by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: April 29, 2005 7:30 pm ET
(Topeka, Kansas) An amendment to the Kansas Constitution banning same-sex marriage and civil unions went into effect Friday.

The measure was approved by voters April 5, and today the State Board of Canvassers approved the results.

The amendment was accepted by 70 percent of the electorate.

Kansas was the first state to vote on the issue following last November's election when 11 states amended their constitutions to prevent gays and lesbians from marrying.'

Kansas law already defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman but supporters of the amendment argued it could be overturned in court.

The amendment defines marriage as between one man and one woman. It also declares that only such unions are entitled to the "rights and incidents" of marriage. That clause in the amendment effectively prevents the state from allowing civil unions or offering benefits to same-se couples.

But, following today's meeting of the Board of Canvassers, Attorney General Phill Kline said the amendment would not prevent private businesses from providing benefits to same-sex couples if they chose.

Kline also said he believed the amendment would still allow allow governmental entities to extend benefits, but conservative groups said that if that became the case they would go to court.

Two of the state's biggest private employers, Sprint and SBC Communications already have said they have no intention of canceling benefits to same-sex couples.

posted by Anthony # 10:14 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: April 29, 2005 7:30 pm ET
(Wellington) The first same-sex civil union in New Zealand took place Friday.
Lif Cooper and Kelly Cunningham exchanged vows in Hamilton. They met on the internet four years ago.

I promise to love you as your partner in good times and in bad with all that I have to give and all that I feel inside in the only way I know how, completely and forever," they said to each other.
The civil unions law went into effect on Wednesday but because of the three day waiting period between the time a license is applied for and the date of the ceremony, Friday was the first day couples could exchange vows.

Under the law, to obtain a license, partners must be at least 18, not related, and cohabitating. Civil unions are available to same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples who do not want to marry.

John Jolliff, 75, and Des Smith, 65, the couple who led the fight to get the legislation passed will be married in Wellington on Sunday.

Their ceremony – complete with street parade and brass band – will be conducted by the mayor of Wellington.

Up until Friday only 21 same-sex couples had registered for licenses.

Openly gay Labor MP Tim Barnett said that the small number registered so far is because many couples likely want to avoid media attention.

Barnett said he plans to eventually enter a civil union with his partner

posted by Anthony # 10:13 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: April 29, 2005 11:00 am ET

(Denver, Colorado) An LGBT civil rights bill that would protect gays and lesbians against bias in the workplace appears headed to a vote in the House.

The Judiciary Committee approved a measure Thursday following public hearings.
One mane, Gabe Martinez of Lakewood told lawmakers that he worked for a major chain department store as a manager of men's clothing in 1999. That was when his employers discovered he was gay and sent him to work in the lingerie department.

When the chain closed its store in Lakewood, Martinez lost his job, while other co-workers were transferred.

"You think gay people choose their sexual orientation? I would respectfully ask you to open your mind and get over it," he told the committee.

Republicans argued there was no need for the law, saying that businesses should have the right to fire an employee if the company fears the employee "could drive away customers."

They also argued that Martinez and several other witnesses who complained of discrimination lived in communities that already bar discrimination against LGBT workers.

But, the House sponsor of the measure, House Majority Leader Alice Madden (D-Boulder) said the ordinances are more of a statement than legal protection in communities. She said few cases ever go to court.

"They have ordinances, but the ordinances are meaningless," Madden said.

The committee voted 6-5 and sent it to the House Appropriations Committee because of estimates it will cost the state $210,000 in the first two years.

If it makes it through that committee it would go to the House for a full vote, but its success is far from certain.

Attempts to expand discrimination protections to gays have failed in the Legislature eight consecutive years.

The measure passed the Senate earlier this week.

Conservative groups battling the civil rights law are calling on Gov. Bill Owens to veto the bill if it passes the House. Owens' office said the governor has taken no position on legislation.

posted by Anthony # 10:13 AM

by Doug Windsor 365Gay.com New York Bureau
Posted: April 29, 2005 5:00 pm ET

(New York City) The Mautner Project, a National Lesbian Health Organization, Friday said it was shocking that Dr. Warren Throckmorton had been reappointed to the advisory board of Magellan Health Services.

Throckmorton is a leading advocate the so-called ex-gay movement and believes that one's sexuality can be altered by psychology and faith.

Throckmorton was asked to leave Magellan's National Professional Advisory Council in February over complaints about his advocacy for so-called gay-straight conversion.
Magellan Health Services is the largest mental health management company in the country and has contracts with Independence Blue Cross and Aetna Inc.

Magellan, allegedly after pressure from conservative Christian groups, invited Throckmorton to rejoin the National Professional Advisory Council and he has accepted.

"Professional mental and behavioral health associations such as the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association have consistently discredited 'reparative therapy,' the kind of therapy promoted by Throckmorton," said Kathleen DeBold, executive director of the Mautner Project.

"In our 15 years of providing support and service to lesbians in crisis, the Mautner Project has experienced firsthand the damage and trauma caused by reparative therapies such as the kind Throckmorton promotes.

But, Throckmorton disputes DeBold's assertions.

"I am not a reparative therapist," Throckmorton told 365Gay.com.

"I do however believe sexual feelings can be quite flexible for an undetermined number of people. Research into this issue has not discredited the concept of change in sexual attractions."
DeBold and most psychiatrists disagree.

"As the nation's largest mental health provider, Magellan's announcement of Throckmorton's reappointment should raise a red flag about the provider's agenda and future effectiveness in serving the mental health community," DeBold said.

The Mautner Project is calling on Magellan to terminate its relationship with Throckmorton.
"We challenge Magellan to staff their National Advisory Council with health professionals who are qualified and unbiased in their views about providing quality behavioral health services to LBGT as well as non-gay individuals."

posted by Anthony # 10:12 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: April 29, 2005 11:00 am ET

(Denver, Colorado) An LGBT civil rights bill that would protect gays and lesbians against bias in the workplace appears headed to a vote in the House.

The Judiciary Committee approved a measure Thursday following public hearings.

One mane, Gabe Martinez of Lakewood told lawmakers that he worked for a major chain department store as a manager of men's clothing in 1999. That was when his employers discovered he was gay and sent him to work in the lingerie department.

When the chain closed its store in Lakewood, Martinez lost his job, while other co-workers were transferred.

"You think gay people choose their sexual orientation? I would respectfully ask you to open your mind and get over it," he told the committee.

Republicans argued there was no need for the law, saying that businesses should have the right to fire an employee if the company fears the employee "could drive away customers."
They also argued that Martinez and several other witnesses who complained of discrimination lived in communities that already bar discrimination against LGBT workers.

But, the House sponsor of the measure, House Majority Leader Alice Madden (D-Boulder) said the ordinances are more of a statement than legal protection in communities. She said few cases ever go to court.

"They have ordinances, but the ordinances are meaningless," Madden said.

The committee voted 6-5 and sent it to the House Appropriations Committee because of estimates it will cost the state $210,000 in the first two years.

If it makes it through that committee it would go to the House for a full vote, but its success is far from certain.

Attempts to expand discrimination protections to gays have failed in the Legislature eight consecutive years.

The measure passed the Senate earlier this week.

Conservative groups battling the civil rights law are calling on Gov. Bill Owens to veto the bill if it passes the House. Owens' office said the governor has taken no position on legislation.

posted by Anthony # 10:06 AM

by Paul Johnson 365Gay.com Washington Bureau Chief
Posted: April 28, 2005 9:00 pm ET
(Washington) It will be at least two more weeks before the Senate Judiciary Committee votes on former Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor, President Bush's nominee for a lifetime appointment on the federal bench.

The committee had scheduled a vote Thursday on Pryor's nomination, but the panel got tied up working on asbestos legislation and rescheduled the vote.

In the 2003-2004 session of Congress, Pryor's nomination was blocked by Senate Democrats, who charged that he was too extreme to make impartial judgments. The president then went ahead and placed him on the 11th Circuit in a temporary assignment set to expire late this year.

In February and without comment, Bush resubmitted Pryor's name to the Senate for the lifetime appointment to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta.

Tuesday Lambda Legal in releasing a summary of Pryor's record said he has repeatedly shown clear hostility to LGBT civil rights and a bias towards those with HIV, women, people of color, disabled people and others.

"William Pryor is the most demonstrably antigay judicial nominee in recent memory," said Kevin Cathcart, Executive Director of Lambda Legal.

"It's clear from his record that William Pryor does not belong on the federal appeals court."
While in his temporary position on the court Pryor cast the deciding vote to uphold Florida's outright ban on gay adoption. Florida is the only state in the country that explicitly bans children from being adopted by gays and lesbians.

As Attorney General of Alabama, he was the only attorney general outside of Texas to author an amicus brief in the Supreme Court defending Texas's anti-gay sodomy statute. Pryor argued that states have an interest in singling out same-sex relations for punishment, even though his own state's statute made no distinction between same-and opposite-sex relations. His brief also compared same-sex relationships to pedophilia, bestiality and necrophilia.

While he served at A.G. of Alabama Pryor had links placed on the state website to anti-gay organizations and other conservative groups but not to groups with a neutral or differing views.
"We oppose William Pryor not just because he disrespects the rights of LGBT Americans, but because he disrespects the legal system and our Constitution," Cathcart said.

Pryor is one of a number of appointments to the federal bench being tied up by Democrats. GOP leaders in the Senate have been threatening to rewrite the rules to prevent filibusters from blocking a vote by the full Senate.

posted by Anthony # 8:37 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: April 28, 2005 7:30 pm ET
(Portland, Oregon) Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski is urging the Legislature to stop dragging its feet and pass two pieces of gay rights legislation that he has put forward.

Speaking to Basic Rights Oregon Kulongoski said he is prepared to fight "for as long as it takes" to pass the legislation.

An LGBT civil rights bill that Kulongoski has been trying to get passed since January is languishing in committee. When he first introduced the measure he called on the Legislature to rise to Oregon's "great moral challenge" and extend civil rights protections to gays and lesbians.

The bill would offer job and housing protections to gays.

Kulongoski also wants the Legislature to pass a civil unions bill. Earlier this month the state Supreme Court nullified the marriages of some 3,000 same-sex couples who were wed last year in Multnomah County.

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

This week Senate Republicans proposed gutting the Civil Unions bill and replacing it one which would offer only limited rights to same-sex couples.

Kulongoski dismissed the GOP plan as "morally unacceptable".

In his speech to the annual fund-raiser lunch for Basic Rights Oregon Kulongoski said all committed couples need to be respected equally.

In the audience, along with long time Oregon gay activists were representatives of a number of major firms in the area including Nike, Powell's Books and Portland General Electric.

posted by Anthony # 8:35 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: April 28, 2005 7:30 pm ET
(Ashland, Kentucky) Requiring students to undergo a court-ordered anti-harassment training at Boyd County High School does not violate their rights to free exercise of religion a federal court was told Thursday.

The assertion was made in papers filed today with the federal court in Ashland in response to a motion by a national conservative legal organization seeking to shut down an anti-harassment training at Boyd County High School.

The Boyd School District agreed to implement the training last year after a federal judge found that there is a widespread problem with anti-gay harassment in the school, where students in an English class once stated that they needed to "take all the fucking faggots out in the back woods and kill them." The school's Model United Nations once adopted a resolution declaring an "open hunting season" on gay students.

The Alliance Defense Fund alleges that the Boyd County Board of Education has violated the civil rights of students opposed to homosexuality by prohibiting them from expressing a view that homosexuality is morally wrong and harmful to society.

In today's court filing the American Civil Liberties Union disputes the ADF argument.

"Telling students about a subject they disagree with or don't like doesn't force them to change their beliefs," said Lili Lutgens, a staff attorney at the ACLU of Kentucky.

"This training is about good citizenship -- learning how to disagree respectfully so that everyone at school feels safe."

In today's brief, the ACLU argues that the training is necessary to ensure that gay and gay-supportive students have safe access to education at the school.

At least two gay students are known to have dropped out of Boyd County High School because of harassment.

posted by Anthony # 8:34 AM

by The Associated Press
Posted: April 28, 2005 5:00 pm ET
(Linthicum, Maryland) An attorney for a defrocked lesbian minister on Thursday argued that the United Methodist Church would have preferred she live in a "cloak of secrecy" rather than be honest with her congregation.

The Rev. Irene Elizabeth Stroud is appealing a December ruling by a church court that she broke church law when she told her Philadelphia congregation two years ago that she was living in a committed relationship with a woman.

A regional appeals panel heard her case Thursday morning at a hotel near Baltimore-Washington International Airport.

"Why did Beth share her homosexual status?" one of her attorneys, the Rev. Jim Hallam, asked the panel. "She didn't want to live in secrecy anymore, under that cloak of silence. She wanted to live as she was created to be."

"It seems the church would have preferred her to be deceptive _ 'Don't ask, don't tell,'" he said.
A lawyer for the church, the Rev. Thomas Hall, called the defense's argument "circular" and an attempt to cloud the meaning of church law: "The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers it incompatible with Christian teaching."

Hall said Stroud, 35, understood the consequences of her actions, "that her role as a minister was jeopardized" when she violated the law against self-avowed, practicing homosexuals in the clergy.

Hall argued that church law is clear on the issue. "We may not like the boundaries. We may think they're ... too un-loving, too exclusive. But the fact is, the boundaries are clearly in place."
Hall added, "This trial is not about how good we are at ministry. It's really about a good person who has stepped over the line and contested the boundaries."

As she headed into the hearing, Stroud said, "I know there are a lot of people who are praying for me today and that gives me strength."

Fred Day, the head minister at the First United Methodist Church of Germantown, where Stroud still works as an associate lay minister, said a prayer vigil was to be held at the church during the hearing.

Stroud has explained her decision to come out, even though she knew she'd be defrocked, by saying: "If I believe that God created me this way and God called me into the ministry knowing I was a lesbian, then I had no choice but to publicly embrace myself the way I am."

The United Methodist Church accepts gay and lesbian ministers as long as they are celibate. But when Stroud publicly announced her sexuality, her bishop was forced to start the defrocking process, Hall said in an interview before the hearing.

Methodist law is "very, very clear on homosexuality being incompatible with Christianity," Hall said.

The panel hopes to have a decision by Friday.

Stroud contends that her trial judge inappropriately prevented experts from arguing that the section of church policy banning noncelibate gay people from being clergy is inconsistent with the overall Methodist message, which is one of inclusiveness for all people, regardless of race, sex or sexual orientation, according to another defense attorney, Alan Symonette.

The Rev. William "Scott" Campbell, chairman of the appeals panel for the church's Northeastern Jurisdiction, which covers 12 states and the District of Columbia, says one of several things could happen once his panel makes a decision. Either side could appeal to a UMC supreme court or the case could be remanded for a second trial. The appeals panel could also reverse the earlier verdict, change the penalty, or do both.

There are 1.5 million United Methodists in the Northeastern Jurisdiction and 8.3 million United Methodists nationwide, making it the second-largest Protestant denomination in the United States.

Stroud is one of three homosexual clergy members tried since the Methodist General Conference passed a ban on gays in 1984. The Rev. Rose Mary Denman of New Hampshire was defrocked in 1987. The Rev. Karen Dammann of Washington state was acquitted last March because of an ambiguity in church law that the Methodist supreme court has since eliminated.

posted by Anthony # 8:32 AM

by Mark Worrall 365Gay.com San Francisco Bureau
Posted: April 28, 2005 1:00 pm ET
(Sacramento, California) A day after a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in California passed a key committee opponents have formed a group to gather signatures to have a gay marriage ban placed in the state Constitution.

At a Sacramento news conference organizers of the petition said they represented a coalition of pro-family organizations, churches, and individuals.

The umbrella group is calling itself ProtectMarriage.com but those spokespersons appearing at its press conference in Sacramento Wednesday appeared to be the same people already involved in opposing law suits being waged by same-sex couples to obtain marriage through the courts.

The coalition includes the California Family Alliance, Focus on the Family of Colorado Springs, Colo., and the Family Research Council.

Their chief concern is a fear Proposition 22, a voter initiative passed in 2000 which was intended to block same-sex marriage could be overturned by the courts.

They want the Prop 22 language enshrined in the California Constitution and they want the amendment to undo the state's landmark domestic partner law.

Sen. Dennis Hollingsworth ( R-Murrieta), who also is a leader of the Prop. 22 Legal Defense and Educational Fund, said that the will of voters is being attacked by "public officials hostile to it and runaway courts. "

“The blatant disregard for this law now requires the voters to defend, once and for all, the authentic definition of marriage by amending the California Constitution so that judges and legislators can’t tinker with the language or intent,” Hollingsworth said.

"We've known this was coming," Shannon Minter the lawyer for the National Center for Lesbian Rights told 365Gay.com.

"Unfortunately, in California it is very easy to put an initiative before the voters. There is a serious history of these initiatives and they are often presented in misleading ways to voters."
Minter said that this should be a major concern for the states LGBT community.

"It is really important the community immediately mobilize and bring in our straight allies to be prepared to oppose this initiative," he said.

LGBT advocacy groups are predicting a nasty fight similar to the one over Prop. 22 five years ago.

"The religious right is going to try to amend the constitution to undo all the success we've had in achieving domestic partnership," Geoff Kors, the executive director of Equality California told 365Gay.com.

On Monday, the Assembly Judiciary Committee passed legislation to allow same-sex marriage by a vote of 5-3. The bill now goes to the Assembly Appropriations Committee for financial review.

posted by Anthony # 8:30 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: April 28, 2005 11:00 am ET
(Los Angeles, California) The Rev. Nancy Wilson, a longtime leader in the predominantly gay Metropolitan Community Churches, has been selected to become the next Moderator of the denomination.

The appointment must be ratified at the Church's General Conference to be held in Calgary, Canada in July.

Wilson will succeed the Rev. Troy D. Perry, MCC's Founder and current Moderator.
Wilson has had a distinguished career within Metropolitan Community Churches. In 1976, she became the youngest person ever elected to the MCC Board of Elders and has served as an Elder since that time.

She attended Boston University School of Theology with a Rockefeller Fellowship, also holds an M.Div. from SS. Cyril and Methodius Seminary, served as Vice-Moderator of MCC during 1993-2003 and has pastored MCC congregations in Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, and California.
Wilson is the former senior pastor of Metropolitan Community Church of Los Angeles, the Founding Church of the MCC movement. She currently serves as senior pastor of Church of the Trinity MCC in Sarasota, Florida.

From 1979 to 1999, she served as MCC's Chief Ecumenical Officer, representing MCC at the National Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches.

In 1987, she represented MCC as an ecumenical observer at the Bilateral Dialogue of the Roman Catholic and Lutheran Churches in Columbia, South Carolina, where she met Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, becoming one of the first LGBT leaders to meet the man who is now Pope Benedict XVI.

Wilson has also been active on behalf of HIV issues, prisoner treatment programs, and women's rights. She is the founder of the MCC Conference for Women in Professional Ministry.
In 1979, she participated in the first-ever meeting of gay and lesbian religious leaders at the U.S. White House during the Carter Administration.

She is also the author of several books and is a contributing author to Poems and Prayers in Race and Prayer edited by Malcolm Boyd and Chester Talton (Morehouse Press).

Wilson resides with her partner of 27 years, Dr. Paula Schoenwether. They both actively work for same-sex marriage equality.

Prior to beginning her MCC ministry, Rev. Wilson was active in the United Methodist Church.
Following the ratification vote this summer at the Church's annual international conference she will be installed as the new MCC Moderator at a ceremony at Washington National Cathedral, Washington, DC, on October 29.

posted by Anthony # 8:29 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: April 27, 2005 8:30 pm ET

(Madrid) A growing number of Spain's mayors say they will defy the government and refuse to perform same-sex marriages. Spain's lower house on earlier this month passed legislation to legalize same-sex marriage.

The bill is expected to meet little opposition in the Senate and become law later this year. The legislation also requires public servants who normally perform marriages to officiate at same-sex ceremonies.

But, the mayors, all members of the conservative opposition party, say they will ignore the law.
Last week, Pope Benedict, speaking through Cardinal Alfonso Lopes Trujill, head of the Pontifical Council on the Family, said Roman Catholics should be prepared to lose their jobs rather than co-operate with the law.

Trujill, in an interview with Corriere della Sera newspaper said Spaniards in all walks of life - especially government officials - are duty bound by Catholicism to oppose accepting same-sex couples.

"We cannot impose the iniquitous on people," he told the paper.

"If the new law allows me to marry gay couples, I do not intend to exercise this authority," proclaimed Javier Leon de la Riva, the mayor of Valliadolid a town in Castile-Leon.

"For me its not a problem that these [gay] couples have the same rights as other citizens, but I think it is not correct to call these unions marriages".

Nearly a dozen other mayors quickly followed his lead.

The government of Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero said the mayors could be fined or lose their jobs if they refuse to officiate at the ceremonies.

posted by Anthony # 12:30 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: April 27, 2005 5:00 pm ET

(Spokane, Washington) Less than a week after state legislators rejected a civil rights bill to protect gays and lesbians in the workplace and housing, the Spokane City Council has approved extending benefits to unmarried partners of city employees.

Council voted 5 - 2 in favor of the plan with the condition that the city's labor unions must negotiate the benefits in their contracts.

"It's about respect, dignity, justice," said council President Dennis Hession, who sponsored the measure and won enough yes votes to override any potential veto by Mayor Jim West, who previously had said he was against the measure.

Councilor Bob Apple voted against the measure saying was worried about the costs adding that he found the measure morally suspect because unmarried employees could use the benefits as a lure to entice a partner into a relationship.

Supporters said extending benefits was a matter of workplace equity. Opponents warned that such steps undermine the institution of marriage and put government in the position of condoning "alternative lifestyles."

The ordinance would allow domestic partners to obtain health-care benefits, city-sponsored life insurance and pension rights. Employees could take paid leave from work to attend to emergencies or illnesses involving their partners.

To qualify, employees and their partners of the same or opposite sex would have to submit an affidavit declaring their domestic relationship.

But, it will not be automatic. Labor unions will have to bargain to include the benefit in future contracts.

Joe Cavanaugh, president of Local 270, Association of Federal, State, County and Municipal Employees, said he expected his union would press for the benefits for its members.

"We consider it a matter of basic human dignity," he said. The contract for Local 270, the largest union in city government, runs through 2006.

Last week the Washington Senate defeated a gay civil rights bill that would have prohibited discrimination against the LGBT community in jobs, housing and insurance. The measure lost by a single vote, and many gay activists in the state put the blame on Washington's biggest employer, Microsoft.

Microsoft pulled its support from the bill but has denied it did so under pressure from conservative Christians. Yesterday, following negative press, Microsoft chairman Bill Gates said that if the legislation comes up again the company may support it.

posted by Anthony # 12:29 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: April 27, 2005 2:02 pm ET

(Columbia, South Carolina) A proposed amendment to the South Carolina Constitution banning same-sex marriage will go to voters in 2006.

The House, on a simple voice vote, approved the measure Tuesday. The Senate voted 36-1to endorse the amendment earlier this month.

The ballot will ask the question "should marriage be defined as a union between one man and one woman?"

“It’s just another protection against activist judges in other states,” said Rep. Greg Delleney (R-Chester).

Rep. Brenda Lee (D-Spartanburg) said South Carolina has had enough discrimination in its history.

“I’ve lived that,” said Lee, who is black. “We don’t need to do that to anyone else.”

South Carolina already has a so-called Defense of Marriage Act. In 1996, the General Assembly adopted a law banning gay marriage. But supporters think that statute, which limits marriage to a union between a man and a woman, could be overturned in court.

LGBT civil rights groups say they will fight the proposed amendment.

“I’m hoping over the next 18 months that fair-minded South Carolinians will get to know the gay and lesbian people who live in their communities,” said Ed Madden, a spokesperson for the South Carolina Equality Coalition. “I don’t think you should use the constitution as a weapon.”

posted by Anthony # 12:28 AM

by Ben Thompson 365Gay.com Ottawa Bureau
Posted: April 27, 2005 2:02 pm ET

(Ottawa) A deal between Canada's teetering Liberals and the small New Democratic Party could save the government from defeat next month and allow passage of a bill to extend same-sex marriage across the country.

The minority Liberal government of Prime Minister Paul Martin is engulfed in a scandal over alleged kickbacks dating back nearly a decade. Each day new revelations come out at a public inquiry that has the opposition Conservatives chomping at the bit for an election.
A non confidence motion will be voted on in the House of Commons May 18 and if the government falls the same-sex marriage bill will die.

To gain NDP support Martin has agreed to a demand to drop a planned $4.6-billion tax cut for big business and put the money into social programs.

But, the arranged marriage between Liberals and New Democrats still may not be enough to fend off defeat.

The Liberals would need all their 131 votes, the NDP's 19, and possibly those of all three independents, allowing the Liberal Speaker to cast the deciding ballot to bring the tally to 154.
That's the magic number because of a vacancy in the 308-seat House of Commons. The number could be lower, however, depending on how many MPs actually vote.

Of the three Independents, Chuck Cadman has suggested he would vote with the Tories - his former party. Carolyn Parrish has said she'll support the Liberals, while David Kilgour hasn't said how he'll vote.

Same-sex marriage is already legal in 7 of Canada's 10 provinces and one of the three territories. Earlier this week a suit to gain marriage rights was filed by gay couples in an 8th province.

The legislation before Parliament would extend marriage to the rest of Canada.

Public opinion polls show that if an election were held today the Conservatives would win. The party has said if it forms the next government it would bring in legislation to ban same-sex marriage but allow civil unions.

posted by Anthony # 12:27 AM

by The Associated Press
Posted: April 27, 2005 8:30 pm ET

(Salem, Oregon) If the Oregon's Senate Democrats get their way, the state will follow Vermont's lead and enact civil unions, giving gay couples the rights and privileges of marriage without the title.

But if House Republicans prevail, Oregon will follow Hawaii's example and pass a "reciprocal benefits" law, offering a limited range of rights to couples who have lived together for a long time, gay or straight.

The dispute over which plan, if any, will pass this legislative session is the latest in the state's 13-months-and-counting battle over gay marriage -- which started when Multnomah County commissioners issued marriage licenses to about 3,000 gay couples over six weeks last year.

A recent Oregon Supreme Court decision invalidated those marriages, and voters last fall adopted a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, putting legalized gay marriage off the table, at least for now. Civil unions and reciprocal benefits have been proposed to fill the void. (story)
The civil unions bill has some muscle behind it. Democratic Gov. Ted Kulongoski is backing the bill; perhaps more significantly, so have two Republican Senators, Frank Morse of Albany and Ben Westlund of Bend.

The bill would extend "hundreds of legal benefits not currently covered under Oregon law," to gay couples, Senate Majority Leader Kate Brown, D-Portland, said.

Brown cited benefits as disparate as the option to share a room in a long-term care facility and the right of a partner of a terrorism victim to receive compensation.

Despite the bipartisan backing, it isn't clear how far the civil unions bill could get in the Republican-dominated House, where Speaker Karen Minnis, R-Wood Village, has been quiet about its prospects.

Meanwhile, Rep. Dennis Richardson, R-Central Point, is pushing the reciprocal benefits plan. The proposal has brought him national publicity, including a slot on "Hardball" with Chris Matthews.

Richardson said his plan stops short of the rights allocated by Hawaii's existing version of reciprocal benefits. Instead, he said it would cover areas like "inheritance issues, property ownership, bank account issues."

"It is important for the House to respond in a limited and appropriate manner," he said. "The goal is to do so based on issues of fairness."

Reciprocal benefits, Richardson said, would extend equally to gay couples and to households like that of two elderly cousins, who have lived together for years.

Westlund and Brown both stressed that the two proposals were not "mutually exclusive," and Brown said she thinks there is room for both bills to pass this session.
But, she said, the two are not interchangeable.

"Reciprocal benefits does not recognize the long-term relationship of a same-sex couple; it is missing the love-partnership-sex piece," Brown said. "It doesn't deal with the legal issues involving children, separations, support, visitation, adoption. This is not the vehicle I would use to provide legal protections for a same-sex couple."

