunderstandings that can only be addressed if brought out into the open. And the most important lesson is this - civil rights battles are never easy, and they are never short, but throughout our nation's history, these battles have resulted in the expansion of equality to people who had previously been denied equal treatment under the law."

Jacques left the Human Rights Campaign November 30 in what was described by HRC at the time as "a difference in management philosophy." But, there had been friction for some time between the board and Jacques. In her 11 months as head of HRC, Jacques gave the organization more of a political edge than it had been known for in the past with campaigns such as, "George Bush, You're Fired!"

Sources inside the organization said Jacques and the HRC board sparred over what some saw as Jacques' refusal to step back on pressing the same-sex marriage fight following last November's election in which 11 states passed constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions.
Following Jacques' departure from HRC the organization appointed Michael Berman, a straight man, as co-chair of its board. A search is currently underway for find a successor to Jacques as president.

Jacques took helm of HRC after serving nearly a dozen years in the Massachusetts State Senate. Since her departure from HRC there has been considerable speculation in Massachusetts that she will seek a seat in Congress.

posted by Anthony # 7:57 AM

by Doug Windsor 365Gay.com New York Bureau
Posted: January 6, 2005 5:01 pm ET
(Eastchester, New York) Eastchester, New York, one of the first small towns in the state to provide its gay and lesbian workers with partner benefits has become the first in take them away.

The benefits were bargained away by the town's Civil Service Employees Association and the police union, part of a new contract with Eastchester.

The town said it needed to end the benefits program for same-sex partners to save money, but only one worker, a police officer had been enrolled in it. The unions reportedly did not object to removing the provision. Benefits to the police officer on the family health plan cost the town $6,120 this year.

Under the terms of the pacts the town will stop offering the benefits in 60 days, except to the officer.

The contracts came under criticism when it came before town council this week for ratification.
One resident offered to donate $7,000 to leave the benefits in place. The offer was rejected and council voted 3 - 2 to accept the contracts.

The council voted 3 to 2 to accept the contracts.

"I don't know what the town is fighting against," said Ross Levi, a spokesperson for Empire State Pride Agenda. " Why are they seeking to prevent loving partners to take care of each other? Why make it difficult for families to take care of each other?"

posted by Anthony # 7:56 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: January 5, 2005 2:04 pm ET
(Phoenix, Arizona) Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano is daring the state legislature to call a special election this year to let voters decide whether to approve a constitutional ban on gay marriage rather than wait for the November 2006 election.

It is a calculated move on Napolitano's part. The governor who opposes the proposed amendment believes that an off year election would not bring out the high number of conservative voters that would flock to the polls in an election year.

Buoyed by last November's election where constitutional amendments were passed in 11 states Arizona Republicans vowed to bring in similar legislation this year and put it to voters in 2006.
GOP legislators were quick to attack Napolitano's move as self serving. The governor is up for reelection in 2006 and Republicans say it would help her at the polls.

"This is political chicanery," Senate President Ken Bennett (R-Prescott) told the Arizona Republic.

"She doesn't want it on the ballot in 2006 because it brings out the wrong people for her. It's not so much urgent as it is important. To spend about $3 million in taxpayer money to have a special election when far fewer people will vote is wrong."

But, Napolitano spokesperson Dennis Burke defended the governor's action saying the proposed constitutional amendment looks more like a way to energize conservative turnout in 2006 than to generate public policy.
Burke pointed out that Arizona already has a Defense of Marriage Act.

"You already have a law on the books, and you already have the courts speak on it," Burke said. "So the question to those guys is, 'Why are you doing this?' The governor is asking them, 'If it's so urgent, let's do it in 2005.' "

posted by Anthony # 9:00 AM

by The Canadian Press
Posted: January 5, 2005 5:01 pm ET
(Toronto, Ontario) Ontario's top judge would prefer that social issues like same-sex marriage be handled by elected politicians rather than the courts.

``It would be preferable if these issues were solved politically,'' said Chief Justice of Ontario Roy McMurtry at the annual opening of the courts on Wednesday.

``I think the elected politicians have a vital role to play,'' he said.
``But the decisions they make must be constitutionally supportable.''

McMurty said there been much confusion regarding judicial activism, which critics say put excessive legislative power into the hands of judges.

``This was not a role the judges sought,'' McMurtry said of social issues the bench often rules on under the Charter of Rights.

But he concedes some of those issues can't always be resolved by elected officials.

McMurtry is credited with the landmark 2003 ruling that allowed gay couples to wed. Last month, Canada's highest court gave its constitutional blessing to same-sex marriage. In a 28-page decision, the Supreme Court ruled Parliament has the exclusive power to redefine marriage.

