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.