Richardson, meanwhile, said he sees the civil unions bill as an affront to the 57 percent of Oregonians who voted in favor of Measure 36, which banned same-sex marriage in the state.
"In my opinion, (civil unions) flouts the vote of the people on Measure 36," Richardson said. "The purpose of (reciprocal benefits) is not to satisfy the gay rights demands. It is to provide for issues of fairness that goes beyond sexual orientation."

posted by Anthony # 12:25 AM

April 26, 2005

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 10:18 p.m. ET
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) -- A bill to legalize same-sex marriage in California cleared an Assembly committee Tuesday despite arguments that it violates a gay marriage ban approved by voters five years ago.

The 6-3 vote by the Assembly Judiciary Committee marked the first test for the measure, which would amend the state family code to define marriage as between ''two persons'' instead of between a man and a woman.

In 2000, more than 61 percent of California voters passed a proposition that said the state would only recognize marriages as between a man and a woman. The state Constitution prohibits the Legislature from amending statutes enacted by voters.

The bill's lead author, Assemblyman Mark Leno, claimed the measure does not run afoul of the proposition because it prevents California from recognizing same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, but not in-state gay marriages. Leno acknowledged, though, that a court would ultimately have to decide which interpretation was correct.

Opponents claimed that lawmakers had no business even hearing the bill because it undermines the electorate's will.

''The people of California knew exactly what they were doing,'' said Republican Assemblyman Ray Haynes. ''The only institutional relationship that will have legal significance in California is between a man and a woman.''

posted by Anthony # 7:57 AM

by Doreen Brandt 365Gay.com Washington Bureau
Posted: April 26, 2005 5:01 pm ET

(Washington) Any deal with Democrats over President Bush's nominees for federal judgeships was rejected outright on Tuesday by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist.

Some GOP leaders had been quietly working with Democrats to confirm at least two of the nominees as part of a compromise that would require the GOP to end its threat to eliminate judicial filibusters.

But, Tuesday afternoon Frist said he would accept nothing less than a full up and down vote on all of them.

One of those nominees is Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor.

In the 2003-2004 session of Congress, Pryor's nomination was blocked by Senate Democrats, who charged that he was too extreme to make impartial judgments. The president then went ahead and placed him on the 11th Circuit in a temporary assignment set to expire late this year.

In February and without comment, Bush resubmitted Pryor's name to the Senate for the lifetime appointment to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta.

Tuesday Lambda Legal in releasing a summary of Pryor's record said he has repeatedly shown clear hostility to LGBT civil rights and a bias towards those with HIV, women, people of color, disabled people and others.

"William Pryor is the most demonstrably antigay judicial nominee in recent memory," said Kevin Cathcart, Executive Director of Lambda Legal.

"It's clear from his record that William Pryor does not belong on the federal appeals court."
While in his temporary position on the court Pryor cast the deciding vote to uphold Florida's outright ban on gay adoption. Florida is the only state in the country that explicitly bans children from being adopted by gays and lesbians.

As Attorney General of Alabama, he was the only attorney general outside of Texas to author an amicus brief in the Supreme Court defending Texas's anti-gay sodomy statute. Pryor argued that states have an interest in singling out same-sex relations for punishment, even though his own state's statute made no distinction between same-and opposite-sex relations. His brief also compared same-sex relationships to pedophilia, bestiality and necrophilia.

While he served at A.G. of Alabama Pryor had links placed on the state website to anti-gay organizations and other conservative groups but not to groups with a neutral or differing views.
"We oppose William Pryor not just because he disrespects the rights of LGBT Americans, but because he disrespects the legal system and our Constitution," Cathcart said.

"Pryor's approach to the law is driven by his extremely conservative personal and political beliefs. Our nation's judges should hear each case before them with an open mind and a fair application of the law, and William Pryor has shown that he's incapable of doing that."

Republicans are threatening to use their majority to change long-standing senatorial rules that Democrats used to block 10 of Bush's first-term appeals court nominations. They fear a Democratic blockade could affect a Supreme Court vacancy if a high court seat opens in Bush's second term.

On Sunday, appeared on a satellite broadcast beamed into evangelical churches nationwide to urge conservative Christians to pressure Democrats to allow the nominations to go to a vote.

The telecast was organized by the Family Research Council and featured, along with Frist, a number of groups at the forefront of the battle to get a Federal Marriage Amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

One of the speakers, Catholic League President Bill Donahue, took the stage during the telecast, and preceded to laughingly mock gay families. Specifically, Donahue claimed that support of marriage equality "is a notion that belongs in an asylum."

posted by Anthony # 7:56 AM

by Mark Worrall 365Gay.com San Francisco Bureau
Posted: April 26, 2005 5:01 pm ET

(Sacramento, California) Legislation to allow same-sex marriage in California passed a key committee Tuesday with religious conservatives vowing to defeat it before it can become law.
The Assembly Judiciary Committee passed the bill 5-3, with one panel member not voting. The bill now goes to the Assembly Appropriations Committee for financial review.

The committee room was packed with supporters and opponents of the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act.

It is expected the bill will have little trouble clearing the committee. The measure passed the same committee in the last session, but its author, Assemblymember Mark Leno ( D-San Francisco) pulled it when it appeared there was not enough support to ensure passage on the floor of the Assembly.

The new bill is identical to last year's effort but Leno now has the support of Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and other key Democrats. Earlier this month the California Democratic Party passed a resolution supporting same-sex marriage.

"Support has grown steadily over the past year," Leno said.

Alice Huffman, President of the California NAACP, told the committee that California cannot have an honest discussion about civil rights without talking about LGBT rights. Earlier this month the NAACP its support for same-sex marriage.

The committee also heard to from same-sex couples and how they and their families are impacted by the inability to marry.

But, conservatives say they will do all they can to defeat the measure.

Speaking against it today was Dr. Lynn Wardle, the Brigham Young University law professor who drafted Proposition 22 - California’s 2000 ballot initiative aimed at reserving marriage for a man and a woman.

Wardle told the committee that Leno's bill was unconstitutional because it would take a referendum to overturn Prop. 22.

Leno and supporters of the bill maintain Prop. 22 only bars the state from recognizing out-of-state same-sex marriages.

Randy Thomasson, president of the California Campaign for Families also spoke out against the legislation. Thomasson's group is also involved in the court battle over same-sex marriage.

So far, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has sent mixed messages about whether he would sign the legislation if it were passed.

In a January meeting with the editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle Schwarzenegger suggested that this may not be the best time to push gay marriage, saying that a legislative push to fully recognize marriage rights for gays might backfire.

"Eventually in a few years from now, you can readdress it again and see what the people of California think,'' he told the paper. "You cannot force-feed those kind of things.''

Last year in a Tonight Show appearance Schwarzenegger said gay marriage would be "fine with me" if it were enshrined in state law or ruled legal by the courts.

posted by Anthony # 7:55 AM

by The Associated Press
Posted: April 26, 2005 5:01 pm ET

(Washington) Microsoft Corp. may rethink whether it will support legislation banning discrimination against gays and lesbians, company Chairman Bill Gates says.

In an interview with The Seattle Times, Gates said he was surprised by the fierce criticism that followed the company's decision to take a neutral stance on a state gay rights bill it had supported in previous years.

The legislation failed by one vote in the Washington state Senate on Thursday, spurring outrage among advocates who accused Microsoft of caving to political pressure from an evangelical pastor.

"Next time this one comes around, we'll see," Gates said in the story published Tuesday. "We certainly have a lot of employees who sent us mail. Next time it comes around that'll be a major factor for us to take into consideration."

Microsoft, one of the first companies to offer domestic partner benefits to gay employees, has denied that the pastor or anyone else outside the company influenced its decision. Gates said executives weren't expecting a backlash.

"Well, we didn't expect that kind of visibility for it," Gates told The Times. "After all, Microsoft's position on a political bill, has that ever caused something to pass or not pass? Is it good, is it bad? I don't know."

Gates echoed the statement Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer made in an e-mail to employees Friday, explaining that the company decided before the legislative session began that it should to narrow its focus on a shorter list of issues directly affecting the business.

Two Microsoft employees testified in support of the anti-discrimination measure. The Rev. Ken Hutcherson of Antioch Bible Church in Redmond then met with Microsoft executives and threatened to organize a national boycott of Microsoft products if it continued supporting the bill.

Gates said he and Ballmer both support the measure personally but, "We won't always pick every issue for the company to have a position on."

Gay rights groups have said they feel betrayed. On Friday, the Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center asked Microsoft to return of a civil rights award it gave the company in 2001. Liberal Web bloggers have urged their critics to organize their own Microsoft boycott.

Gates said he welcomed the feedback.

"It's perfectly fair for us to be scrutinized on anything," Gates said. "We didn't realize that one would get that level of scrutiny, but there's people who care a lot. They care a lot about the issue."

posted by Anthony # 7:53 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: April 26, 2005 2:02 pm ET

(Indianapolis, Indiana) Indianapolis City-County Council has rejected legislation that would have prohibited LGBT discrimination in jobs and housing.

Council voted 18 - 11 late Monday to defeat the measure, despite last-minute attempts at a compromise and weekend calls to council members by Mayor Bart Peterson.

"The response was overwhelmingly against this ordinance," Republican Councilman Scott Schneider told the Indianapolis Star following the vote.

"The reason why it died is because the people don't want it."

Schneider was able to get bipartisan support for defeating the protections.

In the days before the vote, the conservative group, Advance America, launched an e-mail campaign, encouraging its members to write the 29 council members.

"What the City Council did tonight was to say that businesses should still have the right to hire . . . who they want to hire and they should not be forced to hire homosexuals," said group founder Eric Miller, who attended the council meeting.

For Patrice Abduallah, one of five Democrats who voted against the measure, it was religion that made the difference.

"I don't think that I should be forced to compromise my integrity and my beliefs as to what God put here for us to obey and to accept," Abduallah told the Star.

But, Jackie Nytes a Democrat who sponsored the motion said that the vote was he result of a campaign of lies.

"The onslaught of misinformation has been almost numbing," Nytes said. "I am surprised that people feel as swayed as they do by the clear misinformation."

Two Indiana cities - Bloomington and Lafayette - have laws banning discrimination against gays. Nationwide, more than 100 communities and at least 16 states and Washington, D.C. have some form of anti-discrimination statute in place for private employment.

posted by Anthony # 7:52 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: April 26, 2005 2:02 pm ET

(Denver, Colorado) The Colorado Senate has approved a bill to ban bias against members of the state's LGBT community. The Senate Tuesday night gave its final accent to the legislation. It passed the first vote last week.

The approval came despite a last minute attempt by Senate Republicans to derail the measure. When that failed GOP lawmakers attempted to have protections for the transgendered removed.

Sen. Doug Lamborn (R-Colorado Springs) sought to have a provision included in the bill to allow employers to demand their employees’ wardrobe remain consistent with their gender at the time of their hiring.

Democrats said putting such a provision in the bill would extend anti-discrimination protection to everyone but the transgendered.

Republicans, without the votes to override Democrats’ one-vote majority in the Senate, were unable to get the clause included.

The bill passed on a party-line vote, 18-17.

"It is wrong that I should be discriminated against or have a fear of losing my job because I put my partner's picture up on my desk," said Sen. Jennifer Veiga, D-Denver. "That is wrong."
Sen. Ron Teck (R-Grand Junction) called for bipartisan support to defeat the bill declaring that the Bible condemns homosexuality as an abomination.

The legislation now goes to the House.

Conservative groups battling the civil rights law are calling on Gov. Bill Owens to veto the bill if it passes the House. Owens' office said the governor has taken no position on legislation.

posted by Anthony # 7:51 AM

by Peter Hacker 365Gay.com
Posted: April 26, 2005 11:01 am ET Updated 5:27 pm ET

(Wellington) A new law allowing civil unions for same-sex couples in New Zealand has not led to the expected rush to register.

The law, which also allows non gay couples who live together but do not want to marry to register, went into effect today.

Des Smith and John Joliff have been together for 19 years were among the first in line at the Internal Affairs office in Wellington to apply for their license.

Their ceremony – complete with street parade and brass band – will take place on Sunday and be conducted by the mayor of Wellington.

But, despite a huge lobbying effort by the gay community to get the legislation through Parliament, many same-sex couples are taking a wait and see approach.

The first ceremony will take place on Saturday and will be that of a straight couple.
A government spokesperson said that between 500 and 600 people registered for licenses across the country on the first day - a far cry from the several thousand that had been predicted.

Tim Barnett, the openly gay member of Parliament who spearheaded the drive to get the legislation passed said he was surprised by the apparent apathy in the gay community.
"I am surprised, but people know it's not going to disappear next week. It's now the law, and people don't have to rush into it, he told the New Zealand Herald.

But, he added that "a lot of people are avoiding this weekend because of the exposure."
Under the new law, to obtain a license, partners must be at least 18, not related, and cohabitating.

posted by Anthony # 7:51 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: April 26, 2005 8:30 pm ET

(New York City) The National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs released its annual report Tuesday on violence against lesbians, gay men, bisexual people and transgender individuals.
The report was compiled by NCAVP and fifteen of its members across the country.

NCAVP’s report is the most complete examination of such violence against LGBT people. Each year, the FBI publishes its own report on hate crimes, which includes anti-LGBT incidents, but it consistently contains information on far fewer cases than the NCAVP publication because it relies on law enforcement reports of such crimes rather than victim service organization data.
The 90-page report examines data compiled from almost 2,000 hate-related incidents in eleven cities, states and regions across the country: the Chicago area, Cleveland and Columbus, Ohio, Colorado, Houston, Texas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, the New York City area, Pennsylvania and the San Francisco Bay area. Additional information was included from Kansas City and St. Louis, Missouri, Tucson, Arizona and Vermont.

Overall, NCAVP’s report noted a 4% increase in reported incidents of anti-LGBT violence. Such incidents rose from 1,720 in 2003 to 1,792 in 2004.

Included in rise in incidents for the year, was an 11% increase in anti-LGBT murders, which rose from 18 in 2003 to 20 in 2004. During 2004, the total number of victims rose 4%, from 2,042 in 2003 to 2,131 in 2004.

Of the eleven locations included in the report, eight reported increases in incidents. According to the report, the number of anti-LGBT violence offenders rose also rose, by 7%, from 2,467 to 2,637.

According to NCAVP representatives, the data collected in for 2004 confirms that a dramatic rise in anti-LGBT hate incidents noted by the organization in the second half of 2003 continued unabated, and perhaps even worsened in throughout 2004.

“This year’s report has to be viewed as a follow-up to our report from a year ago,” said Clarence Patton, NCAVP’s Acting Executive Director.

“In the last edition of this report it became all too clear that with respect to violence, the nation's LGBT communities had entered a very new, and very dangerous era in which all of us were under attack at levels not seen in recent years," Patton. said.

NCAVP's report on hate violence in 2003 detailed the rapid shift and 26% increase in anti-LGBT violence as the nation responded politically and violently such victories for the community as the striking down of sodomy laws across the country and the right for same-sex couples to marry in Massachusetts.

The 2004 report looks at the continuation of that atmosphere, which lasted through numerous anti-lesbian and gay state ballot initiatives, a Presidential call for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, and the demonization of lesbians and gay men in particular in the 2004 election cycle.

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force says the blame lies with conservative religious groups.

"The literal blood of the thousands of gay people physically wounded by hate during 2004 is on the hands of Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, Tony Perkins, and so many others who spew hate for partisan gain and personal enrichment," said NGLTF Executive Director Mat Foreman.

posted by Anthony # 7:50 AM

by Paul Johnson 365Gay.com Washington Bureau Chief
Posted: April 26, 2005 8:30 pm ET

(Washington) Despite assurances by the Bush Administration that the gay hustler who posed as a journalist was given only limited access to the White House new evidence shows that over a two year period he visited 196 times.

James D. Guckert, who wrote under the name Jeff Gannon, was Washington bureau chief for Talon News, a conservative online news outlet associated with another Web site, GOPUSA.
Questions began to circulate within the White House press corps almost as soon as "Gannon" arrived on the scene.

During news conferences he was regularly called on for questions by President Bush. But, invariably "Gannon's" questions would show an extreme right-wing and often anti-gay agenda. On one occasion he asked Bush how he could work with Senate Democratic leaders “who seem to have divorced themselves from reality.”

White House press secretary Scott McClellan also would regularly call on "Gannon" whenever he would be under more aggressive, hostile questions from the press.

During last year's election campaign "Gannon" wrote in Talon that Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry “might someday be known as ‘the first gay president.'"

He then noted that Kerry has enjoyed "a 100% rating from the homosexual advocacy group Human Rights Campaign since 1995 in recognition of his support for the pro-gay agenda.”
While the White House press corps winced at "Gannon's" lack of objectivity and began to wonder if he were an Administration "plant", John Aravosis, who operates the AMERICAblog Web site, began to probe his background.

Aravosis and other liberal bloggers discovered that "Gannon" was really J.D. Guckert and that he owned a number of extreme conservative websites. They also found that Guckert owned gay sex sites - all with a military theme and all offering his sexual services.

Following his exposure Guckert quit Talon and GOPUSA and Talon subsequently closed.

McClellan, responding to media questions earlier this year said "Gannon" received only infrequent day passes, and denied that he had been a GOP "plant".

But, Democrats in Congress took up the issue. Democratic Reps. Louise Slaughter of New York and John Conyers of Michigan filed a freedom of information request and were given Secret Service records of Guckert's visits.

Today's revelation that "Gannon" had visited the White House nearly twice monthly raises even more questions.

posted by Anthony # 7:49 AM

by Peter Moore 365Gay.com London Bureau
Posted: April 25, 2005 2:02 pm ET

(London) Elton John has ended months of speculation and confirmed that he and longtime partner David Furnish will tie the knot this December.

In an interview with the Daily Mirror the singer said that the two will say their vows in Windsor, the scene of Prince Charles' recent wedding to Camilla Parker Bowles.

But, unlike the royal nuptials Sir Elton and Furnish will have to settle for signing the civil union registry.

Same-sex domestic partnerships become legal in the UK December 5. Although they offer most of the same rights and responsibilities of marriage they cannot be called marriages.
"We definitely want to do it about the middle of December, probably in Windsor, but there will be no honeymoon. I'm on tour," Sir Elton told the Mirror from Las Vegas, where he is currently performing.

John did not say why they chose to enter a civil union in his homeland rather than go to Canada where Furnish is a citizen and legally marry.

Under the civil unions law people entering into legal domestic partnerships must publicly announce their plans at least 15 days in advance. That would mean the John-Furnish ceremony could not take place until December 21 at the earliest.

The 42-year-old Furnish is a noted film-maker. They have been together for 11 years.

"Meeting David has been the greatest thing to happen to me. Yes, we spend a lot of time apart and it's hard, but we make it work," Sir Elton told the Mirror.

"We phone each other five or six times a day and we still send each other a card from wherever we are."

posted by Anthony # 7:12 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: April 25, 2005 2:02 pm ET

(Washington) A satellite broadcast beamed into evangelical churches nationwide Sunday night that featured Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist (TN) and conservative Christian leaders has been denounced for using the pulpit for political gain.

The event was held to drum up support from evangelical Christians for a GOP attempt to muzzle Democrats from attacking President George W. Bush's picks for the federal court.
Republicans are threatening to remove the right to filibuster judicial nominations.

Sunday's telecast was organized by the Family Research Council and featured, along with Frist, a number of groups at the forefront of the battle to get a Federal Marriage Amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

"It is telling that Senator Frist regularly appears at Family Research Council functions, but refuses to meet with gay families regarding his extreme Senate agenda," said Eric Stern, National Stonewall Democrats Executive Director.

One of the speakers, Catholic League President Bill Donahue, took the stage during the telecast, and preceded to laughingly mock gay families. Specifically, Donahue claimed that support of marriage equality "is a notion that belongs in an asylum."

The comment drew wide laughter and applause from the audience at Highview Baptist Church in Louisville, Kentucky where the broadcast originated.

During the broadcast, organizers devoted much of their time urging the confirmation of Janice Rogers Brown to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Although her nomination was rejected by the Senate in 2003, President Bush renominated her earlier this year.

In 2003, Brown was the only justice on the California Supreme Court to rule against recognizing the right of gay Californians to legally adopt their children. Brown argued that allowing a gay parent to legally adopt the biological child of their partner "trivializes family bonds."
The broadcast also was attacked by a number of church leaders.

"What we detect instead is the work of a political organization using Christian language to exploit Americans' desire to preserve religious values by framing their political strategy in terms of religious liberty," said the Rev. Joe Phelps of Highland Baptist Church in Louisville.

During Sunday night's telecast, Phelps led an opposition rally of churches from across the city. Their efforts were joined by representatives of the Jefferson County Democratic Party and through a letter signed by more than 400 religious leaders across the country.

posted by Anthony # 7:11 AM

by Mark Worrall 365Gay.com San Francisco Bureau
Posted: April 25, 2005 11:01 am ET

(Sacramento, California) Legislation to allow same-sex marriage in California heads to committee this week in its first airing of the legislative session.

The Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act will go before the Assembly Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.

A similar bill had cleared one of the two committees it needed to reach the floor in the last session, but its author, Assemblymember Mark Leno ( D-San Francisco) pulled it when it appeared there was not enough support to ensure passage.

The new bill is identical to last year's effort but Leno now has the support of Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and other key Democrats. Earlier this month the California Democratic Party passed a resolution supporting same-sex marriage.

"Support has grown steadily over the past year," Leno told the Associated Press.

"We're breaking new ground, but I'm very confident. We have a very good opportunity to move this off the floor of the Assembly, to the Senate and then to the governor's desk."

But, conservative Republicans are vowing a fight.

Their chief argument revolves around Proposition 22. The voter initiative approved five years ago is understood by conservatives to ban same-sex marriage in California.

Leno and other Democrats say that Prop 22 only prevents the state from recognizing gay marriages performed elsewhere.

"My bill specifically states nothing in my bill will affect (Proposition 22)," Leno said.

So far, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has sent mixed messages about whether he would sign the legislation if it were passed.

In a January meeting with the editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle Schwarzenegger suggested that this may not be the best time to push gay marriage, saying that a legislative push to fully recognize marriage rights for gays might backfire.

"Eventually in a few years from now, you can readdress it again and see what the people of California think,'' he told the paper. "You cannot force-feed those kind of things.''

Last year in a Tonight Show appearance Schwarzenegger said gay marriage would be "fine with me" if it were enshrined in state law or ruled legal by the courts.

The issue is slowly heading toward the California Supreme Court. Last month a San San Francisco judge ruled that state laws preventing gay marriage are illegal.

posted by Anthony # 7:10 AM

by The Associated Press
Posted: April 25, 2005 5:01 pm ET

(Stockholm) A Stockholm restaurant owner who kicked out a lesbian couple after he saw them kissing was found guilty Monday of unlawful discrimination by an appeals court and ordered to pay one of the women the equivalent of about $7,100 (US) in damages.

Aziz Cakir had been acquitted by a lower court last year.

On July 4, 2003, he asked Anna Fernstroem and Susanne Gustafsson to leave his restaurant because they are gay, the prosecutor claimed.

Cakir told police that he didn't accept anybody ``making out'' in his restaurant, regardless of their sexual orientation. But the prosecutor successfully argued that the women were targeted because they were lesbians.

``This is fantastic,'' Gustafsson told Swedish Radio. ``This verdict shows that we have the same right to show each other affection and love as heterosexuals in our society.''

Cakir said he had not yet decided whether to appeal the sentence to the Swedish Supreme Court.

posted by Anthony # 7:09 AM

by Derwin Parsons 365Gay.com Atlantic Canada Bureau Chief
Posted: April 25, 2005 5:01pm ET

(Moncton, New Brunswick) Four same-sex couples filed suit in New Brunswick Monday mirroring cases in seven other provinces and one territory that resulted in the federal definition of marriage being declared unconstitutional.

If they win their case, only two provinces, Prince Edward Island and Alberta, and two territories, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories would bar gay marriage.

Lawyer Alison Menard asked the Court of Queen's Bench in Moncton for a hearing arguing that the federal definition of marriage, between a man and woman, violates the provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

"Because Parliament is not doing its job, these couples are being forced to make their challenge in court," Menard told the Globe and Mail.

Federal legislation to legalize same-sex marriage in those areas of Canada where the ban has not fallen is tied up in Parliament, and the teetering minority Liberal government is in danger of falling before it can be passed.

Prime Minister Paul Martin held talks on the weekend with Jack Layton, the leader of the tiny New Democratic Party, in a bid to keep the Liberals in power until late fall, but even with NDP help it may not be enough to stave off a non confidence motion in the government.

For the four couples who brought today's suit the wait to marry is agonizing. One of the couples, Catherine Sidney and Bridget McGale, of Saint John were turned down Saturday when they applied for a marriage license.

They've been together for 24 years and want to marry on June 15, McGale's 41st birthday.
"We felt the federal government was going to do this for us," said Sidney. "Now we are not sure what is going to happen, so we felt we did not have any other choice [than go to court]."

Even if they win their case, McGale and Sidney and the thousands of other same-sex couples who have married in Canada could find themselves unmarried if the government falls and a Conservative government is elected.

The Tory party has said if it forms the next government it would bring in legislation to ban same-sex marriage but allow civil unions.

posted by Anthony # 7:08 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: April 25, 2005 7:30 pm ET

(Lynchburg, Virginia) About 55 members of Soulforce - a gay nondenominational group - conducted what it called an educational outreach today at Liberty University, the Lynchburg school created by Jerry Falwell.

A declaration by Falwell that "This is not Gay Day," went virtually unheeded as the Soulforce members, who call themselves "Equality Riders" talked about sexuality, the Bible, and gay rights with students of the university.

The riders represented several Virginia colleges, including Virginia Tech, James Madison University and the University of Virginia.

Soulforce founder Mel White said he estimates that there are at least 300-to-400 gay and lesbian students among Liberty's student population of eight thousand, but a university officials declined comment.

This afternoon members of the group wanted to take letters pleading for a more open campus to Falwell. He refused to meet with the group.

After the group left for an afternoon news conference, campus police refused to allow them back on campus. There was heavy security from campus police and Lynchburg city police.
Members of Soulforce left peacefully.

Soulforce regularly holds peaceful demonstrations at anti-gay religious events. Several times they had held protests at the National Catholic Bishops conferences.

Next weekend they will be in Colorado Springs, Colorado to demonstrate at the national headquarters of Focus on the Family.

Soulforce says it will protest the “hurtful rhetoric” from Focus and its founder, James Dobson.
But, Soulforce won't be the only group demonstrating. The other, members of the Phelps Klan of Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas. plan their own protest.

They say that FOC is gay-friendly because it holds conferences encouraging gays to become heterosexual.

posted by Anthony # 7:08 AM

by The Associated Press
Posted: April 25, 2005 9:01 pm ET

(Austin, Texas) Same-sex couples in Texas would be banned from marriage under a constitutional amendment House lawmakers approved Monday.

The measure, sponsored by Republican Rep. Warren Chisum of Pampa, aims to stem possible court challenges to an existing Texas law making same-sex marriages illegal. It passed with a vote of 101-29, more than the 100 needed for approval of a constitutional amendment in the House.

"I think marriage is important enough to the people of this state that it deserves the highest level of protection," Chisum said.

The measure still must win approval in the Senate and from Texas voters to become part of the state constitution.

The smattering of Democrats who opposed the measure said it would constitutionalize discrimination.

"This amendment is blowing smoke to fuel the hell fire flames of bigotry," said Rep. Senfronia Thompson, D-Houston.

The debate comes less than a week after House members approved a measure that would ban same-sex couples from becoming foster parents.

Gay and lesbian rights advocates criticized both measures, saying the Legislature needs to prioritize building up Texas families with public education and social services, rather than discriminating against the state's 43,000 gay couples.

"What they're doing really flies in face of family values," said Heath Riddles, Lesbian Gay Rights Lobby of Texas spokesman.

The marriage ban, Riddles said, would also hurt unmarried heterosexual couples, making it difficult for them to enter into end-of-life contractual agreements or give a partner power of attorney.