The issue is now back in the hands of MPs, with Prime Minister Paul Martin promising to introduce a bill early this year.

Courts in eight jurisdictions - Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec, Manitoba, the Yukon, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland have already legalized gay weddings.

posted by Anthony # 8:59 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: January 5, 2005 8:18 pm ET
(Augusta, Maine) The Maine legislature will vote on a bill in the new session that would allow same-sex couples to marry but the man who introduced the measure says he will vote against it.
The legislation was filed by Rep. Brian Duprey (R-Hampden). Last year Duprey sponsored a bill that would have amended the Maine constitution to bar gay marriage. The measure was voted down, but Duprey said he remains opposed to same-sex unions and may make another attempt at getting passage of the proposed amendment.

He said this week that he brought in the gay marriage bill at the request of a constituent who he said asked not to be identified.

Most members of the State House say both the marriage bill and any attempt to rewrite the constitution have little chance of passage and .

Maine Gov. John Baldacci, a longtime supporter of gay issues, also is not anxious to see a gay marriage bill in the new session.

Baldacci's spokesperson, Lee Umphrey, said the governor believes Duprey's bill is ill-timed. Umphrey said that the Legislature should first enact measures to prevent discrimination of gays.

Baldacci intends to submit gay rights legislation this year.

If passed the state-wide anti-discrimination law would combat bias based on sexuality in employment, housing, public accommodations and credit.

The Legislature has twice passed such a law in recent years, only to have it rejected by voters.
Lawmakers passed a gay-rights bill in 1997 and then-Gov. Angus King signed it into law. But opponents forced a so-called "people's veto" referendum in 1998, and voters killed the law. The Legislature embraced a gay-rights law once again in 2000. That time, lawmakers sent it to voters for final action, and it was defeated again.

Equality Maine, the state's leading advocacy group for gays and lesbians, is also pushing for the rights bill before marriage legislation.

The organization said that it considered putting in a same-sex marriage bill this year but decided against it because ``the timing just is not right,'' according to its executive director Betsy Smith.

Smith said her agency will not take a position on Duprey's marriage bill until the group meets to discuss it.

Maine already has a domestic partner registry for same-sex couples. The registry opened last year.

posted by Anthony # 8:58 AM

by Doreen Brandt 365Gay.com Washington Bureau
Posted: January 5, 2005 8:18 pm ET
(Washington) Supreme Court justices will meet Friday to consider what cases they will hear in 2005. Among the appeals filed with the court is one involving Florida's blanket ban on gay adoption - the only state to have such a ban.

Lat year the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit declined to hear a challenge to the Florida law, allowing to stand a ruing by a three-judge panel of the Court that upheld the ban.
The American Civil Liberties Union brought the lawsuit on behalf of four gay men who would like to adopt in Florida but are prevented from doing so by the state law. The ban was passed in 1977 in response to Anita Bryant's infamous anti-gay campaign.
The key vote by the court was cast by Judge William H. Pryor Jr. Pryor's nomination to the eleventh Circuit had been blocked by Democrats concerned about his conservative views, but during a one-week recess of the Senate last February, Bush used a clause in the Constitution giving the president the right to appoint judges directly when Congress is not in session to put Pryor on the bench.

The ACLU appealed the ruling to the US Supreme Court.

If the Court agrees to hear the appeal it would be its first chance to comment on the scope of its 2003 ruling in Lawrence v. Texas that proclaimed due process extends to gays.

The circuit panel's decision "reflects an almost complete failure to absorb this Court's rulings in Lawrence and Romer that disapproval of gay people is not a constitutionally acceptable basis for government action," wrote American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Matthew Coles in his petition to the Supreme Court. "It threatens to strip this Court's holdings of any principled meaning and deprive them of the significance that they rightfully deserve."

In his brief to the justices Coles said that while Florida excludes gays as adoptive parents, it does allow adoptions by individuals who are unmarried, disabled, or have a history of substance abuse or even domestic violence.

But, the state of Florida in its brief to the Supreme Court said that the state's law is rationally related to valid state goals and also uses Lawrence in its argument noting that that case involved private sexual acts where adoption is a public act and a privilege, not a right.

posted by Anthony # 8:56 AM

by Jennifer Loven, The Associated Press
Posted: January 6, 2005 12:01 am ET

(Washington) President Bush is bringing into the top ranks of his White House staff another official he has been unsuccessful in appointing to a federal appeals court.
Bush has chosen Claude Allen, the Department of Health and Human Services' No. 2 official, to be his domestic policy adviser, responsible for shaping all White House proposals and decisions on domestic issues, press secretary Scott McClellan said Wednesday.

Bush nominated Allen to a federal appeals court, the 4th Circuit based in Richmond, in April 2003 and again a year ago, but Allen never received a vote in the Senate. During his confirmation hearing, Allen was questioned about his use of the word "queer" when he was a press aide to Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., in 1984. Allen said he didn't intend it as a slur against gay people.

Bush's choice of Allen, the former health secretary in Virginia and a lawyer in the Virginia attorney general's office, also upset Maryland's two senators because the judgeship is typically held by a Marylander.

Democrats blocked with filibusters 10 of Bush's 34 appeals court nominees, including Allen.
Another was Brett Kavanaugh, who was an associate White House counsel when Bush nominated him in July 2003 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. That court decides important government cases involving separation of powers, the role of the federal government, the responsibilities of federal officials and the authority of federal agencies.
Before joining the White House, Kavanaugh was a top lawyer under independent counsel Kenneth Starr during his investigations of President Clinton.

As Kavanaugh's judicial nomination languished in the Senate, Bush promoted him to White House staff secretary. He oversees all paper that crosses the president's desk and is often at Bush's side.

The White House has said Bush will soon re-nominate Kavanaugh and others who did not get up-or-down votes on their federal appeals court nominations, but not Allen.

In other second-term White House personnel changes, Bush is elevating communications director Dan Bartlett to a more sweeping role in which he will add more policy formulation, agenda implementation and big-picture message planning to his portfolio. Bartlett will assume the title of counselor, retired when Karen Hughes left Bush's full-time employ in 2002.

Taking Bartlett's place as communications director in charge of the entire White House press operation will be Nicolle Devenish, who filled the same role in the Bush-Cheney presidential campaign last year, McClellan said.

The announcement leaves just two senior White House positions unfilled as Bush gets closer to his Jan. 20 inauguration: the deputy chief of staff for policy and a deputy national security adviser.

Both posts are becoming vacant as their former occupants take on larger duties at the White House - former deputy chief of staff Harriet Miers is Bush's new White House counsel and deputy national security adviser Steve Hadley is becoming national security adviser.

posted by Anthony # 8:55 AM

posted by Anthony # 8:54 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: January 4, 2005 11:02 am ET
(Washington) The Internal Revenue Service is warning same-sex couples that they cannot file joint income tax returns even if they were legally married in Massachusetts or Canada.
The IRS says it is basing its denial of joint filings on Federal DOMA which restricts marriage to opposite-sex couples.

The warning follows a court ruling in Minnesota where a federal judge Monday dismissed a lawsuit that was filed by a gay couple.

Jack Baker and L. Michael McConnell claimed they deserved a tax refund because they were legally married and should be granted married taxpayer status.

McConnell had sought to change his taxpayer status to married, and claimed he deserved a refund of nearly $800. The suit asked U.S. District Judge Joan Ericksen for an order "declaring plaintiff to be a full citizen who is lawfully married" in Minnesota.

In 1971, Baker and McConnell sued Hennepin County when they were denied a marriage license. They lost that case - but while it was before the court they managed to get a marriage license in Mankato County and were married before a Methodist minister in St. Paul.

Four years later the couple returned to court seeking to force the Veterans Administration to increase Baker's educational benefits, claiming McConnell was a dependent spouse.

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the fundamental issues of joint tax status were the same as those raised regarding veterans benefits.

That decision formed the basis for Ericksen's ruling Monday which said that the earlier ruling barred the couple from "relitigating claims against the IRS."
Baker, a corporate attorney, said he would appeal.

A study last year shows that gay families pay on average higher taxes and get fewer benefits.

posted by Anthony # 8:11 AM

by Margo Williams 365Gay.com Boston Bureau
Posted: January 4, 2005 2:06 pm ET

(Boston, Massachusetts) As the Massachusetts legislature prepares to begin its new session this week more than two-thousand same-sex couples who have wed in the state wonder if those marriages will be wiped out by a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay unions.
But, there are growing indications that the measure will not survive the second passage required to send it to voters.

Democrats increased their numbers at the the State House last November, and even one of the men who wrote the proposed amendment is having second thoughts about it.

The version adopted by lawmakers last March was brokered by Senate President Robert Travaglini, a Democrat, and Senate Minority Leader Brian Lees, a Republican. Although it would bar same-sex couples from marrying it would allow civil unions and convert those marriages already performed to domestic partnerships.