Chisum added a measure he said is meant to give gay and straight Texans the same contractual rights they currently have. It allows private contracts for guardianship, hospital visitation rights, insurance benefits and property ownership.

"It doesn't change anything that anybody can do today," Chisum said, addressing questions about whether the amendment could curtail heterosexual common law marriages.

Rep. Rafael Anchia, D-Dallas, called the measure the "Chisum gay tax", saying it would make homosexual couples spend thousands on attorneys fees to obtain contracts for rights afforded to married heterosexuals.

If the amendment is approved by voters, Texas would join 14 states, including Oklahoma, Montana and Louisiana, that statutorily and constitutionally ban same-sex marriage.

Nationally, President Bush supports conservative advocacy groups pushing for congressional approval of a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. The measure, which would need ratification by 38 states, last year failed to win the necessary two-thirds support in the U.S. House and Senate.

Chisum has said he hopes the constitutional amendment in Texas would send a message to Congress that Texans support a similar amendment on the federal level.

Republican House Speaker Tom Craddick voted for the ban. He abstains from voting on most bills.

For the ban to be incorporated in the Texas Constitution, it must next be approved by 21 of 31 senators. Chisum said no senator has agreed to sponsor the bill in the upper chamber. If approved by the Legislature, the ban must also be approved by a majority of Texas voters Nov. 8.

posted by Anthony # 7:07 AM

April 24, 2005

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 12:34 a.m. ET
Gay and lesbian activists are tearful in Washington state, joyful in Connecticut and angry in Texas after a series of legislative votes that reflect America's tumultuous, seesaw debate over whether to broaden or narrow their rights.

Connecticut, in a historic step last week, became the first state to approve marriage-like civil unions for same-sex couples without the prodding of a court order. However, on the same day the Texas House voted to bar gays from being foster parents; the next day the Washington Senate, by one vote, defeated a major gay civil-rights bill.

In Alabama, meanwhile, lawmakers considered a bill aimed at keeping books tolerant of homosexuality out of public schools. A despondent lesbian activist, Patricia Todd, told a House committee: ''I feel you all hate us.''

Gay-rights leaders and their opponents tried to depict the contrasting events in a positive light.
''As in any civil rights movement, it's often three steps forward and two steps back,'' said Joe Solmonese of the Human Rights Campaign, the largest national gay-rights group. ''Sometimes, we have all of that movement in the context of one week.''

He was particularly encouraged by the developments in Connecticut, where Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell signed a civil union bill that reached her desk with bipartisan support.

The only other states to go as far -- Vermont with civil unions and Massachusetts with full recognition of same-sex marriage -- acted under court orders, enabling opponents of gay rights to blame ''activist judges'' for circumventing the people's will. In Connecticut, Solmonese said, ''it was an organic product of the legislative process.''

However, Brian Brown of the conservative Family Institute of Connecticut contended that the civil union bill would not have won approval in a popular referendum. He predicted lawmakers of both parties who supported it could face tough challenges in the 2006 election.

''Not a single legislator ran on this issue in 2004,'' he said. ''You can't say this is the democratic process at work until you see the results of the next election.''

Brown's group is helping organize a rally Sunday at the state Capitol opposing civil unions. He estimated that 10,000 people might attend.

''You're going to see a new political force in this state that's unlike anything you've seen before,'' he said.

Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, said the Connecticut bill showed how quickly the debate over same-sex marriage had evolved.

''Five years ago the concept of civil unions caused a virtual civil war in Vermont,'' he said, while in Connecticut it was an easy-to-accept option for many politicians not ready to endorse gay marriage.

In contrast to Connecticut, some activists were in tears at Washington's Capitol in Olympia on Thursday as senators -- by a 25-24 vote -- rejected a House-passed bill banning discrimination against gays and lesbians in housing, employment and insurance. In three decades of trying, it was the closest the bill's supporters had come to victory.

''We have exposed bigotry and prejudice,'' said Rep. Ed Murray, an openly gay Democrat from Seattle. ''We didn't win today, but we will win.''

Also dismaying to activists was approval by the Texas House of Representatives of a proposal to bar gays and lesbians from being foster parents. No other state has such a law in force.
''I don't think it is right for young children to be exposed to this type of behavior when they are young and innocent,'' said the measure's sponsor, Rep. Robert Talton.

The measure's fate in the Texas Senate is uncertain. National gay-rights groups are mobilizing to seek its defeat, warning that it could cause many hundreds of foster children to be removed from their homes.

''As a parent, I cannot even imagine the horror of a knock at the door and the state ripping our children away from me and my spouse,'' said Jennifer Crisler of the Family Pride Coalition, a national group advocating on behalf of gay families.

No vote was taken last week on the Alabama bill that prompted Patricia Todd's remark about hate. The measure, which may be voted on this week, would prohibit schools from spending public funds on books or other materials that recognize or promote homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle.

''This is not about hate,'' said the sponsor, Rep. Gerald Allen. ''This is about our culture being under attack.''

Todd disagreed, telling the House Education Committee: ''We are your brothers and sisters, your aunts and uncles. We go to church with you. And the message I get from you is: 'We hate you.'''

Overseas developments also elicited mixed emotions. In predominantly Roman Catholic Spain, the lower house of Parliament approved the Socialist government's gay marriage bill. It would make Spain the third European country to legalize same-sex marriages, along with Belgium and the Netherlands.

That vote came two days after the election of the new pope, Benedict XVI, who as a cardinal was the Vatican's leading enforcer of doctrine frowning on homosexual relationships and same-sex unions.

''His record on lesbian/gay issues has been notoriously insensitive,'' said Francis DiBernardo of New Ways Ministry, a Maryland-based group working to increase acceptance of gays within the Catholic Church. ''We hope and pray he will open his ears and his heart to the cries of so many who have been hurt by his previous policies. ''

posted by Anthony # 8:28 AM

April 23, 2005

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 9:38 p.m. ET
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A new documentary debuting at the San Francisco International Film Festival on Sunday gives viewers an inside look at the four-week, same-sex marriage spree at City Hall last year.

''Pursuit of Equality'' was made by Geoff Callan -- the mayor's brother-in-law -- and his business partner, Mike Shaw.
The film offers a behind-the-scenes account of what happened in February 2004 after Mayor Gavin Newsom directed city officials to issue marriage licenses to gays and lesbians in defiance of state law.

The filmmakers documented everything from cheering crowds outside City Hall to Rosie O'Donnell's wedding to a protest by the religious group Repent America.

''My heart is pounding. I've never done anything like this before,'' city Assessor Mabel Teng tells the camera right before marrying longtime lesbian couple Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin, the first same-sex couple to receive a marriage license in San Francisco. The film shows the historic marriage, then follows Lyon and Martin into the mayor's office.
''I'm proud of you guys,'' Newsom says after kissing them.

A judge ruled last month that California's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional -- a legal milestone that, if upheld on appeal, would open the way for the most populous state to follow Massachusetts in allowing same-sex couples to wed. Conservative leaders expressed outrage at the ruling and have vowed to appeal.

posted by Anthony # 8:27 AM

by Margo Williams 365Gay.com Boston Bureau
Posted: April 25, 2005 12:01 am ET

(Boston, Massachusetts) The Supreme Judicial Court which paved the way for same-sex marriage in Massachusetts is preparing to hear a case to have its ruling set aside.

The court will hear oral arguments on May 2 on an appeal by the Catholic Action League. The group, in papers filed with the court, argues that same-sex marriage should be halted until residents vote on a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay nuptials.

A judge last May, days before the ruling allowing gay marriage was to go into effect, rejected a bid by the League and the Thomas More Center sought to have the SJC ruling delayed.

The legislature has since passed the amendment, but it must get approval again in this session of the legislature before going to voters in 2006. A vote by lawmakers, expected this spring has now been put off until fall
C. Joseph Doyle, executive director of the Catholic Action League, wants an immediate halt to the issuing of marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and for those marriages already performed not to be recognized by the state until after the referendum is held.

"His ability to vote is being inhibited and interfered with," said Doyle's lawyer, Chester Darling told the Springfield Republican.

"The court declared an outcome before a vote was taken on the amendment."

In its brief to the court, the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders - the LGBT group that won the landmark decision opening the way for gay couples to marry - argues that Doyle failed to show exactly how issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples interfered with his ability to vote.

"His argument makes no sense," attorney Michele Granda told The Republican.

posted by Anthony # 8:24 AM

by The Associated Press
Posted: April 25, 2005 12:01 am ET

(Albuquerque, New Mexico) Stunned that protesters were flashing hateful anti-gay messages to traffic along a busy street on the weekend, Chris Lucas had to pull over to join a counter-protest.Then, just as spontaneously, Lucas found a way to stun the protesters. The 31-year-old massage therapist and a man he just met locked in a passionate kiss just feet from the protesters.‘‘I know the protesters were shouting things at me, but I couldn’t hear what they were saying,’’ said Lucas, who is gay.

‘‘I had my eyes closed. It was actually kind of liberating to do this.’’The kiss was one of several creative responses to a demonstration by 20 members of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas. The group travels the country to rally against homosexuality.

‘‘These young adults need to know there is a hell and there is a judgment day on which they will be judged for their sins,’’ said church member Deborah Hockenbarger, 51. ‘‘We are trying to warn them about their filthiness. It is not OK to be a fag. God almighty says so.’’Hockenbarger waved a sign that read: ‘‘Fags are worthy of death.’’ Other church members took shots at Catholicism with signs that read: ‘‘Pope in Hell’’ and ‘‘Your pastor is a whore.’’ They view the church as a pro-gay institution.About 40 gay rights supporters reacted by waving white cloths they called angel wings, dressing up their dogs with slogan T-shirts, chanting or simply quietly turning their backs on the protesters.

‘‘I don’t believe God hates anybody,’’ said Jeanne Pahls, a peace activist from Albuquerque. ‘‘I believe in civil rights. People who are gay, lesbian or transsexual ought to be given the same respect as anybody else.’’Poet Joanna Cattonar, 63, waved a large placard with the words: ‘‘Fear + Ignorance = Bigotry.’’ She said she got her orders to attend the rally from Vice President Dick Cheney.

‘‘When the vice president was speaking at the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auchwitz, he said that hatred and intolerance must be opposed before they turn into action,’’ she said.Cattonar said some activists suggested ignoring the anti-gay group.

‘‘But what happened when people ignored the situation in the 1930s? It led Hitler to power,’’ she said.Across the street, the anti-gay protesters professed the same sense of mission and purpose.Jacob Phelps, the 21-year-old grandson of Westboro’s pastor Fred Phelps, said his church teaches that God hates homosexuals.

‘‘We wouldn’t be here doing this protest if we hated people absolutely,’’ he said. ‘‘What we’re expressing is not our hate, it’s God’s hate. That’s a pure hate. It’s the only kind of hate allowed. I feel this is my obligation to God.’’The Westboro Church began its anti-gay demonstrations about 15 years ago. Targets include churches — even conservative ones — that the congregation deems too soft on homosexuality and labels ‘‘fag-enablers.’’Jessica Bachicha, 35, repeated the words of Albuquerque Mayor Martin Chavez who said the Westboro protesters weren’t welcomed in this city.‘‘We don’t need them coming to pollute our city or state with hate,’’ said Bachicha, a lesbian.

Although she turned her back to them, her partner was provoked to tears by the protester’s jeers. Sophia Cortez, 34, said: ‘‘After everything we’ve been through, why do we have to put up with this?’’

Police said the demonstrations were peaceful and no arrests were made.The Westboro group planned a series of protests in Santa Fe through Monday.

posted by Anthony # 8:22 AM

by The Associated Press
Posted: April 24, 2005 4:00 pm ET

(Olympia, Washington) In a hastily prepared internal memo e-mailed to employees, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer is attempting to shoot down suggestions that pressure from a local pastor triggered the company's decision not to publicly support a gay-rights bill before the state Legislature this year.

Reiterating statements made by company spokespeople in recent days, Ballmer said the decision to take a neutral position on legislation Microsoft had supported previously was made before the session started in January.

The intent was to enable the software company to focus on computer privacy, education and other issues more directly related to its business, he said.

"I understand that many employees may disagree with the company's decision to tighten the focus of our agenda for this year's legislative session in Olympia," Ballmer wrote.

"But I want every employee to understand that the decision to take a neutral stance on this bill was taken before the Session began based on a desire to focus our legislative efforts, not in reaction to any outside pressure," Ballmer wrote in the Friday evening e-mail.

A bill that would have banned discrimination against gays and lesbians in housing, employment and insurance failed by one vote Thursday in the state Senate. The House passed the bill on a 61-37 vote two months ago.

Rev. Ken Hutcherson, pastor at Antioch Bible Church in Redmond, met with Microsoft in February, threatening to launch a national boycott of Microsoft products if the company didn't take a stand against the bill.

Ballmer said the meeting was held to clarify that two Microsoft employees who testified in favor of the bill were speaking as individuals, not for the company.

Nevertheless, gay-rights activists have accused Microsoft of caving to the religious right and abandoning its long-standing support for the rights of gays and other minorities.
No way, Ballmer said.

"As long as I am CEO, Microsoft is going to be a company that is hard-core about diversity, a company that is absolutely rigorous about having a non-discriminatory environment, and a company that treats every employee fairly," he wrote.

Microsoft has offered domestic partner benefits to same-sex couples since the early 1990s. It also has long barred discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Ballmer said that personally, both be and Chairman Bill Gates supported the gay-rights bill.
"But that is my personal view, and I also know that many employees and shareholders would not agree with me." he wrote.

"We are thinking hard about what is the right balance to strike — when should a public company take a position on a broader social issue, and when should it not? What message does the company taking a position send to its employees who have strongly held beliefs on the opposite side of the issue?"

On Friday, The L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center asked Microsoft to return a civil-rights award the organization gave the company four years ago.

The same day, the Human Rights Campaign, a Washington, D.C.-based gay rights group with nearly 600,000 members, sent an open letter to Ballmer expressing "profound disappointment" that the company did not back the gay-rights bill.

posted by Anthony # 8:21 AM

by The Associated Press
Posted: April 24, 2005 12:01 am ET

(Window Rock, Arizona) The Navajo Nation has outlawed same-sex marriages on its reservation. The Tribal Council voted unanimously in favor of legislation that restricts a recognized union to that between a man and a woman, and prohibits plural marriages as well as marriages between close relatives.

"Men and women have been created in a sacred manner. We need to honor this," said Del. Harriet Becenti.

Critics have said the measure's sponsor, Del. Larry Anderson, was attempting to rewrite cultural history to parallel the clash across the United States between conservative Christians and gay rights activists.

But Del. Lorenzo Curley said Navajo leaders wanted to send a message to young people to respect and live by the tribe's traditional beliefs.

"We are here to defend the foundation of our society. That's what is at stake here," he said.
The Navajo Nation, which has more than 180,000 residents, spans parts of Arizona, New Mexico and Utah. Same-sex marriages are not allowed in any of those states.

Last year, the Cherokee National Tribal Council in Oklahoma voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman after a lesbian couple successfully filed for a tribal marriage application.

posted by Anthony # 8:20 AM

by The Associated Press
Posted: April 23, 2005 4:00 pm ET

(Louisville, Kentucky) When regular services are over Sunday night, the Rev. Kevin Ezell will turn his pulpit over to preachers with a political message, a move that has prompted an outcry from other religious leaders.
Ezell's Highview Baptist Church is hosting "Justice Sunday," featuring a videotaped speech from Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., that rallies churchgoers to protest a filibuster of nominees for the federal judiciary. Highview was arranging to have the videotape played at the same time around the country for churches that had requested it.

Sunday's event, organized by the Family Research Council of Washington, D.C., is a way for Christians to speak their minds about a hot political issue, Ezell said.

"We shouldn't have to check our citizenship at the door," the pastor said. "What we believe affects every area of our lives."

Not everyone agrees. At least three churches and other organizations are planning to protest Justice Sunday.

Some say the close co-mingling of religion and politics is bad for both institutions, especially if the debate it centers on isn't being done honestly.

"This is deceptive, manipulative and false," said Joe Phelps, who joined nearly two dozen other ministers Friday morning at a news conference to criticize Sunday's event. "Stop. Please stop."
The filibuster, a 200-year-old tradition in the Senate, gives 41 senators the right to hold unlimited debate on a subject. It takes 60 votes to end the debate and hold the vote. Democrats have banded together to block votes on 10 of President Bush's nominees, while allowing votes on more than 200 judges.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said the goal of Justice Sunday is to get the "Christian community" to help rein in "the last bastion of liberalism, the federal courts" and put an end to filibusters of judicial candidates.

Because of the filibuster, "judicial activists" dominate the courts and have stopped prayer in schools but found a legal right to sodomy and seem headed toward approving gay marriage, Perkins said.

Those issues are important to Christian voters and judges are ignoring the legislative and public will - and Sunday's rally will address that, said Perkins, a former state legislator and U.S. Senate candidate in Louisiana.

Jim Holladay, pastor of Lyndon Baptist Church in Louisville, said Perkins and Ezell are not speaking for all Christians, even though they appear to be claiming to do so.
"We just ask our sister church to be honest," Holladay said.

The Rev. Dr. Robert W. Edgar, General Secretary of the National Council of Churches, said Justice Sunday splits people of faith into those who agree with Perkins' group and those who don't, resulting in a polarization of Christian voters.

"This ad campaign should be called 'Just Us Sunday' instead of 'Justice Sunday,'" Edgar said during a conference call with reporters Friday. "It makes one political point of view a litmus test for Christian faith, and in so doing, attempts to disenfranchise, if not excommunicate, the millions of American Christians who hold a different view."

The Rev. Albert Pennybacker, chairman of the Clergy and Laity Network for National Leadership Change, said Perkins and groups like his exaggerate their influence.

"This is manipulative, deceptive nonsense," Pennybacker said during an interview Thursday.
Pennybacker's group, which coordinates 65 religious communities, is one of several planning counter-protests Sunday. Other groups planning to protest include the NAACP, the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade and the Jefferson County Democratic Party.

Raoul Cunningham, head of the Louisville branch of the NAACP, said Justice Sunday is the type of partisan political event intended to be kept out of the church and should be cause for an investigation of its tax-exempt status.

The national NAACP was investigated by the Internal Revenue Service after its chairman, Julian Bond, gave a speech that criticized President Bush during the 2004 presidential election.
"It will be interesting to see if the administration goes after Highview Baptist Church after such a blatant partisan activity," Cunningham said.

University of Kentucky law professor Paul Salamanca, who is not involved with any of the events, said the law requires that churches not advocate for the election or defeat of any particular candidate to keep a tax-exempt status. Salamanca said the law does not specifically address political activity.

Gary McCaleb, senior counsel to the Alliance Defense Fund, which has been providing legal advice about Justice Sunday, said the church has no concerns.

"From our perspective, this is just citizens standing up and telling elected officials to do your jobs," McCaleb said. "It doesn't trigger any alarm bells with the IRS."

posted by Anthony # 8:19 AM

April 23, 2005
New York Times
EDITORIAL
ne of the amazing things about Connecticut's approval of a law guaranteeing the rights of gay couples was the almost placid way the political process worked. This is a pioneering law - the first enacting civil union voluntarily, without court pressure - yet it was adopted with a minimum of political fireworks. There are healthy lessons in this for the rest of the nation as this vital human right progresses.

Connecticut's legislators were obviously influenced by shifting public opinion in favor of taking the historic step, but even more by the gatherings across the state where gay couples invited politicians and neighbors into their homes to experience their domestic lives firsthand. This grass-roots lobbying by gay and lesbian couples proved that their humanity was not to be denied, even if the word "marriage" was denied to them as the final compromise was passed by large, bipartisan margins and was enthusiastically signed by Gov. Jodi Rell, a Republican.

The law firmly extends to gay couples the same rights and protections guaranteed to married heterosexuals, including tax and insurance benefits, family leave, hospital visits and more. Its passage was undoubtedly eased by an amendment that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. But there's cause for optimism that this obstacle may be removed, considering the state's progressive path since the day, 40 years ago, when the courts finally struck down a puritanical law that criminalized birth control.

In the past 15 years, Connecticut has protected gays and lesbians under hate-crime, employment and housing laws, and allowed unmarried couples to raise adopted children. Just as civil union was the next logical step, so may the term marriage be finally extended someday.

Other states are heading in a different direction. Fourteen have banned gay marriage in the last year, with Kansas going further and outlawing civil union. But Connecticut's new law and the bolstering of gay unions in Vermont, Massachusetts and California provide a response to the tendency of civil libertarians to presume that lawmaking is transitory and less reliable than a court decision. Critical as the courts are, there's nothing more stirring than the sight of a legislature, representing the will of the people, passing laws to protect the rights of a vulnerable minority group.

posted by Anthony # 10:09 AM

by The Associated Press
Posted: April 22, 2005 7:30 pm ET

(Cleveland, Ohio) Opposing resolutions on whether the United Church of Christ should approve same-sex marriages are expected to result in intense discussion when the denomination holds its biennial meeting in Atlanta in July, a church official said Friday.

"We take our democratic form of church governance seriously," said the Rev. J. Bennett Guess, spokesman for the Cleveland-based UCC. "This will ensure some heated conversation for our church when we meet in Atlanta."

It is the first time the issue will be debated at the General Synod meeting of the church known for its progressive stands on social issues.

The United Church of Christ has a membership of 1.3 million.

The General Synod considers resolutions, but it does not create policy for its nearly 6,000 congregations. UCC churches are autonomous. The UCC's meeting, involving about 3,000 people, will occur July 1-5 in Atlanta.

Guess said if the delegates support a same-sex marriage resolution, it would be the first time a large Christian denomination has done so.

The Rev. John H. Thomas, the UCC's general minister and president, declined comment on the issue.

The UCC's General Synod previously has affirmed the ordination of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and holy unions for non-married couples.

Last year the UCC caused a stir in the growing marriage debate when it created a television advertising campaign that featured a gay couple, among others, being excluded from a church. CBS and NBC rejected the 30-second ads.

The Rev. Libby Tigner said the UCC's Southern California-Nevada Conference proposed the same-gender marriage resolution based on legal and religious grounds.

"We believe that all people are created equal in the eyes of God and should be treated equal by our governmental bodies," said Tigner, an associate minister in Long Beach, Calif., at First Congregational United Church of Christ.

Another faction favors affirmation of a one-man, one-woman marriage resolution.

Eight geographically diverse UCC congregations have offered a resolution calling on the church to "embrace the scriptural definition of marriage." The Rev. Brett W. Becker, pastor of St. Paul UCC in Cibolo, Texas, who wrote the resolution, said he believes the UCC should stand for traditional marriage.

A third resolution proposed for the meeting calls for prayer and study on the issue.
The United Church of Christ was formed in 1957 with the union of the Congregational Christian Churches in America and the Evangelical and Reformed Church.

posted by Anthony # 10:07 AM

by Malcolm Thornberry 365Gay.com European Bureau Chief
Posted: April 22, 2005 5:01 pm ET

(Richmond, Virginia) The Virginia Supreme Court ruled Friday that the state must provide new birth certificates for children born in Virginia and adopted by gay couples in other states.The 5-to-2 ruling overturned a lower court's decision that the state is not required to issue new birth certificates for such children.

The case was brought by three same-sex couples denied birth certificates for their adoptive children.

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

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

A Richmond judge upheld the Department's right to refuse to issue new birth certificates.
Circuit Judge Randall G. Johnson ruled that requiring the state to issue new birth certificates with the names of the children's adoptive parents instead of their birth parents conflicts with Virginia's policy prohibiting joint adoption by unmarried couples.But the high court wrote in today's decision that the case is about issuing birth certificates under Virginia law, not about same-sex relationships or adoption policy.

posted by Anthony # 10:05 AM

by Malcolm Thornberry 365Gay.com European Bureau Chief
Posted: April 22, 2005 5:01 pm ET

(Vatican City) Less than a week after becoming Pope, Benedict XVI has lashed out at Spain following the passage of a same-sex marriage bill in Parliament.

Spain's lower house on Thursday approved legislation to legalize gay marriage.

It is expected to gain approval in the upper chamber and become law next month.
On Friday, the Vatican shot back.

The Pope, speaking through Cardinal Alfonso Lopes Trujill, head of the Pontifical Council on the Family, said Roman Catholics should be prepared to lose their jobs rather than co-operate with the law.

Trujill, in an interview with Corriere della Sera newspaper said Spaniards in all walks of life - especially government officials - are duty bound by Catholicism to oppose accepting same-sex couples.

"We cannot impose the iniquitous on people," he told the paper.

"On the contrary, precisely because they are iniquitous the Church makes an urgent call for freedom of conscience and the duty to oppose.

"A law as profoundly iniquitous as this one is not an obligation, it cannot be an obligation. One cannot say that a law is right simply because it is law."

When asked if this were not discrimination Trujill said no, adding that the Church does not discriminate against gays. He then told the paper that homosexuals need help.

"The Church does not accept homosexuals being the target of jokes, insults and inhumane expressions. They are people who deserve all our love, our support and our aid."

The bill to allow gay marriage was relatively short, saying that "Matrimony shall have the same requisites and effects regardless of whether the persons involved are of the same.

Same-sex marriage is legal in Holland and Belgium. Most other European Union countries have some provision for recognizing those in committed same-sex relationships. In December Britain will open its registry for Civil Unions.

In North America most of Canada has legalized same-sex marriage and a bill to expand that throughout the country is currently before Parliament. Massachusetts is the only US state to legalize same-sex marriage, although Civil Unions are legal in Vermont and Connecticut, and several other states including California have domestic partner registries.

posted by Anthony # 10:04 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: April 22, 2005 11:00 am ET

(Olympia, Washington) Microsoft, Washington state's biggest employer, is accused of bowing to a conservative Christian group and pulling its support for an LGBT civil rights bill, ensuring its defeat.

The legislation, which gay rights groups had fought for nearly 30 years to achieve, fell by only one vote yesterday in the state Senate.

Microsoft, one of the first employers in Washington to write LGBT equality into its company policy, and a longtime advocate of the civil rights bill, withdrew its support this year. LGBT activists say the move followed a meeting between the company and the leader of an evangelical church located a stone's throw from Microsoft's Redmond headquarters.

A Microsoft spokesperson acknowledges that the company withdrew its support for the rights bill but denies any connection to opposition from the Rev. Ken Hutcherson despite admitting to a series of meetings with the controversial pastor.

"Our government affairs team made a decision before this legislative session that we would focus our energy on a limited number of issues that are directly related to our business," Mark Murray told the New York Times.

But, the sponsor of the rights bill, LGBT community activists and Hutcherson himself dispute Murray's account.

Hutcherson in an interview with the Times said he met with Microsoft officials before the company dropped its endorsement and prior to the beginning of the legislative session to warn the computer giant that he would organize a national boycott of Microsoft if it did not withdraw its support of the bill.

Hutcherson has organized a number of anti-gay rallies including one in Washington, D.C..
Rep. Ed Murray (D-Seattle), the bill's sponsor, also indicated that Microsoft's decision to withdraw its support of the measure appears to be tied to the company's meetings with Hutcherson.

Murray told the Seattle Times that a Microsoft lobbyist had told him toward the start of the legislative session that the company would support the bill, as it had in the past, and that it would send a letter of support. The letter never came, Murray said.

The full effect of the Microsoft decision to remain neutral may never be known, said Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown (D-Spokane) adding, "It was the wrong signal at the wrong time."
The district where Microsoft is located is represented by Sen. Luke Esser (R-Bellevue) who said he was going to vote against the bill anyway. But, he said, having the largest employer in his district come out neutral on the issue "strengthened the case for the no vote I was already going to cast."

Earlier this week two other conservative Christian groups announced they were ending a boycott of another giant corporation that had been called over the firm's support of gay issues.