The proposed amendment must pass a second time before it could go on the ballot in November 2006.

"I think everyone should take a second look at it, as I am," Lees told the Boston Globe this week.

"There is still some feeling that what we've put forward is discriminatory, and some feel it is not. There are a lot of questions that have to be answered."

Travaglini, however, says he still supports the amendment but said he had not decided when to convene a joint session of the House and Senate to consider it.

But, some statehouse Democrats say Travaglini is under pressure not to call a constitutional convention, allowing the amendment to die.

Last November Travaglini gave the toast at the marriage of openly gay state Sen. Jarrett Barrios.

Powerful House Speaker Tom Finneran who proposed an all-out ban on both gay marriage and civil unions is gone - replaced by a more liberal Democrat Salvatore DiMasi who opposes any amendment.

Even Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney, though still opposed to gay marriage, sees more important issues like health care facing legislators.

posted by Anthony # 8:10 AM

by Doreen Brandt 365Gay.com Washington Bureau
Posted: January 4, 2005 5:01 pm ET
(Washington) A federal amendment to the Constitution to prevent same-sex marriage is likely to return in the new session of Congress, but despite an increase in the number of Republicans on the Hill its chances of passage are cloudy.

Nine new senators and 40 new House members were sworn in on Tuesday. The GOP in the House has its biggest margin since 1928.

But, in a speech Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) after being elected Speaker for a fourth consecutive term today did not mention the proposed amendment in a laundry list of items he wants passed this session.

Hastert stressed homeland security, tort reform, jobs, and the economy as the most pressing issues.

Democrats still have enough votes to be a formidable opposition, particularly in the Senate, where the rules allow a minority of members to filibuster a bill, killing it by preventing it from coming up for a vote.

A CNN/USA Today/Gallup survey conducted in mid-December found little public interest in a federal amendment when pollsters asked Americans what issues Congress and President George W. Bush should address in 2005.

Same-sex marriage was at the bottom of the list. Almost half of all Americans, 46%, said it is not that important. Just 35% say the issue is either extremely or very important.

The war in Iraq and terrorism were the top two issues. Others included education, healthcare costs, the economy, and Social Security.

Nevertheless, supporters of the proposed amendment vow they will reintroduce the measure.
Marilyn Musgrave, the Colorado Republican who carved out a power base in the far right of the party, by proposing the amendment said she will file a bill early this year.

Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) also expects the measure to come to a vote again.
Following last year's vote in which there was not enough support to secure passage, DeLay warned "We will come back and come back until this is passed."

Leaders on both sides of the issue say supporters of the amendment gained four votes in the Senate on Nov. 2, and a small, undetermined number in the House. Based on votes in 2004, amendment opponents still have more than enough strength to prevail in a second showdown.
Some GOP leaders have been pressing for a delay in reintroducing the amendment. Last month Sen. John Cornyn, (R-Texas) suggested waiting to see how court cases play out in California and New Jersey where suits filed by gay couples seeking marriage rights are underway.

"We're going to have to see additional court cases come down" supporting gay marriage before congressional sentiment shifts dramatically, Cornyn (R-Texas) said.

posted by Anthony # 8:09 AM

by Rich Peters 365Gay.com Western Canada Bureau
Posted: January 4, 2005 8:19 pm ET

Vancouver, British Columbia) Twenty marriage commissioners - the people who perform civil weddings - have quit their jobs in two provinces because they object to same-sex marriage.
In British Columbia 12 commissioners quit rather than perform gay nuptials. In Saskatchewan 8 have resigned.

In all cases they commissioners, who are licensed by the provincial governments, quit saying gay marriage is against their religions.

Saskatchewan Justice Minister Frank Quennell said the law makes it unconstitutional to deny same-sex couples the right to get married.

But, Quennell said gay and lesbian couples wishing to marry won't have any trouble finding someone to perform the ceremonies. There are 321 marriage commissioners in Saskatchewan, and the 8 who quit have been replaced.

Quennell there's a waiting list for people wanting to be commissioners and the jobs have already been filled.

Marriage commissioners in B.C. who resigned have also been replaced.
Last year 11 commissioners quit in Manitoba.

Same-sex marriage is legal in all areas of Canada except the provinces of Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Alberta; and the territories of Nunavut and The Northwest Territories.

In December the Supreme Court of Canada gave its approval to draft legislation to make same-sex marriage legal throughout all Canada.

posted by Anthony # 8:08 AM

January 3, 2005

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 9:42 a.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Internet proved its value for fund raising, new private political organizations flexed their muscles with aggressive ad campaigns and Americans both contributed money and voted at phenomenal levels.