The American Family Association and Focus on the Family claimed to have brought Proctor & Gamble to its knees. The boycott began when the Cincinnati-based P&G announced its support for the repeal of a city Charter amendment that barred passage of any gay-positive legislation.
The two groups also were angered at the consumer products firms commercial support for TV shows such as ill & Grace and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.

posted by Anthony # 10:03 AM

by Ben Thompson 365Gay.com Ottawa Bureau
Posted: April 23, 2005 12:01 am ET

(Ottawa) Canada's largest LGBT civil rights group Friday was preparing for a battle over same-sex marriage in a federal election campaign expected to begin next month.
In a desperate bid to save his minority government Prime Minister Paul Martin apologized to Canadians Thursday for a scandal that has riveted the country with new revelations of graft and corruption almost daily.

In a speech likened to Richard Nixon's 1952 'Checkers Speech' a contrite Martin begged for time to allow the inquiry into the sponsorship scandal to complete its work.

"I commit to you tonight that I will call a general election within 30 days of the publication of the commission's final report and recommendations,'' Martin said in the first national TV address by a Prime Minister in a decade.

The report is not due out until fall, and Canada's opposition parties Friday were chomping at the bit.

A motion of non confidence in the government was filed Friday. The first possible date it could come to a vote in the Commons is May 18. The motion is an amendment to a routine finance committee paper. If it passes, the government will fall.

If that occurs the same-sex marriage legislation will die, and Canadians will go to the polls - likely in mid to late June.

Same-sex marriage is already legal in 7 of Canada's 10 provinces and one of the three territories. The legalization before Parliament would extend that to the rest of Canada.
"I think that given where marriage legislation is a later election would be ideal but I'm not holding my breath," Egale executive director Gilles Marchildon told 365Gay.com
"We're gearing up for a June election."

Public opinion polls show the Liberals' popularity has dropped to an all time low and if an election were held today the opposition Conservatives would win easily.

Earlier this month Conservative leader Stephen Harper, speaking at a rally of some 15,000 evangelical Christians, Catholics and Muslims on Parliament Hill, vowed that if his party is elected to govern he would would abolish same-sex marriage - even in those provinces where courts have declared it legal.

The next day, two leading constitutional law experts said that the only way Harper could achieve that would be by using the so-called 'notwithstanding clause' - a section of the Constitution which allows governments to opt out of sections of the document and must be renewed every five years.

With the clock in the Peace Tower high above Parliament Hill ticking down the days of the Liberal government, a final push is being made to get the marriage bill through Parliament.
A final vote in the Commons may be moved up ahead of the confidence motion but the measure still needs the approval of the Senate which, under ideal conditions, could be done in about a week after the Commons acts. But, most observers believe it would be impossible to get the legislation through in time.

posted by Anthony # 10:01 AM

April 21, 2005

By REUTERS
Filed at 6:06 p.m. ET
MADRID (Reuters) - Spain's parliament gave initial approval to a law legalizing gay marriage on Thursday in a move likely to rekindle conflict with a Catholic Church that has just elected a new conservative pope.

A packed public gallery erupted in cheers and applause as the speaker announced approval of the Socialist government's proposal, making Spain the third European country to legalize gay marriage.

``It's unfair to be a second-class citizen because of love,'' Socialist legislator Carmen Monton said. ``Spain joins the vanguard of those defending full equality for gays and lesbians.''

The proposal, part of a raft of liberal social legislation by the government, has outraged Spain's Catholic church and is unlikely to please Pope Benedict XVI, elected on Tuesday.

The Pope, formerly the Vatican's top doctrinal guardian, has said same-sex unions are destroying the concept of marriage and eroding Europe's social identity.

The bill, passed by 183-136, still needs Senate approval and a final reading in the lower house, but it is widely expected to become law.

However, Spain's top judicial authority has said in a non-binding ruling that gay marriage is unconstitutional, which could encourage a legal challenge.

Only the conservative opposition Popular Party and a Christian democrat party from Catalonia opposed the bill.

Popular Party spokesman Eduardo Zaplana said his party favored equal rights and gay unions for homosexuals. ``But it's quite another thing that an ancient institution like marriage, that is fundamental for the organization of society, has to be exactly the same (for homosexuals),'' he said.

STREET CELEBRATION

Dozens of activists gathered outside congress to celebrate.

``It's an indescribable emotion,'' Antonio Poveda, an activist for gay rights group Lambda, said. ``I'm going to get married for the sake of activism, for love, and for a question of dignity.''
Spain's bishops said in a statement after the vote that legalising gay marriage was ``damaging to the common good'' and threatened social order.

Gaspar Llamazares, leader of the small United Left coalition, said it was a boon for Spain.
``This is ... an important advance in what we might call the laicism of our country,'' he told Reuters.

The bill gives same-sex unions the same status as heterosexual ones, including inheritance rights, pensions and the adoption of children.making divorce quicker and easier and allowing divorced parents to share children's custody.

Senior churchmen have criticized Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero's liberal agenda, which also includes easing abortion restrictions and permitting stem cell research, but the moves are popular among young Spaniards, fewer than a fifth of whom are practising Catholics.
Zapatero, who insists relations with the church are good, said on Thursday he would respect Pope Benedict's views.

``If the new pope says something, I'm prepared to respect what he says,'' he told a news conference.

During the 1939 to 1975 Catholic dictatorship of Francisco Franco divorce, homosexuality and abortion were illegal. But since Franco's death the country has adopted some of the most liberal views in Europe and a survey last year showed 70 percent of the country supported gay marriage.

Former Pope John Paul warned Spanish bishops in January that an increasingly secular-minded Spain was moving toward ``restriction of religious freedom and even promoting disdain or ignorance of religion.''

posted by Anthony # 7:50 AM

by Malcolm Thornberry 365Gay.com European Bureau Chief
Posted: April 21, 2005 11:02 am ET

(Madrid) Spain's lower house on Thursday passed legislation to legalize same-sex marriage.
The bill to allow gay marriage was relatively short, saying that "Matrimony shall have the same requisites and effects regardless of whether the persons involved are of the same or different sex''.. It also allows gays to adopt children.

The measure passed with 183 votes in favor, 136 against and six abstentions. It now goes to the Senate where Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero's Socialists have ample support.
The Senate will vote in the coming weeks and the first same-sex marriages could begin this summer.

Zapatero announced he would bring in the legislation shortly after his Socialist party's stunning win at the polls last year.

It was immediately condemned by the Catholic Church and Zapatero was summoned to Rome for a lecture by Pope John Paul. Nevertheless, Zapatero and his government refused to bow under the pressure.

In an opinion poll on the issue carried out by the government-run Centre for Sociological Investigations last June, 66 per cent of Spaniards favoured legalizing gay marriage, while 26 per cent were opposed.

Homosexuality was banned during Franco's 1939-1975 dictatorship. Spain's liberal 1978 constitution outlawed sexual discrimination and homosexuality was decriminalized shortly afterwards.

Same-sex marriage is legal in Holland and Belgium. Most other European Union countries have some provision for recognizing those in committed same-sex relationships. In December Britain will open its registry for Civil Unions.

In North America most of Canada has legalized same-sex marriage and a bill to expand that throughout the country is currently before Parliament. Massachusetts is the only US state to legalize same-sex marriage, although Civil Unions are legal in Vermont and Connecticut, and several other states including California have domestic partner registries.

posted by Anthony # 7:48 AM

by The Associated Press
Posted: April 21, 2005 8:02 am ET

(Stanford, California) Gay rights leader Evan Wolfson criticized conservative groups for their intolerance toward same-sex marriage in a rare, face-to-face debate between leaders on opposite sides of the issue.Wolfson, the executive director of Freedom to Marry, debated the Rev. Lou Sheldon, the chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, in an event Wednesday night at Stanford Law School.

Wolfson said people pushing for a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage are "using government as a weapon to impose their religious view on others."

Sheldon countered by appealing to common sense and the will of the majority in defending his position that marriage should be reserved for relationships between a man and a woman.
"Normal people who are in a good relationship in their marriage, who have children, and who are experiencing the union of that marriage in a number of ways, just shake their heads and say, 'How is this possible?"' Sheldon said of the push for gay marriage. "Those of us who are heterosexual realize that there is not a prejudice, it's just something that doesn't set right."

Sheldon faced laughter and jeers from an audience composed mainly of students who tended to agree with Wolfson that gay marriage is a civil rights issue. Sheldon said afterward that Wolfson "was constantly trying to demonize me, and he used all the right buzzwords to play to the audience."

Sheldon cited polls showing the majority of Californians and of all Americans oppose same-sex marriage. In 2000, 61 percent of Californians voted to approve Proposition 22, which said the state could only recognize marriages between a man and a woman.

Arguing that homosexuality is not a genetic trait, Sheldon said gays do not qualify for the legal protections of minority groups and called for "activist judges" to refrain from interfering with the democratic process.

But Wolfson cast the gay marriage issue as an inextricable element of the broader civil rights struggle, noting that public opinion was also against interracial marriage when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down restrictions on it in 1967.

"Our country is stronger because the courts, and ultimately the rest of us, had the courage to face up to the need to change the way we were treating people in our midst," he said.

In the case of gay marriage, he said, "The courts are increasingly finding there's no good reason for that discrimination."

Arguments about whether the plight of gays can be fairly compared to that of blacks in the 1960s figured prominently in the debate, which comes two weeks after the California Chapter of the NAACP endorsed a bill to legalize gay marriage in the state.

Sheldon warned that if gay marriage is legalized, it will "undermine society's most vital and basic institution, the family."

"The institution includes men, women and children and it is the children that suffer, for there is no substitute for the role of a father, and there is no substitute for the role of a mother."
Wolfson responded that what's best for a child is a stable, loving, two-parent family, not necessarily a mother and a father.

posted by Anthony # 7:46 AM

by Paul Johnson 365Gay.com Washington Bureau Chief
Posted: April 21, 2005 5:01 pm ET

(Washington) Republicans in Congress have issued a veiled threat to DC mayor Anthony Williams that if his administration recognizes same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts or Canada the District could face a battle over funding.

Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) issued the warning after D.C. Attorney General Robert J. Spagnoletti issued a legal yesterday that legally married gay couples could file joint city tax returns.

The legal opinion carried the caveat that the final decision would be up to the D.C. Office of Tax and Revenue which is semi-autonomous.

Brownback is the new chair of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on the District and a co-sponsor of the Federal Marriage Amendment.

"I was hopeful we weren't going to be confronting this issue. But it appears there will need to be a review and a discussion," Brownback told the Washington Post.

The District's $8 billion budget requires annual approval by Congress.

Williams told the Post that the D.C government "will have a decision soon" but declined to say whether the District would recognize same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts or Canada.

He told the paper that while he supports same-sex marriage, "My personal opinion and what I do as a matter of the public policy of the District sometimes may be aligned and sometimes may be different."

The District, which has a higher percentage of same-sex couples living together than any U.S. city after San Francisco, according to census figures.

posted by Anthony # 7:45 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: April 21, 2005 7:30 pm ET

(Nashville, Tennessee) A proposed amendment to prevent same-sex couples from marrying in Tennessee is headed to court.

The Tennessee Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on Thursday charging that the state failed to meet notification requirements as outlined in the state constitution.

"The drafters of our state constitution put in place very specific safeguards to protect the constitution from being amended at the whim of politicians," said Hedy Weinberg, Executive Director of the ACLU of Tennessee.

"Unfortunately, in their haste to write discrimination into the law, the sponsors of this amendment are attempting to undermine the democratic principles guaranteed by the Constitution. It is shameful that the politicians who are so eager to prevent gay people from securing the protections of marriage have so little respect for our state constitution that they are willing to ignore these procedural safeguards."

The ACLU filed the lawsuit on behalf of ACLU members, the Tennessee Equality Project - a statewide lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender lobbying organization, State Representatives Larry Turner, Beverly Robison Marrero and Tommie Brown, as well as a number of private citizens.

"When we took office, we swore that we would uphold the Tennessee Constitution, said Brown. "The Tennessee Constitution is what keeps us honest. When we no longer follow the rules, democracy is sacrificed."

The proposed amendment passed its final hurdle in the legislature last week. Unless it is struck down by the court it will appear on the ballot.

posted by Anthony # 7:44 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: April 21, 2005 7:30 pm ET

(Olympia, Washington) A bill to protect LGBT civil rights that was all but dead and then given new life was defeated Thursday in the Washington legislature.

The legislation, which gays had fought for for 30 years would have prohibited discrimination in jobs, housing and insurance.

The measure was defeated in the Senate by a single vote - 25 to 24.

Sen. Jim Hargrove, a Democrat, said he opposed the measure for religious reasons.

"I believe adultery is wrong; I believe sex outside marriage is wrong; I believe homosexuality is wrong," he said. "I cannot give government protection to this behavior."

Earlier this month Republicans, aided by two conservative Democrats, derailed the bill, using a procedural vote to send it to the Senate Judiciary Committee where it was destined to die.
Thursday morning, Senate Democrats, using another procedural maneuver, pulled it out of committee and scheduled it for a debate by the full Senate.

Republicans then attempted to get a bill on a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage out of committee and onto the floor for a vote but were blocked by Democrats.

The state already has a Defense of Marriage Act that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. That law is being challenged in the state Supreme Court.

The House approved the gay rights legislation last month, and supporters of the bill say they will reintroduce it in the next session.

Similar bills have been introduced in the Legislature for nearly three decades years and died.
Gov. Christine Gregoire said she was disappointed the measure failed.

"I remain committed to ending discrimination and I urge all my fellow citizens to do all we can, individually and as a community, to make Washington a safe and welcoming place for all people to live and work," she said in a statement.

posted by Anthony # 7:43 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: April 21, 2005 9:01 pm ET

(St. Paul, Minnesota) Senate Majority Leader Dean Johnson said Thursday that the Senate won't vote this year on a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.
Earlier this month the House voted 77-56 to put a gay marriage ban before voters next year.

The bill would ask voters to amend the state constitution to define marriage exclusively as a union between a man and a woman.

Supporters of the constitutional amendment said it would prevent courts from allowing same-sex marriages, even though state law already prohibits them.

Minnesota's so-called "Defense of Marriage Act'' requiring marriages to be between members of the opposite sex and prevents the state from recognizing same-sex unions granted by other states.

Johnson made his remark following a rally Wednesday by thousands of supporters of the amendment.

The demonstration at the Capitol was organized by Minnesota for Marriage, a coalition of conservative groups, and featured a speech by Gov. Tim Pawlenty denouncing same-sex marriage.

posted by Anthony # 7:42 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: April 20, 2005 5:01 pm ETUpdated 6:34 pm ET

(Hartford, Connecticut) Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell wasted no time Wednesday signing a bill creating civil unions in the state less than an hour after it passed its final hurdle in the legislature.

The bill gives same-sex couples many of the rights of marriage.

The House voted 85-63 last week after a clause was added defining marriage as being between one man and one woman. The addition of the marriage clause had been set by Rell as a requirement before she would agree to sign it.

The Senate version of the bill sailed through that body on a 27-9 vote a week earlier but without the marriage definition.

Today, the Senate approved the inclusion of the definition to the cheers of supporters in the public gallery."The vote we cast today will reverberate around the country and it will send a wave of hope to many people, to thousands of people across the country," said Sen. Andrew McDonald, co-chairman of the legislature's Judiciary Committee, and one of a few openly gay state lawmakers.

Love Makes a Family, a gay rights organization that wanted legislators pass a gay marriage bill, called civil unions an important step toward protecting the rights of same-sex couples. But Anne Stanback, the group's executive director, said the fight is not over.

"As important as the rights are, this is not yet equality," she said.

"Connecticut’s legislature has recognized the existence and reality of same-sex families, and has stepped up to the plate to provide those families with much-needed protections,” said Mary L. Bonauto, director of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders Civil Rights Project.

“They have not chosen the simplest, fairest way to provide those protections – marriage – but we look forward to the time when Connecticut’s same-sex couples will be able to legally wed.”
Massachusetts is the only state which allows same-sex marriage. Connecticut now becomes the second state to legalize civil unions after Vermont.

Last week Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski said he would press that state's legislature to approve a civil unions bill this year to give same-sex couples some of the rights bestowed on married couples.

posted by Anthony # 6:47 AM

by Beth Shapiro 365Gay.com New York Bureau
Posted: April 20, 2005 5:01 pm ET

(New York City) A retired teacher and his husband are suing the Uniondale Union Free School District on Long Island for refusing to provide them with health benefits.

Duke Funderburke, 72, worked as a teacher at the Uniondale Union Free School District in Nassau County for over 20 years before retiring in 1986. He married his partner of 42 years, Brad Davis, 67, in October 2004 in a ceremony in Canada.

When Funderburke requested that his retirement health benefits be extended to his spouse, just as benefits are extended to other married retirees, the school district refused.

The couple is basing its suit on a legal opinion issued last year by Attorney General Elliot Spitzer that gay marriages performed in areas where they are legal must be recognized in New York State.

"New York law is clear that when couples get validly married somewhere else, their marriages are recognized in New York," said Alphonso David, Staff Attorney at Lambda Legal who is handling the case.

"It doesn't matter that same-sex couples can't get married in New York right now - if they were married legally somewhere else, the law says they're legally married here."

The lawsuit argues that the school district violated its contractual, statutory and regulatory obligations, as well as common law and the state constitution, in refusing spousal coverage to Funderburke and Davis.

"The law is clear in this area, but we keep hearing from couples like Duke and Brad who are being denied critical health coverage even though they're legally married," David said.

"These couples are constantly having to prove that they're married and argue about state law with their employers. With this lawsuit, we're seeking a definitive court ruling that should keep state government entities from questioning the validity of these couples' marriages once and for all."

The New York State Retirement System already recognizes the marriages of same-sex couples married in Massachusetts or Canada. In April, New York City announced it would recognize gay marriages in all city services.

posted by Anthony # 6:46 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: April 20, 2005 2:05 pm ET

(Austin, Texas) A Texas lawmaker has revived a bill to ban gays and lesbians from serving as foster parents - tacking it onto a child welfare bill and pushing it through a vote in the House.
The House approved the amendment to the Child Protective Services reform bill by on 81 - 58 vote. The bill without the amendment has already passed the Senate.

Rep. Robert Talton (R-Pasadena) has been working to ban gay foster parents for the past two years.

"I don't think it is right for young children to be exposed to this type of behavior when they are young and innocent," Talton said.

"It is our responsibility to make sure that we protect our most vulnerable children and I don't think we are doing that if we allow a foster parent that is homosexual or bisexual."

The amendment requires the Texas Department of Child Protective Services add a question to its forms for prospective foster parents inquiring whether the person is gay.

If the person answered yes they would be automatically disqualified.

The legislation also requires the state to remove foster children already placed in the homes of gays or lesbians.

The legislation now returns to the Senate for consideration of the amendment.
Talton filed two anti-gay foster care measures during the 2003 session. Both bills died in committee.

“During the last legislative session, when Texas representatives had the opportunity to hear testimony from real Texas families about the impact of these measures, they chose not to move them forward,” said Corri Planck, a spokesperson for the Family Pride Coalition.

“Rep. Talton’s last-ditch effort to push through an amendment that only brings harm to Texas children and families is cowardly, hateful and should be denied by the Senate.”

The measure also is opposed by the Texas Department of Child Protective Services which says that if Talton's bills become law it will be hard to place many of the children in its care.
Geoff Wool, TDPRS spokesperson, said studies and experience dictate that moving children from a stable placement has a direct impact on their well-being.

posted by Anthony # 6:46 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: April 20, 2005 2:05 pm ET

(Madison Wisconsin) The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit today against the state of Wisconsin on behalf of six lesbian employees and their partners seeking domestic partner health insurance and family leave protections. "I worked as many hours and just as hard as my straight colleagues and coworkers. I shouldn't be denied the ability to provide my family with health insurance solely because my partner of 29 years is another woman," said Virginia Wolf, a minister and retired English professor at the University of Wisconsin - Stout. Married employees of the state of Wisconsin are permitted to include their spouses and children on the state insurance plan. The lawsuit filed today charges that Wisconsin's policy violates the state constitution's equal protection guarantees to block lesbian and gay employees, who are barred from marrying in the state, from access to the same coverage for their families. "This is a matter of basic fairness - of whether gay and lesbian employees should receive less compensation than their straight employees for doing the same work," said Larry Dupuis of the ACLU of Wisconsin, who noted that along with actual salary, health insurance is an important portion of how employees are compensated.

Diane Schermann, who works for the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, is a plaintiff in the case with her partner, Michelle Collins. Because they can't afford an individual health insurance policy for Collins, she doesn't have a regular physician, exacerbating health problems she suffers from a back injury."

Instead of seeing one primary care doctor, Michelle has to rely on a patchwork of free clinic visits, worker's compensation coverage, and emergency care visits," Schermann said. "It is difficult to watch my partner live with physical pain, and it makes it more difficult to know that the only thing preventing me from covering her is the fact that we're lesbians."

The lawsuit also seeks equal access to family leave protections provided by the state. Eloise McPike works for the Department of Corrections at a jail in Milwaukee. When her partner of 20 years, Janice Barnett, was severely injured in an out-of-state car accident several years ago, McPike wasn't allowed to leave to be with her as any other state employee would have been able to do. Instead, she had to submit a formal vacation request and then wait and worry for five days, hundreds of miles away, for it to be approved before she could be by Barnett's side. Although Social Security covered some of Barnett's medical care, the couple now has to spend $260 per month on private insurance and prescription drugs because Barnett's injuries only allow her to work part time and she doesn't qualify for insurance.

Jody Helgeland, a research specialist at the University of Wisconsin - Madison, and Jessie Tanner celebrated their 10th anniversary in December. The couple can't afford private insurance for Tanner, who suffers from severe asthma and allergies. Her medications, which total over $600 per month, would only cost $75 per month if she were covered under the university health plan. Once, Tanner had an asthma attack so acute that Helgeland had to take her to an urgent care facility that charged $105 per visit. At these prices, the couple can't afford to return for follow-up visits or buy Tanner's medications every month.

Today's lawsuit comes as governments, universities, companies and other employers increasingly extend benefits to employees' domestic partners. The University of Wisconsin is now the only Big Ten university that does not offer domestic partner benefits, the ACLU said."

Lesbian and gay Wisconsin state employees have been struggling for well over a decade to obtain fairness in health insurance benefits," said Christopher Ott, Executive Director of Action Wisconsin, the state's lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender advocacy organization. "After years of our community running into bureaucratic and legislative roadblocks, these couples are hoping that the courts will put an end to needless financial and medical struggles for them and other state employees. This lawsuit is about the real harms caused to real families by unequal treatment."

posted by Anthony # 6:44 AM

by The Associated Press
Posted: April 20, 2005 11:01 am ET

(Washington) Legally married gay couples in the District of Columbia can now file joint city tax returns.

That opinion comes from D.C. Attorney General Robert J. Spagnoletti. He issued the ruling, with the provision that the D.C. Office of Tax and Revenue "reserves the authority" to reject their filings.

Married same-sex couples can't file joint federal income tax returns because of a 1996 law defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

A 1995 court ruling prohibits gay marriages from being performed in the District. But Spangoletti's decision renews the debate over whether the city should legally recognize gay marriages performed in other states.

Spangoletti's ruling was in response to a request by the filing of Edward Horvath and Richard Neidich, D.C. residents and federal workers who say they have been a couple for 25 years. They say they were married last summer in Massachusetts.

A spokesman for Mayor Tony Williams says the mayor is reviewing the legal filing with city lawyers.

posted by Anthony # 6:43 AM

by The Associated Press
Posted: April 20, 2005 8:02 pm ET

(St. Paul, Minnesota) Several thousand supporters of a constitutional ban on gay marriage rallied Wednesday at the Capitol, saying all they want is a chance to vote on the issue."

Marriage between a man and a woman is the foundation of our society," Gov. Tim Pawlenty told the cheering crowd.

Supporters of the constitutional ban directed much of their ire at the DFL-controlled Senate, which for the last two years has denied floor votes on the issue even as it's passed twice in the Republican-controlled House.

The ban, which would prohibit any legal recognition of gay relationships, including civil unions, would put the question to voters in 2006.

State law already defines marriage as between a man and a woman; the measure would enshrine that definition in the state constitution, with supporters saying too many bans in other states have been struck down by judges."

We need to make sure that doesn't happen in Minnesota," Pawlenty said.The crowd was close in size to a rally held two weeks ago by opponents of the ban. Capitol security officials didn't provide official estimates of either crowd because the issue is so politically charged.

A small group of counter-protesters stood quietly to the side of the rally. Chris Benjamin, a 17-year-old high school student from St. Michael, said he's withstood harassment and discrimination because he's gay, and feared the ban would make it worse."

I thought the Pledge of Allegiance said 'liberty and justice for all,"' Benjamin said. "I didn't see any parentheses that said, 'except for homosexuals."

'It was clear that convictions ran deep. One speaker drew comparisons to another controversial social topic, to cheers from the crowd."

Our bodies are vessels to do as God commands," said Rabbi Moshe Feller, director of the Upper Midwest Lubavitch Movement, an Orthodox Jewish group. "

We are trustees, not owners of our bodies -- much as Terri Schiavo. She belongs to God, not her husband."

Bill Harley, a clinical psychologist, told the crowd that moves to extend marriage rights to gays is the next step in a gradual weakening of the institution itself that started with no-fault divorce laws and the de-criminalization of adultery."

I don't think this issue is about gay and lesbian civil rights," Harley said.

"It's about children and the best way to raise them."

posted by Anthony # 6:41 AM

by Jan Prout 365Gay.com Toronto Bureau
Posted: April 21, 2005 12:01 am ET

(Toronto, Ontario) The Mounties always get their man - in this case two men.
A Royal Canadian Mounted Police honor guard, usually reserved for heads of state, will accompany a gay married couple from Toronto to Philadelphia this summer.

Kevin Bourassa and Joe Varnell will be honored at a GLBT civil rights event in Philadelphia on Sunday, May 1.

Bourassa and Varnell were the first gay couple to be legally married in North America.
Two RCMP officers will accompany them to symbolize Canada's commitment to same-sex couples.

The trip will be a far cry from one Bourassa and Varnell attempted to make shortly after their marriage in 2003. The couple was turned back by US Customs and Immigration officers when they attempted to board a flight from Toronto to Georgia.

US Customs and Immigration pre-check people traveling to the US at most major Canadian airports. They couple was rejected after filling out a form identifying themselves as a family.
Bourassa and Varnell were traveling to Braselton, Georgia to speak at a human rights conference.

Their appearance in Philadelphia is part of the 40th anniversary celebration of the GLBT civil rights movement Equality Forum.

"Kevin and Joe are Canadian heroes," said Malcolm Lazin, Executive Director of Equality Forum. "They symbolize Canadian family values and respect for individual liberty."

Bourassa and Varnell will receive the 40 Heroes Award in front of Independence Hall and the Liberty Bell, the site where the first US gay and lesbian rights demonstration took place on July 4, 1965.

"Kevin and Joe's successful battle for legal recognition of their marriage propelled marriage equality in Canada and across North America," said Lazin.

Also being honored is former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien. Chretien will receive the International Role Model Award. Following the Ontario court ruling that allowed Bourassa and Varnell to marry Chretien said the federal government would bring in legislation to allow same-sex marriage across Canada.

The bill is currently before Parliament with a scheduled vote next month. Ironically though alleged political wrongdoing by some in the former Chretien Liberal government could topple the current Liberal administration before the vote occurs.

Other recipients of the 40 Heroes Award include Bishop Gene Robinson, Congressman Barney Frank, Ellen DeGeneres, Melissa Etheridge, and Martina Navratilova.

posted by Anthony # 6:40 AM

April 20, 2005

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 5:07 a.m. ET
Bells rang out the news at Roman Catholic churches nationwide, heralding the election of the first new pope in 26 years. People on their lunch breaks and students in classes paused to watch the pontiff emerge onto his Vatican balcony.

Priests at midday Masses offered special prayers Tuesday for Joseph Ratzinger, the 78-year-old German cardinal who had just become Benedict XVI. The Chicago Tribune offered a rare extra edition for a city visited three times by Pope John Paul II.

Barbara Pomarico, an office manager in New Haven, Conn., listened to the pope on a radio during her lunch hour at the Knights of Columbus museum, which is featuring an exhibit on the life of John Paul II.

''I'm surprised, because of his age,'' she said. ''But he had been the closest to the late pope, and his thinking was obviously similar.''

Not everyone was pleased. Many rank-and-file American Catholics -- as well as gay-rights advocates, womens-rights activists, and groups representing victims of abuse by priests -- were disappointed at the selection of an unabashed conservative.

''I would have preferred a more moderate choice,'' said Barbara Bowen, 56, a self-described ''lapsed Catholic'' from New York who was visiting Los Angeles and hurried over to the downtown Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels when its bells began ringing.

''I was personally looking for someone who would approve the ordination of women -- that would be nice and progressive,'' Bowen said.

There was no disappointment in evidence at the Daughters of the Holy Spirit convent in Putnam, Conn., even though lunch was interrupted.

''They came running down the hall to our dining room and said, 'There's white smoke! We think it's white smoke!''' Sister Paula-Jean Despathy said after she and other nuns had watched the announcement of Ratzinger's election on television.

''He has a very kind face,'' Sister Diane Gillis said. ''He's a very educated man and they think he'll do great things for the church.''

There was similar elation at Benedictine College, where a student in professor Ted Sri's theology class raised his hand and reported receiving a text message from a friend about the new pope. At that, class was dismissed; students gathered outside, waving Vatican flags.

''There was complete uproar when we heard the name,'' Sri said. ''We were very thrilled.''
When news surfaced that a choice had been made, teachers at Seton Catholic High School in Chandler, Ariz., were advised to turn on TV sets in class.

''I was excited. I wanted to know more,'' said Michelle Sheydayi, 16, a Seton student who said she was familiar with Ratzinger. ''I heard he was a conservative and I was a lot happier about that because I was afraid he would be progressive. I'm concerned about issues like gay marriage and birth control.''

At Saint Anselm College in Goffstown, N.H., junior Michael Clements, 21, a theology major, said he was ecstatic to learn of Ratzinger's election.

''A nice loud cheer went up when they announced we had a pope,'' Clements said.

''I think he'll be very similar to Pope John Paul in his doctrine and faith,'' Clements said of Ratzinger. ''He was the pope's right-hand man during his papacy, so I expect him to have the same flair and agenda.''

In Denver, shortly after white smoke rose from the chimney in the Vatican, state Sen. Paula Sandoval came to the podium on the floor of the chamber and announced ''habemus papam'' -- Latin for ''We have a pope.''

In Cleveland, John Sesek, 50, was riding his bicycle to work when he heard the church bells.
''Part of me hoped for an election of a pope from the Third World because of the needs of the poor and to unite the First and Third worlds,'' he said.

Though disappointed, he said he understood the election outcome: ''I know that Ratzinger is an intelligent and very conservative theologian.''

posted by Anthony # 7:41 AM

by Paul Johnson 365Gay.com Washington Bureau Chief
Posted: April 19, 2005 5:01 pm ET

(Washington) A new Gallup Poll shows that over the past year support for an amendment to the US Constitution to ban same-sex marriage has steadily grown with 57 percent of the electorate now favoring the move.

The poll, taken between March 18 and 20, shows that only 37 percent are opposed to an amendment.

Last July when the question was asked by Gallup pollsters the public was more evenly divided with 48 percent in favor of an amendment and 46 percent against. But, in November, voters in 11 states passed amendments to their constitutions banning gay marriage.

The new poll also shows a greater polarization along party lines. 71 percent of Republicans want a federal amendment while support among Democrats is at 45 percent, and 51 percent of independents would approve an amendment.

"Our nation is continuing to witness something that has not happened since our constitution was first ratified in 1791 - essentially a national referendum inviting the public to vote to deprive a small minority of Americans of rights that the majority takes for granted and sees as fundamental," said Matt Foreman, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force executive director.
Last week the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution began hearings on a new attempt to get the amendment through Congress.

The amendment was introduced in the Senate in January by Colorado Republican Sen. Wayne Allard. It 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.

posted by Anthony # 7:40 AM

by Malcolm Thornberry 365Gay.com European Bureau Chief
Posted: April 19, 2005 12:57 pm ETUpdated: 1:15 pm ET, 2:27 pm ET, 4:32 pm ET

(Vatican City) Joseph Ratzinger one of the most conservative Cardinals in the Catholic Church was elected Pope on Tuesday.

Ratzinger was John Paul's deputy for theology as head of the powerful Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The Congregation was the same organization responsible for the Spanish Inquisition.

The election of the 78-year old Ratzinger is seen as a desire by cardinals to have a caretaker pope.

Cardinals had faced a choice over whether to seek an older, skilled administrator to serve in this role while the church absorbs John Paul's legacy, or a younger dynamic pastor and communicator - perhaps from Latin America or elsewhere in the developing world where the church is growing.

Cardinal Ratzinger was the author of the a 2003 Vatican directive to priests around the world calling for a proactive stand to stop governments from legalizing same-sex marriage and for a repeal of those those already on the books that give rights, including adoption, to gay couples.

The 12 page document called on Catholic bishops and lawmakers to oppose the legalization of same-sex unions.

Ratzinger opposes contraception and the use of condoms to combat HIV/AIDS. He advocates a diminished role for women in the Church and has called for mandatory celibacy for priests.A nun who was ordered by Ratzinger to stop ministering to gays and lesbians called his election to pope "devastating" for those who believe the Catholic Church needs to be more tolerant on social issues such as homosexuality.

Sister Jeannine Gramick said the choice of Ratzinger, who as the Vatican's guardian of doctrine silenced her and Father Robert Nugent in a 1999 order, will likely prevent the church from "moving into the 21st century and out of the Middle Ages."

"It does not bode well for people who are concerned for lesbian and gay people in the church," she said.

Gramick was a co-founder of New Ways Ministry in 1977 to provide educational programs for gay and lesbian Catholics nationwide.

She is no longer associated with the group, but its executive director, Francis DeBernardo, said Ratzinger "is the lightening rod for anger at the church by gay and lesbian people."

"Today, the princes of the Roman Catholic Church elected as Pope a man whose record has been one of unrelenting, venomous hatred for gay people," said National Gay and Lesbian Task Force executive director Matt Foreman.

"As a long-time Catholic from a staunchly Catholic family, I know that the history of the church is full of shameful, centuries-long chapters involving vilification, persecution, and violence against others. Someday, the church will apologize to gay people as it has to others it has oppressed in the past. I very much doubt that this day will come during this Pope's reign. In fact, it seems inevitable that this Pope will cause even more pain and give his successors even more for which to seek atonement."

Chiming bells and white smoke from a chimney atop the Sistine Chapel announced Ratzinger's election. Tens of thousands of people on St. Peter's Square erupted in cheers and applause.
Ratzinger will take the name Pope Benedict XVI.

Going into the conclave he was the favorite but the speed at which he was chosen took even Vatican Radio by surprise, and it is only the third time in a century that a pope had been chosen on the second day of a conclave.

Ratzinger was born in Marktl Am Inn, Germany but his father, a policeman, frequently moved the family.

In his memoirs, Ratzinger wrote that he was enrolled in the Nazi youth movement against his will when he was 14 in 1941, when membership was compulsory. He said he was soon let out because of his studies for the priesthood.

An accomplished pianist who loves Mozart, Ratzinger is said to have enjoyed playing the piano as a seminarian.

Two years later he was drafted into a Nazi anti-aircraft unit as a helper, a common task for teenage boys too young to be soldiers. A year later he was released, only to be sent to the Austrian-Hungarian border to construct tank barriers.

He deserted the Germany army in May 1945. When he arrived home, U.S. soldiers took him prisoner and held him in a POW camp for several weeks. Upon his release, he re-entered the seminary.

posted by Anthony # 7:39 AM

by Peter Moore 365Gay.com London Bureau
Posted: April 19, 2005 11:01 am ET

(London) A lesbian is hoping to make British history by becoming the first in the UK to give birth to her partner's baby.

"We want a baby that has truly come from both of us," said Hayley Marlow, 29.

She and partner Vicky Hill, 22, have applied to the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority to have an egg from Hill impregnated through in vitro fertilization and then have the egg planted in Marlow's womb.

The HFE which oversees IVF procedures says there is no law prevented it. The procedure has been done in other countries, including the US, but has never before been done in Britain.
The couple already has met with Hill's doctor to discuss the plan and the women say they hope to have the IVF and the transplant done at the John Radcliffe Hospital in their hometown of Oxford.

But, even if the procedure is successful there will remain some legal hurdles. Under British law the baby would belong to the birth mother, not the one who supplies the egg.

The HFE said that the only way the women could become equal parents would be if the mother who gave birth were to renounce her claim to the baby and then they could adopt it.

Marlow and Hill have been together for just over a year. Marlow already has a five-year-old daughter from a previous heterosexual relationship.

News of the couple's plan has angered religious conservatives.

“Children should not be used as guinea pigs to serve the interests of adults. Nobody has the right to a child. They are gifts - and their welfare and rights must come before the parents,” said Martin Foley of Life an anti-abortion group

posted by Anthony # 7:38 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: April 19, 2005 9:01 pm ET

(Kalamazoo, Michigan) The war over how broad Michigan's constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage extends shows no sign of abating with the city of Kalamazoo the latest to say it will end domestic partner benefits at the end of the year unless a court rules they are legal.
Last month, Michigan's Republican Attorney General, Mike Cox, said local governments and government entities cannot provide benefits for same-sex partners in future contracts because of the amendment which was passed by voters last November.

Cox said his opinion is binding although he conceded that the issue ultimately will be decided by the courts.

Kalamazoo City Manager Pat DiGiovanni said this week that in response to the state attorney general's opinion he will reluctantly end taxpayer-funded benefits. City Commissioners, meanwhile, have authorized going to court for a ruling on the constitutionality of its same-sex domestic partner benefits.

"Whether or not I agree with the attorney general is irrelevant," DiGiovanni said, reading from a prepared statement at the City Commission meeting.

"The highest law enforcement official in the state has rendered an opinion on our policy," he said.

Last week Michigan's appeals court dismissed a lawsuit challenging a school board's same-sex partner benefits plan. But the ruling was based on a technicality and the issue is expected to go to the state Supreme Court.

Among the other public employers in Michigan that offer same-sex benefits include the University of Michigan, Michigan State University.

posted by Anthony # 7:37 AM

April 19, 2005
EDITORIAL OBSERVER
New York Times
By ADAM COHEN
ot since the 1960's, when federal judges in the South were threatened by cross burnings and firebombs, have judges been so besieged. Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, set off a furor when he said judges could be inviting physical attacks with controversial decisions. And last week the House majority leader, Tom DeLay, called for an investigation of the federal judges in the Terri Schiavo case, saying ominously: "We set up the courts. We can unset the courts."

Conservatives claim that they are rising up against "activist judges," who decide cases based on their personal beliefs rather than the law. They frequently point to Justice Antonin Scalia as a model of honest, "strict constructionist" judging. And Justice Scalia has eagerly embraced the hero's role. Last month, after the Supreme Court struck down the death penalty for those under 18, he lashed out at his colleagues for using the idea of a "living Constitution" that evolves over time to hand down political decisions - something he says he would never do.

The idea that liberal judges are advocates and partisans while judges like Justice Scalia are not is being touted everywhere these days, and it is pure myth. Justice Scalia has been more than willing to ignore the Constitution's plain language, and he has a knack for coming out on the conservative side in cases with an ideological bent. The conservative partisans leading the war on activist judges are just as inconsistent: they like judicial activism just fine when it advances their own agendas.

Justice Scalia's views on federalism - which now generally command a majority on the Supreme Court - are perhaps the clearest example of the problem with the conservative attack on judicial activism. When conservatives complain about activist judges, they talk about gay marriage and defendants' rights. But they do not mention the 11th Amendment, which has been twisted beyond its own plain words into a states' rights weapon to throw minorities, women and the disabled out of federal court.

The 11th Amendment says federal courts cannot hear lawsuits against a state brought by "Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." But it's been interpreted to block suits by a state's own citizens - something it clearly does not say. How to get around the Constitution's express words? In a 1991 decision, Justice Scalia wrote that "despite the narrowness of its terms," the 11th Amendment has been understood by the court "to stand not so much for what it says, but for the presupposition of our constitutional structure which it confirms." If another judge used that rationale to find rights in the Constitution - in this case, rights for states - Justice Scalia's reaction would be withering. He went on, in that 1991 decision, to throw out a suit by Indian tribes who said they had been cheated by the State of Alaska.

Conservative politicians insist that courts should defer to the democratically elected branches, but conservative judges do not seem to be listening. The Supreme Court's conservative majority regularly overturns laws passed by Congress, like the Violence Against Women Act and the Gun-Free School Zones Act. The court has even established a bizarre series of hoops Congress must jump through to pass a law protecting Americans' 14th Amendment equal-protection rights. Congress must prove in many cases that the law it passed is "congruent" and "proportional" to the harm being addressed. Even John Noonan Jr., an appeals court judge appointed by President Reagan, has said these new rules - which Justice Scalia eagerly embraces - reduce Congress to the level of an "administrative agency."

Justice Scalia likes to boast that he follows his strict-constructionist philosophy wherever it leads, even if it leads to results he disagrees with. But it is uncanny how often it leads him just where he already wanted to go. In his view, the 14th Amendment prohibits Michigan from using affirmative action in college admissions, but lets Texas make gay sex a crime. (The Supreme Court has held just the opposite.) He is dismissive when inmates invoke the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment to challenge prison conditions. But he is supportive when wealthy people try to expand the "takings clause" to block the government from regulating their property.

The inconsistency of the conservative war on judges was apparent in the Terri Schiavo ordeal. Mr. DeLay, an outspoken critic of activist courts, does not want to investigate the federal trial judge and the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit for judicial activism, but for the opposite: for refusing to overturn the Florida state courts' legal decisions, and Michael Schiavo's decisions about his wife's medical care.

The classic example of conservative inconsistency remains Bush v. Gore. Not only did the court's conservative bloc trample on the Florida state courts and stop the vote counting - it declared its ruling would not be a precedent for future cases. How does Justice Scalia explain that decision? In a recent New Yorker profile, he is quoted as saying, with startling candor, that "the only issue was whether we should put an end to it, after three weeks of looking like a fool in the eyes of the world." That, of course, isn't a constitutional argument - it is an unapologetic defense of judicial activism.

When it comes to judicial activism, conservative judges are no better than liberal ones - and, it must be said, no worse. If conservatives are going to continue their war on the judiciary, though, they should be honest. They do not want to get rid of judicial activists, a standard that would bring down even Justice Scalia. They want to rid the courts of judges who disagree with them.

posted by Anthony # 6:59 AM

by Matt Johns 365Gay.com Los Angeles Bureau
Posted: April 18, 2005 5:01 pm ET

(Los Angeles, California) California Democrats have wrapped up their annual convention with a resolution supporting same-sex marriage.

"The California Democratic Party is now a leading partner in statewide efforts to ensure that all California families enjoy the legal protections that they deserve," said Eric Stern, National Stonewall Democrats Executive Director who addressed the convention.

The resolution calls for civil marriage to be extended to same-sex couples. It passed unanimously and as the vote was being taken many delegates displayed signs that read "AB 19" in support of an assembly bill that would extend civil marriage to same-sex couples. The legislation was recently introduced by Assemblyman Mark Leno, an openly-gay Democrat from San Francisco.

The vote makes California the fourth state Democratic party to officially call for marriage equality. The Democratic parties of Massachusetts, New York and Washington State have all expressed support for marriage equality, either by resolution or through a state party platform.
The Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, authored by Leno, is expected to pass through the Assembly Judiciary Committee on April 26.

The legislation would allow gays and lesbians to marry while protecting the rights of churches opposed to same-sex marriage to refuse to perform the weddings.

It also has the support of the NAACP.

Meanwhile, a legal case that involves the right of same-sex couples in California to marry is heading slowly to the State Supreme Court. Last month a San San Francisco judge ruled that state laws preventing gay marriage are illegal.

Democrats leaving the convention also expressed optimism of taking back the governorship. Attorney General Bill Lockyer, state Treasurer Phil Angelides and state Controller Steve Westly have all expressed interest in running for the party's nomination to try to oust Gov. Schwarzenegger.

On Friday, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean told a gay audience in Los Angeles that congressional Republicans who he accused of "grandstanding" in the Terri Schiavo case, would have it used against them in coming elections.

posted by Anthony # 6:58 AM

by Malcolm Thornberry 365Gay.com European Bureau Chief
Posted: April 18, 2005 9:01 pm ET

(Dublin) The Irish government has announced it will fight a suit brought by a lesbian couple married in Canada who want to have their marriage recognized.

Ann Louise Gilligan and Katherine Zappone were married in British Columbia in September 2003 within months of the legalization of same-sex marriage there.

The couple is demanding that Ireland's tax collection agency, the Revenue Commissioners, allow them to file as a married couple rather than as two single people, which involves paying more tax.

Last November a judge ruled that their suit could go forward. High Court Justice Liam McKechnie said lawyers representing Gilligan and Zappone had presented an arguable case that merited a full hearing.

McKechnie said the case "isn't simply about tax bands.'' He noted that in a country where homosexuality itself was outlawed until 1993, any move to accord gay couples the same legal rights as husbands and wives would have "profound ethical, cultural and religious'' ramifications.
The case is expected to be heard by the court later this year.

Gilligan and Zappone are the first gay couple in Ireland to go to court to seek state recognition of a foreign marriage.

The case is also a legal first for Europe, where Belgium and the Netherlands already allow same-sex marriages and several other nations grant gay and lesbian couples similar tax, inheritance and child-rearing rights as husbands and wives have. Britain and Spain plan to follow suit soon.
Legal observers say the Irish women's case, if successful here, could inspire similar lawsuits in the most conservative quarters of Europe, where same-sex couples are denied the rights of married heterosexual couples.

The decision by the government to fight the suit was criticized by Ireland's Green Party.
Ciaran Cuffe, the justice critic for the party, called the decision shameful.

“I believe that this will cost the Government and the Irish taxpayers more in the long run if the case is defended,” he said.

“The Government should grant this couple the same rights as other married couples under Irish tax laws. The Government must realize that the world has changed and they must modify our laws accordingly,” he said.

posted by Anthony # 6:57 AM

by Paul Johnson 365Gay.com Washington Bureau Chief
Posted: April 18, 2005 9:01 pm ET

(Washington) An investigation by Education Department's inspector general has castigated the department for hiring conservative commentator Armstrong Williams to promote No Child Left Behind.

The inspector general said Senior Bush administration officials showed poor judgment and wasted money in hiring Williams and noted that two Education Department officials had warned the White House last summer over concerns about the Williams contract.

Williams was paid nearly a quarter million dollars by the White House to promote the President's agenda in his columns and nationally syndicated talk show.

Williams is a former aide to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and has a long history of using his columns to attack 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.

"It's not about trying to dictate to adults what they should do in the privacy of their own homes. Let's be clear about that. Opposition to the gay marriage amendment isn't about disallowing homosexuals the same basic rights we extend to everyone else. It is about recognizing that marriage between man and woman is the bedrock of our society. It is about the citizens of this country saying, en masse, that they are unwilling to deconstruct certain basic and essential norms in our culture and society."

Following the exposure of Williams as a shill for the Bush Administration another instance where a conservative columnist was paid came to light.

Maggie Gallagher who testified before the Senate in support of a constitutional ban on gay marriage was paid 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.

Two days later a third case of payola was exposed.

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 the administrations marriage initiative. He was paid approximately $10,000 for his work.

The questionable use of the media further grew in February when a man accredited by the White House as a journalist turned out to be a former hustler with no journalistic experience.

The man who had called himself Jeff Gannon and worked for the conservative Web publication Talon News and GOPUSA turned out be J.D. Guckert.

During news conferences he was regularly called on for questions by President Bush. But, invariably Gannon's questions would show an extreme right-wing and often anti-gay agenda. On one occasion he asked Bush how he could work with Senate Democratic leaders “who seem to have divorced themselves from reality.”

J.D. Guckert also ran Web sites where he offered himself for sex

posted by Anthony # 6:55 AM

LOCAL NEWS class
New York Blade Online

Many claim Finkelstein reeks with hypocrisy

By JAMES WITHERS Apr. 15, 2005

What was a small private ceremony has turned into a political football. The New York Times reported on Sunday, April 9, that Republican consultant Arthur J. Finkelstein married his partner of 40 years.

The wedding took place in Finkelstein’s home in Massachusetts last December. It was a civil ceremony, presided over by a gay state official, whose name was not released.

“I believe that visitation rights, health care benefits and other human relationship contracts that are taken for granted by all married people should be available to partners,” Finkelstein told the paper.

Finkelstein is a major GOP consultant who has worked on the campaigns of Governor George Pataki, former New York Senator Alfonse D’Amato and Jesse Helms the ex-senator from North Carolina. Democratic operatives were quick to take Finkelstein to task for getting married while working for Republican candidates who don’t support gay marriage.

“I am amazed that Mr. Finkelstein can work and help some of the most homophobic politicians in America such as Jesse Helm, and then be “reclusive” and have his personal life off limits,” said Melissa Sklarz, president of the Gay and Lesbian Independent Democrats, in an email. “What does the rest of the LGBT community do about civil rights that doesn’t have the wealth or access to power that a hypocrite such as Mr. Finkelstein enjoys.”

Dirk McCall, president of Stonewall Democratic Club of New York City, offered the same assessment mixed with congratulations for the union.

“It is wonderful he has fond a partner, but this just highlights the hypocrisy,” McCall said. “This is wrong on so many levels. Why doesn’t he work for candidates who believe in that? He shouldn’t be working for Mitt Romney. It is massive cognitive dissonance,” said McCall about Finkelstein’s work for the governor of Massachusetts, who has actively opposed marriage there.
What has surprised many — and caused a media firestorm — were the comments from former President Bill Clinton. In a press conference to announce his foundation’s AIDS initiative, he questioned Finkelstein’s self worth as a gay man. “Either this guy believes his party is not serious and he’s totally Machiavellian, or he may be blinded by self-loathing,” Clinton said. Clinton was responding to the rumor that Finkelstein is preparing a major offensive to block Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s 2006 reelection bid.

Quoting GOP sources, the Times reported that Finkelstein is apparently attempting to line up donors to form a new political action committee, called Stop Her Now. Finkelstein reportedly hopes to raise $10 million to finance an independent campaign against the junior senator from New York.

“I think Clinton is right to call him on it,” McCall said. “Finkelstein really needs to figure out what he thinks.”

In an April 12 article in the New York Sun, Christopher Barron, national spokesperson for the Log Cabin Republicans, wondered, however, what right Clinton had to question Finkelstein — or any other gay or lesbian, political operative or otherwise. “What is sad here is that President Clinton, the same president who signed the Defense of Marriage Act, implemented the military’s discriminatory ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy, and encouraged John Kerry to support antigay state constitutional amendments, thinks he has any credibility passing judgment on the life of Arthur Finkelstein or any other gay and lesbian American,” Barron said.

Blogger Andrew Sullivan criticized Clinton and Finkelstein’s purported effort against his wife. “The term ‘self-loathing’ implies that you can know what is deep in the heart and soul of another person,” Sullivan told the Blade. “But we cannot. Criticism of Finkelstein seems to me to be perfectly legitimate and even, in some cases, justified. I loathe this politics of personal destruction, for example ‘Stop Her Now.’ But I think you’re more effective if you criticize someone’s public arguments rather than their private integrity — which is unknowable. I’d have thought Clinton of all people would understand that.”

Christopher Taylor president of the New York City chapter of the Log Cabin Republicans, did express wariness about Finkelstein’s work for Helms, a particularly vociferous opponent of gay rights and AIDS funding. “As a general rule, I don’t think someone’s personal lives should be a matter of political debate unless it indicates gross hypocrisy,” Taylor said. “I’m not comfortable with someone who supports Jesse Helms, but to my knowledge Finkelstein has never himself engaged in homophobic speech. Therefore, I think its best to just wish him well, as I would do to anyone fortunate enough to find his life-partner.”

Democratic Party Consultant Ethan Geto thinks the marriage will be a benefit for those making the case for same sex unions.

“God bless Arthur Finkelstein and his marriage,” Geto said. “Mr. Finkelstein’s marriage sends a message to the many conservatives who admire him that his life as a gay man is worthy of respect and a welcoming community. The fact that he aided some anti-gay rights candidates is a blemish on Mr. Finkelstein, but his marriage to another man is a political plus for us. Most right-wing homosexuals stay in the closet; anytime anyone comes out by getting married is a pro-equality statement on its face. When a right-wing political operative does it, it’s bound to make some conservatives reexamine their reflexive, irrational bigotry.”

“Our official statement is just to say congratulations,” said Ian Au of Marriage Equality New York. “This just proves that marriage equality is not a partisan issue. Whether you are a Republican or Democrat, it effects everybody. We ask our members to send Finkelstein a letter of congratulations. Let’s congratulate him and let him know he can be an agent of change.”

Anthony M. Brown, educational outreach director of the Wedding Party, said Finkelstein “has literally turned his back on the community.” Even so, he offered an olive branch. “We have to reach out to him at this point and have him participate in the marriage conversation,” Brown said. “If we can stand behind him and, in essence, forgive him in the part he has played in preventing our community from moving forward, we can have an incredible opportunity to reach out to some who are from his point of view. The key for this whole thing is for Finkelstein to step up to the plate. What will he do next?”

posted by Anthony # 8:09 PM

April 18, 2005
New York Times
By JENNIFER MEDINA
Six dissident priests have agreed to meet with the Episcopal bishop of Connecticut tonight to try to settle the growing schism over the diocese's support for gay marriage and its elevation of a gay priest to bishop.

Last week, Bishop Andrew D. Smith of Connecticut threatened to suspend or defrock the priests if they did not reconcile with the diocese. Although representatives from both sides said yesterday that they would enter this evening's meeting with an open mind, the wide division remained clear.

"We will find a way to move forward," said Karin Hamilton, a spokeswoman for the Connecticut Diocese. "Having a wide range of views is part of who we are as a church." However, she added, "Taking action is not off the table."

The Rev. Christopher Leighton, the priest at St. Paul's Church in Darien, Conn., said he would feel more optimistic if Bishop Smith had removed the threat of defrocking him and the other five priests.

"It's as if you're strapped to the electric chair, and the executioner's hand is on the button," Father Leighton said. "But he's saying: 'Not today, but it might be tomorrow.' "

In 2003, Bishop Smith voted in favor of elevating the Rev. V. Gene Robinson to become the church's first gay bishop, prompting a revolt from the six priests and their congregations. Like other Episcopal parishes angry about the gay bishop, six Connecticut congregations have not given their regular contribution, 12.5 percent of their revenue, to the diocese and have rejected the authority of Bishop Smith.

Late last month, Bishop Smith notified the priests that a diocesan committee had found them to have "abandoned the communion" of the church, and that they could be suspended or possibly defrocked.

A Massachusetts bishop, Gordon P. Scruton, is to help mediate at tonight's meeting. Bishop Scruton was one of two bishops who abstained from the vote to elevate Bishop Robinson, who presides in New Hampshire.

"We're just going to listen," Father Leighton said. "You want to be positive, but I'm watchful. I just think there are really serious issues that have to be dealt with." He said that the liberal branch of the Episcopal Church was promoting values that the majority of the congregations opposed.

Yesterday, priests from Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia shared the task of visiting the six congregations, offering words of encouragement and support.
At St. Paul's in Darien, the Rev. Mary Hays, the assistant to the bishop in Pittsburgh, told worshipers that they should remain upbeat in their efforts, Father Leighton said.

Father Leighton said that the congregations had received hundreds of letters and phone calls of support, even from Episcopalians who believed the church should support increasing gay rights. Several members of churches in New York and parts of New England drove to the Connecticut parishes Sunday in a show of support, he said.

Ms. Hamilton, the spokeswoman, said the rift was weighing heavily on Bishop Smith's mind, and repeated an earlier statement that he "very much cared for" the welfare of the six congregations.