Politics in this country shifted in 2004 in important ways -- far beyond the re-election of President Bush. And those shifts could influence campaigns and elections for years.
Republicans tightened their hold on the South. A Massachusetts court decision allowing gay marriage gave Republicans a powerful new ``wedge issue.'' And a nation that has been sharply divided showed few signs of coming together after the election.

``What we're getting instead of the normal bandwagon effect that usually happens after the election is a sense that no one's been persuaded,'' said Thomas Mann, a political analyst at the Brookings Institution in Washington.

Mann cited post-election polls that found the public remains about evenly split on Bush's job approval, which is hovering at 50 percent or just below -- with Republicans and Democrats sharply polarized in their views.

Changes in campaign finance laws led political groups to find a loophole that would allow the creation of new, private groups, known as ``527'' organizations. They are named for the section of federal tax law that allows the formation of such entities to raise unregulated money in large sums to provide election help, without coordinating directly with the candidates' campaigns.
Democrats got a faster start, using 527 groups to help Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry fend off an intense round of attacks by the Bush campaign last spring, said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a communications specialist and director of the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center.

But Republicans gained their footing by late summer. The ``Swift Boat Veterans for Truth'' dominated the campaign for more than a month after the Democratic National Convention with relentless attacks on Kerry's military service in Vietnam.

The 527 groups spent only a small share -- more than $400 million -- of the overall money spent in the presidential campaign, said Steve Weissman of the Campaign Finance Institute, but he said the groups' participation in campaigns could grow.

``There is a great potential for these groups to expand their influence,'' Weissman said. That depends on whether anyone successfully moves to close that loophole in the coming months.
The Internet finally came of age as a political tool -- especially for fund raising.

After Democrat Howard Dean blazed the trail for high-dollar Internet fund raising during the primaries, Kerry collected more than $80 million on the Internet. That was far more than Bush -- the eventual winner of the presidential election -- obtained that way.

Political scientist Charles Franklin of the University of Wisconsin-Madison said the success of Internet fund raising and the prominence of the new 527s is likely to continue in future elections.

``Anything that seems to work in politics gets imitated until it's found not to work,'' he said.
A striking development in 2004 was the Republicans' success in strengthening their firm hold on the South.

The GOP won the Southern states in the presidential race and increased their Senate advantage in the states of the old Confederacy to 18-4, compared with a 14-8 edge before the election.
``Democrats have clearly got to find some kind of formula to win in the South,'' said presidential scholar Charles Jones, ``or they are in danger of not being a national party.''

Possibly the most important factor in politics was the very high interest that showed up both in individual political contributions and in the highest level of voter turnout in more than three decades. Turnout was estimated at more than 60 percent of those eligible to vote.

``The year 2004 is a turning point away from the apathy that has existed in American politics for several decades,'' said political scientist Larry Sabato at the University of Virginia. ``It's not just a one-time phenomenon. ... it's the division in the country about social and cultural issues that go to the core of people's beliefs.''

posted by Anthony # 7:31 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: January 3, 2005 11:01 am ET

(Tiverton, Rhode Island) A Rhode Island court has been asked to determine if the Tiverton School District is required to extend health care coverage to the spouse of a lesbian teacher who was married in Massachusetts.

Cheryl McCullough married Joyce Boivin in June in Massachusetts where same-sex marriage is legal. McCullough, 60, and Boivin, 54, live in Swansea, Mass. McCullough, who worked for 27 years as a health teacher and guidance counselor at Tiverton High School, applied for health insurance shortly after the couple was married.

Although same-sex marriage is not legal in Rhode Island it is not banned either. The law is silent on a definition of what constitutes a married couple.

The labor contract between the teachers' union and the school system recognizes a marriage as long as it's valid in the state in which was performed.

But, Tiverton schools was uncertain of the legal implications and decided to ask a judge.

To be certain that all bases where covered the school committee agreed to add Boivin to a family health plan with McCullough as long as the couple pays all extra costs. The increase in monthly fees for Boivin amount to about $500 a month.

If the court rules the school committee cannot provide the benefits Boivin and McCullough will be reimbursed.

In New England, where many people live in one state and work in another the court's decision could have far reaching consequences.

posted by Anthony # 7:30 AM

by Mark Levy 365Gay.com Cape Town, South Africa Bureau
Posted: January 3, 2005 8:16 pm ET
(Cape Town, South Africa) A court case underway in South Africa is being closely watched by gay couples and points to the need for legalized same-sex marriage LGBT activists say.