Bishop Smith had offered to appoint an alternate bishop for the parishes, but the priests said they did not want him to choose who would serve in that post.

Father Leighton said yesterday that Bishop Smith's offer was an inadequate response to the disagreement.

"It's as if he's saying he's the dad and he knows what is best for us and we just have to accept it," Father Leighton said. "I don't feel cared for."

In addition to Father Leighton, the other Connecticut priests involved in the conflict are Allyn Benedict of Christ Church Watertown; Mark Hansen of St. John's Church and Donald Helmandollar of Trinity Church in Bristol; Ronald Gauss of Bishop Seabury Church in Groton; and Gilbert Wilkes of Christ and the Epiphany Church in East Haven.

posted by Anthony # 8:33 AM

April 17, 2005

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 10:19 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Majority Republicans are chipping away at Senate Democrats' ability to defeat a change in internal rules involving filibusters -- the Democrats' most potent weapon to block GOP legislation and judicial appointees they oppose.

One Republican who has been undecided on the rule change, Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, said Sunday he is leaning toward supporting changes in filibuster rules ''when push comes to shove.''
''I would not take a stand against my party's view that we should have up-or-down votes on judges and that this is a part of the filibuster thing that really needs to be settled and set aside,'' Lugar told ''Fox News Sunday.''

Lugar said he hopes differences can be settled ''through negotiation.''

A second Republican who has been on the fence, Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, said, ''I've said to both sides, don't include me in your count right now.''

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., is under pressure to force a Senate showdown before Congress breaks on May 27 for its Memorial Day recess.

It now takes 60 votes to shut down a filibuster in the Senate, which has 55 Republicans, 44 Democrats and one independent. That means 41 senators can stall a nominee.

Frist is considering a change whereby a simple majority in the 100-member Senate can end a filibuster. Republicans can get that by mustering 50 GOP votes and bringing in Vice President Dick Cheney as the tiebreaker.

About a half-dozen GOP senators either have said they oppose or have refused to support changing the rules.

Democrats blocked confirmation on 10 of the president's first-term judicial nominees while confirming 204. The president has renominated seven of the 10, and Democrats have again threatened to employ filibusters to prevent them from coming to a final vote.
Republicans are stepping up efforts to win over wavering lawmakers. Frist plans to offer a a brief videotaped speech at a rally on April 24 organized by the conservative Family Research Council. A flier for the event says ''the filibuster was once abused to protect racial bias, and now it is being used against people of faith.''

While not criticizing Frist's planned speech to the group, Hagel on CNN's ''Late Edition'' said, ''When we talk religion and government, neither should become an instrument for the other. And I see drifting here in different directions that are, I don't think, healthy for our country.''
Democratic Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware rejected any attempt to link the judge dispute with religious faith. The fight over judges ''has nothing to do with the Bible,'' Biden told ''Fox News Sunday.''

The battle over judicial appointments has focused on court decisions on several issues important to religious conservatives, such as abortion, gay marriage and Terri Schiavo, the brain-damaged woman who died after her feeding tube was removed under court order.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay was a leader in congressional efforts designed to keep Schiavo alive. After her death, he implied that judges in the case should have to ''answer for their behavior.'' He later called that comment ''inartful.''

The Texas Republican faces several reports of possible ethical violations that have prompted complaints from many Democrats and a few Republicans.

Republicans on the Sunday talk shows closed ranks with DeLay. Rep. Roy Blunt, the Missouri lawmaker who serves as House GOP whip, said on NBC's ''Meet the Press:'' ''I would hope he has no intention of stepping aside.''

Last week, White House spokesman Scott McClellan indicated support for DeLay, but indiated that the president and DeLay were more business associates than close personal friends.

That response was noticed by Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi, the former Senate majority leader who got little backing from Bush after some comments during a birthday celebration for the late Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., that critics interpreted as racist. The fallout cost Lott his job as Senate majority leader.

''I do think the White House needs to remember that people who fight hard for you as a candidate and for your issues as a president, deserve your aggressive support,'' Lott told ABC's ''This Week.''

posted by Anthony # 8:32 AM

by Peter Hacker 365Gay.com Sydney, Australia Bureau
Posted: April 18, 2005 12:01 am ET

(Sydney, Australia) The surviving partner of one of South Australia's most progressive politicians is battling to get Don Dunstan's pension.

Dunstan (pictured) dominated South Australian politics in the 1970s. During his time in office the emerged as one of the most progressive in Australia. Drinking laws were liberalized, legislation was passed cracking down on race and gender-based discrimination, and homosexual acts between consenting adults were decriminalized.

He died in 1999 leaving behind his partner of 13 years Steven Cheng.

Cheng, once a successful chef today lives a meager existence in the home the two men shared. If he is successful he would get Dunstan's $107,000 (Au) annual pension.

He first filed a claim for a spousal pension in 1999. At the time it was passed off because the state did not recognize same-sex couples. But, in 2003 the law was changed and provisions were made for gay relationships.

The new law said anyone who lived with their partner for a continuous period of more than five years, is considered to be their spouse.

Cheng again filed for Dunstan's pension, but the case has been met with opposition and now a bill before the state Parliament would nullify any claims made before 2003.

"I am trying to pay my bills, maintain the house . . . it's not easy," Cheng told Adelaide's Sunday Mail newspaper.

"It had all happened so fast. Just four months after he was diagnosed with lung cancer he died."
Cheng said he believes the bill before Parliament is aimed directly at him.

"It looks like it's aimed at me. I can't think of anyone else who is in the situation of being a same-sex partner of a deceased politician" Cheng told the paper.

posted by Anthony # 8:30 AM

by Dean Beeby, Canadian Press
Posted: April 18, 2005 12:01 am ET

(Ottawa) Statistics Canada has revamped its questionnaire for the 2006 census to include same-sex marriages, reflecting the country's controversial legal shift in recognizing gay and lesbian weddings.

The agency has added ``same-sex married spouse'' to the list of suggested answers to a question about relationships on the new census form, which was approved by cabinet last month and made public Friday.

The last census in 2001 referred only to common-law same-sex relationships, before legal challenges in several provinces helped topple the traditional definition of marriage. Since then, an estimated 3,000 same-sex couples have legally tied the knot in seven provinces.

Agency spokesman Doug Norris said the move merely accommodates a new legal reality in most of Canada since the previous count four years ago.

``At the time (of the 2001 census), there were no married same-sex partners, and with that happening in the intervening period, we've added it,'' he said.

``And so we'll be able to use that information to actually derive the number of same-sex partners now.''

The Commons has yet to pass a controversial bill acknowledging such marriages, even though the courts have removed restrictions. A vote to send the legislation to committee _ possibly for public hearings _ is expected next week.

Statisticians are reluctant to make major changes in census questions in order to allow direct comparisons with previous surveys.

The only other major change is a new education question that asks in what province, territory or country a person received his or her highest degree, certificate or diploma.

Norris says the agency was asked to include the question to better understand whether immigrants are being allowed to put formal education received in another country to use in Canada.

Medical degrees from some countries are not recognized in Canada, for example, forcing skilled doctors to drive taxis.

``This was certainly the highest priority for new information needs'' among the provinces and hundreds of others consulted about required changes to the form, Norris, director-general of social and demographic statistics, said in an interview.

The census, set for May 16 next year, also has new measures to help ensure privacy. Some rural residents objected to the 2001 census, in which their answers to detailed personal questions were examined by enumerators who were often neighbors.

For the first time, most census forms _ about 70 per cent of more than 13 million being distributed _ are being mailed to households rather than handed out by enumerators, and Canadians can mail them back to central processing centers.

Also for the first time, Canadians can respond on the Internet rather than on paper, using a password provided by Statistics Canada.

One in five households will receive a long form with many detailed questions, while the rest will complete a shorter, more basic form. The law compels everyone to participate.

By using Canada Post and the Internet, the agency will need only about 30,000 enumerators across the country, down from 45,000 in the 2001 census.

Paper forms for the first time will be scanned to digitally convert the information into computer-readable form. The new scanning system is being provided under a controversial $43.3-million deal with Lockheed Martin Canada Inc., the subsidiary of a U.S. weapons manufacturer.

After an outcry in 2003 from New Democrat MPs and others, who complained that personal information might leak back to the United States under the U.S. Patriot Act, Statistics Canada altered the original terms of the deal to ensure that only agency employees will have direct access to the data.

Total cost of the 2006 census is estimated at $567 million, spread over seven years, compared with about $450 million the last time around. Norris says the new equipment and systems drove up costs this time, but will mean savings in future years.

Results from the census are vital to provincial treasuries because equalization payments from Ottawa are directly dependent on population levels. There are an estimated 32.5 million people in the country.

posted by Anthony # 8:29 AM

by The Associated Press
Posted: April 17, 2005 4:02 pm ET

(Washington) Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, who has accused congressional Republicans of "grandstanding" in the Terri Schiavo case, said his party will use it against the GOP in coming elections."This is going to be an issue in 2006, and its going to be an issue in 2008 because we're going to have an ad with a picture of (House Majority Leader) Tom DeLay saying, 'Do you want this guy to decide whether you die or not? Or is that going to be up to your loved ones?"' Dean said in West Hollywood, Calif.

Dean, answering questions at an Access Now for Gay and Lesbian Equality event on Friday, went on to say: "The issue is: Are we going to live in a theocracy where the highest powers tell us what to do? Or are we going to be allowed to consult our own high powers when we make very difficult decisions?"'

Schiavo, 41, died March 31 at a Florida hospice, almost two weeks after her feeding tube was removed by court order - ending a bitter legal battle between her husband, Michael, and her parents, Bob and Mary Schindler.As Schiavo faded, congressional leaders called lawmakers back from Easter recess to pass a bill that would allow federal courts to review the decisions of state judges who turned down her parents' efforts to resume her feeding. Federal judges all the way to the Supreme Court held up those decisions.

Republican National Committee spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt said Dean, a physician who practiced internal medicine, was the one politicizing the issue.

"It's disturbing that Howard Dean would plot to use the life of Terri Schiavo for political gain," Schmitt said Saturday. "This demonstrates a troubling lack of sensitivity and one would hope that Democrat leaders in Congress would reject such a strategy.

"The American people expect their leaders to provide solutions and principled leadership rather than overt partisan politicking."

Karen Finney, Democratic National Committee spokeswoman, defended Dean's comments, saying they were not a reflection of him trying to politicize the issue, but rather he was speaking to "Republican intrusiveness into people's lives."

"This is another example of a Republican party that is overreaching," she said. "Tom Delay and his cronies want to intrude in personal family matters. Democrats believe that individuals and their families should be trusted to make these very personal decisions, not Tom DeLay and not the government.

posted by Anthony # 8:28 AM

by Margo Williams 365Gay.com Boston Bureau
Posted: April 17, 2005 12:01 am ET

(Boston) Students and faculty at Boston College staged a one-day strike Friday to support gay and lesbians on the campus of the Catholic University.

Nearly a thousand people gathered in the center of campus for a rally, many of the students wearing T-shirts that read, "Gay? Fine By Me.''

The college's human rights code does not include sexuality and students have been engaged in a protracted battle with the administration to be more inclusive.

"We are hoping to get sexual orientation to be on equal footing with other forms of discrimination included in the university's non-discrimination clause,'' BC senior Brenna Casey told the Boston Herald.

Last month more than 80 percent of the school's 4,000 undergraduate students voted in favor of a nonbinding referendum calling for including sexual orientation in the college's nondiscrimination code.

Massachusetts requires colleges and universities to adopt a nondiscrimination policy that includes sexual orientation, but religious institutions like Boston College are exempt.

"For too long, Boston College has been labeled as homophobic,'' student Gabriela Suau told the paper. "We want a policy that reflects the welcoming and inclusive attitudes on this campus.''

posted by Anthony # 8:26 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: April 15, 2005 9:02 pm ET

(Des Moines, Iowa) Republicans in the Iowa Senate say they will use "every method that's legal" to block legislation adding sexuality to a law aimed at curbing bullying in schools.

The bill died earlier this month in committee but was resurrected Thursday.

Because the 50 member Senate is tied with 25 Republicans and 25 Democrats each committee has two chairs, and both must sign off on which measures will be debated.

Senate co-President Jeff Lamberti R-Ankeny) said he will use the situation to prevent the bill from coming to the floor for a vote. Republican Senate Leader Stewart Iverson agreed to the move.

State law requires school boards to have a policy on bullying, but the GOP said including sexuality in the policy would "create special rights".

The bill would require public and private schools to add harassment prevention goals to their school improvement plans by Jan. 1, 2006. It specifically identifies intimidation based on age, race, religion, national origin, gender and sexual orientation.

Not all Republicans are in favor of Stonewalling the legislation. Sen. Mary Lundby (R-Marion) said harassment of students is too important to Iowa parents for the bill to die again without further debate.

Democratic Gov. Tom Vilsack condemned the GOP move. Vilsack has been a strong supporter of strict bullying policies. "We're going to continue the effort," Vilsack said in an interview with The Des Moines Register.

posted by Anthony # 10:06 AM

by The Associated Press
Posted: April 15, 2005 9:02 pm ET

(Salem, Oregon) The Oregon Supreme Court's ruling throwing out thousands of gay marriage licenses in Multnomah County could set the stage for a bruising legislative fight over same-sex couples.

Democratic Gov. Ted Kulongoski and a bipartisan group of state senators want a civil unions law for gay and lesbian couples, but there is resistance to the idea in the Republican-controlled House.

One GOP House member said the pressure on lawmakers to act has been lessened because the court, in its Thursday decision, made no attempt to nudge the Legislature toward approving a civil unions law.

"The court did not push the envelope on civil unions. That has created a disincentive for the Legislature to move forward on the issue," said Rep. Jeff Kropf of Sublimity.

Still, Senate Majority Leader Kate Brown, a strong backer of gay rights, said she believes the court "left the door wide open" for lawmakers to take up the civil unions issue.

The Portland Democrat said the Senate Rules Committee, which she heads, will begin hearings in about two weeks on the civil unions bill backed by Kulongoski and a bipartisan group of senators.

"We'll hold hearings and see where the Senate votes are and try to move a bill out," Brown said.
Republican House Speaker Karen Minnis of Wood Village issued a cautiously worded statement saying only that the House would consider the overall issue.

Part of the political equation facing lawmakers is the fact that Oregon voters last fall approved a state constitutional ban on gay marriage.

The gay rights group Basic Rights Oregon argues that most Oregonians nonetheless would support a civil unions law and that lawmakers should act now to offer "critical protections" to Oregon's same-sex couples.

"The Legislature can do in a matter of weeks what might take Oregon courts months or even years to accomplish," said spokeswoman Rebekah Kassell.

But Kropf, the Republican House member, said civil unions "are nothing more than gay marriage in disguise."

"I believe the majority of the House Republican caucus feels the way I do that civil unions would be just a back-door attempt to push a gay marriage agenda," Kropf said.

The coalition that sponsored the constitutional ban on gay marriage said Thursday it opposes Kulongoski's proposed civil unions law but could support a "reciprocal benefits" law patterned after one in Hawaii.

The Hawaii law extends a small number of benefits, such as hospital visitation and health benefits, to homosexual couples and other nontraditional families.

"It gives them the opportunity to enter an agreement with someone else and have benefits, whether they're gay, whether they're lesbian, whether they're two sisters, two brothers, two widows or two widowers," said Tim Nashif of the Defense of Marriage Coalition.

But Kulongoski's spokeswoman, Holly Armstrong, said the governor wants a full civil unions law that would open up to same-sex couples hundreds of benefits only available to married couples.
The Hawaii law "is not the same thing" and a similar law in Oregon wouldn't extend fairness and equal opportunity to same-sex couples in this state, Armstrong said.

posted by Anthony # 10:05 AM

by The Associated Press
Posted: April 15, 2005 9:02 pm ET

(Lebanon, Ohio) A county prosecutor is appealing a judge's ruling that unmarried people cannot be prosecuted for domestic violence because of a new law banning gay marriage.

Warren County Common Pleas Judge Neal Bronson ruled this week that a constitutional amendment approved by voters in November prohibits the extension of domestic violence laws to unmarried couples.

Warren County Prosecutor Rachel Hutzel has appealed the ruling, which was issued in a case against a man charged with beating someone to whom he was not married.

The amendment passed by Ohio voters defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman. It bans legal status such as civil unions to unmarried people. But judges have differed in their interpretation of how that applies to domestic violence charges.

In Cuyahoga County, dozens of cases have been thrown out. In Athens and Columbus, prosecutors have said they won't change the way domestic violence cases are handled. "The purpose of (the amendment) was to prevent gay marriage and civil unions," Hutzel said in a statement. "The purpose of the domestic violence laws are to provide additional protections to victims of violence from relatives or intimate partners. These are different concepts, and there is no reason that both goals should be seen to be in conflict."

In one case, a Cuyahoga County judge cited the amendment in reducing a felony domestic violence charge to a misdemeanor assault charge.

Seventeen states have constitutional language defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Ohio's is regarded as the broadest marriage amendment of those passed by 11 states on Nov. 2 because it bans civil unions and legal status to all unmarried couples and gay marriages.

posted by Anthony # 10:04 AM

by Doreen Brandt 365Gay.com Washington Bureau
Posted: April 15, 2005 7:30 pm ET

(Washington) Like millions of other Americans gay and lesbian couples are filing their income taxes today, but unlike other taxpayers gay families are harder hit and receive fewer benefits.
LGBT rights groups are protesting the inequity in a number of cities.

“We are protesting to raise awareness about the discrimination same-sex couples face by our federal tax laws,” says Kathy Kelly, Equality Georgia who is demonstrating at the Post Office on Pharr Road.

“On tax day, it is particularly difficult for same-sex couples because it is a time when the federal government forces us to enter into a legal fiction of being single - when we are actually longtime together couples. In reality, our lives are completely intertwined—just like any other married couple. We own our homes, bank accounts, and investments together, yet we are forced to divvy all that up as if we are single persons when it comes to income taxes.”

Other protests are being held in Oakland and San Francisco. Marriage Equality California says today above all days shows that gays "pay first class taxes for second class citizenship."

Gay couples who share a home and income are denied the basic rights and benefits given to other taxpayers. They can’t file jointly. If a partner dies, the survivor must pay all estate taxes.
They pay income taxes on their partner’s health insurance. They pay Social Security taxes all of their lives but receive no survivor benefits when their partner dies.

To make matters even more confusing, state taxes vary from state to state. Some states offer some benefits and responsibilities to same-sex couples.

In Massachusetts, the only state where same-sex couples can legally marry, same-sex couples cannot file joint income tax.

The IRS says it is basing its denial of joint filings on Federal DOMA which restricts marriage to opposite-sex couples.

The result has meant chaos for hundreds of Massachusetts families who end up paying more in both federal and state taxes because of the separate filings.

Vermont’s civil union law offers same-sex couples who obtain a civil union the state-level rights and benefits of marriage. California’s domestic partnership law offers most state-level rights and benefits except joint filing of taxes. However, neither Vermont’s civil union law nor California’s domestic partnership law are recognized by any other state or the federal government.
Log Cain Republicans used tax day to call on Congress for income tax reform.

"Lower taxes are fundamental to growing the U.S. economy," said Log Cabin Republicans Political Director Chris Barron.

Log Cabin is calling for passage of the Domestic Partners Health Benefits Equity Act to end the double taxation of domestic partner benefits provided by employers.

Under current federal law, married heterosexual employees do not pay taxes on their employers’ contribution for health insurance benefits, while lesbian and gay employees do. Additionally, because employers must pay payroll taxes on their employees’ taxable incomes, employers who provide these benefits are taxed at a higher rate as well.

The gay Republican group also is calling for the real of the so-called death tax.

posted by Anthony # 10:03 AM

by Mark Worrall 365Gay.com San Francisco Bureau
Posted: April 15, 2005 7:30 pm ET

(San Francisco, California) San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer Friday issued a final decision and judgment in the California marriage equality case.

On March 14th Kramer ruled that gay and lesbian couples in California can marry, and that the state's law against it was unconstitutional.

Today's written ruling confirms his decision of March 14 and sets into motion the appeals process. Kramer stayed his decision pending a final resolution of the case by the appellate courts.

Any party who wishes to appeal the decision to the California Court of Appeal has sixty days to do so.

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer and two legal groups representing religious conservatives already have vowed to appeal.

The case will eventually be decided by the California Supreme Court.

In striking down the state ban on same-sex marriage Kramer wrote that the state's historical definition of marriage, by itself, cannot justify the denial of equal protection for gays and lesbians.

"It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners," said Kramer.

The case was brought by LGBT rights groups and some of the more than 4,000 other couples who married in San Francisco last year after those marriages were invalidated in a state Supreme Court ruling that found San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom acted illegally in granting marriage licenses to them. At the time the court did not rule on the issue of same-sex marriage itself, saying it should work its way up from the lower courts.

Kate Kendell, Executive Director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said she is looking forward to arguing the appeal. NCLR represents Equality California, Our Family Coalition, and twelve same-sex couples, including Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, the first couple to be issued a marriage license in San Francisco in February, 2004.

posted by Anthony # 10:02 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: April 15, 2005 2:04 pm ET

(Lansing Michigan) Michigan's appeals court on Friday dismissed a lawsuit challenging a school board's same-sex partner benefits plan. But, the issue is not likely to end there. The court threw out the case on a technicality without ruling on the issue of the benefits themselves.
Earlier this month a conservative Christian law firm told the court that the Ann Arbor Public School system is in violation of both Michigan's constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and the state's so-called defense of marriage law enacted in 1994.

The Thomas More Law Center, representing 17 taxpayers, asked the court to bar the school district from offering health insurance and retirement benefits to gay couples in future contracts.

The law center which is based in Ann Arbor also is fighting same-sex marriage cases in a number of other states.

"This isn't about health benefits," lawyer Patrick Gillen told a three-judge panel of the court. "It's about recognizing same-sex domestic partnerships."

The school district and its teachers' union urged the court to dismiss the case arguing that that the plaintiffs failed to meet requirements for filing their appeal of a lower court ruling that said they had no standing, or right to sue.

"It makes no sense to seek ways to rob people of this coverage," said Theresa Alderman, an attorney for the Ann Arbor Education Association, adding that Proposal 2 has vague language that should be considered first a lower court.
The court agreed with the union.

In a unanimous opinion released today the three-judge panel ruled the taxpayers didn't do enough to first demand that the district halt its domestic partner policy.

The group had sent letters to school board members asking them to stop the illegal use of public funds, but the court said that wasn't enough.

"Plaintiffs' letters are merely a request that the alleged misappropriation stop; they are not a demand for legal action," the court wrote.

Last month, Michigan's Republican Attorney General, Mike Cox, said local governments and government entities cannot provide benefits for same-sex partners in future contracts because of the amendment which was passed by voters last November.

Cox said his opinion is binding although he conceded that the issue ultimately will be decided by the courts.

Other public employers in Michigan that offer same-sex benefits include the University of Michigan, Michigan State University and others.

posted by Anthony # 10:01 AM

by The Associated Press
Posted: April 15, 2005 8:02 am ET

(San Francisco, California) A city official who officiated at last year's weddings of same-sex couples announced Thursday she was resigning while under investigation for her hiring practices.

San Francisco Assessor-Recorder Mabel Teng cited personal turmoil over a divorce and scrutiny of her management of the office that assesses property and maintains city records.
Teng told Mayor Gavin Newsom that she would remain in office until May 15.

Last fall, the city's Civil Service Commission began investigating whether Teng violated patronage and nepotism rules by allegedly hiring or promoting her campaign workers and contributors.

Last month, the commission issued a report that called into question some of Teng's hiring practices but which reached no conclusions on whether she knowingly acted improperly.
When Newsom ordered city officials to start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on Feb. 12, 2004, Teng and her office were an integral part of the monthlong wedding spree.

She personally officiated at the wedding of the first couple to get married with the city's blessing, and agreed to keep her office open Valentine Day's weekend so as many marriages could be registered as possible before the courts intervened.

Whenever she appeared at rallies attended by large numbers of gay and lesbian residents, she was greeted like a celebrity, with people chanting ``Mabel! Mabel!''

posted by Anthony # 10:01 AM

4/15/05
By DAVID CRARY, AP National Writer
NEW YORK - Roman Catholic gay-rights activists don't expect a new pope to suddenly scrap the church's condemnation of homosexuality, but they do hope — cautiously — for a softening of stern Vatican rhetoric and an acceleration of grass-roots moves in some U.S. parishes to make them feel more welcome.

"We're realists — we're not going to have someone running out of this conclave as pope and all of sudden everything is perfect," said Sam Sinnett, president of the national gay Catholic organization Dignity USA. "We do hope there will be a little more listening, and an end to the virulence of the anti-gay language."

As many Catholics worldwide joined in reverential mourning for Pope John Paul II, Sinnett and other advocates were among a relatively small chorus of dissent. They noted that the pope not only embraced traditional Vatican disapproval of homosexuality, but added what they considered a personal swipe in his last book, "Memory and Identity," in which he suggested that the push to recognize same-sex unions represented an "ideology of evil."

"Those are very harsh words," said Mary Lynn Murphy, a Minneapolis activist whose son is gay. "Not only are our families offended, but we're baffled, because the pope's message is so inconsistent with the lives and the unions of the gay people we know."

Murphy said she considers herself in self-exile from the Catholic Church, attending services only for infrequent special occasions.

"I feel I sell out my son by participating in church rituals when we're still encumbered by official language referring to him as 'intrinsically disordered.'" she said. "I can't embrace that platform."
Murphy is president of the Twin Cities' Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities, an independent group working to increase the acceptance of gays and lesbians within the church. She believes a growing number of U.S. parishes will move in that direction, regardless of whether the Vatican changes its tone.

"In fact, if we get a new pope who is very conservative, it might fuel a move toward moderation among Catholics here," she said.

Another group seeking to increase church acceptance of gays is New Ways Ministry of Mt. Ranier, Md. Its executive director, Francis DeBernardo, said Pope John Paul had outdated views on sexuality.

"The previous papacy viewed homosexuality only in terms of sexual behavior and didn't understand the seriousness of the prejudice gays and lesbians suffer," DeBernardo said. "I'm hopeful a new pope will approach the issue more from a stand of justice and human rights, rather than from a perspective of sexuality."

Change already is occurring, on a limited basis, in the United States. In the past eight years, the number of parishes identified by New Ways Ministry as "gay-friendly" has risen from 20 to more than 120, and many Catholic colleges now have gay-supportive programs, DeBernardo said.

The Rev. Robert Silva, president of the Chicago-based National Federation of Priests' Councils, said activists should not expect changes in doctrine, but he did suggest that a shift in the Vatican's rhetorical tone would be welcome.

"The moral dimension of homosexuality is pretty clear over a 2000-year tradition of Catholic teaching — homosexual acts will never, ever be accepted as moral," Silva said. "But it's important to distinguish between the act and the person. A person who finds discovers himself to be gay is not a bad person. They must always be treated with justice and charity."
The church, Silva added, "needs to be more sensitive to how we say things."

"The old language is very harsh, when it talks about homosexuality as intrinsically evil," he said. "We don't change the teaching, but we could change the way we express it."

But to activists, a change in language is insufficient.

"We now know without a doubt that homosexuality is a natural variation of human sexuality, but the Vatican is not there yet," Sinnett said. "The church's teachings ... are arrested in a juvenile stage."

None of the leading contenders to succeed John Paul has diverged publicly from his strict teachings on gay-related issues, though some have spoken more harshly than others. Nigerian Cardinal Francis Arinze, for example, provoked protests when — in a 2003 speech in Washington — he lumped homosexuality together with pornography.

Several cardinals are from countries where politicians have recognized same-sex unions, or are considering doing so. Such initiatives are occurring even in some heavily Catholic jurisdictions — civil unions are permitted in Argentina's capital, Buenos Aires; Spain's Socialist government plans to legalize gay marriage; and a federal prosecutor in Brazil — the largest Catholic country — wants courts there to perform gay marriages.

posted by Anthony # 5:28 PM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: April 14, 2005 11:01 am ET

(St. Paul, Minnesota) Minnesota state Sen. Paul Koering publicly came out on Wednesday and already is facing the scorn of his fellow Republicans.

Last week, he was the only Republican to join all the Senate's Democrats in opposing an effort to force a floor vote on a proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage in Minnesota.

Since then, the 40 year old first-term senator says he has faced increasing questions from constituents about his sexuality, although there had been mounting speculation at the state Capitol and on Web sites for several weeks.

Koering announced he is gay in an interview with the Brainerd Dispatch.

"I've always felt like my personal life is just that - personal," Koering told the newspaper. "I don't feel like I ever lied to anyone. I never deceived anyone."

In a separate interview with the Star Tribune, Koering said that he is already out to his family, close friends and associates, and that his Republican colleagues in the Senate all know he's gay.
"My decision to come out publicly allows me to answer all the questions that need to be answered ... I'm hoping to put all this behind me by the end of the week and resume doing the job that my district is paying me for," Koering said.

Although he opposes the amendment to ban same-sex marriage he said that the question should go to voters. This week's Senate vote, he said, was in opposition to the way the GOP tried to bypass the Senate's committee process.

Koerng is believed to be the first Republican to hold elected office in Minnesota to publicly come out.

Koering said he plans to run for re-election in 2006, but some Republican Party leaders say he may not get his party's nomination. That has led to speculation that Koering could switch to the Democratic Party. Koering, however, says he still considers himself a moderate Republican.
Former Minnesota Senate President Allan Spear, a Minneapolis Democrat who in 1974 became one of the first openly gay elected officials in the nation, said he thinks Koering's new status will subtly affect how things are discussed.

"It means they will have somebody in their own [Senate GOP] caucus to confront," Spear told the Star Tribune. "Him sitting there is going to affect what they say and how they say it. It creates a different kind of dynamic."

posted by Anthony # 8:34 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: April 14, 2005 11:36 am ET Updated 11:58 am ET, 1:14 pm ET

(Salem, Oregon) The Oregon Supreme Court on Thursday nullified the marriages of some 3,000 same-sex couples who were wed last year.
The marriages were performed last March in Multnomah County.

The court said while the county can question the constitutionality of laws governing marriage, they are a matter of statewide concern so the county had no authority to issue licenses to gay couples.

The legal case began when the state refused to register the marriages. Circuit Judge Frank Bearden said in an April 20, 2004 ruling that the state was acting illegally in refusing to register the marriages.

The suit finally was appealed to the state Supreme Court. But, the issue of future gay marriage in Oregon became moot last November when voters approved a constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage.

The suit was quickly amended to call for legal protections for same-sex couples without the issue of marriage to be considered by the high court. But, the court skirted the issue of recognizing same-sex relationships in any form other than marriage saying that the original case only concerned marriage.

"At trial, plaintiffs did not seek access to the benefits of marriage apart from, or as an alternative to, marriage itself," the ruling said.

"We were disappointed by the Oregon Supreme Court's decision today putting off a decision on the underlying issue of fairness for same-sex couples and invalidating the 3,000 marriages that took place last year," said a joint statement from the ACLU and Basic Rights Oregon which represented the gay and lesbian couples in the suit.

"While we had hoped that the court would address whether it is fair for the state to continue to deny same-sex couples and their families the protections of marriage, the decision is not surprising considering the fact that a constitutional amendment was passed that created procedural disputes in the lawsuit."

Calling it an incredibly sad day for fairness and equality in Oregon the Human Rights Campaign said the fight will continue.

"Struggles to end inequality do not succeed overnight," said HRC President Joe Solmonese. "This is the latest chapter in a long movement, and we feel confident that Oregon courts will eventually put an end to the exclusion of committed same-sex couples from the protections and responsibilities that other Oregonians depend on."

Members of the legislature had hoped the court would take up the issue of benefits and civil unions.

Nevertheless, despite the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, and today's ruling that supports it, civil unions such as those in Vermont and under consideration in Connecticut, could be available to gay and lesbian couples in Oregon.

Wednesday, Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski announced he will press the legislature to approve a civil unions bill this year to give same-sex couples some of the rights bestowed on married couples.

Kulongoski, a Democrat, told reporters that he is working with a bipartisan group of senators on a bill that combines a proposed civil unions law with a bill already before the legislature to extend basic civil rights to gays and lesbians.

posted by Anthony # 8:32 AM

by The Associated Press
Posted: April 14, 2005 3:02 pm ET

(Columbia, South Carolina) The South Carolina Senate has approved its version of a constitutional amendment that would bar recognition of same-sex marriages with a 36-1 vote.The lone dissenting vote among the Senate's 46 members came from Sen. Robert Ford, D-Charleston. However, several other legislators seated in the Senate chamber simply did not vote as their names were called.

Ford had been in charge of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee that discussed the constitutional amendment and similar legislation.

"We have one of the strongest bans on gay marriage in the country," Ford said.That ban, however, is in the statute. Supporters of the constitutional amendment say a single judge's ruling could trump that law and open the state to recognizing same-sex unions from other states.

Ford said the legislation unfairly targets hundreds of thousands of people who spend billions in the state each year. But "people decided they needed an easy target to pick on. At one time it was African-Americans," Ford said. "That's what we're doing today is picking on the gay community.

"We are not brutes, we are not bullies. We can be higher than that."
Ford did not persuade anyone to go along with him.

"It's common sense and we shouldn't even be up here debating something like this," said Sen. Jake Knotts, R-West Columbia, who served on Ford's subcommittee.

Sen. Larry Martin, R-Pickens, said he had had calls and e-mails from people asking him not to ban gay marriages. "You can't ban something that's not permitted," Martin said. He said the constitutional amendment was needed to uphold long-standing public policy defining marriage.
Several legislators said they were sympathetic to Ford, but that they nonetheless would vote to support the constitutional amendment.

Others did not vote for the amendment, including Sen. Darrell Jackson, D-Hopkins and a pastor.
"We can't legislate to anyone any moral decisions. ... You can't mandate people to subscribe to whatever moral, religious views that we hold," Jackson said. "That's why in the religious community they call it winning converts, not forcing converts."

Sen. Chip Campsen, R-Charleston, said the legislation needed to be changed from what the House approved 96-17 on March 1 to avoid unintended interference with the ability of people to enter contracts.

It now says a "marriage between one man and one woman is the only lawful domestic union that shall be valid or recognized in this State."

Senate Judiciary Chairman Glenn McConnell, R-Charleston, said the change would help avoid a multitude of unintended problems. For instance, companies that want to extend health care benefits to same-sex couple could have been barred from doing so, he said.

But the change also could slow the legislation. The House could agree to those changes with a two-thirds vote or insist on its version of the legislation.

If it does the latter, the bill likely would head to a conference committee where differences would be worked out.

If that happens, voters would decide in November 2006 whether to amend the Constitution.

posted by Anthony # 8:31 AM

by Paul Johnson 365Gay.com Washington Bureau Chief
Posted: April 14, 2005 5:01 pm ET

(Washington) House majority leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) wants the the House Judiciary Committee to examine recent rulings by what he calls "activist judges". He specifically called for the committee to probe rulings that were favorable to same-sex marriage and decisions in the Terri Schiavo.

While stressing that he supports an "independent judiciary" DeLay said Congress had the constitutional right to oversee the judicial branch.

"We would be shirking our constitutional obligations if we did not look at these issues as they come up," he said.

A spokesperson for House Judiciary Committee chair, Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisonsin) said Sensenbrenner had not decided whether to take up the issue.

But, conservative religious groups have pressuring Republicans to act. Following the Shiavo case that pressure has intensified.

Last month De Lay claimed that judges had "thumbed their nose at Congress and the president" by not reinserting a feeding tube to the severely brain-damaged Florida woman. He added: "The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior."

This week, after a number of Republicans, including President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, distanced themselves from the comments DeLay apologized for the statement while still pressing for an investigation into "judicial activism."

Democrats accuse DeLay of grandstanding and attempting to draw attention away from ethics issues that have surrounded him.

DeLay has been a constant critic of the Massachusetts Supreme Court which ruled it a violation of the state constitution to deny gays the right to marry.

He is also a key supporter of the Federal Marriage Amendment to ban same-sex marriage. After the FMA failed in Congress last year DeLay vowed the issue would be resurrected.

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

posted by Anthony # 8:29 AM

by Peter Hacker 365Gay.com Sydney, Australia Bureau
Posted: April 14, 2005 9:01 pm ET

(Hobart, Australia) The Tasmanian government has rejected a move by the Greens Party to introduce a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in the state.

The Greens said earlier this week they believed they had found a loophole in the national government's law that forbids same-sex marriage .

The sited a report by a New South Wales university professor who said that the law passed last year failed to mention the possibility of gay marriages under state laws.

"And, because it's possible for both the Commonwealth and the state to pass laws on that topic, unless there's any inconsistency, there's some room left for state laws dealing with same-sex marriage," Professor George Williams told Australian radio on Monday.

The opposition Greens immediately announced they would introduce a bill to legalize gay marriage in Tasmania.

Deputy Premier David Llewellyn accused the Greens of a political stunt.
"You are attempting to utilize what you think is a loophole in the federal legislation to make a point in this particular Parliament," he told the state parliament.

One Labor Party member, however, said that his party is divided on the issue. Labor backbencher David Bartlett indicated he hoped same-sex marriage legislation would eventually get through parliament.

The federal parliament last year passed a law defining marriage as between a man and a woman. It also bars the recognition of same-sex marriages performed outside the country in areas such as Canada where gay marriage is legal in most areas.

posted by Anthony # 8:28 AM

April 14, 2005
New York Times
By SARAH KERSHAW
regon's highest court ruled today that 3,000 same-sex marriages held a year ago in one county were null and void, saying that the county had overstepped its authority and that the marriage licenses it had issued were unconstitutional under Oregon law.

The Oregon Supreme Court opinion drew heavily on a vote by Oregonians last November approving a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. But the justices also ruled that even before the ballot measure was voted in, Oregon law had rendered the marriages - performed last March in Multnomah County, which includes Portland - illegal.

"County officials were entitled to have their doubts about the constitutionality of limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples," Justice W. Michael Gillette wrote in the ruling. "But, marriage and the laws governing it are matters of statewide, not local, concern."

The court ruling also said, "Today, marriage in Oregon - an institution once limited to opposite-sex couples only by statute - now is so limited by the State Constitution as well."

The court did not address the question of whether gay couples, in legal civil unions, are entitled to the same rights and benefits as heterosexual couples, a question that is emerging as a new focus of both social conservatives and gay rights groups. Vermont is the only state that legally sanctions civil unions, but both Oregon and Connecticut are debating legislative measures that would make that option open to gay couples.

"Those marriages performed last year are not valid and that, of course, is extremely disappointing," said Rebekah Kassell, a spokeswoman for Basic Rights Oregon, one of the plaintiffs in the case. "But we are going to continue to advocate for civil unions and we are confident that the courts will end the exclusion of same-sex couples from these protections for their relationships and their families."

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a Christian conservative group, issued a statement this afternoon saying, "When the people are given a voice on this important issue, accountable judges cannot help but acknowledge the will of the people and the rule of law. The people of Oregon have clearly supported marriage as a sacred institution, and one in which same-sex couples are not able to participate."

In Oregon, where Gov. Theodore R. Kulongoski introduced a bill this week to require civil unions under the State Constitution, state lawyers argued before the Supreme Court that while Multnomah County's decision to issue the marriage licenses was unconstitutional, gay Oregonians should be afforded the same benefits as married couples.

"The state's position from the outset was that the fundamental issue was whether or not same-sex couples were entitled to the rights and privileges of marriage, not just the institution of marriage itself," said Kevin Neely, a spokesman for State Attorney General Hardy Myers.

Oregon is one of 18 states with constitutional amendments defining marriage as between a man and a woman, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Legal cases tackling the question of whether gays can marry are winding their way through various state and county courts in at least six other states, according to the Human Rights Campaign, a national advocacy group. They include New York, Washington and California, where gay marriages were performed en masse in San Francisco shortly before the Oregon marriage licenses were granted.
Massachusetts is the only state where gay marriage is legal, under a decision last year by that state's highest court.

posted by Anthony # 5:03 PM

April 14, 2005

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 12:21 a.m. ET
HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) -- The state House passed legislation Wednesday that would make Connecticut the second state to establish same-sex civil unions, and the first to do it without a court order.
Addressing concerns raised by Gov. M. Jodi Rell, the House amended the bill to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. That means the Senate, which overwhelmingly approved the bill last week, would need to approve the amended version before it reaches the governor's desk.

Vermont has approved civil unions and Massachusetts has gay marriage, but those changes came only after same-sex couples brought lawsuits.

The Connecticut bill, approved 85-63 by the House, would give same-sex couples all the rights and privileges of marriage, but they would not be eligible to receive marriage licenses. Critics said they saw no real difference between civil unions and marriage, but proponents stressed that it would not affect the state's marriage laws.

''The public policy of this state could not be clearer. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman,'' said Democrat Rep. Michael Lawlor, who co-chairs the Judiciary Committee.

While some proponents said the bill was a key step toward providing civil rights for same-sex couples, others were disappointed it was amended with the marriage definition.

''In the end, they have completely accepted and put into law the second-class status of gay and lesbian families in Connecticut,'' said Mary Bonauto, a Boston lawyer who led a successful fight for same-sex marriage rights in neighboring Massachusetts. ''That is a very bitter pill to swallow.''

Rell, a Republican, said she would sign the amended bill if the Senate passes it.
''The House bill sends an unambiguous message about our commitment to fight discrimination, promote civil rights and preserve the traditional institution of marriage,'' she said.

Rell had called for the amendment defining marriage even though Democratic Attorney General Richard Blumenthal had said the earlier bill ''emphatically, unequivocally, without a doubt'' would not permit same-sex marriages.

Sen. Andrew McDonald, one of the bill's chief proponents, called the amendment ''political comfort food'' for people uncomfortable with gay marriage. The Democrat said he expected the Senate would take up the bill in about a week.

Opponents held out hope of killing the bill. A few hundred people gathered on the steps of the Capitol early Wednesday morning for a rally aimed at changing lawmakers' minds.

As the crowd chanted a prayer in unison, Jan Wetherell balanced a giant painted portrait of the Virgin Mary on his head. The Roman Catholic has been praying every day that the bill would be defeated.

''It's like Mother Teresa said: God doesn't ask us to be successful, only faithful,'' he said.
Also Wednesday, Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski said he will push for a law allowing gay couples to form civil unions, and the Oregon Supreme Court said it will rule Thursday on marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples last year. Multnomah County issued nearly 3,000 such licenses before a judge ordered it to stop.

In South Carolina, meanwhile, the state Senate voted 37-1 in favor of a proposed constitutional amendment that would bar recognition of same-sex marriages. If senators can reach agreement with the House, which approved a different version, the measure would appear on the November 2006 ballot.

posted by Anthony # 6:53 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: April 13, 2005 11:02 am ET

(Annapolis, Maryland) A Maryland lawmaker, angry that he was not able to stop passage of a bill that allows same-sex couples to make medical decisions for their partners, has begun a petition to get the issue on the ballot.

The Medical Decision-Making Act of 2005 cleared its last hurdle this week and is sitting on the desk of Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.

Even though Ehrlich has not indicated whether he will sign or veto the bill, or two other affecting LGBT rights, Del. Donald H. Dwyer Jr. (R-Anne Arundel) has announced plans to trying to repeal the measure through a voter referendum.

Dwyer opposed the act, and bills which would exempt domestic partners from land transfer taxes and add sexuality to the state's hate crimes law.

The Medical Decision-Making Act of 2005 creates a statewide life partnership registry for unmarried couples and extends 11 rights to registered couples, including the right to hospital visitation, to make medical decisions on behalf of a partner, to make funeral arrangements and to share a room in a nursing home.

Dwyer has filed petition requests with the Maryland State Board of Elections and attorney general's office.

Under Maryland election law, Dwyer would need to collect 51,195 signatures by June 30 of this year to get the question on the 2006 ballot. No more than one-half of the signatures can come from one county or Baltimore City, and one-third must be filed by May 31.

If the governor signs the Medical Decision-Making Act, or does nothing - allowing it to go into law without his signature - it would become effective July 1.

But, a successful petition drive would suspend the law until after the 2006 general election, when voters would decide the issue.

posted by Anthony # 6:50 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: April 13, 2005 5:01 pm ET

(Salem, Oregon) Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski on Wednesday said he will press the legislature to approve a civil unions bill this year to give same-sex couples some of the rights bestowed on married couples.

His announcement comes one day before the Oregon Supreme Court is to rule on the legality of some 3,000 marriages of same-sex couples performed last year in Multnomah County.

The state refused to register the marriages and the issue headed to court.

Circuit Judge Frank Bearden said in an April 20, 2004 ruling that the state was acting illegally in refusing to register the marriages. Bearden also ordered that no more marriage licenses be issued to gay couples until the courts and the legislature determine how to proceed.

The suit finally was appealed to the state Supreme Court. But, the issue of future gay marriage in Oregon became moot last November when voters approved a constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage.

The suit was quickly amended to call for legal protections for same-sex couples without the issue of marriage to be considered by the high court.

Some legislators hoped the high court would give it some direction on legalizing civil unions. But, Kulongoski said Wednesday regardless of how the court rules he wants to push ahead with a civil union bill.

In January Kulongoski has called on the Legislature to rise to Oregon's "great moral challenge" and extend civil rights protections to gays and lesbians.

Kulongoski, a Democrat, told reporters today that he is working with a bipartisan group of senators on a bill that combines a proposed civil unions law with the civil rights bill.

"As I stated in January, we face a great moral challenge to make sure opportunity is an open door through which every citizen can pass - not a revolving door which turns for some and doesn't budge for others," he said.

The bill is co-sponsored by Democratic Sens. Kate Brown of Portland and Alan Bates of Ashland and Republican Sens. Frank Morse of Albany and Ben Westlund of Bend.

The action won praise from the state's leading gay rights group, Basic Rights Oregon
"All Oregonians should take pride today in Gov. Kulongoski's tremendous public and personal commitment to ending discrimination," Roey Thorpe, the group's executive director, told the Associated Press.

posted by Anthony # 6:48 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: April 13, 2005 9:11 pm ET

(Hartford, Connecticut) The Connecticut House of Representatives late Wednesday night passed the civil unions bill, giving same-sex couples many of the rights of marriage.

The House voted 85-63. The Senate version of the bill sailed through that body on a 27-9 vote last week. In the House today, though, it faced stiffer opposition.

The House amended the bill, under prodding by conservatives and Gov. M. Jodi Rell, to add a definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman.

A similar amendment was rejected by the Senate last week. The bill must now return to the Senate.

During debate on the bill Rep. Al Adinolfi (R-Cheshire) said the amendment did not change his mind about opposing the legislation.

"This bill is the same as same sex-marriages except it's called civil unions," he said. "If you have identical twins, one is named Mary, and one is Jane, one is Joe and one is Jim. They're still twins."

But Rep. Robert Farr (R-West Hartford) said the amended bill was a reasonable compromise. It recognizes that some people want to keep marriage between a man and woman while providing rights to same-sex couples and encouraging them to make commitments, he said.

Rell, who supports civil unions "in principle" on Tuesday night sought a legal opinion from Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, asking if the bill, without the marriage definition could be interpreted to allow same-sex marriage. Blumenthal said Wednesday that was "emphatically, unequivocally" not the case.

"If the governor is concerned about authorizing same-sex marriages, she can sign this bill with a high degree of comfort," Blumenthal said. "Emphatically, unequivocally, without any doubt, this law in no way would permit same-sex marriages in Connecticut."

Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee and one of the bill's chief proponents, said he expected the Senate to take up the bill in about a week. McDonald predicted the revised bill would pass in the Senate.

He called the amendment adding the definition of marriage "political comfort food" for people uncomfortable with gay marriage.

"If that provides the political coverage they need to vote for this legislation, so be it," McDonald said.

The House also amended the bill to restrict civil unions to people ages 18 and older. There had been a provision, similar to one in the state's marriage law, that would have authorized a probate judge to allow people younger than 18 to join in a civil union.

The House gallery was filled with people from both sides, - advocates wearing bright yellow stickers with the word "Equality" in bold black letters, and opponents wearing white ones that said "Protect Marriage."

Following the House vote Rell issued a statement saying, "I am pleased that the House of Representatives passed this amendment and made it clear that while we will recognize and support civil unions, marriage in Connecticut is defined as the union of a man and a woman.
"Passage of this bill will extend civil rights to all couples, no matter their gender, and send the unmistakable message that discrimination in any form is unacceptable in Connecticut."

A Quinnipiac University poll released last week showed that 56 percent of registered voters support civil unions. However, when it comes to actual marriage, 53 percent of those polled oppose allowing same-sex couples to marry.

Earlier on Wednesday Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski said he would press that state's legislature to approve a civil unions bill this year to give same-sex couples some of the rights bestowed on married couples.

posted by Anthony # 6:46 AM

by Michael J. Meade 365Gay.com Boston Bureau
Posted: April 12, 2005 2:04 pm ET

(Boston) The Massachusetts legislature is considering the repeal of a 1913 law that bars issuing wedding licenses to people whose marriages would be illegal in the states where they reside.
But, it also will look at three other bills to block all same-sex marriages in the state.

Shortly after Massachusetts's highest court ruled in 2003 that the state could not bar gays and lesbians from marrying. Gov. Mitt Romney declared that the 1913 law prevented town clerks from issuing licenses to couples who do not reside in Massachusetts.

The law had been created when Massachusetts legalized interracial marriage and faced an outcry from other states which still banned the unions. Even then, the law was seldom enforced. After the US Supreme Court ruled in 1967 that preventing interracial marriage was illegal and struck down bans in those states which still prevented them the Massachusetts law collected dust.

"We have a chance to eliminate a law whose origins are in discrimination, a law that has no place on the books in Massachusetts," said openly gay State Sen. Jarrett Barrios (D-Cambridge).
The old law is also being challenged in court. Lawyers for out of state same-sex couples seeking to wed in Massachusetts argued their case in the Supreme Judicial Court last month.

The bill before the legislature has broad support but its passage is not guaranteed. If does make it through the House and Senate it would likely face a veto from Romney.

"We like it when couples who are straight come to Massachusetts. Why should we be afraid of gay and lesbian couples coming to Massachusetts?" Josh Friedes of the Freedom to Marry Coalition said.

The Judiciary Committee is also considering three bills put forward by State Rep. Emile J. Goguen (D-Fitchburg) one of the state's most ardent opponents of same-sex marriages.
One is a new proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage without providing a civil union option. A proposed amendment which allowed for civil unions was approved last year and must get secondary approval this year before it could be put to voters.

The second bill would declare all gay marriages already performed in Massachusetts to be without statutory basis. The third would remove Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, along with justices John Greaney, Roderick Ireland and Judith Cowin, who authored the majority opinion legalizing same sex marriage.

"In the infamous Goodridge decision, these four judges established rights not found in our constitution and then set a 180-day deadline for the Legislature to amend the constitution," Goguen told the committee. "The judges knew very well that the process for amending the constitution requires considerably more time than the 180 days."

Goguen added that "no Legislature can or should be required by a court pursuing some extra-legal agenda to play beat the clock when it comes to our legislative duties."

posted by Anthony # 7:25 AM

by Doreen Brandt 365Gay.com Washington Bureau
Posted: April 12, 2005 5:01 pm ET

(Washington) The US Senate will begin hearings Wednesday on a new attempt to pass a Federal Marriage Amendment to bar same-sex couples from tying the knot.

The issue will be taken up by the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights. The subcommittee has title the hearing "Less Faith in Judicial Credit: Are Federal and State Marriage Protection Initiatives Vulnerable to Judicial Activism".
The amendment was introduced in the Senate in January by Colorado Republican Sen. Wayne Allard. It 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 last year 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.

Among those slated to testify before the subcommittee Wednesday is Kathleen Moltz, a pediatric endocrinologist at Children's Hospital of Michigan.

Dr. Moltz, along with her partner, are suing the state to protect Dr. Moltz's domestic partner health benefits in the wake of a state constitutional amendment adopted in November defining marriage as being between a man and woman.

Michigan's attorney general has advised that the constitutional amendment bars state and local government from providing domestic partnerships benefits - including health insurance - to their employees.

"The truth is now being revealed: these amendments are being used to deny health care benefits to millions of hard-working gay and lesbian employees and their families," said Christopher E. Anders, an American Civil Liberties Union Legislative Counsel. "Gay and lesbian workers deserve the same benefits provided straight couples in the workplace, no more or no less. But the Federal Marriage Amendment seeks to deny those equal rights by writing discrimination into the U.S. Constitution".

Human Rights Campaign's Deputy Political Director Chris Labonte added that, "amendments denying rights to same-sex couples have already resulted in families losing their health care, and in Utah and Ohio, there have even been cases of straight and same-sex unmarried couples being stripped of domestic violence protections. Anyway you put it, these measures are bad for the country. Sadly, this is another example of the far-right trying to control Congress for their own political agenda, instead of focusing on issues that help strengthen the country."

posted by Anthony # 7:24 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: April 12, 2005 5:01 pm ET

(Annapolis, Maryland) Maryland Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. has not indicated if he will sign or veto three gay rights bills including one that would create a limited domestic partnership registry.

Ehrlich, a Republican, has 30 days to act. He has three options - signs the bills in into law, veto them or do nothing, in which case the measures become law.

The partner registry is one of key components of the the Medical Decision-Making Act of 2005. The measure, passed last night, creates a statewide life partnership registry for unmarried couples and extends 11 rights to registered couples, including the right to hospital visitation, to make medical decisions on behalf of a partner, to make funeral arrangements and to share a room in a nursing home.

"This bill protects couples when they're most vulnerable," said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese.

"The number of stories of individuals who could not be with their partners during times of sickness, childbirth, and surgery is appalling," said Equality Maryland Executive Director Dan Furmansky. "The Medical Decision Making Act will offer peace of mind to more than 110,000 unmarried couples in Maryland at the most critical times in life, as well as after the death of a loved one."

If Ehrlich signs the bill, or just lets it automatically take effect, Maryland would become the seventh state to confer statewide rights on same-sex couples.

On April 6, the Maryland Legislature passed another measure that will help same-sex couples. House Bill 1298, sponsored by Del. Anne Kaiser, D-Montgomery County, exempts domestic partners from the transfer and recordation tax that is paid when one partner is added or removed to the deed of the other partner's property on the home they share. The measure is modeled after a Montgomery County law that has been in place since 2002.

A third bill, adding sexuality and gender identity to the categories of people protected under the state's hate crimes law was passed last week by the legislation and is also sitting on the governor's desk.

posted by Anthony # 7:23 AM

by Ben Thompson 365Gay.com Ottawa Bureau
Posted: April 12, 2005 6:46 pm ET

(Ottawa) The Canadian Liberal government's same-sex marriage bill survived a move by the opposition Conservatives to derail the measure late Tuesday.

Conservative leader Stephen Harper had proposed amending the bill to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman but allow for civil unions. All but four members of his party supported the move. It was also supported by a large number of Liberals - opposed to their own government's legislation.

Almost all of the members of the two smaller parties - the New Democrats and the Bloc Quebecois - voted against the amendment.

The final vote was 164 -132 to defeat the Tory motion.

The legislation still faces other votes and Conservatives say they will continue to fight the marriage bill but most analysts, following today's vote, say they expect the government's bill to survive.

The Liberals say they want the legislation passed by May. But, the minority Liberal government could fall at any time, forcing an election.

If the government falls before the bill is passed it would die on House floor. However, should that occur, or if the bill were defeated in a Commons vote, same-sex marriage in more than 80 percent of Canada where courts have ruled in favor of gay and lesbian couples would not be affected.

But, even if the legislation does make it through the future of same-sex marriage could be put in jeopardy by an impending election.