It involves a nasty dispute between the partner of a man who died without leaving a will and the man's parents.

Dominique Ripoll-Dausa claims that he and retired millionaire Phillip Middleton considered themselves to be married before Middleton's death last June following a short battle with cancer.

They had been together for 15 years. At the time of his death, Middleton and Ripoll-Dausa were sharing a home.

But, Middleton's parents claim their son was not gay. James and Joan Middleton claimed the two men were only friends and they say they did not draw any inferences from the fact that the two men appeared to share a bed while the family were on holiday together.

Under South African law, because Middleton died without a will, his estate goes to his next of kin, in this case his parents.

At state is an estate worth more than $1 million and comprises two London-based bank accounts, accounts in two South African banks, several homes, cash, a valuable art collection and a car.

Ripoll-Dausa is asking the Constitutional Court to declare his relationship with Middleton equivalent to that of a married couple. His suit says that the law unconstitutionally discriminates against the rights of gay life partners to inherit their loved one's estates, particularly when the deceased leaves no will.

The suit seeks sections of three acts declared unconstitutional.

In November in another case South Africa's Supreme Court of Appeal ruled that under the Constitution the common law concept of marriage must to be developed to embrace same-sex partners.

The current law specifies a marriage is a of one man and one woman. While the court did not strike down the existing law it called on the government to amend the law to include same-sex couples.

posted by Anthony # 7:29 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: January 4, 2005 12:01 am ET
(Richmond, Virginia) Virginia lawmakers will consider legislation to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage in the new session of the legislature.

The state is one of what is expected to be up to a dozen states to take up the issue following voter approval in 11states last November of similar amendments.

But, the legislature will also look at a measure that would put the marriage issue on license plates. The bill calls for traditional marriage to be displayed on car licenses. If passed the plates would interlocked gold wedding bands superimposed over a red heart over the legend "Traditional Marriage."

The bill was authored by Delegate Scott Limgamfelter (R-Prince William) a supporter of the marriage amendment.

To amend Virginia's Constitution, the measure would have to be enacted in two successive legislative sessions and put to a statewide vote by November 2006.

Some Democrats call the amendment repressive and unnecessary. Virginia already has legislation that prevents recognition of same-sex couples.

The law, passed last year, prevents the state from recognizing gay marriages, civil unions, and domestic partnerships and block any "contract or other arrangement" same-sex couples may enter into.

Democratic Del. Mitchell Van Yahres has filed a bill that would repeal the law, but most observers say it has little chance of passing. Most delegates have indicated they will vote for the amendment.

posted by Anthony # 7:27 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: January 2, 2005 12:01 am ET
(Beijing) The Chinese government says that the vast majority of its gay population is in heterosexual marriages. Health officials say that there are 30 million gays in the country - between two and five percent of the population - a figure most western authorities believe is unrealistically low.

Zhang Beichuan, a government health department official said that 80 percent of gays will marry or are already wed. He said that the estimate is based on interviews with gay men and lesbians and shows the continuing pressure put on gays by long-standing conservative cultural traditions that stress the importance of traditional families.

Despite a government move at modernizing Chinese society, the country's gays are still a marginalized group said Cong Zhong, a health professor at Beijing University.

"Chinese people see gay activities as something disgusting and against the Chinese moral and ethic," said Cong, who blames widespread ignorance of homosexuality.

In 2001 homosexuality was removed from the official list of mental disorders by the government.

Nevertheless, "Chinese authorities usually adopt a silent attitude on many issues such as homosexuality, prostitution and drug users because they see these problems as shameful," said Zhang.

posted by Anthony # 1:44 AM

January 1, 2005

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 6:41 p.m. ET
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Like many gay couples, Brian Cornell and Alberto Rulloda long ago established a legal framework for their relationship to match their commitment to each other.
They drew up wills naming the other as beneficiary, property agreements and powers of attorney, among other documents. The couple of 27 years wanted to spell out the specifics that would have been presumed if they were married.

Come Saturday, such improvised arrangements will be less necessary for them and nearly 29,000 other California couples -- the majority same-sex partners. A law taking effect with the new year gives gay couples who register as domestic partners nearly the same responsibilities and benefits as married spouses. Heterosexual elderly couples also are eligible.

Same-sex couples in California for the first time will have access to divorce court for dividing their assets, seeking alimony and securing child support. They also will have automatic parental status over children born during the relationship and responsibility for each other's debts.
It guarantees domestic partners a say over what happens to their loved one's remains at death and means they cannot be forced to testify against each other in state courts.