A poll this week showed that if there were an election today the Conservatives would win.
Speaking at a rally of some 15,000 evangelical Christians, Catholics and Muslims on Parliament Hill on Saturday Harper vowed that if his party is elected to govern he would would abolish same-sex marriage - even in those provinces where courts have declared it legal.

Monday, two leading constitutional law experts said that the only way Harper could achieve that would be by using the so-called 'notwithstanding clause' - a section of the Constitution which allows governments to opt out of sections of the document and must be renewed every five years.

Although Harper denies that this would be the only way to accomplish it constitutional law professor Martha Jackman says he is wrong.

"Canadian courts . . . have made it clear that equal marriage is a matter of fundamental, constitutional law,'' said Jackman of the University of Ottawa. Her position is supported by the Canadian Bar Association.

Gay civil rights advocates say Harper is on dangerous ground. Alex Munter, spokesperson for Canadians for Equal Marriages, warned Harper that his bid to "vaporize'' same-sex marriages will cast him as a social extremist in any upcoming election.

"He wants to annul people's marriages,'' Munter told reporters on Parliament Hill.
"He wants to say that gays and lesbians are not protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Those are extreme positions not shared by most Canadians. And in an election campaign, he'll have to answer for those positions.''

Munter may be right. Pollsters say the public is almost evenly divided on gay marriage. And, in the last federal election, a year ago, the Tories also were leading in the polls up until the week before the election. The lead evaporated when Liberals accused Conservatives of trying to gut the Charter - Canada's Bill of Rights.

What had been predicated as a Conservative landslide turned into a Liberal minority government.

More than 3,000 gay couples have tied the knot in Canada since courts in seven provinces and the Yukon cleared the way.

posted by Anthony # 7:21 AM

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: April 12, 2005 8:03 pm ET

(Annapolis, Maryland) A court ruling that forced a gay father's partner to move out of the house where the father is raising his son has harmed the child and should be dissolved, an attorney argued Tuesday.

"It's had a significant impact on this child to have the man who helped to raise him for half of his life forced to leave their family home," attorney Susan Sommer told the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, the state's second-highest court, today.

Ulf Hedberg and his ex-wife, residents of Virginia at the time, separated when their son was four years old. For the next five-and-a-half years, the child lived with Hedberg and his partner, Blaise Delahoussaye, in a suburban Virginia home the couple purchased together.

The home had a back yard and was near a good school, Hedberg said Tuesday. Together, the two men provided a stable loving home, he said.

After the boy's mother moved to Florida, she petitioned for custody. A Virginia court issued an order giving Hedberg physical custody of the boy but requiring Delahoussaye to move out of the family's home.

Unable to afford to maintain the home on his own, Hedberg and Delahoussaye sold the house and Hedberg and his son moved into a small apartment in Maryland. He then launched his legal battle to have the Virginia ruling nullified.

Hedberg, who is deaf and whose native language is Swedish, listened to the arguments today with the help of an interpreter.

Sommer, a lawyer with Lambda Legal, argued that the Virginia court based its decision on that state's sodomy law, which was struck down, along with that of 12 other states, by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2003.

Rena Lindevaldsen, an attorney who represents Hedberg's ex wife told the court that the Virginia order does not prohibit Delahoussaye from seeing the boy.

Lindevaldsen, who is with Liberty Counsel, a conservative law firm that fights gay issues, also said that Hedberg's reasons for dissolving the restriction don't "rise to the level of a material change in circumstances" and fail to warrant modifying another state's custody order.

"There's a presumption in this country that a custody order is going to be enforced and it's very rare for another court to say 'We're not going to enforce it."'

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals is expected to make a decision in the case within 60 days, attorneys said. Either side could seek further review at Maryland's highest court -- the Court of Appeals.

posted by Anthony # 7:20 AM

by Ben Thompson 365Gay.com Ottawa Bureau
Posted: April 11, 2005 5:01 pm ET

(Ottawa) A day before the fist major House of Commons vote on the government's same-sex marriage bill, constitutional law experts are weighing in on the legality of Stephen Harper's proposed changes to that bill.

Conservative Party Stephen Harper is pushing for an amendment to the legislation by specifying that marriage must continue to be defined as a union between a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others but require parliament to recognize same-sex relationships through civil unions.

Today, two constitutional law experts held a news conference in Ottawa to argue that the only way Harper's approach would work is if he uses the Constitution's "notwithstanding" clause.
The clause allows a government to opt out of sections of the Constitution with which it disagrees and must be renewed every five years. Although it has been used by some provincial governments on various issues it has never been invoked by the federal government.

The constitutional experts declared that Harper's amendment to the government's bill is based on the "deceitful and disingenuous assertion" that Parliament can keep same-sex couples from marrying through other means.

If Parliament votes in favor of the amendment on Tuesday, "It would be impossible for this bill to be withdrawn, amended or defeated without requiring the notwithstanding clause of the Canadian Charter being invoked," said Constitutional law professor Martha Jackman.
Harper has previously rejected such assertions.

Although same-sex unions are allowed in six provinces and one territory in Canada, some argue that the bill would benefit those in parts of the country where the same-sex marriages currently aren't allowed.

The federal Liberal minority government drafted the legislation to enshrine same-sex marriage in law after courts in several provinces ruled that gay couples had a right to marry.

Meanwhile, at a Toronto news conference a coalition of religious leaders announced their support for same-sex marriage.

The Religious Coalition for Equal Marriage Rights includes representatives from liberal and traditional faith communities in Canada, including The United Church of Canada, the Canadian Unitarian Council, the Muslim Canadian Congress, the Canadian Friends Service Committee of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), the World Sikh Organization, Canadian Rabbis for Equal Marriage, Metropolitan Community Church, Ahavat Olam Synagogue (Vancouver), Church of the Holy Trinity (Anglican) in Toronto, the Apostolic Society of Franciscan Communities-Canada, and liberal and progressive members of the Buddhist, Catholic, First Nations, Hindu, Mennonite, and Muslim communities.

"We want to dispel the myth that if you are a person of faith, you must be opposed to same-sex marriage," said Richard Chambers of The United Church of Canada. The largest Protestant denomination in the country, the United Church is on record supporting same-sex marriage.
Jane Orion Smith of the Canadian Friends Service Committee (Quakers) says the Religious Coalition for Equal Marriage Rights came together with the common purpose of demonstrating faith-based support for civil same-sex marriage by a wide range of religious groups.

"The diversity of opinion about same-sex marriage that exists within Canadian society is also present within many different faith communities in Canada," said Smith. She said she hopes that today's news conference and the signing of a multi-faith statement and this past weekend will signal to politicians that the faithful do speak with more than one voice on the issue of same-sex marriage.

The coalition took part in weekend rallies to support same-sex marriage in a number of Canadian cities.

Opponents of same-sex marriage also rallied. Some 15,000 evangelical Christians, Catholics and Muslims demonstrated on Parliament Hill on Saturday.

Conservative leader Stephen Harper was the key speaker at the event.

vowed that if his party is elected to govern he would would abolish the same-sex marriage law.
Canada's ruling Liberals lead a minority government which could fall at any time. A scandal involving payoffs and kickbacks worth millions of dollars to the Liberal party has engrossed the country. As more details emerge the shaky position of the government becomes more precarious.

Harper wasted no time Saturday linking the government's support of gay marriage to the scandal.

"Corruption is not a Canadian value. Marriage is a real Canadian value,'' Harper said to enthusiastic applause.

Polls show that the Liberal Party is in deep trouble over the scandal.

An opinion poll published Saturday indicated slipping support for the Liberals and Conservative gains that narrowed the gap between the parties to just four percentage points. But, a second poll, published Monday, shows that only 25 per cent of respondents nationwide would vote today for the Liberals, compared to 36.2 per cent for the Conservatives.

With a minority government the Liberals could be forced into an election at any time.

The same-sex marriage bill is likely to squeak-through on Tuesday with a final vote expected next month. But, if the government falls before then, the bill would be dead.

If that occurred, or if it were defeated in a Commons vote, same-sex marriage in more than 80 percent of Canada where courts have ruled in favor of gay and lesbian couples would not be affected.

posted by Anthony # 7:18 AM

by Peter Hacker 365Gay.com Sydney, Australia Bureau
Posted: April 11, 2005 9:01 pm ET
(Sydney, Australia) Australia's ban on same-sex marriage has a loophole large enough to drive a truck through according to a constitutional law expert.

The Australian Parliament last year passed a law defining marriage as between a man and a woman. But, Professor George Williams, of the University of New South Wales, said that the law failed to mention the possibility of gay marriages under state laws.

"And, because it's possible for both the Commonwealth and the state to pass laws on that topic, unless there's any inconsistency, there's some room left for state laws dealing with same-sex marriage," he said on Australian radio.

Greens Party member Nick McKim plans to test Williams' theory in the Tasmanian state parliament by introducing a same-sex marriage bill.

"I believe (Prime Minister) John Howard wanted to end the debate about gay marriage in Australia and we're overjoyed that he has in fact ensured that the debate will continue at a state level," he told ABC radio.

McKim said the legislation will not force churches or priests to perform ceremonies.

"We've been very explicit in our drafting and there will be no legal requirement on any person, particularly any minister of any church to marry a gay couple, there will be no legal requirement on any church to host a marriage for a gay couple - we are not about creating division in our society," he said.

Tasmania already has a form of civil partnerships where same-sex couples can register.

posted by Anthony # 7:16 AM

by The Associated Press
Posted: April 11, 2005 9:01 pm ET

(Austin, Texas) A proposed state constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage won approval Monday in a House committee.

The resolution filed by Rep. Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, would allow Texas voters to decide whether to amend the constitution to define marriage as a union only between one man and one woman. The measure now moves to the full House.

Randall Ellis, executive director of the Lesbian/Gay Rights Lobby of Texas, said the resolution discriminates against gay Texans. Marriage affords hundreds of legal rights, including the ability to visit a spouse in the hospital, he said.

"If we want to truly protect families, we must begin to afford equal rights, responsibilities and obligations to same-sex households," Ellis said.

Chisum has said it wasn't his intent that the proposed amendment prevent gay couples from arrangements such as joint-property ownership or power of attorney. Putting the same-sex marriage ban in the constitution would be an attempt to prevent legal challenges to the state Defense of Marriage Act, which became law two years ago.

The House State Affairs Committee, after hearing hours of testimony on the proposal last week, approved the measure 6-1 on Monday. Democratic Rep. Jessica Farrar of Houston was the only dissenting vote.

If the proposal is approved by a two-thirds majority in the House and Senate, it could appear on a statewide ballot later this year.

posted by Anthony # 7:16 AM

by Beth Shapiro 365Gay.com New York Bureau
Posted: April 11, 2005 9:01 pm ET

(New York City) A national campaign aimed at blocking Hillary Rodham Clinton's reelection has been linked to a gay Republican advisor known for running dirty tricks operations and whose marriage to another man was exposed on the weekend.

Thousands of letters titled "STOP HILLARY NOW!" have gone out over the signature of New York GOP Chairman Stephen Minarik, but former President Bill Clinton today said that he understood the fundraising campaign had actually been orchestrated by Arthur Finkelstein.
On the weekend it was revealed that Finkelstein had married another man in a secret ceremony in Massachusetts.

Finkelstein confirmed for the New York Times that he did indeed marry his partner. In what the paper describes as a short interview, the usually secretive Finkelstein said that the wedding had taken place at his home in Boston and that it was in December.

He also told the Times that the two have been a couple for 40 years that they live together with two children. He would not identify the partner, say who was the father of the children, or disclose who officiated at the wedding.

At a news conference about his foundation's AIDS initiatives, former President Clinton said there might be "some sort of self-loathing" for Finkelstein.

"That fellow who used to work for Pataki is doing it. I mean, they give you two stories. One is that he went to Massachusetts and married his longtime male partner and then he comes back here and announces this. I thought, one of two things. Either this guy believes his party is not serious and is totally Macchiavellian in its position, or you know, as David Brock said in his great book 'Blinded by the Right,' there's some sort of self-loathing or something. I was more sad for him."

The Stop Hillary campaign is trying to raise $10 million. The letter promises a Republican "truth squad" that will "monitor Hillary’s appearances and expose her lies."

"She is "the number one target for the right-wing attack machine," it says.

The letter also refers to Clinton six times as a "radical liberal" or "ultraliberal" and says she is the "darling of the wealthy liberal left - especially the Hollywood left" and has a "vast network of far-left contributors."

It appeals to conservatives across the country claiming that Sen. Clinton is running for the White House, although she has denied it on several occasions.

Arthur J. Finkelstein has run attack campaigns for a number of conservative members of the party including former Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina. He has also run campaigns for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

posted by Anthony # 7:14 AM

by The Associated Press
Posted: April 9, 2005 11:32 am ET

(Portland, Oregon) A year ago, a judge gave legislators 90 days from the start of the 2005 session to adopt a civil-unions law, or Multnomah County would be allowed to resume issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

That deadline passed Saturday, but the state Department of Justice says it is not enforceable.

Further, Multnomah County officials say they have made no plans to resume issuing marriage certificates to same-sex couples after Saturday's deadline passes.

The issue arises from Multnomah County's issuance of marriage licenses to nearly 3,000 gay and lesbian couples in March 2004 before Circuit Judge Frank Bearden put a stop to the practice.

In his ruling, Bearden set the 90-day deadline for the 2005 Legislature to fix the problem by adopting a civil unions law.
However, in November, Oregon voters amended the state constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

Kevin Neely of the Oregon Department of Justice said the November vote had the effect of nullifying the judge's 90-day order.

"Judge Bearden's order is, if not moot, then certainly unenforceable, based on the constitutional measure," Neely said in an interview with the Statesman Journal newspaper.

The Oregon Supreme Court, meanwhile, is expected to rule soon on a challenge of the state's marriage law.

The legal limbo has kept Senate Democrats from pushing bills that create civil unions and advance gay rights.
"We didn't want to move forward on the civil-union issue until a Supreme Court ruling," said Senate Majority Leader Kate Brown, D-Portland. "And we were working on the assumption that it would be before the 90-day window closed."

With no word from the Supreme Court, Brown is finishing a civil-unions bill that she plans to introduce next week.

Republican leaders in the House also are waiting for the Supreme Court's decision, said Chuck Deister, spokesman for House Speaker Karen Minnis.

"It's presumptuous until we hear from the court," he said.

Many others are also waiting for word, including officials in Multnomah County who granted licenses to 3,022 same-sex couples last year.

The county isn't planning any action before the Supreme Court's ruling, said Bob Gravely, spokesman for Multnomah County Board Chairwoman Diane Linn.

However, he wasn't sure what officials will do if same-sex couples appear Monday to apply for licenses.
"I'm pretty confident in saying that we have not planned for that," Gravely said.

Portland attorney Kelly Clark, who is representing the sponsors of the constitutional gay marriage ban in the case before the Supreme Court, said he thinks the court will issue its ruling soon.

"I would be stunned if Multnomah County concluded that under these circumstances, anything should happen," Clark said.

The state's leading gay rights group, Basic Rights Oregon, was hoping for a ruling before the 90-day deadline, and isn't sure what the deadline's passing means, spokeswoman Rebekah Kassell said.

"This is already a muddy legal situation, and this certainly adds to that," Kassell said.

posted by Anthony # 10:49 AM

by Peter Moore 365Gay.com London Bureau
Posted: April 9, 2005 5:01 pm ET

(Windsor, England) Prince Charles and his longtime mistress Camilla Parker Bowles were married Saturday at Windsor's 17th century Guildhall - and it did not go unnoticed by Britain's most outspoken gay activist.

Shortly before the royal couple arrived British at the Guildhall gay activist Peter Tatchell was hustled away from in front of the building by police.

Tatchell was carrying a sign reading "Charles can get married twice. Gays cannot get married once." The placard was in reference to Britain's civil unions law which will go into effect in December.

The labor government of Tony Blair has come under fire from Tatchell and some other activist groups for failing to follow Holland, Belgium, Spain and most of Canada in bringing in legislation to give same-sex couples full marriage rights.

Tatchell stood in the crowd in front of the Guildhall with his sign clearly visible to the TV cameras until he was spotted by police.

He was escorted out of the vicinity to a cordoned off area out of camera view that police had set up for protestors that included conservative Anglicans opposed to the royal marriage of two divorcees and anti-monarchists.

Tatchell is no stranger to royal protests. In January he was briefly detained by police after staging a protest on behalf of asylum seekers at a memorial service for Holocaust victims attended by the Queen.

He and his group Outrage led the attack on homophobic reggae singers. And, he has been a constant thorn in the side of Zimbabwe strongman Robert Mugabe.

Tatchell's Windsor protest was not seen by Prince Charles and Camilla, who is now the Duchess of Cornwall, or by several dozen wedding guests, including Charles' sons, William and Harry who arrived in a rented bus at the Guildhall. The queen did not attend the marriage ceremony.

Following the brief ceremony the couple emerged arm-in-arm to the cheers of onlookers and a jazz band playing, "Congratulations." They waved to the cheering crowd, but there was no public kiss or embrace.

A Rolls-Royce whisked the couple back to Windsor Castle for a blessing ceremony at St. George's Chapel that the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh did attend. The blessing ceremony will be conducted by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams.

posted by Anthony # 10:48 AM

by Beth Shapiro 365Gay.com New York Bureau
Posted: April 10, 2005 12:01 am ET

(New York City) A Republican consultant who has run political campaigns for some of the most homophobic members of the GOP has married another man in a secret ceremony in Massachusetts it was reported Saturday.
Arthur J. Finkelstein has run attack campaigns for a number of conservative members of the party including former Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina. He has also run campaigns for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

In 1996 he was outed by Boston Magazine leading to allegations of hypocrisy by national LGBT civil rights groups, but he has never publicly come out or discussed his sexuality until now.

Finkelstein confirmed for the New York Times that he did indeed marry his partner. In what the paper describes as a short interview, the usually secretive Finkelstein said that the wedding had taken place at his home in Boston and that it was in December.

He also told the Times that the two have been a couple for 40 years that they live together with two children. He would not identify the partner, say who was the father of the children, or disclose who officiated at the wedding.
An unnamed associate of Finkelstein's who tipped off the Times said only family members were present and that none of Finkelstein's better-known political clients, among them Gov. George E. Pataki of New York and former Senator Alfonse M. D'Amato of New York, attended.

The Times reports that several of Finkelstein's long-term political associates said that he had not told them about the wedding, and that they were surprised.

Finkelstein is credited with developing a line of attack against Democrats that vilified them as 'liberals', turning the word into a publicly viewed negative.

In recent years though he has softened his approach describing himself as a libertarian who supports same-sex marriage and abortion rights while opposing big government.

In an interview with Maariv, an Israeli newspaper, after the American elections last year, he criticized the Republican Party as growing too close to evangelical Christians, warning it could cause long-term damage to the party.

In his interview with the Times, believed to be the first time he has openly acknowledged his sexuality, he said, "I believe that visitation rights, health care benefits and other human relationship contracts that are taken for granted by all married people should be available to partners."

posted by Anthony # 10:47 AM

by Ben Thompson 365Gay.com Ottawa Bureau
Posted: April 10, 2005 11:02 am ET Updated 3:11 pm ET Updated April 11, 2005 7:23 am ET

(Ottawa) Supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage geared up over the weekend for a crucial vote this week on legislation to extend gay marriage across Canada.

Some 15,000 evangelical Christians, Catholics and Muslims rallied on Parliament Hill on Saturday.
Many of the demonstrators carried placards bearing the image of the late Pope John Paul, while others toted signs with slogans including 'Defend Marriage' and 'God Defined Marriage, The Government Defies God'. Nearby, a smaller counter demonstration rallied supporters of same-sex marriage.

Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper told the crowd that his party will use second reading of the bill on Tuesday to introduce a series of motions that would proclaim marriage to be "the union of one man and one woman."

He also vowed that if his party is elected to govern he would would abolish the same-sex marriage law.

Canada's ruling Liberals lead a minority government which could fall at any time. A scandal involving payoffs and kickbacks worth millions of dollars to the Liberal party has engrossed the country. As more details emerge the shaky position of the government becomes more precarious.

Harper wasted no time Saturday linking the government's support of gay marriage to the scandal.

"Corruption is not a Canadian value. Marriage is a real Canadian value,'' Harper said to enthusiastic applause.
The small Bloc Quebecois party will announce this week whether it plans to introduce a non confidence motion - a move that could topple the government if the Harper's Conservatives support it.

An opinion poll published Saturday indicated slipping support for the Liberals and Conservative gains that narrowed the gap between the parties to just four percentage points. But, a second poll, published Monday, shows that only 25 per cent of respondents nationwide would vote today for the Liberals, compared to 36.2 per cent for the Conservatives.

The Liberals won a minority government with about 37 per cent of the vote in June 2004 but going into the election campaign most polls showed the Conservatives leading, but that lead slipped during the final days of the campaign allowing the Liberals to inch by them.

The same-sex marriage bill is likely to squeak-through on Tuesday with a final vote expected next month. But, if the government falls before then, the bill would be dead.

If that occurred, or if it were defeated in a Commons vote, same-sex marriage in more than 80 percent of Canada where courts have ruled in favor of gay and lesbian couples would not be affected.

Harper's promise to gay marriage foes Saturday that a Conservative government would block all same-sex marriage across the country could only be accomplished, constitutional scholars say, by using what is called 'the notwithstanding clause' a section of the Constitution which allows government to opt out of sections of the document and must be renewed every five years.

Although Harper denies that this would be the only way to accomplish it, two of the country's leading constitutional scholars have called a Monday news conference in Ottawa to say he is wrong.

The University of Ottawa's Martha Jackman and Hugo Cyr of the University of Quebec at Montreal contend Harper's position is ``deceitful and disingenuous.''

In Toronto Sunday, supporters of same-sex marriage held their own rally at the Metropolitan Community church. Among the speakers was Lois Wilson, Former Moderator of the United Church - Canada's largest Protestant denomination.

"You cannot be religious and discriminate at the same time," said Tarek Fatah of the Canadian Muslim Congress after his impassioned speech to the crowd, some of whom waved a large rainbow flag reading: Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays.

"There's something fundamentally contradictory about invoking hate and bigotry while invoking religion," he said.
A number of prominent politicians from both the Liberal and New Democratic parties also attended.
Over 175 religious leaders have spoken out in favor of gay marriage rights in Canada.

posted by Anthony # 10:46 AM

by The Associated Press
Posted: April 11, 2005 12:01 am ET

(Topeka, Kansas) With new language in the Kansas Constitution banning marriage and civil unions for same-sex couples, some activists fear they will soon face legislative efforts to ban adoptions by gays and lesbians.
While no such proposal has been introduced, one could find some legislative support.

Voters' approval last week of a constitutional amendment on marriage did have supporters considering other issues, such trying to reduce divorce.

But gay rights activists have worried for weeks that a bill to prohibit gays and lesbians from adopting children would surface. Tom Witt, a field organizer for Equality Kansas, a Wichita gay rights group, said that he expects such a proposal next year.

"They're going to start talking about the rest of their agenda in more detail," Witt said. "They're going to start stripping us of our right to form families."

Several conservative legislators said an adoption bill hasn't been discussed. But Sen. Kay O'Connor, R-Olathe, said she would support a ban. Asked if such a bill might be introduced, she said: "I wouldn't be surprised."
"Are you going to be a practicing homosexual and teach that to the children?" O'Connor said. "As far as two men or two women living together as homosexuals, I don't think we should be putting children into that, not on purpose, not as the government."

The state doesn't allow adoptions by unmarried couples, though unmarried individuals can adopt and serve as foster parents. The state doesn't typically ask whether someone is gay or lesbian, said Mike Deines, spokesman for the Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services.

However, a ban on adoptions by gays and lesbians would follow arguments that traditional marriages create the best environment for children, said Mathew Staver, president of the Liberty Counsel, an Orlando, Fla., group that opposes same-sex unions.

If legislators agree, Staver said, "Then we need to have policies that reflect that policy belief. Homosexual adoption clearly doesn't reflect that belief."

But even conservatives could be wary of such a proposal. Sen. Phil Journey, R-Haysville, an attorney, said courts already can decide whether adoption by a gay or lesbian is in a child's best interest, case by case.
"To put a blanket prohibition there would on its face be suspect," he said. "It's almost like saying a single parent can't adopt."

But Journey said amendment supporters should consider backing a proposal to create so-called covenant marriages, in which the spouses agree to premarital counseling and that getting a divorce will be more difficult.
Supporters of the idea see it as an antidote to no-fault divorces. And Sen. Tim Huelskamp, R-Fowler, said he plans to research divorce laws to see whether they can be rewritten to discourage ending marriages.

"It's very clear that divorce has a tough impact on children, even compared to difficult marriages," he said.
O'Connor has other ideas, too. She suggested that divorced parents who fall 60 days or more behind on child support payments should automatically be placed under house arrest and required to wear electronic ankle bracelets to monitor their movements.

Meanwhile, some clergy who supported the amendment said they're going to work with other churches and their congregations to help couples and young families preserve their marriages.

"We do have a lot of work to do there," said the Rev. Joe Wright, senior pastor of Wichita's Central Christian Church.

posted by Anthony # 10:45 AM

by The Associated Press
Posted: April 3, 2005 9:02 pm ET

(Topeka, Kansas) Opponents of gay marriage are pitting themselves against gay and lesbian activists as Kansas voters prepare to decide Tuesday whether to become the 18th state to add a ban to the state constitution.
Those who support the gay marriage ban have financial support from a national group and help from US Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kansas). They argue an amendment is necessary to prevent a court in Kansas from invalidating state law. While no direct legal challenges are pending, they point to rulings in Massachusetts and California in favor of gay marriage as evidence that something similar could happen in Kansas.
But gays and lesbians and other critics worry the proposed amendment would go far beyond protecting the traditional definition of marriage. They argue it would affect companies providing health benefits to employees' unmarried partners and create other problems.
The amendment would add a new section to the constitution reaffirming Kansas' longstanding policy of recognizing only marriages between one man and one woman. It also would declare that only such unions are entitled to the "rights and incidents" of marriage.
Supporters are a little nervous about turnout, and Secretary of State Ron Thornburgh has declined to predict how many Kansans will go to the polls. Without the amendment on the ballot, participation would be light, with only municipal elections and scattered local questions.
If voters approve the proposition, Kansas will become the 18th state to add a gay marriage ban to its constitution. Thirteen, including neighboring Missouri and Oklahoma, did so last year; Nebraska enacted its constitutional ban in 2000.
"We're all concerned because of the historically low voter turnout in spring elections," said the Rev. Dennis Slavens, senior pastor at the Antioch Church in Overland Park. "We do think it will pass."
Among the amendment's critics are Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, who has noted the traditional definition of marriage has been part of Kansas law since 1867.
"She believes it's unnecessary," said spokeswoman Nicole Corcoran. "She'll be voting 'no'"
But supporters contend that besides preventing a judge from overturning an existing state statue banning gay marriage, an amendment to the state constitution would boost a campaign for a federal marriage amendment.
The Knights of Columbus, the nation's largest lay organization for Roman Catholics, contributed $100,000 to the campaign for the amendment. Brownback recorded messages for three radio commercials.
"For social reasons and social policy, it's incredibly important," Brownback said. "Children flourish best in a stable marital relationship between a man and a woman."
But critics are trying to persuade Kansans that the amendment is so broad that it could hurt gays and lesbians and their families _ and unmarried heterosexual couples as well.
They argue hospitals could use the amendment as an excuse to deny people the right to see or make decisions for partners, that gays' and lesbians' adoptions of children could be in danger or that legal documents designed to ensure a partner's inheritance could be voided.
They also argue the proposal sends a troubling message.
"For all time, I'm garbage, and I don't have the right to be with the person I love," said Diane Silver, a 52-year-old Lawrence writer and editor who serves as a spokeswoman for an anti-amendment group, Kansans for Fairness. "It's an attempt to make our lives harder. This is about hurting people."
Slavens said opponents are wrong about both the amendment's scope and purpose.
"We just want to protect what has been tried and tested," he said. "It really needs to happen because of the disintegrating morality in America."