``It won't be as good as marriage because we are talking about a thousand-plus federal benefits that won't be covered,'' Cornell said. ``But a start's a start, progress is progress.''

Many gay rights advocates say the domestic partner law heralds a hopeful new era of legal recognition and participation for gay men and lesbians. They hope that is particularly true for those raising children or without the money to pay lawyers to prepare the previously recommended paperwork.

One indication of the growing acceptance comes from the California Department of Health Services, which is updating its birth certificates to replace the lines for ``mother'' and ``father'' with the gender-neutral ``parent'' and ``parent.'' Until now, hospitals have hand-altered the forms, and couples have needed a court order for the changes to be approved.
Two groups opposed to marriage rights for gay couples have challenged the law, claiming it violates the intent of a 2000 ballot initiative approved by voters that holds only unions between a man and a woman as valid in the state.

The California Court of Appeal has agreed to hear the case early in the year.
``Whether you call it 'domestic partnerships' or 'civil unions,' homosexual 'marriage' by another name is still homosexual 'marriage,' and the people of California voted against that,'' said Randy Thomasson, executive director of Campaign for California Families, one of the groups that brought the lawsuit.

Linton Johnson, 31, and Jeff Winkler, 30, already share a bank account, ownership interests in two houses and a romance that goes back six years. The extra responsibilities of domestic partnership, such as obligation for each other's debts, are not a burden for the Oakland residents.

``It helps legitimize our relationship to others,'' Johnson said. ``And in that regard, if you get treated differently, you sort of feel like family with the rest of the world, and that can bring you closer together.''

posted by Anthony # 7:17 PM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: December 31, 2004 11:02 am ET

(Tel Aviv, Israel) An Israeli court has ruled that the government cannot deport the Colombian partner of a gay Israeli man.

The 32-year-old Colombian entered Israel on a visitors visa which has long expired and the Interior Ministry had ordered him deported.

His partner is an Israeli citizen and a soldier in the Israeli Defense Forces. The couple filed an emergency petition with the Tel Aviv District Court. The men were represented by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel.

Judge Uzi Vogelman ruled that the government had acted illegally in attempting to deport the man.

In 1999 High Court ruling established that the ministry could not deport foreign nationals married to Israeli citizens.
Vogelman's decision extends that to apply to common-law marriages, including same-sex couples.

Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Israel, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, Sweden and the United Kingdom, also recognize the rights of same-sex couples for the purposes of immigration the Washington-based Human Rights Campaign says.

Earlier this month Israel announced it will give limited rights to same-sex couples.

posted by Anthony # 7:15 PM

by The Associated Press
Posted: December 31, 2004 2:11 pm ET
(Little Rock, Arkansas) Some Arkansas legislators say they're willing if a rewrite of state law is all that's needed to allow a board to restore a state ban on gay foster parents.The state plans to appeal Pulaski County Circuit Judge Timothy Fox's ruling Wednesday that struck down the 1999 ban. The American Civil Liberties Union challenged the regulation banning gays from serving as foster parents and prohibiting the placement of foster children in any home with a gay member under its roof.But, whatever the outcome of the state's planned appeal, restoring the ban may be as simple as having the Legislature rewrite the powers of a foster-care review board to include authority over morality, Kathy L. Hall, the state's lead lawyer in the case, said.Sen. Gilbert Baker, R-Conway, predicted that would happen during the regular legislative session that convenes Jan. 10."We need to do all we can to make sure these children are well cared-for and protected. A traditional family setting would be the situation I would prefer," he said.Fox's ruling said the review board was given the power to regulate the health, safety and welfare of children, but not what he called "public morality."The ACLU had argued that the regulation violates the equal-protection rights of gays. Fox ruled that gays were not a protected class.Instead, the judge noted that the Legislature gave the state Child Welfare Agency Review board the power to "promote the health, safety and welfare of children," and said the ban does not accomplish that. Rather, he said, the ban seeks to regulate "public morality" - something the board was not given the authority to do."The state Legislature said, 'OK, board, you can make regulations that promote the health, safety and welfare of foster children.' Judge Fox said we exceeded that," Hall said."But no matter what happens on appeal, there's nothing now to stop the Legislature from going in next time and say, 'OK, board, we now give you the authority to regulate the health, safety, welfare and morality of children.' It's within (legislators') power to change that," she said.Sen. Jim Holt, R-Springdale, said he was working on legislation to ban gay adoptions, which the state allows, and would expand his bill to include language to ban foster-care placements in gay homes."I think most will jump on the bandwagon," said Holt, a Christian conservative who won a surprising 44 percent of the vote as an unknown opponent against incumbent Democratic U.S. Sen. Blanche Lincoln in the November election, mainly on the strength of an anti-gay marriage platform.Arkansas voters overwhelmingly approved a state gay marriage ban in November."We don't want to allow homosexual marriages. What would we think about (placing) a child that has no say so in that scenario at all?" Holt said.A spokesman for Gov. Mike Huckabee said the governor would reserve judgment on supporting such legislation pending an appeal.Sen. Jack Critcher, D-Batesville, said he opposes "a gay lifestyle" and would support giving the board whatever authority is necessary to keep foster children out of gay homes."From a Biblical standpoint, I believe that it's in the best interest of the child to not be placed in that environment," said Critcher, chairman of the Senate Public Health, Welfare and Labor Committee.Sen. Tim Wooldridge, D-Paragould, said he believes children should be placed in homes with a mother and father. The difficulty for the Legislature in rewriting the law would be in defining morality, he said.Rita Sklar, director of the Arkansas chapter of the ACLU, said public morality on the issue should change."It is a moral thing to do when the judge has found and we have held and many people know that gay people are just as capable of being good parents as heterosexuals, and that children are just as well-adjusted in a home with gay parents as with heterosexuals," Sklar said.In his decision, Fox recommended a careful reading of the information and expert opinions in the case record in forming public policy and morality on the issue.Fox heard extensive testimony in the case over the past year. Several board members testified that they had personal problems with the idea of gays and lesbians engaging in sex.The judge also cited the testimony of sociologists and psychologists that gay people can be as loving and caring foster parents as heterosexuals, and that the children of gay adoptive parents can be as well-adjusted as those raised by heterosexual couples."It is immoral to exclude gay people and immoral to provide fewer potential foster homes to such a needy population when there are no rational grounds for doing so," Sklar said.

posted by Anthony # 7:14 PM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: December 31, 2004 8:14 pm ET
(Santiago, Chile) The ultra conservative Opus Dei movement in the Catholic Church has lost a lengthy battle with a gay Chilean newspaper.

The Chilean branch of Opus Dei had sued the paper, called Opus Gay, claiming that the publication had infringed on it name in a deliberate attempt to embarrass the organization and the Church.

The secretive Opus Dei has strong allies at the Vatican and has been one of the leading opponents of gay rights around the world. Members of the society have been some of Rome's leading spokespeople in the battle against same-sex marriage.
The Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which is responsible for Church doctrine is reportedly heavily influenced by Opus Dei.

In the culmination of a two year court battle Chile's intellectual property commission ruled in favor of the newspaper.

"It is difficult to see how the public could be exposed to mistakes or confusions" between the two, the commission said.

Chile's largest LGBT rights group, the Movement for Homosexual Integration and Liberation, called the ruling an "unprecedented victory" against the powerful Roman Catholic Church in Chilean society.

posted by Anthony # 7:12 PM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: December 30, 2004 1:03 pm ET

(Madrid) A bill to legalize same-sex marriage will be presented to the Spanish Parliament in February the government announced Thursday.

The cabinet gave its final approval to the legislation and the bill is expected to pass easily.
"The right to marry is a right for everyone, without distinction. It cannot be understood as a privilege," Deputy Prime Minister Maria Teresa Fernandez de la Vega told a press conference after the Cabinet meeting. "The recognition of homosexuals' rights eradicates an unjustified discrimination."

Prime minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero first announced that his Socialist government would bring in the legislation in March. Since then Zapatero has been in as protracted battle with the Catholic Church over same-sex unions.

In June he was summoned to the Vatican where he got a severe tongue lashing from Pope John Paul over the proposed legislation.

Earlier this week Spain's Catholic bishops declared war on the Socialist government and the Vatican fired another salvo.

Under the proposed legislation same-sex couples would be allowed to adopt children and able to inherit from one another as well as receive retirement benefits from their working spouses in the same way in which heterosexual married couples do now.
When enacted Spain would become the third European Union to legalize same-sex marriage, joining Belgium and the Netherlands.

Sweden and Denmark have civil union laws for same-sex couples, which fall short of legalizing gay marriage. However, in both countries the union can be blessed by the Lutheran Church, the state religion in Denmark and the dominant one in Sweden.

France, Britain and Germany also provide limited rights for same-sex couples.
In North America, same-sex marriage is legal in most of Canada and the federal Parliament is expected to expand that to the rest of the country early in 2005. Massachusetts also allows gay marriage.